Primus
Regular Member
Sure you can, just show him your shiny badge...
Thats it? I figured you'd drop a line about using a taser on him lol
Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
Sure you can, just show him your shiny badge...
Thats it? I figured you'd drop a line about using a taser on him lol
Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
Design purpose and function has everything to do with it. It is so delineated in the OP.Oh, for pete's sake.
You're still going off on a tangent. Design purpose and function got little to nothing to do with it.
--snipped--
Alternatively, you would be implying that the manufacturer knew police were using excessive force and designed the taser to reduce those excessive force deaths. Yeah, right. And, I'm supposed to believe that the only reason Taser has fought tooth and nail against accusations of lethality is altruism to prevent excessive force deaths. That argument would make no sense, either.
Design purpose and function has everything to do with it. It is so delineated in the OP.
I never mentioned, stated or implied that your target of "excessive" force had anything to do with the design of tasers. They were designed to provide an alternate, effective less lethal means of control - not a response to claimed excessive force deaths.
There is a place in the use of force continuumfor tasers that is not dependent on reducing your alleged excessive force, but rather intended to preclude the need for more lethal means.
Design purpose and function has everything to do with it. It is so delineated in the OP.
I never mentioned, stated or implied that your target of "excessive" force had anything to do with the design of tasers. They were designed to provide an alternate, effective less lethal means of control - not a response to claimed excessive force deaths.
There is a place in the use of force continuumfor tasers that is not dependent on reducing your alleged excessive force, but rather intended to preclude the need for more lethal means.
You're still arguing within the same fallacious parameter's nonetheless.
Why would a less-lethal means of control be needed if police were not previously applying lethal force in situations where lethal force wasn't justified? I'm not here saying it was or they were. I'm saying your arguments absurdly contain that contradiction.
Further, and bleeding over into a related point that is not directly on point between you and I, lets not forget tasers were for a long time promoted as--and referred to--as non-lethal. The change in terminology was a concession to their proved lethality.
No - you are attempting to change the point of the thread to fit your design(s).
ALL less lethal means were at one time defined as non-lethal, which negates your ill informed argument.
Slus to not derail the thread I'll keep on topic with the tasers.
Everything you just stated "on a whim for their safety etc. etc." Sounds more like excessive force. Not sure if it was meant to portray a use of force or if you were having a real situation where you would be resisting. If its the former then again its the guy using the taser that's wrong. If its the latter then itd be you or whatever individual that was wrong for not co plying with a legal request or arrest. Please don't convolute the two.
Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
Not "shifting attention" but returning the thread to the OP. I'll accept that tasers reduce deaths by virtue of their being less lethal than guns - as bean bags and rubber pellets are likewise.No, you're attempting to shift attention away from Primus' absurdity that tasers reduce deaths.
It was a whole different thread where I argued against calling tasers "less-lethal". You're confusing threads.
Why don't you try sticking the actual arguments I make in this thread, rather than "seeing" an argument I made in a previous thread on a related-but-different aspect the same subect.
What argument are you talking about? The fact that a punch can kill you? It CAN and has killed people either directly or indirectly. So does that make your gist a lethal weapon? As in if someone punches you in the face its abdw? Negative ghost rider.
Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
Would you consider a punch in the face lethal? Why no people have died from it. How about cars? Are they lethal objects? Why not people have died? I hope you get the point.
Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
I don't see where Citizen is straying from the topic at all.
Yes, cops were forced to use guns or nothing when dealing with intermediate threats that were not close enough for hands or sticks. Tasers were introduced so that more lethal force could be avoided. They have now been found to have other utility than just defense.
Now don't change the parameters of your argument, a fist isn't a lethal weapon being clenched and moving quickly toward my face I would consider it one and I would respond by using what ever force necessary to end it.
How about flash bangs I bet you love them too?
Svg you may be focusing on my slekking mistake. It should be why NOT.... people have dies from fists. I was listing things that kill people but aren't considered "lethal"
Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
Happens to me all the time. Why I will never attempt to be a spelling/grammar nazi.
I was referring to your direct question on whether or not someone would consider a punch to the face lethal. I view it potentially lethal and would respond in kind.
Svg while I agree that a punch can be lethal its only a simple misdemeanor and if you shot someone because they punched you you'd probably go to jail. If I **** you because you punched me in the face is go to jail even on duty. I would have to tell some crazy tails (wouldn't) that I feared I would be knocked out and you would take my gun and kill others. So maybe you could use that as a defense? I sincerely doubt it though.
Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
Like you don't already?:lol:
Svg while I agree that a punch can be lethal its only a simple misdemeanor and if you shot someone because they punched you you'd probably go to jail. If I **** you because you punched me in the face is go to jail even on duty. I would have to tell some crazy tails (wouldn't) that I feared I would be knocked out and you would take my gun and kill others. So maybe you could use that as a defense? I sincerely doubt it though.
Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
Handguns have unintended casualties, we do not blame the guns. Gun companies pay hush money to simply get rid of bad publicity. If you cant blame firearms for the deaths that are caused by there use, why blame a taser? We dont blame baseball bats when used inappropriately