Ha I love it

[R00k]

I'm not debating whether he was following rules, I am debating their use from a moral/ethical standpoint, which includes debating the rules themselves.

I think that's where most of the problems stem from in this debate; it wasn't defined in the beginning and people seem to be arguing completely different subjects that are closely related enough to muddle up the whole discussion.

If the rules for tasers are changed, some people's stance in the debate will change also. Mine won't.

[mjrpes]

If the rules for tasers are changed, some people's stance in the debate will change also. Mine won't.

I don't understand what you mean. Are you saying that tazers are never okay, no matter what the policy is? So even if policy changes make it so that tazers are clearly only okay for those situations where an officer's safety is gravely as risk, it is still not okay? So that it would be better to shot a person who threatens an officer than to taze them?

[R00k]

Not at all. I'm saying that, since they've killed people, I have a certain idea of how taser use should be limited right now, and that will not change.
If the rule changes to prohibit kids, pregnant women and elderly people from being tased, I won't necessarily agree that is enough.
If the rule were to change to perfectly mirror my opinions on the situation (they should only be used as an alternative to killing someone), then I would obviously agree with it, but my stance on this debate will not have changed.

Some people's stance will change though, because they are arguing whether the taser use was within the technical policy guidelines -- not arguing when and where they should be used.

I'm not critcizing this cop, unless his policy doesn't permit him to use the taser in the way he did (in which case it would have been illegal). If the policy does permit him to use it in the way he did, I am criticizing the policy, not the cop.

[YourGrandpa]

If an officer is in grave danger, a taser should be out of the question. If an officer's life is at stake there should be no question about he/she using his/her gun. The officer's job isn't to risk their lives for anyone. Their job is to protect people and uphold the law.

This ought to piss a few of you pansies off. Did you know that officers are trained to mortally wound a suspect when they fire their weapon? I know, I know, the police should learn to shoot apples off of peoples heads, the guns out of offenders hands and maybe even twirl the weapon on their finger.

Sheesh...

[[xeno]Julios]

My viewpoint remains unchanged even if tasers are perfectly safe. It is the harm in the form of the extreme physical pain that is at the heart of my objection.

[Hannibal]

All this chit chat is fine but I see no answer to the following question: Would a (powered down) taser shot to the balls make you cum like a glutton at lunchtime?

[[xeno]Julios]

that's a very fucking interesting question.

though I would aim it for the scrotal region

[tnf]

If an officer is in grave danger, a taser should be out of the question. If an officer's life is at stake there should be no question about he/she using his/her gun. The officer's job isn't to risk their lives for anyone. Their job is to protect people and uphold the law.

This ought to piss a few of you pansies off. Did you know that officers are trained to mortally wound a suspect when they fire their weapon? I know, I know, the police should learn to shoot apples off of peoples heads, the guns out of offenders hands and maybe even twirl the weapon on their finger.

Sheesh...

DOn't you love hearing the people who say shit like "Why couldn't they just have shot the gun out of the bad guy's hand, or shot him in the knee or something instead of killing him?' Last year, the SWAT team had to shoot an armed teenager holed up in a classroom. I remember arguing with a lot of people who said "why couldn't they have used sleeping gas or tear gas or something on him instead" In terms of gun use, people are too swayed by what they see on TV. Same goes for evidence in cases now. They are calling it the "CSI Effect." Every jury wants this fancy DNA evidence and whatnot.


I always advised those folks ride along with cops for 1 month. See if their tune changes.

[Dave]

The mafia kneecaps people all the time.. the cops can do it

[werldhed]

Ugh... I came back to read this thread, and it was going well for a while, but I had to skip most of the last few pages because brain started leaking out my ears. Instead of trying to address everything I missed, I'll just say the two main things on my mind:

1) I agree with R00k that this argument we're trying to make isn't so much about whether the cop in question was right or wrong -- it's more about the problem with cops having a mindset that the taser has replaced basic training as a way to deal with a situation. Yes, cops are trained to shoot to kill, but they are also trained to shoot to disable. Long before tasers existed there were effective ways of dealing with belligerent drivers. We can't come down on a cop in one specific case simply because we have a grainy video to watch and pick apart; but we can come down on people who say someone deserves to be tasered.

2) tnf, I've noticed many times you come around to arguing that you've "had to deal with irate women," and that's a fine argument. It's also more than I can say, having never been a bouncer myself. However, you seem to be trying to use that experience to justify the officer's use of the taser, so I have to ask you, how many time did you have to resort to using a stun gun to subdue large, irate women? I personally have had to defend myself from extremely large men in training exercises -- not the same a a drunk woman, of course -- but I know there are plenty of ways to not resort to weapons to protect yourself. This isn't an argument about whether large women are dangerous, it's about whether the taser is neccessary.

btw, I apologize if most of this has been addressed already; the last few pages started to blend together...

[Dr.Gibbs]

It's not like cops wander around paranoid all day looking for ways to hurt people. They have a job to do, and they do it, and if some stupid bitch wants to act like that, then she has it coming. No, she doesn't DESERVE it, but she DOES have it coming. I'm sure she's a perfectly nice person most of the time, but on that day she certainly wasn't. It's not like she didn't have plenty of warning.

Now, it HAS become a concern that cops are using Tasers too often. I'm sure that's a valid point. But it's nothing that some more proper training can't fix. Tasers are still fairly new tools, and officers aren't used to them.

I find it amazing that any Europeans would comment on the "violent" nature of an American when more than half of their football matches end in deadly riots :icon27:

[YourGrandpa]

Yeah, they are idiots about their footy.

[YourGrandpa]

Ugh... I came back to read this thread, and it was going well for a while, but I had to skip most of the last few pages because brain started leaking out my ears. Instead of trying to address everything I missed, I'll just say the two main things on my mind:

1) I agree with R00k that this argument we're trying to make isn't so much about whether the cop in question was right or wrong -- it's more about the problem with cops having a mindset that the taser has replaced basic training as a way to deal with a situation. Yes, cops are trained to shoot to kill, but they are also trained to shoot to disable. Long before tasers existed there were effective ways of dealing with belligerent drivers. We can't come down on a cop in one specific case simply because we have a grainy video to watch and pick apart; but we can come down on people who say someone deserves to be tasered.

2) tnf, I've noticed many times you come around to arguing that you've "had to deal with irate women," and that's a fine argument. It's also more than I can say, having never been a bouncer myself. However, you seem to be trying to use that experience to justify the officer's use of the taser, so I have to ask you, how many time did you have to resort to using a stun gun to subdue large, irate women? I personally have had to defend myself from extremely large men in training exercises -- not the same a a drunk woman, of course -- but I know there are plenty of ways to not resort to weapons to protect yourself. This isn't an argument about whether large women are dangerous, it's about whether the taser is neccessary.

btw, I apologize if most of this has been addressed already; the last few pages started to blend together...

BTW, no officer is trained to injur someone when they shoot. It's purely up to the officers whether they choose to shoot to kill or not. When an officer draws that gun and fires, the officer's life is at stake and at that point they are not obligated to think about saving the suspect's life.

[HM-PuFFNSTuFF]

12 pages?

you are all wankers

[tnf]

I find it amazing that any Europeans would comment on the "violent" nature of an American when more than half of their football matches end in deadly riots :icon27:

Never considered that. Good point. Same thing happens in south america doesn't it?

[Ryoki]

I find it amazing that any Europeans would comment on the "violent" nature of an American when more than half of their football matches end in deadly riots :icon27:

:icon19:

[[xeno]Julios]

mefi discussion here:

http://www.metafilter.com/mefi/42523