It's perfectly understandable to want to prevent your home from burning to the ground. But also understand that you can be tazed for the attempt to do just that.
A Pinellas Park, Florida homeowner was so literally shaken by his experience being tazed by police officers that he refused to speak with reporters for Tampa's WTSP, which relays his story. The homeowner in question, Derek Jensen, picked up a hose for neighbor Luis Rosa while attempting to save both their properties from a grease fire when police officers arrived on the scene and ordered Jensen to back away from the inferno. According to authorities, Jensen refused to stop combating the fire after multiple warnings, which is when they decided to employ the tazer.
"They made several attempts verbally to get him out," said Captain Sanfield Forseth of the Pinellas Park PD. "He wouldn't allow them to pull him back."
But Mr. Rosa thinks the police overstepped their bounds: "I thought it was totally abusive, and they did not have to do it." Mr. Jensen's lawyer agrees. "He was trying to protect his home," said attorney Heidi Imhof. "This is clearly an excessive use of force case."
No you cannot protect your house or your body BC they are owned by the state. And if you don't do as the state says they take your freedom and consciousness away. They or he should be fired, sued, and put in jail for agg assault.
That is a great point. Don't pay your property taxes on "your" house and see how long it remains "yours". FL cops are about two steps behind places like NY and Houston cops that murder people for fun. But does it make sense cops taze a man for trying to save his home so the fire department can save his home but tazers have been proven to cause heart attacks and other damage? Makes one think.
@kirbstomp1 Okay. I agree with you that cops act stupidly at times. Apparently the cops in this situation felt that the man was needlessly putting himself in harms way and it also presented an excellent opportunity to test out the capabilities of the new Taza-matic 9000!
I also think it's stupid when cops handcuff a crippled, old elderly man trying to get in his own house.
Florida doesn't allow you to protect your property or life. George Zimmerman is still in jail for defending his neighborhood. This is where all of America is headed if we don't turn this ship around. How did we get so messed up I will never understand.
You disgust me for comparing the two. Someone lost their life in the ordeal you brought up. Quit trying to make everything political against the other party. This isn't a party problem, this is Americas problem quit being so party aligned.
@kirbstomp1 - I said nothing about party at all. This is a non-political opinion that I have a right to express. We are in dire straits. Our rights to protect our property and lives are being taken from us as we are lulled by TV shows like American Idol. Let's wake up before the fire gets too hot.
Tell these people to go to hell. You are about the only one on this site that speaks the truth and the these idiots blast you for it. I never dreamed in my whole life that I would rather live somewhere else but now I think I would. This great country is about to fall and it seems that no one really cares. The liberial mind is a terriable thing and spreading like wildfire.
Are there any more well-trained cops out there? Are are they all just getting a 2 hour lesson on tasers and sent in to the streets??? Geez! Do we screen our cadets for common sense? Intelligence? Or do we just look for candidates who like to use violence on others?
Most police departments use the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) to screen potential applicants for their cadet training programs. An actuarial margin has been established which creates the criteria for hiring based upon the results of this test.
If a candidate is TOO SENSITIVE, even though they may be intelligent, trustworthy, and loyal, they will NOT be accepted for training as there is a high probablity that they will resign from the force before the cost of training has been repaid in years of service. However, candidates that are INSENSITIVE are given much greater consideration for acceptance even if they score poorly on levels of intelligence, self-restraint, and honesty. The reason for such a policy, is that insurance rates for covering the cost of the improper actions of rogue officers, are much more affordable than the cost of losing dozens of good officers to expedited career fatigue while serving alongside them.
@Denizen_Kate: I would personally prefer that the hiring practices of our police agencies were based upon other factors. If prosecutors involved in investigation of charges of police misconduct were more concerned with the victims of such brutality, rather than establishing justification for the egregious use of state-sanctioned violence, these incidents would become much less frequent. Unfortunately, the insurance rates for covering abusive officers would then rise in response to the truth.
The police could have easily turned off the water to the garden hose in this situation, and that would have ended the confrontatio without injury. Hundreds of victims of unjustifiable tazer applications have died as a result during the past decade. Just last week a New Mexico police officer tazed a 10 year-old-boy for refusing to wash his police cruiser during a Career Day event at a local school... and that's just one more example.
My parents' house burned down in the 70's because it was winter and the fire department's equipment froze. Even though the fire moved incredibly slow, my folks weren't allowed to go into the other side of the house to retrieve anything, and my father risked arrest just for moving the family car away from the house. Psychologically my parents never really recovered from that, especially knowing that if the equipment hadn't frozen the damage would have been minimal. That said, I feel for anybody in this kind of situation.
In this particular case, I can see both sides. More and more, society has made it the job of police and firefighters to not just save lives and prevent/solve problems, but to save people from their own stupidity. If he had gotten hurt putting out the fire, people would ask why the first responders LET him get hurt. Use of a taser is a little too much, but you also dunno if someone going through a trauma would snap and attack you for trying to stop them. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
What do we expect? More and more people have allowed government to support them and take care of them, taking the individual out of the equation. This is the next logical step, those that refuse to accept the "help" of government and allow themselves to be taken care of will be subject to punishment and reeducation.
Police have the right and duty to use force to stop harm to self, or others. I assume this is where they feel they were justified. Also when given a command by a LEO it is a good idea to follow it. In this situation I may have done exactly as the man did too, and let the jury sort it out.
Following an unlawful order is never a good idea, whether issued by a superior, a law enforcement officer, or a military member. Just because someone believes they have authority does not mean they have legal justification.
Adherence to a policy of blind obedience to unlawful orders is the hallmark of fascism, and has destroyed many decent countries purely because of a self-delusional need for certain individuals to submit to the will of others... rather than to learn how to think, and take the course of action that is in their own best interest.
@fact-check The person was actually unintentionally making the fire worst because the water hose was splattering the burning grease and spreading it instead of putting it out (you need an extremely powerful water spray to suffocate the oxygen away from a grease fire)
@fact-check not sure where the unlawful order came from? A LEO tells you to do something, and that something is not a illegal act, then you need to follow it, period. Them telling the man to stop and get away from the fire is not unlawful. If the LEO felt the man was endanger, or that he could make situation worse thereby putting others in danger, of the loss of property is more likely by the mans actions. They are allowed to use force to defuse the situation.
The person was actually unintentionally making the fire worst because the water hose was splattering the burning grease and spreading it instead of putting it out (you need an extremely powerful water spray to suffocate the oxygen away from a grease fire)
He does not own that home. No one owns their homes. You must pay taxes every year for the right to a piece of paper that includes your name in a lien. The government allows you the right to live in that dwelling as long as you pay the taxes on the full value of the property although the bank owns 85% of it. The appearance of ownership is just another game being run on you. As long as you believe that you own your property in which you might have as little as a 10% stake in you will not mind paying 100% of the taxes on it. Even if you have 95% of your home payed off why does the bank not have to pay 5% of the property taxes. How does it feel to be on the bottom of the pyramid?
They were trying to keep the guy from making the fire worse and/or setting himself on fire. Didn't you watch the GI Joe as a kid? Then you know that water actually makes grease fires worse. Here is a video of a Fire Department demonstration of what happens when you try to put out a grease fire with water.
@Lpguy I agree that they should not have tazed him - but according to the article, they actually pulled him away the fire multiple times and gave him multiple warnings. Sounds like the male-equivalent of a hysterical woman trying to run back into a fire to save her children... the intent is honorable, but not realistic or clear-headed.
It was a grease fire. Water is not the best solution on this type of fire. If the police had let him continue, and he got seriously injured or killed, the police would have been criticized for having done nothing.