digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Tell Me You Are Not Afraid Of Tasers

notalawyer.com — Naked, in your own home and deaf? That's a Tasing 'bro.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • doublehead, on 12/08/2007, -6/+64What I'm afraid of is the bozos who came up with the idea and think that tasing people who stand up for their Constitutional rights is justice.
    • bingobongony, on 12/08/2007, -13/+7Yeah..that's what 99.9999% of people who are tased are doing!
      • diggn_it, on 12/09/2007, -10/+3The reason this guy is getting dugg down is because all you idiot conspiracy theorist/"freedom fighters"/idiots know he's right deep down. You can dig out all the rare anomalies with the system all you want, but 99% of the time, the use of a taser saves someone's life. Digg needs to have a taser section so I can block all of it.
        • ChaosMotor, on 12/09/2007, -1/+8We had to attack him to ensure his security. He's lucky we didn't have to kill him to save his life.
        • mightydavefish, on 12/10/2007, -1/+2Your 99% figure was pulled out of your ass.
    • atomic811, on 12/08/2007, -4/+12something big is coming and I am extremely scared of what is going to happen but we all feel it in our gut. I do not feel safe anymore.
      • pegisys, on 12/08/2007, -1/+15That means it's working. All you have to do now is sign over all your rights to me and I will protect you.
      • Cyberdactyl, on 12/08/2007, -7/+5It's ok, it was that massive burrito I had yesterday. `flussssssh~

        All is well now
      • ChaosMotor, on 12/09/2007, -0/+7Hmm, I have a feeling your lack of security isn't caused by fear of terrorists, but fear of your own damned government. Isn't the government supposed to be afraid of the people, and not the other way around? Oh! Sorry, that's only in a functional democracy. In a fascist tyranny, the people are afraid of the government. Carry on, then.
      • freshgrease, on 12/09/2007, -0/+3I concur. If the government keeps pulling their ***** and people get out of their "It doesn't concern me" attitude, I presume great political change or civil war. Either that or we'll become mindless drones who are controlled by chips in our brains and "mood-changing" drugs. We all know the majority of the current government system doesn't give a rats ass about the people who voted for them. They'll do anything to get re-elected. This is where a represenative-democracy fails.
        I hate having only two alternatives to fight for change: a letter nobody will read or being tasered for peacefully demonstrating. Though joining this generation's Sons of Liberty doesn't sound like a bad prospect at all.
      • aduzik, on 12/10/2007, -0/+1Agreed. I don't worry about terrorists. I worry about the government.
    • Godlike, on 12/08/2007, -3/+4Skip to the source: http://www.kwch.com/global/story.asp?s=7446220
    • sporg, on 12/09/2007, -0/+2One should note that wearing a conductive fabric will make you immune to tasers. The kind the police wear is called Thor Shield. As long as the barbs or prongs hit an area covered by the fabric the electricity will follow the easiest path through the fabric and you dont get tased.

      http://www.lessemf.com/fabric.html
      • sporg, on 12/09/2007, -0/+2Riot police always aim for your torso with their air tasers thus a simpe vest made of conductive fabric can defend against most air taser attacks. .They all use model M26 which uses a pulsing type charge called "Electro-Muscular Disruption" to stop you.
        just saying...
  • gilg, on 12/08/2007, -3/+31Some nerve this fellow had titting in his home without his hearing aid like that... anyway, they use real guns here in Israel so I guess it could have been worse if he was around here...
    • 01l0, on 12/08/2007, -2/+9If he was "titting" then I'm pretty sure he deserved to be tased.
      • jdaniel284, on 12/08/2007, -4/+1Actually, while certainly disturbing, titting is not illegal in most states. It probably should be, but it isn't.
      • DivisibleByZero, on 12/09/2007, -1/+4Well, he *claims* the reason he was naked was that he was in the shower...
    • unmarked, on 12/08/2007, -2/+8I think the point is that police aren't as likely to shoot a gun to "control a situation" as they are to shoot a taser. Tasers are now the weapons of first resort. I expect "accidental", but regular, tasing to be a common occurrence by the police within the next year or so. Their motto seems to be tase first and ask questions later.
      • ChaosMotor, on 12/09/2007, -1/+3Well, cops are simply more valuable than regular citizens. It's not like they agreed to be put at risk when they signed up for the force or anything. Anything to protect a cop, and a dumb ol' plain citizen can just go ***** off - and if there's a problem with that, taze'em. Gotta keep those uppity citizens in their place - under the State's heel.
    • crzdmn, on 12/08/2007, -4/+7They still have guns here in the States they just get in less trouble for using the taser.

      Google "Misuse of Gun" and any US state and you'll see why tasers are the weapon of choice now. You can shoot a kid, but that will haunt most cops since they really are pansies behind a shield. So instead they taser them, they taser EVERYONE, didn't agree with the ticket that cop is writing you? TASERED BITCH!

      It's ridiculous really.
      • clickmyface, on 12/09/2007, -2/+4Yeah what pansies man killing a kid will bother them? What ***** wimps!

        Wow.
    • Homoomo, on 12/09/2007, -0/+10"Quick! Tase him while he's wet, naked, and not paying attention!"
      Man that cop really dodged a heated conflict there... /sarcasm/
  • orlando37, on 12/08/2007, -29/+2Don't taze me bro
  • brentinkc, on 12/08/2007, -3/+16Whatever happened to billy clubs? Do cops just get off more on electrocuting people? Is it really that basic?
    • 01l0, on 12/08/2007, -6/+19Tasers don't leave a mark, so there's no incriminating evidence to support "excessive force" claims. Juries are much more sympathetic to a plaintiff that got his skull caved in with a club, than someone with two small third-degree burns where the taser probes hit.
    • SquigglyP, on 12/08/2007, -7/+13jesus, being tased is a HELL of a lot better than being clubbed. Seriously, the pain from a tasing is momentary and aside from the immediate dangers of possible heart-problems or some other similar complications that can result in tasing, it's only a temporary thing. Being clubbed can break bones and leave you in a great deal of pain for weeks. If you'd choose to be clubbed over being tased, you're ***** crazy.
      • unmarked, on 12/08/2007, -3/+6yeah.. being electrocuted is so much better -- unless you happen to die from it. More importantly, the real issue here is that police are more apt to use tasers as the very first response.
        • SquigglyP, on 12/08/2007, -8/+6if you're "electrocuted" you are killed. Being electrocuted means death by having electric current run through your body. A taser just shocks you. I don't disagree that tasers get used too often, but if you'd rather get a Rodney King style beating than get tased a few times you're just ***** nuts.
        • Mothrog, on 12/09/2007, -0/+2As if you can't die from a misplaced blow from a billy club?
        • DivisibleByZero, on 12/09/2007, -0/+1How do you come to the conclusion that they're more likely to use their tasers where otherwise they would have...sat back and watched?

          Sure, you see lots of these taser stories on the Internet, but before tasers were in regular use, you saw just as many incidents of cops punching or otherwise roughing up a guy. From my limited experiences, it seems like tasers just replaced beatings.
    • qpn6ph9q, on 12/08/2007, -0/+8I think you are missing the point entirely. It's not a question of choosing between being tased or beaten or any other form of abuse. The point is the police are using an excessive amount of force on a defenseless deaf man in his own home. The solution is for them to not tase or beat or abuse people who are obviously defenseless (ie totally naked) and screaming at them I am deaf I am deaf with his hands raised in the air. Do you get it now?
      • ChaosMotor, on 12/09/2007, -0/+3Look pal, if we can't set up false dilemmas, we don't have much of an argument against police brutality. What are you suggesting - that the police simply not brutalize people? You seem to lack an understanding of exactly what cops are.
  • GRTWHT, on 12/08/2007, -2/+104The problem isn't tasers, the problem is their indiscrimate use by police.

    Tasers were never designed for 'you didn't do what I wanted fast enough so I'm going to electrocute you'. They were designed to be used in situations where previously the only option left to an officer was to shoot to kill.
    • bingobongony, on 12/08/2007, -19/+5Well, you are wrong...they wre NOT meant to only be used as a last resort. You can claim that is so, but that does not make it a fact. They were not meant to be used as a first resort either (and 99.999% of the time they are not. But they were ALWAYS meant to be used in situations that would otherwise nt have required a gun.
      • dudefather, on 12/08/2007, -0/+14are 99.999% of all the statistics you use happen to be '99.999%'
        • DooM, on 12/08/2007, -1/+4He is mostly right, though - tasers aren't a substitute for guns. If you're in a situation that requires the use of deadly force you SHOULD use deadly force. I for one wouldn't bring a taser to a gun fight.
          Tasers are supposed to replace nightsticks and fists and the problem is that the police have a personal interest in not getting into a fist fight, but there is no down side for them electrocuting someone so it gets applied liberally when it absolutely should not be.
        • Godlike, on 12/08/2007, -0/+8TASERS are not HANDCUFFS and they shouldn't be used like them!
      • SquigglyP, on 12/08/2007, -0/+8no, actually, you're wrong. You are to be tased if you pose a danger to yourself or someone else - including the officers. This is the way cops are supposed to be trained in the use of tasers. So far as the cops are concerned, they are one step below a firearm. Tasing someone AFTER they are restrained - as has been the case in several videos I've seen - is absolutely unnecessary. If several cops are unable to remove a handcuffed guy from a bookstore, auditorium or get that guy to stand up or lie down WITHOUT a taser, then those cops are obviously either incredibly weak or are just looking for an excuse to use a taser.
        • bingobongony, on 12/08/2007, -1/+2Yeah...which makes me right. Because there are situationswhere you pose a danger to yourself and others that in the past would NOT have been reason to shoot them with a gun.

          Tasers were NEVER meant as a replacement to guns. And one step below guns means they are NOT meant to be used ONLY when guns would otherwise.

          And, moron who has no idea what he is talking about, people in handcuffs can still pose a danger to themselves and others. Someone struggling while in cuffs, or inthe grasp of officers is going to get hurt FAR more often thean if they are tased, whcih in almost all case shas ZERO long term effects.
        • SquigglyP, on 12/08/2007, -0/+1I didn't say they were a replacement for guns, i said they were one step below guns. Cops obviously still carry guns. if tasers were meant to replace them they would have removed firearms. And yeah, you can still be a danger to yourself and others in handcuffs. And if that's teh case, then they should be tased. I have no problem with tasers or people being tased, but when I see someone getting tased for not standing up fast enough, or for not rolling over fast enough, as i have seen in videos, then i get ***** off. That's not what tasers were designed for. They were designed to prevent people from harming themselves or others without using deadly force to kill them. The fact is there are not many times when cops are supposed to use a taser where they would not previously have used a firearm. they aren't a replacement, but they aren't to be used every time you want a suspect to get on the ground. Most cops don't have a problem with this, but some obviously do.

          Name me one situation where in the past you could have posed a danger to yourself or someone else where they would not have shot you.
        • nogami, on 12/08/2007, -0/+4Or incredibly lazy. The big problem I see with tasers are that the cops are starting to use them like those "dog training devices". Don't like what your dog is doing? Dog not obeying you? Shock it with electricity until it does.

          Which is what happened in China after police started getting electroshock batons. Obey them or they're going to punish you. Not a substitute for other types of force, but a "respect mah authority" device.
      • unmarked, on 12/08/2007, -0/+4yeah, they weren't meant as a first resort -- but that is exactly what is happening now. They feel "non-lethal" means feel free to use it all the time.
      • crzdmn, on 12/08/2007, -0/+3They were actually intended for taking down HOSTILE people who are unarmed or armed with something less lethal than a gun. Problem before tasers was what the hell are cops supposed to do with the guy who has a bat and keeps on swinging it at cops? Shoot him?

        Now they can taser them. The problem with tasers are they are a no remorse easy to use, low fatality weapon so cops are going wild. Anyone remeber when rubber bullets and beanbag bullets were first introduced? Same problem but a little less extreme.
    • lemonsensation, on 12/08/2007, -8/+2The problem is the a-hole who called 911 to report false shooting at a hearing impaired man's home. Probably some kid who thought it would be funny and instead of blaming tasing, I hope that whoever reported the false 911 call be caught.
      • DooM, on 12/08/2007, -0/+8No, that's the OTHER problem in this situation. That person A did something wrong doesn't excuse what the police did.
    • FiringPin, on 12/08/2007, -1/+2Tasers are not a replacement for deadly force. They cause fewer injuries than baton beatings. Depending on the agency Tasers can be one step above verbal commands, above hands on, or above pepper spray. But they are NOT a replacement for guns or deadly force. There are very few deaths from Tasers (most attributable to unknown health problems or excited delirium) and none among all the cops who are tased in training. Tasers are used all the time and don't cause deaths or even any injury.
      • nogami, on 12/08/2007, -1/+5Are you referring to physical damage, or psychological? I dunno about you, but being electroshocked by police, especially when they're innocent would likely leave some psychological injury to most people...

        Hopefully some more lawsuits help curb police over-use of tasers. If they wouldn't contemplate beating-someone-down with a nightstick, they shouldn't be tasing someone.
    • milliamp, on 12/08/2007, -1/+3If you keep repeating it, it will eventually become true right? When a situation calls for deadly force, only deadly force should be used.

      When the police order a suspect to get on the ground and place their hands behind their head, and they don't, this is basically the situation the taser was deployed for.

      (am not defending the use, only trying to clear up a misconception)
    • Mothrog, on 12/09/2007, -1/+1No, it's not genius. Tasers are not a substitute for lethal force. When lethal force is to be used, the pistols come out.
  • Spelvin, on 12/08/2007, -7/+19GRTWHT is right. Tasers replace firearms. If the office is not trained properly then that is a department issue. If these cops had not had tasers they would have shot and killed the person.
    • thomasX, on 12/08/2007, -1/+19This is how you reply.
    • arctic, on 12/08/2007, -0/+1Cops don't just shoot people.
      • DooM, on 12/08/2007, -1/+3You're right. They beat them senseless first - THEN they shoot them. :)
    • DooM, on 12/08/2007, -0/+8You don't shoot someone for not showing you their hands - you only shoot someone for showing you their hands with a weapon in it.
    • Adamande, on 12/08/2007, -1/+14"If these cops had not had tasers they would have shot and killed the person."

      So they would have shot a deaf, naked, unarmed man after barging into his home without permission? How ***** up is that?
    • FiringPin, on 12/08/2007, -2/+3"GRTWHT is right. Tasers replace firearms."

      No they don't.
    • ploke, on 12/09/2007, -0/+3You are confused. tasers were apparently intended to replace firmarms—but they aren't doing that. If there were only very isolated cases of abuse of tasers then it might be an issue of local training or 'a few bad apples', however the problem of abuse of tasers seems systemic.

      What I am suggesting is that because tasers are considered non-lethal (although as we have seen, they aren't) the threshold for using them is much lower than a gun. They don't replace guns, they replace other LESS LETHAL forms of coercion. This problem is so widespread that it cannot be attributed to a local cause. It just seems too weird that police have messed up their taser training all over North America. The problem is with tasers themselves and their non-lethal status.
  • coyoteblue, on 12/08/2007, -6/+11Personally, I think police should be better trained in martial arts. We can remove their weapons, but still give them reasonable method to defend themselves. Then, instead of reaching for a taser (or worse) when a suspect won't comply, they can use reasonable, but not deadly, force to disarm the suspect, without inflicting too much harm.
    • bingobongony, on 12/08/2007, -7/+10Anytime someone suggests that police should be involved in hand to hand combat with criminals, that person proves themselves to be the biggest clueless ***** idiot on the planet.
      • reedatschool, on 12/09/2007, -0/+2Try telling that to the Chinese police. Guns are for weaklings, that's why so many scrawny ass wanna be gangsters carry them around.

    • jbklego, on 12/08/2007, -6/+20While this is an excellent idea, it wouldn't work because most cops are too fat to learn martial arts, hence causing a problem.
      • FeloniusMonkey, on 12/08/2007, -0/+9If martial arts training is known to build confidence, discipline, and self-control for the average person, I can only see it as a good thing for fat cops.
    • GordonV, on 12/08/2007, -2/+2Well... I understand you're trying to protect the people, but if an officer is in his horse stance and the opposition has an aimed gun, it's most likely the armed guy will win. If there was only a way we could give the police a weapon that acted as fast and simple as a gun without killing or permanently crippling the opponent.... [fill in blank]
      • reedatschool, on 12/08/2007, -0/+4Here is a clue, 99% of confrontations don't involve guns being shot at the police officer. Otherwise we would be sending cops home in body bags everyday!

        When someone wants to play with guns you call in the SWAT team with fully automatic weapons and full body armor end of story. There is no real reason to give traffic and street cops deadly weapons. It is really silly IMHO.

        • FiringPin, on 12/09/2007, -0/+0This is the most retarded thing I've read on Digg yet. "Traffic" and "street cops" are the ones facing risk every day. The vast majority of cops killed each year are not on SWAT teams, they are "traffic" and "street cops." The courts have consistently ruled that the guns cops carry are for self protection, they are under no legal obligation to save you or anyone else (although most would given the opportunity.)

          The senseless anti-cop bashing going on here is ridiculous, especially considering most of you are arm chair heroes and warriors. Are YOU going to start walking through war zone ghettos in the middle of the night looking for an armed wife beater now? How about you do that wihout a gun since "street cops" don't need them.

          Idiots.
          • reedatschool, on 12/09/2007, -0/+1There are many police forces around the world that do not supply their regular officers with deadly weapons. Guess what? They are not dying in droves!

            We do need more SWAT teams and less regular officers with deadly weapons. I have even had a street cop pull a gun on me and I have never owned a gun or knife more than 2 inches long in my lifetime. It was a life and death situation and I didn't have a weapon! I am sure their are many people that have had the same experience.

            While I don't expect someone with the name "firingpin" to agree with my line of reasoning here goes anyways. If police didn't have guns they would be safer. It eliminates the life and death situation that having a deadly weapon escalates. If no traffic cops had guns then the chances of them dying would go down. There will always be maniacs with guns bent on killing people, but the reality is this they are less than .00001 % of the population, so why do we need to arm all officers and treat everyone like they are this slim minority?

            I think part of the problem is this perception that officers are under constant threat. This type of fear is what gets innocent people killed, it is irrational and just plain stupid if you look at how many officers actually end up getting shot at on a daily basis compared to those who don't.
    • mike17032, on 12/08/2007, -7/+4Are you really that ignorant in the ways of the world?

      First off the US is a well armed population. To police a well armed population, you need to be armed. End of story.

      Second, its a lot more dangerous to everyone involved to throw someone to the ground and fight with them than to just use a taser. Far more dangerous.

      Digg users are unable to accept the fact that Tasers just arnt that dangerous, relative to other methods of force. They are so un-dangerous that police officers have them used on them during training for ***** sake. If it was dangerous, they wouldnt do that.
      • theciuffo, on 12/08/2007, -0/+1Watching you get dugg down is as painful as listening to verizon argue with their customers about the difference between dollars and cents.
      • FeloniusMonkey, on 12/08/2007, -0/+3Where does this "US is a well-armed population" statement come from?
        • reedatschool, on 12/08/2007, -0/+2Last time I checked hardly anyone is walking around with guns! I think it comes from some wild west fantasy they had when they were children. They gotta have a gun cause everyone else has them pilgrim... I really think it is just compensation for their insecurity. All officers should know how to defends themselves hand to hand. If they were actually trained like a martial artist they wouldn't need toys to prove their manhood.

          Having said that, I am all for a section of elite police officers with full body armor and fully autmatic machine guns that can be dropped off in a moments notice by helicopter. That way when people do want to play with guns we have a real answer, not some quivering cop hiding behind his car with a handgun.

          • FiringPin, on 12/09/2007, -0/+0Watching too much Dallas SWAT. Very few cities in this country have the resources to equip and train full time SWAT teams. Most SWAT teams are street cops and traffic cops who get additional training in hostage/barricades and high risk search warrants. It takes too long to call them out every time a bad guy is armed with a weapon. I bet you'd pee your pants if you had to go into the places cops have to go, let alone doing it unarmed.
        • greevar, on 12/08/2007, -0/+2The North Hollywood robbery comes to mind for just such a purpose.
    • SquigglyP, on 12/08/2007, -0/+1heh... you know, cops are allowed to meet force with force. If the bad guys have a gun, are they supposed to judo-chop the bullets out of the way? Many cops ARE trained in a limited way in several martial arts. Not all of them, but hand to hand combat is definitely a part of their training, and that combat is derived from various martial arts.
    • ciggwin, on 12/08/2007, -0/+5All of the above reasons are valid, but it's also a hell of a lot cheaper to give a cop a taser than it is to train him in H2H combat
  • Manberries, on 12/08/2007, -7/+2Old, already submitted news story? Thats a repost bro.
  • bingobongony, on 12/08/2007, -16/+7Big ***** deal...Aside from a VERY tiny percentage of cases, being tased is not a huge deal. It hurts like hell while it is happening. And 1 second after it stops you are fine. Far better than a gunshot, or even a bone cracking blow with a baton.
    • mrjit, on 12/08/2007, -5/+4Dugg = 19
      Comments = 4,791
      Clueless Digger who hasn't realized his lack of value to the community = priceless
    • SquigglyP, on 12/08/2007, -1/+2this is true, i dunno why you're being dugg down. There is a line drawn that dictates when a cop is allowed to use a taser, and many people believe that cops are all too eager to tase citizens for little reason. Repeatedly tasing an individual on the ground is also highly questionable. The taser is not a remote control, where you can demand someone does something and then tase them if they don't. The taser is the step you take right before you handcuff someone, and it's effective to prevent people from potentially harming themselves or others. In the case of the deaf guy, I'd prefer they had tased him over just shooting him, but I'd like to think that without the taser they would have just tackled the guy or something.
      • d03boy, on 12/08/2007, -1/+3Being dugg down because he thinks a taser can't hurt you more than a billy club. Try falling down without breaking your fall with your arms.
  • Brad324, on 12/08/2007, -1/+8dugg for hilarious description
  • crobathias, on 12/08/2007, -10/+5I am not afraid of being tasered, just do what the cop asks without any ***** and you'll be fine
    • Ogedei, on 12/08/2007, -0/+4And when they come in to your house after they bust down your door? Then what?

      I'll tell you what. Hands behind your head, kneel face down.
      Of sure what if it's a bad cop you are ***** after you do that. Well my friend, if you do not you get tased and you are still fubar.

      Pretty simple. Cops kick down your door they are there for business.
      • theonlywizdum, on 12/08/2007, -1/+0as long as he isn't as clueless as you, we should be all set.
    • mike17032, on 12/08/2007, -0/+2Thats crazy talk!
    • betacmag4u, on 12/08/2007, -1/+4yeah....like that guy in the New York jail he should have not resisted and let the cop sodomize him with that broom stick. What was he thinking??
  • gophernut, on 12/08/2007, -2/+14I am NOT afraid of tasers


    There...I told you
  • colobikeguy, on 12/08/2007, -1/+22I am hearing impaired and I can say that the reactions I have gotten when I am without my hearing aids have been pretty interesting. Yes, people get ***** when you can't hear them because you are without your hearing aids... even in your own home... and you can't put in your hearing aids until your ears dry out after a shower. :) I can't say I've tased yet, but I generally steer clear of the cops for just this reason.
    • unmarked, on 12/08/2007, -0/+6I'm sure this guy had no intention of involving himself with the cops. They came busting down the wrong door.
  • RofLmaonnaise, on 12/08/2007, -3/+6The full article that was linked told that the old man was in a towel. Furthermore, the cops said they reacted to what looked like him not showing his hands. So, 1. He has hardly any way of concealing a weapon with just a towel on, and 2. His hands must've been behind his back for the cops not to plainly see them...Suspicion of a gun eh?

    Something doesn't seem right in the cops' assessment.
    • derek20cali, on 12/08/2007, -0/+1Dude, what?
      • RofLmaonnaise, on 12/08/2007, -0/+4Why would they think he's a threat if he was just wearing a towel and one could clearly tell he had nothing in his hands. The cop's reasoning was that they couldn't see his hands (which I don't believe, because I would imagine the old guy was trying to point to his ears), so they tased him.

        The procedure doesn't fit the situation.
      • DooM, on 12/08/2007, -0/+6Let me translate it into English, I speak fluent spaz:
        In the article we are considering, the elderly gentleman was adorned solely in a towel. The police officers stated that they were concerned that he wasn't showing them his hands which can only mean they were behind his back which is certainly a suspicious claim in this situation. The officers could hardly be afraid that he was concealing a weapon as the elderly gentleman was half naked. I personally doubt the veracity of the officers' statements.
    • minder49, on 12/08/2007, -1/+1Think of it this way. The cops are responding to a call that there was a shooting in this guy's apartment. So there you have reasonable cause to believe there is a gun there. You go in, and only see one person, who is not responsive to your commands. It would be reasonable to assume that in an apartment where there was a reported shooting, the person moving around could be the shooter. Now you have a split second to decide. Taser him and secure the area, or not and risk getting shot. Not an easy call to make. So unless you have been there and made the call, quit second guessing the one who did.
  • VintageMud, on 12/08/2007, -6/+1Heck, I'm not afraid of tasers. Let them come taze me, and I get my school loans paid off.
  • Yage2006, on 12/08/2007, -2/+28I am not afraid of tasers, But I am afraid of frick'n idiots who carry weapons and a badge with the IQ of 8 year olds.
    • AntBing, on 12/08/2007, -0/+1Thats the caliber people you get when you pay them as much as a school lunch lady. Maybe if the pay were more competitive the applicants would improve as well.
      • spinningobo, on 12/08/2007, -1/+2What the *****?
        Cops around here have an 80k salary STARTING with just a high school diploma.
        • AntBing, on 12/09/2007, -0/+1Where the hell do you live? To be a cop in Florida you need 2 years of college minimum and start at around 40K a year. If you work overtime @ $20.00 an hour you can make a good living, but thats some serious hours and usually late or overnight.
  • GordonV, on 12/08/2007, -0/+7I'm more scared of police, not the tazer.
  • DemsFTW, on 12/08/2007, -0/+9Tazing wouldn't be a problem if they were using them responsibly. The police seem to be using them because people aren't kissing their behinds for being an officer. If they were actually preventing real crimes and not harassing people, people would appreciate them a little more.

    No one likes a beat walker.
    • minder49, on 12/08/2007, -1/+1So when are you joining the police force to show us all how it should be done?
  • insanebrain, on 12/08/2007, -1/+2I'm not afraid of tasers . .I'm afraid of the policemen who are carrying them.
  • jeffiek, on 12/08/2007, -4/+4I'm not afraid of tasers. I left the US.
    • Chirp08, on 12/09/2007, -1/+2I too am not afraid of tasers. do i get candy or something now?
  • Jls900, on 12/08/2007, -5/+16As a police officer on patrol, I can tell you that this is blown out of proportion. I have never tazed anyone in my career and never felt the urge, but i can clearly see what went on here. Some dummy or prankster phoned in about a shooting, so the cops take it seriously, not knowing who will live or who will die they all line up and break in tazers in arms. As they walk, scared, into the apartment they see a near naked man and yell at him, he doesnt respond.

    So we have :
    reports of gunfire
    locked door (they broke it down, which means it was locked)
    and then a naked man who is not responding.

    so, these officers, thinking that this man is a psycho, instead of risking a chance and hand cuffing him, they taze him to be safe. I will not stand by these men's choices of action, and please, please do not misunderstand me and think im defending them.. But dont act like some evil men charged into a room and tazed a disabled defenseless man, because as thought it appears that way, its not exactly what went down.
    • wautrey, on 12/08/2007, -3/+6Right...okay...By your reasoning, a locked door, and a naked man not answering said door is an indication of psychosis? It is quite NORMAL for a door to be locked, and a naked man to be bathing. Hell, I NEVER answer the door when I'm in the bath. Why? Because I'm in the ***** BATH, I'm ***** nude, and it's an invasion of my privacy.

      If that's your line or reasoning, or the line of reasoning of the officers in question, than they have a SERIOUS loss of grip on the context of reality.
      • caffeine1106, on 12/08/2007, -2/+3LOL "Because I'm in the ***** BATH, I'm ***** nude"
      • mrmacky, on 12/09/2007, -0/+3It is unusual for the door to be locked if there are supposedly shooters in the building >_>
        • wautrey, on 12/09/2007, -0/+0Yet again, illogical thinking rules the world. If you heard there were shooters in your building, would you not be better off LOCKING your door, so said shooter would not find your place of dwelling a convieniant place to hide-out? This is gradeschool stuff people. LOCK YOUR DOORS. They have them for a reason.
      • itsbriiibaby, on 12/09/2007, -0/+0haha, i couldn't agree more.
    • Cowwan, on 12/08/2007, -1/+4I agree with Jls, the cops are not the source of the problem in this situation, It is the person phoning in a false report. Police would be going against our rights if they broke into houses for no reason and arrested people for not supporting the govt or some BS, they are not against our rights if they are responding to a call that is on a line for emergencies only saying there was a shooting a said location. I personally have zero trouble with cops.
      • spinningobo, on 12/08/2007, -2/+5You have zero trouble with cops now, but what about when your neighbor phones in a false report?
      • jamdogg, on 12/09/2007, -1/+2I'm a cop so do what I say and bleat like the sheep you are or I'll shock the ***** out of you.
        • 98vwr6, on 12/09/2007, -0/+1Ha, obviously you've had a run in with the law before leaving you with an undesired feeling for justice.

          A cop breaks into my house and my hands go in the air, they wouldn't have to say a word, they are obviously there for a reason. Even if it is a misunderstanding, they don't kick in doors for fun. At least I don't think so!
    • bluesnowmonkey, on 12/09/2007, -0/+4I can see how the report of gunfire justified them kicking in the door. But then when they got inside and found him in a towel, they should have realized their mistake, holstered their weapons, and left him in peace. Instead they went the other way and put the hurt to him. What could they have been thinking? Either they were stupid as hell, or they were on a power trip, or both. I've seen videos of cops abusing their authority to carry a taser, so it's no stretch of the imagination.
      • 98vwr6, on 12/09/2007, -0/+0Well if they can't see his hands then that is the trouble..
        This doesn't seem like a power trip, I believe the officer analyzed this with their exact intent in mind.
    • Damvan, on 12/10/2007, -0/+0The biggest problem I see is beyond the tasering of the man in his own home. I am much more concerned that a mere anonymous phone call of a "gun shot" is justification enough for the cops to kick in this guy's door, guns drawn.
  • darlyn, on 12/08/2007, -1/+6Digg: All tasers, all day.
  • MasterPlayer, on 12/08/2007, -1/+10Tasers don't tase people, people tase people.
  • theciuffo, on 12/08/2007, -1/+3when five laptop batteries explode, those aren't isolated incidents because they were all manufactured at the same place. Taser misuses on the other hand HAVE to be isolated. Saying that there's some kind of taser epidemic is stupid because the police officers are in any way related. It's not like there's some kind of national police conference where they tell you to tase innocent.
    • knobtwiddler, on 12/09/2007, -0/+1thats not exactly true.. federal control over of local police policies is being implemented .. innocent people have to be tased cause the terrorists hate us for our freedom and nookular bombs and stuff.
  • annoi, on 12/08/2007, -1/+1I believe the issue is that it is a sign of greater problem within the police force.

    Maybe there should be a 'national police conference' where they train them to not tase the innocent.
  • Wildren, on 12/08/2007, -4/+5That is just a really, really stupid story. Honestly.
  • prgmctan, on 12/08/2007, -2/+1what is supposed to come before bro? wouldn't it be bro'
  • JD52, on 12/08/2007, -1/+3I would say the man in this story is quite happy they used a taser on him instead of shooting him.
    Personally if I had a choice I'd take the taser every time. All a matter of perspective.
    • CptCheerios, on 12/08/2007, -1/+1They could have sub dued him. A naked man in a bath towel. QUICK HES GOT A GUN UNDER HIS TOWEL, oh wait no sorry sir i didnt realize that was your....
    • knobtwiddler, on 12/09/2007, -1/+1good sheep.. .baaaaa
    • Damvan, on 12/10/2007, -0/+0That is a stupid comment. Tasers are not always used in situations where it is either a gun or a taser.
  • spyd3rweb, on 12/08/2007, -0/+4Tasers effectively short circuit the old patriots motto "Give me liberty or give me death," By not providing any means of death, instead you are forced into a humiliating submission. This is terribly empowering to the state because it can't kill a person without drawing attention and outcry, but it can taser all it wants and all you get is some whining on digg. Theres no blood to water the liberty tree if the state uses non-lethal weapons.
  • dan222555, on 12/08/2007, -2/+4I'm not afraid of tasers. Probably has something to do with the fact that a.) I'm not a bitch b.) they're non-lethal c.) I'm in good health d.) I act logically in the presence of armed authority figures.
    • RobotBanana, on 12/08/2007, -1/+5I'm sorry, maybe you didn't catch the part about him being hearing impaired, half naked, with a busted down door. I don't know about you, but if a team of cops bust into my house and I couldn't hear them, I might be in a bit of a panic...
      • dan222555, on 12/09/2007, -2/+1I don't know the details of the story (and you certainly can't expect to get them from an article like this) so I'm in no position to comment on this particular story.
  • FiringPin, on 12/08/2007, -3/+1Ahhhhh more Taser hysteria.
  • actorboy, on 12/08/2007, -1/+2"Tell me you're not afraid of tasers."

    That's kind of the point of tasers, isn't it?
  • wafflesomd, on 12/08/2007, -4/+4I'm not afraid of them, because I don't pay attention to the news or stupid over-reacting websites.
  • Tophillious, on 12/08/2007, -0/+3Man, they better do a lot more than apologize.
  • catfish182, on 12/08/2007, -0/+1i can honestly say i am not afraid of tasers.
    The people that use them yes.
    What happens to me when its used yes.
    but tasers no.
  • terroristusgov, on 12/08/2007, -6/+1What did he do?
    Welcome to the police state of Amerika!
    Tasered for asking some questions.

    United States Government are terrorists, war criminals, and horrific liars.

    9-11 was an inside job! What happened to building 7?

    Depleted uranium is a weapon of mass destruction!

    Play Wall Street like a PONZI SCHEME!
  • das7282, on 12/08/2007, -5/+8I challenge any one of the morons out there that are against the use of tasers to do this. Lock yourself in a room with only you, a taser and a murdering thug that doesn't give two ***** whether or not you make it out of the room alive. Then we'll see how long you are against tasers. While there are some bad cops out there and there have been a couple questionable uses of "force" by some bad cops, for the most part MOST cops are very responsible (and very brave) and MOST do use tasers in a responsible manner. If cops resorted shooting people every time the couldn't control them, then what would people say? In fact most of the wussies out ther would probably bitch if cops used any kind of force on these criminals. What are they suppose to do... play nice with the criminal until the voluntarily go to jail? No, the thing people most forget is there are some really bad people out there that don't give two ***** about you, me or anyone else and will stop at nothing to keep from going to jail. So what choice does a cop have when they encounter someone like that? Shoot them? No, that would be over kill (no pum intended). Beat them into? No that would be over kill too and it would bring the cops within close (dangerous) quarters with the criminal... No, I think 50,000 volts is perfectly justifiable in a situation like this!
    • spinningobo, on 12/08/2007, -0/+7Yes, tazers are made for exactly the situations you described above.
      They are NOT, made for:
      - Electrocuting students for not showing ID at the school library
      - Tazing foreign people in airports because they don't speak your language
      - Removing someone from a room during a speech
      - Disabling disabled people in their own homes (pun intended)
      - etc.

      Basically, they should be used in situations where a gun would normally be used. They should not be used if the person does not pose an immediate threat to the officers.
      • iAmGeek, on 12/09/2007, -0/+3I completely agree, however....

        To clarify, I don't think spinningobo means they should be used against someone using another gun, that wouldn't make much sense to me. However, a person running around swinging a bat or shap object wildly, would be the ideal person to taser IF said person were told to stop, but didn't.
    • ryan83189, on 12/09/2007, -1/+0Im sorry, i couldn't take your hypothetical seriously, because I imagined the murdering thug was the one that had the taser.
  • CptCheerios, on 12/08/2007, -2/+1This is my exact problems with tasers, cops dont know the health conditions of patients.

    What if Williams had heart problems he would be dead. Do we really need to wait for cops to taser an innocent man with a heart conidition or with a pace maker?
    • dan222555, on 12/08/2007, -2/+2I urge you to produce some scientific/medical evidence linking heart conditions and being tased to death.
  • goingtoalpha, on 12/08/2007, -2/+9I think we need a TAZER section on Digg.
  • samdu, on 12/08/2007, -1/+3I am not afraid of tasers. There. Happy? If the alternative is being bludgeoned to death or shot, the slight risk involved in tasing seems like the way to go.
    • Damvan, on 12/10/2007, -0/+0You are going on the assumption that tasers are only used in lieu of a gun or nightstick. There has been plenty of evidence to the contrary.
  • Francky, on 12/08/2007, -3/+7Well I for one, am scared. I suffer from epilepsy, if I where to get tasered, chances are VERY good that it would cause a seizure. If that happened, cops are going to think I'm resisting arrest and taser me some more. Which combined with the physical strain the epilepsy has on my system would mean my death. (It's happened in the past, an epileptic man called for an ambulance, got cops that tasered him and killed him)

    So yeah, I'm scared oh that ***** invention.
    • demonsnake69, on 12/08/2007, -0/+5Be scared, but remember that if you survive that tasing you'll win a hell of a lawsuit.
    • knobtwiddler, on 12/09/2007, -0/+3ive seen them mistake diabetic shock for drunkenness before.. its real cute.
  • foxmajik, on 12/08/2007, -2/+1This submission contains 100% of the ingredients for a front page Digg submission: Fear mongering and tasers.
  • demonsnake69, on 12/08/2007, -1/+7So now the justification for this deaf man getting tased is that he's lucky the cops didn't kill him? I hope anyyone with that sentiment is "accidentally" tased or shot by the police.
  • Heaiser, on 12/09/2007, -1/+4No matter what the cops did in this situation they would be criticized... I get the feeling many people on Digg wouldn't be happy until there were no cops to protect them from muggers. Can you really blame these guys for being nervous in this situation? It was just a really bad misunderstanding... surprisingly enough, cops are human beings and misunderstandings happen to everyone from time to time.
    • ryan83189, on 12/09/2007, -1/+0No police state protecting us from ourselves either. I would know how to handle a mugger, especially, if there were no cops to arrest me afterwards. But i can see that they were acting in their best intentions in this instance and can agree that cops will always catch flack.
    • knobtwiddler, on 12/09/2007, -2/+1cops dont protect anyone from muggers. they show up later and try to find the mugger, after the mugging. maybe.. if they feel like it.

      they are not just human beings... they're dumb human beings on STEROIDS and power trips.
    • Damvan, on 12/10/2007, -0/+0So our choices are, unrestrained tasering, or no cops? The world is not all black and white.
  • d3faultnet, on 12/09/2007, -0/+3I Am Not Afraid Of Tasers.


    ..and yes, I've been tased, bro.
  • verkon, on 12/09/2007, -2/+2Pfft, tasers. Good old Sweden, where I can feel safe from tasers. Holy crap a polar bear!!
    • cdcdark, on 12/09/2007, -0/+2At least you don't have to worry about a Polar bear breaking into your house while you naked in the shower.
    • blackjack75, on 12/09/2007, -0/+1Now that I think about it. I'd rather be tased once or twice rather than being raped by a polar bear in my shower.
  • bwdd, on 12/09/2007, -0/+2unless it's a case where the person needs to be shot, put that taser away. Do you know why they were made?
  • HappyScrappy, on 12/09/2007, -0/+1I'm not afraid of Tasers.
  • ryan83189, on 12/09/2007, -0/+3To all the people saying he is lucky he didn't get killed, are those our two choices, tased or be killed? Lucky would be, that the cops realized it was a false alarm, left, then he finds a 20 dollar bill on the sidewalk as he is letting them out. I just got out of the shower, and i am glad i did not get shot! it is a great day.
  • Thor, on 12/09/2007, -2/+1You can't really blame the Cops. They've been told that the taser is harmless. So they have a choice of beating you with a club or tasing you.
    Personally I think they should take all weapons away from the police. Just like Newfoundland and Britain.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 57 of 57 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.