Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: Tazers


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Tazers Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Tazers - 7/10/2010 5:29:52 PM   
juliaoceania


Posts: 21383
Joined: 4/19/2006
From: Somewhere Over the Rainbow
Status: offline
quote:

I'll stick to reality, where non-traditional weapons can actually kill people.

C'on Julia, you know people twist stats to suit themselves. Doesn't it bother to not know what they are actually talking about?


Doesn't it bother you that people are tazed unarmed? I mean, you seriously have no issue with that, even when I posted an abstract from the APA in which preliminary test results show tazing can impact cognitive functioning? The people being tazed are not convicted of anything, yet...

I find this debate with you saddens me, I am saddened by it because it seems as though you do not want to even for a second acknowledge that there maybe a problem with the overuse of "nonlethal" weapons.... There seems to be a STRONG possibility that these weapons are inappropriately used and there is mounting evidence that they are far from harmless, even on seemingly healthy individuals...


I respect a position that looks at the possibilities of abuse, not even knowingly, but because the manufactures of these weapons oversell them as a replacement for other law enforcement methods... they have a strong profit motive to do so. It is not my position that law enforcement officers are being "lazy" or that they aren't doing their jobs, but that they are trained incorrectly with these methods, and told they are harmless to the people whom they are used on. This to me is not acceptable.

I think that before we routinely encourage officers to jolt people with juice first and ask questions later, we should make sure that this isn't more harmful than they tazer industry puts forward that it is.

_____________________________

Once you label me, you negate me ~ Soren Kierkegaard

Reality has a well known Liberal Bias ~ Stephen Colbert

Great minds discuss ideas; Average minds discuss events; Small minds discuss people. Eleanor Roosevelt

(in reply to AquaticSub)
Profile   Post #: 41
RE: Tazers - 7/10/2010 5:34:54 PM   
AquaticSub


Posts: 14867
Joined: 12/27/2005
Status: offline 		Ummm AGAIN...

You have yet to define unarmed with evidence. Until you do that, I can't have an educated opinion on if that person should be tazed or not. Unarmed, again, not does mean they do not pose a threat. If they pose a threat, yes taze them.

For that matter, you wanted me to accept some stat you pulled out your ass. I wouldn't dream of asking you to accept some stat I made up on the spot - why would you ask me to accept that?

< Message edited by AquaticSub -- 7/10/2010 5:42:26 PM >

_____________________________

Without my dominance you cannot submit. Without your submission I cannot dominate. You are my equal in this, though our roles are different.-Val

It was ok for him to beat me but then he tried to cuddle me! - Me

Member:Clan of the Scarlet O'Hair

(in reply to juliaoceania)
Profile   Post #: 42
RE: Tazers - 7/10/2010 5:43:01 PM   
juliaoceania


Posts: 21383
Joined: 4/19/2006
From: Somewhere Over the Rainbow
Status: offline 		I am done with that aqua... enjoy debating Unarmed by yourself

Now the real reason for this post


http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2008/nov/23/cops-raise-taser-safety-claims/

snip/ The officers were at a training seminar in November 2003 to learn how to use the newest weapon on their belts, a device the manufacturer claimed would incapacitate a person but not do permanent harm. You can’t really comprehend the Taser, students were told, until you’re Tasered. /snip


snip/Lawsuits over Tasers are not uncommon. Police departments across the country are routinely sued by citizens who wound up on the wrong end of an officer’s Taser. Seldom, however, is a police officer the injured party. Even more seldom does that officer take Taser to court. Peterson, Cook and Lewandowski are among about a dozen across the country who, through private attorneys, without the help of their police departments, have sued Taser International Inc.

Collectively, the officers’ lawsuits call into question safety claims made by the company.

Metro, a champion of the device, has quietly changed its policy to reflect the risks of being Tasered. This is a perilous position for the department. Metro cannot have officers injured during Taser training, yet the department cannot come out swinging against Taser either — Metro must defend use of a weapon its patrol officers carry. Moreover, when Tasers are used in the field, and a citizen sues the department because of a resulting injury, Metro hires the Taser company to provide expert witness testimony on the device. /snip

It goes on to describe this officer suffering a burn so bad that it got infected and caused him major injury as the flesh "died"

_____________________________

Once you label me, you negate me ~ Soren Kierkegaard

Reality has a well known Liberal Bias ~ Stephen Colbert

Great minds discuss ideas; Average minds discuss events; Small minds discuss people. Eleanor Roosevelt

(in reply to AquaticSub)
Profile   Post #: 43
RE: Tazers - 7/10/2010 5:48:31 PM   
AquaticSub


Posts: 14867
Joined: 12/27/2005
Status: offline 		Wow... so it really doesn't matter to you what unarmed means? It really doesn't matter to you, you blindly accept that 80 percent without knowing the circumstances?

It really doesn't matter to you if an unarmed person was trying to hurt the officers? You'd rather them get beaten with a baton?

Tell me... what studies do you have that blunt force trauma is better and easier to survive than tazers?

Are you willing to accept the damages from blunt force to the brain?

< Message edited by AquaticSub -- 7/10/2010 5:51:09 PM >

_____________________________

Without my dominance you cannot submit. Without your submission I cannot dominate. You are my equal in this, though our roles are different.-Val

It was ok for him to beat me but then he tried to cuddle me! - Me

Member:Clan of the Scarlet O'Hair

(in reply to juliaoceania)
Profile   Post #: 44
RE: Tazers - 7/10/2010 6:05:48 PM   
juliaoceania


Posts: 21383
Joined: 4/19/2006
From: Somewhere Over the Rainbow
Status: offline
quote:

Wow... so it really doesn't matter to you what unarmed means? It really doesn't matter to you, you blindly accept that 80 percent without knowing the circumstances?


No more than it matters to you that people without weapons are tazed...

I know Amnesty International is a movement that aids people who are in "unarmed" civilians" in war zones, etc, and the falsely accused, etc... now you want to split hairs... these people were without a GUN for sure. These people were most likely without a knife. They were even unlikely to have anything a court could construe as a weapon (such as a crowbar). It says many were jolted for failing to comply with an order. That could mean they wouldn't step back, or they wouldn't stop yelling, or they wouldn't sit down.... asking you, directly, is that a "tazable" offense?

You seem stuck on this "unarmed" thing as if you can make an argument for using tazers against people who are actually UNARMED. Well in my reality, that doesn't fly. If 25% of people are tazed for doing nothing less than arguing with a cop, that is 25% too many.


T
quote:

ell me... what studies do you have that blunt force trauma is better and easier to survive than tazers?

Are you willing to accept the damages from blunt force to the brain?


You tell me, you are a cop being trained with a tazer by the manufacturer. They tell you it is completely HARMLESS to do this to people... you have people who will not comply with an order. In this scenario are you going to tazer? well the answer seems to be yes. Now the cop is confronted with the same situation, and they have a baton, are they more likely to not use force in that situation? I think that they are. I also think that if a cop beats someone in the head with a club they will lose their job, I think that if they taze someone it isn't a big deal in their mind, and according to their training...

Since the manufacturer makes claims that these weapons are harmless, and they are the ones implementing training with these weapons, I really do not blame the cops., I blame the manufacturer... and I blame those who have decided to implement these training techniques without really knowing objectively if they are indeed harmless... and since there haven't been any objective tests on their safety, and they have been shown to cause injury in the field and in tests by the APA, YES, I think that should be considered...


Now you want to get hung up on one word, "unarmed"... well fuck, I don't care if they had something that can be construed as a weapon unless is is really a weapon, and fucking pencils don't count. Now you can lose sight of the larger picture because you don't want to think about the other parts of this, fine...

I really get it though, aqua, you don't accept "unarmed" as any sort of description... I just disagree with you, and that really is okay, I promise

_____________________________

Once you label me, you negate me ~ Soren Kierkegaard

Reality has a well known Liberal Bias ~ Stephen Colbert

Great minds discuss ideas; Average minds discuss events; Small minds discuss people. Eleanor Roosevelt

(in reply to AquaticSub)
Profile   Post #: 45
RE: Tazers - 7/10/2010 6:10:57 PM   
AquaticSub


Posts: 14867
Joined: 12/27/2005
Status: offline 		Again, until unarmed is defined in the context of that stat, I can't have an opinion. Just because someone doesn't have a weapon doesn't mean they aren't a threat and shouldn't be tazed.

And Julia, in all your rants, you have yet to provide studies that back up your claims.

This is not meant disrespectfully but, to reference an older debate, if I told you HFCS was just discovered to cure cancer, wouldn't you want evidence?

I'm not blaming anyone at all in this matter. I simply want to know the details that these stats are being based on - I'm open to changing my mind once I see proof that blunt trauma is easier to survive than tazers.

Not knowing those details while calling for action is irresponsible.

< Message edited by AquaticSub -- 7/10/2010 6:12:15 PM >

_____________________________

Without my dominance you cannot submit. Without your submission I cannot dominate. You are my equal in this, though our roles are different.-Val

It was ok for him to beat me but then he tried to cuddle me! - Me

Member:Clan of the Scarlet O'Hair

(in reply to juliaoceania)
Profile   Post #: 46
RE: Tazers - 7/10/2010 6:25:54 PM   
juliaoceania


Posts: 21383
Joined: 4/19/2006
From: Somewhere Over the Rainbow
Status: offline
quote:

And Julia, in all your rants, you have yet to provide studies that back up your claims.


Funny, I did not feel like I was ranting.... time and again I have tried to calmly explain to you, even if these people had some sort of object that someone could envision being used as a weapon... like lets say a broken beer bottle, I still think tazering them first and asking questions later is not good... we have a difference of opinion here, and you consistently been unnecessarily aggressive, the way I am reading you, and badgering about one word... how many different ways can I tell you, I don't care how you want to construe "unarmed", in my mind the statistic of 80% unarmed is high enough to speak to cops tazering people for noncompliance.

Here is a clue about the unarmed thing, if someone is armed, they tend to shoot to kill if they have the chance to... if that is any help for you, they don't tazer people who can kill them, they shoot them if they have a gun. Does this help in the discussion? Now if you noticed, I am still attempting to have a calm discussion with you, and I am not "ranting"

quote:

This is not meant disrespectfully but, to reference an older debate, if I told you HFCS was just discovered to cure cancer, wouldn't you want evidence?

Your claim you do not mean to be "disrespectful is negated by your claims I am "ranting"...

Here is the thing, you know I cannot find out the "exact" criteria for unarmed... i can give you the dictionary version of that word, which works for me, does that work for you? No, it wouldn't, why, because you want to get hung up on that word, which in my mind means the suspect had no weapon... it is not as complicated as you are trying to make out...

For example, your cancer claim, I could get hung up on remission, what does that mean within the context of the article you posted? Well you would argue that it means they lacked the presence of cancer, and I could say remission means being cancer free for a certain amount of time, or that it means that the cells cannot be detected, or it could mean the cancer isn't growing... but unless the article specifically delimited what "remission" was you could not "prove" it was remission under my definition of remission... which would really detract from the entire conversation about this really promising cancer cure...

now you can continue to try to derail the thread based on one word, but my basic premise has not been dismissed which is

1) tazers are overly used when other methods could be employed

2) tazers are not as harmless as the manufacturers purport them to be

3) cops are ill trained in using tazers and given false information about the harm they cause


_____________________________

Once you label me, you negate me ~ Soren Kierkegaard

Reality has a well known Liberal Bias ~ Stephen Colbert

Great minds discuss ideas; Average minds discuss events; Small minds discuss people. Eleanor Roosevelt

(in reply to AquaticSub)
Profile   Post #: 47
RE: Tazers - 7/10/2010 6:33:56 PM   
AquaticSub


Posts: 14867
Joined: 12/27/2005
Status: offline 		You realized that armed doesn't just mean guns right? It means holding a weapon, which could include a sword or other object that doesn't shoot.

This is EXACTLY why I'm insisting that the studies I base my opinions off of define their terms. But hey... if you are cool with unclear studies and unclear terms, who am I to stop you?

Never mind that the first lesson in all my stats classes was to question how people got to those stats. That's just being silly!

< Message edited by AquaticSub -- 7/10/2010 6:37:37 PM >

_____________________________

Without my dominance you cannot submit. Without your submission I cannot dominate. You are my equal in this, though our roles are different.-Val

It was ok for him to beat me but then he tried to cuddle me! - Me

Member:Clan of the Scarlet O'Hair

(in reply to juliaoceania)
Profile   Post #: 48
RE: Tazers - 7/10/2010 6:37:26 PM   
juliaoceania


Posts: 21383
Joined: 4/19/2006
From: Somewhere Over the Rainbow
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: AquaticSub

You realized that armed doesn't just mean guns right? It means holding a weapon, which could include a sword or other object that doesn't shoot.

This is EXACTLY why I'm insisting that the studies I base my opinions off of define their terms.


To me, in my basic understanding of the word "armed" this includes knifes. I am willing to give Amnesty International enough credit for including anything the police called a "weapon", since I am sure they used police reports as a source of their information....is it possible I am wrong about that? Well, yes. I would bet money I am right, because I doubt highly they went out and collected the data on their own....

_____________________________

Once you label me, you negate me ~ Soren Kierkegaard

Reality has a well known Liberal Bias ~ Stephen Colbert

Great minds discuss ideas; Average minds discuss events; Small minds discuss people. Eleanor Roosevelt

(in reply to AquaticSub)
Profile   Post #: 49
RE: Tazers - 7/10/2010 6:38:49 PM   
AquaticSub


Posts: 14867
Joined: 12/27/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: juliaoceania


quote:

ORIGINAL: AquaticSub

You realized that armed doesn't just mean guns right? It means holding a weapon, which could include a sword or other object that doesn't shoot.

This is EXACTLY why I'm insisting that the studies I base my opinions off of define their terms.


To me, in my basic understanding of the word "armed" this includes knifes. I am willing to give Amnesty International enough credit for including anything the police called a "weapon", since I am sure they used police reports as a source of their information....is it possible I am wrong about that? Well, yes. I would bet money I am right, because I doubt highly they went out and collected the data on their own....


Edited because I misread...


You said shoot.

Look if you are willing to take knives, then why not accept that there are many household objects that can cause harm and why NOT be concerned about what the study you are clinging to defines as a weapon?

< Message edited by AquaticSub -- 7/10/2010 6:42:04 PM >

_____________________________

Without my dominance you cannot submit. Without your submission I cannot dominate. You are my equal in this, though our roles are different.-Val

It was ok for him to beat me but then he tried to cuddle me! - Me

Member:Clan of the Scarlet O'Hair

(in reply to juliaoceania)
Profile   Post #: 50
RE: Tazers - 7/10/2010 6:44:28 PM   
DaddysInkedSlut


Posts: 1837
Joined: 5/14/2010
Status: offline 		Fast reply - Just because someone doesn't have a weapon doesn't mean they can't do someone great bodily harm or cause death. So if an officer feels threatened or like someone is either a danger to them, themselves or others they should use what ever means they deem necessary to control the situation. Tazers like anything can / do do harm but IMO there is less risk of death or perminant damage from a tazer than even a billy club or gun.

It is easy to sit on the side lines and second guess what police officers do, but the reality is they make hard choices every day and those choices can easily dictate weather or not someone goes home to their families.

< Message edited by DaddysInkedSlut -- 7/10/2010 6:46:32 PM >

_____________________________


(in reply to juliaoceania)
Profile   Post #: 51
RE: Tazers - 7/10/2010 6:44:35 PM   
juliaoceania


Posts: 21383
Joined: 4/19/2006
From: Somewhere Over the Rainbow
Status: offline
quote:

Look if you willing to take knives, then why not accept that there are many household objects that can cause harm and why NOT be concerned about what the study you are clinging to defines as a weapon?


Why are you concentrating on this definition when the cops are trained to use nonlethal weaponry for things such as crowd control and for noncompliance with their orders.... they are TRAINED to do this! Like I have said numerous times, we can't really blame them when they are trained to use tazers and told that they are harmless....


Is it that hard to understand that if people are actually armed and dangerous they are trained to use actual bullets on them, and justifiably so. Tazers, by their very design, are meant to "subdue" the unarmed. Why are the stats so hard to believe giving that?

_____________________________

Once you label me, you negate me ~ Soren Kierkegaard

Reality has a well known Liberal Bias ~ Stephen Colbert

Great minds discuss ideas; Average minds discuss events; Small minds discuss people. Eleanor Roosevelt

(in reply to AquaticSub)
Profile   Post #: 52
RE: Tazers - 7/10/2010 6:48:29 PM   
juliaoceania


Posts: 21383
Joined: 4/19/2006
From: Somewhere Over the Rainbow
Status: offline
quote:

Tazers like anything can / do do harm but IMO they is less risk of death or perminant damage from a tazer than even a billy club


Where did you get that information, how do you know it is true?

Those are claims from the manufacturer, and haven't been independently validated, and even the American Psychological Association has stated that tazering tends to cause the same damage that being electrocuted does... that harm is very unpredictable.

_____________________________

Once you label me, you negate me ~ Soren Kierkegaard

Reality has a well known Liberal Bias ~ Stephen Colbert

Great minds discuss ideas; Average minds discuss events; Small minds discuss people. Eleanor Roosevelt

(in reply to DaddysInkedSlut)
Profile   Post #: 53
RE: Tazers - 7/10/2010 7:00:31 PM   
Aneirin


Posts: 6121
Joined: 3/18/2006
From: Tamaris
Status: offline 		As someone once said on these forums that of the police he came across in the course of his job working for the courts, there are some very fine policemen, but then there are a load of jackasses too, unfortunately the jackasses people remember and tar the law enforcement agencies with that same brush.

But like school teachers, some people are just not cut out for presiding over others and they should be weeded out long before they become a danger to others, as one just has to ask why a person seeks the job they do.

Of the police I have come across, they lack the capacity to understand reason and with that seek to dominate against all reason, only to be found out later they were wrong in their actions, which says to me, many who call themselves law enforcers are in it for themselves and how they personally feel under their badge of office.

Police wield force in the subduing of who they choose to subdue for whatever reasons they have for doing so, which is not always in accordance with the law leading to the hatred many feel for the face of establishment. Of many of those police I have personally come across all they invite in contempt as they are nothing to admire leading to the thought that these are examples of the jackass in society.

Our coppers are unarmed, no guns, but they do have tasers but when such a thing happens that they tase a person who is found not to be at fault, the cuntstable concerned is never held for assault which gives them the autocracy to do as they please, thank fuck our coppers are not normally armed, for I feel they would be out of control.

I always found it an odd thing to hear when a copper or coppers beats a person down with sticks the charge is always resisting arrest, what the fuck happened to persons right to defend themselves, or is it we are to submit to the police in whatever they do.

Police to me are like marines on a ship, they seperate the men from the officers, in society they do the same, protect the wealthy from the plebian masses.


_____________________________

Everything we are is the result of what we have thought, the mind is everything, what we think, we become - Guatama Buddha

Conservatism is distrust of people tempered by fear - William Gladstone

(in reply to AquaticSub)
Profile   Post #: 54
RE: Tazers - 7/10/2010 7:01:34 PM   
angelikaJ


Posts: 8641
Joined: 6/22/2007
Status: offline 		FR
From the same article Julia posted:

"Metro’s rule book now incudes a number of Taser policies that weren’t there in 2003: Avoid hitting anyone in the head, face, neck or groin; avoid hitting women’s breasts; avoid jolting someone multiple times; do not Taser a person in handcuffs, or just because he’s fleeing, or if she’s pregnant, unless deadly force is the only other option. And after a subject is stunned, screen him for injuries.

http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2008/nov/23/cops-raise-taser-safety-claims/

For anyone who has watched an episode of Cops, I have seen the bolded Taser policies disregarded fairly often.



_____________________________

The original home of the caffeinated psychotic hair pixies.
(as deemed by He who owns me)

http://www.collarchat.com/m_3234821/tm.htm

30 fluffy points!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mQjuCQd01sg

(in reply to juliaoceania)
Profile   Post #: 55
RE: Tazers - 7/10/2010 7:07:26 PM   
juliaoceania


Posts: 21383
Joined: 4/19/2006
From: Somewhere Over the Rainbow
Status: offline 		I have only had good experiences with law enforcement. The thing is that when you get a bad apple, it is REALLY bad, and truly can spoil the entire barrel because of the Blue Line (meaning code of secrecy). They are not the only profession that has this phenomena, doctors do too..,. actually anyone that has a job with huge responsibility and propensity for abuse has a tendency for those who do it to have a code of secrecy.

Here is the thing, cops deride that code as much as anyone else does, but it is hard to go against it, as in such famous cases as Serpico illustrate ...

I still think cops, as a whole, do a hard dangerous job... and most do it for praiseworthy motives... they want to stop the "bad guy" and they want to protect and serve. Others don't have that agenda at all... and all it takes is a few to give the entire profession a bad name.

< Message edited by juliaoceania -- 7/10/2010 7:08:15 PM >

_____________________________

Once you label me, you negate me ~ Soren Kierkegaard

Reality has a well known Liberal Bias ~ Stephen Colbert

Great minds discuss ideas; Average minds discuss events; Small minds discuss people. Eleanor Roosevelt

(in reply to Aneirin)
Profile   Post #: 56
RE: Tazers - 7/10/2010 7:10:28 PM   
juliaoceania


Posts: 21383
Joined: 4/19/2006
From: Somewhere Over the Rainbow
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: angelikaJ

FR
From the same article Julia posted:

"Metro’s rule book now incudes a number of Taser policies that weren’t there in 2003: Avoid hitting anyone in the head, face, neck or groin; avoid hitting women’s breasts; avoid jolting someone multiple times; do not Taser a person in handcuffs, or just because he’s fleeing, or if she’s pregnant, unless deadly force is the only other option. And after a subject is stunned, screen him for injuries.

http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2008/nov/23/cops-raise-taser-safety-claims/

For anyone who has watched an episode of Cops, I have seen the bolded Taser policies disregarded fairly often.




That is because in the field it is harder to actually deploy the use of tazers... which is again not something I blame cops for... but the training procedures and the manufacturer

_____________________________

Once you label me, you negate me ~ Soren Kierkegaard

Reality has a well known Liberal Bias ~ Stephen Colbert

Great minds discuss ideas; Average minds discuss events; Small minds discuss people. Eleanor Roosevelt

(in reply to angelikaJ)
Profile   Post #: 57
RE: Tazers - 7/10/2010 7:48:08 PM   
Aneirin


Posts: 6121
Joined: 3/18/2006
From: Tamaris
Status: offline 		I used to believe in the police their role in society, I even helped them in the course of their job and at one time even sought to join them, that was all before a time I personally needed them and found they were nowhere to be seen despite five seperate emergency calls from five seperate people, they eventually turned up the next day as ever too late.

Since then and their botching of an investigation I have changed my belief in those charged to protect us and as a result have ceased in my belief of them as a force for good over bad. In recent actions where I have been there and law is involved I have seen nothing but autocracy, the arrest of people causing no harm and on one occaision nearly the arrest of myself for doing nothing more than giving first aid to one who was suffering, a pregnant woman who was hyperventilating following a thump to the stomach, in what followed which involved the defence of my being against an aggressor who took exception to my act of concern. The police went for me because I was causing no problem but being concerned for the injured, a soft target who offered no resistance apart being at the scene and apparently the cause for the aggressors actions. There I understood the police have no thought beyond what they see at the time and have no clue how to augment an investigation, but interestingly enough in their questioning of me they neglected the injured woman until I drew their attention to her. In a word pigs comes to mind, they have lost my support of them.


_____________________________

Everything we are is the result of what we have thought, the mind is everything, what we think, we become - Guatama Buddha

Conservatism is distrust of people tempered by fear - William Gladstone

(in reply to juliaoceania)
Profile   Post #: 58
RE: Tazers - 7/11/2010 1:57:12 AM   
AquaticSub


Posts: 14867
Joined: 12/27/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: juliaoceania

quote:

Look if you willing to take knives, then why not accept that there are many household objects that can cause harm and why NOT be concerned about what the study you are clinging to defines as a weapon?


Why are you concentrating on this definition when the cops are trained to use nonlethal weaponry for things such as crowd control and for noncompliance with their orders.... they are TRAINED to do this! Like I have said numerous times, we can't really blame them when they are trained to use tazers and told that they are harmless....


Is it that hard to understand that if people are actually armed and dangerous they are trained to use actual bullets on them, and justifiably so. Tazers, by their very design, are meant to "subdue" the unarmed. Why are the stats so hard to believe giving that?


Because those stats are undefined and I refuse to blindly accept them. As should you. Those stats could define armed as only meaning a handgun but ignore a charge person holding a knife or someone whose already cracked one person's skull with a brick or knocked out their partner's teeth with their fist.

Tazers can be dangerous yes. But show me that blunt force trauma is better. Show me the studies where it's been proven mistakes with a baton are more likely to be survivable than mistakes with a tazer.

Don't expect me to blindly accept it because some woman on the Internet told me so.

_____________________________

Without my dominance you cannot submit. Without your submission I cannot dominate. You are my equal in this, though our roles are different.-Val

It was ok for him to beat me but then he tried to cuddle me! - Me

Member:Clan of the Scarlet O'Hair

(in reply to juliaoceania)
Profile   Post #: 59
RE: Tazers - 7/11/2010 6:32:16 AM   
juliaoceania


Posts: 21383
Joined: 4/19/2006
From: Somewhere Over the Rainbow
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: AquaticSub

quote:

ORIGINAL: juliaoceania

quote:

Look if you willing to take knives, then why not accept that there are many household objects that can cause harm and why NOT be concerned about what the study you are clinging to defines as a weapon?


Why are you concentrating on this definition when the cops are trained to use nonlethal weaponry for things such as crowd control and for noncompliance with their orders.... they are TRAINED to do this! Like I have said numerous times, we can't really blame them when they are trained to use tazers and told that they are harmless....


Is it that hard to understand that if people are actually armed and dangerous they are trained to use actual bullets on them, and justifiably so. Tazers, by their very design, are meant to "subdue" the unarmed. Why are the stats so hard to believe giving that?


Because those stats are undefined and I refuse to blindly accept them. As should you. Those stats could define armed as only meaning a handgun but ignore a charge person holding a knife or someone whose already cracked one person's skull with a brick or knocked out their partner's teeth with their fist.

Tazers can be dangerous yes. But show me that blunt force trauma is better. Show me the studies where it's been proven mistakes with a baton are more likely to be survivable than mistakes with a tazer.

Don't expect me to blindly accept it because some woman on the Internet told me so.


We already debated this... either let it go or don't


Hint: I don't care

_____________________________

Once you label me, you negate me ~ Soren Kierkegaard

Reality has a well known Liberal Bias ~ Stephen Colbert

Great minds discuss ideas; Average minds discuss events; Small minds discuss people. Eleanor Roosevelt

(in reply to AquaticSub)
Profile   Post #: 60
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Tazers Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.218