http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/20...d=story_ribbon
I posted this on FB with the comment
Someone then also posted this video on Tasers, which I had not previously seen:While I'm still not sure where I fall on the UC Davis incident and whether it was justified or not, OC does not cause permanent injury. Show me empirical evidence that it was the OC that killed the person mentioned in the article AND that it was not a freak, completely atypical reaction and I'll change my tune. OC is far, far more benign than what most officers would do in cases of non-compliance if they *didn't* have it. Be thankful they use pepper spray. If you want to disobey an order of police it doesn't matter if it's justified or not, be prepared for the consequences. If you're after civil disobedience have the courage of your convictions. Getting OC in the face is relatively mild as things considered. Don't be a ****ing whiny pussy.
http://youtu.be/5SCKjXCrB5A
To which I responded:
Interesting video. I think the points made by the brothers who own the company compelling. As with pepper spray, Tasers represent a less-lethal alternative in cases in which some is aggressive/dangerous and non-compliant with verbal direction. The fact that officers use them (or pepper spray) when they shouldn't is an issue with training and would exist irrespective of whether pepper spray or a Taser was issued. The difference is without these things an officer is more likely to pull out their baton or a gun instead. Hardly an improvement. If the data they present is valid, 20 deaths out of a million is almost statistically insignificant and I'd bet those incidents (even ignoring those where force should not have been used at all) would have led to many more deaths and injuries had cops only had resort to guns, fists, or batons. It's worth remember that Rodney King was first Tased. Was what it progressed to (right or wrong) better? I can't imagine anyone arguing it was.


Reply With Quote



Bookmarks