"A Time To Fire The Taser?"

[kramerfan86]

Not really. Tasers have killed before.. they are pretty dangerous and should really be used as a last resort.

I imagine that if the statistics were easily available they would show taser use on the whole causes less deaths and injuries than the old physical assault with body and clubs used to. Obviously they arent risk free, there really isnt going to ever be a risk free way to take down another human being, however if people are going to run or resist there has to be a way to make the takedowns.

 

[CommonKnowledge]

Considering that the suspect was already handcuffed and right within grabbing distance it seems like a very poor choice to fire a taser. I agree that if you don't want to get hurt then you shouldn't run from the police, but she was drugged up and the cop should have kept a handle on the situation.

 

[Ayn Rand]

Try what again?

I at no point implied or tried to show that the tazer method is unreasonable - I'm just verifying that I correctly understand your method of dealing with unreasonable methods. (I'm pretty sure we can both agree that randomly gunning down civilians is unreasonable.)

You know that tazering is a priori unreasonable then? You must have some special knowledge that the rest of us don't.

Considering that the suspect was already handcuffed and right within grabbing distance it seems like a very poor choice to fire a taser. I agree that if you don't want to get hurt then you shouldn't run from the police, but she was drugged up and the cop should have kept a handle on the situation.

She was already handcuffed? If that's true then some American police officers have got a real attitude problem.

 

[Zelig]

You know that tazering is a priori unreasonable then? You must have some special knowledge that the rest of us don't.

I'm not talking about tasers, you just specifically quoted a post where I said I wasn't talking about tasers.

See my previous post:

So say police are randomly gunning down people in the streets - I should compare this to alternatives, and show by means of some evidence that better results can be achieved with an alternative to random shootings?

Then I can expect that reasonable people will support the idea of ceasing random shootings?

And unreasonable people will refuse to change their opinion that some people will always criticize police for something, and criticisms aren't valid?

Is my interpretation of how to deal with unreasonable actions correct?

 

[Benefactor]

I imagine that if the statistics were easily available they would show taser use on the whole causes less deaths and injuries than the old physical assault with body and clubs used to. Obviously they arent risk free, there really isnt going to ever be a risk free way to take down another human being, however if people are going to run or resist there has to be a way to make the takedowns.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bolas

 

[Abegweit]

In addition, AR: seeing as how cops have been called to task for tasering, and for using physical force, I would say some people just plain hate cops. Not for what they do, but for what they are. No point trying to make them happy.

Yes. It's true. I do indeed hate them for what they are, and I won't be happy until this gang of scum is abolished. This scumbag just destroyed someone for no reason. Why would any decent person support that?

 

[Ayn Rand]

I'm not talking about tasers, you just specifically quoted a post where I said I wasn't talking about tasers.

See my previous post:

Is my interpretation of how to deal with unreasonable actions correct?

You're completely evading the issue by switching the subject to something unrelated. Good luck with that.

 

[Abegweit]

I imagine that if the statistics were easily available they would show taser use on the whole causes less deaths and injuries than the old physical assault with body and clubs used to. Obviously they arent risk free, there really isnt going to ever be a risk free way to take down another human being, however if people are going to run or resist there has to be a way to make the takedowns.

Imagine what you want to. The fundamental issue is about state-enabled thugs beating up on Mundanes. For fat slobs, tasers are easier than billy clubs. Progress, I suppose.

 

[Kozmos]

I think I will just leave this here:

http://www.ted.com/talks/stephen_co...direct-on.ted.com&utm_content=awesm-publisher

 

[useless]

Where as private-enterprise-enabled thugs are more morally acceptable because

 

[Rashiminos]

Forma's back and shakin' it up .

Those statistics on deaths from tasers are truly mind boggling

Death is not the only serious injury. It's one of the shorter ones, to be more precise.

On the plus side, it looks like she skipped more than the town. Good for her.

 

[kramerfan86]

Imagine what you want to. The fundamental issue is about state-enabled thugs beating up on Mundanes. For fat slobs, tasers are easier than billy clubs. Progress, I suppose.

Oh by all means then, be my guest and got get beat in the head with a club, I bet it feels great compared to those nasty tasers.

And I would like to point out both the big "taser" comments civfanatics has had lately have been on idiots who resisted or ran, hardly innocent victims who were just sitting on the sidewalk or something. I hardly have pity for fools who put the ball in the police's court.

 

[Abegweit]

Where as private-enterprise-enabled thugs are more morally acceptable because

This reminds me of the Izzy-huggers who justify the theft of Palestinian lands by their favoured gang of state-enabled thugs. These people explain that it's OK because American state-enabled thugs stole land from Indians a hundred years ago.

There is one difference, though. There is no such thing as private-enterprise-enabled thugs. Private enterprise can indeed engage in thuggery. But when it does, it invariably does so by using the state as its agent. State-enabled, you see. No different from the squatters in Israel and the US. Same thing. They used the state to do their dirty work.

 

[Abegweit]

Oh by all means then, be my guest and got get beat in the head with a club, I bet it feels great compared to those nasty tasers.

And I would like to point out both the big "taser" comments civfanatics has had lately have been on idiots who resisted or ran, hardly innocent victims who were just sitting on the sidewalk or something. I hardly have pity for fools who put the ball in the police's court.

There are plenty of examples of the goons attacking someone for no reason whatever. But that's kinda beside the point. Just where do you get this idea that decent folk should immediately and unquestioningly obey every order when confronted by one of the goons? And why do you think that the goons have the right to beat up on them if they don't?

 

[kramerfan86]

There are plenty of examples of the goons attacking someone for no reason whatever. But that's kinda beside the point. Just where do you get this idea that decent folk should immediately and unquestioningly obey every order when confronted by one of the goons? And why do you think that the goons have the right to beat up on them if they don't?

Well you see there are usually laws against resisting arrest and if they are actually arresting you for something bogus (an event you seem to think occurs a lot more than it does), resisting arrest is the QUICKEST way to give them a real charge to put against you in court whereas if you hadnt the cop would have been laughed out of court.

 

[woody60707]

There are plenty of examples of the goons attacking someone for no reason whatever. But that's kinda beside the point. Just where do you get this idea that decent folk should immediately and unquestioningly obey every order when confronted by one of the goons? And why do you think that the goons have the right to beat up on them if they don't?

Sir, I do believe you post in the wrong thread. There are no "goons" in this story, nor was anyone giving out "unquestioningly obey" or "beat up"

Now if you have a story about that, you should open a thread about it.

 

[Abegweit]

Well you see there are usually laws against resisting arrest and if they are actually arresting you for something bogus (an event you seem to think occurs a lot more than it does), resisting arrest is the QUICKEST way to give them a real charge to put against you in court whereas if you hadnt the cop would have been laughed out of court.

The goons never get laughed out of court. The one in the black robe always backs up the one in the street. Unless there is video evidence, the victim is always found guilty, even if he winds up in the hospital from what they did to him.

Sir, I do believe you post in the wrong thread. There are no "goons" in this story, nor was anyone giving out "unquestioningly obey" or "beat up".

What exactly do you call electric shocks? As I said, it's a fat slob's beating. Far easier than a night stick. And, ye, you are indeed expected to "unquestioningly obey". Otherwise you get tased and charged with contempt of cop.

 

[kramerfan86]

lol the police lose often in court, I see really see no reason to continuing this conversation though since you are clearly biased and hyper paranoid about police brutality. Which dont get me wrong, it exists. But blindly believing every cop is a "goon" or "slob" is just as bad as the naive people who believe every single cop is good.

 

[Crezth]

I think the death stats should be telling. I'm not sure how we're allowing supposedly non-lethal weapons to be used if they have been demonstrated to cause death. Doesn't that make them lethal by definition?

I mean, yeah, it's not as dangerous as a 9mm, but then again a 9mm is not as dangerous as an M16, and an M16 is not as dangerous as an F-16. If tasers are causing death, then more care should be given in their use. It doesn't matter how many times a taser doesn't kill someone, because when it does it is in a situation that death was not intended and almost certainly not warranted.

And "don't run from the cops" is a good example of how a state monopoly on violence truly brings out the sycophants among people, so much so that they miss the point (i.e. use of overwhelming force is unlawful and brutal) in lieu of what is perceived to be a greater injustice (i.e. making fat cops have to run).

 

[Zelig]

You're completely evading the issue by switching the subject to something unrelated. Good luck with that.

It's not unrelated.

The problem: Cops are doing something that some people view as unreasonable, while other people do not view it as unreasonable.

I asked: In general, if someone thinks cops are doing something unreasonable, what should they do?

You replied with an method to deal with actions that one might think are unreasonable.

I picked a scenario detailing something obviously unreasonable, and applied your method, to verify that I understood it correctly.

I'm not evading or switching the subject, just answer the question, and I'll tie your method back into the correct way to deal with tasers.

I'm not sure why you're having such a hard time understanding this; either I understood your method correctly, or I did not understand your method correctly, which is it?

Or does your method only apply to certain actions that the police might undertake?