Don't taze me, sonny!

[Beneath the Shadows]

Granny is shocked.

Ever see an old lady get tazered?

Ever want to?

[Needlefeet]

Pretty cool. Haha.

The cop is an idiot though. Regardless of giving her five warnings, a tazer shouldn't be pulled on her. She's an old lady for God's sake. He could've just grabbed her and cuffed her.

[PortraitOfSanity]

It's Texas though, she may be 72, but you don't know if she's got a :sawed off shotgun up her skirt!

[CptSternn]

If a grown man who is in law enforcement cannot restrain a 72 elderly woman without resorting to using a taser, then that man should not be in law enforcement.

Remember, the tazer is supposed to replace the GUN, it is supposed to be used when there is no other option and they would normally shoot the suspect. Are you telling me that if this was back in 1980 he would have shot her?

[Beneath the Shadows]

Since when are tazers supposed to replace guns? That's a crock of shit. Guns are, by their very nature, lethal weapons. Tazers are made with the intention of a non-lethal method of subduing an individual.

[Needlefeet]

Dude he totally would've shot her and then pumped a few rounds into her corpse afterwards, just for the hell of it.

Since when did tazers replace guns? Telling me cops don't carry a piece anymore?

[Beneath the Shadows]

Yeah, last I checked, our soldiers still carried M-16s, not tazers.

Now, if we could get phasers from Star Trek, then we'd have the best of both worlds... You could knock someone out, or you could disintegrate them.

[Needlefeet]

OR knock someone out and then disintegrate them.
Didn't think of that, did'ya?

[Beneath the Shadows]

If you're really talented, you could disintegrate someone, and then knock them out.

[Needlefeet]

God damnit you're smart.
Why didn't I think of that?

[Seth Whisper]

Originally Posted by CptSternn

If a grown man who is in law enforcement cannot restrain a 72 elderly woman without resorting to using a taser, then that man should not be in law enforcement.

Remember, the tazer is supposed to replace the GUN, it is supposed to be used when there is no other option and they would normally shoot the suspect. Are you telling me that if this was back in 1980 he would have shot her?

No he would have jumped on top of her and broke her hip or beat her with his club. You think 2 dimensionally. Also...the tazer is not used to replace a gun. A tazer is used for non-lethal force instead of bashing their skull in like they used to.

[Needlefeet]

Either way's good.

[CptSternn]

The tazer IS used to replace the gun, as is pepper spray. Per police training, they are only supposed to use it in situations when normally they would draw their weapon.

It is supposed to be a non-lethal alternative to using a gun and only supposed to be used in situations when a gun would normally be used.

[Seth Whisper]

Originally Posted by CptSternn

The tazer IS used to replace the gun, as is pepper spray. Per police training, they are only supposed to use it in situations when normally they would draw their weapon.

It is supposed to be a non-lethal alternative to using a gun and only supposed to be used in situations when a gun would normally be used.

If it was used to replace a gun then they wouldn't NEED a gun. Hate to tell you guy but you are DEAD wrong...a gun is to use LETHAL FORCE. It is to be used when lethal force is being threatened. Pepper spray and tazers are for subduing people without weapons. You ask ANY cop if he would rather pull his tazer or his .45 when facing a known felon with a knife or a gun and he is going to pull his .45 over his tazer any day. You are seriously deluded if you think a lethal force weapon can be replaced with a non-lethal force weapon. Obviously you have never known a cop, spent time with them, or worked in security. Seriously? Replace a gun with a tazer? I saw a guy last week get tazed three times and still push two BIG cops off him....if he had a weapon they would have shot him dead on the spot instead of using two tazers on him at once before finally bringing him down. You are so obviously ignorant of how law enforcement work.

[Malice In Wonderland]

Originally Posted by Seth Whisper

If it was used to replace a gun then they wouldn't NEED a gun. Hate to tell you guy but you are DEAD wrong...a gun is to use LETHAL FORCE. It is to be used when lethal force is being threatened. Pepper spray and tazers are for subduing people without weapons. You ask ANY cop if he would rather pull his tazer or his .45 when facing a known felon with a knife or a gun and he is going to pull his .45 over his tazer any day. You are seriously deluded if you think a lethal force weapon can be replaced with a non-lethal force weapon. Obviously you have never known a cop, spent time with them, or worked in security. Seriously? Replace a gun with a tazer? I saw a guy last week get tazed three times and still push two BIG cops off him....if he had a weapon they would have shot him dead on the spot instead of using two tazers on him at once before finally bringing him down. You are so obviously ignorant of how law enforcement work.

Typical ignorant poster formula No.1

1. Spout a load of complete crap.
2. He SAW it happen JUST THE OTHER DAY.
3. Call original poster ignorant.

[Seth Whisper]

Originally Posted by Malice In Wonderland

Typical ignorant poster formula No.1

1. Spout a load of complete crap.
2. He SAW it happen JUST THE OTHER DAY.
3. Call original poster ignorant.

typical malice crap....butt in and derail a thread JUST to make himself look cool at someone else's expense. whatever dude...not gonna argue with you. you are just too fucking awesome for me...i bow down to your superior internet skillz.

[Beneath the Shadows]

If tasers are supposed to replace guns, then cops wouldn't be carrying sidearms any more. Guns are still standard equipment. The purpose of a taser is to give officers additional options.

[Malice In Wonderland]

A cop should still use his tazer on an armed man than resort to shooting him.

[zerademark]

But what if the shock isn't enough to bring him down? Then the armed man can just shoot the cop. But then again, a tazer seems more usefull than a gun. A tazer shoots electricty, right? That immobilizes the person being shot. A gun however fires bullets, meaning the (armed) person being shot either dies, or has the chance to shoot back.

So it's a very difficult dillema, but there is one thing I know.
YOU-DON'T-TAZE-A-OLD-PERSON!!!!

[Malice In Wonderland]

He's more likely to drop the gun if he's tazered.

I hugely disagree with tazing and old woman.

I live in Britain, our cops don't have guns.
Although apparently they will be be getting tazers...

[Seth Whisper]

You guys live in the U.K. so you know how it works there. We live in the U.S. where cops carry guns for a REASON. The reason is the U.S. constitution that says EVERYONE has the right to keep and bear arms. This means that there is a gun store on every corner. You don't have to go to a club to shoot a gun. EVERYONE and their mother has a gun in the U.S. so cops have to have guns too. People in the U.K. don't understand this concept because guns are not NEARLY so common as they are in the U.S.. Seriously...how many of you guys in the U.K. own a gun? How many people do you know in the U.K. that own a gun? I can tell you of at LEAST ten people I know personally who own MULTIPLE guns. The guy upstairs from me has a grandfather who has world war 2 era machine guns, complete with firing pins and full auto capability. You can get a license to own and OPERATE a minigun in the U.S.. I have a conceal carry permit that allows me to carry a pistol on me whever I go besides federal property and some places that disallow firearms. Do you ever go somewhere in the U.K. and see street signs that say "No firearms allowed"? That is pretty common in the U.S.. If you think I am a moron and I am making this shit up ask anyone from the U.S. if they can say anything remotely similar to what I am saying. Don't take my word for it...look up the laws in the U.S.. Google is your friend. Compare the murder rates in the U.S. to the U.K. and compare the violent crimes rate and the involvement of guns. The info is out there....go look it up.

[CptSternn]

Originally Posted by Seth Whisper

If it was used to replace a gun then they wouldn't NEED a gun. Hate to tell you guy but you are DEAD wrong...a gun is to use LETHAL FORCE.

Where shall I begin. Thats a pretty ignorant quote there. Do cops not need a night stick or pepper spray because they have a gun as well then?

Police have non-lethal weapons because they are supposed to be used to subdue persons who they normally would use a lethal weapon on. To argue anything else is quite daft.

In fact, don't take my word for it, the police themselves say this. The phrase they use repeatedly, especially in the lawsuits currently surrounding them, is, and I quote 'tasers are a SAFE ALTERNATIVE to firearms' they are to be used IN LIEU of a FIREARM.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/07/us...ons-arise.html

I could get more articles, but feel free to Google it on your own.

http://www.google.ie/search?q=police...fe+alternative

It is to be used when lethal force is being threatened. Pepper spray and tazers are for subduing people without weapons.

Again, your way off base here. Tasers, which may I also point out you repeatedly spell incorrectly with a 'Z' for some reason, are no just for 'subduing people without weapons'. In fact, they are not supposed to be used to 'subdue' anyone - they are again supposed to be used instead off firearms. In fact, using pepper spray and other non-lethal force against a person who they are merely trying to subdue will get them arrested for improper use of force.

Again, don't take my word for it, Google it.

http://www.google.com/search?q=polic...it&btnG=Search

You ask ANY cop if he would rather pull his tazer or his .45 when facing a known felon with a knife or a gun and he is going to pull his .45 over his tazer any day. You are seriously deluded if you think a lethal force weapon can be replaced with a non-lethal force weapon.

Really? You think cops for some reason love to pull out guns with no provocation? You also think and I quote from above 'a lethal force weapon can not be replaced by a non-lethal weapon'? Well, you should really check those above links, because in each and every wrongful death lawsuit the police currently are fighting the police themselves say tasers are a non-lethal safe alternative to using their firearm. If you believe otherwise, then you are arguing with the police department(s) themselves along with the manufcatures of the various non-lethal devices.

Also, whats all this about a .45? Police use 9mm due to speed, weight, accuracy, and of course costs. Police don't carry .45'sas standard issue anywhere that I know of in America.

Obviously you have never known a cop, spent time with them, or worked in security.

I am a regeistered private security agent in Ireland. We have to go through a rigorous training and testing process to get accredited here for the work I do.

http://cid-0ffc20696ec571eb.skydrive...5/DSCN0360.jpg

But I digress...

Seriously? Replace a gun with a tazer? I saw a guy last week get tazed three times and still push two BIG cops off him....if he had a weapon they would have shot him dead on the spot instead of using two tazers on him at once before finally bringing him down. You are so obviously ignorant of how law enforcement work.

There are so many things wrong with that statement I don't know where to begin. Really? You saw a man 'last week' get tased (spelled with an 'S') three times and still push two big cops off of him? You actually witnessed this? I find it hard to believe on many levels, but lets say you aren't just pulling this out of your arse - what exactly does witnessing this have to do with a knowledge of law enforcement (or should I say 'how law enforcement work')?

[CptSternn]

Originally Posted by Beneath the Shadows

If tasers are supposed to replace guns, then cops wouldn't be carrying sidearms any more. Guns are still standard equipment. The purpose of a taser is to give officers additional options.

Your statement is self contradictory. You claim tasers are not supposed to replace guns, yet in the same sentence say they are supposed to give additional options. Which is it?

Tasers are used as a replacement in situations where guns may have been used in the past, as you state in the second part of your quote above, which is again what police themselves and the taser manufacture states. They ARE a replacement in many situations when firearms were used in the past.

[CptSternn]

Originally Posted by zerademark

But what if the shock isn't enough to bring him down? Then the armed man can just shoot the cop. But then again, a tazer seems more usefull than a gun. A tazer shoots electricty, right? That immobilizes the person being shot. A gun however fires bullets, meaning the (armed) person being shot either dies, or has the chance to shoot back.

You are assuming the armed man has a gun. Using a baseball bat, long stick, knife, hell, anything you pick up is considered a weapon. Tasers and pepper spray are used in situations where firearms are not in play. If a man pulls out a two inch pocket knife the police have the option of using non-lethal force, using a taser as a replacement for the firearm in this case where in the past they would have used a firearm. No one is saying they need to use a taser on a person with a handgun.

[CptSternn]

Originally Posted by Seth Whisper

You guys live in the U.K. so you know how it works there. We live in the U.S. where cops carry guns for a REASON. The reason is the U.S. constitution that says EVERYONE has the right to keep and bear arms.

So according to you police in America carry guns because of the second amendment? If that is what you truly believe them you are quite diluted.

[quote]This means that there is a gun store on every corner. You don't have to go to a club to shoot a gun. EVERYONE and their mother has a gun in the U.S. so cops have to have guns too. People in the U.K. don't understand this concept because guns are not NEARLY so common as they are in the U.S..[quote]

Having lived in 11 states over the years and list of other countries I can say your quite wrong. Most people in America do no own guns. In fact, I lived in DC for sometime and handguns are illegal there, like in NYC, and NO ONE there owns guns legally.

Seriously...how many of you guys in the U.K. own a gun? How many people do you know in the U.K. that own a gun?

I know plenty. We have different laws here, but it doesn't mean there are no guns. To say that means you really have no idea how things work outside of your own country. Gun violence has always and still exists in the UK and Ireland. We have special response teams though that deal with this.

I can tell you of at LEAST ten people I know personally who own MULTIPLE guns. The guy upstairs from me has a grandfather who has world war 2 era machine guns, complete with firing pins and full auto capability.

Really? Your friends grandfather? How young are you? I mean, when your using 'your friends grandfather' as an example in your statement, that makes you sound about 10. Also, if everyone you know has so many guns, could you not have listed someone a bit closer to home - like a relative of your own for this example? I mean, if everyone has them as you claim...

You can get a license to own and OPERATE a minigun in the U.S.. I have a conceal carry permit that allows me to carry a pistol on me whever I go besides federal property and some places that disallow firearms.

Here is why I think again your are pulling this out of your arse. First off, before leaving America the last time I have a class three weapons permit. Thats right, I am ATF registered to own fully automatic weapons. Well, I am registered for the weapons I own, I'm not a registered dealer.

http://s541.photobucket.com/albums/g...y%20HK%20Guns/

Also, you state 'and some places that disallow firearms'. What places would that be? I remember when I got my concealed weapons permit in Virginia the book I had to read and the literature they gave me and of course the obligatory speech the judge is required to give by law. If you had a permit then you would know they state you can't carry in any establishment that sells or serves alcohol, 1000 yards of a school zone, in or around an airport, or in or around any government offices. Saying 'some places that don't allow firearms' is what kids who don't have a permit say.

Do you ever go somewhere in the U.K. and see street signs that say "No firearms allowed"? That is pretty common in the U.S.. If you think I am a moron and I am making this shit up ask anyone from the U.S. if they can say anything remotely similar to what I am saying.

Again, having lived in America for probably longer than you have been alive I can say you are wrong. I have never seen a sign that says 'no firearms allowed' and I have traveled across America and lived in 11 states.

Don't take my word for it...look up the laws in the U.S.. Google is your friend. Compare the murder rates in the U.S. to the U.K. and compare the violent crimes rate and the involvement of guns. The info is out there....go look it up.

What exactly are you having us look up? If you see in my posts, I am nice enough to include links to the stats I post as not to look like an eejit. Asking people to go look up data to prove your point is a bit daft mate - if you can't even find and post it why should we even bother? I write that off as more crap you can't back up yourself.

More importantly, in the UK last year there were 59 gun deaths.

In NYC alone there were over 50,000.

The stats also show violent crime in the US is over treble what it is in the UK.

What exactly do you want us to look up? That gun laws work? Or is it that the US has one of the highest crime rates in the world?