Quote:
|
Originally Posted by mountain_hare
yguy:
Quote:
|
And in how many of those instances were you under the influence of drugs, trying to flee the scene of a crime, or otherwise motivated so as to dictate to the one applying the hold that he employ extrordinary force to maintain control?
|
Relevance? The technique used to apply an armlock does not magically change if the suspect is fleeing the scene of the crime. A well trained officer can apply an arm lock with minimal pain. |
Sure he can, if the subject is sufficiently compliant. If not, the officer may have to break his arm. Would you consider that inflicting severe pain?
Quote:
|
Tasers aren't meant to be used to stop a snotty nosed punk from giving you lip.
|
To be sure...and neither has that been cited as a justification for the tazering, AFAIK.
Quote:
|
I agree that torture is rarely justified. However, in some rare circumstances, using pain to coerce may be appropriate. For example, if a guy on crack is holding a gun, then repeated tasings may be appropriate to force him to drop the gun.
|
That's all very well, but if there is any law or court decision which affirms the moral neutrality of torture in such situations, I'm unaware of it. Your definition, while convenient to the emotional component of your argument, is misapplied here.