[Lemmy]

romanP romanP:

Far fewer people have died from tasers than would have been killed by gunshot.

How many? If a single suspect that was tased would have been shot, absent the taser, that is a VERY small number. My guess is that number is zero. But this tread is about swearing, so I'll say no more of tasering here.

[novachick]

RUEZ RUEZ:

novachick novachick:

Presumption of guilt has nothing to do with it. If you resist arrest, are combative you will be tased. If you let them put the cuffs on without throwing fits you won't be tased. It doesn't go cuff/rights read/ oh hells lets taser this guy just to see if he'll die.

Well taser use might be fine for you but I'd rather not see many more people die for petty crimes. I'm not talking about times when it's really needed, like disarming people. I mean times when you have four full size male police offers that need to subdue an unarmed Polish man. Or even one male cop that needs to subdue an unarmed granny. Imagine if she had died?

It's not the crime they are being arrested for that's relevant, it's their actions upon arrest that get them tased ( why is that so hard to understand). Also said polish man and granny are just as likely to be injured by the officers physically taking them down. Suspects usually don't have hockey helmets and knee pads on when they are arrested. In any case the "who" in this issue is irrelevant.

[novachick]

Lemmy Lemmy:

romanP romanP:

Far fewer people have died from tasers than would have been killed by gunshot.

How many? If a single suspect that was tased would have been shot, absent the taser, that is a VERY small number. My guess is that number is zero. But this tread is about swearing, so I'll say no more of tasering here.

Prior to the taser a suspect was shot or was physically taken down by an officer. You must remember those days, then it was always police brutality if they were injured as a result of that take down. Yes, some even died as a result of a brain injury from their head hitting the pavement.

[novachick]

RUEZ RUEZ:

novachick novachick:

Presumption of guilt has nothing to do with it. If you resist arrest, are combative you will be tased. If you let them put the cuffs on without throwing fits you won't be tased. It doesn't go cuff/rights read/ oh hells lets taser this guy just to see if he'll die.

Well taser use might be fine for you but I'd rather not see many more people die for petty crimes. I'm not talking about times when it's really needed, like disarming people. I mean times when you have four full size male police offers that need to subdue an unarmed Polish man. Or even one male cop that needs to subdue an unarmed granny. Imagine if she had died?

Ok now you really have me confused in a separate thread on here,you stated a 72 year old granny "HAD IT COMING" when she was tased. So what the hell is your point exactly?

RUEZ RUEZ:

She had it coming.

[RUEZ]

novachick novachick:

It's not the crime they are being arrested for that's relevant, it's their actions upon arrest that get them tased ( why is that so hard to understand). Also said polish man and granny are just as likely to be injured by the officers physically taking them down. Suspects usually don't have hockey helmets and knee pads on when they are arrested. In any case the "who" in this issue is irrelevant.

In this example it's entirely relevant. I'm not against taser use, clearly it's less lethal than firearms. If you are trying to arrest someone with a weapon you shouldn't risk your own safety. However knowing what we do about tasers I think the policy should be physical restraint if it's feasible. It's quite simple really, use the taser when it's needed, not for every single incident.

[RUEZ]

novachick novachick:

Ok now you really have me confused in a separate thread on here,you stated a 72 year old granny "HAD IT COMING" when she was tased. So what the hell is your point exactly?

RUEZ RUEZ:

She had it coming.

The story was about her being tased and arrested. Clearly she was obstructing and deserved to be arrested. I do believe however that the man could have arrested her with no taser use whatsoever. Good thing she didn't have a pacemaker.

[novachick]

RUEZ RUEZ:

novachick novachick:

It's not the crime they are being arrested for that's relevant, it's their actions upon arrest that get them tased ( why is that so hard to understand). Also said polish man and granny are just as likely to be injured by the officers physically taking them down. Suspects usually don't have hockey helmets and knee pads on when they are arrested. In any case the "who" in this issue is irrelevant.

In this example it's entirely relevant. I'm not against taser use, clearly it's less lethal than firearms. If you are trying to arrest someone with a weapon you shouldn't risk your own safety. However knowing what we do about tasers I think the policy should be physical restraint if it's feasible. It's quite simple really, use the taser when it's needed, not for every single incident.

What makes you think they do use the taser for every incident? They don't.

[Yogi]

Lemmy Lemmy:

romanP romanP:

Far fewer people have died from tasers than would have been killed by gunshot.

How many? If a single suspect that was tased would have been shot, absent the taser, that is a VERY small number. My guess is that number is zero. But this tread is about swearing, so I'll say no more of tasering here.

Ok. So a Cop isn't supposed to swear while dealing with a combatant, or otherwise, and he isn't supposed to use a taser. Now I'm getting a picture of a Cop wrassling around on the ground with a 'potential arrestee' requesting that the person "settle down and put your arms behind your back so that I can place these handcuffs upon your person. Thank-you for your understanding and cooperation"!

[novachick]

RUEZ RUEZ:

novachick novachick:

Ok now you really have me confused in a separate thread on here,you stated a 72 year old granny "HAD IT COMING" when she was tased. So what the hell is your point exactly?

RUEZ RUEZ:

She had it coming.

The story was about her being tased and arrested. Clearly she was obstructing and deserved to be arrested. I do believe however that the man could have arrested her with no taser use whatsoever. Good thing she didn't have a pacemaker.

Yeah I got all that out of "she had it coming"

[novachick]

Yogi Yogi:

Lemmy Lemmy:

romanP romanP:

Far fewer people have died from tasers than would have been killed by gunshot.

How many? If a single suspect that was tased would have been shot, absent the taser, that is a VERY small number. My guess is that number is zero. But this tread is about swearing, so I'll say no more of tasering here.

Ok. So a Cop isn't supposed to swear while dealing with a combatant, or otherwise, and he isn't supposed to use a taser. Now I'm getting a picture of a Cop wrassling around on the ground with a 'potential arrestee' requesting that the person "settle down and put your arms behind your back so that I can place these handcuffs upon your person. Thank-you for your understanding and cooperation"!

I think what we are seeing is arm chair policing Yogi. If they were ever actually witness to an arrest that turned combative and verbally abusive on the suspects part, they may have a slightly different perspective.

[RUEZ]

novachick novachick:

Yeah I got all that out of "she had it coming"

Clearly.

[Lemmy]

Yogi Yogi:

Ok. So a Cop isn't supposed to swear while dealing with a combatant, or otherwise, and he isn't supposed to use a taser. Now I'm getting a picture of a Cop wrassling around on the ground with a 'potential arrestee' requesting that the person "settle down and put your arms behind your back so that I can place these handcuffs upon your person. Thank-you for your understanding and cooperation"!

You've got that almost exactly right, except not "a" cop, but a few. Six or seven or more would be better to avoid the "wrestling" part.

[novachick]

RUEZ RUEZ:

novachick novachick:

Yeah I got all that out of "she had it coming"

Clearly.

[Yogi]

[quote="Lemmy [quote="Lemmy:

romanP romanP:

Far fewer people have died from tasers than would have been killed by gunshot.

How many? If a single suspect that was tased would have been shot, absent the taser, that is a VERY small number. My guess is that number is zero. But this tread is about swearing, so I'll say no more of tasering here.

Ok. So a Cop isn't supposed to swear while dealing with a combatant, or otherwise, and he isn't supposed to use a taser. Now I'm getting a picture of a Cop wrassling around on the ground with a 'potential arrestee' requesting that the person "settle down and put your arms behind your back so that I can place these handcuffs upon your person. Thank-you for your understanding and cooperation"!
[/quote]

I think what we are seeing is arm chair policing Yogi. If they were ever actually witness to an arrest that turned combative and verbally abusive on the suspects part, they may have a slightly different perspective. [/quote]

I have witnessed it 'from the other side' and know full well that 'the Cops have their hands full'. When a guy gets 'wound up' FOUR UNARMED COPS are just breakfast!

[novachick]

Lemmy Lemmy:

Yogi Yogi:

Ok. So a Cop isn't supposed to swear while dealing with a combatant, or otherwise, and he isn't supposed to use a taser. Now I'm getting a picture of a Cop wrassling around on the ground with a 'potential arrestee' requesting that the person "settle down and put your arms behind your back so that I can place these handcuffs upon your person. Thank-you for your understanding and cooperation"!

You've got that almost exactly right, except not "a" cop, but a few. Six or seven or more would be better to avoid the "wrestling" part.

Yeah cause they always send out six or seven cops to pick up a shoplifter. ]