More consumer fun at Best Buy!

[Tal]

This is exactly how officers want to use them, and exactly how they do use them. It's easier to taze, then try to resolve the situation non-violently, and it's safer to zap-zap-zap to bring someone down then restrain them otherwise.

The impression is that it is a non-lethal, harmless, weapon - it is hence used as a magic bullet to resolve all kinds of situations where it was unwarranted.

Thats a pretty broad paintbrush you have there.

[Artega]

I didn't ask you if it would be likely to happen or not - I asked you which you would prefer.

Negotiations will not work on people that are not thinking rationally, or cannot understand you. If you're speaking English and he's speaking French, negotiation is not possible. If he or she is in a state of distress to the point where he or she is not thinking rationally, negotiation is not possible. Under those circumstances, using a taser forces them to sit down, shut up, and listen. Of course, it does that under any circumstance.

The correct term for weapons like tasers is "less-than-lethal." This label is also applied to grenades filled with rubber balls and bits, rifles and handguns using rubber bullets, and beanbag shotguns, among other gadgets. These weapons are not guaranteed to be non-fatal - being shot in the chest with a heavy beanbag or little bitty rubber bullet are probably going to merely incapacitate, but there's a chance that they could trigger a pre-existing condition or have one of those "one in a million" chances of causing fatal injuries. Because the amperage is low, tasers are unlikely to be fatal or to even produce long-lasting effects, but you are jolting someone with 50,000 volts of electricity - possibly multiple times in a short amount of time, in some cases - and both heart and brain operate with electrical currents. It's possible that that sudden surge in electrical current could disrupt their cycles, but I'm just guessing at that - those people could have died from something completely unrelated.

[Taem]

Speaking of Best Buy, Women Files $54 Million Dollar Lawsuit Against Best Buy for Losing Her Laptop.
This whole exchange is rather comical. First off, whose the bright bulb to offer her a 900$ gift card for a item worth 1100$ which is still under the store's extended warranty?

Not dropping the case to teach Best Buy a lesson about privacy? Call me a cynic, but you can show as many informational videos, have special in store meetings, and draft as many internal memos as you want, but it's not going to change anything about accountability in a company that large.

I don't even need to touch the 54 million dollar question.

And I may not win any friends by saying this, but she deserves some of the blame for not taking out her HD before bringing it in for service. I've never had to deal with a retail store, but anytime I've sent in a laptop for service there's never been a problem with keeping the HD at home (moreover, IBM was kind enough to suggest it, specifically for the liability/data loss prevention issue).

Cheers,

Munk

PS. Wasn't the 8 Figure Pants judge from the DC area too? Must be something in the water...:P

EDIT: Turns out there's more to the story, and surprise surprise I was wrong. You can read the other article over at Arstechnica. Not only does she openly admit the 54million is to attract media attention and she in fact only wants the value of the laptop + expenses, it even mentions how Best Buy is in hot water over not explaining the possible data-loss.

If you need me, I'll be over here trying to pull my foot out of my mouth.

It seems no one is interested in our little observation. It's strange how when I made my post, there weren't any other posts about this subject, so I made mine. I can see that my post is before yours on the threaded view, however your post is time stamped before mine. Strange... Whatever, still seems people are more interested in tasers than scandals, :lol:.

[Munkay]

It seems no one is interested in our little observation. It's strange how when I made my post, there weren't any other posts about this subject, so I made mine. I can see that my post is before yours on the threaded view, however your post is time stamped before mine. Strange... Whatever, still seems people are more interested in tasers than scandals, :lol:.

Maybe we need to go back and spice up the story. Include something dangerous, or possibly even death.

New headline "Woman Sues Bestbuy for 54 Million after they lose her laptop, and she goes on a tasering rampage, leaving one Geek Squad member in critical care"

:lol:

Cheers,

Munk

[Mithrandir]

So you'd rather be shot with a 9mm bullet or whacked repeatedly with a nightstick if you're being unreasonable?

I think I'd rather just be alive. I don't like my chances if a bunch of psycho, wannabe-cowboys are running around using semi-lethal gadgets pell-mell rather than negotiating.

Regarding the case of the disturbed Polish immigrant in the Vancouver airport, I find it difficult to believe that they could not find a single individual in the entire complex capable of communicating with this individual. Apparently they were able to communicate to hold with him long enough to hold him in immigration processing for several hours.

Don't get me wrong, I completely agree that cooperating with police officers is important. I just think it's scary when obviously-disturbed individuals are electrocuted to death with no attempt to negotiate with them in their native language, people are tasered during routine traffic stops, etc.

To echo above sentiments, I think RH pretty much hit it on the head.

[kandrathe]

I didn't ask you if it would be likely to happen or not - I asked you which you would prefer.

The difficulty the police face is that frequently the suspect is incoherent due to some drug cocktail, so rather than kill someone who's merely high and making a public nuisance they would like to just subdue them. I would say that the in this case the alternative that Tal suggested of the woman escaping with her potentially stolen goods is the optimistic scenario, more often in a circumstance like this the perpetrator pulls a gun and takes out the cop and a few innocent bystanders. That is why the officer needs to assess the options given the situation on the ground and make their best judgment. All incidents should be reviewed by an impartial panel to prevent sadists from taking their hostilities out on the populace, but then I would argue that sadists should be never given the badge in the first place. I'm uncomfortable condemning an officer, or a device based on a poor quality store video and some anecdotal evidence.

In the interest of full disclosure, my grandfather was a cop for 30 years before the advent of tazers and never had to shoot anyone. Now, the stories he would tell about when he had to use his billy club would curdle your Wheaties.

[Swiss Mercenary]

I didn't ask you if it would be likely to happen or not - I asked you which you would prefer.

Except that this isn't an A or B situation. It's an A or B or C one. Prior to the invention of A, it was B or C... Predominantly C. Now it seems to be turning to predominantly A.

I think Tasers are useful tools... But it's clear to me that they aren't being used right. Isolated examples? Maybe. Then again, "Innocent tasered survives, when they could have been talked to" usually doesn't make the news.

Negotiations will not work on people that are not thinking rationally, or cannot understand you. If you're speaking English and he's speaking French, negotiation is not possible.

So find a bloody French speaker. You're in an airport, for Pete's sakes. He isn't a threat to anyone around him. He isn't trying to escape. He isn't reaching for weapons. He isn't doing anything hostile.

If he or she is in a state of distress to the point where he or she is not thinking rationally, negotiation is not possible. Under those circumstances, using a taser forces them to sit down, shut up, and listen. Of course, it does that under any circumstance.

Or it causes a fatal heart attack. The "They would have died to their condition anyways" excuse is unacceptable. We're all going to die. Doesn't give the police the right to hurry us along on that road, when we aren't a threat to anyone.

Policing protocol follows an escalation of force... Negotiation -> Manual restraint -> Club/Taser -> Shooting.

What happened in that case, is no real attempt was made at negotiation or manual restraint, and it was immediately escalated to tasering. And just that seems to happen more and more often.

You can say that these people can't be talked to all you want, but when the cop only makes a half-assed attempt at talking them down, your words sound pretty hollow.

The correct term for weapons like tasers is "less-than-lethal." This label is also applied to grenades filled with rubber balls and bits, rifles and handguns using rubber bullets, and beanbag shotguns, among other gadgets.

I'd say that rubber grenades and beanbag shotguns typically aren't used, nor should they be used on people that are of no harm to anyone around them.


"Protect and Serve" doesn't mean "Beat the ----- out of anyone who doesn't immediately curl up in a fetal position", as somebody put said earlier.

[kandrathe]

I think I'd rather just be alive. I don't like my chances if a bunch of psycho, wannabe-cowboys are running around using semi-lethal gadgets pell-mell rather than negotiating.

Regarding the case of the disturbed Polish immigrant in the Vancouver airport, I find it difficult to believe that they could not find a single individual in the entire complex capable of communicating with this individual. Apparently they were able to communicate to hold with him long enough to hold him in immigration processing for several hours.

Don't get me wrong, I completely agree that cooperating with police officers is important. I just think it's scary when obviously-disturbed individuals are electrocuted to death with no attempt to negotiate with them in their native language, people are tasered during routine traffic stops, etc.

To echo above sentiments, I think RH pretty much hit it on the head.

Would you think that the propensity to negotiate would change much from an officer wielding a gun versus a Tazer? If the problem is lack of negotiating skills, changing the means of enforcement seems fruitless. That is until the day when we invent the pink feathery "Tickle Wand" which subdues anyone into a quivering pile of giggling goo. It would be nice if all unreasonable people would listen to negotiations, but it seems listening skills are not taught much either.

[Nystul]

I think gun vs. taser is apples and oranges. Law enforcement should never wield a gun against an unarmed individual, period. Taser is more comparable to the baton. To me, they are six of one and half dozen of the other. Taser takes the physical superiority issue off the table to some extent.. in that regard they are indeed like firearms. It did appear in this video that the officer was not in need of any of these things. I think the lady in this case could have been tackled (for lack of a better word) and cuffed, but then she would have been kicking and screaming and it would still end up on You Tube as supposed police brutality. It must be hard to "negotiate" with someone who is trying to run away from you.

Am I the only one who still considers the possibility that this lady was in fact a thief? Back when I was a youngster working at K-Mart, I had a situation where a customer managed to get some petty stuff for free by writing a bad check while their partner casually took the bag and walked out. Her photo ID matched the check and everything. They probably had plausible deniability if they got caught, and assumed the store won't run the investigation needed to recoup so little cash? It seemed so stupid at the time that I remember it years later.

Credit card declines are rare, and usually happen for a reason (not activated, not paid, etc). What are the odds of getting an emergency phone call right when you are checking out, and having your credit just happen to get declined? Combine those odds with the officer just happening to be there with a taser, and this must be the worst run of luck at a Best Buy since the day the Wiis sold out.

[Swiss Mercenary]

Would you think that the propensity to negotiate would change much from an officer wielding a gun versus a Tazer?

When people are held responsible for what happens when they shoot someone, I'll wager that their negotiating skills will suddenly, miracilously improve.

When an officer shoots someone they shouldn't have, we (ideally) hold them accountable. When an officer tasers someone they shouldn't have... They don't even get a slap on the wrist.

If the problem is lack of negotiating skills, changing the means of enforcement seems fruitless.

They do have negotiating skills, unless, of course, we want to bring their training into suspect.

They just choose not to use them, when they could run with a faster, easier, no strings-attached (To them) alternative.

It would be nice if all unreasonable people would listen to negotiations, but it seems listening skills are not taught much either.

Sometimes use of force is unavoidable. However, force should never be the first step... Or even the second step, if the negotiation step was handled as a pure formality.