• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

Britain: Police State?

Nope, I'm with BRF on this:

They're still touting the line that tasers are a less lethal alternative to firearms... but how often will we see them used, when a firearm wouldn't have been?

They're not a last-ditch alternative to firearms and we shouldn't be fooled into thinking they are.
 
If the London police had had Tasers, the Jean-Charles de Menezes might still eb alive.

i'm at a loss as to why anyone would want to risk putting 50,000 volts through someone who's believed to be carrying several kilos of unstable homemade explosives :?
 
wembley8 said:
People have a very negative image of Tasers (thanks largely to negative media coverage and a few cases of abuse).

In fact, even sceptics have to conclude that they do save lives. In terms of apprehending suspects, they appear to be less likely to cause death or serious injury than 'traditional' methods such as batons or manual restraint. And pepper spray, the main competitor, is equally questionable.

If the London police had had Tasers, the Jean-Charles de Menezes might still eb alive.

But I guess it's easier to do a scare story mentioning 50,000 volts. WHo wants to hear that the police have a safer and more effective tool?

Hmmmm. Then maybe the criminal fraternity could be cajoled into using these 'non-lethal' weapons. I idly wonder what the verdict would be on a criminal who used one of these 'safe' methods of restraint.
 
I'm not sure they could be described as being used to punish. In the first instance the women was deliberately disobeying the officer's instructions (full video here - http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=Qk7c7DEkxmU ). She was on the phone describing where she was and that whe was being held by police who were going to shoot her. That's a security risk and she was warned several times. Likewise the third one the man ignores the officer and starts walking back to the car. For all the police know the man may have a firearm in the car (or even on his person).

In the fourth case we don't even see or hear what the taser victim does so it's difficult to draw any conclusion from it. It certainly doesn't look like punishment and it's debatable whether there's any attempt at coercion since the officer with the taser seems to be reacting to something. The second clip is more troubling though but again we don't see the full sweep of events and it's worth noting that after she was tasered initially she then went on to try and kick in the windows on the car and could have sustained perhaps worse injuries in doing so. Again, though, it looks more like weak policing rather than seeking to adminster summary punishment.

The important thing to bear in mind here, though, is that these instances took place in a country in which guns - legal and illegal - are widely held. Compelling someone who may be armed will often require greater force than what we're used to here. Comparing the use of tasers in north America to their use here is comparing apples and oranges to some extent.
 
jimv1 said:
Hmmmm. Then maybe the criminal fraternity could be cajoled into using these 'non-lethal' weapons. I idly wonder what the verdict would be on a criminal who used one of these 'safe' methods of restraint.

The argument's a non-starter, I'm afraid, unless you believe people should be allowed to use batons and occasionally firearms extra-judiciously as well. The alternative would be police being armed with nothing other than good manners and a stern word.

Maybe the fact that the criminal fraternity doesn't seem to be using tasers to any significant extent might also be telling us something.
 
ted_bloody_maul said:
I'm not sure they could be described as being used to punish. In the first instance the women was deliberately disobeying the officer's instructions (full video here - http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=Qk7c7DEkxmU ). She was on the phone describing where she was and that whe was being held by police who were going to shoot her. That's a security risk and she was warned several times. ...
That would be the, "full video" version, captioned, 'Woman gets tased for being a bitc.......' and tagged as, 'entertainment'?

All that "Put your hands behind your back, or I'm going to taze you again!", from the policeman, as the tazed woman rolls around in agony on the ground, is probably strictly for the video record, as the woman probably had very little control over her body, directly after being tazed the first time. As the police may have been aware, since they're supposedly trained in the use and effect of these weapons. How very exciting and stimulating it must be for them, though. The immediacy of the spasms and screams from their once so truculent target.

Some of the comments that accompany these videos are quite telling.
0nett (3 weeks ago)

Don't Taze me Bro!!!

LOL

ted_bloody_maul said:
...

The important thing to bear in mind here, though, is that these instances took place in a country in which guns - legal and illegal - are widely held. Compelling someone who may be armed will often require greater force than what we're used to here. Comparing the use of tasers in north America to their use here is comparing apples and oranges to some extent.
Let's sincerely hope so, as there will also be much less in the way of official video records, when they are used.

Tasers leave a little in the way of physical marks, their immediate effects can be extremely painful and debilitating and it will usually be the word of the police versus those of the tazee.
 
Pietro_Mercurios said:
That would be the, "full video" version, captioned, 'Woman gets tased for being a bitc.......' and tagged as, 'entertainment'?

And that has what do with the police officers and their motives?

Pietro_Mercurios said:
All that "Put your hands behind your back, or I'm going to taze you again!", from the policeman, as the tazed woman rolls around in agony on the ground, is probably strictly for the video record, as the woman probably had very little control over her body, directly after being tazed the first time. As the police may have been aware, since they're supposedly trained in the use and effect of these weapons. How very exciting and stimulating it must be for them, though. The immediacy of the spasms and screams from their once so truculent target.

Aah, I see. We know what was going through their minds because of some prejudicial fantasies about the police.

Pietro_Mercurios said:
Some of the comments that accompany these videos are quite telling.
0nett (3 weeks ago)

Don't Taze me Bro!!!

LOL

Again this seems to be some sort of cryptic non-sequitur. All it tells us is that some people like watching this sort of stuff on the internet. So what?

ted_bloody_maul said:
...

The important thing to bear in mind here, though, is that these instances took place in a country in which guns - legal and illegal - are widely held. Compelling someone who may be armed will often require greater force than what we're used to here. Comparing the use of tasers in north America to their use here is comparing apples and oranges to some extent.

Let's sincerely hope so, as there will also be much less in the way of official video records, when they are used.

Pietro_Mercurios said:
Tasers leave a little in the way of physical marks, their immediate effects can be extremely painful and debilitating and it will usually be the word of the police versus those of the tazee.

Really? In panopticon Britain? In any case if the police want to inflict pain they can do without it a taser and it'll still be their word against the suspect so I don't see how it'll make much difference.
 
Pietro_Mercurios said:
Still not convinced?

What about this example, where the woman in question is obviously fairly securely cuffed, in the police station and surrounded by three officers?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KWaCD6jIH5Q

Not convinced of what?

By the way the officer was fired so it's clearly not condoned by the authorities. You could just as easily put up footage of the Rodney King 17 years ago by comparison but it all it would demonstrate is that you don't need a taser to brutalise someone and you maybe won't get away with it even if you did.
 
Never mind, Ted. Let's just put it down to another example of the balance of force shifting in favour of the State and against the individual, no matter how truculent and 'uppity.'

Tasers are really just fancy electric cattle prods, after all.
 
Pietro_Mercurios said:
Never mind, Ted. Let's just put it down to another example of the balance of force shifting in favour of the State and against the individual, no matter how truculent and 'uppity.'

Tasers are really just fancy electric cattle prods, after all.
Or we could just chalk it up to being a more efficient tool for maintaining law and order in certain circumstances, an imperfect one but an improvement all the same.

By the way, you'd be surprised at how many people who actually live in this country would be happy to see the force shifting in favour of the state against the individual if the individual in question happens to be committing a crime. Safe to say most are less afraid of the police than they are the criminals here and with good reason too.
 
ted_bloody_maul said:
...

By the way, you'd be surprised at how many people who actually live in this country would be happy to see the force shifting in favour of the state against the individual if the individual in question happens to be committing a crime. ...
No. Not really.

You'd be surprised at the miserable petty things people sometimes do to suddenly get themselves considered criminals. Bad things don't always happen to other people and it's not always other people that do bad things.

What I worry about is a society where everybody is considered a potential suspect and a danger and where immediate compliance and abject obedience are demanded, like in those videos.
 
Pietro_Mercurios said:
No. Not really.

You'd be surprised at the miserable petty things people sometimes do to suddenly get themselves considered criminals. Bad things don't always happen to other people and it's not always other people that do bad things.

What I worry about is a society where everybody is considered a potential suspect and a danger and where immediate compliance and abject obedience are demanded, like in those videos.

People aren't going to start getting tasered on suspicion of littering or even for having a lump of hash on them unless they're uncooperative with the police. In such circumstances few people will have sympathy for those offering resistance. It would be something of a straw man argument to insist tasers would be applied in such 'petty' circumstances.

With regards to the videos - in those instances the crimes were identified beforehand so it's not really a question of people being treated as potential suspects (which technically any decent policeman should be doing - potential suspect being such a meaninglessly vague description aside) and in certain cases they were (racially) abusive and uncooperative over a prolonged period. These would be bad examples since they were all prosecuted bar the woman in the police car (the case wasn't pursued due to the unwillingness to testify of the officer who had been fired and reinstated for other reasons).
 
ted_bloody_maul said:
...

People aren't going to start getting tasered on suspicion of littering or even for having a lump of hash on them unless they're uncooperative with the police. In such circumstances few people will have sympathy for those offering resistance. It would be something of a straw man argument to insist tasers would be applied in such 'petty' circumstances.
You really weren't watching those videos closely enough.

Because, one day, for whatever reason, accidentally driving the wrong way, down a one way street, you might find yourself on the wrong side of the law, disorientated and foolish enough to argue, because you think you're in the right. You might not be aware of the true relationship between yourself, as a suspect, and the police as officers of the law and wielders of force, on behalf of the State. You might hesitate to obey, perhaps you moved in a suspicious manner where the officer couldn't see your hands, just a few seconds too long and suddenly you find yourself toppling to the ground, no longer in control of your body and screaming like an animal.

Tasers make such 'misunderstandings' more likely and lightning fast.

Perhaps You Tubers will find your fall from grace entertaining, or even be able to explain it all away as lawful use of a taser.
 
Pietro_Mercurios said:
You really weren't watching those videos closely enough.

Because, one day, for whatever reason, accidentally driving the wrong way, down a one way street, you might find yourself on the wrong side of the law, disorientated and foolish enough to argue, because you think you're in the right. You might not be aware of the true relationship between yourself, as a suspect, and the police as officers of the law and wielders of force, on behalf of the State. You might hesitate to obey, perhaps you moved in a suspicious manner where the officer couldn't see your hands, just a few seconds too long and suddenly you find yourself toppling to the ground, no longer in control of your body and screaming like an animal.

Tasers make such 'misunderstandings' more likely and lightning fast.

Perhaps You Tubers will find your fall from grace entertaining, or even be able to explain it all away as lawful use of a taser..

No, I was watching the videos (in full and from other sources) closely enough.

I couldn't give a toss whether people were having a giggle at my exploits or not since I'd be so embarrassed at my own stupidity. If it happens to me then I'd reckon I'd deserve it since I know the police have that capability and - like football referees - they're not likely to change their mind through incoherent ranting and willful disobedience. Either way I'd rather be mocked as an adult than patronised as a child for my behaviour.


I'd also suggest that tasers make such misunderstandings more unlikely since, well, it should be fairly obvious why. As you point out - I could end up on the floor etc. And by the way, the repeated notion that those videos - aside from the one where the officer was sacked - show somebody 'hesitating to obey, perhaps moving in a suspicious manner where the officer couldn't see [...] hands, just a few seconds too long' is simply wrong. None of the clips show anything like that.
 
ted_bloody_maul said:
... And by the way, the repeated notion that those videos - aside from the one where the officer was sacked - show somebody 'hesitating to obey, perhaps moving in a suspicious manner where the officer couldn't see [...] hands, just a few seconds too long' is simply wrong. None of the clips show anything like that.
Did you time any of them? Seconds is all it took.

I do hope I'm wrong. In real life threatening situations, these weapons could be a boon. Used casually, as on some of those hysterical women, they'd be just plain wrong.
 
Pietro_Mercurios said:
Did you time any of them? Seconds is all it took.

That's not the case - in the first video the woman was being uncooperative for about two minutes beforehand. In the case of the man with the child - do you actually know what he was doing? You don't because he's not actually on tape. In the case of the man who walks back to his car - he was warned before walking off and chose to go back. It's not unreasonable in a country where arms are legally held to suspect that he posed a real threat to the officers. In the case of the women in the back of the car we don't actually see the first tasering so I don't see how we can comment on how long it took.

Pietro_Mercurios said:
I do hope I'm wrong. In real life threatening situations, these weapons could be a boon. Used casually, as on some of those hysterical women, they'd be just plain wrong.

It might also be a tad out of touch to assume that because they're woman (hysterical only after the tasering) they don't pose a threat equal to a man. Especially, as mentioned before, in a country where firearms are legally held.
 
ted_bloody_maul said:
...

It might also be a tad out of touch to assume that because they're woman (hysterical only after the tasering) ...
It may be a tad insensitive to assume that some of those women aren't in a state of panic and hysteria, just because, before being tazered, they aren't screaming and thrashing about in agony on the ground.
 
ted_bloody_maul said:
jimv1 said:
Hmmmm. Then maybe the criminal fraternity could be cajoled into using these 'non-lethal' weapons. I idly wonder what the verdict would be on a criminal who used one of these 'safe' methods of restraint.

The argument's a non-starter, I'm afraid, unless you believe people should be allowed to use batons and occasionally firearms extra-judiciously as well. The alternative would be police being armed with nothing other than good manners and a stern word.

Maybe the fact that the criminal fraternity doesn't seem to be using tasers to any significant extent might also be telling us something.

Well, for starters, I'm not condoning the use of weapons in the manner you describe. I was just wondering if a criminal did use a taser in the line of his or her 'business' and the tasee died- what the verdict would be as there is a lot of documentation and reports saying that officially these weapons are acknowledged to be safe and non-lethal, despite what Amnesty Internationl may tell us.
 
That's an interesting point.
What will happen when, as is bound to occur, a taser is taken off a police officer and used against him or her? What if the officer died?

Also, I'm all for law'n'order, but we have to accept that the authority which we give to those who protect us can be misused, and indeed sometimes must be, by its very nature.

A concrete example of this is the question of when a weapon (not necessarily a taser) can be used.
Does an officer have to feel personally threatened? Or is resisting arrest good enough cause? In which case, crucially, what constitutes resisting arrest - running away? Swearing at the officer? Physical violence?

We normally only have the officer's word and the suspect's about what happens at arrest, and nobody's listening to Chummy. :(
 
A concrete example of this is the question of when a weapon (not necessarily a taser) can be used.

What about using police cars to stop drivers trying to get away, i don't know if the police in Britain are allowed to use there cars to stop drivers but i'm sure it happens. They are trained to nudge cars to get them to spin. Would this be considered using a weapon because you can't always be sure that when a car is udged its going to calmly come to a halt at the side of the road.
 
BlackRiverFalls said:
If the London police had had Tasers, the Jean-Charles de Menezes might still eb alive.

i'm at a loss as to why anyone would want to risk putting 50,000 volts through someone who's believed to be carrying several kilos of unstable homemade explosives

...because it's a lot safer than shooting them. Taser Inc have done a lot of research on this, and while some of the results have not been released, basically you can't set off explosives with them. A bullet, on the other hand, will detonate quite a lot of unstable compounds.

More to the point, as we now know, Kratos rules mean putting several bullets through the skull. Whereas on Taser hit will bring anyone down, instantly - and if you get the wrong man, you apologise afterwards rather than burying them.
 
[quote="jimv1 I was just wondering if a criminal did use a taser in the line of his or her 'business' and the tasee died-[/quote]

Of what, exactly? How the hell do you kill someone with a Taser - strike them over the head with it? If you check out the autopsies of people who havew died after tasering, only in one case was the Taser considered partly (25%) responsible. And that's after tens of thousands of Taserings.
 
Pietro_Mercurios said:
I do hope I'm wrong. In real life threatening situations, these weapons could be a boon. Used casually, as on some of those hysterical women, they'd be just plain wrong.

In real life they have saved a lot of lives. Even New Scientist, which is generally scathing , accepts that on balance they save lives -

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg1 ... tml?page=2 - roughly 70 lives are saved for every taser death.

Sure they can also be abused, but they have several disadvantages for this type of use; when you discharge a Taser the details are automatically recorded; it also throws out a shower of confetti-like ID tags. Later versions will video the encounter as well. Unlike a baton or pepper spray, it has a lot of built-in safeguards.
 
wembley8 said:
If you check out the autopsies of people who have died after tasering, only in one case was the Taser considered partly (25%) responsible.

Hmmmmmmmmmmm. So what did the other people die of?
 
I suspect the truth regarding tasers is somewhere between that spouted by Taser Inc (after they have to sell it) and that of Amnesty. There are enough incidents to cast some doubts on its safety (check out the issues with CS gas (here).

As for 70 lives saved per taser death? Strange I thought the point was that they were none lethal. Even so I'd still doubt the veracity of those kind of statistics.

At least the Met are taking things sensibly.
 
Here's another statistic in the rough 25% area...

.

Of 75 people who died after being shot with a taser or stun gun, the taser was considered a potentially contributory cause of death in 27 per cent of cases. Source: Drs J Strote and H Range Hutson from the University of Washington Medical Centre in Seattle and reported in the October/December 2006 issue of Prehospital Emergency Care
 
Taser Inc have done a lot of research on this, and while some of the results have not been released, basically you can't set off explosives with them.

some home made explosives are unstable enough that they can detonate spontaneously, or from a small shock. i don't think i'd fancy trying it, whatever taser inc say (or don;t say).
 
lupinwick said:
I suspect the truth regarding tasers is somewhere between that spouted by Taser Inc (after they have to sell it) and that of Amnesty. There are enough incidents to cast some doubts on its safety

Are you sure abot that? or is it just that if you sling enough mud, some of it gets believed?

Anyone can claim that Tasers kill, but that's not what the actual autopsies show.


lupinwick said:
s for 70 lives saved per taser death? Strange I thought the point was that they were none lethal. Even so I'd still doubt the veracity of those kind of statistics.

That seems a bit careless unless you know where it came from (...not Taser Inc!)
 
Back
Top