Jump to content

Should The Police Be Armed With Tasers?

Cympil

By Cympil
in Chat Central

 Share

Recommended Posts

Cympil

Cympil

Posted
Posted

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? :blink:

Vic Patterson

Vic Patterson

Posted
Posted

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

Dave

Dave

Posted
Posted
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? :blink:

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

Cympil

Cympil

Posted
  • Author
Posted
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: :lol: :lol:

Cympil

Cympil

Posted
  • Author
Posted
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

You`ve got a good point there.I’d rather be shot with a taser than a live round :blink: (as long as it wasn`t Dave holding the taser) :lol:

Cympil

Cympil

Posted
  • Author
Posted

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 :blink:

"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 :blink:

Mr Darn

Mr Darn

Posted
Posted

Don't even mention the police to me!

I once thought the way the police and justice system now worked was this:

Incident happens

Police 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 court

Judge decides what actually happened and decides on a punishment.

This is how it really works:

Incident happens

Police 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 free

case goes to court

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.

Monsta®

Monsta®

Posted
Posted
Don't even mention the police to me!

I once thought the way the police and justice system now worked was this:

Incident happens

Police 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 court

Judge decides what actually happened and decides on a punishment.

This is how it really works:

Incident happens

Police 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 free

case goes to court

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.

have they got the internet over there? if not hurry the !*!@# up then! :lol::lol:

Cympil

Cympil

Posted
  • Author
Posted

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 :lol:

I would say it must have been his fault too :lol:

Dave

Dave

Posted
Posted
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 :lol:

I would say it must have been his fault too :lol:

Did he get tazered?

Mr Darn

Mr Darn

Posted
Posted
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 :lol:

I would say it must have been his fault too :lol:

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'

Symptoms

Symptoms

Posted
Posted
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 happens

Police 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 free

case goes to court

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.

I think a variation to the above is needed:

Incident happens

Police MIGHT arrive if they can be arsed....

...

Found guilty

Get 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.

Mr Darn

Mr Darn

Posted
Posted
I think a variation to the above is needed:

Incident happens

Police MIGHT arrive if they can be arsed....

...

Found guilty

Get 35 minutes Community Service.

i stand corrected! :P

Create a free account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing


×
×
  • Create New...