No. She is a US Senator in Washington, DC.

You want to write to your state Senator and Representative in St. Paul.
http://www.leg.state.mn.us/leg/Districtfinder.asp

Yeah, um just testing you.......

Good job you passed with flying colors

Would a Taser ban be a blanket ban? I.e. for everyone, cops and citizens? I think there are far more injuries sustained from Tasers in the hands of police than those used by civilians. What's more worrying to me is that the Tasers seem to be used more and more by police to enforce compliance (that is, use of torture) and not to provide the officer with a non-lethal means of self-defense. Clearly these things are a can of worms, when it comes to our civil liberties.

Not a chance; it would be for us lesser folks only.

For the record, I said this:

.... and you said this:

They are definitely being used more for compliance, without the taser, the officer(s) are forced to go "hands on" which increases the risk of injury for everyone involved. Of course it doesn't completely eliminate the risk of injury to the non-compliant person, but it ain't a perfect world.

If you consider the taser torture, you're probably not a fan of arm-bars, pressure points, or soft-tissue strikes either.

I think the Taser is a wonderful tool for the police. Like Fubar said, the alternatives to the Taser are asp strikes, and those can cause permanent injury. And it can reduce wrestling matches, which puts both the officer and the other party at risk for injury.
In larger cities over time, the incidence of officer workmans comp. and disability claims is reduced by a significant factor.

That's not to say the tool isn't ever mis-used, but blaming that on the tool is exactly like the anti crowd blaming guns for crime.

What I'm not a fan of is expanding the capacity for extra-judicial punishment. Such things as Tasers are intended for self-defense where lethality would be excessive. I fear, however, the slippery slope. How soon before it becomes routine to Tase non-violent arrestees prior to cuffing "to ensure officer safety"? Make no mistake about it, while being Tased is better than being beaten, and certainly better than being shot, it is still a traumatically painful experience.

Actually, I don't believe self-defense is the threshold in which a police officer can deploy a Taser. The Use-Of-Force continuum dictates what level of force is used in response to what a suspect does and the Taser is actually down around the baton for most agencies. Some in fact have it down by chemical irritant because technically, there are fewer complications for the target (although I suspect most departments changed their minds after the ACLU types started suing over Taser use).

There's no way I'm gonna say Tasers have not been abused, but it's the officer in question that deserves the condemnation, not the tool.

As for extra-judicial punishment, I don't see how that relates to gaining compliance from an uncooperative suspect. If an officer deployed a Taser for amusement or as punishment for previously being non-compliant, that's obviously wrong, but again that's the moron with the badge not the tool that's the problem.



I'm not sure what the point would be to taze a compliant suspect. There are no lasting effects of being tazed on the suspect that would create a greater level of safety for an officer.

How did this pan out? Can the public use tasers?

A little on free speech or fairness doctine is below-- Maybe the people who report the "news" will figure out how the 2nd admendemt protects the 1st

Sorry if of topic of tasers but it does make one wonder what is next



http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php? ... geId=87857

The petition states:


Whereas, the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution clearly states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances";

Whereas, members of Congress are recently on record saying they want to re-impose the so-called "Fairness Doctrine" on U.S. broadcasters, or else accomplish the same goal of censoring talk radio by other means, and thereby establish government and quasi-government watchdogs as the arbiters of "fairness" rather than the free and open marketplace of ideas;

Whereas, the U.S. experimented with the so-called "Fairness Doctrine" for 38 years - from 1949 through 1987 - during which time it was repeatedly used by presidents and other political leaders to muzzle dissent and criticism;

Whereas, the abandonment of the so-called "Fairness Doctrine" in 1987, thanks to President Ronald Reagan, resulted in an unprecedented explosion of new and diverse voices and political speech - starting with Rush Limbaugh - that revitalized the AM radio band and provided Americans with a multitude of alternative viewpoints;

Whereas, talk radio is one of the most crucial components of the free press in America, and is single-handedly responsible for informing tens of millions of Americans about what their government leaders are doing;

Whereas, it is a wholly un-American idea that government should be the watchdog of the press and a policeman of speech, as opposed to the uniquely American ideal of a free people and a free press being the vigilant watchdogs of government;

Whereas, the so-called "Fairness Doctrine" - either under that name, or using a new name and even more devious methods - represents a frontal assault on the First Amendment, and its re-imposition would constitute nothing more nor less than the crippling of America's robust, unfettered, free press:

We, the undersigned, assert our rights as citizens of the United States in demanding that Congress immediately drop all legislative efforts to re-impose the so-called "Fairness Doctrine" and that the president of the United States veto any so-called "Fairness Doctrine" legislation approved by Congress and that the U.S. Supreme Court overturn as unconstitutional any so-called "Fairness Doctrine" legislation approved by Congress and signed by the president.

Sign the petition here.

WND just days ago reported on plans by President Obama's White House to "re

I do think when a taser is used for compliance and the victim dies the officer should be charged with a crime such as murder in the 2nd degree. Officers should have to accept the responsiblity of using deadly force if it was not justified. Saying I didnt know they had a heart condition should not be acceptable. Kinda like saying I thought it was my taser when I shot the cuffed suspect in the back on the ground.

Just about everything the cops use kill people in similar ways and should result in murder charges for cops by that argument.
-Pepper spray can spike up allergic reactions, asthma or other breathing issues such as various forms of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Diseases.
-Batons can miss, be dodged and strike an unintended target or perhaps blow a blood vessel on a hemophiliac.
-Handcuffs can cause positional asphyxiation
-Open hand techniques can cause stress to the heart (a heck of a lot more than a taser, btw), positional asphyxiation, suspects bodies and head can accidentally strike hard objects.

And those are only examples, in no way an exhaustive list of all of the ways that police tools can kill people. Take those away and you have two choices. Presence and asking politely or shooting. I think something between those two extremes is a good thing.

I personally own a TASER C2 and carry it as much as I carry my pistol. I like having that ability to use less than lethal force first before i had to use my pistol.

Anything can kill when the right reasons are present. Just remember its less than lethal NOT nonlethal