dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer

Search Topic:
uniqs
659
share rss forum feed


neochu

join:2008-12-12
Windsor, ON
reply to peterboro

Re: RCMP Taser usage declines for 3rd straight year

said by peterboro:

I think it's a good idea. Unless you relish what led to the "Don't tase me bro" scenario mentality that has developed by those with tasers.

Well when the company marketing them promises 'instant submission with no lasting injury, or pain whatsoever' then it becomes a tool of compliance rather then a "semi-lethal" weapon as cops get trigger happy with their torture devices.



Walter Dnes:

Tasers need to be documented and notated as a "potentially lethal weapon" and I suspect with large numbers of cases of injury to sensitive persons the RCMP and other agencies have finally realized that and have started to drift off the marketing hype from Taser International.


There is enough energy in the device no matter what the marketing says as to kill or seriously injure a person. If the person doesn't get killed they receive serious burns, bruising and scaring because of the energy amounts that are directed to soft tissue.


Lethality not as high as use of a firearm but it is definitely higher than that of other non-lethal procedures. Also, because the energy is evenly distributed too the injuries are going to have much higher surface coverage along sensitive body parts. A baton strike on a pressure point will have a much more concentrated injury across a less sensitive body part.


That means you get a far higher chance of having charges tossed thanks to "excessive force" claims with the conducted energy weapon.

IamGimli

join:2004-02-28
Canada
kudos:2
reply to Hydraglass
said by Hydraglass:

Actually it says police aren't allowed to have firearms - that's what portion of my discussion I was referring to - that perhaps our police should be limited to tasers rather than firearms.

No it doesn't! lol You really have no clue do you?

Crown servants (which includes police officers) are specifically exempted in article 54 of the Act.

»www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/196 ··· ction/54

said by Hydraglass:

And they also say the taser is an "excessive use of force" - that being my point there - that tasers, while generally being a non-lethal weapon, are still a dangerous weapon and need to be treated as such - that their indiscriminate use for things like traffic stops is uncalled for. Which again bolsters my point that they are becoming more treated like the use of a firearm rather than just physical intervention.

It was in THAT SPECIFIC INSTANCE only. That's a court judgement, not a general statement. It's amazing the nonsense you'll cling to.

said by Hydraglass:

Are you illiterate - re-read the second line "all other less-than lethal tactical options would have been ineffective" - this indicates it's a situation that otherwise would have called for lethal force (e.g. a firearm).

No, I'm pretty sure I've already proven you're the illiterate one. Just because other less than lethal options should be disqualified first doesn't mean the situation has to meet the requirements for the use of lethal force.

said by Hydraglass:

I'm sorry in that jurisdiction it's a "policy" rather "regulation" - there's no reasons good policy can't be put into regulation so it impacts more than a single jurisdiction.

You claimed there were regulations that limited the use of tasers to situations where lethal force is acceptable. That's not true, there's not even a policy that says that. It's time to let go of your lies.

said by Hydraglass:

No it's not relevant to that portion of the discussion - it's relevant to the portion that again bolsters my argument that only specific personnel should use tasers:

quote:
Every Chief of Police shall ensure that:
only the following members are permitted to carry conducted energy weapons, and that their deployment is a use of considerable force:

i. members of tactical units/hostage rescue teams;
ii. members of preliminary perimeter control and containment teams; and
iii. front-line supervisors or their designates;

Which is a moronic policy. Taking tools away from police officers that have been proven to REDUCE incidences of injury and death to both those police officers and the perps they come across for purely political purposes to appease a moronic electorate which is too brain-dead to realize it's being riled up by the media using lies and innuendo is political correctness taken to life-threatening levels.

Funny how none of you morons are willing to volunteer to go break up bar fights or take down drug dealers but you feel you should tell the few who do how they should put their lives at risk. Fucking cowards.

said by Hydraglass:

Your level of hostility toward my comments leads me to believe you must work for Taser or someone related to them.

Your level of cluelessness and idiocy leads me to believe you were dropped on your head repeatedly as an infant.

said by Hydraglass:

I haven't heard anyone else advocating for more, or more liberal "use of tasers".

By "anyone else" I guess you are saying that you believe that I'm advocating for such a thing, in which case I'll tell you that you need to learn to read as I've made no such request.

said by Hydraglass:

It's been shown time and again they can be fatal

So can drinking water. Should we ban it too?

said by Hydraglass:

they are an escalation of force, and they are an inappropriate way to subdue non-hostile suspects.

Never said any different. Still no reason to ban them.

said by Hydraglass:

I'm done looking up and citing sources, anyone who can use Google can find hundreds of sources and references to limiting tasers, but you'll be hard pressed to find any sources outside of those from manufacturer based studies that support expanding the use of tasers.

Nobody has suggested expanding their use so that's a straw man right there. As far as your sources of course you're done looking for them as you know they don't exist.

said by Hydraglass:

Guess I'll be buying my clothes from these guys now: »www.thorshield.com/

...and you should buy your hats from these guys:
»zapatopi.net/afdb/

IamGimli

join:2004-02-28
Canada
kudos:2
reply to neochu
said by neochu:

Tasers need to be documented and notated as a "potentially lethal weapon" and I suspect with large numbers of cases of injury to sensitive persons the RCMP and other agencies have finally realized that and have started to drift off the marketing hype from Taser International.

...or you may want to lay off the rhetoric as tasers are used thousands of times every day in North America and the number of injuries reported is barely a statistical blip.

said by neochu:

There is enough energy in the device no matter what the marketing says as to kill or seriously injure a person. If the person doesn't get killed they receive serious burns, bruising and scaring because of the energy amounts that are directed to soft tissue.

Wow, yet more disinformation. You know they're powered by the equivalent of 8 AA batteries, right? Your cell phone contains about as much energy.

You do know every police officer being trained to use a taser actually gets tasered, right? Funny how none of them suffer from "serious burns, bruising and scaring". I've been tasered, didn't suffer any injury. How many times have YOU been tasered to know so much of how terribly damaging it is?

said by neochu:

Lethality not as high as use of a firearm but it is definitely higher than that of other non-lethal procedures.

I'd like to see a researched source for that.

said by neochu:

Also, because the energy is evenly distributed too the injuries are going to have much higher surface coverage along sensitive body parts. A baton strike on a pressure point will have a much more concentrated injury across a less sensitive body part.

Complete nonsense again. Tasers do NOT cause injuries. Injuries reported following taser application are indirect injuries, such as people hitting their head on a table while falling or the court case Hydraglass referenced where the perp broke four teeth when he fell head first onto the road.

said by neochu:

That means you get a far higher chance of having charges tossed thanks to "excessive force" claims with the conducted energy weapon.

Again, have any source for that claim?