Free Republic

JesseHousman writes:
>>Actually, I was referring to the intoxicated, cigar-smoking 12 year old that was running from the officer and ready to dash across a busy intersection. There were two stories I had posted the other day and this wasn't the one I wanted to link to.<<

No problem. I extracted what I wanted anyway. I also regret my error in attributing your post and link to freepatriot32 instead of you. I apologize to both of you.

freepatriot32 writes:
>>http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/10170605.htm?template=contentModules/printstory.jsp<<

From the story cited above:

>"When you have a 6-year-old who is on medication and very disturbed, maybe some of that crisis intervention training would be very handy," he said, referring to a program that teaches officers how to deal with the mentally ill.<

The Los Angeles Times reported 6/5/2004 that about 40 people nationally have died as a result of Taser use since 1999. Although the manufacturer claims these deaths are a result of other causes, Taser International training materials curiously describe the device as "less lethal," not "non-lethal." There has been no thorough, independent and impartial evaluation of the medical effects, much less the psychological effects, of electro-shock weapons like the Taser.

The company claims the deaths were the result of other causes and does NOT acknowledge that taser shocking could have CONTRIBUTED to the deaths. Those other causes, according to Taser International are mainly the result of adult drug use, especially cocaine and amphetamines, both stimulants.

Now we find out the 6 year old boy was on "medication". Like Ritalin maybe, a DEA Schedule II prescription stimulant commonly given to kids nowadays? Instead of "given" perhaps I should say "force-fed" by the authorities to make them "controllable"

The plot thickens.

mvpel writes:
>>The right thing to do was to use the least possible amount of force necessary to keep him from hurting himself any further, or anyone else, and that's exactly what the Taser provided.<<

I doubt seriously the effects of EMD police tasers have been tested on 6 year olds since I also doubt seriously they were ever intended to be used against them. If you can come up with a SINGLE legitimate study regarding same I'd like to know about it. Taser.org claims no child has ever been involved in a test and also claim they have nothing to offer that is strictly scientific regarding children.

In fact, I am unable to find any documented, controlled, independent medical studies, other than claims by the company, regarding the taser and adults. I have been looking for one and no luck so far. I'd appreciate any input you can offer. Taser International is the monopoly company that markets the M-26 and X-26 Taser to police and M-18 which is also popular with civilians.

The more I check into this the more I discover the reputable medical evidence about the safety of the Taser is uncertain and inconclusive at best while police are using them more and more under questionable circumstances. Taser use in Tucson, AZ is being seriously questioned after a police sergeant used a taser last July to "pacify" a 9 year old handcuffed, hospitalized, female mental patient and the LA Times reported June 5, 2004, that a local Los Angeles hospital is at risk of losing its federal Medicaid funding because it relies on police Taser use to subdue psychiatric patients. The Portland Oregon PD has banned the use of tasers by police on pregnant women, the elderly and children and the Minneapolis PD is considering the same.

IMO the risk of damage caused by some minor rough physical handling is less than the unknown risk posed by using a taser on a 6 year old.

I'm suggesting the police should have used past PROVEN techniques and the minimum amount of physical force required to "subdue" the child. Since you want to speculate, had the child died from the taser jolt due to, let's say, a cardiac, respiratory or convulsive disorder what would you be saying now?

>>All this drama over "50,000 volts" misses the crucial issue that it is a few ten-thousandths of an amp, designed to override the electrical impulses of the central nervous system.
A solid static shock from a doorknob on a dry day after shuffling across a carpet can be as high as 12,000 volts, and you don't even feel static until it gets to 1,500 volts. <<

I am a retired Electronics Engineer and am not unfamiliar with the effects of electricity on the human body. Static electricity effects are not the same as the Electro Muscular Disruption cause by the "T-Waves" induced by the taser. You've probably seen the old classroom demonstrations using a 250,000 volt static electricity Van de Graff generator that cause a students' hair to stand on end and no other effects at all including any to the Central Nervous System or muscles that a taser is designed to cause.

mvpel writes:
>>Could you please explain in specific detail, step by step, how you would have taken down an angry six-year-old waving around a sharp piece of glass with which he's already cut himself a few times, without using a Taser?<<

From the news article:

"The cop caught him before he hit the floor."

That's pretty quick. The Tueller Drill, which I teach in my CCW classes, indicates that most any adult can cover a distance of 21 feet from a standing start in appx 1.5 seconds. How far away you figure those 3 cops were from the 6 year old if one could catch him before he dropped from a taser hit which is almost immediate, even in the case of a large unruly adult male, using modern police EMD tasers.

Distract the kid with a loud noise or shouting his name from one direction and from the other direction a prepared officer rushes the kid and grabs the arm of the hand holding the glass. Even on the very remote chance the kid has a chance to turn even a 6 year old will start to react instinctively against a surprise oncoming threat rather than to purposely cut himself, but then that might present some risk to the officer.

These "trained" officers were adults possessing common sense?

Anger management and violence reduction classes taught to kids, by police and/or teachers, stress talking and de-escalating a situation IRT conflict resolution. That's what we tell the kids to do themselves. In this case however we bring in 3 armed uniformed cops in addition to a security guard and the "child educators" already in the room with a disturbed/distraught child to "calm things down".

Sinclair wants comments? Fine. Here is my letter to them sent this morning.

comments@sbgi.net

WHAT POW Story and Why Am I Not Surprised?

A few weeks ago I sent you a letter commending your courage to broadcast "Stolen Honor". Now, like the Vichy government of 1940 France, a country John Kerry is so enamored with, you capitulated without a fight.

Once again the establishment media has taken the path of least resistance in an effort to avoid controversy and be politically correct. Thank you for hoodwinking your viewers. Worse, to run a "bait and switch" as you did. I trust your accountants are pleased with all the free national publicity your scam generated. The sponsors of that Pablum program must be celebrating today.

The moral relativism displayed in your broadcast was astonishing to behold. To equate or even compare in the same program the disastrous effects of the FACTUAL John Kerry Senate testimony regarding Vietnam troopers with some alleged "missed drills" in Alabama by George Bush is so far beyond the pale as to be downright revolting. I could go on listing the distortions and deconstructions you presented but what would be the point? I have seen the original “Stolen Honor”.

Sinclair has reaffirmed my total distrust of the broadcast media to present anything even remotely resembling the truth. Fact and fiction blur in the interests of "fairness", "balance" and not offending anyone. What our POW's in Hanoi experienced was REAL and is extensively documented. They displayed all the courage, honor and sacrifice this country was founded on, not the cowardice so evident in your sellout to shyster lawyers and Democratic Party political hit-men. Had our Founders displayed the qualities that Sinclair has exhibited, we'd be living as subjects under British rule today and saluting the Union Jack.

But what the hell, Vietnam was a long time ago and over there, and as such presents no threat to your corporate viability. So keep on sugar coating your broadcasts. Why take risks in the interest of truth? Continue to feed the public moronic Sitcom's and sanitized garbage disguised as “news”.

Reflect on this though. I am witnessing the same type of "reporting" regarding our present war on terrorism. THAT war has already been here. The 360-foot television mast that was once atop Tower One of the World Trade Center no longer exists. Its remnants were carted away with the rest of the rubble and the body parts that were never found. Ten television stations in the NYC metropolitan area, including all the major networks, used to broadcast from that mast. Will it take a terrorist bomb on YOUR doorstep for you to wake up, smell the C-4 and show some courage in your corporate decisions, even if it upsets International ANSWER, Hollywood bigwigs, poltroon politicians, and trial lawyers dedicated to the appeasement and comfort of our sworn enemies and/or their own aggrandizement.

The "saviors" in the groups above, now including Sinclair, perversely turn Santayana's famous warning inside out. They refuse to learn from history because they WANT to repeat it. The IDEAS were sound, they invoke in different terms, it was only the methods that needed slight refining.
It will be different this time. They have learned from all that. They will do it right. They are more enlightened, they are more educated, they are more compassionate. They understand and care more; they are the CHOSEN. They only want peace, fairness and to make the world a better place. Had FDR and Churchill felt that way you might be all be working for bosses wearing Nazi or IJA jackboots instead of drinking martinis at dinner parties in Maryland and checking your corporate bottom line in the “Wall Street Journal”.