|
Comment on this article |
View comments |
Email this Article
|
|
The Dangers of Tasers: The News-Gazette Finally Gets It, But Gets It Only Partly Right |
Current rating: 0 |
by ML
(No verified email address) |
29 Jul 2004
Modified: 07:40:36 PM |
|
Tuesday's News-Gazette carried an editorial about recent additional publicity giving information about the dangers of tasers. But the N-G still doesn't fully get it. |
Tuesday's News-Gazette carried an editorial about recent additional publicity giving information about the dangers of tasers. But the N-G still doesn't get it.
The editorial makes it look as if the decision by Champaign Police Chief R.T. Finney was an idea that he came up with on his own, in a feat of humanitarian caution and wise law enforcement prudence. Nothing could be further from the truth.
In fact, the Chief's decision came about solely because of a community-led effort to oppose police adoption of tasers as a "less lethal" weapon. If it had not been for that effort, there can be no doubt that adoption of tasers by the Champaign Police would have been a foregone conclusion.
The Chief made his decision, not simply because it was a good idea, but because of intense political pressure brought about by a mobilized citizenry of all races and faiths who came together to fight what initially looked like a decison set on greased skids. Only because ordinary citizens, NOT because of some element of government, took the initiative to document the very scary record of injury and death in the wake of massive adoption of the taser without fully considering the safety implications, was their use by the Champaign Police department abandoned as a bad idea.
Instead of giving Chief Finney a pat on the back and recommending caution on other local police departments in the use of the tasers they already have deployed, as the editorial rambled on about, the paper should have called for a immediate moratorium on their use by other local police agencies, pending further study of their hazards and possible permanent removal from service, based on the fabricated information about their safety provided by the manufacturer to get police to buy their product.
Nice try, News-Gazette. Next time, try to show some leadership, instead of simply following the most convenient way to avoid journalistic embarrasment.
And give credit where credit is due. The citizens, as individuals and in organized groups, not the police chief, took the initiative to oppose the use of tasers and are the principal actors in the eventual outcome.
More reporting on Tasers in UC IMC:
http://www.ucimc.org/newswire/display_any/16283
http://www.ucimc.org/newswire/display_any/16382
http://www.ucimc.org/newswire/display_any/16400
http://www.ucimc.org/newswire/display_any/16419
http://www.ucimc.org/newswire/display_any/16486
http://www.ucimc.org/newswire/display_any/16509
http://www.ucimc.org/newswire/display_any/19089 |
Related stories on this site:
Sharpton Sharpens the Challenge with an Overtime Victory
| 
This work licensed under a
Creative Commons license |
Comments
|
Re: The Dangers of Tasers: The News-Gazette Finally Gets It, But Gets It Only Partly Right |
by NRA4Freedom
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
30 Jul 2004
|
I am confused about the whole taser argument. Could you please explain the situation is light of the following questions?
Unless someone is resisting arrest, it is highly unlikely that they will ever get tasered...and if they are resisting arrest, then should it not be pointed out that they are truly creating the possible hazard to themselves by doing so?
If there is going to be a hazard to anyone in the course of an officers duties, why should that danger be to the police officer who is just doing his job?
Why should an underpaid police officer risk injury when it is actually someone else who is causing the danger in the first place?
While I do agree that tasers can be a potential danger to some people, asprin can also be a danger to some people. Life is not without danger. If someone is resisting arrest, the officers must either physically attempt to restrain the person...again, risking injury to themselves...or maybe shoot the person, which is obviously not a good alternative. So, what do you purpose IS the solution? To just walk away and let the person escape? Do you have some other alternative? |
|
The Topic and the Issue |
by ML
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
30 Jul 2004
|
The topic
The topic of my piece was the News-Gazette's typically disdainful view of ordinary people, versus those it deems significant enough to be its friends, as expressed rather blatantly in its editorial. I thought this was worth pointing out and talking about. As usual, the conservatives want to change the topic to one of their cultural memes, but I'll give in to that only for those who might be needing a little context because they're new to town. NRA4 is just yanking my chain, as far as it goes on his part...
The issues
* Tasers are not "non-lethal" weapons, as they were cast to be by the language used in the News-Gazette and by the city when this subject first came up. Most people now recognize that tasers are "less lethal" weapons, but certainly not non-lethal. This has important implications for the way the weapon will be used, i.e. it is more likely to be used if the officer thinks it will not kill. Sometimes tasers kill, maybe not as surely as with a firearm, but more than enough (despite the manufacturer's claims) to raise questions about whether it should be used at all if a police department actually needs a _non_lethal weapon. Thus the need to oppose their use, since the police thought it was a good idea to do exactly that. This is closest to what you're asking about (I think) and I've tried to write it in language that will transcend the culture gap between you and most of us here.
* The Champaign Police have a rather checkered relationship with large segments of the community. Can they be trusted with a new weapon? The taser thing did not help. The chief's decision to abandon the idea (for the time being at least) was a desparate attempt at saving face. He and the rest of the force still have a long row to hoe when it comes to community relations. A civilian review board would help a lot, but the powers that be apparently feel the police can be trusted to supervise themselves. Much of the community feels differently.
* For African-American members of our community, the use of tasers is culturally significant and highly relevant. There is an implicit relationship in the minds of these citizens between tasers and cattle prods (since tasers so closely resemble them.) The cattle prod: modern replacement for the slave whip; used against civil rights protestors, and, well...., designed to be used on CATTLE, implicitly meaning that those people who it is used on are looked on as less than human by those who wield it.
I've added some links to the original article, since some don't seem to remember what was said at the time very well. |
|
Re: The Dangers of Tasers: The News-Gazette Finally Gets It, But Gets It Only Partly Right |
by 5
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
30 Jul 2004
|
NRA can look at this situation as a chance to "protect" police from injury. I see it as a chance to protect the people from unneccessary injury. I fail to see how the following examples are cases where the police felt they might be injured. And if they did think they might be injured, they need to find a new occupation.
This is by no means a complete list. Just what I could find in about 10 minutes.
----------
http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/0718taser-main18.html
The autopsy of James Borden, who died Nov. 6 after being shot with a Taser for initially refusing to pull up his pants in an Indiana county jail, listed electrical shock as one of three causes of death.
Forensic pathologist Roland Kohr said the 47-year-old Borden died of a heart attack due to an enlarged heart, pharmacologic intoxication and electrical shocks.
Kohr noted that jailers at the Monroe County jail used a Taser multiple times on Borden.
"They juiced my brother to death," Borden's brother, Steve, says. "They used it and used it and used it."
The jailer who shocked Borden has been charged with two counts of felony battery, including battery while armed with a deadly weapon, and faces up to 16 years in prison.
-----------
http://www.tucsoncitizen.com/index.php?page=local&story_id=071904_taser
These deaths raise questions about a weapon police routinely use on drunks, shoplifters, mentally ill people and others who refuse to obey commands. In South Tucson in May, one was used to subdue a 9-year-old girl who police feared might harm herself.
--------
http://www.prisonplanet.com/Pages/250504_taser.html
The police officer used a Taser on the girl at about 5:30 p.m. May 8, Molina said. The nonlethal weapon uses a pulsating electrical charge to immobilize a person for several seconds.
"I'll be the first to admit, you've got a veteran sergeant Tasing a 9-year-old girl, it doesn't look good," said Molina.
The sergeant was one of at least two officers who responded to a call from the Arizona Children's Home, a school for special needs children, on South Eighth Avenue, he said.
"It had to do with a runaway from the institution," the chief said. He declined to provide further details.
The school could not be reached for comment late Monday. But Molina said that the facility is the source of frequent calls to his 25-person department.
Molina said one officer initially responded to the call from the school. That officer requested assistance from another officer and specifically asked that the second officer bring a Taser.
He said the girl was handcuffed at the time the weapon was used.
-----------------
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1155302/posts
(This is actually a mainstream media story, but you have to register, and the freeper site has the text of it.)
A police officer used his Taser gun on a 68-year-old grandmother in her home Tuesday night, KMBC's Donna Pitman reported.
Louise Jones said it happened after she pulled up to her house near 50th and Euclid and saw a police car. She honked, and an officer got out of the vehicle.
"He said he could give me a citation ticket for honking my horn. I said it was an accident. It's not like I laid on the horn; I honked, right in front of my house," Jones said.
Jones said the officer went to a call at another home, then returned to her house to give her a ticket for honking.
"He grabbed me and I jerked away from him, and he said, 'You assaulted me,'" Jones recalled.
Police said Jones wouldn't cooperate and hit the officer. That's when the officer pulled his Taser gun and shocked her, Pitman reported.
Jones said the officer shocked her twice with the weapon.
"I hollered and screamed because I thought it was a gun," she said.
Jones' husband, Fred, heard the commotion in his home of 40 years and confronted the officer. Husband and wife were both arrested and jailed.
Police Capt. Rich Lockhart said it is the policy of the Kansas City Police Department "to use the Taser (gun) when someone is being passively resistant, refusing to obey verbal commands."
--------------------
http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/local/states/florida/counties/broward_county/6188804.htm?
The case of the 15-year-old girl has put Miramar and its Taser practices under closer scrutiny.
On the afternoon of Oct. 3, police were flagged down by a school bus driver who said her passengers, from Miramar High, were throwing paper. The driver stopped the bus. An officer entered the vehicle and started to pull an alleged instigator from the bus. Wrong student, said Chiquita Hammonds, who was not involved in the ruckus.
Chiquita was ordered off the bus. She complied, but then, by her account, she informed police she would walk home to do her homework. Police wanted her to stay. According to police, Chiquita was told she was under arrest. An officer grabbed her arm. The police report says Chiquita spun around and struck a second officer across the face, causing his sunglasses to fly off.
Chiquita was wrestled to the ground and pepper-sprayed, then Tasered, after she allegedly continued to resist. She was charged with resisting arrest without violence and battery on a law enforcement officer.
---------------
And the finale....
http://www.katu.com/news/story.asp?ID=66687
PORTLAND, Ore. - The city of Portland has agreed to pay $145,000 to an elderly blind woman after police pepper-sprayed and shocked her with a stun gun.
The altercation began as an attempt to remove shrubs and appliances from 71-year-old Eunice Crowder's yard, and ended with police citing her for harassment and disobeying an order.
This week, the city agreed to settle her excessive force lawsuit out of federal court, a month after a Multnomah County Circuit Court judge dismissed the violations against her.
"This case goes to show that police misconduct and excessive force can happen to anybody outside the mainstream," said Ernest Warren Jr., Crowder's lawyer. "It does not have to be an African American; it can be someone who is elderly and white."
The Portland City Council approved the settlement, based on a review by the city's risk management division that indicated "there is risk the City may be found liable."
The June 9, 2003, incident began when Ed Marihart, a city employee, showed up at Crowder's home. He served her with an administrative search warrant to remove an accumulation of trash and debris.
According to Crowder and her lawyer, the woman told him she was blind and hard of hearing, and asked him to read the entire warrant to her, but he refused. She said he placed it in her hands, walked outside and ordered others to start removing items from her yard.
The city denies that the woman asked Marihart to read the warrant and maintains that Marihart explained to her why he was there.
The woman followed the city employee outside. She was concerned that he and his co-workers had removed a family heirloom, a 90-year-old red toy wagon with rhododendrons in it. She asked to enter a trailer, where items from her yard were being placed, to feel around for the wagon.
Marihart told her she couldn't enter the trailer and said the wagon was not inside. He then called police.
When Portland Officers Robert Miller and Eric Zajac arrived at the house, Crowder acknowledged she had one foot on the curb and one foot on the bumper of the trailer. She felt someone step on her foot and asked, "Who are you?"
Moments later, she felt someone strike her in the head, which dislodged her prosthetic right eye from its socket, and was knocked to the ground, she claimed in her lawsuit.
Officers said Crowder ignored their commands not to climb into the trailer and tried to bite Miller's hand.
They acknowledged she was "pushed onto the dirt next to the sidewalk," according to the city's legal brief filed in court.
While on the ground, Crowder asked the officer what he thought he was doing and kicked Miller. She said the officer kicked her back, then pepper-sprayed her in her eyes.
"While she's still on the ground, on her stomach, they tased her in the back and in the breast," her lawyer said.
Police said they pepper-sprayed Crowder after she refused to stop kicking them. They admit that Crowder's prosthetic eye fell out at some point, and that Zajac stunned Crowder with a Taser, an electric stun gun, twice in the lower back and once in the upper back after ordering her to stop fighting and resisting.
Warren said the city's argument is bogus. He said, "To kick the crap out of old folks seems a little bit much to me in the name of law enforcement," |
|
Re: The Dangers of Tasers: The News-Gazette Finally Gets It, But Gets It Only Partly Right |
by 5
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
30 Jul 2004
|
Just for fun, here is a synopsis of the existing medical literature that was read at the city council meeting:
In the last few weeks I have reviewed the relevant medical literature on the subject of Tasers. My findings indicate that Taser use raises significant medical safety issues. I have prepared a brief bibliography for the benefit of the council members. Allow me to summarize a few points. In a review of 218 cases of ‘tasered’ patients admitted to emergency rooms published in the Annals of Emergency Medicine in 1987, it was found that the death rate in this group was 1.4%. In 1989, Roz and Podgorski published that the most powerful stun guns on the market
produced fatal cardiac arrhythmias in pigs; less powerful stun guns also produced significant cardiac symptoms. Mehl described in 1992 in a Scandinavian obstetrics journal a 12-week-pregnant woman who spontaneously miscarried 7 days after being ‘tasered.’ In 2001 in the
prestigious medical journal Lancet, Fish and Geddes expressed concern that ‘tasering’ may lead to fatal decompensation in patients—such as drug abusers—who are already predisposed to cardiac death.
I have also read the literature supplied by the Taser International website, including a commissioned study by Bleetman and Steyn entitled “The Advance Taser: a Medical Review.” I believe this document has been
provided to city and police department officials by the Taser corporation. I have two general observations on this official
literature. First, although the company has engaged in exhaustive safety testing of the Taser, all of these tests have been conducted on healthy volunteers (mostly police and paramilitary personnel) under
nonstressful conditions. Medically, this is an insufficient demonstration of safety. In real life, the Taser is employed in stressful, violent confrontations, many with intoxicated or drug-abusing persons. Many drugs have dangerous side effects which predispose patients to cardiac death. Kornblum and Reddy in the Journal of Forensic Science document 15 deaths involving ‘tasered,’
drug-abusing patients. The pathologist Allen remarks: “while the use of Tasers may be generally safe in healthy adults, pre-existing heart disease, psychosis, and the use of drugs including cocaine, PCP, amphetamines and alcohol may substantially increase the risk of fatality. Since Tasers are likely to be used on psychotic or intoxicated individuals…the priorities for use among law enforcement’s
‘non-lethal’ armamentarium must be carefully considered.”
Second, the official Taser document tries to refute some of the claims for taser-associated mortality in a most suspect fashion. Responding to the study of fatal cardiac symptoms in pigs, it cites a ‘personal
communication’ from a Dr. Stratbucker stating that he could not reproduce these findings. No data is provided to back this claim. Similarly, responding to the study about tasering and spontaneous
miscarriage, Dr. Stratbucker’s personal communication postulates an electrical model of the uterus as a ‘shield’ that protects the fetus. No experimental evidence is provided for this striking theoretical
assertion. The Taser website claims Dr. Stratbucker is an “internationally-respected expert in the field of electrical safety.”
However, a search of medical literature databases reveals that Dr. Stratbucker has published no peer-reviewed literature in the field of electronic weaponry. Further digging reveals that he is none other than the medical director of Taser International and that his ‘expertise’ stems from his serving as Taser’s medical witness in some 50 cases of litigation.
In summary, then, I find the following. There are serious potential medical consequences associated with Taser use, especially in at-risk populations most likely to be involved in police confrontations—the mentally ill, the intoxicated, the drug-abusers. These consequences are documented in prestigious, public, peer-reviewed scientific studies. In contrast, there are no scientific studies documenting Taser safety. Official Taser corporation literature countering these scientific reports is not peer-reviewed and is produced by individuals with significant financial or other conflicts-of-interest.
-------------
As the editorial and the NYT article point out, there is no oversight over these weapons. There is no published medical evidence to show the safety of these weapons. As their use increases, the number of deaths increase. And these "less-lethal" weapons are normally compared to guns---but the police use them in place of pepper-spray and batons. The Champaign Police Chief said that the tasers would not replace guns---they fall between pepper-spray and batons.
In an occupational journal for law-enforcement officers, an article specifically states that pregnant officers should not be subjected to test shocks nor use tasers in the field to prevent any miscarriages.
Can you tell if a woman is pregnant (less than 3 months) by looking at her? |
|
Re: The Dangers of Tasers: The News-Gazette Finally Gets It, But Gets It Only Partly Right |
by NRA4Freedom
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
30 Jul 2004
|
|
No, I wasn't yanking your chain at all, I just don't understand the problem. I DO think your "For African-American members of our community..." is race baiting though. What, are you implying that the police will use tasers on Blacks only? |
|
Re: The Dangers of Tasers: The News-Gazette Finally Gets It, But Gets It Only Partly Right |
by NRA4Freedom
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
30 Jul 2004
|
5,
Obviously, police officers who use the things on non agressive suspects or without due cause should be disciplined accordingly, just like they would be if they had used their gun. But, again, there is NO reason for an underpaid police officer, someone who puts their life on the line to protect others, should have to risk personal injury by someone resisting arrest when there is a suitable means, such as s taser, to use instead of a gun.
You don't want to be tasered? Don't resist arrest. |
|
Re: The Dangers of Tasers: The News-Gazette Finally Gets It, But Gets It Only Partly Right |
by James
Mortland (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
31 Jul 2004
|
The entire list written by 5 addresses proper police training issues and individual poor judgement by individual officers.
You must admit that a Tazer is
A) safer for the officer than trying to physically subdue a suspect and
B) safer for the suspect than getting shot.
The tazer fils a void that is left by vocal commands, joint manipulation, baton, pepper spray and a firearm. It adds another layer to the Escalation of Use of Force Model - ideally it would never get used, but the option would be there, versus a firearm, if the need arose.
You'll notice that I put the safety of the officer before the safety of the suspect- force protection MUST be the A-NUMBER-ONE consideration for police.
However, I will agree that police need both initensive initial training and regular sustainment training on the weapon itself and where its use falls on the Escalation of Use of Force Model.
I will also agree that, tactically at least, it would be far easier for police to do their job, and far more comforting for the civilian population in their trust of the police to do their job, if police/civilian relations were much more positive around here.
I just don't buy the logic that cops are out to reenact the slavery mentality of centuries past - that's just absurd garbage, a dig with ZERO basis, another fabricated reason to hate "the system," "the man," or whatever you want to call it. |
|
Re: The Dangers of Tasers: The News-Gazette Finally Gets It, But Gets It Only Partly Right |
by 5
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
31 Jul 2004
|
Actually, ML isn't the one to originally bring up the black community's concerns. The black community did. The Ministerial Alliance (made up of ministers from predominantly black churches), black community members, and black public officials and officeholders all spoke at the city council meeting about their concerns.
Secondly, Tasers are *not* safer for those who have cardiac conditions, who are on drugs, who are pregnant....
And Mr. Mortland, you cannot base your statement that Tasers are "safer for the suspect than getting shot" in any medical fact or scientific proof. That is the problem. There is absolutely *NO* evidence that these weapons are safe for use on the general public.
I challenge ANYONE to find one peer-reviewed, independent experiment that proves the safety of these weapons. (I'll help you out---I have read just about everything published about Tasers in medical and professional journals. There isn't any.)
And to NRA, are willing to pay out to individuals that are harmed by Tasers? The council has been presented with the medical evidence. If someone dies as the result of Taser use, all the deceased family has to do is enter into evidence the medical evidence that *the council and the police knew before using the Tasers on the community* and the financial consequences will follow.
Perhaps appealing to your sense of fiscal responsibility is more compelling than the safety of the community. |
|
Re: The Dangers of Tasers: The News-Gazette Finally Gets It, But Gets It Only Partly Right |
by dem
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
31 Jul 2004
|
I enter into this fray very cautiously. Having read postings here for quite a while I know that opinions count more than facts, and many of the most common posters are, shall we say, quite opinionated. I like to read all kinds of literature about topics surrounding the use of force, police, alternative weapons, etc. I seek out contrary points of view in order to get a full perspective. My own perspective comes from the fact that I have been a police officer for 26 years now. I have a few observations about use of force and how people understand the use of force (or more accurately don’t understand, or refuse to understand because of their own prejudices—I know all you “progressives” are sure you have no prejudices and are therefore fuming right now).
A little background: I understand the dynamics of physical contact. I played football and wrestled in high school, and continued to play football in college. A few years after I started in policing I had an opportunity to get certified as an instructor in what is called Pressure Point Control Tactics. It involves control holds and pain distracters to help in controlling resistance. Since then I have accumulated training in other control techniques, many of them physical, many others physiological, others tactical (integrating all of these dynamics in a manner that best address any one particular situation). I am certified to teach a variety of weapons, including firearms, less-lethal (gasp!) and chemical munitions (double gasp!!). I have also taught these things to several hundred other officers, and as a result I get more practice time than most people. I have always stayed in better than average physical condition, so I have that advantage as well (no overwhelming physical size, just a little more wind and strength than the average Joe). I have been in hundreds of physical confrontations ranging form very minor (the vast majority) to all out brawls. I have twice had guns pulled on me (didn’t shoot either time, the dynamics of the confrontations didn’t make that possible). I was attacked with a hatchet once (still didn’t shoot…this must be very frustrating, because everyone knows cops all want to shoot someone). I have been bit and kicked and slapped and punched and pushed. I have never hit anyone with a nightstick, although I have been one muscle twitch away a few times—the threat solved the problem—and I have punched people with my fist 4-5 times. Everything else has been some kind of wrestling match, which is typical. And, by the way, I have talked my way out of fights 10 times more often than I have had to get into one.
Having said all that it may occur to you that I know a little about confrontation. Or not, as your prejudices dictate.
So here’s my question/observation. Literally everything I see in forums like this one is an endless rant about what not to do, which it turns out, is just about everything. What I need is an informed explanation of what tools/tactics/controls I can use. Not just some theoretical mumbo-jumbo about bad outcomes or political theory and class structure in capitalistic oligarchies blah blah blah….I want you to go to a domestic with me and get hold of a sweaty drunken wife beater and tell me exactly what I may or may not do to control him while he swings at you and tries to run out the door and spits in your face.
If anything you say ends up in a bad result, you are at fault. Are you up to that challenge?
Now here is the real conundrum. I know how to fight this person and get him under control most of the time. However, unlike in the movies or endless theoretical discussions about how to deal such a situation, there is one very uncomfortable fact, and this is where the critics never tread, because they don’t understand it and can’t easily explain it away, so they only offer after–the–fact finger pointing: Nothing always works.
I have put 140 pound out of shape men in arm locks that normally put people into screaming surrender, and instead had them just look at me with no glimmer of pain or surrender and eventually ended up fighting them tooth and nail. Have you ever fought someone that was drunk, drugged, psychotic and/or highly motivated? And you can’t quit the fight because its your responsibility is to control this person, and failing to do that will put others at risk. Have you ever held down a 140 pound person that was in handcuffs and leg shackles and was still bouncing the 5 people that were trying to hold him down up in the air? Tell me how to do this without a risk of injury. Tell me how to keep this guy from having a heart attack. These are the things I need to know.
More uncomfortable truths: Cut from “5”’s post….“In real life, the Taser is employed in stressful, violent confrontations, many with intoxicated or drug-abusing persons. Many drugs have dangerous side effects which predispose patients to cardiac death. Kornblum and Reddy in the Journal of Forensic Science document 15 deaths involving ‘tasered,’
drug-abusing patients. The pathologist Allen remarks: “while the use of Tasers may be generally safe in healthy adults, pre-existing heart disease, psychosis, and the use of drugs including cocaine, PCP, amphetamines and alcohol may substantially increase the risk of fatality. Since Tasers are likely to be used on psychotic or intoxicated individuals…the priorities for use among law enforcement’s
‘non-lethal’ armamentarium must be carefully considered.” End quote.
Here’s some more questions: Is this guy at risk of a heart attack because of the tazer (or pepper spray, or control hold), or because of everything that is going on? How many people die in circumstances like this that were not tazed or sprayed? Why did they die?
And more importantly, TELL ME HOW TO CONTROL HIM. No theories, I want to know what you think works, and then show me that it works every time without ever having a bad outcome.
I know how to control people, and I know that nothing always works, and I know that sometimes its just a pile on, and I know that people get hurt when they fight, and I know anyone who has ever done anything like this more than once knows what it feels like to try to control someone that has no rules while you assiduously adhere to all of the rules. Don’t give me platitudes like, “It’s a hard job, you have to be professional”. I know that—I do that. What will you do? |
|
The Conservatives Prattle On (and Still Don't Get Back to the Topic) |
by ML
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
31 Jul 2004
|
NRA4 wrote:
"...I just don't understand the problem. I DO think your "For African-American members of our community..." is race baiting though. What, are you implying that the police will use tasers on Blacks only?"
It's not racebaiting, it's just acknowledging the fact that racial issues are an intrinsic part of the debate because the African-American community feels that they are. Your rejecting even a hint of empathy with others unlike yourself sounds far more like "race-baiting" to me.
NRA4 goes on:
"...there is NO reason for an underpaid police officer, someone who puts their life on the line to protect others, should have to risk personal injury by someone resisting arrest when there is a suitable means, such as a taser, to use instead of a gun.
"You don't want to be tasered? Don't resist arrest."
Hmmm, conservatives tend to say, when a worker claims they are underpaid, that they should just move on to some other job more suitable for their apparent lack of motivation for the pay offered. There's plenty of people willing to do the job for what's being offered...
But I guess this little conservative pearl of wisdom somehow should exclude police officers.
Whether a taser is a suitable means to deal with confrontations remains to be proven. And "resisting arrest" is not simply a matter of opinion on the part of an officer (which your flippant reply seems to indicate you feel), but something which needs to be proven in court. You seem to draw a straight line between an offense and punishment being inflicted on the spot. That's not the way our system is supposed to work, but it does happen often enough that perhaps you should be forgiven for thinking that this is the way it should be.
Which leads to what dem wrote:
"Having read postings here for quite a while I know that opinions count more than facts..."
Apparently, opinions counted more than facts when the Champaign Police attempted to adopt tasers. When it was pointed out that there is, as 5 has mentioned again here, no peer-reviewed scientific literature to back up the opinion of the manufacturer that tasers are safe, that was just an opinion, too. I'm glad dem doesn't like to stick his neck out based on somebody's opinion. Apparently, Chief Finney eventually thought better of it, too, after confronting massive public opposition to his implementation of his opinion that atsers were needed and safe.
Mortland's reply:
"You'll notice that I put the safety of the officer before the safety of the suspect- force protection MUST be the A-NUMBER-ONE consideration for police..." points out a large part of where the problem really lies and where he is missing the point.
I know Mortland's a military man, but applying a military model to policing is in large part responsible for the poor community relations that the Champaign Police (and many others) have. When it comes down to the us-vesus-them/military model of policing, which is unfortunately far too often the state of mind many officers have, this undercuts whatever trust citizens have in their police. It doesn't help that we've had 30+ years of a failed counterinsurgency-type "War on Drugs" to further complicate matters. Black-masked SWAT teams and all, a militaristic model of over-reaction tends to dominate the thinking of many law enforcement officers.
While I respect the opinion and conundrum of dem (my little brother was a university cop and is still a reserve officer; a cousin also served in the state police of a neighboring state -- I don't want my relatives to die on the job any more than you want your comrades to, dem), the solution to confrontations lies within the heart and mind of the officer (and is, furthermore, part of his/her job). Far too often, emotion tends to drive the police in such confrontations. Acting professionally means that descalation is what comes first to mind, not thumping someone for disrespecting you or the law. Far too often, cops think they are judge, jury, and sometimes even executioner. I understand the emotion -- I just can't agree that having another type of weapon is somehow the magical answer to the problem you outline.
Certainly tasers are not a solution. If we even still make a nod to the idea of community, civilian control of the police (something else that has suffered under the paramilitary style of policing that has become far too prevalent for the good of society, as I've already mentioned), then it is clear that if the community is saying, "No. We do not want tasers...." then it is time for the police to try something else. You've got your orders. Now march to them or move on to a different job that you are more comfortable with.
Finally, there are alternatives. Local police departments in recent years have moved away from photogenic and thrilling, but ultimately too dangerous, car chases. It's a fact that these endangered officers, suspects, and innocent members of the public to the extent that wiser heads stepped in to change policy on car chases.
In large part, unless the suspect represents an immediate, extraordinary danger, the chase itself is far more dangerous than the person that is being chased. The law will catch up with the suspect eventually anyway, so why run the risks of undesired consequences when the chase can be broken off and the suspect dealt with at a later time? Sometimes, the best thing to do in a confrontation is just to back off for the time being and come up with a different plan.
As dem pointed out, _sometimes_ there is no choice but to subdue a person. But far too often, police are simply determined to teach someone the lesson of "Don't fuck with a cop" rather than choosing another option. Again, it may be better to simply back off and try something else. Putting a taser in someone's hands is one less reason to try descalation. In general, descalation is a tactic that is underused by police in confrontational situations and adding tasers will only make this less frequently considered. The law needs to be enforced, but police need to do their best to leave the decision that someone needs to answer for their actions to our legal system and the eventual punishment to the judge.
One more point is that civilian police oversight and review boards could go a long way toward helping put aside public distrust of the police. Yet police departments remain opposed to this idea, clinging to the position that self-policing will dispell the public's doubts. Until the police wake up to the fact that we have a political culture that is inherently suspicious of those who police themselves (often with good reason), distrust will only fester and grow.
Finally, do any of our conservative commenters want to give their point of view on why the News-Gazette intentionally and misleadingly disparages the power of citizen pressures on elected officials to change policy? That was the original topic of my post, it is an importannt issue, and appears to be something they are too uncomfortable to discuss. After all, when the N-G trots out the "Chief" as an issue, it always cites public support and pressure as a reason for keeping his caricature around. Public pressure also works for progressive causes, too, whether the N-G chooses to acknowledge that fact or not. |
|
Re: The Dangers of Tasers: The News-Gazette Finally Gets It, But Gets It Only Partly Right |
by NRA4Freedom
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
01 Aug 2004
|
5,
>"And to NRA, are willing to pay out to individuals that are harmed by Tasers?"
"Innocent" people who are "harmed by tasers" or suspects who are resisting arrest ? By all means, if it is used maliciously, then I'd say that you have a point.
>"The council has been presented with the medical evidence. If someone dies as the result of Taser use, all the deceased family has to do is enter into evidence the medical evidence that *the council and the police knew before using the Tasers on the community* and the financial consequences will follow."
If the suspect is harmed in the process of resisting arrest, then it's a whole other story. Hitting someone over the head with a club can certainly be proven to be deadly to many people also, so, how is this different?
Also, what is the alternative that you are offering? |
|
Point of Order |
by ML
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
01 Aug 2004
|
NRA4,
Whether or not someone may be breaking the law, and even subsequently convicted of doing so, such circumstances do NOT immunize the city against a law suit over the use of tasers or other excessive use of force if the person is injured. So your point is simply mistaken if you think someone's breaking the law allows the police to do to that person what they will. There are still limits to the level of reasonable force police may use and a person can still recover damages, even if they are found guilty of a crime, if they are injured in the process. However mistaken your point is, legally and morally, it is unfortunately far too common among the law enforcement community. That is one more reason for them to not carry tasers. |
|
Re: The Dangers of Tasers: The News-Gazette Finally Gets It, But Gets It Only Partly Right |
by NRA4Freedom
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
01 Aug 2004
|
ML,
>"It's not racebaiting, it's just acknowledging the fact that racial issues are an intrinsic part of the debate because the African-American community feels that they are."
Because a few in the Black community "feels that they are" makes it an "intrinsic part of the debate"? How exactly? We are talking tasers here, it doesn't matter what color you are, its all the same to the taser. Unless there is some information that shows that people of African decent are more susceptible to harm from them, how does it become any part of the debate?
>"Your rejecting even a hint of empathy with others unlike yourself sounds far more like "race-baiting" to me."
How are Black people "unlike" myself? If I resist arrest and get tasered, what difference does it make what color I am and what does empathy have to do with it? Maybe I am missing your point.
>"Hmmm, conservatives tend to say, when a worker claims they are underpaid, that they should just move on to some other job more suitable for their apparent lack of motivation for the pay offered. There's plenty of people willing to do the job for what's being offered...But I guess this little conservative pearl of wisdom somehow should exclude police officers."
Ok, you are correct, there was no reason for me to add "underpaid" to what I said...it simply diverted the conversation the wrong way. It doesn't matter what a police officer is paid...but should they not be supplied with whatever technology is available that decreases their risk of personal injury in the line of duty? What if there was zero danger to the suspect from a taser, would your views on using it change 100% then?
>"Whether a taser is a suitable means to deal with confrontations remains to be proven. And "resisting arrest" is not simply a matter of opinion on the part of an officer (which your flippant reply seems to indicate you feel), but something which needs to be proven in court."
I disagree in part. I believe that if a law enforcement officer feels that he or someone else is in danger, then they have every right to do whatever is necessary to protect themselves and others. That's what these people get paid for, to protect and serve. That's what they get trained to do, learn when the situation calls for action, and then, what action. Life and death, unlike virtually any other profession except medical, is what is "intrinsic" to their calling. But, they are human, and they make mistakes sometimes. We do not live in a perfect world. There are people among us that intend to do harm to others...how do you purpose we take away that threat?
>"You seem to draw a straight line between an offense and punishment being inflicted on the spot. That's not the way our system is supposed to work, but it does happen often enough that perhaps you should be forgiven for thinking that this is the way it should be."
I guess I don't view what goes on in the process of a police officers job as "punishment". They must protect themselves, and the innocent public, against whatever threat happens to be taking place at the time. The person who IS that threat at that moment in time is not being "punished", they are being subdued....right?
>"Finally, do any of our conservative commenters want to give their point of view on why the News-Gazette intentionally and misleadingly disparages the power of citizen pressures on elected officials to change policy? That was the original topic of my post, it is an importannt issue, and appears to be something they are too uncomfortable to discuss."
I don't know the answer to that question. Obviously, news media outlets are more and more partisan towards one viewpoint or the other these days, and not only on political discourse. Could that have something to do with it? |
|
You Can Ignore the Influence of Race Only If You Think It Is Not Important |
by Mike Lehman
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
01 Aug 2004
|
In reply to a couple of my points, NRA4 wrote:
> ML: "It's not racebaiting, it's just acknowledging the fact that racial issues are an intrinsic part of the debate because the African-American community feels that they are."
NRA4: "Because a few in the Black community "feels that they are" makes it an "intrinsic part of the debate"? How exactly? We are talking tasers here, it doesn't matter what color you are, its all the same to the taser. Unless there is some information that shows that people of African decent are more susceptible to harm from them, how does it become any part of the debate?"
ML replies: African-Americans look on the taser issue a bit differently for the same reason they look on the death penalty differently from many white people. While it is true that a lethal injection kills people of both races equally well, it's a fact that technology is applied in ways that have an unfair, differential impact on minorities. I guess your point is that racism hasn't been proved in your mind in such cases, but a racially disparate result is good enough for me to conclude that racism is at least partially responsible for the different outcomes. Thus, people whose skin color has made them the target of injustice in the past may likewise be especially concerned about what can happen, based on their historical experince, when tasers are introduced.
>ML "Your rejecting even a hint of empathy with others unlike yourself sounds far more like "race-baiting" to me."
NRA4: "How are Black people "unlike" myself? If I resist arrest and get tasered, what difference does it make what color I am and what does empathy have to do with it? Maybe I am missing your point."
ML replies: Well, if my last paragraph didn't alert you to your insensitivity to the concerns of others about the rate at which tasers might be applied in dealing with racial minorities, there's probably little point in debating what I believe is your belief that racism is irrelevant to the taser issue. Public mobilization tells me differently and people can decide on their own what weight to give that. Like the News-Gazette, you've chosen to give the views of a significant part of the population no weight in the argument, for your own convenience and desire to avoid dealing with race as an issue. It's far more than "a few" African-Americans who have concerns about tasers, as well as many other people, but if you're relying on the N-G for your news, your ignorance can, perhaps, be understood.
At least I'm glad you're back on topic, even if you've inadvertantly helped prove my point that the N-G has a very skewed view of the effectriveness of popular mobilization. |
|
Re: The Dangers of Tasers: The News-Gazette Finally Gets It, But Gets It Only Partly Right |
by NRA4Freedom
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
01 Aug 2004
|
I think it all has to do with the level of danger. I said that if the officer fears for his safety, or some other innocent persons...meaning, would you rather be shot, or tasered?
>"Whether or not someone may be breaking the law, and even subsequently convicted of doing so, such circumstances do NOT immunize the city against a law suit over the use of tasers or other excessive use of force if the person is injured. So your point is simply mistaken if you think someone's breaking the law allows the police to do to that person what they will. There are still limits to the level of reasonable force police may use and a person can still recover damages, even if they are found guilty of a crime, if they are injured in the process. However mistaken your point is, legally and morally, it is unfortunately far too common among the law enforcement community. That is one more reason for them to not carry them." |
|
Re: The Dangers of Tasers: The News-Gazette Finally Gets It, But Gets It Only Partly Right |
by NRA4Freedom
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
01 Aug 2004
|
>"African-Americans look on the taser issue a bit differently for the same reason they look on the death penalty differently from many white people. While it is true that a lethal injection kills people of both races equally well, it's a fact that technology is applied in ways that have an unfair, differential impact on minorities. I guess your point is that racism hasn't been proved in your mind in such cases, but a racially disparate result is good enough for me to conclude that racism is at least partially responsible for the different outcomes. Thus, people whose skin color has made them the target of injustice in the past may likewise be especially concerned about what can happen, based on their historical experince, when tasers are introduced."
I guess when I see a criminal, I don't worry about what color they are.
>"Well, if my last paragraph didn't alert you to your insensitivity to the concerns of others about the rate at which tasers might be applied in dealing with racial minorities, there's probably little point in debating what I believe is your belief that racism is irrelevant to the taser issue. Public mobilization tells me differently and people can decide on their own what weight to give that."
I see your point, I just don't think that the use, or non use, of tasers or any other weapon in the performance of law enforcement should introduce another layer of conjecture that is really a whole other issue in and of itself.
>"Like the News-Gazette, you've chosen to give the views of a significant part of the population no weight in the argument, for your own convenience and desire to avoid dealing with race as an issue. It's far more than "a few" African-Americans who have concerns about tasers, as well as many other people, but if you're relying on the N-G for your news, your ignorance can, perhaps, be understood."
I don't even know what the N-G is exactly, but I assume it a local news paper of of some sort.
>"At least I'm glad you're back on topic, even if you've inadvertantly helped prove my point that the N-G has a very skewed view of the effectriveness of popular mobilization."
Maybe they underestimate the power of the people? If so, that's their own stupidity. |
|
Re: The Dangers of Tasers: The News-Gazette Finally Gets It, But Gets It Only Partly Right |
by Joe Futrelle
futrelle (nospam) shout.net (verified) |
Current rating: 0
01 Aug 2004
|
> I guess when I see a criminal, I don't worry about what color they are.
Only juries and judges can determine if someone is guilty (a criminal) or innocent. Not you. Not the police.
At no point did anyone propose using tasers to punish criminals. Rather, they have been proposed as a means to subdue people during arrests and other police enforcement..
That makes skin color important to the taser issue because it doesn't matter how color-blind *you* are; if the *police* aren't, tasers will be used disproportionately against minorities.
Whether or not the police disproportionately use force against minorities is not a matter of opinion; it's a matter of public policy. If they do, they must stop, and if they don't, then there's no problem.
Tasers are only being proposed as a means of making police work safer. If it makes police safer at the expense of the safety of people who we must presume are innocent, that to me is morally untenable. If it makes everyone safer, great. If it makes no one safer, then we must not do it. Until there is some proof that it is safer than the alternatives--not ancedotal evidence or opinions--then it is a bad idea.
Saying that the only alternative to tasers is firearms is a ludicrous false dilemma. Better relations between the police and the communities they serve would go a long way towards creating the kind of situation where people would trust the police enough to work with them to protect their communities, which would de-escalate many confrontations before they ever started. This is not just a pie-in-the-sky idea; "community policiing" has worked well in many cities, and we should adopt something more like that model here. |
|
Re: The Dangers of Tasers: The News-Gazette Finally Gets It, But Gets It Only Partly Right |
by John Hilty
jhilty (nospam) shout.net (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
01 Aug 2004
|
Tasers should be regarded as another instrument of social control that further extends the power of the state over its citizens. This arsenal of social control is becoming steadily expanded by various advances in technology. Tasers are just the beginning -- new weapons of social control are being developed for the military, such as various kinds of directed-beam weapons. These directed-beam weapons include: 1) HERF guns, which are designed to fry electronic systems of personal computers, motor vehicles, airplanes, and the like; 2) Microwave radiation weapons, that cause a sensation of intense burning of the skin and can be used for crowd control; 3) frequency weapons that cause instant paralysis of the muscles, without the limited range of tasers, and 4) frequency weapons that cause instant cardiac arrest and death.
Some of these weapons are already being used on a trial basis for the military and it's just a matter of time before police departments across the nation will be clamoring for these weapons to promote "public safety."
I am not convinced that making such weapons, including Tasers, available to the police is in the public's best interest. First and foremost, it upsets the balance of power between citizens and the state and provides the latter with too much coercive power. A similar argument applies to surveillance technology, such as spy cameras, national identity cards, microchips broadcasting information about motor vehicle location and speed, and the like.
We have to ask ourselves what kind of society do we wish to live in? Right now, we're headed in the direction of a totalitarian society. Tasers are just another expression of these totalitarian tendencies.
The assumption should not be made that all societies and all laws are just -- sometimes it is necessary to rebel against the coercive power of the state and its laws, including the activities of the police, who are merely instruments of state policy. The mere fact that Tasers are usually non-lethal does not justify their use. The important question is: Do we really wish to further expand the arsenal of social control to which the state already has access?
Unfortunately, some people prefer living within the context of totalitarian institutions, therefore unlimited power in the hands of the few is no concern to them. They can be expected to welcome the availability of tasers to the police, whether or not they are potentially lethal. |
|
Bzzzt. Wrong Answer |
by ML
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
01 Aug 2004
|
NRA4 wrote:
"I think it all has to do with the level of danger. I said that if the officer fears for his safety, or some other innocent persons...meaning, would you rather be shot, or tasered?"
For someone whose very name seems to imply some sort of familiarity with weapons and their use, you display an alarming amount of ignorance
If someone finds themselves in a situation where use of a firearm is the only solution, then it almost certainly is NOT a situation where a taser is going to make an acceptable subsitute. If you really need a gun, then you shouldn't be confusing it with whether you should use your taser.
I'm rather glad to find out that you most likely just don't know what the hell you're talking about, but it sure makes the point that tasers muddle the rules for employment of reasonable force. Cases that might justify the use of a taser would be ones where an officer does not believe anyone's life is in immediate danger, which is the opposite of the most basic rule for when use of a fierearm is lawfully authorized -- when there is no other choice than to use lethal force.
Your dichotomy between firearms and tasers is wrong, inappropriate, and, frankly, juvenile. Please keep as far away from weapons as you can, as you seem to represent a threat to others around you, yourself, and the assets of anyone who might happen to employ you. I'm glad you're not a cop (I hope), but I would not be surprised if there are some cops whose confusion mirrors yours about the rules of engagement and which could lead to regretable and tragic consequences. It's one more reason why tasers are generally inappropriate for law enforcement use. |
|
Re: The Dangers of Tasers: The News-Gazette Finally Gets It, But Gets It Only Partly Right |
by NRA4Freedom
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
02 Aug 2004
|
Joe,
>"Only juries and judges can determine if someone is guilty (a criminal) or innocent. Not you. Not the police."
Sounds nice, but if you are resisting arrest, you are a criminal.
>"That makes skin color important to the taser issue because it doesn't matter how color-blind *you* are; if the *police* aren't, tasers will be used disproportionately against minorities."
You may believe that, but I think it is bunk. The vast majority of law enforcement members are good honest people doing their job.
>"Tsers are only being proposed as a means of making police work safer. If it makes police safer at the expense of the safety of people who we must presume are innocent, that to me is morally untenable."
Again, maybe presumed innocent right up until they become a danger to the officer, or other innocent people around them.
>"If it makes everyone safer, great. If it makes no one safer, then we must not do it. Until there is some proof that it is safer than the alternatives--not ancedotal evidence or opinions--then it is a bad idea."
Fair enough.
>"Saying that the only alternative to tasers is firearms is a ludicrous false dilemma."
I thought I asked FOR an alternative. Do you have one...other than one of the various pie in the sky idealistic views on how society could be better "if only"?
>"Better relations between the police and the communities they serve would go a long way towards creating the kind of situation where people would trust the police enough to work with them to protect their communities, which would de-escalate many confrontations before they ever started."
Yea? Sorry, I don't buy it. |
|
Re: The Dangers of Tasers: The News-Gazette Finally Gets It, But Gets It Only Partly Right |
by NRA4Freedom
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
02 Aug 2004
|
>"For someone whose very name seems to imply some sort of familiarity with weapons and their use, you display an alarming amount of ignorance"
You think pretty highly of yourself, don't you?
>"If someone finds themselves in a situation where use of a firearm is the only solution, then it almost certainly is NOT a situation where a taser is going to make an acceptable subsitute."
Nope, I don't agree. One can imagine any number of scenerios to the contrary. Say an officer happens upon domestic type dispute, the man is a little drunk and a lot angry and has smacked the woman around or is threatening to. He becomes even more antagonized when a officer shows up. The man starts towards the officer in a threatening manner. Now there is a good chance that a scuffle will develop between them. If the officer has a taser in hand, that is very unlikely to occur. If the officer has no taser, he must determine quickly whether to take out a gun(if he hasn't already) or take the guy down by hand. A scuffle "could" result in the man somehow getting the officers gun, or in injury to the officer. My vote is for the taser.
>"If you really need a gun, then you shouldn't be confusing it with whether you should use your taser."
If tasers become widespread, officers will be trained in their use. Just as they are trained when to unholster their sidearm, they will be trained to know when a taser is a better choice.
>"I'm rather glad to find out that you most likely just don't know what the hell you're talking about, but it sure makes the point that tasers muddle the rules for employment of reasonable force."
I guess we all cannot be mental giants like you apparently believe yourself to be. Notice that I have refrained from insulting your intelligence for quite some time now, perhaps you can force yourself to show me the same courtesy.
>"Cases that might justify the use of a taser would be ones where an officer does not believe anyone's life is in immediate danger, which is the opposite of the most basic rule for when use of a fierearm is lawfully authorized -- when there is no other choice than to use lethal force."
I disagree again. In close quarters, a taser renders a single suspect immobile very quickly. How many shots from a 9mm equals the same effect? Police officers are not stupid, they make quick judgements and react accordingly all the time. That's what they are trained to do. I think they are perfectly capable of determining what weapon is appropriate.
>"Your dichotomy between firearms and tasers is wrong, inappropriate, and, frankly, juvenile."
In your "humble" opinion perhaps. Wow, more insults. That's hardly constructive discourse.
>"Please keep as far away from weapons as you can, as you seem to represent a threat to others around you, yourself, and the assets of anyone who might happen to employ you. I'm glad you're not a cop (I hope), but I would not be surprised if there are some cops whose confusion mirrors yours about the rules of engagement and which could lead to regretable and tragic consequences. It's one more reason why tasers are generally inappropriate for law enforcement use."
Ditto. The real "tragic consequences" I have seen usually come from people who mistake idealism with real world reality. Considering the ideal is great, but confusing it with down and dirty reality can get people killed...usually the innocent people or the police. People with evil intent don't think the same way you and I do, and that's something you should seriously consider if you are ever faced with a dangerous situation. Sometimes, the only thing standing between an innocent public and a person with evil intent is a cop, and I want them "loaded for bear" with whatever technology gives the advantage directly to them. |
|
Re: The Dangers of Tasers: The News-Gazette Finally Gets It, But Gets It Only Partly Right |
by Joe Futrelle
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
02 Aug 2004
|
>>"Only juries and judges can determine if someone is guilty (a criminal) or innocent. Not you. Not the police."
> Sounds nice, but if you are resisting arrest, you are a criminal.
So if a police officer thinks you're resisting arrest, and then a jury finds you innocent, were you a criminal or not?
>>"That makes skin color important to the taser issue because it doesn't matter how color-blind *you* are; if the *police* aren't, tasers will be used disproportionately against minorities."
> You may believe that, but I think it is bunk. The vast majority of law enforcement members are good honest people doing their job.
I never claimed otherwise.
>>"Tsers are only being proposed as a means of making police work safer. If it makes police safer at the expense of the safety of people who we must presume are innocent, that to me is morally untenable."
> Again, maybe presumed innocent right up until they become a danger to the officer, or other innocent people around them.
You appear to be unfamiliar with the constitution. Might want to review those first ten amendements, the second of which you seem so enamored of.
>>"Saying that the only alternative to tasers is firearms is a ludicrous false dilemma."
> I thought I asked FOR an alternative. Do you have one...other than one of the various pie in the sky idealistic views on how society could be better "if only"?
Yes, community policing, which has a track record in many US cities.
>>"Better relations between the police and the communities they serve would go a long way towards creating the kind of situation where people would trust the police enough to work with them to protect their communities, which would de-escalate many confrontations before they ever started."
>Yea? Sorry, I don't buy it.
You wanted an alternative, I gave you an alternative, and that's all you can say in response? Pfft. End of conversation. |
|
Re: The Dangers of Tasers: The News-Gazette Finally Gets It, But Gets It Only Partly Right |
by Joe Futrelle
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
02 Aug 2004
|
FYI, here's a link to information about community policing.
http://www.communitypolicing.org/ |
|
Idealism |
by ML
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
02 Aug 2004
|
idealist: someone who thinks the police always wear white hats and are heroes, who never make a mistake and who should never be questioned about the performance of their duties because they'll always be right, by definition.
As for being "loaded for bear", it's probably not a good idea to go hunting bear intending to use a taser, either.
NRA4, your problem is that you've picked a position and the lack of evidence to support it is no impediment to your clinging to your opinion, no matter what the facts are. I'll bet you'd make a great spokesman for the Bush team if he wins this election and needs some new blood. |
|
Re: The Dangers of Tasers: The News-Gazette Finally Gets It, But Gets It Only Partly Right |
by NRA4Freedom
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
02 Aug 2004
|
>"So if a police officer thinks you're resisting arrest, and then a jury finds you innocent, were you a criminal or not?"
I think you'd need to be more specific maybe. Now you are suggesting second guessing a law enforcement officer in the execution of their duty? I doubt a jury would find someone resisting arrest "innocent" of doing it, but they might find that there was "excessive force" used at times by over zealous officers to subdue a suspect.
>"You appear to be unfamiliar with the constitution. Might want to review those first ten amendements, the second of which you seem so enamored of."
Apparently you dislike my use of the term "criminal" then, ok, change it to "suspect" if you like. But, resisting arrest is a criminal offense, so, when you are resisting arrest, what are you? Oh, and O.J wasn't guilty either, right?
>"Yes, community policing, which has a track record in many US cities."
Sometimes I think liberal free thinkers are more afraid of cops, than they are the criminals who, given half a chance, would prey upon them.
>"You wanted an alternative, I gave you an alternative, and that's all you can say in response?"
Yea, your right. I should not have blown off your suggestion. Obviously, it wouldn't hurt, the question is, would it do anything when face to face with a violent offender. |
|
Re: The Dangers of Tasers: The News-Gazette Finally Gets It, But Gets It Only Partly Right |
by NRA4Freedom
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
02 Aug 2004
|
ML,
]>"idealist: someone who thinks the police always wear white hats and are heroes, who never make a mistake and who should never be questioned about the performance of their duties because they'll always be right, by definition."
I don't think that I have put forward that extreme sort of idea in my messages. But, when you really need help, you'd be darned happy to see a uniformed officer, and they'd be doing their job, risking their life to protect you.
>"As for being "loaded for bear", it's probably not a good idea to go hunting bear intending to use a taser, either."
Figure of speech. But, a charging bear can be a dangerous enemy, even if you have a firearm...many of which will not even begin to stop it, but just piss it off even more. A taser might just scare the heck out of it, and turn it around if nothing else. It'd be a darn sight better than beating it with a stick.
>"NRA4, your problem is that you've picked a position and the lack of evidence to support it is no impediment to your clinging to your opinion, no matter what the facts are."
I don't know, I think you have to weigh the alternatives and make a judgement call. Does the "possible" danger to a few suspects warrant the none use of a probably very valuable form of "much more often than not" non lethal control? It's kind of like 5 gallon buckets...since more toddlers drown in buckets than are killed by gun accidents. Do you believe we should outlaw buckets and their use?
>"I'll bet you'd make a great spokesman for the Bush team if he wins this election and needs some new blood."
"If" he wins? You have doubts? You know, Kerry's speech at the Convention wasn't half bad, it's a shame that his voting record for the last 20 years or so proves that virtually everything he said was a lie. How come the Democrats cannot come up with someone at least "worthy" to run? Kerry is the "best" they got? That's REALLY sad! |
|
Re: The Dangers of Tasers: The News-Gazette Finally Gets It, But Gets It Only Partly Right |
by Joe Futrelle
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
02 Aug 2004
|
>>"So if a police officer thinks you're resisting arrest, and then a jury finds you innocent, were you a criminal or not?"
> I think you'd need to be more specific maybe.
WRONG. If a jury finds you innocent, then you're innocent. And in fact, you're presumed innocent, until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. You must have skipped civics ...
> Now you are suggesting second guessing a law enforcement officer in the execution of their duty?
Nope, I'm just reminding you that that duty does not involve determining guilt.
>I doubt a jury would find someone resisting arrest "innocent" of doing it, but they might find that there was "excessive force" used at times by over zealous officers to subdue a suspect.
Which country are you referring to? In this country, juries certainly do find people innocent of resisting arrest. In my criminal law class in college we watched a trial in which a jury found someone innocent of exactly that charge. Reality is so pesky.
>>"You appear to be unfamiliar with the constitution. Might want to review those first ten amendements, the second of which you seem so enamored of."
> Apparently you dislike my use of the term "criminal" then, ok, change it to "suspect" if you like. But, resisting arrest is a criminal offense, so, when you are resisting arrest, what are you? Oh, and O.J wasn't guilty either, right?
[Joe watches NRA4Freedom chase his own tail]
> Sometimes I think liberal free thinkers are more afraid of cops, than they are the criminals who, given half a chance, would prey upon them.
Your delusions are irrelevant to this discussion, which is about public safety, not politics. |
|
Re: The Dangers of Tasers: The News-Gazette Finally Gets It, But Gets It Only Partly Right |
by NRA4Freedom
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
02 Aug 2004
|
>>>"So if a police officer thinks you're resisting arrest, and then a jury finds you innocent, were you a criminal or not?"
>>"I think you'd need to be more specific maybe."
>"WRONG. If a jury finds you innocent, then you're innocent. And in fact, you're presumed innocent, until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. You must have skipped civics"
I see, so you are just another one of those people who doesn't REALLY know what the meaning of "is" is...
>"Nope, I'm just reminding you that that duty does not involve determining guilt."
Guess what, if I am arresting you, and you are fighting back, then I know you are guilty of resisting arrest. I don't need a jury to tell me that.
>"Which country are you referring to? In this country, juries certainly do find people innocent of resisting arrest. In my criminal law class in college we watched a trial in which a jury found someone innocent of exactly that charge. Reality is so pesky."
Yea well, they found O.J. innocent also. Seriously though, there are probably cases where an officer has overstepped thier bounds and done something they should not have done, but, statistically speaking, it is probably far more rare than we can imagine.
>"Joe watches NRA4Freedom chase his own tail"
Joe "thinks" so anyway.
>>"Sometimes I think liberal free thinkers are more afraid of cops, than they are the criminals who, given half a chance, would prey upon them."
>"Your delusions are irrelevant to this discussion, which is about public safety, not politics."
That was a joke. The truth is that liberal free thinkers often hate police officers. Not because they know them, or have reason to hate them, but because they represent authority. People who are morally bankrupt, and / or lawless, despise authority. |
|
Re: The Dangers of Tasers: The News-Gazette Finally Gets It, But Gets It Only Partly Right |
by kakranich
kakranich (nospam) yahoo.com (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
03 Aug 2004
|
Thanks, ML! Your point about the NG editorial was well taken. I am about to point this out to the NG. The writer of this particular editorial was Tom Kacich.
Kimberlie |
|
Re: The Dangers of Tasers: The News-Gazette Finally Gets It, But Gets It Only Partly Right |
by dem
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
04 Aug 2004
|
The gauntlet is still flat on the ground. I came to this forum with a question. It was unaddressed except for one weak attempt by ML (thanks for giving it some thought at least ML, but you still completely avoided making a decision). Avoiding the fight is what most often happens. Recall that I mentioned that for every fight I ultimately get into, I have talked my out of many more. It’s a learned skill that involves many dynamics. I won't go into all of it here for brevity’s sake.
It is not a trick question and it does not offer lots of opportunities to call each other poopy-headed liberals and booger eating conservatives, so it apparently was of no interest to anyone here. I'll ask it again just to see if anyone here is interested in solving problems, not just identifying them.
From my previous post:
"So here’s my question/observation. Literally everything I see in forums like this one is an endless rant about what not to do, which it turns out, is just about everything. What I need is an informed explanation of what tools/tactics/controls I can use. Not just some theoretical mumbo-jumbo about bad outcomes or political theory and class structure in capitalistic oligarchies blah blah blah….I want you to go to a domestic with me and get hold of a sweaty drunken wife beater and tell me exactly what I may or may not do to control him while he swings at you and tries to run out the door and spits in your face.
If anything you say ends up in a bad result, you are at fault. Are you up to that challenge?"
Assume for the purposes of discussion the conflict is unavoidable (as ML even admitted is sometimes is the case). |
|
Re: The Dangers of Tasers: The News-Gazette Finally Gets It, But Gets It Only Partly Right |
by John Hilty
jhilty (nospam) shout.net (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
04 Aug 2004
|
Very well, I will address the problem of the drunken wife beater that was posed by dem.
Basically, the cops should handle the drunken wife beater the way they have always handled such problems without the benefit of tasers. They appear quite capable of handling such situations. Here are some of the possibilities:
1) The drunken wife beater settles down without a fight. No kind of altercation is necessary.
2) The drunken wife beater continues to act up despite attempts on the part of the police to peacefully resolve the situation. One of three possibilities present themselves:
a) the drunken wife beater appears to be unarmed; he does not appear to be very strong and is clumsy from being intoxicated. The police that are already present at the scene easily overpower him, put on handcuffs, and arrest him.
b) the drunken wife beater appears to be unarmed, but it appears that he could put up a strong resistance. The police call for additional officers in what may be a difficult confrontation. Together the police and their back-ups overpower the strong whife beater, put on handcuffs, and arrest him.
c) the drunken wife beater appears to be armed with a potentially lethal weapon, like a gun or a knife. The police warn the drunk to put down his weapon and pull out their guns. If he puts down the weapon, they handcuff and arrest him. Otherwise, they call for more back-ups and surround the place with cops. If necessary, the cops will discharge their guns if it appears that they are imminent danger of being shot or stabbed by the drunk. Otherwise, they will wait in safe locations until the drunk puts down his weapon and surrenders himself. If it appears that the wife or another person is in imminent danger of being killed or seriously injured by the drunk, then the cops will have to use their guns on the drunk to save the victim(s) from imminent death or injury. As appropriate, the persons involved in this situation are taken to the hospital or jail.
I assume that this is how cops normally handle situations involving drunken wife beaters, which they have been doing successfully for decades and decades without the benefit of tasers or other fancy weapons. It is very rare that cops have to use their guns in such situations. Some cops can spend 20 years on a police force and never have to use their guns. Others may have to discharge their weapons only once or twice.
Presumably, the police prefer having access to tasers because of situations like 2(b) above -- the drunken wife beater who can put up a strong resistance. A taser could be handy to have in situation 2(c) above if the drunken wife beater has a knife, although it would be no match for a gun.
So it is easy to understand why cops want access to tasers. However, there are other points of view to consider in deciding whether or not the police force should have access to tasers in a given community. The point of view of the police alone does not provide a sufficient ground in making a decision about this matter. |
|
Re: The Dangers of Tasers: The News-Gazette Finally Gets It, But Gets It Only Partly Right |
by dem
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
05 Aug 2004
|
OK, Thanks John. Good start. The problem is what you are talking about are text book Joe Friday responses with no detail about the dirt and grit of actually putting your hands on another person and engaging in physical combat with a specific goal. The feel of resistance is much different than the concept of force escalation. That feel guides force escalation, but you have never felt it. That does not mean you can't comment on it, but your comments are theoretical and should be viewed as such.
Once again, this is not a trick question. I don't expect you to have specific answers, but I do expect you recognize what you don't know. I'm not looking for sympathy. Many people who tend to side with me still offer much mis-guided advice because they are in the same position as those who reflexively criticize me. They have no frame of reference for the nuances of the problem. How does a fight develop, how quickly does it happen? How long does it typically take for help to get there? What are proven techniques that can be taught to the average person? What if they fail, what do you go to next. What are the capabilities of each individual officer? The size of the person does not matter, it is the intensity, intoxication or lack of stability they have at that moment that counts. Here's a very important question to illustrate the point: When do most fights start-there is a definable point in time when this almost always happens. When is that? Its guess work for you, but I know the answer and use tactics that will address that. If they fail, everything I do from then on is reactive, based on what the suspect does or does not do. |
|
Tasers, NO |
by ML
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
05 Aug 2004
|
dem,
It would probably be more productive to the conversation if you'd just come right out and tell us what you think about the use of tasers. My guess is that your little play with words about how only those who have been there being able to judge whether they need a taser or not leads me to believe that, for you, the answer is yes.
Sorry, I must disagree. You don't need to be a cop in order to come to substantive conclusions about tasers. They're dangerous to some people and are simply not worth the risk even when properly used.
What is worse is that they provide a temptation to the user to think they are non-lethal, instead of being less lethal. The very staged demonstrations that the manufacturer encourages cops to do on each other are just one symptom of this very problem. As has been mentioned before, cops are usually healthy people and the length of the pulse used is far shorter than would typically used on a suspect. What is more, multiple shocks are never used in these circumstances, but they frequently are, in practice, on civilians. Again, tasers are far too easy to be seen as a panacea, when other methods, no matter that they are not perfect, are just as effective.
So the answer must remain, no, tasers are not a good idea to put on the street. And yes, police are subject to civilian command (or at least they should be) and thus community input is very important to retain credibility with the community. If the community does not want them, then you're only asking for more trouble by adopting them in the face of opposition to them, an issue that is based in part on concerns about safety, but which is really independent of it. |
|
Re: The Dangers of Tasers: The News-Gazette Finally Gets It, But Gets It Only Partly Right |
by Joe Futrelle
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
05 Aug 2004
|
>>"In this country, juries certainly do find people innocent of resisting arrest."
> Yea well, they found O.J. innocent also. Seriously though, there are probably cases where an officer has overstepped thier bounds and done something they should not have done, but, statistically speaking, it is probably far more rare than we can imagine.
That's your point? That police misconduct is *rare*?
How common would it have to be for you to stop arguing for the presumption of guilt?
(An argument that would last about a zillionth of a second in the supreme court) |
|
Re: The Dangers of Tasers: The News-Gazette Finally Gets It, But Gets It Only Partly Right |
by John Hilty
jhilty (nospam) shout.net (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
07 Aug 2004
|
To respond to dem's last comment:
It isn't necessary to be familiar with the nitty-gritty details of police work in order to make general policy recommendations, such as whether or not the police in a given community should have access to tasers. It is sufficient, I think, if one grasps the basic principles and concerns of the police, as well as other members of the community.
Even when people have access to the same information, they often arrive at different conclusions because their underlying value systems are different -- some people are more willing to discard their civil liberties in exchange for greater security than others.
There is great bitterness towards the criminal justice sysem among many members of the black community. This is not surprising, considering that they live in a society where young black men are more likely to be sent to prison rather than college. I know this because I have overheard their complaints at bus stops near the courthouse where they occasionally spill their guts out. Therefore, it was no surprise to me that they came out in force to oppose the acquisition of tasers at the meeting of the Champaign city council.
Similarly, many members of the progressive white community are estranged from the police and criminal justice system as well. This is partly the result of the aggressive police tactics that are used against protestors at major cities whenever there is a political convention or a meeting by the World Bank, World Trade Organization, and the like. When the police regularly bombard unarmed protestors, journalists, and bystanders with rubber bullets, tear gas, pepper spray, and tasers at such events, it makes one reluctant to approve of the use of such gadgets in the local community.
Eventually, the chickens come home to roost. |
|
Re: The Dangers of Tasers: The News-Gazette Finally Gets It, But Gets It Only Partly Right |
by dem
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
08 Aug 2004
|
“It isn't necessary to be familiar with the nitty-gritty details of police work in order to make general policy recommendations...”
In other words, I don't want to know how the sausage was made, just how it tastes. The problem is those nitty-gritty details are where everything flows from. By striving to hold yourself above all of that you remain intellectually dishonest. I don't think any successful researcher or planner could say that he has a solution based on over-arching concepts, but not with any understanding of the many nails and bolts that hold those concepts up. It is simply good enough for you that you don't like me, and you don't need to be sullied by any dirty little details that might put you in the position of coming a similar place as me. Too discomforting.
The counter argument is to downgrade my own connection to community and society, but it is again done without any gritty details like spending time with other human beings that are doing the things you find so distasteful. |
|
Re: The Dangers of Tasers: The News-Gazette Finally Gets It, But Gets It Only Partly Right |
by John Hilty
jhilty (nospam) shout.net (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
08 Aug 2004
|
dem,
I remain unconvinced by your argument. It's like saying that I have to know the nitty-gritty details about drug-dealing in order to know whether or not I want drug dealers in my neighborhood. Or that I have to know the nitty-gritty details about medicine in order to know whether or not I want access to health care by physicians.
And anyway, the use of tasers by the police goes far beyond technical expertise and spills over into the public domain. I fear the creation of a totalitarian society and for this reason I am opposed to the further amplication of power by the state. Therefore, I can't support the availability of tasers to the police. Your argument has no bearing on this at all. |
|
Re: The Dangers of Tasers: The News-Gazette Finally Gets It, But Gets It Only Partly Right |
by dem
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
10 Aug 2004
|
John
My point is not about tasers, per say. It is about what to do that will satisfy everyone when its time to go hands on? ( I realize the thread started over and has mostly been about tasers, but the actual issue is use of force). All I can get is Monday morning qurterbacking and sniping from afar, but no one seems to have any ideas beyond yelping about what can't be done. That does not solve a problem, in this case, a problem I have tried to narrowly define. I would love to spend a few hours showing people control tactics and then putting them into situations where they would have to use them and see what they think once they have to actually solve the problem. This requirres a real commitment from people who want to learn both sides of a probelm. |
|
