I can't imagine that there isn't a more effective way of subduing someone without tazing them? The officers can't know if the person in question might have a heart condition, or some such complication.
Police across North America are using tasers to force compliance when they should only be used to diffuse a potentially violent confrontation. Here is a perfect example of this.
While the man yelling, "I want Jesus!" may have been oblivious to the police officers, he posed no potential threat. One cop could have cuffed him for disturbing the peace while the other cop held a taser to prevent any violent confrontation. This was pure thuggery by a couple of bullies with police badges.
Coincidentally, in my public speaking class someone presented a speech today about police brutality.
There should be a no tolerance policy for this kind of abuse of power. The police need to know that if they taze anyone under any circumstances, they risk losing their jobs and possibly criminal charges. There should be a burden of proof on the PD to prove that there was significant danger that forced them to defend themselves or others with their weapons to prevent this abuse.
That kind of a policy would not cause an officer to hesitate to protect himself (or herself), but certainly they would think twice about pulling out a tazer in an inappropriate situation.
Coincidentally, in my public speaking class someone presented a speech today about police brutality.
There should be a no tolerance policy for this kind of abuse of power. The police need to know that if they taze anyone under any circumstances, they risk losing their jobs and possibly criminal charges. There should be a burden of proof on the PD to prove that there was significant danger that forced them to defend themselves or others with their weapons to prevent this abuse.
That kind of a policy would not cause an officer to hesitate to protect himself (or herself), but certainly they would think twice about pulling out a tazer in an inappropriate situation.
In a pre-911 world, you may have had the majority of politicians and police agree with such a policy. However, since 9/11, the Constitution and civil liberties have been replaced by the Patriot Act and "national security" concerns.
Much brutality and countless civil rights violations have been committed under the cloak of anti-terrorist measures. I don't see that changing anytime in near future.
In a pre-911 world, you may have had the majority of politicians and police agree with such a policy. However, since 9/11, the Constitution and civil liberties have been replaced by the Patriot Act and "national security" concerns.
Much brutality and countless civil rights violations have been committed under the cloak of anti-terrorist measures. I don't see that changing anytime in near future.
I don't know about that. With a democratic white house & congress its possible that we could see something done about the PA.
In a pre-911 world, you may have had the majority of politicians and police agree with such a policy. However, since 9/11, the Constitution and civil liberties have been replaced by the Patriot Act and "national security" concerns.
Much brutality and countless civil rights violations have been committed under the cloak of anti-terrorist measures. I don't see that changing anytime in near future.
This post ^
__________________ "Entropy wins, Entropy always wins..." --Thane, Mass Effect 2
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Linear Mode
