Korean Job Discussion Forums

[Hater Depot]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,575494,00.html?test=latestnews

[bacasper]

[Fox]

According to Amnesty International, though, tasers have occasionally resulted in death. As such, it seems like tasers should be reserved for situations where the police officer or other innocents are at risk of harm, rather than simply to subdue a child.

[Street Magic]

If you can't overpower a ten year old girl without the assistance of a taser, you probably shouldn't be working in any sort of public safety related capacity.

[Triban]

I speak for everyone when I say "Don't tase her bro."

Pretty much "Don't tase anyone without valid cause, bro."

[Arthur Dent]

I find it appalling that these tools are in the hands of law enforcement. The controversy over their use consists mostly of dangers to health, and obviously that is an issue.

However, speaking for myself, this obscures what I believe to be the larger issue. That of dignity and control.

Fortunately, I have never behaved or at least been seen or perceived to have behaved in such a manner as to warrant the use of these - what? - tools? weapons? - what do we even call them? - on myself.

The possibility of dying from being tasered is only an issue because they are represented as non-lethal tools of control. Law enforcement officers are already armed with deadly force. No issue with that as long as officers are properly trained and follow procedure. Of course in many cases this continues to be an issue at times. I do not wish to digress further here.

But this is something different. I do not question that there are situations (and the story posted, as reported, by the OP seems on the face of it not to be one of them) where officers are faced with choices no one would wish to be faced with, even as police officers. Confronted with individuals who are beyond any self control and as such constitute a danger to the public as well as to the officers themselves, a tool such as this would seem the ideal choice to defuse a situation with no harm done.

However, we may pay too high a price.

Faced with death or freedom, we at least have a choice. With these tools there is no choice or control.

This, to me to is the real issue.

I, for one, would not choose to place this tool in the hands of my closest and most trusted friends.

I value the commitment of our law enforcement officers, but I fear this is a stain which will seriously undermine both their integrity and our system of justice.

Here is a blog which covers the same story as well as deaths said to be related to tasers.

http://truthnottasers.blogspot.com/

[Fox]

[Gopher]

[Arthur Dent]

I agree with what you have said regarding dealing with criminals and that tasers can possibly be used wisely. I am not an expert on these tools and so it would be disingenuous for me not to say so.

If you browse the blog I have posted, you will see that many of the taser deaths are at least related to drug use. There is little question that drugs were involved, in any case.

It is also difficult for either of us (and other posters) to comment meaningfully on tasers on a case per case basis. That being said, you raise good points regarding the death by cop scenario. I had not considered that in my post, though it has come up before.

Of course a police officer should not be forced to choose between their lives or the lives of others and the life of someone who - for one reason or another - wishes to die not entirely by their own hands. Though it does happen, much to the distress of all involved, and particularly the officer, dircetly.

You wisely pre-empt the legalized suicide argument, though I personally would not have raised it with respect to the issue of tasers.

We live in the world. We have to make choices about things we may not be comfortable with. I believe this is the thrust of your points here, and I agree with you.

I should have been clearer in my post by saying that it is not the use of these tools against criminals or those who have gone amok for other reasons - such as drug use or mental health problems (and here I would suggest - again, loosely, as I am not a physician - that many physicians would not recommend the use of the these tools in those situations) that concerns me the most. At least if the health of the particular individual is the main concern.

It is, rather, the possibility of abuse against those who are acting within their rights. It is also the effect this has on the morale of our law enforcement officers and the general populace. We see enough to discourage us as it is.

The difficulty (one of them, at least) is telling the difference, both during and after the fact. They (tasers) may produce more problems than they solve.

How much training and experience will officers require before we can satisfy ourselves that it suffices and that they will know when their use is warranted? Do we really wish to foist these kinds of choices on our peace officers? I would not go to work each day knowing (and I respect them for doing so) that this is what the day may hold.

So the problem, in this way of viewing it at least, becomes when to use them, and against whom?

But perhaps arguing scenario against scenario is not useful. It may not result in a practical solution to their use.

When considering something such as this, in wishing to consider safety, respect for the law, and respect for all citizens, as well as to be the much-maligned practical society, we must first strive to act and think morally, else the result may be folly.

Perhaps it is already too late. Either way, we will get what we deserve.


Just to add to the debate, from an article in the blog:

[bacasper]