Google Image Search

Status
Not open for further replies.
Schizophrenic thread!

threadderail1953.jpg
 
dmpoole said:
And yes a 10 year old should not be tasered but ..........
Click to expand...
No, there's no buts. A 10 year old is a child. What has caused this child to become such a nuisance? It is one of either two things - the environment she has grown up in, or a psychiatric problem. Her parents and the rest of society hold some responsibility for the environment, and we stopped electrocuting psychiatric patients some time ago. Aside from the fact that this child is likely completely ignorant of her own problems, and that she is 10 years old, there is very little reason to taser someone who can be safely controlled by other means.
dmpoole said:
I know 100% the damage kids can do to adults and if they can carry violence out they can take the punishment that goes with it.
In this country we are way too soft.
Click to expand...
I am very sure that a child can damage an adult. However, I refuse to believe then when it comes to 10 year old female child versus fully grown adult male, trained, prepared and ready police officer (that could even wear armour), that a taser is the only option. The taser is the easy option. The taser is the option that reduces the risk of the officer receiving a bruised rib. Well, I'm sorry, but unless the child is about to seriously injure or kill, it should not be electrocuted in to complying. It's barbaric. Where do you draw the line? Getting the police to electrocute your children because they didn't eat their carrots?

For the police officer to be taken out by the child, is the equivalent of a lion being beaten up by a lioness cub. The muscular structure of a human male is sufficient to subdue a 10 year old girl.
 
PMKeates said:
No, there's no buts. A 10 year old is a child. What has caused this child to become such a nuisance? It is one of either two things - the environment she has grown up in, or a psychiatric problem. Her parents and the rest of society hold some responsibility for the environment, and we stopped electrocuting psychiatric patients some time ago. Aside from the fact that this child is likely completely ignorant of her own problems, and that she is 10 years old, there is very little reason to taser someone who can be safely controlled by other means.
Click to expand...

You make an excellent point and no doubt you are 100% correct in your analysis but what exactly are these 'other means'.
Remember the full story :
1) Her Mother got to the point where she had to call the Police to control her (this tells a story on its own)
2) One Policeman turns up
3) She is now out of control and a danger to herself
4) The Policeman has been in this situation before and knows what could happen
5) Mother agrees that he can give her a mild stun
6) He complies and it calms her down and they send her off to an institution again

So in that situation, she is going off one one, what other means can he attempt to keep her, the Mother and himself safe?

You also make a point of age again - a 10 year old child as though she should be exempt for her actions and especially since the environment has failed her.
Does this mean you also think that Jamie Bulger's killers should have been exempt?
(At one time they would have been until the age of 12 but the Bulger case changed all that)

MattTheTall77 said:
ok, I'm either hallucinating or there are posts about tasering amongst the ones about google image search, am I going slightly crazy? Wasn't that topic weeks/a month or two ago??
Click to expand...

If you look further up somebody got upset because some of us had seen the new Google Image page for a while and he/she decided to bring up an old post of mine on tasering :confused::confused::confused:

Brilliant :)
They must have been drinking.
 
Last edited:
PMKeates said:
No, there's no buts. A 10 year old is a child. What has caused this child to become such a nuisance? It is one of either two things - the environment she has grown up in, or a psychiatric problem. Her parents and the rest of society hold some responsibility for the environment, and we stopped electrocuting psychiatric patients some time ago. Aside from the fact that this child is likely completely ignorant of her own problems, and that she is 10 years old, there is very little reason to taser someone who can be safely controlled by other means.I am very sure that a child can damage an adult. However, I refuse to believe then when it comes to 10 year old female child versus fully grown adult male, trained, prepared and ready police officer (that could even wear armour), that a taser is the only option. The taser is the easy option. The taser is the option that reduces the risk of the officer receiving a bruised rib. Well, I'm sorry, but unless the child is about to seriously injure or kill, it should not be electrocuted in to complying. It's barbaric. Where do you draw the line? Getting the police to electrocute your children because they didn't eat their carrots?

For the police officer to be taken out by the child, is the equivalent of a lion being beaten up by a lioness cub. The muscular structure of a human male is sufficient to subdue a 10 year old girl.
Click to expand...

Hear hear.

gord said:
Schizophrenic thread!

threadderail1953.jpg
Click to expand...

lol :p
 
dmpoole said:
If you look further up somebody got upset because some of us had seen the new Google Image page for a while and he/she decided to bring up an old post of mine on tasering :confused::confused::confused:

Brilliant.
Click to expand...

Get a grip of yourself dafty.

You said 'argue like a man' when there was nothing to argue about, and your not a man in my eyes with beliefs like this.

:)
 
dmpoole said:
What are the 'other means' that could have been used in that case?
Go on, lets hear them.
Click to expand...

Do I really have to spell it out?

Girl doesn't want a shower, so she gets tasered.

What other means is there? Calling the police because a girl refused to shower is as ridiculous as you seeing nothing wrong with tasering a defenceless child.
 
Biohazard said:
What other means is there? Calling the police because a girl refused to shower is as ridiculous as you seeing nothing wrong with tasering a defenceless child.
Click to expand...

NAIL, HIT , HEAD.

Doesn't the whole incident smell funny to you?
Can't you see that there is more to it than the Daily Mail headline?

I actually bothered to read more on it than take the word of a journo.
 
dmpoole said:
A couple of you are bringing age into this and Biohazard even replied that it was OK for the 86 year old Gran to be tasered but not a 10 year old (or perhaps he didn't read the news story and thought he was replying to the original story)
Click to expand...

Just noticed this... come again?

:confused:
 
dmpoole said:
NAIL, HIT , HEAD.

Doesn't the whole incident smell funny to you?
Can't you see that there is more to it than the Daily Mail headline?

I actually bothered to read more on it than take the word of a journo.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying that in agreement with you.

I was repeating your question, and answering it with my answer... there was no way anyone should have forced that girl to shower or police attendence because of it.

Police should never have been called, you should never have said it is ok to taser children imo.
 
Biohazard said:
I'm not saying that in agreement with you.

I was repeating your question, and answering it with my answer... there was no way anyone should have forced that girl to shower or police attendence because of it.

Police should never have been called, you should never have said it is ok to taser children imo.
Click to expand...

Do you really think it was just about a girl not wanting to shower?
Unbelievable.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom