Quantcast

I love this (tazers again!)

Silver

Silver

find me a tampon
Jul 20, 2002
10,840
1
Orange County, CA
One of my pet peeves: Law enforcement deems a photo or a video to be absolute incontrovertible truth when it supports their position. When it doesn't however, you get statements like this:

RCMP spokesman Cpl. Dale Carr said no one can judge what happened to Dziekanski by just watching the video.

"It's just one piece of evidence, one person's view. There are many people that we have spoken to," RCMP spokesman Cpl. Dale Carr said at a press conference Wednesday afternoon.

Translation: Who are you going to believe? Me, or your lying eyes?

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2007/11/14/bc-taservideo.html

I haven't even watched the video. I'm not sure I want to see a Polish guy electrocuted to death right before bed. That kind of thing goes better with breakfast...
 
S

skinny mike

Turbo Monkey
Jan 24, 2005
6,415
0
it's not that easy to tell whether or not he was still resisting when they had him pinned down. you could hear the cameraman say that he was still fighting them off or something.

i think this is just one of those unfortunate accidents that happens every now and then.
 
stevew

stevew

resident influencer
Sep 21, 2001
41,407
10,334
Pollocks everywhere should think twice before going to Canada.

They want you dead.
 
jaydee

jaydee

Monkey
Jul 5, 2001
794
0
Victoria BC
According to a translator who watched the video, when the murderers, I mean RCMP, showed up, the soon-to-be murdered man said, "Now I'm safe". A bit ironic. He was not resisting when they killed him. He was kind of perturbed after they tased him a couple of times for no real reason other than that he couldn't speak English, which is I guess why they tased him a couple more times and then knelt on his neck for a while to make sure he was dead. You know the RCMP motto: "We always get our man".
 
SPINTECK

SPINTECK

Turbo Monkey
Oct 16, 2005
1,370
0
abc
it's really tragic b/c he was backing away, but the one rookie asked if he could use his tazer- kind of like, "can I, hugh, hugh".

I think the real arguement is will the number of cops who abuse power and lack intelligence out weigh any positive impact of tazers?? w/out the tazers, the cop would not have shot him, but 4 of them, heck 2 of them could have hand cuffed him easily w/out burning out the nodes in his heart.

I need to thank manimal and the other officers for sharing their perspective because I know it is hard for them being responsible cops watching the poor decisions of the few get so much attention. Please don't think we believe all officers are poor characters. We definitely need good policemen- that really can't be debated.

My whole point to all these is similar to our court system:
"better 10 guilty men go free, than 1 innocent go to jail."

Better 10 suspects get away than one poor guy DIE. Dying by the strong arm of the law is a big deal when you're not even committing a crime. People are not ready for this technology to be used in public. Maybe prisons, but not mini-malls and airports.
 
jaydee

jaydee

Monkey
Jul 5, 2001
794
0
Victoria BC
Apologies to manimal and all the good cops out there, who vastly outnumber the inept ones. I was not knocking the police in general in my anti-taser rant, just the thugs who made the fatally bad decision to taser that fellow rather than try to mellow him out.
 
MikeD

MikeD

Leader and Demogogue of the Ridemonkey Satinists
Oct 26, 2001
11,737
1,820
chez moi
stevew said:
Pollocks everywhere should think twice before going to Canada.

They want you dead.
Click to expand...
The rampant and rabid anti-abstract-expressionism there is truly saddening.



Or is it simple specisim??

 
manimal

manimal

Ociffer Tackleberry
Feb 27, 2002
7,213
22
Blindly running into cactus
SPINTECK said:
it's really tragic b/c he was backing away, but the one rookie asked if he could use his tazer- kind of like, "can I, hugh, hugh".
Click to expand...
that is a very interesting point. i don't know how they do it at other departments but i am required to know my use of force general order by heart before i can even start field training. there should be no question as to whether the individual officer can use a certain tool because when it comes to court, the officer is going to have to articulate why he felt it necessary to use the level of force he/she did. i personally rarely use anything other than my hands and i've never had a complaint of excessive force. whenever i have to wear somebody out, there are usually witnesses that say things like, "i told that fool he was gonna get his a$$ whooped for doing that...be he don't listen too good."
so yeah, i'm gonna be that RCMP didn't have a good use of force model in place before they started using taser, either that or their training sucks big balls.
my rule of thumb is as follows:
1. me vs. bad guy with no weapon that has indicated he wants a fight = taser
2. me + backup vs. bad guy with no weapon that has indicated he wants fight = takedown

3. me alone or with backup against bad guy with gun = dead bad guy
 
$tinkle

$tinkle

Expert on blowing
Feb 12, 2003
14,591
6
Silver said:
How long until a Republican presidential candidate makes this part of his immigration policy?
Click to expand...
sadly, tancredo just pre-emptively bowed out. that would have been fun watching the bombing of meccaxico city on u2b
 
BMXman

BMXman

I wish I was Canadian
Sep 8, 2001
13,827
0
Victoria, BC
wow the drama in this thread is amazing...lets get the facts first huh...the police did not kill him the effects of the taser and his body chemistry did!...actually it's much easier to just e-speculate...D
 
Mlody

Mlody

Monkey
Feb 25, 2006
120
0
London - UK
so BMXman ... Lee Boyd Malvo didn't kill people, bullet and their non-bulletproof body did!
Release Lee Boyd Malvo ! He's not guilty !
^sarcasm^

And I do not think that police officers should not carry tasers...
They should have it, they should use it and they should have guns as well. But they should use it ONLY when it's needed, not "just for fun".
And I think that in that case, police officer who used taser should be prosecuted.


I know it's kinda old thread, but I just couldn't stand what bmxman wrote here.
 
MikeD

MikeD

Leader and Demogogue of the Ridemonkey Satinists
Oct 26, 2001
11,737
1,820
chez moi
Mlody said:
so BMXman ... Lee Boyd Malvo didn't kill people, bullet and their non-bulletproof body did!
Release Lee Boyd Malvo ! He's not guilty !
^sarcasm^
Click to expand...

That's a really stupid statement. Of course Lee Malvo killed his victims...he shot them with a lethal weapon.

The difference with the officer and the taser is that the officer, empowered to his position by society through its elected government, was legally issued a taser and told it was a non-lethal weapon with specific characteristics which can be employed under specific circumstances. He's not an expert on physiology and isn't required to be; he's supposed to be an expert on when and where he can use it, and the techniques of employing it. If the weapon resulted in someone's death, it's not murder unless the officer used the weapon in a manner inconsistent with his training and with the intent to kill the subject. (Which is unlikely, considering he's educated that it's not a lethal weapon).

Then again, I forget which taser incident we're discussing here.

Certainly, however, the amount of taser deaths lately is alarming, and I think there should probably be a review of its place in the use-of-force continuum. I think it should probably only be used against someone actively assaulting the police or attempting to flee after such an assault, as opposed to actively resisting (pulling away, running, etc.)
 
MikeD

MikeD

Leader and Demogogue of the Ridemonkey Satinists
Oct 26, 2001
11,737
1,820
chez moi
Wow, Ridemonkey has found balance. I've come up a step and you've come down one.
 
$tinkle

$tinkle

Expert on blowing
Feb 12, 2003
14,591
6
unlike ReneRick, i take issue with this statement:
MikeD said:
I think it should probably only be used against someone actively assaulting the police or attempting to flee after such an assault, as opposed to actively resisting (pulling away, running, etc.)
Click to expand...
i'm picturing the cop being assaulted, and find it hard to conceive the use of a tazer w/o the necessary gap (4-10'?). and i thought your opinion was that it should be used if someone is closing the gap, against the directives of the cop, therefore advertising his intent on getting physical.

also, if what you say here is used as point normal:
the officer, empowered to his position by society through its elected government, was legally issued a taser and told it was a non-lethal weapon with specific characteristics which can be employed under specific circumstances. He's not an expert on physiology and isn't required to be; he's supposed to be an expert on when and where he can use it, and the techniques of employing it.
Click to expand...
if the tazer is a compliance tool, it seems to follow he doesn't have to be undergoing an assault - or imminently soon to be - in order to justify its use

me == confused
 
MikeD

MikeD

Leader and Demogogue of the Ridemonkey Satinists
Oct 26, 2001
11,737
1,820
chez moi
$tinkle said:
unlike ReneRick, i take issue with this statement: i'm picturing the cop being assaulted, and find it hard to conceive the use of a tazer w/o the necessary gap (4-10'?). and i thought your opinion was that it should be used if someone is closing the gap, against the directives of the cop, therefore advertising his intent on getting physical.
Click to expand...
An assault is not necessarily consumated by battery. Conveyance of a threat is an assault, which can happen from many distances. Another good reason officers should keep distance from subjects--and if subject moves closer against the officer's commands, that's assault. Plus, this is why officers work in pairs. A taser might not be applicable in any given tactical situation anyhow...there are other options. It's not as if assault=taser inevitably and irrevocably...

$tinkle said:
also, if what you say here is used as point normal:if the tazer is a compliance tool, it seems to follow he doesn't have to be undergoing an assault - or imminently soon to be - in order to justify its use

me == confused
Click to expand...
Well, weren't we attempting to redefine conditions under which tasers should be used? The whole idea is that it shouldn't be a tool to use against the merely noncompliant; rather, it should be used only to counter an assault or stop the flight of an assailant.
 
Mlody

Mlody

Monkey
Feb 25, 2006
120
0
London - UK
MikeD:
I wrote that it's just sarcasm (and exaggeration), and i was referring to:
"the police did not kill him the effects of the taser and his body chemistry did"

And i know that police officer didn't meant to kill that guy on the airport, but he did killed him. That guy wasn't assaulting officers, so why did they used taser?

"I think it should probably only be used against someone actively assaulting the police or attempting to flee after such an assault, as opposed to actively resisting (pulling away, running, etc.)"
I totally agree!
 
MikeD

MikeD

Leader and Demogogue of the Ridemonkey Satinists
Oct 26, 2001
11,737
1,820
chez moi
Mlody said:
MikeD:
I wrote that it's just sarcasm (and exaggeration), and i was referring to:
"the police did not kill him the effects of the taser and his body chemistry did"
Click to expand...
Yes. I can read what you wrote.

The police didn't kill him. In this case, you CAN blame the tool, and perhaps the toolmaker and the experts who approved its use. The police officer used a tool he knew to be non-lethal in his training and experience. He did not intend to kill the subject. The fact that the guy died from it was a misfortune of, as BMXman states clearly, the effects of the taser and his body chemistry.

Which is why we should perhaps take another look at when police should be allowed to employ the taser.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom