2012 conventions 2012 election 2013 session arts arts and culture author ballot measures basketball bomb books boy scouts budget bullying business charlie hales children clackamas climate change coal college courts crime culture culture club democrats drugs economy education environment family film fluoride food gay rights guns handguns health health care health insurance high school history housing immigration internet kitzhaber law legislature lgbt literary arts living marijuana marriage media medicine mental health military minor parties mohamed mohamud movies music native americans news newspaper obama olympics oregon our town parenting pers photography police politcs politics port portland portland business journal president prevention public safety religion republicans rnc romney rural salem sam adams sandy hook schools science shooting sports suicide supreme court taxes technology television terrorism theater third parties transportation union university of oregon washington wildfire women

I agree with you ORSunshine, but consider the dangerous position that police officers put themselves into every day. Or better still, and as in this case, the dangerous positions WE put them into every day. Would it have been better if they retreated and reassessed? Undoubtedly so. But we don't know all of the circumstances surrounding the case, though it does appear that the officers gave commands which were not followed. We now know, and I suspect the officers wish they knew at the time, that the students didn't speak English well, and they were likely terrified too. I think the take-home message of this case is that we should be happy that the police have stun-guns and other non-lethal means at their disposal and that this particular officer thought enough to use the non-lethal means rather than lethal. I think that people in this case are overlooking the fact that the officer in question clearly did use judgement, and that is why we are all having a discussion about a student who was 'tased', rather than one who was shot.

Again, I still maintain that the landlord should have him/herself exercised some judgement and at least informed the 911 operator that the apartment had recently been rented and perhaps even let them know that the new tenents didn't speak English very well either.

Unfortunate event - yes, undoubtedly. Fortunately though not tragic, thanks exclusively to the officers judgement and ability to use non-lethal, rather than lethal force.

posted 3 years, 4 months ago
view in context

The show started off with an account of the case in Eugene, which was initiated by a call from a landlord who thought their apartment had been broken in to. It was then stted that the apartment had recently been rented. If the landlord had just rented the apartment, why did then then think it had been broken in to when there were people in it? Take away that call, and that whole situation never happens.  I know that this show is mostly about the use of stun guns, but in this particular case, it seems as though some common sense on the part of the landlord would have gone a long way to avoid this specific problem. Now the community is likely to endure a long and expensive investigation of an event that seemingly could have been easily avoided.

posted 3 years, 4 months ago
view in context