Your Enemies With Badges

No, I'm sorry but this is dead wrong. The problem is that you're skipping right over the most important facts:

a) The mother's actions DID hurt someone other than herself

b) It's parent's job to protect their children

You're trying to have it both ways. Conservatives say that government should stay out of education, health and discipline when it comes to children and FORCE THE PARENT to be responsible.

Well, why not here? The mother was the sole responsible party. The child didn't decide to cross the highway on its own. She decided on its behalf - which is her responsibility.

Had the mother only gotten herself killed, when crossing the highway, I would agree with you 100%.

The problem is - she killed someone else.

You could make the case that the drunk driver was also blame but not in the second story. Their, the two truck driver wasn't drunk or breaking any laws, from what I can tell.

If we want to keep the government from raising children, than parents should be held to account when they get their kids killed. You can't have it both ways. Children are not toys to be abused by adults without any recourse. If a parent's actions causes significant harm to a child (we can all agree that death qualifies), the parents should be held responsible.

I don't agree with this:

"As all parents know, however, dragging small kids a half-mile to use a crosswalk isn't a very good alternative either."

I have young children. I would gladly carry them or make them walk a half mile to use a protected walk area than stupidly attempt to cross a busy highway. Toddlers have the attention timespan of a goldfish. Unless they are tied to your side (literally) you can't even trust them to walk a few feet across a private parking lot.

And why was she walking along a busy highway with young children? Where was her car? Could she take a bus? A taxi? This woman was clearly irresponsible.

While you're busy feeling sorry for the woman, the rest of us are feeling sorry for the dead child.

The mother's punishment is already far worse than anything the judicial system could hand down. The death of her child is her never-ending fate. For watching mothers, there is no better example of what happens when you're negligent.

I once worked as a driving instructor for a private school. A lot of time was spent on city streets, approximately 6 hours per day, with student drivers. It gave me the opportunity to observe some seriously uncaring activities by Mothers and others.
In an area of town that is populated mostly by Spanish speaking immigrants the Mothers would push their carriages, sometimes with two babies in it, out in the street in front of them. The babies were put in grave danger while the Mother was still on the sidewalk. I mentioned this to a student one day, and she responded, "But that's their culture." The fact that if I hadn't had a brake on the right side of the car, we would have struck the babies.
It is total irresponsibility not to use the designated crosswalks with children in tow.
The police arrest adults who are outside the crosswalk by one foot, but crossing the street with the light. But the immigrants, whose "culture" does not include responsibility for oneself and one's children, are to be forgiven.
There are child endangerment laws. If I have a can of gasoline in my garage for use in my lawnmower, (zoning laws require that I keep my lawn mowed) and my neighbor's child comes into my garage without permission and drinks some of the gasoline, I can be charged with child endangerment, but a woman who ushers her children across a highway at night without the proper markings, is considered not irresponsible? She should be whipped. And let me do the whipping.
Thank you,
Robert Walker

So the woman elected to cross the street at an unsanctioned area by the state. Common sense should have told her that it was stupid to cross there if the traffic was heavy. I have been driving on more than one street when people will walk out into the street seeming to dare me to hit them, that they have the right of way. If the woman had gone down to the sanctioned crosswalk then the death of her toddler would have been sanctioned as an accident by the state. You cannot legislate common sense which is the real culprit here. The state over-reached with prosecuting her, the child was killed by a lack of common sense by the woman and the public is saddled with more onerous regulations. To quote an old bookie that I knew, " You can make drinking, prostitution and gambling a hanging offense but people will still do it". Summed up, the law is on the books about crossing the street in the wrong area but it was helpless if someone wanted to break it.

You cannot justly punish anyone for stupidity, not even to make an example of them. The mother did something in poor judgement, and the child, and the mother, paid a huge price. Using the same logic used by the court, the drunk driver should have been charged with manslaughter,to teach others not to drink and drive--the judge missed an opportunity in the world of big government thinking.

Parents are responsible for their children, and children carry the burden of being subject to that reality, when it is not well done. But, the government will not make it better, regardless of how dumbed-down segments of the population become.

When a parent does something stupid and a child is injured, it is a tragedy, not a crime, unless the parent acted willingly.

The addtional tragedy in this story is in hearing that there are judges and prosecutors who believe that it is their job to teach, rather than to seek justice.

"When a parent does something stupid and a child is injured, it is a tragedy, not a crime, unless the parent acted willingly"

P Jones, that is a correct statement and the reason I respectfully have to disagree with you.

As you point out, if the parent acted willingly, then a crime HAS been committed.

The mother acted willingly. She was not coerced into herding her children onto the highway. She did it of her own free will and desire.

P Jones was saying that if the mother willingly wanted to kill her child. There's a difference between willingly wanting the death of your child and willingly making a mistake that _leads_ to the death of your child. I agree with the author.

"The mother acted willingly. She was not coerced into herding her children onto the highway. She did it of her own free will and desire."~Ifon

Intent is the issue of law in this instance.
The mother's intent was to cross the street - not to kill her child.

This is tragedy not a willing crime.

ww

"This is tragedy not a willing crime."

While intent is important, crimes are not solely base on it.

You can break the speed limit without intending to. You can even murder someone without intending to.

"You can even murder someone without intending"~Ifon

In that case it is "manslaughter" not "murder."

"While intent is important, crimes are not solely base on it."

Yes they are, the 'specificity' of crime, as in the example above.
ww

Most traffic laws are enacted to facilitate the SAFE flow of traffic. The crosswalks are designated to also facilitate the SAFE flow of pedestrians when and where vehicular and foot traffic mix. That's the intended purpose. If the death of, or an injury to, a child is caused by the stupid acts of a parent, the parent should be punished to an extreme, in my opinion.
If your child falls out of a tree and breaks his/her arm, you will be subjected to an investigation of whether or not you are a responsible parent. In some areas, if your child is riding a bicycle without a helmet, the parent can be punished. But if a parent herds her children onto a highway without a painted crosswalk, and the child is struck by a car and killed, the parent shouldn't be punished? Is that what I'm reading here on Scragged?
It is incomprehensible to me that someone would want to forgive a woman for such stupidity.
A child learns from the earliest moments of its life to obey the parent. A parent who would then give the order to cross a highway, day or night, against all of the safety rules, should be taken to task in the harshest manner. Caning, Whipping, put in stocks, nothing should be outside the realm of possible punishments.
The parent is the one who keeps one safe, and especially in the case of a mother. She is the protector. She is the one to be trusted. Mothers who have a shred of caring or common sense, would not endanger their child in such a manner.
In Las Vegas, adults go to jail for jaywalking - without children. Yep.
But, let's forgive a stupid woman for aiding the death of her - HER - child. I think I will not forgive her. Perhaps there is a God who will, but being a mere human, I cannot find the sympathy for such a person.
Thank you,
Robert Walker

I agree with you, Willy, that intent matters. There's no question that a first degree murder is far more heinous than third degree murder.

The punishment for the woman should be in keeping with third degree murder, not first degree.

At the very least, her other children should be removed from her care until she demonstrates that she has understood the gravity of what she did.

Ifon,
If we start removing children from the custody of parents because their parents are stupid, all the children of Liberals will be living in foster homes. But, on second thought, that is not a bad thing.

"Caning, Whipping, put in stocks, nothing should be outside the realm of possible punishments."

Alright Robert...excellent, I am looking forward to this return to the dark ages. It is right around the corner.
Let's strike out that "cruel and unusual punishments" clause right NOW.
Oh...it already has been, that's right. Excuse me I forgot what century it is........

ww

@ ww

You're absolutely right. Intent is everything. Almost no parent does anything to intentionally injure their child, and she will carry that incident with her forever. I am not in favor, *generally*, of allowing the government to "protect" children from their parents. This has the destructive side-effects of (1) encouraging parents to be less watchful and cautious with their own kids; (2) encouraging others to interfere in the affairs of others, to the point that it can be used as a weapon; and (3), most importantly, created two generations so far of kids who understand that no one may lay a hand on them, no matter how atrocious their behaviour.

And as far as the question of "friendly policemen" goes, that is also a relic of days gone by. Compare two similar figures: a policeman, and a teacher, say. Which one is paid to have *your* interests in mind? The teacher is paid to do certain things with the best interests of his students in mind (in theory, of course; leaving aside for the moment the issue of practical application). The police officer, when he pulls you over - or really, any time you get in your car - is paid NOT to have your best interests in mind. You may trust or not - and instruct your kids likewise - the teacher; but you trust police officers at your own peril.

WW,
it is the 13th century.
Perhaps my comments were a bit over the top, but, right now in the 21st century, children are put in danger by lazy parents. Some men and women are too lazy to get up off the couch long enough to see where their children are. It isn't just stupidity.
The lady in question had .3 miles to walk to a crosswalk. That's approximately 1560 feet. That is not all that far. And in the end, an accident may very well have occurred. But the woman should not be let off too easy.
It has been suggested that the woman will have to live with the results of her actions for the rest of her life. We all do. That does not excuse any of us from not doing what is right and proper. And it may be that she won't be bothered all that much. Those of us who do care, and would regret such actions think that everyone else cares as much. The selfishness of the woman, not wanting to walk .3 miles to a crosswalk is a bit much, in my opinion. No excuse is good enough for me. And I understand that I have been more than a bit harsh here. But life is harsh, children get killed by drivers of cars. Especially when the parents are too lazy or stupid or a combination of them to care properly for their children.
The child put its trust in its mother, as it should have done, the trust was misplaced and the child died. I have no sympathy for the mother, however, I do have sympathy for her other children.
Thank you,
Robert Walker

The woman that crossed the street is a moron. There will be no good come out of her going to jail. It would cost $50k+ a year plus she would learn how to become a crook. Stupid people do stupid things. She's not worth sending to jail. If she is a decent person the loss of her child will be punishment enough, if not you can't legislate intelligence. Forget it and move on.

"Enemies With Badges" Yes indeed. But this story simply skips across the serface of the topic.

The US is a Panoptic Maximum Security State.
The structure for total tyranny has been escalated from 2001 to the present in an exponential fashion.

Spinning your wheels over this trivial matter of this woman being indicted when SWAT teams are breaking down doors and murdering people in their homes, when cops are executing citizens by taser on the streets for little more than making a face at these goons, when everyone is considered a potential "terrorist," and liable for "disappearance," just like the days of the 'Phoenix Program' in Vietnam, and the deathsquads of Central and South America, when the openly stated strategy of the US military is Full Spectrum Dominance; calling the US anything other than a military police state is absurd and utter lunacy.

And "you ain't seen nuthin yet." Mark my words.
ww

"when SWAT teams are breaking down doors and murdering people in their homes"

SWAT teams are not murdering *innocent* people in their homes. If you're talking about drug dealers with guns in their hands, firing at the police first, then yes.

"when cops are executing citizens by taser on the streets for little more than making a face at these goons"

Another lie. Other than a few accidents, so rare as to be statistically ignored, this is does not occur.

"calling the US anything other than a military police state is absurd and utter lunacy"

Willy, if only you read, experienced or talked to someone who actually lived in a real police state, you would realize how absurd that remark is. Yet again, your opinion suffers from a microscopic view of the world.

My constant and unimaginative critic,

Yet again, your opinion suffers from a myopic view of the world.

"If you're talking about drug dealers with guns in their hands, firing at the police first, then yes."~Ifon

No, that is not what I am talking about.

"Another lie. Other than a few accidents,[my taser assertion] so rare as to be statistically ignored, this is does not occur."

Calling someone a liar is a heavy charge Ifon - I would be careful with such wild allegations were I you.

"..if only you read, experienced or talked to someone who actually lived in a real police state, you would realize how absurd that remark is."

I am talking to someone right now who lives in a real police state and hasn't the sense to grasp it; you.

George Santayana once remarked that, "those who fail to learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them."

You have this naive assumption that a police state starts out mid-pogrom with wide spread brutal draconian acts. If you really grasped the lessons of history you would already realize how jejune such a view is.

I will pass on trying to prove anything to you Ifon, you don't have the honesty to even try to grasp what I am saying in any of our conversations.
ww

No, Willy's got a point here. There are countless examples of SWAT teams raiding the wrong address, and quite a few of innocent people being gunned down as a result. In one famous case in Maryland, the SWAT team raided THE MAYOR'S HOUSE. Fortunately they did not kill the mayor but they did gun down his dogs, and it doesn't look like anything ever happened to the police as punishment - the mayor sued, but settled in exchange for a "training change."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheye_Calvo

Proving that your statements aren't lies is simple, Willy. Show some proof.

Oh, that's right, I forgot - the mainstream media hides it all.

Police are "disappearing" citizens into the night but we don't know because ABC, CBS, NYT, Fox, etc are all sitting on the story.

In countries where that has actually happens, people know about it because their friends and family members have actually, wait for it... DISAPPEARED!

Sorry, Petrarch, but Willy does NOT have a point here because you and he are talking about two entirely different things.

You're talking about accidents; he's talking about a police state.

You're talking about SWAT getting the wrong address and people getting irritated, not killed. You can't find "countless examples". You can find a few here and there - again all based on accidents.

Willy's talking about police state intent. In other words, SWAT teams on orders from a military directive - killing innocents based on their political preferences, and without any recourse.

As you pointed out, the few accidents that have occurred have been met with official apologies, people getting fired and judicial investigations.

"George Santayana once remarked that, "those who fail to learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them.""

Actually, no. What he really said was:

"Those who cannot remember the past, are condemned to repeat it"

Which was part of his Life of Reason series.

Er, that was Patience responding. My apologies to Petrarch - I thought I saw his name. I should have known that he would not have made such a mistake.

"Police State": A totalitarian state controlled by a political secret police force

Police states DO have wide-spread draconian force. That's the reason they're called... a police state (see definition above).

Anything that "doesn't start out" that way isn't a police state. It might be on its way to becoming one, but isn't one yet.

Words mean things.

"Police states DO have wide-spread draconian force. That's the reason they're called... a police state (see definition above).
Anything that "doesn't start out" that way isn't a police state. It might be on its way to becoming one, but isn't one yet."~IFon

The structure is in place the draconian acts increasing with each passing day.
Just the 'Threat' once it sinks in by 'Example' is all it takes to maintain a police state. The most drastic of the brutal actions always come after an engineered financial crisis - so it can be gaged pretty accurately what the timetable is here.

You have a very skewed view of the actual amount of the draconian police activity that is becoming pandemic in this nation. And yes, it is because it is not propagated by the MSM, like all PR, it is a matter of twisting 'context' rather than outright lying. 'Spin' is what is used for perception manipulation in the sophisticated modern police state.
ww

"Actually, no. What he really said was:
"Those who cannot remember the past, are condemned to repeat it"~Ifon

And so my paraphrasing is supposedly changing the meaning of the point Santayana was saying?

What coy rhetorical games you play Ifon.

>>"His mother wore a red dress"~commentator - "No she didn't it was scarlet"~Ifon<<

Such argumentation suggests a grasping at straws.
ww

I'm proving a point, Willy. One that, evidently, you're not seeing but others here are. "Coy rhetorical games" and "sniping" is what you've been doing for a long time. I turn up the heat, with some of your same tactics, and you can't take it.

I can take it Ifon, you seem to be the one who is in the reactive state of mind at the moment.

>Report: Taser deaths on the rise - US news - Life - msnbc.com
Mar 28, 2006 · Amnesty International: Taser deaths on the rise Report cites 156 fatalities from police stun guns over the past five years Below:
www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12042784

Analysis: Taser-related deaths in US accelerating | The Raw Story
... law enforcement agencies in 29 of the 33 largest US cities." But, the blog notes, "the tide may be turning." As taser-related deaths and injuries have continued to rise …
www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/09/05/taser-related-deaths-accelerating

Analysis: Taser-related deaths in US accelerating | The Raw Story
More on this page
The rate of deaths in Taser-related incidents is rising as police forces increasingly adapt the conducted energy weapons, a Raw Story analysis finds.

A 2008 report(PDF) from Amnesty International found 351 Taser-related deaths in the US between June, 2001 and August, 2008, a rate of just slightly above four deaths per month.
Cached page... law enforcement agencies in 29 of the 33 largest US cities." But, the blog notes, "the tide may be turning." As taser-related deaths and injuries have continued to rise …
www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/09/05/taser-related-deaths-accelerating

ww

>by Diane Cecilia Weber
Diane Cecilia Weber is a Virginia writer on law enforcement and criminal justice.
-----------------------

Executive Summary

Over the past 20 years Congress has encouraged the U.S. military to supply intelligence, equipment, and training to civilian police. That encouragement has spawned a culture of paramilitarism in American law enforcement.

The 1980s and 1990s have seen marked changes in the number of state and local paramilitary units, in their mission and deployment, and in their tactical armament. According to a recent academic survey, nearly 90 percent of the police departments surveyed in cities with populations over 50,000 had paramilitary units, as did 70 percent of the departments surveyed in communities with populations under 50,000. The Pentagon has been equipping those units with M-16s, armored personnel carriers, and grenade launchers. The police paramilitary units also conduct training exercises with active duty Army Rangers and Navy SEALs.

State and local police departments are increasingly accepting the military as a model for their behavior and outlook. The sharing of training and technology is producing a shared mindset. The problem is that the mindset of the soldier is simply not appropriate for the civilian police officer. Police officers confront not an "enemy" but individuals who are protected by the Bill of Rights. Confusing the police function with the military function can lead to dangerous and unintended consequences—such as unnecessary shootings and killings.

Full Text of Briefing Paper No. 50 (PDF, 14 pgs, 73 Kb)

>Growth of Paramilitarism in American Police Departments
Read a summary from the Cato Institute about the growing militarization of U.S. Police Departments.
http://cato.org/pubs/briefs/bp-050es.html

>Deadly Force - The Washington Post
Five-part series takes a look at the District of Columbia police force, which has been involved in more fatal shootings than any other force.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/local/longterm/dcpolice...

>Police Armies of Occupation - About.com
Discusses the military character of police operations throughout the U.S. from the shooting of Mario Paz in L.A. to the killing of Diallo in NYC.
http://civilliberty.about.com/newsissues/civilliberty/librar...

>Police Brutality, Misconduct and Militarization
Provides a discussion on the militarization of U.S. police forces and the victims of the war on drugs.
http://free-market.net/spotlight/police/

"I'm proving a point, Willy. One that, evidently, you're not seeing but others here are. "Coy rhetorical games" and "sniping" is what you've been doing for a long time."~Ifon

You fail to take my point.

Did my paraphrasing of Santayana change the substance of his meaning in any way whatsoever?

I have now given you ample evidence in the posts above that your claim that the US is not an actively engaged police state is hocum.

I rest my case, and you can spin in your stool.
ww

Now, let's do some math.

156 taser-related deaths in 5 years. There are roughly 950,000 police officers in the US (depending on which source you read, 10% higher or lower)

There are at last 10 million arrest in the US annually, some estimates are
twice that high.

So...

That means that 0.164% of all police officers have been involved in a taser-related act. That's 1/10 of 1%.

And that means that taser-related deaths occur at a rate of about 0.000312%. That's five orders of magnitude lower than 1%

And yet we live in a "police state". HA! Thanks for sending this data, which proved my point.

Once again, Willy, if you'll look at all the data available, and not just your microcosm, you'll being to see how silly your views are.

"I have now given you ample evidence in the posts above that your claim that the US is not an actively engaged police state is hocum."

No, go back and read them and remember what a real "police state" actually is.

It's a big world.

Furthermore, a proper view of the data would also include how many _fewer_ gun-related deaths there were because cops have moved to using tasers for first stopping power instead of guns.

Even if we cared about this number of deaths (which we don't because it is so minute compared the total) we'd have to look at data on guns and clubs to see the whole picture.

All the data matters, not just some of it.

It is obvious to me Ifon that you have no concern for justice, just statisics.

A "Real Police State"...yea, it is a matter of perspective.

You fail to comprehend that the pain inflicted by tasering is substantial in EVERY instance. This is corporal punishment bandied out without due process. And to claim that it is more gentle than a nightstick or brutal physical handling is spurious, because these same techniques are combined with tasering in any event.

You do not even attempt to address the militarization of the police, which is the more obvious evidence of a military police state.
And we haven't even touched upon the loss of Posse Comitatus, and the present involvement of the actual military in policing in NORTHCOM.

You fail to address the panoptic side of the maximum securtiy state as well. Or the nature and reality of what Full Spectrum Dominance actually is.

And this is all the result of a compartmentalized programmed mind - a mind boxed up wrapped and tied with a pretty tyrannical ribbon.

"None Are More Hopelessly Enslaved Than Those Who Falsely Believe They Are Free"~Goethe

"You fail to comprehend that the pain inflicted by tasering is substantial in EVERY instance"

But better than being shot with a gun, right?

I understand full spectrum dominance perfectly well. I also understand that the term is misused (but a lot of people, not only you) and that it is flat out impossible to achieve in modern times.

"I understand full spectrum dominance perfectly well. I also understand that the term is misused (but a lot of people, not only you) and that it is flat out impossible to achieve in modern times."~Ifon

And just how is the term misused? Do you seriously believe that the continental US is exempt from this policy?

it is ony possible to achieve in modern times, because of the very technologies that exist in a high tech police state.

And now, just in time for the antisipated "unrest" caused by the current approach to economic genocide we have this new "technological marvel:

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/07/tasers-gonna-hurt-bro/
If you’re in a position to be tased, you’ve typically got one (not very impressive) advantage: the police officer or rent-a-cop trying to send 20,000 volts through your body has to be pretty close to you. But your advantage is about to disappear in a hail of electric shock cartridges.

Taser International is teaming up with crazy Australian electric gun company Metal Storm to produce a bowel-liquifying stun shotgun called — seriously — MAUL. Picture, if you will, a 12-gauge shotgun that stacks stun cartridges on top of one another and uses electricity to fire them out, railgun-style. Five of Taser’s XREP cartridges come flying at you from 30 yards away — “semi-automatic fire as fast as the operator can squeeze the trigger,” the company boasted on Thursday.

Yes, an electric, semi-automatic Taser shotgun. Full reload of all five cartridges takes all of two seconds. Not even a steroided-out Ben Johnson can run 30 yards that quickly.

MAUL is “ideally suited” for “law enforcement and military applications,” Taser explains — a kind of remote crowd control of pain. Or, as Taser founder Tom Smith put it, “We developed the XREP to provide an extended range for situations where a close approach was dangerous or not possible.”
But don’t call the XREP’s charge an electric shock. (Even though it is.) Call it a “neuro muscular incapacitation bio-effect,” Taser tut-tuts.
ww

Yes, tasers suck. I would not like to get zapped with one. Neither would you. But, again, that beats getting shot with a bullet, yes?

The term "full spectrum dominance" is misused by (among other people) the very military itself.

FDS does not only include land, air and sea. It also includes all EM waves and communication channels. In other words, real FDS means complete and total control over the internet (all networks), radio transmissions, phone calls, wireless signals and protocols.

The modern US military does not really believe that it conducts FDS in the strict sense. References to it are meant to refer to land, air and sea.

Now, someone of your persuasion, who sincerely believes that the government really does control all EM waves and communication channels, might in fact be using the term correctly. Only in that case, you're simply incorrect that it occurs.

And speaking of SoylantGreen style "crowd control", besides the 'Sheriff' type microwave and scalarwave projectors now inventoried, we have these dandy little 'RoboCops' to look forward to in our increasingly dicey future:

What do you do with a robot armed with a million-round-per-minute gun? "Crowd control," naturally. For several months, Metal Storm, the troubled electronic gun developer, has been working with iRobot — the makers of military machines and cute, semi-autonomous vacuum cleaners — to arm some of their new, 250-pound unmanned ground vehicles. Last week, at a defense trade show, the two firms showed off the results of their joint venture.

Metal Storm’s weapons fire bullets electronically, instead of with firing pins and primer. The ammunition is stacked, rather than mechanically reloaded. And the only moving parts in the weapon are the ammunition itself. Which means the weapon can fire at a rate of thousands of rounds per minute — maybe even up to a million, theoretically.

Metal Storm’s 40mm weapons mount, the company tells us, can deliver both high-explosive and less-lethal rounds. Which makes it perfect for everything from urban assaults to "border patrol" to "infrastructure protection" to "crowd control."

"meant to refer to land, air and sea."~Ifon

Well Ifon, unless you are calling in from the moon {which does seem the case at times} most of us humans live somewhere on the land or sea, and many are 'in flight' from time to time.

I have read plenty of essays from the war colleges themselves to have a good grasp on what they are reaching for. And if you think that 'Echelon' is the limit to their capabilities you are living in the past. Military technology is known to be at least 20 in advance of sivilian - even when civilian corporations are contracted, the 'national security' secrecy is still applied to their works.

I assume you are familiar with Bramford's research into this topic [?].
ww

The double post was a result of my getting a message that the first one hadn't gone through.
I guess many of us have experienced this from time to time here.
ww

"Well Ifon, unless you are calling in from the moon {which does seem the case at times} most of us humans live somewhere on the land or sea, and many are 'in flight' from time to time."

No, you skipped clean over my point.

Real FSD also includes **EM waves and communication channels**. Go back and read my whole comment.

Yes, I know quite a bit about Project Echelon. It was not in the past, and is not now, the ominous all-seeing eye that conspiracists paint it as.

"Yes, I know quite a bit about Project Echelon. It was not in the past, and is not now, the ominous all-seeing eye that conspiracists paint it as."~Ifon

You continue to be full of grand assertions that are merely your own personal opinion.

"Hopelessly Enslaved" as Goethe put it.

"No, you skipped clean over my point.
Real FSD also includes **EM waves and communication channels**."~Ifon

No, I got that. I was merely pointing out that you live in NORTHCOM territory.

ww

"You continue to be full of grand assertions that are merely your own personal opinion."

Not at all. I only speak about things that I am sure of based on personal experience or connection. I cannot elaborate on those details in this space. You are free to be skeptical of me, as is every other reader on the site with you.

"You are free to be skeptical of me, as is every other reader on the site with you."~Ifon

I see, you Ifon speak for the entire site.
That is good to know. I had given some thought that there might be others who thought for themselves here.

"skeptical" may be somewhat mild language at any rate.
ww

Or perhaps this time I did read you wrong Ifon.

I took you to mean, "as is every other reader on the site *is* with you"

If that is not what you meant I give my most sincere apologies.
ww

Nope by gawd, I did get you right the first time, you had the *is* in there and I just misplaced it in my mind re-reading it.

No apology.

ww

You really shouldn't talk to cops. This video tells why:

http://www.bakelblog.com/nobodys_business/2009/02/if-you-ever-become-a-person-of-interest-in-a-police-investigation-or-are-ever-arrested-or-are-merely-pulled-over-for-a-traf.html

Scooter Libby and Martha Stewart weren't convicted of crimes, they were convicted of lying to the cops. If you tell them something and they can argue that you lied, you're in trouble.

The video shows why it is better to tell them nothing. They get points for convicting you.

There is a hidden cadre of policemen in the United States of America. Some may call them a "Secret Police Force". Members of this cadre, and it is huge, are on the payroll of City, County, State and Federal police FORCES. They are called paid informants. These informants are used to convince men and women who would not ordinarily do such things, to commit a criminal act to further police activities. If an actual policeman or woman were used to do the convincing, it would be called entrapment, but the paid informant is in a different category. Thus it is not entrapment.

In Clark County, Nevada we have up to 22 armed police FORCES in action at any one time. It depends on how many national and international police FORCES have working here. How many, Ifon, if you will, please tell us how many police FORCES there are in your county?

Ifon, you mentioned that there "only" q56 taser related deaths over a period of time. You also stated that those deaths were so few as to be insignificant. You also used the word "we". Do not include me in that "we". The death is insignificant to you, perhaps, but the Mom or Dad, the Father or Mother, the Wife or Husband, the death is so very significant. Are you a psychiatrist? Because that group is the only group of people who consider a life "insignificant". Even generals who bring about wholesale slaughter, consider a life significant. If only because someone has to inform the Mom and Dad, or the Wife and Children.

Your statement is overbroad when you say "we" don't count the 156 dead human bodies.
Thank you,
Robert Walker

"please tell us how many police FORCES there are in your county?"~Robert, asks of Ifon.

What is even more telling is this new 'Snitch Program' of Homeboy Security. Now not only are all Amerikans suspect terrorist, but they are being effectivley deputized to report one anothers activties. Another signal aspect to the police state. Organized by "fusion centers" rather than neighborhood committees as the 'soviets' of Stalinist Russia, or the type developed in Communest Cuba, this new adaptation is still for the same purpose - to cause supicion and fear of each other. Even children in school are being encouraged to snitch on anyone, and that anyone can be their own family members - ahh...the reflection of the Nazi Youth are so clear in this mirror.

And it is this phony "war on terrorism" that is used for this grand escalation. The 'danger without' envelopes as it always does into the hyper strategy of tension of fear of those around you. One of the most insidious aspects of psychological warfare, again the prescient remark of Malcolm, "the chickens have come home to roost" - that being the low intensity warfare palyed out in "enemy countries" is implemented domestically.
Welcome to the New World Order...it has no sunset clause but eventual disentgration due to hubris.
ww

Robert,

There's no need to get melodramatic about the 156 taser deaths.

I said "we" because you and I are intelligent people who are able to understand what data like this means (and doesn't mean).

As I pointed out to Willy (who completely ignored it), this data is statically irrelevant - a rounding error when considered the enormity of information we have about police and arrests.

Here's another example...

In the US, more than 30,000 people die in fatal car accidents every year. We (American drivers) are okay with that. How do I know? Because it's been going for decades and no one does anything to stop it.

The fact that 30,000 people die in cars doesn't stop us from getting in one and driving around. Nor does it make us stand on street corners holding placards that say "Stop all the car violence!!"

We don't care because WE UNDERSTAND THE GREATER CONTEXT OF THAT DATA, which is the whole point.

For instance, we understand that there are 5.25 million car accidents every year and so 30,000 fatal one is only 0.57%. That's one half of 1%.

We also understand that it would require banning all automobiles to get rid of all those fatal car accidents. Yet no one wants to ban cars. No one has even mentioned such an absurd thing.

In order to understand the importance of any statistic, you have to have ALL the data, not just some cherry-picked portion of it (a Willy specialty).

Not only is the taser death number statistically irrelevant, it's also meaningless without knowing other facts.

For instance,

1) In the same 5 year period, have there been fewer deaths by shooting with guns? It stands to reason that as thousands of cops switched over to using tasers instead of guns, shooting deaths have gone down. Willy and Amnesty International won't expend any energy finding out because it hurts their point (vapid alarmism).

2) These deaths aside, would you rather get shot by a taser or gun? To ask the question is to answer it.

3) Who were these 156 people and what were they doing when they got tasered? For instance, would you feel just as emotional about it if you knew that it was a 7-foot muscle-bounds sociopath who was beating down two or three cops with a crowbar, and that he had to be tasered several times to bring him down? Or if it was some guy beating his wife with a baseball bat, high on meth, and he couldn't be stopped with one round of tasering?

4) How many total taserings occurred in that same 5 year period? If only 156 total, than this stat is extremely significant. Of course, there were many orders of magnitude more than that. Again, Willy and Amnesty International have no use for finding that out because it would hurt their point.

If we're going to expend the energy to get emotional about this stat, we have consider all the data first. Some of us care about seeing the big picture.

"Some of us care about seeing the big picture."~Ifon

I am through arguing the point about tasers with you when you can make the statement above with a straight face, never once in this entire thread addressing the points having to do with the militarization of the police [ my post;August 2, 2011 11:42 AM.]

The information about tasers is meant to notify to a GROWING TREND. If we combine all of the 'growing trends', there can be no doubt that we reached the stage where it is fair to consider the US a police state long before the advent of the 21st century.
We are not 'about to' become a police state - it has been one for a long time, and the only reason you can't see that is your eventuating habituation.

Yes yes, your naivete blows my mind, I cannot help but admit it. and yes it would be funny if it weren't so tragic.
ww

"The information about tasers is meant to notify to a GROWING TREND"

Actually, upon re-reading the article, the trend is DOWN. Notice that Amnesty International is complaining that taser deaths were up by 3 times in that time period even though taser use had increased 7 TIMES.

Like Amnesty International, you've cherry-picked out the part you liked while totally ignoring that this is actually good news, given the much larger increase in total taser use and, that by percentage, fewer deaths are occurring.

Math doesn't become you, Willy. ;-)

As for the rest of your links, they range from irrelevant one-off accidents to basic line-of-duty stuff. None of it comes anywhere near proving your point.

While debating Willy over the irrelevance (and in effect opposite effect) of his "taser deaths" data, I mentioned that most taser victims would rather be tasered than shot.

Here's a story about a public urinator who was shot when the police tried to detain him and he turned violent:

http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2011/08/13/oakland-officer-shoots-suspect-in-alleged-police-assault-and-public-urination/

Now, suppose the police officer had used a taser instead. Instead of going to the hospital and wondering if he would survive, he'd have felt some momentary pain and then been able to walk away with the cops a few minutes later. I wonder what he would say if asked "would you rather be tasered than shot". To ask the question is to answer it.

A public urinator? Depends on exactly WHERE he got tasered. Ouch.

But still better than getting _shot_ there, right? :-) Your groin can come back from a little electricity. A bullet? Not so much.