Heartland

well, my original post was about these 'non-weapons' that are being handed out to, I don't know how to put this, but... bozos with a uniform and power
They are so dim there's bound to be a few who'll think "This it's not a gun, so I can use at will". Believe me, I have met quite a few officers of the law in a professional capacity and they are not the brightest.

I have an heart condition, I look like a thug, I'm easy meat.

now d'ya see why I'm scared?

and it has nothing to do with ID cards, I'll carry one, I just won't pay for it

James Blast wrote:well, my original post was about these 'non-weapons' that are being handed out to, I don't know how to put this, but... bozos with a uniform and power
They are so dim there's bound to be a few who'll think "This it's not a gun, so I can use at will". Believe me, I have met quite a few officers of the law in a professional capacity and they are not the brightest.

I have an heart condition, I look like a thug, I'm easy meat.

now d'ya see why I'm scared?

Indeed

Police routinely armed with tasers is an "accident" waiting to happen. As I posted on another thread, I've only ever seen real guns carried by the polis a) at UK airports and b) on the mainland. I'd like to keep it that way.

Like reactiv8 I'm a veteran of the poll-tax riots. They were scary enough on their horses without guns too. (And lets not mention the rumours I heard about the girl who'd been arrested and then raped in the back of the police van.)

ID cards? The government is supposedly a servant of the public, not its master. I fail to see why I need to "prove" who I am.

If the government doesn't like the people, why doesn't it elect a new people?

markfiend wrote:Police routinely armed with tasers is an "accident" waiting to happen.

No longer waiting in the Land of the Free : 254 deaths caused by taser in the USA since 2001 according to Amnesty International. Not bad for a "non-lethal weapon".
None according to taser manufacturers, of course. Tasers is supposed to save lifes, see.
As James rightfully pointed, especially effective on people with heart condition.

If the government doesn't like the people, why doesn't it elect a new people?

Take the people out of the picture, and democracy works just fine.

markfiend wrote:Police routinely armed with tasers is an "accident" waiting to happen. As I posted on another thread, I've only ever seen real guns carried by the polis a) at UK airports and b) on the mainland. I'd like to keep it that way.

Like reactiv8 I'm a veteran of the poll-tax riots. They were scary enough on their horses without guns too. (And lets not mention the rumours I heard about the girl who'd been arrested and then raped in the back of the police van.)

ID cards? The government is supposedly a servant of the public, not its master. I fail to see why I need to "prove" who I am.

If the government doesn't like the people, why doesn't it elect a new people?

Yowza Mark!

... Maybe we'll have a drink, (& ...), chat & 'reminisce' one day?!
- That's if neither of us don't become Body Electric first,
courtesy of our brave friends in Blue?

Reading such anti-police diatribes made me initially think that instead of Heartland, my web browser had mistakenly misdirected me to the Editorial pages of the Daily Mail.

Nixon wrote:Reading such anti-police diatribes made me initially think that instead of Heartland, my web browser had mistakenly misdirected me to the Editorial pages of the Daily Mail.

Is that a bad thing..?

SINsister wrote:

Nixon wrote:Reading such anti-police diatribes made me initially think that instead of Heartland, my web browser had mistakenly misdirected me to the Editorial pages of the Daily Mail.

Is that a bad thing..?

Yup, the Daily Mail is a pile of s**t, on the one hand their editorial will talk of police vehicles being driven at excess speed, while two pages later, they will moan that the police didn't get to a robbery quick enough. You can't have it both ways.

I can't honestly think of a decent Weapon That Does Not Hurt people...
If any scientifically aware people can inform me of a device that can immobilise a criminal without hurting them in any way, shape, or form, I'll gladly bow to their experience.

But I am definitely in favour of Taser weapons, despite the deaths' attributable to it. I have been concerned about the lack of decent defence open to police - nothing between batons, and MP5s? Hell, arming police with 9mm automatics in Manchester - even with Moss Side - seemed to me to be too extreme. It is damned difficult to disable an opponent without killing him with a sidearm.

But the armaments of criminals are increasing, that's without doubt. The simple fact is this; we cannot control what lawbreakers are armed with. The best we can do is control what lawmakers* are armed with.
















* - No pun intended!

timsinister wrote:But I am definitely in favour of Taser weapons

I know you, that attitude will change as you age Tim, believe me

still, nice to have you back, even if you do have the daftest HL avatar Evah!

Someone will have to help me out here...as it went in one ear and out the other...

The other week I was listening to the radio and some police force (not sure if US or UK) were wanting to use some form of torch thingy that sent out fast flashy almost strobe lights. Apparently it disorientates the vitctim enabling the police to apprehend them. I imagine it brings on a sort of induced epileptic fit.

Please someone tell me I haven't made it up....

If I have...I ought to hop down the patent office

timsinister wrote:nothing between batons, and MP5s?

Well, then give them ordinary pistols like everywhere else on the planet. At least in Europe, the police usually does not shoot at people who aren't posing a serious (=armed) threat. A drunk rowdy is usually manhandled to the ground. This would change with tasers -- they wouldn't risk getting a bloody nose, and simply shoot him with that thing. This is a lot more dangerous, imho. At the same time, tasers are useless against a criminal armed with a handgun, so where's the point.

That's exactly the argument, jose! I forget to mention, the police in Manchester were/are armed with 9mm automatics, and the hue and cry they raised was deafening! In the art of compromise, I'm willing to embrace tasers as considerably less fatal than an actual firearm, which is the point of the thread, I believe.

James, I certainly won't rule out changing my mind. As a great man said, "I don't stand by anything I've said in the past".

flippant

I just find these "safe" arms rather frightening, I have phobia of electricity applied to an human bod too, so this topic is probably personal

Nixon wrote:Reading such anti-police diatribes made me initially think that instead of Heartland, my web browser had mistakenly misdirected me to the Editorial pages of the Daily Mail.

That's the first time I've been accused of sounding like the Mail! I don't really see that posting a reminiscence of some of my closest dealings with the police can be called an "anti-police diatribe".

The Mail is authoritarian and right-wing. I'd imagine they're all in favour of the police being given these tasers. Slap down the subversives, we can't have them expressing an opinion, what?

I am libertarian and left-wing. I do not trust the police, when armed with a sub-lethal (and in many cases lethal-lethal) weapon, not to misuse it. At the poll-tax demonstrations, the police reacted to an unarmed, peaceful, legal demonstration with what amounted to a cavalry charge.

Maybe i hate too much the police for what they did me in past to post anything in this thread....saw to many abuses of authority.....underwent abuses....
f.ck'em all

markfiend wrote:

Nixon wrote:Reading such anti-police diatribes made me initially think that instead of Heartland, my web browser had mistakenly misdirected me to the Editorial pages of the Daily Mail.

That's the first time I've been accused of sounding like the Mail! I don't really see that posting a reminiscence of some of my closest dealings with the police can be called an "anti-police diatribe".

The Mail is authoritarian and right-wing. I'd imagine they're all in favour of the police being given these tasers. Slap down the subversives, we can't have them expressing an opinion, what?

I am libertarian and left-wing. I do not trust the police, when armed with a sub-lethal (and in many cases lethal-lethal) weapon, not to misuse it. At the poll-tax demonstrations, the police reacted to an unarmed, peaceful, legal demonstration with what amounted to a cavalry charge.

This was obviously a different demonstration to the one shown on television where the police came under a hail of missiles from the Class War rent-a-mob section of society who hijack peaceful demonstrations for their own ends. I have nothing against protests, I recently was involved in a march to celebrate the 200th anniversary of the signing of the Act to Abolish Slavery. The procession was peaceful, well policed, by officers who were happy to ensure public safety and ensure traffic control.

However this takes us away from the original thread. Police in most countries worldwide are given firearms as a matter of course. The UK is one area which leaves this to specialists rather than arming all officers.

The situation in this country has deteriorated significantly within the last fifteen years to the extent that we are regularly having children murdered by knives and firearms. With the proliferation of firearms, I beleave it is unreasonable to expect officers to be armed with little more than a baton - look what happened to PC Sharon Beshenevsky. The problem is that firearms teams are few and far between and would not be able to deploy as efficiently as the majority of unarmed response teams. I personally would prefer them to have the taser as I value my own safety, and to be quite honest am occasionally fearful when it comes to walking the streets of Bristol on a weekend nighttime as the number of violent drunks who wish to hurt anyone has increased. Just look at the recent tread "Manchester Goth Couple Attacked" If the threat of police using a taser prevents another like attack it will be worth it.

Finally I appreciate everyone has different views based on their own experience. I myself have spent a night in the cells and was treated completely fairly. However I number several police officers as close friends and their attitude and behaviour is second to none.

Nixon wrote:This was obviously a different demonstration to the one shown on television where the police came under a hail of missiles from the Class War rent-a-mob section of society who hijack peaceful demonstrations for their own ends.

Yes, actually. I was at the one in London, which was nothing like the one they showed on the telly.

Actually I'm being facetious. No, I wasn't at the March 31 1990 riot which you appear to be describing. The one I'm talking about was a year or two earlier. We were trying to cross Westminster Bridge and were met by police on horseback in riot gear. As far as I recall, this had been the planned route, accepted by the police, but they stopped us crossing the bridge at the last moment. I still don't know why.

I suppose it is only fair to add that the rumour I mentioned above was just that; only a rumour.

Nixon wrote:I have nothing against protests, I recently was involved in a march to celebrate the 200th anniversary of the signing of the Act to Abolish Slavery. The procession was peaceful, well policed, by officers who were happy to ensure public safety and ensure traffic control.

However this takes us away from the original thread. Police in most countries worldwide are given firearms as a matter of course. The UK is one area which leaves this to specialists rather than arming all officers.

Indeed. To be frank, I think that its the fact that the UK police are routinely unarmed is something of which to be proud. And the taser is an erosion of that.

Nixon wrote:The situation in this country has deteriorated significantly within the last fifteen years to the extent that we are regularly having children murdered by knives and firearms.

Now who's sounding like the Daily Mail? Regularly?

From my understanding of the statistics, while there has been a small increase in violent crime, most significantly against and between males in their late teens and early twenties, the public perception of the dangers has risen out of all proportion to the actual danger.

Nixon wrote: With the proliferation of firearms, I beleave it is unreasonable to expect officers to be armed with little more than a baton - look what happened to PC Sharon Beshenevsky.

From what I understand of the case, Beshenevsky and her fellow officer were shot as soon as they arrived at the travel agent's involved. They were sent to investigate the panic button being pressed and had no warning that "armed and dangerous" raiders were present. I don't believe that there's any evidence that having a taser would have saved her life.

Nixon wrote: The problem is that firearms teams are few and far between and would not be able to deploy as efficiently as the majority of unarmed response teams. I personally would prefer them to have the taser as I value my own safety,

It is precisely because I value my own, and other people's, safety that I would rather the police were unarmed.

Nixon wrote: and to be quite honest am occasionally fearful when it comes to walking the streets of Bristol on a weekend nighttime as the number of violent drunks who wish to hurt anyone has increased.

I do appreciate this. I don't think that shooting drunks is a good solution to the problem though. (Of course I'm being facetious again.) The presence of any police, whether armed with a taser or not, is likely to deter violent drunks.

Nixon wrote: Just look at the recent tread "Manchester Goth Couple Attacked" If the threat of police using a taser prevents another like attack it will be worth it.

I don't think it would prevent an attack though. Obviously there were no police around at the time that couple were attacked. Again, it is the presence or absence of any police that is the crucial factor; whether it was unarmed police not being there or taser-armed police not being there is irrelevant I would have thought.

Nixon wrote:Finally I appreciate everyone has different views based on their own experience. I myself have spent a night in the cells and was treated completely fairly. However I number several police officers as close friends and their attitude and behaviour is second to none.

I'm not trying to deny that the vast majority of police officers are honest, hard-working, law-abiding, or anything else. It's just that in a pressure situation, which police work being what it is, is likely to occur quite frequently, it would be all too tempting to go for the "easy option" of bringing someone down with the taser when they could have been restrained without it.

markfiend wrote:

Nixon wrote:The situation in this country has deteriorated significantly within the last fifteen years to the extent that we are regularly having children murdered by knives and firearms.

Now who's sounding like the Daily Mail? Regularly?

Right. You're thinking of the U.S.

Here is a snapshot, up to 18 March, of all fatal incidents this month: 15 people have died in stabbings. There were no such deaths in Scotland or Northern Ireland.

This was from BBC News in March this year. Nine of the fifteen were aged 30 or under.

Whilst this may pale into insignificance compared with statistics elsewhere in the world, each of these "statistics" leaves behind a grieving family. I think that fifteen deaths of this type in under three weeks in Marchthis year is too many, and I am not trying to be alarmist.

1 is too many!

And most of the offenders are young people that can't be prosecuted because they're not old enough, so they just go to young offenders institutions where they mixed with more sophisticated criminals and so the cycle goes on...

Sorry for the thread necro, but this has really gotten my goat.

Post edited out just after submitting. You can tell what my feelings on this are, but I don't fancy discussing them.

Resurrecting this one again, just to give a few thoughts...

I'm proud that we live in a country in which police are routinely unarmed. As has been pointed out, most situations that could be prevented by armed police (teaser or pistol) could probably be prevently by unarmed police.

The fact is, arming police with semi lethal weapons is easier to accept than full on guns. But it paves the way towards heavier armed police.

I think a lot of what are generally conisdered to be the erosion of liberties, in the this country and abroad, occur very gradually, so no one actually thinks to object until its already happened.

The video in the original post scared me. They guy was annoying, but it was not the place of the police to do what they did, if anything it was up to the college authorities to decide what kind of interuptions were acceptable.

More disturbing still is the way the news reporter at the end laughed the whole issue off. Making it all too easy to forget what had actually happened. Not only did he get attacked, but he got imprisoned afterwards!

As an aside, it is my belief that with in the next few years smoking will be banned in the UK. The age is being raised, fines are in place for people that smoke in the wrong place etc etc. In themselves all these things are fairly easy to accept, and it means that instead of banning smoking the givernment can legislate smoking away. This is the most obvios example of gradual assumption of control.