Taser International says that more "taser related deaths may occur"

[AX10]

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/localnews/content/local_news/epaper/2005/05/30/m1a_taser_0530.html

"The man survived, but the report of his violent, erratic and apparently drug-induced behavior, as well as struggles with officers and repeated shocks, parallels the stories of almost all of those who have died following Taser shocks in Florida.

Taser International urges departments to be prepared for those stories. The company points out in its training materials that the weapon often is used when other means of control have failed with people using hard drugs and showing signs of a condition that medical examiners call "excited delirium," which can be fatal even without a Taser shock.

The firm includes an "In Custody Death Checklist" with its training materials.

In it, the company notes that it "anticipates more in-custody deaths given the significantly large deployments of Taser conducted energy weapons."

-just something to consider

[Squatch]

1. They should be a part of a beat cop's kit

[AX10]

2. But shouldn't there be rules as to when they are used?

I believe so. In Portland Oregon, their police force is becoming the Gestapo with these damn guns. They are even being used to "calm" people down who are acting up, but they are not even arrested.

[Squatch]

3. Sure. The rule is, when a cop stops you, you better heed.

Otherwise, there are consequences.

[AX10]

4. So if someone is very emotional or upset, not at

the cop, but at circumstances or something else, should the cop use physical force against them. I have read cases where tasers were used for mundane things. I cannot justify the usage of force in those cases.

[Squatch]

5. The emotional state of the suspect

should be critical in a cop's decision to employ a Taser.

1. Calm suspect. No taser.
2. Agitated, uncooperative suspect. Taser ready.
3. Extremely agitated, uncooperative suspect. Taser can be employed.

It's not the business of a cop to determine whether the suspect is mad at the police or "at circumstances or something else".

[AX10]

6. Aren't officers taught about conflict resolution?

If someone is agitated or crying, but not posing a threat to an officer,
no force should be used. The Taser is being used simply as an electric whip to make people "cooperate". and they have been used against peaceful protesters. We at DU are peaceful protestors.

[Squatch]

7. Of course. The threat of being Tased can resolve a conflict

When that doesn't work, employment can definitely defuse the situation.

[AX10]

8. So what you're saying is that if I don't answer an officers question...

then I can be tased? :wtf:? I have rights damn it, an if a cop is not hurt me for that minute thing, then I wouldn't find them to be worth one cent.

[Squatch]

9. Calm down

If you are a suspect and are not cooperating with the police, then yes. You have the avenue of seeking restitution in a court of law, if you were unlawfully detained. You do not have the right to be uncooperative with the police during an arrest or inquiry.

Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial Dist. Court of Nev., Humboldt Cty

[AX10]

10. Our country is being made into a police state.

People died for us to be free and now we have this shit occuring.
:cry:

"suspicious circumstances": what defines this? I could be stopped on the street anytime and harrased for I.D. This is what happens in Iran for Chirsts sakes. :argh:

If abuses of power keep on occuring, then I will find it most difficult to support the police.

-also, if I am ever arrested under FALSE cirumstances, I promise you, I will sue the living crap out of the cop and the town. I will take his house and his kids college funds. I promise you that.

[Squatch]

11. OK

:nopity:

[AX10]

12. "sure you will?" what's that supposed to mean?

[Squatch]

13. I'm sure you will...

"I will sue the living crap out of the cop and the town. I will take his house and his kids college funds"

[AX10]

15. If the state arrests me falsely, or should I say "slings mud at me"

then, HELL YA, I'd sue the crap out of them. No apology. Police have to do their job, but I have a right to live too.

[Squatch]

20. Cool. But, you do not have the right to be uncooperative

at the time of arrest or inquiry.

[Occulus]

31. Is a man's silence now taken to be a lack of cooperation?

If I "have the right to remain silent" under Miranda, and I do so prior to being read my Miranda rights (which are, by the way, in effect 24/7, since no officer of the law may compel a person to speak), and the police taser me, and I die, exactly how does that uphold the rule of law?

[Squatch]

32. Once again:

Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial Dist. Court of Nev., Humboldt Cty

[AX10]

14. so if a cop stops me and asks for I.D and I ask them why...

should I be tasered then? :eyes:

[Squatch]

16. Hyperbole aside...

if you were being uncooperative and extremely agitated...yes. By all means.

[AX10]

17. People died for us to be free and.....

so many are willing to give up our freedoms. If I refuse to answer a question, the cop has to respect that. I have rights. Maybe I'll just say "I don't know".

[AX10]

18. So if I am being passivly uncooperative then I should be tasered?

[Squatch]

19. What's with the multiple replies to a single post?

[AX10]

21. What's with skirting around a basic question?

[Squatch]

22. I believe I answered your question numerous times, directly.

[AX10]

23. Then I guess we peaceful protestors are going to have our asses...

handed to us. Welcome to Bushmerica. :argh: :cry:

[Squatch]

24. In any case, peaceful or not, you always have the right to

seek restitution in a court of law, not at the time of arrest or inquiry.

[AX10]

25. sad

[Occulus]

29. And police, sir, have the responsibility

to properly enforce our laws. If a person dies before their trial directly due to being tased, what recourse do they have?

You appear to ignore the very serious Constitutional issues tasers raise: do police have the right to impose capital punishment upon suspects prior even to their actual arrest?

THAT is what you truly advocate.

[Occulus]

26. You answered nothing, sir

Yes or no: a police officer asking a random person for "their papers, please" has the right to taser a person who respons with "We do not live in the Soviet Union. No."

Yes or no.

Just exactly, under what precise and exact circumstances, in your mind, makes a person "uncooperative" according to a police officer and therefore eligible for being tased? Please be as specific and detailed as you wish. I'm talking about several hypotheticals, with individual justifications for each.

If you can't do so, you can't support your argument. It already sounds as if you have no problem with anyone being tased if they do not follow an officer's instructions, no matter how draconian or bizarre (or demonstrably unjustified).

You have a very great deal of explaining to do reagrding your position on this matter.

edited to add: you sound as if you don't have a problem with, say, me being tased for simply standing there, yelling at the cop. In fact, it sounds almost as if you would have no problem with a hair-trigger finger regarding tasers.

Quite frankly, it sounds as if you have a stake of some sort in tasers themselves, as if you personally benefit from their deployment. I don't like saying so, but your "justifications" are paper-thin.

So I will ask directly: do you own stock in the company that makes the taser, or do you somehow benefit from their deployment?

[Squatch]

27. I have nothing to explain to you.

I've already answered the question here:

Link

Good day.

[Occulus]

28. Linking to the OP in the selfsame thread itself answers nothing.

Read the edit on my post.

[Squatch]

30. I actually linked to post #5

But, as for the edit in your post, I will not answer your non sequitur demands for hypothetical situations or statements of my stake in any company manufacturing electronic control devices.

[Occulus]

35. apologies

My browser apparently got stuck somehow. It didn't go to post #5, it left me at the OP.

By the way, silence equals assent.

[Occulus]

33. A few years back, the city of Detroit put out a warning to all residents

that there were peope driving around in "unmarked" "police cruisers" who would turn their lights on at night behind certain individuals fitting a certain profile, pretend to be police, and then do Really Bad Things to them. They were posers, pretending to be officers. The Detrot PD put out a press release or something of the sort instructing citizens to NOT cooperate with such instructions to pull over.

By saying "there are consequences", you are in effect saying it's ok if people die simply for not complying with police instructions, no matter how odious or uncalled-for such instructions may be.

Scenario: Male chauvinist pig cop pulls over pretty young lady under a pretext on a deserted road. Cop tells lady to exit vehicle. Cop swaggers and tugs crotch on approach to the lady's car. She sees this.

Does she deserve to be tasered, for refusing to exit her vehicle upon request?

[Squatch]

34. From your hypothetical, I see that you have an agenda

that is patently anti-police.

Good day.

[Moderator]

36. Locking

The debate has degenerated into a personal argument, and has run its course.

DU Moderator