Yeah, yeah ... being killed by a Taser ... whatever:
It's amusing to note the regularity with which poor "Neo Conservative" finds something that causes more than 4 or 5 deaths a year, then uses that to downplay the number of people who die by Taser, as if the first somehow diminishes the second.
It's almost as if Neo realizes just how grotesque and classless he sounded when he first contemptuously dismissed those Taser deaths and is now desperately trying to make up for it by downplaying them over and over and over again, hoping against hope that people finally start to see things from his deranged perspective.
Or maybe I'm completely off-base here. After all, I've been wrong before.
Actually, no, I haven't. Scratch that.
P.S. It's somewhat amusing to note that Neo seems terminally unconcerned about 4 or 5 Taser deaths a year but, hokey smoke, Bullwinkle, he's sure got his Incredible Hulk Underoos in a bunch over these two victims. What might be so special about those two that would make Neo sit up, take notice and shriek his outrage from the parapets? What could it possibly be? Hmmmmmmmmm? Give it time, it'll come to you.
P.P.S. Just for fun, let's see if Neo is capable of a snappy, relevant, issue-related comeback, or whether he's going to fall back on that thoroughly tedious and paralogical "Canadian Cecilia" idiocy. I'm voting for the tedious paralogia. Let's watch.
Stephen Taylor must be so proud.
UPPITYSNARKDATE: As I've pointed out before, if Neo wants to downplay 4 or 5 deaths a year compared to thousands, then, by precisely the same logic, we can discount the dozens of Canadian military who are killed each year in Afghanistan. I mean, geez, it's been a total of, what, around 80? Pshaw. What's the big deal?
What? You don't like that dismissive attitude? Then go take it up with Neo, and don't bug me about it.
12 comments:
My guess is the 4 or 5 were breaking the law when trasered and the two that died were innocent victims. Huge difference.
My guess is the 4 or 5 were breaking the law when trasered and the two that died were innocent victims. Huge difference.
By Blogger Wayne, at 1:04 PM
Well if we're going to be executing people for minor infractions of crimes why not just shoot them with the officer's sidearm?
Like that Polish dude in that airport in Canada? If they just shot him because he was a foreigner instead of bashing his damned head in with a nightstick then it would have been so much cleaner right?
Good point, Wayne, since there's clearly no chance of any "innocent victims" ever being Tasered to death. Thanks for clearing that up for us. Now put your hockey helmet back on and go watch TV. There's a good boy.
Wayne: the silent conjunction that joins dunder to head.
so can any infraction of the law be met with death, wayne?
damn, and i though Judge Dredd was just a comic book and a bad Stallone move ... which goes a long way to explaining wayne's attitude ...
Ti Christophe said...
"so can any infraction of the law be met with death, wayne?"
Of course not.
We have to make sure that officers are trained to use tasers properly.
Tasers are a great tool in my opinion, I have a feeling you don't agree.
We can't live in some Dirty Harry world, tasers save lives.
I thought Wayne had been banished to the darkside of his own lonely planet a while back. Does he deserve a reprieve to dribble out his invariably inane observations?
He was amusing me with his vapid incoherence but, you're right, he's just a waste of comment space and phosphor.
Go away, Wayne ... if people want to know what you think, they know where to find you.
Who knows... maybe they could even be the first person to post a comment over there!
yo Wayne:
"We have to make sure that officers are trained to use tasers properly."
ummm, that's part of the problem: THEY ARE NOT.
BUT you made the assumption in your comment that the people in question were breaking the law and that the use of the taser was justified, hence you opened yourself up to our snark.
The cops and the taser people ALWAYS say "tasers save lives". Well, ya know what? The burden of proof is on them (and you too because you also made that statement). Pony up, bub!
I want to see a statistical breakdown of lives saved & lives lost as a function of taser usage by the bull. No funny statements involving "potential lives saved" either. That's a copout (pardon the pun). Also, any stats from taser corp itself are not valid as they stand in a conflict-of-interest.
Until then, I stand by my claim that they are dangerous and unnecessary.
... or else you can just say that your original comment was flippant and not very intelligent ...
I'll take either.
"that's part of the problem: THEY ARE NOT."
are they not?
KEvron
We can't live in some Dirty Harry world, tasers save lives.
By Blogger Wayne, at 2:09 PM
I would assume that proper training would not include a seminar entitled : "How to bash in the skull of a subdued opponent and get away with the murder."
I happen to agree with the use of tasers. But I also happen to believe that you should be matching force with force. IE: You don't bust out a taser when you don't have a subject with a weapon or when you have a subject that you and your six fellow officers can subdue. Tasers aren't a substitute for responsibility, good police work and accountability.
You can accidentally ( or deliberately ) kill someone with almost anything, especially when it is misused. Getting taser happy on people COSTS lives and these aren't the potential lives that the right wing whines on about, these are actual lives.
Post a Comment