Ban Or Better Regulate Taser Guns

[Sparq]

Hey, you know what else causes nerve damage? Alcohol.

[jjp21]

Not like 50,000 volts does.

[Sparq]

Given time...

 

The point is that just about anything an officer could do to subdue a person 'causes nerve damage' so it may help to paint a clearer picture of why that's an immediate and noticeable threat. Do your nerves feel damaged?

[HoboFactory]

At a local hospital here, there's a psychiatric unit. One patient became agitated, attacked a nurse and so on. Security subdued him without the use of any weapons. After having handcuffed or zip-tied his hands and feet, they laid him down on his stomach. The guy weighed something like 500 pounds and apparently thus suffocated under his own weight and died. Apparently plenty of people die in such ways. There's not really one fool-proof method that always works and is never dangerous.

 

You see in reality, like 99.99% of the time, the decision as to whether you get tased, or otherwise forcefully subdued isn't made by the officer, it's made by you. If the police want to arrest you, they're gonna do it, if you resist, they're not gonna say "Well, clearly this guy doesn't wanna come with us, guess we better let him go." If they're arresting and you think you didn't do anything wrong, well that's what the court system is for. Does this mean, if a person makes a bad decision, they should die for it, certainly not, but they should probably keep in mind before they make that decision that maybe they're taking such a chance.

[jjp21]

Given time most anything will hurt you.

 

A taser does irreversible damage in about 60 seconds.

 

Also I'd like to point out that it wasn't like I was turning to run I was asking what my arrest was for. After not giving me an answer a fourth time I asked him again this where he drew the gun and tased me without warning. There was no okay I' going to use this if you don't comply. It was taser drawn, officer steps back, used, me subdued. Not only did I vomit, but I couldn't stand up for fifteen minutes and I was bleeding from the fucking hooks that dug into my side from the gun.

 

All I'm saying is the taser is abused/used more often then it isn't. DTMB, and the children that were tased all over the US (Florida and California in particular I think).

 

And yeah there is always that very slim chance that something could go wrong with other methods as well, but it's almost asking for something to wrong when using a taser.

Edited January 3, 2008 by jjp21

[Sparq]

Getting drunk and arguing with the cops is asking for something to go wrong, too. What irreversible damage does a taser do in sixty seconds? For the record, a standard M18 air taser discharges 50,000 volts for only five seconds per trigger pull. An X26C civilian model discharges at 50,000 volts for ten seconds.

 

But yeah, it is quite likely that they are used too often - I've been over this before with an 'ease, safety and convenience for the cops' sort of theme. I just think this whole 'ban tasers' thing is a bit of a kneejerk overcorrection.

Edited January 3, 2008 by Sparq

[jjp21]

Per trigger pull being the key word. Usually, including in my experience, it isn't a single pull.

 

And like I said I wasn't drunk, four drinks isn't drunk.

Edited January 3, 2008 by jjp21

[borntohula]

You see in reality, like 99.99% of the time, the decision as to whether you get tased, or otherwise forcefully subdued isn't made by the officer, it's made by you. If the police want to arrest you, they're gonna do it, if you resist, they're not gonna say "Well, clearly this guy doesn't wanna come with us, guess we better let him go." If they're arresting and you think you didn't do anything wrong, well that's what the court system is for. Does this mean, if a person makes a bad decision, they should die for it, certainly not, but they should probably keep in mind before they make that decision that maybe they're taking such a chance.

that is the most ludicrous support for the use of tasers that i've read so far.

 

with that sort of "you're just doing it to yourself" kind of logic, i'm sure you could support any number of detainment methods, humane or inhumane. at the same time, you're essentially giving carte blanche to these police officers just because they're supposed to be protecting you. does their role in society suddenly mean that somehow they have better judgement than you do? no, not at all.

 

"keep in mind before they make that decision that maybe they're taking such a chance."

 

you could say that about any sort of crime. if what you're saying is true, then punishment would actually be a deterrent and there would be very low recidivism rates in north america. if everyone took the time out to remind themselves of what crime they were about to commit and what the penalties were, or were even capable of doing so, there would be very little crime at all. few people are capable of thinking in those terms, and even if they were, i don't think that death is an appropriate form of deterrence that people should just accept.

 

there should be some sort of sliding scale for taser use. they shouldn't be just deployed on a drunk. or just get rid of them all together...

[Sparq]

or just get rid of them all together...

Nah. While I agree that the 'take responsibility' argument can be twisted into something sinister, I also cannot condone an outright ban because of a small percentage of deaths. It's entirely possible that they're used too often. Regulate all you want, people will still die. Ban them, people will still die. Abolish the police entirely, or crack down harder than ever before. People will still die.

 

People die. No amount of legislation will change that. There will always be killers, corruption, war, disease, death, pain, misery. It's the human condition. Ban tasers, and I'd say (opinion) you're doing more harm than good.

[HoboFactory]

that is the most ludicrous support for the use of tasers that i've read so far.

 

with that sort of "you're just doing it to yourself" kind of logic, i'm sure you could support any number of detainment methods, humane or inhumane. at the same time, you're essentially giving carte blanche to these police officers just because they're supposed to be protecting you. does their role in society suddenly mean that somehow they have better judgement than you do? no, not at all.

 

"keep in mind before they make that decision that maybe they're taking such a chance."

 

you could say that about any sort of crime. if what you're saying is true, then punishment would actually be a deterrent and there would be very low recidivism rates in north america. if everyone took the time out to remind themselves of what crime they were about to commit and what the penalties were, or were even capable of doing so, there would be very little crime at all. few people are capable of thinking in those terms, and even if they were, i don't think that death is an appropriate form of deterrence that people should just accept.

 

there should be some sort of sliding scale for taser use. they shouldn't be just deployed on a drunk. or just get rid of them all together...

How is it ludicrous (slippery slope fallacy aside)? It is completely logical and based on facts. I mean, how does it open the door to more inhumane methods, I mean really, what is the connection?

 

Let's break it down:

 

If say a cop pulls you over, and determines that you're drunk, he/she IS going to arrest you; resisting, running, etc will not somehow allow you to avoid the arrest. You're not Jason Bourne. I mean, you really can't argue with that part.

 

So keeping in mind, that either way you are getting arrested, the ball really is in your court. It's not opening the door for some dystopian authoritarian society, because, again there is still such a thing as a fair trial, and if you're innocent, odds are you'll go free.

[borntohula]

i agree. resisting arrest is stupid. very stupid, but people do it anyways. however, the idea that "resistance is pointless and only makes things worse for people," does not factor into the thinking process at all for a good number of people who commit crimes, and i think that's where your argument is flawed.

 

if the awareness of consequences, for instance, incarceration, doesn't already deter individuals from breaking the law, then how do you expect the ball to be in the person's court? i understand a person is responsible for their actions, but how does that responsibility then translate to automatically accepting whatever consequences there are for their actions? we're discussing whether or not tasers should be allowed and so far your only justification for them has been because they're the end result of a situation which is ultimately at the hands of the offender. tasers do not act as a preventative form of deterrence, just like i've explained that jails don't act as a deterrence either. so the only use for the taser at that point is as a weapon, not a method of prevention, not a method for deterrence.

[HoboFactory]

i agree. resisting arrest is stupid. very stupid, but people do it anyways. however, the idea that "resistance is pointless and only makes things worse for people," does not factor into the thinking process at all for a good number of people who commit crimes, and i think that's where your argument is flawed.

 

if the awareness of consequences, for instance, incarceration, doesn't already deter individuals from breaking the law, then how do you expect the ball to be in the person's court? i understand a person is responsible for their actions, but how does that responsibility then translate to automatically accepting whatever consequences there are for their actions? we're discussing whether or not tasers should be allowed and so far your only justification for them has been because they're the end result of a situation which is ultimately at the hands of the offender. tasers do not act as a preventative form of deterrence, just like i've explained that jails don't act as a deterrence either. so the only use for the taser at that point is as a weapon, not a method of prevention, not a method for deterrence.

Being responsible for ones own actions doesn't automatically translate into accepting ANY consequence that could possibly be imposed. If you argue with a cop about not being too drunk to drive, it doesn't mean he/she can shoot you in the face or something like that; certainly the police should have training and have good judgment as to what amount of force is necessary under one particular circumstance or another. But, people don't commit crimes or resist arrest or run from cops not knowing what the consequences are, they're simply too stupid and arrogant to think it can or should happen to them. It is absolute common knowledge, if you try to fight off cops or what not, they will use force. So your argument seems to be that because they're too stupid and arrogant to think it could happen to them, it shouldn't happen to them, which to me seems like it opens the door to a lot more crime.

[borntohula]

Being responsible for ones own actions doesn't automatically translate into accepting ANY consequence that could possibly be imposed. If you argue with a cop about not being too drunk to drive, it doesn't mean he/she can shoot you in the face or something like that; certainly the police should have training and have good judgment as to what amount of force is necessary under one particular circumstance or another. But, people don't commit crimes or resist arrest or run from cops not knowing what the consequences are, they're simply too stupid and arrogant to think it can or should happen to them. It is absolute common knowledge, if you try to fight off cops or what not, they will use force. So your argument seems to be that because they're too stupid and arrogant to think it could happen to them, it shouldn't happen to them, which to me seems like it opens the door to a lot more crime.

no, it isn't. because again, as you and i've stated, tasers are not preventative in the least, and as i firmly believe, nor are they an adequate method for detaining an individual. as has been demonstrated this past year, clearly police officers do not know how to wield this weapon, so why should they? please, enlighten me as to what benefit they serve in the field of law enforcement. if the weapon and the shock it administers far more harmful to the offender than it needs to be, if lives are being lost, then these weapons are clearly not being used for the right purposes, or being taught effectively. they're supposed to aid officers in detaining an offender, not risk the health of someone before they even have an opportunity at defending themselves in the proper court of law.

[HoboFactory]

no, it isn't. because again, as you and i've stated, tasers are not preventative in the least, and as i firmly believe, nor are they an adequate method for detaining an individual. as has been demonstrated this past year, clearly police officers do not know how to wield this weapon, so why should they? please, enlighten me as to what benefit they serve in the field of law enforcement. if the weapon and the shock it administers far more harmful to the offender than it needs to be, if lives are being lost, then these weapons are clearly not being used for the right purposes, or being taught effectively. they're supposed to aid officers in detaining an offender, not risk the health of someone before they even have an opportunity at defending themselves in the proper court of law.

Except tasers probably ARE preventative. Think about it, who actually wants to be arrested? Well, naturally, next to no one; yet only a fraction of those arrested actually resist arrest. Now, obviously, one can't claim that tasers are solely responsible for every arrestee that is submissive, but really, what other motive do people have to go "willingly" if not the notion that one way or another they're going to be arrested, and things will be a lot better if they go quietly.

 

Can you imagine, being stopped by a cop, knowing for a fact that he's not able to use force to subdue you, that if you chose to resist or run, chances are quite good that you'll get away, you'd be a lot less willing to comply I imagine.

 

When I was in middle school, I was riding a bicycle, some middle-aged guy pulled over next to me in his car, and got on my case about how I should be wearing a bicycle helmet; I told him to get lost and rode off. Now, why wouldn't I do that to a cop, even when I was middle-schooler, therefore less mindful of such things?

 

Why do you think it's so much easier to run from a supermarket security guards than from cops. You said yourself, that resisting arrest is very stupid, why is it not nearly as stupid to resist or run from the Wal-Mart greeter? Because with the security guards, you know he/she can't really do anything. All you gotta do is wrestle free, if that, and run a little faster for only a little while and then there's really too much else the guard can do.

[borntohula]

Except tasers probably ARE preventative. Think about it, who actually wants to be arrested? Well, naturally, next to no one; yet only a fraction of those arrested actually resist arrest. Now, obviously, one can't claim that tasers are solely responsible for every arrestee that is submissive, but really, what other motive do people have to go "willingly" if not the notion that one way or another they're going to be arrested, and things will be a lot better if they go quietly.

 

Can you imagine, being stopped by a cop, knowing for a fact that he's not able to use force to subdue you, that if you chose to resist or run, chances are quite good that you'll get away, you'd be a lot less willing to comply I imagine.

 

When I was in middle school, I was riding a bicycle, some middle-aged guy pulled over next to me in his car, and got on my case about how I should be wearing a bicycle helmet; I told him to get lost and rode off. Now, why wouldn't I do that to a cop, even when I was middle-schooler, therefore less mindful of such things?

 

Why do you think it's so much easier to run from a supermarket security guards than from cops. You said yourself, that resisting arrest is very stupid, why is it not nearly as stupid to resist or run from the Wal-Mart greeter? Because with the security guards, you know he/she can't really do anything. All you gotta do is wrestle free, if that, and run a little faster for only a little while and then there's really too much else the guard can do.

again, your logic amazes me. i think you're missing the point of this discussion completely. quit using happenstantial, rhetorical situations as some sort of proof for your argument (i.e. "who WANTS to get arrested" or "can you imagine..."), those are questions no one here can answer, nor are they really questions which direct us to a solution. furthermore, personal experience can't act as any kind of proof. how can i prove a personal experience of yours wrong? and just because i can't prove it wrong, doesn't necessarily make it right, either; the exception does not become the rule. moreover, how do i know that what you're saying is what actually happened? you'll have just as hard a time as proving that event took place as you are with trying to prove to me why tasers are a necessary tool for law enforcement.

 

Can you imagine, being stopped by a cop, knowing for a fact that he's not able to use force to subdue you, that if you chose to resist or run, chances are quite good that you'll get away, you'd be a lot less willing to comply I imagine.

 

so your solution to this is possession of a taser? i'm aware that one of the many "weapons" that police use in a not-so-subtle fashion is fear; police presence is one of many methods of crime-prevention that is employed, and successfully so, by law-enforcement. well, relatively successfully. successful enough that they continue to use this method. even if police are doing absolutely nothing, they must appear to be. a textbook example of this would be the "blue tide" who walk through the streets of east-hastings in vancouver to discourage drug use in the area which is well known (at least in canada) for it. but prevention isn't everything. these methods do not deter every individual from breaking the law. as soon as that blue tide breaks, people go right back to what they were doing before the police made their walk through those sidewalks and alleyways.

 

what i dont understand is how you think a taser will increase fear of a police officer? if you're determined that these tasers work preventively, then what is it about a taser that appeals to an individual's fear where a gun does not? according to your logic, you claim the majority of people fear the more extreme of the two examples you've given: the cop versus the security guard, as the cop has more authority and power; there are more consequences for not listening to a cop. what goes in accordance with what you're saying, but what essentially contradicts your defence of tasers, is the idea that a gun is more likely to kill someone than a taser, an idea which proponents of tasers fully support. in those terms then, the taser is a "lesser" weapon, less likely to actually be effective in preventing anything in the mind of an offender.

 

my argument is that although a gun is more likely to kill someone, that should not suddenly be support for the use of a taser. the taser has been used primarily as a method to detain individuals before a situation escalates, however, as we've seen, it's been doing far more than simply detaining those it has been used on. what then, are the justifications for its use? the taser should be studied more before it is used on a large scale out in the public. more tests need to be done, especially in terms of the long term effects the weapon has on individuals. although there are a certain number of shots advised to be administered to the offender, how many are actually being used? such a weapon needs to be understood fully before i would ever consent to its use.

[HoboFactory]

again, your logic amazes me. i think you're missing the point of this discussion completely. quit using happenstantial, rhetorical situations as some sort of proof for your argument (i.e. "who WANTS to get arrested" or "can you imagine..."), those are questions no one here can answer, nor are they really questions which direct us to a solution. furthermore, personal experience can't act as any kind of proof. how can i prove a personal experience of yours wrong? and just because i can't prove it wrong, doesn't necessarily make it right, either; the exception does not become the rule. moreover, how do i know that what you're saying is what actually happened? you'll have just as hard a time as proving that event took place as you are with trying to prove to me why tasers are a necessary tool for law enforcement.

 

 

 

so your solution to this is possession of a taser? i'm aware that one of the many "weapons" that police use in a not-so-subtle fashion is fear; police presence is one of many methods of crime-prevention that is employed, and successfully so, by law-enforcement. well, relatively successfully. successful enough that they continue to use this method. even if police are doing absolutely nothing, they must appear to be. a textbook example of this would be the "blue tide" who walk through the streets of east-hastings in vancouver to discourage drug use in the area which is well known (at least in canada) for it. but prevention isn't everything. these methods do not deter every individual from breaking the law. as soon as that blue tide breaks, people go right back to what they were doing before the police made their walk through those sidewalks and alleyways.

 

what i dont understand is how you think a taser will increase fear of a police officer? if you're determined that these tasers work preventively, then what is it about a taser that appeals to an individual's fear where a gun does not? according to your logic, you claim the majority of people fear the more extreme of the two examples you've given: the cop versus the security guard, as the cop has more authority and power; there are more consequences for not listening to a cop. what goes in accordance with what you're saying, but what essentially contradicts your defence of tasers, is the idea that a gun is more likely to kill someone than a taser, an idea which proponents of tasers fully support. in those terms then, the taser is a "lesser" weapon, less likely to actually be effective in preventing anything in the mind of an offender.

 

my argument is that although a gun is more likely to kill someone, that should not suddenly be support for the use of a taser. the taser has been used primarily as a method to detain individuals before a situation escalates, however, as we've seen, it's been doing far more than simply detaining those it has been used on. what then, are the justifications for its use? the taser should be studied more before it is used on a large scale out in the public. more tests need to be done, especially in terms of the long term effects the weapon has on individuals. although there are a certain number of shots advised to be administered to the offender, how many are actually being used? such a weapon needs to be understood fully before i would ever consent to its use.

What's with the personal insults? Makes it hard to take you seriously.

 

It's funny, as soon as practical examples come to light, they're suddenly somehow "unprovable" and can't be used, yet you can make blanket statements without any examples of any kind, such as the notion that police imposed consequence don't work as a deterrent, it's supposed to be taken as utter unquestionable fact.

 

Furthermore, if the notion that a teenaged Pavel was once rude to a motorist is so hard to believe, why do you swallow the whining of some guy who claims to have been tased for merely asking a question?

 

Why is a taser effective as a deterrent even though it's not as "dangerous" in the eyes of an offender as a gun? Because a cop is much more likely to use the taser in order to restrain one who runs or resists. The officer's gun is generally to be used as a last resort, and a cop doesn't shoot unless there is an immediate threat to his/her own life or the life of others.

[Rebabaluba]

My brother is an RCMP member of the Surrey detachment so he's had a lot of action even though he's only been a cop for two years. I've talked to him about his opinions on the whole taser incident. He's seen the video and knows about the details of what happened. He admits that the use of a taser on Robert Dziekanski was a bit excessive for one guy but the man did have a stapler in his hand. That is viewed as a weapon and the cops had the right to use the taser. He said what killed the guy wasn't the taser, it was the fact that the taser made his heart beat very fast and then the cops subdued him. He was restrained while his heart was racing and that's what caused it to fail. My brother went through taser training (which means he has experienced the effects of the taser and he still has the marks to show for it) so he knows all about what tasers are capable of. He said it perfectly to me though "If I approach a man with something in his hands, I'm not going to try to get close to him, I'm going to use any means necessary to subdue him and go to my wife at the end of the night".

What people tend to forget is that cops are regular people who went to a boot camp for 6 months and came out with a lot of power and responsibility. It frustrates me that people think they're always in the right when a cop does something to them. It's just the typical "I don't like authority" sort of thing. Cops put their life on the line every single day to protect all of you. People call them down but when they're in trouble...they call the police. Two mounties were shot and killed up North but they didn't get nearly as much coverage as the crazed man at the airport. I should also remind people that in other airports there's security walking around with AK-47's and would shoot a man like that without hesitation. Robert Dziekanski should have understood that these people were trying to control the situation...but I guess when you're a person who has been charged with several break and enters, you don't trust police all that much.

I'm sorry if I'm rambling people, it just pisses me off to see threads like this. I'm glad people are signing that petition without knowing all the facts. Did you guys know that batons (the special ones they use these days) have killed way more people and when they were first introduced to the RCMP, the same situation occurred. In my opinion this whole taser thing has been blown way out of proportion by the media because they want their story for the people who are stupid enough to listen to them without question. Go ahead and sign the dumb petition, but it comforts me to know that my brother is walking the streets of Surrey with an extra weapon to protect him.

A good quote you should all remember: "Cops are given a split second to react and critics are allowed to tear apart that decision for years" Most people would crack under that pressure, so don't sit in front of your computers and think you know everything because you watch the headlines on the news.

[HoboFactory]

Damn right.

[ToadMan]

I want to clarify something about this debate from my point of view. This is more so for my own edification. One of the aspects that I agreed with is that this petition didn't call for the outright ban of taser guns (as the title of this thread would imply) but for the reconsideration of regulations.

 

To clarify my own point of view, I don't see tasers as necessarily bad. What I see is that it is a device which requires correct training and use. If indeed officers are using tasers in situations that merit them (and not being an ethics expert, I'm not qualified to answer what merits use); and when used they are used in a manor which firstly mitigates risk form the office, and secondly minimizes risk to the person being apprehended, then I have no problem with them.

 

Forgive the comma splice, I'm too tired to fix it.