|
|
Post by schizophonic on Mar 20, 2009 9:45:40 GMT -5
Or perhaps move in a grab the person and risk getting hurt themselves? There's a good chance of causing lasting injury, to boot. I mean, given the options of a Taser, where you yourself are theoretically safe, and the risk of injury is considered low, or one where you can be injured and so can your subject, I'm not sure that the Taser is the wrong choice. Doesn't mean it should be used as often as they're used, but it seems kind of odd. What's interesting to me is the number of people who ignore the dangers of pepper spray when they point to it as a safer alternative. Technically, there are few or no deaths due to pepper spray, but that's because they tend to be written up as "positional asphyxia." That's like saying "Nobody's ever died from being Tased. They all died from heart attacks." |
|
|
|
Post by m52nickerson on Mar 20, 2009 15:48:58 GMT -5
Iwould agree that it does seem in some situations a taser is not needed. Of course a lot of that is not so much the individual officer but how they were trained and the police agencies policies. I know when they first got the tasers the NY State Troopers were trained to use it before trying any type of physical restrain, no matter the situation. Since then I'm sure that has changed, but the decision at the time was not left to the officer.
|
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Mar 22, 2009 4:27:45 GMT -5
Of course they do. Look at the RNC. Cops will use physical force whenever and wherever they like. It's like in the 60s, except instead of long hair getting you a fist in the face, it's holding a flower. If we give them a way of doing it secretly and more dangerously than they're going to hurt more people, and more people will die. At the RNC you had a bunch of protesters that would not listen to what was being told of them. If the police tell you to move, move. Oh, sorry. I was applying Australian law to the US again. See, in Australia we have this thing called 'freedom of assembly'. It means police can't kick people out of public places without a very god reason, and non-violent protests with a permit cannot be broken up by force. It also means that you can't storm apartments without warrants, you can't assault peaceful bystanders, you can't assault and arrest journalists for no reason and you can't break the law. I do know, however, that in the US you have this unhealthy uncritical worship of authority, particularly the police, and their right to beat you up for not obeying their illegal orders. After all, the badge says "I am the law." Not really because I was asking for citations on your claims that taser companies have sued medical examiners. My bad, my bad. www.lawcore.com/legal-information/11-16-06.htmlwww.infowars.net/articles/may2008/080508Taser.htmsearch.live.com/results.aspx?FORM=IEFM1&q=Taser+sued+medical+examiner he has stated before he thought the victim was trying to pull a gun. After the police officer had presumably forced him to the ground. At THAT point, the victim was trying to pull a gun. Even if so, a better solution to the threat would have been to remove the gun. Of course, we all know that no criminal is ever guilty. The article is about her claim. Apparently she was sitting in an isle. Of course her claim will be that she did nothing wrong, I'm sure the police report will say other wise. Unless you were there we have only police reports and her claim. How many people have ever claimed they should have been arrested? This is not a he said/she said situation. There were multiple cops and she was old; she posed no threat. The cops don't get to use force whenever they like. Oviously the police should have smacked this guy around instead of trying the taser and other things to get him into a pad room for his safety. I can imagine the lawsuit had the police left him and he died from an infection, or ramming his head on the concrete floor. Presumably some non-lethal force, like a lot of cops overpowering him. Something like that anyway. How would you have them enforce compliance? Just leave if a person will not obey them? Or perhaps move in a grab the person and risk getting hurt themselves? I don't know, I'm not a cop. You should ask one of them. Presumably there are many, many solutions. All police are trained negotiators, for a start. |
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Mar 22, 2009 4:34:39 GMT -5
No he did not deserve to die, that is not what the cops were trying to do. Because it's not reasonable to expect people to die when you shoot them six times with a deadly weapon. That couldn't possibly be the intention. [quote author=antichrist board=st thread=254 post=8893 time=1237402175They tasered him 5 fucking times, in the chest. Nobody thought to get a fucking translator did they.[/quote]Police pointing things that look like guns at you is pretty universally understood as "calm the fuck down".[/quote] So a radom bystander in a bank robbery can reasonably expect to be shot in the face if the robbers say "give me all of your money' while pointing guns at them, and they say no? I mean, that wouldn't be murder right? Because gun in face means 'do as I say, I am the law'? |
|
Panthera
Full Member
Here kitty kitty...
Posts: 229
|
Post by Panthera on Mar 22, 2009 5:04:24 GMT -5
I do know, however, that in the US you have this unhealthy uncritical worship of authority, particularly the police, and their right to beat you up for not obeying their illegal orders. After all, the badge says "I am the law." Actually, that only describes about half of the US population. The rest of us have brains in our heads, and expect our police officers (and soldiers, while we're at it,) to live up to these things called "standards," and they're some pretty daunting ones, apparently. These are people, after all, that we're supposed to be able to trust with our lives and safety.. If that doesn't warrant being held to higher-than-usual standards, I don't know what does. Anymore, though, it seems like burger-flippers are held to higher standards than police officers. Any trigger-happy idiot bully with an entitlement complex can become a cop, but you have to possess actual skills to work in the kitchen of a fast-food joint... |
|
|
|
Post by m52nickerson on Mar 22, 2009 10:19:38 GMT -5
Oh, sorry. I was applying Australian law to the US again. See, in Australia we have this thing called 'freedom of assembly'. It means police can't kick people out of public places without a very god reason, and non-violent protests with a permit cannot be broken up by force. The US has freedom of assembly laws also. The police can break up demonstrations to keep the peace or order the demonstrators to stay in certain areas. Nether cant the US police. It is a respect, not worship. In situations the police are very much the law. If an officer wants to arrest someone for something that is not illegal that person still has to comply. The court system then decides if the arrest was valid. Thank you, and I will agree this is bullshit on the manufactures parts as well as the court ruling. Of course that would have been a better option. I'm in no way trying to defend that officers actions. I was just replying to your statements that he might have been going for a taser, which was not the case. The officers are not just going to stand there and argue with her for the entire game. So if she refused to move of course the police will move her. Being over powered can lead to death, or injury. Not only for the person being overpowered but also for the officers. Really the solutions available all depend on what the officer has been told to do by the agency he works for. Even if it is total up to the officer there is only a limited number of options. Physical force, taser, pepper spray, deadly force, nothing. This is of course trying to talk to a person, but once that person refuses to comply then something else has to be done. |
|
|
|
Post by m52nickerson on Mar 22, 2009 10:30:11 GMT -5
Because it's not reasonable to expect people to die when you shoot them six times with a deadly weapon. That couldn't possibly be the intention. As much as you would like to a taser is still not considered a deadly weapon. There is no truly, non deadly weapons. Even a single punch can lead to death. Ok, for one a bank robber is not a police officer and the bystander is not doing anything that could harm others. You would be having the same argument if the cops would have gang tackled the guy and he died as a result of hitting his head, or breaking his neck. |
|
|
|
Post by m52nickerson on Mar 22, 2009 10:31:45 GMT -5
Anymore, though, it seems like burger-flippers are held to higher standards than police officers. Any trigger-happy idiot bully with an entitlement complex can become a cop, but you have to possess actual skills to work in the kitchen of a fast-food joint... Ever try and become a cop? |
|
|
|
Post by askold on Mar 22, 2009 14:17:53 GMT -5
Personally I am undecided with this.
As long as less than lethal weapons are used properly. They can give the police more options when dealing with suspect, if talking doesn't work and using taser would put the police or civilians at risk. For example instead of trying to wrestle an axe wielding lunatic they could use the "pain ray" to subdue him.
On the other hand it might also mean that some police officers would be more eager to use weapons than talking. Just like we have seen with tasers, zapping some annoying suspect is much easier than trying to reason with him...
I guess as with all weapons wether this is a good or a bad thing depends on the person using the weapon.
|
|
Panthera
Full Member
Here kitty kitty...
Posts: 229
|
Post by Panthera on Mar 22, 2009 19:59:30 GMT -5
Anymore, though, it seems like burger-flippers are held to higher standards than police officers. Any trigger-happy idiot bully with an entitlement complex can become a cop, but you have to possess actual skills to work in the kitchen of a fast-food joint... Ever try and become a cop? Ever try and produce an actual argument that doesn't rely on blind authoritarianism? |
|
|
|
Post by scienceisgreen on Mar 22, 2009 23:32:33 GMT -5
I saw this bad boy on Future Weapons, it causes the surface of your skin to feel like it's really hot- cause pain but not injury something that is a definite advantage on rubber bullets and the sort.
Plus it's vehicle mounted and pretty easy to spot so it's not like they can sneak it up on you
Oh and the light system is more for disorientation to the point of nausea, not even close to causing true injury
|
|
|
|
Post by m52nickerson on Mar 23, 2009 9:23:01 GMT -5
Ever try and produce an actual argument that doesn't rely on blind authoritarianism? I suppose your burger flipping argument is to be taken as a real argument then. If so any proof. Have you dealt with ever officer out there, no. So you are basing your arguments on your experiences which may have not have been with the best of officers, or you are basing it on what you see on TV or in the media. The thing is we never see the arrests that go well, or the ones that force is not needed. We see a small percentage of the arrests of incidents that are news worthy. They then get projected as if they are the norm. |
|
|
|
Post by pdc1987 on Mar 23, 2009 17:28:47 GMT -5
You've obviously never had to deal with the law, or had immediate family members that did. I'm not being forced into describing my own family's experience, especially when there are countless examples of police abusing their powers all over the country every day. Go watch clips from any news report or video show of cops pulling someone over, arresting them, etc. I grew up in a rich, mostly white suburb and the only cars I ever saw pulled over were cars with out-of-town black kids in them. I now have to live in a crappy, mostly black area and I've flat out seen cops get rough with, and scream at black men that were not resisting. It's not just a cliche. I honestly can't believe that someone thinks the majority of police officers resist the urge to take it a bit to far.  Guess what I have been forced to deal with the police. Two members of my familly have been arrested, my mom accused of shop lifting, and my bother for a DUI. Not the best times, but the police did nothing wrong in ether case. Of course my mom and brother were both smart enough not to argue with the officers that arrested them or tried to resist being put in the handcuffs. My mothers case was dismised before it ever got to a Judge by the DA because it was utter shit. My brother, well he will not be going to Canada any time soon, but now has other people drive when he is going to tie one on. ......and no nether case was it one of the officers we knew or the same agencies. Now, how about responding to the rest of my post, and not just to the first few lines? |
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Mar 23, 2009 17:45:22 GMT -5
Oh, sorry. I was applying Australian law to the US again. See, in Australia we have this thing called 'freedom of assembly'. It means police can't kick people out of public places without a very god reason, and non-violent protests with a permit cannot be broken up by force. The US has freedom of assembly laws also. The police can break up demonstrations to keep the peace or order the demonstrators to stay in certain areas. Or to stop you from gtting to a concert, or if you're sitting down in a park. Or if they feel like it. After all, if the cops tell you to move, even if that order breaks your constitutional right to freedom of assembly, you move, because the police are the law. Nether cant the US police. They can and did at the RNC. It is a respect, not worship. In situations the police are very much the law. If an officer wants to arrest someone for something that is not illegal that person still has to comply. The court system then decides if the arrest was valid. My point has been made. Is it useless to argue with a person who believes that police are the law- ie an authoritarian with, typically, absolutely no respect for the law? The officers are not just going to stand there and argue with her for the entire game. So if she refused to move of course the police will move her. With extreme prejudice. |
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Mar 23, 2009 17:48:17 GMT -5
Ever try and produce an actual argument that doesn't rely on blind authoritarianism? So you are basing your arguments on your experiences which may have not have been with the best of officers, or you are basing it on what you see on TV or in the media. The thing is we never see the arrests that go well, or the ones that force is not needed. We see a small percentage of the arrests of incidents that are news worthy. They then get projected as if they are the norm. And now an argument ad liberal medium. Needless to say, this is crap. |
|
