TexasCHLforum.com

Not a good thing:

http://www.krqe.com/dpp/news/crime/crim ... 0907041329" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Can't let them fourteen year old girls get away, not in New Mexico. NM cops have charged a guy for defending himself when attacked in this car. Now we shall see how they are they about charging one of their own.

Gads, that's awful. She must have really been a handfull for the LEO to do something like that. But to Taese her in the head??

Either he's an awful shot, or he just couldn't get a clear shot at the torso. (how can you not get a good shot at the torso??)

Poor girl. I hope she survives.

In most cases, when a person of whatever age is out of control, it is better to stop them there than let them continue the self-destructive behavior. I think of the options of pushing her to the ground or pounding her with a stick and I would say this is a better option if done correctly. It was the wrong choice because the shooter could not control where the darts went properly. I still think it is better than him having to restrain her physically even if he could have. It is just unfortunate that this happened and maybe we can find a way to improve the odds against this happening in the future. The girl made the choice to act that way and endanger herself with her actions by running across the road like she did. Had she not done that I don't think the LEO would have considered it necessary to use that kind of force to stop her. I think he did it to try to save her from her own actions. That is my opinion from the provided info.

I don't think it is fair to put all LEOs into a box and blame them all for things we don't think are right. I am not the same as another CHL holder and make individual choices. I don't want all CHL holders to be held responsible if I make a poor decision and I will not do that to LEOs. If a state-wide or local mandate causes a problem it is still those in charge that made the mandate and not the officers enforcing the law. A graduated use of force is a general rule and it looks like the LEO did the correct thing, to try to help the girl, even though the outcome was not at all what anyone would want.

Stacy Akin says she and her 14-year-old daughter were arguing over a cell phone Thursday and she drove her daughter to the Tucumcari Police Department to seek help.

Huh? I don't get it. What could the girl possibly be doing that would be severe enough to require police intervention, and yet still be so mild as to allow her mother to drive her to the police station?

The whole thing sounds to me like a massive failure of parenting and parental responsibility. I can't decide if I think the chief was right or wrong to handle the situation like he did, as the story gives almost no details in that regard. Darting into traffic is a good way to get run over, but it was obviously safe enough that the chief thought that her being down on the street was preferable to her running away from him. I can't really see how she'd be safer that way, and it sounds kinda screwy to me. The big thing to me though is that I can't figure out why the mother would involve the police in something that appears to be a simple matter of discipline.

FWIW, I have a 15yo son. If I decide to take his cell phone away, it won't matter a bit if I get to hold onto the handset or not. The phone will be cut off (suspended) at the provider so quick it will make his head spin. There wouldn't be any arguing or physical force required.

AndyC wrote:Tased in the back of the head? Hmmm... Don't tase me 'fro

(Sorry - I'll get my coat...)

Mithras61 wrote:

Stacy Akin says she and her 14-year-old daughter were arguing over a cell phone Thursday and she drove her daughter to the Tucumcari Police Department to seek help.

Huh? I don't get it. What could the girl possibly be doing that would be severe enough to require police intervention, and yet still be so mild as to allow her mother to drive her to the police station?

The whole thing sounds to me like a massive failure of parenting and parental responsibility.
...
The big thing to me though is that I can't figure out why the mother would involve the police in something that appears to be a simple matter of discipline.

FWIW, I have a 15yo son. If I decide to take his cell phone away, it won't matter a bit if I get to hold onto the handset or not. The phone will be cut off (suspended) at the provider so quick it will make his head spin. There wouldn't be any arguing or physical force required.

Not even going into what happened at the police station,

Let me rewind to when I was a kid, and guess as to how my father would have handled this situation...
Letsee..

If I argued against him in direct opposition to what he said -> Hit
Backtalked -> Hit
Did the above, in a car while he was driving -> Pulled over, ripped out of the car, bent over the hood, and hit... multiple times. Right there on the side of the road.

I'm sorry, Parents these days just don't beat their kids enough IMO.

And for those who are about to say something, I don't mean 'beat' as in abuse. I mean beat as in discipline when they damn well need it.
My father was a great father. He was not abusive. But if I went against his word, I felt it... for at least a day, if not more.

If I would have argued with my father about a phone like this, he would have grabbed it, threw it on the ground, and stomped on it, whether he paid for it or I paid for it. Wouldn't have mattered.
Then, he would 'discipline' me. Then, if he did pay for it, he would 'discipline' me more for making him waste his money on a now broken phone.
He probably would have also told me that I will never have a phone again while I was living in his house.
And he would have kept that word as well. That's why I didn't do stuff like that. I knew he meant business.