Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(NBC News)   St. Louis City Police Chief Sam Dotson sadly gives a lesson in how to handle an officer involved shooting with a direct detailed account of another shooting   ( nbcnews.com) divider line
    More: Scary  
•       •       •

12517 clicks; posted to Main » on 19 Aug 2014 at 9:16 PM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



581 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2014-08-19 11:24:38 PM  
 
2014-08-19 11:25:00 PM  

Yogimus: Cyclometh:

You really don't understand how words work.


At this point, I'm not even sure what y'all are debating. Tasers are deadly, but they are significantly less likely to kill than a gun. I don't think that can be debated.

Usage of them can though.

Frankly, I think its just semantics at this point, and arguing semantics has never accomplished a thing.
 
2014-08-19 11:25:08 PM  

Mad_Radhu: Bit'O'Gristle: 1. Cops should ...or should be trained to grapple, fence, tase, attempt to disarm, or otherwise let a knife wielding asshole within 10 feet of them, have a cat scan, i think you have lost connection with natural realty.

Seems to work fine in the rest of the world:

[i.dailymail.co.uk image 468x346]

[i.dailymail.co.uk image 468x352]

[i.dailymail.co.uk image 468x320]

And those countries have lower crime rates to boot, so the cops apparently are doing their jobs despite not shooting everyone who seems mildly threatening. So are cops in the US incompetent, or are they just a bunch of scared little pussies wearing big-boy uniforms?


I don't mean to be that guy...but that exchange didn't end cleanly:

Cornered by police, he lashed out - attacking a patrol car and stabbing one officer before he was finally wrestled to the ground.

Given the kind of damage we know a knife can do...
 
2014-08-19 11:25:20 PM  
Guy did it to himself. Cops were in the right. Dude came close enough and didn't put the knife down and approached them. They weren't gonna hug.
 
2014-08-19 11:25:30 PM  
I love how people who don't even know what the legal definition of "deadly force" is are lecturing me on not understanding the meaning of words.
 
2014-08-19 11:26:05 PM  

Mad_Radhu: Bit'O'Gristle: 1. Cops should ...or should be trained to grapple, fence, tase, attempt to disarm, or otherwise let a knife wielding asshole within 10 feet of them, have a cat scan, i think you have lost connection with natural realty.

Seems to work fine in the rest of the world:

[i.dailymail.co.uk image 468x346]

[i.dailymail.co.uk image 468x352]

[i.dailymail.co.uk image 468x320]

And those countries have lower crime rates to boot, so the cops apparently are doing their jobs despite not shooting everyone who seems mildly threatening. So are cops in the US incompetent, or are they just a bunch of scared little pussies wearing big-boy uniforms?


to be fair, in your middle pic the situation looks to have the potential to go very pear-shaped for the cops
 
2014-08-19 11:26:16 PM  

jst3p: Cyclometh: Fubini: This paper in particular rejects your claim that tasers should only be used in lieu of deadly force.

You need to look up the definition of "deadly force". Because every use of force you cited in that post was, in fact- deadly force.

Tasers should not be (and are not intended to be) used in lieu of deadly force. They  are a type of deadly force. Just because they tend to not be lethal as often as firearms, does not mean they are not deadly force.

So you are going to just completely ignore the post where I showed that you are 100% incorrect? You know other people can read it and see you are 100% incorrect, right?


You mean the one citing a link to  Police Chief Magazine? In response to one from the Stanford School of Law?
 
2014-08-19 11:26:34 PM  

Bit'O'Gristle: GardenWeasel: Bit'O'Gristle: Good lord....here on Fark...


If you think that

1. Cops should ...or should be trained to grapple, fence, tase, attempt to disarm, or otherwise let a knife wielding asshole within 10 feet of them, have a cat scan, i think you have lost connection with natural realty.

if you think any of these things are or should have been valid alternatives, check yourself into the nearest reality clinic, i hear they can help now.

WAT?

I don't expect them to be Walker Texas Ranger, or Jackie Chan, but aren't they trained in common self defense and takedown  techniques?

WTF do they expect to do if they lose their weapon, or it malfunctions in an emergency? Run away?

/yes they are, and handgun retention, that does not vitiate their right to defend themselves against a lethal weapon with lethal force.  WTH would you let someone like that...get close enough to grapple with you? Come on man, use some sense.


You claimed we should not expect cops to be trained to disarm a suspect. That is EXACTLY what I expect them to do. Being a cop shouldn't be a game of farking duck hunt every time there is a confrontation. I realize it ts not always feasible, but it should always be on the table.
 
2014-08-19 11:26:38 PM  
Grand jury probe will start tomorrow so a lot of questions and misinformation will be answered
 
2014-08-19 11:26:53 PM  

GardenWeasel: Bit'O'Gristle: Good lord....here on Fark...


If you think that

1. Cops should ...or should be trained to grapple, fence, tase, attempt to disarm, or otherwise let a knife wielding asshole within 10 feet of them, have a cat scan, i think you have lost connection with natural realty.

if you think any of these things are or should have been valid alternatives, check yourself into the nearest reality clinic, i hear they can help now.

WAT?

I don't expect them to be Walker Texas Ranger, or Jackie Chan, but aren't they trained in common self defense and takedown  techniques?

WTF do they expect to do if they lose their weapon, or it malfunctions in an emergency? Run away?


Rule of combat #1: you are not Superman.

You are operating under the assumption that said techniques are 100% effective, the suspect has no training or is not on drugs, and that the cops actually practice said techniques.
 
2014-08-19 11:26:57 PM  

Clutch2013: Mad_Radhu: Bit'O'Gristle: 1. Cops should ...or should be trained to grapple, fence, tase, attempt to disarm, or otherwise let a knife wielding asshole within 10 feet of them, have a cat scan, i think you have lost connection with natural realty.

Seems to work fine in the rest of the world:

[i.dailymail.co.uk image 468x346]

[i.dailymail.co.uk image 468x352]

[i.dailymail.co.uk image 468x320]

And those countries have lower crime rates to boot, so the cops apparently are doing their jobs despite not shooting everyone who seems mildly threatening. So are cops in the US incompetent, or are they just a bunch of scared little pussies wearing big-boy uniforms?

I don't mean to be that guy...but that exchange didn't end cleanly:

Cornered by police, he lashed out - attacking a patrol car and stabbing one officer before he was finally wrestled to the ground.

Given the kind of damage we know a knife can do...



His body armor blocked the blade, so none of the cops were injured.
 
2014-08-19 11:27:11 PM  
https://twitter.com/AmyKNelson

Amy K. Nelson @AmyKNelson  · 2m
cops shut down dance party truck out of nowhere. things were fairly quiet now it's sort of reignited... http://instagram.com/p/r50tXTMslh/
 
2014-08-19 11:27:30 PM  

The more you eat the more you fart: Guy had a knife threatening the cops.

As much as i haaaate the police....its a legit shoot.


When the eye witness's themselves say it was "Suicide by cop" , its hard to feel much pity as the guy was asking for it.  The only reason this is a story is because of the geographical location.

Wait for it, some total farker has a 15 paragraph retort about why were uncivilized plebs.
 
2014-08-19 11:27:34 PM  

Cyclometh: jst3p: Cyclometh: Fubini: This paper in particular rejects your claim that tasers should only be used in lieu of deadly force.

You need to look up the definition of "deadly force". Because every use of force you cited in that post was, in fact- deadly force.

Tasers should not be (and are not intended to be) used in lieu of deadly force. They  are a type of deadly force. Just because they tend to not be lethal as often as firearms, does not mean they are not deadly force.

So you are going to just completely ignore the post where I showed that you are 100% incorrect? You know other people can read it and see you are 100% incorrect, right?

You mean the one citing a link to  Police Chief Magazine? In response to one from the Stanford School of Law?


Yeah, the link about actual police policy as opposed to the study in how to limit liability.
 
2014-08-19 11:29:57 PM  

nyseattitude: https://twitter.com/AmyKNelson

Amy K. Nelson @AmyKNelson  · 2m
cops shut down dance party truck out of nowhere. things were fairly quiet now it's sort of reignited... http://instagram.com/p/r50tXTMslh/


Of course they did. Can't keep the protestors from getting agitated or we won't justify our budget increase. God Damn they are idiots.
 
2014-08-19 11:30:02 PM  

Gyrfalcon: Enter the Taser, a post-military piece of less-lethal hardware that was NEVER meant to replace the baton, but ONLY to replace a bullet--which should have told people how deadly it really was, but nobody ever put two and two together.


Taser is used on average 28 times per day
550 fatal events related to their use in 13 years.

Apparently you can put the two together, if you would bother.

132,860 uses for 550 deaths.

Pepper spray kills too, but it is harder to get numbers (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/30/mackenzie-cochran-mall-pepp er -spray-dies_n_4695269.html )

No, stun guns, while abhorrent in their existence, are not remotely comparable to firearms.
 
2014-08-19 11:30:14 PM  

Clutch2013: parasol: Boon23834: cretinbob: jasonvatch: Don't they have tasers?

I don't know about there, but here, generally no. You'll have one officer/deputy who carries one and the rest just have regular sidearms

I haven't read the whole thread, but shouldn't that gun/taser ratio be reversed?

tasers are much more expensive and, in order to carry one,officers have be tased - some of them decline

Remember that scene in Exit Wounds, where Steven Seagal and some random muscled white guy have a testosterone-fueled face-off by zapping each other with a taser?

Every time I see that scene, I immediately think, "Why the hell would you volunteer for something like that?"

Actually, when I was younger, my first thought was, "They keep that up, and one of them's going to light up like a candle."

/this is what happens when you play too much Syphon Filter
//God, that taser was fun
///and just wrong


i attended a police appreciation dinner and the after-meal entertainment was an in-house film of officers getting tased to "qualify" to carry. The only one who didn't swear and drop like a sack of flour was a female - she swore, staggered and then dropped.  They teased the crap out of each other over it as we watched.
 
2014-08-19 11:30:37 PM  

21-7-b: to be fair, in your middle pic the situation looks to have the potential to go very pear-shaped for the cops


Still, cops in countries like the UK deal with knife-weilding assailants all day in and out and don't feel the need to go all Hot Fuzz on everyone. What makes us special where people can't be disarmed non-leathally or an unarmed man can't be subdued? All of this non-lethal stuff that everyone says is unworkable seems to actually work all over the world.

What gives?
 
2014-08-19 11:30:43 PM  

jst3p: DrExplosion: Caffienatedjedi:One officer could of gone for a taser while the other kept his service weapon trained on the guy, that is if either had a taser. But that is hindsight 20/20. I am sure they will regret not managing to take him alive, but their application of lethal force felt justifiable.

This is actually a reasonable response to the situation, unlike all the "shoot him in the leg" or "try to ninja the knife out of his hands" nonsense in the thread. Good on you for not only coming up with that idea, but also for realizing that you can't really expect someone to come up with that plan within the five seconds during which a crazy man with a knife is advancing on them. Seriously, it's refreshing to see some common sense.

I would assume I am going for the gun and partner is going for taser. I would expect my partner, if he were smart, to assume he (or she) was the one going for the gun. There are other actions they could have taken. But given the circumstances I think the ones they took were justified.


Yeah, I believe it would have been better tactically and strategically (of all the times to have a suicide by cop) if one had prepared to shoot while the other attempted to tase, but it's completely unrealistic to expect this to happen. I've been in enough lethal force situations to know that the brain just doesn't reliably work that way unless the cops have received serious training for exactly this scenario. Even then, I'd forgive them for shooting the crazy knife guy walking towards them.

Mad_Radhu: Bit'O'Gristle: 1. Cops should ...or should be trained to grapple, fence, tase, attempt to disarm, or otherwise let a knife wielding asshole within 10 feet of them, have a cat scan, i think you have lost connection with natural realty.

Seems to work fine in the rest of the world:

[i.dailymail.co.uk image 468x346]

[i.dailymail.co.uk image 468x352]

[i.dailymail.co.uk image 468x320]

And those countries have lower crime rates to boot, so the cops apparently are doing their jobs despite not shooting everyone who seems mildly threatening. So are cops in the US incompetent, or are they just a bunch of scared little pussies wearing big-boy uniforms?


Didn't read the link, but just looking at the pictures it evidently took four cops to take that guy down, and they got lucky. Look in the second picture at the cop who's apparently been knocked to the ground. If the knife guy was actually coherent and intent on killing anyone, that man (and possibly others) would be dead.

And as you said, other countries have lower crime rates. American cops need guns because they're policing a country full of Americans.
 
2014-08-19 11:33:14 PM  

Mad_Radhu: Bit'O'Gristle: 1. Cops should ...or should be trained to grapple, fence, tase, attempt to disarm, or otherwise let a knife wielding asshole within 10 feet of them, have a cat scan, i think you have lost connection with natural realty.

Seems to work fine in the rest of the world:

[i.dailymail.co.uk image 468x346]

[i.dailymail.co.uk image 468x352]

[i.dailymail.co.uk image 468x320]

And those countries have lower crime rates to boot, so the cops apparently are doing their jobs despite not shooting everyone who seems mildly threatening. So are cops in the US incompetent, or are they just a bunch of scared little pussies wearing big-boy uniforms?


Did you really just post an article with 'police risked their lives' in the headline as an example of working fine when going hand to hand with a knife-wielding suspect? Seriously? Heheh.
 
2014-08-19 11:33:55 PM  

Cyclometh: Tasers should not be (and are not intended to be) used in lieu of deadly force. They  are a type of deadly force. Just because they tend to not be lethal as often as firearms, does not mean they are not deadly force.


You must not have actually read what I said. I'll quote you the one sentence that is most relevant:

Nevertheless, these risks and concerns weighed against the clear benefits of Tasers do no justify the wholesale rejection of Tasers, or the strict mandate that Tasers act only as an alterative to deadly force.

That statement clearly implies that tasers should be used for compliance in situations where deadly force is not warranted. Ergo, they are not a type of deadly force. You can contradict me all you want, but it doesn't make it true.

Let's throw out the words "deadly force" for a second, so we can stop arguing about whose definition is better. These are the facts:

1) The taser is less likely to result in death compared to other compliance methods such as chemical sprays, batons, punches, kicks, and restraint holds.
2) The taser is less likely to result in permanent injury or disfigurement compared to other compliance methods such as chemical sprays, batons, punches, kicks, and restraint holds.
3) The taser causes less discomfortcompared to other compliance methods such as chemical sprays, batons, punches, kicks, and restraint holds.
4) The  taser causes injury to officers and subjects alikecompared to other compliance methods such as chemical sprays, batons, punches, kicks, and restraint holds.

Now, instead of arguing about what is or what isn't deadly force, argue to me why police officers should be using chemical sprays, batons, punches, kicks, and restraint holds instead of using tasers.
 
2014-08-19 11:35:02 PM  
img.fark.netView Full Size
 
2014-08-19 11:35:59 PM  

Cyclometh: I love how people who don't even know what the legal definition of "deadly force" is are lecturing me on not understanding the meaning of words.


Yep. Silly me, 15 years of training from both legal and practical applications ill prepared me for your tendency to insist definitions upon words that don't fit.

Deadly Force: An amount of force that is likely to cause either serious bodily injury or death to another person.
Likely: used to indicate the chance that something will happen
Serious injury: is defined as "a personal injury which results in death; dismemberment; significant disfigurement; a fracture; loss of a fetus; permanent loss of use of a body organ, member, function or system; permanent consequential limitation of use of a body organ or member; significant limitation of use of a body function or system; or a medically determined injury or impairment of a non-permanent nature which prevents the injured person from performing substantially all of the material acts which constitute such person's usual and customary daily activities for not less than ninety days during the one hundred eighty days immediately following the occurrence of the injury or impairment. 


Again. Words mean things. You can't toss them around willie nillie. because IT REALLY superhard means that to you, doesn't mean it means farkall to the world around you. Words aren't tinkerbell, and they don't exist because you clapped real hard.
 
2014-08-19 11:36:16 PM  
DrExplosion: I've been in enough lethal force situations to know that the brain just doesn't reliably work that way unless the cops have received serious training for exactly this scenario.

And there is the problem. Why haven't they?
 
2014-08-19 11:38:17 PM  

Bazzlex001: thaylin: Bazzlex001: Whatever happened to just shooting a guy in the leg? At least TRY for a non-lethal wound

If you are going to shoot you never aim for anything but center mass and never for anything other than to stop, which typically means kill.. Aiming for the leg of a moving person is difficult and chances are you will miss and then he will be on you with the knife. Not saying they should have tried non lethal force. But shooting anything other than center mass is never a good idea.

That makes sense, but My understanding is that he was immobile for a significant amount of time before he lunged at them.

Regardless, this brings to light a better question than that: why the Fark do these police departments have mine-resistant APCs, but a negligible amount of tasers? -_-


Because the Pentagon didn't have them to pass along? It's not like they were standard issue for those headed to Fallujah... Hell, they weren't even properly equipped for an *actual* war.
 
2014-08-19 11:38:33 PM  

GardenWeasel: DrExplosion: I've been in enough lethal force situations to know that the brain just doesn't reliably work that way unless the cops have received serious training for exactly this scenario.

And there is the problem. Why haven't they?


looks like they did, and executed it flawlessly.
 
2014-08-19 11:39:10 PM  

Yogimus: Cyclometh: I love how people who don't even know what the legal definition of "deadly force" is are lecturing me on not understanding the meaning of words.

Yep. Silly me, 15 years of training from both legal and practical applications ill prepared me for your tendency to insist definitions upon words that don't fit.

Deadly Force: An amount of force that is likely to cause either serious bodily injury or death to another person.
Likely: used to indicate the chance that something will happen
Serious injury: is defined as "a personal injury which results in death; dismemberment; significant disfigurement; a fracture; loss of a fetus; permanent loss of use of a body organ, member, function or system; permanent consequential limitation of use of a body organ or member; significant limitation of use of a body function or system; or a medically determined injury or impairment of a non-permanent nature which prevents the injured person from performing substantially all of the material acts which constitute such person's usual and customary daily activities for not less than ninety days during the one hundred eighty days immediately following the occurrence of the injury or impairment. 


Again. Words mean things. You can't toss them around willie nillie. because IT REALLY superhard means that to you, doesn't mean it means farkall to the world around you. Words aren't tinkerbell, and they don't exist because you clapped real hard.


This is why I prefer using the terms lethal, less lethal, and non lethal. Gives more flexibility than deadly force and not deadly force.
 
2014-08-19 11:39:11 PM  

ElLoco: Did you really just post an article with 'police risked their lives' in the headline as an example of working fine when going hand to hand with a knife-wielding suspect? Seriously? Heheh.


Well, it is the Daily Mail so there is going to be some hyperbole, but technically police are risking their lives whenever they deal with a potentially violent suspect so it is correct.

Still, they took down the suspect with no one getting injured because their equipment and training did its job. And since you don't see a huge body count of foreign cops being knifed to death, obviously SOMETHING is working right over there.
 
2014-08-19 11:39:50 PM  

parasol: Boon23834: cretinbob: jasonvatch: Don't they have tasers?

I don't know about there, but here, generally no. You'll have one officer/deputy who carries one and the rest just have regular sidearms

I haven't read the whole thread, but shouldn't that gun/taser ratio be reversed?

tasers are much more expensive and, in order to carry one,officers have be tased - some of them decline


Um. Then, some officers should go unarmed. With a tool like a taser specifically designed for situations like this as a less lethal option, officers should be required to justify carrying a firearm. You know, something situation ally dependent. Who cares about the cost? Of all the stuff our governments waste money on, an electrically charged device vs. Keeping a service weapon in use, well the costs of range time, ammunition, weapons specialists such as armourers, gunsmiths, trainers, it's gotta be pricey. Something along a British model of having armed officers show up on call, without going full SWAT has to be better all around, cheaper and fewer dead.
 
2014-08-19 11:40:10 PM  
Yogimus:
Here is the number one benefit of tasers:
...
It i also a courtesy. A tool that CAN be used, not one that must be used instead of lethal force.


A courtesy?  Thank you sir, may I have another?

Sorry but you have presumed righteousness on the part of the police. While that may make sense to the police, the general spirit of our constitution is to avoid doing that very thing.

As far as is clear in the referenced case, no objections. But the general idea that it is a "courtesy" of the police to not use lethal force if they have a viable alternative is class A level bullpuckey.
 
2014-08-19 11:40:16 PM  

Cyclometh: I love how people who don't even know what the legal definition of "deadly force" is are lecturing me on not understanding the meaning of words.


sure, deadly force - those guys that slither through bogs wearing goggles and rappel upside-down in total silence - everyone knows that - offshoot of the marine core and what not

maybe you could slap him with some foolscap and suggest dictionaries at dawn. Your seconds can bring a thesaurus
 
2014-08-19 11:40:22 PM  

Cyclometh: You mean the one citing a link to  Police Chief Magazine? In response to one from the Stanford School of Law?


Dude... the paper you linked doesn't even have anyone's name on it. You know what that means? Nobody wants to be associated with it.

Better yet, when you follow the single link in the paper to the "Stanford Criminal Justice Center" you get a "Page Not Found" error. Not only does nobody want to be associated with your report, but the program that produced it is now defunct, or your citation is too old to be considered credible. That's all assuming that somebody just didn't make it up in the first place.

http://www.law.stanford.edu/academic/programs/criminaljustice

I happen to work in a research lab. Everybody from the undergrads doing summer projects up to PhDs with decades of experience in the field get to put the name of the lab on their papers. The name "Standford School of Law" without any other context means exactly jack squat.
 
2014-08-19 11:40:40 PM  

Fubini: Let's throw out the words "deadly force" for a second, so we can stop arguing about whose definition is better. These are the facts:


No, let's not. Because that is the crux of the entire debate. And the  fact is, I have been correct in my statements all along:

Tasers are a form of deadly force.
Their use is less likely to be lethal. That does not make using them not using deadly force.
They are not a substitute for deadly force, they are a type of deadly force.

I won't let you move the goalposts, sorry. Everything in the article you cited pointed out that essentially "Yeah, it was deadly force, but it's still a better option than other kinds of deadly force". Which is true, but does not change the essential fact that the use of a taser constitutes the use of deadly force under the law.

What is happening is that people are trying to weasel out of the very clearly defined phrase "deadly force" by saying "it doesn't kill people". Well, aside from the fact that they (admittedly rarely) do, death is not a requirement for the use of force to be defined as "deadly force".
 
2014-08-19 11:41:52 PM  
Am I the only one that notices that suicide by cop is only a thing in the US?, I'm pretty sure that says something about how quick on the draw American cops are, or maybe it just says something about Americans.
 
2014-08-19 11:42:42 PM  
*peaks around internet*

Yep, fark is about the only place that people aren't in agreement that this asshole had it coming. Charging police with about 100 witness's and a farking knife is just at TAD different circumstances.
 
2014-08-19 11:43:02 PM  

Bit'O'Gristle: jasonvatch: cretinbob: jasonvatch: Don't they have tasers?

I don't know about there, but here, generally no. You'll have one officer/deputy who carries one and the rest just have regular sidearms

Nightsticks? Flashlights?

I admit that I wouldn't want to take on a knife-wielding idiot with a nightstick. But two cops? I suspect they received some training in the past - and the baton has enough reach and mass to break the arm holding the knife.

We use drones to kill 'suspects' in other countries. 'Lethal response' seems to be OK here, since nobody biatched when we did it there.

The next red light you run could be a death sentence.

/ i have explained this before, and i guess i have to again.  The cops generally use equal force plus one.  That means, if you are wanting to fight with no weapon, you're getting 1. the mace, or 2. the nightstick, or 3, tased. That is equal force plus one.  if you have a weapon, such as a knife, im not going to fence you with my nightstick, nor am i going to attempt to tase you, as that could fail. (thick clothing..or just miss). If you have a weapon, knife, heavy club, gun, etc....you're getting shot.  That again is equal force plus one. I'm not letting you get that close to me so i can play swords with you having a knife, and me a nightstick.   I have no idea why this is so hard to understand. it's the way all the police departments are trained.  if you want to fight a guy who has a knife and you have a stick, more power to you.


MadeInDetroit: moothemagiccow: MadeInDetroit: Sadly there is no money left in their budget for tasers. Those tanks, cool camo, body armor, and endless supply of tear gas/smoke grenades are not cheap. Besides who signs up to use non lethal force when you got this cool gun?

Yeah I remember everyone farking loved it when cops started being armed with tasers. We watched that shiat on youtube and laughed and laughed. "Don't tase me bro." No one got upset about that shiat at all. We didn't freak out even a little when some kid with a heart condition bit it.

And now everyone loves tasers. Is the desire to biatch online or just to eliminate every police force? Seriously, what the fark is the gun for? If you wanna question one farking thing, fark the farking tanks. No one's been killed with a tank or a tear gas grenade yet. You wanna get mad about something? Get mad at the thing that actually kills people, the thing that every cop on duty wears. I'm sure you'll probably get pissed at the patrol car before you even think of questioning that every farking beat cop has a gun.

great speech but only one problem. Police in the rest of the country are trained on matching appropriate force with force with most never having to fire a weapon one time on duty in their careers. You have nightsticks, pepper spray, mace, flash grenades, rubber bullets, bean bags, LRAD, extensive hand to hand training to disarm a knife, or wait for it...talking down the situation using all four years of the criminal justice degree you earned. The rest of the police across the country somehow are able to do this and excel at their job protecting the country.



With so many police training experts around I just don't know who to believe?
 
2014-08-19 11:43:22 PM  

albatros183: Am I the only one that notices that suicide by cop is only a thing in the US?, I'm pretty sure that says something about how quick on the draw American cops are, or maybe it just says something about Americans.


No it isn't, stop baiting.
 
2014-08-19 11:44:45 PM  

GardenWeasel: DrExplosion: I've been in enough lethal force situations to know that the brain just doesn't reliably work that way unless the cops have received serious training for exactly this scenario.

And there is the problem. Why haven't they?


Because "what to do if you and another cop, while in an area of civil unrest brought about as a result of police violence, are confronted by a deranged man with a knife who advances on you while telling you to kill him" is far too specific to be helpful. The scenario is incredibly unlikely, and you can only do so much training. They've got higher priorities, too. Personally, I'd rather have them spend that day (yes, they'd need at least a day of practicing this exact scenario, and then they'd need to spend a few hours each year to maintain proficiency) at the range improving their marksmanship skills. Cops don't exactly have the best marksmanship records, and every shot they miss has to go somewhere, like into a bystander.

The only real "problem" here is that we don't live in The Matrix yet and cops can't download their training directly into their brains.
 
2014-08-19 11:44:54 PM  
Someone mentioned LRAD upthread; It'll be interesting to see if the fortunes of the companies that make the things change based on the fact that they've done zero good in the Ferguson crisis, and arguably made things worse by riling up crowds through their repeated use.
 
2014-08-19 11:45:13 PM  
Cyclometh:You mean the one citing a link to  Police Chief Magazine? In response to one from the Stanford School of Law?

Yeah, and when you go to the real website for the Stanford Criminal Justice Center, they have a "Publications" page, and your document is nowhere to be found.

So you know, you can stick with your paper that you found because you Googled "why are tasers bad", but I'm going to stick with my researched and cited journal paper.

I guess we're done now. Have a good night.
 
2014-08-19 11:47:20 PM  

albatros183: Am I the only one that notices that suicide by cop is only a thing in the US?, I'm pretty sure that says something about how quick on the draw American cops are, or maybe it just says something about Americans.


538 how many americans the police kill each year

Of course, it's hard to do suicide by cop with an English Bobby who says
You can sleep at home tonight, if you can get up and walk away.

Heaven is where the police are British, the lovers French, the mechanics German, the chefs Italian, and it is all organized by the Swiss.

Hell is where the police are German American, the lovers Swiss, the mechanics French, the chefs British, and it is all organized by the Italians.
 
2014-08-19 11:47:56 PM  

Cyclometh: Fubini: Let's throw out the words "deadly force" for a second, so we can stop arguing about whose definition is better. These are the facts:

No, let's not. Because that is the crux of the entire debate. And the  fact is, I have been correct in my statements all along:

Tasers are a form of deadly force.
Their use is less likely to be lethal. That does not make using them not using deadly force.
They are not a substitute for deadly force, they are a type of deadly force.

I won't let you move the goalposts, sorry. Everything in the article you cited pointed out that essentially "Yeah, it was deadly force, but it's still a better option than other kinds of deadly force". Which is true, but does not change the essential fact that the use of a taser constitutes the use of deadly force under the law.

What is happening is that people are trying to weasel out of the very clearly defined phrase "deadly force" by saying "it doesn't kill people". Well, aside from the fact that they (admittedly rarely) do, death is not a requirement for the use of force to be defined as "deadly force".


Agaim, your insistence on your own definitions flies in the already existing "Words that mean things" category.  I posted the definition. I posted the legal definitions of the words in the definition. It isn't your ignorance that tickles me, it is your pride in that ignorance. Tasers are as "likely" to result in death. They have a 0.413 fatality rate.

HERP SEE LETHALZ! response notwithstanding, do the math on how this stacks up to other forms of lethal force.
 
2014-08-19 11:47:57 PM  

Boon23834: parasol: Boon23834: cretinbob: jasonvatch: Don't they have tasers?

I don't know about there, but here, generally no. You'll have one officer/deputy who carries one and the rest just have regular sidearms

I haven't read the whole thread, but shouldn't that gun/taser ratio be reversed?

tasers are much more expensive and, in order to carry one,officers have be tased - some of them decline

Um. Then, some officers should go unarmed. With a tool like a taser specifically designed for situations like this as a less lethal option, officers should be required to justify carrying a firearm. You know, something situation ally dependent. Who cares about the cost? Of all the stuff our governments waste money on, an electrically charged device vs. Keeping a service weapon in use, well the costs of range time, ammunition, weapons specialists such as armourers, gunsmiths, trainers, it's gotta be pricey. Something along a British model of having armed officers show up on call, without going full SWAT has to be better all around, cheaper and fewer dead.


Guns are not the X factor in violence.

EVERY cop in Japan has a loaded gun. How many police shootings are there?

The problem with American cops is their toxic culture.
 
2014-08-19 11:48:14 PM  

Cyclometh: No, let's not. Because that is the crux of the entire debate. And the  fact is, I have been correct in my statements all along:

Tasers are a form of deadly force.
Their use is less likely to be lethal. That does not make using them not using deadly force.
They are not a substitute for deadly force, they are a type of deadly force.


When someone says, "Let's stop talking about substantive facts and instead argue about definitions some more" you know it's time to stop talking.

Under your thought process, virtually anything is considered to be "deadly force" because virtually anything can kill someone. What you're saying is that pepper spray and non-irritant smoke should be considered deadly force because those things have been known to kill people with asthma.

Have a good night, we're just not going to agree.
 
2014-08-19 11:48:34 PM  

Yogimus: Tasers are as "likely" to result in death.


I did not say that. Please don't put words in my mouth to fit your own narrative.
 
2014-08-19 11:48:47 PM  

Fubini: Cyclometh:You mean the one citing a link to  Police Chief Magazine? In response to one from the Stanford School of Law?

Yeah, and when you go to the real website for the Stanford Criminal Justice Center, they have a "Publications" page, and your document is nowhere to be found.

So you know, you can stick with your paper that you found because you Googled "why are tasers bad", but I'm going to stick with my researched and cited journal paper.

I guess we're done now. Have a good night.


It is amazing that he doesn't realize what a joke he is in this thread. He has had his dick knocked in the dirt at every turn by multiple people and goes on to post "I have been correct in my statements all along:"

It is hilarious, in a way.
 
2014-08-19 11:49:24 PM  

DrExplosion: GardenWeasel: DrExplosion: I've been in enough lethal force situations to know that the brain just doesn't reliably work that way unless the cops have received serious training for exactly this scenario.

And there is the problem. Why haven't they?

Because "what to do if you and another cop, while in an area of civil unrest brought about as a result of police violence, are confronted by a deranged man with a knife who advances on you while telling you to kill him" is far too specific to be helpful. The scenario is incredibly unlikely, and you can only do so much training. They've got higher priorities, too. Personally, I'd rather have them spend that day (yes, they'd need at least a day of practicing this exact scenario, and then they'd need to spend a few hours each year to maintain proficiency) at the range improving their marksmanship skills. Cops don't exactly have the best marksmanship records, and every shot they miss has to go somewhere, like into a bystander.

The only real "problem" here is that we don't live in The Matrix yet and cops can't download their training directly into their brains.


Yes we should only emphasize marksmanship, so firearms are even more of a 1st option. Excellent.
 
2014-08-19 11:50:21 PM  

wademh: Hell is where the police are GermanAmerican, the lovers Swiss, the mechanics French, the chefs British, and it is all organized by the Italians.


Are you saying that our modern police force is like the gestapo? If so, I'd urge you read a history book. Try looking under "H" for "holocaust" in the index.
 
2014-08-19 11:50:26 PM  

doglover: Boon23834: parasol: Boon23834: cretinbob: jasonvatch: Don't they have tasers?

I don't know about there, but here, generally no. You'll have one officer/deputy who carries one and the rest just have regular sidearms

I haven't read the whole thread, but shouldn't that gun/taser ratio be reversed?

tasers are much more expensive and, in order to carry one,officers have be tased - some of them decline

Um. Then, some officers should go unarmed. With a tool like a taser specifically designed for situations like this as a less lethal option, officers should be required to justify carrying a firearm. You know, something situation ally dependent. Who cares about the cost? Of all the stuff our governments waste money on, an electrically charged device vs. Keeping a service weapon in use, well the costs of range time, ammunition, weapons specialists such as armourers, gunsmiths, trainers, it's gotta be pricey. Something along a British model of having armed officers show up on call, without going full SWAT has to be better all around, cheaper and fewer dead.

Guns are not the X factor in violence.

EVERY cop in Japan has a loaded gun. How many police shootings are there?

The problem with American cops is their toxic culture.


When cops started calling people civilians, and started to act like military enforcers, is when things started turning sour.
 
2014-08-19 11:50:51 PM  

Tenz83: albatros183: Am I the only one that notices that suicide by cop is only a thing in the US?, I'm pretty sure that says something about how quick on the draw American cops are, or maybe it just says something about Americans.

No it isn't, stop baiting.


Actually it seems it is, Wiki mentions only the US, except for one in the UK, and I can think of one here locally in Canuckastain.

And how is pointing out that this is a phenomena that happens almost exclusively in a country that has a heavily militarized police force "baiting"?, FTFA "...The chief said the man told the police: "Shoot me now. Kill me now." ...."
 
Displayed 50 of 581 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report