Don't taze me drone!

[vhawk01]

[ 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]

[ 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]

[ 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. 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]

[ 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. 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.