Article Image
News Link • Arizona's Top News

Did the State Threaten Camera Opponents?

• CameraFRAUD
Jack Harper: Corporate amnesty supporter, tried to raise money from American Traffic Solutions and Taser International but now doesn't want to talk about it. Hmmmm....

1 Comments in Response to

Comment by Ross Wolf
Entered on:

Re: Tasers

Police using non-lethal weapons can save lives, but those benefits can prove a net loss.

Prior to police having access to non-lethal weapons, police were restrained for example using guns against protesters causing an unlawful disturbance, otherwise Police could cause serious injury or death. Police with batons could deal only with a limited number of protesters.

Increasingly Police are reported using excessive non-lethal force e.g. Taser Guns and other supposed non-lethal weapons against Citizens when it isn’t justified, perhaps because they can. It was reported last week police used a Taser Gun on an 84-year old woman while she was in bed.

Now that police have new laser guns that can flash-blind thousands of protesters at a time, it is problematic police may unjustifiably blind protesters, crushing their right to free speech, when a few demonstrators caused an unlawful disturbance. Should police or U.S. government be perceived by Americans, using non-lethal weapons as lasers to thwart free speech and lawful dissent, to where Citizens are afraid to protest, history shows Citizens go underground and some become extremely violent against a perceived despot police or government state. When British forces in Northern Ireland excessively used non-lethal weapons against Irish Catholic populations, it resulted in the community increasing their support for the IRA.

Non-lethal weapons if not used appropriately by police can trigger the violence the purported non-lethal weapons were meant to avoid.

Join us on our Social Networks:


Share this page with your friends on your favorite social network:

Attorney For Freedom