Human Rights Increased in the West; Cops can't Taser Nonviolent Citizens

[Crazed Rabbit]

Well I recently highlighted a very stupid Ninth Circuit court decision, so I thought I should point a very good recent decision (http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-taser30-2009dec30,0,3444530.story)made:

A federal appeals court this week ruled that a California police officer can be held liable for injuries suffered by an unarmed man he Tasered during a traffic stop. The decision, if allowed to stand, would set a rigorous legal precedent for when police are permitted to use the weapons and would force some law enforcement agencies throughout the state -- and presumably the nation -- to tighten their policies governing Taser use, experts said.

Michael Gennaco, an expert in police conduct issues who has conducted internal reviews of Taser use for the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department and other agencies, said the ruling by the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals prohibits officers from deploying Tasers in a host of scenarios and largely limits their use to situations in which a person poses an obvious danger.

"This decision talks about the need for an immediate threat. . . . Some departments allow Tasers in cases of passive resistance, such as protesters who won't move," he said. Tasering for "passive resistance is out the door now with this decision. Even resistance by tensing or bracing may not qualify."

The (PDF) 22 page decision (http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2009/12/28/08-55622.pdf).

Hopefully no more use of what is essentially an electrical torture device to force a nonviolent person to do what the officer wants, or, as in this case, against nonviolent people who are upset, simply because the armed officer is a coward!

Some legal discussion of the decision: http://volokh.com/2009/12/30/thoughts-on-bryan-v-mcpherson-the-new-ninth-circuit-taser-case/

CR

[Subotan]

What is the intent behind tasers (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bVa6jn4rpE)? There's a lot of confusion about when a taser should be used, as they seem to be marketed simultaneously as able to deal with people with guns, and also that they're totally harmless.

[lars573]

I gotta see if google can turn up that W5 doc about Tasers. Where they tested several older models, which are in wide use with the RCMP and local police forces. And found that they were kicking out double their rated voltage. Due age rather than defect.

[Xiahou]

Tasers in a host of scenarios and largely limits their use to situations in which a person poses an obvious danger.That's the way they should always have been used. They're a less lethal alternative to firearms. When did they go from an alternative to shooting a suspect to death, to being used as human cattle prods when someone can't find their driver's license fast enough? :dizzy2:

[A Very Super Market]

Yes, I was under the impression that that this was how tasers were meant to be used anyways. If they are alternative to firearms, why would you use it on a passive suspect?

[Kadagar_AV]

Yes, I was under the impression that that this was how tasers were meant to be used anyways. If they are alternative to firearms, why would you use it on a passive suspect?

What he said.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Perhaps you guys should check out the police abuses thread.

Anyways - yes, I think tasers should only be used when force is necessary to protect yourself. As it stands, many police/sheriff's departments allow tasers to be used for mere non-compliance.

CR

[CountArach]

Well thank god for that...

[ajaxfetish]

It's nice to see some sanity every once in awhile.

Ajax

[Zim]

Tasers aren't really ideal for dealing with a situation where a suspect has a gun. If an officer has backup (with guns drawn) and want to try it, it can work.

They're more useful for dealing with non-compliants as an alternative to getting into a brawl with someone. Departments that introduce them tend to find both officer and suspect injuries going down quite a bit.

No weapon is completely harmless (whatever Taser International may like to think). Even is it was completely proven that the charge never harmed people under any circumstances, there's always the chance that someone gets hit with one, falls, and cracks their head or something. However, they are definitely safer than getting in a fist fight with someone.




What is the intent behind tasers (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bVa6jn4rpE)? There's a lot of confusion about when a taser should be used, as they seem to be marketed simultaneously as able to deal with people with guns, and also that they're totally harmless.

[Whacker]

This is a step in the right direction.

The biggest problem as I perceive it with law enforcement in the US is the unwavering support from the higher ups, even when they are CLEARLY in the wrong. So a cop stops someone and ends up tazering them for not getting out the license fast enough, and it's caught on tape. Invariably the police chiefs and higher ups will immediately state that the cop was perfectly in bounds and doing his duty. That 'bad attitude' the driver gave was clearly an indication that he was going to attack, etc etc etc. /sarcasm

[Crazed Rabbit]

Tasers aren't really ideal for dealing with a situation where a suspect has a gun. If an officer has backup (with guns drawn) and want to try it, it can work.

They're more useful for dealing with non-compliants as an alternative to getting into a brawl with someone. Departments that introduce them tend to find both officer and suspect injuries going down quite a bit.

No weapon is completely harmless (whatever Taser International may like to think). Even is it was completely proven that the charge never harmed people under any circumstances, there's always the chance that someone gets hit with one, falls, and cracks their head or something. However, they are definitely safer than getting in a fist fight with someone.

Could you expand a bit on the sorts of situations involving "non-compliants" where you view tasers as useful? What sort of resistance does that term cover?

CR

[Whacker]

No weapon is completely harmless (whatever Taser International may like to think). Even is it was completely proven that the charge never harmed people under any circumstances, there's always the chance that someone gets hit with one, falls, and cracks their head or something. However, they are definitely safer than getting in a fist fight with someone.

Do you have any proof to back up this statement?

If I had to choose between 1 getting choked unconscious, 2 getting my bell rung, or 3 having a couple thousand volts shot through me, I'd pick 1, then 2, then 3 hands down.

[Zim]

Could you expand a bit on the sorts of situations involving "non-compliants" where you view tasers as useful? What sort of resistance does that term cover?

CR

I can try, although I should preface any explanation with a few facts about my job. My day job is spent working in a support position for my local department, where there are usually multiple barriers between me and the people I deal with. In my extra time I work as a reserve officer, fulfilling the duties of a normal officer both in and outside of the jail. So basically I work full time with and around cops, but only part time as one. What effect this has on the worth of my opinion is entirely up to the reader.

From what I understand in my state tasers can be used even in cases of non-violent lack of compliance. For instance, if someone refuses to be handcuffed, say by pulling away or laying on his hands and not putting them behind his back. This is the very minimum requirement for their use in the state. Agency policy can be stricter that state law, though, and some take it a step higher and only allow their use when the suspect is being combative (say, the person cocks their fist and rushes towards you, or actually swings at you but you push him away and gain enough distance to draw the taser, or is fighting on the ground with another officer, all situations where I think the use of the taser is justified).

Tasers are also sometimes used in lieu of a gun (for example, on a suspect that has a knife), but more often they're used as an alternative to putting your hands on someone or using other less lethal weapons (pepper spray or baton), which quite often results in injuries to one or both parties.

All of the above situations would be legal in most of my state, although agency policy varies quite a bit. As far as my personal opinion, I think they're sometimes used too often on nonviolent suspects. However, there are situations where more leeway is reasonable (say that guy lying on his hands is in the middle of a busy street, or a riot, and the cuffs need to go on him NOW).

At any rate, My state is under the ninth circuit court, so this ruling will affect me. I don't see it as unreasonable, although I'm sure a lot of officers will.


Do you have any proof to back up this statement?

If I had to choose between 1 getting choked unconscious, 2 getting my bell rung, or 3 having a couple thousand volts shot through me, I'd pick 1, then 2, then 3 hands down.

Does personal experience count? :beam:

I've been tased as part of training. Immediately afterward I felt perfectly fine. I've also gone through # 2 back when I was practicing martial arts, and did not feel so well after. Haven't been choked but it seems like it would have pleasant aftereffects as well.

On a semi related note, having also been pepper sprayed I'd choose that last of all. :sweatdrop:

I'll try to find some stats when I can. There was an article on the subject last year that was posted on a forum I frequent but I'm not sure how to find it.

Quick search yielded research gathered by Taser International (of course, their site dominated the first page or so of the search :wall:). I wouldn't call it inaccurate, but obviously they're looking for info that supports one side.

http://www.taser.com/Pages/le_overview.aspx

http://www.taser.com/research/statistics/Documents/TASER%20Injury%20Reduction%20Stats%20PUBLIC%20June%203%202009.pdf

This doesn't deal with the subject of tasers versus going hands on, but the comparison with cs spray and batons is still useful in my opinion, since tasers are used so often instead of those weapons (membership required for full text).

http://www.jcfmjournal.org/article/S1353-1131(05)00199-9/abstract

"An electronic weapon, the Taser M26, has recently entered the use-of-force continuum for police officers in England and Wales and is currently licensed for use by authorised firearms officers only. The aim of this report was to assess the relative risk of injury to officers and subjects of police use-of-force options and to evaluate whether the current positioning of the M26 in the use-of-force hierarchy is appropriate. We analysed use-of-force data from Northamptonshire Police Force and M26 field use data from TASER International®. We found officer injury rates associated with M26 deployment were lower than those for CS spray and baton use. Subject injury rates were lower in M26 deployment than in deployment of CS spray, batons or police dogs. We suggest that the M26 should be made more widely available to police officers in the UK"

[Whacker]

Does personal experience count? :beam:

I've been tased as part of training. Immediately afterward I felt perfectly fine. I've also gone through # 2 back when I was practicing martial arts, and did not feel so well after. Haven't been choked but it seems like it would have pleasant aftereffects as well.

On a semi related note, having also been pepper sprayed I'd choose that last of all. :sweatdrop:

I'll try to find some stats when I can. There was an article on the subject last year that was posted on a forum I frequent but I'm not sure how to find it.

Quick search yielded research gathered by Taser International (of course, their site dominated the first page or so of the search :wall:). I wouldn't call it inaccurate, but obviously they're looking for info that supports one side.

http://www.taser.com/Pages/le_overview.aspx

http://www.taser.com/research/statistics/Documents/TASER%20Injury%20Reduction%20Stats%20PUBLIC%20June%203%202009.pdf

This doesn't deal with the subject of tasers versus going hands on, but the comparison with cs spray and batons is still useful in my opinion, since tasers are used so often instead of those weapons (membership required for full text).

http://www.jcfmjournal.org/article/S1353-1131(05)00199-9/abstract (http://www.jcfmjournal.org/article/S1353-1131%2805%2900199-9/abstract)

"An electronic weapon, the Taser M26, has recently entered the use-of-force continuum for police officers in England and Wales and is currently licensed for use by authorised firearms officers only. The aim of this report was to assess the relative risk of injury to officers and subjects of police use-of-force options and to evaluate whether the current positioning of the M26 in the use-of-force hierarchy is appropriate. We analysed use-of-force data from Northamptonshire Police Force and M26 field use data from TASER International®. We found officer injury rates associated with M26 deployment were lower than those for CS spray and baton use. Subject injury rates were lower in M26 deployment than in deployment of CS spray, batons or police dogs. We suggest that the M26 should be made more widely available to police officers in the UK"

Interesting, that's why I asked.

All I have is personal experience as well. I've been knocked out cold a handful of times, and rocked hard enough to come close quite a few more times beyond that. I've also been choked unconscious many times, and will many more in the future.

Getting choked out (blood choke) leaves you feeling extremely crappy when you wake up, and that feeling persists. Getting knocked out by a solid shot to the skull (or neck) is much cleaner and doesn't have as many after effects. Not that either is particularly fun or pleasant to begin with. :skull:

The reason I said I prefer a blood choke vs getting knocked out is that the odds of permanent damage aren't nearly as high as the from something based on shock impact like a punch or kick. Once you're out, odds are the person is going to let go, or ease up enough to let the blood start flowing again. A bad choke can also turn into a neck crank, which is a great way to paralyze or kill someone which is why they aren't allowed in most grappling competitions. A hard shock to the head or neck can leave you with permanent damage, or even kill you if it's hard enough due to edema inside the skull. Liam Neeson's wife just died from this. Note again that strikes to the back of the head or neck are disallowed in almost all major full contact fighting rulesets. Kyokushin doesn't allow any fist strikes to the neck or up for example.

The things I recall reading about Tazing people is that the possibility for side or long term effects are quite high. The biggest thing I can remember is it leaving you with a permanent irregular heartbeat, or a flutter. Of course it's not a given, people shock themselves day in and day out on lower voltage stuff and nothing bad happens. Then you read about folks who work on high power stuff, like linemen, who get zapped and are forced to retire due to heart problems from the event.

If you happen to come across something from a more .... 'balanced' source, shall we say, I'd be most curious to read it.

[Zim]

Funny. I'm more worried about being choked out partially because I know a lot of departments stopped using at least one choke hold because it was sometimes improperly applied and killed or seriously injured people. On the other hand I was tazed with no ill effects so it doesn't scare me.

I'd appreciate hearing from one of the more scientifically inclined orgers but my understanding is that the amperage is more of a concern than the voltage in a shock, and amperage is very low for tasers ( .000123 amperage, a pacemaker needs 400-800).

Thousands and thousands of recruits get tazed all around the country, but that only really speaks to their effect on moderately healthy individuals who are prepared for the shock, and many of the people officers deal with are lacking severely in both of those considerations.

I've got a twelve hour shift starting in just a few hours but I'll see if I can find some better sources when I get home.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Could you expand a bit on the sorts of situations involving "non-compliants" where you view tasers as useful? What sort of resistance does that term cover?

CR


I think that's the toughest call in police work, CR. At what point does it behoove the officer to force compliance when the non-compliant individual poses a potential threat but not a clear and compelling danger? In the latter case, the decision is easy. In the former, the degree of threat and its potential to worsen are decision factors, but obviously much harder to gauge reliably. I have no doubt that police have made the "wrong call" in any number of such instances.

As to the use of the taser, I believe that it was intended as a means of allowing officers to force compliance in such situations while not leaving lasting harm. In this sense, it is intended as a replacement for the billy club or wand, to incapacitate without leaving lasting damage.

Is the taser a better tool in such circumstances? Does it really do less damage than the physical violence that would probably be the alternative?

I personally suspect that the "gray" portion of the decision spectrum -- the huge gap between "reluctantly compliant" and "direct threat" -- is the real source of concern.

[Hosakawa Tito]

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/images/guild/buttons/viewpost.gif (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?p=2412493#post2412493)
Could you expand a bit on the sorts of situations involving "non-compliants" where you view tasers as useful? What sort of resistance does that term cover?

CR



I think that's the toughest call in police work, CR. At what point does it behoove the officer to force compliance when the non-compliant individual poses a potential threat but not a clear and compelling danger? In the latter case, the decision is easy. In the former, the degree of threat and its potential to worsen are decision factors, but obviously much harder to gauge reliably. I have no doubt that police have made the "wrong call" in any number of such instances.

As to the use of the taser, I believe that it was intended as a means of allowing officers to force compliance in such situations while not leaving lasting harm. In this sense, it is intended as a replacement for the billy club or wand, to incapacitate without leaving lasting damage.

Is the taser a better tool in such circumstances? Does it really do less damage than the physical violence that would probably be the alternative?

I personally suspect that the "gray" portion of the decision spectrum -- the huge gap between "reluctantly compliant" and "direct threat" -- is the real source of concern.

Each case is unique, and it appears this ruling is going to raise the bar for the use of non-lethal physical force. Not a bad thing to review its use. As long as the police are performing their duties in good faith and acting reasonably most have nothing to worry about.

From my experience working in corrections & training with our C.E.R.T. teams and having been tasered, tear gassed, pepper sprayed and simulated unarmed & baton defense tactics applied to me; I'd have to say the lesser of the evils was a toss up between taser & tear gas. None of them are painless, but recovery time from the taser & tear gas is quick with no lasting physical after-affects. In fact the tear gas is more a psychological effect *eyes watering/stinging, snot running, difficulty breathing easily, burning sensation in warm moist areas of the body* than anything. Tear gas isn't used to incapacitate. It's used to make people move.
Everyone is affected to a different degree by chemical agents *tear gas*, and I've seen a few inmates who were not visibly affected by it at all. Not a good day, because then our only alternative is the old fashioned hats & bats and more than likely a lot of people get hurt.

I've only been pepper sprayed in training once *our department doesn't use it*, and I fear that stuff. The burning sensation to my face & eyes was so intense it felt like I was on fire, and seemed to last for hours.

Our department doesn't use the taser either, but C.E.R.T. cross training with the state police I experienced it once. To me, it was like the mother of all muscle cramps. Every muscle just tightened/froze and I couldn't move till the pulse was deactivated and a minute or so had passed before I could move well on my own.

Intentional choke holds, baton strikes to the head, are a big no and can cause great physical damage and/or death. They are deadly physical force and should only be used when deadly physical force is warranted.

[rvg]

Cops have mace spray to deal with passive non-compliance. There's absolutely no reason to use tazer to deal with a non-violent offender, aside from the entertainment value.

[Vladimir]

Cops have mace spray to deal with passive non-compliance. There's absolutely no reason to use tazer to deal with a non-violent offender, aside from the entertainment value.

Did you read the post above yours??? The affects of spray last for hours.

[CrossLOPER]

Looks like this is legislation that I can support.

[Skullheadhq]

You won't get the real violent guys with tasers and the only possible target is the non-violent, not so quick in grabbing their licenses, citizens. Do you think a cop goes to an armed robber and stabs him with the taser thingie? :skull:

[Beskar]

THIS IS NANNY STATE AND EXAMPLE OF BIG SOCIALIST GOVERNMENT!

Damn lefties cannot take a little pain, awwww.... this is government gone back, and going soft on criminals. How dare they.

[Skullheadhq]

Righties like electric shock? Consider BDSM then ;)

[Vladimir]

Righties like electric shock? Consider BDSM then ;)

Well we are the most sexually repressed. :idea2:

So sure; why not? :shrug:

[Skullheadhq]

That righties like BDSM, doesn't say normal people like it as well.....

[Subotan]

Maybe the more political you are, the weirder fetishes you have.

[Vladimir]

Maybe the more political you are, the weirder fetishes you have.

That's an interesting statement. Is it because they wish to exert control over people, or be controlled? Or maybe it's an indication of their personality.

[Subotan]

Maybe. I suppose if you were more authoritarian, you'd be into all the domination stuff, whilst if you were very liberal, you might get turned on by doing whatever was possible, and not letting anyone stop you.

[Vladimir]

Maybe. I suppose if you were more authoritarian, you'd be into all the domination stuff, whilst if you were very liberal, you might get turned on by doing whatever was possible, and not letting anyone stop you.

That's probably why conservative guys like liberal girls. :laugh4:

[Zim]

I agree. Pepper spray sucks. I can fight through it, and saw 100% of my class (well, those remaining by the time of the pepper spray class) fight through it, but I'd still much rather be tased than sprayed.

I promised to look for evidence that tasers lower injury, without resorting to the Taser website. It's been hard, since Taser International colescts so much data in their desperation to prove tasers are harmless.

On a side note, yes I carry a taser, no I've never used one. I prefer to go hands on unless there's some reason not to, and even then I don't like fitting people for iron bracelets.

I've also never used pepper spray, and only came close to using it on a dog once. Officers rarely use force and I'm no exception. I'd much rather talk someone into cuffs than force them. If I ever enjoyed it I'd wonder if I were right for the job.

http://www.ehow.com/about_5377080_taser-gun.html

"TASERs have been used within law-enforcement agencies since 1998. The device has helped lower injuries among officers and suspects by 30 percent to 80 percent.
"

http://www.lubbockonline.com/stories/102309/loc_508038488.shtml

"Medical and field studies continue to demonstrate that the TASER ECD carries a lower risk of injury than traditional force options, leading to lower officer injury rates and safer communities," Taser spokesman Steve Tuttle said in an e-mail.

Speculative but interesting considering how liability concerned police departments are (and trust me, they are EXTREMELY concerned with liability).

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/POLICE+HOPE+TASERS+HELP+REDUCE+INJURIES.-a0148336807

``We've had upwards of a half-dozen incidents over the last year in which an officer or a suspect was injured,'' Simi Valley police Lt. John McGinty said, noting that an officer was seriously injured recently while trying to arrest a belligerent drunk. ``We're hoping the Tasers will help prevent injuries to officers and suspects.''




Each case is unique, and it appears this ruling is going to raise the bar for the use of non-lethal physical force. Not a bad thing to review its use. As long as the police are performing their duties in good faith and acting reasonably most have nothing to worry about.

From my experience working in corrections & training with our C.E.R.T. teams and having been tasered, tear gassed, pepper sprayed and simulated unarmed & baton defense tactics applied to me; I'd have to say the lesser of the evils was a toss up between taser & tear gas. None of them are painless, but recovery time from the taser & tear gas is quick with no lasting physical after-affects. In fact the tear gas is more a psychological effect *eyes watering/stinging, snot running, difficulty breathing easily, burning sensation in warm moist areas of the body* than anything. Tear gas isn't used to incapacitate. It's used to make people move.
Everyone is affected to a different degree by chemical agents *tear gas*, and I've seen a few inmates who were not visibly affected by it at all. Not a good day, because then our only alternative is the old fashioned hats & bats and more than likely a lot of people get hurt.

I've only been pepper sprayed in training once *our department doesn't use it*, and I fear that stuff. The burning sensation to my face & eyes was so intense it felt like I was on fire, and seemed to last for hours.

Our department doesn't use the taser either, but C.E.R.T. cross training with the state police I experienced it once. To me, it was like the mother of all muscle cramps. Every muscle just tightened/froze and I couldn't move till the pulse was deactivated and a minute or so had passed before I could move well on my own.

Intentional choke holds, baton strikes to the head, are a big no and can cause great physical damage and/or death. They are deadly physical force and should only be used when deadly physical force is warranted.

[Zim]

Speaking of tasers, I found this amusing.

http://cbs4.com/local/stupid.criminal.florida.2.1434926.html

"According to the investigation, the 19-year-old suspect shocked himself with the stolen Taser when he first discovered it; afterward, he accidentally locked himself with the handcuffs and had to call police to set him free."

:beam:

[Skullheadhq]

Speaking of tasers, I found this amusing.

http://cbs4.com/local/stupid.criminal.florida.2.1434926.html

"According to the investigation, the 19-year-old suspect shocked himself with the stolen Taser when he first discovered it; afterward, he accidentally locked himself with the handcuffs and had to call police to set him free."

:beam:

why on earth would someone taser himself and then lock himself up with handcuffs :dizzy2:

[Zim]

No clue, but I suspect sane people like you and me can't fathom their minds. While in the academy one guy rubbed some pepper spray under his eyes to "know what it felt like" before class. I could see him tasing himself if able. This guy was probably similar, thinking A. The taser wouldn't hurt much and B. He'd be able to get himself out of the cuffs easily.

I've locked myself in cuffs a few times but only to practice getting out of them and always with someone nearby with a key...


why on earth would someone taser himself and then lock himself up with handcuffs :dizzy2:

[CountArach]

I promised to look for evidence that tasers lower injury, without resorting to the Taser website. It's been hard, since Taser International colescts so much data in their desperation to prove tasers are harmless.

http://www.ehow.com/about_5377080_taser-gun.html

"TASERs have been used within law-enforcement agencies since 1998. The device has helped lower injuries among officers and suspects by 30 percent to 80 percent."
If you scroll down to her sources she used TASER's website as her primary source for statistical information.


http://www.lubbockonline.com/stories/102309/loc_508038488.shtml

"Medical and field studies continue to demonstrate that the TASER ECD carries a lower risk of injury than traditional force options, leading to lower officer injury rates and safer communities," Taser spokesman Steve Tuttle said in an e-mail.

Speculative but interesting considering how liability concerned police departments are (and trust me, they are EXTREMELY concerned with liability).
Emphasis mine.

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/POLICE+HOPE+TASERS+HELP+REDUCE+INJURIES.-a0148336807

``We've had upwards of a half-dozen incidents over the last year in which an officer or a suspect was injured,'' Simi Valley police Lt. John McGinty said, noting that an officer was seriously injured recently while trying to arrest a belligerent drunk. ``We're hoping the Tasers will help prevent injuries to officers and suspects.''
This is simply anecdotal and said by a police Lieutenant, which is hardly an unbiased source in this case.

[Zim]

Yeah, it's sad but Taser International collects so much info that it's hard to find anyuthing that is'nt collected by them, or by an organization that's anti-taser.

Because of that I try to use mine very rarely, but I don't see it as more harmful than pepper spray (also once said to kill until recent decades). I try not to use either, except spray on dogs.

As stated before I'm affected by this decision, and that's fine with me.


If you scroll down to her sources she used TASER's website as her primary source for statistical information.


Emphasis mine.

This is simply anecdotal and said by a police Lieutenant, which is hardly an unbiased source in this case.

[Beskar]

That's an interesting statement. Is it because they wish to exert control over people, or be controlled? Or maybe it's an indication of their personality.

I would guess it would be to exert control over people.

I don't really know why, but the right are the ones who advocate a return of corporal punishment (cane/whips), the death penalty, and other similar things.

Probably EMFM / Fragony / Furuculus / CR / etc might be able to explain in details why, if they share that viewpoint of being pro-corporal punishment and death penalty, etc.

[Vladimir]

I would guess it would be to exert control over people.

I don't really know why, but the right are the ones who advocate a return of corporal punishment (cane/whips), the death penalty, and other similar things.

Probably EMFM / Fragony / Furuculus / CR / etc might be able to explain in details why, if they share that viewpoint of being pro-corporal punishment and death penalty, etc.

I'll give them a ball gag and shock collar for Christmas then. :laugh4: