Woman gets the Taser.

[Best First]

Because you havent refuted them

Bulls***

You keep stating he should have pulled her from the car because he is big and she is little, but as has already been pointed out now at least twice this would be the wrong procedure - so to keep bringing it up is irrelavant.

Or do you think that police officers should ignore procedures put in place to protect them?

Pull the women from a car, she may be armed (you will note this possibility is irrelevant of her size), they may get killed, they may get sued. Or are you in favour of police officers opening themselves to greater risk?

She's trold to get out of the vehicle 3 times before he opens the door.

He then tries to lead her from the car. She screams at him.

He then gives her SIX chances to get out the car under the threat of being tazed.

According to you this is 'instantly' going for the tazer. hmm.

The police officer does nothing wrong, its quite evident, and its already been pointed out.

And the women is a ****ing idiot.

If you don't like the procedures he is correctly following thats another matter, but you have stated that the officer acted wrongly when in fact all evidence points to the contrary.

[Jetfire]

My statements are correct.

THe women for all you know could have had a heart condtion, and tasers have killed them
you just dont know.

Tasers have been shown not to cause any heart damage. People who have clamed to have had Taser's aggreviate their heart problems have been shown to medically be wrong. The human body alone can produce greater variations in potential difference than a Taser does.

50,000 Volts is the potential difference to induce a current along the wire. However the resistance is greater and so less ampheres are produced.

Every gotton a shock from a door nob or a shelf in a shop?
On a dry that that is a static shock on a door nob or shelf is created by 25,000-75,000 Volts.
Ever been killed by that?

A high Voltage doesn't kill you. Your body generates some very high voltages through out the nervous system. It's the current (ampheres) that can do the damage and thats relatively low in a taser.

If she had been dangerous, and a risk to the generall public and or the officer then the taser seems a fair thing to use.

this situation did not require the 'risk' of using a taser.

my statements are correct.

I wont change my opinion on this.

As your repeating so will I now.

In that situation there is no way to tell if she is dangerous or not.
The officer doesn't know if she has a weapon, if shes mentally ill, violent or if she driving off while he tries to take her out of the car which could leave him getting dragged by the car and torn to shreads.

Police has often amde the point these can be life or death situations because they simply can't know. A taser prevents an dangerous struggle or a violent situation or heck the womans shoulder being dislocated and her getting badly injured.

Some further reading. You will notice that no scientist, after all there is no research that has found Tasers to ever be lethal and there has never been a case which Tasers have directly caused a death:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1468188.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4054137.stm

[Impactor returns 2.0]

You keep stating he should have pulled her from the car because he is big and she is little, but as has already been pointed out now at least twice this would be the wrong procedure - so to keep bringing it up is irrelavant.

SO what did htey do before tasers?

Or do you think that police officers should ignore procedures put in place to protect them?

So you risk killing someone because?

Pull the women from a car, she may be armed (you will note this possibility is irrelevant of her size), they may get killed, they may get sued. Or are you in favour of police officers opening themselves to greater risk?

Armed with what, her phone? yes lets think, whats it one hand, a phone, so if u can see the other, she aint armed.

She's trold to get out of the vehicle 3 times before he opens the door.

And so clearly shes stupid so you risk killing her because?

He then tries to lead her from the car. She screams at him.

Help im being screamed at, shoot her, shoot her

He then gives her SIX chances to get out the car under the threat of being tazed.

Yeah im not surprised shes being bullish at this point as hes threating her.

According to you this is 'instantly' going for the tazer. hmm.

yup because why go for for the rotue of risking death when shes clearly no threat just stupid. drag her out by her hai, wosrt that can happen is shes gonna be upset,
she could be dead.

The police officer does nothing wrong, its quite evident, and its already been pointed out.

not to me and repeating your statements dont make them correct

And the women is a ****ing idiot.

So for being stupid its worth the risk of possible death?

If you don't like the procedures he is correctly following thats another matter, but you have stated that the officer acted wrongly when in fact all evidence points to the contrary.

I belive he acted wrong, his judgement is wrong.

Tazers shouldnt be used so sodding blatently, shes clearly not a threat, hence the argument, and could have been restrained without the use of a weapon normally reserved for dangerous ppl, not ppl who just argue.


you can argue all you want I can refute you all you want my opinion remains the same. what your saying to me is wrong.

use of a force that has killed ppl in the past for someone whos obviously just stupid and no threat is wrong judgement on the officers behalf.

[Jetfire]

Pull the women from a car, she may be armed (you will note this possibility is irrelevant of her size), they may get killed, they may get sued. Or are you in favour of police officers opening themselves to greater risk?

She's trold to get out of the vehicle 3 times before he opens the door.

He then tries to lead her from the car. She screams at him.

He then gives her SIX chances to get out the car under the threat of being tazed.

According to you this is 'instantly' going for the tazer. hmm.

The police officer does nothing wrong, its quite evident, and its already been pointed out.

Well put

[Impactor returns 2.0]

your wrong im right

you an both argue all you want I wont change my opinion on this, because ym eyes anything that has been a lethal weapon should not be used in a situation that clearly does not require this type of force.

Hey ive left the topic now. so anything you do right I wont see.

[Best First]

you can argue all you want I can refute you all you want my opinion remains the same. what your saying to me is wrong.

sorry, i need to remind myself to stop wasting my time trying to have a coherent debate with you. You would think i would have learned by now.

I believe this! My opinion is this! This is right! la la la!

New Labour. New Debating.

FFS

[Obfleur]

that copper just makes the situation into somthing it isnt, he could have been calmer with her but he instantly gos for the taser.

I find stuff like that scary.

"Get out of the car"

"No"

"Get out of the car or I'll tase you"

"No"

"Get out of the car or I'll tase you"

"No *gets the ******* taser*"

She didn't listen. Screw her. Thats my opinion.

[Predabot]

Atta boy, Impactor! I'm your biggest fan. No really, as far as I know, I am.

As for the thing with the woman not getting hurt when they used the taser to get her out of the car, not true. If you listen to the tape some, you will notice that the woman screams while on the ground: "look at my arm!" or some such. And then the sod that tased her says something aking to:"She's bleeding some more, get some gloves".

And then we see the gentlemen doning plastic gloves. Apparently she must have scratched her arm while she was cramping on the pavement or some such, it is difficult to make out when it happens, it is clear as far as I know however, that it happened after the tasing. Hence it is logical to assume that yes, tasing can lead to secondary personal injuries.

I have nothing to add to the debate than this small notion, I belive that a closer study of the clip is recommendable, as I am not infallible.

Cheers to you all.

[Autobloke]

Not taking sides 'cos I'm not in the mood for an argument, but do tasers affect pacemakers? And would it hurt if you got zapped in the nuts?
Also, if the cop is warning her that she may be zapped, surely he shouldn't use an abbreviated version of the word ie 'I'm going to TASE you'. I'm not saying that she didn't understand his meaning, but some people may not (perhaps those who don't speak good english).
Just a thought.

[IronHide]

And would it hurt if you got zapped in the nuts?

What do you think??

[Autobloke]

I meant more than if a copper just kicked you there (like they usually do. A.C.A.B.).

[Professor Smooth]

I'm sorry guys, but I'm having a tough time getting my mind around this. In the US, the cops don't threaten you with being tasered after giving you several warnings to get out of the car. They pull a gun on you. They don't point it at an arm or a leg either, they point a weapon at your head. The point that makes is, very clearly, "I'm willing to seriously hurt or kill you if you do not comply with what we're telling you." This taser thing says to me, "If you do not comply with our demands, we're willing to cause you some mild discomfort." The risk involved with a taser is so miniscule when compared to that of a handgun, it's really a non-issue (for me, at least.)

I'm not sure about you guys, but I'd MUCH rather have a cop threaten me with an electric shock than waving a device that, with the twitch of a finger, can cause permanent physical damage.

[Jetfire]

I'm not sure about you guys, but I'd MUCH rather have a cop threaten me with an electric shock than waving a device that, with the twitch of a finger, can cause permanent physical damage.

or kill you?

As I've said tasers have caused no actural deaths so far and clearly prevent violent incidents occuring.

Their not nice but they save lives, prevent injuries and make cops safer in their work.

[Professor Smooth]

I'm not sure about you guys, but I'd MUCH rather have a cop threaten me with an electric shock than waving a device that, with the twitch of a finger, can cause permanent physical damage.

or kill you?

As I've said tasers have caused no actural deaths so far and clearly prevent violent incidents occuring.

Their not nice but they save lives, prevent injuries and make cops safer in their work.

I'd say that killing me would be some pretty permanent physical damage, wouldn't you?

I might not have been clear with my post, here it is in two lines:

Cops with Guns=bad idea
Cops with Tasers=GREAT idea!

[Jetfire]

I might not have been clear with my post, here it is in two lines:

Cops with Guns=bad idea
Cops with Tasers=GREAT idea!

[Kup_1]

I gotta agree with Best First.

I have been tazed, while in the service.

It hurts. A lot. I mean, it REALLY hurts.

But, I'd rather get tazed than shot, or hit with a baton, or, well...you get the message.


And, after all, if she had freaking LISTENED, we wouldn't be having this situation.

[snarl]

They should have tazered that stupid bitch to kingdom come!

[Metal Vendetta]

Seems like overkill to me. I'm with Impy on this one - the response of the police was totally out of proportion to the situation. And the only argument people seem to be giving in favour of the cop is "Well, at least he didn't shoot her", which is bull****. She was no threat to anyone, but the sort of police who will taser (or shoot) a 22 year-old girl just in case are not the sort of police I'd feel comfortable having in my society. Fair enough they warned her first, but I just don't think it's necessary to taser an unarmed girl. Surely that's the sort of crap you use in dangerous situations.

Having said that, when I was pulled over by two vanfuls of cops brandishing MP5s, I did everything they said and I wasn't in the least bit sarcastic with them, as I was acutely aware of the 12 or so gun barrels pointing directly at my head.

[Best First]

How do you know she is unarmed?

If she has nothing to hide why doesn't she do as instructed?

And again are you advocating that police ignore procedures that they have been instructed to follow for their own protection?

I can't see anyone whose sum arguement is 'at least he didn't shoot her' either.

[Metal Vendetta]

I don't think procedures can be "one size fits all". The police are still human beings with the powers to make their own decisions. In this case, the cop clearly decided that the sobbing, screaming girl on the floor was still not co-operating so he shocked her again. That was his call, I can't imagine there's a procedure for that.

What if the driver had been an old lady who had been slow to move, would you still advocate shocking her? And again when she fell on the floor?

[Best First]

I don't think procedures can be "one size fits all".

That's kind of the point of procedures - cops regularly have major unexpected trouble when pulling people over - hence their caution.

Plus even if it isn't one size fits all surely she is a pretty middling case - i.e young and in reasonable shape? There is no physical reason she can't get from the vehicle as soon as she is asked that we can see - she refuses to co-operate and that raises concerns.

How do we now she is unarmed again?

And why should the police officer put the wellbeing of someone who has refsued to coperate after being given NINE chances to before his own?

The police are still human beings with the powers to make their own decisions. In this case, the cop clearly decided that the sobbing, screaming girl on the floor was still not co-operating so he shocked her again. That was his call, I can't imagine there's a procedure for that.

what about the first shock?

You ill also note that it was only after the second shock that she actually co-operated with her arrest. I would have thought the procedure was taser agan if the subject refuses to coperate. Its hard to make out what she is actually doing anyway but from what i can see she continues to resist up until that point.

To be honesnt i have no sympathy for her by this point anyway as she could have avoided the whole situation by employing common sense to begin with.

What if the driver had been an old lady who had been slow to move, would you still advocate shocking her?

No. Obvioulsy. The issue here is the women was clearly ignoring the requests (you will note the plural) to leave her vehicle which raises teh question of why - therefore to compare it to someone moving slowly, but responding to the requests, seems to me to be irrelevant. Or as Computron would say; Red Herring.

[Metal Vendetta]

All right - if it had been me I would have been out of the car with my hands up after the first request. The fact that she didn't comply doesn't do her any favours, and we don't know she's unarmed. However, I still feel the police response was heavy-handed, and could have been dealt with better.

While I was in SF I saw a woman on the street bawling out a cop, giving him a whole load of grief while he just stood there and took it. She was calling him all sorts of names, belittling him, trying to provoke a response. The cop kept calm, nodding and letting her vent, even though he could have tasered her, cuffed her and thrown her in the back of his vehicle.

Surely the point here is that while what we see in the video is policing by procedure, it's not good policing? Isn't there a better way of dealing with people than by blasting them with electricity?

[snarl]

Yeah, but she was a cock. I think they should have fried eggs on her whilst they tazered her.

Daft bitch.

[Kaylee]

All right - if it had been me I would have been out of the car with my hands up after the first request. The fact that she didn't comply doesn't do her any favours, and we don't know she's unarmed. However, I still feel the police response was heavy-handed, and could have been dealt with better.

While I was in SF I saw a woman on the street bawling out a cop, giving him a whole load of grief while he just stood there and took it. She was calling him all sorts of names, belittling him, trying to provoke a response. The cop kept calm, nodding and letting her vent, even though he could have tasered her, cuffed her and thrown her in the back of his vehicle.

Surely the point here is that while what we see in the video is policing by procedure, it's not good policing? Isn't there a better way of dealing with people than by blasting them with electricity?

Surely your comparing apples and oranges?

Situation a:

Person has no obvious immediate place to conceal a weapon of any substance and is not refusing to comply with a direct police order.

Situation b:

Person has an obvious set of hidey holes in their vehicle to remove a gun, knife or other weapon and is flatly refusing to aquiesce with an order despite it being repeated many many times.

Regardless how much verbal abuse either may have spouted at the policeman, imo its reasonably obvious why she was tasered. You don't do what a copper tells you in a situation where the threat you pose is uncertain you can expect the policeman to assume you are a threat and treat you as such. Especially if you appear to stall for time by some dumbass excuse of being on the phone despite being told you will be tasered unless you do what your told.

The fact shes a small woman shouldn't make any difference imo.

She was given very fair warning, knew the consequences and still insisted on playing it out.

[Best First]

All right - if it had been me I would have been out of the car with my hands up after the first request. The fact that she didn't comply doesn't do her any favours, and we don't know she's unarmed. However, I still feel the police response was heavy-handed, and could have been dealt with better.

While I was in SF I saw a woman on the street bawling out a cop, giving him a whole load of grief while he just stood there and took it. She was calling him all sorts of names, belittling him, trying to provoke a response. The cop kept calm, nodding and letting her vent, even though he could have tasered her, cuffed her and thrown her in the back of his vehicle.

Surely the point here is that while what we see in the video is policing by procedure, it's not good policing? Isn't there a better way of dealing with people than by blasting them with electricity?

Surely your comparing apples and oranges?

beat me too it.