heretic on 4/12/2007 at 22:19
Quote Posted by Subjective Effect
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.
That is certainly a fair point, and now that Tasers have been getting so much press a number of studies are in the works.
I'm sure a lot of departments are going to be concerned about using them for political reasons while Tasers are in the spotlight. Whether any of this will result in a change of method only time will tell.
heretic on 4/12/2007 at 22:27
Quote Posted by catbarf
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.
Taser cartriges have usage/voltage counts (and many have cameras) inside of them. When a complaint is filed they are sent to a state office for investigation.
If you know anything of interdepartmental politics you should know that cover-ups are quite unlikley in these cases.
For cases where it is found a Taser was unjustly used the officer should be penelized, and for the most part they are.
Do these incidents happen? Yes, but it's not the OK Corral out there.
heretic on 5/12/2007 at 06:17
Since when was an editorial hard statistics? The rest might have been considered if it were not for your closing comments, though it has
allready been established by far more effective posters than you that there are claims that support the opposite of my position.
Y'know, before you accuse someone of being illiterate it's "deisrable" that you use a spellchecker or otherwise proofread your
own post.
..and anyways, look at Subjective's, catbarf's or my own posts. See how they
add to the discussion at hand? They accomplish what your two bromidic offerings failed to do, yet you advise others on how to "engage".
Don't be surprised if you are not taken seriously until you tone it down with the pretense.
Selkie on 5/12/2007 at 18:55
The question of it being an editorial has absolutely nothing to do with the data it's based on. It's simply an example of a process you evidently struggle with - forming a conclusion based on the available evidence.
It's irritating and unrepresentative of you to pigeonhole anyone who disagrees that widepsread use of tasers is automatically an improvement in the civilian/law enforcement relationship as an uninformed Amnesty International fanatic, particularly when said organisation exists specifically to promote and protect human rights throughout the world. :(
EDIT: Oh, and adding to a discussion is best achieved when you make a coherent assertion backed up with facts, preferably referenced. Like I did. Like you didn't. Saying "Have you ever held a riot baton? It's proper mean rite" isn't the way to convince people that it's better than 70 gazillion volts into the midriff. ;)
