QuaunautThe longest seven days in history...Join Date: 2003-03-21Member: 14759Members, Constellation, Reinforced - Shadow
I think tasing her was excessive, but at the same time, I had to laugh after a while. Nothing from a few moments lasts THAT long pain wise. I've even asked people who have had limbs off: The pain goes away in about 20-30 seconds. You just get woozy. Nothing hurts that long <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin-Thansal+Jun 16 2005, 03:05 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Thansal @ Jun 16 2005, 03:05 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> The only alternatives I see people state are actualy ussing MORE force then was ussed.
Davis: how are you trained to restrain a non coperative person?
forcibly draging some one from a car is actualy REALY hard.
Grab and pull? What if they: Hold on to sometihng, hit their head, face plant on the road when you do get them out?
Pepper Spray? Ask any one who has been hit with both and you will find out that a tazer is the lesser of the 2 evils. As well as being much more efficent for the officer involved...
and force just escelates form there <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I think the odds of the taser being lethal are greater than the odds of her hitting her head. She was smoking a cigarette and talking on a cell phone for the last time , any quick grappling move would have succeeded. The door was open.
Tasers have been boycotted quite a bit in the last couple years there has been over a hundred deaths from their use. TASERS CAN BE LETHAL!
Pepperspray hurts, but is non lethal. Ive never been hit by either but MY MAIN POINT IS TASERS ARNT THE HARMLESS LITTLE SHOCK GUNS YOU POINT THEM OUT TO BE! That gungho site is ****. Its people trying to sell their product.
Will you geeks put keep it real for once and knock off the **** ultrahard internet front?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I think the odds of the taser being lethal are greater than the odds of her hitting her head. She was smoking a cigarette and talking on a cell phone for the last time , any quick grappling move would have succeeded. The door was open. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
A sudden grapple manuever? She would most likely do a knee-jerk reaction and maybe something foolish. Besides a grapple is only effective if you can safely restrain their movements. If you can't do it right, you can severely hurt someone. A wrong twist by either parties can end up with some disfigured joints.
I haven't experienced a taser or real pepperspray, but SOME IN THIS THREAD DID. If they agree that the Taser was better than the pepperspray, I'll have to agree with them, not with someone who thinks without experiencing either.
Tasers are dangerous, I know, but they're in the hands of a trained officer. He's not abusing the object beyond its capacity, and I'd be surprised that there are more taser injuries, even in proportion, than injuries following wrestling and struggling.
If she drove away, the cop would be seriously injured. If she attacked a police cop, someone would be quite injured. If the police officer tried to grap the lady, she would struggle, therefore probably injuring someone in the cramped environment.
If she was tased, there is only minor risk of injury/lethality.
edit: you'd be surprised how quick you can hit your head when there's no place for two at a driver's seat and someone is fighting back.
<!--QuoteBegin-BukakkeSake+Jun 16 2005, 03:59 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (BukakkeSake @ Jun 16 2005, 03:59 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Thansal+Jun 16 2005, 03:05 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Thansal @ Jun 16 2005, 03:05 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> The only alternatives I see people state are actualy ussing MORE force then was ussed.
Davis: how are you trained to restrain a non coperative person?
forcibly draging some one from a car is actualy REALY hard.
Grab and pull? What if they: Hold on to sometihng, hit their head, face plant on the road when you do get them out?
Pepper Spray? Ask any one who has been hit with both and you will find out that a tazer is the lesser of the 2 evils. As well as being much more efficent for the officer involved...
and force just escelates form there <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I think the odds of the taser being lethal are greater than the odds of her hitting her head. She was smoking a cigarette and talking on a cell phone for the last time , any quick grappling move would have succeeded. The door was open.
Tasers have been boycotted quite a bit in the last couple years there has been over a hundred deaths from their use. TASERS CAN BE LETHAL!
Pepperspray hurts, but is non lethal. Ive never been hit by either but MY MAIN POINT IS TASERS ARNT THE HARMLESS LITTLE SHOCK GUNS YOU POINT THEM OUT TO BE! That gungho site is ****. Its people trying to sell their product.
Will you geeks put keep it real for once and knock off the **** ultrahard internet front? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> <img src='http://www.politicsforum.org/images/flame_warriors/stonedeaf.jpg' border='0' alt='user posted image' />
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Stone Deaf is one of the few truly invincible Warriors because nothing can shatter his impenetrable armor of non recognition. His primitive battle strategy is maddening effective; he simply refuses to acknowledge any arguments he doesn't like. Kung-Fu Master can hammer away with devastating blows, Cyber Sisters can screech in full throat and Profundus Maximus can expound until he drops, but Stone Deaf remains utterly oblivious as he advances his dogged and often repetitious attacks. In the early stages of battle a wide array of Warriors will fling themselves at Stone Deaf, but inevitably they fall back exahusted or lose interest when they see that their best weapons have no effect. His only real enemy is Admin, who has the power to eject him from the discussion forum.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I just LOVE your ability to completely ignore everything Cagey and Davis have to say. Maybe if I train really hard I can be as stubborn as you one day.
Oh, and to clarify; a taser IS less forceful than pepper spray. A tazer will make you lose control of your body for a few seconds with no permanent damage. Pepper spray can, in rare cases, lead to permanent blindness or suffocation (if inhaled), and doesn't always render the victim unable to fight back. Get your facts straight.
remove myself thats funny cagey, youll let torture and violence onto a thread but when I come onto thisforum with the name bukkake-sake im asked to change it because its obscene. People could just ignore it but whatever. Wouldnt you consider this video to be...obscene?
The trained police officer whoever it is, is biased. The trained officer would have to agree that there has been alot of uncertainty around the taser. Do a search on the internet and read the first 10 articles. hell type in Taser Deaths and see what you get. The trained officer cannot deny the amount of deaths associated with tasers, and that because of that some police departments don't include tasers in their arsenal. The officer cannot be prosectued because technically he was within the rules. BUT I think we can all agree that the officer is not going by the police code of only as much violence as neccesary to subdue the subject.
I think the trained police officer is just trying to protect his own. He obviously is looking at this very one wayed.
and Cagey, how about Outrage and calling it as I see it.
Logic isnt my strong point?If you want to have a 100% logical discussion on this we can start over, just give me a clear question (such as Was the officer using to much force, or Was the officers actions against policy) . Ppl are quoting facts that arnt true and thats my big problem you say a taser is a most non lethal way of doing this but that is very very questionable. If youve read the sources ive provided and more, you would realize that the taser CAN be lethal, and has ALOT of controversy around it.
Hows this for logic.
100+ deaths by taser>Taser is potentially lethal, >
Door was open and suspects hands were occupied> Suspect has slow response time (because hands were occupied)>Officer is poised and ready and thus has a faster response time> Because of a faster response time and of course superior training the officer has a reasonably good chance of disarming or grappling or pulling the suspect or doing whatever physically he wants> Which makes the danger of her having a knife or gun neglible. Because either way she has to whip it out and stab or point and shoot at which time the officer is all over her.
Your good chance of her having a weapon arguement doesnt hold because the officer was in a excellent position to disarm her and she was in a not so good position to make a move on him. The officer would see her reaching for sometihng HE WAS RIGHT THERE!
BTW you ppl post your responsese while im typing mine so obviously I cant respond to all of them or aknowledge them while im writing mine. That does not constitute being stubborn.
None of you have checked out the sources ive provided and you tell me Im ignoring their points? THEIR IGNORING MINE!
When you’re smilin’....keep on smilin’ The whole world smiles with you And when you’re laughin’....keep on laughin’ The sun comes shinin’ through
But when you’re cryin’.... you bring on the rain So stop your frownin’....be happy again Cause when you’re smilin’....keep on smilin’ The whole world smiles with you
(instrumental break)
Oh when you’re smilin’....keep on smilin’ The whole world smiles with you Ah when you’re laughin’....keep on laughin’ The sun comes shinin’ through
Now when you’re cryin’.... you bring on the rain So stop that sighin’....be happy again Cause when you’re smilin’....just keep on smilin’ And the whole world gonna smile with
To everyone saying the policeman was over gratuitous, when a bloody policeman points a taser at you telling you to get down on the ground, you do what he says, regardless what you're doing.
it seems to me that the people defending the woman are not listening to the arguments of the other side... in fact they're not even attempting to counter them, they're just repeating the same things over and over.
my opinion:
Officers know that any traffic stop can turn dangerous. People could be hiding weapons and pull them out without any notice/warning. Officers, knowing this risk, are trained to minimize this risk.
The woman, clearly guilty of a crime and probably a danger on the road, was resisting an officer 's attempts for a more peaceful resolution. The officer warned the woman of the consequences of her resistance MANY times. Reaching in might injure both, but also give her the opportunity to attack with a concealed weapon. They cannot just wait for her to finish, that give her time to do whatever she wants, increasing risk.
Before you say, "But she DIDN'T have a weapon!" How could the officers be sure of that? They can't.
The taser, while not 100% safe, is the best option in this case.
In short, people defending the woman are not in possession of knowledge indicating just how dangerous the situation really could have been.
I doubt I'm going to post again in this thread, it's just going to continue while people yell at each other without anybody actually taking the time to consider another person's point of view.
Ok, I'm bailing out of this discussion because its just depressing to be honest...me being me I like to think that there might have been a non-violent way of dealing with such a person but watching it again (which I should have done before coming to most of my conclusions) she seems like a little kid and we all know you can't reason with kids. Perhaps the policeman should have shot her phone, instead - she might have listened then. Hey, there's a sort of non-violent solution, right? <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> Maybe that would have sent her into a sulk, like taking away a kids toy of interest, and she would have cooperated. Tasering her is kind of like an adult way of smacking her as parents do to their kids to make them listen, so on that train of thought I guess it comes down to whether you think it's right to smack your kids or not (NOT IN A VIOLENT MANNER before anyone thinks I'm talking about child-abuse. Most of us have been smacked at one time or another as a kid).
So yeah, he should have shot her phone. That's my solution <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> In my mind it'd have worked, anyway.
I think my insightfulness on this topic ends there.
ThansalThe New ScumJoin Date: 2002-08-22Member: 1215Members, Constellation
edited June 2005
I am gona assume that swift and Merkaba are joking <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
For Sake: The only argument you use is that tasers can be deadly.
The only time a taser is normaly deadly is when missused (over use) And specifcly when there is a previously existing heart problem. oh, and btw, only fact on taser deaths I could find stated "more than 70 Taser-related deaths since 2001" (this is from <a href='http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6697161/site/newsweek/' target='_blank'>this</a> article, published in 2005.)
Yes, these are problems, but nothing is perfect, if you can give me some nice solid evidence that tasers are realy dangerous (source included please), then we can talk about that. (I realize I some how missed your post with links to the articles in question, but even after reading those I don't realy see any proof)
For now we are facing the fact that it is not the officer's job to risk his life when a better soloution is at hand.
And as for "she looked harmless". It dosn't count. I can show you a 10 year old who can kick your arse. I can show you little (physicly) girls that cary razor blades in ther mouths. All it takes is on lucky strike. Have you ever been trained in knife confrontations? the simple rule is this: One person ends up in the hospital, the other is 6ft under.
If we assume that the first use of the taser was justified, why did he feel the need to use the taser again after she was on the ground. At that point, she was either in shock or pain, and most likely very scared. When they asked her to put her hands behind her back, and she yelled that she couldn't, it's most likely true that she was not able to.
I highly doubt that she was still attempting to resist, as she was probably scared out of her mind. The officier, however, decides that she is still a danger, and shocks her again.
What possible reasoning was behind the second shot?
Private_ColemanPhD in Video GamesJoin Date: 2002-11-07Member: 7510Members
<!--QuoteBegin-Merkaba+Jun 16 2005, 05:41 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Merkaba @ Jun 16 2005, 05:41 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Ok, I'm bailing out of this discussion because its just depressing to be honest...me being me I like to think that there might have been a non-violent way of dealing with such a person but watching it again (which I should have done before coming to most of my conclusions) she seems like a little kid and we all know you can't reason with kids. Perhaps the policeman should have shot her phone, instead - she might have listened then. Hey, there's a sort of non-violent solution, right? <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> Maybe that would have sent her into a sulk, like taking away a kids toy of interest, and she would have cooperated. Tasering her is kind of like an adult way of smacking her as parents do to their kids to make them listen, so on that train of thought I guess it comes down to whether you think it's right to smack your kids or not (NOT IN A VIOLENT MANNER before anyone thinks I'm talking about child-abuse. Most of us have been smacked at one time or another as a kid).
So yeah, he should have shot her phone. That's my solution <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> In my mind it'd have worked, anyway.
I think my insightfulness on this topic ends there. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> This could have motivated her to attack with a concealed weapon. The officer wouldn't have enough time to shoot again should she attack.
<!--QuoteBegin-BukakkeSake+Jun 16 2005, 01:54 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (BukakkeSake @ Jun 16 2005, 01:54 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->remove myself thats funny cagey, youll let torture and violence onto a thread but when I come onto thisforum with the name bukkake-sake im asked to change it because its obscene. People could just ignore it but whatever. Wouldnt you consider this video to be...obscene?
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> NS Developer != forum moderator. I really wish more people would understand that. I had zero input on your name and want zero input on locking threads. I made a recent exception for lynching photographs, but aside from that I haven't done anything moderator related in over a year and a half.
Also, removing yourself isn't the action of a moderator. It's you not clicking on this thread. If you're finally ready to discuss the topic instead of insulting people, my feedback on your sources and your latest comments can be found below.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->BUT I think we can all agree that the officer is not going by the police code of only as much violence as neccesary to subdue the subject. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Perhaps we could, but unless you're handing out other peoples' opinions that's apparently not the case.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->and Cagey, how about Outrage and calling it as I see it.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If you really want to spout random insults in anger, I'd recommend FYAD--it won't make you popular there either, but people will be less likely to be confused by it.
It certainly doesn't appear to be if your best response is to use insults that don't really tie into the discussion. Bash Americans as a people some more--it's no more relevant to the incident than the people of North America as a whole, but hey, you'll have a popular opinion. Or bash people who don't agree with you, since that'll help move discussion along so well.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->If you want to have a 100% logical discussion on this we can start over, just give me a clear question (such as Was the officer using to much force, or Was the officers actions against policy) .
Ppl are quoting facts that arnt true and thats my big problem you say a taser is a most non lethal way of doing this but that is very very questionable. If youve read the sources ive provided and more, you would realize that the taser CAN be lethal, and has ALOT of controversy around it.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The ACLU wrote in the paper you linked that there have been 71 deaths after TASER shocks. They site cases where coroners conclude that PCP use and TASERs don't mix. I suppose you'd prefer officers to try to physically fight a person hopped up on PCP and resisting arrest?
The ACLU also writes that the case of William Teasley, an alcoholic with chronic heart disease, provides the best example of why TASERs are dangerous. Given his condition, would he have been better off being physically wrestled to the ground?
Your stand on the danger of TASERs would be best served by comparative analysis with alternate methods of subduing a subject. How many chronic injuries have pepper sprays caused? How many suspects have died from complications after a physical confrontation with police that a TASER would have prevented? Does a smaller percentage of fatalities result when someone of the verge of overdose anyway is arrested without the use of a TASER? None of your sources touch on these questions.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Hows this for logic.
100+ deaths by taser > Taser is potentially lethal, > Door was open and suspects hands were occupied> Suspect has slow response time (because hands were occupied)>Officer is poised and ready and thus has a faster response time> Because of a faster response time and of course superior training the officer has a reasonably good chance of disarming or grappling or pulling the suspect or doing whatever physically he wants> Which makes the danger of her having a knife or gun neglible. Because either way she has to whip it out and stab or point and shoot at which time the officer is all over her. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Poor. It makes a good series of unconfirmable conjectures, assumptions, and untested hypotheses, however. If each point was a fact instead of a reasonable assumption that ignores alternatives and hasn't been analyzed, it would provide a strong basis for argument. Socratic reasoning went out of fashion as a method of proof a long time ago.
Here's a similar story: +100 deaths by choking a year > food is potentially lethal > IV tubes can provide nourishment without the need to use food > hospitals can provide IV tubes to more people than they currently do > hospitals could prevent death from eating food but don't > failure of a health care provider to prevent someone's death is criminal negligence > hospitals are murdering people by forcing us to eat food. Perhaps we should begin picketing hospitals.
Saying that one side of an argument holds no weight and then repeating it incessantly isn't a logical argument, either. Incidentally, quality of sources is more important than quantity, and "google has a lot of information, read the top hits" isn't going to persuade me of anything--try googling <a href='http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=ig&q=alien+abduction' target='_blank'>alien abduction</a> some time.
If you're ready actually discuss TASER safety, here's my response to your articles, which do appear to be good sources:
The ACLU paper you've provided doesn't provide total numbers of TASERs in use, percentage of TASER usage in which a death has resulted, or any information comparing TASER fatalities to the rate of fatalities for other methods. The lack of that information--especially the last piece--means that we're dealing with a statistic in a vaccuum, which is rarely useful.
I'd also like to know how many people a year die of overdoses while being arrested or while in custody and how many total arrests are made per year, since that could be a start to finding out if TASER use correlates to higher rates of drug-related deaths than other uses of restraint. If the percentage of drug-related deaths in criminal arrests is similar with and without TASER use, then we can once and for all put to rest the idea that the TASERs are contributing to the deaths.
The piece in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer has more numbers--6,000 TASERs in Dec 2004, with 3,700 more being ordered for Houston alone, and it also has the following quote:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->[Steve Tuttle, a company spokesman] said the company has offered to provide funding for more medical studies using standards agreed upon with Amnesty International, but that the group has not responded.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The "Save Our Civil Liberties" link written by a staffer for the Atlanta Journal-Constitution is a collection of anecdotes and has no hard numbers whatsoever. It's an op-ed, not research. It also has this to say:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Fighting, drug use and psychotic behavior can increase the risk of heart failure, the doctors say. Some Taser critics wonder whether sweat produced by a person who is struggling may alter the effects of the electric shock.
"There's no 'smoking gun' on the Taser alone," said Dr. Alexander Isakov, an emergency medicine specialist at Grady Memorial Hospital and Emory University.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The articles you quote suggest TASERs may be dangerous, and that suspects have died after a TASER was used. No medical or law enforcement quotes anywhere about TASERs being the primary cause of death. The ACLU paper goes so far as to say that TASERs should be deployed in moderation. It doesn't say they are definitely lethal weapons or that the deaths would not have happened in the absence of the shock.
Since there aren't any statistics on the number of people who have died during an arrest when dragged/being pulled while fighting out of a car, what is the basis of your claim that it's more dangerous to use the TASER? Both minor injuries like bruises and more substantial damage such as broken bones are far more likely to occur when you have two adults fighting each other than when you have one immobilized, which is the basic principle behind TASER use.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Your good chance of her having a weapon arguement doesnt hold because the officer was in a excellent position to disarm her and she was in a not so good position to make a move on him. The officer would see her reaching for sometihng HE WAS RIGHT THERE!<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Actually, it wasn't my argument, but once again if you pay attention to the linked material the training officer notes that reaching into a car that is still running has led to police officers being drug down the street when the suspect drives off. The officer also says aloud in the video that the woman had already taken a swipe at his partner, so apparently she was ready to get physical.
Also, you're still ignoring the fact that officers have been murdered during traffic stops even when they're right at the door of the vehicle. It doesn't take physical prowess to pull a trigger.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->None of you have checked out the sources ive provided and you tell me Im ignoring their points? THEIR IGNORING MINE!<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
How would you know if I checked a source? ARE YOU SPYING ON ME?!!? I read them and didn't bother to reply since you didn't appear ready for rational discussion.
The question being raised here, and it even says so on the bottom of that page, is "Are officers too quick to fire tasers?". In other words, are they getting lazy and using less lethal alternatives earlier than they really need it? I can't answer that. Somewhere around this nation, some officers may be tasing first and asking questions later- but in this particular case? He gave ample warning and ample chances for her to comply, and he made a judgement call. His side of the story is that other methods could have led to an escalation that may have caused the officers or the woman permanent harm, and I can't say I blame him for deciding to employ the taser.
X_StickmanNot good enough for a custom title.Join Date: 2003-04-15Member: 15533Members, Constellation
A fairly basic understanding of how a taser works would answer questions about their lethality...
They interupt various nerves etc... cause muscle spasms and so on. Once the taser stops firing, the effects are gone. The system returns to normal pretty much instantly, or it doesn't.
What this means is, for it to be 100% the <b>taser</b> that kills the person, the person would literally have to be having a heart attack as soon as the taser is applied, or in about 2 seconds after it was removed (tops). Dropping dead 10-15 minutes after the tasering wouldn't be any effect from the taser because <b>all of it's effects stop immediately after it is removed</b>. It's the same principle as the heart-zappy things (too late, name's escaped me). Do they zap the guy once, then wait 10 minutes to see if the heart starts again? No. If it hasn't started again after a few seconds after the zap, it ain't gonna start until another zap at least. Same principle for the tazer. If they ain't dead/dying as you remove the taser, it ain't the tazers fault.
And yes, I'll agree that the website originally quoted is biased, as they are trying to sell a product after all. But seeing as this is a weapon they're selling, they're simply not going to get away with lying on their sources. They may fail to include fatalities (even though they point out some that have been blamed on the Taser), but the basic facts set down have to be true, by simple trading standards laws. I'm not fully aware of the legal system but I'm fairly sure that if you're selling weaponary, those standards are going to be higher than if you're selling some speakers.
So the <b>facts</b> mentioned on that site are true. There's practically no way that the taser can cause permament damage, or even damage that lasts a few hours, unless the person being Tased is seriously ill to begin with (in which case, a wrestle with the cops isn't going to do much good either).
LikuI, am the Somberlain.Join Date: 2003-01-10Member: 12128Members
<!--QuoteBegin-Zel+Jun 16 2005, 09:34 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Zel @ Jun 16 2005, 09:34 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I would much rather the policeman was forced to be brave and have a dangerous/courageous life than have to worry about being assaulted next time i'm pulled over for speeding. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> But surely, you wouldn't be a retard and refuse.
I think the wax in the ears symdrome works both ways.
Do remember that by the time someone is finished writing their post 2 pages worth of posts have ensured. This adds to the miscomunication.
You think the cop had no way of knowing she had a weapon or was dangerous, I think he did know, I think he just got impatient and stunned her ****. Understandable but not professional. After the fact there is alot of gray area for him to explain himself nothing can be proven.
You guys think the taser is non lethal but there are studies that prove and disprove that. I think as it stands now the DoD is still studying the effects and no state or national agencies have done any tests. That was in my first source i quoted the Adobe Acrobat one. (previous post)
this is a flash interactive about how tasers can be lethal from the same site I couldnt get it to work on my computer though.
<a href='http://www.palmbeachpost.com/localnews/content/local_news/epaper/2005/05/30/m1a_taser_0530.html' target='_blank'>http://www.palmbeachpost.com/localnews/con...taser_0530.html</a> Again another article on tasers effects and how they can and have been lethal. As a matter of fact that site is full of articles on the issue. Every research article huh cagery? Oh and Nil IQ, no let ME clarify, read the links. Ive backed up my "facts" with "sources."
I have a question did anyone fully read the links I supplied? Please do, and dont accuse me of not listening if you didnt.
Among the points brought up were that the police volunteers who volunteered to be shocked were shocked for a half second of full electricity. That woman was shocked for 5 seconds, then shocked again.
IM NOT DEFENDING THE WOMAN SHE WAS STUPID AND STUPIDITY HAS ITS PRICE, But I think both her AND the officers were wrong.
Though one thing we can all agree on is that woman is a **** <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Some other responses posts
cereal killer said
"The fact that your brother was a victim of a cop's abuse of power doesn't make this officer wrong on his actions."
I never said it did, or even implied that. You altered the meaning of my post to create conflict. That story was designed to get you guys to think and perhaps put yourself in that womans shoes, or that guy on the phone with her. I did that because alot of you seem to lack empathy.
He also said this "the police officer can't pull off his dog because he's already on your brother."
Those dogs are trained to stop whatever they are doing with a quick command from the officer.
Someone also said well the cop doesnt want to take any risk of injury to himself which is understandable. But on the other hand if your reasonably sure you can take this woman with your hands then maybe you should try? Why are you an officer in the first place? What if she was pregnant. (again please read links on taser dangers.)
i know i keep bringing up the taser dangers again and again sounding like a broken record but you people dont seem to be giving the dangers their full due.
To cagey, you seem to be a student of logic, in which case can you state logics basic principle of charity? Many times my points were ignored or words misunderstood (deliberately?) to create conflict, why? I guess ppl are more concerned with ownzoring other ppl or whatever, if you know logics basic rule of charity then you would realize how that kind of crap is contrary to the entire idea behind discussing things.
(the poster is not responsible for not responding to posts after Gwahlir)
all you have done is attacked the strawman of my arguement, perhaps 1 or even 2 of those sources are questionable but still 4 sources saying similar things? Its better than what youve given me.
Youve also hurled out plenty of insults yourself there cagey dont get all high and mighty. As a matter of fact, a whole lot of insults have been thrown in this thread, which is why I wondered why a mod let it continue, but im over that, if its there its there.
Bashing north americans wasent part of my arguement, it was part of my opinion, and i think its pretty easy to tell the difference between the two. And alot of people here have voiced their OPINIONS. Once again you misinterpret my post (deliberately?) to create conflict(thats a logical fallacy, i forget the name of it though). BTW i am an american and that was a dig based on personal experience, but judging from our media(music and movies), the number of violent crimes, people incarcerated and such...is it such an outrageous random claim? You have plenty of logical fallacies in your arguement too.
"How would you know if I checked a source? ARE YOU SPYING ON ME?!!? I read them and didn't bother to reply since you didn't appear ready for rational discussion."
uhuh yeah sure whatever <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> You read it but didnt want to respond. So you just proceeded as if you didnt read it, and didnt factor that into your responses.... OK.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->"Actually, it wasn't my argument, but once again if you pay attention to the linked material the training officer notes that reaching into a car that is still running has led to police officers being drug down the street when the suspect drives off. The officer also says aloud in the video that the woman had already taken a swipe at his partner, so apparently she was ready to get physical.
Also, you're still ignoring the fact that officers have been murdered during traffic stops even when they're right at the door of the vehicle. It doesn't take physical prowess to pull a trigger.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No but with both her hands busy and in plain view and the officer within arms reach of the suspect there would be ample time to disarm her before she would be able to reach, pull out aim and fire a gun per say.
QUOTE (BukakkeSake @ Jun 16 2005, 01:54 PM) remove myself thats funny cagey, youll let torture and violence onto a thread but when I come onto thisforum with the name bukkake-sake im asked to change it because its obscene. People could just ignore it but whatever. Wouldnt you consider this video to be...obscene?
I had zero input on your name and want zero input on locking threads. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Again you dodge what im saying, My name is obscene therefore it is not allowed, this thread and the movie contained herein is obscene, so why is it allowed? And if your not moderating than you shouldnt need to have to say anything on the issue now should you? Because the statement is aimed at moderators, which you no longer want to be.
Theres more to say but im sick and tired of this thread.
ThansalThe New ScumJoin Date: 2002-08-22Member: 1215Members, Constellation
not responding to 9 posts? one of wich I had time to write at work, then read cagey's post, then come home and edit my post....
/me chuckles.
As for both of those articles you just linked to.
They both say: "well there are some serious issues with repeatedly (they are talking about like 5+) shocking some one, if they are on drugs, or if they have heart conditions already"
the flash one is just silly: If you shoot them in the eyes those barbs hurt alot! shooting them in the neck could damage the trachea! multiple shockings to a pig showed that it could possibly change blood chemistry.....
and a tonfa is any better? if you hit m in the eyes with a tonfa, you might poke one out! hitting some one in the throat with a tonfa can kill em! no ****, realy?
I just realy don't see any conclussive evidence that THIS OFFICER was out of line in his use.
he hit her with it twice, not 9+ times or "untill subdued" and it wasn't 5 seconds (it was a bout one second each time, you can HEAR the clicking on the second one and count).
we are not arguing that tasers CAN be dangerous (we all know that) we are saying that THIS officer's reaction was apropriate.
And yah know what, with that ttitude, I wouldn't be surprised if she did try to take a swing, and just b/c you can't SEE a weapon dosn't mean squat. Most of the time you will never know your opponent is holding a blad untill much to late.
/me wished Talesin would come in here and tell you a thing or 2 about self defence (he is better at explaining then me)
<!--QuoteBegin-BukakkeSake+Jun 16 2005, 04:34 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (BukakkeSake @ Jun 16 2005, 04:34 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->To cagey, you seem to be a student of logic, in which case can you state logics basic principle of charity?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Are you referring to the need for polite debate? Because the "basic principle of charity" isn't a logical construct. Logic isn't about benefit of the doubt, letting things slide out of politeness, or A for effort. I normally don't tear into people unless they've already been rude and insulting, which applies in this case.
<!--QuoteBegin-BukakkeSake+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (BukakkeSake)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Many times my points were ignored or words misunderstood (deliberately?) to create conflict, why? I guess ppl are more concerned with ownzoring other ppl or whatever, if you know logics basic rule of charity then you would realize how that kind of crap is contrary to the entire idea behind discussing things.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I call BS and quote:
<!--QuoteBegin-BukakkeSake+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (BukakkeSake)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Your a bunch of sadistic computer nerds. And given that, how about we watch the nick berg beheading together? That one was a gas. Yeah funniest **** alive. Well you know the dude deserved it, what was he doing in iraq in the first place.
...
You guys just like seeing a woman get hurt. It gives you wood. thats some good ol american depravity for ya.
...
Will you geeks put keep it real for once and knock off the **** ultrahard internet front?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If you want to talk about "creating conflict", start here. If you want to talk about "crap contrary to discussing things", start here. You don't get to complain about irrational flaming responses after these comments. If you had been acting in a respectable manner, it would be easier to show you respect. If you want to begin having a civil conversation, move on, but don't play the martyr.
<!--QuoteBegin-BukakkeSake+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (BukakkeSake)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I have a question did anyone fully read the links I supplied? Please do, and dont accuse me of not listening if you didnt.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
As noted in my other post, I was half convinced you were trolling.
<!--QuoteBegin-BukakkeSake+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (BukakkeSake)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->all you have done is attacked the strawman of my arguement, perhaps 1 or even 2 of those sources are questionable but still 4 sources saying similar things? Its better than what youve given me. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I took every one of your sources at face value and never questioned any statement that they made--I just pointed out the complete lack of comparison to other restraint techniques or investigation to see if suspects were less likely to die without a TASER present.
The meat of your argument is that ~70 deaths in 5 years means that something should at most be used in life-and-death situations only. In the absense of other data to assess comparative risk, that's not logical--if it was, we'd have to start walking: for every 1 TASER death in 2003, there were over 1,000 fatalities in car accidents in the US. There are more cars used than TASERs, but that's my point in the post above--a statistic without context is meaningless.
You say that pepper spray should be used instead of TASERs, despite the fact that it has far more potential to cause lasting damage beyond its initial use <i>and</i> the fact that it isn't nearly as effective at stopping conflict. Here's some news: pepper spray has been involved in deaths, too, under similar circumstances.
<!--QuoteBegin-ACLU+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (ACLU)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->According to the ACLU and Amnesty International, pepper spray has been linked to more than 60 cases of in-custody deaths in recent years. A coroner's report last year identified pepper spray as a contributing cause of Spillane's death, but it attributed the primary cause to seizures caused by delirium tremens: alcohol withdrawal.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> <a href='http://www.aclu-co.org/news/pressrelease/release_spillane.htm' target='_blank'>ACLU Sues El Paso County Jail over Death of Inmate </a>
Furthermore, the ACLU says that pepper spray effects can last up to 45 minutes, and likens them to torture. You'd rather risk killing someone with up to 45 minutes of extreme pain vs. 5 seconds? The people who have experienced both will gladly take the shock first.
<!--QuoteBegin-BukakkeSake+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (BukakkeSake)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Every research article huh cagery?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-Cagey+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cagey)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Yeah, the law enforecement community as a whole and every piece of research that disagrees with you is wrong, we get it. You asked if somebody in this thread has been hit with a TASER and can speak from experience, and the answer is yes. Feel free to continue ignoring him.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No, just <i>every piece of research that disagrees with you</i>. Do you normally read half a sentence at a time? Did you actually complain that other people in the thread were using straw man attacks, then reinvent my quote so that you could post this?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Again you dodge what im saying, My name is obscene therefore it is not allowed, this thread and the movie contained herein is obscene, so why is it allowed? And if your not moderating than you shouldnt need to have to say anything on the issue now should you? Because the statement is aimed at moderators, which you no longer want to be. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->remove myself thats funny cagey, youll let torture and violence onto a thread but when I come onto thisforum with the name bukkake-sake im asked to change it because its obscene. People could just ignore it but whatever. Wouldnt you consider this video to be...obscene?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The sentence contained my name, so I assumed it was for me... were you talking to another Cagey? Or is this another facet of your inability to read entire sentences?
I've had enough banging my head on a wall. I've posted exactly why more information is necessary before there's a case against TASERs, and I've illustrated that at least one alternative has similar death rates.
I've posted the ACLU compliants on pepper spray deaths, and your own arcticles include a statement from the ACLU that says they'd welcome TASERs as less-lethal force once more testing is done... the Seattle-Intellgencer article you posted says that the company has asked Amnesty International to oversee testing guidelines, and I don't see any problem with them as a regulator.
EDIT: before someone accidentally thinks I believe that pepper spray should be abolished, I don't... just like TASERs, I haven't seen evidence that suggests pepper spray causes more injuries or deaths than it prevents. In the absense of a comparison, it's premature to pull either tool from officers' response options.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->You think the cop had no way of knowing she had a weapon or was dangerous, I think he did know, I think he just got impatient and stunned her ****. Understandable but not professional. After the fact there is alot of gray area for him to explain himself nothing can be proven.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
1) In what way could the police officer possibly had known that there were no weapons hidden?
2) The entire circumstances is suspicious. The window shield was damaged, going 51 MPH in a 35 MPH zone, broken break light, did I mention resisting arrest?
3) The license was suspended, yet she was still driving.
4)Being a total **** and actually have the nerve to call this pull over BS.
5) Repeated verbal attempts to make her get out of the car.
6) Ignored cops, and actually called someone over the cell phone.
8) The cop had at first tried to grab her to get out of the car, but she resisted.
9) Produced the taser to threaten her out of the car, and still she did not get out.
Impatient? Hardly, if a taser/gun does not get yourself out of the car, what the hell is considered patient?
Unproffesional? Unlikely, the entire situation was to handled by the book. The suspiscious circumstances, suspended driver license, and resistance fits precisely.
The video is obscene? Considered torture? Judging by your postcount, you've probaly haven't visited these forums much, to know what is considered obscene obscene or have lived in a very sheltered life.
<!--QuoteBegin-Dubbilex+Jun 16 2005, 09:38 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Dubbilex @ Jun 16 2005, 09:38 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Kid actually died just two or three weeks back after being TASERed. It happens - those things are pretty dangerous, y'know? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> And don't buy used cars, either. A friend of mine bought a used car, and 10 years later, BAM, herpes.
Sake, you seem to be going on a 4 way rant here; 1) Should tasers be used at all with the controversy surrounding them? 2) Was the use of taser in this situation justified? 3) Are LEO in general getting "lazy" and using less lethal alternatives before attempting to defuse the situation adequitely with diplomacy 4) Splitting hairs with your name and this video
To address number one, as a justification for your opinion on number 2, you have posted sources supporting your argument that tasers in general are dangerous. After looking at these sources, you may have changed someones mind or you may not have; they may have dismissed the claims, disagree with you in spite of them, or change their mind and agree with you.
The reason I believe tasers are a viable tool, even with your statement that they could be dangerous in mind, is that there have been thousands if not tens of thousands of successful taser uses that otherwise would have required an alternate solution, be it another less lethal option or in some cases the use of lethal force. Of the taser deaths pointed out, the vast majority of them were user contributed, be it because they were already stressed from drug use or at the very least because they were resisting in the first place.
There are dangers involved now matter which method an officer uses to get someone to comply. The whole idea of the force continuum is to minimize these dangers. Technology can do this to some extent, and the taser fills a unique enough niche to become another less lethal option for many departments. In some situations, OC is more suitable; in others, baton is more suitable, and in still others, the taser is the best option short of lethal force. I say this because on the one hand, pulling the woman out might injure her (especially if she falls), but of course tasing her can also cause her to fall since it restricts muscle control. The difference of the two options is, you can tase from a standoff distance which is safer for the officer (be the danger from a weapon, her driving off, or what have you). It was a judgement call, and we can sit here for days picking apart what the officer has to decide in a split second.
Taking the taser death controversy further, a small percentage of people die from innoculations every year, but it's rare enough in the grand scheme of things (and better than some of the alternatives!) that the risk is deemed worth it- after reading your argument, I still believe this to be the case with tasers as well. There are no guarantees, (which is one reason I call it less lethal rather than non-lethal), and when you disobey an officer you pays your money and takes your chances. Officers are trained to give you a chance to comply, both before tasing and in between bursts. I'm sure there are cases out there where an officer is just being a ****, as there are bad apples in every bunch, but from my experience they are the exception rather than the rule.
Your personal experience with LEO's seems to have left a bad taste in your mouth which may or may not influence your opinion on #3. All I can say is that my experience with LEO's is vastly different and just take it for what it's worth. I'm not trying to change your mind on this, nor do I think I really could. I've already expressed my feelings on #3 in my post near the top of page 12.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Again you dodge what im saying, My name is obscene therefore it is not allowed, this thread and the movie contained herein is obscene, so why is it allowed? And if your not moderating than you shouldnt need to have to say anything on the issue now should you? Because the statement is aimed at moderators, which you no longer want to be. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ok, input from a moderator: The short of it is this: We are forced to look at your name whether we like it or not. We can choose not to click on that link.
And the long of it: It's a judgement call. The fact that this thread isn't locked right now basically shows that the moderators who have clicked on the link have given it their ok as being suitable for human consumption, as it were. That won't always be the case- if someone takes what I said about "we can choose not to click the link" out of context and posts an ogrish link or something similar, saying "well, you don't _have_ to click on the link", as justification, then they shouldn't be surprised if they get hammered for it.
It's not about what she deserved or having manners, its about the safety of the officer. The officers can't read minds, so when you don't obey they MUST treat you as hostile and dangerous. You can tazer a person from a distance so it's the safest move for the officers if they are dealing with a potential threat. It's that simple.
<!--QuoteBegin-Merkaba+Jun 17 2005, 02:47 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Merkaba @ Jun 17 2005, 02:47 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Lets tackle this step by step...
Okay, harmless lady? Driving at 51 mph in a 33mph area with a broken windshield and not wearing her seatbelt. So already she was in danger of harming others AND herself.
From the moment of being pulled over she seemed to not quite understand her situation, or thought she did but didn't quite 'get' it. Apparently the cop's reason for pulling her over wasn't good enough in her view, and she challenged this guy's decision to pull her over (a foolish thing to do).
However, I don't think the situation was handled that well from the cop's perspective - mentioning 'I'll be there in court' probably put her into a panicked state. Also, pulling a taser gun on her and expecting her to know what it is (while unhelpfully saying "I'll have to tase you") is foolish as well, you can hear her say on the phone "He's pulled a gun on me".
So now she's really scared...on one hand she might be going to court or worse, in her mind. On the other she's being threatened with a gun.
So why does she scream and make such a noise when being shot? I think the answer is obvious - SHOCK. Not shock of the taser's effects, but shock that's she's actually been <i>shot</i>. If she was still under the impression that it was a real gun, she would think she was actually shot with a gun, bullets, rather than a harmless electrical shock.
Okay so the situation is kinda amsuing, but this isn't a TV show - this isn't staged...this is someone in genuine fear, panic, and shock, brought about by some insensitive handling by these cops (and her own paranoia). However, considering her attitude towards them, maybe she did deserve it - I just hope she learnt something from the experience, and that these cops helped her regather her thoughts afterwards.
So was it justified to use a taser? Eh, she'll get over it I'm sure, and as I said, maybe she'll learn something. Still, I think there would have been better ways to deal with her such as being compassionate about her situation rather than a 'do what I say or fry' attitude. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Quoted, as they say, For Truth.
However,
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Correction: She be a piece of trash, and she deserved what she got. The action was justified.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->She deserved an asskicking because she's ignorant?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Yes. Yes she did.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Stop sticking up for the stupid woman. If she wasnt a stupid **** she wouldnt of got tasered. simple as that.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't know what ****ed up planet you come from, but god help anyone who puts a put wrong there.
Comments
Davis: how are you trained to restrain a non coperative person?
forcibly draging some one from a car is actualy REALY hard.
Grab and pull?
What if they: Hold on to sometihng, hit their head, face plant on the road when you do get them out?
Pepper Spray?
Ask any one who has been hit with both and you will find out that a tazer is the lesser of the 2 evils. As well as being much more efficent for the officer involved...
and force just escelates form there <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think the odds of the taser being lethal are greater than the odds of her hitting her head. She was smoking a cigarette and talking on a cell phone for the last time , any quick grappling move would have succeeded. The door was open.
Tasers have been boycotted quite a bit in the last couple years there has been over a hundred deaths from their use. TASERS CAN BE LETHAL!
Pepperspray hurts, but is non lethal. Ive never been hit by either but MY MAIN POINT IS TASERS ARNT THE HARMLESS LITTLE SHOCK GUNS YOU POINT THEM OUT TO BE! That gungho site is ****. Its people trying to sell their product.
Will you geeks put keep it real for once and knock off the **** ultrahard internet front?
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
A sudden grapple manuever? She would most likely do a knee-jerk reaction and maybe something foolish. Besides a grapple is only effective if you can safely restrain their movements. If you can't do it right, you can severely hurt someone. A wrong twist by either parties can end up with some disfigured joints.
If they agree that the Taser was better than the pepperspray, I'll have to agree with them, not with someone who thinks without experiencing either.
Tasers are dangerous, I know, but they're in the hands of a trained officer. He's not abusing the object beyond its capacity, and I'd be surprised that there are more taser injuries, even in proportion, than injuries following wrestling and struggling.
If she drove away, the cop would be seriously injured.
If she attacked a police cop, someone would be quite injured.
If the police officer tried to grap the lady, she would struggle, therefore probably injuring someone in the cramped environment.
If she was tased, there is only minor risk of injury/lethality.
edit: you'd be surprised how quick you can hit your head when there's no place for two at a driver's seat and someone is fighting back.
Davis: how are you trained to restrain a non coperative person?
forcibly draging some one from a car is actualy REALY hard.
Grab and pull?
What if they: Hold on to sometihng, hit their head, face plant on the road when you do get them out?
Pepper Spray?
Ask any one who has been hit with both and you will find out that a tazer is the lesser of the 2 evils. As well as being much more efficent for the officer involved...
and force just escelates form there <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think the odds of the taser being lethal are greater than the odds of her hitting her head. She was smoking a cigarette and talking on a cell phone for the last time , any quick grappling move would have succeeded. The door was open.
Tasers have been boycotted quite a bit in the last couple years there has been over a hundred deaths from their use. TASERS CAN BE LETHAL!
Pepperspray hurts, but is non lethal. Ive never been hit by either but MY MAIN POINT IS TASERS ARNT THE HARMLESS LITTLE SHOCK GUNS YOU POINT THEM OUT TO BE! That gungho site is ****. Its people trying to sell their product.
Will you geeks put keep it real for once and knock off the **** ultrahard internet front? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<img src='http://www.politicsforum.org/images/flame_warriors/stonedeaf.jpg' border='0' alt='user posted image' />
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Stone Deaf is one of the few truly invincible Warriors because nothing can shatter his impenetrable armor of non recognition. His primitive battle strategy is maddening effective; he simply refuses to acknowledge any arguments he doesn't like. Kung-Fu Master can hammer away with devastating blows, Cyber Sisters can screech in full throat and Profundus Maximus can expound until he drops, but Stone Deaf remains utterly oblivious as he advances his dogged and often repetitious attacks. In the early stages of battle a wide array of Warriors will fling themselves at Stone Deaf, but inevitably they fall back exahusted or lose interest when they see that their best weapons have no effect. His only real enemy is Admin, who has the power to eject him from the discussion forum.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I just LOVE your ability to completely ignore everything Cagey and Davis have to say. Maybe if I train really hard I can be as stubborn as you one day.
Oh, and to clarify; a taser IS less forceful than pepper spray. A tazer will make you lose control of your body for a few seconds with no permanent damage. Pepper spray can, in rare cases, lead to permanent blindness or suffocation (if inhaled), and doesn't always render the victim unable to fight back. Get your facts straight.
The trained police officer whoever it is, is biased. The trained officer would have to agree that there has been alot of uncertainty around the taser. Do a search on the internet and read the first 10 articles. hell type in Taser Deaths and see what you get. The trained officer cannot deny the amount of deaths associated with tasers, and that because of that some police departments don't include tasers in their arsenal. The officer cannot be prosectued because technically he was within the rules. BUT I think we can all agree that the officer is not going by the police code of only as much violence as neccesary to subdue the subject.
I think the trained police officer is just trying to protect his own. He obviously is looking at this very one wayed.
and Cagey, how about Outrage and calling it as I see it.
Logic isnt my strong point?If you want to have a 100% logical discussion on this we can start over, just give me a clear question (such as Was the officer using to much force, or Was the officers actions against policy) . Ppl are quoting facts that arnt true and thats my big problem you say a taser is a most non lethal way of doing this but that is very very questionable. If youve read the sources ive provided and more, you would realize that the taser CAN be lethal, and has ALOT of controversy around it.
Hows this for logic.
100+ deaths by taser>Taser is potentially lethal, >
Door was open and suspects hands were occupied> Suspect has slow response time (because hands were occupied)>Officer is poised and ready and thus has a faster response time> Because of a faster response time and of course superior training the officer has a reasonably good chance of disarming or grappling or pulling the suspect or doing whatever physically he wants> Which makes the danger of her having a knife or gun neglible. Because either way she has to whip it out and stab or point and shoot at which time the officer is all over her.
Your good chance of her having a weapon arguement doesnt hold because the officer was in a excellent position to disarm her and she was in a not so good position to make a move on him. The officer would see her reaching for sometihng HE WAS RIGHT THERE!
BTW you ppl post your responsese while im typing mine so obviously I cant respond to all of them or aknowledge them while im writing mine. That does not constitute being stubborn.
None of you have checked out the sources ive provided and you tell me Im ignoring their points? THEIR IGNORING MINE!
The whole world smiles with you
And when you’re laughin’....keep on laughin’
The sun comes shinin’ through
But when you’re cryin’.... you bring on the rain
So stop your frownin’....be happy again
Cause when you’re smilin’....keep on smilin’
The whole world smiles with you
(instrumental break)
Oh when you’re smilin’....keep on smilin’
The whole world smiles with you
Ah when you’re laughin’....keep on laughin’
The sun comes shinin’ through
Now when you’re cryin’.... you bring on the rain
So stop that sighin’....be happy again
Cause when you’re smilin’....just keep on smilin’
And the whole world gonna smile with
The great big world will smile with
The whole wide world will smile with you
my opinion:
Officers know that any traffic stop can turn dangerous. People could be hiding weapons and pull them out without any notice/warning. Officers, knowing this risk, are trained to minimize this risk.
The woman, clearly guilty of a crime and probably a danger on the road, was resisting an officer 's attempts for a more peaceful resolution. The officer warned the woman of the consequences of her resistance MANY times. Reaching in might injure both, but also give her the opportunity to attack with a concealed weapon. They cannot just wait for her to finish, that give her time to do whatever she wants, increasing risk.
Before you say, "But she DIDN'T have a weapon!" How could the officers be sure of that? They can't.
The taser, while not 100% safe, is the best option in this case.
In short, people defending the woman are not in possession of knowledge indicating just how dangerous the situation really could have been.
I doubt I'm going to post again in this thread, it's just going to continue while people yell at each other without anybody actually taking the time to consider another person's point of view.
So yeah, he should have shot her phone. That's my solution <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> In my mind it'd have worked, anyway.
I think my insightfulness on this topic ends there.
For Sake:
The only argument you use is that tasers can be deadly.
The only time a taser is normaly deadly is when missused (over use)
And specifcly when there is a previously existing heart problem.
oh, and btw, only fact on taser deaths I could find stated "more than 70 Taser-related deaths since 2001" (this is from <a href='http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6697161/site/newsweek/' target='_blank'>this</a> article, published in 2005.)
Yes, these are problems, but nothing is perfect, if you can give me some nice solid evidence that tasers are realy dangerous (source included please), then we can talk about that. (I realize I some how missed your post with links to the articles in question, but even after reading those I don't realy see any proof)
For now we are facing the fact that it is not the officer's job to risk his life when a better soloution is at hand.
And as for "she looked harmless". It dosn't count. I can show you a 10 year old who can kick your arse.
I can show you little (physicly) girls that cary razor blades in ther mouths.
All it takes is on lucky strike.
Have you ever been trained in knife confrontations? the simple rule is this:
One person ends up in the hospital, the other is 6ft under.
yah....
I highly doubt that she was still attempting to resist, as she was probably scared out of her mind. The officier, however, decides that she is still a danger, and shocks her again.
What possible reasoning was behind the second shot?
So yeah, he should have shot her phone. That's my solution <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> In my mind it'd have worked, anyway.
I think my insightfulness on this topic ends there. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
This could have motivated her to attack with a concealed weapon. The officer wouldn't have enough time to shoot again should she attack.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
NS Developer != forum moderator. I really wish more people would understand that. I had zero input on your name and want zero input on locking threads. I made a recent exception for lynching photographs, but aside from that I haven't done anything moderator related in over a year and a half.
Also, removing yourself isn't the action of a moderator. It's you not clicking on this thread. If you're finally ready to discuss the topic instead of insulting people, my feedback on your sources and your latest comments can be found below.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->BUT I think we can all agree that the officer is not going by the police code of only as much violence as neccesary to subdue the subject. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Perhaps we could, but unless you're handing out other peoples' opinions that's apparently not the case.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->and Cagey, how about Outrage and calling it as I see it.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If you really want to spout random insults in anger, I'd recommend FYAD--it won't make you popular there either, but people will be less likely to be confused by it.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Logic isnt my strong point?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It certainly doesn't appear to be if your best response is to use insults that don't really tie into the discussion. Bash Americans as a people some more--it's no more relevant to the incident than the people of North America as a whole, but hey, you'll have a popular opinion. Or bash people who don't agree with you, since that'll help move discussion along so well.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->If you want to have a 100% logical discussion on this we can start over, just give me a clear question (such as Was the officer using to much force, or Was the officers actions against policy) .
Ppl are quoting facts that arnt true and thats my big problem you say a taser is a most non lethal way of doing this but that is very very questionable. If youve read the sources ive provided and more, you would realize that the taser CAN be lethal, and has ALOT of controversy around it.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The ACLU wrote in the paper you linked that there have been 71 deaths after TASER shocks. They site cases where coroners conclude that PCP use and TASERs don't mix. I suppose you'd prefer officers to try to physically fight a person hopped up on PCP and resisting arrest?
The ACLU also writes that the case of William Teasley, an alcoholic with chronic heart disease, provides the best example of why TASERs are dangerous. Given his condition, would he have been better off being physically wrestled to the ground?
Your stand on the danger of TASERs would be best served by comparative analysis with alternate methods of subduing a subject. How many chronic injuries have pepper sprays caused? How many suspects have died from complications after a physical confrontation with police that a TASER would have prevented? Does a smaller percentage of fatalities result when someone of the verge of overdose anyway is arrested without the use of a TASER? None of your sources touch on these questions.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Hows this for logic.
100+ deaths by taser > Taser is potentially lethal, >
Door was open and suspects hands were occupied> Suspect has slow response time (because hands were occupied)>Officer is poised and ready and thus has a faster response time> Because of a faster response time and of course superior training the officer has a reasonably good chance of disarming or grappling or pulling the suspect or doing whatever physically he wants> Which makes the danger of her having a knife or gun neglible. Because either way she has to whip it out and stab or point and shoot at which time the officer is all over her. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Poor. It makes a good series of unconfirmable conjectures, assumptions, and untested hypotheses, however. If each point was a fact instead of a reasonable assumption that ignores alternatives and hasn't been analyzed, it would provide a strong basis for argument. Socratic reasoning went out of fashion as a method of proof a long time ago.
Here's a similar story: +100 deaths by choking a year > food is potentially lethal > IV tubes can provide nourishment without the need to use food > hospitals can provide IV tubes to more people than they currently do > hospitals could prevent death from eating food but don't > failure of a health care provider to prevent someone's death is criminal negligence > hospitals are murdering people by forcing us to eat food. Perhaps we should begin picketing hospitals.
Saying that one side of an argument holds no weight and then repeating it incessantly isn't a logical argument, either. Incidentally, quality of sources is more important than quantity, and "google has a lot of information, read the top hits" isn't going to persuade me of anything--try googling <a href='http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=ig&q=alien+abduction' target='_blank'>alien abduction</a> some time.
If you're ready actually discuss TASER safety, here's my response to your articles, which do appear to be good sources:
The ACLU paper you've provided doesn't provide total numbers of TASERs in use, percentage of TASER usage in which a death has resulted, or any information comparing TASER fatalities to the rate of fatalities for other methods. The lack of that information--especially the last piece--means that we're dealing with a statistic in a vaccuum, which is rarely useful.
I'd also like to know how many people a year die of overdoses while being arrested or while in custody and how many total arrests are made per year, since that could be a start to finding out if TASER use correlates to higher rates of drug-related deaths than other uses of restraint. If the percentage of drug-related deaths in criminal arrests is similar with and without TASER use, then we can once and for all put to rest the idea that the TASERs are contributing to the deaths.
The piece in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer has more numbers--6,000 TASERs in Dec 2004, with 3,700 more being ordered for Houston alone, and it also has the following quote:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->[Steve Tuttle, a company spokesman] said the company has offered to provide funding for more medical studies using standards agreed upon with Amnesty International, but that the group has not responded.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The "Save Our Civil Liberties" link written by a staffer for the Atlanta Journal-Constitution is a collection of anecdotes and has no hard numbers whatsoever. It's an op-ed, not research. It also has this to say:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Fighting, drug use and psychotic behavior can increase the risk of heart failure, the doctors say. Some Taser critics wonder whether sweat produced by a person who is struggling may alter the effects of the electric shock.
"There's no 'smoking gun' on the Taser alone," said Dr. Alexander Isakov, an emergency medicine specialist at Grady Memorial Hospital and Emory University.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The articles you quote suggest TASERs may be dangerous, and that suspects have died after a TASER was used. No medical or law enforcement quotes anywhere about TASERs being the primary cause of death. The ACLU paper goes so far as to say that TASERs should be deployed in moderation. It doesn't say they are definitely lethal weapons or that the deaths would not have happened in the absence of the shock.
Since there aren't any statistics on the number of people who have died during an arrest when dragged/being pulled while fighting out of a car, what is the basis of your claim that it's more dangerous to use the TASER? Both minor injuries like bruises and more substantial damage such as broken bones are far more likely to occur when you have two adults fighting each other than when you have one immobilized, which is the basic principle behind TASER use.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Your good chance of her having a weapon arguement doesnt hold because the officer was in a excellent position to disarm her and she was in a not so good position to make a move on him. The officer would see her reaching for sometihng HE WAS RIGHT THERE!<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Actually, it wasn't my argument, but once again if you pay attention to the linked material the training officer notes that reaching into a car that is still running has led to police officers being drug down the street when the suspect drives off. The officer also says aloud in the video that the woman had already taken a swipe at his partner, so apparently she was ready to get physical.
Also, you're still ignoring the fact that officers have been murdered during traffic stops even when they're right at the door of the vehicle. It doesn't take physical prowess to pull a trigger.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->None of you have checked out the sources ive provided and you tell me Im ignoring their points? THEIR IGNORING MINE!<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
How would you know if I checked a source? ARE YOU SPYING ON ME?!!? I read them and didn't bother to reply since you didn't appear ready for rational discussion.
They interupt various nerves etc... cause muscle spasms and so on. Once the taser stops firing, the effects are gone. The system returns to normal pretty much instantly, or it doesn't.
What this means is, for it to be 100% the <b>taser</b> that kills the person, the person would literally have to be having a heart attack as soon as the taser is applied, or in about 2 seconds after it was removed (tops). Dropping dead 10-15 minutes after the tasering wouldn't be any effect from the taser because <b>all of it's effects stop immediately after it is removed</b>. It's the same principle as the heart-zappy things (too late, name's escaped me). Do they zap the guy once, then wait 10 minutes to see if the heart starts again? No. If it hasn't started again after a few seconds after the zap, it ain't gonna start until another zap at least. Same principle for the tazer. If they ain't dead/dying as you remove the taser, it ain't the tazers fault.
And yes, I'll agree that the website originally quoted is biased, as they are trying to sell a product after all. But seeing as this is a weapon they're selling, they're simply not going to get away with lying on their sources. They may fail to include fatalities (even though they point out some that have been blamed on the Taser), but the basic facts set down have to be true, by simple trading standards laws. I'm not fully aware of the legal system but I'm fairly sure that if you're selling weaponary, those standards are going to be higher than if you're selling some speakers.
So the <b>facts</b> mentioned on that site are true. There's practically no way that the taser can cause permament damage, or even damage that lasts a few hours, unless the person being Tased is seriously ill to begin with (in which case, a wrestle with the cops isn't going to do much good either).
But surely, you wouldn't be a retard and refuse.
Do remember that by the time someone is finished writing their post 2 pages worth of posts have ensured. This adds to the miscomunication.
You think the cop had no way of knowing she had a weapon or was dangerous, I think he did know, I think he just got impatient and stunned her ****. Understandable but not professional. After the fact there is alot of gray area for him to explain himself nothing can be proven.
You guys think the taser is non lethal but there are studies that prove and disprove that. I think as it stands now the DoD is still studying the effects and no state or national agencies have done any tests. That was in my first source i quoted the Adobe Acrobat one. (previous post)
<a href='http://www.palmbeachpost.com/localnews/content/news/video/tasers.html' target='_blank'>http://www.palmbeachpost.com/localnews/con...deo/tasers.html</a>
this is a flash interactive about how tasers can be lethal from the same site I couldnt get it to work on my computer though.
<a href='http://www.palmbeachpost.com/localnews/content/local_news/epaper/2005/05/30/m1a_taser_0530.html' target='_blank'>http://www.palmbeachpost.com/localnews/con...taser_0530.html</a>
Again another article on tasers effects and how they can and have been lethal. As a matter of fact that site is full of articles on the issue. Every research article huh cagery? Oh and Nil IQ, no let ME clarify, read the links. Ive backed up my "facts" with "sources."
I have a question did anyone fully read the links I supplied? Please do, and dont accuse me of not listening if you didnt.
Among the points brought up were that the police volunteers who volunteered to be shocked were shocked for a half second of full electricity. That woman was shocked for 5 seconds, then shocked again.
IM NOT DEFENDING THE WOMAN SHE WAS STUPID AND STUPIDITY HAS ITS PRICE, But I think both her AND the officers were wrong.
Though one thing we can all agree on is that woman is a **** <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Some other responses posts
cereal killer said
"The fact that your brother was a victim of a cop's abuse of power doesn't make this officer wrong on his actions."
I never said it did, or even implied that. You altered the meaning of my post to create conflict. That story was designed to get you guys to think and perhaps put yourself in that womans shoes, or that guy on the phone with her. I did that because alot of you seem to lack empathy.
He also said this
"the police officer can't pull off his dog because he's already on your brother."
Those dogs are trained to stop whatever they are doing with a quick command from the officer.
Someone also said well the cop doesnt want to take any risk of injury to himself which is understandable. But on the other hand if your reasonably sure you can take this woman with your hands then maybe you should try? Why are you an officer in the first place? What if she was pregnant. (again please read links on taser dangers.)
i know i keep bringing up the taser dangers again and again sounding like a broken record but you people dont seem to be giving the dangers their full due.
To cagey, you seem to be a student of logic, in which case can you state logics basic principle of charity? Many times my points were ignored or words misunderstood (deliberately?) to create conflict, why? I guess ppl are more concerned with ownzoring other ppl or whatever, if you know logics basic rule of charity then you would realize how that kind of crap is contrary to the entire idea behind discussing things.
(the poster is not responsible for not responding to posts after Gwahlir)
Youve also hurled out plenty of insults yourself there cagey dont get all high and mighty. As a matter of fact, a whole lot of insults have been thrown in this thread, which is why I wondered why a mod let it continue, but im over that, if its there its there.
Bashing north americans wasent part of my arguement, it was part of my opinion, and i think its pretty easy to tell the difference between the two. And alot of people here have voiced their OPINIONS. Once again you misinterpret my post (deliberately?) to create conflict(thats a logical fallacy, i forget the name of it though). BTW i am an american and that was a dig based on personal experience, but judging from our media(music and movies), the number of violent crimes, people incarcerated and such...is it such an outrageous random claim? You have plenty of logical fallacies in your arguement too.
"How would you know if I checked a source? ARE YOU SPYING ON ME?!!? I read them and didn't bother to reply since you didn't appear ready for rational discussion."
uhuh yeah sure whatever <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> You read it but didnt want to respond. So you just proceeded as if you didnt read it, and didnt factor that into your responses.... OK.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->"Actually, it wasn't my argument, but once again if you pay attention to the linked material the training officer notes that reaching into a car that is still running has led to police officers being drug down the street when the suspect drives off. The officer also says aloud in the video that the woman had already taken a swipe at his partner, so apparently she was ready to get physical.
Also, you're still ignoring the fact that officers have been murdered during traffic stops even when they're right at the door of the vehicle. It doesn't take physical prowess to pull a trigger.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No but with both her hands busy and in plain view and the officer within arms reach of the suspect there would be ample time to disarm her before she would be able to reach, pull out aim and fire a gun per say.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
QUOTE (BukakkeSake @ Jun 16 2005, 01:54 PM)
remove myself thats funny cagey, youll let torture and violence onto a thread but when I come onto thisforum with the name bukkake-sake im asked to change it because its obscene. People could just ignore it but whatever. Wouldnt you consider this video to be...obscene?
I had zero input on your name and want zero input on locking threads. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Again you dodge what im saying, My name is obscene therefore it is not allowed, this thread and the movie contained herein is obscene, so why is it allowed? And if your not moderating than you shouldnt need to have to say anything on the issue now should you? Because the statement is aimed at moderators, which you no longer want to be.
Theres more to say but im sick and tired of this thread.
And savior nor I you.
I don't like you.
Just though you might want to know that.
*leaves*
one of wich I had time to write at work, then read cagey's post, then come home and edit my post....
/me chuckles.
As for both of those articles you just linked to.
They both say:
"well there are some serious issues with repeatedly (they are talking about like 5+) shocking some one, if they are on drugs, or if they have heart conditions already"
the flash one is just silly:
If you shoot them in the eyes those barbs hurt alot!
shooting them in the neck could damage the trachea!
multiple shockings to a pig showed that it could possibly change blood chemistry.....
and a tonfa is any better?
if you hit m in the eyes with a tonfa, you might poke one out!
hitting some one in the throat with a tonfa can kill em!
no ****, realy?
I just realy don't see any conclussive evidence that THIS OFFICER was out of line in his use.
he hit her with it twice, not 9+ times or "untill subdued"
and it wasn't 5 seconds (it was a bout one second each time, you can HEAR the clicking on the second one and count).
we are not arguing that tasers CAN be dangerous (we all know that) we are saying that THIS officer's reaction was apropriate.
And yah know what, with that ttitude, I wouldn't be surprised if she did try to take a swing, and just b/c you can't SEE a weapon dosn't mean squat. Most of the time you will never know your opponent is holding a blad untill much to late.
/me wished Talesin would come in here and tell you a thing or 2 about self defence (he is better at explaining then me)
Are you referring to the need for polite debate? Because the "basic principle of charity" isn't a logical construct. Logic isn't about benefit of the doubt, letting things slide out of politeness, or A for effort. I normally don't tear into people unless they've already been rude and insulting, which applies in this case.
<!--QuoteBegin-BukakkeSake+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (BukakkeSake)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Many times my points were ignored or words misunderstood (deliberately?) to create conflict, why? I guess ppl are more concerned with ownzoring other ppl or whatever, if you know logics basic rule of charity then you would realize how that kind of crap is contrary to the entire idea behind discussing things.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I call BS and quote:
<!--QuoteBegin-BukakkeSake+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (BukakkeSake)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Your a bunch of sadistic computer nerds. And given that, how about we watch the nick berg beheading together? That one was a gas. Yeah funniest **** alive. Well you know the dude deserved it, what was he doing in iraq in the first place.
...
You guys just like seeing a woman get hurt. It gives you wood. thats some good ol american depravity for ya.
...
Will you geeks put keep it real for once and knock off the **** ultrahard internet front?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If you want to talk about "creating conflict", start here. If you want to talk about "crap contrary to discussing things", start here. You don't get to complain about irrational flaming responses after these comments. If you had been acting in a respectable manner, it would be easier to show you respect. If you want to begin having a civil conversation, move on, but don't play the martyr.
<!--QuoteBegin-BukakkeSake+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (BukakkeSake)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I have a question did anyone fully read the links I supplied? Please do, and dont accuse me of not listening if you didnt.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
As noted in my other post, I was half convinced you were trolling.
<!--QuoteBegin-BukakkeSake+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (BukakkeSake)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->all you have done is attacked the strawman of my arguement, perhaps 1 or even 2 of those sources are questionable but still 4 sources saying similar things? Its better than what youve given me. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I took every one of your sources at face value and never questioned any statement that they made--I just pointed out the complete lack of comparison to other restraint techniques or investigation to see if suspects were less likely to die without a TASER present.
The meat of your argument is that ~70 deaths in 5 years means that something should at most be used in life-and-death situations only. In the absense of other data to assess comparative risk, that's not logical--if it was, we'd have to start walking: for every 1 TASER death in 2003, there were over 1,000 fatalities in car accidents in the US. There are more cars used than TASERs, but that's my point in the post above--a statistic without context is meaningless.
You say that pepper spray should be used instead of TASERs, despite the fact that it has far more potential to cause lasting damage beyond its initial use <i>and</i> the fact that it isn't nearly as effective at stopping conflict. Here's some news: pepper spray has been involved in deaths, too, under similar circumstances.
<!--QuoteBegin-ACLU+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (ACLU)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->According to the ACLU and Amnesty International, pepper spray has been linked to more than 60 cases of in-custody deaths in recent years. A coroner's report last year identified pepper spray as a contributing cause of Spillane's death, but it attributed the primary cause to seizures caused by delirium tremens: alcohol withdrawal.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<a href='http://www.aclu-co.org/news/pressrelease/release_spillane.htm' target='_blank'>ACLU Sues El Paso County Jail over Death of Inmate </a>
Furthermore, the ACLU says that pepper spray effects can last up to 45 minutes, and likens them to torture. You'd rather risk killing someone with up to 45 minutes of extreme pain vs. 5 seconds? The people who have experienced both will gladly take the shock first.
<!--QuoteBegin-BukakkeSake+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (BukakkeSake)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Every research article huh cagery?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-Cagey+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cagey)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Yeah, the law enforecement community as a whole and every piece of research that disagrees with you is wrong, we get it. You asked if somebody in this thread has been hit with a TASER and can speak from experience, and the answer is yes. Feel free to continue ignoring him.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No, just <i>every piece of research that disagrees with you</i>. Do you normally read half a sentence at a time? Did you actually complain that other people in the thread were using straw man attacks, then reinvent my quote so that you could post this?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Again you dodge what im saying, My name is obscene therefore it is not allowed, this thread and the movie contained herein is obscene, so why is it allowed? And if your not moderating than you shouldnt need to have to say anything on the issue now should you? Because the statement is aimed at moderators, which you no longer want to be. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->remove myself thats funny cagey, youll let torture and violence onto a thread but when I come onto thisforum with the name bukkake-sake im asked to change it because its obscene. People could just ignore it but whatever. Wouldnt you consider this video to be...obscene?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The sentence contained my name, so I assumed it was for me... were you talking to another Cagey? Or is this another facet of your inability to read entire sentences?
I've had enough banging my head on a wall. I've posted exactly why more information is necessary before there's a case against TASERs, and I've illustrated that at least one alternative has similar death rates.
I've posted the ACLU compliants on pepper spray deaths, and your own arcticles include a statement from the ACLU that says they'd welcome TASERs as less-lethal force once more testing is done... the Seattle-Intellgencer article you posted says that the company has asked Amnesty International to oversee testing guidelines, and I don't see any problem with them as a regulator.
EDIT: before someone accidentally thinks I believe that pepper spray should be abolished, I don't... just like TASERs, I haven't seen evidence that suggests pepper spray causes more injuries or deaths than it prevents. In the absense of a comparison, it's premature to pull either tool from officers' response options.
1) In what way could the police officer possibly had known that there were no weapons hidden?
2) The entire circumstances is suspicious. The window shield was damaged, going 51 MPH in a 35 MPH zone, broken break light, did I mention resisting arrest?
3) The license was suspended, yet she was still driving.
4)Being a total **** and actually have the nerve to call this pull over BS.
5) Repeated verbal attempts to make her get out of the car.
6) Ignored cops, and actually called someone over the cell phone.
8) The cop had at first tried to grab her to get out of the car, but she resisted.
9) Produced the taser to threaten her out of the car, and still she did not get out.
Impatient? Hardly, if a taser/gun does not get yourself out of the car, what the hell is considered patient?
Unproffesional? Unlikely, the entire situation was to handled by the book. The suspiscious circumstances, suspended driver license, and resistance fits precisely.
The video is obscene? Considered torture? Judging by your postcount, you've probaly haven't visited these forums much, to know what is considered obscene obscene or have lived in a very sheltered life.
And don't buy used cars, either. A friend of mine bought a used car, and 10 years later, BAM, herpes.
(just a joke)
1) Should tasers be used at all with the controversy surrounding them?
2) Was the use of taser in this situation justified?
3) Are LEO in general getting "lazy" and using less lethal alternatives before attempting to defuse the situation adequitely with diplomacy
4) Splitting hairs with your name and this video
To address number one, as a justification for your opinion on number 2, you have posted sources supporting your argument that tasers in general are dangerous. After looking at these sources, you may have changed someones mind or you may not have; they may have dismissed the claims, disagree with you in spite of them, or change their mind and agree with you.
The reason I believe tasers are a viable tool, even with your statement that they could be dangerous in mind, is that there have been thousands if not tens of thousands of successful taser uses that otherwise would have required an alternate solution, be it another less lethal option or in some cases the use of lethal force. Of the taser deaths pointed out, the vast majority of them were user contributed, be it because they were already stressed from drug use or at the very least because they were resisting in the first place.
There are dangers involved now matter which method an officer uses to get someone to comply. The whole idea of the force continuum is to minimize these dangers. Technology can do this to some extent, and the taser fills a unique enough niche to become another less lethal option for many departments. In some situations, OC is more suitable; in others, baton is more suitable, and in still others, the taser is the best option short of lethal force. I say this because on the one hand, pulling the woman out might injure her (especially if she falls), but of course tasing her can also cause her to fall since it restricts muscle control. The difference of the two options is, you can tase from a standoff distance which is safer for the officer (be the danger from a weapon, her driving off, or what have you). It was a judgement call, and we can sit here for days picking apart what the officer has to decide in a split second.
Taking the taser death controversy further, a small percentage of people die from innoculations every year, but it's rare enough in the grand scheme of things (and better than some of the alternatives!) that the risk is deemed worth it- after reading your argument, I still believe this to be the case with tasers as well. There are no guarantees, (which is one reason I call it less lethal rather than non-lethal), and when you disobey an officer you pays your money and takes your chances. Officers are trained to give you a chance to comply, both before tasing and in between bursts. I'm sure there are cases out there where an officer is just being a ****, as there are bad apples in every bunch, but from my experience they are the exception rather than the rule.
Your personal experience with LEO's seems to have left a bad taste in your mouth which may or may not influence your opinion on #3. All I can say is that my experience with LEO's is vastly different and just take it for what it's worth. I'm not trying to change your mind on this, nor do I think I really could. I've already expressed my feelings on #3 in my post near the top of page 12.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Again you dodge what im saying, My name is obscene therefore it is not allowed, this thread and the movie contained herein is obscene, so why is it allowed? And if your not moderating than you shouldnt need to have to say anything on the issue now should you? Because the statement is aimed at moderators, which you no longer want to be. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ok, input from a moderator:
The short of it is this: We are forced to look at your name whether we like it or not. We can choose not to click on that link.
And the long of it: It's a judgement call. The fact that this thread isn't locked right now basically shows that the moderators who have clicked on the link have given it their ok as being suitable for human consumption, as it were. That won't always be the case- if someone takes what I said about "we can choose not to click the link" out of context and posts an ogrish link or something similar, saying "well, you don't _have_ to click on the link", as justification, then they shouldn't be surprised if they get hammered for it.
Okay, harmless lady? Driving at 51 mph in a 33mph area with a broken windshield and not wearing her seatbelt. So already she was in danger of harming others AND herself.
From the moment of being pulled over she seemed to not quite understand her situation, or thought she did but didn't quite 'get' it. Apparently the cop's reason for pulling her over wasn't good enough in her view, and she challenged this guy's decision to pull her over (a foolish thing to do).
However, I don't think the situation was handled that well from the cop's perspective - mentioning 'I'll be there in court' probably put her into a panicked state. Also, pulling a taser gun on her and expecting her to know what it is (while unhelpfully saying "I'll have to tase you") is foolish as well, you can hear her say on the phone "He's pulled a gun on me".
So now she's really scared...on one hand she might be going to court or worse, in her mind. On the other she's being threatened with a gun.
So why does she scream and make such a noise when being shot? I think the answer is obvious - SHOCK. Not shock of the taser's effects, but shock that's she's actually been <i>shot</i>. If she was still under the impression that it was a real gun, she would think she was actually shot with a gun, bullets, rather than a harmless electrical shock.
Okay so the situation is kinda amsuing, but this isn't a TV show - this isn't staged...this is someone in genuine fear, panic, and shock, brought about by some insensitive handling by these cops (and her own paranoia). However, considering her attitude towards them, maybe she did deserve it - I just hope she learnt something from the experience, and that these cops helped her regather her thoughts afterwards.
So was it justified to use a taser? Eh, she'll get over it I'm sure, and as I said, maybe she'll learn something. Still, I think there would have been better ways to deal with her such as being compassionate about her situation rather than a 'do what I say or fry' attitude. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Quoted, as they say, For Truth.
However,
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Correction: She be a piece of trash, and she deserved what she got. The action was justified.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->She deserved an asskicking because she's ignorant?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Yes. Yes she did.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Stop sticking up for the stupid woman. If she wasnt a stupid **** she wouldnt of got tasered. simple as that.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't know what ****ed up planet you come from, but god help anyone who puts a put wrong there.