The taser comes to the area

[Kat Kanning]

I don't want them to do any of that stuff to some slob peeing on the lawn.  Geez..just let the guy go.

[Russell Kanning]

In this case the guy just got in the way of questioning.

[intergraph19]

How many of the tiny handful of people who died after being tasered were whacked out on hard drugs at the time of the zap?

A study of the WV State Police uses of pepper spray indicated that among about 850 uses, it was partly ineffective to completely ineffective about a third of the time.  The taser, on the other hand, if both electrodes make contact, make it absolutely impossible for the subject to move.

If they'd had a Taser to bring Rodney King under control after his drunken car chase rampage, we wouldn't have any idea who he is, because two skinny cops could have brought his enormous behind under control - one to run the Taser and the other to apply the cuffs.

The Taser is a highly effective way to avoid seriously injuring or killing someone.

Incidents of abuse of the Taser should be harshly punished, such as the occasional story of a Taser being used on a handcuffed prisoner, but to demonize the tool makes folks sound like the gun grabbers.

Except it's not so occational anymore.

Even the conservative Christian Ruthaford Foudantion headed by John Whitehead is opposed to cops having them.  http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/whitehead1.html

I disagree with him when he says that individuals sholdn't have them, but clearly cops shouldn't.

They can't be trusted with guns either, for that matter.

Tracy

Faulty logic.  If individuals should be allowed to have tasers and guns, then so should cops.  They have a job to do and that job requires that they be properly equiped to do that job.  Cops are individuals and they have a job to protects those who do not choose to carry such weapons.  I also think that if the cops can have them, then they should also be available to the public.

[intergraph19]

So, a handful is OK with you, huh?

Did I say it was OK with me?  I didn't think so.  We suffer millions of deaths and serious injuries every year in this nation from automobiles, but the benefits outweigh that body count.

I don't know how many times I've heard news reports where cops empty their guns into people threatening them with knives. Once, in NYC, they shot a naked, unarmed man because he was acting crazy.
If a guy were coming after you or me with a knife it would be OK to shoot them, but, not a cop. They should be able to take them out with their sticks.  A great number of these events could be handled with a weighted net.
Tasers just beg to be abused.
Cops should be willing to face some danger.  I wouldn't do anything to make their job easier or safer.

Cops are expensive to hire and train, and Monadnock beat-downs of people resisting arrest, instead of Taserings, lead to more tax-consuming lawsuits, right?

Why should a cop be forced to shoot someone, or break their ribs, if they have another tool at their disposal that can subdue the attacker with a miniscule risk of serious injury or death to either the police officer or the attacker?  Sure, you can drill a knife-weilding attacker, since it's an imminent deadly threat, but why do it if you don't have to?

Can a cop carry a weighted net on their hip, I wonder?

Whether cops can be trusted with guns, or trusted at all, is irrelevant to this discussion.  The simple fact in this nation is that we have a professional full time Peel-style police force, a few members of which are thugs and brutes, but most of which are not, and we're not going back to the pre-Peel days any time soon.

I agree completely.

[ravelkinbow]

The problem I see with them is that the police seem to get the idea they're harmless, and start using them to subdue little old ladies and children, when no force at all is usually required.

This already occurs in other locations where tasers have been used in awhile.? Since January Florida police have tased a 6yr old truent child and a 75yr old lady upset that her friend was missing from a nursing home and the home wouldn't tell her where she was.? It will not be long before that occurs again, it would be wise to consider them the same as a gun in a cop's hands leathal weapons.? If you use one on someone who has a conditition such as a pace maker the odds are they will die.

This situation is made even worse to read it, they looked for a reason to arrest, there was no true crime committed, except for the police actions that is.

[mvpel]

I don't want them to do any of that stuff to some slob peeing on the lawn.  Geez..just let the guy go.

But what about the violently resisting drunk?  What about the guy who just blew a .28 who's about to stagger into his SUV and drive away?

I agree with you that someone who is not resisting or obstructing lawful police business or otherwise posing a threat to the safety of themselves or others should not be tasered.

[tracysaboe]

How many of the tiny handful of people who died after being tasered were whacked out on hard drugs at the time of the zap?

A study of the WV State Police uses of pepper spray indicated that among about 850 uses, it was partly ineffective to completely ineffective about a third of the time.  The taser, on the other hand, if both electrodes make contact, make it absolutely impossible for the subject to move.

If they'd had a Taser to bring Rodney King under control after his drunken car chase rampage, we wouldn't have any idea who he is, because two skinny cops could have brought his enormous behind under control - one to run the Taser and the other to apply the cuffs.

The Taser is a highly effective way to avoid seriously injuring or killing someone.

Incidents of abuse of the Taser should be harshly punished, such as the occasional story of a Taser being used on a handcuffed prisoner, but to demonize the tool makes folks sound like the gun grabbers.

Except it's not so occational anymore.

Even the conservative Christian Ruthaford Foudantion headed by John Whitehead is opposed to cops having them.  http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/whitehead1.html

I disagree with him when he says that individuals sholdn't have them, but clearly cops shouldn't.

They can't be trusted with guns either, for that matter.

Tracy

Faulty logic.  If individuals should be allowed to have tasers and guns, then so should cops.  They have a job to do and that job requires that they be properly equiped to do that job.  Cops are individuals and they have a job to protects those who do not choose to carry such weapons.  I also think that if the cops can have them, then they should also be available to the public.

Who said I was even using logic?

You do realize that cops didn't used to carry guns. They dependend on volentary civilians to back them up when they needed it.  If civilians didn't back them up, then apparently, they were doing something they weren't supposed to be.

Garry North has a good article about just that scenario.

Disarm the police
http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north198.html

Cops don't have the same incentives that we do. When they make a mistake and accidentally kill somebody, they don't get tried for manslaughter or anything. Perhaps they loose their badge if they dod it too often. But they're largely immune from the consequences of their actions.

Tracy

[FTL_Ian]

Usually they get "suspenson with pay".   

[Lloyd Danforth]

I never meant that a cop should carry a weighted net on his hip, but, should carry one in their trunk, along, with simular non lethal items, to subdue the occaisional crazy.
Cops used to take pride in their ability to disarm knife weilding perps with their sticks. Now its all about the hypertension benifits and retirement after 20 years.

[intergraph19]

I never meant that a cop should carry a weighted net on his hip, but, should carry one in their trunk, along, with simular non lethal items, to subdue the occaisional crazy.
Cops used to take pride in their ability to disarm knife weilding perps with their sticks. Now its all about the hypertension benifits and retirement after 20 years.

If they were only fighting criminals with knives, then yes, guns would not be needed, however, they now face stronger firepower than they themselves can carry.  Can't fight that with a stick, not even Jackie Chan could do that.

[intergraph19]

How many of the tiny handful of people who died after being tasered were whacked out on hard drugs at the time of the zap?

A study of the WV State Police uses of pepper spray indicated that among about 850 uses, it was partly ineffective to completely ineffective about a third of the time.  The taser, on the other hand, if both electrodes make contact, make it absolutely impossible for the subject to move.

If they'd had a Taser to bring Rodney King under control after his drunken car chase rampage, we wouldn't have any idea who he is, because two skinny cops could have brought his enormous behind under control - one to run the Taser and the other to apply the cuffs.

The Taser is a highly effective way to avoid seriously injuring or killing someone.

Incidents of abuse of the Taser should be harshly punished, such as the occasional story of a Taser being used on a handcuffed prisoner, but to demonize the tool makes folks sound like the gun grabbers.

Except it's not so occational anymore.

Even the conservative Christian Ruthaford Foudantion headed by John Whitehead is opposed to cops having them.  http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/whitehead1.html

I disagree with him when he says that individuals sholdn't have them, but clearly cops shouldn't.

They can't be trusted with guns either, for that matter.

Tracy

Faulty logic.  If individuals should be allowed to have tasers and guns, then so should cops.  They have a job to do and that job requires that they be properly equiped to do that job.  Cops are individuals and they have a job to protects those who do not choose to carry such weapons.  I also think that if the cops can have them, then they should also be available to the public.

Who said I was even using logic?

You do realize that cops didn't used to carry guns. They dependend on volentary civilians to back them up when they needed it.  If civilians didn't back them up, then apparently, they were doing something they weren't supposed to be.

Garry North has a good article about just that scenario.

Disarm the police
http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north198.html

Cops don't have the same incentives that we do. When they make a mistake and accidentally kill somebody, they don't get tried for manslaughter or anything. Perhaps they loose their badge if they dod it too often. But they're largely immune from the consequences of their actions.

Tracy

Well if you don't claim to use logic than I have no issue with your opinions on the subject.

[tracysaboe]

Quite frankly you weren't using logic to disagree with me either.

When somebody talks about logic, I expect them to imploy rigorous formal proofs.

Laws of a=a, Trasitivity, If - then statements, contrapositives, etc., state your innitial assumptions and then derive your conclusions based on laws of logic from those assumptions.

Otherwise, they're just throwing around a word that's become meaningless by over and incorrect usage.

Tracy

[Russell Kanning]

But what about the violently resisting drunk?? What about the guy who just blew a .28 who's about to stagger into his SUV and drive away?

In this situation it didn't seem important that the police take control of the situation and subdue anyone involved.

I don't think police should stop people from drinking and driving and especially with violent means.

[GT]

But what about the violently resisting drunk?? What about the guy who just blew a .28 who's about to stagger into his SUV and drive away?

In this situation it didn't seem important that the police take control of the situation and subdue anyone involved.

I don't think police should stop people from drinking and driving and especially with violent means.

So who stops the guy from driving drunk the minivan full of kids that the drunk SOB didn't see? ???

I have no problem with having a couple or twelve beers, but if your drunk stay home or walk home.

[Lloyd Danforth]

I never meant that a cop should carry a weighted net on his hip, but, should carry one in their trunk, along, with simular non lethal items, to subdue the occaisional crazy.
Cops used to take pride in their ability to disarm knife weilding perps with their sticks. Now its all about the hypertension benifits and retirement after 20 years.

If they were only fighting criminals with knives, then yes, guns would not be needed, however, they now face stronger firepower than they themselves can carry.? Can't fight that with a stick, not even Jackie Chan could do that.

I have never said that they should not have guns. Of course they need guns.
My original suggestion was that, whenever a taser is used, they should have the same investigation they would have, when a gun is used.
As long as we have a public police force that we have NO choice about, pay for, who provide questionable protection, we have to have to make them accountable for everything they do.