[RenegadeRick]

Being that my last two topic post was so successful, I thought I would try again.

The first part is predictable. Yet another taser thread. This one is about is about a 72 year old grandmother getting the juice at a routine traffic stop.

The second is also somewhat predictable. A story about government waste, although it may not be, based on your perspective. This one is appropriately titled U.S. Will Pay $2.6 Million to Train Chinese Prostitutes to Drink Responsibly on the Job.

Perhaps you will discuss tasering Chinese prostitute grandmothers, or maybe how the police should drink responsibly on the job. Who knows? The possibilities are endless.

Enjoy!

 

[X3pilot]

 

[drkenan]

b1tch deserved it.

 

[BurlyShirley]

Hey Rick,
Learn to read past provocative headlines.

Regarding the Prostitute story,

“The purpose of the project is to try and develop an intervention program targeting HIV risk and alcohol use,” Li told CNSNews.com

I know saving human lives in foreign countries is gay and all, but the study's aim (and we should be clear, the money is being used to fund a study, not to "train prostitutes") is far more noble than other wasteful spending that we do.

 

[BurlyShirley]

Oh, and regarding Granny,

You can usually bet that when the Police tapes are being withheld, it's usually because they're none too flattering for the police themselves. My guess is that if the tapes even somehow showed grandma looking threatening ( maybe vomiting green bile while her head rotated without the aid of her neck How else is a 72 year old woman going to look threatening? ) they'd be plastered all over the evening news.

 

[RenegadeRick]

That officer was clearly threatened. Here watch...

http://rawstory.com/08/news/2009/06/09/new-video-shows-officer-shove-then-taser-72-year-old-grandmother/

 

[X3pilot]

That officer was clearly threatened. Here watch...

http://rawstory.com/08/news/2009/06/09/new-video-shows-officer-shove-then-taser-72-year-old-grandmother/

That officer was dared....I'd have zapped her smart ass self too. Beeeotch.

 

[valve bouncer]

I'm sure most people who get to shake hands with the power station are asking for it but in more than a few cases it seems the first resort for lazy cops. It's like the cops say "fukkit, I'm no arguing the toss for 5 minutes, they do as I say or else"....what a crap way to be.

 

[Westy]

I have a meeting in an hour with my boss. I'm pretty sure I would tazer him if I had the chance. Of course I think the way his giant gut wobbles when he talks could be seen as enough of a threat.

 

[RenegadeRick]

The whole taser thing is an issue. I really think they can be valuable tools, but they are weapons, and in my opinion should only be used at the same level in which one would use deadly force, because that could be the outcome, death.

In my town, the police are going to be getting tasers. This concerns me, because the police state they may end up using them two or three times a week. But they aren't shooting 2 or 3 people a week now. This leads me to believe that they are intending to use them as compliance tools, not as weapons.

With 2 or 3 tasings a week, it will only be a matter of time until someone dies as a result. Then guess who will get to pay for the wrongful death?

 

[X3pilot]

The whole taser thing is an issue. I really think they can be valuable tools, but they are weapons, and in my opinion should only be used at the same level in which one would use deadly force, because that could be the outcome, death.

1. anything can be a weapon.
2. they are specifically designed to be non-lethal. Much like water cannons, rubber bullets, nightsticks.

In my town, the police are going to be getting tasers. This concerns me, because the police state they may end up using them two or three times a week. But they aren't shooting 2 or 3 people a week now. This leads me to believe that they are intending to use them as compliance tools, not as weapons.

With 2 or 3 tasings a week, it will only be a matter of time until someone dies as a result. Then guess who will get to pay for the wrongful death?

OK, they are designed to be used as both compliance and defense, which is better than cops having no alternative other than guns. Prevents the all too often these days, let me get the cops to shoot me cause I'm too big a chicken**** to commit suicide.

A cop's words could be considered a weapon if you want to pick pepper out of the flysh!t, ex. A cop yells at granny to comply, she doubles over with a heart attack cause she's so pissed/scared whatever. What then?

 

[KavuRider]

All I know is that if you click on the first youtube link...it has a link to the dash cam video that has been released - the chick reporting the story is hot.

That is all.

 

[RenegadeRick]

...they are specifically designed to be non-lethal.

But they aren't non-lethal. Less lethal, perhaps, but not non-lethal.

Training the users that they are non-lethal is the whole problem. Officers can and do use them in situations where they would not normally be willing to lethalize the folks they are using them on.

 

[sanjuro]

But they aren't non-lethal. Less lethal, perhaps, but not non-lethal.

Training the users that they are non-lethal is the whole problem. Officers can and do use them in situations where they would not normally be willing to lethalize the folks they are using them on.

I saw that whole video this morning.

The woman was resisting arrest. She was verbally abusive, refused to sign her ticket, tried to get back into her truck, then when the officer grabbed her arm to put the cuffs on, she pulled her arm back.

I know you probably think the officer should have teared up the ticket and cry in his cruiser while the woman drove away. I think she should have signed the ticket and tell the officer to go to hell, not make an ass of herself.

 

[X3pilot]

But they aren't non-lethal. Less lethal, perhaps, but not non-lethal.

Training the users that they are non-lethal is the whole problem. Officers can and do use them in situations where they would not normally be willing to lethalize the folks they are using them on.

OK, I'm confused.

Training the users that they are non-lethal is the whole problem.

Are you saying they aren't training them that way that is the problem or that they are training them that way is a problem?

Officers can and do use them in situations where they would not normally be willing to lethalize the folks they are using them on

isn't that the exact point? Of course there will be exceptions and some people will get hurt or even die and there are those cops who are the exception, but haven't we beat THAT point to death in this forum?

Rick, just what would YOU suggest the police use as tools to enforce the laws, maintain order and provide for theirs and the suspects and general communities safety?

Are you a cop hater?

 

[RenegadeRick]

Are you a cop hater?

This isn't about me.

Rick, just what would YOU suggest the police use as tools to enforce the laws, maintain order and provide for theirs and the suspects and general communities safety?

As I previously stated, I believe tasers can be valuable tools for law enforcement.

But training officers that tasers are non-lethal encourages their use. Tasers are not non-lethal. People can and do die.

Just as you should not point a gun at anything you aren't willing to shoot, you shouldn't tase anyone you aren't willing to kill.

Is that better?

 

[jonKranked]

You know what's a better non-lethal weapon than a taser? Sh*t. Throw sh*t at someone and you can be damn sure that they'll stop whatever kind of crazy crap they're doing, cuz nobody wants to be covered in sh*t.

 

[X3pilot]

Just as you should not point a gun at anything you aren't willing to shoot, you shouldn't tase anyone you aren't willing to kill.

Is that better?

No, because the point of the taser is to point and use it at something you aren't going to kill, not willing to kill. That statement does 2 things, one it trivializes one of the cardinal rules of gun safety and two, it's apples and oranges. You might as well say officers shouldn't pull out their ink pens to write unless they are willing to write a ticket. Or not to shine a flashlight beam at someone unless they're willing to kill them. Huh?

I was just kidding about the cop hater thing.

 

[RenegadeRick]

No, because the point of the taser is to point and use it at something you aren't going to kill, not willing to kill. That statement does 2 things, one it trivializes one of the cardinal rules of gun safety and two, it's apples and oranges.

There is no trivialization of gun safety on my part, but rather, trivialization of Taser safety on other's part.

Just recently, a 32-year old man with a history of mental illness, began having an episode. The family called for help, and now the man is dead.

In Taser's response to the incident, while they do acknowledge risk, they go so far as to suggest that Taser usage is generally safe:

Field experience with CED use indicates that exposure is safe in the vast majority of cases. Therefore, law enforcement need not refrain from deploying CEDs...

Bringing us back to my original point. Since people can and do die from Taser usage, they should only be used in situations where you are willing to kill. Period. That is my opinion.

Since Tasers do carry risk of death, they should not be used as compliance devices, but they are being used as such today. Here is a story about court approved taser usage to compel a suspect to incriminate himself.

Taser: It's the (shock)wave of the future™.

 

[Silver]

Tazers are great. You hit that granny over the head with your nightstick or choke her out, and you leave bruises and marks. The tazer leaves no marks, and as long as your camera is "out of service" you're good to go nuts when that old lady doesn't respect your authoritai...

 

[JohnE]

$20 says RR gets tazed by an Arlington Heights cop within 3 months of the department fielding them...

 

[RenegadeRick]

$20 says RR gets tazed by an Arlington Heights cop within 3 months of the department fielding them...

I am glad to hear they won't be deployed until the fall. I can still run wild at the Frontier Days festival over this 4th of July. Woohoo!

 

[kidwoo]

You might as well say officers shouldn't pull out their ink pens to write unless they are willing to write a ticket.

well.............

 

[CRoss]

I bet the granny would have ended up in jail with more injuries if the cop would have used physical force. The use of a tazer was the best choice in this situation. How else could the cop have made the lady comply?

 

[BurlyShirley]

I bet the granny would have ended up in jail with more injuries if the cop would have used physical force. The use of a tazer was the best choice in this situation. How else could the cop have made the lady comply?

Well she is 72. How about grabbing her hands and putting cuffs on them?

 

[CRoss]

Well she is 72. How about grabbing her hands and putting cuffs on them?

She is 72 that could have broke something.

I believe it was a few years ago a similar situation happened between a cop and an older man. The cop tried to restrain the man physically the man grab the cops gun and shot the cop to death.

Tazing is shown to be the safest way for both people involved in incidents.

edit: At one point in the video you see the cop grab the ladies hand to start cuffing her. She pulls her hand away, clearly showing she was going to give resistance.

 

[BurlyShirley]

She is 72 that could have broke something.

I believe it was a few years ago a similar situation happened between a cop and an older man. The cop tried to restrain the man physically the man grab the cops gun and shot the cop to death.

Tazing is shown to be the safest way for both people involved in incidents.

edit: At one point in the video you see the cop grab the ladies hand to start cuffing her. She pulls her hand away, clearly showing she was going to give resistance.

Yeah, Im sure in the days before tazers were commonplace, police officers were constantly getting their asses kicked by geriatrics.

How did they ever manage without them?

 

[RenegadeRick]

She is 72 that could have broke something.

She is 72. She could have died.

 

[MMike]

What happens if you taze someone with a pacemaker?

 

[BurlyShirley]

What happens if you taze someone with a pacemaker?

Hilarity ensues?

 

[ohio]

Hilarity ensues?

Yeah, you put 'em on the "juice" and those wrinkly ****ers go bonkers. ****'s like crank 'round the nursing home.

I once saw a 90 year old on the juice put his fist through the window of a mustang, couldn't figure out how to drive it, then heismaned a cyclist and ride the bike through the plate glass door of a nearby office building. Despite bleeding profusely from his hands and face, it still took 4 cops to take him down, and not before he bit one of their fingers off.

 

[CRoss]

What happens if you taze someone with a pacemaker?

Tests have shown a tazer does not effect a pacemaker. Even when the electrodes are hooked directly to the pacemaker.

 

[CRoss]

She is 72. She could have died.

Maybe she should have thought of that while the officer was warning her he was going to taze her and she dared him to do it.

 

[ohio]

Maybe she should have thought of that while the officer was warning her he was going to taze her and she dared him to do it.

And what officer can resist a dare, let alone a triple dog dare?

Seriously?

It's the cops job to be a little more level-headed than to accept a dare from a demented old geezer.

"I dare you to shove that nightstick up my ass!"
"oh, well, ****, she dared me. I guess I have to do it now."

 

[BurlyShirley]

Maybe she should have thought of that while the officer was warning her he was going to taze her and she dared him to do it.

I guess if you're committed to making excuses for what was obviously an unacceptable solution to that situation, there's no point in continuing the discussion.
The lady was f*cking speeding, and she was 72. Yeah, Taze her ass.
You people make me sick. Seriously.

 

[CRoss]

Sorry no sympathy here. Whether she was 72 or 20 it does not make a difference. Even worse is her lying about the situation on the news. I hope the judge laughs at her when she goes to court about this.

 

[BurlyShirley]

Sorry no sympathy here.

EggFVCKINGzacktly.

 

[ohio]

Sorry no sympathy here. Whether she was 72 or 20 it does not make a difference. Even worse is her lying about the situation on the news. I hope the judge laughs at her when she goes to court about this.

So you're saying if a 90 year old man dared you to punch him the face, you would? And you'd be justified?

Holy christ, did you have parents, or were you raised feral? You've got the ****ing moral compass of master blaster.

 

[kidwoo]

You've got the ****ing moral compass of master blaster.

Heh.

That dude totally runs barter town.

 

[kidwoo]

Sorry no sympathy here. Whether she was 72 or 20 it does not make a difference.

Actually it does. A restraining device (that means tazer) is justified only when detention is warranted but for some reason or another cannot be accomplished. A 20 year old with a hot temper is more of a threat than a geriatric smartass. I know you don't understand this but I just wanted to clarify for anyone who's not a bullheaded tough guy with no sense of scale.