"A Time To Fire The Taser?"

[bombshoo]

I don't necessarily think that electro-shock weapons should be phased out entirely (without proper data they still seem like the best for their effectiveness versus the amount of damage they do) but I think it's getting obvious more training on when it's proper to use this type of device needs to be given. Just because it's less lethal than the pistol does not mean that cops should have almost a blank check on when they are allowed to use it. This applies to other less-than lethal weapons like lachrymatory agents as well.

As for the whole "don't run from the cops" argument, while I agree with it in principle, it isn't realistic to assume no one will run from the cops. Part of the reason for employing less-than lethal weapons is so that cops can do the least amount of damage in scenarios where the other party might still be acting stupidly.

 

[kramerfan86]

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).

Oh yes, very sycophant behavior to point out the 200 pound cop tackling her could have just as easily cracked her skull open as the taser did. If you are bringing a human being down forcibly to the ground there are inevitably risks. There is no way to design a non-lethal force whose purpose is to take someone down that doesnt have the risk of injury or death, it just cant be done. So unless you are suggesting if people run cops should just let them flee and worry about arresting them later there is never going to be a safe way to do this all you can do is keep designing tools that minimize the risk as much as possible. To me the bigger problem is that the cop's incompetence allowed this situation as opposed to the taser itself.

 

[Crezth]

Oh yes, very sycophant behavior to point out the 200 pound cop tackling her could have just as easily cracked her skull open as the taser did.

Who says he had to tackle her?

If you are bringing a human being down forcibly to the ground there are inevitably risks. There is no way to design a non-lethal force whose purpose is to take someone down that doesnt have the risk of injury or death, it just cant be done.

Really?

So unless you are suggesting if people run cops should just let them flee and worry about arresting them later there is never going to be a safe way to do this all you can do is keep designing tools that minimize the risk as much as possible.

There is a canyon of difference between "don't put someone in a vegetable state" and "do not enforce the law."

To me the bigger problem is that the cop's incompetence allowed this situation as opposed to the taser itself.

You don't see the taser as enabling this?

Much of this discussion is irrelevant because, as you say, it is the mis-use of the taser that is the major issue here. I don't advocate removing the taser completely, but its capacity for murder should not be treated so lightly, and police officers should be aware of the consequences of its use and better trained to handle situations like these without resorting to the electrocution-gun. And penalties for failures to act in a responsible manner should come swifter and harsher.

Since police are hardly self-regulating in this manner, that is why I call those who defend acts of brutality sycophants. It's your government, the police serve you. Don't let them electrocute you unless they have a damn good reason for it.

 

[Ayn Rand]

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?

You started off by talking about "reasonable people" and now you're evading and talking about subjective perceptions. So which one is it - are we talking about people's perceptions, or about objective and reasonable criticism?

If the former, chop it any way you fancy. But if you really do mean "reasonable", you always have to either state your case, or have a case to hand if challenged. But as it stands, you're simply blurring the line between what is genuinely and objectively unreasonable, versus what is merely perceived to be unreasonable.

 

[kramerfan86]

Yes really, if you hadnt noticed the thing that killed this woman was the fall, not the actual taser induced electrical shock (which has happened in the past of course). A fall is a necessary part of any takedown weapon, therefore it is impossible to ever make it truly risk free. Dont get me wrong, there are definitely taser happy cops who will shoot off a taser even when the situation is under control, but if a suspect is running away Im not sure exactly how you are wanting the police to subdue them. Now in situations like this the cop is at fault for losing control of the situation in the first place, but once they screw up and the situation has heading south I really dont understand how some of you are wanting the situation handled that still involves the runner being caught.

 

[Formaldehyde]

I especially like how the highway patrolman immediately summoned medical aid after hearing her head smack the road, instead of just standing around and chatting with other cops.

 

[Benefactor]

Soooooo, manslaughter?

 

[dirtyparrot]

I especially like how the highway patrolman immediately summoned medical aid after hearing her head smack the road, instead of just standing around and chatting with other cops.

I agree. It just an unfortunate fluky thing that happened. If the cop wasn't so out of shape and tackled her instead, the same result could have very well still happened. It's not like the cop just tasered someone who wasn't resisting arrest and already under control.

 

[SS-18 ICBM]

Really?

Suggestions?

 

[classical_hero]

Oh yes, very sycophant behavior to point out the 200 pound cop tackling her could have just as easily cracked her skull open as the taser did. If you are bringing a human being down forcibly to the ground there are inevitably risks. There is no way to design a non-lethal force whose purpose is to take someone down that doesnt have the risk of injury or death, it just cant be done. So unless you are suggesting if people run cops should just let them flee and worry about arresting them later there is never going to be a safe way to do this all you can do is keep designing tools that minimize the risk as much as possible. To me the bigger problem is that the cop's incompetence allowed this situation as opposed to the taser itself.

So some people rather have more Clancy Wiggum's instead? "I'd rather let a guilty man run free than chase after them."

 

[Abegweit]

lol the police lose often in court

Really? Give us an example.

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.

There is no such thing as a good cop. Not all of them are brutal thugs, true. Most aren't actually. But everyone one of them backs up the thugs. As such, they are evil.

And you really don't understand my point either. Police brutality is but a symptom. The problem is the existence of state enforcers who will take you down if you show the slightest objection to state force.

The police are an offence against humanity and they need to be dismantled.

 

[Takhisis]

OK, we've just met both extremes. In one, the police are some supreme authority who can never be wrong.
In the other, the very concept of a police force is bad by itself. What do you propose for dealing with criminals Mr. Abegweit?

 

[kramerfan86]

lol need to be dismantled? How exactly are you planning on keeping basic order then? Do you actually think society will just behave itself without a police force? Please, humans are one hair away from being animals in many cases. Humanity is an offense against humanity in many cases. The fact that a segment of police are corrupt and reprehensible human beings hardly means its wise to chunk out the whole organization.

 

[Abegweit]

OK, we've just met both extremes. In one, the police are some supreme authority who can never be wrong.
In the other, the very concept of a police force is bad by itself. What do you propose for dealing with criminals Mr. Abegweit?

It's fascinating to see how statists think that the world could not exist without the thugs they worship. The police are a relatively modern concept. In the modern form, they were first introduced in London in 1829. A city of a million people managed to work without these thugs until then. Not to mention thousands of other cities before that.

Learn some history.

 

[kramerfan86]

No they just had government thugs not named police who arrested and punished people. You really think the name matters? Ever since there has been organized civilization there has been law enforcement, just because it wasnt organized as it is now doesnt mean things used to run off the kindness of humanity to keep order. Man I sure wish we could just go back to the times when the king's flunkies dolled out punishment and decided what cases they wanted to handle.

 

[Abegweit]

No they just had government thugs not named police who arrested and punished people.

No. They didn't. People took justice into their own hands and tracked down those who aggressed against them on their own. You really need to get some knowledge about history.

BTW, this whole notion of "punished people" is yet more statist nonsense. In a free world, justice is about restitution, not punishment.

 

[Narz]

So the cop's excuse for not being man enough to restrain potential criminals is that he's too fat so he felt like using a taser was a safer alternative? Perhaps next time he could equip his dog with a taser so it can chase any potential fleers & the cop doesn't have to leave the comfort of his double-parked car with snacks. Or perhaps a remote controlled robot dog with tasers for eyes (or taserafied teeth).

 

[kramerfan86]

No. They didn't. People took justice into their own hands and tracked down those who aggressed against them on their own. You really need to get some knowledge about history.

BTW, this whole notion of "punished people" is yet more statist nonsense. In a free world, justice is about restitution, not punishment.

So you would rather trust justice to normal people as though THEY wouldnt abuse their power? And if someone gets their house broken into or murdered in their home how exactly are they going to track down the criminal? With their own personal crime lab? Unbelievable someone would actually want to go back to 1600s justice. Every bit of corruption and abuse of power would exist without the organized ability to process evidence. People dont get corrupt because they become police, police are corrupted because they are people.


And no, you need to get some knowledge. Before England had police they had things like sheriffs and constables. Not AS organized, but still state endorsed law enforcers.

 

[Takhisis]

It's fascinating to see how statists think that the world could not exist without the thugs they worship. The police are a relatively modern concept. In the modern form, they were first introduced in London in 1829. A city of a million people managed to work without these thugs until then. Not to mention thousands of other cities before that.

Learn some history.

There were city guards and the like long before the word 'policeman' was invented in the time of the Peelers. Most policemen are not as goos as they should be because they're human and as such they can be idiots, corrupt, passional, etc. etc. but the concept itself isn't wrong. I wonder how you would stop bank robbers. Advise everyone to get a machine gun?

No. They didn't. People took justice into their own hands and tracked down those who aggressed against them on their own. You really need to get some knowledge about history.

Just, just, just, what?

BTW, this whole notion of "punished people" is yet more statist nonsense. In a free world, justice is about restitution, not punishment.

Mmmmk, I guess we're back to the Norse system of weregild. I don't agree with punishing people for the sake of punishment but there's a lot of people who can't be let otuside.

 

[Benefactor]

If we got rid of the police, Batman would still be around to keep us safe.