September 3, 200718 yr It`s been reported on the news that the police are to be equiped with electronic taser weapons.It is argued that tasers provide a non-lethal way to detain violent and potentially violent criminals. They incapacipate people by firing electric charges into their body, but is said to do no lasting damage. Even the threat of taser deployment can calm many situations.However, opponents of taser use have previously argued that such weapons can indeed cause significant health problems. Amnesty International says they are "inhumane" and has documented 245 deaths as a result of taser use.What do YOU think?
September 4, 200718 yr In most cases they are definitely better than guns at least they are not normally fatal, but there are exception which usually hit the headlines, and as usual you occasionally get rogue police who abuses their power!Which is worse being treat inhumanely or dead!Vic
September 4, 200718 yr It`s been reported on the news that the police are to be equiped with electronic taser weapons.It is argued that tasers provide a non-lethal way to detain violent and potentially violent criminals. They incapacipate people by firing electric charges into their body, but is said to do no lasting damage. Even the threat of taser deployment can calm many situations.However, opponents of taser use have previously argued that such weapons can indeed cause significant health problems. Amnesty International says they are "inhumane" and has documented 245 deaths as a result of taser use.What do YOU think? I think some drunken idiots will go out and cause trouble to GET tasered so they can brag to thier mates... So if was a copper in those situations i'd accidentally aim for the eyes... or !*!@# ... then get my night stick out to finish them off
September 4, 200718 yr Author I think some drunken idiots will go out and cause trouble to GET tasered so they can brag to thier mates... So if was a copper in those situations i'd accidentally aim for the eyes... or !*!@# ... then get my night stick out to finish them off :lol: :lol:
September 4, 200718 yr Author In most cases they are definitely better than guns at least they are not normally fatal, but there are exception which usually hit the headlines, and as usual you occasionally get rogue police who abuses their power!Which is worse being treat inhumanely or dead!VicYou`ve got a good point there.I’d rather be shot with a taser than a live round (as long as it wasn`t Dave holding the taser)
September 4, 200718 yr Author Apparently,from September 2007, the use of Tasers will no longer be limited to firearms officers,the normal bobby could be walking around with one "More than 3,000 Tasers have been issued to firearms officers in Britain since 2003.Between then and July 2007, they were used in more than 800 incidents.Officers could only use them when confronted by an armed attacker, but in July 2007 those powers were extended to include incidents of serious violence or threat.From September 2007, the use of Tasers will no longer be limited to firearms officers.As part of a 12-month trial, other frontline police from 10 forces in England and Wales will carry the stun guns.The Home Office says these officers will undergo a rigorous selection procedure and will have to complete Acpo-approved training.The forces taking part are Avon and Somerset, Devon and Cornwall, Gwent, Lincolnshire, Merseyside, Metropolitan, Northamptonshire, Northumbria, North Wales and West Yorkshire."I just hope they don`t get mugged for them
September 4, 200718 yr should the police have tasers? no they should have ak47's and midi guns strapped to there cars!
September 4, 200718 yr should the police have tasers? no they should have ak47's and midi guns strapped to there cars!Here here!
September 4, 200718 yr Don't even mention the police to me!I once thought the way the police and justice system now worked was this:Incident happensPolice investigate incident and collect ALL evidence Police submit that evidence, in full, to the CPS who review it and make a decision about who should be pursued in the investigation, and who wont.case goes to courtJudge decides what actually happened and decides on a punishment.This is how it really works:Incident happensPolice arrive, make an instant decision about what happened, collect the evidence that supports that conclusion, ignoring any other evidence.Police submit evidence to CPS who look at the solicitor each person has, then sends the one who is most likely to have a charge against them to court, allowing all others to go freecase goes to courtJudge listens to the evidence, then disregards it all and decides what the hell he likes based on how he feels that day.Innocent, Honest person goes to jail because they told the truth, under caution, and was convicted because they were the only ones stupid enough to admit to any part in it, therefore it must have all been their fault.Police go to pub, celebrating their 'victory' and the extra points they have to show the government what a good job they are doing.Its all ****** wrong, and i for one am sick of it. I think i'll move to France.
September 4, 200718 yr Don't even mention the police to me!I once thought the way the police and justice system now worked was this:Incident happensPolice investigate incident and collect ALL evidence Police submit that evidence, in full, to the CPS who review it and make a decision about who should be pursued in the investigation, and who wont.case goes to courtJudge decides what actually happened and decides on a punishment.This is how it really works:Incident happensPolice arrive, make an instant decision about what happened, collect the evidence that supports that conclusion, ignoring any other evidence.Police submit evidence to CPS who look at the solicitor each person has, then sends the one who is most likely to have a charge against them to court, allowing all others to go freecase goes to courtJudge listens to the evidence, then disregards it all and decides what the hell he likes based on how he feels that day.Innocent, Honest person goes to jail because they told the truth, under caution, and was convicted because they were the only ones stupid enough to admit to any part in it, therefore it must have all been their fault.Police go to pub, celebrating their 'victory' and the extra points they have to show the government what a good job they are doing.Its all ****** wrong, and i for one am sick of it. I think i'll move to France.have they got the internet over there? if not hurry the !*!@# up then!
September 4, 200718 yr Author Judge listens to the evidence, then disregards it all and decides what the hell he likes based on how he feels that day.Innocent, Honest person goes to jail because they told the truth, under caution, and was convicted because they were the only ones stupid enough to admit to any part in it, therefore it must have all been their fault.Police go to pub, celebrating their 'victory' and the extra points they have to show the government what a good job they are doing.Its all ****** wrong, and i for one am sick of it. I think i'll move to France.So,this "honest" person who told the truth (under caution) was convicted because he admitted a part in it? He was hardly innocent then I would say it must have been his fault too
September 4, 200718 yr Judge listens to the evidence, then disregards it all and decides what the hell he likes based on how he feels that day.Innocent, Honest person goes to jail because they told the truth, under caution, and was convicted because they were the only ones stupid enough to admit to any part in it, therefore it must have all been their fault.Police go to pub, celebrating their 'victory' and the extra points they have to show the government what a good job they are doing.Its all ****** wrong, and i for one am sick of it. I think i'll move to France.So,this "honest" person who told the truth (under caution) was convicted because he admitted a part in it? He was hardly innocent then I would say it must have been his fault too Did he get tazered?
September 4, 200718 yr Judge listens to the evidence, then disregards it all and decides what the hell he likes based on how he feels that day.Innocent, Honest person goes to jail because they told the truth, under caution, and was convicted because they were the only ones stupid enough to admit to any part in it, therefore it must have all been their fault.Police go to pub, celebrating their 'victory' and the extra points they have to show the government what a good job they are doing.Its all ****** wrong, and i for one am sick of it. I think i'll move to France.So,this "honest" person who told the truth (under caution) was convicted because he admitted a part in it? He was hardly innocent then I would say it must have been his fault too yes, but not to the extent of the 'curcumstantial evedence' proves. Just funny how all the other evedence collected that proves other than what the police want to prove seems to be 'missing' or 'unavailable' or 'unrecorded'
September 4, 200718 yr have they got the internet over there? if not hurry the !*!@# up then! Stroll On!!! do you ever give up?
September 4, 200718 yr Don't even mention the police to me!I once thought the way the police and justice system now worked was this:This is how it really works:Incident happensPolice arrive, make an instant decision about what happened, collect the evidence that supports that conclusion, ignoring any other evidence.Police submit evidence to CPS who look at the solicitor each person has, then sends the one who is most likely to have a charge against them to court, allowing all others to go freecase goes to courtJudge listens to the evidence, then disregards it all and decides what the hell he likes based on how he feels that day.Innocent, Honest person goes to jail because they told the truth, under caution, and was convicted because they were the only ones stupid enough to admit to any part in it, therefore it must have all been their fault.Police go to pub, celebrating their 'victory' and the extra points they have to show the government what a good job they are doing.Its all ****** wrong, and i for one am sick of it. I think i'll move to France.I think a variation to the above is needed:Incident happensPolice MIGHT arrive if they can be arsed.......Found guiltyGet 35 minutes Community Service.Let me tell you Mr O - Les Flics (En France) are a hundred times more officious than our Plod; I lived in Paris for 2 years and witnessed some appalling behaviour from them.
September 5, 200718 yr I think a variation to the above is needed:Incident happensPolice MIGHT arrive if they can be arsed.......Found guiltyGet 35 minutes Community Service.i stand corrected!
September 7, 200718 yr Author i stand corrected! As usual (i`m getting as bad as Swalnella,Kiang,etc etc)
September 8, 200718 yr Stroll On!!! do you ever give up? :lol: :lol: I get the impression that he won't Mr O
September 8, 200718 yr As usual (i`m getting as bad as Swalnella,Kiang,etc etc) I get the impression that he won't Mr O Time will tell... Maybe the medication will kick in soon!
September 8, 200718 yr should the police have tasers? no they should have ak47's and midi guns strapped to there cars!Agree 100%
Create a free account or sign in to comment