• Supreme Court to weigh police use of TASERs
    163 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Snake7;35868126]Yeah, there's two of them, so they might be twice as dangerous.[/QUOTE] Better use two tasers you never know when those unarmed women and fetuses refusing to sign a traffic ticket are going to attack.
[QUOTE=Lankist;35868141]Better use two tasers you never know when those unarmed women and fetuses refusing to sign a traffic ticket are going to attack.[/QUOTE] I've seen some pretty small guns. You could never know if that fetus is packing heat.
[QUOTE=Mingebox;35868166]I've seen some pretty small guns. You could never know if that fetus is packing heat.[/QUOTE] shove a .22 up your cooch and you're in bidness.
american cops need to fucking learn how to deal with people without hiding behind guns or tasers, we've been doing it in europe for aeons
Overall I think they're still a great help in defusing situations, keep them.
Again, this isn't a dispute on banning tasers. The Supreme Court is just going to lay down the rules on when police are and are not allowed to use them. [quote]Now, the Supreme Court is being asked to consider for the first time police use of Tasers. With more than 11,000 agencies nationwide arming officers with the stun guns, the time may be getting ripe for settling questions about when electrical force becomes excessive.[/quote] Guys read the fucking articles.
[QUOTE=J!NX;35866297]banning means cops will be more likely to go for the gun[/QUOTE] there will be alternatives
[QUOTE=AK'z;35868311]there will be alternatives[/QUOTE] Such as?
[QUOTE=Monkey Arms;35868331]Such as?[/QUOTE] Such as using the tasers that are not being banned. You people really need to start reading articles before you talk about them.
[QUOTE=Lankist;35867996]Uhm, you don't taze someone who is carrying a gun. What kind of shitty cop are you? If you taze someone with a gun, ALL of their muscles contract and they WILL pull the trigger. That's sort of what a taser fucking does. All police are SUPPOSED to know this.[/QUOTE] this areolop guy isn't actually a cop is he, you're just making a wisecrack right [editline]7th May 2012[/editline] i really hope he isn't an actual cop
[QUOTE=Itachi_Crow;35868412]this areolop guy isn't actually a cop is he, you're just making a wisecrack right [editline]7th May 2012[/editline] i really hope he isn't an actual cop[/QUOTE] He's a cop in training iirc
[QUOTE=Itachi_Crow;35868412]this areolop guy isn't actually a cop is he, you're just making a wisecrack right [editline]7th May 2012[/editline] i really hope he isn't an actual cop[/QUOTE] He is supposedly in training. Clearly he hasn't reached the part where they taze and mace the fuck out of him. [editline]7th May 2012[/editline] God help us all. Dumb bastard is going to shoot a pregnant woman.
[QUOTE=Snowmew;35867997]"Electrocute" implies death by means of electric shock. Tasers have almost never electrocuted anyone - they've disabled pacemakers in some instances which causes death, but if you do not have a pre-existing condition, it is extremely unlikely that you will die if you are shot with a Taser.[/QUOTE] Actually electrocution is any death that is caused by an electric shock. A failed pacemaker caused by an electric shock counts as an electrocution.
[QUOTE=Lankist;35868433] God help us all. Dumb bastard is going to shoot a pregnant woman.[/QUOTE] God forbid that someone who is pregnant can still kill someone. Its tragic that it has to happen but, damnit. I am going to do what I have to, to go home at the end of the shift I dont think that you realize that.
[QUOTE=areolop;35868479]God forbid that someone who is pregnant can still kill someone. Its tragic that it has to happen but, damnit. I am going to do what I have to, to go home at the end of the shift I dont think that you realize that.[/QUOTE] Does your superior know you talk like this? Where is he so I can bring it to his attention that one of his trainees is talking like this. [editline]7th May 2012[/editline] Also I'm glad you're more goddamned worried about your own fucking safety than the people you're supposed to protect. Way to fucking go. Kill an unborn baby so you can go home and watch jeopardy. Really giving cops a great fucking name.
haha. You dont believe me. What ever. Just because someone is pregnant does grant them immunity to life. I dont think its worth arguing this point further.
[QUOTE=areolop;35868508]haha. You dont believe me. What ever. Just because someone is pregnant does grant them immunity to life. I dont think its worth arguing this point further.[/QUOTE] No I've moved on to arguing that you shouldn't be permitted to handle a firearm. You're fucking crazy.
[QUOTE=Lankist;35868496] Also I'm glad you're more goddamned worried about your own fucking safety than the people you're supposed to protect.[/QUOTE] No cop is going to stand there and take a bullet. If she tried to shoot someone, shes a target. So you [B]are[/B] protecting someone.
[QUOTE=areolop;35868524]No cop is going to stand there and take a bullet.[/QUOTE] Yeah it's not like that's sort of what cops signed up for. Take the bullet so an innocent doesn't have to? Nope. Shoot babies go home. You're a fucking saint. And you wonder why people hate cops?
[QUOTE=Lankist;35868531]Yeah it's not like that's sort of what cops signed up for. Take the bullet so an innocent doesn't have to? [/QUOTE] Since when did that become what being a police officer was about? I don't know what movies you've been watching but that's not at all what the function of the police force is.
[QUOTE=Lankist;35868531]Yeah it's not like that's sort of what cops signed up for. Take the bullet so an innocent doesn't have to? Nope. Shoot babies go home. You're a fucking saint. And you wonder why people hate cops?[/QUOTE] Step off your stool for one minute, read a bit. A cop's (formally, A PEACE OFFICER) goal is to keep the peace. Jesus christ. You're not going around shooting babies you ignorant fuck. A pregnant woman shooting is not innocent.
[QUOTE=Monkey Arms;35868559]Since when did that become what being a police officer was about? I don't know what movies you've been watching but that's not at all what the function of the police force is.[/QUOTE] To Protect and Serve not To Shoot and Go Home. [editline]7th May 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=areolop;35868563]Step off your stool for one minute, read a bit. A cop's (formally, A PEACE OFFICER) goal is to keep the peace. Jesus christ. You're not going around shooting babies you ignorant fuck. A pregnant woman shooting is not innocent.[/QUOTE] What pregnant woman? The pregnant woman in this fucking article was unarmed, non-threatening, and simply refused to get out of her car. So they tazed, tackled and arrested her. And you're defending that.
[QUOTE=Lankist;35868568]To Protect and Serve not To Shoot and Go Home.[/QUOTE] You have no idea how the job works then. No officer wants to shoot anyone (and rarely does). If shooting someone means protecting another, then [B]yes. IT IS THEIR JOB.[/B] [editline]7th May 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Lankist;35868568] What pregnant woman? The pregnant woman in this fucking article was unarmed, non-threatening, and simply refused to get out of her car. So they tazed, tackled and arrested her. And you're defending that.[/QUOTE] Where did I say that. Im showing a case of a deadly pregnant woman, not the one in the article
[QUOTE=areolop;35868588]You have no idea how the job works then. No officer wants to shoot anyone (and rarely does). If shooting someone means protecting another, then [B]yes. IT IS THEIR JOB.[/B][/QUOTE] Uhm, says the dude who thinks shooting pregnant women for being uppity is all part of the job. Malaika Brooks wasn't threatening anybody. [editline]7th May 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=areolop;35868588]Where did I say that. Im showing a case of a deadly pregnant woman, not the one in the article[/QUOTE] The one in the article is the one I'm goddamn talking about. I said she was non-threatening. You said pregnant women are dangerous. She fucking wasn't.
See above post [editline]7th May 2012[/editline] Welp. We're talking about two different things now.
[QUOTE=areolop;35868622]See above post [editline]7th May 2012[/editline] Welp. We're talking about two different things now.[/QUOTE] Then let's talk about the one thing about cops tazing and tackling an unarmed and non-threatening pregnant woman over a parking ticket. Justify it.
[QUOTE=Lankist;35868635]Then let's talk about the one thing about cops tazing and tackling an unarmed and non-threatening pregnant woman over a parking ticket. Justify it.[/QUOTE] You simply cannot justify that.
[QUOTE=Lankist;35868568]To Protect and Serve not To Shoot and Go Home. [/QUOTE] Protect and serve doesn't mean "all officers need to disregard their own safety and jump in front of bullets to protect people". Contrary to what you seem to think that's not part of the job description or their training.
[QUOTE=areolop;35868643]You simply cannot justify that.[/QUOTE] But you can justify tazing a pregnant woman with a gun, despite the fact that it's the worst idea ever. (???)
[QUOTE=zombini;35866258]Reason why they are likely to be banned is because they can kill you rather easily, a pulsed electrical current at low amperage is more likely to stop the heart than a high current non pulsed shock.[/QUOTE] This is not even wrong. 1) [URL="http://www.cbc.ca/news/pdf/taser-reponse-to-cbc.pdf"]Tasers explicitly use an amount of current known to be perfectly survivable.[/URL] 2) The "pulse vs no pulse" thing is gibberish. Whether or not current is pulsed or not is a nonfactor in lethality. The [I]frequency[/I] of a pulsing or AC system is a factor, but we know the frequencies which are most likely to cause ventricular fibrillation. [URL="http://library-resources.cqu.edu.au/JFS/PDF/vol_36/iss_2/JFS362910434.pdf"]The Taser doesn't use them.[/URL] Indeed, [URL="http://www.sci.utah.edu/~macleod/bioen/be6460/notes/W06-paper.pdf"]pulsed current at these levels and frequencies is actually less harmful than constant due to the properties of the relevant tissues.[/URL] 3) The banning of tasers was never in question.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.