• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Anti-Taser Jacket

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Originally posted by: XZeroII
Originally posted by: senseamp
Originally posted by: XZeroII
Originally posted by: Nebor
Originally posted by: senseamp
If you aren't engaging in activities that piss off the cops, you know, like expressing freedom of speech and assembly, you got nothing to worry about.
Click to expand...

Exactly my point. Cops are entirely too taser happy. In the "don't tase me bro" tasering, or the UCLA student tasering, where there was NO violence until the cops initiated it, I'd much rather read the headline: "2 Police officers shot dead in self defense after attacking college student," than all this bull shit tasering the jack booted thugs are doing.
Click to expand...

Are you in law enforcement? Have you ever even TALKED with someone in law enforcement? If not, then you are completely unqualified to talk about this. I recently finished a 10 week course with our local Sherrifs department and now I fully understand why they do what they do. They have to put up with crap like the "don't tase me bro" idiots. They don't know what these people are going to do and have to decide whether to take action or not within less than one second. If they wait, then really bad things could happen. It's a judgement call that has to be made immediately and they have to make it. What would you think if there was a crowded room and some lunatic starts running around and screaming? I would certainly think that this guy is a threat and try to take him down as soon as possible. What if he had a bomb? Then we would all be wondering why the police didn't take action sooner.

You just love playing monday morning quarterback and spending MONTHS analyzing what someone should have done when that person only had < 1 second to figure it out themselves.
Click to expand...

We pay these fvckers' salaries. So yeah, we are very qualified to tell them what to do.
Your logic would allow cops to murder anyone they want. What if he has a bomb, let's shoot him and ask questions later.
Click to expand...

NO. You are NOT qualified to tell them what to do. Get some comprehension skills; I didn't say that they should just always shoot first and ask questions later. I said that they have to make that decision within < 1 second. They are TRAINED (unlike you) to be able to deal with these situations and make those decisions.

Do you really think that just because you pay some taxes that you are fully qualified to know what they should and should not do in certain circumstances? If so, then I don't know why we send these people to training. We should just ask them if they pay taxes and if they do, just send them out on the streets.
Click to expand...

Well, tough sh!t for them. If they make a wrong decision in <1 second, they should pay for their mistake just like they want us to pay for our mistakes. Just because they have to make a quick decision doesn't absolve them of responsibility if they cause bodily harm to an innocent person. We as taxpayers and voters can decide if we allow tasers to be used by our police force or not, and what laws will govern their use.
 
Originally posted by: senseamp
Originally posted by: XZeroII
Originally posted by: senseamp
Originally posted by: XZeroII
Originally posted by: Nebor
Originally posted by: senseamp
If you aren't engaging in activities that piss off the cops, you know, like expressing freedom of speech and assembly, you got nothing to worry about.
Click to expand...

Exactly my point. Cops are entirely too taser happy. In the "don't tase me bro" tasering, or the UCLA student tasering, where there was NO violence until the cops initiated it, I'd much rather read the headline: "2 Police officers shot dead in self defense after attacking college student," than all this bull shit tasering the jack booted thugs are doing.
Click to expand...

Are you in law enforcement? Have you ever even TALKED with someone in law enforcement? If not, then you are completely unqualified to talk about this. I recently finished a 10 week course with our local Sherrifs department and now I fully understand why they do what they do. They have to put up with crap like the "don't tase me bro" idiots. They don't know what these people are going to do and have to decide whether to take action or not within less than one second. If they wait, then really bad things could happen. It's a judgement call that has to be made immediately and they have to make it. What would you think if there was a crowded room and some lunatic starts running around and screaming? I would certainly think that this guy is a threat and try to take him down as soon as possible. What if he had a bomb? Then we would all be wondering why the police didn't take action sooner.

You just love playing monday morning quarterback and spending MONTHS analyzing what someone should have done when that person only had < 1 second to figure it out themselves.
Click to expand...

We pay these fvckers' salaries. So yeah, we are very qualified to tell them what to do.
Your logic would allow cops to murder anyone they want. What if he has a bomb, let's shoot him and ask questions later.
Click to expand...

NO. You are NOT qualified to tell them what to do. Get some comprehension skills; I didn't say that they should just always shoot first and ask questions later. I said that they have to make that decision within < 1 second. They are TRAINED (unlike you) to be able to deal with these situations and make those decisions.

Do you really think that just because you pay some taxes that you are fully qualified to know what they should and should not do in certain circumstances? If so, then I don't know why we send these people to training. We should just ask them if they pay taxes and if they do, just send them out on the streets.
Click to expand...

Well, tough sh!t for them. If they make a wrong decision in <1 second, they should pay for their mistake just like they want us to pay for our mistakes. Just because they have to make a quick decision doesn't absolve them of responsibility if they cause bodily harm to an innocent person. We as taxpayers and voters can decide if we allow tasers to be used by our police force or not, and what laws will govern their use.
Click to expand...

No, it doesn't absolve them of responsibility. But that's not what you (or me) are claiming. You are claiming that police are all tazer happy and I'm claiming that most of those situations are in fact justified. If a police officer does use it inappropriately, they should be punished, but there is no evidence that they are in fact being abused. There will always be one or two stupid people out there that the media latches on to, but tasers have done LOTS more good than bad so far. As I said earlier, I would rather be tased than beaten with a baton or shot.
 
To me, tasing a guy for simply speaking is not appropriate, and it is abusive by the police. I don't see why the resident fascists don't get that.
 
Originally posted by: senseamp
To me, tasing a guy for simply speaking is not appropriate, and it is abusive by the police. I don't see why the resident fascists don't get that.
Click to expand...

I agree entirely. The idea of "free speech zones" is an affront to the constitution. Police tasering someone because they don't like what they have to say, or because they're recording them is bullshit.
 
They weren't tased for speaking, they were tased for non-compliance with a (presumably) lawful order from a cop.

In the case of the "don't tase me bro" idiot (who has apologized to everyone several times publicly now) he was disturbing the peace with his disorderly conduct and asked to leave.

He kept blathering, failed to comply after being warned several times, and they zapped him. Then he complied; life was good.

Personally I'd have preferred that they'd have shot him to keep him from reproducing and further contaminating the gene pool ... oh well.

If you're challenged and you know you're right, comply now and sue later; save yourself the time on the floor doing the funky chicken.

.02
 
Originally posted by: ScottMac
They weren't tased for speaking, they were tased for non-compliance with a (presumably) lawful order from a cop.

In the case of the "don't tase me bro" idiot (who has apologized to everyone several times publicly now) he was disturbing the peace with his disorderly conduct and asked to leave.

He kept blathering, failed to comply after being warned several times, and they zapped him. Then he complied; life was good.

Personally I'd have preferred that they'd have shot him to keep him from reproducing and further contaminating the gene pool ... oh well.

If you're challenged and you know you're right, comply now and sue later; save yourself the time on the floor doing the funky chicken.

.02
Click to expand...


It must be a terrible thing to live in fear.
 
Originally posted by: senseamp
We pay these fvckers' salaries. So yeah, we are very qualified to tell them what to do.
Your logic would allow cops to murder anyone they want. What if he has a bomb, let's shoot him and ask questions later.
Click to expand...


Your logic allows politicians to tax whoever they want. What gives? 😕
 
Originally posted by: tomywishbone
Originally posted by: ScottMac
They weren't tased for speaking, they were tased for non-compliance with a (presumably) lawful order from a cop.

In the case of the "don't tase me bro" idiot (who has apologized to everyone several times publicly now) he was disturbing the peace with his disorderly conduct and asked to leave.

He kept blathering, failed to comply after being warned several times, and they zapped him. Then he complied; life was good.

Personally I'd have preferred that they'd have shot him to keep him from reproducing and further contaminating the gene pool ... oh well.

If you're challenged and you know you're right, comply now and sue later; save yourself the time on the floor doing the funky chicken.

.02
Click to expand...


It must be a terrible thing to live in fear.
Click to expand...


I imagine so, but if it weren't for paramoid idiots, noone would ever be able to sell a Taser-proof jacket.

 
Originally posted by: Dissipate
Originally posted by: senseamp
We pay these fvckers' salaries. So yeah, we are very qualified to tell them what to do.
Your logic would allow cops to murder anyone they want. What if he has a bomb, let's shoot him and ask questions later.
Click to expand...


Your logic allows politicians to tax whoever they want. What gives? 😕
Click to expand...

The people gave politicians that power, not my logic. I don't see what taxes have to do with tasers. Are you like those idiots on Wall Street Journal who make everything a topic about taxes?
 
Originally posted by: ScottMac
They weren't tased for speaking , they were tased for non-compliance with a (presumably) lawful order from a cop.

In the case of the "don't tase me bro" idiot (who has apologized to everyone several times publicly now) he was disturbing the peace with his disorderly conduct and asked to leave.

He kept blathering, failed to comply after being warned several times, and they zapped him. Then he complied; life was good.

Personally I'd have preferred that they'd have shot him to keep him from reproducing and further contaminating the gene pool ... oh well.

If you're challenged and you know you're right, comply now and sue later; save yourself the time on the floor doing the funky chicken.

.02
Click to expand...

You want to have it both ways. The cops tasered him for speaking at this event, or as you put it, not complying with their order to stop speaking. I don't find it acceptable in a free society, but you apparently do.
 
Originally posted by: Dissipate
Originally posted by: senseamp

The people gave politicians that power, not my logic.
Click to expand...

So did they not give the politicians the power to tase?
Click to expand...

Well, if we did, we can also put constraints on that power, and not leave it up to the cops to do that for us.
 
Originally posted by: senseamp
Originally posted by: Dissipate
Originally posted by: senseamp

The people gave politicians that power, not my logic.
Click to expand...

So did they not give the politicians the power to tase?
Click to expand...

Well, if we did, we can also put constraints on that power, and not leave it up to the cops to do that for us.
Click to expand...

Hmm, interesting...constraints on power. I wonder how that actually works out in reality.
 
Originally posted by: FallenHero
This thread and 95% of people posting in it are laughable.
Click to expand...

I know this is better than alot of the OT stuff the last couple of days, better start hanging around here more often🙂
 
Originally posted by: FallenHero
This thread and 95% of people posting in it are laughable.
Click to expand...

Yea, pretty much. I'm tired of trying to bring common sense and real world knowledge to these threads. The best thing is to just stay out of the thread and let them stay ignorant.
 
Originally posted by: senseamp
Originally posted by: ScottMac
They weren't tased for speaking , they were tased for non-compliance with a (presumably) lawful order from a cop.

In the case of the "don't tase me bro" idiot (who has apologized to everyone several times publicly now) he was disturbing the peace with his disorderly conduct and asked to leave.

He kept blathering, failed to comply after being warned several times, and they zapped him. Then he complied; life was good.

Personally I'd have preferred that they'd have shot him to keep him from reproducing and further contaminating the gene pool ... oh well.

If you're challenged and you know you're right, comply now and sue later; save yourself the time on the floor doing the funky chicken.

.02
Click to expand...

You want to have it both ways. The cops tasered him for speaking at this event, or as you put it, not complying with their order to stop speaking. I don't find it acceptable in a free society, but you apparently do.
Click to expand...

He kept blathering, failed to comply after being warned several times

Edit "failed" to "failing" ... The fact that he kept running his mouth is secondary (or totally insignificant) to the fact that he would not comply to a lawful instruction

They didn't order him to stop talking, they ordered him to leave; he was disruptive. There was no indication that he intended to comply, so they assisted him.

He was given adequate warning before he was Tased.




 
Originally posted by: piasabird
I think cops should be allowed to shoot criminals in the back if they take off running.
Click to expand...

Even if you've been labeled a criminal for engaging in an "unapproved" online debate topic?
 
Originally posted by: ScottMac
Originally posted by: senseamp
Originally posted by: ScottMac
They weren't tased for speaking , they were tased for non-compliance with a (presumably) lawful order from a cop.

In the case of the "don't tase me bro" idiot (who has apologized to everyone several times publicly now) he was disturbing the peace with his disorderly conduct and asked to leave.

He kept blathering, failed to comply after being warned several times, and they zapped him. Then he complied; life was good.

Personally I'd have preferred that they'd have shot him to keep him from reproducing and further contaminating the gene pool ... oh well.

If you're challenged and you know you're right, comply now and sue later; save yourself the time on the floor doing the funky chicken.

.02
Click to expand...

You want to have it both ways. The cops tasered him for speaking at this event, or as you put it, not complying with their order to stop speaking. I don't find it acceptable in a free society, but you apparently do.
Click to expand...

He kept blathering, failed to comply after being warned several times

Edit "failed" to "failing" ... The fact that he kept running his mouth is secondary (or totally insignificant) to the fact that he would not comply to a lawful instruction

They didn't order him to stop talking, they ordered him to leave; he was disruptive. There was no indication that he intended to comply, so they assisted him.

He was given adequate warning before he was Tased.
Click to expand...


Yet at the same time the guy posed no threat. I actually ran across a study today that looked at injuries from tasering. They examined 1000 incidents. Only 3 (so 0.03% resulted in serious injury), but two of those resulted in death. One was from the guys head impacting an object/the ground immediately after being tasered and the other one was from a medical condition (the tasering killed the guy, just not from electrical shock). So I would ask this: Was the odds of someone (either one of the officers or the suspect) getting killed greater than or less than 0.02% if the taser was not used?
 
Originally posted by: CanOWorms
They should be banned. Police officers abuse the use of non-lethal weapons, turning them into lethal weapons.
Click to expand...

Your right. The police should be left with no other choices except:

A) Ask the criminals nicely to please stop what they're doing and go to jail.
B) Shoot them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top