Talking about the Skull and Bones will get you tasered.
- Thread starter applesanity
- Start date
Another taser video floating around shows a lady being tased multiple times; the cop looks like he's walking a flopping tuna around on a leash.
Expect the taser issue to gain more traction in the media...I just heard this quote on CNN: "keeping the peace, 50,000 volts at a time."
Expect the taser issue to gain more traction in the media...I just heard this quote on CNN: "keeping the peace, 50,000 volts at a time."
The thing about Tazer use killing people is sort of a red herring. Yes, there are people who die after being Tazed. There are also people who die while being restrained who weren't Tazed.
Some die due to a phenomenon called "positional asphyxia," some die due to the lethal arrhythmias caused by drugs and/or alcohol. Each year a small number of people die suddenly while restrained. Most of these deaths are associated with individuals who were restrained while being taken into custody during a violent police encounter. Other cases of sudden restraint death involve individuals in detention or residential treatment programs who were restrained during violent encounters while also under the influence of psychiatric medications.
No one is certain how many restraint related sudden deaths occur each year. Identifying the exact cause of death is the biggest problem. The number of estimated deaths are in question but may range between 50 and 125 per year. Some estimates are higher.
Sudden death after individuals were taken into police custody has been reported for several decades (yes, even BEFORE Tazers were invented). The term "in-custody" death syndrome was first used to describe unexplained deaths when there was no apparent cause other than a police arrest. The main features of this extreme state included agitation, excitability, paranoia, aggression, great strength and non-response to pain. Such behavior is now referred to as "acute behavioral disturbance". The term 'acute" refers to a rapid onset (hours) and not gradual onset (weeks) of this behavior.
The real question is what was the in custody death rate before Tazers were employed, and what is the rate now. In actuality, the death and injury rates of both suspects AND police have fallen since Tazers became widely used.
Some die due to a phenomenon called "positional asphyxia," some die due to the lethal arrhythmias caused by drugs and/or alcohol. Each year a small number of people die suddenly while restrained. Most of these deaths are associated with individuals who were restrained while being taken into custody during a violent police encounter. Other cases of sudden restraint death involve individuals in detention or residential treatment programs who were restrained during violent encounters while also under the influence of psychiatric medications.
No one is certain how many restraint related sudden deaths occur each year. Identifying the exact cause of death is the biggest problem. The number of estimated deaths are in question but may range between 50 and 125 per year. Some estimates are higher.
Sudden death after individuals were taken into police custody has been reported for several decades (yes, even BEFORE Tazers were invented). The term "in-custody" death syndrome was first used to describe unexplained deaths when there was no apparent cause other than a police arrest. The main features of this extreme state included agitation, excitability, paranoia, aggression, great strength and non-response to pain. Such behavior is now referred to as "acute behavioral disturbance". The term 'acute" refers to a rapid onset (hours) and not gradual onset (weeks) of this behavior.
The real question is what was the in custody death rate before Tazers were employed, and what is the rate now. In actuality, the death and injury rates of both suspects AND police have fallen since Tazers became widely used.
The Tourist
Moderator
applesanity said:
joab said:
Well, well, the concept of graft rears its ugly rear. Funny how this works. I point out the idea of 'two tier justice' and we all joke about buying your freedom. Or at least your safety.
I'd like to point out a slice of history from my childhood. During the early 1960s when racial issues first made serious news, the movement began importing "freedom riders."
The idea that white, wealthy students, or prosperous college professors that would aid in voter registration was a new ploy. While The Klan and The Knights of The White Magnolia might exert force locally, a dead rich white boy was another matter.
In fact, it's the concept of the movie "Mississippi Burning."
Everybody knows that justice is never leveled with an even hand. That was proved by the folks that fished Ted Kennedy out of the river.
I'd still be doing time...
Last edited:
The Tourist
Moderator
joab said:
It's not as much fun as it might sound. They never turn the fracken lights off, and you can't pop a zit without the night nurses documenting it in your chart. The food is a tad better. No salt. I hate that.
And I wasn't really joking, either.
rampage841512
New member
+1
My exact conclusions after watching the video. At least they were nice enough not to take the batons to him or break his arms/wrist in order to force them into a position so he could be cuffed. If the idiot would have complied from the beginning he probably would have been able to stay (after being removed from the vicinity of mic) and allowed to listen to Kerry answer his question.
+2.
And for the love of god, when do some of you people expect police to have the right to get physical??
If he stood there solemn and still and just said "nope I'm not going anywhere." They still would have had the cause to remove him. In a private area when your told its time to go, ITS TIME TO GO! Would you expect an unwanted person in your home to be allowed to stay, because he was only passively resisting by refusing to leave??
By the way, what should it matter if they had a room full of cops? If they had one hand, and he was laying on the other, refusing to give it to him... TAZE his arse! why risk further scuffle that could lead to injury when the taser clearly left him unharmed!
And for the love of god, when do some of you people expect police to have the right to get physical??
If he stood there solemn and still and just said "nope I'm not going anywhere." They still would have had the cause to remove him. In a private area when your told its time to go, ITS TIME TO GO! Would you expect an unwanted person in your home to be allowed to stay, because he was only passively resisting by refusing to leave??
By the way, what should it matter if they had a room full of cops? If they had one hand, and he was laying on the other, refusing to give it to him... TAZE his arse! why risk further scuffle that could lead to injury when the taser clearly left him unharmed!
The Tourist
Moderator
Tac1911 said:
People are pretty much the same despite our outward appearance. You treat someone kindly, and they usually respond in kind, psychotics not included. You lay down the law (fairly) and the bounds are defined.
A show of force, even if implied, might have turned this into a true non-story. If the kid got mouthy and an entire professional security force turned out, things might have happened differently.
Now granted, when is enough enough. Two dozen goons on one kid and you then turn public opinion to the under-dog. It's a fine line.
BTW, I think people truly know that we're all playing the the same game. For example, who is the largest group who buy tacticals from me? Why, it's cops--of course.