Slashdot Mirror
A Tour of Taser HQ
Soychemist writes "Walk into the Taser headquarters in Scottsdale, Arizona and it may seem like you are on an episode of Get Smart. The foyer is like a fortress, with giant steel doors and biometric identification systems. Inside, factory workers meticulously assemble the less-lethal weapons by hand and then put them through a battery of safety tests. In addition to making pistol-shaped devices, the company also produces the electronic equivalent of a claymore mine, which hurls dozens of electrified needles at the push of a button and electronic shotgun cartridges that deliver a powerful jolt."
Fists can be lethal, too.
Fists might just have some negative effects.
I'm curious. What do you suggest police use? Here is your criteria:
Slightly tongue in cheek and sarcastic, of course. I realize police brutality exists. Civilian brutality does, too... and so far, all the police that I have met have been pretty good citizens and good police men. The brutal police make the news, not the other ones. So, what exists for a police to use that is capable of immobilizing a suspect (let's assume he's dangerous and he's running around a crowd of people and they need to immobilize him *now* to prevent harm to innocent bystanders). Guns work well, but that's significantly more lethal than a taser. Tasers appear to work quite well, but there is a chance of killing the person (less of a chance with a gun though). It has to be something that doesn't affect anyone else (e.g., some sort of spray wouldn't work)...
Frankly, I'm glad there ARE police. Bad ones definitely exist, but it appears that they are far fewer than the good ones. Bad civilians exist, too... probably more, proportionately, than bad police. And they don't care if the weapon THEY use is non-lethal...
The police should thus avoid using tasers, and resort to the more politically correct shotgun blast to the face. This should prove a much more suitable method of handling aggressive combatants than the excessively deadly taser. No sane person would choose a taser when they could receive a shotgun blast to their face.
Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.
You'd definitely want to use a real claymore instead of one of these dangerous things.
Let's do a comparison: You stand in front of a real claymore, and I'll stand in front of one of these. After firing them, you'll have your proof of their deadliness compared to a claymore.
Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.
I'm actually curious about what you'd suggest though. I'm not a troll, I'm just sarcastic.... hehe.
Yes, physical violence is something police have to be extremely careful about. And gun usage. Even just holding the gun. Tasers get a free pass? I kinda doubt that, but I'll believe it if you show me where it says that police using tasers are exempt from police brutality accusations...
"People get Tasered for merely asking questions." Yes, most people that get tasered are innocently standing there, hands in the air, asking how the weather is. I'm not saying you can't use it to abuse power or that abuse of power doesn't happen. But that happens with all other forms of weapons. Including fists and handcuffs. So is the issue the taser or is the issue the policeman's abuse of power? I don't see how taking away a less-lethal weapon is going to help.
OK, so let's make some policies about using tasers. I'm fine with that. Limiting the ability of police's abuse is fine with me. On the other hand, I'd rather not make it, as seems to be popular, something like ... if a policeman touches his taser and his suspect is unarmed, it is police brutality....
It's a pretty difficult issue, and I don't think the fix is simply to toss the taser and remove guns from policemen (which some have advocated), nor are simple "policies" going to fix it. That will, at best, just fix the police report for those police that want to abuse the power they have. On the other hand, if criminals (like, say, Garrido) can serve what, 10 out of his 57 years, and then get a Get Out of Jail Free card... well, maybe we should start thinking about punishing criminals as strictly as we want to punish police, too. I get tired of the sympathize-with-criminals while complaining-about-police news... not everyone is a criminal, and not all police are power abusers. I see just as much "badness" in letting a criminal out of jail easily as not punishing an abusive policeman...
It is legal for a police officer to taze some one anytime they have a reason to place their hands on them, this IMHO is inappropriate and should be judged according to the situation.
Why is that inappropriate? If the police officer has reason to place his hands on me then why doesn't he have reason to use any other means of less-than-lethal (taser, spray, baton, etc.) force? If he doesn't have that justification then I really don't see how him placing his hands on me is any better than being tased. Both represent an abuse of force.
When such justification is present I have no problem with the police using tasers. Why should they have to get down and dirty and risk physical injury to themselves to subdue some asshole that is resisting arrest/committing a crime/etc?
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Yes, police officers are public servants. They are answerable for their actions after the fact .
If an officer is systematically abusing his power, he will be fired and charged will any civil rights violations he is guilty of after the fact .
If a police officer comes up to you on the street and arrests you out of nowhere and you resist, you will be charged will resisting arrest. Even if there was some mistake in identifying you as a potential suspect.
You sort out if the officer is justifyed in anything they do after the fact . Not before, not during, but after the fact .
That is your constitutionally acknowledged right. The right to due process. The process is do what the fuck the officer tells you to do during you interactions will him. Then a court of law determines if they were justified. Period.