Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Activist Rethinks His Position After Undertaking Use of Force Scenarios

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Christianbookworm
    replied
    Originally posted by pancreasman View Post
    Then you are eminently qualified to make a thread on Tweb denouncing liberals who prevent police from using atomic weapons.
    I hope they don't use atomic weapons. That would kill everyone in the city if used. I guess you meant automatic?

    Leave a comment:


  • Cow Poke
    replied
    Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
    "Hands up, don't shoot!" is not just a protest chant, it's actually excellent advice for not getting shot by a cop.
    EGGzackly -- the very BEST advice is to comply with the officer's demands, and sort it out later. Any attempt to resist is only going to ADD charges, or a tragic ending.

    Leave a comment:


  • Cow Poke
    replied
    Originally posted by pancreasman View Post
    Time for my regular completely unwarranted generalisation: You Americans seem to be stuck in black or white thinking. Cops are either saintly heroes doing an tough job or evil fascists. Surely the real truth is that just like everybody else, there are 'good' cops and 'bad' cops and every shade in between. Your history is chock full of examples of corrupt and violent cops as well as heroic public servants.
    Another factor to consider is that cops are human.

    I suspect any 2 cops might handle any given situation differently. I think we should avoid lionising cops in all situations because it leaves no room for 'he did what he thought was right, but he probably could have handled it better.'
    And not all cops have the same training or experience, or physical strength or agility, or any number of other variables. And you never seem to be trained in the exact scenario in academy as presents itself in real life.

    There is also the adrenalin factor and the "fight or flight" response with which a human has to deal.

    I believe I am qualified as an expert in these matters since I have watched many episodes of 'Law and Order'.
    I'm afraid that (and other dramatized shows) is where too many people get their "knowledge" of police procedures.

    Leave a comment:


  • Mountain Man
    replied
    Originally posted by Adrift View Post
    "Hands up, don't shoot!" is not just a protest chant, it's actually excellent advice for not getting shot by a cop.

    Leave a comment:


  • Cow Poke
    replied
    Probably something like "well these guys weren't trained for the situations, they were civilians, cops are supposed to be trained for them"
    Originally posted by square_peg View Post
    Would a mature, reasonable person care to provide a reasonable answer to why such a reply would supposedly be flawed?

    I would really appreciate it if you would be a bit more circumspect in your quoting... the way you had this laid out, it APPEARED that this was part of what I said. It was not.

    Leave a comment:


  • pancreasman
    replied
    Originally posted by Zymologist View Post
    I'd be interested in learning more too. I really don't know anything about the subject.
    Then you are eminently qualified to make a thread on Tweb denouncing liberals who prevent police from using atomic weapons.

    Leave a comment:


  • Zymologist
    replied
    Originally posted by KingsGambit View Post
    I really do want to get a better view on this because I do assume that if there was an easier way to use tasers more widely, it would be done because it would reduce liability big time.
    I'd be interested in learning more too. I really don't know anything about the subject.

    Leave a comment:


  • KingsGambit
    replied
    Originally posted by Zymologist View Post
    I don't know; I was just commenting on the apparent implication being that no reasons whatsoever were ever given.
    I really do want to get a better view on this because I do assume that if there was an easier way to use tasers more widely, it would be done because it would reduce liability big time.

    Leave a comment:


  • Zymologist
    replied
    Originally posted by KingsGambit View Post
    But would these be applicable to a relatively calm situation such as the one described?
    I don't know; I was just commenting on the apparent implication being that no reasons whatsoever were ever given.

    Leave a comment:


  • pancreasman
    replied
    Originally posted by Raphael View Post
    Of course the Aussies also have the problem of occasionally setting people on fire with using a tazer (but then trying to attack the cops by throwing petrol at them to set them alight is stupid)
    http://www.news.com.au/national/rona...-1225752482311
    Yes, the key word there is 'occasionally'. I must say I am (generally) proud of our police who seem to be able to handle most situations without killing anyone. I don't think our police are probably any better than the US, but we and NZ have a culture where ending someone's life is almost unthinkable.

    Leave a comment:


  • KingsGambit
    replied
    Originally posted by Zymologist View Post
    If we're thinking of the same thread, I remember multiple reasons given for why tasing may not be a viable option.
    But would these be applicable to a relatively calm situation such as the one described?

    Leave a comment:


  • Zymologist
    replied
    Originally posted by square_peg View Post
    This is all fine and dandy, but...you didn't actually provide an answer. So, I can't help but ask, why indeed couldn't an officer resort to tasing? In the second scenario, when he had to break up a fight and one of the men started moving towards him, I noticed that the man didn't seem to be approaching the officer particularly quickly (at the very least, he certainly wasn't sprinting at him), and that the officer walked rather close to the fight. I've been trying to come up with possible alternatives on my own, but so far it seems that it would be common sense to give yourself some space when approaching someone who's potentially violent. Wouldn't this officer-for-a-day have erred by walking too close? If he'd given himself more space, and then a man started walking towards him, what exactly would've prevented a taser from sufficing? It'd be one thing if the man was crazed out of his mind on drugs and was running so quickly that he could possibly go right through the taser, or that the taser would miss, but he wasn't moving that quickly.
    If we're thinking of the same thread, I remember multiple reasons given for why tasing may not be a viable option.

    Leave a comment:


  • Raphael
    replied
    Originally posted by pancreasman View Post
    Time for my regular completely unwarranted generalisation: You Americans seem to be stuck in black or white thinking. Cops are either saintly heroes doing an tough job or evil fascists. Surely the real truth is that just like everybody else, there are 'good' cops and 'bad' cops and every shade in between. Your history is chock full of examples of corrupt and violent cops as well as heroic public servants.

    I suspect any 2 cops might handle any given situation differently. I think we should avoid lionising cops in all situations because it leaves no room for 'he did what he thought was right, but he probably could have handled it better.'

    I believe I am qualified as an expert in these matters since I have watched many episodes of 'Law and Order'.
    Of course the Aussies also have the problem of occasionally setting people on fire with using a tazer (but then trying to attack the cops by throwing petrol at them to set them alight is stupid)
    http://www.news.com.au/national/rona...-1225752482311

    Leave a comment:


  • Raphael
    replied
    In New Zealand, our police officers generally are unarmed. Some have access to a firearm that is kept in a lockbox in the patrol car, a few are armed with tazers, and they have to be called in if a tazer is required, and if more serious weapons are needed, the Armed Offenders Squad is called in.

    That being said what I don't understand is why they don't equip our officers with Tippmann TiPX pistols, and have pepperballs in them.

    It's non-lethal, less controversial than a Tazer (although the tazer does have the added advantage of having a built-in camera every time it's fired)

    Leave a comment:


  • KingsGambit
    replied
    Indeed, it may seem obvious to gun experts why tasers can't suffice in situations like the one described where nothing was occurring rapidly, but this isn't obvious to me, either.

    Leave a comment:

Related Threads

Collapse

Topics Statistics Last Post
Started by little_monkey, Yesterday, 04:19 PM
7 responses
65 views
0 likes
Last Post Sparko
by Sparko
 
Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
42 responses
251 views
0 likes
Last Post whag
by whag
 
Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
25 responses
108 views
0 likes
Last Post rogue06
by rogue06
 
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
33 responses
194 views
0 likes
Last Post Roy
by Roy
 
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
73 responses
338 views
0 likes
Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
Working...
X