Oh Texas... (72 year old ninja subdued)

[Khamsin]

Why have tasers at all, just use guns if we want to follow some of the logic being used here. Resist arrest? Blow their brains out.

Here's the way I see this one going:

Me: Because the officer is just supposed to bring them in, not kill them. It's much better to use something safe and non-lethal like a taser, than blowing their brains out.

archibaldcrane: It's non-lethal except for when it's lethal.

Me: By that logic, everything is lethal, even water.

You: water is lethal... cmmmmaaannnnnn

Me: Everything's killed somebody at some point, saying "it's non-lethal except for when it's lethal" is a meaningless point. You can't argue against tasers without arguing against everything else that's traditionally considered non-lethal yet has unintentionally killed someone.


There, now that I've saved everyone a few posts, we can pick up there.

[Plow]

The problem with your argument, Kham, is that drowning while you're swimming is quite different from being dropped into water when you can't swim.


Water, when used as a "weapon" is, indeed, quite lethal. In fact, I can't think of any way you'd use water as a weapon that's not quite dangerous, even the old fashioned fire hosing of an unruly mob.

[Khamsin]

Actually, I change my position on this matter. Tasers are dangerous.

According to Mo. mom accused of using child to block Taser:

Police said a northeast Missouri mother used her 1-year-old child to shield a man from a Taser during a confrontation with officers. The woman, 20, was charged with endangering the welfare of a child and interfering with an arrest. She was arrested Tuesday night and placed at the Marion County jail on a 24-hour hold.

She wouldn't have been charged with endangering the welfare of a child, if the taser was never a danger. Therefore, I concede.

[Ziero]

Your points are addressed in the link. Read them or remain silent.

Really? Because all it does is list case after case of misuse, but barely mentions all the times tasers would used properly to save lives. In the end the entire link does nothing but say the *GUIDE LINES* for Taser use are an issue, and that casual usage is rising. It's not the fact that Tasers (JUST LIKE EVERY OTHER METHOD OF RESTRAINT A POLICE OFFICER CAN USE) are fatal, it's the fact that they feel cops are using them to cavalierly.

But in this particular situation, where the old lady adamantly refused to cooperate and started endangering not only her own life, but the life of the officer and the lives of those driving down the GIANT HIGHWAY SHE WAS FLAILING ABOUT ON, the use of the Taser is understandable. Because in the end, more cops die from idiots resisting arrest on busy highways then people do from Taser shots.

Everyone keeps talking about 'what if' she pushed him.

Is that where we're at now? She did nothing physically aggressive towards him. She did nothing to put him in danger. Could she have? Sure. But responding to someone with potential for danger with a stun gun as the solution to that potential means -everyone- is stunnable. Everyone is a potential threat. You shouldn't escalate to the tazer death lottery until someone is actually a threat. If she'd struck or pushed him in any way I'd say go for it, stun the bitch down. Until that happens, the threat she poses is only theoretical. Use the minimum force necessary to bring her under arrest.

Tazer death lottery is more than the minimum force necessary to arrest her, and she did not do anything physically threatening to justify the death lottery.

She deserved a taze, clearly, she's a belligerent old entitled bitch. But cops aren't there to give people what they deserve, they are supposed to arrest people safely with the minimal force necessary.

Again, in this situation, she was a danger to herself and others. The Police Officer already had to pull her back from the road so she wouldn't get hit by a car, and when he tried to arrest her she FOUGHT BACK AND STRUGGLED AWAY. Short of grabbing her, tossing her to the ground, pinning her down and forcing her arms behind her back, all of which could have easily caused her severe, life threatening damage while forcing the cop to stay on the side of the highway even longer, increasing his own risk of some dickwad hitting the both of them, he tased her. She dropped, he cuffed her, she's fine now.

I don't even know why i bother. Has anyone actually read the report by Amnesty International? It has data that shows that tasers have been used in situations where even pepper spray and batons wouldn't have been justified. Furthermore, there is even a table demonstrating the use of tasers in situations where no force would have been used otherwise.

Tasers are more effective, less dangerous, and quicker to use then both Pepper spray and batons, which is why they're relied on more often. While there are going to be many cases of abuse, there's also many cases of abuse via beatings and such as well. Tasers are used so often because they are faster, safer and more effective then any other method of making people comply. That entire article you posted is more about the issues of *Police Brutality* because of dick cops then of the effectiveness of Tasers.

Why have tasers at all, just use guns if we want to follow some of the logic being used here. Resist arrest? Blow their brains out.

Because 99.9% of the people who get tased don't die. Police would rather bring your ass in alive then have to deal with the paperwork of explaining your corpse.

Kuya's trying to point out that Tazers are shifting from a way to avoid having to use a gun to a way to avoid having to deal with people being a pain in the ass.

He just really, really sucks at choosing his fights.

The problem with this issue is that Tasers aren't just a Gun-1, Tasers are the quickest, cleanest, safest way to take down a belligerent suspect and gain compliance from those who refuse to comply. The link he posted is more concerned that tasers are painful then they are that they're deadly, and linking it to a form of torture. But in the end, where you're actually there on the street dealing with some asshat who at any point can kill you (and the second a cop doesn't believe this is the moment he gets nailed) the effectiveness of a Taser is very helpful.

To all those who bitch about taser use, I have to know, what would you have done? You're on the side of a busy highway, with barely any shoulder as cars are zipping by you at 50+ MPH. There's a crazy old lady cussing and screaming and pulling away from you as you're trying to arrest her, not paying any attention to those cars on the road, where just being clipped by a rear view mirror could be a deathblow. How do you stop her? How do you get her to comply, slap the cuffs on her and insure that both of you live to see another day?

[Kuya]

Because all it does is list case after case of misuse, but barely mentions all the times tasers would used properly to save lives

Wrong.

In the USA, Tasers are authorized for use in much broader circumstances, as discussed below. Nevertheless, they are promoted in the USA, as elsewhere, as an important tool in saving lives and reducing the need for lethal force. Under international standards, lethal force may only be used by officers in self-defence or the defence of others when there is an imminent threat of death or serious injury, and "only when less extreme measures are insufficient to achieve these objectives".(23)

Taser International has repeatedly emphasized in statements and literature how Taser use has saved lives. For example, in July 2004, the company issued a statement citing a case in which a woman advancing on officers with an eight-inch knife had been successfully disarmed with a Taser rather than shot with a firearm and another case where a suicidal man threatening to cut his own throat was similarly disarmed without injury. The company stated that it had received "over 500 similar reports where officers have used the Taser to save a life", estimating that the true figure was likely to exceed 5,000 cases.(24) Claims that Tasers save lives may, however, include incidents involving intervention at an earlier stage than a situation posing an imminent threat of death or serious injury. Taser International states in a lesson plan for US law enforcement agencies that:

"The Advanced Taser is not a substitute for lethal force. However, many situations that begin as standoffs have the potential to escalate to lethal force. Early, aggressive use of a less-lethal weapon like the M26 can prevent many of these situations from escalating to deadly force levels".(25)
Some police departments have reported a significant fall in police shootings following the introduction of Tasers. In February 2004, the Phoenix Police Department, Arizona, announced that officer-involved shootings had fallen by 54% from 28 in 2002 to 13 in 2003, with fatal shootings down from 13 to 9 during the same period, the lowest number since 1990. Phoenix Mayor Phil Gordon said "I am proud that Phoenix is the first city in the nation to equip all of our police officers with Tasers. We are committed to providing our officers with the latest technology, support and equipment that they need in order to protect them and the community."(26) A Taser International brochure reported that use of firearms and impact weapons by Orange County (Florida) sheriff's deputies fell by 80% following the introduction of the Advanced Taser in 2000, "reducing injuries and saving lives".(27)

Reports of a fall in police shootings in the cities of Seattle and Miami have similarly been attributed, at least in part, to the introduction of Tasers. Both police departments reported no fatal police shootings for the first time more than a decade in the year Tasers were introduced – in Miami's case there were no police shootings, fatal or otherwise, for the first time in 14 years.(28) Other departments have reported on specific instances where officers have used Tasers instead of firearms to disarm suicidal or mentally ill individuals armed with weapons such as knives, although reports of officers using Tasers when confronted with people with guns appear to be much rarer.

Amnesty International welcomes any reduction in the use of lethal force. However, claims that Tasers have led to a fall in police shootings need to be put into perspective, given that shootings constitute only a small percentage of all police use of force. In contrast, Taser usage has increased dramatically, becoming the most prevalent force option in some departments. While police shootings in Phoenix fell from 28 to 13 in 2003, Tasers were used that year in 354 use-of-force incidents, far more than would be needed to avoid a resort to lethal force.

Use of non-lethal weapons may be only one factor leading to a fall in police shootings and other serious force. In Miami, for example, the fall in officer-involved shootings may be due in part to greater oversight following several high profile prosecutions of Miami police officers for civil rights violations involving wrongful shootings and an ongoing federal Justice Department investigation into an alleged pattern of excessive force.(29)

Representatives of Taser International who met with Amnesty International in July 2004 said there had been a significant reduction in injuries to suspects and officers following the introduction of Tasers, according to police reports of operational use across the USA. The company noted that many other types of force, such as use of batons or police dogs resulted in higher injury levels than the Taser. It was stressed that a reduction in injuries was likely to be more pronounced where Tasers were used below the level justifying lethal force as all use of physical force, including light hands-on force, could result in some bodily injury.

I quoted a a fucking part because you can't read.

That entire article you posted is more about the issues of *Police Brutality* because of dick cops then of the effectiveness of Tasers.

Wrong again.

This refers to an issue of policy:

However, as shown below, many departments allow officers to use Tasers in situations that would not justify the use of batons or other impact weapons liable to cause serious injury. Reports suggest that, in some departments, Tasers are used by officers primarily as a substitute for pepper or chemical sprays, which may themselves be considered a relatively low-level force option. Amnesty International has frequently raised concern about alleged misuse of pepper spray by law enforcement officers, including its use in situations that do not merit this degree of force.(30) The organization suggests that, rather than substituting electro-shock weapons for pepper spray or other force options, better training and restraint in the use of force would be a more appropriate strategy in many situations.

Here it speaks on how tasers are classified officially and how Amnesty disagrees with this classification:

Although described by the manufacturer as a suitable tool for "aggressive, focused combatants", the Taser appears to be a relatively low level force option in many US police departments. A survey by Amnesty International of more than 30 US police departments (including 20 of the largest city or county agencies) indicates that Tasers are typically placed in the mid-range of the force scale, below batons or impact weapons rather than at, or just below, lethal force. (35) Some departments place the entry level for Tasers at an even lower level, after verbal commands and light hands-on force.

Amnesty International believes that electro-shock weapons, which have a powerful impact on the body and can cause acute pain, should never be considered a "low" or "intermediate" force option. However, a review of reported cases suggests that some departments are deploying Tasers in routine arrest situations, at the first sign of resistance or in the face of relatively minor resistance. Incidents include cases of people under the influence of alcohol or drugs who failed to comply promptly with commands, people who "mouthed off" at officers and people engaged in minor acts of public disturbance. The use of electro-shock weapons in such circumstances appear to breach international standards set out under the UN Code of Conduct for Law Enforcement Officials and the Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms. These require that force should be used only as a last resort, in proportion to the threat posed and the legitimate objective to be achieved.(39)

Not just "shitty cops":

1. 7. Lawsuits for excessive force or ill-treatment
Tasers have been promoted as reducing liability against police departments for excessive force, on the grounds that they are less likely to cause injury than other more dangerous or lethal weapons. However, Amnesty International is aware of a number of lawsuits in which individuals claim to have sustained serious injury or trauma as a result of being tasered, in some cases in grossly inappropriate circumstances. In several cases, the officers' actions appear to have resulted from a lack of clear guidelines or training on the risks involved in using Tasers in certain situations. In other cases, the alleged actions appear to amount to deliberate ill-treatment. Substantial damages have been awarded in several cases. Cases include the following:

Compare the broad use mentioned above to the UK, yes, the fucking UK:

In the UK, modern Tasers have since 2003 been deployed by a number of police departments under the same strict guidelines as apply to firearms. They are allowed to be used only by authorized firearms officers, are kept in the firearms box and are issued only in appropriate situations where officers are faced with a threat of deadly force and the only other option would be use of a conventional firearm.

In other words, you didn't read shit.

[quannum]

EXCESSIVE FORCE - A law enforcement officer has the right to use such force as is reasonably necessary under the circumstances to make a lawful arrest. An unreasonable seizure occurs when a law enforcement officer uses excessive force in making a lawful arrest.

Whether force is reasonably necessary or excessive is measured by the force a reasonable and prudent law enforcement officer would use under the circumstances.

Is anyone going to say that this is NOT a case of excessive force?

[Day]

Wait is the old lady an editor now? Whats going on?

[Eticket]

Wait is the old lady an editor now? Whats going on?

She's the official secretary for the Local 405 Ninja Union in Houston

[Ksandra]

plow kuya take your shit fight to spam, this isn't even related to the topic.

[edit] sorry had to lock so I could sort this out without more posts. Stay on topic people, and on topic =/= bitching for 50 pages on someone correcting a post.

[Plow]

clarified to make sure continuing to post on subject here was ok, so just reposting this part I thought was important

The problem with this issue is that Tasers aren't just a Gun-1, Tasers are the quickest, cleanest, safest way to take down a belligerent suspect and gain compliance from those who refuse to comply. The link he posted is more concerned that tasers are painful then they are that they're deadly, and linking it to a form of torture. But in the end, where you're actually there on the street dealing with some asshat who at any point can kill you (and the second a cop doesn't believe this is the moment he gets nailed) the effectiveness of a Taser is very helpful.

To all those who bitch about taser use, I have to know, what would you have done? You're on the side of a busy highway, with barely any shoulder as cars are zipping by you at 50+ MPH. There's a crazy old lady cussing and screaming and pulling away from you as you're trying to arrest her, not paying any attention to those cars on the road, where just being clipped by a rear view mirror could be a deathblow. How do you stop her? How do you get her to comply, slap the cuffs on her and insure that both of you live to see another day?

I'm 100% fine with Rodney King getting tasered, if it had been an option. Would've been perfect for the situation, and a hell of a lot better than what happened instead.


I'm *not* fine with some kid in a library getting tazed while cooperating because he's talking shit. That kind of thing has *got* to stay in check, or else we're moving into an entirely unacceptable era of police rule.

[Khamsin]

clarified to make sure continuing to post on subject here was ok, so just reposting this part I thought was important




I'm 100% fine with Rodney King getting tasered, if it had been an option. Would've been perfect for the situation, and a hell of a lot better than what happened instead.


I'm *not* fine with some kid in a library getting tazed while cooperating because he's talking shit. That kind of thing has *got* to stay in check, or else we're moving into an entirely unacceptable era of police rule.

But what's to keep people from giving an officer some attitude, then? Remember, you're not supposed to resist or make it hard for an officer to bring you in. You're supposed to be compliant and go quietly. You have no right to resist. Your rights come when you're at the station and you ask for a lawyer.

If you were mistreated, or feel your rights were violated (illegal search, excessive use of force, or whatnot), or have any other complaint, wait until you can contact your attorney. Don't mouth off or struggle at the scene.

If you resist arrest, you can be charged for it even if you're found innocent of whatever they were arresting you for in the first place.

[Plow]

What I'm saying is there's a clear difference between resisting arrest, and just being a dickhead.


As much as it sucks when people are dickheads and we have to deal with them, we can't just have the threat of "if you talk back you get tazed" hanging over everyone's heads. *Especially* considering the subjectivity of "being a dickhead."


In other words, I suppose *nothing* is to keep people from "giving an officer some attitude." In fact I'd go so far as to say a large percentage of people would say "how they deal with someone giving them attitude," when the person is non-threatening, would be one of the best ways to judge how "good" of a cop one is.

[archibaldcrane]

You're supposed to be compliant and go quietly.

be compliant? Sure. Go quietly? Fuck off. Yes, that's the right thing to do if you want to be nice, but legally (you know, what cops should care about) what does it matter if you're screaming bloody murder? How should your decision to exercise your right to be a raving dickhead verbally have -anything- at all to do with this discussion? That's just back into 'she deserved it' territory.

[Korietsu]

be compliant? Sure. Go quietly? Fuck off. Yes, that's the right thing to do if you want to be nice, but legally (you know, what cops should care about) what does it matter if you're screaming bloody murder? How should your decision to exercise your right to be a raving dickhead verbally have -anything- at all to do with this discussion? That's just back into 'she deserved it' territory.

By screaming bloody murder you're making the situation more tense than need be, causing a distraction to onlookers and to top it off, might get other people involved for no reason. It already makes a bad situation worse.

[Day]

Does it warrant a potentially lethal shock though? I think not.

[Stee]

We should replace tasers with squirt guns.

Any of you ever get hit in the eyes with a squirt gun? stings like a mother fucker and leaves you disoriented.

Just think how much agony a guy pumped up with cocaine would be if a cop squirted water into his eyes. If that doesn't work the cop now has a nifty piece of plastic molded into a squirt gun to throw at this perpetrator.

It's a win win situation, no more druggies dying by taser and the death toll of cops will go up, thats what you guys want right?

[Day]

Sweet ninja granny editor is on coke now.

[Stee]

Sweet ninja granny editor is on coke now.

Probably was, also heard she had a knife hidden in her sock and the reason she tried to go back to her car was so she could open the backdoor which releases a cop killing gladiator monkey.

[Khamsin]

be compliant? Sure. Go quietly? Fuck off. Yes, that's the right thing to do if you want to be nice, but legally (you know, what cops should care about) what does it matter if you're screaming bloody murder? How should your decision to exercise your right to be a raving dickhead verbally have -anything- at all to do with this discussion? That's just back into 'she deserved it' territory.

Oddly enough, what infractions/violations/charges/etc. you end up with when all is said and done seems to depend on your behavior.

Next time a cop pulls you over for a traffic stop, try exercising your right to be a raving dickhead and see what you get, compared to a time when you've been polite and humble.

[Korietsu]

Does it warrant a potentially lethal shock though? I think not.

You're not complying with the officer, and you're potentially putting others in harms way when you do stupid shit like be a psycho dickhead, or scream uncontrollably you're putting yourself at risk for being removed from the gene pool. If the officer has told you multiple times to calm the down, which includes shutting up/not making a scene, and you're making things hard for the officers by resisting arrest.

It doesn't always warrant force of any kind, but there are times when it does, and that's at the discretion of a well trained officer. They can mace you and you can have an allergic reaction and die, you can be hit the wrong way with a baton and it can kill you.

Being stupid can kill you, and quite frankly, is darwinisim at its finest (inb4 ban after shitting up the thread). You can't fix stupid, and you can't ask to put others at risk in close quarters combat in wrestling a perp down or fighting on the side of a really shitty stretch of road. Many people would rather take a taze to the ass rather than a bullet. And that should be your food for thought.