Heres a real tough cop for ya

http://edition.cnn.com/2004/US/11/12....ap/index.html


:?:

I know absolutely nothing about police work, but I'm willing to bet that was the most efficient method to prevent him from hurting himself while causing the least physical harm or risk of harm. Not sure that I can say the same for the emotional trauma aspect though.

Hmmmm the taser is a non-lethal method of getting the situation under control. They aren't gonna rush him because he might hurt himself worse or hurt them and if they let him continue he would have kept cutting himself.

What would you have done?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BigGreen

I know absolutely nothing about police work, but I'm willing to bet that was the most efficient method to prevent him from hurting himself while causing the least physical harm or risk of harm. Not sure that I can say the same for the emotional trauma aspect though.

---

There's already some emotional trauma to that child or he wouldn't have been cutting himself. The taser hurts like hell.....but when it's over it's over. I'd rather be tasered again than pepper sprayed.

yea, ive read that on other boards, sounds about like the quickest method to stop him without actually hurting him.. i see no prob

Looks like they did the right thing to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Commando_Barbi

There's already some emotional trauma to that child or he wouldn't have been cutting himself. The taser hurts like hell.....but when it's over it's over. I'd rather be tasered again than pepper sprayed.

---

I was thinking of it more in terms of what a human is inherently and innately able to 'handle'. I mean, the notion of being physically restrained is something that I would argue every human body (aside from the extreme examples) is designed to handle and every human mind (again, aside from the extreme) is developed to assimilate at almost an instinctual level whether or not it's happened to someone before or not. A taser shock is not.

That being said, however, if you have to perform some quick moral calculus, I'd rather myself or my kid (assuming I'm ever foolish enough to get married and have one) be tasered and carry from the experience X physical trauma and X+1 emotional trauma with very little risk of unforeseen injury than X+1 physical trauma and X emotional trauma but a very elevated risk of further physical injury during the more psychologically familiar physical restraint.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LORDBLiTZ

http://edition.cnn.com/2004/US/11/12....ap/index.html


:?:

---

What would you have done?

They can control the time that the taser runs too. It has a safety so hopefully they hit the safety within a second or two. 5 seconds is a LONG **** time....which is the standard "ride". Each additional dose is 5 seconds.

Hmmmmmm ya ok :).

Could you say that again in american ? Would say english but your grasp and use of the english language is above reproach :).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BigGreen

I was thinking of it more in terms of what a human is inherently and innately able to 'handle'. I mean, the notion of being physically restrained is something that I would argue every human body (aside from the extreme examples) is designed to handle and every human mind (again, aside from the extreme) is developed to assimilate at almost an instinctual level whether or not it's happened to someone before or not. A taser shock is not.

That being said, however, if you have to perform some quick moral calculus, I'd rather myself or my kid (assuming I'm ever foolish enough to get married and have one) be tasered and carry from the experience X physical trauma and X+1 emotional trauma with very little risk of unforeseen injury than X+1 physical trauma and X emotional trauma but a very elevated risk of further physical injury during the more psychologically familiar physical restraint.

---

He approved of the osifores actions. As do I.