Taser incident in Canada... again.

[Mitch]

There has been another Taser incident in Canada. This time involving a Polish immigrant who was killed by the Taser.
Read: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2007/11/19/bc-taserinquiry.html
Do you think taser should be outlawed?

I think tasers should be taken out of the hands of police. The problem with this incident is that the man was unarmed and there were 4 POLICE OFFICERS! Could they not take him down without a taser?! If they couldn't do that they should not be police officers. Taser create an attitude of, "I have this taser, it's not gonna kill him and it's easier than tackling him", which is a big problem because they CAN kill people.

What is everyones views?

[Ed Jones]

Shocking!

Obligatory distasteful joke out of the way, they're a hell of a lot better than other police weapons! My gut is saying that i'd prefer been tasered than bludgeoned with a nightstick.

[Lunar_fantasies]

Police brutality as a whole is a problem. To solve this police officers should have less power. I find that most police officers and like wise most figures of authority like to power trip. Higher penalty's would be something id like to see for officers. To maybe deflate there heads and bring them down to earth. It would be nice see them judged by citizens instead of there friends.

[Horus]

The taser provides a problem in that it poses a risk to anyone with a less-than-healthy heart. This doesn't just affect people who are morbidly obese or anorexic; take a look at the news and you will see perfectly healthy professional sports stars collapsing on the field of play. Heart defects are present in a great number of the population.

I see the taser as REQUIRED against only one sort of person; a terrorist. The difference between a terrorist and a general miscreant is that the terrorist has full intentions to carry out their attempted crime, and the general criminal can usually be open to negotiation and discussion. You must incapacitate the terrorist, because terrorists pose an immediate physical threat to the population, whether it be with a bomb or a type of firearm. A crowbar or a baseball bat means nothing.

[Locke]

To further this subject the changes instituted by the Border Services Agency are:
-More patrols
-More cameras
This does not seem like the answer to me. They are not addressing the root problem, which is the tazer itself. This will only increase such incidents, since cameras might be useful in the judicial area of the case, but the person is still dead. And increasing patrols might lead to less invasive control procedures, but I remain skeptical since the initial incident already included 4 officers.

[adam99]

Police brutality as a whole is a problem. To solve this police officers should have less power. I find that most police officers and like wise most figures of authority like to power trip. Higher penalty's would be something id like to see for officers. To maybe deflate there heads and bring them down to earth. It would be nice see them judged by citizens instead of there friends.

Police brutality is indeed a problem, but I don't see the solution as bringing high penalties to them.

I don't think that the average policeman should be armed, period. There are far too many police around (both in my country, the UK, and other countries in the world) that are just too irresponsible to be entrusted with any weapon that can end someones life. My solution is to have unarmed "normal" police officers, but to have more, specialist firearms units to be called in if needs be. Now, I'm sure many people will jump at me and say "well what about Stockwell tube station.. that officer was trained" and yes, even trained officers make mistakes, but there comes a time when we have to let people do their job. Personally, I would feel a lot safer having MI5, or the "armed police" units confronting terrorists than I would the everyday bobby on the street pointing a gun at them.

Just my opinions, anyway.

[Locke]

Police brutality is indeed a problem, but I don't see the solution as bringing high penalties to them.

I don't think that the average policeman should be armed, period. There are far too many police around (both in my country, the UK, and other countries in the world) that are just too irresponsible to be entrusted with any weapon that can end someones life. My solution is to have unarmed "normal" police officers, but to have more, specialist firearms units to be called in if needs be. Now, I'm sure many people will jump at me and say "well what about Stockwell tube station.. that officer was trained" and yes, even trained officers make mistakes, but there comes a time when we have to let people do their job. Personally, I would feel a lot safer having MI5, or the "armed police" units confronting terrorists than I would the everyday bobby on the street pointing a gun at them.

Just my opinions, anyway.


A good point. The argument of "terror" is rendered null as policemen should not even be dealing with such situations.

[Gwendl]

Cops need to have guns here in the US. Most criminals have guns and the police would be pretty defenseless without them.

I think the whole taser thing is bad training and marketing. It's marketted as a "safe" alternative to shooting. It doesn't seem like some understand the risks involved, as far as what it does to one's health. Case in point, that guy who got tased in the college library and they are yelling for him to get up. You can't get up if you've been tased. That's the whole point.

Better training would go a long way...

[Locke]

Cops need to have guns here in the US. Most criminals have guns and the police would be pretty defenseless without them.
That simply obviates the answer: stricter gun control. The "right" to carry a gun in self defense is illogical as disallowing firearms would lead to a much lower violent crime rate.
Not to mention the eradication of poverty, which would positively obfuscate much of the "anti-crime" initiatives taken by the government.
Anyways, enough lambasting the U.S. administration; my point is that crime can more easily be reduced through prevention or rehabilitation, not crackdowns.

[Cattraknoff]

That simply obviates the answer: stricter gun control. The "right" to carry a gun in self defense is illogical as disallowing firearms would lead to a much lower violent crime rate.
Not to mention the eradication of poverty, which would positively obfuscate much of the "anti-crime" initiatives taken by the government.
Anyways, enough lambasting the U.S. administration; my point is that crime can more easily be reduced through prevention or rehabilitation, not crackdowns.

Most guns used for illegal purposes are acquired illegally.

The American right to bear arms' purpose far outweighs the relatively few who would abuse it.

[Mitch]

Cops need to have guns here in the US. Most criminals have guns and the police would be pretty defenseless without them.

I think the whole taser thing is bad training and marketing. It's marketted as a "safe" alternative to shooting. It doesn't seem like some understand the risks involved, as far as what it does to one's health. Case in point, that guy who got tased in the college library and they are yelling for him to get up. You can't get up if you've been tased. That's the whole point.

Better training would go a long way...
More guns on the street, ya that will solve many problem... NOT
The entire point of guns is to kill, stricter gun control will reduce the number of killings. See, now what are you going to do with a handgun? Go hunting? No. Handguns are for killing other people.
The reduction of the amount of guns on the streets and the police's hands will drastically reduce the number of violent crimes.
Oh, also, a bunch of the guns in the criminal's hands are from the police.
(Watch Bowling for Columbine)

As for the Tazer, training will not solve any problems, the police are already trained and know what a Tazer can do. As I stated previously, many people believe that the Tazer is safe and can't kill anyone, but in fact it can. When going after an unarmed criminal, why use a Tazer? Because it's easier. That's it. It's easier. No other reason at all.

[Ed Jones]

Many people are killed by dishwashers every year, but we don't make them illegal.

For law enforcement agencies, the use of firearms or tazers are usually last resort. There will always be fatalities. There's no way of stopping that. Fact - if you walk by a police officer with a handgun, you're going to think twice about committing a crime.

You are correct in saying that the police are educated in what a tazer can do. But that doesn't mean that taking them away will reduce the problem. By the same logic, when chasing down an unarmed criminal, who's to say a stiff baton the cranium won't do the same or more damage.

[Locke]

Most guns used for illegal purposes are acquired illegally.

The American right to bear arms' purpose far outweighs the relatively few who would abuse it.

That's a large assumption (as was my statement, but you cannot refute an assumption with an assumption.)

[Cattraknoff]

That's a large assumption (as was my statement, but you cannot refute an assumption with an assumption.)

The right to keep and bear arms was intended to empower the people to be able to rid themselves of their government if it became unjust, corrupt, etc.

I think that's more important than the little violence which would happen anyway. Guns can always be acquired illegally, they will always be able to be acquired illegally. Mainly it would be through some form of organized crime, such as gangs, but I'm sure they would be able to get guns to most people who want them.

[Ed Jones]

Importantly, you cannot assume that if there were stricter firearm laws, that the violence would not take place.

Here in the UK there are HUGE problems with knife crime.

[Locke]

The right to keep and bear arms was intended to empower the people to be able to rid themselves of their government if it became unjust, corrupt, etc.

I think that's more important than the little violence which would happen anyway. Guns can always be acquired illegally, they will always be able to be acquired illegally. Mainly it would be through some form of organized crime, such as gangs, but I'm sure they would be able to get guns to most people who want them.

That's not a good argument against stricter gun control. Only if arms were declared illicit would the sort of person attributed to owning guns (and, who I assume, make up a large majority of gun owners) shake themselves and rise up against the government.
But, as this thread was initially concerned with, I do agree with the police being armed.

[Cattraknoff]

That's not a good argument against stricter gun control. Only if arms were declared illicit would the sort of person attributed to owning guns (and, who I assume, make up a large majority of gun owners) shake themselves and rise up against the government.
But, as this thread was initially concerned with, I do agree with the police being armed.

But would they? The ignorance of the masses is ever increasing. I have a feeling they will be declared illicit, as there have already been brought about a couple of exceptions to this part of the American constitution. A constitution wherein any right granted by it was not supposed to be revoked.

[Locke]

But would they? The ignorance of the masses is ever increasing. I have a feeling they will be declared illicit, as there have already been brought about a couple of exceptions to this part of the American constitution. A constitution wherein any right granted by it was not supposed to be revoked.

Although my argument was expressed somewhat jocularily, I have to disagree.
The constitution itself is a obscure document which has descended into desuetude and obsolescence while remaining extremely crucial. It is too easy for those with power to circumvent it, because as you said, "the ignorance of the masses is ever increasing.
Although, if there is one aspect of thought which extreme ignorance encourages it is extreme coveting of physical things and a complete disregard for mental things. So gun-toting derelicts would definitely rebel in some way if armament laws were imposed.

[octoparrot]

If guns kill, and tasors could kill. how's about guns that fire rubber bullets? they dont kill, but they do the same job guns do.

[Locke]

but they do the same job guns do.

Which is, I presume, killing? A strange contradiction.

[octoparrot]

Which is, I presume, killing? A strange contradiction.

what i mean is, guns that fire rubber bullets imoblise criminals without any risk of seath or serious injury.

[Cattraknoff]

what i mean is, guns that fire rubber bullets imoblise criminals without any risk of seath or serious injury.

A rubber bullet in the temple will certainly kill some one; in the testes and it could cause serious damage there (possibly sterility); the kidneys and they could be damaged; the eyes and they could be blinded. There is less risk, granted, but there is still risk.

[octoparrot]

A rubber bullet in the temple will certainly kill some one; in the testes and it could cause serious damage there (possibly sterility); the kidneys and they could be damaged; the eyes and they could be blinded. There is less risk, granted, but there is still risk.

at least its the least deadly of non-leathal wepons. we cant let coppers go empty handed, they need protection.

[Coll]

Least deadly of non-lethal weapons?

I'm pretty sure pillows, sock-em boppers, and nightsticks are less lethal than air rifles.

[octoparrot]

Least deadly of non-lethal weapons?

I'm pretty sure pillows, sock-em boppers, and nightsticks are less lethal than air rifles.

you cant defend yourself against someone with a gun with a nightstick.

[Cattraknoff]

you cant defend yourself against someone with a gun with a nightstick.

Perhaps not, but we can all feel better that no person's rights are being violated.

[octoparrot]

Perhaps not, but we can all feel better that no person's rights are being violated.

what about the rights of the police officers?

[Cattraknoff]

what about the rights of the police officers?

When they put on that uniform, they cease being a person and become an avatar of the law and justice.

The question is what to do about those lacking a uniform.

[octoparrot]

When they put on that uniform, they cease being a person and become an avatar of the law and justice.

The question is what to do about those lacking a uniform.

what exactly do you mean by that?

[Cattraknoff]

what exactly do you mean by that?

Those lacking a uniform are difficult to distinguish from people. Perhaps they're a half-breed between a person and the law.

[Coll]

It's similar to how the Others are the ultimate representation of evil and ice/cold, whereas the wights which are summoned by the Others are simply people perverted by the powers over death that the Others control.

Whenever a policeman kills someone, he may raise him as an undead half-cop.