Pittsboro Police to get tasers?

[WolfpackFan]

I think tasers need more study..not just for Chatham Co. but for the whole US..there are alot of deaths with them no matter what the reason and there shouldn't be. I think they are more dangerous then they are made out to be.

We only seem to be getting one side of the story from amensty, and they might be a little biased.  An unbiased, nationwide study on thier use would shed a lot of light on the subject.

they carefully examined each of 84 deaths. what was missing? the part that said, sure, cops should just tase first and stand there with their thumbs up their a** and wait for back up?

have you ever seen a proper traffic stop? did it in any way resemble this one?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8RGe8fJ597w

so why are you against training cops?

Why are you so hostile?  I would like to look at the all of the lives that may have been saved by the use of tasers.  Not just one side of a story that fits my agenda of bashing police.

And as clear as your logic is, I am not following how looking at the overall use of tasers is somehow against being sure that cops have proper training.  Can you explain that leap of logic to me, please.

The whole point of looking at all of the information of taser use, not just the deaths, is to determine what works, and what does not work.  To me, that is a good start to a proper training program.

[billwillcox]

Not to take sides but I agree Wolfpack. Your approach certainly sounds reasonable and I think more study is needed, not just training. From a large psycho-societal perspective (Huh?), I see the problem being one of human nature and authority. If you give a man a uniform and the ability to "lord it" over his fellow man, often there are abuses...not always, mind you...but there is occasionally that one apple who maybe kicks a dog, ref. recent incident, or uses a taser during a routine traffic stop. Policemen who do that need to know they will face appropriate disciplinary action.

[PJJ]

But, tasers are NOT suppose to kill ANYONE....

[billwillcox]

Hmm..true. Tasers are not supposed to kill anyone. It is hard to refute that one. It is true that tasers do sometimes kill. The only argument I can make, and I admit it is a weak one, is that out of 500,000 uses,  there might have been one death involved if the taser had not been used, i.e., maybe the officer was in a tight spot, like a guy was going to jump off a bridge....and just before he jumps, the officer pulls out his taser and ZAAAPPPPP!...the victim falls right on the edge of the bridge (but hopefully not off of it!). So the taser saved the man's life (assuming of course he does not die of cardiac arrest from the shock.)

[chrstnhsbndfthr]

Let's think about this honestly.  Restraining holds have resulted in deaths.  People have had heart attacks because they ran away from the officer and the physical exertion was too much.  We need a little perspective when considering what we are going to provide to our officers as they protect and serve. Training yes, disarming no. But to think all deaths can be prevented is not realistic. The suspect has a great deal of control in any confrontation and is therefore accountable for what he puts himself through.

[WolfpackFan]

Let's think about this honestly.  Restraining holds have resulted in deaths.  People have had heart attacks because they ran away from the officer and the physical exertion was too much.  We need a little perspective when considering what we are going to provide to our officers as they protect and serve. Training yes, disarming no. But to think all deaths can be prevented is not realistic. The suspect has a great deal of control in any confrontation and is therefore accountable for what he puts himself through.

I was thinking I had not seen any videos of someone laying spread eagle on the floor being tasered.

[belle]

Let's think about this honestly.  Restraining holds have resulted in deaths.  People have had heart attacks because they ran away from the officer and the physical exertion was too much.  We need a little perspective when considering what we are going to provide to our officers as they protect and serve. Training yes, disarming no. But to think all deaths can be prevented is not realistic. The suspect has a great deal of control in any confrontation and is therefore accountable for what he puts himself through.

I was thinking I had not seen any videos of someone laying spread eagle on the floor being tasered.

wow, that was the first youtube I ever saw. the guy is on the floor, cuffed, and got tased 6 times because he couldn't/wouldn't stand up.

http://in-theory.blogspot.com/2006/11/dont-taser-me-i-am-student.html

[WolfpackFan]

Let's think about this honestly.  Restraining holds have resulted in deaths.  People have had heart attacks because they ran away from the officer and the physical exertion was too much.  We need a little perspective when considering what we are going to provide to our officers as they protect and serve. Training yes, disarming no. But to think all deaths can be prevented is not realistic. The suspect has a great deal of control in any confrontation and is therefore accountable for what he puts himself through.

I was thinking I had not seen any videos of someone laying spread eagle on the floor being tasered.

wow, that was the first youtube I ever saw. the guy is on the floor, cuffed, and got tased 6 times because he couldn't/wouldn't stand up.

http://in-theory.blogspot.com/2006/11/dont-taser-me-i-am-student.html

This is from the comments below the video.

"He cuts in line but gets to ask his question anyway.
He starts to rant and become unruly.
They first asked him to step down.
Then they cut his mic, but he wouldn't stop anyway.
The police tried to calmly escort him out.
The instant he tried to jerk away to break away, he was resisting the police. That is a crime. You have zero choice if you getting arrested. If its a wrongful arrest you can easily sue the city for tons of money. (Thats why police dont just do around arresting ppl willy nilly.)
They warned him several times to cooperate and stop resisting.
It was a full 40 seconds between the first warning that he would be tasered and the tasering."

Once again, not cooperating, things happen.

PS.  Are you going to explain that logic jump from earlier, or should we just pretend it did not happen?

[belle]

I'm not sure which jump you mean. the comments are much like the one's on this board. I'll try.

the boy was a jerk, no kidding. he didn't have his ID on him, he mouthed off to the cops. for that they can cuff him and drag him out.

I take issue with the idea that just because they have tasers, they should be allowed to use them to punish someone. they had him cuffed, they had several brawney cops handy. why not just arrest him, tresspass him, whatever, without the taser zap?

fine him, expel him, put him in stocks, after a trial.

there was no reason to taser him, except the cop was frustrated and he had one, so he used it. that should be as illegal as shooting a shoplifter because he is outrunning the cops and they have guns.

[WolfpackFan]

I think you and I have fundemental differences on the use of tasers.  I don't really have a problem with someone getting tasered for resisting.  And I don't really have a problem with police shooting people that run from them.  Maybe if things were a little tougher on criminals, we would not have so many.

I also think that you and I agree that officers should be well trained in the use of tasers before they are given out.

[belle]

guns are to protect the cop or a citizen from immediate lethal danger, not to bring down a fugitive.

a taser is to incapacitate a suspect that is a danger to himself or others.

a beefy kid in cuffs who won't be quiet and stand quietly is annoying, but not a danger.

the cop should lose his zap priveleges until he is better trained in the needful use of one. he could have gotten that kid arrested without using it. he was annoyed and wanted to smack the kid, so he zapped him. I would consider it assault. the kid was cuffed.

[WolfpackFan]

guns are to protect the cop or a citizen from immediate lethal danger, not to bring down a fugitive.

a taser is to incapacitate a suspect that is a danger to himself or others.

a beefy kid in cuffs who won't be quiet and stand quietly is annoying, but not a danger.

the cop should lose his zap priveleges until he is better trained in the needful use of one. he could have gotten that kid arrested without using it. he was annoyed and wanted to smack the kid, so he zapped him. I would consider it assault. the kid was cuffed.

I am for expanding it's use.

I am for expanding it's use.

Your opinion, not really a fact.  If you ever watch Cops or talk to a cop, you will hear stories about handcuff people causing problems.

The adult needed to be smacked.  Spare the taser, spoil the child.

The simple fact of this episode is that if the adult in the video had done what he was told, there would never have been a youtube video.

[chrstnhsbndfthr]

Not addressing the video, since I cannot see it, but in general, the choice is entirely up to the suspect. No officer wants to use his tazer, ESPECIALLY on a cuffed suspect. 

But I disagree whole-heartedly with the sentiment that it cannot be used to apprehend a fleeing fugitive.  Judgment should be used based on the crime, not for running from a parking ticket, but an armed suspect fleeing from a murder spree could be shot with a firearm and the officer would LOVE to have me on his jury.

There are already some pretty complex rules for many departments covering this sort of thing. But, Belle, it is not always as simple as cops bad, evil-doers good.  Sometimes an officers is a good man in a bad situation, doing the best he can.  Sometimes they will make mistakes, certainly, and EVERYTHING they do is subject to review after the fact, but we need to give the average officer a break.  They are not the bad guys.

[belle]

Not addressing the video, since I cannot see it, but in general, the choice is entirely up to the suspect. No officer wants to use his tazer, ESPECIALLY on a cuffed suspect. 

But I disagree whole-heartedly with the sentiment that it cannot be used to apprehend a fleeing fugitive.  Judgment should be used based on the crime, not for running from a parking ticket, but an armed suspect fleeing from a murder spree could be shot with a firearm and the officer would LOVE to have me on his jury.

There are already some pretty complex rules for many departments covering this sort of thing. But, Belle, it is not always as simple as cops bad, evil-doers good.  Sometimes an officers is a good man in a bad situation, doing the best he can.  Sometimes they will make mistakes, certainly, and EVERYTHING they do is subject to review after the fact, but we need to give the average officer a break.  They are not the bad guys.

CHF, once more you said something and tried to say I said it. I did not say anything about a murderous rampage.

I said a shoplifter, running, cannot be shot like a partridge. there must be an endangered human to warrant gun use.

a taser may be permissable, to prevent flight.

this person was firmly in custody, and was tasered out of frustration by the cop. that is assault.

[chrstnhsbndfthr]

guns are to protect the cop or a citizen from immediate lethal danger, not to bring down a fugitive.

Do you just not pay attention to what you say??

[Tags:]

Jump to: Please select a destination: ----------------------------- Chatham County Online ----------------------------- => Chatham County Online => Chatham County Schools => Chatham County Food & Drink => Chatham County Music & Arts => Chatham Community Calendar => Free Classifieds & Help Wanted Ads => Noah's Ark - All Creatures Great & Small. => Neighbor to Neighbor => Gardening and Agriculture => Chatham County Real Estate => North Carolina => This, That and Everything Else