Owner of a broken heart

[Ares, God of War]

I'm watching last nights episode. There is a scene with a guy in bed
with two, count 'em two, women. How did they ever get that past
the censors at the network? I still can't beleive the network
or the local affiliates didn't pull the plug at that scene.

[Annie Woughman]

Post by Ares, God of War
I'm watching last nights episode. There is a scene with a guy in bed
with two, count 'em two, women. How did they ever get that past
the censors at the network? I still can't beleive the network
or the local affiliates didn't pull the plug at that scene.

I didn't think that scene was any worse than the torrid scene between Sam &
Tony towards the end. I just finished watching the ER DVD's seasons 1-8 so
watching last night's episode was rather a jolt (no pun intended for Morris)
because I was aware of how far this show has fallen. Instead of good medical
story lines, it now relies on over-the-top (or should I say
under-the-bottom) dark personal problems of the staff. It seems that the
television and movie industries want to make a nation of voyeurs out of us.
Graphic sex scenes turn me off cold. I prefer the old fade-aways.

[Nancy2]

Post by Annie Woughman

with two, count 'em two, women.   How did they ever get that past
the censors at the network?  I still can't beleive the network
or the local affiliates didn't pull the plug at that scene.

I didn't think that scene was any worse than the torrid scene between Sam &
Tony towards the end.  I just finished watching the ER DVD's seasons 1-8 so
watching last night's episode was rather a jolt (no pun intended for Morris)
because I was aware of how far this show has fallen. Instead of good medical
story lines, it now relies on over-the-top (or should I say
under-the-bottom) dark personal problems of the staff.  It seems that the
television and movie industries want to make a nation of voyeurs out of us.
Graphic sex scenes turn me off cold.   I prefer the old fade-aways.

Yeah, me, too. Ares would like to censor everything, I bet. It's on
at 10 p.m. EDT - all the kiddies should be in bed and not watching.

But, I agree with Annie. It was gratuitous, as was the final scene
with Sam and Tony, which I thought was much worse, since they were
tearing clothes off each other.

N.

[Ares, God of War]

On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 13:20:03 -0700 (PDT), Nancy2

Post by Nancy2
Yeah, me, too. Ares would like to censor everything, I bet. It's on
at 10 p.m. EDT - all the kiddies should be in bed and not watching.

Wrong answer. I grew up in the 60s when they actually had limits
on TV. For example Ricki and Lucy had to be in seperate beds even
though they were married.

Remember the 7 words you can't say on Tv? I bet you're not old
enough to remember those days.

[Sharon Too]

Post by Ares, God of War
Wrong answer. I grew up in the 60s when they actually had limits
on TV. For example Ricki and Lucy had to be in seperate beds even
though they were married.

It was also a time when the networks took it upon themselves to police the
viewers. Everyone knew the 2-bed rule was ridiculous. And, yes, children
young enough to be disturbed by the content of last night's show shouldn't
be watching at 10pm. Older folks who are uptight and can't handle it can
turn it off. There's plenty of Animal planet to watch. Never mind. The
zebras copulating at 10pm might be offensive ;-)

Post by Ares, God of War
Remember the 7 words you can't say on Tv? I bet you're not old
enough to remember those days.

George Carlin can refresh memories.

[Paige Matthews]

On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 18:57:12 -0400, "Sharon Too"

Post by Sharon Too
And, yes, children
young enough to be disturbed by the content of last night's show shouldn't
be watching at 10pm.

But sadly in this day and age alot of kids are up at that hour and
watching TV.

But then that is what you have for parents these days.

Post by Sharon Too
Older folks who are uptight and can't handle it can
turn it off. There's plenty of Animal planet to watch. Never mind. The
zebras copulating at 10pm might be offensive ;-)

But we need to limit what is on Tv since there so many parents
who have no clue what their kids are doing at that hour.

[Ares, God of War]

On Sat, 12 Apr 2008 01:44:19 -0400, Paige Matthews

Post by Paige Matthews
On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 18:57:12 -0400, "Sharon Too"

Post by Sharon Too
And, yes, children
young enough to be disturbed by the content of last night's show shouldn't
be watching at 10pm.

But sadly in this day and age alot of kids are up at that hour and
watching TV.
But then that is what you have for parents these days.

Here in this city there are alot of kids who are up and
often outside of the house at midnight, 1 am, 2 am.

My parents would never allow it but those days
are long gone.

Go to our local 7/11 at 2 in the morning and you'll
find very young kids hanging out in front of it.

Post by Paige Matthews

Post by Sharon Too
Older folks who are uptight and can't handle it can
turn it off. There's plenty of Animal planet to watch. Never mind. The
zebras copulating at 10pm might be offensive ;-)

But we need to limit what is on Tv since there so many parents
who have no clue what their kids are doing at that hour.

[Sharon Too]

Post by Paige Matthews
But we need to limit what is on Tv since there so many parents
who have no clue what their kids are doing at that hour.

There's a point at which the majority should not have to be policed in terms
of television content to play 'substitute parent' to the vast minority.

Television content is the least of those kids concerns. They don't care
about the threesome at the beginning of ER when they can watch 'R' rated
movies on the upper channels or delve into the Spice Channel. If they're at
7-11 and hanging out on the street corners they're not watching ER. Staying
home and watching ER might be the first step towards getting off the
streets.

[Nancy2]

On Apr 11, 4:52 pm, "Ares, God of War"

Post by Ares, God of War

Post by Nancy2
Yeah, me, too. Ares would like to censor everything, I bet. It's on
at 10 p.m. EDT - all the kiddies should be in bed and not watching.

Wrong answer. I grew up in the 60s when they actually had limits
on TV. For example Ricki and Lucy had to be in seperate beds even
though they were married.
Remember the 7 words you can't say on Tv? I bet you're not old
enough to remember those days.

You would be wrong. I'm old enough to be your grandma.

N.

[DawnK]

last nights episode. There is a scene with a guy in bed

with two, count 'em two, women. How did they ever get that past
the censors at the network? I still can't beleive the network
or the local affiliates didn't pull the plug at that scene.

I didn't think that scene was any worse than the torrid scene between Sam &
Tony towards the end. I just finished watching the ER DVD's seasons 1-8 so
watching last night's episode was rather a jolt (no pun intended for Morris)
because I was aware of how far this show has fallen. Instead of good medical
story lines, it now relies on over-the-top (or should I say
under-the-bottom) dark personal problems of the staff. It seems that the
television and movie industries want to make a nation of voyeurs out of us.
Graphic sex scenes turn me off cold. I prefer the old fade-aways.

Yeah, me, too. Ares would like to censor everything, I bet. It's on
at 10 p.m. EDT - all the kiddies should be in bed and not watching.

But, I agree with Annie. It was gratuitous, as was the final scene
with Sam and Tony, which I thought was much worse, since they were
tearing clothes off each other.

N.

In Wisconsin, ER is on at 9pm, so not as late. I was a bit shocked by the
scene in the beginning, too!

Dawn

[Ares, God of War]

On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 12:11:44 -0700, "Annie Woughman"

Post by Annie Woughman

Post by Ares, God of War
I'm watching last nights episode. There is a scene with a guy in bed
with two, count 'em two, women. How did they ever get that past
the censors at the network? I still can't beleive the network
or the local affiliates didn't pull the plug at that scene.

I didn't think that scene was any worse than the torrid scene between Sam &
Tony towards the end. I just finished watching the ER DVD's seasons 1-8 so
watching last night's episode was rather a jolt (no pun intended for Morris)
because I was aware of how far this show has fallen. Instead of good medical
story lines, it now relies on over-the-top (or should I say
under-the-bottom) dark personal problems of the staff. It seems that the
television and movie industries want to make a nation of voyeurs out of us.
Graphic sex scenes turn me off cold. I prefer the old fade-aways.

There was a time when there was a limit on what could be shown on Tv.
(Google when Ricki and Lucy were on and they had to sleep in seperate
beds even though they were married at thet time.)

[Sharon Too]

Post by Ares, God of War
(Google when Ricki and Lucy were on and they had to sleep in seperate
beds even though they were married at thet time.)

It was every sitcom at the time. ie: Hazel, Donna Reed, Father Knows Best
etc...

[Ellen K Hursh]

Post by Sharon Too

Post by Ares, God of War
(Google when Ricki and Lucy were on and they had to sleep in seperate
beds even though they were married at thet time.)

It was every sitcom at the time. ie: Hazel, Donna Reed, Father Knows Best
etc...

Bert and Ernie....

[Nancy2]

On Apr 11, 4:45 pm, "Ares, God of War"

Post by Ares, God of War
On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 12:11:44 -0700, "Annie Woughman"

Post by Annie Woughman

Post by Ares, God of War
I'm watching last nights episode. There is a scene with a guy in bed
with two, count 'em two, women. How did they ever get that past
the censors at the network? I still can't beleive the network
or the local affiliates didn't pull the plug at that scene.

I didn't think that scene was any worse than the torrid scene between Sam &
Tony towards the end. I just finished watching the ER DVD's seasons 1-8 so
watching last night's episode was rather a jolt (no pun intended for Morris)
because I was aware of how far this show has fallen. Instead of good medical
story lines, it now relies on over-the-top (or should I say
under-the-bottom) dark personal problems of the staff. It seems that the
television and movie industries want to make a nation of voyeurs out of us.
Graphic sex scenes turn me off cold. I prefer the old fade-aways.

There was a time when there was a limit on what could be shown on Tv.
(Google when Ricki and Lucy were on and they had to sleep in seperate
beds even though they were married at thet time.)

Yup, and all our moms were stay-at-home moms who wore dresses all day
and cooked in high heels, and the dad was the breadwinner and nobody
ever got divorced and every family had only one car.

Those days are long gone, my friend - whether you approve or not.

N.

[Sharon Too]

Post by Nancy2

Post by Ares, God of War
There was a time when there was a limit on what could be shown on Tv.
(Google when Ricki and Lucy were on and they had to sleep in seperate
beds even though they were married at thet time.)

Yup, and all our moms were stay-at-home moms who wore dresses all day
and cooked in high heels, and the dad was the breadwinner and nobody
ever got divorced and every family had only one car.

And the HUAC McArthy Hearings were running strong. Controlling what people
said, did, saw, knew etc... was in its hay day.

[Dropping The Helicopter]

Post by Annie Woughman

Post by Ares, God of War
I'm watching last nights episode. There is a scene with a guy in bed
with two, count 'em two, women. How did they ever get that past
the censors at the network? I still can't beleive the network
or the local affiliates didn't pull the plug at that scene.

I didn't think that scene was any worse than the torrid scene between
Sam & Tony towards the end. I just finished watching the ER DVD's
seasons 1-8 so watching last night's episode was rather a jolt (no pun
intended for Morris) because I was aware of how far this show has
fallen. Instead of good medical story lines, it now relies on
over-the-top (or should I say under-the-bottom) dark personal problems
of the staff. It seems that the television and movie industries want to
make a nation of voyeurs out of us. Graphic sex scenes turn me off
cold. I prefer the old fade-aways.

Welp, I just finished watching it myself. What a wet tissue.

- Dr. Mumbles appears for no apparent reason.
- Velma dry-humps Uncle Jesse. My God, how completely out of employment
options do you have to be to dry-hump Uncle Jesse vs. just walking?
- Scary Chaplin Chick bails. Smart career move for the actress, but
about six appearances too late.
- Morris did some "comic relief" stuff. For the theater majors: that's
"relief" from uninteresting main plots, not "relief" from dramatic tension.
- That's about it.

In other news: How do they end this tragedy? Seriously, how do you do a
final episode when you have:

- Not a single character that anybody gives a damn what happens to them.
- Few characters left that the audience even knows who the hell they
*are* ("Der, let's introduce a bunch more characters this week for no
reason! Derrrrrr!").
- A complete inability to write compelling scripts even on a good day.

Here's another one of Dropping T. Helicopter's Olde-Tyme Never-Wrong
Predictions(tm) that you can take to the bank: TEERPTB will try to do a
"Very Special Final Episode", and it will be less well-received by the
few remaining viewers than if they'd just unexpectedly pulled the plug.

[Tru Davies]

Post by Dropping The Helicopter
- Morris did some "comic relief" stuff. For the theater majors: that's
"relief" from uninteresting main plots, not "relief" from dramatic tension.

As I was watching this episode it occured to me do they take any
precautions before tassering someone?

I have to think if someone has a bad heart a tasering could kill them.

Remember the idea of the taser is it is a non lethal weapon.

[Sharon Too]

Post by Tru Davies
I have to think if someone has a bad heart a tasering could kill them.
Remember the idea of the taser is it is a non lethal weapon.

In police work it's considered the better choice between that and a bullet.
They don't shoot to wound. So the taser is the least fatal choice. They
don't stop to ask the perp if he/she has a medical problem that
contraindicates tasers.

[Anybody]

In article

Post by Sharon Too

Post by Tru Davies
I have to think if someone has a bad heart a tasering could kill them.
Remember the idea of the taser is it is a non lethal weapon.

In police work it's considered the better choice between that and a bullet.
They don't shoot to wound. So the taser is the least fatal choice. They
don't stop to ask the perp if he/she has a medical problem that
contraindicates tasers.

And of course the criminal usually has no such restricition ... a
tasered or even dead criminal is better than a dead cop (usually).

[Tru Davies]

On Mon, 14 Apr 2008 09:21:37 +1200, Anybody

Post by Anybody
And of course the criminal usually has no such restricition ... a
tasered or even dead criminal is better than a dead cop (usually).

Oh never mind the legal technicalities.....like the one where you're
innocent until proven guilty.

Oh and the last time I looked there was a process for sentencing
someone to the death penalty. The police can't just do it on their
own.

[Sharon Too]

Post by Tru Davies
Oh never mind the legal technicalities.....like the one where you're
innocent until proven guilty.
Oh and the last time I looked there was a process for sentencing
someone to the death penalty. The police can't just do it on their
own.

Tasering is done for the same reasons that the cops shoot at subjects. It is
a resort left for when the subject will not cooperate and is harmful to the
cops, themselves or others. Would you rather get tased or shot? Because if
you are evading arrest or putting others in danger, that's what will happen.
Cops don't go around tasering individuals because they're playing
judge/jury.

-Sharon

[r***@emailprivate.com]

On Sun, 13 Apr 2008 20:27:09 -0400, "Sharon Too"

Post by Sharon Too
Tasering is done for the same reasons that the cops shoot at subjects. It is
a resort left for when the subject will not cooperate and is harmful to the
cops, themselves or others.

Or when they taser a kindergarden kid who acts up in school so the
polcie come in and taser him.

Or they taser a guy for asking a question of John Kerry.

Or they taser someoen for protesting a traffic ticket.

Not every tasered person is a dangerous criminal.

Post by Sharon Too
Would you rather get tased or shot? Because if
you are evading arrest or putting others in danger, that's what will happen.
Cops don't go around tasering individuals because they're playing
judge/jury.

Pick up a newspaper sometime. Cops do use Tasers where they
aren't waranted. Not everyone who is tasered is an axe murderer.

Post by Sharon Too
-Sharon

[Dropping The Helicopter]

Post by r***@emailprivate.com
On Sun, 13 Apr 2008 20:27:09 -0400, "Sharon Too"

Post by Sharon Too
Tasering is done for the same reasons that the cops shoot at subjects. It is
a resort left for when the subject will not cooperate and is harmful to the
cops, themselves or others.

Or when they taser a kindergarden kid who acts up in school so the
polcie come in and taser him.
Or they taser a guy for asking a question of John Kerry.

Hehehehe, you meant to say, "...a guy asking - no, BEGGING - to be
Tazed." That dude earned every millivolt he got, and you know it!

Post by r***@emailprivate.com
Or they taser someoen for protesting a traffic ticket.
Not every tasered person is a dangerous criminal.

And not every bro that gets tazed doesn't have it coming.

Post by r***@emailprivate.com

Post by Sharon Too
Would you rather get tased or shot? Because if
you are evading arrest or putting others in danger, that's what will happen.
Cops don't go around tasering individuals because they're playing
judge/jury.

Pick up a newspaper sometime.

They still print those things?

Post by r***@emailprivate.com
Cops do use Tasers where they
aren't waranted.

They also shoot people when it isn't warranted, I don't see you shedding
a bunch of crocodile tears about that.

Post by r***@emailprivate.com
Not everyone who is tasered is an axe murderer.

Statistics show that in fact, most actually are. Like "Don't Taze Me
Bro" Dude. That guy was one taze away from becoming a full-blown axe
murderer. Thank God the cops got to him in time.

[Lily Moore Tyler]

On Tue, 15 Apr 2008 02:34:34 GMT, Dropping The Helicopter

Post by Dropping The Helicopter
Hehehehe, you meant to say, "...a guy asking - no, BEGGING - to be
Tazed." That dude earned every millivolt he got, and you know it!

No I don't think he earned it. It was not necessary to taser the
guy.

Post by Dropping The Helicopter

Post by r***@emailprivate.com
Cops do use Tasers where they
aren't waranted.

They also shoot people when it isn't warranted, I don't see you shedding
a bunch of crocodile tears about that.

Well this weeks episode had a taser in it.....which led to the
topic being raised.

Post by Dropping The Helicopter
Statistics show that in fact, most actually are. Like "Don't Taze Me
Bro" Dude. That guy was one taze away from becoming a full-blown axe
murderer. Thank God the cops got to him in time.

No the guy was only looking for publicity for himself.

[Sharon Too]

Post by r***@emailprivate.com
Pick up a newspaper sometime. Cops do use Tasers where they
aren't waranted. Not everyone who is tasered is an axe murderer.

You can't make policies around rare exceptions - right or not. For the VAST
MAJORITY of those tased, it is the right thing to do. Replace "taser" in
your examples with "shot with a gun" and imagine the outcome.

If you cannot see the big picture, I'll have to agree with the person who
saved their "breath" and replied :-/

[Anybody]

In article

Post by Sharon Too
If you cannot see the big picture, I'll have to agree with the person who
saved their "breath" and replied :-/

I've learnt the hard way not to waste time even trying to explain
"common sense" to most people on the Internet. Evidently sense isn't
common at all, but extremely rare. There is apparently a rule where
most people insist on switching off their brains when looking at a
screen - either a computer screen or TV screen. :-(

[Sharon Too]

Post by Anybody
I've learnt the hard way not to waste time even trying to explain
"common sense" to most people on the Internet. Evidently sense isn't
common at all, but extremely rare.

It's the "I-have-to-be-right" syndrome. These are the same people who have
to pass you on the highway just to cut you off so they can exit, or nearly
drive you off the road in order to be first at the toll booth.

[shawn]

On Tue, 15 Apr 2008 00:17:19 -0400, "Sharon Too"

Post by Sharon Too

Post by r***@emailprivate.com
Pick up a newspaper sometime. Cops do use Tasers where they
aren't waranted. Not everyone who is tasered is an axe murderer.

You can't make policies around rare exceptions - right or not. For the VAST
MAJORITY of those tased, it is the right thing to do. Replace "taser" in
your examples with "shot with a gun" and imagine the outcome.

I think you just made it very easy to come up with a policy that
covers these situations. Don't use a taser in a situation where you
wouldn't use a gun. If cops followed that policy I don't think any of
the situations I've noticed would have occurred.

[Dropping The Helicopter]

Post by shawn
On Tue, 15 Apr 2008 00:17:19 -0400, "Sharon Too"

Post by Sharon Too

Post by r***@emailprivate.com
Pick up a newspaper sometime. Cops do use Tasers where they
aren't waranted. Not everyone who is tasered is an axe murderer.

You can't make policies around rare exceptions - right or not. For the VAST
MAJORITY of those tased, it is the right thing to do. Replace "taser" in
your examples with "shot with a gun" and imagine the outcome.

I think you just made it very easy to come up with a policy that
covers these situations. Don't use a taser in a situation where you
wouldn't use a gun. If cops followed that policy I don't think any of
the situations I've noticed would have occurred.

As a side benefit, the cops would then have no use for expensive
Tasers(tm) anymore, and could simply dispense with them and use their guns.

Eyeroll.

[Still.Angrie]

Post by shawn
On Tue, 15 Apr 2008 00:17:19 -0400, "Sharon Too"

Post by Sharon Too

Post by r***@emailprivate.com
Pick up a newspaper sometime. Cops do use Tasers where they
aren't waranted. Not everyone who is tasered is an axe murderer.

You can't make policies around rare exceptions - right or not. For the VAST
MAJORITY of those tased, it is the right thing to do. Replace "taser" in
your examples with "shot with a gun" and imagine the outcome.

I think you just made it very easy to come up with a policy that
covers these situations. Don't use a taser in a situation where you
wouldn't use a gun. If cops followed that policy I don't think any of
the situations I've noticed would have occurred.

Ironically, that very scenario is why the Tasers were originally
considered so attractive. It was sold to we the people as a substitute
for the handgun.

Now cops pull them out and use them in situations where they would
*never* consider reaching for their guns.

[shawn]

On Sun, 13 Apr 2008 20:27:09 -0400, "Sharon Too"

Post by Sharon Too

Post by Tru Davies
Oh never mind the legal technicalities.....like the one where you're
innocent until proven guilty.
Oh and the last time I looked there was a process for sentencing
someone to the death penalty. The police can't just do it on their
own.

Tasering is done for the same reasons that the cops shoot at subjects. It is
a resort left for when the subject will not cooperate and is harmful to the
cops, themselves or others. Would you rather get tased or shot? Because if
you are evading arrest or putting others in danger, that's what will happen.
Cops don't go around tasering individuals because they're playing
judge/jury.

That's true in situations where they would have to shoot someone but
tasering has become common for uncooperative suspects. Remember the
"Don't tase me, bro!" guy? They were never going to shoot him since he
wasn't threatening anyone but they didn't hesitate to taze him
multiple times. I've also it used a number of times when a suspect
won't leave a vehicle without force.

I'm not saying that the tazer isn't a good invention and that it's use
hasn't saved lives since I'm sure it has. It's just that it's subject
to abuse since it's seen as relatively harmless. Particularly since
most criminals seem to be young and relatively healthy.

[Sharon Too]

Post by shawn
I've also it used a number of times when a suspect
won't leave a vehicle without force.

You are a law enforcement officer?

[Anybody]

Post by Tru Davies
On Mon, 14 Apr 2008 09:21:37 +1200, Anybody

Post by Anybody
And of course the criminal usually has no such restricition ... a
tasered or even dead criminal is better than a dead cop (usually).

Oh never mind the legal technicalities.....like the one where you're
innocent until proven guilty.
Oh and the last time I looked there was a process for sentencing
someone to the death penalty. The police can't just do it on their
own.

:-\

[Tru Davies]

On Sun, 13 Apr 2008 16:31:23 -0400, "Sharon Too"

Post by Sharon Too

Post by Tru Davies
I have to think if someone has a bad heart a tasering could kill them.
Remember the idea of the taser is it is a non lethal weapon.

In police work it's considered the better choice between that and a bullet.
They don't shoot to wound. So the taser is the least fatal choice. They
don't stop to ask the perp if he/she has a medical problem that
contraindicates tasers.

Doesn't that lead to a wrong ful death suit?

[Sharon Too]

Post by Tru Davies
Doesn't that lead to a wrong ful death suit?

No. In an instance that a taser is used it is because a subject refuses to
surrender to a police officer. They may have a weapon or are endangering
other people or themselves. The police using a weapon least likely to cause
serious injury or death is in their favor. The subject has had fair warning
to surrender.

The chance that someone will die from a taser is far, far less likely than
from being manhandled by the cops or even shot with a gun.

[Natalie Teeger]

On Sun, 13 Apr 2008 20:24:38 -0400, "Sharon Too"

Post by Sharon Too

Post by Tru Davies
Doesn't that lead to a wrong ful death suit?

No. In an instance that a taser is used it is because a subject refuses to
surrender to a police officer. They may have a weapon or are endangering
other people or themselves. The police using a weapon least likely to cause
serious injury or death is in their favor. The subject has had fair warning
to surrender.
The chance that someone will die from a taser is far, far less likely than
from being manhandled by the cops or even shot with a gun.

A comparable situation would be the woman who was hit by a
"non letahal weapon" outside of Fenway Park after the Red Sox
won the penant.

The weapon was supposed to be non lethal, it killed her
dispite that contention by the manufaturer. The city
ended up reaching an agreement on a wrongful death suite.

Non lethal weapons are supposed to be just that
NON LETHAL.

[Dropping The Helicopter]

Post by Natalie Teeger
On Sun, 13 Apr 2008 20:24:38 -0400, "Sharon Too"

Post by Sharon Too

Post by Tru Davies
Doesn't that lead to a wrong ful death suit?

No. In an instance that a taser is used it is because a subject refuses to
surrender to a police officer. They may have a weapon or are endangering
other people or themselves. The police using a weapon least likely to cause
serious injury or death is in their favor. The subject has had fair warning
to surrender.
The chance that someone will die from a taser is far, far less likely than
from being manhandled by the cops or even shot with a gun.

A comparable situation would be the woman who was hit by a
"non letahal weapon" outside of Fenway Park after the Red Sox
won the penant.
The weapon was supposed to be non lethal, it killed her
dispite that contention by the manufaturer. The city
ended up reaching an agreement on a wrongful death suite.
Non lethal weapons are supposed to be just that
NON LETHAL.

"Less Lethal". "LESS LETHAL". Now calm down ma'am, before I'm forced
to Taze you.

[Hunter]

Post by Natalie Teeger
On Sun, 13 Apr 2008 20:24:38 -0400, "Sharon Too"

Post by Sharon Too

Post by Tru Davies
Doesn't that lead to a wrong ful death suit?

No. In an instance that a taser is used it is because a subject refuses to
surrender to a police officer. They may have a weapon or are endangering
other people or themselves. The police using a weapon least likely to cause
serious injury or death is in their favor. The subject has had fair warning
to surrender.
The chance that someone will die from a taser is far, far less likely than
from being manhandled by the cops or even shot with a gun.

A comparable situation would be the woman who was hit by a
"non letahal weapon" outside of Fenway Park after the Red Sox
won the penant.
The weapon was supposed to be non lethal, it killed her
dispite that contention by the manufaturer. The city
ended up reaching an agreement on a wrongful death suite.
Non lethal weapons are supposed to be just that
NON LETHAL.

----
There are risk to everything

http://www.policeone.com/police-products/less-lethal/taser/articles/89933-Deaths-
Spur-TASER-Debate-Police-Embrace-Stun-Guns-but-a-Series-of-Fatalities-Brings-Calls-
for-Halt-to-Their-Use/

(If the link doesn't work directly then cut and past into your browser address line.)

As noted in the article as part of a police officer's training, they are tased to see
what kind of effect it has on a person first hand. Oh and turn up the sound on your
computer becuse sometimes the only hint of the actual tasering is the distinctive
snap-crackle-pot of the device:

The next one is quite funny. Watch the legs of the officers! LOL!

Here are a few videos of suspects being tasered.

In the link directly below the actual tasering starts about three minutes into the
video. The lead up is to keep the situation in context:

Here is another angle taken by another witness of the same incident but including him being escorted out:

Prisoner refuses to cooperate. Notice the change in octive in the prisoner's voice
after he is shot. Somewhat funny I hate to admit:

Here is a traffic altercation:

Here is the most disturbing one because she just falls like an chopped down Oak tree
and hits her head on an office chair:

As to the subject of taser deaths I have to research and find the percapita death
rate of suspects being shot and killed by fire arms and suspects being shot and
killed by taser weapons. That is a fair way to judge.

[Anybody]

Post by Hunter

Post by Natalie Teeger
On Sun, 13 Apr 2008 20:24:38 -0400, "Sharon Too"

Post by Sharon Too

Post by Tru Davies
Doesn't that lead to a wrong ful death suit?

No. In an instance that a taser is used it is because a subject refuses to
surrender to a police officer. They may have a weapon or are endangering
other people or themselves. The police using a weapon least likely to cause
serious injury or death is in their favor. The subject has had fair warning
to surrender.
The chance that someone will die from a taser is far, far less likely than
from being manhandled by the cops or even shot with a gun.

A comparable situation would be the woman who was hit by a
"non letahal weapon" outside of Fenway Park after the Red Sox
won the penant.
The weapon was supposed to be non lethal, it killed her
dispite that contention by the manufaturer. The city
ended up reaching an agreement on a wrongful death suite.
Non lethal weapons are supposed to be just that
NON LETHAL.

There are risk to everything

Yep, even a simple net-gun has the risk of the idiot criminal falling
entangled down the stairs and breaking their own neck.

[i***@yahoo.com]

On Apr 11, 10:56 am, "Ares, God of War"

Post by Ares, God of War
I'm watching last nights episode. There is a scene with a guy in bed
with two, count 'em two, women.

And...??

[Ellen K Hursh]

On Apr 11, 12:56 pm, "Ares, God of War"

I'm watching last nights episode.   There is a scene with a guy in bed
with two, count 'em two, women.

[EMCEE]
We switch partners daily
To play as we please.

[GIRLS]
Twosies beats onesies,

[EMCEE]
But nothing beats threes.
I sleep in the middle,

[GIRL 1]
I'm left,

[GIRL 2]
Und I'm right,

[EMCEE]
But there's room on the bottom
If you drop in some night.

[GIRLS]
Beedle dee, dee dee dee...

[EMCEE]
Two ladies.
Beedle dee, dee dee dee...

  How did they ever get that past
the censors at the network?  I still can't beleive the network
or the local affiliates didn't pull the plug at that scene.

Get it past the censors? They're just glad that people are still
tuning in.

[Sharon Too]

Post by Ellen K Hursh
Get it past the censors? They're just glad that people are still
tuning in.

I don't think the censor folks are even watching any more.

[dlcandc]

Post by Ares, God of War
I'm watching last nights episode. There is a scene with a guy in bed
with two, count 'em two, women. How did they ever get that past
the censors at the network? I still can't beleive the network
or the local affiliates didn't pull the plug at that scene.

I watched it Thurs. That's an hour of my life I won't get back. :-(

I don't like the new guy. It's the same ol', same ol': doc-know-it-all
comes in & tries to do things his way instead of trying to fit in and is
nasty to anyone who tries to help him. Can ~magically~ make it all better,
like using some new med that no one at county has thought to use. Has a
"sparkling personality" (perceived only by the patients) so that he can make
people do stuff they normally wouldn't do, like apologize to someone they
had just beaten up. It's crap writing! And the director wasn't doing
his/her job by letting Dr. Mumbles speak that way, either. Couldn't
understand half of what he said. OoaBH was TERRIBLE!

The scene at the end where Tony & Sam were going at it like animals wasn't
great, either. I was watching some old school ER (S1) right before watching
this load of crap and I agree w/ Julianna about the love scenes. She was
commenting on Doug & Carol's romance and there was never a gratuitous love
scene w/ them.......never saw Doug w/o his shirt or her for that matter.
They didn't rip into each other. The scenes were tastefully done and left
you w/ wanting more. I prefer it this way. Then I can let *my* imagination
do the rest. ;-)

BTW, don't EVER watch early ER & then tune in to the current season. It's
too much of a jolt to your system. ;-)
----
Lori

[DawnK]

Post by dlcandc

Post by Ares, God of War
I'm watching last nights episode. There is a scene with a guy in bed
with two, count 'em two, women. How did they ever get that past
the censors at the network? I still can't beleive the network
or the local affiliates didn't pull the plug at that scene.

I watched it Thurs. That's an hour of my life I won't get back. :-(
I don't like the new guy. It's the same ol', same ol': doc-know-it-all
comes in & tries to do things his way instead of trying to fit in and is
nasty to anyone who tries to help him. Can ~magically~ make it all better,
like using some new med that no one at county has thought to use. Has a
"sparkling personality" (perceived only by the patients) so that he can
make people do stuff they normally wouldn't do, like apologize to someone
they had just beaten up. It's crap writing! And the director wasn't
doing his/her job by letting Dr. Mumbles speak that way, either.
Couldn't understand half of what he said. OoaBH was TERRIBLE!
The scene at the end where Tony & Sam were going at it like animals wasn't
great, either. I was watching some old school ER (S1) right before
watching this load of crap and I agree w/ Julianna about the love scenes.
She was commenting on Doug & Carol's romance and there was never a
gratuitous love scene w/ them.......never saw Doug w/o his shirt or her
for that matter. They didn't rip into each other. The scenes were
tastefully done and left you w/ wanting more. I prefer it this way. Then
I can let *my* imagination do the rest. ;-)
BTW, don't EVER watch early ER & then tune in to the current season. It's
too much of a jolt to your system. ;-)
----
Lori

I agree with you, that just having Sam pull Dr. Gates into the dark room
with a kiss, would have been enough. I really didn't care for the new
doctor's attitude, either. At one point he was learning, too!

Dawn