if hit it would disable the person immediately, but not kill them.
perhps something combining a physical hit with a neuro toxin that causes fast paralysis.
so the suspect isnt able to hurt anyone else,
Fast paralysis would most likely also stop the muscles that control
breathing. You would have a non-zero number who would be allergic,
croak, and thus cause uproars. There is a certain small number of people
who die from Tazers, mostly those with unknown (at least to the cop)
heart problems, high on various things (interactions with street drugs
would likely be another concern of neurotoxins).
Heck even just having someone hold them down can cause heart
attacks or positional asphyxiation.
If there was such a thing, the Defense Department would be
working on it.
I saw on a TV drama once where the police fired a "bean bag" shotgun
which knocked the person down and stunned them. Not knowing, would
that be something viable for any initial assault.
I'm not a LE officer but those I know who are even think that the
incidence of this action is out of control.
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
On 9/24/2016 10:05 AM, email@example.com wrote:
BS! In the Tulsa situation two different officers deployed weapons -
one chose a gun the other the Taser. Not second guessing which was the
correct choice, but that comment makes it seem the police are trying to
kill someone rather than stopping a threat which is the intent (or
should be). If the police WANTED to kill those people, the surest way
would be to just ignore them and their calls for help when their
neighbors turn on them.
Depends. I have a friend who was on scene commander at a barricade
situation involving a looney tunes 70+ year old woman. This went on for
weeks and they attempted to take her down (after she'd fired upon
sheriff's deputies with a commitment order from the court) with a bean
bag round. Apparently she watched the same TV drama and had wrapped and
taped newspapers to her torso and extremities as a crude sort of body
armor. Hit her with the bean bag in the chest and it didn't do much
other than piss her off. (they eventually took her without injury)
Another one, within 6 miles of me involved a drugged out idiot who
knifed a family member and was running around with a knife. He refused
to stand still and cooperate and unfortunately when they fired the bean
bag round he ducked rather than zag, took it in the head and was killed.
What people either forget or choose to ignore is that the streets are
not a testing lab. The officer has a split second to react to the
threat (real or perceived) and there normally is no time to try Plan B.
No doubt there are cases such as that. However, until all the facts are
in and everything has been thoroughly analyzed the ones that you know -
if they are speaking of either the Charlotte or Tulsa incident - should
pour themselves a large cup of STFU and wait until the investigation is
completed. It what they would want if they were in those officer's
shoes. Either that or they are just idiots - Hey! It happens even in
the best of departments.<g>
BTW, could the Tulsa quick charging wind up being nothing more than an
effort to placate the BLM crowd? Like Baltimore? Will the charges
stand? Will there be a conviction? Stay tuned.
On Saturday, September 24, 2016 at 11:25:46 AM UTC-4, Unquestionably Confused wrote:
And in another recent incident, the shooting outside the convenience
store in Louisiana, the police apparently first used a taser and for
whatever reason, it wasn't effective. They wound up wrestling with
the perp on the ground and then shooting him. The perp had a gun in
his pocket. Taser's aren't perfect, they rely on a dart with a wire
sticking in the perp. Faced with an imminent deadly threat, they are
not the solution.
Exactly. That's why it's so difficult to convict a cop in one of
these shootings. If I was on the jury, even if the cop made a mistake,
I'd have a tough time finding them guilty when they have a split second
to make a decision in a volatile, toxic, dangerous situation that they
did not create. The perp created it.
That seems to be the safest route these days. Charge knowing you have
no case, then let the jury acquit a year or two later, when things have
cooled down. What leads one to suspect that could be the case in Tulsa
is how quick the charges were brought. It's hard to imagine they did
a full, fair investigation of all the evidence in that short period of
And the latest one - where the wife was shooting video while telling the
cops that her husband was on some sort of medication.... I can't figure
out why on earth the cops, at that point, couldn't have just backed off
and waited for things to settle down... it's not like the guy had a
pump-action shotgun and was firing at people.
Same with a 15-year-old girl recently: they handcuffed her, got her
mostly into the car and then, when she refused to pull her feet inside
the door, they maced her. Geeze..... How about you just step back and
tell her than you're getting paid by the hour and she can lay there
until the cows come home... but sooner or later she's going to get tired
They seem heavily biased or trained towards exacting total immediate
submission no matter what - and escalating force until they get it.
And how about the wacko hiding in the boat after planting the Boston
Marathon bombs? They had him surrounded, there was no way in the
world he was going anywhere... Nobody knew how many other bombs he had
planted - so it would seem like a really, really, *really* good idea to
take him alive and able to talk..... Instead they poured fire into that
boat for at least 20 seconds.... by some miracle, he survived and was
able to be questioned but it was just that: a miracle....... My
impression of that whole thing was "Keystone Cops in action".
I think you are missing the points:
- There may have been more pressure bombs ready to go off.
- The wacko in the boat would know where those bombs were.
- It would be important to extract the location of
those bombs from the wacko in the boat.
- The wacko in the boat was already totally under
control of the I-don't-know-how-many (hundreds?)
of armed LEOs surrounding the boat: he didn't need
to surrender, he was already "Had".
- Killing the wacko in the boat would prevent extracting
that information about the location of other bombs.
I note that the recent incident in NYC resulted in the capture of the
perpetrator alive instead of his death.
In the interviews I have watched, Bratton seemed to have his head
screwed on better than most - a *lot* better IMHO...and I have to wonder
if maybe he has drilled it into the NYPD cops that we want to
interrogate these guys and not kill them outright.
Its easy to Monday morning quarterback. The guy shot in the car had a gun.
If they backed off, then he drove off and people were killed in a high sp
eed chase,or he shot someone,then what? The cops told him to drop the gun,
he didn't. They had the advantage,they ended it right there when he present
ed a deadly threat.
The girl, they could have handled it differently,but I'm surprised you thin
k waiting hours for her to comply is an option. They aren't babysitters an
d if she was my kid I'd tell her that i hope she learned a lesson.
Why would waiting not be an option - especially considering the downside
of video/news exposure?
Without being on Candid Camera, who cares..... beat the crap out of
her....nobody would know or, at least, you would have plausible
But on camera ? A soft approach would seem to be a no-brainer.
I keep saying it: "Rodney King was over 20 years ago.... Hasn't anybody
caught on yet?"
That will be considered by many to be a racist statement. There are
some socio-economic reasons behind it though.
According to Mac Donald, "A straight line can be drawn between family
breakdown and youth violence."
As economist Thomas Sowell points out, before the 1960s "most black
children were raised in two-parent families." In 2013, over 72 percent
of blacks were born out of wedlock. In Cook County –which Chicago
belongs to – 79 percent of blacks were born to single mothers in 2003,
while only 15 percent of whites were born to single mothers.
As do others. The important part being that the stats stay pretty much
the same whether you are talking about white, black or other ethnicity.
The controlling factor is intact or not household. This has also been
steady since the 70s.
Research by Sara McLanahan at Princeton University and others tells
us that boys are significantly more likely to end up in jail or prison
by the time they turn 30 if they are raised by a single mother. She
found that boys raised in a single-parent household were more than twice
as likely to be incarcerated, compared with boys raised in an intact,
married home, even after controlling for differences in parental income,
education, race, and ethnicity. Research on young men suggests they are
less likely to engage in delinquent or illegal behavior when they have
the affection, attention, and monitoring of their own mother and father.
Another researcher, Bruce Ellis of the University of Arizona found that
single female head of household also had a negative impact on girls.
About one-third of girls whose fathers left the home before they turned
6 ended up pregnant as teenagers, compared with just 5 percent of girls
whose fathers were there throughout their childhood. The divide marrowed
when controlled for parents’ socioeconomic background—but only by a few
percentage points. The research on this topic suggests that girls raised
by single mothers are less likely to be supervised, more likely to
engage in early sex, and to end up pregnant compared with girls raised
by their own married parents.
For a good discussion of the topic, I send you to Slate (hardly a
mouthpiece for the Right).
Sometime later on in Viet-Nam, the government conscripted virtually all
males over a certain age into the army.
The result was whole villages with virtually no men.
Out of that emerged a class of youths they called "Cowboys": young punks
that pretty much ran the show.... similar, I guess, to gangs in certain
My anecdotal takeaway is that whenever you have male teenage kids, you
need men to keep order.
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.