Don't taze me drone!

[madnak]

I don't see how the situations are analogous.

[pvn]

[ 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]

[ 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]

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]

[ 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].

[PLOlover]

[ 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]

[ 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]

[ 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]

[ 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]

[ 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.