Don't taze me drone! [Archive] - Two Plus Two Newer Archives

FortunaMaximus

11-27-2007, 12:16 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Would you rather the cops in those situations used bullets instead?

[/ QUOTE ]

So a cop only has two options to choose from? Shooting someone or zapping him with 50,000 volts?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, not in every situation, but violent situations where the criminal is also armed with a weapon, be it knife, bat, etc. What do you suggest the cops do? I don't disagree there are situations in where the taser is overused, and certainly the application needs to be looked at. They shouldn't use it at their convenience but in dangerous situations.

[ QUOTE ]
The alternative is to let criminals do what they want.

[ QUOTE ]
No, it isn't. What did cops do before the invention of the taser? Were they running around shooting everyone who looked sidewise at them?

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

They shot more criminals than they should've. They just have a now less lethal option that still carries lethal force when it's applied to the wrong individual. They'd use nightsticks and their own bodies to force a criminal to submit, and when that didn't work, they would be forced to shoot them.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

You can't give the cops wiffle bats and manuals on how to stop a criminal by talking to him.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why not?

[/ QUOTE ]

Violent and psychotic criminals do not react well to a gentle tone of voice and perusasion. When well into a course of action, they're notoriously difficult to stop. The degree of difficulty goes up quite a bit when they're armed.

It's a distasteful alternative, tasering, and probably benefits officers more than it does the criminal, since tasering is not a gentle alternative, but it is less lethal than beating the criminal to death or shooting him. Bear in mind I'm considering situations where violence is guaranteed to happen.

I don't agree with causal use of tasering just because the option is open to the officers. I'm also not sure what to make of the fact they'd use it to stop hostile crowds, and probably would lean towards not using it in those situations.

But cops do need non-lethal alternatives when in situations with violent offenders and until something better comes up, tasering is basically better than using bullets.

BigBuffet

11-27-2007, 12:29 PM

Remember, everyone is a criminal thanks to the "Patriot" Act. So, besides bank robbers, murderers, etc people ho still believe the Constitution and Bill of Rights are still valid are also criminals in the 21st century.

It will be much easier to taser protestors rather than get near them with batons.

Ask a cop why he pulled you over--zap.

This is becoming a prison planet, and tasers are just the beginning.

Splendour

11-27-2007, 12:37 PM

Ahhh a tazer...Just what every real woman needs. /images/graemlins/laugh.gif

FortunaMaximus

11-27-2007, 12:55 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Ahhh a tazer...Just what every real woman needs. /images/graemlins/laugh.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

As a deterrent or toy? lol.

[ QUOTE ]
This is becoming a prison planet, and tasers are just the beginning.

[/ QUOTE ]

Contrary to American opinion and law conditions there, America isn't the entire planet. Things are quite democratic elsewhere.

Saying that a specific weapon is spurring on the change is short-sighted, however. The fact is, if America does take a turn for the worse and discard any pretense of a democracy, it'll be the legislation that is at fault, not the enforcement of the legislation.

I'd be surprised, to be honest, if a government was capable in this day and age of implementing such a draconian state. It's just not possible to successfully implement a master-serf relationship across up to half a billion people without the system breaking down. And because of the sheer size of a theortical system, it will always break down.

DontRaiseMeBro

11-27-2007, 02:07 PM

I think we should ask the drones if they are in a secret society imo.

PLOlover

11-27-2007, 07:05 PM

[ QUOTE ]
But cops do need non-lethal alternatives when in situations with violent offenders and until something better comes up, tasering is basically better than using bullets.

[/ QUOTE ]

why do they taser old women then? who have no weapon of any kind?

tame_deuces

11-27-2007, 07:07 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But cops do need non-lethal alternatives when in situations with violent offenders and until something better comes up, tasering is basically better than using bullets.

[/ QUOTE ]

why do they taser old women then? who have no weapon of any kind?

[/ QUOTE ]

It is a requirement. All recruits must do that at least once to pass the academy. It is quite like when rhetoric students must make one sweeping generalization based on outliers to become political debaters.

FortunaMaximus

11-27-2007, 07:10 PM

tame,

Nice. I was going to say "Because it seems like a good idea?"

Meh. There are bad cops, and without further info on the incident, I'll just assume this was a case where someone who shouldn't even be a cop got carried away with his toy.

PLOlover

11-27-2007, 08:52 PM

[ QUOTE ]
It is a requirement. All recruits must do that at least once to pass the academy. It is quite like when rhetoric students must make one sweeping generalization based on outliers to become political debaters.

[/ QUOTE ]

the problem is that when a cop shoots someone like an old unarmed woman, he is universally condemned.

but when he tasers same old, he gets a lot of defense, and universal support from police/legal. which leads to more and frequent tasering.

BluffTHIS!

11-27-2007, 10:45 PM

[ QUOTE ]
What did cops do before the invention of the taser? Were they running around shooting everyone who looked sidewise at them?

[/ QUOTE ]

http://www.craphound.com/images/rubberslapper.jpg

DblBarrelJ

11-28-2007, 01:08 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What did cops do before the invention of the taser? Were they running around shooting everyone who looked sidewise at them?

[/ QUOTE ]

http://www.craphound.com/images/rubberslapper.jpg

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly, there was a time in this country when you would be beaten to a bloody pulp, not tazed.

You people watch entirely too many Andy Griffith reruns.

Kaj

11-28-2007, 02:54 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What did cops do before the invention of the taser? Were they running around shooting everyone who looked sidewise at them?

[/ QUOTE ]

http://www.craphound.com/images/rubberslapper.jpg

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly, there was a time in this country when you would be beaten to a bloody pulp, not tazed.

You people watch entirely too many Andy Griffith reruns.

[/ QUOTE ]

lol. yeah, now with tasers around, all those bad cops are angels.

/images/graemlins/confused.gif

DblBarrelJ

11-28-2007, 03:20 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What did cops do before the invention of the taser? Were they running around shooting everyone who looked sidewise at them?

[/ QUOTE ]

http://www.craphound.com/images/rubberslapper.jpg

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly, there was a time in this country when you would be beaten to a bloody pulp, not tazed.

You people watch entirely too many Andy Griffith reruns.

[/ QUOTE ]

lol. yeah, now with tasers around, all those bad cops are angels.

/images/graemlins/confused.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

As probably the only person participating in this discussion to have actually taken the taser ride, let me tell you first off that it looks alot worse than it actually is.

A taser is not a pain compliance device, at least not in the sense that a baton or OC (pepper) spray is. It is a device specifically designed to cause muscle contraction, allowing the officers to safely apprehend violent suspects.

As to the "old ladies" crap, there are idiots all over the world, in every profession, not just mine. Mine just get picked on alot more than most, because every news station in town has a scanner sitting in the news room. These tools happen to be my livelyhood, as I can't carry guns when I'm in close contact with inmates, most of the lifers have been hit with OC so much it's pretty much useless, and I'd prefer to not attempt to take down 200 men at once with a baton, as batons start riots.

Therefore, the only viable option I have left at my disposal is a taser, which is scientifically proven to be so harmless that it does not interfere with a subjects pacemaker.

Also, another piece of information you all may be interested to know. The pain from a taser hit goes away about 10 seconds after using it. Compare that with the 6-8 hours of OC pepper spray, and the sometimes permanent injuries of the good ole baton and fist methods.

I'll admit, these things don't look pretty, but they weren't meant to. They do save lives. I'm a slightly different case, working inside the walls of a prison. Somewhere around 80% of the time, I think 78.6% to be exact, when a taser is deployed by a street cop, he could've (legally) used deadly force.

Tasers save lives, and not just the lives of officers.

not a model

11-28-2007, 03:23 AM

i was at some crappy store in the miracle mile shops at planet hollywood hotel and casino on las vegas boulevard a few days ago and it was one of those stupid las vegas knick-knacks stores and there was this fake pack of gum and when you tried to pull out a piece it shocked you. THAT [censored] [censored] SUCKED! my thumb was all messed up. [censored] sucked. so take that anecdote for what its worth.

WhoIam

11-28-2007, 03:47 AM

DblBarrelJ

11-28-2007, 04:31 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What did cops do before the invention of the taser? Were they running around shooting everyone who looked sidewise at them?

[/ QUOTE ]

http://www.craphound.com/images/rubberslapper.jpg

[/ QUOTE ]What's the thing in his right hand?

[/ QUOTE ]

Its called a "Slapper" generally they were made out of rubber, or later plastic. Basically, it's an impact pain compliance weapon that went away because of it's ineffectiveness.

vhawk01

11-28-2007, 10:30 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What did cops do before the invention of the taser? Were they running around shooting everyone who looked sidewise at them?

[/ QUOTE ]

http://www.craphound.com/images/rubberslapper.jpg

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly, there was a time in this country when you would be beaten to a bloody pulp, not tazed.

You people watch entirely too many Andy Griffith reruns.

[/ QUOTE ]

lol. yeah, now with tasers around, all those bad cops are angels.

/images/graemlins/confused.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

As probably the only person participating in this discussion to have actually taken the taser ride, let me tell you first off that it looks alot worse than it actually is.

A taser is not a pain compliance device, at least not in the sense that a baton or OC (pepper) spray is. It is a device specifically designed to cause muscle contraction, allowing the officers to safely apprehend violent suspects.

As to the "old ladies" crap, there are idiots all over the world, in every profession, not just mine. Mine just get picked on alot more than most, because every news station in town has a scanner sitting in the news room. These tools happen to be my livelyhood, as I can't carry guns when I'm in close contact with inmates, most of the lifers have been hit with OC so much it's pretty much useless, and I'd prefer to not attempt to take down 200 men at once with a baton, as batons start riots.

Therefore, the only viable option I have left at my disposal is a taser, which is scientifically proven to be so harmless that it does not interfere with a subjects pacemaker.

Also, another piece of information you all may be interested to know. The pain from a taser hit goes away about 10 seconds after using it. Compare that with the 6-8 hours of OC pepper spray, and the sometimes permanent injuries of the good ole baton and fist methods.

I'll admit, these things don't look pretty, but they weren't meant to. They do save lives. I'm a slightly different case, working inside the walls of a prison. Somewhere around 80% of the time, I think 78.6% to be exact, when a taser is deployed by a street cop, he could've (legally) used deadly force.

Tasers save lives, and not just the lives of officers.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is NOT why your profession gets picked on more than most. Not even close. The reason your profession gets picked on more than most is the same exact reason the excuse "Well there are [censored] in every profession" holds very little weight.

tame_deuces

11-28-2007, 10:49 AM

FortunaMaximus

11-28-2007, 10:57 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Therefore, the only viable option I have left at my disposal is a taser, which is scientifically proven to be so harmless that it does not interfere with a subjects pacemaker.

Also, another piece of information you all may be interested to know. The pain from a taser hit goes away about 10 seconds after using it. Compare that with the 6-8 hours of OC pepper spray, and the sometimes permanent injuries of the good ole baton and fist methods.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which I don't disagree with, obviously. The thing is, there's been a recent spate of taser deaths up here in Canada and it's become enough of an issue that the Senate wants the matter looked into and taser use paused until the investigation's done.

Personally, I think it's a good weapon for officers to have in violent situations though. There are more good cops than there are bad cops, and it's a high-visibility profession where PR is concerned, and a few bad cops can really ruin the image of officers in general.

madnak

11-28-2007, 12:04 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Therefore, the only viable option I have left at my disposal is a taser, which is scientifically proven to be so harmless that it does not interfere with a subjects pacemaker.

[/ QUOTE ]

That tasers generally don't affect pacemakers doesn't imply they're harmless. The taser is potentially lethal and is entirely capable of causing permanent damage. You don't [censored] around with electricity and the human body. Even a violet wand shouldn't be used without extreme caution, IMO.

And violent force should never be used except as a last resort.

Law enforcement in general? I have a cynical outlook and have had bad experiences. I say you only have to look as far as the nearest law enforcement forum online to see what I'm talking about. But that's off the topic. We aren't talking about the times when lethal force is justified, we're talking about the times when it isn't. Youtube features many videos of tasers being used by law enforcement as a pain compliance device, or even for punishment/revenge. And I'm sure that for every video that gets posted there are a thousand incidents that go unreported. Every one of those officers should be fired and should never be in a position of authority again as long as they live. But what they get are slaps on the wrist - if anything. And that's a serious problem.

madnak

11-28-2007, 12:10 PM

vhawk01

11-28-2007, 06:14 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
That is NOT why your profession gets picked on more than most. Not even close. The reason your profession gets picked on more than most is the same exact reason the excuse "Well there are [censored] in every profession" holds very little weight.

[/ QUOTE ]

It isn't really an excuse you know, but more of an explanation. And it IS a better explanation than 'all policeofficers are [********]'.

[/ QUOTE ]

What do you mean it isnt an excuse? Its given as a response when people say "Something should be done about police" and then someone responds "There are [censored] in every profession." That isnt an explanation its an excuse, in other words, NO, something should not be done, its inevitable. (The "something" here is left nebulous to suit the situation). If it were just people grousing about cops fine but we are talking about actual actions and policies and "there are always bad apples" is being used as an ARGUMENT for why we dont need to take these things into consideration. In other words, an excuse.

PLOlover

11-28-2007, 06:15 PM

[ QUOTE ]
That is NOT why your profession gets picked on more than most. Not even close. The reason your profession gets picked on more than most is the same exact reason the excuse "Well there are [censored] in every profession" holds very little weight.

[/ QUOTE ]

the problem is that the bad police apples are vehemently defended by every other police officer all the way up to the top. and by DAs.

also police are trained to lie on(officially) and off(unofficially) the stand.

also a lot of places the taser is a pain compliance device. which means if you get pulled over and the officer tells you to get out of the car and you refuse, they are trained to just tase you repeatedly until you get out. which might be ok for a guy or a big guy, but when it happens to a 90 pound woman it's just dumb cause any cop even a girl cop should be able to manhandle a 90 pounder. I mean, come on.

vhawk01

11-28-2007, 06:17 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
That is NOT why your profession gets picked on more than most. Not even close. The reason your profession gets picked on more than most is the same exact reason the excuse "Well there are [censored] in every profession" holds very little weight.

[/ QUOTE ]

Can you imagine a surgeon using that excuse? "I was having a bad day, I cut a few corners so I could go home early, what's the big deal?"

[/ QUOTE ]

Right, there are bad apples in surgery AND THIS IS EXTREMELY DANGEROUS and so very extreme measures are taken to prevent these bad apples. Institutional measures, personal measures, whatever it takes, because we simply cannot have bad apples in certain professions. Wal Mart employees who pocket money out of the till, yeah ok, cops, surgeons, airline pilots, different ballgame.

But surgery (and medicine in general) is a lot closer to the cop end of the spectrum (maybe I should say cops are closer to the medicine end of the spectrum) than the airline end. The airline industry is, honestly, pretty amazing when it comes to stuff like this. They have taken so many institutional steps to prevent error and abuse, they are pretty much the closest thing to perfect that exists, at least that I know of. They show that it can be done if its important enough. If we are going to have police, then I think its important enough.

vhawk01

11-28-2007, 06:17 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
That is NOT why your profession gets picked on more than most. Not even close. The reason your profession gets picked on more than most is the same exact reason the excuse "Well there are [censored] in every profession" holds very little weight.

[/ QUOTE ]

the problem is that the bad police apples are vehemently defended by every other police officer all the way up to the top. and by DAs.

also police are trained to lie on(officially) and off(unofficially) the stand.

also a lot of places the taser is a pain compliance device. which means if you get pulled over and the officer tells you to get out of the car and you refuse, they are trained to just tase you repeatedly until you get out. which might be ok for a guy or a big guy, but when it happens to a 90 pound woman it's just dumb cause any cop even a girl cop should be able to manhandle a 90 pounder. I mean, come on.

[/ QUOTE ]

Also they should rightly be held to a ridiculous standard because they have guns and imprison people.

DblBarrelJ

11-28-2007, 07:47 PM

[ QUOTE ]
police are trained to lie on(officially) and off(unofficially) the stand.

[/ QUOTE ]

Source? And this is one HELL of a statement, I want pages and pages. Unless your source is Law & Order or something. Then again, it probably is.

[ QUOTE ]
also a lot of places the taser is a pain compliance device. which means if you get pulled over and the officer tells you to get out of the car and you refuse, they are trained to just tase you repeatedly until you get out. which might be ok for a guy or a big guy, but when it happens to a 90 pound woman it's just dumb cause any cop even a girl cop should be able to manhandle a 90 pounder. I mean, come on.

[/ QUOTE ]

Source? I've yet to see a dept where the taser was used that way. It is a compliance device, but not pain compliance. Then again, you probably don't know the difference anyway. Well, actally I'm sure you don't, because your very definition of what a pain compliance device is and how it can be used were miles off the mark.

Nielsio

11-28-2007, 08:21 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
police are trained to lie on(officially) and off(unofficially) the stand.

[/ QUOTE ]

Source? And this is one HELL of a statement, I want pages and pages. Unless your source is Law & Order or something. Then again, it probably is.

[ QUOTE ]
also a lot of places the taser is a pain compliance device. which means if you get pulled over and the officer tells you to get out of the car and you refuse, they are trained to just tase you repeatedly until you get out. which might be ok for a guy or a big guy, but when it happens to a 90 pound woman it's just dumb cause any cop even a girl cop should be able to manhandle a 90 pounder. I mean, come on.

[/ QUOTE ]

Source? I've yet to see a dept where the taser was used that way. It is a compliance device, but not pain compliance. Then again, you probably don't know the difference anyway. Well, actally I'm sure you don't, because your very definition of what a pain compliance device is and how it can be used were miles off the mark.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wait. Do you actually work for Blackwater?

DblBarrelJ

11-28-2007, 08:45 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
police are trained to lie on(officially) and off(unofficially) the stand.

[/ QUOTE ]

Source? And this is one HELL of a statement, I want pages and pages. Unless your source is Law & Order or something. Then again, it probably is.

[ QUOTE ]
also a lot of places the taser is a pain compliance device. which means if you get pulled over and the officer tells you to get out of the car and you refuse, they are trained to just tase you repeatedly until you get out. which might be ok for a guy or a big guy, but when it happens to a 90 pound woman it's just dumb cause any cop even a girl cop should be able to manhandle a 90 pounder. I mean, come on.

[/ QUOTE ]

Source? I've yet to see a dept where the taser was used that way. It is a compliance device, but not pain compliance. Then again, you probably don't know the difference anyway. Well, actally I'm sure you don't, because your very definition of what a pain compliance device is and how it can be used were miles off the mark.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wait. Do you actually work for Blackwater?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I actually work for the Georgia Department of Corrections, prior to that, I worked for the Dekalb County Police Department (GA) and the Calhoun County Sheriffs Department (AL).

I've graduated with two police academy classes, one in GA and one in Alabama, I've also passed four prison mandates, hold a bachelors in Criminal Justice, and in all that training, I've never once been told to lie. I have however, been told on more occasions than I could hope to count that "If you lie, you die". I've also seen more cops get fired for lying than anything else.

I don't work for Blackwater, but I have trained with them. Quality firearms training, best in the world.

Nielsio

11-28-2007, 08:53 PM

[ QUOTE ]
No, I actually work for the Georgia Department of Corrections, prior to that, I worked for the Dekalb County Police Department (GA) and the Calhoun County Sheriffs Department (AL).

I've graduated with two police academy classes, one in GA and one in Alabama, I've also passed four prison mandates, hold a bachelors in Criminal Justice, and in all that training, I've never once been told to lie. I have however, been told on more occasions than I could hope to count that "If you lie, you die". I've also seen more cops get fired for lying than anything else.

I don't work for Blackwater, but I have trained with them. Quality firearms training, best in the world.

[/ QUOTE ]

What does the department of corrections do?

DblBarrelJ

11-28-2007, 09:05 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
No, I actually work for the Georgia Department of Corrections, prior to that, I worked for the Dekalb County Police Department (GA) and the Calhoun County Sheriffs Department (AL).

I've graduated with two police academy classes, one in GA and one in Alabama, I've also passed four prison mandates, hold a bachelors in Criminal Justice, and in all that training, I've never once been told to lie. I have however, been told on more occasions than I could hope to count that "If you lie, you die". I've also seen more cops get fired for lying than anything else.

I don't work for Blackwater, but I have trained with them. Quality firearms training, best in the world.

[/ QUOTE ]

What does the department of corrections do?

[/ QUOTE ]

House felony inmates that are in the custody of the state.

PLOlover

11-29-2007, 04:51 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Right, there are bad apples in surgery AND THIS IS EXTREMELY DANGEROUS and so very extreme measures are taken to prevent these bad apples. Institutional measures, personal measures, whatever it takes, because we simply cannot have bad apples in certain professions.

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL, if you think surgeons are held to a high standard. google the stats for doctor screw ups (lethal).

PLOlover

11-29-2007, 05:16 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I've graduated with two police academy classes, one in GA and one in Alabama, I've also passed four prison mandates, hold a bachelors in Criminal Justice, and in all that training, I've never once been told to lie. I have however, been told on more occasions than I could hope to count that "If you lie, you die". I've also seen more cops get fired for lying than anything else.

[/ QUOTE ]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Testilying
http://www.ocweekly.com/ink/99/38/news-moxley2.php
[ QUOTE ]
While the U.S. Supreme Court has officially sanctioned such dishonesty, it’s fair to ask: When can the public feel confident that its cops aren’t lying?

[/ QUOTE ]

well perhaps you simply were in a very honest (small) county or something, where the police don't informally coach the newbies to lie on the stand. the fact that officers were fired kinda proves that this didn't go on.

but as far as lying in the day to day operations, that is expected and part of the job. just look up cunningly coerced into waiving rights or something like that. but you probably didn't mean you don't lie to suspects.

vhawk01

11-29-2007, 07:12 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Right, there are bad apples in surgery AND THIS IS EXTREMELY DANGEROUS and so very extreme measures are taken to prevent these bad apples. Institutional measures, personal measures, whatever it takes, because we simply cannot have bad apples in certain professions.

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL, if you think surgeons are held to a high standard. google the stats for doctor screw ups (lethal).

[/ QUOTE ]

So the whole rest of my post...just ignored huh. Ok.

PLOlover

11-29-2007, 07:20 PM

[ QUOTE ]
So the whole rest of my post...just ignored huh. Ok.

[/ QUOTE ]

well I guess I agree that police should be better regulated, but imo walmart employees are way more regulated than either doctors or police.

probably the main problem is that doctors, lawyers, and police all regulate themselves. I'm sure if walmart workers self regulated themselves walmart would be broke within a short period of time.

FortunaMaximus

11-29-2007, 08:18 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So the whole rest of my post...just ignored huh. Ok.

[/ QUOTE ]

well I guess I agree that police should be better regulated, but imo walmart employees are way more regulated than either doctors or police.

probably the main problem is that doctors, lawyers, and police all regulate themselves. I'm sure if walmart workers self regulated themselves walmart would be broke within a short period of time.

[/ QUOTE ]

Might want to choose a better example. Even Walmart workers now have unions these days.

There are bad apples and there is corruption in every profession. I'm baffled by your venom towards cops in particular, because they basically carry out the letter of the law the best they can.

I understand, especially in the US, there are situations where cops abuse their authority or do things that may be illegal or immoral with regards to their profession, but that's true everywhere.

I've had good and bad experiences with cops, and by and large you may want to consider that they have a very tough job to do. I'm not saying show them compassion and bleed your hearts out for them, but realize that when a cop goes foul, the crime isn't generally hidden, but sensationalized rather.

So in essence, the public does regulate the policing to some extent, perhaps not as much as liberals would like. And the profession does attract its share of sadists and people with power complexes. That's unavoidable and can't be efficiently screened for.

That, however, does not mean by and large a cop's job isn't to protect and serve and try to bring good and order into a community. It's not an easy job when you consider the kind of people they have to come in contact with day in, day out.

Not liberals, but recidivists.

madnak

11-29-2007, 09:31 PM

[ QUOTE ]
walmart employees are way more regulated

[/ QUOTE ]

You're making some extreme claims here. Have you looked into the loss prevention industry?

PLOlover

11-30-2007, 12:04 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
walmart employees are way more regulated

You're making some extreme claims here. Have you looked into the loss prevention industry?

[/ QUOTE ]

the analogy to medicine would be that if a walmart cashier came up short at the end of his shift, the other walmart workers would keep it hush hush, and if it somehow came out that his register was short, he would have to appear before a disciplinary board composed of his fellow cashiers.

madnak

11-30-2007, 12:33 AM

I don't see how the situations are analogous.

pvn

11-30-2007, 01:28 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But cops do need non-lethal alternatives when in situations with violent offenders and until something better comes up, tasering is basically better than using bullets.

[/ QUOTE ]

why do they taser old women then? who have no weapon of any kind?

[/ QUOTE ]

It is a requirement. All recruits must do that at least once to pass the academy. It is quite like when rhetoric students must make one sweeping generalization based on outliers to become political debaters.

[/ QUOTE ]

nh.

PLOlover

11-30-2007, 02:34 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
But cops do need non-lethal alternatives when in situations with violent offenders and until something better comes up, tasering is basically better than using bullets.

why do they taser old women then? who have no weapon of any kind?

It is a requirement. All recruits must do that at least once to pass the academy. It is quite like when rhetoric students must make one sweeping generalization based on outliers to become political debaters.

nh.

[/ QUOTE ]

so let me get this straight. the guy I was responding to said that taser is good against violent people because otherwise the police would have to shoot them.

he was making the argument that tasers are a nonlethal bullet replacement.

ok. fine.

but that's not a sufficient justification for tasers because tasers are used on nonviolent people who would never be shot by police.

where's your snippy answer to that you scum. (assuming you are scum. if youre not then disregard).

is that your answer to people who say, hey, why are you tasering nonviolent people, to ridicule them instead of answering them?

willie24

11-30-2007, 11:06 AM

the hard part is this:

cops must deal with many people who might be willing to kill them if given the chance.

is it wrong that a cop errored on the side of aggression with a 90 lb woman, and tasered her unnecessarily? sure. but put yourself in the cop's shoes. if you wait until you are 100% justified (meaning that someone has physically attacked you) before you use physical force, your chances of being killed go way up. are you willing to accept that, just to prevent a few innocents from being tased?

madnak

11-30-2007, 03:27 PM

[ QUOTE ]
the hard part is this:

cops must deal with many people who might be willing to kill them if given the chance.

is it wrong that a cop errored on the side of aggression with a 90 lb woman, and tasered her unnecessarily? sure. but put yourself in the cop's shoes. if you wait until you are 100% justified (meaning that someone has physically attacked you) before you use physical force, your chances of being killed go way up. are you willing to accept that, just to prevent a few innocents from being tased?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah. That's part of the job of law enforcement - taking those risks.

And there's no indication that the chances of being killed "go way up." And it's not a few innocents being tased, it's a few innocents being tased for every guilty person being tased, hundreds of thousands or even millions of innocents being tased altogether. And thousands of them dying - it would make the cops the biggest murderers in our country. Really smart move, sure.

The fact that any possible suspect could potentially have a weapon doesn't mean cops are justified in tasing any possible suspect. Even Dbl would surely agree with this. You don't use physical force, especially potentially lethal force, without justification. When a suspect gets aggressively violent, sure, tase them - but "who knows, this person I pulled over might have a gun in her glove compartment" is definitely no excuse for using excessive force.

And we're talking about many cases where the suspect is clearly unarmed, and even where they've gone completely limp! Sadly I'm on dial-up and can't look for a great example, but I'm sure there are plenty here (http://youtube.com/results?search_query=taser&search=Search). This is extreme abuse of authority. I think it's assault with a deadly weapon and should be treated as such - certainly that's what you'd get if you tried to tase someone, especially a cop - but termination and blacklisting should go without saying. There is no way that a cop using his position to be violent toward innocent people should get away with it, just because he has a dangerous job. [censored].

PLOlover

11-30-2007, 04:41 PM

[ QUOTE ]
if you wait until you are 100% justified

[/ QUOTE ]

then you are unjustified and should be dealt with legally and/or administratively. how hard is that?

btw you changed unarmed undangerous person to unknown possibly dangerous person in your example.

but you're right btw. the introduction of women and weaker men into the police forces have introduced this mindset of take no chances into the police thought process.

DblBarrelJ

11-30-2007, 05:23 PM

[ QUOTE ]
but as far as lying in the day to day operations, that is expected and part of the job. just look up cunningly coerced into waiving rights or something like that. but you probably didn't mean you don't lie to suspects.

[/ QUOTE ]

That, while true, is worlds away from lying on the stand. In fact, if you have a decent defense attorney, he will get the officer to testify that he did lie or misinform you to get your confession.

Getting confessions by telling people "Hey, we've got eyewitnesses" or walking into an interview room and slamming a video tape down and saying "Guess where I've been???" is worlds away from lying on the stand in court.

That was the part that bugged me, we all know police lie to suspects, but you said "police are trained to lie on the stand" which is absolutely false.

vhawk01

11-30-2007, 05:36 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
but as far as lying in the day to day operations, that is expected and part of the job. just look up cunningly coerced into waiving rights or something like that. but you probably didn't mean you don't lie to suspects.

[/ QUOTE ]

That, while true, is worlds away from lying on the stand. In fact, if you have a decent defense attorney, he will get the officer to testify that he did lie or misinform you to get your confession.

Getting confessions by telling people "Hey, we've got eyewitnesses" or walking into an interview room and slamming a video tape down and saying "Guess where I've been???" is worlds away from lying on the stand in court.

That was the part that bugged me, we all know police lie to suspects, but you said "police are trained to lie on the stand" which is absolutely false.

[/ QUOTE ]

So your point is that cops lie when they are unlikely to be caught, just like everyone else. Not really a condemnation of cops but nothing to brag about.

EDIT: ARE TRAINED to lie when they are unlikely to get caught, that is.

DblBarrelJ

11-30-2007, 05:53 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
but as far as lying in the day to day operations, that is expected and part of the job. just look up cunningly coerced into waiving rights or something like that. but you probably didn't mean you don't lie to suspects.

[/ QUOTE ]

That, while true, is worlds away from lying on the stand. In fact, if you have a decent defense attorney, he will get the officer to testify that he did lie or misinform you to get your confession.

Getting confessions by telling people "Hey, we've got eyewitnesses" or walking into an interview room and slamming a video tape down and saying "Guess where I've been???" is worlds away from lying on the stand in court.

That was the part that bugged me, we all know police lie to suspects, but you said "police are trained to lie on the stand" which is absolutely false.

[/ QUOTE ]

So your point is that cops lie when they are unlikely to be caught, just like everyone else. Not really a condemnation of cops but nothing to brag about.

EDIT: ARE TRAINED to lie when they are unlikely to get caught, that is.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you're incapable of understanding the differences in attempting to trick someone into giving up a confession for a crime they committed in a police interview room and a sworn officer lying on the witness stand in court, this discussion doesn't need you anymore, honestly.

He said officers are trained to commit perjury. I disagree.

DblBarrelJ

11-30-2007, 06:03 PM

[ QUOTE ]
but you're right btw. the introduction of women and weaker men into the police forces have introduced this mindset of take no chances into the police thought process.

[/ QUOTE ]

While true, even more important than that is the rampant frivolous lawsuit industry that is thriving in this country.

Agencies are sued every day in this country for causing injuries to people, which is where the taser comes in. I have a challenge to anyone on this forum, I happen to have a taser. I challenge anyone to allow me to use it on them, wait approx. 5-6hrs (standard waiting time when used on the street) visit a doctor, and have him document your injuries for you.

He will send you back to me with a piece of paper with the words "Two microscopic wounds on back, no other injuries".

Now, if I use Hand to hand, which is what many of you recommend, it could look more like this:

[ QUOTE ]
1 broken arm
3 broken ribs
Bruising on face
Bruising on abdomen
Left knee laceration
left knee injured, unsure of damage. Will require further inquiry.
various internal injuries

[/ QUOTE ]

Which do you think would look better for you when your civil suit comes up? I'm guessing any of you attorneys out there would greatly prefer the latter.

vhawk01

11-30-2007, 06:05 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
but as far as lying in the day to day operations, that is expected and part of the job. just look up cunningly coerced into waiving rights or something like that. but you probably didn't mean you don't lie to suspects.

[/ QUOTE ]

That, while true, is worlds away from lying on the stand. In fact, if you have a decent defense attorney, he will get the officer to testify that he did lie or misinform you to get your confession.

Getting confessions by telling people "Hey, we've got eyewitnesses" or walking into an interview room and slamming a video tape down and saying "Guess where I've been???" is worlds away from lying on the stand in court.

That was the part that bugged me, we all know police lie to suspects, but you said "police are trained to lie on the stand" which is absolutely false.

[/ QUOTE ]

So your point is that cops lie when they are unlikely to be caught, just like everyone else. Not really a condemnation of cops but nothing to brag about.

EDIT: ARE TRAINED to lie when they are unlikely to get caught, that is.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you're incapable of understanding the differences in attempting to trick someone into giving up a confession for a crime they committed in a police interview room and a sworn officer lying on the witness stand in court, this discussion doesn't need you anymore, honestly.

He said officers are trained to commit perjury. I disagree.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm capable of understanding the difference. Do I still get to play? And its not just to get confessions out of real criminals. Cops lie to citizens on a regular basis to try and get into their cars, into their homes, get information out of them. Its systemic and very much a part of the job.

But you are correct, they dont lie to lawyers and judges and stenographers.

PLOlover

11-30-2007, 06:40 PM

[ QUOTE ]
But you are correct, they dont lie to lawyers and judges and stenographers.

[/ QUOTE ]

not true at all. though I did say they are "informally trained".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Testilying
[ QUOTE ]
Testilying is police slang for the practice of giving false testimony against a defendant in a criminal trial, typically for the purpose of "making a stronger case" against someone they believe to be guilty, although it may also be for the purpose of framing an innocent defendant.

...

There seems to be little doubt that the practice occurs, is not limited to any region of the country, and that "testilying" is a common name for it.

[/ QUOTE ]

willie24

11-30-2007, 08:56 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
the hard part is this:

cops must deal with many people who might be willing to kill them if given the chance.

is it wrong that a cop errored on the side of aggression with a 90 lb woman, and tasered her unnecessarily? sure. but put yourself in the cop's shoes. if you wait until you are 100% justified (meaning that someone has physically attacked you) before you use physical force, your chances of being killed go way up. are you willing to accept that, just to prevent a few innocents from being tased?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah. That's part of the job of law enforcement - taking those risks.

And there's no indication that the chances of being killed "go way up." And it's not a few innocents being tased, it's a few innocents being tased for every guilty person being tased, hundreds of thousands or even millions of innocents being tased altogether. And thousands of them dying - it would make the cops the biggest murderers in our country. Really smart move, sure.

The fact that any possible suspect could potentially have a weapon doesn't mean cops are justified in tasing any possible suspect. Even Dbl would surely agree with this. You don't use physical force, especially potentially lethal force, without justification. When a suspect gets aggressively violent, sure, tase them - but "who knows, this person I pulled over might have a gun in her glove compartment" is definitely no excuse for using excessive force.

And we're talking about many cases where the suspect is clearly unarmed, and even where they've gone completely limp! Sadly I'm on dial-up and can't look for a great example, but I'm sure there are plenty here (http://youtube.com/results?search_query=taser&search=Search). This is extreme abuse of authority. I think it's assault with a deadly weapon and should be treated as such - certainly that's what you'd get if you tried to tase someone, especially a cop - but termination and blacklisting should go without saying. There is no way that a cop using his position to be violent toward innocent people should get away with it, just because he has a dangerous job. [censored].

[/ QUOTE ]

i will admit i don't have any stats, but i am very skeptical of your assertion a few innocent people are tased for every guilty one, and that thousands of innocent people have died (or will die) from taser use. every cop gets tased in training.

[ QUOTE ]
And we're talking about many cases where the suspect is clearly unarmed, and even where they've gone completely limp!

[/ QUOTE ]

well, no one's arguing with you here, obviously. if you tase a person who is limp or otherwise not physically capable of being threatening, yeah, sure, you should be fired.

[ QUOTE ]
You don't use physical force, especially potentially lethal force, without justification.

[/ QUOTE ]

if taser use is potentially lethal force, then any force is potentially lethal force. you are probably more likely to die from being tackled on pavement than from being tased. (no source)

[ QUOTE ]
When a suspect gets aggressively violent, sure, tase them - but "who knows, this person I pulled over might have a gun in her glove compartment" is definitely no excuse for using excessive force.

[/ QUOTE ]

by the time the suspect gets aggressively violent, you might be dead. most criminals don't try to kill cops with wrestling moves- they use guns. it doesnt matter whether you're dolph lundgren or barney fife. now i'm not saying it's ok to tase someone just because they looked at you funny or gave you some lip - but if they ignore your instruction and reach for an unidentified object, or do anything else that could be interpreted as a legitimate precursor to violence, yes, by all means, tase them. in fact, i would say you'd be an idiot not to.

madnak

12-01-2007, 12:37 AM

[ QUOTE ]
i will admit i don't have any stats, but i am very skeptical of your assertion a few innocent people are tased for every guilty one, and that thousands of innocent people have died (or will die) from taser use. every cop gets tased in training.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's if every suspect were tased. The way things are now, most taser use is probably justified. There have been ~250 taser-related deaths in the US, about 70 of which appear likely to have been a direct result of the taser's effects. Wiki article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electroshock_weapon_controversy). The health effects of the taser haven't been studied extensively.

[ QUOTE ]
well, no one's arguing with you here, obviously. if you tase a person who is limp or otherwise not physically capable of being threatening, yeah, sure, you should be fired.

[/ QUOTE ]

But the officers who do this aren't fired. That's the problem. And their fellow officers typically stand up for them.

[ QUOTE ]
if taser use is potentially lethal force, then any force is potentially lethal force. you are probably more likely to die from being tackled on pavement than from being tased. (no source)

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd say tackling someone on pavement is potentially lethal, yeah. Isn't that assault? I don't think people should be tackled without provocation, either. Wrestling is fuzzier, but that should be avoided too if a person's medical condition is unknown.

[ QUOTE ]
now i'm not saying it's ok to tase someone just because they looked at you funny or gave you some lip

[/ QUOTE ]

That's how I interpreted your post.

[ QUOTE ]
but if they ignore your instruction and reach for an unidentified object, or do anything else that could be interpreted as a legitimate precursor to violence, yes, by all means, tase them. in fact, i would say you'd be an idiot not to.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ignoring a cop's instructions and going for an unidentified object, I'd say that represents 100% justification.

"Could be interpreted as a legitimate precursor to violence" sounds awfully vague to me.