Police to be armed with stun guns

[Guest alex]

That's fine re: the 3 strikes thing but I don't think that should detract from the idea that you get a heavy sentence for carrying an offensive weapon that you potentially intend to use to harm others if, for example, you're out drinking in town. I don't see why the two should be mutually exclusive. I don't think that would automatically mean someone would get a heavy sentence for carrying a tool / swiss army knife either.

Edited November 24, 2008 by alex

[Fop 1]

I agree the police need to be armed properly. Stun guns wont help

 

Automatic shotguns are the only thing with sufficient firepower and indiscriminate spread to guarantee complete compliance.

 

 

I agree that some people, who are naive enough to think that the police are there to protect the innocent and aren't governed by figures as much as any other public service, might get done for carry something as innocent as a Swiss Army knife which they'd left in their pocket. I'd like to think it wouldn't happen very often and it wouldn't make me hesitate about wanting tougher sentences for people carrying offensive weapons.

Until it happened to you or someone you know, and the people that did need it still wouldn't be worried as unless it was something ridiculous like 15 years they'd still manage to get a next to nothing sentence.

What do you suggest then?

A 3 strikes type policy (it's the only thing that has the needed leeway and deterrence), but we'd have to build more jails.

 

If the States haven't got enough jail space to implement it we have no chance, obviously. Any other ideas?

Descend into a gun and crime ridden chaos?

 

We're not as far gone as the USA, we could afford to build enough jails (we can afford 2 wars and a trident replacement after all), it would just take the political will.

[Fop 1]

That's fine re: the 3 strikes thing but I don't think that should detract from the idea that you get a heavy sentence for carrying an offensive weapon that you potentially intend to use to harm others if, for example, you're out drinking in town. I don't see why the two should be mutually exclusive. I don't think that would automatically mean someone would get a heavy sentence for carrying a tool / swiss army knife either.

The problem is that solution is like saying that only blunt ended kitchen knives should be sold would be a solution.

 

Intent is always hard to prove (and again works in the favour of those that know how to play the system), and if you stopped and searched everyone in certain areas and age groups you'd suddenly have more people in prison than out of it (including a fair few technically innocent people).

[Park Life 70]

[manc-mag 1]

We can't financially afford world wars (obviously). We were bankrupt for 15 years after the last one.

[Park Life 70]

[ChezGiven 0]

Only in the hysterical world of internet threadery does Tiananmen square become equated with 4 coppers in Salford getting access to a Tazer gun.

[Guest alex]

That's fine re: the 3 strikes thing but I don't think that should detract from the idea that you get a heavy sentence for carrying an offensive weapon that you potentially intend to use to harm others if, for example, you're out drinking in town. I don't see why the two should be mutually exclusive. I don't think that would automatically mean someone would get a heavy sentence for carrying a tool / swiss army knife either.

The problem is that solution is like saying that only blunt ended kitchen knives should be sold would be a solution.

 

Intent is always hard to prove (and again works in the favour of those that know how to play the system), and if you stopped and searched everyone in certain areas and age groups you'd suddenly have more people in prison than out of it (including a fair few technically innocent people).

Any system is far from perfect, I accept that. Not sure if the 3 strikes thing would stop people from carrying knives either though.

[Park Life 70]

Only in the hysterical world of internet threadery does Tiananmen square become equated with 4 coppers in Salford getting access to a Tazer gun.

Edited November 24, 2008 by Park Life

[ChezGiven 0]

[Meenzer 14031]

Three YouTube clips in the same thread and you're out.

[Park Life 70]

Three YouTube clips in the same thread and you're out.

[Jusoda Kid 1]

Three YouTube clips in the same thread and you're out.

 

 

 

School boy error Parky, now fuck off out the thread

[Fop 1]

We can't financially afford world wars (obviously). We were bankrupt for 15 years after the last one.

 

WW3 or more prisons? Hmm... tough choice.

 

 

That's fine re: the 3 strikes thing but I don't think that should detract from the idea that you get a heavy sentence for carrying an offensive weapon that you potentially intend to use to harm others if, for example, you're out drinking in town. I don't see why the two should be mutually exclusive. I don't think that would automatically mean someone would get a heavy sentence for carrying a tool / swiss army knife either.

The problem is that solution is like saying that only blunt ended kitchen knives should be sold would be a solution.

 

Intent is always hard to prove (and again works in the favour of those that know how to play the system), and if you stopped and searched everyone in certain areas and age groups you'd suddenly have more people in prison than out of it (including a fair few technically innocent people).

Any system is far from perfect, I accept that. Not sure if the 3 strikes thing would stop people from carrying knives either though.

 

Maybe not, but it was pretty effective in the USA with everything from fairly low grade crime upwards.

 

It just means you can be lenient (as the current 20 low grade conviction and still no long prison term one is - lenient but highly ineffective) and tough as well (3 or even 5 "strikes" and then "out" is a reasonable safety margin and plenty of warning).

[Guest alex]

We can't financially afford world wars (obviously). We were bankrupt for 15 years after the last one.

 

WW3 or more prisons? Hmm... tough choice.

 

 

That's fine re: the 3 strikes thing but I don't think that should detract from the idea that you get a heavy sentence for carrying an offensive weapon that you potentially intend to use to harm others if, for example, you're out drinking in town. I don't see why the two should be mutually exclusive. I don't think that would automatically mean someone would get a heavy sentence for carrying a tool / swiss army knife either.

The problem is that solution is like saying that only blunt ended kitchen knives should be sold would be a solution.

 

Intent is always hard to prove (and again works in the favour of those that know how to play the system), and if you stopped and searched everyone in certain areas and age groups you'd suddenly have more people in prison than out of it (including a fair few technically innocent people).

Any system is far from perfect, I accept that. Not sure if the 3 strikes thing would stop people from carrying knives either though.

 

Maybe not, but it was pretty effective in the USA with everything from fairly low grade crime upwards.

 

It just means you can be lenient (as the current 20 low grade conviction and still no long prison term one is - lenient but highly ineffective) and tough as well (3 or even 5 "strikes" and then "out" is a reasonable safety margin and plenty of warning).

I can see where you're coming from re: striking the right balance tbf.

[Park Life 70]

Also building things is good for the economy.

[Meenzer 14031]

Also building things is good for the economy.

Bring on the Autobahns and the "Happy Camps"

[Park Life 70]

Also building things is good for the economy.

Bring on the Autobahns and the "Happy Camps"

 

Ah! The old days.

[TheMoog 0]

Also building things is good for the economy.

Bring on the Autobahns and the "Happy Camps"

 

Bring back hanging

[Rob W 0]

Only in the hysterical world of internet threadery does Tiananmen square become equated with 4 coppers in Salford getting access to a Tazer gun.

 

 

First step on the road to the Ministry of Love

[Fop 1]

Interestingly the police are worried about the inevitable deaths (unofficially at least), and perhaps more concerning is when people are wearing thick clothing the unofficial method changes to shooting them in the head with it and claiming they missed what they were aiming for (as thick clothing can negate the darts penetration and therefore any effect).

[Renton 17744]

Have you got any data on the mortality rate in people shot with tasers Fop? From what I can tell it's too small to quantify by prospective studies and is isolated to a few case reports?

[Park Life 70]

Have you got any data on the mortality rate in people shot with tasers Fop? From what I can tell it's too small to quantify by prospective studies and is isolated to a few case reports?

 

Apparently not enough people are dying for Fop to construct a proper argument.

[Renton 17744]

Have you got any data on the mortality rate in people shot with tasers Fop? From what I can tell it's too small to quantify by prospective studies and is isolated to a few case reports?

 

Apparently not enough people are dying for Fop to construct a proper argument.

 

Not at all, just trying to gauge the extent of the problem and how it compares with other methods of restraint. Nothing is entirely risk free.

[Fop 1]

Have you got any data on the mortality rate in people shot with tasers Fop? From what I can tell it's too small to quantify by prospective studies and is isolated to a few case reports?

 

It's several thousand in the USA and Canada (from police use).

 

The problem is if you get shot with a taser then die of a heart attack a few hours later, or crack your head on some concrete as you fall, it's almost certainly the taser (or being tasered) that caused your death, but it's not recorded as such.

 

The actual instant deaths from the taser effect are relatively few, but that doesn't mean the actual taser mortality is that small.

 

 

 

Even the officials recognise this (although they try to obscured the statistics, as above), as they aren't referred to as non-lethal much of the time.