Problem is that with all those appeals we still kill people that most likely were innocent. That is a problem with the system, prosecutors and the rest of their department that don't like to have their records ruined, or politicians wanting votes more than justice. There have been too many people railroaded and slaughtered. The bloodlust for the bastards that do commit horrific crimes don't really make up for killing innocent people. The death penalty is only a deterant for the person you kill... they sure aren't going to do it again. For the ones that don't want rehab, openly taunt about their crimes etc... fine. That fact that we kill people without a shred of physical evidence tying them to a crime and witnesses that say the person isn't the criminal... THAT is a problem. Close enough is NOT good enough when your talking about taking someone's life and the level of scrutiny we give death penalty cases and the lies told to jurors to get them to call for death rather than a life sentence are horrible.
Bla bla bla bla bla. Can you back up claims of all the inocent people framed and railroaded? Can you tell me what percentage of total convictions that is? How many people have been killed in the last 20 years where there was no physical evidence? How many have been slaughtered? What way were they slaughted exactly? What lies exactly are being told to jurors? Can you come up with some hard numbers of innocent people convicted that realy were innocents and then actualy sent to the "slaughter house" in the las 25 years? You make it sound like killing people is brutal and violent. They get high for a few seconds fall asleep and don't wake up. Yeah thats realy a slaughtering isn't it. You tell me what the error % is and if its less then 5% I realy don't want to hear it. You want a perfection that can not exsist so you say forget it, thats a cop out. And once again I have to point out the death penalty is not about deterance it is about penalties and punishment. You arguement that since it doesn't do what its not suposed to do we should do away with it. Thats just beyond rediculous. By that thinking no penalty is working as a deterant so we should get rid of all of them. Penalties and punishment come after the crime they are not ment to deter at all.
IP: Logged
12:21 AM
Scott-Wa Member
Posts: 5392 From: Tacoma, WA, USA Registered: Mar 2002
Bla bla bla bla bla. Can you back up claims of all the inocent people framed and railroaded? Can you tell me what percentage of total convictions that is? How many people have been killed in the last 20 years where there was no physical evidence? How many have been slaughtered? What way were they slaughted exactly? What lies exactly are being told to jurors? Can you come up with some hard numbers of innocent people convicted that realy were innocents and then actualy sent to the "slaughter house" in the las 25 years? You make it sound like killing people is brutal and violent. They get high for a few seconds fall asleep and don't wake up. Yeah thats realy a slaughtering isn't it. You tell me what the error % is and if its less then 5% I realy don't want to hear it. You want a perfection that can not exsist so you say forget it, thats a cop out. And once again I have to point out the death penalty is not about deterance it is about penalties and punishment. You arguement that since it doesn't do what its not suposed to do we should do away with it. Thats just beyond rediculous. By that thinking no penalty is working as a deterant so we should get rid of all of them. Penalties and punishment come after the crime they are not ment to deter at all.
I'm sure I can't to your satisfaction... hell your satisfied with a margin of error of less than 5%. I think that is ridiculous.
My argument isn't that we should do away with it, that is Amnesty International's argument along with many other groups. I think the system needs fixing, where prosecutors don't get promoted based on their convictions, where getting people sentenced to death isn't something that wins you an election or a raise. The truth gets compromised for gain.
Just one example, I'm not going to get into defending individuals.
Gary Graham... one of the minors put to death. Do a websearch, it's an interesting story, Bush as governor wouldn't stop his execution when pretty much everyone recognized that he was the wrong guy. But, they stuck with the story that he had a fair trial therefore it was ok to kill him.
If you'd like to research the subject, here is a good starting point for real studies from people that know a hell of a lot more about the subject than me. All I know is that 5% error rate is too high if your the innocent one getting walked to the chamber.
I'll have to see how we stand up 15 years after this report... but it is easily argued that your wrong.
No it isn't. For example, in Australia and England you can be arrested for speaking out against the government and charged with sedition. Not here. Most people would argue that those countries are actually somewhat free, but if you actually read their laws you would cringe in agony. We have the best system on Earth.
quote
We have the highest percentage of our population in prison out of ANY country in the world. That's just sad. Something is fundamentally wrong somewhere...
Yes, it's called parenting. Nothing to do with the government. Unless you count welfare children. There was a video released just last week of two 7 year old boys beating each other up while their parents stood by and cheered! This occured in Lyndon Johnson's Great Society "success story", the projects.
If anything we are not enforcing enough discipline on people and that is why they grow-up thinking they can get away with anything. Violent video games and movies only re-inforce the idea that the solution to your problems is to give in to your emotions and avaiod reason.
It also suggests one other thing, our court system works better than other countries. And I suspect (haven't time to check) that America has more crime than any other country necessitating more prisoners. You see, one of the draw backs of a Free Society is more crime. You're putting the cart before the horse.
quote
Going to see if I can find any more recent comparisons.
A comparison of the US vs. Germany... interesting. I've lived in both and didn't see any problems resulting from their teens having much more freedom than ours. http://math-www.uni-paderborn.de/~axel/us-d.html
Please tell me you are just deluded? Please. Germany has no provision for Religious Freedom! In fact the Government has made it policy to outlaw any religious organization it deems unsuitable...Scientology, for example.
Give me a break!
[This message has been edited by Toddster (edited 11-20-2006).]
IP: Logged
12:13 PM
rogergarrison Member
Posts: 49601 From: A Western Caribbean Island/ Columbus, Ohio Registered: Apr 99
Look, no matter how good looking she is, somebody, somewhere, is tired of............ ....wait, she is not even good looking.
You had me worried there for a min. Her son is probably getting a petition to keep her out of heaven when her time comes. He and the rest of her family are soooo proud.
Originally posted by rogergarrison: Her son is probably getting a petition to keep her out of heaven when her time comes. He and the rest of her family are soooo proud.
Ya know... theres a time and a place for everything. However, I don't believe this is the time or the place and there is a reason for that. It just stands out like an ugly biotch in a beauty contest.
IP: Logged
03:14 PM
Scott-Wa Member
Posts: 5392 From: Tacoma, WA, USA Registered: Mar 2002
Please tell me you are just deluded? Please. Germany has no provision for Religious Freedom! In fact the Government has made it policy to outlaw any religious organization it deems unsuitable...Scientology, for example.
Give me a break!
Are you a Scientologist? Just curious.
There are always going to be pros and cons...
Scientology is an interesting example... suggested reading. They deem it a commercial enterprise, not a religion.
No, I am not a scientologist. I can't say I don't agree that it is a rather bizarre faith but it is a faith just the same and Germany has it banned, just as they do many other freedoms we take for granted in the US.
Originally posted by Toddster: No, I am not a scientologist. I can't say I don't agree that it is a rather bizarre faith but it is a faith just the same and Germany has it banned, just as they do many other freedoms we take for granted in the US.
I don't take it for granted... neither do the members of Branch Davidians. Neither do the native tribes that had their religions outlawed in the past, or the Jews persecuted with blue laws. Or even the offshoots from the Mormons that practice polygamy.
Before you slam me again for something you read into this... I'm just making a point.
What we see as citizens of the US is very different than what outsiders looking in see. Point of view means a lot.
IP: Logged
08:43 PM
Nov 22nd, 2006
Toddster Member
Posts: 20871 From: Roswell, Georgia Registered: May 2001
I don't take it for granted... neither do the members of Branch Davidians. Neither do the native tribes that had their religions outlawed in the past, or the Jews persecuted with blue laws. Or even the offshoots from the Mormons that practice polygamy.
Before you slam me again for something you read into this... I'm just making a point.
What we see as citizens of the US is very different than what outsiders looking in see. Point of view means a lot.
I only slam you when you say something deliberately ignorant as if it were devine wisdom. I'll let you know when you do that again...be sure. but as long as you engage in a reasoned debate on ideas I'll be happy to accomodate.
The question of the Branch Davidians as compared to the modern Mormon Church ar miles apart. It is only splinter groups of the Mormons that practive Polygamy and for the record, the religion is not outlawed, just the polygamy part is. David Koresh was endangering children so his "religion" was nothing more than a tool he used to control his followers, much in the same way Jim Jones did. That is not religion, that is cultism.
Scientologist, Mormons, Krishnas, and Jehova Witnesses may seem a little wacky to most of us but their religions are non-threatening and should be permitted under a free society. Just like Islam. There are people who will twist it into a violent edict from God to carry out their acts of hate and totalitarian control but that is not the "religions" fault.
The right to think for one's self is the most sacred of our human rights. Believing in the God of your choice is part of that right. To limit it in any way is offensive. America HAS David Koresh wackos, and Bagwan Shree Rashnishes, and Jim Jones' because we allow religious freedom. Part of having the free-est society on Earth means that we take the bad with the good. We do our best to protect our citizens but unfortunately we can't always protect them from themselves.
But the alternative is Germany. No thanks Big Brother, my brain works just fine and I'll use it as I please.
IP: Logged
12:03 PM
frontal lobe Member
Posts: 9042 From: brookfield,wisconsin Registered: Dec 1999
Cindy Sheehan has "freedom of speech". She isn't content with that. She seems to think she has freedom to be HEARD.
Freedom to be HEARD has never been guaranteed, nor been the norm.
There is a guaranteed process of a way to have your opinion heard governmentally. However, she has unilaterally decided that this process isn't to her liking and so is trying to FORCE her opinion to be heard by other methods. So she got arrested. Which was actually also part of her way to try to get herself heard. Whatever. You just get no sympathy from most americans for your own choice of that.
Scott-Wa, you go about citing what other countries do with the implication that because we don't do what those other countries do, then we are somehow less compassionate or just or whatever you are implying. Then in your own post you cite something that most countries consider torture and say you find it more humane. Well, right. You make the point. We are more likely to be right as a country. So take what others do with a grain of salt. Then you go on about tasering a person in cuffs on the ground over and over. WHAT???? That isn't legal in the U.S. It isn't approved of or condoned. Just because a law enforcement person does it, doesn't make it legal. So why did you slip that into a discussion of what our society LEGALLY does compared to other countries.
And we are one of the few countries that have the death penalty for people JUVENILES. So? It isn't as bad if they are 18, but it is horrible if they are 17 years old and 8 months.
And somehow it makes us a more evil country if we have a higher percentage of the population in jail? Maybe we just have certain expectations as a society and actually will try to enforce it. I agree with you that the system needs some fixing. But because we have a higher percentage, I am going to jump to we are a bad country and look at all these other countries that are better? Fine. Then let people that feel that way move there. What direction do people want to go? TO the U.S., or out of it? Perfect systems. No. Better than most? The people of the world have voted. You can use all the Amnesty International statistics you want. Yeah. I'm sure they don't have a bias. I'm sure they are perfect. I'm sure of it.
You mention what outsiders looking in see. Yeah. You know what they see. I'd love to live there. Not everybody.
They aren't seeing an oppressive government with limited freedoms. They aren't seeing an oppressive country that incarcerates a high percentage of their people. They are seeing a great place with abundant freedoms and opportunity.
Question is--what do YOU see? And others.
Hey, I get to TALK to them. Laotians. Vietnamese. Eastern european. African. Caribbean islands. Mexicans. THEY tell me what it was like where they lived, what it took to get here, and what they think of the US. THEY NEVER mention your international comparisons and your amnesty international comparisons and your complaints of unjust systems. NEVER, EVER, EVER. The thought NEVER crosses their minds.
IP: Logged
03:10 PM
Toddster Member
Posts: 20871 From: Roswell, Georgia Registered: May 2001
Cindy Sheehan has "freedom of speech". She isn't content with that. She seems to think she has freedom to be HEARD.
Freedom to be HEARD has never been guaranteed, nor been the norm.
Precisely. This is exactly the point I have been argueing with 84Bill in another thread. Just because you CAN do something does not mean that you are abrigating your freedoms to choose NOT to do it.
Cindy Sheehan has "freedom of speech". She isn't content with that. She seems to think she has freedom to be HEARD.
Freedom to be HEARD has never been guaranteed, nor been the norm.
Yeah.. and I can ignore you.. OR Just like Cindy I could complain to Cliff and have you removed...
Fortunatly this democracy isnt ruled by harsh laws and over zelous leaders. We have a few rules and a very fair leader. Not always "impartial" but fair and that counts really high on the good leader scale.
Originally posted by Cindy Sheehan: Precisely. This is exactly the point I have been argueing with 84Bill in another thread. Just because you CAN do something does not mean that you are abrigating your freedoms to choose NOT to do it.
Shadup biotch before I bust you in the face and take your dumb loud mout to jail... Stupid ***** .. just cant shut up!
When our Constitution was first established, it was assumed that the description of specific powers granted to the government would leave no doubt as to what the government could and could not do, and that the absence of powers over the rights of the people would leave those rights protected. But Jefferson and others were wary of leaving such important matters up to inference. They insisted on a Bill of Rights that would state in unmistakable terms those rights of the people that must be left inviolate.
"I like [the declaration of rights] as far as it goes, but I should have been for going further. For instance, the following alterations and additions would have pleased me:
Article 4. The people shall not be deprived or abridged of their right to speak, to write, or otherwise to publish anything but false facts affecting injuriously the life, liberty, property or reputation of others, or affecting the peace of the confederacy with foreign nations.
These restrictions, I think, are so guarded as to hinder evil only. However, if we do not have them now, I have so much confidence in my countrymen as to be satisfied that we shall have them as soon as the degeneracy of our government shall render them necessary." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1789
"A bill of rights is what the people are entitled to against every government on earth, general or particular; and what no just government should refuse, or rest on inferences." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1787.
"I hope, therefore, a bill of rights will be formed to guard the people against the federal government as they are already guarded against their State governments, in most instances." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1788.
"Being myself a warm zealot for the attainment and enjoyment by all mankind of as much liberty as each may exercise without injury to the equal liberty of his fellow citizens, I have lamented that... the endeavors to obtain this should have been attended with the effusion of so much blood." --Thomas Jefferson to Jean Nicholas Demeunier, 1795.
IP: Logged
11:53 PM
Nov 23rd, 2006
Scott-Wa Member
Posts: 5392 From: Tacoma, WA, USA Registered: Mar 2002
Cindy Sheehan has "freedom of speech". She isn't content with that. She seems to think she has freedom to be HEARD.
Freedom to be HEARD has never been guaranteed, nor been the norm.
There is a guaranteed process of a way to have your opinion heard governmentally. However, she has unilaterally decided that this process isn't to her liking and so is trying to FORCE her opinion to be heard by other methods. So she got arrested. Which was actually also part of her way to try to get herself heard. Whatever. You just get no sympathy from most americans for your own choice of that.
Scott-Wa, you go about citing what other countries do with the implication that because we don't do what those other countries do, then we are somehow less compassionate or just or whatever you are implying.
She is practicing the time honored tradition of civil disobedience... getting arrested is part of the goal. People doing things like that want change, not just to be heard. Martin Luther King and all those people getting hit with water cannons, beat up by the authorities, and even killed were not just wanting to have free speech. They wanted change. Others wanted to do it through revolution ala Black Panthers and all those other radical groups. She isn't setting bombs, advocating the violent overthrow of the government etc... she is doing the same sort of thing MLK and Ghandi did... you just don't like what she wants therefore she shouldn't be making a nuisance of herself. I don't follow her antics beyond what those here post about her (always the ones that dislike her strangely enough... why don't they just ignore her? Probably because they want to position her as the voice of those that don't agree with their politics.)
I think what she is doing is ineffective and pretty pointless myself. I might agree with some of what she's after, but she's marginalized herself and probably done more harm than good to those with similar views.
As to the swing offtopic, it was based on an unsubstantiated claim by someone else. I agree that we are viewed as a great place to live if you presently live in most countries. There are plenty of people wanting to live in Australia, England, Germany, etc etc... why is that? Because most civilized societies have something to offer when compared to others. You have to compare the pros and cons.
We think we are have a more free society for religion, yet we do persecute people based on their religion. Just call them a cult.
Does that need improvement?
We have police beating and using electric shock on people.
Does that need addressing?
We have moved way over to the government being big brother. The move towards everyone being a suspect and our lives being controlled by the whims of the authorities started being accepted by what happens in our schools. Searches, piss tests, armed guards, metal detectors and whatever else... we've trained our youth that your not to be trusted and you are now used to living in a prison style system before graduating. So some old fart that complains about the loss of freedoms they've never experienced just seems like a whiner.
Does that need addressing?
Do I want to move to another country? I might just do that some day... but there are those cons. Brazil sounds like a pleasant place to live, low cost of living... but the highest murder rate in the world? Yikes.
Germany? Same climate I've disliked my whole life. I really dislike rain and cold yet keep ending up in places with that. Enjoyed the heck out of the time I've spent there.
But rather than spend my time figuring out where paradise is... I'd rather see my own country get closer to being my vision of one.
I do my little bit towards that, vote, write letters, get involved. Most people do nothing but ***** ... how many know their elected officials (or better yet... their staff), attend community meetings, try to get solutions implemented for problems, try to even understand how things really work?
Most of us are sheep and don't recognize problems until they bite us in the ass. Just wait for someone else to identify a problem and 'make' it important.
I think their is something wrong when two of my kids friends have all their relatives living off the government and call us poor because my kid doesn't have his own tv in his room. WTF is wrong with this country when families living off the government can sit around getting drunk and everyone has their own tv in a room paid for by the rest of us that work for a living and some of us working multiple jobs can't keep the power or heat on while the government is blowing our money on a war to improve some other country... for my own good.
Forgive me... I've wandered way off again.
Suffice to say... there are countries with way worse problems and ones that may be better... just depends on what criteria you want to use.
IP: Logged
12:23 AM
frontal lobe Member
Posts: 9042 From: brookfield,wisconsin Registered: Dec 1999
Yeah.. and I can ignore you.. OR Just like Cindy I could complain to Cliff and have you removed...
Fortunatly this democracy isnt ruled by harsh laws and over zelous leaders. We have a few rules and a very fair leader. Not always "impartial" but fair and that counts really high on the good leader scale.
84Bill, you can ignore me and I would accept your right to do that. I wouldn't get blow horn and stand outside your house shouting what I wanted you to hear. And I wouldn't try to block people from getting into your house or walking up your driveway to try to force you to come outside so you would "have to hear me". That is what Cindy would do.
IP: Logged
12:37 AM
frontal lobe Member
Posts: 9042 From: brookfield,wisconsin Registered: Dec 1999
Scott-Wa...I like and respect your restraint in these discussions. However, I feel I must take issue with some of your statements on use of tasers by law enforcement. You seem to believe that we go around zapping people indiscriminately as we please. I'm not saying it hasn't happened that they have been misused, but anyone who does so, does it at the risk of his or her employment and/or imprisonment. The taser used today, is not a simple stun weapon. It shows date/time of use, how many seconds it was used for, and how many applications (how many times shocks were delivered). The information contained in the equipment is not accessible by the officer who uses it, and can be erased only by service personnel from the weapon's individual database. Each weapon's issue/deployment log is periodically reviewed by departmental firearms staff, and logs are kept and submitted to IAD anytime a discrepancy is noted. Each and every APPLICATION is considered a separate use of force, and must be documented and justified accordingly; failure to do so (which is ALWAYS reviewed by a review board, comprised of civilians as well as police) renders one liable for state and federal criminal charges as well as civil litigation. The taser falls in the force continuum between soft empty hand control (come-along techniques) and hard empty hand control (strikes with fists, elbows, knees, etc) and is placed there because ANY strike has the potential to be lethal, and also because, in any case of active resistance by a suspect, there is ALWAYS at least one firearm available to the suspect, should he overpower the officer or gain control of their weapon. In EVERY department that has elected to use the taser, the number of injuries to both suspects and officers have dropped dramatically, and the number of police shootings of suspects has dropped even more dramatically. I volunteered as a test subject, so I would know firsthand what a suspect experienced; it is not exactly painful, and distinctly uncomfortable, but certainly less painful than a strike to the brachial nerve. It is a tool, nothing more, and nothing less. There have been cases of suspects dying after taser use, but in almost every incidence, the case involved a medical condition known as "excited delirium" and death was not attributable to use of the taser. To date, I am unaware of any case in which a death was attributed to use of a taser as set forth under established procedures. But I digress...any officer brutal enough, (and dumb enough) to use a taser as a third-world instrument of torture, deserves whatever he gets.
[This message has been edited by Vonov (edited 11-23-2006).]
Originally posted by frontal lobe: 84Bill, you can ignore me and I would accept your right to do that. I wouldn't get blow horn and stand outside your house shouting what I wanted you to hear. And I wouldn't try to block people from getting into your house or walking up your driveway to try to force you to come outside so you would "have to hear me". That is what Cindy would do.
If my job was to listen and I wasnt doing that job to your liking I suppose you have the right to use it that blow horn. I mean afterall thats why it was given to you.
Politicians MUST listen and many don't.
Cindy is just using the tools that the founders of this country gave her, the use of which is not a crime.
Originally posted by Jake_Dragon: Guess you will have to start one of your own if no one wants to play with you anymore.
Gee... what a nice thing to say.
I guess some people cant see the parody
Point taken.. I'll try to reserve my fictional views in the future so as not to hurt those less fortunate.
And you know... I've been this way ALL my life.. no one ever wanted to "play with me" so I'm quite used to playing by myself, with myself and for myself. I'm quite independant in that respect. Imaginitive, creative, receptive, perceptive, compassionate, empathic, thoughtful are some my well honed traits. I work hard at keeping them all sharp.
Crazy, brash, abusive? mih... I have one shoe and it fits so I wear it and in a way I'm thankful to have it.
It's not easy being the way I am but I've learned to live with it and I'm thankful for the gift. I just wish others would see it.. So heres to wishful thinking.
[This message has been edited by 84Bill (edited 11-23-2006).]
IP: Logged
10:08 AM
jstricker Member
Posts: 12956 From: Russell, KS USA Registered: Apr 2002
I think their is something wrong when two of my kids friends have all their relatives living off the government and call us poor because my kid doesn't have his own tv in his room. WTF is wrong with this country when families living off the government can sit around getting drunk and everyone has their own tv in a room paid for by the rest of us that work for a living and some of us working multiple jobs can't keep the power or heat on while the government is blowing our money on a war to improve some other country... for my own good.
Forgive me... I've wandered way off again.
Suffice to say... there are countries with way worse problems and ones that may be better... just depends on what criteria you want to use.
Just for the record, I don't think you wandered off at all, I think you were dead on point.
Originally posted by jstricker: Just for the record, I don't think you wandered off at all, I think you were dead on point.
John Stricker
Your duty as a citizen includes the care and welfare of all. It's a duty we all pay and one I do gladly pay to be a part of this society. I want that safety net to be there for me should I need it. Once I did need it and I was glad to have it.
There is NO WAY anyone can sit back an collect a welfare check without being forced into labor. It is a myth to believe otherwise.
If you cant believe the words of a man who has been there done that.. well then.. I don't know what to say other than some will speek just to hear themselves talk. I don't mind talking to the air... I do it often.
IP: Logged
10:22 AM
Vonov Member
Posts: 3745 From: Nashville,TN,USA Registered: May 2004
Originally posted by Vonov: Quite right, Bill...the politicians need to read the Declaration of Independence...there's a warning in there, if they have eyes to see it.
Yeah.. they know it too. Thats the reason the patriot act passed and cameras are going up everywhere. All this nifty new stuff will help keep the politicians safe and fat in their big white houses while at the same time the people become more criminal for doing things like talking among themselves in private about trying to take back what is rightfuly theirs.
Soon.. there will be nowhere to hide your freedom.. There will be no place for it to rest as the very ground it once stood on vanishes from benieth it.
The enemy of the people is their own ignorance and one day they will wake up to find themselves prisoner of their own designs.. I'll be glad when they finally do wake up PERIOD!
[This message has been edited by 84Bill (edited 11-23-2006).]
IP: Logged
10:43 AM
Scott-Wa Member
Posts: 5392 From: Tacoma, WA, USA Registered: Mar 2002
Scott-Wa...I like and respect your restraint in these discussions. However, I feel I must take issue with some of your statements on use of tasers by law enforcement. You seem to believe that we go around zapping people indiscriminately as we please. I'm not saying it hasn't happened that they have been misused, but anyone who does so, does it at the risk of his or her employment and/or imprisonment. The taser used today, is not a simple stun weapon. It shows date/time of use, how many seconds it was used for, and how many applications (how many times shocks were delivered). The information contained in the equipment is not accessible by the officer who uses it, and can be erased only by service personnel from the weapon's individual database. Each weapon's issue/deployment log is periodically reviewed by departmental firearms staff, and logs are kept and submitted to IAD anytime a discrepancy is noted. Each and every APPLICATION is considered a separate use of force, and must be documented and justified accordingly; failure to do so (which is ALWAYS reviewed by a review board, comprised of civilians as well as police) renders one liable for state and federal criminal charges as well as civil litigation. The taser falls in the force continuum between soft empty hand control (come-along techniques) and hard empty hand control (strikes with fists, elbows, knees, etc) and is placed there because ANY strike has the potential to be lethal, and also because, in any case of active resistance by a suspect, there is ALWAYS at least one firearm available to the suspect, should he overpower the officer or gain control of their weapon. In EVERY department that has elected to use the taser, the number of injuries to both suspects and officers have dropped dramatically, and the number of police shootings of suspects has dropped even more dramatically. I volunteered as a test subject, so I would know firsthand what a suspect experienced; it is not exactly painful, and distinctly uncomfortable, but certainly less painful than a strike to the brachial nerve. It is a tool, nothing more, and nothing less. There have been cases of suspects dying after taser use, but in almost every incidence, the case involved a medical condition known as "excited delirium" and death was not attributable to use of the taser. To date, I am unaware of any case in which a death was attributed to use of a taser as set forth under established procedures. But I digress...any officer brutal enough, (and dumb enough) to use a taser as a third-world instrument of torture, deserves whatever he gets.
Thanks for the response, that is good info. I doubt 1% of the population knows that a taser has tracking info to show how and when it was used. I suspect most people that file a complaint based on possible misuse realize there is a record that can be requested that would substantiate or debunk their claim.
It comes down to our acceptance of the small minority of officers misusing them. People that write it off or wholeheartedly agree with that sort of use leads to increases in that sort of incident. As long as we have a legitimate review process and suspects rights (as well as the police) get upheld or someone gets held accountable, it's fine. The problem is those areas where it's wink wink, nudge nudge.. "LOL, did you hear how ______ zapped that little ____? I think I smelled smoke coming off the punk"
I feel sorry for the officers having to try and survive with their values intact in a department like that. Here in Tacoma one of those types made it all the way up to chief of police and ended up killing his wife after years of bad conduct and bad psych reviews... but he had political clout. Anyone that stepped up with a complaint got squashed like a bug, including other officers.
In most departments he'd have never made it past the candidate reviews. (including the sheriff's department I get involved with on a regular basis... excellent personnel that wouldn't put up with that kind of crap).
Thanks for your input.
IP: Logged
10:59 AM
Nov 24th, 2006
Toddster Member
Posts: 20871 From: Roswell, Georgia Registered: May 2001
Well, you're probably okay as long as he's just CHEWING on your pants leg...it's when he starts doin' that other thing, that ya really need to whack him good...
IP: Logged
11:20 AM
PFF
System Bot
Toddster Member
Posts: 20871 From: Roswell, Georgia Registered: May 2001
Well, you're probably okay as long as he's just CHEWING on your pants leg...it's when he starts doin' that other thing, that ya really need to whack him good...
It's not so much "that other thing" I mind him dumping on the forum as when he starts rolling around in it with pride afterwards.
IP: Logged
11:28 AM
frontal lobe Member
Posts: 9042 From: brookfield,wisconsin Registered: Dec 1999
If my job was to listen and I wasnt doing that job to your liking I suppose you have the right to use it that blow horn. I mean afterall thats why it was given to you.
Politicians MUST listen and many don't.
Cindy is just using the tools that the founders of this country gave her, the use of which is not a crime.
No one (I don't think) is saying politicians aren't obligated to listen. And the many that don't should be booted out.
There are tools that the founders gave her, and she tried to use those. When she didn't get the amount of hearing that she wanted, or the results she wanted, then she decided to go outside those tools and got arrested.
My point of my example to you remains--she has the right to voice her opinion. She does NOT have the right to voice it (nor did she ever) WHEREVER she wants. So she got arrested. No big deal. Just that she is no hero, either, nor someone to be admired.
BUT, say for the sake of discussion that it WAS your job to listen. And you provided me with e-mail, ability to send letters, a phone number to call that was manned not by you (because you have work to do) but by one of your staff who then reports to you. And THEN, I still wouldn't stay outside your office NOR your home (like she tried to do to Bush) and FORCE you to hear me at the time and in the way that I WANT to be heard.
That is what I'm saying I wouldn't do. But if I did decide to do it, and you decided to have me arrested for going outside the normal tools and infringing on your right to be productive, I would accept that.
No one (I don't think) is saying politicians aren't obligated to listen. And the many that don't should be booted out.
There are tools that the founders gave her, and she tried to use those. When she didn't get the amount of hearing that she wanted, or the results she wanted, then she decided to go outside those tools and got arrested.
And just exactly what do you mean by "going outside?"
quote
My point of my example to you remains--she has the right to voice her opinion. She does NOT have the right to voice it (nor did she ever) WHEREVER she wants.
Oh so she should be gaged because her point is Irrelavant as far as you are concerned? She is bothering NO ONE by voicing ANY opinion. If you were walking down the street and heard her "screeching" you ARE free to continue your progress. Your ears can be plugged, your mind can wander but to stop her from "voicing it" is a violation of a very valueble right.
YOU are the reason the "free speech zone" was created.
quote
So she got arrested. No big deal. Just that she is no hero, either, nor someone to be admired.
BUT, say for the sake of discussion that it WAS your job to listen. And you provided me with e-mail, ability to send letters, a phone number to call that was manned not by you (because you have work to do) but by one of your staff who then reports to you. And THEN, I still wouldn't stay outside your office NOR your home (like she tried to do to Bush) and FORCE you to hear me at the time and in the way that I WANT to be heard.
That is what I'm saying I wouldn't do. But if I did decide to do it, and you decided to have me arrested for going outside the normal tools and infringing on your right to be productive, I would accept that.[/QUOTE]
Speech and the freedom to exercise it includes ALL forms of "verbal" communication. Written as well as spoken. To limit it is to defy a BASIC right.. Now I will grant you that speech has its limitations and sometime we need to resort to other methods.. Like a gun.
I don't know how man people were in America on July 4th 1776 but I can tell you it started to ge awful loud after a while thanks to a few great people. Cindy is only USING a RIGHT. You my friend are seeking to strip that right..
The End
IP: Logged
12:22 PM
frontal lobe Member
Posts: 9042 From: brookfield,wisconsin Registered: Dec 1999
Not at all. Not trying to strip that right in the least. And any reaction I have is not related to how I feel about her cause.
Cindy is using a right. She did that. No one cared or bothered her about using them. She made calls. She got petitions signed. She tried to use the media as much as she could get them to listen.
THEN, your example breaks down. I NEVER said if I was walking down the street and heard her screeching, that she should shut up or be arrested. I would just ignore her and keep walking just as you suggested. So I have NOTHING to do with the "free speech zone" creations.
What I SAID as an example was an entirely different scenario than what you gave. I gave a scenario where you can't keep on walking. It is where your live. Or where you do business. And you have a RIGHT to do that. And then SHE comes along and blocks that from happening. She blocked people from leaving and entering. THAT is the "going outside" the bounds of free speech and her rights that she did. So she got arrested for violating the rights of others. Which is NO BIG DEAL. Because she had and still has PLENTY of opportunities to freely express her views. So don't portray this as some attempt to violate her freedom of expression, or limit her expression of ideas. That has nothing to do with it. THIS case, (and my example) has to do with HER intentionally violating other people's rights to try to FORCE her expression to be heard in the setting and on the terms that SHE wants them heard. Well, she doesn't have THAT right, and never did.
I'll give you another example. Say it is your job to listen. And you are at your home. And I have a right to my freedom of speech, and you, by your being elected, have an obligation to listen to it. And I'm not happy with how much you are listening to it and not happy with your actions and response to my ideas. So I decide to show up outside your house at 2-4 a.m. with by blow horn. And I'm on the sidewalk outside your home at 2-4 a.m. with my blow horn shouting as loud as I can what I want you do to because I am exercising my right to free speech. And I am disrupting the lives of your neighbors as well as you in the process.
What? Are you going to tell me I can't do that? Because if you do, in your own words, "to limit is to defy a BASIC right."
You could ask me not to do that. I would say, NO, I have my rights to free speech. Your neighbors could ask. I would tell them, up yours, I have my rights to free speech. They could call the police. The police could ask me to stop. Up yours. I have my right to free speech. So then they arrested me. Fascist state? Constitution thrown out?
Or is it reasonable to say, "You know, you have PLENTY of opportunity for free speech and expressing your ideas. And the limitation of restricting you from doing it from 2-4 a.m. in a residential neighborhood where it affects MANY people, and infringes on their rights to a peaceful existence, is NOT going to damage the free exchange of your ideas and plunge the US into a fascist police state--or whatever state you think it is going to plunge it into."?
We have a VERY open society with extreme tolerance of the free expression and interchange of ideas. Arresting people who are unhappy with the scant limitations placed on it, and decide to infringe on the rights of others to have a peaceful, productive existence (INCLUDING government officials) does not plunge our country into repression. And I didn't bring it up, but since you did, neither does "free speech zones".
And I have no problems with people deciding, like she did, to INTENTIONALLY get arrested as an attempt to try to get even MORE of an audience for her ideas. And I don't have problems with people using guns to get attention, either. What I have a problem with is when the society decides that, no, the lines of communication are adequate and we won't accept your use of being arrested, or attempts to FORCE your view on us with guns, and we are going to resist you--that then there is some outcry of limitation of rights of freedom of expression.
There have ALWAYS been limits on freedom of expression. ALWAYS. Very few, though. She violated those. She got arrested. Fine with me. Just no sympathy.
And you can't see it in print, so I just want to be clear. I'm just DISCUSSING this with you. I don't mean in any way to be contrary or argumentative. And I wanted to clarify. Because you went to some conclusions that weren't accurate as to what I would approve of or propose. I'm not blaming that on you. Just wanted a chance to further discuss the finer points.
IP: Logged
12:58 PM
Nov 25th, 2006
Toddster Member
Posts: 20871 From: Roswell, Georgia Registered: May 2001
I have an idea. Instead of arresting Cindy Sheehan lets arrest the cameramen and reporters that point their attentions her way. That'll end this fiasco REAL fast.
IP: Logged
02:29 PM
Patrick Member
Posts: 36239 From: Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada Registered: Apr 99
I have an idea. Instead of arresting Cindy Sheehan lets arrest the cameramen and reporters that point their attentions her way. That'll end this fiasco REAL fast.
I realize you were making a "joke", but in retrospect that type of solution isn't funny at all. It's downright scary.
IP: Logged
04:44 PM
Vonov Member
Posts: 3745 From: Nashville,TN,USA Registered: May 2004