In light of all the recent tasering reports that keep popping up I was wondering what are your thought on these devices.
I have seen some pretty ugly videos of people getting tasered by cops and it seems to me many of these incidents are completely unjustified. Many have been fatal or have caused severe damage. These are supposed to be non-lethal devices. I say disarm the police completely and let them fight crime au natural and maybe they would stop being such vicious brutes to unarmed people.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
In light of all the recent tasering reports that keep popping up I was wondering what are your thought on these devices.
I have seen some pretty ugly videos of people getting tasered by cops and it seems to me many of these incidents are completely unjustified. Many have been fatal or have caused severe damage. These are supposed to be non-lethal devices. I say disarm the police completely and let them fight crime au natural and maybe they would stop being such vicious brutes to unarmed people.
I’m gonna have to disagree with you there. Disarming our police force would be a bad idea. Criminals are not going to suddenly stop shooting people because the cops dont have tasers/guns. I do hope you’re not serious about this.
Unfortunately there’s always bad apples in the bunch. There will be problems. I think the majority of cops are trusted to do their jobs, and do them. Some don’t. And the ones who don’t need to be suspended/punished, and in more severe cases fired. It sucks when innocents are harmed, but if we disarm the police we create room for further harm to innocents because law would have no tangible consequences.
[quote]Arc_1mpuls3 wrote:
I’m gonna have to disagree with you there. Disarming our police force would be a bad idea. Criminals are not going to suddenly stop shooting people because the cops dont have tasers/guns. I do hope you’re not serious about this.
[/quote]
I am absolutely serious about disarming beat cops. I am not a person who trusts the so-called integrity of any representative of our government to keep peace.
Disarming the police will keep them honest. They are ordered to protect and to serve which they aren’t capable of doing when they think they can just strong-arm citizens by force. I do not trust the motivations of people who command respect by force.
An armed police force does not keep people safe. Let the citizens be armed and the police not be and they will think twice about harassing innocent citizens. Let them call for armed backup when it is warranted for hostage situations, etc.
I honestly believe that if we unarmed police only true protectors would step up to the challenge of serving its citizens – not just any trigger-happy, unemployable, jack-booted bully.
Don’t commit a crime and don’t resist arrest, case solved. In relation to your unarmed police force theory I pose a scenario. A police officer responds to a domestic abuse call where a woman is supposedly being attacked by her husband. The neighbors make the call to notify the police. The officer arrives not knowing that the wif has been shot by the husband and the husband is inside the house armed. The officer opens the door and finds the husband sitting on the couch covered in the wife’s blood. The husband points the gun at the officer intent on shooting the officer then ending his own life. The officer tries to reason with the man but finds that no matter what he says the husband has made his decision. What does the officer do?
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Arc_1mpuls3 wrote:
I’m gonna have to disagree with you there. Disarming our police force would be a bad idea. Criminals are not going to suddenly stop shooting people because the cops dont have tasers/guns. I do hope you’re not serious about this.
I am absolutely serious about disarming beat cops. I am not a person who trusts the so-called integrity of any representative of our government to keep peace.
Disarming the police will keep them honest. They are ordered to protect and to serve which they aren’t capable of doing when they think they can just strong-arm citizens by force. I do not trust the motivations of people who command respect by force.
An armed police force does not keep people safe. Let the citizens be armed and the police not be and they will think twice about harassing innocent citizens. Let them call for armed backup when it is warranted for hostage situations, etc.
I honestly believe that if we unarmed police only true protectors would step up to the challenge of serving its citizens – not just any trigger-happy, unemployable, jack-booted bully.[/quote]
moRon,
You are an absolute mess.
To suggest going in unarmed against ARMED CRIMINIALS is analagous to you arguing with me.
I’ve got the firepower. You are the dummy.
Oh, in case you were wondering, without armed public servants, the strong would steal everything you owned.
Instead of running your piehole, maybe you should thank them for keeping you alive.
[quote]Blasphemy wrote:
Don’t commit a crime and don’t resist arrest, case solved. In relation to your unarmed police force theory I pose a scenario. A police officer responds to a domestic abuse call where a woman is supposedly being attacked by her husband. The neighbors make the call to notify the police. The officer arrives not knowing that the wif has been shot by the husband and the husband is inside the house armed. The officer opens the door and finds the husband sitting on the couch covered in the wife’s blood. The husband points the gun at the officer intent on shooting the officer then ending his own life. The officer tries to reason with the man but finds that no matter what he says the husband has made his decision. What does the officer do?[/quote]
Don’t expect an answer. He’s voting for ron paul. ron paul believes the key to decreasing hostility is pulling out and “trading with them.”
It’s the same situation as the poor cop without a gun. What happens if someone threatens your trade?
[quote]Blasphemy wrote:
The officer tries to reason with the man but finds that no matter what he says the husband has made his decision. What does the officer do?[/quote]
Responding to a call is a different situation. I am talking about beat cops who patrol streets as a deterrent. I would only support squad cars carrying weapons in their trunk where they do not have direct access.
In any case, I would expect that a smart police officer would call for backup before entering a home where a suspect is considered armed and dangerous.
I am not condoning criminal activity. I think we need to review what we consider criminal activity that warrants deadly force. I think now we have to consider the use of tasers as potentially deadly force, in light of the many recent incidents.
We live in a country of 300 million citizen, 2 million of which are incarcerated, 60% of those are on non-violent drug related charges. Of those 800 thousand I would suspect that most are not violent offenders. I do not think most of the force that is used by police is ever warranted.
[quote]JeffR wrote:
I’ve got the firepower. You are the dummy.
Oh, in case you were wondering, without armed public servants, the strong would steal everything you owned.
Instead of running your piehole, maybe you should thank them for keeping you alive.
[/quote]
You are a dirty, fascist pig. I have never needed a pig for any protection because I am smart enough to keep my nose clean. I can carry a weapon and protect my self if I so chose.
Keep believing your own propaganda. YOU SERVE NO PURPOSE but to draw a paycheck from taxpayers who support your sorry, unemployable ass.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Blasphemy wrote:
The officer tries to reason with the man but finds that no matter what he says the husband has made his decision. What does the officer do?
Responding to a call is a different situation. I am talking about beat cops who patrol streets as a deterrent. I would only support squad cars carrying weapons in their trunk where they do not have direct access.
What happens when a squad car pulls over someone that seems to be non-hostile but then the situation excalates into violence. And let’s also say that the civilian is carrying a weapon as you say civilians should. Does the police officer say “please wait one moment so that I can retrieve my firearm in my trunk before attempting to shoot me”? What happens in this situation?
In any case, I would expect that a smart police officer would call for backup before entering a home where a suspect is considered armed and dangerous.
I said the officer was unaware that the man was armed.
I am not condoning criminal activity. I think we need to review what we consider criminal activity that warrants deadly force. I think now we have to consider the use of tasers as potentially deadly force, in light of the many recent incidents.
We live in a country of 300 million citizen, 2 million of which are incarcerated, 60% of those are on non-violent drug related charges. Of those 800 thousand I would suspect that most are not violent offenders. I do not think most of the force that is used by police is ever warranted.[/quote]
I said the officer was unaware the man was armed.
What happens when a squad car pulls over someone that seems to be non-hostile but then the situation excalates into violence. And let’s also say that the civilian is carrying a weapon as you say civilians should. Does the police officer say “please wait one moment so that I can retrieve my firearm in my trunk before attempting to shoot me”? What happens in this situation?
[quote]Blasphemy wrote:
I said the officer was unaware the man was armed.
What happens when a squad car pulls over someone that seems to be non-hostile but then the situation excalates into violence. And let’s also say that the civilian is carrying a weapon as you say civilians should. Does the police officer say “please wait one moment so that I can retrieve my firearm in my trunk before attempting to shoot me”? What happens in this situation?
[/quote]
If an officer is getting a 911 call then he would be prudent in assuming the suspect might be armed. I believe that is standard protocol. I am not suggesting that police officers put themselves in any undue harm. I am just suggesting that we need to revisit what cops are allowed to get away with on the street.
In the event of pulling someone over I would call in the situation and handle everything as normal. No officer just get out of his car and approaches a vehicle without knowing whats what.
Police always have control but they shouldn’t think that because they are law enforcement officers that they are in the right. We teach our citizens that cops are to be feared – not respected. Any hapless citizen who makes any move is treated like a terrorist and that tends to escalate innocent citizens fears. Most traffic incidents do not warrant deadly force or even tasers for that matter.
[quote]Blasphemy wrote:
Does the police officer say “please wait one moment so that I can retrieve my firearm in my trunk before attempting to shoot me”? What happens in this situation?
[/quote]
He better have a partner back in the squad car keeping a vigilant watch on him. Such are the hazards of that chosen profession.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Disarming the police will keep them honest. They are ordered to protect and to serve which they aren’t capable of doing when they think they can just strong-arm citizens by force. I do not trust the motivations of people who command respect by force.[/quote]I will only trust police officers if they have bags of fairy dust to sprinkle on problems… oh and stern words, we can’t have police using aggressive language.
[quote]An armed police force does not keep people safe. Let the citizens be armed and the police not be and they will think twice about harassing innocent citizens. Let them call for armed backup when it is warranted for hostage situations, etc.[/quote]My brain hurts. Not everyone will be packing heat, and even then people would not necessarily shoot someone, a lot of people have trouble killing others. Chances are very good if cops are disarmed and people are armed, they wouldn’t do the right thing. I would go rob a bank and take my chances with unarmed police and armed citizens. Citizens who for the most part have no firearms training, even if they have a gun that doesn’t mean they are proficient with it.
[quote]I honestly believe that if we unarmed police only true protectors would step up to the challenge of serving its citizens – not just any trigger-happy, unemployable, jack-booted bully.[/quote]Uh, or no one would step up because what you’re suggesting is the equivelant of muzzling a dog or de-clawing a cat and then pitting it against other animals.
I hope what you suggest never comes to pass, because chances are you will need an officer at some point, and there will be far less of them to help if they are unarmed.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Blasphemy wrote:
I said the officer was unaware the man was armed.
What happens when a squad car pulls over someone that seems to be non-hostile but then the situation excalates into violence. And let’s also say that the civilian is carrying a weapon as you say civilians should. Does the police officer say “please wait one moment so that I can retrieve my firearm in my trunk before attempting to shoot me”? What happens in this situation?
If an officer is getting a 911 call then he would be prudent in assuming the suspect might be armed. I believe that is standard protocol. I am not suggesting that police officers put themselves in any undue harm. I am just suggesting that we need to revisit what cops are allowed to get away with on the street.
In the event of pulling someone over I would call in the situation and handle everything as normal. No officer just get out of his car and approaches a vehicle without knowing whats what.
Police always have control but they shouldn’t think that because they are law enforcement officers that they are in the right. We teach our citizens that cops are to be feared – not respected. Any hapless citizen who makes any move is treated like a terrorist and that tends to escalate innocent citizens fears. Most traffic incidents do not warrant deadly force or even tasers for that matter.[/quote]
Well according to you then, it is up to the officer’s discretion of when and when not to respond armed, then I’m sure most officers would prefer to always be armed.
And what happens if he calls in the vehicle’s id and everything comes back normal and that the owner has no prior criminal history. Thus the officer would be forced to talk with the person in the car, or I guess we could start handing out traffic tickets by screaming from the officer’s car to the other person.
And police aren’t taught to be feared they are taught to exhibit a command presence and show that they are indeed in charge of the situation. If you cooperate with the police and aren’t a criminal then you won’t have any problems. I’m not saying some police officers don’t have egos either.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Blasphemy wrote:
Does the police officer say “please wait one moment so that I can retrieve my firearm in my trunk before attempting to shoot me”? What happens in this situation?
He better have a partner back in the squad car keeping a vigilant watch on him. Such are the hazards of that chosen profession.[/quote]
Most police forces are understaffed as it is. And most taxpayers aren’t willing to devote more funds to them for this safety precaution you suggest. And if the person had a partner in the car watching him, what in fact could this person do? In your ruleset the partner couldnt be armed either on a routine traffic stop. It is highly likely that if the suspect did become violent that he coudl shoot the officer outside of the car and the other before he could reach the trunk.
I am absolutely serious about disarming beat cops. I am not a person who trusts the so-called integrity of any representative of our government to keep peace.
Disarming the police will keep them honest. They are ordered to protect and to serve which they aren’t capable of doing when they think they can just strong-arm citizens by force. I do not trust the motivations of people who command respect by force.[/quote]
You’re not making sense. A lack of weapons doesn’t keep them honest. The whole discussion is based around police killing people with what is thematically a non-lethal weapon. Take the tasers and they’ll just go back to beating people to death with batons.
Police strong-arming citizens is a symptom of the liberal diseases; police state and nanny gov’t.
Unarmed police officers? What if they invoke their 2nd amendment right? Not a very libertarian position to take. How about focusing on the criminality of drugs, prostitution, and other victimeless crimes? Maybe tightening up search and siezure laws? Etc. Focus on things which create confrontations where there should be none.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Arc_1mpuls3 wrote:
I’m gonna have to disagree with you there. Disarming our police force would be a bad idea. Criminals are not going to suddenly stop shooting people because the cops dont have tasers/guns. I do hope you’re not serious about this.
I am absolutely serious about disarming beat cops. I am not a person who trusts the so-called integrity of any representative of our government to keep peace.
Disarming the police will keep them honest. They are ordered to protect and to serve which they aren’t capable of doing when they think they can just strong-arm citizens by force. I do not trust the motivations of people who command respect by force.
An armed police force does not keep people safe. Let the citizens be armed and the police not be and they will think twice about harassing innocent citizens. Let them call for armed backup when it is warranted for hostage situations, etc.
I honestly believe that if we unarmed police only true protectors would step up to the challenge of serving its citizens – not just any trigger-happy, unemployable, jack-booted bully.[/quote]
I disagree with you on the unarmed police, you make some valid points about the police and their completely unchecked behaviour.
Of course, if you plan on disarming the police, but heavily arming the citizens, then I am listening. That could be interesting.
[quote]Blasphemy wrote:
Most police forces are understaffed as it is. And most taxpayers aren’t willing to devote more funds to them for this safety precaution you suggest.
[/quote]
All the better.