Cympil Posted September 3, 2007 Report Share Posted September 3, 2007 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vic Patterson Posted September 4, 2007 Report Share Posted September 4, 2007 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted September 4, 2007 Report Share Posted September 4, 2007 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cympil Posted September 4, 2007 Author Report Share Posted September 4, 2007 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: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cympil Posted September 4, 2007 Author Report Share Posted September 4, 2007 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) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cympil Posted September 4, 2007 Author Report Share Posted September 4, 2007 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monsta® Posted September 4, 2007 Report Share Posted September 4, 2007 should the police have tasers? no they should have ak47's and midi guns strapped to there cars! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blank Posted September 4, 2007 Report Share Posted September 4, 2007 should the police have tasers? no they should have ak47's and midi guns strapped to there cars!Here here! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Darn Posted September 4, 2007 Report Share Posted September 4, 2007 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monsta® Posted September 4, 2007 Report Share Posted September 4, 2007 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! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cympil Posted September 4, 2007 Author Report Share Posted September 4, 2007 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted September 4, 2007 Report Share Posted September 4, 2007 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Darn Posted September 4, 2007 Report Share Posted September 4, 2007 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' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Darn Posted September 4, 2007 Report Share Posted September 4, 2007 have they got the internet over there? if not hurry the !*!@# up then! Stroll On!!! do you ever give up? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cympil Posted September 4, 2007 Author Report Share Posted September 4, 2007 Did he get tazered? :lol: :lol: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Symptoms Posted September 4, 2007 Report Share Posted September 4, 2007 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Darn Posted September 5, 2007 Report Share Posted September 5, 2007 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! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cympil Posted September 7, 2007 Author Report Share Posted September 7, 2007 i stand corrected! As usual (i`m getting as bad as Swalnella,Kiang,etc etc) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merlin Posted September 8, 2007 Report Share Posted September 8, 2007 Stroll On!!! do you ever give up? :lol: :lol: I get the impression that he won't Mr O Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Darn Posted September 8, 2007 Report Share Posted September 8, 2007 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! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Posted September 8, 2007 Report Share Posted September 8, 2007 should the police have tasers? no they should have ak47's and midi guns strapped to there cars!Agree 100% Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now