Even I don't always agree with my opinion

 

Should Tasers Be Banned? Let The Criminals Decide!

18
Posted December 20, 2008 by jim young in Lifestyle

– jim young

Ban them. It’s that simple. I don’t have any problem with that.

What do the cops need tasers for anyway?

Their guns are safely holstered and can only be removed under very tight restrictions, but gee – they still have their bare hands to capture the bad guys with.

The bad guys, who are pumped full of drugs and or adrenaline giving them super human strength that can make it extremely difficult for even 4 or 5 cops to take down and often at great risk of personal injury to themselves.

The bad guys, who have no regard for the safety of the others around them, the cops, the public, their friends and even themselves.

The bad guys, who no matter what heinous crime they have committed will be given the opportunity to calm down and later apologise and make up a whole bunch of excuses as to why it wasn’t really their fault anyway.

Yeah – there’s some bad cops on power trips that will misuse the taser. But that’s not an issue about the taser, that’s an issue of misuse of police equipment. Deal with that issue separately.

Yeah – there’s some cops who will use poor judgement in their use of the taser. But that’s not an issue about the taser, that’s an issue of poor judgement. Deal with that issue separately.

Yeah – there will be times when an accident with a taser will occur. But that’s not an issue about the taser, that’s an issue about accidents. Deal with that issue separately.

Still, if you want to, go ahead and ban the tasers. But if you choose to do that, let the cops have free use of their guns.

Good Golly, Miss Molly – you’re sending these men out there to protect us. Don’t send them out empty handed. Give them the tools they need to do their jobs safely.

Let’s conduct a poll among the bad guys and see if they would rather take their chances on being hit with a taser or a gun.

Since the bad guys are the ones that will be most affected by it, let them then decide if tasers should be banned when given this alternative.

– 30 –


18 Comments


  1.  
    martman

    The problem with tasers are that they don’t have to necessarily be abused to cause death. Cops don’t know who might have a weak heart or a heart disorder and often, after many years of drug abuse (which is the case for many criminals being tazed) their heart will simply stop, even if it was a low voltage taze. Cops don’t know a persons medical history, so in my opinion tasers should be banned.

    That being said, there are many other weapons that have finished their testing phases and could easily jump in to replace the taser. I suggest that the police force start looking at those more. For example, rubber bullets hurt like hell and would certainly bring a criminal to his or her knees begging for mercy. There are other weapons as well, we shouldn’t be so fixated on the “taser” simply because it was the first one marketed. Technology evolves, and so must we.




  2.  
    Jim

    Thanks for your insight martman.

    I still say, abuse and bad cops aside, I guess that’s just the chance you take if you decide
    a) to be one of the bad guys and
    b) resist arrest.

    Don’t want to be tasered? You know you got a bad heart – lie the fuck down and assume the position.

    If there’s a suitable alternate to the taser then by all means replace them with that for all I care. But don’t ban the taser until you give the cops a suitable replacement.

    Cops are already at a disadvantage. Take a high speed chase for example. The bad guys just have to drive as fast as they can. The cops have to watch out for stop signs, kids on bikes, the lady with the baby carriage and so on.

    They are often in a situation where they are damned if they do and damned if they don’t.

    Besides, I’ll bet you dollars to donuts – whatever you replace the taser with – someone will find fault with that as well.




  3.  
    martman

    Jim,

    While I see where you are coming from with this (no one likes criminals to get away), taser abuse and bad police are only a small problem when it comes to this.

    Often enough, tasers being used responsibly and “by the book” can often kill. You suggest that everyone knows they have a bad heart, but this is not the case. In fact, I coached a hockey team where a young and seemingly healthy 15 year old collapsed dead from a heart attack on the ice. Neither he or his parents knew of the defect in his heart which had occurred at birth. So to make a point out of this, many people are not aware of their poor health if it has not yet manifest itself with symptoms.

    That being said, should criminals resist arrest? Hell no, but most criminals are not rational people in the first place. Some of them are so messed on booze or drugs at the time of arrest that they can’t even understand what they are being told to do. Should they consider their actions beforehand? We both know the answer to this, but regardless some people are just stupid. Shouldn’t kill them for stupidity, just lock em’ away.

    Also, you mention in your blog that gun use should be more free if they are to ban tasers. Well it may surprise you that I agree with you on this. Shooting in non vital places (leg, or foot for instance) will certainly bring the offender to the ground while being less likely to kill than a taser. The problem here arises if police miss their shot and kill the perp accidently, or even shoot an innocent bystander. It would also give cops and excuse to kill, and then say “oops I missed” afterwards. Other than those, it sounds good.

    I just want to finish with your statement that cops are at a disadvantage because the bad guys get to drive as fast as they want to escape pursuit. Well, don’t forget that cops have tools to their advantage as well such as helicopter support (if warranted), roadblocks, as well as the assistance of other police officers.

    In sum, I respect your opinion, and certainly see where you are coming from on this issue, but I really have to disagree with you on the taser issue.




  4.  
    Jim

    Actually my comment on taking away tasers and letting the cops use their guns was intended to be sarcasm. But you bring up a good point about the dangers of the cops missing their shots.

    But couldn’t the same thing happen with “rubber bullets”?

    I’ll bet you could put an eye with one of those things.

    Or worse – put the eye out of an innocent bystander. What if a rubber bullet hit the innocent bystander’s temple? Even blanks have been known to kill people.

    So I don’t think that’s necessarily the ideal replacement either.

    And as far as the cops that would use the excuse “Ooops, I missed” when they intentionaly shot to kill – once again that falls under the issue of police abuse and needs to be dealt with separately.

    My remarks are only directed towards the conscientious “good” cops. I don’t think I’m being naive in thinking that some do exist.

    You mentioned the unfortunate case of the 15 year old kid that died of a heart attack not knowing he had a weak heart. The point is he wasn’t in the act of committing a crime.

    Even so, I’m sure you’re not suggesting that you take away hockey because some kids don’t know they have a bad heart.

    I just don’t have a lot of sympathy for those “stupid” people as you correctly identified them when they are endangering the public AND the men we have hired to protect us.

    The public and the cops deserve first right of protection.




  5.  
    martman

    You make some good points, and I agree that police protection should always come first. Come visit my site if you ever get a chance at http://canadianpolitical.blogspot.com

    Thanks for your replies, I enjoyed the intelligent debate.




  6.  

    It’s attitudes like the ones exhibited by this blogger that help give police a bad name. They show the public that police officers care first about their own safety, even though their first duty is in fact to protect and serve the public. They show that officers see persons WHO ARE INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY AND HAVE NOT BEEN CONVICTED OF ANYTHING as “bad guys” who they are free to physically harm and whose lives they are free to endanger if it makes the officers’ jobs safer or easier. That is fascist thinking that has no place in public service in a free society. Shame on this blog author.




  7.  
    Jim

    I think you missed the point starchild.

    First of all I was not suggesting that the police see these guys as “bad guys” – “Bad Guys” was MY definition. But at the extreme other end are you going to tell me that somebody pointing a gun at a cop’s head is Mr. Fucking Congeniality even though he hasn’t been proven guilty of any crime?

    And I did not mean to imply that the police are concerned with their own safety first. Once again that was MY interpretation.

    These guys (bad cops excluded) lay their lives on the line for us everyday. Yeah – sometimes they have to make life and death decisions and they often have to do it on the spur of the moment. All I’m saying is cut them a little bit of slack for Christ’s sake! And give them the tools they need – not just to protect the public but to protect themselves so they can continue to protect the public.

    Give them the tools they need to bring these so-called “innocent until proven guilty” thugs in to court where they can plead their case.

    The intent of the taser is NOT to harm – but to bring the “innocent until proven guilty” suspect under control until they can be fairly tried. If they don’t want to be tasered – all they have to do is cooperate.

    Yes, mistakes WILL be made – I can guarantee you that. And those people will have their day in court.

    Yes, bad cops will take advantage of their power. (Reread my original posting for clarification on how that should be handled.)

    But just what the fuck does “innocent until proven guilty” mean anyway? That concept, in its truest sense, would imply that no one could even be arrested in the first place. At best the cops would have no more authority than to “politely request” anyone they suspected of committing a crime to “please appear in court if it’s not too inconvenient for you…”

    Don’t be such a naïve moron.

    The opposite end of fascism is anarchy. I wouldn’t want to live in a country that is ruled by either.




  8.  
    Anonymous

    I agree with Jim




  9.  
    Anonymous

    PS: Take a chill pill Star child. You probably wouldn’t have been able to do ANY better then Jim.
    Bravo Jim,




  10.  
    Jim

    Thanks for the support guys (or gals as the case may be.)

    For the record I didn’t mean to imply that “I” personally could do any good. Some people might see me as one of those guys that sits on the sidelines and critcizes – but doesn’t get off their ass to help the situation.

    But I hope that isn’t the case.

    All I really want to do is spark some controversy, get some dialogue going and just maybe all together we can figure out what the fuck the right thing to do really is – for the benefit of us all.

    Starchild has a right to his/her opinion and I’m sure he/she has a lot to contribute. I just don’t happen to agree with him/her on this point. But I hope that doesn’t stop Starchild from speaking up again.

    I welcome all points of view – even those that don’t agree wtih me.




  11.  
    Jacob

    Personally, I think we should use Tranquilizer guns instead of tasers. This way it doesnt harm anyone in such a manner as the Taser does.




  12.  
    Jim

    Hey Jacob – thanks for your input.

    Yeah – I don’t have a problem replacing tasers with tranquilizer guns. Just so long as you give the cops “something” to work with to level the playing field.

    But, as I think I said before, I’m sure there will be just as many opponents to tranquilzer guns as there are to tasers.

    For example an overdose of the tranquilizer could be fatal.

    Or maybe even a normal dose might kill someone who had a particular allergy to the tranquilizer.

    Then again, the needle could put someone’s eye out if the dart missed it’s mark.

    And that still doesn’t prevent abuse, misuse or improper training which as I pointed out before – isn’t even really the issue here.

    All of a sudden we’re right back where we started from with the tasers.

    But what we really need are more people like you that are willing to at least suggest alternatives that might be worth considering.

    And that’s all I’m really trying to do here. Get some dialogue going so we can all work together to find the best solution that resolves the issues for the greater good of all.




  13.  
    Mike

    The point of the tazer is to effectively and almost instantaneously immobilize someone. The tazer does this by locking the skeletal muscles as soon as the current begins flowing. I’ve been tazered before as part of training and I was fine – but I couldn’t move during the “shocking” experience. As soon as the tazer is turned off, the experience is over completely – no damage, no injury, no pain. A tranquilizer fails in these two ways: one, it isn’t immediate, and two, it’s gonna last a long time. In fact, the tazer is often more effective at “freezing” a person than shooting them is (other than a head shot). Regarding “non-lethal gunshot wounds” – that’s TV make-believe. You can accidentally hit someone in the femoral artery in their leg: they’ll be dead in 30 -60 seconds, but they won’t stop fighting until then. Or you might hit them in the brachial artery: they’ll be dead in 1 – 2 minutes, but they won’t stop fighting. Shock will kick in and they’ll be an angry person with nothing left to lose. Besides, when a police officer is scared enough to think they have to shoot someone, their aim is not going to be that crisp idealized performance they have on the shooting range. Remember the last time you were so scared you were literary shaking? Now try to keep that mindset and focus on a moving target and have nice trigger pull while focusing on your front and rear sights on your gun. It’s just not gonna happen. Coppers have a hard enough time trying to hit center mass from a few yards away, much less aim for a non-lethal extremity, if such a thing existed. Don’t assume that “pain compliance” like rubber bullets, pressure points, etc, works on these crazed people in the streets, either…. because it often doesn’t. – A Deputy Sheriff




  14.  
    Jim

    Hey Mike,

    Thanks for some very insightful comments obviously based on first hand experience.

    You get my vote. Tasers it is.




  15.  

    Hi, good post. I have been wondering about this issue,so thanks for posting.




  16.  
    Very angry mom

    Yeah, and who is supposed to help a permanently disabled surviving taser victim, sue “bad” police, after they admit they made a mistake, and did not even file any criminal charges. Civil litigation costs money – about $250.00 per hour. Have you tried suing a Municipal, Provincial, State, or Federal Corporation?




  17.  
    Very angry mom

    The “deputy sheriff” who wrote “As soon as the tazer is turned off, the experience is over completely – no damage, no injury, no pain” obviously possesses no common sense. Tasers have caused extensive, long-lasting neurological damage, deep festering burns, and leave life-long scars. The darts are not sterilized – they introduce bacterial infection. Tasers are illegal – at least in Canada. They were never approved of by our Governor General, Senate, nor any of the electorate.




  18.  
    Jim

    I don’t think bullets are sterilized either.

    “Bad cops” are “Bad cops” whether they’re using bullets or tasers.

    But when it comes right down to it, I’d rather face a “Bad cop” with a taser than a “Bad cop” with a gun.





Leave a Response