+ Post New Thread
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 53
Jokes/Interweb Things Thread, Tasered for being blind in Fun Stuff; Originally Posted by LiamH Taser's can cause fatalities, that much is obvious. So can peanut butter sandwich's , it doesn't ...
  1. #31


    AMLightfoot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Hampshire, England
    Posts
    2,087
    Thank Post
    361
    Thanked 600 Times in 383 Posts
    Rep Power
    246
    Quote Originally Posted by LiamH View Post
    Taser's can cause fatalities, that much is obvious. So can peanut butter sandwich's , it doesn't mean we should ban peanut butter...<snip>...I think the police have a very important job in society, and a very hard job to do in general. If it had turned out to be a samurai sword a police officer approaching him would have been putting his life on the line, They should be able to defend themselves just like anyone else, and a Taser is still a better option than a gun or beating someone with a trungon.
    There is a world of difference between a peanut butter sandwich (a normal and acceptable foodstuff) and a taser (a weapon designed to pierce skin and deliver an electric shock) - electric shocks are not a 'normal' thing, eating food is - allergies and heart attacks aside, this analogy is trivialising the danger of tasers. I agree that non-contact is better than a gun or truncheon (I still feel sick when I think about that poor man shot on the tube) but I have to disagree that approaching the man from the front wasn't an option - Sword or no sword, there is a minimum safe distance and if the officer thought he had found the suspect could he not have called in backup in a car or body armour? An earlier poster postulated that a white stick could be mistaken for a rapier - yes, it could, but the report wasn't of a man brandishing a rapier, it was a man brandishing a samurai sword which has a very distinctive appearance and features (the curvature for one...) and I cannot find evidence of a single disability aid that resembles this profile (unless you count the long shoe horns.... but really? Although I am certain someone will prove me wrong...)

    If I remember correctly, Samurai swords are actually illegal in the UK now under UK law, 2008 legislation and 1988 Offensive Weapons Act but I believe there is a way around the legislation for decorative swords and re-enactment swords. I am sure I read that to make the sword decorative only, they twist and break the tang (meaning the blade is un-usable as a weapon). Or perhaps this was pre-2008 law... I'm not a lawyer so I'm sure someone will tell me I'm wrong...

    localzuk's story is interesting as my brother in law experienced something similar in the New Forest. He was leaving his work and had literally pulled out of the car park and gone about 50 yards when a police officer on the side of the road pulled him over for speeding (how can he be speeding in a 40 zone when he'd only just pulled away from a car park?). When my BIL pointed this out the officer accused him of 'abusing him' and threatened to arrest him. It was gone midnight and he just wanted to get home as he was up at 5am the next day so he took the fine. Personally I'd have stuck to my guns, especially if I know I'm right but that's me...
    Last edited by AMLightfoot; 18th October 2012 at 09:13 AM.

  2. #32


    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    1,047
    Thank Post
    42
    Thanked 161 Times in 93 Posts
    Rep Power
    143
    Quote Originally Posted by AMLightfoot View Post
    There is a world of difference between a peanut butter sandwich (a normal and acceptable foodstuff) and a taser (a weapon designed to pierce skin and deliver an electric shock) - electric shocks are not a 'normal' thing, eating food is - allergies and heart attacks aside, this analogy is trivialising the danger of tasers. I agree that non-contact is better than a gun or truncheon (I still feel sick when I think about that poor man shot on the tube) but I have to disagree that approaching the man from the front wasn't an option - Sword or no sword, there is a minimum safe distance and if the officer thought he had found the suspect could he not have called in backup in a car or body armour? An earlier poster postulated that a white stick could be mistaken for a rapier - yes, it could, but the report wasn't of a man brandishing a rapier, it was a man brandishing a samurai sword which has a very distinctive appearance and features (the curvature for one...) and I cannot find evidence of a single disability aid that resembles this profile (unless you count the long shoe horns.... but really? Although I am certain someone will prove me wrong...)

    If I remember correctly, Samurai swords are actually illegal in the UK now under UK law, 2008 legislation and 1988 Offensive Weapons Act but I believe there is a way around the legislation for decorative swords and re-enactment swords. I am sure I read that to make the sword decorative only, they twist and break the tang (meaning the blade is un-usable as a weapon). Or perhaps this was pre-2008 law... I'm not a lawyer so I'm sure someone will tell me I'm wrong...

    localzuk's story is interesting as my brother in law experienced something similar in the New Forest. He was leaving his work and had literally pulled out of the car park and gone about 50 yards when a police officer on the side of the road pulled him over for speeding (how can he be speeding in a 40 zone when he'd only just pulled away from a car park?). When my BIL pointed this out the officer accused him of 'abusing him' and threatened to arrest him. It was gone midnight and he just wanted to get home as he was up at 5am the next day so he took the fine. Personally I'd have stuck to my guns, especially if I know I'm right but that's me...
    Most of the deaths by taser are caused by complications with other existing conditions, that's the analogy i was trying to use. Pretty much anything has the potential to kill someone, but making a taser out to be a lethal weapon is taking it a step too far in my opinion.

    Regarding the legality of samurai swords and the de-tanging of the sword to prevent it being used in combat, firstly de-tanging the weapon means it is more likely for the blade to snap off from the handle, it doesn't mean it wont mess up your day if you get hit with it and it is sharpened. Secondly, handguns are illegal in the UK, it doesn't mean that every reported instance of a gunman roaming the streets should be dismissed as someone with a fake.

    The term samurai sword is generally used to cover any traditional Japanese sword, the one you are thinking of with the curve is a Katana, not all Japanese swords had the curve (Hachiwara for example) but expecting the police officer to have an extensive knowledge of swordsmanship is unfair.

    And dont get me started on the lad in the train station, during the heightened security when asked to stop he ran away from the police, carrying a rucksack that could have contained explosives, if they let him run off and he killed dozens of people then the police would have been blamed for that, i realize that's a bit "if" but was the safest option at the time, i'm sure if the officer had a taser he would have used that..

    Edit : forgot to add, tasers are limited by range, not sure on the specific taser but last time i looked they range from 15-21 feet, which can still put people in danger from a trained sword carrier.
    Last edited by LiamH; 18th October 2012 at 09:38 AM.

  3. #33

    LosOjos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    West Midlands
    Posts
    5,432
    Thank Post
    1,432
    Thanked 1,160 Times in 794 Posts
    Rep Power
    705
    Have to say, I too have had more bad experiences with the police than good.

    A couple of years ago, me and 2 friends had gone out for a couple of beers in town. Walking back to my friends place, we passed a hostel. A group of lads came out of the hostel armed with baseball bats and beat seven bells out of us (in fact I still have no recollection of the incident, I only know what I have been told happened). I had my front teeth chipped and my knee damaged to the extent that I could not walk for more than a mile or two at a time without being in excruciating pain. That lasted for 2 years and still occasionally flares up again now.

    I called the police to report the incident. 2 weeks after the event, an officer visited me at my home (by which point the bruising and cuts to my face and head had subsided somewhat). He sat in my house and batted off every claim I made with comments like "so, you're a few young lads out on the pish and get in to a fight, it happens". He basically said we had it coming to us because we were under the age of 25, male and had been in the pub. I never got any resolution to that case, never a follow up, and I doubt any investigation was ever made, despite the fact my two friends (who were beaten less severely but had their phones and wallets stolen instead) told the police that interviewed them exactly which hostel the lads came out of, even down to the balcony they were stood on shouting abuse at us before they came down armed with baseball bats.

    There are other stories I could share, but that is the one that hurt the most. Any faith I had in our police force was completely ruined by that event.

  4. #34


    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    3,411
    Thank Post
    184
    Thanked 356 Times in 285 Posts
    Rep Power
    148
    I love the attitude of "I have had a good experience with the police therefore if YOU have had a bad one it MUST be YOUR fault". It's such a narrow minded attitude.

    My first brush with the law was when I was <5 years old. I was a grassed area at the bottom of my street. The police saw me, marched me home and told my mum "If I catch him there again I'll arrest him". My mum obviously answered with "Why? He's not doing any harm, I've told him to play there. What can you arrest him for, he's not breaking any laws?". To which the cop replied with "Don't worry, I'll think of something". what a big man that cop must be to pick on a child who has must started school.

    Obviously that's my mums or my own fault too?


    My ex had a similar one to LosOjos. She actually managed to run away and get into a pizza shop. She phoned the police as the group were still outside. An hour passed and still no police. Eventually she phoned me to come get her, I was drunk so had to get my brother out of bed and drive the 10 miles to where she was. Still no police.
    Again the police didn't turn up to take a statement until weeks later and basically took the same attitude of "you must have caused it".


    Another was when someone crashed her car into my sister. Long story short but she started getting death threats (we believe because the other party were not insured). Police weren't interested, even though the case had a chance of going to court which means they were intimidating witnesses.
    Last edited by j17sparky; 18th October 2012 at 10:11 AM.

  5. #35
    holyoakej's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    London
    Posts
    11
    Thank Post
    0
    Thanked 2 Times in 1 Post
    Rep Power
    13
    I have to agree with Aerospacemonkey, he has a valid piont

  6. #36


    AMLightfoot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Hampshire, England
    Posts
    2,087
    Thank Post
    361
    Thanked 600 Times in 383 Posts
    Rep Power
    246
    So if Tasers are limited by range, then the officer would have been close enough to see the difference between the stick and a sword would he not? If his eyesight is impaired to the degree that he cannot distinguish this, then this calls into question his fitness for active duty does it not? Or at the very least it would indicate that he requires corrective lenses. 15-21 feet is 5-7m therefore, if this officers eyesight is so poor that he cannot make out a blind persons walking stick at 5-7m, then I'd have to question what on earth he was doing on active duty without corrective lenses?

    FWIW, I sit 5m away from a colleague, and (with glasses) I can easily make out details of items on his desk and in some cases even read the logos on them. I fail to understand how the officer cannot have clearly seen the nature of the stick.

    Are we getting to the point now where people with walking sticks, crutches, long umbrellas etc are likely to be accused of carrying an offensive weapon and run the risk of getting tased or worse? If the town had been in the middle of a riot I'd understand the excess caution, but they weren't.

    Either way, I'm bowing out of this thread now before it gets nastier.
    Last edited by AMLightfoot; 18th October 2012 at 10:58 AM.

  7. #37


    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    1,047
    Thank Post
    42
    Thanked 161 Times in 93 Posts
    Rep Power
    143
    Quote Originally Posted by j17sparky View Post
    I love the attitude of "I have had a good experience with the police therefore if YOU have had a bad one it MUST be YOUR fault". It's such a narrow minded attitude.

    My first brush with the law was when I was <5 years old. I was a grassed area at the bottom of my street. The police saw me, marched me home and told my mum "If I catch him there again I'll arrest him". My mum obviously answered with "Why? He's not doing any harm, I've told him to play there. What can you arrest him for, he's not breaking any laws?". To which the cop replied with "Don't worry, I'll think of something". what a big man that cop must be to pick on a child who has must started school.

    Obviously that's my mums or my own fault too?


    My ex had a similar one to LosOjos. She actually managed to run away and get into a pizza shop. She phoned the police as the group were still outside. An hour passed and still no police. Eventually she phoned me to come get her, I was drunk so had to get my brother out of bed and drive the 10 miles to where she was. Still no police.
    Again the police didn't turn up to take a statement until weeks later and basically took the same attitude of "you must have caused it".


    Another was when someone crashed her car into my sister. Long story short but she started getting death threats (we believe because the other party were not insured). Police weren't interested.

    Well apart from the fact that isn't what i said or what i meant to insinuate ill respond never the less. Like i said, you have good police officers who join the police to help and protect the community, and you have bad police officers who can get a power trip from being in a uniform. The fact you seem to think its okay to label ALL police officers with one brush is the definition of narrow minded.

    When my father received death threats with someone calling the home phone to say they would kill him for having an affair with his wife (never happened btw) the police followed it up straight away even going as far as to drive to the pub i was in at the time and ask me to sit in the car to ask me if i had been having an affair with anyone's wife because i lived at the same address.

    Maybe the police in my area are just better then everywhere else in the UK but i still don't believe its fair to tarnish a whole workforce for a few bad experiences.

    Edit :

    I have said a few times now that the police officer in the original story made an error of judgement.. not sure how else i can put that to get the point across.

    What i am saying is it doesn't make him a bad person, if you are put into a situation where you are looking for a dangerous individual wielding a weapon like a sword and you see someone matching the description carrying a long straight object and ask him to stop and he ignores you you have to make a decision, do you get closer or spend time examining the object from afar or do you judge it to be too risky for your personal safety and the safety of the public to take that chance. I am saying he made the wrong decision and that he made a mistake but that does not make the entirety of the police force bad people.

    I'm not saying what that police officer did was correct, what i'm attempting to defend is his right to make a mistake without people carrying pitchforks and torches, None of us know the full circumstance's of the situation and people have taken it as an opportunity to brandish the police as a militant force of licensed criminals.
    Last edited by LiamH; 18th October 2012 at 10:29 AM.

  8. #38

    localzuk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Minehead
    Posts
    17,529
    Thank Post
    513
    Thanked 2,406 Times in 1,862 Posts
    Blog Entries
    24
    Rep Power
    822
    Quote Originally Posted by LiamH View Post
    And dont get me started on the lad in the train station, during the heightened security when asked to stop he ran away from the police, carrying a rucksack that could have contained explosives, if they let him run off and he killed dozens of people then the police would have been blamed for that, i realize that's a bit "if" but was the safest option at the time, i'm sure if the officer had a taser he would have used that..
    Oh wow. I don't even have a response to that, its *that* ridiculous a comment to make. It has already been determined that the incident there was basically one of the biggest balls-ups in police history, followed by police corruption - things such as trying to hide documentation, police emailing MPs trying to get them to intervene in the IPCC investigation, police lying to the IPCC etc...

    Quote Originally Posted by LiamH View Post
    I'm not saying what that police officer did was correct, what i'm attempting to defend is his right to make a mistake without people carrying pitchforks and torches, None of us know the full circumstance's of the situation and people have taken it as an opportunity to brandish the police as a militant force of licensed criminals.


    They lose the right to make mistakes as soon as those mistakes can cause fatalities or injuries.
    Last edited by localzuk; 18th October 2012 at 10:42 AM.

  9. #39


    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    1,047
    Thank Post
    42
    Thanked 161 Times in 93 Posts
    Rep Power
    143
    Quote Originally Posted by localzuk View Post
    They lose the right to make mistakes as soon as those mistakes can cause fatalities or injuries.
    But that's the point, he used a none lethal device...

    If he shot the man then this would be a totally different conversation. The "tasers are really lethal" argument is silly, he was probably more likely to cause a heart attack by startling the man shouting the warning than fatally wounding him with the taser.

  10. #40

    aerospacemango's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Northants
    Posts
    1,994
    Thank Post
    283
    Thanked 249 Times in 200 Posts
    Blog Entries
    2
    Rep Power
    295
    Quote Originally Posted by LiamH View Post
    But that's the point, he used a none lethal device...

    If he shot the man then this would be a totally different conversation. The "tasers are really lethal" argument is silly, he was probably more likely to cause a heart attack by startling the man shouting the warning than fatally wounding him with the taser.
    I think it would be interesting to see the number of firings against the numbers of "uncomplicated deaths"*

    That would give us a better understanding of "lethal" against "non-lethal".


    *EDIT* http://www.taser.com/ Would suggest that the taser has been fired in excess of 2,000,000 times.....So far, I have been unable to find a definitive stat for the amount of "uncomplicated deaths"*

    * I use "uncomplicated deaths" to mean a death that is caused SOLELY by the taser and not by the onset of further complications.
    Last edited by aerospacemango; 18th October 2012 at 11:50 AM.

  11. #41

    localzuk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Minehead
    Posts
    17,529
    Thank Post
    513
    Thanked 2,406 Times in 1,862 Posts
    Blog Entries
    24
    Rep Power
    822
    Quote Originally Posted by LiamH View Post
    But that's the point, he used a none lethal device...

    If he shot the man then this would be a totally different conversation. The "tasers are really lethal" argument is silly, he was probably more likely to cause a heart attack by startling the man shouting the warning than fatally wounding him with the taser.
    No, he used a 'less than lethal' device. Its already been shown that it can and does cause fatalities, both directly and indirectly. Therefore, he is required to make no mistakes when armed with such a device - this is why they aren't widely deployed, and that the police have to have special training to use them and the procedures to follow with them.

    You seem to be ignoring my point about Tasers - they were introduced with much fanfare into the world of policing as a direct replacement for firearms as a 'less than lethal' alternative. Meaning, they should be following the same procedures as if it were a firearm.

  12. #42


    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    1,047
    Thank Post
    42
    Thanked 161 Times in 93 Posts
    Rep Power
    143
    Quote Originally Posted by localzuk View Post
    No, he used a 'less than lethal' device. Its already been shown that it can and does cause fatalities, both directly and indirectly. Therefore, he is required to make no mistakes when armed with such a device - this is why they aren't widely deployed, and that the police have to have special training to use them and the procedures to follow with them.

    You seem to be ignoring my point about Tasers - they were introduced with much fanfare into the world of policing as a direct replacement for firearms as a 'less than lethal' alternative. Meaning, they should be following the same procedures as if it were a firearm.
    They do follow the same procedures, they are trained to use them and required to use a verbal warning, which he did.

    The fact is he could have shot him with a spud gun that *could* have killed him. Nobody was injured, the police officer wasn't trying to injure the man, it was bad judgement by one police officer and this is getting stupid.

    Taser's have been tested over and over again and deemed by multiple organizations to be effective at none lethally subduing someone while reducing the risk of the firer getting harmed. Until its proven otherwise i will continue to trust the rigorous testing and have faith in fellow humans to be able to do a job and not be instantly labeled as a bad person just because of their career choice.

    Im done with this debate before it gets worse. I respect your opinions and in no way justify what the bad police you have encountered have done.
    Last edited by LiamH; 18th October 2012 at 12:08 PM.

  13. #43
    familiarrealms's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Berkshire
    Posts
    58
    Thank Post
    3
    Thanked 6 Times in 6 Posts
    Rep Power
    5
    Anything can be considered a lethal weapon if used with the intent of harming someone. There should be more research done on what is truly considered "non-lethal" force. There is a weapon that shoots out a bag of sand or something like that to put down people without killing them. Truth is, if it hits you in the heart it will kill you.

    A tazer would probably do the same in people with heart conditions, other illnesses or some other unknown factor to do with the person. I consider a stapler a lethal weapon if used with the intention of causing harm to someone, I don't believe in "less than lethal" weaponry or devices.

    Fact is whoever called up and said "there is a man walking down the road with a sword" should have looked properly.

  14. #44


    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    3,411
    Thank Post
    184
    Thanked 356 Times in 285 Posts
    Rep Power
    148
    Quote Originally Posted by LiamH View Post
    Well apart from the fact that isn't what i said or what i meant to insinuate ill respond never the less.
    You said

    Quote Originally Posted by LiamH View Post
    I have had absolutely no issues with police, they come across as helpful and do their best to catch criminals.

    Not sure why you get targeted so much, or if the police forces in Lancashire were trained alongside the special republican guard in Iraq, but based on every interaction I have had with police I really cant see where you are coming from. I guess it stems from your obvious hatred for them and i presume stand offish approach to them in general.
    In other words; I have had good experiences therefore it MUST be YOU.

    The fact you seem to think its okay to label ALL police officers with one brush is the definition of narrow minded.
    At no point did I say all, in fact I didn't label the police in any way shape or form, I just stated my experiences.

    Maybe the police in my area are just better then everywhere else in the UK
    I think it's fair to say each force is different from another. My force very nearly went bankrupt from the number of cases against them; high level corruption, fraud, racism. But I wouldn't say, and never said, all police are bad.

  15. #45
    Disease's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    1,079
    Thank Post
    116
    Thanked 70 Times in 48 Posts
    Rep Power
    56
    Quote Originally Posted by localzuk View Post
    If I make a mistake, I won't kill someone. If they do, they can. That man has already had strokes, this sort of shock can cause another.
    On the same basis as your argument if you make a mistake you do not risk being stabbed or shot, they do so it works both ways, also while we are on the subject are you expecting the police to take a medical history before tasering someone?

    "Wait there criminal I am going to taser you as you have a sword, now before I do sir do you have any medical conditions I should be aware of?" absolute pathetic liberal claptrap, that is why this country has gone to pot.

SHARE:
+ Post New Thread
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Should I go for Be value?
    By nicholab in forum General Chat
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 24th January 2012, 10:31 AM
  2. Spare part for vertical blinds needed
    By Dos_Box in forum General Chat
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 22nd November 2011, 05:52 PM
  3. Replies: 5
    Last Post: 25th January 2007, 11:22 PM
  4. Replies: 44
    Last Post: 16th January 2007, 07:32 PM

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •