Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
Anyway, cops appear to taser Larry David: http://news.sky.com/story/1433126/cops-appear-to-taser-elderly-man-with-hands-up
(I have heard some argument that it is illegal to possess an offensive weapon, yet the police in this country are allowed to have tasers in this country as 'self defence instruments', why can the public not be intending to use them as 'self defence instruments' ?
Again I may have phrased it provocatively, but please respond to the good point behind the stupid wording of mine.
as (in theory at least) the police are trained to understand when they are and are not necessary, and can be easily held accountable for these judgments.
Thing is the public CAN get access to tazers, and my question was really, why is it banned 'because its an offensive weapon' when police use it for 'personal defence'.....my point being that it is obviously recognise that it COULD be used defensively.....so why can an ordinary person not be intending to only use it defensively?
the public with tazers and guns.
even when captured on film it is more than likely that they will not be imprisoned, so they are demonstrably easily held accountable.
If a member of the public were shown doing these things to others (on video) it is much more likely that they would be held accountable.
Although I do know what you mean....this isnt america after all
They have the capacity to cause injury so they cannot be considered to be purely defensive instruments. A Taser is a weapon capable of discharging an electrical current and is classified as a prohibited firearm.
what are they if the authorities have them?
(I understand that often the police might come into contact with some people that might be armed with a knife and brandishing it, and I would indeed be much happier if the police tasered rather than shooting)....BUT some people get mugged, sometimes more than once, and when the police are not there to protect them, what are these people meant to do (especially people who are not burly)?
Are they meant to just accept and submit to being physically assaulted?
Is it wrong to defend yourself, or to take steps to defend yourself?
After all, I am not talking about packing a gun here, I am talking about packing an instrument, that, whilst capable of possibly causing injury, that risk is deemed ACCEPTABLE in return for protecting the policeperson from harm from a violent assailant, WHY is it not deemed and ACCEPTABLE risk, if it were an OAP protecting themselves from harm from a violent assailant, ESPECIALLY if there were precedent for such attacks?
qualified like PO or Raanraals, who can help explain the official take on this)
facetiousness (but please feel free to have a go at my spelling)
how would it be viewed in court if someone equated the risk of injury being acceptable if it were a policeperson or an OAP rather than only an acceptable risk of injury if it were a policeperson.
The problem with your argument is more that you are creating an artificial distinction in terms of viewing it as a 'defensive' instrument for the police and an 'offensive' instrument for the general public.
Tasers can only be used by highly-trained officers, and only when and where they are authorised to do so. All Taser use by Police officers is monitored and reported. This makes the risk from their use more acceptable.
the distinctive terms in CLOSE JUXTAPOSITION so that your can SEE the different terms that are used in relation to the use of tasers. When you read text regarding the user of tasers by the police, it refers to them being used 'TO PROTECT' themselves or the public. When there is reference to why the possession of tasers is illegal for members of the public, it is stressed that they are an 'OFFENSIVE WEAPON'
So yes I have juxtapositioned these two methods of description, as I wish to illustrate something that appears to not being treated to the same equal measurement.
Now....if someone ATTACKS someone else with a Taser for criminal intent or as revenge, then it is beig used as an offensive weapon.....(similar if a police person did so)
but if a frailer member of the public used a taser to prevent an attack from a burlier criminal assailant, then they would also be 'PROTECTING THEMSELVES OR THE PUBLIC', surely? i.e. using it for the same reason that the police would be......so how can one be criminal and the other not?
Tasers only used only highly trained officers?....i thought the roll out of them was increasing? surely the public could also get trained? what is the 'high training?' dont aim for the eyes? is it really that difficult to learn how to use?
Also 'Taser has been safely used in the UK since 2004.' according to police, so it doesn't really appear to be a dangerous weapon if used correctly, and if it does cause injury, well thats just a risk.....a policeperson is no more able to detect whether person has a heart condition than a member of the public is able to.
Sorry, I mean, I don't want any old tom, dick or harry walking down the street with one, and the more they are means it might make it more likely that some dickhead school boy will taser someone at school. I suppose what im highlighting is the inadequecy of discussion or regulation to apply justice through rules.....there is no perfect answer...the problem is that the way that the law sets itself out, is insincere in its wording, if not intent, and the problem is that the wording is what is received by the public.....and the philosphical conundrum still remains....what right has society to tell you that you do not have the right to defend yourself, whether by physical means from criminal violence, or by protesting your innocence after a false conviction.
Police officers using them "'TO PROTECT' themselves or the public" is not equivalent to a member of the public using them in self defense.
themselves with a taser is not equivalent to a member of the public protecting themselves with a taser, in any significant material measure
This is why we should all be able to PROTECT ourselves with guns and tanks.
who wants to legally practice hurting/bullying in the US, joining th police specifically just to be able to have opportunities to hurt/bully people with impunity?
Drug awareness course wasn't it
Made me really want to take some drugs. Lovely lovely drugs
as "fucking roll the police"
Try here: http://drownedinsound.com/community/boards/social/4430863