Feel Safer Or You May Be An Enemy of the State

Senate Bill rewrite lets Feds read your email without a warrant

I wonder if they will send the cops to tase you into cardiac arrest if you find a hack around that.

What I find darkly amusing about the latter story is that, after a cursory mention of an innocent woman brutally tased to her near death, the bulk of the article is essentially a promo piece  for the manufacturers of Tasers, assuring us that tasers are really safe and wonderful.  Particularly hilarious to my twisted sense of humor is this:

“It’s important to remember that more than 98,000 people have been saved from potential death or serious injury using TASER devices – an astounding number that would more than sell out the Rose Bowl.”

I am greatly consoled that 98,000 people have been tased by trigger happy cops like the guys who unnecessarily induced cardiac arrest in a woman who, it turns out, was perfectly justified in fearing them.

I fear Caesar far more than I fear some guys in a cave in Afghanistan.  In this, I make common cause with the Founders of the United States, who feared the state *far* more than they feared criminals, the British, the French, the Indians or any foreign power without.

  • victor

    “Do you have a pulse?” Classic cop.

  • http://disputations.blogspot.com Tom K.

    But Mark, don’t you realize that requiring a warrant to obtain stored e-mail could have an adverse impact on criminal investigations?

    Why do you hate crime victims?

  • Richard Johnson

    For those who might wish to know more and/or express an opinion on the bill…

    http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/s1011

  • http://mondayevening.wordpress.com/ Marcel

    We didn’t used to hear about stuff like this all the time. It seems like we had a greater degree of civil liberty forty years ago. I miss the old days before video cameras and tasers, when people were simply clubbed to the ground if were drunk and disorderly.

  • http://www.ephesians4-15.blogspot.ca Randy

    The choice is not to Taser or to do nothing. The Taser replaced the billy club. Do you want to go back to police hitting people with clubs?

    The issue you have is not with the weapon but with the person carrying the weapon. Police need to make good choices of when to use violence and when not to. When they do then Tasers are a fine thing. When they don’t then any weapon they have will be a problem.

    • Boethius

      I agree with Randy. While there are certainly unjust uses of the Taser at times, the other choices are billy club or actual firearm. Between those two options, the Taser is certainly the least harmful. Being hit with a club or shot with a bullet are far more physically scarring.

      • Andy, Bad Person

        Can’t police physically restrain someone without all the James Bond gadgets? I understand if you’re facing a huge drunk guy or something, but how many stories of old women getting tasered do we need to conclude that these cops are just cowards?

      • Harpy

        “…Being hit with a club or shot with a bullet are far more physically scarring.”

        Except when you go into cardiac arrest and/or die. Oh – and shall we talk about the mental scarring?

    • tz

      “Police need to make good choices…”. And when they make BAD choices?
      Tasers are SOLD, advertised, marketed as a harmless stun device, so instead of de-escalating, if someone merely disobeys a cop (even if the order is unlawful), or is uncooperative, just TASER them – just two small burn marks. No bruises like a bludgeoning them with a billy club or worse, gunshot wounds. The sci-fi no-problem stun-gun where people are disabled but no one ever gets hurt. That is not the real world.

      They have become lazy taseys. Don’t talk, tase; Don’t negotiate, tase; Don’t use verbal judo, tase; Don’t explain an order, if they don’t jump at your request, tase.

  • Mercury

    Could the 98,000 people actually not be cops, but private citizens who used tasers to hold off would-be attackers? Like women who tased potential rapists?

    Or do they mean “saved lives” as in “otherwise we’d'a had to shoot him.”?

    • http://ohnimus.wordpress.com Christian Ohnimus

      I assumed that they meant the latter. Because our mentality today seems to be that if you can’t incapacitate someone with a taser then your only other option is to shoot ‘em dead. You know, for the safety of law enforcement officials.

      • Mercury

        What suggestion do you have for dealing with people who violently resist arrest, pull out weapons, or attempt to flee the scene of a crime?

        I am not defending unjust police brutality, but there are cases where police must incapacitate someone who poses a danger to them or to other people.

        Or should police wait until someone is shooting at them?

        I agree that police can be trigger-happy with tasers and that is wrong, but lets not pretend like all instances are totally unnecessary.

        • Hezekiah Garrett

          Of course! How can people not see that criticisng cops for relying on force too often, in too many circumstances is ‘pretend(ing) like all instances are totally unnecessary.” You sound more like Mars.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X