Don\'t taze me drone!
 

[ QUOTE ]

One of the biggest Taser representatives outside the US base has declared the company's intention to produce and sell internationally a small airborne drone version of the weapon that can administer electrical jolts of 50,000 volts.

http://digg.com/offbeat_news/They_Li...come_A_Reality
http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5...q42Tcis4BRjxuw


[/ QUOTE ]

Re: Don\'t taze me drone!
 

Shocking.

Of course there's dispute over the use of tasers. They do carry a hell of a jolt without being lethal. Would you rather the cops in those situations used bullets instead? Someone dies once in awhile, usually as a combination of the jolt and whatever's in the individual's system. It doesn't mean this isn't a better alternative than being shot with lethal force.

The alternative is to let criminals do what they want. You can't give the cops wiffle bats and manuals on how to stop a criminal by talking to him. Sometimes this kind of force becomes a necessity, especially with violent or psychotic criminals.

Re: Don\'t taze me drone!
 

[ 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 ]
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 ]

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

[/ QUOTE ]

Why not?

Re: Don\'t taze me drone!
 

[ 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.

Re: Don\'t taze me drone!
 

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.

Re: Don\'t taze me drone!
 

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

Re: Don\'t taze me drone!
 

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

[/ 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.

Re: Don\'t taze me drone!
 

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

Re: Don\'t taze me drone!
 

[ 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?

Re: Don\'t taze me drone!
 

[ 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.