Police to be armed with stun guns

[Renton 22507]

I think the UN 'use'/torture point is a bit of a red herring tbh. Police batons can certainly be used as an instrument of torture for instance-the apartheid S.A police had it down to a fine art (amongst other methods).

A baton can be used in a number of ways (from a tap or a shove through to beating someone to death).

A taser just tasers. Which is I suspect why they deem it as such.

 

Yeah I know this funnily enough-and it also makes a counter point to a degree too. A baton often has to be used several times (causing aggregated injuries) where a taser is discharged once. That's not me arguing general issue is correct either by the way, just trying to marshall both arguments. One of my main bugbears about batons is where you're seeing an officer swinging it several times before a person is effectively 'detained'.

 

Someone that requires to be beaten half to death to be stopped (form doing something dangerous, I'd assume - not stealing a packet of sweets, or something) is a good candidate for justified use of a taser.

 

However that's not an argument for general deployment of tasers, or at least if you claim it is then basically you are also claiming all police should be armed with conventional guns as well.

 

I don't follow your reasoning.

 

Because it's not an argument for general deployment (it's an argument for having tasers available - like conventional guns).

 

And because the only reason to have them on general deployment for such a purpose, would be to avoid having to call in the specialised officers....... but the same argument applies to conventional guns too.

 

But that's assuming an equivalence between guns and tasers. Which would you rather be shot by?

[manc-mag 1]

The UN and Fop vs The Usual Suspects.

 

See this is where it all goes tits up and it becomes a bit pointless.

 

So presumably the UN would subscribe to your view that the UK is 'marching ever onwards towards a police state...'?

Nope, just that taser use constitutes torture.

 

Well how on earth can you approve of it then in any circumstances?

 

As you have done.

 

For the same reason as guns (both for and against in fact). Shooting people is never a "nice" idea, but it maybe the least worst option in some cases.

 

Or are you arguing that we should have no gun carrying police at all?

 

No, I'm saying the 'torture' point is a red herring in this particular debate.

 

Ie you seem to think it is determinative, which it is not. If it is torture per se, then it cannot be permitted in any circumstances. The Geneva convention backs this up by the way if we're gonna get all conflict of laws about it.

[Meenzer 15872]

Another masterclass from Boutros Boutros Quite Contrary.

[manc-mag 1]

Sorry, I just object to defective logic in any argument that's all.

 

Besides that I would be concerned with the standard issue of tasers. I think the debate needs to be steered away from 'police state' agendas though as this detracts from objective discussion of the issues.

[Guest alex]

Sorry, I just object to defective logic in any argument that's all.

 

Besides that I would be concerned with the standard issue of tasers. I think the debate needs to be steered away from 'police state' agendas though as this detracts from objective discussion of the issues.

Not sure if he meant you like. Funny either way though.

[Meenzer 15872]

Aye, I meant our own self-appointed UN representative. Although I have no problem with inadvertently insulting our Mancy.

[manc-mag 1]

Kiss my stones.

[Meenzer 15872]

I save that sort of thing for after the second date.

[manc-mag 1]

Aye, when you're speedating I bet.

[Meenzer 15872]

I'm that good I don't need more than 30 seconds.

[manc-mag 1]

 

Away and shite. Bet your fella was sat at the third table along.

[Meenzer 15872]

As it happens, third date technique is a bottle of wine, a Desperate Housewives DVD and a quick fiddle on the sofa. How did you know?

[manc-mag 1]

I could hear the violins.

[Fop 1]

I think the UN 'use'/torture point is a bit of a red herring tbh. Police batons can certainly be used as an instrument of torture for instance-the apartheid S.A police had it down to a fine art (amongst other methods).

A baton can be used in a number of ways (from a tap or a shove through to beating someone to death).

A taser just tasers. Which is I suspect why they deem it as such.

 

Yeah I know this funnily enough-and it also makes a counter point to a degree too. A baton often has to be used several times (causing aggregated injuries) where a taser is discharged once. That's not me arguing general issue is correct either by the way, just trying to marshall both arguments. One of my main bugbears about batons is where you're seeing an officer swinging it several times before a person is effectively 'detained'.

 

Someone that requires to be beaten half to death to be stopped (form doing something dangerous, I'd assume - not stealing a packet of sweets, or something) is a good candidate for justified use of a taser.

 

However that's not an argument for general deployment of tasers, or at least if you claim it is then basically you are also claiming all police should be armed with conventional guns as well.

 

I don't follow your reasoning.

 

Because it's not an argument for general deployment (it's an argument for having tasers available - like conventional guns).

 

And because the only reason to have them on general deployment for such a purpose, would be to avoid having to call in the specialised officers....... but the same argument applies to conventional guns too.

 

But that's assuming an equivalence between guns and tasers. Which would you rather be shot by?

 

Again not the issue. Would you rather be grazed by a bullet or tasered for 2 days straight?

[Fop 1]

The UN and Fop vs The Usual Suspects.

 

See this is where it all goes tits up and it becomes a bit pointless.

 

So presumably the UN would subscribe to your view that the UK is 'marching ever onwards towards a police state...'?

Nope, just that taser use constitutes torture.

 

Well how on earth can you approve of it then in any circumstances?

 

As you have done.

 

For the same reason as guns (both for and against in fact). Shooting people is never a "nice" idea, but it maybe the least worst option in some cases.

 

Or are you arguing that we should have no gun carrying police at all?

 

No, I'm saying the 'torture' point is a red herring in this particular debate.

 

Ie you seem to think it is determinative, which it is not. If it is torture per se, then it cannot be permitted in any circumstances. The Geneva convention backs this up by the way if we're gonna get all conflict of laws about it.

 

 

Again you have much to learn, young padawan..... or do you think killing someone by firing a high density high velocity projectile at them to cause massive trauma is "ok" or should be "permitted"?

 

Tasers (and their torture) have a justifiable place (just like guns), but it's clearly not general deployment.

 

Like I said basically guns and tasers have the same argument for and against their general deployment, you can't pick and choose no matter how much you try.

[manc-mag 1]

The UN and Fop vs The Usual Suspects.

 

See this is where it all goes tits up and it becomes a bit pointless.

 

So presumably the UN would subscribe to your view that the UK is 'marching ever onwards towards a police state...'?

Nope, just that taser use constitutes torture.

 

Well how on earth can you approve of it then in any circumstances?

 

As you have done.

 

For the same reason as guns (both for and against in fact). Shooting people is never a "nice" idea, but it maybe the least worst option in some cases.

 

Or are you arguing that we should have no gun carrying police at all?

 

No, I'm saying the 'torture' point is a red herring in this particular debate.

 

Ie you seem to think it is determinative, which it is not. If it is torture per se, then it cannot be permitted in any circumstances. The Geneva convention backs this up by the way if we're gonna get all conflict of laws about it.

 

 

Again you have much to learn, young padawan..... or do you think killing someone by firing a high density high velocity projectile at them to cause massive trauma is "ok" or should be "permitted"?

 

Tasers (and their torture) have a justifiable place (just like guns), but it's clearly not general deployment.

 

Like I said basically guns and tasers have the same argument for and against their general deployment, you can't pick and choose no matter how much you try.

 

You misunderstand. Used lawfully, it cannot accurately be described as 'torture'. Unlike your logic.

[Fop 1]

Sorry, I just object to logic in any argument that's all.

FYP.

 

Besides that I would be concerned with the standard issue of tasers. I think the debate needs to be steered away from 'police state' agendas though as this detracts from objective discussion of the issues.

It's not really, but then you should know that already.

But having said that a police state isn't necessarily the 3rd Reich or the USSR, kindness without freedom is still tyranny. And no Government ever wakes up one day and shouts "woohoo poliiiiiiiice staaaaaate!!!!!" and then creates one that day; step by step, freedom by eroded freedom.

[Fop 1]

The UN and Fop vs The Usual Suspects.

 

See this is where it all goes tits up and it becomes a bit pointless.

 

So presumably the UN would subscribe to your view that the UK is 'marching ever onwards towards a police state...'?

Nope, just that taser use constitutes torture.

 

Well how on earth can you approve of it then in any circumstances?

 

As you have done.

 

For the same reason as guns (both for and against in fact). Shooting people is never a "nice" idea, but it maybe the least worst option in some cases.

 

Or are you arguing that we should have no gun carrying police at all?

 

No, I'm saying the 'torture' point is a red herring in this particular debate.

 

Ie you seem to think it is determinative, which it is not. If it is torture per se, then it cannot be permitted in any circumstances. The Geneva convention backs this up by the way if we're gonna get all conflict of laws about it.

 

 

Again you have much to learn, young padawan..... or do you think killing someone by firing a high density high velocity projectile at them to cause massive trauma is "ok" or should be "permitted"?

 

Tasers (and their torture) have a justifiable place (just like guns), but it's clearly not general deployment.

 

Like I said basically guns and tasers have the same argument for and against their general deployment, you can't pick and choose no matter how much you try.

 

You misunderstand. Used lawfully, it cannot accurately be described as 'torture'. Unlike your logic.

Lawful torture is still torture, just like lawful killing is still killing. I think I've won again.

[manc-mag 1]

The UN and Fop vs The Usual Suspects.

 

See this is where it all goes tits up and it becomes a bit pointless.

 

So presumably the UN would subscribe to your view that the UK is 'marching ever onwards towards a police state...'?

Nope, just that taser use constitutes torture.

 

Well how on earth can you approve of it then in any circumstances?

 

As you have done.

 

For the same reason as guns (both for and against in fact). Shooting people is never a "nice" idea, but it maybe the least worst option in some cases.

 

Or are you arguing that we should have no gun carrying police at all?

 

No, I'm saying the 'torture' point is a red herring in this particular debate.

 

Ie you seem to think it is determinative, which it is not. If it is torture per se, then it cannot be permitted in any circumstances. The Geneva convention backs this up by the way if we're gonna get all conflict of laws about it.

 

 

Again you have much to learn, young padawan..... or do you think killing someone by firing a high density high velocity projectile at them to cause massive trauma is "ok" or should be "permitted"?

 

Tasers (and their torture) have a justifiable place (just like guns), but it's clearly not general deployment.

 

Like I said basically guns and tasers have the same argument for and against their general deployment, you can't pick and choose no matter how much you try.

 

You misunderstand. Used lawfully, it cannot accurately be described as 'torture'. Unlike your logic.

Lawful torture is still torture, just like lawful killing is still killing. I think I've won again.

 

In my last post, (which was all of one line long), did I or did I not solely refer to the accuracy of the term 'lawfully'?

 

Your defective logic/legal knowledge prevents this debate from going any further tbh.

[Fop 1]

The UN and Fop vs The Usual Suspects.

 

See this is where it all goes tits up and it becomes a bit pointless.

 

So presumably the UN would subscribe to your view that the UK is 'marching ever onwards towards a police state...'?

Nope, just that taser use constitutes torture.

 

Well how on earth can you approve of it then in any circumstances?

 

As you have done.

 

For the same reason as guns (both for and against in fact). Shooting people is never a "nice" idea, but it maybe the least worst option in some cases.

 

Or are you arguing that we should have no gun carrying police at all?

 

No, I'm saying the 'torture' point is a red herring in this particular debate.

 

Ie you seem to think it is determinative, which it is not. If it is torture per se, then it cannot be permitted in any circumstances. The Geneva convention backs this up by the way if we're gonna get all conflict of laws about it.

 

 

Again you have much to learn, young padawan..... or do you think killing someone by firing a high density high velocity projectile at them to cause massive trauma is "ok" or should be "permitted"?

 

Tasers (and their torture) have a justifiable place (just like guns), but it's clearly not general deployment.

 

Like I said basically guns and tasers have the same argument for and against their general deployment, you can't pick and choose no matter how much you try.

 

You misunderstand. Used lawfully, it cannot accurately be described as 'torture'. Unlike your logic.

Lawful torture is still torture, just like lawful killing is still killing. I think I've won again.

 

In my last post, (which was all of one line long), did I or did I not solely refer to the accuracy of the term 'lawfully'?

 

Your defective logic/legal knowledge prevents this debate from going any further tbh.

 

Again torture is still torture whether it's legal or not (the debate and the issue is whether and when it should and shouldn't be). Just like killing is still killing whether it's legal or not (ditto).

[manc-mag 1]

see my last post.

[Fop 1]

see my last post.

Again, if you are lawfully killed are you then not dead?

[manc-mag 1]

see my last but one post.

[Fop 1]

see my last but one post.

You are learning, but just that tad too slow, better luck next time.

 

I must admit I'm tempted to make my death illegal so I will live forevoooooooor.

[manc-mag 1]

etc etc ad infinitum