What is Digg?Sponsored by Double Your Dating
The "How To Meet Women" Quiz view!
doubleyourdating.com - Three attractive women are standing a few feet away from you at a bar. What do you do? Find out...
184 Comments
- Albionshores, on 12/11/2007, -6/+121So what do people who are contemplating suicide need...
Cuddles?
A sympathetic ear?
An authoritive figure to talk to them?
Nope*. A good tasering always sorts them out! Taser. It's like love....but in a gun. - doublehead, on 12/11/2007, -5/+54Ah, so we're going back to shock therapy? And now the police are the medical staff administering it. What's next, electric fences to keep us all in line?
- brentinkc, on 12/11/2007, -6/+35An informative video from the ACLU about tasers, their physical dangers, and the violations of civil rights http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eBGIQ7ZuuiU
- phnx0221, on 12/11/2007, -3/+29I had to think carefully on this before I posted it, because, as opposed to the other taser related stories based on unnecessary taser use, unnecessary use of force, lies used in incident reports and reports to supervisor to cover up said unnecessary force, and deaths stemming from such use, this particular story, I have had a recent personal experience where this could have applied if caught in time, and saved a love one from taking his own life.
On the other hand, after considering this, I still feel, deep in my heart, that tasers should be banned, or at the very least heavily restricted to personnel who have undergone psychiatric evaluation, scenario testing, and regular evaluations after issue of the taser.
I don't think, that if someone were to catch someone in the act of committing suicide, that tasering would be the best option. There are other ways to apprehend someone, be it by negotiation, detainment, or as a last resort, the use of non lethal submission holds.
I can't see that saying tasers could save lives by preventing suicide, can be a justification for the continued use of such devices. If I were to take a prescription drug, which had a significant number of potentially lethal side effect, and one positive effect, I wouldn't take it. I'd advocate for its removal from store shelves and doctor's offices (and hospitals, urgent care, etc). I have to look at this in the same light. The number of deaths caused by tasers should not be overlooked just because it has the potential to save a few. - inactive, on 12/11/2007, -3/+22Tasers are a substitute for the use of a gun and should be treated with the same care and respect as one. Using it as a quick fix is irresponsible.
- imacommi, on 12/11/2007, -1/+20The option is not supposed to be a choice between a taser or getting beaten/maced/shot. The whole problem is that figures of authority misuse their equiptment and use unnecessary force. Bottom line is that whether it is mace/a night stick/ a gun/ a taser there have been problems of misuse and tasers are especially prone to this misuse because they are deemed "non-lethal"
- in2deep, on 12/11/2007, -2/+20I think only the Care Bear Police Department carries rainbow tasers.
- manicallday, on 12/11/2007, -10/+25As a black male I have to say at least there's an option to the nightstick or gun. Now when I pullout my wallet, candy bar, pen, phone or anything else that doesn't look like a gun, or ask for directions from a cop, at least I stand a chance for survival. The bottom line is that some cops -and mostly black by the way- will always harass blacks like me because I pose no threat. So i If I have a choice, I would much rather get shocked for thirty seconds than beaten, maced or shot. This way I'm able to go to work without having to explain wounds and why I got beaten up by the cops, which would probably lead to my dismissal. So thank you Taser International.
- echo2501, on 12/11/2007, -0/+13And there's NO reason for our citizens to have to risk bodily harm when being abused by some power tripping cop.
- inactive, on 12/11/2007, -0/+12Low-life scum such as as people having seizures, pregnant women, or one-eyed grannies?
- ChaosMotor, on 12/11/2007, -0/+11Been to a large protest lately? They have the electric fences all ready for you.
- mrgreenjeans, on 12/11/2007, -1/+11So, if someone has their finger on the trigger and the barrel in their mouth, 50,000 volts constricting every muscle in the body is going to save them, how?
- fuelcell, on 12/11/2007, -0/+10Absolutely hilarious! I think some people are missing the sheer ***** comedy here. "Hi, I'm a young black male and I prefer getting Tasered over maced, beaten or shot. Thank you, Taser International." Now, that's an endorsement I'd like to see on my television.
- newinvestor123, on 12/11/2007, -0/+9You've obviously missed the orgy of taser abuse in the last six months.
- Nickel1899, on 12/11/2007, -0/+7a possible bargining chip?
- InContrast, on 12/11/2007, -0/+7So it kills those who want to live, but it saves those who want to die... It doesn't seem like it makes anybody happy. However, I know the point of tasers, it's should be the alternative for a gun, but some officers misuse it, and many more are not trained properly.
- alpha94, on 12/11/2007, -1/+7If you stop them from killing themselves by a taser, there was no meaningful decision on their part to change their lives. The instant they are able to they will just try and do it again.
- MattB123, on 12/11/2007, -0/+6It's true they are biased. They are clearly favoring our civil liberties over profiteering and fascism, those bastards.
- brentinkc, on 12/11/2007, -0/+6Maybe you should give the video a chance before just bashing it
- inactive, on 12/11/2007, -0/+6Given the history of the criminal justice system as it pertains to minorities in this country, perhaps he knew he 'wasn't going anywhere for a while"?
- BoneheadFarker, on 12/11/2007, -5/+11Did you ever stop to think that maybe you don't deserve to be harrassed, and should be fighting just as hard as your civil right era counterparts did to put an end to the harassment? Just because they won one battle doesn't mean your war is over...
- Navicerts, on 12/11/2007, -2/+8Tazers in and of themselves are not the problem. It's really no different from the gun issue, guns themselves are not the problem, just a tool.
That said there IS a problem but it lies in how the police are getting trained, what police are getting hired, or maybe how police are evaluated and re-trained on a periodic basis, hell i don't know. The point is you can't legitimately lay the blame on a tool, lots of things are dangerous if used in the wrong way. If there is a certain % chance that the suspect will die when he/she is tazered, it needs to be appropriately weighed when deciding to taze or not (no different from a gun, but less dangerous). - jgzman, on 12/11/2007, -0/+5Actually, there is a reason for them to risk physical harm. They signed up for it. No one is going to say that policing is a safe job. It's not. If you want a safe job, go work at Wal-Mart.
- vertinox, on 12/11/2007, -0/+5Why is it the cops job to prevent someone from committing suicide?
If you want to go its your right. If you're not sure then the best solution is talking with an expert like a suicide hotline person.
If someone tasers you, it doesn't stop you the next time you try to off yourself. - inactive, on 12/11/2007, -2/+7shaddap you twit. Some of us are asking that cops use the damn things responsibly and not just whip them out because someone gives them a little lip.
- vertinox, on 12/11/2007, -2/+7It just means you are going to delay their suicide. They'll try some other way once they get out of the hospital and or cheap therapy.
- inactive, on 12/11/2007, -2/+7why the ***** do you pull out snicker bars when cops pull you over?
- Look4Truth, on 12/11/2007, -0/+5Save the suicidals and kill everyone else, sure, sounds fair to me.
- vertinox, on 12/11/2007, -0/+5Here is my take. I don't plan on committing suicide. Hence, if a cop is using a taser on me it isn't most likley in my best interest.
If you are a person committing suicide, I personally feel you have a right to end your life as long as it doesn't endanger anyone else. Obviously if you called the cops and or haven't acted fast enough to kill yourself it means what you are doing is a cry for help. That is also your responsibility.
To enable cops to have power over us who are choosing not to commit suicide is not a fair bargain. Again, tasering a suicidal person won't make them any less suicidal after the fact. - subterfuge, on 12/11/2007, -1/+6i want to see someone try to drown themself in a pool full of children. how many officers would remember that water conducts electricity?
- Qumahlin, on 12/11/2007, -0/+5Says you. Talking someone out of suicide is MUCH more effective because by speaking with them your giving them a chance to contemplate their actions and MAKE THEIR OWN DECISION. If you have someone who is honestly at that point and you prevent their suicidal act by tasing them you ARE NOT HELPING. All you did once again was impose YOUR will on someone who most likely has little to no control over thier current life. Many suicides take place because the person feels they have control over nothing, but atleast they control if they live or die.
- ryodoan, on 12/11/2007, -0/+5If they are near the edge of a building, they wouldnt be tasered anyway because they would fall off the roof...
Tasers are overused, but seriously, if the options are of my brothers brains splattered on the wall from a self inflicted gun wound, or have him tasered so he doesnt shoot himself, I pick taser.
Gun = Always in the hospital, and probably dead.
Taser = Always on the ground, probably not in the hospital. (other than the psyche ward) - inactive, on 12/11/2007, -15/+19***** please.
- pintomp3, on 12/11/2007, -0/+4i would say the neutered ones are the ones who bend over for anyone in an authority position and ask for more.
- phnx0221, on 12/11/2007, -0/+4Look, the fact of the matter, is that in light of recent events regarding excessive taser (or electrifying stun gun) use, and the deaths caused thereafter, this is a situation that must be looked at carefully. We have all seen the videos, heard the audio recordings, and have read articles written about numerous police officers subduing a non-combatant person by use of taser. We have seen police officers using tasers against citizens simply because they gave the officer "attitude", or "didn't obey reasonable requests". We have seen numerous police officers approaching agitated persons, and tasering them when other means could have been applied to settle this person down. Look at the case of the Polish man who died immediately after being tasered numerous times by a group of police officers, while one was holding him down with a knee to the throat. Yes, he was agitated, yes he was throwing things around. However, he was locked in a secure room for ten hours, stuck in an airport, with no one communicating to him anything in regards to how much longer he was going to have to be stuck in there, why he was there in the first place, or what options he had other than being stuck in a secluded room for hours at a time. He didn't speak any English, and the security and police personnel didn't speak Polish, yet the immediate assumption was that the use of the taser was the first means to subdue this person.
We have read the reports of police tasering a wheelchair bound person because they were in a state of delirium. We read reports of police tasering a deaf person because they responded to the wrong house.
When people die after being tasered, the police departments, and the taser company issue reports that they actually died because of excited delirium, which isn't even recognized by the medical community for being a legitimate cause of death.
These things must be taken into consideration when debating the rights and wrongs of the continued use of something that while considered to be non-lethal, was promoted and issued to be used only in absence of a gun. So, instead of shooting someone, you would subdue them with a shock of 50,000 volts. This isn't for disobeying orders, for being rude, for asking questions to a Senator in a question and answer session, or for expressing agitation when placed in an agitating situation. This is something to be used in lieu of a gun.
Therefor, if the taser device is going to be continued in use, there MUST be tighter regulations imposed on the police officers who are carrying them. There must be tighter psychiatric evaluations for the officers who are issued, background checks, and continued psychiatric evaluations on a regular basis. Because, it is quite apparent, that while there are officers who don't have such a high power trip that they deploy tasers for such unjust and illegal purposes, there are enough of them that do to warrant a national debate on the subject. - shaykai, on 12/11/2007, -4/+8Unfortunately some people cannot be negotiated with. If someone has a large kitchen knife to their throat and are threatening to kill themselves or anyone that tries to stop them, do you think its fair that a cop has to try and use 'non-lethal submission holds' to try and stop them from hurting themselves or others? Don't cops have a right to safety as well? I do believe that tasers are being used too much in situations when the bad guy doesn't have a weapon, but when it comes to armed suspects, I think that if the options are tasers or a bullet, I choose taser.
On a side note, this article title is ridiculous with the "spin on tasers" comment. You only see news articles about the misuse of weapons, you never hear about the hundreds of times a day when they are used properly all over the country. - newinvestor123, on 12/11/2007, -0/+4Tasers are too easy to use, and there is (usually) no side effects, hence the abuse of them.
- kore64, on 12/11/2007, -0/+4Why aren't I allowed to commit suicide? How is this a good use of a Taser?
- oldhick, on 12/11/2007, -0/+4How do you train someone in the proper use of a taser? They are already trained. They are trained that it is non-lethal and they resort to its use frequently. Taser me and get shot!
- oldhick, on 12/11/2007, -2/+6Wow, only 150???? Cause I don't get worried until the at least 152!!!
Since only a few people die, tase the ***** out of everyone. - Corrosionx, on 12/11/2007, -0/+4Tasers are lethal force and should only be used in the same situations a gun would be fired: ie. not to obtain obedience, but if the cops feels his life is in danger.
- inactive, on 12/11/2007, -2/+6I agree, I don't think tasers should be banned, but proper training is a must and it doesn't seem like the police are getting it. Just because something is billed as "non-lethal" doesn't mean it's harmless or there won't be lasting effects.
- pkonink, on 12/11/2007, -0/+4Here's what is probably the most unpopular viewpoint of them all: a person should be allowed to take their own life. It's their OWN life after all. Why accept the government interfering with a decision of this magnitude? Why is suicide illegal? Isn't it a fundamental right to do what you wish with your own property - your body being your original and most valuable property?
- gerran, on 12/11/2007, -0/+4Tasers prevent suicides by killing the person before they can kill themselves. Genius marketing and business strategy if you ask me. Taser's PR guy deserves a cookie.
- inactive, on 12/11/2007, -1/+5wait until you are on the receiving end.
- pintomp3, on 12/11/2007, -0/+4oh thank you massa. you sho is nice fo jes taserin me.
dude, innocent blacks shouldn't be hassled to begin with. you sound like a house slave. how about you get neither shot nor tasered? is it really too much to expect the police the protect and serve instead of profile and harass? - murf43143, on 12/11/2007, -0/+4Who is to say they can't off themselves if they want? GENE POOL people, gene pool......
- inactive, on 12/11/2007, -2/+5Settle down junior, this discussion is for the adults.
- gandre, on 12/11/2007, -1/+4i feel so punk'd
- inactive, on 12/11/2007, -1/+4*****
-
Show 51 - 100 of 186 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is