quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: The other thing to keep in mind is that tasers also replace the use of firearms. For example, in any situation where the suspect has a knife, I think you are looking at either a firearm use or a baton use that will likely exceed taser damage.
I have no problem with cops using a taser instead of a gun. That makes sense. Even though there is a risk of death from tasing, it's far less than the 50% risk of dying after being shot by a cop. This study, Cardiovascular Risk and the TASER®: A Review of the Recent Literature ,which I just skimmed, is where I got the 50% stat. It seems like a balanced review.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The other way to look at it is that tasers look better on the video footage than the baton. There's just no way to hit a guy with a club and not look bad doing it.
From a monetary standpoint, tasers should lead to fewer brutality losses which should decrease taxpayer expenses. Everybody wins.
Well, except the drug addicts.
Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Drug addicts sort of win too, because the rampaging folk like PCP addicts (the ones you see on COPS who just do not go down) are at less risk of a number of associated injuries.
Also, cops are less likely to feel like they are in a situation where they have to escalate to deadly force when they have a more or less ranged takedown weapon as an option.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sooooo the 'don't tase me bro' meme has essentially hijacked all of the discussion over this subject nearly everywhere. I'm actually kind of totally sad.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Launchywiggin: It’s even worse when I look at the clearer video Morbo posted, because his “resisting arrest” consisted of backing away from officers, trying to run after they grab him and carry him up some stairs, and finally, weakly trying to sit up. He never strikes an officer, his “flailing” is much more controlled than I thought at first, as he’s pretty slowly just moving his arms so they can’t grab him.
Look at the part of the video when the officers first try to escort him from the building. You cannot honestly call that "controlled flailing".
I've been misquoted here. I'd appreciate an edit, Threads.
Posts: 1314 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Launchywiggin: It’s even worse when I look at the clearer video Morbo posted, because his “resisting arrest” consisted of backing away from officers, trying to run after they grab him and carry him up some stairs, and finally, weakly trying to sit up. He never strikes an officer, his “flailing” is much more controlled than I thought at first, as he’s pretty slowly just moving his arms so they can’t grab him.
Look at the part of the video when the officers first try to escort him from the building. You cannot honestly call that "controlled flailing".
I've been misquoted here. I'd appreciate an edit, Threads.
I removed the quotes but kept the phrase. Thats essentially what you said. Sorry if that offended you but I honestly see no difference between controlled flailing and "his 'flailing' is much more controlled...".
Posts: 1327 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've seen somebody get tasered before and imo it is much safer for both the cop and the bad guy than using batons or something. Usually people are more docile after being tasered than if they just got hit by a baton and it doesn't critically injure or kill them like a gun could potentially do. People who are being hit will most likely hit back, as it is their instinct. Tasers remove that from the equation.
Posts: 1158 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
This happened at the school I go to. I work at the TV station across the hall from where these yahoos work.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Huh. I didn't think swear words were protected speech. Or fighting words.
They must have a different definition of provacative there at Colorado State than we do here in Florida. Or we're just southern enough for that. Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
that was a pretty compelling editorial article. that said, besides having the word 'taser' in it it seems completely unrelated to the Andrew incident.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I know. That's what's so ridiculous. Maybe I should have posted this as a new thread, though.
I just think they missed the point completely, and in the same way many people have about the whole thing. I don't think this was a free speech issue. No one was telling him he had no right to say what he did. He just wouldn't shut up when his time was up, and he wouldn't leave when he was supposed to. And then he began resisting arrest. Of course, for the idiots at the Collegian, his rights were infringed, and so that was an opportunity to attack Bush in an extremely unprofessional manner.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: Originally posted by The Rabbit
quote:If the moderators felt the young man had unjustly taken the microphone, they could have immediately interupted to inform he had not been recognized to question. If that did not work, they could have turned off that microphone immediately. The fact that the moderator did neither of those things suggests either that the moderator chose to allow the question (which is withing a moderators rights even if someone cuts the lin) or that the moderator was negligent.
It's manipulative blackmail to make the moderator do this. This is a security problem (not a threatening one, but an unauthorized access one) and should be treated as such.
"Manipulative Blackmail" You've got to kidding!! I've moderated a large number of seminars, debates and discussion panels ranging from scientific forums to political debates. I speak as one with extensive experience. THE JOB of the moderator is to regulate the flow of questions and answers. In every situation in which I have either moderated or spoken it is the express responsibility of the moderator to recognize questioners in a fair and unbiased fashion and to ensure that speakers and questioners stay within the rules and time limits prescribed. If someone is speaking out of turn, it is the moderators responsibility first and not the responsibility of security. How is it "manipulative blackmail" to suggest a moderator should moderate the discussion?
quote:
quote:The police took a situation which had been non-violent, legal and only mildly offensive and escalated it to a violent criminal offense.
The police did not escalate this to a violent criminal offense.The kid is the one who escalated this to criminal.
Dag, When the Police grabbed the kids arms, they committed an act of violence. If it had been anyone but the Police, they could have been charged with assault in most US states for that action. Since the police action was the first violent action in the encounter, the police unquestionable escalated to violence. I saw absolutely nothing in the video that would justify that escalation. There is every reason to believe that if this situation had been handled differently, the kid would have left the stage without the use of force and none of us would have heard of it.
[ September 24, 2007, 08:27 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:How is it "manipulative blackmail" to suggest a moderate should moderate the discussion?
It's not manipulative blackmail for you to suggest a moderator should moderate the discussion. It is manipulative blackmail for this kid to force onto the moderator the choice of either silencing him, having him removed, or allowing him to abuse the process.
quote:Dag, When the Police grabbed the kids arms, they committed an act of violence. If it had been anyone but the Police, they could have been charged with assault in most US states for that action. Since the police action was the first violent action in the encounter, the police unquestionable escalated to violence. I saw absolutely nothing in the video that would justify that escalation. There is every reason to believe that if this situation had been handled differently, the kid would have left the stage without the use of force and none of us would have heard of it.
quote:Dag, When the Police grabbed the kids arms, they committed an act of violence. If it had been anyone but the Police, they could have been charged with assault in most US states for that action.
Assault does not necessarily involve violence, so the fact that this might (and it wouldn't if it were, say, private security) be assault is not proof that it was violent.
Moreover, this kid is the one who escalated it to criminal, not the police.
quote:I saw absolutely nothing in the video that would justify that escalation.
His going to the stage justified his removal, including taking him by the arms.
quote:There is every reason to believe that if this situation had been handled differently, the kid would have left the stage without the use of force and none of us would have heard of it.
There is every reason to believe that if this kid hadn't intentionally tried to make a scene we wouldn't have heard of it, either. There's every reason to believe that if he had just waited in line, we wouldn't have heard of it. There's every reason to believe that if he had left with the police, we wouldn't have heard of it.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:His going to the stage justified his removal, including taking him by the arms.
B.S. If his going to the stage justified his removal, he should have and likely would have been removed immediately not after allowing him a minute and a half at the microphone.
quote: Assault does not necessarily involve violence, so the fact that this might (and it wouldn't if it were, say, private security) be assault is not proof that it was violent.
I guess this depends on your definition of violence. As a student of Ghandi, I tend to view any act of coersion rather than persuasion as violent. I recognize that is a definition that is not widely accepted. The use of physical force to inflict discomfort or injury on an individual is however a very commonly accepted definition of violence. While grabbing a persons arms with the intent to force them to move need not inflict severe injury, it is certainly causes some discomfort. It is an inherently violent act.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:B.S. If his going to the stage justified his removal, he should have and likely would have been removed immediately not after allowing him a minute and a half at the microphone.
So it's all or nothing - the minute it's justified they have to act, or it proves later actions unjustified? And not just all or nothing, but so obviously all or nothing that you can label it B.S. Right.
I know for an absolute fact that police and other's acting as site security frequently - probably the vast majority of the time - do not remove when they are justified in doing so.
quote:I guess this depends on your definition of violence. As a student of Ghandi, I tend to view any act of coersion rather than persuasion as violent.
Then he was violent by taking the microphone when it wasn't his. It was coercive, and not mere persuasion.
quote:I recognize that is a definition that is not widely accepted.
You got that right.
quote:The use of physical force to inflict discomfort or injury on an individual is however a very commonly accepted definition of violence. While grabbing a persons arms with the intent to force them to move need not inflict severe injury, it is certainly causes some discomfort. It is an inherently violent act.
No, it doesn't "certainly" cause some discomfort.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:During the forum, Meyer peppered Kerry with questions and refused repeated requests to leave the microphone after his allotted time was up. He had asked Kerry about impeaching President George Bush, why he didn't challenge the 2004 election results and whether he and Bush were in the secret Skull and Bones society as undergraduates at Yale University.
WOULDN'T LEAVE
FDLE said in its report that police use of the Taser was appropriate because Meyer refused police orders to leave the campus auditorium. Meyer clenched a chair to keep police from removing him.
The Taser was the safest way to remove him without harming Meyer or others, the report concluded.
''While I am pleased that the FDLE review is complete, we still have work to do on a separate front,'' University of Florida President Bernie Machen wrote in a statement.
``As an academic institution, it is our responsibility to continually review -- and improve-- how we foster an open environment that is also safe for our everchanging campus community.''
In the 17-page summary of the report, FDLE said it spoke with several witnesses who said that days before the event Meyer vowed to put on ''a show'' at the Kerry event.
According to the report, during a Sept. 11 Gators for Rudy [Giuliani] rally, Meyer got into an argument with another student and told a friend that ``if he liked what he had seen that he should go to the Kerry speech and he would really see a show.''
In addition, the report said that after his arrest, when Meyer was out of view of the cameras, he told officers that they did not do anything wrong and then asked ``if cameras will be at the jail.''
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Someone else in this thread did.
