Thread: Woman calls police. They brutalize and arrest her.

This is exactly how the American public wants tasers to be used.

In thread after thread on this board, and in countless discussions in real life, the vast majority of people have said they think it's just fine for police to cause high levels of pain in order to force compliance (even for seeminlgy minor issues).

I steadfastly disagree.

Is whimpering ok?

Originally Posted by Really Not All That Bright

Probably about how disappointing it was that her houseguest had left and they wouldn't get to taze him, too.

Do you have a cite indicating that he didn't deserve tazing?

Originally Posted by Sage Rat

Originally Posted by Kobal2

I daresay there's a middle being excluded, here
Or did cops make it a habit of breaking suspects' arms (for pain compliance, you see) before the taser came along to solve this outstanding law-enforcement issue ?

I'd venture to guess that the answer is yes. Subduing a person physically is liable to end up in broken arms, missing eyes, bruises, cuts, and even gun shots. Before the taser they had the billy club, their fists, and a gun. Of those four options, which do you want the police to use on you if, for whatever reason, you have decided to fight with them? Sure, the cop might be skilled enough to win 90% of his fights without having to do major damage, but why should he endanger himself like that? Police officer has a wife and kids. He might be in a job where he's going to risk himself on a day-to-day basis, but that doesn't mean that we should make him come home bruised every day rather than tase people who were committing a crime by resisting arrest. And why add that extra 10% of people who suffer major damage rather than using a taser? Between harmless pain and broken arms, pain is better.

http://www.amnestyusa.org/us-human-r....do?id=1021202 351 deaths by Taser so far. Not harmless .
No ,broken arms were not common in the old days.

Since the cops had spoken to him and told him he could leave, I'd say that was proof enough.

Originally Posted by Snowboarder Bo

This is exactly how the American public wants tasers to be used.

In thread after thread on this board, and in countless discussions in real life, the vast majority of people have said they think it's just fine for police to cause high levels of pain in order to force compliance on even the most minor issues.

I steadfastly disagree.

Perhaps some day when medical treatment of trauma injuries has advanced enough, we will be able to retire tasers and just go back to shooting people the old fashioned way. If they're going to survive it, what's the dif?

A first scan for cites:

[url=http://www.fbi.gov/publications/leb/2005/mar05leb.pdf][quote=PDF]In the Orange County Sheriff

Originally Posted by gonzomax

http://www.amnestyusa.org/us-human-r....do?id=1021202 351 deaths by Taser so far. Not harmless .
No ,broken arms were not common in the old days.

Which number is equivalent to the percentage of people who died by being told to lie down flat on the ground, to raise their hands over their head, by being sprayed with pepper spray, or by being left alone. Acting as the catalyst to a death and being the cause of a death are very different things. Some people are just on the verge of death and you're pretty well screwed no matter what you do.

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Deaths...on-a0145015102
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...3dd6df1374ca11
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSL28860920080902
http://mediafilter.org/caq/caq56pepper.html

Originally Posted by billfish678

Like nearly ALL the other cops did wrong threads, it boils down to this. When a COP TELLS you to do something, you DO IT. If you don't do, he is pretty much required to FORCE you to comply. To allow otherwise would defeat the very concept of a cop.

She didnt get tazed because she was lying. She got tazed because she ran and was resisting.

DO WHAT the cop says, take a ride ride downtown. Behave yourself. And if you think the whole thing was a crock of shit get hold of a lawyer, or the ACLU, the local paper, or Al Sharpton or something.

I thought tazing was meant to be equivalent to deadly force, like a gun. If you wouldn't shoot someone for resisting arrest, especially when they haven't even shown themselves to be dangerous, why would you taze them?

It's not like we're talking about a dangerous criminal who's resisting arrest. This is someone who's either an innocent person calling about a prowler or someone who may have lied but who is still a domestic abuse victim. She hasn't harmed anyone. She isn't about to. It sounds like running away was out of fear. And frankly, considering their reaction, it doesn't sound like this fear was unwarranted.

There is definitely a bright side in all this