babble is rabble.ca's discussion board but it's much more than that: it's an online community for folks who just won't shut up. It's a place to tell each other — and the world — what's up with our work and campaigns.
Support rabble | Advertise with us | Contact our staff | About rabble | Log-in or Register for a new account | Corrections | Privacy policy | Newsfeeds | Mailing lists
rabble: Features | Columnists | In Cahoots | Blogs | Books | Photos | What's Up | Polls
babble: Forum Topics | Active Topics
The rpn: About the RPN | Become a podcaster
rabbleTV: Program Guide | Features | Indie Inside | Best of the net
Copyright © 2001-2013 the authors
Syndicate
What you say doesn't sound unreasonble but are there some statistics, even opposing sets, that have been gathered about this subject?
Most persons who are tased do not die. Far too many do die for the technology to be called a safe alternative to batons or bullets, but I don't think any one disputes that most victims of a tase survive it.
That's tasers. OTOH, when people are actually shot, we could perhaps make use of some statistics on drive-by shootings in Los Angeles.
NEJM: Adolescents and Children injured in drive-by shootings in LA in 1991
So, around 5% die from their injuries when they're shot. Mind you, the purpose of a drive-by shooting is more to terrorize than to kill, while police are trained to aim at the largest part of the body, which, especially with multiple shots (as with the taser) is more likely to result in death. And the police are probably better shots as well - what with all that expensive training and all. So the numbers of deaths with gunshot wounds are higher than with tasers. But that's hardly the only question worth asking.
[ 23 July 2008: Message edited by: N.Beltov ]
If they could get away with it to the same extent that they can get away with murdering people using Tasers? I think they would have, yes.
It really pisses me off, the extent to which the police can get away with knowingly murdering people using Tasers yet doing the same with guns isn't seen as acceptable.
Just as a matter of curiosity, when do you plan to make up your mind?
It should piss you off. The whole sales pitch for adding Tasers to the police armory was premised on the snake oil that they were non-lethal alternatives to guns.
It looks like a bit of Bait and switch between "non-lethal" and "less lethal".
Not anymore, anyway, now that they have them. And now that the bodies are piling up.
"The RCMP's position is that Tasers are a less-lethal alternative," Sherstan told CBC Radio.
"less-lethal" weapons - Wikipedia
Taser FAQs from CBC and quote from RCMP
As the usage of Tasers by police forces such as the RCMP have skyrocketed, the amount of information available seems to be decreasing.
RCMP Taser use rises dramatically in Canada
As Taser Use Increases, the RCMP Redacts Details.
[ 24 July 2008: Message edited by: N.Beltov ]
I dunno, but I think it would be keen to see cops get zapped for a change.
The mother of the teenager says her son carrys a little pocket knife to protect himself from the deteriating criminal situation in the crime ridden city. Well surprise surprise the criminals turned out to be the police not the gangs. His knife was no match for the killer cop and their backup goon squad funded by you and me.
Seeing as tasers are so safe and such a detterent to criminals wouldn't it be "common sense" for people to arm themselves with tasers instead of pocket knives for their personal protection?
I find it totally ridiculous that a police force that has guns ...pepper spray...batons...and so many tools at it's disposal they couldn't spray the teen or throw a fish net over him..or thump him on the head or even shoot him in the foot. They were so threatened by a teen with a pocket knife. Bullshit ...the cops are out to kill and everyone knows it..just give them an excuse to kill and get away with it and that is what we are all witnessing from coast to coast it's almost a weekly occurance...you can have a tv show devoted to it it's so common. God help the neocons and police if a real left wing media outlet was born.
The fact that they all huddle around getting there story's straight and investigate themselves smells of some kind of communist regime of some kind. The disinformation campaign that always follows the killings show there complicity in there killings.
Remember the polish guy...all the lies ...from a guy with turban at the airport (implying a terrorist) too how violent the guy was. Now the guy brandishing a knife was a 20 year old man ..turns out to be teenager with a pocket knife he probably used to clean his finger nails before having a job interview for all we know.
Sorry I don't buy the lies...the modern day police are no differant than the nazi ss stormtropper and Canadians should be very concerned and think twice before they dial, the chance of them being indirectly resonsible for murdering an innocent person and child has sky rocketed.
You have to wonder where is our Minister of public safety during all this? What a usless piece of crap Canadians elected.
If you call the cops and they come and taser someone, I can't see how you're the least bit responsible for that.
"Then we'll take away their fucking guns."
What a great idea. I, for one, am very tired of the cops always taking control of situations and never letting the criminals have their way.
I propose this, though: just as you can ask for paper or plastic at the grocery, you should be allowed to ask for "armed" or "unarmed" police when you make a 911 call.
And when it's you being robbed, or your wife being attacked, you can ask for the unarmed cop to come, if that's what you prefer. I'd have a fair amount of respect for a man who'd live his principles like that, but frankly, not a crumb of respect if you wouldn't.
It really is a cultural view. I would prefer police well trained in conflict resolution who are willing to take the time it takes to talk to a 17 year old with a pocket knife not just use force on him immediately because he didn't comply.
As for the statistics on Stun Guns it appears to me that what might be happening is that people who are in mental distress with high levels of anxiety are the most vulnerable to injury by being zapped and those are in fact the people who get zapped the most often. Any stats that say you can zap most of the population without killing them is useless if the most vulnerable are zapped the most.
I actually have some sympathy for new police officers, poorly trained and seemingly encouraged to do a Taser version of "shoot first and ask questions later", and the difficulties that they face. One way to save money in policing, as in other areas, is to spend more money on the "toys" and less on things like Community Policing and general Member training. I know that the Mounties spend less time training their prospective new Members than they once did. Technological solutions to complicated problems might be profitable for some weapons manufacturers, but it's hardly good public policy. Edited to add: it's the same issue when NATO focuses on the aerial bombardment of Afghanistan instead of the pressing problems of the Afghan masses.
[ 24 July 2008: Message edited by: N.Beltov ]
I would too, but the culture of our police forces is such that until some form of gun is invented for diffusing conflicts without murdering innocents, a way to shoot words instead of bullets or bolts of electricity, you know, something really cool and "manly," I doubt many/any Canadian cops would be interested in taking that training. Motivation for the introduction of Tasers in the first place surely included the idea of developing a toy gun that would enable trigger happy cops to shoot their way to a nonlethal resolution to conflict... It might have worked too, since a single Taser shot is very rarely lethal, but come on, who would expect the cops to be satisfied with just one shot, how are they going to get their jollies that way? How about a taser where the second time you pull the trigger with say 5 minutes, you receive the shock? No problem there, after all the police are only directed to fire once when they draw their Taser (even though according to their own studies they nearly always fire 3-4 times!).
Could be, but just out of curiosity, what does this kind of vulnerability look like? I assume we're talking about a physical vulnerability?
And I ask because if being agitated or high (or whatever it is you're picturing) makes a person physically more likely to die if tased, that seems to me to be getting close to at least conceding that maybe the whole "excited delirium" thing isn't so laughable after all.
This sexist bullshit does not belong in the twenty-first century, let alone on a progressive board. The police brutality apologist slant is a puke-worthy bonus.
Is it wanting police to be able to take control of a violent situation?
Or is it caring about your loved ones?
And in what way are you suggesting I'm apologizing for police brutality by wanting them to remain armed??
You're making some pretty hefty accusations there. Perhaps you could put up or shut up.
It's pretty obvious that you're out there smoking crack and murdering prostitutes every night, reglafella.
You're busted, man.
Tasers were never meant to be an alternative to guns, guns are used when a cop feels lethal force is nesessary. Tasers were, for the RCMP, used when someone was anywhere from non-compliant to combative. Recently changes have been made so that tasers are supposed to be used only when someone is considered "combative".
Although other police forces likely have not adopted the RCMP changes they surely use a gun when they feel lethal force is nesessary, and not a taser. Thus the Winnepeg incident was likely not felt by the cops on scene to be "life threatening" or the 17 year old would no doubt have been shot immediately.
Not ever police call is a heroic intervention to save your about-to-be violated wife.
Many times it will be a lone male in an alley in some city where cops happen to come upon and start putting their hands on their guns "asking" him what he is doing and what his name is. He tells them to "fuck off I'm not bothering anyone" and the escalation starts.
Even Taser International admits that repeated "cycling" of the taser could be potentially dangerous. But that is what is happening. Cops are "pulling the trigger" too many times and it is killing people.
The "see how it feels training" cops get is one shot in the back.
In reality they shoot the probes into the frontal midsection (where the heart is) and keep pulling the trigger to administer another "jolt". It's killing people, plain and simple.
Remember that cops will ALWAYS use a gun when they feel their or someone elses life is in imminent danger.
Tasers are supposed to be a non-lethal way to control "Combative" (RCMP), or "non-compliant", up to and not exceeding "combative" (Probably most other police forces). Beyond merely "combative", which would be classified as life threatening, a gun would be used.
But Tasers are killing people where lethal force is not justified! If it was a gun would have been used.
Based on that, and until they determine why, tasers should be completely abolished.
Reglafella, you might want to examine some of the attitudes underlying your use of gender specific terminology.
But back to the topic...
About 12 years ago, when I was training for what was one of the earlier mental health mobile crisis team in the area, I had a chance to share some training with Durham Regional Police. One of these involved a lecture by a psychiatrist who worked with the SWAT team out here to some of the team members as well as our group. One of the things he was really emphasising was the use of negotiating skills in dealing with people who might be aggressive or "agitated". The training involved situations where there was no threat to public safety, and the scene was fairly contained. The Vancouver Airport incident is a good example. The area was contained, the general public had been reoved, and the guy was only causing some property damage. One of the things he was saying, and this is also featured in coping in crisis escalation training that I now do myself, is that in such situations time is on your side. There are verbal techniques that will calm a person down, even if it means your team is doing overtime. Further, people who really are agitated can't really keep up that level of energy forever. This really applies to anyone who's pretty much cornered, the situation is contained, and the public is not at risk.
I've personally seen a couple of instances cops do excellent jobs of verbally calming agitated and violent people, by using applied training and a lot of patience. What tasers do is allowed them a percieved short cut, and let them get lazy.
There was also another lecture by some cop from somewhere in BC who was doing his docterate in psychology. He touched on some of the technology being explored to incapacitate people harmlessly, and it involved everything from projectiles which shoot nets to things with shoot sticky gloop.
Regarding your other comments ....most criminals if not all just respond to the moto operandi of the day...example - swarming was never an issue till cops started beating up on people in elevators and stairwells and secret rooms in police stations.
Same with home invasions - As police grouped together and rammed down doors to gain access to peoples homes killing some in the process...gangs started doing the same. Same with all the gun violence..as racially motivated killing by police escalated so did the need to obtain weapons (guns) to protect yourself. Now the criminals have found other uses for guns , but the police started it again by being racist.
Most criminal acts are done by examples set out by the police , even arson is a favorite among the mounties..and the MO now is kill first ask questions later..so you can expect crime to escalate as police become more brutal...at some point people will defend themselves from brutality and as gangs get stronger and bigger and gain access to more weapons .
As our government is so useless the problem will get worse before it gets any better. Incidents like all the taser killings and all the lies that follow just add fuel to the fire and make that day a little closer and inevitable.
Think about it...nowadays the only protection you will ever have (if you are under privileged)from crooked killer cops is if you are in a gang..because like the cops know and the lay person has figured out...there is strength in numbers.
To make matters worse...There are a whole new range of weapons coming out that are designed to microwave your head like you do to a piece of bologna in yer microwave oven. Wait till gangs get a hold of them..can you say pig on a stick. But first the police must set the example to follow..just watch them do so and learn.
[img]wink.gif" border="0[/img]
Taking guns and tasers away will be the least of ones worry.
I'd have thought that behaviour that has no place in civil society would be a bit easier to identify. But I'll examine my use of the words "wife" and "man" all the same.
And I'm assuming that Catchfire will either be explaining the outburst or retracting it? Heck, I'm not apologizing for police brutality the way Catchfire is endorsing pedophilia.
"Most criminal acts are done by examples set out by the police"
This, and the paragraphs before it, are a stinky big pile of Kat Krap. Maybe you could provide a few links that demonstrate this Kopy-Kat theory of crime that you seem wedded to.
WTF are you talking about? Quit trolling or you're outta here.
And I'm not endorsing police brutality.
I figured that putting the shoe on the other foot might garner some attention, though, and your reaction to it seems to suggest that unfounded and serious accusations aren't appreciated around here.
Don't do it.
Big difference.
No one SERIOUSLY said that. Someone upthread, M.Spector maybe, said "get rid of the guns too!" or something to that effect and not a single word or sentence more. You've glammed on to that and made that your raison d'etre, so to speak.
Also, if you haven't yet realized it, this is not the place to cheer police brutality under ANY circumstances, even the loved ones protection scenario.
Remember that your son/daughter, as law abiding as I'm sure you think he/she is can be the next victim if the circumstances are right/wrong.
The next time my wife is attacked you'll be the first one I call.
And unarmed cops is a fab idea. I'm with M.Spector on this one. Such moments are very rare and I'm cherishing it.
Close. What really happened was that I responded to M. Spector, then others glommed onto me.
"Also, if you haven't yet realized it, this is not the place to cheer police brutality under ANY circumstances, even the loved ones protection scenario."
Where did I cheer police brutality?
I "cheered" having armed police. At least until we have unarmed criminals.
Strangely, even being the second person to accuse me of cheering for police brutality isn't considered negative attention. I don't regard that as a trivial accusation.