Speech - TTLG Forums

heretic on 3/12/2007 at 21:21

Quote Posted by catbarf

Now let me ask you a very simple question: Who gives a fuck?

I don't care if he's #1 King Asshole of the World and has a badge to go along with it, that doesn't change how the law works.

Just because he was being an idiot doesn't make him require tasing. Sure, he deserved it, but guess what: That's not how the law works.

What was he doing that made him a credible threat after being on the floor and surrounded by officers? News flash: Acting like an asshole doesn't make you a THREAT. And a real threat is the only thing that can excuse or justify using a taser.

So tell me: Is your whole defense for this simply 'He had it coming'?

Apparently you give a fuck, or why else repeat this same line of questioning endlessly?

I think I've expressed my view enough on this issue for you to see it's more then "he had it coming." Suffice it to say if that was the only viable justification the officers involved would have been penelized.

In short, as far as UOF regulations go, Meyer's non-compliance in the involved Officer's judgment constituted the percieved threat.

If you think that is too broad then write your congressman.

catbarf on 4/12/2007 at 00:09

Quote Posted by heretic1dg

In short, as far as UOF regulations go, Meyer's non-compliance in the involved Officer's judgment constituted the percieved threat.

And this is what you haven't answered. How is he a threat when face-down on the floor surrounded by security?

He was unarmed. He didn't start a riot. He wasn't running, or punching, or damaging anything. But still, maybe you could say he was a threat then. But after that? While on the ground? What threat could he possibly pose?

heretic on 4/12/2007 at 00:16

Quote Posted by catbarf

What part of failure to comply do you not understand?

Are you aware that defensive tactics protocol allows for applied pain techniques (drive-stun included) to get resistant individuals to comply?

He broke free of the officers 3 times, once from the ground. How long exactly should they have wrestled with him before you would have approved their escalation of use of force?

catbarf on 4/12/2007 at 00:19

Quote Posted by heretic1dg

Great way to get him to move- using a weapon that locks up your nervous system and leaves you unable to move.

If the guy isn't complying, then there are far safer alternatives to using a taser. Such as a baton. One smack with that and he'll get moving.

And even barring that, the guy was unarmed. Is it really that hard for more than four security personnel to haul one person off?

heretic on 4/12/2007 at 00:25

Quote Posted by catbarf

They were not trying to get him to move, they were trying to get him to STOP moving so they could get the second hand cuffed. The taser approach succeded where their other attempts failed.

Also, use of force does not allow a "smack" with a baton unless it is done in offense. This is because the potential injury is much greater, as I mentioned a few replies ago.

I'm speaking from experience here, I'm not a cop but I've done enough riot control in the military to know what I'm talking about in a case like this.

DinkyDogg on 4/12/2007 at 04:04

The potential injury from a taser is DEATH. You can't get any greater than that.

I think people are advocating baton use not because it's safer (or at least, not enough to be considered safe), but because it elicit much more of an outcry if police whacked people with batons for refusing to pay speeding tickets than if they "stun" them, regardless of the pain and the potential for death. Police are pretending that tasers don't have the same potential for injury - that just makes them more inclined to use them.

heretic on 4/12/2007 at 04:30

Quote Posted by DinkyDogg

Police are pretending that tasers don't have the same potential for injury - that just makes them more inclined to use them.

Extenuating circumstances aside, they almost always don't.

Blunt force trauma lasts a lot longer than a 7-second probe stun or a much shorter drive stun.

Have you held a modern baton? The collapsible jobs most officers carry these days are made of Metal. The end is a heavy ball that will shatter bones on impact, which is why they are to be used on soft tissue only.

Furthermore, by the time combative individuals respond to baton blows considerable damage has allready been dealt. There is too much adrenaline going around to simply say "time out man, I quit!" and expect it to stop.

This very scenario is why Tasers were designed by a NASA scientist in the first place. Contrary to what seems to be the prevailing opinion of Amnesty International's readers thay have worked.

Many are busy claiming Tasers have killed x amount of people, but have they ever considered how many lives Tasers have saved when firearms might have been used instead?

I know Tasers have been getting tons of press lately,and become a hot-button issue, but I suggest reading up on actually hard statistics before assuming they are the red right hand.

Edit:
Based on 10 major cities where Tasers were issued to all Officers : An average claim of 80% reduction of injury to Officers, and a 67% reduction of injury to suspects (resulting soley from Taser use.)

Selkie on 4/12/2007 at 18:24

Quote Posted by heretic1dg

Many are busy claiming Tasers have killed x amount of people, but have they ever considered how many lives Tasers have saved when firearms might have been used instead?

(http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/4464516.html) ...i suggest reading up on actually hard statistics....

(http://www.pat2pdf.org/pat2pdf/foo.pl?number=8843) like the ones those 19th Century NASAAAAA scientists had....

(http://www.bradford.ac.uk/acad/nlw/research_reports/docs/BNLWRP_electricalweapons_Opinion_Jan06.pdf) and with which Robin Cook, the then Foreign Secretary, considered electro-shock weapons, including Tasers, amongst equipment “designed primarily for torture”, saying that the UK Government would “press for a global ban.”

Y'know, it's traditional (and more to the point, in your case eminently deisrable) to engage your brain before hitting the "Post" button... Just a bit of friendly advice to try to help you on your 5-year mission to sound less like an illiterate fascist hippie-bashing grunt :thumb:

SubJeff on 4/12/2007 at 18:42

Quote Posted by heretic1dg

Blunt force trauma lasts a lot longer than a 7-second probe stun or a much shorter drive stun.

Have you held a modern baton?

Blunt force trauma is not likely to interfere with cardiac or brain conduction though. And I have held a modern baton and yes they can certainly do a great deal of damage.

I don't think that people here are saying Tazers should be banned, just that the police seem to be using them as compliance tools rather than trying to defuse situations. There seem to be a number of cases where they are just used willy-nilly, and the primary reason for this is that the offices THINK there will be no lasting damage. That doesn't make it less painful, traumatic or any more right.

catbarf on 4/12/2007 at 20:51

Quote Posted by Subjective Effect

I don't think that people here are saying Tazers should be banned, just that the police seem to be using them as compliance tools rather than trying to defuse situations. There seem to be a number of cases where they are just used willy-nilly, and the primary reason for this is that the offices THINK there will be no lasting damage. That doesn't make it less painful, traumatic or any more right.

Exactly. It's as if the police were to start shooting anyone who doesn't go along with them, save that here, the victims don't usually die from the tasing.