As opposed to the entire populace of the USA which want to be gate-raped by the TSA, want to be locked up indefinitely without trial in Gitmo, and consider it the lesser evil that innocent children should die rather than american men with small penises give up their gun-toys.
Or perhaps there's a *populace* that is outraged by all these things, but a *government* that implements them. On both sides of the pond.
Simon.
I'd have thought that was clear from the last paragraph. I'm from the UK. I've lived here for almost a decade now, long enough to gain an informed view, I think.
Simon.
Let me be clear here. I'm very much against guns being as prolific as they are. The bullshit defeatist "if guns are illegal, only criminals will have them" argument is so abundantly wrong-headed it defies belief, IMHO. Just look at the gun statistics in England compared to the the US and you have a compelling argument.
However.
When you're looking for reasons why one society in particular has a record of atrocities like this, the first place to look is what makes that society unique. The famous NRA quote "It's not guns that kill people, people kill people" was an attempt to deflect criticism of the penis-extensions^W^W guns generally available (to which my and Eddie's retort is "sure, but the gun helps!"), but like all good propaganda it contains a kernel of truth. The real question then is "why are these people killing each other ?"
The real reason people are using guns to kill themselves and others is the society that they live in. The cold hard truth is that guns are available worldwide, and yet it's a peculiarly American thing (with some outliers) to go crazy and kill a bunch of children/people using your personal arsenal. What's wrong is deeper, I believe.
IMHO American society is in a slow but inevitable death spiral...
It's hard to reconcile that Americans give generously to charities with the first two points above, unless it's just Democrats doing the giving; which is unlikely
Religion also plays its part. The society is highly religious, relative to the developed world but religion here in the US is a business like any other. The prime goal is not to try and guide society in the right direction, it's to funnel cash to the higher-ups in the religious power structure. People are told they're doing the right thing as long as the cash is flowing upwards,and the "church"'s goal is simply to continue to make sure that is the case. Upon examination, it's a good metaphor for what's wrong in the more-general society.
It adds up to an uncaring society, and I can see how anyone stuck on the lower rungs with seemingly no prospect of getting higher up could reject it, and similarly reject the rest of the social rules we all expect to be obeyed. There's no golden solution here, no panacea, you're not guaranteed anything will ever be perfect, but if the society had more general welfare built in, it's my personal belief there'd be less atrocities.
A society is by definition a group of people collectively living by a set of rules. Ask any evolutionary theorist what's important, and (s)he'll tell you it's the rules of the game and the boundary conditions imposed by the environment. The environment in the USA needs a lot of attention IMHO. It's forcing the society down some unwholesomely bad paths.
Just IMHO, as an outsider looking in. Unlike most, I'm not stuck here. I've made no secret of the fact that I doubt I'll be staying here much longer. The above is why.
Simon.
Tasers kill in very rare cases.
Not so rare. So far it seems we're up to 758 or more.
If the officers had tried to man-handle this lady, that could also result in death. Just as unlikely.
Nowhere near. Find me a statistic that says police officers have killed 750+ people by picking them up and force-walking them to the squad car. This is a quote that's often bandied around, but it has no substance - weasel words like "could" creep in so that the intent of the phrase is actually to mislead rather than communicate.
But man-handling could very likely cause non-lethal injury to both her and the officers. That's why I said that the officers were in a no-win situation. The blame here, from what is known, should be solely on the suspect. She refused to leave. She wrestled with the officers as they attempted to handcuff her. Once she was finally in custody, she was bailed out and sent home. It was her choice to refuse to leave. It was her choice to resist arrest. I saw news footage of her at home that very night, she's fine. Of course she's playing it up as best she can, I'm sure she'll be filing law suits any day now.
As she should. There should never be a need for two heavily armed and well-trained men to electrocute one small woman in order to get her second arm into handcuffs.
"You are *not* supposed to use them like glorified cattle prods[.]"
There's nothing to indicate the police used the taser for such a reason. They used it to subdue a subject that was physically resisting arrest. That's what they're for.
No. It's not. These weapons are replacements for when an officer would otherwise shoot the suspect, they are still lethal weapons, they just don't kill as often as bullets do. That was their stated benefit. The slippery slope was too much, and now they're used *exactly* as I described - as cattle prods to subdue anyone making the police officers job anything but simple.
It doesn't appear that she was harmed, otherwise the footage that night would have been from a hospital bed.
Which is irrelevant. It is the principle that is outrageous here, not the specific case.
The officers don't appear to have been harmed either. The device worked.
Your anecdote adds little. We don't know precisely what led to the take-down. The video that circulated conveniently left that part out. For all we know, the officers did attempt to take control the same way you describe. That approach isn't always going to work, especially if she intended to cause trouble. The taser was the officer's truncheon. I'd argue it's less violent, there's no impact.
You're missing my point completely. The UK police *carry* truncheons as a part of the symbol of their authority. They very rarely get *used*. The US police appear to electrocute people who they really have no reason to. There is a massive difference there.
As for violence, the violence of the act has nothing to do with the impact potential, it has to do with the potential for damage. Strangling someone is seen as worse than breaking their leg. Being electrocuted is worse than getting a bruised arm (bones are significantly harder to break than you seem to think) because of the much greater possibility of killing the suspect.
Electric shock isn't fun, but any effects dissipate rapidly.
Sure. If it doesn't kill you.
As for firearms, that was not an element of the story, so why even bring it up? Makes me think you might be participating in this discussion mostly because you don't agree with the way our society functions. You should understand that to many of us, your officers running around without firearms is probably as appalling as you view our own. I have no issue with a well-armed citizenry. I fear a government that forbids it.
The firearms was relevant in the context of the other site, but be that as it may, I fail to see how an unarmed policeman who can't (and won't) electrocute you is appalling compared to an armed policeman who can and does.
You're correct, by the way. I used to be far more pro- the USA than I am having lived here for almost a decade. At the moment, I'm not really sure your society does function. It gets by, and from my perspective it seems to be eating itself to do so. I'm presumably someone the US wants very much to stay here - I pay a lot of taxes for example, but I'm seriously starting to think about the exit strategy. Maybe the year coming, maybe the year after, but I'm not long for this place.
Policeman 1 grabs the left arm while policeman 2 grabs the right arm. How exactly does she "whip out a knife" with both arms held ?
This is marked up ? Seriously ?
I've read of countless cases where someone has died as a direct result of being electrocuted with a taser, even though the company tries to cover it up as much as possible. I've never heard of anyone dying due to a wrenched shoulder. I've also never come across a "tiny chinese woman" who I thought would be too much of a problem to escort firmly but non-violently to the nearest squad car. Just grab hold and start walking, for $deity's sake. Mass and Physics will do their thing and your problem is solved.
Tasers are "less-lethal" weapons, designed to replace when you would open fire on someone. You are *not* supposed to use them like glorified cattle prods, to herd people to your desired goal. They kill, just less often than bullets do.
This was my comment on the same subject on a different website...
From the UK here. Used to work in a pub (a bar for all you yanks). Our policemen don't carry guns, but they do have night-sticks. Contrary to popular US opinion, UK society isn't the land of Madam Georgian Roses, we have our own confrontations especially when the pubs get to letting-out time.
I've seen many, many confrontations over the years, between police and drunken hefty 250-lbs 6'-something tall men, never mind small 40-year old women. You know what the vast majority of those encounters had in common ? Very little violence. Zero electrocutions. Everyone walking away under their own power.
I've seen a relatively small policewoman cowe a group of rowdy drunks on her lonesome, just because of the way she talked, the way she stood, and her manner of being in total control of the situation. She got my (and their) respect because she deserved it, and she knew it. They knew they could beat the crap out of her if they wanted to, she knew it too, but the results of that would not be pretty for the drunks, and both of them knew that too. That was all the leverage she needed.
That comes from a populace that has a genuine respect for the law as a whole, and not just a fear of draconian sentences, brutal "takedowns" and electrocution. In a peculiarly British fashion we arm our police with the respect they need to do their jobs well, by arming them with next to nothing else. You can either do as you're told by the policeman with a truncheon, or you can escalate. Escalation almost never works out, so you do as you're told and everything stays civil. Mostly. In any event it fosters a society that doesn't reach for lethal weapons as soon as there's any sort of confrontation. This, I feel, is a good thing.
Giving policemen guns is an easy argument to make soundbites from, but a terrible thing to do. Giving them tasers just makes them *more* likely to hurt someone seriously, not less.
Simon.
Re: Britain. Ancient history.
Just like the US genocide towards the native Americans, or the imposition of slavery across half a continent. No man is responsible for the sins of his father, so what we're talking about is what *this* generation has done. In that regard, the US is adjudged to be sorely lacking.
Simon.
I'm assuming your "talk about hyperbole" is in fact a response to your previous paragraph ? Right ? Right ?
Because if it's not, there's something seriously wrong with your world-view...
Simon
Well, at least in the UK, that was very much against public sentiment, and the fucker lost his government because of it.
Simon.
Right. They have no place going to an ER for a "runny nose". They go to ER because they can't go to a doctor because they have no insurance and its way too expensive. If there was universal healthcare, they'd not be going to ER, they'd go to their (no cost) doctor, get a (maximum price $7) prescription for what ails them, and go home. This leaves ER to be far more productive for genuine emergencies.
So in fact, the future with genuine universal healthcare is the exact opposite of what you suggest - free doctor's visits, low-price prescriptions for any quantity of prescribed medicines, and a far more efficient ER. This is *exactly* how it works in the UK.
Side benefits: no such thing as recission, no such thing as "pre-existing condition", no co-pays, far cheaper (about 1/2 the cost of the current US system), not tied to an employer's plan.
Also: if you don't like the way the healthcare system is working, you can vote out the government that's screwing it up, and vote for the guy who says he'll fix it. This happened in the UK. Or you can have policy changed via petitions to your government representative. That also happened in the UK. Imagine trying to persuade a health-insurance company that they ought to cough up for a new drug treatment that they previously vetoed, and then having every *other* health insurance company bound to also support that new drug treatment once you'd persuaded one of them. This is the power of centralised healthcare. In case it's not obvious,this happened too, in the UK.
Simon. (There's none so blind as those that don't want to see!)
1) The US starts the clock one a breath is made by the child. Other European countries use weight, length, and some other factors to determine when life starts. With the US saving so many premature and all of them counting when they die from being so premature it lowers the US numbers. Also death counting is different, US counts all people who die on its soil for other countries they don't count non-citizens.
I see this over and over from those defending the US position. It's just not true for (at least) the western world. If you prefer, use your own CIA's normalised statistics for "life expectancy at birth": (ie: all these are accounted for in the same way, mainly because there's no point in having statistics in the same database that aren't comparable)
USA: 78.49 years
UK: 80.17 years
Germany: 80.19 years
France: 81.46 years
I have experience with the UK's system and with the US system. I would take the UK system in a heartbeat. If you want a *much* more nuanced and in-depth overview from a US-born writer, I suggest you look here. Spoiler: She comes to the same conclusion; there is a lot to be had from a healthcare system that is ubiquitous and free at the point of need, not to mention that it's not tied to any employer, and that there is no such thing as "recission" (a true evil if ever there was one) and there's no such thing as a "pre-existing condition".
We all get sick or injured. Leaving the decision over whether you'll get treatment to a company that now regards you as a drain on profits is not a good idea. Where I come from, healthcare is a right. The idea that someone would not receive treatment because they're too poor, or that they have to choose which finger to have sewn back on because they can't afford both is repulsive to me. Seriously and utterly horrifying.
Simon.
From the court case, we saw that Samsung lies about how many it has "shipped". Colour me unimpressed.
Simon
As opposed to those that committed genocide within their own country and instituted slavery for another ethnic population, you mean ?
I'm not one to visit the sins of the father unto the Nth generation, I think actions are the responsibility of the individual/entity that does them. I don't think any other approach makes sense, so I don't blame the current US citizens for what happened in historical times. I also don't blame current Europeans for actions that happened donkey's years ago...
IMHO, if you do, you either have a chip on your shoulder, or you're nuts.
Simon.
Right, I'm talking about a cop executing a handcuffed helpless suspect [warning. Graphic.] and the lack of respect for the law that "peace officers" show; about the TSA, just the very fact of its existence; about the demagoguery that passes for news and its knock-on effects on society; about the constant military action taken to divert attention from problems; about the massive debt and crippled economy; about the shameful lack of a decent for-all healthcare system; about the proliferation of lethal weapons that for some reason is enshrined in the country's constitution!, and the horrendous murder statistics that it produces; about the general sense inherent in US society that "everything's ok as long as *I'm* ok, screw you guys"
And your point is that the "national brand" is good. Well whoopy-do. That's all right then. Phew! Glad *that*'s sorted out!
Simon.
Jesus, tunnel vision much ?
Look it's nothing to do with GPS vs Galileo. It's to do with the USA, a nuclear power, declaring war left, right and center, & invading other countries basically because it can. No-one likes that; international reputation suffers, trust is lost, and consequences ensue. There's no point in getting pissy about it, you brought it on yourselves.
I don't think Europeans are innately superior. I think people are just people, wherever you are. I'm married to an American woman, whom I love dearly. I do think the USA is fucked though, the society is (IMHO) past the tipping point and heading down, and I can't see myself staying around much longer, as I've said before on this site. At some point, the money just ain't worth it.
Simon
Arithmetic is being able to count up to twenty without taking off your shoes. -- Mickey Mouse
