Bak Posted October 5, 2007 Report Posted October 5, 2007 i dunno, if someone was going to rape my sister i would be ok with shocking him... what about you?
JDS Posted October 5, 2007 Report Posted October 5, 2007 ok.. what a dumb example but seriously... if someone was going to rape your sister ... why would they do it while your around. also why would you have a taser and.. if for some reason you WERE there , and you DID have a taser, and some dude WAS raping your sister.. it would be safe to say that the guy is an idiot and anyone would probably end up tasering the rape'er in this situation. however that situation probably never happen so lets not wory about it the point is, its NOT ok to shock someone. find a different way that does not involve senseless pain.
NBVegita Posted October 5, 2007 Author Report Posted October 5, 2007 Your ignorance is still astounding. The prior solution to tasers was the nightstick. If someone resisted too much, you hit them with your nightstick until they stopped resisting. Which solution is better? Our police officers are charged with keeping the peace. If someone violates the standards set by our laws/society/forums, the police officer should always use disgression. But I will never support loosening up the laws so that law enforcement ends up getting hurt before they can do something to a person violating laws and or regulations. the point is, its NOT ok to shock someone. find a different way that does not involve senseless pain. There are many occasions where it is quite acceptable to shock someone. And the pain isn't senseless. The searing pain of the taser prevents the perp from resisting further and allows the cops to detain and restrain the !@#$%^&*ailant. In self defence it could be the difference between a woman or man being raped, robbed or killed. There are thousands of reasons to use a taser on someone.
rootbear75 Posted October 5, 2007 Report Posted October 5, 2007 the only bad thing about tasers is that it can cause the heart to stop functioning, and/or !@#$%^&* up a pacemakernow if that guy had heart problems, the police might be looking at murder
NBVegita Posted October 5, 2007 Author Report Posted October 5, 2007 not even then. At worst I believe they could only get involuntary manslaughter, which they could be proteted against by law due the to freak nature of the attack and victim. Also based upon the groundings for the tasering. Example: If a man is attacking another one violently and there is only one officer and he tasers the man, and he happens to die due to complications, the police are in the clear.
rootbear75 Posted October 5, 2007 Report Posted October 5, 2007 well yea, but if he died BECAUSE of the tasering, when there were other options available, they might be in trouble
Aileron Posted October 5, 2007 Report Posted October 5, 2007 BTW, O'Reilly is selling "Don't Taze Me Bro" bumperstickers. Pretty funny. I don't know what idiot came up with the idea of "equal force". If followed to the letter that would mean that on average the criminal would win the fight half the time. Probably the same idiot who thinks that in a courtroom, juries shouldn't count officer's testimony as greater than that of a normal bloke - as if a police officer with 20 years of experience somehow doesn't know more about law enforcement than an average person. I guess the overall point is that lawyers have taken over the country so much that some people have forgotten common sense. Here we are arguing about whether security followed proceedures or what those proceedures should be when really we should stop !@#$%^&*uming these people are robots in need of protocols and let them make some judgement calls, and in turn use our own judgement when viewing the situation. The problem with non-lethal weapons is that weapons which can kill the weak and frail might still not be enough to disable the stronger people. I don't know anything about tasers, but I'd guess they are something that should have variable settings on them.
NBVegita Posted October 5, 2007 Author Report Posted October 5, 2007 The problem with non-lethal weapons is that weapons which can kill the weak and frail might still not be enough to disable the stronger people. Thats exactly why it should be a judgement and not a rule. Example: i'm 5'10"-5'11", 170 lbs, and in good shape. I played football for almost a decade and lots of other sports. My brother although a grown man(I use that loosly) is only 5'2" 110 lbs. Something that would seriously injure my brother, woudln't be close to enough to take me down. Now if I was resisting, and 4 cops were having difficulty restraining me, then tasering me would be a very reasonable solution. Now if 4 cops are trying to restrain my brother and taser him thats a different story. Vice versa, if there was only one cop, and say my brother was drunk, and was resisting to the point where it became difficult for the cop to handle the situation, and he felt that he could become dangerous for other people including himself, then that is a good time to taser him. This kid was taller than all of the cops, and because of his loose clothing you cannot tell how well built he is, but with the difficulty he gave the police he is a strong guy. Stop acting like they tasered some tiny guy with out any reason.
JDS Posted October 5, 2007 Report Posted October 5, 2007 what does it matter how big he is, how frail he is, how baggy his clothing was... a human life is valuable and how would you like it if you got taserd. you wouldnt. no one would. its funny how you say 'if i were arresting i would want them to taser me' i dont know who messed with your mind, but its pretty warped. fear is in no way a viable solution. Fear only causes pain, torment, and ill feelings.
NBVegita Posted October 7, 2007 Author Report Posted October 7, 2007 And yes I have been hit by a taser. My sister teaches kickboxing and self defense classes, and I have been the "!@#$%^&*ailant" in multiple classes. I have been tasered 6 times. Each time I had to sign a waiver incase to incidental death/injury. The purpose of the class was to show these woman how effectively a taser will disable the !@#$%^&*ailant, while also showing the pain the !@#$%^&*ailant incurs. The pain is excruciating, but once the shock is over, the pain subsides quickly. You do feel a strange for an hour or so, and then you just feel faintly off for another few. But I'm telling you that while you are being shocked, you cannot move, and even for a few momoents after too Why would you ask that I have done this 6 times? Each time I was given $1500.00 from the sponsor of the facility. $1500 for a few moments of crippling pain....really worth it when you're trying to buy a house tongue.gif And size is completely relevant. Simple physics, a large man is harder to detain than a small man. If a man is so large that a cop(s) cannot detain him, what are they supposed to do, let him go on the account that he's too much for them to handle? Or should they try to beat him to submission with a night stick. What if he becomes violent towards the cops and or the crowd. Now he's injured one officer and a couple of bystanders. Now they have to wait for backup to arrive. Once that arrives they have a hard time getting control over him. Now what do you do? I'm sorry that you've been so sheltered that a non lethal weapon, which can have freak side effects is an unacceptable way to handle someone who has violated the law. I'm sorry that you feel its better to protect our criminals than it is to protect the men and women who defend us from them. I'll tell you one thing, I'd much rather get the taser than a night stick.
JDS Posted October 8, 2007 Report Posted October 8, 2007 its pretty amusing from my point of view, to look at americans and how messed up they turned out to be. I think your problem is that you see crime as a regular occurance..? it must happen every day and frequently in that day. living where i do, everyone pretty much gets along, and i dont remember the last time a nightstick was used, and i dont even think we have tasers .. we see very little crime, no problems, we leave our doors unlocked , windows open, kids can play outside, we drive around at night, walk down back alley ways... i think the REAL issue here is that americans DEPEND on violence for there civilization to work..
Aileron Posted October 8, 2007 Report Posted October 8, 2007 No, actually it goes back to the 70s really. The United States' biggest problem is that lawyers simply have way too much power. In this case, it was ideological defense attorneys who didn't want to see criminals prosecuted. Punishments were lightened and more proceedures were created for law enforcement to follow. The combination of those two things made crime profitable. Crime rates then exploded. However, in rural areas like where I live, this hasn't happened. Lawyers avoid the boonies and thus haven't taken over. The cost/benefit calculations of engaging in criminal behavior haven't changed, and crime rates have pretty much stayed constant. And JDS, I doubt your entire country is like that...
NBVegita Posted October 8, 2007 Author Report Posted October 8, 2007 (edited) What I find amusing is that you criticize us for our use of force but they just passed policy in england making it legal to taser minors. Oh and for your canada crime... http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/is...75-81061c3cee14 "More broadly: Canada's overall crime rate is now 50% higher than the crime rate in the United States. Read that again slowly -- it seems incredible, but it's true. It's true too that you are now more likely to be mugged in Toronto than in New York City." Maybe you need to use the nightstick more...or invest in some tasers. Edited October 8, 2007 by NBVegita
AstroProdigy Posted October 9, 2007 Report Posted October 9, 2007 No, actually it goes back to the 70s really. The United States' biggest problem is that lawyers simply have way too much power. In this case, it was ideological defense attorneys who didn't want to see criminals prosecuted. Punishments were lightened and more proceedures were created for law enforcement to follow. The combination of those two things made crime profitable. Crime rates then exploded. However, in rural areas like where I live, this hasn't happened. Lawyers avoid the boonies and thus haven't taken over. The cost/benefit calculations of engaging in criminal behavior haven't changed, and crime rates have pretty much stayed constant. And JDS, I doubt your entire country is like that... Can't argue with what NBV just said here but I had to jump in for this part. Things like Miranda laws and better lawyers aren't what cause crime to skyrocket. Where did you get your facts? Also crime rates in the cities are much more than those in rural areas because oh I don't know A LOT MORE PEOPLE IN THE CITIES THAN IN THE FARMS!? What's the solution Aileron? As the tough drug laws have shown simply making punishments harsher doesn't do jack !@#$%^&* other than overfill the jails.
rootbear75 Posted October 9, 2007 Report Posted October 9, 2007 Theres also a lot more unsecured items in the city than there are in the farms, homelessness is rampant, etc..
JDS Posted October 9, 2007 Report Posted October 9, 2007 any city will have crackheads, homeless, and the intolerable, but do you really belive a statistic as broad as 50%. i would hope not
NBVegita Posted October 9, 2007 Author Report Posted October 9, 2007 That is not the only source I could cite that has used the same statistics. I just figured you'd be more likely to believe an article written by canadians...on a webpage called canada.com. The plain and simple fact is you made an errant claim that you have little to no crime problem, and that the Americans have such a problem with it, when in actuality all of our numbers have been decreasing over the past decade while yours have been skyrocketing. I just love erroneous stereotyping.
ThunderJam Posted October 10, 2007 Report Posted October 10, 2007 I just love erroneous stereotyping.Lol that actually made me laugh, I can just imagine you saying that while rolling your eyes.
Aileron Posted October 10, 2007 Report Posted October 10, 2007 Astro...Crime rate is some sort of numerical model of crime divided by the populace, so a town of 100 where 1 crime occured and a town of 1000 where 10 crimes occured would have the same rate. As for solving the problem...first off the murderers, rapists, and theives should be either be put in jail and the key thrown away or killed outright. For pros!@#$%^&*ution, I'd say there should be legalized !@#$%^&*houses, give light sentences/plea bargains to the pros!@#$%^&*utes themselves but put a heavy sentence on the pimps. I say that because every time we put a pros!@#$%^&*ute in jail, the pimp will just get some girl addicted to drugs as a replacement. As for drugs, I think we should legalize marijuanna with certain stipulations. Dealing with the other drugs would be difficult. Step 1 would be to increase security along the Mexico-US border. This probably won't stop them, but it will make their costs higher and would decrease their profit margin. Similar to prosi!@#$%^&*ution, we should stop worrying about possession and the low level dealers and nail the drug bosses' and smugglers' family jewels to the ceiling, because like the pimps, when a drug boss loses a pusher, he simply finds another one. Doing so would probably lead to escalating violence and an arms race, but the state has more resources to draw on than drug rings do, so we can simply make the cost of drug smuggling so high as to drive them out of business. Our jails are filling up because we keep taking in the expendible peons. Like minnows, the peons should be used as bait to catch larger fish. Hmmpph...maybe I should run for mayor.
L.C. Posted October 11, 2007 Report Posted October 11, 2007 Our police officers are charged with keeping the peace. If someone violates the standards set by our laws/society/forums, the police officer should always use disgression. But I will never support loosening up the laws so that law enforcement ends up getting hurt before they can do something to a person violating laws and or regulations.And there happens to be several examples of police officers (mostly in New York) violating such pact and getting away with it. But this is up to you do find out. I thought I already gave a link to a page listed with several of these. Either way, I've witnessed this on YouTube and Break too (non-InfoWars). When it comes to politics, I don't believe it is fair to "play the game" in scientific terms and facts. Unless you were God Himself, you don't know every single detail, nor do I. Take the CIA/FBI for example; classified do!@#$%^&*ents. How many more thousands of classified secrets are kept hidden? The CIA isn't necessarily forced to reveal anything, so they have the priviledge to declassify do!@#$%^&*ents as they please. A few months ago I watched "The Atomic Bomb Movie," a do!@#$%^&*entary about atomic bombs. On one of the bombs, they didn't know its effective yield simply because that single piece of detail was still classified. You don't know what the CIA has behind the curtains, atleast not the majority of it. I'm not saying I know more, less, or the equiviliance of you. I'm simply saying that I don't like to state everything as it were a solid fact, what the media says, what the politicians say, etc. Politicians put their hand on the Bible and swear an oath to uphold the cons!@#$%^&*ution. Since when have we actually had a President who has abided by that? I don't like to stick around these kind of topics for long because I've tired and exhausted myself with all the things I've encountered in the past years (if you ask me, this subject took the heaviest and densist influence in my life last year). They say Osama Bin Laden's Arabic terrorists attacked the World Trade Centers on 9/11. I don't doubt it happened on 9/11, but the detail about "Osama Bin Laden" and "[Arabic] terrorists" is what I wouldn't state a fact. I could go along with the flow, but I'll never settle on this until the moment I die and find out then.
NBVegita Posted October 11, 2007 Author Report Posted October 11, 2007 Yes there are plenty of times of officers abusing their policies, but that is why we are human. Case in point, I'd much rather protect our officers than protect our criminals. Call me crazy. As for the rest of your post, you really come off as one of those stalwart conspiracy theorists who believes we can't believe a word any part of our government says because its all lies. Could that be true? Sure, as sever says, none of us know any actual truths. Is it probable that there is a lot of information we'll never know, sure. Is it likely that our government is as radical as you say, not really. You all bash our own government throughout the ages, and you know what, I think they've overall done a !@#$%^&* of a job for us Americans.
L.C. Posted October 11, 2007 Report Posted October 11, 2007 Could that be true? Sure, as sever says, none of us know any actual truths.So then, that settles it. None of us know any actual truths, and when it comes to things like this -- it's totally legit to not settle on a "fact." I'm having a bit of trouble interpretting the tone of the rest of your post, but I hope it isn't negative. If it is, really, that just brings in words like "naive" and such. Is it likely that our government is as radical as you say, not really.I'd like to see those unknown number of classified do!@#$%^&*ents for evidence then. You really don't know, do you? If you knew, you would know what's going on behind your back. I know you're going to reply with a comeback trying to argue me down, but it'll only settle this 'arguement' by itself. It isn't me or you to judge, but the people who read these posts. They can make up their own mind. Apparently you've made up your own mind and would rather stick with your government, despite the fact that we've not had a Cons!@#$%^&*utional president for a looong time.
NBVegita Posted October 12, 2007 Author Report Posted October 12, 2007 The fact remains that you can turn everything into a conspiracy. In fact there are lots of people who do that. You can spend your entire life believing that everyone is out to get you, and that nothing is what it seems. You can actually see doctors for that too. Or you can simply accept that you will NEVER know the absolute truth. If you want to spend your life toiling over something you will never have evidence to prove/disprove, and by the time you might have said evidence, it won't make much of a difference, fine by me. Case in point, I believe in UFO's and that the government is hiding their existence. But am I going to go try to prove that their are UFO's and that the government is hiding there existence? Not at all. First it would be nearly impossible, and chances are if I managed to find said information, I'd never survive with it. Some people might call that dumb or ignorant not to try and uncover the "truth". I say it's pretty smart. Trying to discover if there really are UFO's at roswell, or the "true conspiracy" behind JFK, are not worth risking, or dedicating my life to. Same thing with Osama, there is great evidence showing that he was behind 9/11, including "him" admitting it , and we know the majority of the terrorists were Saudi's. Is that absolute truth? Of course not, there is no such thing. Is that the strong probable truth, most definately. It's naive to deny a strong probable truth simply on the basis that there are no absolute truths. And I would prefer to stick with my government. To date I've not had a single of my cons!@#$%^&*utional rights infringed upon, and because of this government system I was able to come from a poor family and work my way out. Overall the American government has done a very good job for its citizens.
Recommended Posts