Probe finds Taser use on student was OK

[ZNFYRH]

Actually, the punishment has to be worse than the benefit of the crime, added to the nature of the crime itself.

Otherwise, what is the punishment really doing?

[kingmea]

Fear of punishment usually keeps people in line more. A child with a kind, loving parent isn't going to obey them as readily as one that gets a spanking, unless the kind, loving parent has some sort of control method similar to physical punishment. It's better to have harsher punishments than lenient ones, generally, or the child will be more prone to misbehave.

[ZNFYRH]

Agreed.

The punishment cannot fit the crime, so to speak. It must exceed it.

Positive reinforcement is great, but you can still give negative punishments and let your child know that you love them.

That's what talking is for.

As far as grown-ups, they should know better, so the punishment should be excessive, both as a punishment, a deterrent to them, and as a warning to others.

[Osborn F Enready]

I think the student or the parents should sue for a known lethal weapon being used against him in a situation that required no use of a lethal weapon.

They claim tasers are "non-lethal", but in many cases, they have been proven to be lethal. Thats false advertising, and any less requirement of for use of a taser compared to use of a firearm is an injustice.

[ruksak]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready I think the student or the parents should sue for a known lethal weapon being used against him in a situation that required no use of a lethal weapon. They claim tasers are "non-lethal", but in many cases, they have been proven to be lethal. Thats false advertising, and any less requirement of for use of a taser compared to use of a firearm is an injustice.

Tasers are enormously beneficial. Since they were implemented, police departments have marked substantial improvement in these categories:
• Less injuries to police officers while completing arrests
• Less injuries to persons who are resisting arrest
• Less use of lethal force
• Less use of other force options

[Osborn F Enready]

ruksak said: Tasers are enormously beneficial.

I disagree.

ruksak said: Since they were implemented, police departments have marked substantial improvement in these categories: • Less injuries to police officers while completing arrests

Yet some unnecessary deaths in situations when force wasn't necessarily warranted, but the taser was allowed when a gun wouldn't be.

ruksak said: • Less injuries to persons who are resisting arrest

Why is this beneficial?

rusksak said: • Less use of lethal force

That is only because the Taser is labeled less than lethal, when it most definitely has proven to be lethal "sometimes". Its a game of percentage on is it "less than lethal", more often than not.

If a person is tasered and lives, that is not "use of lethal force".
If a person is tasered and dies, the is "use of lethal force".

ruksak said: • Less use of other force options

Why is this good?

[ruksak]

Quote by: OZ Yet some unnecessary deaths in situations when force wasn't necessarily warranted, but the taser was allowed when a gun wouldn't be.

When someone resists arrest they are going to be taken by force. No matter how the force is applied, somebody is gonna witness it and feel compassion for the suspect and question the methods used. Whether its cap-stun, billyclub or taser, somebodies gonna cry about it. People always have and always will. I feel it is a no-win situation.

Why is this good?

Because other force options aren't necessarily better options or safer for either party involved. Tasers only kill when something goes terribly wrong. Something can go terrible wrong if they use mace. Some people have acute allergies to cap-stun and people have even lost vision due to its use. To wrestle or fight physically in a mêlée with a suspect, well any number of thousands of variables come into play and many deaths occur to suspects, officers and innocent bystanders when this tactic is employed.

[grandpa]

Quote by: ZNFYRH Actually, the punishment has to be worse than the benefit of the crime, added to the nature of the crime itself. Otherwise, what is the punishment really doing?

First of all, that's not necessarily true, and you're obviously trying to re-frame the issue so punishments should be given the benefit of the doubt. But they shouldn't be, for innumerable reasons. In fact, there are clear reasons to believe punishments can quickly and easily undermine decency in a given society, just as much as some criminal behavior.

The general lesson of punishment is that we should solve our problems with violence. That's not a very stable platform for a society, and I think we see the results, and not just in the Meyer "riot".

Grandpa h.

[grandpa]

Quote by: ruksak When someone resists arrest they are going to be taken by force. No matter how the force is applied, somebody is gonna witness it and feel compassion for the suspect and question the methods used.

Look, there's an age old lesson: If you start manhandling somebody, you might expect the person to strike back. The meyer video illustrates that lesson pretty well, even though Meyer hardly "struck back" and apparently didn't lift an officer like the police report alleges.

And, sure enough, you can see this principle even when you apply force on an inanimate object. There will be some level of resistance. Of course, this point, which could be regarded as a scientific principle, apparently doesn't apply if you don a uniform and a badge. Then you can apply force and not expect any significant reaction. The object is then supposed to be powerless.

Grandpa h.

[ZNFYRH]

grandpa

Anything is violence, if used in the proper context; violence against the body, the mind, the emotions.

This relates to a Taoist concept...

Even if you refuse to punish negatively, but instead choose to reward positively, you are still being violent.

By specifying the reward, you specify its opposite.

If you say, "If you don't eat your peas you don't get ice cream" then that is a punishment, right? Suffering through denial of pleasure.

If you say, "Eat your peas and you'll get ice cream" then that is ALSO a punishment. It implies its opposite... that you will not get the pleasure if you don't fulfill the condition.

Any consequence for going against the established "rules" is a punishment. The severity is subjective.

[grandpa]

Quote by: ZNFYRH Anything is violence, if used in the proper context; violence against the body, the mind, the emotions. This relates to a Taoist concept...

Yes, to a Taoist the physical and mental are fundamentally interconnected, but we're not talking about Taoism here. In fact, I'm baffled as to why you personally recognize Taoism as at all valid. You don't seem even remotely Taoist.

Grandpa h.

[ZNFYRH]

Quote by: grandpa Yes, to a Taoist the physical and mental are fundamentally interconnected, but we're not talking about Taoism here.

Boy did you completely misconstrue what I was saying.

I'm going to repeat it in the hope it will sink in for you...

You can establish a punishment for a wrongdoing or a reward for "rightdoing". There is still an underlying punishment in the reward for "rightdoing"; the absence of the reward.

Instead of making an issue, just have a punishment for wrongdoing.

[Suburbanite]

is absence of reward punishment? No.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: Suburbanite is absence of reward punishment? No.

Yes, if everybody else is getting it, and your tax dollars fund it, yes, it is a form of punishment.

[grandpa]

Quote by: ZNFYRH Boy did you completely misconstrue what I was saying. I'm going to repeat it in the hope it will sink in for you...

Believe me, I understand the concept of artificial deprivation of resources, and it can indeed function like a punishment, or like violence if that which is taken away is necessary for life.

But punishment is not necessary identical to what most would consider violence. And what happened to Meyer has very little similarity with depriving kids of ice cream for not finishing their peas.

Grandpa h.

[Milton Bradley]

Another Taser death in the news this morning.

Man dies after police jolt him with stun gun - CNN.com

(CNN) -- A 20-year-old man died Sunday after being shot with a Taser device during a scuffle with a sheriff's deputy in Maryland, a spokeswoman for the Frederick County Sheriff's Office said. Cpl. Jennifer Bailey said deputies responding to a report of a fight in progress arrived at the location in Frederick, Maryland, just before 5 a.m. ET and found four people fighting. A deputy used a Taser device on one of the men, who fell unconscious, Bailey said. The man was taken to Frederick Memorial Hospital, where he was pronounced dead. His identity was not immediately released, pending the notification of his family. The deputy, who has not been identified publicly, has been placed on administrative leave with pay pending the completion of an investigation, Bailey said. Amnesty International has reported that, since June 2001, more than 150 people have died in the United States after being subdued with a stun gun. The organization has called for police departments to suspend use of the devices pending study of their possible risks. Few have done so, said Amnesty, which added that more than 7,000 of the nation's 18,000 law enforcement agencies use the devices.

Personally, I'm not in favor of non-lethal weapons. The very concept that they're non-lethal seems to justify a broader sense of when these tools can be implemented.

[ZNFYRH]

Non-lethal is probably not the best term.

Less-lethal would be more applicable.

[Osborn F Enready]

The problem is, as they introduce more and more "less lethal" weapons, there will be less and less regard for using them, more and more reliance on them, until we are eventually just another police state, which we already almost are.

[ruksak]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready The problem is, as they introduce more and more "less lethal" weapons, there will be less and less regard for using them, more and more reliance on them, until we are eventually just another police state, which we already almost are.

I think your "police state" remark is a touch reactionary. These instances are happening too often. Keep in mind that these instances are in the minority and should not be applied to all or even most police officers.

But I agree in your assessment that these "less than lethal" options are becoming the first option, and it should not be that way. Akin to laziness, many times they are seemingly zapping people before they consider other options. As was clearly seen with the Polish guy in Canada. Their first resort should have been to make the suspect feel comfortable and calm him down. Instead, knowing he didn't understand English, they basically crowed around him and tased him as a first option.

[Osborn F Enready]

ruksak said: I think your "police state" remark is a touch reactionary.

You couldn't be more correct.

Its a reaction based on decades of injustice, which have been allowed to set legal precedent when they are blatantly unconstitutional. Its a reaction based on decades of unconstitutional actions by a system that no longer respects the conscent or sanction of its people, while claiming those are the only reason for their existence.

So yes, it is quite reactionary, much like the Declaration of Independence was reactionary.

ruksak said: These instances are happening too often. Keep in mind that these instances are in the minority and should not be applied to all or even most police officers.

I have had over 25 personal "incidents" with police officers, all but one for misdemeanors, so I personally am quite able to justify the "percentage" of times I have been treated justly. However, that is not what I am basing my opinion on. Most police officers are there to do a job, not seek justice. They are there for a paycheck, not to protect rights. Their respective depratments have stated they are no longer there "to protect and to serve", but to take reports and investigate after the fact.
Constitutional Law is so complex today (due to unconstitutional precedents standing as law) that police officers are trained using a "dumbed down" education process which focuses on procedure, rather than "legality" or "justice".

I am not anti-police officer, or anti-law... I am anti-injustice, and the police have been becoming more and more part of that problem of injustice for quite some time.

ruksak said: But I agree in your assessment that these "less than lethal" options are becoming the first option, and it should not be that way.

Thank you for stating that, at least we can agree on one thing.

ruksak said: Akin to laziness, many times they are seemingly zapping people before they consider other options. As was clearly seen with the Polish guy in Canada. Their first resort should have been to make the suspect feel comfortable and calm him down. Instead, knowing he didn't understand English, they basically crowed around him and tased him as a first option.

Sadly, because it was done by police, it will be that much harder to make a case. Police are "brothers in arms" as much as soldiers, and turning against your own, even if the goal is justice, is often frowned upon.

People need to take a stand on this idea of police being used as pawns on the frontline of political disenfranchisement of the people they are intended to police, by the very people who employ them.