From: ralph [mailto:ralphswan@wideopenwest.com]

Sent: Sunday, November 25, 2007 5:03 AM

To:

Subject: Re: Driver Tased For Asking "Why?"

What nobody seems to be quite catching on to is this: Tasers are weapons of TORTURE. They hurt so F'ing bad that the victim will do anything, ANYTHING!!!, rather than undergo a repeat application. In technical terms, all that somebody did was took the electronics from a "cattle prod" and hooked the output leads onto 50 foot long wires with propelled darts on the end. If a cop were to poke people (anyone!!) with a cattle prod, what would be the public conclusion drawn? TORTURE!!!

Anyone who undergoes torture is immediately calculating a way to murder the torturer. "Kill" would be the better term, I suppose, as self-defense is the issue. The interesting aspect is that a torturer doesn't have murder on his mind at all. The torturer doesn't want the victim dead. To the exact contrary. But in order to halt a reapplication of the pain, the victim's mind instantly turns to the demise of the torturer.

There are a couple of points in that. The torturer doesn't want his victim dead. He just seeks total compliance with his commands. Or, as the cop said, ". . . obey my instructions." Does a torturer have "legal authority to issue instructions and insist on obedience?" CERTAINLY. That's the basis of torture. Torture in non-governmental situations is extremely rare. Private persons almost never torture each other. The sole private examples always involve someone who is a total nut case - he's crazy. And he'll almost always go on to murder the victim without intervention. That's not the case with the "government authorized torturer." In this situation, the victim's death isn't sought. The pain is there only so that the victim obey the instructions. If death occurs, it's solely by "accident." If you poke a human with a cattle prod and he has a heart condition, he'll might well die. Opps, an accidental death! The torturer didn't want him dead!! No intent. The intent is that he live! Must be an "accident."

Now, back to the desire of the victim to see his torturer dead. It'll also go toward a would-be torturer. The victim sees the instrument of torture. He can anticipate what's coming. The instruments here differ from a knife or fire arm. Those are designed to KILL. The victim is aware that there's no intent to kill him. He knows that the purpose of the torture instrument is to cause him such excruciating pain that he will comply when the torturer demands, "Obey my instructions." In truth, anyone who faces such a situation is thinking two things, "I'd rather he kill me;" and "I wish I could kill him." Should opportunity arise, even before the application of the instrument of torture, that victim, even tho yet to be victimized, will use it. He'll kill that torturer if he finds a chance - even a slim chance - rather than face the pain, pain which by design of the instrument, will not cause his own death. The mere possession of the instrument of torture is sufficient to the mind to establish all of the conclusions.

And that's the path that we are on.

I think there's a subconscious connection is some minds that the taser is a torture instrument. Indeed, I think that's why the cop's dash cam videos seem so able to get into the public domain. How many cameras were running when that University student got tasered? More, I think than would have been there otherwise. I smell something. The cops are allowing that, enabling it!. They want people to view the agony of the victim ("Painful, isn't?" Sarcastically stated), just so the next guy will try to avoid the experience. The cops are actually attempting to demonstrate that the taser is a TORTURE instrument. I'm guessing that +30% of the would-be torture victims in history didn't have to undergo any torture. They just saw the instrument of torture in the hand of the torturer and immediately "Obeyed his instructions." That makes life a whole lot easier for the torturer, eh? And I might be guessing low! Thus, the cops are releasing the videos. Problem is that'll probably now convince a lot more than 30% of the people to "Obey my instructions," without the application of the torture instrument - but not all of them. There will be a small segment of the populace that'll consider the situation for what it is, and will seek that slim opportunity to kill the torturer before he can apply it.

The cops are being really foolish here. They are certainly casting themselves on video as "torturers." That clearly seems to be their intent! And in some minds, the simple fact that the cop is in possession of an instrument of torture will lead to a conclusion that they have to kill the would-be torturer before he gets the chance to use it. Contrary to your conclusion, the use of "deadly force" will only escalate on the one side. Cops are going to be killed when they didn't intend to kill, just torture if they have to, but they'd prefer, like all torturers, that the victim not become a victim. They'd prefer that "everybody" seeing that instrument of torture would simply, "Obey my instructions." But not "everybody" is that compliant.

If a cop walked up to a car window with a cattle prod in his hand and the driver shot him dead, I doubt a jury would convict him of murder. The cop held less than "deadly force" while the driver responded with deadly force. Yet, the jury would be viewing it as an instrument of torture and reach the rational conclusion that this was a justified homicide, in self-defense, because the cattle prod would be so painfully incapacitating that the driver had to act first, or risk a total incapacitation. I think that there's some sort of a mental nexus that a total incapacitation is akin to a murder. There's a loss of life, albeit a momentary one, in which the victim is unable to breathe or think. I'm not sure of how that works in my own head, but I do have that sense about it. In the least, I'm sure that people are appalled at "torture." It's banned by treaties. In fact, I don't think that one could even use a taser style device (or cattle prod) as a battlefield weapon. I think they're also prohibited under treaties.

Some people know that the taser is just a remote controlled cattle prod. Most don't. But the videos are informing a few more. It's "the some" that the cops are going to find deadly to themselves. And I find their position here as foolish now as it is going to be perilous in a while. I'm amazed by this intentional stupidity.

Indeed, reverse the situation. If a guy was walking down the street with a taser in his hand, and then refused to relinquish it at the demand of a cop, the cop could shoot him dead with his service revolver. It would be considered a "justifiable homicide." Why? Tasers are not deadly force, they just incapacitate with excruciating pain..

R