![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 14 of 14. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by zazenducke on January 23, 2008, at 9:02:14
http://pulsetc.com/article.php?sid=3220
The Taser is touted as a non-lethal alternative to deal with aggressive suspects without shooting them. No research has been done as to its long-term health effects. As many as 200 people have been killed by Tasers. Police departments are supposed to train officers on when theyre allowed to use this device, which administers a shock of 50,000 volts. Heres what Amnesty International (AI) says:Many U.S. police agencies now ROUTINELY use Tasers to subdue UNARMED, non-compliant individuals who DO NOT POSE A SERIOUS DANGER to themselves or others ... police have used Tasers against unruly school children, mentally disabled and elderly people and people who simply argue with officers ... REPEATEDLY ADMINISTERED SHOCKS, sometimes while IN RESTRAINTS. (Emphasis added)
The City of Minneapolis spent $160,000 on Tasers last year and plans on spending $861,000 this year on more Tasers. The Arizona-based company that supplies thousands of U.S. police departments with the stun guns also sells them across the globe to governments with human rights abuses. AI also notes that these weapons are portable ... easy to use ... inflict severe pain at the push of a button and leave no marks.
That sounds like the perfect torture device for abusing ones authority over others while evading all accountability.
.........................
Horrible
Posted by Racer on January 23, 2008, at 9:44:48
In reply to Taser guns used on the mentally ill, posted by zazenducke on January 23, 2008, at 9:02:14
It really is horrible. I've read a number of articles about misuse and abuse of Tasers by police, and some of the stories are truly appalling.
Even the English science magazine I subscribe to -- published somewhere they're not killing all that many people with stun guns, so you wouldn't think they'd notice -- has had a few articles and even, I think, editorials about Taser abuse.
One thing I've noticed about the police officers I've known socially, most of them have a sort of pattern of quick reactions, which I guess keeps them safer on the job. They'll answer, contradict, explain, all very rapidly. I'd imagine some of the Taser misuse comes from that same instinct for rapid response. Still, more training sounds more than reasonable.
Scary thing.
Posted by Sigismund on January 26, 2008, at 0:49:58
In reply to Re: Taser guns used on the mentally ill » zazenducke, posted by Racer on January 23, 2008, at 9:44:48
Not to be left behind, we have them too.
I forget how much they spent on these things, but it was lots and lots.I have known people who were paralysed and their legs swelled up.
So the response was to measure the circumference above the ankle and if it exceeded such and such a diuretic was prescribed.
No question therefore of having to touch the foot or the leg.What is this thinking?
The person who makes the tasers says he has experienced them many times himself.
He described the sensation as intense and immobilising.So I wonder.......what is at work here?
Posted by Sigismund on January 26, 2008, at 1:15:30
In reply to Re: Taser guns used on the mentally ill, posted by Sigismund on January 26, 2008, at 0:49:58
So why do we need that so much?
We still have religion?
Posted by Racer on January 27, 2008, at 18:52:51
In reply to It's the technological fix, isn't it, posted by Sigismund on January 26, 2008, at 1:15:30
I think the idea is to have a weapon which protects the police in a similar manner to guns, but without the issue of lethality.
I can see a number of issues which could lead to the problems we're seeing with Tasers, though:
Some officers may not be as ethical as we might like. It's not an uncommon human reaction to want to strike out at someone once in a while, maybe they've hurt you, maybe their behavior has left you feeling frustrated, maybe you just think they "deserve it" for some reason. Most of us learn to cope with those impulses by adulthood, but most of us aren't armed and placed regularly into potentially dangerous situations, as police officers are. So, maybe some less mature individuals employed in a police force may see Tasers as a "safe" means of striking out at someone. That's the sort of thing the psychological exams to join the force are designed to weed out, but they're not 100% effective. In some cases, better training about the dangers of Tasers might help.
And sometimes, the situation looks so dangerous that immediate force seems the only option. Since I've never been a police officer faced with that situation, I can't say what I'd do.
{sigh} I'd like to say that it's all one thing or another, but the fact is, there have been so many mentally ill individuals shot and killed by police over the years that I think I gotta say that at least Tasers might be an improvement over that -- at least someone is more likely to survive a Taser than a couple of gunshots...
I dunno. I guess I'm glad I don't have to know any answers about this...
Posted by Sigismund on January 28, 2008, at 2:42:36
In reply to A search for 'non-lethal' weapons? » Sigismund, posted by Racer on January 27, 2008, at 18:52:51
Racer, I was in my 20's before I first saw a revolver on a policeman.
I was watching that John Wayne movie about raising the flag wherever it was after Iwo Jima (the things you see on Japanese TV) and that was like it was for us....kinda violent, but it was done with fists.
Decline of standards all round.It's the psychology that gets me. My best example is this....an old frind in her 80s is in a terrible provincial hospital, withdrawing (of neccessity, too difficult to organise the drugs) from her pathetic dose of oxycodone because this is a public hospital, and so, not sleeping and dying, she is in ill humour. One day she was taken for a bath and left there for maybe half an hour. She was a woman from the country so she just yelled until someone came.
The chart at the bottom of the bed had this.....
Problem: Patient calls out in bath.
Solution: Patient counselled to use the call feature.('Call feature' is my invention, but you will understand why I cannot resist it.)
Posted by zazenducke on January 31, 2008, at 11:38:41
In reply to Re: A search for 'non-lethal' psychology? » Racer, posted by Sigismund on January 28, 2008, at 2:42:36
Brittany Spears was escorted to the psych ward this morning by a dozen police officers, 2 cruisers, 2 helicopters and a fleet of motorcycles.
A triumph for the human touch.
I met the young Federlines in happier days you know.
Posted by Sigismund on January 31, 2008, at 16:47:52
In reply to white girl and star escapes taser, posted by zazenducke on January 31, 2008, at 11:38:41
Very impressive.
There was more than usual scratching and biting on Australia Day, in response to which the Queensland Government ordered their first stock of tasers.
Posted by caraher on February 2, 2008, at 8:08:25
In reply to Helicopters?, posted by Sigismund on January 31, 2008, at 16:47:52
Were the helicopters from television stations?
Lord know, the live coverage of the OJ Bronco "chase" has set the bar for all future media celebrity frenzies. (Determining whether that's a high bar to be hurdled or a low bar under which the media must limbo is left as an exercise for the reader...)
Posted by zazenducke on February 2, 2008, at 13:46:44
In reply to Re: Helicopters?, posted by caraher on February 2, 2008, at 8:08:25
> Were the helicopters from television stations?
Oh no indeed. They were police helicopters. The police procession stretched the length of a football field, it was all coordinated in advance. I have visions of them continuing on across the nation rescuing all in need of psychiatric ministry.Ann Coulter has pledged to campaign for Hillary if McCain is nominated. I love America!!!!!!!
>
> Lord know, the live coverage of the OJ Bronco "chase" has set the bar for all future media celebrity frenzies. (Determining whether that's a high bar to be hurdled or a low bar under which the media must limbo is left as an exercise for the reader...)
Posted by Sigismund on February 3, 2008, at 0:55:03
In reply to Re: Helicopters?, posted by zazenducke on February 2, 2008, at 13:46:44
>Ann Coulter has pledged to campaign for Hillary if McCain is nominated.
It's not because McCain hasn't been annointed?
Posted by Sigismund on February 9, 2008, at 0:02:14
In reply to Re: Helicopters?, posted by zazenducke on February 2, 2008, at 13:46:44
McCain was asked in California if he thought Ann Coulter was 'hot'.
Posted by Sigismund on February 9, 2008, at 16:03:53
In reply to Ann Coulter, posted by Sigismund on February 9, 2008, at 0:02:14
Frequent visitors to this board may be able to enlighten me as to why Ann Coulter would prefer Hillary Clinton to John McCain when it comes to the ideas of each about the prosecution of the war on terror.
(Is the war on terror a war to establish the Hobbsian monopoly of the state to deliver it?)
Posted by Sigismund on February 10, 2008, at 14:35:51
In reply to Re: Ann Coulter, posted by Sigismund on February 9, 2008, at 16:03:53
From the Herald
'WHEN John McCain was asked last week after a debate in California whether he thought the commentator Ann Coulter was "hot", he looked as if he might choke.
"Whatever I say, I am afraid I will offend her," he finally spluttered nervously.'
So, the question naturally arises, where can I find this on film?
This is the end of the thread.
Psycho-Babble Politics | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.