Poll: Are tasers tools or weapons?

[elvor0]

I fail to see the difference between "weapon" and "tool of compliance". So, I'd say that the distinction is just pointless semantics.

What I feel is more relevant is that the taser designed to be less-than-lethal, as opposed to a bullet which is designed to to be lethal.

Lethal forces are for when the suspect is posing an immediate threat to others.
Less-than-lethal forces are for when the suspect isn't an immediate threat.

I clicked this thread with the intent to point out that there really isn't any such thing as a weapon. You can use a sword to cut a tree down or you could kill someone with a pen. The only thing that makes it a weapon is the person's intent to harm with it. So, yay for loving semantic argument.

Granted most things can be used as a weapon, heck you could kill someone with a pot grinder if you shoved it down their throat but that doesn't make it a weapon by default, (it is now something I'd like to see happen in a movie now though) a gun on the other hand is a weapon and can be nothing else (well maybe a hammer but that's not very good for it). I mean I could think of ways to kill people with most things in my room barring like...softback books and paper.

A weapon is something designed to kill or harm, ala a sword or a gun, you could attempt to cut down a tree with a sword, but it'd probs be quicker just to make a saw in the time it would take. A guns only purpose is to harm whether that be animal or human, that's its one function, the same is true for a missile, a crossbow, or a spear. To say there is no such thing as a weapon is to overlook a large section of technology humans have used and developed over thousands of years.

 

[Xanthious]

I would say tool. Most tools are deadly if used in a specific way. Hell you can probably kill someone a hell of a lot quicker and easier with a claw hammer or crow bar than you can with a taser. To borrow a quote from the movie Shane that spoke about guns. A gun (or taser) is a tool. It's no better or no worse than any other tool: an axe, a shovel or anything. A gun (or taser) is as good or as bad as the man using it.

 

[J Tyran]

I would prefer a dead criminal to one who goes to jail, and, at least where I live, has access to Widescreen communal TVs, PS3s, a workout facility, a cafeteria, and a basketball court. All paid for by me.

Who decides that the person is guilty of a crime in the first place? They could be wrongfully accused or most likely the police are incompetent. Dispensing justice isn't the role of law enforcement, the courts do that.

 

[RJ 17]

I was extremely pleased to see your post here.

He was on another thread about a month ago screaming about how a woman who had barricaded herself in her bedroom, called the police, and waited for them while a man (armed with a knife) spent 20 minutes trying to break down her door to get to her. He screamed, "MURDER!" at the top of his lungs when this woman shot her attacker when he charged at her with his knife.

Apparently he thinks the lives of criminals are above those of uphold the law. This wouldn't be the first time he has taken the side of the, "Poor criminal," rather than that of lew enforcement or an innocent bystander.

It's a little backwards isn't it?

My thoughts exactly. I was reading through the responses of that thread and couldn't help but feel that he was desperately taking the side of the criminal. That's why I opened my post by stating the obvious: the reason that guy is so defensive and swearing that the cop murdered her in cold blood is most likely because he, himself, had a run-in or two with the cops and felt that he got cheated. By his logic, he probably commited some sort of crime and ran away, only to get caught and get pissed off about the fact that they didn't give up chasing him.

 

[Bradeck]

I would prefer a dead criminal to one who goes to jail, and, at least where I live, has access to Widescreen communal TVs, PS3s, a workout facility, a cafeteria, and a basketball court. All paid for by me.

Who decides that the person is guilty of a crime in the first place? They could be wrongfully accused or most likely the police are incompetent. Dispensing justice isn't the role of law enforcement, the courts do that.

I'm not trying to interpret guilt. I leave that to the police. Like or hate them, I don't care. Support them or oppose them, again don't care. But to say that we should all pay more to treat them with kids gloves is wrong in my opinion. They broke the law, whatever that law may be, they made the conscious decision to break it. Why do we still have to read the Miranda rights to law breakers upon arrest? Why do 5 time DUI repeat offenders get released on good behavior? Why did Haley Barbour pardon murderers and rapists? I think we have become far too soft on the issue of crime, and far too involved in the ideal that everyone can be reformed. Again, my opinion, not stating as fact.

 

[J Tyran]

I would prefer a dead criminal to one who goes to jail, and, at least where I live, has access to Widescreen communal TVs, PS3s, a workout facility, a cafeteria, and a basketball court. All paid for by me.

Who decides that the person is guilty of a crime in the first place? They could be wrongfully accused or most likely the police are incompetent. Dispensing justice isn't the role of law enforcement, the courts do that.

I'm not trying to interpret guilt. I leave that to the police. Like or hate them, I don't care. Support them or oppose them, again don't care. But to say that we should all pay more to treat them with kids gloves is wrong in my opinion. They broke the law, whatever that law may be, they made the conscious decision to break it. Why do we still have to read the Miranda rights to law breakers upon arrest? Why do 5 time DUI repeat offenders get released on good behavior? Why did Haley Barbour pardon murderers and rapists? I think we have become far too soft on the issue of crime, and far too involved in the ideal that everyone can be reformed. Again, my opinion, not stating as fact.

Cool maybe we should change the uniforms and make the police wear brown shirts with armbands, let them grab anyone off the streets they think is a criminal to.

Heck forget grabbing people let them dispense whatever justice they feel is necessary. Your opinions would lead down a very dark path, sure the way things work are far from ideal but its far better than the alternatives.

 

[spartan231490]

I fail to see the difference between "weapon" and "tool of compliance". So, I'd say that the distinction is just pointless semantics.

What I feel is more relevant is that the taser designed to be less-than-lethal, as opposed to a bullet which is designed to to be lethal.

Lethal forces are for when the suspect is posing an immediate threat to others.
Less-than-lethal forces are for when the suspect isn't an immediate threat.

I clicked this thread with the intent to point out that there really isn't any such thing as a weapon. You can use a sword to cut a tree down or you could kill someone with a pen. The only thing that makes it a weapon is the person's intent to harm with it. So, yay for loving semantic argument.

Granted most things can be used as a weapon, heck you could kill someone with a pot grinder if you shoved it down their throat but that doesn't make it a weapon by default, (it is now something I'd like to see happen in a movie now though) a gun on the other hand is a weapon and can be nothing else (well maybe a hammer but that's not very good for it). I mean I could think of ways to kill people with most things in my room barring like...softback books and paper.

A weapon is something designed to kill or harm, ala a sword or a gun, you could attempt to cut down a tree with a sword, but it'd probs be quicker just to make a saw in the time it would take. A guns only purpose is to harm whether that be animal or human, that's its one function, the same is true for a missile, a crossbow, or a spear. To say there is no such thing as a weapon is to overlook a large section of technology humans have used and developed over thousands of years.

Not true. You can use a sword to trim a branch, or start a fire. You can use it for anything that you can use a knife for. And you can use a gun for fun, as a hobby, without harming anything, same with a crossbow. You can use a spear as a walking stick. You can use a missile as a deterrent. "Weapon" is a term with practically no meaning. The intent is the weapon, not the object that you used to achieve it.

 

[J Tyran]

Cool maybe we should change the uniforms and make the police wear brown shirts with armbands, let them grab anyone off the streets they think is a criminal to.

Congrats you just rendered anything of value you might have had to say as invalid.

If you think arresting people who the police think are criminals based on probable cause is the same thing as what the Brown Shirts did you need to read some history.

Having unrestrained police able to do whatever they want is no different, your original comment was that they police should be able to shoot criminals because a dead criminal in your opinion is the best criminal.

Except that the police don't decide whose a criminal, they investigate suspects and bring them before courts. Probable cause just gives police the right to trigger an investigation, its not there to decide whether the suspect lives or dies.

Anyway you want something of value? How about the fact that harsh law enforcement and harsh justice systems do not even work in most cases? How about the fact that it increases the cost to the state when the penal system is in a constant state of crisis because the criminals are unmanageable, but no matter how tough they get the worse the inmates behave.

There are other reasons apart from the dangers of a police state. Getting "tough on crime" doesn't work, its as simple as that.

 

[tsb247]

I was extremely pleased to see your post here.

He was on another thread about a month ago screaming about how a woman who had barricaded herself in her bedroom, called the police, and waited for them while a man (armed with a knife) spent 20 minutes trying to break down her door to get to her. He screamed, "MURDER!" at the top of his lungs when this woman shot her attacker when he charged at her with his knife.

Apparently he thinks the lives of criminals are above those of uphold the law. This wouldn't be the first time he has taken the side of the, "Poor criminal," rather than that of lew enforcement or an innocent bystander.

It's a little backwards isn't it?

My thoughts exactly. I was reading through the responses of that thread and couldn't help but feel that he was desperately taking the side of the criminal. That's why I opened my post by stating the obvious: the reason that guy is so defensive and swearing that the cop murdered her in cold blood is most likely because he, himself, had a run-in or two with the cops and felt that he got cheated. By his logic, he probably commited some sort of crime and ran away, only to get caught and get pissed off about the fact that they didn't give up chasing him.

For more insanity, see post 183 on this thread:

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.337444-Oklahoma-mom-shoots-and-kills-intruder?page=6

Feel free to read on as well. It's quite ridiculous the points he attempts to make. To get a full sense of the ridiculousness of it all, you may want to read the article that is being discussed. He essentially states:

"Someone with a knife broke into a woman's home. He posed no threat to her life despite the fact that he spent 20 minutes breaking into the room where she was barricaded, and the home owner (a single, recently widowed woman with an infant in the room) had no cause to shoot the intruder when he attacked her after he broke down the door."

It's good for a laugh.

 

[ElPatron]

Everything is a weapon.

So it's a tool. Because every weapon is a tool. And anything can be a weapon.

My brain hurts.

 

[Zen Toombs]

I was wondering what the forum goers thought about this, whether it's a last resort or helpful tool. [small]Yes, you can argue a weapon is a form of tool, but you know what I mean.[/small]

Wow, ninja'd by the OP!

OT: In my humble and well informed opinion, tasers are weapons. Mostly nonlethal weapons, but weapons nonetheless. As such, they should be treated that way.

 

[Zen Toombs]

I was wondering what the forum goers thought about this, whether it's a last resort or helpful tool. [small]Yes, you can argue a weapon is a form of tool, but you know what I mean.[/small]

Wow, ninja'd by the OP!

OT: In my humble and well informed opinion, tasers are weapons. Mostly nonlethal weapons, but weapons nonetheless. As such, they should be treated that way.

not really because he is still wrong... it can not be argued that a weapon is a form of tool because the fact is that a weapon IS a tool by definition

Yes, a weapon is a tool. However, saying that you are "using X as a tool" has other implications than you are "using X as a weapon". Yes, it's a bit contradictory,

Spoiler: but a girl's gotta have SOME glaring contradictions in her life.

Top Panel is the only relevant one.

 

[Elementary - Dear Watson]

The definition of a weapon is something that is used to coerce or effect someone else... legally it is a weapon, like leaflets can be used as a weapon, or tannoy systems can be aswel... And as they are weapons they should only be used in lasst resort, and when there is no other means...

The problem we have is the perspective... we cannot tell what the policeman who used the weapon's thought process was as he used it. He may be following a procedure that is stated in his rulebook, or he may have been in a similar situation where he wished he had used it, so when faced with the same problem this time he did use it. Its very easy to criticise when you are seeing things from a different veiwpoint... then again he could just be a trigger happy sadistic power-crazed fuck... we just don't know.

It is a weapon though, and should be treated as such, last resort only, and when the user honestly beleives that it needs to be used.

It's a similar situation to when you hear about soldiers who shoot civilians driving towards them... Usually it is the result of the civilian driver not stopping or slowing down as they approach a checkpoint, and ignore the warnings... instantly the soldier is going to think it's a vehicle-bound suicide IED, so shoots... the military solely shoot to kill, as shooting to wound is in-humane, wo therefore it is not taught. This action results in a civilian dying and a lot of bad press about NATO/ISAF forces killing civilians... Its perception... the soldier did comletely the right thing, his job, but gets berated by the media for something that is totally perception based...

The taser incidents are of a similar nature... Its process driven, in what is an uncalm situation where decision making is difficult. A decision is made and acted on, but the consequences are unknown at the time.

 

[Upbeat Zombie]

I thought weapons where just another kind of tools?

 

[waj9876]

Both, a weapon is a tool. Tools help people do things they could have done anyway, just making it easier. Weapons are used to make killing/stopping things easier.

Spoiler: This is about that link. I'm spoilering it so you will not have to read it if you do not wish to.

I'm honestly getting sick of that thread the OP linked to. Too much "I'm right, and you are scum for disagreeing with me!" going on from both sides. I personally am not on the side of the drugged up ADULT (She was twenty, older than me. And her gender should not matter unless you're sexist, or a hormonal teenager.) who ran away from police and got hurt because of it. You can disagree with me, it's your right and your opinion. And I will respect that.

OT: If I had to classify a taser/tazer (I can't remember how it's spelled, and my spell-checker doesn't recognize either one.) as either a weapon-kind of tool, or what is considered a tool, I'd have to say weapon-kind.

 

[Trippy Turtle]

Well a weapon is a tool, so both. Anything can be used as a weapon or a tool.

 

[Syzygy23]

I response to this thread http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.351325-Cop-Tasers-Fleeing-Handcuffed-Girl-Head-injuries-put-her-in-vegetative-state

It's gone on quite awhile, and got lots of debate. To me, it seems like a lot of it is due to a difference of opinion as to the correct use of a taser.

In my view, a taser is a weapon, to be used only as a last resort. There's more wiggle room with a taser than a firearm, but it should not be used unless the suspect poses some kind of threat.

On the other hand, many people seem to view tasers as tools of compliance. If the police don't like what you are doing, they can use a taser to stop you doing it.

By extension, I guess, other less than lethal weapons, though they'd tend to vary.

I was wondering what the forum goers thought about this, whether it's a last resort or helpful tool. [/small]

Cap: very abiolic

Weapons ARE tools, genius.

I can smash someones brains in with a monkey wrench, so does that make it a tool or a weapon?
Calling a tool a weapon is basically saying the tool is more dangerous than usual.

 

[Jadak]

What's the difference? A weapon is just a category of tool...

 

[teh lurker]

Weapons and tools can be both. As far as less than lethal weapons are concerned, given the choice, and having experienced both, I'd rather have a taser used on me than OC spray. The taser I found was easier to shrug off once the guy holding it stopped squeezing the trigger.


Don't get the wrong idea, I'm not a criminal. I'm certified to carry both a taser and OC spray, as well as a Glock 17 and an expandable baton as part of my work equipment. To get certified in the use of tasers/OC spray, you've got to be on the receiving end of them. Neither of them is fun, but I think the OC spray is worse.

 

[Something Amyss]

I personally am not on the side of the drugged up ADULT

I didn't think you had to be on her side to think that tasing a suspect in a high risk situation (and evidently against policy) is wrong.

I think that sort of polarisation (us v them, cops v druggies) is just as bad as what you just complained about.

You say we're free to disagree, but you're using loaded, polemic terminology that sets up a barrier in and of itself.