"A Taser stun gun was used by officers arresting Omar"

[Winston]

Yeah, well I just get a little turned off that it's always about finding faults with the police and their work, even in a situation like this.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Winston
Amazing to see how this thread has turned from the announcement that a subway bomber was arrested, involving the use of a stun gun, to an heated debate about how terrible and dangerous stun guns are to people.

Why is this amazing? MarkG wanted to troll Brits by showing how they could have stopped that other guy that was shot in the head, which lead to a discussion of whether or not tasers are actually safe, which leads to a discussion over their usage.

Certainly a taser is less lethal than a bullet, and less dangerous than being whacked by a club. My concern is whether police are more willing to use them because of their supposed non-lethality, thus increasing the possibility that someone who doesn't need to be tasered gets injured or killed.

In many situations, no force needs to be used . . . eventually. You got some drunk or drugged up loser swinging a knife around, talking smack. Without a taser, the police will just clear the area around the guy making sure he can't hurt anyone while they wait for him to calm down, drop the knife, get too stupored to function, etc., then pounce on him. It might take a while, and a lot of police, but no one has to die.

Now, they can just taser him, and he drops. No muss, no fuss, unless some combination of a bad ticker, drugs, alcohol, and the taser kill him.

[Winston]

They got the bomber guy, to me that's the most interesting part.

This prolonged debate about how horrendous stun guns are seems to suggest the police should've acted differently.

Which they shouldn't. They got the guy.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Winston
They got the bomber guy, to me that's the most interesting part.

This prolonged debate about how horrendous stun guns are seems to suggest the police should've acted differently.

Which they shouldn't. They got the guy.

Did you read MarkG's posts or are you just trying to score points? MarkG used this situation as an attack on Britain due to their handling of the situation the other day.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Winston
Amazing to see how this thread has turned from the announcement that a subway bomber was arrested, involving the use of a stun gun, to an heated debate about how terrible and dangerous stun guns are to people.

Or maybe not. Is it amazing? No, it's the Poly OT at work.

its alot more logical than alot of threads.

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Winston
Yeah, well I just get a little turned off that it's always about finding faults with the police and their work, even in a situation like this.

Haven't you figured that out yet ? Certain posters will claim it's the police's fault no matter what has happend - even letting an innocent pass by will be claimed as police brutality and the direct course to a police state

[Ramo]

Nowhere did it say ANYTHING about death.

Where, exactly, do you think severe heart attacks, cardiac arrests, etc. lead?

And is I'm not going to use "legalese" in this agrument, then please refrain from doing so as well (ie: "the high-power Tasers cannot be classed, in the vernacular, as `safe.' " ).

First off, I didn't use that terminology, rather the British study did. Secondly, it's not "legalese" that I objected to, rather the imposition of a legalism that blatantly does not apply to an ME report.

Lets take those heart condition aspects and remove the TAZER.

Does hitting a person with a baton, with a pace maker generally cause a heart attack?

And the APD policy (assuming that the conservative, but generally reliable Statesman isn't blatantly making something up, as you suggest) applies to anyone "actively resisting arrest," i.e. situations where even a baton may not be needed?

[Ramo]

This prolonged debate about how horrendous stun guns are seems to suggest the police should've acted differently.

It's not our fault that you're paranoid and/or illiterate.

[Winston]

"Our". Who exactly has been arguing alongside you over the past 4 hours, Ramo?

Anyway, it is your fault that you insist on beating a dead horse wrt. to the fact that a subway bomber was apprehended. Or are you worried about his health after he got stunned?

[BlackCat]

Nah, the real fault in that statement is that he is calling you paranoid

The part about illiteracy I cant comment

[Snotty]

If stun guns kill, then stun guns = a bad form of 'non-lethal' apprehension, m'kay?

I dont buy the subtle 'its the perps fault for being on drugs/ having a heart disorder' thing

[Winston]

Or being high from reciting the Koran for 8 hours straight.

[Solly]

They're assuming that no-one would die if the TAZER wasn't used, which is an poor assumption.

[Ramo]

"Our". Who exactly has been arguing alongside you over the past 4 hours, Ramo?

Any reason in particular that you constrained this to "4 hours" besides trying to score a point?

Anyway, it is your fault that you insist on beating a dead horse wrt. to the fact that a subway bomber was apprehended. Or are you worried about his health after he got stunned?

Actually, I'm worried about your shockingly bad reading comprehension ability.

Or perhaps you've forgotten your geography. London and Austin are actually different cities.

[Donegeal]

Originally posted by Ramo
Does hitting a person with a baton, with a pace maker generally cause a heart attack?

Spoken like that, no. But put into the scenerio I described, with hightened tensions, It could very well push a suspect over the edge and cause the heart attack.

And the APD policy (assuming that the conservative, but generally reliable Statesman isn't blatantly making something up, as you suggest) applies to anyone "actively resisting arrest," i.e. situations where even a baton may not be needed?

Once again, this is a matter for another thread. All news, conservative/liberal/otherwise, is propoganda that has a side/skew. What that side/skew is depends on your point of view, and my point of view is that a newspaper is in the business of selling newspapers and is thusly looking to put a spin on its articles that will stir up more controversy so it can sell more newspapers. BUt this is getting far and away from the subject at hand.

For those that are following, I do not see this as a "heated argument", but more of a good discussion with an intelligent person who has not resorted to slander but has shown respect.

Ramo has issues with the an appearently alarming rate of useage of the TAZER in his city. So lets try to figure out where it should fit on the Force Option Continuum, and what sort of restrictions it should have (for his city).