A bunch of jurisdictions -- according to a student paper I read, Hawaii, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Wisconsin, plus Philadelphia, Baltimore, Chicago, and Washington, D.C. -- ban the possession of tasers. Are there any sensible justifications that I'm missing for such bans, and for bans on carrying tasers outside the home?
Obviously, they could be used for criminal purposes, whether to assist in a robbery or a rape, or just to hurt people. But at the same time, I would think they're quite useful for self-defense, in at least three different circumstances:
When it's illegal to carry a gun, whether because carry licenses are generally unavailable, or because the person is 18 to 20, and licenses are only available to those 21 and older.
When there's a legal obstacle to the person's possessing a gun, for instance, when the person is an ex-convict (perhaps even someone convicted of a nonviolent felony), is underage for gun purchases, or lives with someone who is an ex-convict and who might be said to "constructively possess" any guns that his housemates possess.
When the defender isn't willing to use a deadly weapon, even against an attacker.
And my sense is that tasers are materially more effective than pepper spray, because they can disable the target wherever they hit him (though on the other hand my sense is that, unlike with pepper spray, they can't be quickly fired a second time).
I would think therefore that the net loss for self-defense from banning tasers substantially exceeds the net gain in any taser-related crime that would be stopped (especially since most people who would be willing to commit that crime would also be willing to violate the laws against taser possession, and it's unlikely that the taser possession will be discovered in time to prevent the crime). And I would think this should be the view even of people who take a different view about guns, since tasers are vastly less lethal than guns are.
Is there some sound reason that I'm missing for prohibiting these outright, as opposed to requiring training, licensing, or some such?
All the people they care about (celebs, wealthy, politically connected) get handgun permits.
<<
Allowing such devices to be possessed by ordinary, law-abiding citizens creates a hostile working environment for constituents of liberal politicians.
I am not defending this justification; I am only noting that it exists.
But, I can conceive of two explanations (both unlikely):
1. Safety: Tasers don't always disable, so allowing their use might endanger the user, i.e., the user should pack more lethal force. I have seen a taser used on someone who was high (likely, on PCP), and he was not disabled by it. I know that stun guns also are not always effective. Thus, while I defer to others with greater expertise, it is conceivable that you could justify the ban on this ground.
2. Economics: Maybe the gun lobby got these bans passed to encourage more sales of firearms. Probably unlikely (at least for DC, which is hostile to gun ownership).
FWIW, I don't think EV's analysis of why tasers might be useful gets the most important thing: tasers would be most useful to someone who wanted a defensive weapon that would be less dangerous than a gun if it were used in error by the owner, or if it were used by a person other than the owner (a minor, a thief, an attacker who somehow obtained possession of the weapon). EV's points (1) and (2) are really just features of the legal landscape surrounding firearms and don't really suggest why something like a taser might be useful. His point (3) sort of overlaps with my analysis although it's stated more as philosophical objection to the use of deadly force per se, which I don't think is a view that many people hold.
(* For purposes of this discussion, you may assume that I hold that view because I'm hopelessly ignorant, frightened of guns, and generally favor brutal tyranny.)
Incidentally, would love to hear your thoughts on the lawsuit filed this week by the Students for Concealed Carry to overturn the gunban at Colorado University. They say it violates the state's preemption statute. It seems to me that this case is very similar to the case that brought about concealed carry on Utah Campuses.
Anecdotally, I have the sense that police officers are using tasers in a variety of circumstances where deadly force would not have been justified or where their use would not even have been strictly necessary had the officer been more patient. That is to say that whereas, before, it was talk 90% of the time and gun 10% of the time (say), now it is becoming more like talk 60%, taser 30%, gun 10%.
I have no idea whether this is the case, and I hope it isn't. But if it is, it's a problem that would seem to me to be a problem for law-abiding non-police officers, as well. Perhaps even moreso. It could be an interesting way to develop the law of intentional torts, though.
Of course, it's more likely is they just fear technology, especially when it's designed to hurt people.
Crimes are committed with weapons; ban the weapons.
This would be more plausible if the localities banning tasers also banned guns--the gun ban was really a ban on offensive weaponry, and as tasers became more common they were covered also.
I think the International Association of Chiefs of Police put out a study on tasers, their use, and the common misconception that they never kill people. IIRC the IACP report suggested that tasers should be considered just barely below use of a firearm on the continuum of force. I don't remember where they came out on the issue of classifying tasers as per se deadly force (but i know that was a serious consideration at one point in the research).
I'd provide a cite but I have an exam tomorrow.
On the balance, though, they are much less likely to injure than the alternatives - a gun, kitchen knife, or baseball bat. Even fisticuffs can and do lead to fatalities.
A quick google indicates that they cost something like $50 per 'shot'. I would think that would discourage inappropriate use to some degree.
I also live in Massachusetts, but I wouldn't, as a State Police- and NRA-certified Firearms Safety Instructor, consider our licensing scheme to be generally sensible. Anyone who wants a more detailed critique should go to the site of Gun Owners Action League - www.goal.org - and look into how our MA licensing scheme works - or, more correctly, doesn't work, if deterring violent crime is the intent....
MA currently requires a special form of Firearms Identification Card (FID) in order to own Mace, pepper spray, etc. I'm sure that this makes the law abiding citizen - particularly women - feel safer.
And yes, the Taser, etc. is banned in MA, with the exception of police, etc. I feel safer already, just knowing that....
What ever happened to the concept of letting people own weapons, and punishing them severely if they misuse them?
But I've given up on expecting state laws to make sense.
That, itself, is evidence for the argument that people assume tasers are safer than they really are.
I looked for the IACP report, but all I could find was a 9-step "strategy" that said, in essence, "departments should form policies."
Some web sites claim 300-400 deaths from Tasers in North America, but I don't imagine there's some independent arbiter of who goes on the list - and I have no idea how that compares to deaths from, say, police batons (either per capita, per incident, per baton/taser issued...)
If, however, a private citizen uses their TASER in a legitimate self-defense situation, and provides TASER International with a copy of the police report for such incident, the company will replace the dart cartridge for free. (See here and click on #15 for details).
One other factor mitigating against misuse, and in favor of the bans being silly: When a TASER is fired, it disperses about 30 colored pieces of paper (they look like the detritus from a 3-hole punch, only smaller) imprinted with the serial number of the dart cartridge. Barring a TASER abuser carrying around a portable vacuum cleaner, I'm told (by my local police department's weapons instructor, with whom I did a "ride-along" a few years ago) that these "anti-felon ID tags", as TASER International calls them, can generally be recovered from the scene of a TASER discharge and the purchaser of the weapon that fired them identified.
This is not foolproof (TASER weapons or cartridges could conceivably be lost, borrowed or stolen), but it serves to further reduce the risk of misuse. You can see what the AFID tags look like about midway down this page.
Since that position is too logical to be enforced by our society we must ban tasers. Makes perfect sense to me. That way only the bad guys, and a few diabolical wayward cops, will have tasers.
I vote for the "Pacifist-Aggressives" causative factor. As a former officer I have to say that any position taken by the IACP is probably exactly opposite of what would turn out to be the best public policy.
If you're doing research on Tazer Laws, look up the story of former sheriff and current state representative Rick Jones in Michigan pushing his bill to legalize committees through the committee in the state house. As part of his effort to push the bill, he had himself publicly tazed (on the record I think) at a committee meeting.
Really? That's what you notice? Because I didn't notice that and I went back through the thread just now and there is one person who said anything that could even be construed that way. No one else even came close to that comment.
1. As noted above, tasers turn out to be deadly quite at random. Thinking you are going to tase someone and there is no way they will die is kind of like thinking a .22 pistol is definitely nonlethal if you aim it for the legs.
2. If you would not kill your assailant, I have to wonder why you are using force at all.
Banning the possession of Tasers by private citizens doesn't seem justifiable to me. I'd personally still prefer a firearm for home and personal defense, but the Taser has advantages. You're not going to penetrate dry-wall and injure someone you didn't intend to harm with a Taser. If you pull the trigger reactively because you confused your husband, son, or wife as an intruder, you're far more likely to be apologizing profusely to a live person than if you'd done so with a firearm. Yes, one should always be perfectly aware of one's target with a firearm. People aren't always perfect.
This makes even less sense than banning private ownership of bulletproof vests and pepper spray.
Why don't we allow every single weapon possible to be available...that way inexperienced and idiotic people (who outnumber everyone else in my opinion) can do stupid things with them.
First, your utilitarian calculus -- "the net loss for self-defense from banning tasers substantially exceeds the net gain in any taser-related crime that would be stopped" -- misses an item in its accounting: use of a taser which is not a crime but also does not deter a crime. An example would be objectively reasonable, but actually mistaken, use of the taser in self-defense. This may be a small item, but it's there. This leads me to believe you may have missed second-order effects, as well.
Second, your utilitarian calculus doesn't take into account the "spring-gun" problem. That is, it is hard to weigh the utilitarian gain in prevention of a crime against property versus the utilitarian debit in infliction of pain and possibly death. (Right, I know: you'll ask people how much is it worth to them in dollars not to be tasered! Or maybe you should ask them how much money they'd take to be tasered!)
Third, your utilitarian calculus seems to be based not on hard data, but on your WAG. Inevitably, all WAGs reflect the biases of the WAGger.
Fourth, you're using a utilitarian calculus. Someone might have a sensible deontological objection to the use of tasers.
It is my blanket position that anything the citizenry cannot possess and carry should also be forbidden to law enforcement. It is improper for those whom society has hired to assist in their defense to have a monopoly on the use of any crime deterrence technology.
The increasing deployment of Tasers has also resulted in a decrease in officer injuries, and subsequent disability (officers don't always come out of a knock-down-drag-out unscathed).
Everyone seems to worry about cardiac patients being Tasered by police (never mind the inherent stupidity of a cardiac patient deciding to duke it out with several cops)... but there has already been a case of a cardiac patient with a pacemaker who was hit by a Taser (he was a federal prison inmate). It was presented about a year ago in the Journal of Cardiovascular Electrophysiology. Pacemakers are hardened against electrical shock, and in this case, the Taser actually achieved capture on the patient's heart through his implanted pacemaker leads... and the patient survived it just fine:
Here is that case report, and here is a review article from earlier this year:
The medical community has done studies on the use of electrical weapons, and their effects of cardiac physiology. Thus far, researchers have been hard-pressed to replicate the purported lethality that Taser opponents claim.
And no, I don't work for Taser, and never have.
This generally occurs in individuals tanked out of their gourds on really dangerous crap like PCP and some methamphetamines, who are resistant to the first few taser shocks. That tends to terrify police so, if more than one or two officers are present, they all pull all their tasers and shoot the subject as rapidly as they can (sometimes as many as 30-40 times total in a minute) until he finally goes down for good.
Which is sometimes a bit more permanent than they expected.
It would be difficult for civilians to emulate this kind of danger.
Which of course means the puppies get bannned.
Because they're magic.
A slightly modified Google search indicates they can be produced from leftover dispoable cameras. Somebody is getting ripped off!
However, Tasers, and other "less than lethal" weapons are often thought to be a replacement for firearms. They are not. If one of the two electric wires attached to a small barb does not embed itself in the target's skin, no shock will be imparted. This can occur for a variety of reasons, including thick clothing, striking a belt, a ring, a watch, a shirt button, a bet buckle, the underwire of a bra, etc. The kinds of Tasers commonly carried by police officers have two cartridges, allowing a quick follow up shot, but if the first cartridge fired did not penetrate a suspect's clothing--and Tasers require that you be quite close to the intended target--there will likely not be sufficient time for a followup shot.
Keep in mind too that when a Taser is used by the police, it is commonly used by one officer with several backup officers present, ready to use physical force, or their handguns, if the taser fails. This is not an option available to the average citizen.
The general rule among police officers is that Tasers and various "foolproof" physical combat tactics work nicely in the training gym on sober police officers. In the real world, not so much. Even though there is no such thing as a firearm that will, under all circumstances, instantaneously stop an aggressor with a single shot, they are far superior to Tasers or other devices when one's safety or life are at risk.
no, they don't. deaths are "associated' with tasers, sometimes. deaths are also associated with any sort of physical exertion on the part of arrestees, who are often on polydrug combos, with heart conditions. this includes, for example, merely wrestling with suspects. and they did. i had a guy stop breathing on me once after a 2 minute wrestling match (he lived btw).
iow, correlation =/= causation.
they are not CAUSED (result to use your word) by tasers.
see for example, excited delirium.
i've been tased, fwiw, as have many people i work with . voluntarily. i have read the studies.
this is one of the biggest myths. it drives me nuts, because it is 100% NOT scientifically based.
the instant the taser stops pulsing (a matter of seconds unless you keep depressing the trigger), all muscle function is essentially restored. iow, it's like it never happened. this means as a self-defense weapon, pepper spray has advantages. it makes people have difficulty seeing, and the effects last much longer.
it also causes decreased SUSPECT injuries and deaths. and decreased collateral damage (see: stray bullets etc.) to innocents.
the stats are astounding.
also, i need to clear up another misconception that was equally prevalent the last taser thread we have (some people never learn).
tasers (in almost all agencies) are a MUCH lower use of force option than a firearm. they are not a replacement for firearms. in my agency, they are below baton strikes in the use of force spectrum.
they are NOT NOT NOT a firearms replacement. period.
in some circumstances, as mentioned, when you have multiple officers and/or cover etc. sometimes a taser is used in lieu of a firearm (when an officer is standing by with deadly force if the taser doesn't work).
but the vast majority of tasing incidents are at a much lower use of force than a gun would be.
and that's how they are SUPPOSED to be used.
tasers are also phenomenally effective as a deterrent. the mere display of an unholstered taser can very frequently get voluntarily compliance, especially when the person has been tased before.
i have seen that happen 2 dozen times before at least.
I think you mean "compliance coerced via threat of severe pain".
Not that I don't disagree with your other points. But something in your mentality is troubling.
Taser use does too result in death for everyone hit by tasers. So does breathing.
But breathing and taser use only rarely cause death.
Almost everyone at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, when those were struck by nuclear weapons, has since died. Ask any Japanese.
Give us an example of a sensible deontological (why do you use a fancy word when a simple one will do?) objection to th use of tasers.
From reading the article, many if not most of the deaths are from multiple cops Tasering a suspect, then shocking over and over again - 25 times or more. I suspect this is less likely to happen in the case of a private citizen - just because it is usually only one guy that has the Taser.
uses of force are not pretty. deal with it. the reality with the taser (i've carried one for 3 years and never shot it at anybody. i am more restrained in my use of force than 99% of other officers, but i can afford to be because i have good verbal skills and competitive strength athlete skillz) is that it hurts. i've been tased. it's not fun. that is a GOOD thing because it is far better to NOT have to deploy it.
the reality on the streets is a little different than the pristine world of blogs. some people don't want to go to jail/comply, and the taser saves them from (for example) a baton strike (far far far more dangerous), empty hand strike (ditto) etc.
that's a good thing.
and it may not be pretty and nice that sometimes cops have to resort to a (god forbid) drawn taser pointed at an individual to get him to comply, but that is FAR FAR preferable to him getting hurt in a fight with police, the cops getting hurt in a fight with him, or even worse - him getting a cops gun or hurting an innocent bystander.
you sound like william kunstler raging against "pain compliance" (with accompanying spittle, rumpled clothes, and wild hair) when you are disturbed by my "mentality".
my mentality is that in 20 yrs of law enforcement i have never even had an excessive force complaint, let alone a sustained one. my mentality is doing just fine, thanks.
fwiw, we have also encouraged a generation of cops that are simply not NEARLY as tough (physical skills and strength) as was common decades ago. i dislike the fact too many rely on tools like the taser as a crutch for lack of physical skillz, but that's another topic.
We don't need no badges.
About 20 years I was on a NYC subway talking to a policewoman. She was short, she didn't look either strong or threatening in any way. I asked her what she would do if she had to deal with a violent opponent. She said she would radio for help and use her gun. Then I thought about Texas Rangers (do they still exist?), who are supposed to really large, strong guys with an intimidating manner. They don't have to resort to using their weapon as often I'll bet. But of course in liberal NYC it's more important to have women on the force than to prevent violence.
On to the question, I agree it's probably desire to control weapons and having limited ability to do so with handguns, pick on tasers.
That said, I could see that there might be some justification for banning or heavily regulating them if there was some evidence they were a choice of kidnappers as being particularly useful or something like that (similar to, even someone in favor of a much more liberal recreational or medicinal drug policy might think drugs like rohypnol/GHB should be heavily restricted because of their use in rapes and because there are lots of other recreational drugs without those same memory effects). I don't think such a justification exists currently, but it might.
Peter Moskos makes the argument that tasers can too often be used as a crutch by cops who are either out of shape (and so don't want to engage in physical confrontation since they don't have your "competitve strenght athlete skillz") or have poor people skills. If you are more restrained than 99% of other officers, then you are obviously quite good at your job. What about the other 99% though? Some departments seem to give pretty broad discretion to taser uncooperative assholes. But the point Moskos makes is that good cops have lots of other tools at their disposal and should only use tasers as a last resort. I'd be curious to see your perspective.
Zarkhov:
About 20 years I was on a NYC subway talking to a policewoman. She was short, she didn't look either strong or threatening in any way. I asked her what she would do if she had to deal with a violent opponent. She said she would radio for help and use her gun. Then I thought about Texas Rangers (do they still exist?), who are supposed to really large, strong guys with an intimidating manner. They don't have to resort to using their weapon as often I'll bet. But of course in liberal NYC it's more important to have women on the force than to prevent violence.
I have heard that nowadays NYC pays starting cops about 30-35k per year. And this is NYC, not Plano, TX. Beggars can't be choosers.
The tasers sold to civilians (like the C2) have a 30-second charge cycle, and can be dropped and left, er, zapping while you run away (not just "a matter of seconds unless you keep depressing the trigger"). Law enforcment versions go for shorter periods, since cops have guns and other cops for backup.
If you leave a taser at the scene (because you took advantage of the 30 seconds to run), Taser will replace the whole unit upon receipt of a police report (not just the fired cartridge, as someone mentioned above).
The Taser C2 can be used as a traditional contact stun gun if the probes miss. This mode just causes pain, not the muscle shutdown that you get when the probes hit. Not sure about other civilian models.
Someone asked why anyone would ever want one; I got one for my wife, because there is no legal way for her to carry a firearm, and pepper spray is out of the question due to asthma. And lemme tell you, the background check that Taser does is far, far more of a pain in the butt than the monkey dance California puts you through for buying a handgun.
-matt
-m@
Weaponry always has that symmetry - that which is a good defensive weapon will almost always also be an equally effectual offensive weapon. Unless we limit citizens to thinks like locks, burglar alarms, and bulletproof windows, we're going to have to allow people to carry that which can be used with equal efficacy to harm innocent people and to help innocent people avoid unjustified harm. "But it's dangerous!" is the point of a defensive weapon, too.
A weapon that you're unwilling to use is worse than useless - it can be used against you (or your hesitation to use it can embolden the attacker).
Doesn't that sort of answer the question?
Ah, no.
Taser uses have been associated with deaths in rare cases, on the order of twenty to forty a year, with a good 7,000-9,000 entire police departments issuing the damned things. The vast majority result in minor injuries less severe than a tackle by police officers would be.
Even the highly publicized cases like those of the unfortunate Mr. Robert Heston and Robert Dziekański involved models not available to individuals outside of police departments, on durations and intensity of charges that non-police models are simply incapable of achieving. The police version, the X26 and X26C, are capable of pushing a 5 second duration high-intensity shock up to a dozen times. The civilian 26C push a single 30 second duration shock (composed of 17 pulses per second for 5 seconds, 12 PPS for 15 seconds, 1/2 second break, 17 PPS for 1.5 seconds, 8 PPS for remaining 8 second) that is both much less powerful and can not be used for the duration associated with taser deaths, with the intent being to fire the device and run like hell.
If you think this is anywhere near a firearm on the force continuum, you apparently haven't seen knives, more powerful pepper sprays (allergic reactions expressed in roughly 1 in 100 individuals and are potentially life-threatening), a long cane, or a dozen other self-defense tools that can be just as life-threatening. It is not hard to cause permanent or even disfiguring damage with most self-defense tools. Excluding powerful flashlights, short and light police batons or similar devices, and a good sense of self-preservation, there aren't many items with a lower risk of injury or fatality.
Because people do stupid crap with things they think are toys, and politicians do stupid crap when they think there could be people — ones without the fancy badge and suit — near them armed.
I do think many of these laws are unconstitutional, though. Both from a 2nd Amendment viewpoint, and from a bill of attainder one. Taser is a brand name, after all, and many of these laws name it specifically. Of course, both local jurisprudence and Lovett disagree.
Well, obviously then there's a reason to ban kitchen knives, forks, nutmeg (hallucinogen), large sticks, heavy rocks, paper, ski masks, condoms, wallets, purses, flashlights, rope, motel rooms, beer. Let's add in a 8 O'Clock curfew and mandatory tracking implants.
After all, anonymity and darkness assist in a robbery, rape, or hurting people.
I don't think it's another topic. I think it's the whole point.
I don't disagree with very much of what you said, but I would echo what Ricardo said as well.
there are plenty of cops like this. i had one officer tell me "i don't do foot pursuits". that they are "too dangerous". i wanted to say to her to "then take another job". but i restrained myself.
i have also heard an officer say he would NEVER (emphasis on NEVER) go into a DV alone. "too dangerous". so, if you are standing outside waiting for backup, and you hear a woman literally screaming for help (been there) and body being slammed against a wall, you wouldn't go in? "nope."
that's the modern age of police work. better to let the victim get seriously injured or killed, than go in w/o backup.
we also saw that in columbine. institutional cowardice because cops were trained that way ... "wait for SWAT". imo, that was one of the most cowardly and unforgiveable things ever. shooting was IN PROGRESS and kids were getting gunned down and they didn't go in. Seattle PD did a similar official (lt. came on air and ordered people NOT to engage in crowd) "do not engage" order during mardi gras, and kris kime was subsequently killed. it's ridiculous, but that's how modern training/recruiting changed. it's changed since columbine (ASAP program).
i;ve never heard of moskos, but i just made the same argument in my last post :)
iow, i agree.
i don't agree with "last resort". they are FAR from a "last resort". deadly force is a "last resort". tasers are intentionally placed WAY below deadly force because they AREN'T (by design and by use) a last resort. they are designed to be used at a level in the use of force continuum (depending on the dept.) somewhere at the pepper spray (lower end of range) to the baton (higher end of range) is justified.
the point is that cops should be trained to have the verbal skillz, but the reality is it's SOMEHWAT a gift, and somewhat based on years of experience, and even then - some have it, some don't. mostly, the ones who don't don't last more than a year or two.
but you can't discipline (you can always criticize) cops who use tasers consistent with use of force policy, even if i wouldn't have used it in that situation. and they have the stats to back them up.
i do think when tasers came out (its wearing off now) the "gee whiz new toy" syndrome definitely contributed to overuse. many agencies also placed it too low on use of force continuum.
thank you for correcting me. that makes MUCH more sense for civilian use.
if you are referring to the florida/kerry incident, that is a complete misrepresentation of why he was tasered. i read the entire aftermath investigative report, and that's simply absurd and not at all why he was tased. read the report. if you are not referring to florida, carry on :)
iyo, but that's not consistent with the Use of force continuums for most agencies, and it would almost certainly (imo) result in many more injuries being sustained by both cops and suspects (and innocents) than where the taser is placed now.
again, the reality is that tasering doesn't look good (nor does striking people iwth batons fwiw), but it saves a LOT of injuries and many deaths. every major agency (large enough sample) that adopts the taser sees officer involved shootings go way down, suspect injuries down, officer injuries down. that's NOT because tasers are a substitute for a gun. it's that tasers WORK and incidents are quelled where before a %age of them ended up escalating into injuries, or even deadly force.
there is also NO way , with unions, and modern PC policing, that we will ever have the ability to screen out weaklings, and physically incompetents to the extent that used to happen.
but it's always about tradeoffs. simply put, EVERY time you wrestle with somebody you risk - injury (very serious even sometimes), and even death.
but i think that EVERY officer should have a minimum strength standard that is MUCH higher than it is now, for those agencies that even have such standards AND require fitness testing every year (not just in the academy). but concomitant with that, you must have PAID fitness training and PAID incentives when you meet benchmarks.
neither unions nor agencies will EVER agree to what i just said. the strength standards will get the feminists up in arms, the fitness standards will get the unions up in arms, and paying people to workout on duty will never get agency or city council type approval.
As to the UF/Kerry incident, I think what people get disturbed about is that the kid is already on the ground with 5 personnel on top of him when he gets tased. He clearly was not going anywhere; they just got annoyed at him. And to be fair, he was extremely annoying.
Trying to take a violently acting out individual into some type of protective custody without causing further harm is an ideal goal. Doing it, though, can be hell. And the wide variety of officer personalities and skill sets makes "procedure standardization" somewhat of a laugh. An even greater variance factor, imo, is the degree of patience level spread out among officers. Some will take whatever the time needed to talk a person into custody, others will rush in with overwhelming force if it isn't all wrapped up in two minutes, it seems. Thus the need for a structured level of force protocol such as you describe, including the use of tasers when needed.
It is an imperfect tool for an imperfect world. But its good to learn here its not as "deadly" as some press reports would have us believe.
"A policewoman might be better suited to any number of police tasks than a policeman even if she lacks certain abilities involving the use of force."
This policewoman was riding the New York Subways. As such she faces the possibility of a violent encounter at any time. Moreover her presence in the subway car should act as a deterrent to both delinquent and criminal behavior. The bigger and tougher looking the cop, the more the deterrence. It's simply idiotic to place a short, light and weak-looking woman cop on a subway car. The criminals will not take her seriously. I've seen lots of arrests on the New York subway. I have never, ever, seen or even heard about a physical security inspection of a woman on the subway. Compared to all the other actions police in New York undertake such inspections rank way down in importance.
Have you ever ridden the NYC subways on a regular basis? At night? Alone in a car? In transit through crime-ridden neighborhoods? I have done all that, and sometimes really late at night, like 3 AM. And I did it when NYC had a far higher crime rate than it does now.
Therefore, your opinions above gender roles in policing are irrefutable.
no, that's not it at all. again, i get pretty pissed off when there is a full investigative report, but people form opinions WITHOUT READING it.
what is this stuff about police salaries not being that great? I mean there are a lot of jobs that pay MORE ( i was considering a rock star career when i was in college. that often pays more), but at least where i work, with just a bit of overtime, 6 figures is very doable. that's not bad. plus, really good benefits.
not just medical costs. fit cops have a lower incidence of excessive force, lower costs to the dept. in lawsuits, lower incidents of lawsuits against the dept., etc. it's win/win, but this is PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT where there are disincentives for efficiency, and no profit motive.
that much is undeniable. there are literally hundreds of people alive RIGHT NOW who would not be if not for the invention of tasers. it really has saved hundreds of lives, but you would never know that from reading the tripe that amnesty international etc. has printed. the facts are very clear if you research it.
most people have no idea how difficult it is to take somebody into custody w.o injury if they are resisting, let alone when they are jacked up on drugs. too many tj hooker episodes, where he does a wristy-twisty, and the guy ends up instantly in custody.
use of force is simply something that looks ugly, and often ends up in major grabassed mayhem. tasers are a very effective tool. i cannot stress enough how valuable they are as a deterrent to injury and death.
Without it, I can only watch the video of the incident:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bVa6jn4rpE
They've had him restrained for some time before they go and try to cuff him and he starts squirming and being an obnoxious ass again. So they tase him. If there is something in the report that I'm not seeing there I would love to read it.
I'm sure you know salaries vary widely. Starting salary for cops in most places is like $30-35k a year, isn't it? Some places like Austin and Seattle pay more like $50k, I've heard. I don't think many cops make 6 figures starting out.
Well, why don't you calm down and tell us where to find it?
Well, yeah; and when you remember that the IACP is largely a creature of the Joyce Foundation, it's a safe bet what the purpose of any of its pronouncements are going to be.
I don't agree that the above 'sound reason' should result in banning Tasers, since their primary use would be for self-defense, but I wanted to present one possible medically-related argument against them. Personally, I would allow Tasers for self-defense and forbid their use by police. Police have other non-lethal methods of subduing persons, and Tasers are too often abused by cops who prefer zapping people to handling them.
I'm not arguing that's necessarily a good reason to ban something, but at least it kind of makes sense in principle.
I'm imagining the cars from Kornbluth's "The Marching Morons." Maybe they could have rigged speedometers too, so people could pretend their electric cars are capable of going fast.
My observation is that Chiefs of Police like nothing better than an unarmed citizenry. They will be happy to testify to the dangers of letting the public have access to anything more dangerous than a plastic butter knife, along with the standard "our lives are on the line every day, it's a jungle out there" hymn of self-praise. It's true that there are dangers, but analysis does not support the notion that disarming the law-abiding public will help.
Of course, this is a city in which a former mayor (and current city council member) held a press conference after being mugged to complain that he thought he and the criminal element of the city "had an understanding". No politician wants such an important constituency of theirs to be maced, tased or otherwise inconvenienced as they go about their business.
There are also stories like this one:I have a hard time thinking of a Taser as a good defensive weapon. They seem best for developing threats, intimidating or responding to something happening at a distance - when the situation may remain ambiguous to someone not inclined to "shoot first and ask questions later".
It also seems questionable whether they're useful for a threat that develops at close range, or if you would want to rely upon one as your first and only line of defense.
The actual reasons it didn't pass are that 1) there has been a huge budget mess the entire two year session; 2) the 'pro-self defense' side spent all its time getting rid of mandatory police inspections of pistols, and 3) there has been a huge big fight where the liberal side is trying to get rid of any smoking of regular tobacco anywhere (MJ all okay), and the conservative side is trying to let a few small places like cigar bars still allow smoking.
But, all that said, so what? (Other than giving me an excuse to make fun of Generaladmiral Scotty; the world is full of such excuses, anyway.) The policy issue about civilian possession/use of tasers shouldn't be whether or not they're appropriate or overused or essential for affecting an arrest in police work, but for self-defense.
Which is odd, because the sale of pepper spray is apparently legal - there's a place on G street or F street a bit east of the Metro Center entrance that advertises pepper spray sales with a neon sign.
Uh, no. You have obviously never been tased. The effect lasts for quite awhile if you take a good "hit." The nerves don't immediately recover from being scrambled.
Tasers are not a replacement for a firearm, Remember, cops don't shoot tasers at bad guys who are pointing guns at them or elsewhere. If the bad guy has lethal force weapons in their possession, the cops return the favor..... and for darned good reason.
The taser just gives the option of something that is "less likely" to be fatal than being shot. It certainly isn't a guarantee of non-fatality.
Oh, and to whoever said that pulling a weapon shouldn't be done unless you intend to KILL, may I make a suggestion. The purpose is to STOP the action, not kill. If killing has to take place to effect that purpose, then that is the way it is. BUT...... and it is a BIG ONE...... you are NOT shooting to kill, you are shooting to STOP! Remember those words.... they are very very important and it is the correct attitude to have when it comes to self-defense.
My recollection is that shortly after the Taser was invented, there were two incidents in Southern California where robbers used Tasers for business robberies to incapacitate the business owners. (One was a gas station, I think.) In response, California's legislature prohibited the Taser from being sold, and decided that for purposes of sentence enhancement, a Taser was a gun when used in a crime. (I think the Air Taser might be lawful now.)
Perhaps this was one of the first signs that idiots were in charge of the asylum. Without question, Tasers can be, and were criminally misused. But by banning their sale, they took away a very effective self-defense weapon from people who could not get a permit to carry a handgun (almost impossible in any part of California where you need to carry a gun, unless you have contributed heavily to the sheriff's re-election campaign), or who might be reluctant to have a deadly weapon in their home.
The classification of Tasers as equivalent to guns for purposes of sentence enhancement took away all incentive for criminals to use Tasers--which are clearly less likely to kill than a gun. Along with death, remember that non-lethal shootings often produce substantial trauma, including sometimes permanent disability. Even if Tasers had the same lethality rate as handguns (they don't, not even close), I doubt that you can find a single example of a person who is confined to a wheelchair for life because of being Tased. The same can't be said for gunshots.
Say someone is trying to strong-arm you for your purse or car keys. Anyway, the same kind of things pepper spray is used for.
His point was that police officers aren't paid all that badly. They are at some significant risk (although more from suicide than murder), and it is a job that many people simply could not enjoy doing. But they are paid adequately for doing an necessary and somewhat unpleasant job.
That's exactly what I'm trying to understand. You propose that some people, if victims of a strong-arm robbery, would use pepper spray or taser.
Is that because the victim has the assailant outgunned, so a better-armed assailant would command a different response?
Because robbery isn't worth using deadly force the assailant, but some other crime might warrant that?
Because for whatever reason the victim doesn't have a pistol, which the victim would use if it were available?
BUT: he also knows that if you successfully perforate him, one of three things is very likely going to happen:
1. He will be lying on the ground when the police respond to reports of a gunshot.
2. He will go to a doctor or a hospital for treatment—and they will notify the police.
3. He will either bleed to death, or suffer excruciating pain for the next several hours—and perhaps die of an infection.
Any of these possibilities encourages a criminal to reconsider whether this crime is worth continuing to pursue. A Taser, pepper spray, or similar weapons simply don't create these possiblities.
1. There won't be reports of a gunshot if someone uses a Taser or pepper spray. A gun is both a weapon and warning klaxon.
2. He may be miserable after being pepper sprayed, but the next day, he will be fine.
3. The chances of death are effectively zero for pepper spray, and close to it for the Taser.
For those who are uncomfortable using (or threatening) deadly force against a criminal, they should have the option of using the Taser. But it is not in the interests of the society as a whole for most law-abiding people to be carrying less lethal weapons. Criminals need to be afraid of prison or death—not just discomfort or inconvenience.
Out here in the wilds of California, police also have batons, fists, feet, cars, and probably some other things, not to mention the ability to call for other folks with those things and more.
If you're going to argue that tasers are going to replace the use of talk in a significant way, you get to support that claim.
Becuase some people really do not like guns/do not want to kill people (even assailants), but still want some means to defend themselves. I do not think it is a wise choice, but I can see several people I know making it.
I shudder to think what you would do with the voting franchise, also exercised by those "inexperienced and idiotic people (who outnumber everyone else".
Whit - the mentality to which MCM refers is that you're assuming everyone who refuses to comply is guilty, or in some way in the wrong.
That may be the appropriate tactical assumption for your job, and in some ways it's the law. It's still unsettling to folks who dislike government intervention (libertarians) and/or believe that many innocent people have encounters with police. Some of us would like to be presumed innocent even at the street level, especially when we really are innocent.
Everyone has missed the obvious reason -- economics.
If tazers are illegal then only criminal have tazers.
Accordingly, if someone pulls a tazer on you, you can presume he (or she) is a crook, draw your Glock and shoot 'em in the head. The police investigation is then limited to verifying that you have whatever permit or hunting license is required by local law.
If you taz someone, then you call the police on your cell-phone and they have to immediately leave Starbucks or whereever they are having coffee (since, unlike someone shot in the head, someone taz'ed probably will get up within a few minutes), and then investigate competing allegations. (e.g., Person with tazer: "He said to give him my purse and then strip naked." Person tazed: "I was only asking her for a date, but left my money for a movie and popcorn at home and was asking for a loan so we could go see a movie and get popcorn."). All this takes time, and requires filling out reports, which burdens efficiency.
It's even worse if the tazed person gets up and gets away before the police arrive. Then the police also have to track the alleged perp down.
And, suppose that the DA decides to try someone. The police have to show up and testify and evidence has to be kept track of and brought to court. There's also the additional taxpayer burden if the perp is represented by a P.D. (especially a P.D. who believes that perps are entitled to competent representation and investigation of the alleged crime -- an attitude I've noted in every P.D. I've ever met.) Then, if there's a conviction, the perp goes to jail and is a burden on the taxpayer since there's food, a place to stay, utilities, etc.
Obviously, it's much cheaper to make tazers illegal, and relying on law-abiding citizens to efficiently deal with any crook dumb enough to bring a tazer to a gun fight.
In the abstract, I agree with you: police should presume that everyone is innocent. But I will say that in my experience even with LAPD under circumstances where they had been misled about what a friend of mine and were doing, they behaved with great professionalism, asking questions, not making assumptions. I was briefly worried that I might be arrested for something that I didn't do, but I did not worry that I was going to be beaten, pepper sprayed, Tased, etc.
The supervisor of the Official Police Garage in West Los Angeles had called the police, claiming that a friend of mine and I had crawled over the wall into the Twilight Zone parking lot of cars towed after accidents, some beeping, some flashing lights, as short circuits slowly drained the life force from their batteries. After some discussion--and a further chance for the police to see that the supervisor was not playing within a full deck--they let us go.
Is the unwisdom in not liking guns or wanting to kill people?
Or is the unwisdom in thinking nonlethal weapons have utility for self-defense?
I'm not sure we should be drawing any conclusion from such really, really bad police work. Lots of bad police decisions are caused by trying to end an incident too quickly.
Unwisdom is that the average person who needs to actually use peper spray or a taser in self defense would be better off with a gun in most situations. I live in Texas and it is not hard, but slightly expensive, for a non-criminal to get a handgun and a concealed carry license here. It is better to have a taser or pepper spray than nothing, but it is usually better to have a handgun than either of the other choices.
I can completely understand not wanting to kill your attacker, but think it unwise to risk your life or health because you do not want to risk killing the person attacking you.
I also live in MA and wonder what you think is sensible about our "gun licensing scheme"?
* That getting a license is completely at the discretion of the local police chief?
* The AG's office's ability to arbitrary ban guns, including many target shooting guns or high-quality guns, for supposed "safety reasons?
* The 85%(?) decrease in licensed gun owners since '98? The continued increase in
poll taxfees to enable one to exercise a constitutional?* The continued ban on guns that have scary things on them like folding stocks, pistol grips, or bayonet mounts?
* The effective registration of guns and gun owners?
Presumably one has a right to take one's morning constitutional without interference. (At least so far--they seem to want to regulate most aspects of our lives.)
This one justified tasering a kid 19 times, who was lying on the ground at the base of a highway overpass with a broken back and a broken foot, not moving, and muttering incoherently. He apparently couldn't articulate that his injuries prevented him from following their orders to stand up, ie: he was already "subdued". He recovered in an intensive care unit. The money quote:I'd feel a lot more comfortable and trusting of police, with tasers or guns, if cops like this one had to find jobs in the civilian sector, and if those whose actions he was defending saw some striped sunshine.
I don't doubt that you (and your particular cohorts) have the skills, competence, and general good sense you manifest here. But cops like Ozark Police Capt. Thomas Rousset and his taser-happy officers scare the bejeebers out of me, and I expect plenty of other law abiding citizens. I guess the bright side is that they didn't just shoot the kid dead as he lay on the ground.
Different issues, I think. I'm very, very skeptical about it being useful for self-defense -- particularly given other alternatives -- but I'm not in favor of outlawing it. Let grownups decide for themselves, I think.
I agree, by the way, with Clayton Cramer's analysis of the problem, and am not sure that, while pointing a taser, shouting, "and while you're on the ground, twitching like a frog, I'll stomp your nuts into a fine paste!" would or wouldn't up the ante from discomfort and inconvenience, but it is a thought.
Of course, I have a counter-anecdote involving the DC police, a broken bone in my face, a few hours in lockup and an admonition that I shouldn't walk around Georgetown looking so much like the standard-issue frat boy they were really looking for.
No, I didn't fail to cooperate, nor did I have a chance since I was tackled from behind as I made my way down Wisconsin Ave. To be fair, all my encounters with the police have been charming, but my bar card might help.
Starting salaries for cops in my city do start at 30-35 - but after 3 years they jumps to the mid-50's. The first 3 years are considered probationary. Salaries move up more gradually from the mid-50's...but in my part of the country that's quite a decent salary for for someone still in their 20's. Particularly when you consider that 20 years of service earns them a pension of 50% of their salary.
Joel,
I was thinking of him as well. He is one reason I would never move to Chaska. This guy is even against retired cops carrying.
i'll be cynical and suggest peter principle combined with affirmative action.
the issue of whether there are some incompetent/sucky police and whether tasers are good are completely different ideas. nobody denies the former. iow, it's the classic "just because some people abuse X" we don't ban X for everybody. that's the point. see: libertarianism.
whether or not you can get a license to carry is up to the whim of your local police chief. that is wrong on so many levels, i can't even begin. i used to be a cop in mass, and lived in a town where the police chief was a jerk. he was a former new yorker and hardcore liberal. he would not issue me a permit for personal protection, only "target" which only applied to and from the range.
seriously.
i moved to a town about 10 miles away and the police chief had no problem issuing me a permit.
how is that up arbitrariness "sensible".
you want a local police chief to have all the power to make decisions about whether you can have a permit or not. completely a subjective standard of one person. that's the level of protection our constitutional rights should have?
there was an article in fbi law enforcement journal not too long ago that showed that among all the EDP calls cops go to, "naked man" calls are statistically the most dangerous. an officer with my agency was shot and killed (executed by multiple shots in the head as he lay on the ground) when a naked man, high on crack, attacked him, disarmed him, and killed him. these are REAL concerns.
i don't know all the facts of the case you mention, but just throwing that out there.
ridiculous. what i am saying is that if you give a lawful order, the person has a legal duty TO comply. i can count on one hand the # of people in 20 yrs i have arrested for refusing to comply with such an order, but that is the authority we have. it's for our safety, and for the ffectiveness of the investigation.
it has nothing to do with guilt or innocence of the underlying offense. it has to do with the fact that people do not have the legal right to refuse to comply with a lawful order, to obstruct police, etc. period.
it is not unsettling to me (as a libertarian) that when the cops are investigating , they have the right to issue basic orders such as "sir, step out of the kitchen and sit down here on the couch while we talk to you" (typical DV situation. kitchens have lots of knives, etc. and we generally tell people to exit the kitchen if they are in there). there is no presumption of guilt. and 99.9% of the time, people comply with these simple orders. the point is that when they DON'T we have the authority to get compliance. i am good enough at verbal skills that i almost always get results from persuasion. but no matter how good you are sometimes you have to use force. period.
if you don't like that, fine. that's the real world.
chiefs are also political appointees who rarely take any position that would upset their *usually liberal* mayoral overlords.
that's the reality.
the opinion of a Chief has little to nothing in common to the opinion of a real cop. most chiefs (IACP) are anti-gun for instance. that doesn't mean cops are.
do NOT conflate (i've seen more than a few people do this) the opinions of police administrators and their attempts to disarm citizenry, with the opinions of actual police.
\
my base pay based on our current contract will be 85k by 2012. when you add in longevity pay (over 10 yrs on with this agency), college differential pay, etc. my base will be easily over 90k. without even any overtime. i also have very good medical, vacation, etc.
if i were to take certain specialized unit positions, i would get an extra 10% on my base, etc.
that's not bad. again, not as good as a rock star, but not bad.
It's the chiefs that testify before the legislature.
I've met him; he was working the room over at the lege when some of us were working on getting a bill through. Knight was in full regalia, and had been driven to the capital by his driver -- can't expect the chief of a dozen-officer department to know what the skinny pedal on the right is for.
He didn't quite know what to make of, "Always wanted to meet you, General Knight," so after a couple of blinks, he moved on to the next guy. (Although I probably should have called him 'Admiral.' Next time.)
A county sheriff (who probably wouldn't appreciate me dropping his name) who was standing next to me started making mild gurgling sounds, but kept himself from laughing.
Clayton
Yeah, I know. I'm no fan of tasers, but I'm not above fibbing; in that situation, it's not like you're under oath.
Kind of like telling the burglar in your house to, roughly, Exit promptly, fellow-who-is-overly-friendly with his maternal parent, lest I shoot you. No, you don't get to shoot him if he surrenders, but since you probably want him to leave rather than holding him at gunpoint, a fib might work. You pays your money and you takes your choice.
and it's the bloggers who confuse the chiefs and their opinions with the real cops.
Do I know for sure that she was telling us the truth? That the intermediaries weren't telling her something nasty to encourage her to withdraw her permit? No, I don't. But with the history of corruption associated with discretionary issuance in California, I don't find it hard to believe.
There is no other license in America where so much discretion is allowed to a public official, and where there is such an obvious conflict between the public official's economic interests, and the right that the license grants. Imagine if driver's licenses were issued by the director of the local public transportation agency--and ask yourself if you would find it acceptable that the director could decide whether you had a good enough reason to drive a car, rather than ride one of his buses.
There is no other license in America that combines such a virulently racist history with such obvious racial discrimination in issuance today.
So why do liberals remain solidly on the side of trusting the police chief?
it is a difference of intent, in most cases, not what you are doing. and legal sophistry or not, the law is often about intent as much as it is about actions.
if a guy is wearing a vest, i may shoot to the pelvic girdle, purposefully. this shot, fwiw, is less likely to kill than a shot to the head (by a wide margin), but arguably more successful as an attempt to stop (bigger target).
i agree though, that for most intents and purposes (but not all) stopping and killing shots result in essentially the same target choice.
also, handguns are not rifles. there are situations where an officer with a rifle IS shooting to stop and specifically not to kill. there have even been cases where snipers with a rifle have aimed and successfully hit a guy's hand to disarm him of a gun. that is most definitely NOT a "shoot to kill" but definitely a shoot to stop. those are rare, and it's not going to happen with a handgun, which is a compromise weapon - carried for convenience cause rifles are like big and stuff
If not for the question of deterrence that I raised above, I would prefer that for defensive purposes everyone carried a non-lethal weapon that was as effective as a handgun at immediately stopping an assailant. I would prefer not to ever have to take another person's life. But I have let to see any evidence that such highly effective non-lethal or less lethal weapons yet exist.
Even if they did, in those jurisdictions where I most feel the need to carry a gun (like Philadelphia, where I have carried concealed on a number of occasions), the chances that a criminal, once convicted, would actually serve significant prison time, are pretty small. (I would argue that there is probably a connection between "need to carry a gun" and "not likely to serve prison time" if arrested and convicted.) If I could carry a gamma ray laser in my pocket (you know, without the thermonuclear trigger making my pants bulge), and knowledge of what it would do was widespread, I would be even happier, because it would be even more powerful of a deterrent than a handgun.
that is kind of surprising. it's the 21st century. we have all this gee whiz technology that we use everyday. yet we still use firearms (a very old technology).
Old technology often work surprisingly well. Believe me, if a newer technology comes along, it will be adopted. Semiautos have largely replaced revolvers for police officers, and for most civilians, they did so a decade or more earlier.
Can you believe we still wear clothes and eat food? What a bunch of backward third-worlders we are!
That is not entirely true. I can build a coilgun quite capable of functioning as a firearm would, or use one of a dozen different reactions instead of gunpowder. The gyrojet design is quite functional, even superior (effective 0 recoil, higher accuracy, lighter weight, higher reliability), to normal firearms although the company attempting to pioneer the matter ran afoul of a (surprisingly unconnected) public panic.
The simple reality is, though, that no matter which of these options you use, the benefits are not major simply because the patent came in at a different date, or because looks particularly cool. Meanwhile, pre-existing technology training and equipment already exists, cheap, and without any adoption costs.
This is, after all, a field where touching matter improperly can lead to a BATFE raid or a Jesse Jackson protest. The gyrojet, to take an example, fell afoul of laws banning high-caliber weapons regardless of the actual power of the shot.
sure, we've made strides within the technology. for example, modern firearms are very reliable (especially the glock). and modern cartridges (jacketed hollowpoint) do a decent job of stopping.
but still... it's a remarkably INeffective tool.
people have been shot over a dozen times and still returned fire, for example.
note that guns serve a markedly different purpose in law enforcement (stopping a threat) vs. military (disabling personnel). in the military, weapons are (generally) better if they maim a person severely such that they require a lot of care and it's actually usually suboptimal to kill them.
contrarily, in law enforcement, the only goal is to stop them - to render them (at least temporarily) unable to resist. whether they die or not is irrelevant and maiming isn't a goal. a magic weapon for law enforcement would be a sleep ray that instantly rendered the bad guy unconscious, for example.
modern handguns are simply remarkably ineffective for law enforcement purposes.
One interesting insight I had was that governments all have the same productivity incentives, and that the Soviet Union failed because there all jobs were government jobs.....
Also, I expect my son to study a combat martial art (for example, perhaps a combat kempo style) because there is nothing that keeps yu ut f fights
I think that one thing that police officers have going for them though is that many believe in what they are doing ideologically.
It therefore seems that the best options to help get things on track is to start pointing out to police officers that there is a correlation between physical fitness and excellence in work, and then perhaps starting to raise public awareness as to how this is important.
At the same time, the brutal fact is that we don't outlaw water, and water can be used to torture people too (for example waterboarding), so it seems to my mind that these are poorly thought out, reactionary measures.
right. my claim is that government work often has DISincentives for productivity and efficiency. my dept. certainly has.
our dept., and law enforcement in general is astoundingly inefficient when compared to the private sector. it's really amazing how outdated our technology, our methods of recording information, etc. are. if grocery stores acted like law enforcement, instead of a bar code scanner, they'd have a clerk writing down each item in your cart and consulting a book to get the right price for each, then painstakingly recording this information over and over.
the civil service mentality runs too strong. iow, "what's in it for me". there is no easily graspable incentive for fitness. an officer can say "i can work overtime and get $55 for an hours work, or i can go to the gym, pay for a membership, experience discomfort, and get nothing for it. and if i get injured at the gym, i burn my sick leave".
If you have a comment about spelling, typos, or format errors, please e-mail the poster directly rather than posting a comment.
Comment Policy: We reserve the right to edit or delete comments, and in extreme cases to ban commenters, at our discretion. Comments must be relevant and civil (and, especially, free of name-calling). We think of comment threads like dinner parties at our homes. If you make the party unpleasant for us or for others, we'd rather you went elsewhere. We're happy to see a wide range of viewpoints, but we want all of them to be expressed as politely as possible.
We realize that such a comment policy can never be evenly enforced, because we can't possibly monitor every comment equally well. Hundreds of comments are posted every day here, and we don't read them all. Those we read, we read with different degrees of attention, and in different moods. We try to be fair, but we make no promises.
And remember, it's a big Internet. If you think we were mistaken in removing your post (or, in extreme cases, in removing you) -- or if you prefer a more free-for-all approach -- there are surely plenty of ways you can still get your views out.