Reason TV: Who's Lethal? Police or Tasers


On May 10, 2011, 43-year old Allen Kephart died after having a Taser applied to him multiple times by three San Bernardino, California, sheriff's deputies during a routine traffic stop in Lake Arrowhead.

"I feel that my son was murdered, I feel that something has to be done about law enforcement," says Alfred Kephart, who filed a wrongful death lawsuit in San Bernardino Superior Court, August 30, 2011.

High profile police related deaths like Allen Kepharts' are pushing activists, families and courts to question whether Tasers or officers are to blame, but the answer to that question is a tricky one.

Numerous studies and reviews from the National Institute of Justice, Amnesty International and the Police Executive Research Forum have come to different conclusions on Tasers and how officers use them. A study in the American Heart Journal even revealed that studies funded by Taser International were "substantially more likely to conclude Tasers are safe."

Former federal prosecutor Laurie Levenson says that when it comes to Tasers, safety depends on the circumstances in the case.

"We can remember back to the Rodney King case and in fact they did try to use a Taser there and it didn't work, where we had police using so much force, it was almost lethal," says Levenson. She points out that often questions of force from officers using Tasers come up after minor traffic violations.

According to Peter Bebring , staff attorney at the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California, that is because when police are led to believe Tasers can't cause harm, they "are more likely to use them in circumstances where they would never consider using more serious force, like a gun."

Those types of circumstances led the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in October 2011, to look at more incidents involving Tasers and policing, one being the Tasing of a woman eight months into her pregnancy. The court found that when police use a stun gun it may be a violation of Constitutional law.

In the year 2000, around 5,000 law enforcement, correctional and military agencies were using Tasers, by 2011, that number climbed to 16,000.

About 6:33 minutes.

Written and produced by Paul Detrick. Associate producer is Tracy Oppenheimer.

Scroll down for downloadable versions, and subscribe to Reason.tv's YouTube Channel to receive immediate updates when new material goes live.

NEXT: Veronique de Rugy on the Truth About the Income Gap

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. I’d be alright if tasers were used as a substitute (when possible) for lethal force.

    Unfortunately tasers are not viewed as a way to potentially save lives, but rather as just another tool to force respect and compliance.

    1. But think of how many officers didn’t have to bloody their knuckles or scratch their batons up thanks to the Taser.

      Don’t forget; cops are heroes and you and I are just potential criminals.

      1. Don’t forget; cops are heroes and you and I are just potential criminals.


    2. I clicked on the comments, expecting another pointless example of time-wasting superfluity. I was not disappointed.

  2. Tasers don’t leave marks. They’re the best thing to happen to LEOs since sledgehammers and phone books. Especially since no one has a phone book any more.

    1. They could always beat people with a sack of sweet Valencia oranges. They show you who’s boss, and don’t leave a bruise!

      1. Shut up, Jim MacFarlane. Or I’ll Taser you.

        1. That’s a microaggression. I feel othered.

          I’m going to go beat off to a picture of Louis-Dreyfus.

          1. You’re not even the master of your own domain. Pathetic.

            1. (Tasers Ska for mouthing off to Jimbo, then Tasers Jimbo)

              1. Try that on me and I’ll sue you! $3.8 million buys a lot of beer and pcp.

          2. try tasing ur junk during erotic axificiation.

            1. Find an axe-to-the-head erotic?

              Just your average libertarian deviant.

            2. I told you this would happen if you let faggots marry!

          3. Did you know that microaggression comes in three flavors? Microassault, microinsult, and microinvalidation.

            1. don’t forget microsoft

  3. Given Chuckie Schumer is just trying to keep us safe because he knows what is best for us, he’ll be going after those rogue cops any minute now.

  4. The fact that so many of these tasings (sp?) took place at routine traffic stops proves that cops are like schoolyard bullies – antisocial psychopaths that use force on the weak because they can.

    Sorry, shouldn’t be so harsh on the whole profession. What’s that saying – it’s the 99% bad that stains the 1% that’s good?

  5. A new anti-transgender “bathroom bill” was filed in Tennessee’s General Assembly today by a Republican state Senator. The bill “restricts access to public restrooms and public dressing rooms designated by sex to members of that particular sex.” There is a monetary fine for people who violate the law. And since in Tennessee it’s legally impossible to get your sex changed on your birth certificate (and only a little less impossible to get it changed on your drivers’ license), this affects all transgender and gender non-conforming people.

    Tennessee has been proposing and passing some of the most homophobic and transphobic bills in the country – it is, after all, the state that passed HB600 stripping local jurisdictions of LGBT antidiscrimination provisions. There are ongoing court challenges to that law I’ll be discussing soon. There’s also the “license to bully” bill. And the “Don’t Say Gay” bill was introduced there as well.

    The response to many of those bills came too late – HB600 is now law, and it went almost entirely unremarked upon until its passage. But this one was introduced January 10th in the House and will be introduced today in the Senate, so hopefully we can mobilize to rally against its passage fairly quickly.

    The purpose of the bill is entirely unclear unless they are just trying to erase people who are transgender and stigmatize them permanently as sexual predators who want to prey on unsuspecting victims in public accommodations. The bill seems to be trying to criminalize gender variance – not something that’s unheard of. And it’s obvious that there is no way to enforce this if it becomes law. They can’t possibly employ bathroom police all across the state of Tennessee to make sure that someone going into a female bathroom possesses a birth certificate proving they have the requisite body parts for that bathroom and that they have had those same parts since birth.

    And beyond the emotional toll that’s brought on by knowing your state legislature hates you and wants to erase your identity altogether, there’s also a monetary cost. When Maine attempted to pass a similar bill, state civil liberties groups spoke out against it:

    Several organizations spoke against the bill, including the Maine Civil Liberties Union.

    The bill puts businesses and schools in the position of “trying to figure out what someone’s biological sex is and if they’re wrong they open themselves up to liability,” said MCLU executive director Shenna Bellows. “It places the decision on the business owner and it places them in danger of legal action from all sides.”

    For this and other reasons, that bill was killed. We can make sure this bill encounters a similar fate.

    The text of the bill is here (PDF):

    HOUSE BILL 2279
    By Floyd
    AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 68,
    Chapter 15, Part 3, relative to public restrooms
    and dressing rooms.

    SECTION 1 Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 68 , Chapter 15, Part 3, is amended by
    adding the following language as a new section:
    (a) As used in this section:
    (1) “Sex” means and refers only to the designation of an
    individual person as male or female as indicated on the individual’s birth

    So it seems you need a birth certificate that reflects your sex in order to comply with this bill’s definition of sex, which implies that your sex, or rather what they define as your sex, is based simply on the premise that society’s classification of gender as ‘the reproductive organs of the body you were born into’ is the appropriate way in which our laws should address sex and gender.

    And adding to that, Tennessee actually has an anti-transgender birth certificate law that has been on the books since 1977 preventing a person who is transgender from matching the sex on the certificate to their sex. There are current repeal bills that have been introduced.

    There seems to be some circular logic at play here. The state is, with this bill, punishing people who are transgender for not having an appropriate birth certificate – which they’re banned from obtaining. I’m not sure how people who are transgender could conceivably comply with this law. It does nothing but attempt to pretend people who are transgender do not exist.

    It doesn’t make a lot of sense.

    Continuing on:

    2) “Public building” means a building owned or leased by the
    state, any agency or instrumentality of the state or any political
    subdivision of the state;
    (3) “Restroom” means a room maintained within or on the
    premises of any public building and made available to the public,
    containing toilet facilities for use by employees or the public;
    (5) “Dressing room” means a room maintained within or on the
    premises of any public building, used primarily for changing clothes.
    (b) Except as provided in ? 68-15-303, where a restroom or dressing
    room in a public building is designated for use by members of one particular sex,
    only members of that particular sex shall be permitted to use that restroom or
    dressing room.
    So it creates situations where cisgender males and females get to use their respective restrooms but everyone else is left out, unless they fall into the exceptions listed in ? 68-15-303.

    And of course, one wonders what happens when a parent has to bring their child who happens to be of the opposite sex into a restroom. How would they choose which bathroom to use?

    And look, they charge a fine for not conforming to your sex at birth:

    (c) A violation of subsection (b) is a Class C misdemeanor punishable by a to a fine of fifty dollars ($50.00).

    It’s not a very large fine, in fact it’s only fifteen dollars more than a valid state-issued birth certificate and a valid state-issued license together would cost Tennesseeans who are transgender if the law didn’t ban the state’s transgender citizens from obtaining one, but it stigmatizes people who are transgender for their ‘gender non-conformity’ no matter the dollar amount. It’s not dissimilar to the state-sponsored terrorism wherein sodomy laws are left on the books in order to arrest and humiliate gay people, even when the law ‘only’ fines you for “committing” sodomy. And there’s also laws like another piece of the statutory scheme in the state of Georgia at issue in Bowers v. Hardwick that imposes for “soliciting” sodomy. And these laws still exist and are still being enforced today, even in Texas, despite Lawrence v. Texas overturning sodomy laws in most other instances.

    Both are cases of systematic destruction of a minority using structural means, usually a framework of laws that already exists and perhaps building on it. Whether it’s terrorizing people who are queer or erasing people who are transgender, it is no less a structural and longstanding problem.

    It has a severability clause:

    SECTION 2. If any provision of this act or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications of the act which can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to that end the provisions of this act are declared to be severable.
    SECTION 3. This act shall take effect upon becoming a law, the public welfare requiring
    ? 68-15-303 [the exceptions to the above bill] reads:

    8-15-303. Restroom Access Act.
    (a) This section shall be known and may be cited as the Restroom Access Act.

    (b) As used in this section:
    (1) Customer means an individual who is lawfully on the premises of a retail establishment;
    (2) Eligible medical condition means Crohn’s disease, ulcerative colitis, any other inflammatory bowel disease, irritable bowel syndrome, or any other medical condition that requires immediate access to a toilet facility; and
    (3) Retail establishment means a place of business open to the general public for the sale of goods or services.

    (c) A retail establishment that has a toilet facility for its employees shall allow a customer to use that facility during normal business hours if all of the following conditions are met:
    (1) The customer requesting the use of the employee toilet facility suffers from an eligible medical condition or utilizes an ostomy device;
    (2) Three (3) or more employees of the retail establishment are working at the time the customer requests use of the employee toilet facility;
    (3) The retail establishment does not normally make a restroom available to the public;
    (4) The employee toilet facility is not located in an area where providing access would create an obvious health or safety risk to the customer or an obvious security risk to the retail establishment; and
    (5) A public restroom is not immediately accessible to the customer.

    (d) A retail establishment or an employee of a retail establishment is not civilly liable for any act or omission in allowing a customer to use an employee toilet facility that is not a public restroom if the act or omission meets all of the following:
    (1) It is not willful or grossly negligent;
    (2) It occurs in an area of the retail establishment that is not accessible to the public; and
    (3) It results in an injury to or death of the customer or any individual other than an employee accompanying the customer.

    (e) A retail establishment is not required to make any physical changes to an employee toilet facility under this section.

    (f) A retail establishment or an employee of a retail establishment that violates subsection (c) commits a Class C misdemeanor and is only subject to a fine of not more than fifty dollars ($50.00).

    (g) When requesting access to an employee toilet facility, a customer shall present to an employee of the retail establishment proof of an eligible medical condition. The proof shall take the form of a document issued by a licensed physician or the Crohn’s & Colitis Foundation of America identifying the presenter of the document and citing the appropriate statutory authority.

    So it seems like if you are suspected of being transgender, unless you provide documentary evidence of medical conditions that require immediate bathroom use you’ll be fined for using the “wrong” bathroom were the bill to pass. That would effectively keep you from ever being able to use the bathroom without feeling uncomfortable.

    The constitutionality of these types of laws is a complicated matter. The Constitution doesn’t address it and the Supreme Court hasn’t yet found a law of this sort unconstitutional. And while most of these state laws have been repealed, they have also been upheld as constitutional by various state supreme courts.

    Here’s what the ACLU has said about anti-transgender “bathroom” bills in general:

    Does the law protect a transgender person’s right to use the restroom consistent with his or her gender identity?
    There’s no clear answer because very few courts have considered this question. The Minnesota Supreme Court has ruled that even a law prohibiting gender identity discrimination does not necessarily protect an individual’s desire to use a gender identity-appropriate restroom at work. In a non-workplace context, a New York appeals court has ruled that it is not sex discrimination to prevent transgender people from using gender identity-appropriate restrooms in a building housing several businesses.

    Some government agencies, however, make clear that denying transgender people the right to use a gender identity- appropriate restroom violates their nondiscrimination law. The San Francisco Human Rights Commission, for example, requires businesses and public places to allow all persons to use the restroom of their gender identity so long as they have a current piece of ID that contains the gender marker that corresponds with the facility the person wants to use. Likewise, the New York City Human Rights Commission has issued regulations stating that a business that refuses to allow a transgender person to use a gender identity-appropriate restroom may be violating the city’s nondiscrimination law.

    Many businesses, universities and other public places are installing single-use, unisex restrooms, which alleviate many of the difficulties that transgender people experience when seeking safe restroom access.

    With the country progressing in a forward direction and with several states killing these laws in their legislative bodies, it’s probably time to just scrap this one. It doesn’t seem to make much sense beyond expressing the desire to hurt people who are transgender and impose ridiculous costs on businesses and employers across a cash-strapped state.

    But more important than money or possible loopholes that might hurt someone who is not transgender is the fact that this law was designed with the intention of inscribing anti-transgender stereotypes into state law and using them to broadly attack people who don’t conform to gender norms.

    1. Post reads like the rejected EU constitution.

      1. Hey… REASON DELETED A POST. So this was not a response to Patrick.

        That’s still badass.

        1. I have to admit; I felt dumb as I thought there was a joke I wasn’t getting.

          1. Yeah, I responded to OWS’ wall-of-text. Strange that my response (which was absolutely a response to him/her) then dropped to your post.

            1. Deleting the posts is nice, but it screws with the format. If people would stop responding to trolls, we wouldn’t have this problem.

              1. Must be because DHS is watching Reason.

            2. MySQL is a helluva bad RDBMS.

              1. MySQL sucks!

  6. A taser should not be oft applied; our hearts are not meant to be electrically over-stimulated.

    The user is responsible for its abuse

  7. I’m a huge libertarian, but for a society to work, you need trade offs.

    One of them is the tacit agreement that you will not resist a cop when being arrested. If you do, then it is the cops job to stop your resistance in a way that causes the least amount of harm to both of you.

    Tasers were created for that purpose; to lessen the amount of force needed. Will some people resist anyway? Sure. Should they? No.
    If you are innocent, a court of law is where you should be heard. Not a scuffle with cops.

    1. So if an officer decides to arrest you when you’ve done nothing wrong, that’s ok? Suck up to authority much, John?

      1. Technically, everyone who’s being arrested has done nothing wrong until proven otherwise in a court of law.

        If a cop moves to arrest me and I charge at him with my garden machete held high over my head, you can argue that the cop’s hand was forced… so to speak.

        Understanding that there are going to be cases where force (varying degrees based upon the circumstances) is going to be justified.

        1. Incorrect. The officer has to have probable cause to arrest you. If they do not, they cannot arrest you. This is basic shit, Paul. If you have done nothing that can rise to the level of probable cause, and they arrest you anyway, that is false arrest, and you have every right to resist.

          1. C’mon, Epi, anyone can claim that the probable cause for their arrest didn’t exist. That’s what the court can easily determine after the fact.

            What we’re talking about here is if the cop beats or tases you when you don’t resist in the first place, you’re natrually going to go into a defensive position– which the cops then use as justification for further force. (stop resisting).

            As someone who’s been arrested, I could have easily claimed there was “no probable cause” for my arrest, and charged the officer who was pointing a gun at me. The only place that would have gotten me in a hole with a granite headstone.

            1. Hey Paul, this really suspicious looking dude wearing a uniform and sporting a badge is saying he is arresting you, but you have this terrible feeling he’s not actually a cop and anyway, you have done absolutely nothing wrong. You going to submit even though you’re terrified he may beat and rob you, or even kill you?

              1. he may beat and rob you, or even kill you

                What makes you think he’s not real? Sounds legit to me.

                1. Now you’re getting it.

              2. You’re absolutely correct in that situation, but that’s always a case-by-case call. I would be the first to resist of the shaggy, almost-homeless guy with a blue uniform and “badge” driving a Nissan Stanza attempted to arrest me, but that scenario would probably have a thousand intangables that would set any reasonably intelligent person off.

                On that we have no disagreement.

                I had a friend who was ‘detained’ for a brief time while walking down the street because some crime had been reported up the block and he vaguely matched the description. Had he resisted in that situation, it could have turned out worse.

                And yes, the cops were complete dicks to him.

                1. I was cited for littering once. I had kicked a plastic bottle that was already on the ground. I called bullshit, and proceeded to tear up the citation. He told me that I was going to be under arrest if I threw that citation on the ground.

                  At that point, I decided it was better to argue my case in court rather than resist arrest and receive a nightstick upside the head.

                  I see both sides of the argument, but I tend to agree with John on this one; laws are enforced by courts. If you’re detained under a false premise you should take action in court, because resisting arrest is only going to end up with a nightstick to the head (or worse). It’s the sacrifice you make when you cede the use of violence to the state.

                  1. On the other side of the argument, I can also see how a bad cop warrants the use of force in self defense. It’s very situation dependent.

              3. Exactly, if you don’t allow people to violently resist arrest they think is unlawful the next thing you know those homo’s will be acting like cops and pulling over good Christian Americans (those godly few who remain) for non-consensual satanic sex in the bushes! It’s a slippery slope!

            2. “That’s what the court can easily determine after the fact.”

              They can also determine it after the fact if you resist the false arrest.

        2. Miss, just lay back and enjoy your rape. You can tell the court that you didn’t consent.

      2. This is goateed John, for those confused.

        1. As I have already said, original John is the evil one, and therefore has the goatee. Just call this one Mirror Universe John. That won’t be confusing at all.

          1. No, no, no. The Flexo corollary clearly states that, if the original is evil, the good clone will have the goatee. Moron. Goateed John it is.

            1. There is a serious problem in that a Futurama corollary and a Star Trek corollary are at odds. How can this be resolved? I know: make shit up.

              1. A Futurama corollary to a Star Trek theorem. It’s like I’m talking to a child here.

                1. Theorem? What, are you retarded? That shit was proven in “Mirror, Mirror”. It’s like you don’t even have an education. Other than special ed.

                  1. Theorem means it’s proven, you ugly halfman. I didn’t get a degree in Hamburger Mathematics from Hamburger University for nothing, you know.

                    1. Don’t give Episiarch the respect due to Tyrion, son of Tywin, son of Tytos, of House Lannister.

                    2. The goatees were caused by a tachyon field.

    2. What justice is available to the guy they Tased to death?

      1. The arresting officers should be Tased to death.

        1. No, no, no. They should tied naked in a chair, gagged, and then suffocated with pepper spray.

          1. Peppersprayboarding. I like it.

          2. They should still tase them first, but not to death.

      2. Some say justice is impossible for the dead, but i say they haven’t tried hard enough. Reanimation is in order; like the Cop Killer cover from the Body Count album.

        1. Hey, maybe they can reanimate them with tasers. Would be sort of fitting.

    3. One of them is the tacit agreement that you will not resist a cop when being arrested.

      I’m going to assume you meant legitimately and legally arrested, there.

      Just because some guy walks up to you in a blue uniform and lays hands on you doesn’t mean you should never, ever, do anything but meekly comply.

    4. John, most of these taser incidents are at traffic stops for crying out loud. How much resistance is really going on in those cases? I mean actual, physical resistance to arrest.

    5. Yes, because no cop in the history of this country has ever beat, Tased, shot, or killed someone who didn’t resist, right?

    6. John, “I’m a huge libertarian, but for a society to work, you need trade offs.”

      I want compassionate application of the rules. Can a person who is mentally/physically impotent of your logic be punished?

      I don’t want humanity to be a societal trade-off for law and order -I’ll take my chances with chaos

    7. Dude,

      I realize your distinguished from the other John (a decades long poster here) and also by statements like “I’m a huge libertarian” but you really should consider a name change.

    8. but for a society to work, you need trade offs.

      I agree with this. Cops should have the power to tase, but the public should have the power to judge batteries as racist tools of white oppression.

      In my online MBA course they called this a “win-win” sitch.

    9. to stop your resistance in a way that causes the least amount of harm to both of you.

      Tasers were created for that purpose

      Wrong. Tasers were created as (or at least they were originally marketed as) a non-lethal alternative to lethal use of force. When do cops (justifiably) use lethal force? When their lives or the lives of innocent by-standers are threatened. That’s a world away from their present use as mere compliance devices.

      1. Wrong. Cops use lethal force when they feel like it. Then they claim “I felt threatened” Those magic words from a thug with costume jewelry absolve them from all guilt.

        Pain compliance should never be used on a citizen who is not physically combative.

    10. “”One of them is the tacit agreement that you will not resist a cop when being arrested. If you do, then it is the cops job to stop your resistance in a way that causes the least amount of harm to both of you.””

      Perhaps I’m wrong, but I thought tasers were a self-defense tool, not a non-compliance tool.

    11. Resisting an unlawful arrest was a common law right in the US until the 1960s. I don’t agree to trade off my rights for the illusion of protection.

    12. I agree with you, but unfortunately our courts are utterly corrupt.



  9. Stop TN’s bigoted bathroom bill


  10. http://www.dailykos.com/story/…..siderecent

    Stop the oppression of the transgendered by the State of Tennessee!

    1. Frankly, I don’t know why anyone would want to use a women’s restroom. Have you seen the lines?

      1. leave brittany alone!

      2. I hear they have couches and flowers and shit.

      3. I cant tell you the number of times I have seen chicks (often hot) walk into the Mile High Stadium mens room, drop trow, and aim into a urinal. Football chicks are adventerous.

        1. You mean the Authority?

      4. Plus they’re disgusting. I worked at a couple restaurants in high school and college where I had to clean the restrooms. The womens’ restrooms were ALWAYS far more filthy than the mens’.

    2. Nope. Anatomical sex is the best way to divide bathrooms. Sorry pal.

    3. I’d be contents if they stopped the oppression of the owners of the bathrooms and dressing rooms.

  11. Nice work, squirrels.

    1. We’ve already occupied brains even if our posts no longer occupy the virtual public spaces!

      1. Instead of occupying brains, how bout you get a brain moran.

        1. I think we should ban Nipplemancer for not being hard often enough.

          1. My wife would probably agree with you.

            1. You have to bring your penis into every discussion, don’t you? [sigh]

              1. Did you just other my penis? How dare you??!!

                1. Microaggression for a micro…

                2. Wow, three weeks and the mems just fly right by don’t they…I have asked my alloted 1 question for the week so I am going to have to let the “other” thing go I guess.

                  1. “Othering” is what people are doing when they microagress against you.

                    1. SF, you have been a font of no repulsive information today. Are you feeling ok? Would you like to lie down?

                    2. non.

                    3. The concept of othering is pretty repulsive. Makes me feel thick-skinned, insensitive, and not like an aching pussy.

                    4. will…not…click…

                    5. “Othering” is what people are doing when they microagress against you.

                      I thought Microagression was occuring when you were othered?

                    6. I thought Microagression was occuring when you were othered?

                      Po-tay-to, Pa-tah-toe.

                      Which is racist against micks.

    2. How about a ban? If anyone deserves it, it’s this puke.

      1. I’m disappointed you didn’t jump on the chance to link something to Bathory on that other thread when SIV mentioned her, and I +1’d the reference.

        I like that band.

        1. I linked to a song about the countess. That counts.

        2. I think we should ban Warty for his failure.

          1. Let’s ban NutraSweet for suggesting banning Warty…instead of JW.

            1. Let’s ban Episiarch for mentioning JW.

              1. Let’s ban JW. That is all.

                1. Finally, we agree on a sensible course of action.

                  1. I concur! We cannot allow this unfortunate horror to continue.

                    I presume this will commence with the ritual naked tickling by young, petite Japanese women?

                    1. Aren’t you banned yet?

                    2. Haha! You can’t catch me!

                      No seriously. I’m ready for the ritual tickling. I’ll do it for the blog, if it means that H&R will continue it’s 5-year mission.

                    3. “This man is about to die…”

                    4. No. Tub girl.

          2. Fuck you. I am invincible, you child-molesting donkey rapist.

            1. Suck on my prunes, you microaggressive pus-gargler.

              1. Did I miss something with thie nano/pico/femto agression thing? I quit my 9-5er on monday and have been busy working on my compmany so have have not had a lot of time for H&R.

                  1. On Facebook, my ex posts about being “your average hardworking young professional with a mental disorder.” A friend of hers jokingly replies, “Better than a lazy, not working person with a mental disorder!”

                    I’m unemployed and struggling with depression and anxiety. Made me feel worthless, mocked, less.

                    mental health


                    1. That awkward moment when someone asks about your tan.

                      This has happened to me a number of times. My favorite story is concerns one of my college roommates?-a (dyed) blonde girl from Romania. Nice girl, but quite clueless. She told me she was going tanning one day and said, “I want to get to your color.” I’m like uh?.”do you want the racism and the invisibility with this so-called ‘tan’?” She looked at me like I grew three heads.
                      I know I’m fairer than the average Black girl, but you best believe even us high-yella Negresses get this shit too.

                      Even a compliment is an insult because it others.

                    2. Tanning makes your skin darker. Who knew?

                    3. Black people can turn invisible? I’m envious. Damn my european ancestry!

                    4. That one is my favorite. As if it somehow is not objectively better to be employed than unemployed.

                  2. I should have been more clear…I put in my notice on monday, still sitting here until next friday so no linky for me (websensed). A description would be most appreciated Zero Glycemic Man (or anyone else).

                    As an aside, when working for myself I have approx. 3 minutes a week for H&R but here at my 9-5er I seem to have about 479 per day.

                    1. Ah, short posts of a passive-aggressive compaining about slights real and imagined (but mostly imagined.)

                      Here’s a few:

                      I am walking around JCPenney when I see they have a dedicated section of t-shirts with game motifs on it for a decent price. I rush over to grab some, but they are all too big for me. Why? Because the shirts are only in men’s sizes, and no videogame shirts are available for women.

                      After saying that women are often groped by strangers in bars and public places, a male coworker tells me not to complain, because it happens to men too. He then remarks, “I actually think it’s worse for men, because it’s such a surprise. I mean, women are used to it, so it’s not as bad.” I try to question him about it, and he doesn’t understand why I’m upset. Made me feel invisible, marginalized, angry, ignored.

                      When discussing Nietzsche in class, my professor asks if we think his “ubermensch” or superman could be female. One student says that girls can’t because they aren’t strong enough physically. Other students agree, adding that the female personality type just doesn’t fit the bill. All of them are girls.

                      I am so shocked and appalled that these capable young women can feel so opposed and disgusted at the idea of a strong, powerful woman.

                      “What’s the matter, you can’t stand the sight of a strong Nord woman?”

                    2. Ok, that is fucked up.

                  3. speaking of which, has anyone successfully gotten a microag added to the site?

                    1. I don’t see one. They said it might be months.

                    2. well, it is funny enough without trolling so there is that.

                    3. By the way, I forgot to say it the other day… Once again, leftists demonstrate their utter inability to understand what “aggression” entails.

                    4. “Aggression” means never having to say you’re sorry, NutraSweet.

                    5. No, but I’ve had a comment removed.

                  4. “I have never found ‘Where are you from?’ offensive and the asker wasn’t questioning your citizenship!”
                    Commenters in response to Asian Americans talking about being questioned on “where they’re REALLY from.” Seeing the point of these submissions go completely over their heads made me feel angry.

                    Thanks a lot, SF. You’ve opened up yet another metacognitive realm. The fact that this site has to exist makes me angry.

                  5. Doctor:: Are you sexually active?

                    Me:: Yes.

                    Doctor:: Is there any chance you could be pregnant?

                    Me:: No.

                    Doctor:: Are you taking birth control pills?

                    Me:: No.

                    Doctor:: Do you use condoms?

                    Me:: Nope.

                    Doctor (beginning to look concerned):: Is there a medical reason you can’t become pregrant?

                    Me:: Not that I’m aware of.

                    Doctor (looking even more concerned, now speaking in a condescending tone):: Then how do you know there’s no chance of pregnancy?

                    Me:: Last I checked, my female partner would have a hard time pulling that off.

                    Doesn’t that qualify as a medical reason?

                    1. So, Me is being microaggressive, right?

                      I get it, right?!

                    2. No, no, Me is just being a passive-aggressive cunt. Apparently the doctor should’ve known that she was a lesbian somehow, and was being microaggressive by not acknowledging it before asking routine medical questions.

                    3. The doctor didn’t read my mind or recognize My Special Snowflake Lesbian Status, so now I am going to pout.

                    4. “”Me:: Last I checked, my female partner would have a hard time pulling that off.”‘

                      All she needs is a vial of sperm and an applicator that looks like Jodie Foster’s knuckles.

                    5. My BIL is an ER doc who has on many occasions made girls cry when, at the end of asking them the “sexually active-using contraceptive” comments, he says “So you’re trying to get pregnant.”

                    6. What, she doesn’t have a turkey baster?

                  6. This one is actually funny:

                    In a blurb by Groupon about a scooter rental deal: “Maneuvering a scooter requires only simple steering skills, passable balance, and the ability to ramp over sleeping hobos.”

                    1. An Asian American man brings his adorable infant daughter to the reception desk. The receptionist, after exchanging pleasantries, says out of nowhere, “I hope you get a son next so you can carry on your family name. I know how important that is to your people.”

                      “Infant daughter”? That is so cissexist. Ze is an infant child.


  12. Tasers just allow cops to be lazy. It is hard to deal with drunken or mentally ill or otherwise belligerent assholes. And that is who cops often deal with. And it is hard. So they just taz the guy and forget it.

    But that is bullshit. We train them and pay them to do better than that. If we just wanted someone to taze them an drag them off, we would get Steve Smith to do that for free.

    1. I keep hearing about how we train police officers.

      I have not seen much evidence of any training. I have seen a lot of evidence that cops are lazy and entitled, which breeds assholery.

      1. They get tons of training. They are totally trained in how to deal with people with progressively high levels of force. They are trained on how to deescalate a situation and use the minimum force necessary. Force is bad for business, lots of paperwork, law suits and such.

        In cases like this the cops know better. They are just too lazy to do the right thing.

        1. I dunno…according to Dunphy, evil democrats starve the police forces of money, so they actually aren’t very well trained at all.

          1. That is bullshit. If nothing else they get on the job training. They know better.

            1. The OJT is where the real training takes place. “Don’t let a non cop dis you. Kick their teeth in, tase the, then pile on false charges.”

              1. my agency doesn’t even have in service training any more (due to budget cuts). the vast majority of our training is online.
                and it’s joke

              2. lol. troll-o-meter .01

        2. Force is not bad for business. Force, and the threat thereof, is the best thing for cops. They like being feared, it makes their job easier most of the time.

          While I’m sure cops attend classes that purport to train them, that is not the same thing as being trained. Training has to be backed by policies that enforce using the training rather than chickenshitting out and running a few thousand volts through anybody less compliant than a mannikin.

          1. No it is really not. Getting sued is a serious pain in the ass. They don’t like to get sued.

            1. Cops don’t get sued. Police departments get sued. That is, the city pays for it, not the individual cops.

              Where is the incentive for cops to avoid force at all costs? It’s not like they get fired for being dicks.

              1. cops get fired, and sometimes prosecuted for using excessive andor criminal force all the fucking time

                there is immense incentive not to use force

                1) less paperwork
                2) even if force is found justified, it always looks better in one’s jacket to less UOF’s
                3) less civil liability. cops have QUALIFIED not absolute immunity


                cops use force exceptionally rarely, as the stats i have posted before show

                force is rare, and when it is used, it is usually relatively low level force.

                look at WTO . despite all the mayhem, the injuries suffered by rioters were minor. MUCH more minor than similar riots in europe i might note (where people died)

                considering how often cops deal with resistant assmunches, they are quite restrained in UOF’s and are incentivized to be so

                granted, often waiting TOO long to use force can result in having to use MORE force later. iow, there is a point where restraint becomes counterproductive

    2. “”Tasers just allow cops to be lazy.””

      That and pepper spray.

      They have no problem uping the level of force when the tool is considered non-leathal.

    3. Tasers just allow cops to be lazy.

      This is the core of the problem. Tasers were invented due to a real need for non-lethal means to take care of people who were dangerous to themselves or others, but didn’t require lethal force- a mentally ill man, a whacked out drug user, an otherwise peaceful guy in a highly agitated state, etc.

      But then through mission creep, cops started using tasers in the exact reverse situation. Someone who didn’t require any force was a candidate for tasing because they were verbally uncooperative, rude, or didn’t immediately respect the authority of the cop.

      1. it wasn’t mission creep. it happened from the get-go. it was facilitated by 1) new toy syndrome 2) poorly written and overly lenient policies regarding their use

        my agency, and i suspcet many, if not most others, have substantially reigned in taser use by making the requirement for use stricter

        fortunately, so has case law

    4. The worst part is that they do it over and over. I imagine that a healthy adult body can handle one taser pretty easily. But when you taser someone ten times in a span of a minute or two, it’s not all that shocking that they have a heart attack.

      Tasers are OP, but it’s nothing a cooldown timer wouldn’t fix. Nerf that shit, TI.

  13. And the idea that we just tell people not to resist is absurd. People do resist. People are assholes. We hire police, rather than depend on mob justice not just because we want such people dealt with but also because we want them treated justly. Just because you are some belligerent asshole who mouths off or takes a swing at a cop doesn’t mean you deserve whatever the cop decides is coming to you.

    1. Thank God. I thought that was you posting up above. I was afraid you’d finally gone completely around the bend.

      1. Check the email address. It wasn’t me. I am pretty reliably anticop, which is a bit ironic since I work at least somewhat in law enforcement.

        1. the whole “stop resisting” thing which has become a reason – meme is actually something that is taught in training because even when using force after a person has continually refused to comply, etc. it is better to keep giving demands to comply to justify the continued uof. iow, it allows the suspect to understand that there is something he needs to do and it is his choice whether he does it

          it’s just ironic because it was implemented for very specific reasons.

          1. But now it’s the cop version of “it’s coming right for us!”.

      2. No, no, no. That was the good John from a parallel universe. You can tell him from our evil John because good John has a goatee.

    2. “Just because you are some belligerent asshole who mouths off or takes a swing at a cop doesn’t mean you deserve whatever the cop decides is coming to you.”

      Deserve? What good is complaining about “deserve”. Did the Dinosaurs deserve that meteor. Man up and face the facts, tases are the price we pay for civilization.

      1. “deserve” is irrelevant. it is applying a punitive term to an issue that is judged based on reasonableness, UOF, constitutional guidelines,etc.

        it has nothing to do with whether a person deserves X. that is a moral judgment. it has to do with whether the UOF was justified.

        when i was pulled over at gunpoint as an armed robbery suspect, i didn’t “deserve” it.

        i had done nothing wrong. having guns pointed at you is not fun, but it was JUSTIFIED

        it was not “deserved”

  14. Tasers don’t kill people.

    Cops kill people.

  15. Are you highly intelligent?

  16. the science on tasers is much like global warming, or any other controversial issue

    most people will have a predetermined narrative, and then pick and choose the science that agrees with their prejudice, their PREjudgment about it.

    ANY use of force can kill, in that somebody can die afterwards. that includes a long drawn out wrestling match. i had a guy stop breathing on me, after exactly that.

    nobody claims “wrestling is lethal” but we recognize that, especially when you are dealing with people who are grossly out of shape and/or obese and/or on a polydrug combo and/or malnutritioned and/or already ill, something not at all uncommon , and especially common with street people, chronic drug users, iow the people we often deal with, that they can and will die sometimes after ANY significant stressor whether that be a long wrestling match, a taser, etc.

    tasers have their place. tasers have been VASTLY overused by cops. many agencies ENCOURAGE that overuse by having UOF policies that allow tasers in too broad of circumstances.

    thankfully, that’s changing

    in my agency, it’s clear we use tasers FAR less than we did 5 yrs ago, for example

    i’ve carried one coming up on 10 yrs. i’ve USED it, but i’ve never fired it at somebody

    tasers, like guns, are quite effective as a deterrent, ESPECIALLY amongst people who have been tased. they don’t like it

    tasers, like any use of force can be, and will be on occasion – misused

    given that, they are a very effective means of deescalating and taking resistant people into custody WHEN used properly

    i’ve been tased twice. it’s not fun. it also completely incapacitated me, something that is difficult for even a couple of burly cops to do

  17. oh, i also have noticed that the current generation of cops is simply substantially less “tough” than cops used to be. all sorts of reasons for this. but it is what it is.

    granted, we have some newbies who are former NFL players, who are MMA fighters, nationally ranked former boxers, etc. iow, there are exceptions, but it simply seems to be that we are hiring less physically capable officers than we used to, and or less physically capable officers are applying in larger #’s

    i could take random sample of 20 officers who have 20 yrs on, vs. 20 from our latest academy class, and i’d take the former ANY day as my partners in a street fight, etc. again, it’s partly cultural, etc. but it is what it is

    way too many of these rookies RELY on shit like tasers, vs. first relying on your mind, your command presence, your verbal judo, your defensive skills, etc.

    again, we have some core officers who bust their ass to stay in shape and stay tactical – attending tactical training on their own time, rolling at jiu jitsu dojos, boxing, lifting, etc. etc. but imo far too many are weak, physically incapable, and would never have been cops “back in the day” where it was simply accepted that you had to be tough as fuck to work certain dept’s/areas

    GENERALLY speaking, i usually see those officers migrate towards “easier” districts, and/or admin/detective etc. positions where they feel safer.

    it’s better for us, for suspects, for citizens, and for them

    often it takes them getting their ass kicked once or twice before they realize they need to

  18. My friend recommend me an interesting place
    __ successfulmingle.C/0/M __ It’s the largest and best club for seeking CEOs, athletes, doctors, lawyers, investors, entrepreneurs, beauty queens, fitness models, and Hollywood celebrities. If you have worked hard for your Millionaire status and want to meet people of the same class, if you want to enjoy a millionaire lifestyle, you may join it. 😉

  19. Hello,my friends!Here’s the most popular dating site for now__SeekCasual*com, a place for people who wanna start a short-term relationship.And also for finding soul mates.Over 160000 happy members are waiting their lovers.Join free and have a try,nothing to lose!

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.