# General > General >  Tasers are instruments of torture. Official.

## fred

On Friday the UN Committee Against Torture ruled that tasers are instruments of torture.

----------


## karia

> On Friday the UN Committee Against Torture ruled that tasers are instruments of torture.


I am very glad to hear that fred....hope to see them outlawed!


Karia

----------


## Camel Spider

Link Fred ??

A pointless and ridiculous statement form a group of people who have obviously never been involved in Riot Control. How many Police Officers have been killed while attempting to make an arrest ??, how many of their lives could have been saved by a device that incapicatates ??, why are the rights of the criminal always put to the fore ??

Put them in a situation where they will need to incapacitate someone to save themselves from injury or death and see if they would use one.

Typical liberal lefty garbage.

----------


## golach

> Link Fred ??
> 
> A pointless and ridiculous statement form a group of people who have obviously never been involved in Riot Control. How many Police Officers have been killed while attempting to make an arrest ??, how many of their lives could have been saved by a device that incapicatates ??, why are the rights of the criminal always put to the fore ??
> 
> Put them in a situation where they will need to incapacitate someone to save themselves from injury or death and see if they would use one.
> 
> Typical liberal lefty garbage.


Exactly, and this is why we are paying out thousands of pounds to criminals because they are being made to slop out, when you are convicted of a crime and sentenced then IMO you forfeit your human rights, we already have a thread on here telling us that the Warders have TO wear slippers incase they disturb the sleeping Crims. If you cannot to the time then do not do the crime, serve your sentence and shut up!!!!! ::

----------


## Rheghead

A towel and a jug of water are official instruments of torture as well and at a fraction of the cost of a taser and much more effective.

----------


## karia

> Exactly, and this is why we are paying out thousands of pounds to criminals because they are being made to slop out, when you are convicted of a crime and sentenced then IMO you forfeit your human rights, we already have a thread on here telling us that the Warders have TO wear slippers incase they disturb the sleeping Crims. If you cannot to the time then do not do the crime, serve your sentence and shut up!!!!!


As you said golach..there's another thread for that and you have more than stated your opinion on it!


Do you have anything to say on the UN pronouncement, which is what this thread is about?

karia

----------


## rambler

What I find quite worrying is that a lot of former servicemen are opposed to human rights legislation and the UN. Britain as a member of the UN and also as part of the EC has agreed to adopt the appropriate rules and legislation, not at least to protect human rights. 
It is my understanding that everyone opposed to those rules and openly demanding to breech human rights legislation is, or should be, liable to prosecution themselves. 

Where is the line between announcing publicly on an internet forum that (convicted) criminals should be stripped of their human rights and openly encouraging other folk to take the law into their own hands? 

It is quite interesting to see that countries with liberal criminal justice systems have a far lower number of reoffenders than the UK. 

Really good to hear that the UN considers tasers as instruments of torture. Only sad to see that, immediately after this ruling has been announced, it is considered to be liberal lefty garbage by the very people that started the mess in Iraq by not following the rules of the UN and engaging in an illegal occupation.

Will they never learn?

----------


## DeHaviLand

> As you said golach..there's another thread for that and you have more than stated your opinion on it!
> 
> 
> Do you have anything to say on the UN pronouncement, which is what this thread is about?
> 
> karia


Now then Golach, having been suitably chastised, you may go to the back of the class. Now that Karia is running the show, I guess we all have to be on our best behaviour.

----------


## rambler

> Now then Golach, having been suitably chastised, you may go to the back of the class. Now that Karia is running the show, I guess we all have to be on our best behaviour.


Any chance you have anything to say on the topic as well?

----------


## DeHaviLand

> Any chance you have anything to say on the topic as well?


Lol, so many would be mods. Why would you feel the need to restrict what people say? Do you really have such a pathetic existence that you yearn to be a dictator?

----------


## rambler

> Lol, so many would be mods. Why would you feel the need to restrict what people say? Do you really have such a pathetic existence that you yearn to be a dictator?


Wow, I almost wet my pants. How strong a person are you in real life than?

----------


## Jeemag_USA

> Lol, so many would be mods. Why would you feel the need to restrict what people say? Do you really have such a pathetic existence that you yearn to be a dictator?


Its not about being a mod, its about community members being offended by someone who just comes in to waffle rather than show an educated opinion simply because he is upset with another members comments, why don't you quote Karia directly or better still contact a mod and let them know of your frustrastion?

Getting back to the subject at hand, it mght be better to find out have Tasers been outlawed completely, or are they simply not being allowed in a questioning or imprisonment situation. Now I am pretty sure your not allowed to hold a gun to someones head during questioning for information, but that doesn't mean people in prisons or internment camps are not allowed to carry guns. I don't think people are looking at the bigger picture before commenting on this.

I for one believe that people in our services of protection, wether they be police or military police or prison staff should be allowed Tasers to placate violent behaviour, this is not a situation of torture, its about control and saving potential death or bodily harm to others. The reason the Taser was created was to provide a non lethal method of protecting the public and services from violent or murderous people. Now granted someone who is about to make a violent attack on someone and is tasered may get such a shock that they wet their pants or defacate themselves, but hey, if you make your bed you lie in it, you know the tasers are there and if you rock the boat you get zapped, thats your choice?

Now on the question of using it to stick up someones backside to get answers to questions that they may or may not know the answer to, then yes I agree with the mandate on this!

----------


## golach

> Now then Golach, having been suitably chastised, you may go to the back of the class. Now that Karia is running the show, I guess we all have to be on our best behaviour.


I have been suitably chastised , and will sit at the back o 'e class, awaiting the punishment that Karia may wish to inflict on me I will agree with as she thinks she rules the Org

----------


## fred

> Getting back to the subject at hand, it mght be better to find out have Tasers been outlawed completely, or are they simply not being allowed in a questioning or imprisonment situation. Now I am pretty sure your not allowed to hold a gun to someones head during questioning for information, but that doesn't mean people in prisons or internment camps are not allowed to carry guns. I don't think people are looking at the bigger picture before commenting on this.


No the haven't been outlawed at all. The UN Committee Against Torture ruled that they met the criteria for being classed as an instrument of torture.




> I for one believe that people in our services of protection, wether they be police or military police or prison staff should be allowed Tasers to placate violent behaviour, this is not a situation of torture, its about control and saving potential death or bodily harm to others. The reason the Taser was created was to provide a non lethal method of protecting the public and services from violent or murderous people. Now granted someone who is about to make a violent attack on someone and is tasered may get such a shock that they wet their pants or defacate themselves, but hey, if you make your bed you lie in it, you know the tasers are there and if you rock the boat you get zapped, thats your choice?


Six people have died after being tasered in the last week, four in America and two in Canada.

Clearly in the majority of cases when a taser is used, such as when a Utah policeman tasered someone for not signing a speeding ticket last week, it is being used as an instrument of torture. "do as I say or I hurt you an awful lot" is torture by any definition.

----------


## horseman

Damm an blast!-=-but I have to say 'well said fred'!!!

----------


## northener

> Clearly in the majority of cases when a taser is used, such as when a Utah policeman tasered someone for not signing a speeding ticket last week, it is being used as an instrument of torture. "do as I say or I hurt you an awful lot" is torture by any definition.


Tasering someone for an innocuous offence is obviously wrong.

I don't want to get into an argument involving countries that have routine armed officers, but, as far as the UK is concerned, we have the option of shooting or 'restraining' with pepper spray (useless in most cases) or becoming involved in restraining in a non-aggressive manner.

There's a massive area in between shooting and all-in wrestling that is exceptionally dangerous for the officers trying to make the arrest. In the absence of the opportunity to come up with the ultimate threat (put the knife down or I'll blow your fn head off), your options are very limited.

Tasers, used effectively could reduce the element of risk to all involved.

There's always going to be exceptions, but I would suggest reserving judgement until you've had to deal with a pumped up 18 stone crackhead. I've been there, and it's not funny.

Fred:

" Clearly in the majority of cases..." Figures, please.

----------


## Camel Spider

> What I find quite worrying is that a lot of former servicemen are opposed to human rights legislation and the UN. Britain as a member of the UN and also as part of the EC has agreed to adopt the appropriate rules and legislation, not at least to protect human rights. 
> It is my understanding that everyone opposed to those rules and openly demanding to breech human rights legislation is, or should be, liable to prosecution themselves. 
> 
> Where is the line between announcing publicly on an internet forum that (convicted) criminals should be stripped of their human rights and openly encouraging other folk to take the law into their own hands? 
> 
> It is quite interesting to see that countries with liberal criminal justice systems have a far lower number of reoffenders than the UK. 
> 
> Really good to hear that the UN considers tasers as instruments of torture. Only sad to see that, immediately after this ruling has been announced, it is considered to be ‘liberal lefty garbage’ by the very people that started the mess in Iraq by not following the rules of the UN and engaging in an illegal occupation.
> 
> Will they never learn?


Maybe the reason the former Servicemen dont think much of the UN is because they have seen their ineptitude in action, Bosnia for example. Forces there knew what the Serbs were up to and had to stand back while the UN dithered, and people died because of it. Low Fly Zones that were regularly infringed because the Serbs knew permission had to be obtained from New York before engaging violators.The phrase containing Choclate Fireguard leaps to mind. And maybe its because the UN banned landmines .. erm no .. actually they are still being used by the Taliban. They can creep up on our lad's positions while heavily mining their own, Well Done UN. Funnily enough I dont see the UN rushing out there to tell the Taliban off. Bit difficult to get to them because of all the mines possibly.

Similarily if a Policeman is killed by a criminal because he didnt have a taser to incapicitate his attacker then we can consider that a win can we ??, at least the criminal wasnt hurt and his "Human Rights" infringed. I am sick of the "Human Rights" of victims being ignored while those of criminals are seen as precious. Personally I come down on the side of the Policeman or the victim in any situation as long as proceedures are followed, if they havent then take action against them by all means.

As for the assumptions about Service Personnel then they didnt start any Operations Iraq off their own back, that is a political decision that for the record I disagreed with, I have said so on threads before. It isnt hard to see the underlying attitude towards the Forces in your post but thats just typical of Britian today. You assume that former Servicemen are Opposed to Human Rights Legislation on no proof whatsoever and then jump from that assumption to lets prosecute those (we assume) dont agree with us !!

If I want to say that I think Criminals should be stripped off their Human Rights then I will .. actually I think Murderer's, Rapist's, Child Molester's and Child Killer's should be Hung. That is my opinion. Are you seriously suggesting that is inciting anyone to take the law into their own hands ??

Its funny how people who campaign for "rights" seem happy to restrict the free speech of those who dont agree with them.

*sigh* .. when will they learn.

----------


## George Brims

> A towel and a jug of water are official instruments of torture as well and at a fraction of the cost of a taser and much more effective.


Yet another poster on the org is saying something in too oblique a way. Is Rheghead against all forms of torture? Does he think anything goes? Does he think waterboarding is not torture? 

Just to make things clear, despite the current fashion for saying it's not, several Japanese military officers were hung after the War Crimes trials after WWII for waterboarding American soldiers and Philipino resistance fighters. It seems people were more able to make their minds up in those days.

----------


## Rheghead

> Yet another poster on the org is saying something in too oblique a way. Is Rheghead against all forms of torture? Does he think anything goes? Does he think waterboarding is not torture? 
> 
> Just to make things clear, despite the current fashion for saying it's not, several Japanese military officers were hung after the War Crimes trials after WWII for waterboarding American soldiers and Philipino resistance fighters. It seems people were more able to make their minds up in those days.


What was oblique about my post, you are reading too deeply into things again George! ::

----------


## bekisman

Jeemag_USA:
_"I for one believe that people in our services of protection, wether they be police or military police or prison staff should be allowed Tasers to placate violent behaviour, this is not a situation of torture, its about control and saving potential death or bodily harm to others. The reason the Taser was created was to provide a non lethal method of protecting the public and services from violent or murderous people. Now granted someone who is about to make a violent attack on someone and is tasered may get such a shock that they wet their pants or defacate themselves, but hey, if you make your bed you lie in it, you know the tasers are there and if you rock the boat you get zapped, thats your choice?"_

Fully agere with that one.. and this:
Northerner:_ "There's always going to be exceptions, but I would suggest reserving judgement until you've had to deal with a pumped up 18 stone crackhead. I've been there, and it's not funny."_
 And this:
Camel Spider: _"A pointless and ridiculous statement form a group of people who have obviously never been involved in Riot Control. How many Police Officers have been killed while attempting to make an arrest ??, "_

Tasers certainly have their place, looks to me it's those folk who have no experience whatsoever in protecting themselves and the public and who have never been at the 'sharp end' (if YOU have tell us) who shout the loudest..

----------


## NickInTheNorth

So the UN has ruled that a taser can be an instrument of torture because it is capable of inflicting pain and even death. I can live with that conclusion. I can also happily live in a society which allows it's use under fairly strict guidelines.

It is a far better solution to shooting people with real weapons. It is also I believe better that anyone acting in a violent manner which threatens the safety of members of the public or police can be stopped as quickly and easily as possible.

If it is mis-used then prosecute the offending police officer.

Perhaps other jurisdictions need to examine their rules relating to the use of tasers, but I am very comfortable with those governing there use here in the UK.

----------


## northener

> Tasers certainly have their place, looks to me it's those folk who have no experience whatsoever in protecting themselves and the public and who have never been at the 'sharp end' (if YOU have tell us) who shout the loudest..


Exactly. Doesn't mean that we have all the answers, but we are certainly more qualified to speak with authority on the subject.


Torture is defined by the UN as using pain to coerce someone into doing or saying something against their will.

Therefore a policemans' baton could be described as an instrument of torture as it is used to inflict pain to coerce an individual who does not care to be arrested. It is a question of degree. 
If you beat someone with a baton because they disagree with you, then this is torture. If you taser someone who is posing a serious physical threat to the officer or members of the public, this is preferable to shooting them. 

Unless, of course, you believe that the police should employ a 'shoot to kill' policy. Any takers on that amongst those who disagree with tasers?
No, I didn't think so.


Just to provoke some response from those who disagree:

On our patch a policewoman was called to an incident where an serious assault was being carried out a convicted child molester. The 'victim' was in danger of becoming seriously injured so the officer felt she had no option but to intervene before back-up arrived.

Result? She got her face caved in for trying to protect someone whom she probably had a great personal distaste for. A taser might have saved a lot of grief.

This only happened recently, I was talking to someone who is certainly in a position to speak about this with a good degree of authority. No names - no pack drill.

How would the dissenters among you propose to deal with a situation like this?

----------


## northener

> What I find quite worrying is that a lot of former servicemen are opposed to human rights legislation and the UN.


Absolute drivel.

----------


## northener

> Only sad to see that, immediately after this ruling has been announced, it is considered to be liberal lefty garbage by the very people that started the mess in Iraq by not following the rules of the UN and engaging in an illegal occupation.
> 
> Will they never learn?


Don't want to stray too far of topic, but this is the UN that imposed strict conditions on the removal of an oppressive invader from Kuwait and didn't have the courage to authorise finishing the job there and then. The coalition forces complied with the UN's inept handling of the situation.

Look where we are now.....

The UN means well, but it is, in the main a toothless tiger. Look at the UN's role in any situation it has involved itself in and you will see a catalogue of mismanagement, dithering, insufficient support and all-round incompetence.

----------


## fred

> " Clearly in the majority of cases..." Figures, please.


Between Jan 2003 and June 2004 of the 269 people tasered by Seattle Police Department only 59 were armed with a weapon, of the 267 people tasered by Kings County sheriff's office only 31 were armed with a weapon.

----------


## Camel Spider

> Between Jan 2003 and June 2004 of the 269 people tasered by Seattle Police Department only 59 were armed with a weapon, of the 267 people tasered by Kings County sheriff's office only 31 were armed with a weapon.


Vague and misleading.

We all have two weapons on the end of our arms. And if you are a Police Officer then how do you know on arrival at an incident that an individual isnt armed ??, assuming that they arent is a VERY dangerous propositon. How many of those incidents were female officers up against physically bigger men ??, how many involved suspects that were under the effects of alcohol or drugs ??,  (PCP can give people extreme strength), how many involved supects threatening others and the taser was used to prevent possible injury ??

It is always easier to judge after the incident. I had an occasion where I cocked my SA80 on guard. Luckily I got to the individual brandishing a hammer in an aggressive manner and getting closer and closer to my unarmed colleague. He did not respond to my shouted warning (three times) so I charged him and floored him with the butt of the rifle, I used the minimum force necessary to negate the threat. I had about two seconds to decide my course of action. I charged him because if he had raised it again towards my unarmed colleague I would have had to open fire under the Rules of Engagement as there would have been no other way to prevent a possible loss of life. If I had waited any longer then he would have been within swinging distance of my colleague, She was wearing only a Beret as headdress and was therefore vulnerable to a blow to the Head.

If I had had a taser would I have used it ?? .. without a doubt. It would have incapacitated him without the injury to his jaw and would have kept both of us out of possible danger. It later turned out he was a Paranoid Schizophrenic who had mucked up his medication, after getting him medical treatment for his jaw he was sectioned by the authorities.

----------


## northener

> Between Jan 2003 and June 2004 of the 269 people tasered by Seattle Police Department only 59 were armed with a weapon, of the 267 people tasered by Kings County sheriff's office only 31 were armed with a weapon.


Thankyou for the info Fred.

But Camel Spider is right, those figures are misleading, arms and legs are devastating weapons. 

I'm 6'2" and weigh 17 stone yet I have been rammed backwards through a bank of 6 gambling machines by someone half my size and weight who was 'off their head'. It took SIX police officers to get the man under control and only after repeatedly beating him with batons.


Here's a conundrum for you Fred, what are your thoughts on this ( you never know, I might get a constructive reply :: ):

You stated that the shooting of Carlos Menendez(?) on the subway was an 'execution' in another thread. I would assume that you believe that the shooting shouldn't have taken place.

If the officers had been armed with tasers there _may_ have been a non-lethal solution to this problem. to be honest, I doubt whether it would have been workable in that instance, but do you see what Im getting at? 
That lad could still be trotting round the streets of London minding his own business (theoretically).


Don't believe what anyone tells you about shooting to incapacitate. On the whole it's a myth that only occurs in films. 

Guns kill, tasers, in the main, won't.

----------


## MadPict

Bamboo shoots are instruments of torture. Official. 
Water drops are instruments of torture. Official. 
Lengths of rubber hosepipe are instruments of torture. Official. 
Battery jumpleads are instruments of torture. Official. 
AC sockets are instruments of torture. Official. 
Lit cigarettes are instruments of torture. Official.
Cattle prods are instruments of torture. Official.
Light bulbs are instruments of torture. Official. 
Stick smeared with red chilli powder are instruments of torture. Official. 
Walls are instruments of torture. Official. 
Almost anything can be an instrument of torture if you are imaginative enough.

And until you have *just stood* in the shoes/boots of those you so easily condemn, let alone walk even half a mile, maybe you should be grateful that there are people willing to defend your property and life... ::

----------


## scorrie

IF we lived in an ideal world, then fred would have a valid point. The problem is that we live in a world which contains many unstable people. With or without drugs they can be capable of carrying out horrific violence. If my son or daughter were out on the street, potentially putting their life on the line, helping to protect the public, I would expect them to have the means to minimise the risk to themselves.

I get the feeling that Idealists would happily send Police onto the streets armed simply with the Rule Book and a Mickey Mouse water pistol.

----------


## MadPict

NO!!!!!

Don't you realise that Mickey Mouse Water Pistols are also deemed to be instruments of torture?!?!?!?!? What happens if they have to use it on a hydrophobic who also happens to suffer from musophobia?

Shocking........

----------


## Jeemag_USA

> No the haven't been outlawed at all. The UN Committee Against Torture ruled that they met the criteria for being classed as an instrument of torture.
> 
> 
> 
> Six people have died after being tasered in the last week, four in America and two in Canada.
> 
> Clearly in the majority of cases when a taser is used, such as when a Utah policeman tasered someone for not signing a speeding ticket last week, it is being used as an instrument of torture. "do as I say or I hurt you an awful lot" is torture by any definition.


And of course that is not right, I know that there are different types of tasers and there are also ones of varying strengths. A taser shoudl not be used to make someone sign a parking ticket, if the person is evading the law in the USA and requires restraint the normal action is to unholster your revolver and tell them to get down on the ground with their hands behind their head and then cuff them, they can sign the ticket down at the station. So obviously a misuse of equipment and procedure there. Unfortunately though hundreds of people in the USA get shot during arrest as well.

----------


## MadPict

Different 'strengths' of Taser is akin to saying there are different 'strengths' of firearms...  :Wink: 

No one would say that the use of disproportionate force is ever correct. So Tasering someone or beating them up with a baton for a minor traffic offence is never going to be defensible. 

Dealing with a driver who, having been stopped for a minor traffic offence, then becomes violent, raising the levels of "force" from verbal to non lethal (in the case of the Taser or CS spray) is acceptable if it ensures the safety of the officer/s involved. If the driver pulls a gun the use of deadly force then becomes legitimate.

So in the law enforcement 'armoury' it has it's place between the spray and the gun - less lethal than a gun but a bit more attention getting than a dose of capiscum...







Nice to see that fred is still continuing to hone his button pushing skills...

----------


## scorrie

> Nice to see that fred is still continuing to hone his button pushing skills...


Would that be the Google search button you refer to?

----------


## fred

> Here's a conundrum for you Fred, what are your thoughts on this ( you never know, I might get a constructive reply):
> 
> You stated that the shooting of Carlos Menendez(?) on the subway was an 'execution' in another thread. I would assume that you believe that the shooting shouldn't have taken place.
> 
> If the officers had been armed with tasers there _may_ have been a non-lethal solution to this problem. to be honest, I doubt whether it would have been workable in that instance, but do you see what Im getting at? 
> That lad could still be trotting round the streets of London minding his own business (theoretically).


Yes, I remember getting a lot of flack from people who preferred to believe the lies that the media were broadcasting rather than what I said. The IPCC inquiry, which Ian Blair managed to delay illegally, shows who got it right.

The police had a number of non lethal options open to them on that day and chose to ignore them all, tasers would have made no difference.

However in the recent case in America where a group of drunk youths were messing around and fighting among themselves, the police tasered one 20 year old and he died instantly. If the policeman hadn't had a taser would he have taken out his gun and shot dead an unarmed man? Or would that boy be walking around today minding his own business?

----------


## scotsboy

We shall never know.

How easy is it to buy a taser by the way? Do you think Santa could get me one for Christmas?

----------


## scorrie

> However in the recent case in America where a group of drunk youths were messing around and fighting among themselves, the police tasered one 20 year old and he died instantly. If the policeman hadn't had a taser would he have taken out his gun and shot dead an unarmed man? Or would that boy be walking around today minding his own business?


What would YOU have done if YOU were that Police Officer? Left them to fight on and potentially kill one another? Would you have said "Allo, Allo, Allo, whats all this 'ere then?" "Break it up lads" and then sent them on their way with a good old kick up the backside?

If the guy hadn't been drunk, he probably wouldn't have been fighting and he would still be alive today. I love the way you move the guy involved from a drunk, brawling with others, to a BOY walking around minding his own business. If he had been minding his own business in the first place he would have been better served!!

----------


## fred

> What would YOU have done if YOU were that Police Officer? Left them to fight on and potentially kill one another? Would you have said "Allo, Allo, Allo, whats all this 'ere then?" "Break it up lads" and then sent them on their way with a good old kick up the backside?
> 
> If the guy hadn't been drunk, he probably wouldn't have been fighting and he would still be alive today. I love the way you move the guy involved from a drunk, brawling with others, to a BOY walking around minding his own business. If he had been minding his own business in the first place he would have been better served!!


Being drunk and brawling isn't a capital offence.

Are you implying that he deserved to die?

----------


## horseman

What a 'scabby' depth this thread has sunk to!!
 People are justifying state sponsored violence-please don't close your eyes-we-all of us could pitch up a scenario to justify our own view of life
 Still do'nt make any of it right though.
 Give the powers that be ,the power, -an they will use it!-put a peaked hat on a mannie -an he will live up to it--sad.

----------


## scotsboy

> What a 'scabby' depth this thread has sunk to!!
>  People are justifying state sponsored violence-please don't close your eyes-we-all of us could pitch up a scenario to justify our own view of life
>  Still do'nt make any of it right though.
>  Give the powers that be ,the power, -an they will use it!-put a peaked hat on a mannie -an he will live up to it--sad.


I agree Horseman, it democracy that is too blame - we give these people the right to vote, most of whom shouldn't be in a posiiton to. I say ban all people on welfare from voting, and those with an IQ of below 100 - give them something to fight for!

----------


## fred

> I agree Horseman, it democracy that is too blame - we give these people the right to vote, most of whom shouldn't be in a posiiton to. I say ban all people on welfare from voting, and those with an IQ of below 100 - give them something to fight for!


You think we should adopt the American system then.

----------


## scotsboy

> You think we should adopt the American system then.


 :Wink:      I think people in the UK have been spoon fed for so long they have forgotten how to fight and stand up for themselves.........

----------


## northener

[quote=fred;301783]
The police had a number of non lethal options open to them on that day and chose to ignore them all, tasers would have made no difference.

quote]

Whether they chose to ignore or not isn't the point of my scenario, fred. (As you well know....)

I'm trying to highlight the point that tasers, correctly used in situations such as that could prevent unecessary use of firearms.

If an officer uses a weapon or force inappropriately, then that's a different argument. 

People die when being restrained, through puking to death in their cell, heart attacks brought on by stress of the situation etc, etc, etc. Dying because you have been hit with a baton doesn't mean that batons should be banned, it means that we need to ensure batons are used when appropriate - same applies to any use of force.

If we throw up our hands in indignant self-indulgent mock horror and begin the 'this is awful, it must be banned' mantra every time there is a problem, we wouldn't be able to touch, never mind arrest anyone, regardless of what they were doing.

We need controls in place, and officers must be trained to decide when a certain response is suitable. We don't need hysterical hand-wringing from people who never have, and never will, volountarily put themselves in any situation where it's them who have to deal with the problem.

I'll wind back to the points made by myself and a few other people on this thread:

How would YOU (generalilsm, not aimed just at you, Fred) deal with extremely violent people then?

----------


## northener

> What a 'scabby' depth this thread has sunk to!!
> People are justifying state sponsored violence-please don't close your eyes-we-all of us could pitch up a scenario to justify our own view of life
> Still do'nt make any of it right though.
> Give the powers that be ,the power, -an they will use it!-put a peaked hat on a mannie -an he will live up to it--sad.


 
"Pitch up a scenario"?

Sorry Horseman, you're way off the pace. This is real life we're talking about and using scenarios to demonstrate a point.

Peaked hats? Mannies living up to it?

Have you been 'traumatised' by a traffic warden or something? ::

----------


## fred

[QUOTE=northener;301899]


> I'm trying to highlight the point that tasers, correctly used in situations such as that could prevent unecessary use of firearms.


On the other hand they could just be used as human cattle prods like they are being in America.

----------


## northener

[quote=fred;301923]


> On the other hand they could just be used as human cattle prods like they are being in America.


_Ergo:_ A more robust approach to what defines acceptable force and when it should be used needs to be implimented.

If a weapon is being misused, then the quality of the person needs to be addressed, not the weapon itself. The divide between a baton and a firearm is huge, not to make use of the latest technology to prevent serious crime is inexcusable. 
We've had plenty of cock-ups through incorrect use of IT systems (not tracing escaped convicts, 'missing' paedophiles etc), yet we dont take out the IT systems, we refine the way we use them.

Going off at a tangent. 
In my experiences, more than a few US police officers wouldn't get 'on the books' of any British Force. That's not to say all US coppers are bad and all Brit coppers are good, but it doesn't suprise me that they over-react. Their self-control when faced with stressful situations can be, er, lacking, shall we say......

----------


## scorrie

> Being drunk and brawling isn't a capital offence.
> 
> Are you implying that he deserved to die?


I note that you avoid answering the question.

I never said that brawling IS a Capital Offence. What I said was, if the guy had been minding his own business, he would still be alive. Only the most feeble of minds could not follow the self-truth in that statement.

For you to suggest that I am implying that he deserved to die, is cheap sensationalising of the matter. 

Why not just own up and let us all know that you don't have an answer? Is it because that would be admitting to not being the perfect being? I don't think you have it in you to make a "real" decision in the "real" world. You come across as a keyboard chapper in the farthest depths of Fantasy Cyberspace, playing world leader pretend.

----------


## karia

In Arizona the tupperware party has been replaced ...with taser parties!

You can purchase these darling accessories for only $299 in titanium silver, electric blue and the all time best seller...metallic pink! :: 



No link but referencing the guardian G2 26.11.07 (page 3) for the girl who has everything but sense and a police record this crimbo! :: 

Karia

----------


## TBH

> Former German police officials publicly praise use of Taser stun guns against demonstrators as harmless yet efficient. So far in Germany, only special police commandos are equipped with such guns.
>   Friedhelm Krueger-Sprengel, former official at the ministry of defense, says the non-lethal weapons give police and army forces wider latitude in action.
>   Krueger-Sprengel told IPS that security forces can act against a rebellious population without pulling the weapons immediately. With the Taser guns for instance, police and army officers can impose themselves more easily, in the sense that their power has a larger spectrum, so that rebellious people cannot react against them.
>   Rainer Wendt, director at the German Police Officers Union, says the police need weapons that do not kill, but which hurt and cause wounds, in order to control demonstrations. Otherwise, we are declaring open season on our police officers in battles against violent demonstrators.




```
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/10/26/4834/
```

Scary stuff right there, fascism is alive and well. ::

----------


## MadPict

What people seem to be forgetting is that these foreign police forces carry GUNS. Every cop carries a GUN, not just specialist officers as here in the UK and have done since the dawn of time. 
So for them the Taser is a way for them to actually have a non lethal 'weapon' to use in place of a gun. This is a de-escalation of force in many ways...




> fascism is alive and well


Having witnessed the violence directed towards the police in Germany(and the Dutch police) during the late 70's and early 80's by far left anarchist 'squatter' groups and other "demonstrators" ( or rioters for a better description) the option of a non lethal form of defence would be welcome. 

Hardly grounds to accuse them of being facists....

----------


## Solus

Speaking from my own personal experiences and what we were taught is that as little force as required to restrain some one, the more they struggle the more pressure needs to be applied to locks until they comply. Batons, spray  and I suspect tazers are to be used only when your well being or others well being is in threat. If some one becomes violent then recognized restraint methods are to be used first, ie  arm and wrist locks, obviously this requires two or more people as to go one on one endangers yourself. Any item carried for protection is ONLY to be used as a last resort, you are about to be attacked, others are about to be attacked or the situation has become totally out of hand and needs to be stopped immediatly.

There seems to be some that clearly make bad judgement calls and they should not be allowed to carry such items if found to be using them out with protocols. 

I feel that these items are needed for the protection of our police and other uniformed services as well as Joe Public, if some one dies as a result of these items being used correctly then it is unfortunate, but they would not have been used had you not broken the law or have been suspected of breaking the law. When mr Police man asks you to sign here or come with us, its not a request its a lawful order ! no point in getting angry and resisting, you can have your say later.

----------


## Rheghead

I am on the understanding that if a police officer has to fire a live round at someone then he has to aim to kill because the only reason to use such a weapon is because all other avenues have been explored and failed to secure apprehension.  That said, the message being put out when non-lethal alternatives are not being issued means that any firearmed incident is now illegal.

----------


## fred

> I note that you avoid answering the question.
> 
> I never said that brawling IS a Capital Offence. What I said was, if the guy had been minding his own business, he would still be alive. Only the most feeble of minds could not follow the self-truth in that statement.
> 
> For you to suggest that I am implying that he deserved to die, is cheap sensationalising of the matter. 
> 
> Why not just own up and let us all know that you don't have an answer? Is it because that would be admitting to not being the perfect being? I don't think you have it in you to make a "real" decision in the "real" world. You come across as a keyboard chapper in the farthest depths of Fantasy Cyberspace, playing world leader pretend.


It was just some young people who had had too much to drink brawling, not terrorists, not armed criminals, it happens every night all over the world and the police have been dealing with it for a long time. They either pack it in and go home or they are arrested and the judge decides on their punishment next morning.

But now the police in America have the means to hand out their own punishment in the form of five second blasts of excruciating pain and they just love the power it gives them over people, they can make the public really afraid of them.

In fact I seem to detect more than a hint of Marquis de Sade syndrome by proxy on this forum.

----------


## scotsboy

> It was just some young people who had had too much to drink brawling, not terrorists, not armed criminals,* it happens every night all over the world* and the police have been dealing with it for a long time. They either pack it in and go home or they are arrested and the judge decides on their punishment next morning.
> 
> But now the police in America have the means to hand out their own punishment in the form of five second blasts of excruciating pain and they just love the power it gives them over people, they can make the public really afraid of them.
> 
> In fact I seem to detect more than a hint of Marquis de Sade syndrome by proxy on this forum.



Does not happen here in Saudi :Wink:

----------


## MadPict

Rheghead,
As has been mentioned before on this subject, when a police officer takes the decision to fire at an individual then they have to aim for the largest target which is the torso. The Hollywood myth of shooting to wound someone is totally unacceptable, as is firing a warning shot. 
Rounds will travel for hundreds of yards and so to do this puts others at risk of being hit.

Your second point if I read it right - more and more forces are issuing firearms officers with Tasers, so that they have a non lethal option, when responding to say an individual armed with a offensive weapon which is not a firearm. But Tasers are not guaranteed to stop everyone. If someone has been Tasered and they managed to resist it, then the level of force needed will then have to be escalated. 

And a Taser, on its own, would not be deployed against someone armed with a firearm - the wires are only so long! So there will always be the need for the firearms units to respond with old fashioned lead...

In the UK we are fortunate that the bobbies still use good old verbal persuasion in the vast majority of cases to achieve the objective. 
Of course they are trained to ramp up the 'force' needed from just talking - they don't just go straight from speaking to shooting (although I am sure there will be some who will point to recent tragedies to disprove this).
Trouble is, in many cases the required force goes very rapidly from just talking to a subject, to using such methods as batons or sprays, when that subject turns violent.

----------


## MadPict

George Dixon obviously walks the beat in Fredtown....

----------


## fred

> Does not happen here in Saudi


That's not what I heard :Wink:

----------


## MadPict

Lashes and chopping things off is the order of the day there isn't it?

----------


## scotsboy

> That's not what I heard


Actually saw some pictures of the Customs seizing a big haul of Jonnie Walker Black laber today :Smile:

----------


## Rheghead

> But Tasers are not guaranteed to stop everyone. If someone has been Tasered and they managed to resist it, then the level of force needed will then have to be escalated.


I disagree, if someone 'resists' a taser attack then the level of force that is required to apprehend will be less, in most cases.  If I was shot with a taser and I resisted, I certainly wouldn't be able to fight much afterwards, iow, my faculties would be seriously impaired thus the level of force will be scaled down.  I would certainly use a taser on an unarmed person who had gone ballistic, I think a taser is innapropriate for an armed assailant, he needs to be shot with a proper gun if he was threatening folks around him.

----------


## MadPict

If the person happened to be wearing a stab proof vest or thick clothing then they may well still be in a position to be a risk.

----------


## rambler

> Maybe the reason the former Servicemen dont think much of the UN is because they have seen their ineptitude in action, Bosnia for example. Forces there knew what the Serbs were up to and had to stand back while the UN dithered, and people died because of it. Low Fly Zones that were regularly infringed because the Serbs knew permission had to be obtained from New York before engaging violators.The phrase containing Choclate Fireguard leaps to mind. And maybe its because the UN banned landmines .. erm no .. actually they are still being used by the Taliban. They can creep up on our lad's positions while heavily mining their own, Well Done UN. Funnily enough I dont see the UN rushing out there to tell the Taliban off. Bit difficult to get to them because of all the mines possibly.
> 
> Similarily if a Policeman is killed by a criminal because he didnt have a taser to incapicitate his attacker then we can consider that a win can we ??, at least the criminal wasnt hurt and his "Human Rights" infringed. I am sick of the "Human Rights" of victims being ignored while those of criminals are seen as precious. Personally I come down on the side of the Policeman or the victim in any situation as long as proceedures are followed, if they havent then take action against them by all means.
> 
> As for the assumptions about Service Personnel then they didnt start any Operations Iraq off their own back, that is a political decision that for the record I disagreed with, I have said so on threads before. It isnt hard to see the underlying attitude towards the Forces in your post but thats just typical of Britian today. You assume that former Servicemen are Opposed to Human Rights Legislation on no proof whatsoever and then jump from that assumption to lets prosecute those (we assume) dont agree with us !!
> 
> If I want to say that I think Criminals should be stripped off their Human Rights then I will .. actually I think Murderer's, Rapist's, Child Molester's and Child Killer's should be Hung. That is my opinion. Are you seriously suggesting that is inciting anyone to take the law into their own hands ??
> 
> Its funny how people who campaign for "rights" seem happy to restrict the free speech of those who dont agree with them.
> ...


Thanks for what appears to be an honest reply. 
Although I can fully understand and partially agree with some parts of what you are saying, the part about certain people that should be hung is something I am not a bit comfortable about. But that's worth a threat on its' own anyway.

I see why there is frustration about the UN, but the UN can only be as strong as the individual member states allow it to be. The concept of the United Nations is important and we have to work even harder to learn from past mistakes to help make the UN stronger. I know, it's a tough task and very likely more difficult than starting wars, but what other options do we have to tackle future challenges?

----------


## SandTiger

Quite interesting to see that the taser has exceeded basic negotiation skills when dealing with a 6 year old kid and a 12 year old girl is also zapped in the back by a taser - http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/11/14/chi...ers/index.html

But then this would never happen in the UK, would it?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/liv...n_page_id=1770

 ::

----------


## fred

> Quite interesting to see that the taser has exceeded basic negotiation skills when dealing with a 6 year old kid and a 12 year old girl is also zapped in the back by a taser - http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/11/14/chi...ers/index.html
> 
> But then this would never happen in the UK, would it?
> 
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/liv...n_page_id=1770


Yes and there are already plans to issue them to all police officers not just those trained in firearm use.

It's obvious from events in other countries that they are intended as a tool of compliance not to save lives, that is just the excuse.

----------


## MadPict

Go and start a freakin petition if you feel that strongly about police getting yet more weapons of individual destruction and stop belly aching about it.......

----------


## fred

> Go and start a freakin petition if you feel that strongly about police getting yet more weapons of individual destruction and stop belly aching about it.......


I think it's significant that those posters in favour of issuing the police with instruments of torture are the ones who try to harass and bully those with a different view into keeping quiet rather than presenting a valid argument.

----------


## MadPict

No fred, not issuing instruments of torture, like some Stalinist state. 

I am in favour of giving police officers the means to protect themselves, and law abiding members of the public, from the increasingly violent elements of society who would shoot or stab an innocent person without batting an eyelid. Those same violent individuals would certainly not think twice about 'doing a pig' if they got the opportunity.

PC Sharon Beshenivsky ring any bells in your head? She died on her daughters 4th birthday. Memorable for her daughter eh?
She was a mother, doing a job, serving her community. And she died doing that duty. Would you deny the next officer to find themselves in a similar situation the right to be able to protect themselves? 
I think you would.  :: 
Because in your world anything issued to the police is used to suppress the masses. Even a notebook has its sinister side - keeping notes on people to be passed onto the Stasi CID/MI5/6...

Does the name Rhys Jones do anything for you? 11 years old and gunned down while playing football. If the individuals could shoot a young child for playing football what would they do if confronted by a police officer? 

I wish we could walk safely in the streets where the only confrontation you are likely to ever have is someone smiling and saying good morning to you but those days are long behind us. Your dream of a fredtopian society where all the police have to be armed with is a little book to write down their coffee order is also a fantasy. 

You don't present a valid argument. You just sit there and Google for the latest little snippet to feed into these forums like bait into a pond, knowing only too well that people are going to rise up and challenge 'your' views.  :: 

Now I sit back and wait for you to trot out your tired one line responses such as "but what about the 1000's of children in Iraq blah blah blah..."

----------


## bekisman

Fred: _"I think it's significant that those posters in favour of issuing the police with instruments of torture are the ones who try to harass and bully those with a different view into keeping quiet rather than presenting a valid argument."_

Well Fred you mostly talk twaddle, but you've outdone yourself here! 
'Instruments of torture'? would you rather criminals be shot? a truncheon can be an instrument of torture - your 'never never land' of 'pink glasses' does not exist mate! Sorry about that, try reality land..
It amused me, your coment: _'try to harass and bully those with a different view'_ Hmm, I wonder who said: 
_"You just don't listen do you?"
"Oh I enjoy intelligent debate, if I can find someone intelligent to debate with".
"Now have you got enough intelligence to open your eyes and see the world as it really is"_ 
_"You seem to be suffering from delusions of grandeur."
"Grow up."_
_"Strange how people who can't handle the truth revert to a mental age of twelve."_
_"The 'we; is the people of Britain, wasn't that obvious? I'll try and use shorter words for you."_

Who's the insulting Bully here? 

PS. think you show your total naivety with this one:
_"Why does nobody care? Why isn't everyone angry?"_ A lot of us have not got angry, but carried out actions to help alleviate pain and suffering, I note that you shy away from any mention of your own actions in this regard, but just retain the 'angry' part of your retort.. pity

----------


## fred

> Fred: _"I think it's significant that those posters in favour of issuing the police with instruments of torture are the ones who try to harass and bully those with a different view into keeping quiet rather than presenting a valid argument."_
> 
> Well Fred you mostly talk twaddle, but you've outdone yourself here!


See what I mean?




> 'Instruments of torture'?


Yes, as you see in the title of this thread tasers have been classified as instruments of torture by the United Nations.

----------


## Camel Spider

http://www.unog.ch/80256EDD006B9C2E/(httpNewsByYear_en)/D3DD9DE87B278A87C125739C0054A81C?OpenDocument

Hey Presto .. UN Statement form the UN Torture Commitee. You have to scroll down to Portugal's comments but the actual quote there is .. "The Commitee is worried that the use of Taser26X constitutes a form of torture" .. hardly the same thing as Fred is claiming.

Maybe that is why he never posted a Link.

----------


## Rheghead

> http://www.unog.ch/80256EDD006B9C2E/(httpNewsByYear_en)/D3DD9DE87B278A87C125739C0054A81C?OpenDocument
> 
> Hey Presto .. UN Statement form the UN Torture Commitee. You have to scroll down to Portugal's comments but the actual quote there is .. "The Commitee is worried that the use of Taser26X constitutes a form of torture" .. hardly the same thing as Fred is claiming.
> 
> Maybe that is why he never posted a Link.


yes, I discovered long ago that it just needs a little research to debunk the silly claims.

----------


## northener

> I think it's significant that those posters in favour of issuing the police with instruments of torture are the ones who try to harass and bully those with a different view into keeping quiet rather than presenting a valid argument.


 
So asking for a constructive reply to a valid and relevant question to further the discussion is harassment and bullying is it?

I think you'll find, Fred, that if anyone has an opinion that doesn't match yours it's you that cannot present a valid argument. I disagree with many people on many subjects, yet the only person who cannot deal with disagreement and counter intelligently and with good grace is your good self.

There are many constructive replies to your opinions both in this thread and elsewhere. At the best you ignore them, sometimes you try to get the issue sidestepped (millions of deaths etc, in this thread) and if all else fails you accuse people of bullying/white supremacy/stupidity or being unable to see 'the big picture' - you then invariably refuse to answer at all. 

The only responses you ever give are links to someone elses opinions or reports.

That does not constitute intelligent discussion I'm afraid. 


Pity, as I actually think sometimes you may have something important to say.


PS. I note no reply to my PM.

.

----------


## fred

> yes, I discovered long ago that it just needs a little research to debunk the silly claims.


By googling till you find something that might be misconstrued you mean?

What he posted, what there was of it, backed up my claim.

If the full report is published on the web I'll post a link to it but until then newspapers all around the word are quoting the United Nations Committee Against Torture as saying this:

"The use of these weapons causes acute pain, constituting a form of torture,'' 

Go on google for it.

----------


## fred

> So asking for a constructive reply to a valid and relevant question to further the discussion is harassment and bullying is it?


He didn't ask for a reply to anything, he didn't ask anything, this is what he said in the post I was replying to, where is the question?




> Go and start a freakin petition if you feel that strongly about police getting yet more weapons of individual destruction and stop belly aching about it.......


 



> PS. I note no reply to my PM.


I wasn't aware that a reply was required.

----------


## northener

> I wasn't aware that a reply was required.


 
Then I apologise unreservedly.

I always acknowledge anyone who PM's me. I assumed it was common practice. If not, no problem.

----------


## northener

[quote=fred;303653]He didn't ask for a reply to anything, he didn't ask anything, this is what he said in the post I was replying to, where is the question?[unquote]



"_I think it's significant that those posters in favour of issuing the police with instruments of torture are the ones who try to harass and bully those with a different view into keeping quiet rather than presenting a valid argument."_


May I politely suggest you re-read your own post. 

You made a general accusation. That's what words like "those posters in favour" and "are the ones that try" - i.e. plural, mean. So you cannot possibly have meant one solitary comment in one post.


Semantics, Fred, semantics. :Wink: 


.

.

----------


## fred

> PC Sharon Beshenivsky ring any bells in your head?


David Oluwale, ring any bells in yours?

----------


## Camel Spider

> David Oluwale, ring any bells in yours?


Mr and Mrs Oluwale's son ??

Fred .. any comment on the Commitee for Torture link I picked up from the UN's own website which seems to contradict your whole point for starting the thread ??

----------


## SandTiger

> David Oluwale, ring any bells in yours?


Simply put, he's just a another dead wog?  ::  Needless to say, Kester Aspden's book should and does embrace this.

Quite a sad tale really - http://www.irr.org.uk/2007/may/ha000008.html

But hey...

----------


## SandTiger

> Mr and Mrs Oluwale's son ??


Yep, he never died in Iraq or some other *god* forsaking place, but he was someone's son nonetheless. Your confusion arises from what?

----------


## golach

What about the policemen killed on duty in the UK trying to protect us and the legal system, that you all voted for. More than 50, what did they have to protect themselves with?
http://news.scotsman.com/uk.cfm?id=54302003

----------


## fred

> What about the policemen killed on duty in the UK trying to protect us and the legal system, that you all voted for. More than 50, what did they have to protect themselves with?
> http://news.scotsman.com/uk.cfm?id=54302003


In how many of those cases would a taser have made any difference?

Tasers aren't going to stop a determined criminal or terrorist, they won't stop a bullet and they won't stop a speeding car. Police in America carry guns but it doesn't make them any safer, it just ups the ante and makes them a target. If a criminal has a gun they will use it to threaten unless a police officer pulls a taser, then they'll use it to kill.

On another thread people were appalled at the the thought that a British woman might be whipped as a punishment for breaking the law in another country. Tasers cause people agonising pain just the same as a whip does and the recipient doesn't get the benefit of a trial first.

----------


## fred

> Then I apologise unreservedly.
> 
> I always acknowledge anyone who PM's me. I assumed it was common practice. If not, no problem.


PMs and emails aren't like letters, they're more like memos, an informal way to pass a message from one person to another. They are replied to if the context implies it but there is no convention to reply for the sake of replying.

----------


## northener

> In how many of those cases would a taser have made any difference?
> 
> Tasers aren't going to stop a determined criminal or terrorist, they won't stop a bullet and they won't stop a speeding car. Police in America carry guns but it doesn't make them any safer, it just ups the ante and makes them a target. If a criminal has a gun they will use it to threaten unless a police officer pulls a taser, then they'll use it to kill.
> 
> .


A criminal doesn't have to be carrying a weapon to be extremely dangerous Fred, as has been pointed out by people with first hand experience. 

Also, suggesting that using a certain weapon just ups the ante shows a misunderstanding of what can happen in these situations. 
In effect, what you are saying is that any law enforcement officer faced with a dangerous situation should not use any form of weapon ( baton, pepper,cs, taser) to gain control of the situation. As this will simply make matters worse.

Fred, get thee hence to any city centre on a night time, talk to the police, club security, your local A+E, the taxi drivers, kebab shop owners and women out on their own.

I think you'll find a great level of support for more use of weapons of compliance than you could ever imagine.

It's fine to sit at a PC pontificating, but the real world is a very harsh place, Fred.

.

----------


## scorrie

> It was just some young people who had had too much to drink brawling, not terrorists, not armed criminals, it happens every night all over the world and the police have been dealing with it for a long time. They either pack it in and go home or they are arrested and the judge decides on their punishment next morning.
> 
> But now the police in America have the means to hand out their own punishment in the form of five second blasts of excruciating pain and they just love the power it gives them over people, they can make the public really afraid of them.
> 
> In fact I seem to detect more than a hint of Marquis de Sade syndrome by proxy on this forum.


What planet are you on fred? Drunken brawls do not always end in guys packing it in and going home or in guys simply being arrested. If you have watched even a tiny amount of documentaries on drunken behaviour, you will know that drunks often use other people's heads as footballs, they also stamp on those same heads, they attack fellow drunks, they attack other members of the public, they attack policemen and policewomen. Fatalities occur.

Only in your Perfect Little World do those pleasant, jovial drunks tucker themselves out through gentle fisticuffs and retire to their farting sack before facing the beak on the morrow.

I would rather follow the Marquis de Sade than his sappy relation, the Marquis de Sadster.

----------


## fred

> A criminal doesn't have to be carrying a weapon to be extremely dangerous Fred, as has been pointed out by people with first hand experience.


But he is more likely to be extremely dangerous if the policeman is carrying a weapon.

I've read a lot of reports about taser use in other countries and I don't remember one in which it was used against an actual criminal, they are being used against ordinary people for petty offences or no offence at all.

We are fast approaching the boarder between policing by consent and policing by brute force, crossing that line will not make Britain a safer place to live in, very much the opposite.

----------


## fred

> What planet are you on fred? Drunken brawls do not always end in guys packing it in and going home or in guys simply being arrested.


But in the vast majority of cases they do.

----------


## Camel Spider

> Yep, he never died in Iraq or some other *god* forsaking place, but he was someone's son nonetheless. Your confusion arises from what?


No confusion .. It was a sarcastic comment to a pointless question.

Most people got it.

----------


## Camel Spider

> By googling till you find something that might be misconstrued you mean?
> 
> What he posted, what there was of it, backed up my claim.
> 
> If the full report is published on the web I'll post a link to it but until then newspapers all around the word are quoting the United Nations Committee Against Torture as saying this:
> 
> "The use of these weapons causes acute pain, constituting a form of torture,'' 
> 
> Go on google for it.


By "He" you mean me.

So let me get this right .. You now say that it was the Newspapers quoting .. "The use of these weapons causes acute pain, constituing a form of torture" .. BUT .. the actual UN Report from the Commitee on Torture itself says .. "The Commitee is WORRIED that the use of Taser26X constitutes a form of Torture" ..  which is expressing concern that it is possibly a form of torture. That is simply NOT a definitive statement.

You then start a thread titled .. "Tasers are Instruments of Torture.Official" .

It doesnt matter a jot what the papers quote as that is not what is in the actual UN report. So what you have done is start a thread on a Newspaper quote claiming it is the "Official" word of the UN, the simple fact is that if the UN had said what you claimed you would have been the first to post a link. I wondered at the time why there was no link.

You then claim that what I posted, "what there was of it", which was a link to the FULL UN report from the UN website (!) "backs your claim up" .. how can it when the wording of what the UN released in their report, and your claim (which you now attribute to "Newspapers") completely contradict each other ??

----------


## northener

> I've read a lot of reports about taser use in other countries and I don't remember one in which it was used against an actual criminal, they are being used against ordinary people for petty offences or no offence at all.


'Other countries' Fred not Britain. And that's not saying mistakes won't happen here. But there's a world of difference between an incorrect judgement call in this country and giving low-grade 'police' a new toy to play with in another country.

Negative news is always 'good' news.

Statistic for you:

There were 18,891 operations carried out by the police last year (spare me the obvious gag), guns were fired by the police in only NINE of these operations.   (Hermione Eye, The Independant).

These are operations where potentially armed criminals are expected to respond with violence. 
Mr Plod, on a Saturday night, does not have the benefit of a gun (something I happen to agree with, up to a point). But he is far more likely to be killed or seriously injured in an incident dealing with hyped crackheads or thugs on a Saturday night compared to his armed counterpart on a controlled operation.

To deny anyone on the front line the equipment to make their job safer for all involved is nothing more than hypocritical tubthumping. Yes, mistakes will happen. We must ensure tasers are treated as a slightly less than lethal firearm and train accordingly.


Regarding the firearms statistics - I don't see this information being bandied about on the websites that are so keen on decrying the use of tasers. Out of control 'police officers' in the US or whereever are no concern of ours in Britain.

The above figures show that actually, we have a controlled police force that is trained to deal with complex situations whilst showing restraint. There will always be mistakes, to err is human. This can be kept to a minimum by correct use of 'rules of engangement' - for want of a better term.

I stand by my point that in some situations a Taser could prevent an out of control individual from harming innocent members of the public or an officer carrying out his lawful duty. - When other methods have failed.


Think any different? Then as I said before, put your money where your mouth is and try to make a difference out there. The Police are always on the lookout for volounteer officers. Just think about how you could deal with all those situations you're talking about. Surely this would be the ultimate goal Fred, to put your policies into place and use them yourself?

As more than a couple of good bosses have said to me over the years-

*" I wouldn't ask any one of you to do something unless I was prepared to go out and do it myself"*

*.*

----------


## fred

> To deny anyone on the front line the equipment to make their job safer for all involved is nothing more than hypocritical tubthumping. Yes, mistakes will happen. We must ensure tasers are treated as a slightly less than lethal firearm and train accordingly.


There are two sides to every line and the police aren't always standing on the right side. If you want safety for us and the police then erase the lines, have a police force which is a part of the community not a paramilitary unit, not the governments private army.

There was a time the only weapon a policeman had was a truncheon and the powers that be in their wisdom determined that he must keep it out of sight, hidden away in a pocket, never to be shown unless it was to be used. Now the police have utility belts weighed down with batons and pepper sprays, is the world a better place? Are they or we any safer?

There are some laws which are not man made, like the law that every action has an equal and opposite reaction, respect will be met with respect, force will be met with force.

----------


## scorrie

> But in the vast majority of cases they do.


And the vast majority of people are NOT killed by tasers. So, your point is?

----------


## scorrie

> respect will be met with respect


Try telling that to fire and ambulance crews who are pelted with rocks whilst trying to assist those in grave danger.

I don't think very many drunks and druggies take their copy of "Debrett's Manners for Men" out with them on a Saturday night.

----------


## fred

> And the vast majority of people are NOT killed by tasers. So, your point is?


But they all suffer excruciating pain.

----------


## fred

> Try telling that to fire and ambulance crews who are pelted with rocks whilst trying to assist those in grave danger.


So just why do you think people have taken to pelting the emergency services with rocks? Why do people now see them as the enemy? Why is society splitting into sides at war with each other?

We can fight them but we can never win even if we gave the police tanks and machine guns. We should be looking for ways to bring people back into society not alienate them further.

----------


## Camel Spider

People have been pelting Fire and Ambulance crews because they are obnoxious little anti social yobs who are in dire need of a good slap. They do it because in the PC driven world we live in today no one is to blame for anything anymore. People act like they are owed a living and everyone else is to blame arent they ??, You can just claim your Mum didnt love you and thats why you go out at night wrecking people's cars and stoning the Emergency Services.

A society is a collection of people who are supposed to look out for each other. Each member has a responsibility to the others and those who step outside that should be big enough to face up to it and do the time for the crime. I am sick of excuses made for the people who commit crimes by liberals who seem to think they know all about something they have never experienced. And that somehow qualifies them to lecture the very people they should be listening to who are talking from actual experience and could actually teach their closed minds a thing or two.

Fred, you seem to view the world as some sort of giant 70's Coca Cola ad were everyone is all linking arms and smiling while in the background those nasty Police and Servicemen slink around for some to Taser and Bomb.

The fact is it is the Police Force (oops sorry SERVICE), Fire Service, the Armed Forces and the Doctors and Nurses of the NHS who sacrifice and give of themselves to provide us with the society we have. 

What have you done to benefit society Fred ?? .. (apart from sit and criticise everyone else from a positon of non experience and googled opinions)

The weeping and wailing act is getting a bit tired.

----------


## MadPict

> ...We must ensure tasers are treated as a slightly less than lethal firearm and train accordingly...


Currently Tasers are only issued to qualifed firearms officers and their use is strictly enforced along similar guidelines for firearms. Any incident which is deemed serious enough for an armed response unit to attend, can now call upon less than lethal force if required.

The issuing of Tasers to non firearms trained officers will mean that any officer who is issued with a Taser will have to undergo further training almost up to the standards of a qualified firearms officer. They will not be handed out willy nilly to untrained plods like pens from the stationery store...





> There was a time the only weapon a policeman had was a truncheon and the powers that be in their wisdom determined that he must keep it out of sight, hidden away in a pocket, never to be shown unless it was to be used.



See, I knew fred still lived in the 60's with good old George Dixon standing on the corner, throwing up a salute to all and sundry and saying "Evenin' all".... 




> Now the police have utility belts weighed down with batons and pepper sprays, is the world a better place? Are they or we any safer?


I dare say in your mind they don't deserve any protection. Strip them all of their equipment and if they die trying to protect the public that is fair enough. They are, after all, just lackies of the state and are not worth worrying about.

In order to comply with H&S regs, and to ensure that as an employer their duty of care is fully carried out, personal protective equipment is now issued to the lowly Traffic Warden, Community Support Officers, security guards etc. While not giving them batons or sprays they get body armour and belts on which to carry their radios, notebooks, first aid packs, forms and so on - or would you have them dealing with an increasingly violent society with no form of protection?

Again I suspect fred would. ::

----------


## scorrie

> So just why do you think people have taken to pelting the emergency services with rocks? Why do people now see them as the enemy? Why is society splitting into sides at war with each other?
> 
> We can fight them but we can never win even if we gave the police tanks and machine guns. We should be looking for ways to bring people back into society not alienate them further.


Oh yes. I have lost count of the number of times Fire Brigade and Ambulance Crews have taken to the street with the sole purpose of attacking the public!! Anyone seeing the need to attack services that are performing life-saving work has a problem that is of their own making. Many people in this country have little regard for anything. Petty criminals, violent offenders et al are shipped off on country breaks, at our expense, in order that they feel part of society. There is a simple fact that some seem unable to face and that is the big problem that some people simply don't want to live within the rules that are in place. Crime is not a new problem, it has always been there and will always be there, it is the nature of life. We can all pretend that we can change that fact and we can all put forward theories about how it might be achieved. You seem to offer a softly. softly approach as your solution. I wish it were possible for you to witness the kind of world we would be living in if that notion were to become practice.  The result:-Sweetness and Light? or Chaos? 

I know which one my money would be riding on!!

----------


## scorrie

> But they all suffer excruciating pain.


You miss my point. I refer to the whole population, not just those who are tasered.

You seem to be good at unearthing stats. Perhaps you could find out how many people are tasered in the USA, compared how many people are assaulted by drunks?

----------


## MadPict

Och there's nowt wrong with a few thousand volties - I have been up to 50,000 before now.

I was hurt more by the furniture I ended up flying into!!!!

----------


## northener

> There are two sides to every line and the police aren't always standing on the right side. If you want safety for us and the police then erase the lines, have a police force which is a part of the community not a paramilitary unit, not the governments private army.
> 
> .


 
I can agree with you up to a point regarding better relations in some instances. 


I think your line 'not the governments private army' says a lot about how you view our police, Fred.

I think I would be correct in suspecting that you would object to any initiative that involved giving the police more power and go out of your way to push any initiative that reduced the police's ability to operate effectively.

This would suggest that your view is somewhat blinkered, and you would be prepared to sacrifice officers and innocent members of the public - as long as you achieved your aims of emasculating the police for your own (political?) ends.

Mot of the violence directed against people in this country is not carried out by 'victims of society', it is carried out by nasty selfish individuals for their their own enjoyment or ends. I've been there loads of times mate, seen it all.

You talk a great deal about bigotry, inhumanity, torture and lack of compassion, Fred. You don't need to go to the Middle East or some other part of the globe to find it, just look in your own town -  and I'm not talking about government controlled institutions here.

There are social issues that need addressing in Britain, I agree. 
But that is not the job of the Police, Armed services, Fire and Ambulance crews or hospital staff etc. They are there to scrape the crap off the road when politicians fail.

You would be better off directing your anger regarding social issues at whatever government or political system you believe is responsible. 
NOT the dedicated people who routinely put themselves in extreme danger so the rest of us can sit here spouting crap night after night.

I'll not go into the reasons why I think we have such a problem with violence and breakdown of mutual respect, that's a massive thread on its' own waiting to be born.

.

----------


## golach

> But they all suffer excruciating pain.


How do you know this? One persons pain is another persons pleasure

----------


## fred

> I can agree with you up to a point regarding better relations in some instances. 
> 
> 
> I think your line 'not the governments private army' says a lot about how you view our police, Fred.
> 
> I think I would be correct in suspecting that you would object to any initiative that involved giving the police more power and go out of your way to push any initiative that reduced the police's ability to operate effectively.
> 
> This would suggest that your view is somewhat blinkered, and you would be prepared to sacrifice officers and innocent members of the public - as long as you achieved your aims of emasculating the police for your own (political?) ends.


I just tell it how it is, why do you look for ulterior motives? This thread started because a UN committee said 


> "The use of these weapons causes acute pain, constituting a form of torture,''


 and 


> "In certain cases, they can even cause death, as has been shown by reliable studies and recent real-life events,''


If you look back you will see that these findings back what I said on this forum over a month ago.

Now the clique are going to great lengths to discredit me, you will see comments made about me in threads I haven't even posted to, you will see people claiming that the police can be trusted while themselves adopting the tactics of a school yard bully, anything to avoid the plain and simple fact that those were the findings of the UN Committee against Torture.

The police already have defence, they have body armour batons and pepper spray and if that isn't enough they can send for backup with guns and baton rounds. One in three men in Britain will have a stroke before they are 65, that is a very large proportion of the population with serious heart problems, it is the single largest cause of death in this country. Tasers have only been tested on very fit healthy people. If an officer fires a taser at a woman how do they know she isn't pregnant? Trials in this country have been very limited and already we have had one death. In Canada where tasers have been used for some time the decision is now under review following the needless deaths of members of the public.

Do you have any arguments against these issues or would you rather be one of the gang and just point your finger at me?

----------


## bekisman

Hi Fred - hopefully I'm not one of the 'Gang'? or am I one of the 'clique'?. 
Not very nice to call folk this when all they are doing is retorting to your many utterances often about which you know 'personally' very little. Presumably as shown in the second paragraph below the Committee based its findings on the fact that Tasers cause extreme pain, this goes for most self-protection devises does it not?. 
I am afraid your utopian ideals are not based on reality, I don't know if you live in a great city or Caithness, but it would seem to the casual observer that you have not been faced with a situation outwith a gentle "opps sorry old chap, did I step on your toe". 
Folk who *have* faced severe danger need a form of protection and I'm afraid rose-tinted goggles do not help.. Having been shot myself, I would much have prefered a tasering, but I did not have the option..

Please less 'one liners' from some obscure tome dealing with Portugal's arrest procedures and more of an 'over view' would be more appropriate..

One of my Tome's: 

SCOTTSDALE, Ariz., Nov. 28, 2007 (PRIME NEWSWIRE) -- TASER International, Inc. (NasdaqGS:TASR - News), a market leader in advanced electronic control devices (ECDs), issued the following statement:
The recent one-line statement on the TASER(r) X26 by the UN Committee Against Torture in a broad review of the arrest and detention procedures of Portugal is out of touch with the reality that confronts law enforcement officers every day worldwide. 
The UN Committee based its statement on the fact that a TASER device provokes ``extreme pain.'' By invoking such a strict definition, each and every tool available to law enforcement officers worldwide to end a use-of-force confrontation, including pepper sprays, batons, and even fists, could then constitute a form of torture. 
Further, the UN Committee states that it relied on ``several reliable studies and certain cases'' to conclude TASER devices ``could also cause death''; yet no references are provided by the Committee and TASER International knows of no such studies. To date, every human study and court case involving TASER devices contradicts this conclusion. 
In May 2006, the United States government in an oral response to a direct question on TASER devices from this same Committee stated, ``The use of TASERs to control arrestees and inmates is consistent with the law. Courts have reviewed the application of such devices for consistency with the Eighth Amendment's 'prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment,' and have upheld their legality.'' The Committee does not appear to have taken these comments and others by the United States into consideration. 
``TASER devices have saved thousands of lives worldwide and dramatically reduce injuries of officers and suspects in every community they are deployed,'' stated Tom Smith, Chairman and Founder of TASER International. ``We would hope that the United National Committee Against Torture, as well as human rights group around the globe, would embrace our revolutionary technology and choose to work with us in our efforts to reduce violence and protect life. Simply issuing baseless and factually incorrect statements will not end violence or torture and may only serve to weaken efforts intended to protect life.'' 
Supporting information:    * TASER provides the minimum pain and maximum accountability of      any use-of-force tool.       o TASER has the shortest discomfort period (immediate recovery         versus 30 minutes to an hour for pepper spray, days to weeks         for contusions/broken bones, lifetime for serious injuries         and bullet wounds.       o Only TASER has technology that provides accountability for          use (dataport system that records time/date of every          activation and the TASER CAM audio/visual recording system).    * Over a half a million police officers have experienced TASER      exposures as part of their certification and training.    * While initial media reports assume TASER ECD as the cause of      death, TASER has been cleared in every case in Canada to date,      and has prevailed in court in every case brought against the      company in the U.S.  The facts have consistently shown that       TASER technology is not the cause of death.    * There have been over 5,600 arrest related deaths in the U.S.      since 2000.  TASER ECDs were used in less than 5% of these      incidents.    * A recent study conducted at the Wake Forest University Baptist      Medical Center found that in 1000 incidents, 99.7 percent of      those subjected to a TASER device had only mild injuries such       as scrapes and bruises, or no injuries at all.    * Human medical studies on hundreds of human volunteers have found      no adverse medical consequences.    * Law enforcement officers are 68 times more likely to be injured      by fists, kicks, and other unarmed attacks than by subjects armed      with firearms.  This statistic clearly demonstrates that unarmed      individuals can and do pose significant threats to law       enforcement officers.    * A 2005 FBI Unified Crime Reports indicates that 13,394 police       were injured by attacks from unarmed people vs. 195 injured by       people with firearms:         (http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/killed/2005/table68.htm)    * Police agencies deploying TASER report up to 80% reductions in      suspect injury rates -- TASER devices provide safety means to      incapacitate violent subjects.    * When law enforcement officer go "hands-on" with a suspect, the      firearm on the officer's belt is introduced into the      confrontation.

----------


## Dusty

As has been stated previously, the UNOG statement was:

"The Committee was worried that the use of TaserX26 weapons, provoking extreme pain, constituted a form of torture,"

This appeared to be in relation to their use in Portugal on subjects under detention and the committee were "worried" at this stage.
I did not find the statement claiming that the use of the TaserX26 in other scenarios or locations was a form of torture nor that it was a definitive statment conferring "Official" status.

The committee however did not seem to be sufficiently worried to make any recomendations regarding the use of the TaserX26 in places of detention in Portugal or anywhere else for that matter.

In any event, there is a way in which you can avoid the trauma of being Tasered.....behave yourself and don't be confrontational towards a policeman armed with a Taser. :Wink: 

C'mon Fred, stop stirring it.

----------


## fred

> One of my Tome's: 
> 
> SCOTTSDALE, Ariz., Nov. 28, 2007 (PRIME NEWSWIRE) -- TASER International, Inc.


Have you anything from anyone a bit more independent? I mean have you seen the statements made by tobacco companies regarding the the relationship between cigarettes and lung cancer? They used the same "you can't prove that's what killed him" argument in courts and got away with it for years.

Here, take a look at why use of tasers is under review in Canada.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_IJqdL40lvU

----------


## bekisman

Come on Fred read my posts:
While initial media reports assume TASER ECD as the cause of death, TASER has been cleared in every case in Canada to date.

----------


## fred

> Come on Fred read my posts:
> While initial media reports assume TASER ECD as the cause of death, TASER has been cleared in every case in Canada to date.


Read my post about the tobacco companies getting away with the same plea.

----------


## bekisman

Fred: _"Read my post about the tobacco companies getting away with the same plea."_

Sorry Fred have absolutely no idea what tobacco has to do with Tasers; (the Thread remember) is it an anagram or something?

----------


## MadPict

> Now the clique are going to great lengths to discredit me...


You seem to be doing a good enough job of that yourself.... ::

----------


## northener

> Now the clique are going to great lengths to discredit me, 
> 
> 
> Do you have any arguments against these issues or would you rather be one of the gang and just point your finger at me?


Cheap shots, Fred.

You're regressing into the Fred that lashes out when people keep disagreeing with you.

Come on Fred, you can do better than that.



Here's something challenging for you to comment on, Fred.

Watch this video link from another thread again, read the scenario and then answer the following question:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QhkE3VTuPhk

You are a police officer on a patrol on a night-time. Apart from your colleague, the rest of your shift is tied up attending important calls elsewhere - the nearest back-up is at least 10 minutes away.

You are sent to a backstreet where a man is being seriously assaulted.

Upon arrival, you are both just in time to see and _hear_ the man in this video break the arms of the victim. It is obvious that the victim is in a life-threatening situation.

It is now your decision.

How would you resolve this situation Fred?

.

----------


## fred

> How would you resolve this situation Fred?
>  .


Tasers are no substitute for an efficient police force.

If there was no backup available then the government should be thinking about spending money on employing more officers not pushing up Taser share prices.

----------


## northener

> Tasers are no substitute for an efficient police force.
> 
> If there was no backup available then the government should be thinking about spending money on employing more officers not pushing up Taser share prices.


 
Evasion. Pure and simple.

So therefore I can safely say that you do not have an answer to this situation then, Fred.

Which proves unequivocally the point I made earlier that it is easy to pontificate on a subject, but rather harder to back up your opinion when faced with reality and when it is your responsibility to come up with a solution.

Letting someone else do the dirty work, I think it's called.

.

----------


## Camel Spider

> Tasers are no substitute for an efficient police force.
> 
> If there was no backup available then the government should be thinking about spending money on employing more officers not pushing up Taser share prices.


So while the victim is getting their arms broken you would wait for the Police to recruit, train and equip a Police Officer to come and help you rather than Taser the criminal.

Maybe you could spend the time waiting convincing the screaming victim that Tasers are a form of torture ..  ::

----------


## Moira

> I just tell it how it is, why do you look for ulterior motives? This thread started because a UN committee said and ......
> 
> Now the clique are going to great lengths to discredit me......?


No Fred - you don't tell it as it is. You seek to muddy the waters all around.

Who are "the clique" then.  Name & shame - please......

----------


## fred

> No Fred - you don't tell it as it is. You seek to muddy the waters all around.
> 
> Who are "the clique" then.  Name & shame - please......


That would be against the rules.

----------


## canuck

> That would be against the rules.


What rules?  I am missing something here.

----------


## Moira

> That would be against the rules.


You're not making yourself clear here.  If you have a problem with any of the members of the forum here,  your first point of contact would be the Administration or a Moderator - would it not?

----------


## bekisman

Yes, who are they Fred?

----------


## Welcomefamily

> So while the victim is getting their arms broken you would wait for the Police to recruit, train and equip a Police Officer to come and help you rather than Taser the criminal.
> 
> Maybe you could spend the time waiting convincing the screaming victim that Tasers are a form of torture ..


No they should not use a taser in this case, just a hand gun, it will then save money on keeping them. We are far too liberal on our criminals

----------


## rambler

> Tasers are no substitute for an efficient police force.
> 
> If there was no backup available then the government should be thinking about spending money on employing more officers not pushing up Taser share prices.


A good and valid point. 
It is a political decision whether to employ additional police officers or to hand out weapons like taser guns or else to an already overstreched force to combat crime. In my view the first priority should be to ensure that a sufficient number of officers is available on the ground to deal with all situations in the least offensive way. Far better than issuing additonal weapons to a heavily overstreched force.

----------


## Moi x

> That would be against the rules.


Stop making excuses and stand your ground for goodness' sake man! You make a lot of good points on this forum but as far as I can see you go off on tangents and resort to name calling whenever you're on the back foot.

I know you're outnumbered and your views aren't popular here but you make matters worse with irrelevant one liners and personal attacks on those you disagree with. 

You are so bloody frustrating that I think I'm going to have to enter the fray on your side!  :Wink: 

Moi x

----------


## fred

> What rules?  I am missing something here.


You and a lot of people.

The rules about making it personal.

You want to know who the clique are you don't need me to tell you, just read through for the people who say "fred doesn't live in the real world", fred is a conspiracy theorist", "fred just sits there googling", "fred never gives a straight answer", "fred is a communist", "fred is a terrorist sympathiser". then look for the "If you don't like it why don't you * and shut up" posts.

----------


## DeHaviLand

> You and a lot of people.
> 
> The rules about making it personal.
> 
> You want to know who the clique are you don't need me to tell you, just read through for the people who say "fred doesn't live in the real world", fred is a conspiracy theorist", "fred just sits there googling", "fred never gives a straight answer", "fred is a communist", "fred is a terrorist sympathiser". then look for the "If you don't like it why don't you * and shut up" posts.


You forgot the "Fred is paranoid" posts  :Grin:

----------


## northener

> A good and valid point. 
> It is a political decision whether to employ additional police officers or to hand out weapons like taser guns or else to an already overstreched force to combat crime. In my view the first priority should be to ensure that a sufficient number of officers is available on the ground to deal with all situations in the least offensive way. Far better than issuing additonal weapons to a heavily overstreched force.


In the long term, yes, I have no hesitation in agreeing with both Fred and yourself on this point.

But that won't help officers on the ground who will, inevitably, find themselves in the sort of scenario I have described above. 
You will never, ever have enough officers on the ground to reach a satisfactory conclusion to every serious incident that is attended.

That I why I feel that tasers have a _part_ to play in the incapacitation of violent and out of control offenders.

If we were to increase funding for a massive influx of officers, then I'd be interested to see what reaction came from the some sectors of our community - 'Oppressive regime', 'fascist paramilitary', 'agents of the government being used to restrict our liberties' etc etc :: 

The SNP spouted off about '1000 new officers' in their election manifesto, look what happened there.

Another example of talking the talk, but not backing up the coppers on the walk.

But, that's for another thread.

.

----------


## fred

> But that won't help officers on the ground who will, inevitably, find themselves in the sort of scenario I have described above.


You can always think of a scenario that the police couldn't deal with as what you give them. What if there are two assailants what do they do then? Do we give them two tasers one for each hand?

----------


## Camel Spider

> You can always think of a scenario that the police couldn't deal with as what you give them. What if there are two assailants what do they do then? Do we give them two tasers one for each hand?


Now your getting it Fred !!

----------


## northener

> You can always think of a scenario that the police couldn't deal with as what you give them. What if there are two assailants what do they do then? Do we give them two tasers one for each hand?


 
Good idea!

But that's like saying we can't win whatever we do, so therefore do nothing.

In the absence of any realistic alternative that is non-lethal - use a taser. 

In your example, at least one would be incapacitated therefore increasing the chances of a successful resolution to the situation.

Hypothethising is something we can all do on here, I go back to a previous post (or two) of mine where I say that our officers are routinely getting seriously injured in the course of their lawful duty. 
It is our duty to supply them with the appropriate equipment to do their job with the minimum amount of risk to themselves and members of the law abiding people of Britain.

Like I keep saying, put yourself in their shoes and you'll change your mind pretty quickly, I think.

.

----------


## karia

Nothener,

Given the attacks on fire  and ambulance crews ..do you think that they should receive taser training then?

Should we be met at A& E by medics and 'zapsters'?

karia

----------


## northener

> Nothener,
> 
> Given the attacks on fire and ambulance crews ..do you think that they should receive taser training then?
> 
> Should we be met at A& E by medics and 'zapsters'?
> 
> karia


 
Absolutely not. 

My point earlier regarding the non-police services  was in regard to the levels of violence against them and what they have to put up with. 
This in no way implies that they should become ersatz police. They do their job and let the police do theirs. 
The police are there to protect the other services as and when required - and that's how it should stay.

I suppose this goes back to the point that Fred and Rambler made regarding better funding/more resources for the police. Yes, we need that. But it won't help the police deal with individual situations that are occurring with frightening regularity around Britain _now_.

.

----------


## fred

> Like I keep saying, put yourself in their shoes and you'll change your mind pretty quickly, I think.
> 
> .


No, there is a lot more to be taken into consideration, you have to see every side. The chances of the toughest man in the US marines ever confronting a British policeman are slim, if tasers carried by the police they will certainly be used against people with angina and pregnant women.

----------


## northener

> No, there is a lot more to be taken into consideration, you have to see every side. The chances of the toughest man in the US marines ever confronting a British policeman are slim, if tasers carried by the police they will certainly be used against people with angina and pregnant women.


Fred, believe me, I speak from first hand experience. The US Marine in the video is certainly not unique, nor is the armed forces the sole domain of people like him. 
He made be hyped as the 'toughest man', I have no grounds to dispute that claim, but I have known more than a few like him. And they are very frightening individuals.

When the police say on the telly or in the press that a certain individual is not to be approached, they are saying it because that person is very, very dangerous. 
Bear in mind that those are the ones the police are actively seeking. There's plenty more out there who only come to light after an 'incident' has taken place.

That 'incident'  invariably involves either an officer or innocent member of the public being seriously injured.

.

----------


## golach

> Given the attacks on fire and ambulance crews ..do you think that they should receive taser training then?
> Should we be met at A& E by medics
> karia


No way should fire and ambulance crews be issued with tasers, that is what the police are paid to do "Protect", but A&E medics should be issued with MRSA testing kits

----------


## karia

Hi northener,

Fire Brigades and ambulance personnel are only assisted when the police have time to spare..and as you have pointed out they are stretched to the limit.

Taser use (as has been stated previously) requires much paperwork by the police and more than likely involves the ambulance service to get the casualty checked out ...then the hospital staff.

Is this really an optimum  use of overstretched resources?


karia

----------


## bekisman

Fred: _"if tasers carried by the police they will certainly be used against people with angina and pregnant women."_
So fred it's going to be; _"Evening sir, do you mind my asking if you suffer from Angina?",_ _"Nope?"then as you are a serious threat to my and the public's safety, I shall not use my taser, I shall blatt you around the head with my truncheon"._ 
_"Excuse me madam, are you fat, or are you pregnant" "Pregnant you say - therefore although you have a knife in your hand and have already stabbed two persons, I shall not use my Taser, I shall telephone fred very very quickly and ask him what I should do in this instance"_

This is getting silly Fred, even your Thread; 'Tasers are instruments of torture. Official' is incorrect. When asked what a Police Officer should do in a situation of danger to himself and others, your retort is along the lines; "we need more Police recruitment". 
Honestly Fred, come on simple question; what would you do as a Police Officer, armed with a Taser facing danger to yourself..

----------


## fred

> Fred, believe me, I speak from first hand experience. The US Marine in the video is certainly not unique, nor is the armed forces the sole domain of people like him. 
> He made be hyped as the 'toughest man', I have no grounds to dispute that claim, but I have known more than a few like him. And they are very frightening individuals.


He's one hell of a lot rarer than people with heart disease and women who are pregnant.

----------


## northener

> they will certainly be used against people with angina and pregnant women.


'Certainly'?

If a pregnant woman is about to do serious harm to say, her 3 year old daughter then I'm sure it would happen.

Angina? Well, maybe you shouldn't be carrying out a serious assault on someone if you have a heart condition. You might do yourself a mischief......

These are rules of engagement issues. If the person was comitting an offence serious to warrant a response as harsh as a Taser - then tough on them.

Officers are held accountable for their actions. There is a belief amongst some members of the public that they cannot be held accountable for their own actions. reality should teach them otherwise.

This is the real world and it can become very painful, very quickly.

.

----------


## northener

> He's one hell of a lot rarer than people with heart disease and women who are pregnant.


Poor response Fred.

I don't think many pregnant women go round kicking in peoples heads.

Angina - irrelevant. If you can't do the time.....

----------


## northener

> Hi northener,
> 
> Fire Brigades and ambulance personnel are only assisted when the police have time to spare..and as you have pointed out they are stretched to the limit.
> 
> Taser use (as has been stated previously) requires much paperwork by the police and more than likely involves the ambulance service to get the casualty checked out ...then the hospital staff.
> 
> Is this really an optimum use of overstretched resources?
> 
> 
> karia


When you've got one guy on the ground with his face slashed to pieces and the assailant is about to start on you or another member of the public, you're not going to give a monkeys about overstretched resources. You're going to drop the b-t as quickly as possible.

Again Karia, that's a resource issue - not a 'front line' issue.

.

----------


## karia

> Fred: 
> Honestly Fred, come on simple question; what would you do as a Police Officer, armed with a Taser facing danger to yourself..


Bekisman,


I suspect that most folks would use it in the initial frisson of danger..aren't the police trained precisely not to act on such impulses?

Surely thats the point in having a trained police force and not disintegrating into a vigilante culture.

Karia

----------


## karia

> When you've got one guy on the ground with his face slashed to pieces and the assailant is about to start on you or another member of the public, you're not going to give a monkeys about overstretched resources. You're going to drop the b-t as quickly as possible.
> 
> Again Karia, that's a resource issue - not a 'front line' issue.
> 
> .



Sounds pretty front line to me!

----------


## fred

> Poor response Fred.
> 
> I don't think many pregnant women go round kicking in peoples heads.
> 
> Angina - irrelevant. If you can't do the time.....


Time is something you do after being found guilty by a jury of your peers, we have a fundamental right in this country called presumption of innocence. You are making the police into judge jury and executioner.

If you are trying to claim that tasers will only ever be used in cases where huge fit men are kicking someone's head in I just don't believe it.

----------


## bekisman

_"Bekisman, I suspect that most folks would use it in the initial frisson of danger..aren't the police trained precisely not to act on such impulses? Surely thats the point in having a trained police force and not disintegrating into a vigilante culture. Karia"_

What impulse?, I was giving a situation of great danger being faced by a Police Officer, what has 'vigilante culture' got to do with it? (I would expect that a taser would be used to protect life and limb, we're loosing the plot here, it's not a gun that could blow a hole in someone, it's an electric shock..) 
It is a FACT that my best friend; Police Constable John Schofield was shot dead on 6 July 1974 (I'm looking at a photograph right now of him and I hitchhiking in Holland) - which maybe colours my thoughts on this, and the namby pamby waffle from certain quarters of 'oh no don't use a taser, it might hurt the person' is something that lies in the realms of tinted glasses and an unreal utopia..

----------


## golach

> If you are trying to claim that tasers will only ever be used in cases where huge fit men are kicking someone's head in I just don't believe it.


Fred, policeman have used great big muckle sticks called truncheons, since Robert Peels time, tasers are just a modern upto date truncheon, not seen you complaining about truncheons

----------


## karia

> _"Bekisman, I suspect that most folks would use it in the initial frisson of danger..aren't the police trained precisely not to act on such impulses? Surely thats the point in having a trained police force and not disintegrating into a vigilante culture. Karia"_
> 
> What impulse?, I was giving a situation of great danger being faced by a Police Officer, what has 'vigilante culture' got to do with it? (I would expect that a taser would be used to protect life and limb, we're loosing the plot here, it's not a gun that could blow a hole in someone, it's an electric shock..) 
> It is a FACT that my best friend; Police Constable John Schofield was shot dead on 6 July 1974 (I'm looking at a photograph right now of him and I hitchhiking in Holland) - which maybe colours my thoughts on this, and the namby pamby waffle from certain quarters of 'oh no don't use a taser, it might hurt the person' is something that lies in the realms of tinted glasses and an unreal utopia..


yes, it's an electric shock...(what fun!).but  also one that ties up a lot of resources...and hurts!
Rightfully so.. as everyone in a so called 'civilised situation' must  be accountable for their own actions and zapping someone with electricity to 'stun them' is at the very least something that needs accounted for.

I am sorry to hear of your friend..no one should die a violent death at the hands of a weapon.

That is why tasers aren't universally available and we have to make do with
slagging one another off :Smile: 


My fear is that if the 'power' is there..no-one will think twice about using it!

Kariaxx

----------


## fred

> Fred, policeman have used great big muckle sticks called truncheons, since Robert Peels time, tasers are just a modern upto date truncheon, not seen you complaining about truncheons


No tasers aren't truncheons, a policeman has control over a truncheon, it can give a gentle tap or a hard rap to any part of the body, an arm, a leg, a shoulder. A policeman knows that if he inflicts the same degree of pain with a truncheon as he can with a taser he is going to do serious damage and leave a lot of bruises. A policeman knows what to expect when he hits someone with a truncheon, he hasn't been lied to by the truncheon manufacturers marketing department.

----------


## northener

> Time is something you do after being found guilty by a jury of your peers, we have a fundamental right in this country called presumption of innocence. You are making the police into judge jury and executioner.
> 
> If you are trying to claim that tasers will only ever be used in cases where huge fit men are kicking someone's head in I just don't believe it.


Regarding 'Time': as in - If you are not prepared take a direct response to your direct action.

ie: If you are using extreme violence against another human being, then be prepared to meet extreme violence (where necessary) in return to stop you. If you aren't prepared accept that response, then don't start the problem in the first place.

But Fred, you knew exactly what I meant anyway. Semantics, old chap :Wink: 


'Huge fit men': They don't have to be. Youd be very suprised what even a small lightly built person is capable of. Put a knife in their hand and it gets even worse...

I must say Fred, your perception of what really goes off on the streets of this fair country of ours appears to be woefully inadequate.

If you 'don't believe it', then there is very little else to be said. 
I say controlled use, you say no use. Period.

I just hope that it's never someone who is close to you that is being beaten senseless in a quiet leafy suburb somewhere.

.

----------


## fred

> Regarding 'Time': as in - If you are not prepared take a direct response to your direct action.
> 
> ie: If you are using extreme violence against another human being, then be prepared to meet extreme violence (where necessary) in return to stop you. If you aren't prepared accept that response, then don't start the problem in the first place.
> 
> But Fred, you knew exactly what I meant anyway. Semantics, old chap
> 
> 
> 'Huge fit men': They don't have to be. Youd be very suprised what even a small lightly built person is capable of. Put a knife in their hand and it gets even worse...
> 
> ...


What I said about making the policeman judge jury and executioner still applies. You say a small person can be just as bad, if not worse than a big person? So a small aggressive person attacks a big placid person, the police arrive and see the two fighting, jump to conclusions and use the taser on the big person, the big person has a heart attack and dies. Judge jury and executioner.

I know a little about what goes on on the street, I know that there is an entire generation of young ethnic people on the streets of our cities who feel they are oppressed, unfairly targeted by our police force, I know what affect seeing policemen walking around with side arms will have on them.

----------


## northener

> What I said about making the policeman judge jury and executioner still applies. You say a small person can be just as bad, if not worse than a big person? So a small aggressive person attacks a big placid person, the police arrive and see the two fighting, jump to conclusions and use the taser on the big person, the big person has a heart attack and dies. Judge jury and executioner.


So therefore we do what?

----------


## northener

> I know a little about what goes on on the street, I know that there is an entire generation of young ethnic people on the streets of our cities who feel they are oppressed, unfairly targeted by our police force, I know what affect seeing policemen walking around with side arms will have on them.


There's an entire generation of _young people,_ not just people of a different ethnic background out there that have serious social issues...

It's more to do with the fact that a lot of the ethnic minorities are forced for economic reasons to live in inner city sinkholes and estates with a lot of poverty and a high crime rate. 
More of a certain group in a high crime area = more chance of them being questioned by the police.

I dont see what ethnicity and perceived social inequality has got to do with this thread? Unless you are  suggesting that our police force will deliberately target minority groups with Tasers!

----------


## fred

> I dont see what ethnicity and perceived social inequality has got to do with this thread? Unless you are  suggesting that our police force will deliberately target minority groups with Tasers!


That has been the case in other countries.

A recent study in Houston showed that 63% of people tasered were black, Houston has a 25% black population. 93% of those tasered were unarmed.

After the disproportionate targeting of ethnic minorities with the stop and search laws in Britain why would they believe it would be any different with tasers?

----------


## Solus

What percentage of crimes are commited by black people in Houston ? that may show why so many were tazzered , it may not, but it may have a baring on why.

and you dont need to be armed to be dangerous,

----------


## scorrie

> What percentage of crimes are commited by black people in Houston ? that may show why so many were tazzered , it may not, but it may have a baring on why.
> 
> and you dont need to be armed to be dangerous,


The relationship between race and crime is analysed here:-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hIkLc...eature=related

----------


## fred

> What percentage of crimes are commited by black people in Houston ? that may show why so many were tazzered , it may not, but it may have a baring on why.


In 350 out of the first 900 incidents there was no crime, either no charges were brought or the charges were thrown out.




> and you dont need to be armed to be dangerous,


Exactly, the police don't need tasers.

----------


## Solus

but you can be a danger to yourself or others through your actions, and a sudden stop is needed. 

I have before been armed with only a baton and to get close enough to use was difficult nor did it appeal to my self preservation feelings !

----------

