Wow, ninja'd by the OP!thaluikhain said:
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.
Poll: Are tasers tools or weapons?
- Thread starter Thaluikhain
- Start date
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.
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,Liquidacid23 said:
Top Panel is the only relevant one.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.waj9876 said:
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.
Tasers are weapons used by tools, Zing! In all seriousness, I find it scary how so many people think weapons are tools (in my world, weapons are not necessary). Also, why use a sword to cut down a tree when an axe works so much better?
You really hit the nail on the head actually. Something is a weapon, only insofar as it is used as one. A gun can be a tool, or a recreational device, yet not a weapon if it is being re-purposed (or maybe just 'purposed'?) in a non-lethal/harmful activity (a shooting range, for example, or maybe by a weird artist that wants bullet damage as part of a culturally relevant aesthetic).Crenelate said:
Likewise, a tool like a hammer/screwdriver/spanner can be a weapon when used in a violent and/or harmful way, or a tool when used in a non-violent, productive way.
So I guess this would be applicable to a taser in that, when used to subdue/hurt/kill someone, it is a weapon, and when it is used recreationally/productively, it is a tool.
I read the post. Very little pisses me off more than the argument that "Oh the criminal doesn't want to hurt you, just steal your things and/or money." That is the ass-pull of someone who has never stepped into the real world. I'm glad you are so sure the knife armed stranger just wants to rob me, I'll just risk getting raped/murdered to keep this scumbag safe and sound.tsb247 said:
I hardly think its funny, but I agree otherwise.
Because the slap on the wrist and a double helping of state benefits is working so well.J Tyran said:
There is a guy who is well known around here, one of those on benefits because he gets a better deal by being on benefits was arrested 247 times last year for public order offences (drunk & disorderly, fighting and so on). Every time it is the same punishment, an £80 fine. How does he pay it you ask? Well if you're on benefits here they can only take a certain (minuscule) amount out of your benefit each week, meaning subsequent offences are just been added to his tab. In this country the average arrest plus paperwork takes 5 police hours, so this is clearly costing us, the tax payer, a ridiculous amount since we're paying for cops and effectively paying his fines.
They should have locked him up long ago, a year or so in a prison cell with no money or alcohol would be cheaper and better for everyone else. Then if he reoffends he can have 2 years. He is not a productive member of society. He is an awful person who takes great pleasure in making everyone else's life worse and wasting our tax money. Prison would be cheaper and better for society.
^This. Regardless of the suspects age or gender, pulling a taser on anyone when there are safer alternatives is never the right thing to do.Zachary Amaranth said:
I'm normally on the side of the police on this sort of thing, but not in that situation.
I implied I was on the cop's side on this one, nothing more.Zachary Amaranth said:
What I complained about was all the "Your opinion is different than mine, so I'm going to assume and imply you aren't worthy of being human." going on over there, from both sides. I didn't take that kind of stance, I took a "Adult running from police versus irresponsible cop." stance, and based my opinion on facts.
And you can disagree with what I said, rendering this loaded, polemic terminology pointless. Just because I will respect your opinion doesn't mean I'm not gonna take sides. I still have my own opinion, and so I will not change it to suit other people.
What I find funny is this:
Before tasers- reliable ones- became commonly available, boards and forums were full of demands and moans about how Police should do everything...including risk unneeded threat to life and limb...to avoid using the only real tools they had: firearms and batons/nightsticks.
Then tasers came out, and they were hailed as the next step in non-lethal capture and control techniques, so police (the trigger-happy corrupt abusive bastards) couldn't use their nasty firearms against the poor, defenseless criminals.
...and now, *tasers* are far too dangerous! There's a chance those poor murderers might be *hurt accidentally!!!*
Seriously, we have entire threads based on such a black-and-white situation blaming the Cop, blaming the Taser, I mean...really? The Taser is a device that the public widely applauded when it first became available, and now...
Before tasers- reliable ones- became commonly available, boards and forums were full of demands and moans about how Police should do everything...including risk unneeded threat to life and limb...to avoid using the only real tools they had: firearms and batons/nightsticks.
Then tasers came out, and they were hailed as the next step in non-lethal capture and control techniques, so police (the trigger-happy corrupt abusive bastards) couldn't use their nasty firearms against the poor, defenseless criminals.
...and now, *tasers* are far too dangerous! There's a chance those poor murderers might be *hurt accidentally!!!*
Seriously, we have entire threads based on such a black-and-white situation blaming the Cop, blaming the Taser, I mean...really? The Taser is a device that the public widely applauded when it first became available, and now...
