Using a tazer over a bad word? At what point did the tazer become an anything other than a less than lethal def. tool for the police. The video does not show him to be a danger to anyone, just non complient. I do not agree with his actions but I do think that three officers could have "helped" him find his way with out a tazer. The one thing I did see funny that it appears that at least one officer is holding the young man during one of the tazer blast. Not the smartest one in the room by a long shot, but if this was real wouldn't that have transfered?
Other than the distance and the resulting connection wire there is no significant difference in the operation of this and the old cattle prod. There are additions of automatic cycle times and varied voltages, but the general operation and effect is the same. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electroshock_gun Yes, according to the information from the manufacturers if you touch between the probes of a taser or within about two inches of the probes of any type of stun weapon you will run the risk of a jolt but not one that would have the same effect the farther from the probes.
You people are funny! The Taser is not used as a replacement for deadly force...it is used as a pain compliant tool...Yes the police use pain for compliance..hence the Taser, Pepper Spray, knee strikes, pressure points, etc...The police are being trained not to go hands on. I ask this question again...Do the police hnot have the right to be able to go home at night without being injured or killed?
Police frist or second repsonse should not be too a weapon. Sorry but in Force Protection we were taught that you try the least damaging options first unless life was at stake. I do not see, or hear any threats to life. So why the weapons, beause he protested leaving the spot he was in? Because he was loud? At what point does being loud warrant being shot with 220 volts? Sorry they were out of line.
No, but they are breaking the law. Should the police just have let him be because he wasn't hurting anyone? How about if I park myself in your living room? You should let me stay there, as long as I don't hurt anyone, right?
Not at all, but I wouldn't use a taser on you. But that's just me. I was responding to the rediculous implication by hyperbole that police should abuse, harm, and inflict pain on others regardless of the situation because they have a dangerous job. Or did I misinterpret the rediculous implication by hyperbole? I think not.
So there are only two choices? Use the taser or let him get away with whatever he's doing? When you get new technology, does it wipe your memory clean of everything you knew before? The guy went limp, three police officers couldn't have handcuffed him and got him out of there without using a taser, a nightstick, or a gun? Didn't they end up getting him out of there without his cooperation in the end, anyway? Why didn't they just do that in the first place?
Context is everything. Standing in a public place is a little Diff. than you home invading. Context context context.
Anyway they could have used hands on. Jonit locks and the such to move him on. I am stating that the tazer was a little over kill.
Gee, I don't know Clif. I might actually like you and want you to stay. Then I could do the neighborly thing of offering you a cup of coffee. However, my dogs are the ones you will have to impress if you want to stay. Ok, the arguments against my point of view now include: 1. Ridiculous Hyperbole 2. Distraction from the issue by Unrealistic Hypothetical Situation. You guys know all the tricks of sophistry, don't you. How about making a reasonable argument that is fact-based and stands on its own merits? My position is far enough to an extreme that you ought to be able to come up with something. I'm predicting, unfortunately, that the Ananolgy-That-Just-Doesn't-Fit is the next trick to come. Logically yours, Snuff
He was asked to leave. He chose not to. That is trespassing. How is it overkill? He was removed from the premesis. He is alive and unharmed. Then I can sue you for turning your dogs on me, right? Tell me, what's the difference between your dogs and the cops tazers? I mean aside from the fact that the dogs will leave scars. Your point of view, as I understood it, is that this criminal was not a danger to anyone so he should have been left alone. I found that a bit odd, so I questioned it using a reasonable analogy. But, if you don't like my counter to your "point of view", perhaps I did not understand it correctly. Please restate it.
Tazer overkill, soft hands/hard hands. Joint locks. There were 3 to one. Two to grab a wrist and lock them. One left to clear a path or bar choke if need be. He was not holding a weapon, he was standing his ground. There was zero reason to use a weapon. You elevate to the next level all the while trying to defuse the problem. If there wasn't a tazer, pepper spray, or stick. The statement would then be changed to he didn't leave so we shot him. That is weak.
hahaha...This is so funny for people who are not educated about the subject control. Ok, so the cops don't use the Taser and walk up to the student and grab him....ooops, he had a knife..damn the cop is dead...they are teaching not to go hands on anymore! If the Taser is such a bad thing, don't break the law! Plain and simple! This people in this country have made it to this point that anytime their is a subject control technique used, then it was too harsh....Folks, the cops have the right to go home unharmed!!!!!!!!
He was not standing, he "went limp". I ask again, how would you have removed him without endangering yourself, your companions, or bystanders? (Not to mention harming the criminal in question) And yet you are trying to promote the officers to use their own bodies as weapons.
Thank you Ken I do know that much I said I wasn't the smartest I never said I was the dumbone. But to Tazer some one who is not fighting, just because he doesn't do what you want him to. It just leads to a road of I told him to move, he didn't so I Tazed him. To protect and Serve. Sorry but if there are no threats to human safety and life, Ido not think that a officer of the law should use a weapon on some one. Until there is a threat of violence there should be restricted use of force against an unarmed citizen. A Tazer is a big use of force, 220 volts can kill. And "...Stand up or I will (hit/taz) you again..." counter productive. Just causes him to stay down longer and not be able to move under his own free will.
I am glad that we have educated people in the Law field that protect the police (Supreme Court)...and if you are going to try and state facts, please get the facts right (50,000 volts not 220). Stay behind your desk at feel safe!
You got the wrong one. I don't need a red neck with a badge and a gun; tazer or other wise to make me feel safe. I spent ten years defending my country. If I got the voltage wrong on some police toy tough. I don't play with them every day maybe you do. If you do good for you glad you know your toys.
