Utah HP tasers John Gardner

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by woot

Then you immediately shoot them full of electricity without a second thought, obviously.

Now if the citizen had been really smart, when he was off camera, he should have been screaming bloody murder. "I'm not Rodney King. I'm not Rodney King."

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by woot

Then you immediately shoot them full of electricity without a second thought, obviously.

Finally- we agree.

[woot]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

So you are mad that he didn't go UFC on the dude? That exposes the officer to MORE harm (particularly where, as here, the suspect is bigger than the cop), and could result in much more harm to the suspect as well.

I think you are under the impression that the Vulcan death grip is a viable possibility.

What happens if the guy fights back on the "non-injurious" restraint technique?

Have you ever taken a course in this stuff? It's really not that hard. The point of a restraint is that it allows a smaller man to control a larger one without risk of injury to either party. I worked at a safehouse several years ago and had to take a day-long course. I would hope that cops have to do a little more training than that. Are you happy with the taser situation?

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by woot

Have you ever taken a course in this stuff? It's really not that hard. The point of a restraint is that it allows a smaller man to control a larger one without risk of injury to either party. I worked at a safehouse several years ago and had to take a day-long course. I would hope that cops have to do a little more training than that. Are you happy with the taser situation?

Brilliant!!!

All we need to do now is teach the guys in the Ultimate Fighting Championship these super-special techniques that guarantee that there won't be any risk of injury to anyone! Imagine all the UFC titles you could have won by now with your secret restraining methods...

[woot]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Brilliant!!!

All we need to do now is teach the guys in the Ultimate Fighting Championship these secret techniques that guarantee that there won't be any risk of injury to anyone! Imagine all the UFC titles you could have won by now with your secret restraining methods...

I know you're just trying to win an argument here, but you're obviously ignorant on this topic. You should look into it.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by woot

I know you're just trying to win an argument here, but you're obviously ignorant on this topic. You should look into it.

It isn't being "ignorant" on the topic, and saying so doesn't make it true.

You are asking the cop to physically restrain a larger man (who could also be trained in how to evade physical restraints and fight back) while ignoring the fact that he has a taser that provides him with a near 100% certainty of avoiding any personal harm. That would be a stupid thing to do.

Again- if your personal restraint program taught you that it was foolproof, you may want a refund. If it was foolproof, then nobody could ever get hurt while employing those techniques. Clearly, that is not the case. The risk of harm to the officer is exponentially higher by employing your technique than it is by using the taser. That is just a fact. You may not like the use of the taser. The cop doesn't like the possibility of dying on a routine traffic stop. If things escalate to the point where an arrest is going to be made, and the person is not cooperating, I don't see what is wrong with using the taser absent exigent circumstances.

[woot]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

It isn't being "ignorant" on the topic, and saying so doesn't make it true.

You are asking the cop to physically restrain a larger man (who could also be trained in how to evade physical restraints and fight back) while ignoring the fact that he has a taser that provides him with a near 100% certainty of avoiding any personal harm. That would be a stupid thing to do.

Again- if your personal restraint program taught you that it was foolproof, you may want a refund. If it was foolproof, then nobody could ever get hurt while employing those techniques. Clearly, that is not the case. The risk of harm to the officer is exponentially higher by employing your technique than it is by using the taser. That is just a fact. You may not like the use of the taser. The cop doesn't like the possibility of dying on a routine traffic stop. If things escalate to the point where an arrest is going to be made, and the person is not cooperating, I don't see what is wrong with using the taser absent exigent circumstances.

Your argument would make sense if the safety of the cop was more important than the safety of the other guy. It's not. Restraints aren't foolproof, but if performed correctly, the risk of injury is far less than it is with a taser, which runs about 100%.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by woot

Your argument would make sense if the safety of the cop was more important than the safety of the other guy. It's not. Restraints aren't foolproof, but if performed correctly, the risk of injury is far less than it is with a taser, which runs about 100%.

The safety of the cop IS more important in a situation like this where a person is breaking the law. Why would you disagree with that?

If a criminal shoots at a cop, can he not shoot back? If he can, why? Aren't you claiming the criminal's safety is more important? Woot- you are just digging a deeper and deeper hole.

For society to function, there must be respect for law and order. Police represent law and order. If we are going to say that the lives of police are inherently less valuable than those of criminals, we are going to find ourselves without many police and with a lot of lawlessness.

Restraints AREN'T foolproof as you admitted. Their use expose the officer to a much higher element of risk than needs to be present if a taser is an option. The "risk of injury" isn't anywhere near 100% with a taser, unless you are defining injury as something that hurts (a pretty broad and meaningless definition, since a physical restraint hurts too AND comes with the added bonus of being riskier).

[woot]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

The safety of the cop IS more important in a situation like this where a person is breaking the law. Why would you disagree with that?

If a criminal shoots at a cop, can he not shoot back? If he can, why? Aren't you claiming the criminal's safety is more important? Woot- you are just digging a deeper and deeper hole.

For society to function, there must be respect for law and order. Police represent law and order. If we are going to say that the lives of police are inherently less valuable than those of criminals, we are going to find ourselves without many police and with a lot of lawlessness.

Restraints AREN'T foolproof as you admitted. Their use expose the officer to a much higher element of risk than needs to be present if a taser is an option. The "risk of injury" isn't anywhere near 100% with a taser, unless you are defining injury as something that hurts (a pretty broad and meaningless definition, since a physical restraint hurts too AND comes with the added bonus of being riskier).

That's a pretty disingenuous analogy. Obviously the cop has the right to defend himself. He doesn't have the right to assault a civilian who poses no threat to him.

This conversation has grown boring. My position is pretty clear. I think that cops have a responsibility to rise above petty disputes. You seem to think that because being a cop is dangerous, they have the right to do anything they want if they encounter anything other than immediate obedience. I disagree, but have some football to watch now.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by woot

That's a pretty disingenuous analogy. Obviously the cop has the right to defend himself. He doesn't have the right to assault a civilian who poses no threat to him.

This conversation has grown boring. My position is pretty clear. I think that cops have a responsibility to rise above petty disputes. You seem to think that because being a cop is dangerous, they have the right to do anything they want if they encounter anything other than immediate obedience. I disagree, but have some football to watch now.

You are ASSUMING there is no threat to the cop, and you are back to assuming there was an assualt here!!! You do love those baseless assumptions.

And again, why does the cop have a right to defend himself if his life is inherently less valuable than that of the criminal shooting? That IS what you said.