Death by Taser and 'Lazy Cop Syndrome'

Interview with director of Killing Them Safely, the first feature-length film to tackle the lethality of the 'revolutionary' law enforcement tool.


A lawsuit filed by the family of a Virginia man, who died after being tased

Killing Them Safely
IFC Films

approximately 20 times by three police officers while he laid on his back near the entrance of a hospital, has led to the much-publicized release of video footage of the incident and has contributed to growing scrutiny of the use of Tasers by police. 

For the past decade and a half, police have been taught that tasers are a safe tool for pacifying potentially violent citizens. But with Taser-related fatalities becoming more common, and the weapon's own manufacturer conceding that improper use can be deadly, the myth of Tasers as inherently safe beggars belief. 

While studying at the University of Missouri's School of Journalism, Nick Berardini learned of the death of Stanley Harlan, a 23-year-old Missouri man stopped for a traffic infraction in front of his house, who ended up dying of a heart attack after being tased three different times for a total of 31 seconds. Fascinated by the lethality of the "revolutionary" law enforcement tool, Berardini exhaustively researched the history of the Taser, resulting in the newly released documentary Killing Them Safelyavailable on demand and in limited release via IFC Films.

In a phone interview last week, Berardini told me the film is not a polemic, but in fact is told from the point of view of TASER International, the company that manufactures the weapon. 

"We try to shift the moral standard in order to justify our decisions. What that means is without real self-awareness, we can justify almost anything," says Berardini, referring to both the police who deploy Tasers on human beings as well as Tom and Rich Smith, the brothers who co-founded TASER International

Watch the film's trailer and read the full interview below:

Reason: Was the germ of this film born while you were still a student?

Berardini: I began shooting this film right after graduation. I was interested in what happened to Stanley Harlan, the kid that was killed in Moberly, Missouri. Because everything on the surface seems very clear-cut: that this was a mistake, that the officers were aggressive in using force, but they didn't mean to kill him. 

As I dealt more with the training of the officers and more broadly with what the weapon can do, that was the officers' understanding, they thought what was happening to [Harlin] that night would be impossible. That made me more curious about TASER International. 

Reason: Given the imperfect science of developing technologies, some people might make analogies such as "Drone strikes are better than boots on the ground in a warzone and cops using Tasers is better than cops shooting people." In general, would you say Tasers a better law enforcement tool than guns? 

Berardini: That concept is why the company has been able to be so successful for so long, because on the surface that makes sense. As an alternative to deadly force, clearly this weapon is the choice. It's much better to taser somebody in a violent, high-risk situation than having to resort to a gun or even having to fight that person hand-to-hand. The problem is, practically, that's not how the weapons are used. They are really designed to be used as compliance tools. There's a disconnect, where the public believes [Tasers] are an alternative to deadly force, so when somebody is hurt or killed they're not surprised because they assume there's some justifiable level of victim-blaming, versus the officers saying they are safe and can be used in any context and any confrontation. A lot of these people who die or are hurt are put in situations where their lives should never be put at risk to begin with. It's that misconception about how they're used that allows the company to continue to thrive. 

Reason: The Taser was invented in 1969. When did its use pass the threshold of normalcy as a law enforcement tool? 

Berardini: For 30 years, they were deemed ineffective, because they were not powerful enough to subdue a highly motivated offender, potentially on drugs, an aggressive person that needs to be controlled beyond pain compliance.

In 1999, what the Smith brothers [the founders of TASER International] do is increase the power of the weapon in order to make it effective. The company was under dire circumstances, facing bankruptcy. They didn't make that decision thinking people were going to die. They made it, as a lot of us would in that position, in order to avoid bankruptcy. So in that context, the decision made a lot of sense. But by 2004, the weapons were so effective at controlling people, they dramatically changed how officers did their jobs. The company knew officers would be enamored with the technology. In fact, it was so easy that it starts to seep through lower and lower levels of force, because the officers believed it was safe.

The company, as a weapons manufacturer, had a very expensive weapon, a weapon that's always been for the most part more expensive than the officer's gun. In order to get departments to buy the weapon, they had to convince them it was safe, so they could be used in a lot of different contexts. Not just a niche weapon against an aggressive or motivated person, because the regular street officer doesn't see enough of those scenarios to justify how expensive the weapons are. 

Reason: How much money is spent by law enforcement agencies on Tasers, annually?

Berardini: My estimation is that the company will generate about $176 million in revenue in 2015, though it could come in closer to $200 million in revenue. It's hard to say specifically with each department, but what they're doing is they're using the existing relationships they have selling Tasers to sell body cameras, and they're doing it with the same rhetoric. You know, "The public doesn't understand your job; the public is going to make these frivolous claims against you; you need to protect yourself from the public."

The problem with that is even though body cameras aren't a weapon, we still don't know the practicality of how body camera footage is going to be stored. It's incredibly expensive, the company charges a really hefty amount for storage, which is why you see a lot of short sellers having success against Taser right now on Wall Street, and who has access to that footage is really not determined.

So again, it's this rush to turn to technology to get to the root of something deeper and the [police] departments are willfully doing that because they want to look proactive to the citizens. There's a lot of public strife about shootings and police use of force, well here's a way they can look like they're doing something about it.

"Let's buy Tasers," which ironically has no real history of reducing deadly force anywhere that I've looked at it. There's been several investigations into their use in big cities, and none of them have determined that Taser has dramatically reduced deadly force.

Then it's, "Let's buy body cameras," because that will inherently make the departments more transparent. But that also isn't necessarily true because video is often times subjective. We can find what we want to find in a video. It's very rarely clear-cut. 

Reason: The film includes some really harrowing footage of Robert Dziekanski, a Polish national who died after being repeatedly tased at Vancouver International Airport. Given how much surveillance footage shows him helplessly wandering around the airport, and how many poor decisions by authority figures led to the violent confrontation that caused his death, it's like watching a train crash in slow motion. At every turn, the maximum use of force is used. But as terrible as it is, this is still anecdotal evidence. Are these isolated incidents? Is there any data that suggests that police are using Tasers as first-resorts and avoiding de-escalation techniques? 

Berardini: The first caveat is obviously, part of the problem with use of force in the United States is its very difficult to get accurate reporting because all the departments are autonomous. The Department of Justice doesn't oversee or force them to do certain mandatory reporting based on the use of force or based on how many in-custody deaths there are. So the data often comes from retroactive news investigations.

There is a lot of evidence of what's been called "lazy cop syndrome" that because they think the weapons are safe and because they're effective at controlling people, it's easy to become reliant on them.

Now Taser says they try to train that out of officers in the training, but they don't really, the only way to do that would be to be honest about the potential risks that are involved. And they don't want to do that because the officer's behavior is going to change if he thinks there's a chance he could really kill or hurt someone. He's not really going to change his behavior if the consequences aren't that dire. He's still going to choose, more or less, that easy use of force option. And the reason that happens is a lot of the policies that are written by departments are vague. There's not a lot of restrictions about how often you can tase someone, there's not a lot of honesty about what the actual risks are. 

What ends up happening is they do change the way they're used based on litigation. What we've started to tally is how much departments have paid out in liabilities because of Tasers and the company is included in this number a little bit, but the majority is police departments paying out settlements of wrongful death or excessive force. And that number is over $100 million at this point. That's what changes the behavior. This is very sad, it doesn't have to be this way, because that means somebody is going to hurt or die before someone takes it seriously.

Reason: There's a line in the movie that "There's no FDA for Tasers." Has there been any push by either the federal or local governments for increased regulations on the lawful use of Tasers? 

Berardini: In terms of strict regulation, it doesn't make a lot of sense. The two electrical standards bodies, the Underwriter's Lab and the International Electrotechnical Commission don't understand how electricity works under the skin. No electrical standards body has tested Tasers because they don't know how. They don't want to get involved because they don't want to be liable.

In terms of stricter regulation from the FDA, it's such a niche product. It's regulated the same way as toasters because it's really the only product of its kind. It's a weapon, but there's nothing like it. Under what umbrella should it fall? We shouldn't overregulate, because most enterprenuers are not making weapons. 

Reason: And as a weapon, its not like there's a big market for drug dealers to be buying Tasers.

Berardini: Exactly. It goes into the hands of people we trust. For example, if they were popular consumer devices, which they're not, we would pay closer attention because people would die in domestic disputes. Therefore, there's not a lot of pressure because of who's carrying them: cops. And we tend to justify giving them the authority to use force because it's necessary to maintain order.  

Reason: Taser has changed some of their guidelines, for example, they tell police to not aim at the chest anymore. What else has changed about their training of law enforcement officers? Are police departments changing their policies on the use of Tasers independent of what the company recommends? 

Berardini: The biggest thing Taser has done, because they were losing or settling so many lawsuits, has been to put in these warnings. The problem is that nobody is taking the warnings seriously because Taser controls the training and they like to speak out of both sides of their mouth.

What they like to say, as evidenced by that conference call with all those police departments that you see in the film, is "Well, the only reason we put this in here is because greedy lawyers want to sue us." And what that does is make the officer feel even more loyal to the company because just like him or her, the company has dealt with being misunderstood.

It's one of these things that has sadly put a target on the backs of the police departments. Now they're the ones left holding the bag. It's very hard to go back to the judge and say "I didn't know this could happen," because there's some fine print in Taser's training that says, "Yes, it can."  

So it's about the intention of those warnings that make it very dangerous, because they're there but they're not taken seriously because the company is paying for all the training. They're controlling the training from the top-down. They're paying master instructors to go and train all these other officers, but [the instructors] are independent contractors of the company. They're de facto salesmen. They're not going to say, "Be careful when you shoot somebody in the chest: They might die." That's not the way it works. They'll say, "Don't shoot anybody in the chest if you can avoid it, because you want to avoid the controversy that someone might think that the Taser might kill someone." But it doesn't.

I literally just heard from an officer I was on a radio show with last week, "The electricity from a Taser has never been responsible for anyone's death." I mean, the company itself admits that's not true. Internally, they've discussed that it's not a question of if it happens, but how often it happens. And that's what the movie becomes about, this cost-benefit analysis that the company is doing which inherently devalues the lives tasers take. 

Reason: So the company concedes that its product is potentially lethal, but when speaking with its customers, it undercuts its own warnings?

Berardini: What's frustrating about the company is that they argue these things like they're hypotheticals. They're not hypotheticals, they found these risks in research and then someone died in the field. It's not like we're guessing here. The risks have played themselves out.

And then they call me a conspiracy theorist because they're acting like you have to be a crazy person to believe they have some information that says these weapons are dangerous. The movie is from their point of view. They admit it themselves. Their image is very important, if they can make it appear to be some sort of debate, some sort of unsettled thing, it becomes a lot easier to convince officers in training that they're being misunderstood, that they're an easy target. 

Reason: There's a striking moment near the end of the film when Taser company spokesman Steve Tuttle says, "a good revolution comes with pain." I can honestly say I couldn't surmise the meaning of that. Was he referring to the pain the company has gone through or was he talking about the pain certain people might have to experience for the greater good?

Berardini: He's 100 percent referencing what the company has gone through. This movie is set up as the way this company sees itself versus what it really is. And in this reckoning of this movie: will they come to terms with who they've become that's divergent from their initial idealism?

And I think what they're saying is proof of their delusion.

In order to sleep at night, in the wake of this collateral damage, they can only believe in themselves as a completely necessary and justifiable life-saving company. Because otherwise the collateral damage would be devastating.

That's why the film spends so much time in those deposition rooms. It's not just about the information that's given, it's about the way we watch them evolve with the weight on them as human beings. You can tell they're wrestling with it. But ultimately, they way they keep thriving is just to believe in the best version of themselves. 

Reason: They have a ticker on their website that claims to have saved a tens of thousands of lives. How many are they up to now?

Berardini: The bullshit ticker? The made-up ticker?

Reason: Do they offer any data to back up that number?

Berardini: They say they've saved 157,000 lives, although since the release of the film at film festivals, they've taken that ticker off their homepage but put it on a separate page and it no longer automatically updates.

They used a study or an abstract that said 5 percent of all Taser uses are used in high-risk scenarios, which in itself is kind of scary, that only 5 percent of Taser uses are done in high-risk assaultive scenarios, and so what they did was they took that 5 percent and multiplied it with the number of times somebody's been tasered and come up with a number. Which is totally ridiculous when you think about it, because we're looking at probably an estimated 1,500 people a year who die in police custody, which includes shootings. So that means before [Taser] got in business we were at 16,000 or 17,000 people a year?

But they say something that sounds sort of true and officers believe it, because they want to believe it. There's no real data to back it up, it's ridiculous when you think about it, but it works. 

Reason: Have you had any contact with anyone from the company since the movie started screening at film festivals?

Berardini: No, although Steve Tuttle responded once in a Newsweek article and another time in a statement responding to an interview I did with the Marshall Project. Their best bet is to try to discredit me as much as possible. Which is fine because I made the movie from the company's point of view to prove that I wasn't setting out to try to show how dangerous these weapons are. I was setting out to try to understand them. That was genuine. I didn't trick them into doing anything and I didn't manipulate what I got in order to make some broad claim into how dangerous Tasers are.

They had a really fascinating view of their own existence and that's what we wanted to highlight. The mission ultimately became trying to show how they had started with this idealism and diverged into something completely different and how they were coming to grips with that. 

My point-of-view as a filmmaker is being fascinated by the way in which human beings, in general, we try to shift the moral standard in order to justify our decisions. What that means is without real self-awareness, we can justify almost anything. And that's not a question of being evil, that's a question of being human.

NEXT: Backpage.com Wins First Amendment Victory Against Censorious Sheriff

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. There is a lot of evidence of what’s been called “lazy cop syndrome” that because they think the weapons are safe and because they’re effective at controlling people, it’s easy to become reliant on them.

    Their policies are to use them as compliance tools, basically cattle prods. Couple that with how many law enforcement professionals are either overweight or women or both, they must rely on tasers because they know they cannot give chase or are afraid they’ll be overpowered.

    1. Well, unless the average cop is built like the Hulk there is always a substantial possibility of facing a hostile individual that can overpower them. I’m a big guy, with hand to hand combat training. Odds are, I can overpower most cops one on one if no weapons are involved. So I would expect the, to use something like a TASER on anyone like me in a physical confrontation.

    2. So basically, police officers (in general) aren’t using tasers as a substitute for deadly force, they’re using them as a substitute for persuasion.

      Typical, any power you give government and any tool you use to enforce that power, will inevitably be abused. They can’t help themselves.

  2. When have cops been taught this? The several police departments I have dealt with have called them “less lethal.” As in “It will not immediately kill the suspect like bullets will.” If there are departments out there saying that Tasers are not lethal, or are violating the 5 seconds of tasing with a 10 second wait training need to be criminally charged for reckless endangerment. It’s not like Taser itself doesn’t teach this stuff.

    Tasers will cause deaths in people with heart conditions, people on drugs that affect the heart, and by people getting tased often enough to cause them to suffocate (or in a position where the tasing causes suffocation by forcing the head/throat into/onto something; e.g. the head into a puddle of mud or the throat onto a concrete tire stop in a parking lot.

    Do they over use them? Of course. Just like they overuse guns, helicopters, SWAT teams, and all of their other toys. Authoritarians are going to make you respect their Authoritay.

    1. If there are departments out there saying that Tasers are not lethal, or are violating the 5 seconds of tasing with a 10 second wait training need to be criminally charged for reckless endangerment.

      I’ll take “things that will never happen” for 1000, Trebek.

  3. Some cops are also worried that by using their fists or batons they will be charged with a brutality complaint, which I do sympathize with (of course, cameras would mitigate many of these complaints, but that’s sensible and therefore an argument law enforcement cannot get behind).

    There are so many police officers that are overweight or so small that they would have to use a taser just to defend themselves, which has to lead to laziness, because why bother being fit or learning self-defense techniques when you can just taze?

    1. I worked in management at a private security company. In 5 years, I never had to use a weapon (either a taser, or a firearm). However, I also have a college degree, and was trained in communication and unarmed conflict (plus I’m 6’5″).

      It sounds like I would be a better police officer than most cops. (Hell, I KNOW I’d be a better officer than most cops)

  4. This reminds me of one of my (many) pet peeves – I ask somebody where something like the TV remote is and they tell me “well, it should be in such-and-such a place”. I didn’t ask where it should be, I know where it should be, I want to know where it is. Every time you hear of somebody dying after being tased there’s always the “well, he was really fat, he had a heart condition, he had high blood pressure, he wouldn’t stop wiggling so we had to tase him 57 times, he was on drugs that caused some sort of problem – the tasing shouldn’t have killed him and it wouldn’t normally have but it’s his own damn fault if it did”.

    As far as I can recall when stun guns first came out they were touted as a non-lethal response in a situation where lethal response was an option, IOW, the taser was not meant to be used as a compliance weapon but in the same manner as a regular gun. If the use of lethal force is not an appropriate response to the situation neither should the use of a taser be an appropriate response. You may not mean to kill the guy you whack in the head with a baseball bat but it’s still assault with a deadly weapon if you’re not defending your life.

  5. “Lazy cop syndrome” sounds plausible, but so does “f***ing stupid cop syndrome”.

    1. “f***ing lying stupid cop syndrome”.


    2. Stupidity and evil are often hard to parse.

  6. A Couple of years ago, I so this Ted Talk concerning non-lethal weapons.

    Ted Talk on Non-Lethal Weapons

    I know tasers are not perfect and that cops will use whatever to beat people with. But it beats the gun.
    Take the guns away from the Meter maids and give them Net Guns and Tasers.

    1. Give them nothing. Maybe if they prove themselves they can have a nerf gun.

    2. Why should meter maids be armed *at all* – postmen aren’t.

      Why are meter maids law enforcement agents in the first place – they’re just revenue collectors without even the flimsiest pretext of enforcing criminal law or public safety that regular cops get. Their sole purpose is to prevent people from clogging up urban areas with vehicles. That’s it.

      1. “they’re just revenue collectors…”

        Pretty sure you just summed up 80% of all police work.

        1. You think 20% of the time cops are not collecting tribute to ceasar?

      2. All Cops except for a swat team.

    3. Net Guns? A better accounting would be Gross Guns.

      Even better “Guns by the Gross”.

      Civilian to Police Chief, “How many gross of guns does your dept. have?”

      1. How about some just really ugly guns. Call them something clever. What about Gross Guns? NY would need to buy a gross of grosses of Grosses.

    4. The problem, though, is that it seems as though cops aren’t using them as replacements for guns, they’re using them as replacements for not using physical force at all. Tasers give cops a kind of literal and metaphorical distance – you’re not shooting someone, you’re not beating with him or even wrestling with him, so it’s “not really force”.

      1. If they ever apply that logic, then it’s fair game to use a stun gun on a cop. Because it’s not assault, right?

  7. This happened in my suburb – which is low crime and the cops don’t do much than bust teenage parties or get people for speeding:

    $450K settlement in East Grand Rapids police Taser-related death

    Officers found Bolick was acting violently and efforts to diffuse the situation by talking to him were not successful. Police used a Taser on him multiple times to subdue him.

    Before police used the Taser, Bolick had smashed through the family’s front window on Heather Street SE. He was acting delusional and hearing voices, according to police reports.

    East Grand Rapids city officials say the $450,000 settlement — stemming from a 2011 lawsuit filed by Bolick’s father and two brothers — was an insurance company decision.

    All funds except for a $10,000 deductible are being paid by Travelers Insurance.

    The settlement amount initially was not disclosed, but obtained Friday, May 8 through a Freedom of Information request.

    Despite the payout, East Grand Rapids Director of Public Safety Mark Herald maintains that city officers did nothing wrong.

    1. I’m shocked that insurance companies are still willing to cover municipalities for police settlements at all.

      1. they are happy to cover municipalities. They just raise the coverage rates. The cities happily pay and pass the expense onto the taxpayer. Everyone but the taxpayer and the poor bastards the cops kill wins.

        1. It’s not like the premiums come out of the cops or city official’s pockets.

      2. Insurers play percentages, just like Ford Motors did.

    2. I looked up the address of this family. This incident happened a block from my house, right next to the community pool. Really hits home now.

  8. Don’t tase me bro!

  9. ‘Sadistic Cop Syndrome’ would be more accurate.

  10. I wouldn’t say it is lazy so much as unqualified or unfit to be a cop syndrome. It is one of the wages of seeing “putting more cops on the street” as the solution to every crime problem. There are only a given number of people who are both suited to be cops and interested in doing it. As we have expanded the police forces in this country we have quickly run through that supply and hired people who are unfit to be cops because they were the only ones available.

    It is easy for us to sit here and call the cop who uses his tazer “lazy”. You go out and deal with some pissed off belligerent asshole some time and see how fast you go to the tazer. The other issue that no one ever talks about is affirmative action, specifically the need to feel like women must do every job. What chance does say a five foot two 125 pound woman have against even an average sized man? Not much without going to the tazer or the stick. You have to be a fairly nasty piece of work to be a cop unless you just plan to shoot anyone who screws with you, which seems to be the MO these days.

    The bottom line is that we need to improve the quality of cop in this country. To do that we are going to get rid of our love of affirmative action and “girls can” and understand there is a limit to the number of cops we can hire if we expect them to be any good.

    1. 1. I would go for the taser right quick – but that’s one of the reasons I’m not suitable to be a police officer.

      2. A 5/2 125 lb woman *who has some decent training* would be the equal of the ‘average’ man – who is overweight and couldn’t run a mile without two breaks and a cigarette. And that’s why she calls for backup. Because even the average cop would have a hard time against the average man one-on-one. And really, most of what a cop needs to do is just *be seen*. Like security guards, most of their work is in crime suppression and that’s mainly handled just by letting people know the cops are in the area. If, as a law enforcement officer, you find that you’re constantly having to bust heads – then the problem is *you*.

      1. She would be the equal unless he got the drop on her and attacked first. I don’t care how much training she has, the first punch generally wins the fight and training won’t keep her from going down from the single sucker punch to the face.

        And training only goes so far. Not everyone is capable of defending themselves at a high level. For most people, size and strength matter. Could Ronda Rousy take out the average guy? Sure. But last I looked she wasn’t interested in becoming a cop.

        1. Size matters. There is a reason weight classes exist in professional fighting sports.

    2. You go out and deal with some pissed off belligerent asshole some time and see how fast you go to the tazer.

      But to the average police, EVERYBODY is a belligerent asshole. Of course, when your entire job consists of enforcing victimless crimes, your job essentially is to CREATE belligerent assholes.

      Anyone willing to enforce victimless crimes is unfit to be a cop. But every cop signs up to do exactly that.

  11. In order to sleep at night, in the wake of this collateral damage, they can only believe in themselves as a completely necessary and justifiable life-saving company… ultimately, they way they keep thriving is just to believe in the best version of themselves.

    Never underestimate the human capacity to justify all kinds of shitty behavior.

    1. No kidding. The primary way they do this is to completely exaggerate the danger they face. Cops have convinced themselves that they are in serious danger during even the most low risk encounter with the public. It is easy to tell ourselves that cops are all just mad killers and a very few no doubt are. That, however, is not what is going on in the vast majority of these cases. Cops are shooting people primarily because they are terrified. They are terrified because they are poorly trained and exist in a police culture that completely exaggerates the actual danger they face. Thinking you are facing danger every day is very seductive. It makes you feel more important and braver than you actually are. Police have succumbed to the seductive allure of “risking your life every day for the public” in spades. And this as much as anything is the reason why they seem to be shooting so many people.

      1. They are trained to believe that everyone is a potential deadly threat. I was listening to some bit on NPR where the hostess was playing some simulator game that cops train on, and she got shot and killed by a little old lady that jumped out from behind a refrigerator or something. Whatever it was it was totally ridiculous. But that’s how they’re trained. They’re keyed up and ready to shoot at all times. Any surprise could be their death, and they must react accordingly. Add to that zero tolerance for noncompliance, and zero tolerance for anything that might risk officer safety, and you’ve got a recipe for lots of taxpayer funded payouts.

        1. Yes. And that of course if insane. There is no other way to describe doing that other than as insanity.

          1. If the laws that the cops enforced were respectable, then maybe the enforcers would be respected. But most of the laws are not. Given the task of zealously enforcing unjust laws, it seems reasonable that they’re going to piss some people off enough to want to kill them. After all, the legitimate task of government is to right injustice, not to create it. When government creates injustice, then it creates hopelessness, and hopeless people have nothing to lose.

            1. Threadwinner

            2. Yep, less nuisance laws to enforce would make it easier for them to do their jobs correctly.

      2. completely agree. they act like they are in a war zone, at all times…. truth is, that a roofer is about 10 times more likely to die on the job, in the US. where is all the public support for people who risk their lives to shingle our roofs?

        1. Roofers obviously lack a couple of things:

          1. A Strong union.
          2. An equally strong propaganda machine.

  12. The police have the power to restrain you, lock you in a cage, bust down your door, kill your pets, take your life on a whim, and they are the one’s who are terrified ? Pathetic.

    1. Pretty much. Give me a gun, a badge and a bullet proof vest and I will go any damn where I want in this country. I fucking dare someone to go after me and buy themselves life in prison or the death penalty. It will not happen or if it does it will happen so infrequently that it is not a risk I would be concerned about.

      1. How about I sell you a gun and you use it to get someone else to give you the badge and Kevlar? Deal?

  13. It will not happen or if it does it will happen so infrequently that it is not a risk I would be concerned about.

    Until it is. There are tipping points in these things. A review of 1776 might be in order.

  14. Some people can be trusted with authority, with power, others cannot. When power and or authority that is vested in individuals is abused by those individuals, both the abusers and their supposed supervisors should be held strictly accountable, and liable.

  15. I’m making over $7k a month working part time. I kept hearing other people tell me how much money they can make online so I decided to look into it. Well, it was all true and has totally changed my life. For further details, Check this link…………. http://www.earni8.com

  16. I guess what bugs me most is it does not appear to me that cops do not know that the taser is deadly it is more likely they have figured out how to make it more deadly.

    I doubt the sincerity of any cop when I see 4 cops ontop of some dude face down and immobilized while a 5th cop beats his skull in while the thugs with badges start on a chorus of “stop resisting”

  17. So it’s not guns that kill people after all… it’s the initiation of coercive force even for the most altruistic and noble of purported motives. So now perhaps we can finally persuade socialists that disarmament means the police AND the citizens all together and at the same time voluntarily turn in their guns. I can hardly wait to hear their enthusiastic assent!

  18. Google pay 97$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12k for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it out.
    This is wha- I do…… ?????? http://www.buzznews99.com

  19. As far as an oversight agency with the know how to assess the risks? Why yes the FDA does in fact have a vast body of knowledge in this regard. Everyone knows what a Defibrilator is, yes? You know the infamous Paddles, where Johnny Gage shouts CLEAR! Carried on Ambulances and wheeled around hospitals since the 70’s. Well those have been major controlled medical products for 50 years. And are now down to a consumer level product with AED’s being found at health clubs, parks, and … police vehicles.

    Yep most Cops are trained on both how lifesaving the AED can be, and exactly how deadly they are if misused or abused. And tasers are pretty much Defibrilators with a longer range. And yes the FDA has deep data on electrical transmission through the skin, what the risks and effects are, etc. I guarantee you nobody has asked them to look at the subject of Tasers because they know what the FDA’s answer would be. They would reject the devices for human use instantly.

  20. People are facing different challenges in their daily lives. They need to come up with good results to prove themselves or somebody else that they are worthy of doing so. Basically, these tasks are evaluated according to their degree of effectiveness and efficiency. Whether you are in a business owner, an employee, or an ordinary person at home, it is highly essential to management effectiveness well.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.