It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
Community
General discussion (archive)"Don't tase me *croak*"(47 posts)(47 posts)
(47 posts)
Pages:
1
2
3
4
This is my favourite topic
Posted May 07, 2011
Statistically, this was going to happen sooner or later. You start using electro-muscular disruption weapons on older gentlemen who are bound to have health problems with their hearts, which is basically a muscle that relies on steady pulses of electricity as supplied by a combination of neural impulses and biochemical reactions to function, and at least one of these guys are going to suffer fatal damage from it. Especially if you shoot them with Tasers TWICE in rapid succession.

Expect letters from irate mothers worried about cops who might one day use these devices on their kids, when they should be more worried about the fact that they've just precluded that their kids wouldn't even be in a situation where police would have to use (mostly non-lethal) force to subdue them.
Post edited May 07, 2011 by predcon
Posted May 07, 2011
Tasers aren't non-lethal, they're less than lethal, it's a big difference.

It fills a gap between pepper spray and bullets, and isn't something which ought to be used without consideration for lesser measures. I don't personally see any problem here because it's far less likely to be fatal than if the officer needs to use his sidearm.
Posted May 07, 2011
I just got the most irresistible urge to play some SWAT 4.

Also, wouldn't a drug that instantly turns off your emotions for an hour or so help the police immensely? A kind of fire and forget lobotomy.
Posted May 07, 2011
avatar
hedwards: Tasers aren't non-lethal, they're less than lethal, it's a big difference.

It fills a gap between pepper spray and bullets, and isn't something which ought to be used without consideration for lesser measures. I don't personally see any problem here because it's far less likely to be fatal than if the officer needs to use his sidearm.
I don't have a problem with it either. The guy was already in prison for something, and at least the guards showed restraint in using tasers instead of guns. I'm just concerned about the way the article is presented. It seems to be a little biased against the guards and against the Taser industry in general.
avatar
Titanium: I just got the most irresistible urge to play some SWAT 4.

Also, wouldn't a drug that instantly turns off your emotions for an hour or so help the police immensely? A kind of fire and forget lobotomy.
They have that already. They call it "Extreme Prejudice".
Post edited May 07, 2011 by predcon
Posted May 07, 2011
About 4 years ago I imported a taser, damn they hurt. I had a spasm in my neck for 3 days...
Posted May 07, 2011
avatar
Titanium: Also, wouldn't a drug that instantly turns off your emotions for an hour or so help the police immensely? A kind of fire and forget lobotomy.
I like this idea. Although it could result in a large increase in enchantments.
Posted May 07, 2011
In this case, he wasn't actually an older gentlemen, as it mentions he was only 40. That only makes your point though.

I remember falling from some farm equipment onto the ground when I was 8 or 9. Without thinking, I grabbed the electric fence to balance me. Took me a few moments to realize that, while my arms no longer worked, I could back away with my arms. If such a small level of current screw up the muscles in my arms to the point where they don't work, I know I don't want to be hit with a taser. :(

I'd rather be tased than shot, however.
Post edited May 07, 2011 by EndlessKnight
Posted May 07, 2011
If electricity is real (which it is, of course), and has the potential to kill in both fantasy and real world video games, then its only to be expected that they can potentially kill in real life.

They need to lower the electric charge in those taser guns.
Post edited May 07, 2011 by bladeofBG
Posted May 07, 2011
It's only to be expected that someone will have a negative response to a device intended to incapacitate them. As people have noted, it's better than being shot, though I think the lower perceived consequences encourages their use.

take this for example: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/05/03/bare_run/
Posted May 07, 2011
avatar
predcon: Especially if you shoot them with Tasers TWICE in rapid succession.[/url]
How about five times? Welcome to Canada!
avatar
predcon: Expect letters from irate mothers worried about cops who might one day use these devices on their kids,
Way ahead of you.
Posted May 07, 2011
avatar
predcon: I don't have a problem with it either. The guy was already in prison for something,
Yeah, clearly if you're in prison for something you shouldn't complain when you're killed by cops.

(and though it's not very relevant to my main point, this guy was in custody in a police station cell after a dispute, not in an actual prison)
Post edited May 07, 2011 by Zeewolf
Posted May 07, 2011
avatar
hedwards: Tasers aren't non-lethal, they're less than lethal, it's a big difference.

It fills a gap between pepper spray and bullets, and isn't something which ought to be used without consideration for lesser measures. I don't personally see any problem here because it's far less likely to be fatal than if the officer needs to use his sidearm.
avatar
predcon: I don't have a problem with it either. The guy was already in prison for something, and at least the guards showed restraint in using tasers instead of guns. I'm just concerned about the way the article is presented. It seems to be a little biased against the guards and against the Taser industry in general.
From the tone of the post, I wasn't sure which side of the issue you were on.

It's never good when guards kill somebody, but I do find that the press coverage often times neglects to mention that when a taser is used that they opted for something that fits between pepper spray and lethal force. An investigation is typically in order to determine whether or not it's reasonable, but on the face of it the individual was lucky to have a chance. Cops don't shoot to wound, ever.
avatar
predcon: I don't have a problem with it either. The guy was already in prison for something,
avatar
Zeewolf: Yeah, clearly if you're in prison for something you shouldn't complain when you're killed by cops.

(and though it's not very relevant to my main point, this guy was in custody in a police station cell after a dispute)
I'd categorize it as unfortunate. All of the options had potentially fatal results, they chose the option which was in the middle and unlikely to be fatal. The point is that if you feel you've been wronged, that's what attorneys are for, you don't typically have to talk if you don't want to.
Post edited May 07, 2011 by hedwards
Posted May 07, 2011
avatar
hedwards: I'd categorize it as unfortunate. All of the options had potentially fatal results, they chose the option which was in the middle and unlikely to be fatal. The point is that if you feel you've been wronged, that's what attorneys are for, you don't typically have to talk if you don't want to.
According to the article he began "acting irrationally" in a cell, so it's a bit hard to say what options they had. May not be right to attack them for what they did without more info, but it's certainly not right to jump in and defend them either. The cops are not always right.
Posted May 07, 2011
avatar
hedwards: I'd categorize it as unfortunate. All of the options had potentially fatal results, they chose the option which was in the middle and unlikely to be fatal. The point is that if you feel you've been wronged, that's what attorneys are for, you don't typically have to talk if you don't want to.
avatar
Zeewolf: According to the article he began "acting irrationally" in a cell, so it's a bit hard to say what options they had. May not be right to attack them for what they did without more info, but it's certainly not right to jump in and defend them either. The cops are not always right.
Of course they're not always right, but it's not like journalists are particularly friendly either. It's really easy to make assumptions about the situation when you haven't needed to deal with it. I always used to dread panic alarms and 911 hang ups at my old job because I was never sure what precisely I was going to end up facing when I got off the elevator.

A taser is a relatively low risk tool when somebody starts wigging out like that. And definitely a lot safer than if you've got to go one on one.
Posted May 07, 2011
avatar
hedwards: A taser is a relatively low risk tool when somebody starts wigging out like that. And definitely a lot safer than if you've got to go one on one.
They're cops! If they can't go one on one in a police station, then what chance to they stand anywhere else? We don't have such liberal use of tazers in the UK, as such we resort to the old fashioned tactic of a big guy with a stick. That actually proves a lot less lethal than some fancy science gizmos (except when we got a psycho officer who beat up an old lady, but that was an isolated incident).
Pages:
1
2
3
4
This is my favourite topic
Community
General discussion (archive)"Don't tase me *croak*"(47 posts)(47 posts)
(47 posts)