Thomas A. Swift Electric Rifle
The more I hear about Taser International, Inc. and their product, the angrier I become. For those of you who haven’t heard about the UCLA computer lab Taser incident, you can read about it here and watch a real-life video of it here. Now get the real dirt on the cigarette-company-like antics of Taser International in this article. I don’t deny that weapons are necessary in certain situations, and I’m not arguing that there is no responsible way to use a Taser. But the fact that Taser International refuses to admit that there is an irresponsible way to use their product, or that abuses have occurred, or that their own deceptive advertising makes them partially responsible, is just stunning and infuriating. Let’s generate some negative publicity, people, and show this company what’s up.
Like
December 6th, 2007 at 7:59 pm
I watched the video link you put up after reading your comments.
That ‘student’ deserved every microsecond of muscle over-stimulation that he got. He DID NOT COMPLY WITH WHAT HE WAS TOLD TO DO. In my mind I saw him as a anarchist, and anarchist’s should be dealt with very harshly (I would have given him just 3 warnings to stand up, not 30).
BTW, he’s screaming like a wussy purely for theatrical purposes, and it is quite apparent he wants to be TASER’d.
I would also threaten the ‘students’ that got within 8′ of my person with being TASER’d if they don’t back up.
The beauty of a TAZER (or a stun gun) is it works best on persons with young muscle mass, so the more able-bodied someone is, the better.
One last thing I want to point out is the atrocious spelling of the ‘students’ comments made on the video thread.
UCLA… yep, cesspool of our youth.
December 6th, 2007 at 8:42 pm
There are a few points I have made multiple times on this blog that you apparently have yet to grasp.
First, police officers have no business punishing anyone. Someone who thinks the police carry TASERs in order to punish people, or “deal with them harshly,” or give them what they “deserve” has a distorted idea of the American justice system and should not be a police officer—indeed should probably not be allowed to carry any sort of weapon at all.
It makes no difference if the person is “asking for it” or “wants it”; a police officer is charged with upholding and protecting the law, not with living out a sadomasochistic sexual fantasy.
Second, those in authority mishandled the situation in that UCLA computer lab from the very beginning. It should never have gotten to the point where the student was in a position to stage a passive resistance event. Once it got to that point, there were ways the police officers still could have defused the situation without resorting to violence.
Third, a TASER is a compliance technique, and not a foolproof one. It is most effective when used from a distance, so the voltage builds up enough to incapacitate the muscular system. A contact discharge only causes pain, without ensuring compliance. There are many possible pain-compliance techniques the officers could have used; when using the TASER as a pain-compliance technique did not work the first time, they should have moved on to another, instead of deploying the TASER two or three more times, with the same lack of effect.
P.S. I’m not sure why you put the words “student” and “students” in quotation marks in your comment. The young man apprehended in the computer lab was a student; there’s not any doubt about that. The commenters on the YouTube video . . . who can say? And, more importantly . . . why does it matter?
December 6th, 2007 at 10:39 pm
[This is my 4th comment in this thread]
Grasping is no problem for me. Perhaps you need a course in reading comprehension? I never used the word “punish”, I said “dealt with harshly”, as in no ‘Mr. Niceguy’ foreplay. The word “deserve” means “to be worthy of” or “merit” or “founded in receiving”. Check your lexicon.
FIRST: It wasn’t a “punishment” issue, it was a compliance issue.
“…a police officer is charged with upholding and protecting the law…” They did uphold the law. BTW, police officers don’t “protect” the law, they enforce it.
SECOND: “It should never have gotten to the point where the student was in a position to stage a passive resistance event.” I disagree with your use of the word “passive”, but in the essence of your argument I concur; they should have TASERed him much sooner, and more often. Compliance is the name of the game.
“Once it got to that point, there were ways the police officers still could have defused the situation without resorting to violence.” There was no violence (violence: unrestrained physical force, normally resulting in damage).
THIRD: “a TASER is a compliance technique, and not a foolproof one.” Incorrect, a TASER is a device, not a technique. Using a TASER -is- foolproof for as long as contact is made and the circuit is energized.
“It is most effective when used from a distance, so the voltage builds up enough to incapacitate the muscular system.” Incorrect, distance is not a part of the effectiveness of the electrical discharge, and the voltage does not ‘build up’. You don’t know how a stun gun works.
“A contact discharge only causes pain, without ensuring compliance. There are many possible pain-compliance techniques the officers could have used; when using the TASER as a pain-compliance technique did not work the first time, they should have moved on to another, instead of deploying the TASER two or three more times, with the same lack of effect.” Incorrect, the TASER did work… on his body (when energized); it did not work on his will, which anarchists tend to have an abundance of. A contact discharge (just like a barb discharge) causes immobility, with a side order of sting to make you think twice about starting up again. Compliance (when the circuit is not energized) is a relative function related to one’s will.
P.S.: I did not put the word “student/s” in quotation marks; read the passage again (‘student/s’). Do you know what those marks are called? The thug apprehended disrupting the classroom was not a ‘student’… he was not there to learn, but rather cause rife discord. He may have been enrolled at UCLA, but he was no student.
“The commenters on the YouTube video . . . who can say? And, more importantly . . . why does it matter?” It matters because it shows full-fledged illiteracy. They should shut their mouths and drink in knowledge as genuine students; they have no valuable input whatsoever at their stage in life. Mere newborn tadpoles among the frogs in the mere.
December 7th, 2007 at 12:48 am
Dear Anonymous Madam or Sir,
You have been, from the first, rude, belligerent and misinformed. This is your prerogative. However, rude, belligerent, misinformed comments are not welcome on this blog. If you wish to continue this conversation, feel free to contact me by email. We can then return to the topic of your woeful ignorance of the workings of the TASER and your atavistic views on law and order in this country.
That is all.
December 10th, 2007 at 6:13 pm
I saw the tape, I saw the news. I dont care.
The reason Tasers are used is to decrease the use of guns…dont like it? then what happens the next time a drugged up thug tries to beat a person (officer or not) Shall we shoot him with a gun? What happens when a woman is attacked? should she carry a gun and just shoot the person?
Whatever…I firmly believe that if you dont like the country you live in…feel free to leave.
December 10th, 2007 at 7:21 pm
The reason Tasers are used is to decrease the use of guns
But whether TASERs actually lead to a decrease in gun use is controversial, to say the least, and there’s not much question that they increase the use of force overall. Your concerns are a straw man argument, anyway. I’m concerned with the abuse of TASERs, not their appropriate use.
I am free to leave this country. Of course, as this is as much my country as it is yours (assuming you are American), I am also free to raise my voice against injustice and try to bring about change. In other words, I’m pro-democracy. What about you?
December 11th, 2007 at 8:42 am
I’m left to wonder after reading this blog and the comments that followed, why someone would leave “anonymous” comments. Actually, in this instance, I don’t “wonder” at all.
December 11th, 2007 at 11:35 pm
In the interest of full disclosure (even if that’s exactly what they were both avoiding) the author of the first two anonymous comments and the author of the third are not the same. But in both cases, I think it’s clear why they wanted to remain anonymous–and no, neither has taken me up on my offer to continue the discussion via email.