Amazing, tasers can be used to subdue a suspect

White Supremacist Mass Shooter Arrested Alive; Eric Garner Still Dead

"Giroux’s rampage began at the Tri City Inn, where he shot three people — a male, who died at the scene, and two women, who were wounded. He then ran across the street to a nearby café, where he shot another man, who was treated by emergency medical personnel at the scene of the first shooting. Giroux then carjacked a woman, drove to a nearby motel, and pulled into an apartment complex. He then shot another man in the parking lot, broke into an apartment across the street, and broke in. Two hours later, Mesa police successfully captured Giroux using Tasers." -snip

Full Story Here

Minorities are immune to electricity (unless it's an electric chair), can't take any chances.

Yep, there are also obviously zero disadvantages to using a taser in certain situations, right? That's why cops have stopped carrying guns and clubs and only carry tasers.

Originally posted by Surtur
Yep, there are also obviously zero disadvantages to using a taser in certain situations, right? That's why cops have stopped carrying guns and clubs and only carry tasers.

I feel as if you missed the point. Or are you maybe just not aware of the specifics involving the death of Eric Garner?

You can't have cops killing their own bros can you? They'll get thrown out of their club!

:-p

Originally posted by Surtur
Yep, there are also obviously zero disadvantages to using a taser in certain situations, right? That's why cops have stopped carrying guns and clubs and only carry tasers.

Originally posted by Robtard
I feel as if you missed the point. Or are you maybe just not aware of the specifics involving the death of Eric Garner?

No, I totally got the point. It was "this guy was killed, but could of been subdued with a taser instead and lived".

Thus, my point in saying a taser isn't ideal for every situation.

Originally posted by Surtur
No, I totally got the point. It was "this guy was killed, but could of been subdued with a taser instead and lived".

Thus, my point in saying a taser isn't ideal for every situation.

To your point(and the point of the story)t: Do you feel a taser would have been an ideal way in subduing Eric Garner?

Originally posted by Robtard
Do you feel a taser would have been an ideal way in subduing Eric Garner?

Sure, but you realize how it comes across, yes? That they were saying tasers would of been better used in certain situations, and the Garner case was just one example given. The problem is, not every case is like this.

Now, it's different if was specifically only about Garner, as opposed to him just being one example used.

Originally posted by Surtur
Yep, there are also obviously zero disadvantages to using a taser in certain situations, right? That's why cops have stopped carrying guns and clubs and only carry tasers.

Let's do a quick comparison.

Eric Garner was accused of "selling loose cigarettes". His only response was he was tired of being harassed and wouldn't take it anymore. Made no threatening moves, simply spoke his mind and the truth. He was tired of the needless persecution. He was surrounded by 8-9 officers and was choked out from behind(which is illegal for the police to do in the first place). He was ignored when he shouted multiple times he couldn't breathe and was manhandled by several officers. He died from the abuse, despite his only crime being selling single cigarettes.

Ryan Giroux on the other hand is a well noted White Supermacist with markings all over and ties to the Aryan Nation. Has an extremely violent past. He murdered a man, attempted to murder two women. Went across the street and shot another guy, carjacked a woman, then shot another guy, then broke into an apartment.

So an unarmed black man is more dangerous than a skinhead who killed a guy, shot two women and two men, robbed a woman, and broke into a house in a short amount of time and was still armed? Why didn't they just shoot this guy who was clearly dangerous? Why did they use tasers? Why didn't they use tasers in all these cases of black men doing nothing wrong? Or why did they just not use an appropriate amount of force and logic for the situations?

Like I said though, it's different if this issue is only specifically about Garner. He was the one mentioned yes, but I figured he was just being used as a recent example..as opposed to this just strictly being 100% about that specific case.

Maybe Flaygon can answer those questions.

Originally posted by Surtur
Sure, but you realize how it comes across, yes? That they were saying tasers would of been better used in certain situations, and the Garner case was just one example given. The problem is, not every case is like this.

Now, it's different if was specifically only about Garner, as opposed to him just being one example used.

If you read the article, the other stories noted all described situations where the [black] person killed could have been subdued via a taser instead of bullets.

Did you maybe just have a kneejerk reaction of "don't speak ill if mah cops!"? It's okay if you did, it happens.

Originally posted by Surtur
Like I said though, it's different if this issue is only specifically about Garner. He was the one mentioned yes, but I figured he was just being used as a recent example..as opposed to this just strictly being 100% about that specific case.

Garner was the starting point, but the article pointed out several other cases where a taser or even less force would have been appropriate. Like when they shot a pre-teen immediately upon arrival because he had a gun that the cops themselves said was probably fake.

Or how they shot a guy in Wal-Mart over a false report before he even knew what was going on.

Do you think in these exact same situations, if the suspects had been white, they would have reacted by unloading clips at them? Or maybe they would have asked what the problem was? Maybe used the non-lethal tasers they have for the purpose of taking in people who aren't a clear threat?

Originally posted by KingD19
Garner was the starting point, but the article pointed out several other cases where a taser or even less force would have been appropriate. Like when they shot a pre-teen immediately upon arrival because he had a gun that the cops themselves said was probably fake.

Or how they shot a guy in Wal-Mart over a false report before he even knew what was going on.

Do you think in these exact same situations, if the suspects had been white, they would have reacted by unloading clips at them? Or maybe they would have asked what the problem was? Maybe used the non-lethal tasers they have for the purpose of taking in people who aren't a clear threat?

Look, I'm not saying there weren't cases where a taser could of worked and nobody would of died. But like you said, Garner was a starting point, but not every case of a black man being killed in a confrontation with the cops is an open and shut case for the use of tasers over anything else.

I read the title of the article, and it sounds like it's trying to bait people. The implication almost comes off as "here we see a taser being used effectively, so this proves in every single case a taser would of been the ideal choice".

I will also say I have no idea if the cops would of acted the same if the guy was white. I don't know them, I don't know how they think. I could sit here and speculate about what would of happened(they probably would of acted differently) but I'd have no actual way to prove that is what would of truly happened. They could be huge racists..or they could just be pieces of sh*t in general. Or both.

I dunno, I guess it's maybe less about what was said and more about how it was said. It's a discussion that is worth having, but I don't know if I'd begin that discussion in the same manner the article did.

He was asking "Why was a taser used against an incredibly dangerous and violent white individual who had recently murdered someone while attempting to murder several others(injuring them in the process) and committed several other crimes that when combined could lead to a life sentence in jail. Who still had his weapon by the way.

Vs "Why are all these black men who were unarmed or doing nothing wrong or simply guilty of being black, all gunned down or killed or grievously wounded with pretty much no hesitation."

It wasn't saying a taser is useful in every situation. It was pointing out how firing your entire magazine at the suspect wasn't.

If Giroux was black, do you think he would have made it out alive?

TBF, we really have no idea how those police would have reacted to a known black gangbanger with a history of violence, who was armed with a gun, was on the run, had recently murdered someone and wounded others. It's not like there's any precedent in how police approach black suspects. We can't even begin to speculate.

Well a fake gun wielded by a black adolescent male is obviously more dangerous than a gun-toting murderous white person. That's just science.

Originally posted by Quincy
Well a fake gun wielded by a black adolescent male is obviously more dangerous than a gun-toting murderous white person. That's just science.

Or a black male who if you looked at the security footage had no weapon when he entered a Wal-Mart, and picked up a toy gun still in it's packaging.

Are we still crying about this?

1.) he wasn't choked to death, it's a headlock and I've personally used.
2.) even though the coroner ruled it a homicide, COD was an internal issue related to his heart disease.
3.) he had been arrested >9< times for this, and chose to resist arrest.

Trying to act like only 2 crimes ever were commited ever and these outcomes show Racial bias is full blown retard.

I should also point out that if the compression of lying on his stomach killed him, a Taser would definitely have.