The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
Tasers, and the people who use them
imbalanced
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
Today's big news story is a University of Florida student was forcibly removed, after being tasered, from a John Kerry speech at the campus there. The student was told he was being removed because he was inciting a riot by asking a series of questions to John Kerry. (Article) (Video)
I'm unaware of how obnoxious the kid was, or how many ridiculous questions were asked. That's not really of concern to me. I expect a level of ridiculousness from college students at any of these events, no matter who is speaking. What's concerning to me is that police officers would use force to someone who was exercising his freedom of speech in a university setting. There was no danger in the whole situation until the police brought upon action.
The argument was that he was resisting arrest, I guess. To resist arrest, however, should be because someone is arrestable for a crime. Most of the police officers wouldn't even respond to him when he asked what he did wrong, which should just promote for a peaceful removal. There were roughly six police officers, enough to pick the scrawny white kid off the floor and carry him out of the building.
My question, when is tasering acceptable? Should police officers retain the right to use tasers at all times, or should it only be reserved for dangerous situations which call for immediate reconciliation without using deadly force?
I'm unaware of how obnoxious the kid was, or how many ridiculous questions were asked. That's not really of concern to me. I expect a level of ridiculousness from college students at any of these events, no matter who is speaking. What's concerning to me is that police officers would use force to someone who was exercising his freedom of speech in a university setting. There was no danger in the whole situation until the police brought upon action.
The argument was that he was resisting arrest, I guess. To resist arrest, however, should be because someone is arrestable for a crime. Most of the police officers wouldn't even respond to him when he asked what he did wrong, which should just promote for a peaceful removal. There were roughly six police officers, enough to pick the scrawny white kid off the floor and carry him out of the building.
My question, when is tasering acceptable? Should police officers retain the right to use tasers at all times, or should it only be reserved for dangerous situations which call for immediate reconciliation without using deadly force?
Wii Code: 1040-1320-0724-3613 :!!:
imbalanced on
0
This discussion has been closed.
Posts
As far as I'm concerned, ONLY and I mean ONLY if there are lives in danger. I do not care how much work you have to do to remove/arrest someone by conventional means. You're paid to do it. If you can't, odds are you're unprepared.
I'm concerned, because police seem to be using the taser option way too often nowadays. Going above and beyond what's needed only serves to create an aura of distrust amongst the populace, which ends up making their jobs harder.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UCLA_Taser_incident
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AyvrqcxNIFs
Are they insane?
Wii Code: 1040-1320-0724-3613 :!!:
you have to be tasered yourself in order to carry one. Same thing with pepper spray. I know I cut your quote off short so its kinda out of context, but just fyi.
B.net: Kusanku
Must google now.
Is it required that all cadets at the police academy get tasered and peppersprayed at least once during their training as a demonstration or is that only in some areas?
EDIT: While there are a wealth of youtube videos of people being tasered, this seems like a reasonable use of the taser at first (the drunk was clearly trying to get back in his truck). But then the officer shocks him again and again and it gets iffy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5zQ0_d-BFM4
Whenever I see stuff about tasers on TV they have the cops getting tasered, but I haven't heard anyone ever say one way or the other that getting tasered is a requirement to carry one.
This is what I find most breathtakingly stupid about tasers' overuse: most of the time they're nonlethal. Almost always, in fact---but there's still a non-zero rate of fatalities associated with tasering, and overuse in unnecessary circumstances only increases the chance that someone's going to be killed for no good reason.
Like this. Although Alex Jones is a bit loco.
In my mind that's basically torture. If you can incapacitate or disable someone that's one thing, but to intentionally cause pain to another human being is just dick.
B.net: Kusanku
This is important: Police officers carry guns. Any time a cop is involved in a physical altercation, there are lives in danger.
What are the alternatives? Whomp someone with a night stick or fire a beanbag at their chest?
Hold them down and cuff both their arms and legs. Carry the person out like a canoe.
Could you imagine trying to express an unpopular opinion to a person of power and then being restrained, and ultimately physically punished, for not following conformity? To me, that's crazy. It makes me think, well if I'm going to disagree with anyone, I better bring some sort of taser protection. But guess what, there's only one form of protection right now, and it's only sold to police and military. How does that make sense? Are they the only people that need protection?
Wii Code: 1040-1320-0724-3613 :!!:
The alternative is to use the normal setting where you incapacitate the person, rather than the setting that's there just to inflict pain.
It's become a large pile of horseshit. What was once a set of great inventions to replace the archaic and truly brutal police baton and handgun has become a way of torturing innocent people. The taser and pepper spray are overused, and it's getting easier and easier to prove "cause" to use them.
That's why they fall into that weird less-than-lethal category. The stuff that probably won't kill you. IMHO, tasering should be restricted to situations where shooting would be justifiable. In other words, it should be the alternative to using lethal force when possible. Crowd control, on the other hand, is not a valid reason for electrocution in a free society.
No way. Officers need some sort of non-lethal device to subdue people. Way better than ripping their guns out all the time. I don't think this guy is arguing for this particular incident, but just saying that there's no easy way to incapacitate someone.
B.net: Kusanku
Just be glad that officers have the taser, outside of that the only other means of restraining you is physical violence which will leave a lot more marks, especially since moves like the choke hold and other good restraining techniques have been outlawed. People limit what officers can do to restrain a suspect, then are shocked when a man resisting arrest is beaten badly, what else are they supposed to use harsh language?
As far as this incident, who authorized the removal? On what grounds? Was it an officers discression or were they simply given a task?
pleasepaypreacher.net
Typically police training isn't to crack someones skull open with a baton. You're supposed to use it defensively to hold someone back and hit the person in the leg to cause them to falls so you can cuff them. the trouble here isn't any of the tool it's poor training and discipline. Cops shouldn't be allowed ot taser someone because they're too damn lazy to cuff them properly nor should they use a taser as a way to torture someone who is already subdued.
At what point does restraint simply become torture? I mean, the rules governing what is and is not "resistance" are so abitrary and discretionary, and the "non-lethality" of the taser is apparently so tempting, that these officers appear to simply be torturing someone... so then, the only overriding principal we should go by is "hey, at least they didn't die?"
This is a really good idea.
say the guy was like, roid ragingly angry and like 6'4" wrestler build huge mongo muscles, and pissed off and not listening to cops and there was 2 cops. Would you think you'd be more grossed out by him being tasered so they could cuff him, or beaten so they could get the cuffs on?
B.net: Kusanku
Read it again. There is a setting the only inflicts pain without incapacitating. What the fuck is that for if these things are meant to be used to incapacitate?
That's something that might require a taser/gun. But again, it depends on the situation. Was he being withheld for speech they deemed inappropriate (yet perfectly legal)? If so, I say the cops deserve to go up against a roided wrestler for bending the law to their own benefit.
Wii Code: 1040-1320-0724-3613 :!!:
There's a difference between tasering someone to restrain them and tasering someone because their foot twitched due to the last tasering.
Ok you have a suspect who is not responding to verbal, you need to cuff them, you also want to protect yourself AND the suspect from serious harm. With a tazer they can at least debilitate a suspect without having to get into a physical confrontation. I don't see torture with someone getting shocked twice, and I have been hit by a tazer before (there's that sick facination kicking in). I think this is one of those it is easy to say what can be done in hindsight type situations. It's very different when you are the one who just wants to go home at the end of the night.
I also don't read in the paper everyday about a suspect who was unreasonably shocked for hours on end etc. Not to say situations are getting overblown, I don't think they are as widespread (at least in my area of the country) as some would have you believe.
As far as the potential setting of a tazer that inflicts pain, but does not incapacitate, do you have a case or circumstance where that setting was used as the prefered means of arrest by a police department? Or are you more outraged at the potential use of it?
pleasepaypreacher.net
was that sarcasm? cause if not then imo it's not a good idea, you're talking about only allowing tasers when shooting would be justifiable. The only time shooting is without a doubt justifiable is if the offending party has a loaded weapon, so you want the cops to go up against guns, with tasers?
I was just providing an extreme situation with no need for cause for arrest, but just known that the guy needs to get cuffed but he is quite large and angry and how to subdue him?
B.net: Kusanku
Also, there's a tremendous world of difference between tasering a "roid ragingly angry and like 6'4" wrestler build" person to subdue them, and six (!!!) police officers tasering a very average-looking male engaging in an entirely non-violent argument in a public forum.
Second part yes, first part no.
Telling an officer or anyone that in a situation where the gun comes out that instead they use a Taser is not going to work.
A Taser is a less-lethal compliance/defense tool it comes out when force is needed for a violent, hostile, and uncooperative person, but not deadly force. When deadly force is needed the gun and only the gun should come out.
I agree that Tasers are being used long before they should in the force progression but they are not a tool for deadly force they're inadequate for that role.
tldr Tasers aren't guns, aren't even in the same category, and should not be used as a substitute for a firearm.
Well, it's not like he was tasered and the tape was seized. We don't have evil futuristic dystopian police yet.
I noticed one youtube comment pointing out John Kerry couldn't control the situation. He wasn't taking charge and explaining why this was happening to the audience or telling the officers what to do. He was as dumbstruck as Bush on 9/11.
You're misinformed. Shooting is justifiable (in the US) to stop a threat against life, grave physical injury, or (in some jurisdictions) rape.
And yeah, someone points a loaded weapon at you, you shoot. Someone comes at you and your partner with his fists, your partner tazes while you have your gun out, in case the tazing fails.
Reading situations correctly and responding with appropriate force is a police officers JOB. If they cannot do it it properly, they need to be disciplined or prevented from doing it again. Also, no one is arguing these situations are the norm, but giving out electro-shock like it was candy just because it's non-lethal should never be tolerated, nor should excuses be made for that type of action.