| Welcome! You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
| Tasers proven to cause death | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Feb 1 2008, 06:00 PM (459 Views) | |
| Reddawn | Feb 5 2008, 09:24 PM Post #26 |
|
No. I wouldn't say. In fact, that's the reason why police forces implemented tasers. Because they're LESS likely to be fatal. Picture this. The cops roll up to a call and they find a man who appears to be unstable who is wildly waving a knife around. After repeated orders, he refuses to drop the weapon and acts in a threating manner toward the cops. What should the cops do? Shoot him with their guns? Taser him? Attack him with billy clubs? Use rubber bullets or "sandbag" blasts from a shotgun? BTW, all of the other options besides bullets could prove to be fatal. You see, tasers are designed to be "less lethal" than bullets. You can make an argument that there are other "less lethal" options but you have to keep in mind that the safety of the cops need to be considered. What if it was a relative or loved one? What action would you like the cops to take? |
 |
 
|
| Shagata Ganai | Feb 5 2008, 10:16 PM Post #27 |
Multiple Criminal Theorist
|
The same methods that worked so well for the time period before the taser. |
|
|
|
| Bart | Feb 6 2008, 02:08 AM Post #28 |
|
Tasers on pigs: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0NcV3VADXEY |
|
|
|
| Kaiya | Feb 6 2008, 01:55 PM Post #29 |
|
Are you thinking of shooting and clubbing? What other methods do you have for subduing an unstable knife wielding person? Saying please does not always work. Kaiya |
|
|
|
| Shagata Ganai | Feb 6 2008, 03:20 PM Post #30 |
|
Multiple Criminal Theorist
|
Well, you and Rox go ahead in your ultimate faith in the judgement of ill-trained police forces to always make the right choice. I have none. Guess that beanbag shotgun is just too gentle.  Agree to disagree. 
|
|
|
|
| Roxdog | Feb 6 2008, 03:42 PM Post #31 |
|
BWhahhaa....you are pathetic. No one is saying anything like that in the slightest. By your rationale (or lack of it), we should disarm cops completely. That is idiotic. Cops that deploy tazers recklessly should be punished just like when they use anything else recklessly. Again, I am pretty critical of police and their methods, I am just not an idiot...
That is because you are an illinformed, irrational human being.
Right, you "go ahead in your ultimate faith in the judgement of ill-trained police forces to always make the right choice" when using deadly beanbag shotguns....bwahahha.
You can do whatever you want ...but your still wrong. Edited by Roxdog, Feb 6 2008, 03:43 PM.
|
|
|
|
| Kaiya | Feb 6 2008, 05:56 PM Post #32 |
|
I do not think we can do that until you answer the simple questions put to you. Thanks. Kaiya |
|
|
|
| JFK | Feb 6 2008, 06:36 PM Post #33 |
|
Does that mean you disagree to disagree ??? |
|
|
| Kaiya | Feb 6 2008, 07:06 PM Post #34 |
|
It means I will not agree to anything he says on this topic until he answer the questions. Kaiya |
|
|
|
| JFK | Feb 6 2008, 07:20 PM Post #35 |
|
So you disagree to disagree. < Yawn > |
|
|
|
| Shagata Ganai | Feb 6 2008, 09:04 PM Post #36 |
|
Multiple Criminal Theorist
|
In your humble opinion. And I write the King's English better than you. ha. Edited by Shagata Ganai, Feb 6 2008, 09:05 PM.
|
|
|
|
| Roxdog | Feb 7 2008, 11:40 AM Post #37 |
|
"Yes, but it also happens to be true which kinda gives it that extra umph..." 
Only a bootlicker would brag about "The King's" English....and you don't write much better than me. Not enough to brag about anyway. And you aren't very smart. Edited by Roxdog, Feb 7 2008, 11:41 AM.
|
|
|
|
| look-up | Feb 7 2008, 11:55 AM Post #38 |
|
@ Reddawn, You are right, that tazers are less lethal than bullets, but the reality is that if an officer has a tool at his or her desposal that is less lethal, but often-times IS lethal, they will use that less-lethal tool in instances where previously, they would have used very little force at all, if any. So a less lethal tool ends up causing more deaths than the more lethal tool, since it is used more frequently. Officers brandish their weapons frequently, but hardly ever fire shots. Some officers go their whole carreers without ever firing live rounds at suspects. Yet as more and more officers are given tazers, they will not use the same restraint as they would with a 9mm or whatever side-arm they are using. |
|
|
|
| Roxdog | Feb 7 2008, 01:01 PM Post #39 |
|
Statistically, this isn't so. Tazers are actually PREVENTING injuries during arrests.
Officers brandish their weapons infrequently.
That is because the same restraint isn't necessary. Edited by Roxdog, Feb 7 2008, 01:01 PM.
|
|
|
|
| look-up | Feb 7 2008, 02:24 PM Post #40 |
|
Preventing injury is not the same as preventing fatalities. Sure, a tazer jolt might stop someone from attacking an officer, and if it is clear that an individual is intent on attacking an officer, then sure go ahead and stop the person. People rarely ever die during normal arrests. Sure, it happens, and that is a shame, but I think the tazer deaths seem to be rising, and that is cause for greaet concern. In those instances, instead of shocking someone with thousands of volts, why not use a couple officers to just restrain the person? I'm not saying tazers should never be used. I'm only saying they should be used much less than they are.
I mean more frequently than they fire them. This is true.
not quite the same level, but pretty close, especially if people are dying. people are being tazed in many cases when they could simply be tackled to the ground and handcuffed. think of the "don't taze me bro" incident. How many cops were standing around? Couldn't they have gotten cuffs on the man without using a tazer? Multiple times no less? |
|
|
|
| Roxdog | Feb 7 2008, 02:56 PM Post #41 |
|
Well, yes, actually it is. Injuries cause death. Have tazers caused any more fatalities since there implementation than before they were used? No. Not at all. And injuries during arrest to both suspects and LE are significantly down.
Right. There you go. My point exactly. Tazers are a useful LE tool.
Right, well, that is going to happen when you start using something for the first time. But in-custody deaths statistics haven't changed since the introduction of tazers.
Um, because you may not have "a couple of officers" at your immediate disposal and even if you do, you are putting them and the suspect at greater risk of being injured...statistically at least. Would you want attempt to restrain someone holding a knife or an aids infested needle?
Right. That was my point as well... |
|
|
|
| Roxdog | Feb 7 2008, 02:58 PM Post #42 |
|
Nope. Not close.
A tiny tiny amount of people are dying when tazers aren't used properly, yes...
I know.
Yes. This is one of the many examples where a tazer was deployed when it wasn't necessary. None of those people should continue to have their jobs...and the guy should have sued. Edited by Roxdog, Feb 7 2008, 02:59 PM.
|
|
|
|
| look-up | Feb 7 2008, 03:29 PM Post #43 |
|
Injuries do not always cause death. And how could a tazer cause a fatality before they were implemented in the force? Or are you simply saying that they have caused fewer deaths than pistols? That is probably true, but since the same level of restraint is not used, as we've both pointed out, we might see statistics that show a lower percentage of use/death ratio, but also an overall higher death count. Personally, I don't want cops controlling protesters to even carry them. It is inviting escalation of violence in the crowds they are attempting to control. If you started tazing some demonstrators (peaceful ones hopefully), then it is more likely that other demonstrators will become violent, after seeing such a thing take place. So actually they would be counter-productive in crowd control.
Useful? Yes. Humane? Debatable. In your example below, if someone was in clear danger from a suspect, use it. Otherwise, I say rarely or never use it. And by danger, I don't mean that the officer might have received a few jabs to the jaw or something. I mean real danger.
Well, one could easily say then, if deaths haven't risen or fallen, that they are just as lethal as other means of detainment. At least when measuring "incidence".
Nope. In those cases, if they will not drop the weapon/item, taze them. If there is no weapon, tazing would not be humane. I'm with you on the Florida case where they guy was tazed at the Kerry rally. He was not violently resisting, he was simply trying to flee. A tazer shot isn't worth keeping the officers from running off the calories they get every day from doghnuts! lol Any and all cases where someone is simply being civilly disobedient, tazers should not be used, lest they become agents of silencing free-speech. Thanks for the friendly debate 
|
|
|
|
| Roxdog | Feb 7 2008, 03:48 PM Post #44 |
|
Um, yes, I know. Did I assert otherwise?
Never said they did. I'm talking about in-custody death statistics. it hasn't changed since the implementation of tazers.
Nope. Not at all. I have no clue how you read that in what I posted.
Nope. Instances of in-custody deaths has not changed since the implementation of tazers and according to some stats it has gone down. Instances of in-custody injuries has gone down no matter how you cut it.
But its ok for them to carry guns? That makes no sense.. They should be able to carry them just not able to USE THEM IN A MANNER THAT IS INAPPROOPRATE...just like everything else they use.
HUh? How so? All their other toys don't? Rubber bullets are far more deadly than tazers. I think this is just an emotional issue for some people. You aren't thinking logically.
Um, actually no. Protesters have been getting tazed for quite a while (right or wrong) and normally everyone else skitters off when they see it happen. There is no real data to back up what you are saying. Hypotheticals don't automatically parallel reality.
Well, since all the information show this isn't the case I am forced to believe otherwise... |
|
|
|
| Roxdog | Feb 7 2008, 03:56 PM Post #45 |
|
It isn't whether tazers themselves are "humane, it is the manner in which they are deployed. Tazing someone who won't drop a knife instead of shooting lead into their face is pretty humane in my book.
Uuuh, right. This is my point. Tazers are useful, hence, why you agree with my instance in which it should be used.
Well, your arguments are emotionally fueled while real data shows that they save more people from being hurt than they actually hurt people, so...there ya go.
Punching someone in the face can kill them. Any cop who tazes someone who is actively assaulting them is simply acting rationally and logically.
You could easily say it but you would be wrong.
Ok. But how can you be sure there isn't a weapon? And fists can be deadly...
None of them should have jobs in LE. None of them. Ever again.
Of course. Who would debate that?
Cheers! Edited by Roxdog, Feb 7 2008, 03:57 PM.
|
|
|
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| « Previous Topic · The Lounge · Next Topic » |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
1:49 PM Nov 25
