3 ms·

Everyone in this forum seems to think that using a taser is inhumane and officers should instead use batons or their fists. The problem is that the officer has

Everyone in this forum seems to think that using a taser is inhumane and officers should instead use batons or their fists. The problem is that the officer has to assume that if an attacker is getting violent, they are attempting to get the gun. They can't read your mind, and they don't know if they can beat you in a fight -- they have to assume that because they have a loaded firearm you might take it and use it. So any use of force needs to be measured against "if this fails they get the gun and we don't know what the state of mind or capabilities of this attacker are".

1_2__4 9y ago
This is completely wrong on so many levels it's breathtaking. You do realize (prettt sure you do) that you're making a case that any amount of physical resistance should be reasonably met with deadly force?
- program_whiz 9y ago
  Yes. Imagine you have a loaded gun and you've heard someone is committing a crime, so you go to the scene to investigate with no prior knowledge of the person. If they punch you in the face your options are: A) Assume you can probably take them physically, and they are a reasonable person who's just punching you because they've had a bad day, if you're wrong innocents may die. But wrestle and punch them anyway. B) Hit them with a stick, they will probably go down. If they manage to grab your gun while you're doing this, you and many innocents nearby may die. If they rush you, the stick may become ineffective. C) Assume the person who is punching you may be trying to get the gun, draw your gun so they can't grab it first, then if they don't immediately stop, shoot them. Taser is like C. You have a taser, if you try to "punch them back" or "wrestle them down" or even "grab your baton", the person may just grab the gun and kill you and other innocents. No one should ever resist arrest EVER -- just comply, go to the station, argue your case, and hire an attorney. If the police tell you to get in the cuffs, just do it.
  - someone7x 9y ago
    You are of course entitled to your opinion, but to me it's astonishingly bleak. I can only imagine that whoever wrote the 4th amendment is rolling in their grave now.
  - frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
    I think frequently what people are suggesting is that police should de-escalate in these situations, and that lots of situations that end in A, B or C could be de-escalated if police had any incentive to. Instead we'll just give police officers a whole suite of escalation options so that they're never put in a situation where they have to choose between an escalating over-reaction and de-escalation, they can always pick moderate escalation. Take the tasers away, take the military equipment away, take some of the guns away. Police officers are not soldiers and if, as a police officer, you feel you are forced to assume that any physical contact with a civilian will end in your death then you should not be a police officer.
  - anigbrowl 9y ago
    Sorry, you need to fill that gap between 'got to investigate' and 'get punched in the face.' You also need to acknowledge the possibility that the alleged perpetrator of the crime simply wishes to escape, even if you don't weight that possibility highly. To assume that an alleged perpetrator's object is to gain control of a police officer's firearm while excluding other possibilities from consideration makes for a bad-faith argument. No one should ever resist arrest EVER -- just comply, go to the station, argue your case, and hire an attorney. If the police tell you to get in the cuffs, just do it. Nonsense statements like that open the door to police abuse and invite it right in. A police uniform does not alleviate the wearer of moral responsibility. On the contrary, it creates an incentive for crooked police officers to cover up abuse or even kill people who might testify against them. What if you never make it to the station?
  - semi-extrinsic 9y ago
    I have a revolutionary solution to this conundrum: don't have all the police officers carry guns. Then police officer doesn't have to worry about person taking his gun, person doesn't worry about getting shot, and they can de-escalate the situation much more easily and quickly. Seriously, many European countries do this, e.g. the UK. Even in the poorest neighbourhoods in London, which Republicans referred to as "no-go zones" in the last election, regular cops on the beat don't carry.
crooked-v 9y ago
The greater problem is that police use a taser in the case of non-resisting or physically harmless suspects, including children.
- program_whiz 9y ago
  Obviously situations like that are immoral and I would never support it, my comment was only addressing people who seem to think a police officer's job is to be a professional wrestler who takes down violent offenders using their hands and a baton.
LeifCarrotson 9y ago
I am a person in this forum, and I do not think that using a taser against a violent criminal is inhumane. What I (and many others) think is significantly more nuanced: 1. Using a taser against a violent person is humane only because it posses a smaller (but still important, and still present) risk of harm to the person than that person poses to bystanders and to the police. 2. Using a potentially lethal weapon like a taser against a nonviolent person is inhumane. 3. Manipulating science by funding supporters and suppressing critics to pretend your potentially lethal weapon is non-lethal is unethical. The use of force in the article should have been measured against "if this fails we might have to chase this guy who spray-painted an abandoned building more, or we might not catch him at all... or we might kill him."
- program_whiz 9y ago
  I agree with your points, my umbrage was against the general sentiment in the forum that tools of force are bad and need to go because force is never really justified.
  - yardie 9y ago
    I'm only half way through the post and I haven't seen anyone make an argument like that. Most seem to believe that tasers have a time and place and using them for nonviolent compliance isn't one of those reasons.

1_2__4 9y ago

This is completely wrong on so many levels it's breathtaking. You do realize (prettt sure you do) that you're making a case that any amount of physical resistance should be reasonably met with deadly force?

program_whiz 9y ago
Yes. Imagine you have a loaded gun and you've heard someone is committing a crime, so you go to the scene to investigate with no prior knowledge of the person. If they punch you in the face your options are: A) Assume you can probably take them physically, and they are a reasonable person who's just punching you because they've had a bad day, if you're wrong innocents may die. But wrestle and punch them anyway. B) Hit them with a stick, they will probably go down. If they manage to grab your gun while you're doing this, you and many innocents nearby may die. If they rush you, the stick may become ineffective. C) Assume the person who is punching you may be trying to get the gun, draw your gun so they can't grab it first, then if they don't immediately stop, shoot them. Taser is like C. You have a taser, if you try to "punch them back" or "wrestle them down" or even "grab your baton", the person may just grab the gun and kill you and other innocents. No one should ever resist arrest EVER -- just comply, go to the station, argue your case, and hire an attorney. If the police tell you to get in the cuffs, just do it.
- someone7x 9y ago
  You are of course entitled to your opinion, but to me it's astonishingly bleak. I can only imagine that whoever wrote the 4th amendment is rolling in their grave now.
- frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
  I think frequently what people are suggesting is that police should de-escalate in these situations, and that lots of situations that end in A, B or C could be de-escalated if police had any incentive to. Instead we'll just give police officers a whole suite of escalation options so that they're never put in a situation where they have to choose between an escalating over-reaction and de-escalation, they can always pick moderate escalation. Take the tasers away, take the military equipment away, take some of the guns away. Police officers are not soldiers and if, as a police officer, you feel you are forced to assume that any physical contact with a civilian will end in your death then you should not be a police officer.
- anigbrowl 9y ago
  Sorry, you need to fill that gap between 'got to investigate' and 'get punched in the face.' You also need to acknowledge the possibility that the alleged perpetrator of the crime simply wishes to escape, even if you don't weight that possibility highly. To assume that an alleged perpetrator's object is to gain control of a police officer's firearm while excluding other possibilities from consideration makes for a bad-faith argument. No one should ever resist arrest EVER -- just comply, go to the station, argue your case, and hire an attorney. If the police tell you to get in the cuffs, just do it. Nonsense statements like that open the door to police abuse and invite it right in. A police uniform does not alleviate the wearer of moral responsibility. On the contrary, it creates an incentive for crooked police officers to cover up abuse or even kill people who might testify against them. What if you never make it to the station?
- semi-extrinsic 9y ago
  I have a revolutionary solution to this conundrum: don't have all the police officers carry guns. Then police officer doesn't have to worry about person taking his gun, person doesn't worry about getting shot, and they can de-escalate the situation much more easily and quickly. Seriously, many European countries do this, e.g. the UK. Even in the poorest neighbourhoods in London, which Republicans referred to as "no-go zones" in the last election, regular cops on the beat don't carry.

crooked-v 9y ago

The greater problem is that police use a taser in the case of non-resisting or physically harmless suspects, including children.

program_whiz 9y ago
Obviously situations like that are immoral and I would never support it, my comment was only addressing people who seem to think a police officer's job is to be a professional wrestler who takes down violent offenders using their hands and a baton.

LeifCarrotson 9y ago

I am a person in this forum, and I do not think that using a taser against a violent criminal is inhumane. What I (and many others) think is significantly more nuanced: 1. Using a taser against a violent person is humane only because it posses a smaller (but still important, and still present) risk of harm to the person than that person poses to bystanders and to the police. 2. Using a potentially lethal weapon like a taser against a nonviolent person is inhumane. 3. Manipulating science by funding supporters and suppressing critics to pretend your potentially lethal weapon is non-lethal is unethical. The use of force in the article should have been measured against "if this fails we might have to chase this guy who spray-painted an abandoned building more, or we might not catch him at all... or we might kill him."

program_whiz 9y ago
I agree with your points, my umbrage was against the general sentiment in the forum that tools of force are bad and need to go because force is never really justified.
- yardie 9y ago
  I'm only half way through the post and I haven't seen anyone make an argument like that. Most seem to believe that tasers have a time and place and using them for nonviolent compliance isn't one of those reasons.