Sensational headlines.

To my mind the reporting of taser use by UK police forces seems not be about that use but which paper can grab the most readers with their sensationalist headlines.

Which would horrify you most? The fact that it is fired at black people or the face that it is used on children.

You pay your money and make your choice.

P.S I find the use of the words ' fired at black people ' quite disingenuous as the report states that the taser being withdrawn without use is counted as being used!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34511532v

http://news.sky.com/story/1568624/police-increase-taser-use-on-children

To my mind the reporting of taser use by UK police forces seems not be about that use but which paper can grab the most readers with their sensationalist headlines.

<...>

P.S I find the use of the words ' fired at black people ' quite disingenuous as the report states that the taser being withdrawn without use is counted as being used!

Black guy, looked to be in his 40s, interviewed about being tasered and how he got £8k compo. The interview focused on the racial angle, and the pain of being tasered. The guy said he was driving in his car then was stopped, then "there was a scuffle", then the taser got drawn and used.

He didn't explain, and the interviewer didn't ask, how/what/why there was a "scuffle".

Now call me reactionary, or naïve, or whatever...but if a legitimate police officer issues a command and one doesn't comply, to the extent of scuffling, perhaps one shouldn't be surprised at getting a few volts for their penance.

Sod all to do with race, all to do with attitude and self-victimisation. And in this example case (BBC above), shoddy journalism pushing an angle rather than fact-finding and -reporting

[quote=L00b;11181225

Now call me reactionary, or naïve, or whatever...

I remember at the kick-off at a Rugby Union international one of the Pacific island's teams was receiving and a keen opponent late tackled the player making the clearing kick. The commentator said "He will retaliate, he will do it for himself, he will do it for his team mates, he will for his island and he will do it immediately because his culture demands it here and now". Sure enough the player got up and flattened the keen opponent.

While we celebrate cultural differences when they are complimentary when they are not its suddenly not fair and racially discriminatory.

Now call me reactionary, or naive, or whatever...

There was a piece on BBC1 News about it this morning.

 

Black guy, looked to be in his 40s, interviewed about being tasered and how he got £8k compo. The interview focused on the racial angle, and the pain of being tasered. The guy said he was driving in his car then was stopped, then "there was a scuffle", then the taser got drawn and used.

 

He didn't explain, and the interviewer didn't ask, how/what/why there was a "scuffle".

 

Now call me reactionary, or naïve, or whatever...but if a legitimate police officer issues a command and one doesn't comply, to the extent of scuffling, perhaps one shouldn't be surprised at getting a few volts for their penance.

 

Sod all to do with race, all to do with attitude and self-victimisation. And in this example case (BBC above), shoddy journalism pushing an angle rather than fact-finding and -reporting

Totally agree. There are too many pieces released by the bbc (and others obviously) that have had zero research put into it, not even a five minute Google.

There was a piece on BBC1 News about it this morning.

 

Black guy, looked to be in his 40s, interviewed about being tasered and how he got £8k compo. The interview focused on the racial angle, and the pain of being tasered. The guy said he was driving in his car then was stopped, then "there was a scuffle", then the taser got drawn and used.

 

He didn't explain, and the interviewer didn't ask, how/what/why there was a "scuffle".

Now call me reactionary, or naïve, or whatever...but if a legitimate police officer issues a command and one doesn't comply, to the extent of scuffling, perhaps one shouldn't be surprised at getting a few volts for their penance.

 

Sod all to do with race, all to do with attitude and self-victimisation. And in this example case (BBC above), shoddy journalism pushing an angle rather than fact-finding and -reporting

I said exactly the same,if there was a scuffle,was he resisting?nothing said but if you stop and comply with the law you don't get tasered.

There was also a lawyer on and she said the cops should do a risk assess before deciding on what to use,what a load of crap.

To my mind the reporting of taser use by UK police forces seems not be about that use but which paper can grab the most readers with their sensationalist headlines.

Which would horrify you most? The fact that it is fired at black people or the face that it is used on children.

You pay your money and make your choice.

 

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34511532v

http://news.sky.com/story/1568624/police-increase-taser-use-on-children

Disagree. Thought they were both fine. The purpose of a headline is to grab your attention. Both artciles made relevant points.

I was horrified by neither but found it informative.

P.S I find the use of the words ' fired at black people ' quite disingenuous as the report states that the taser being withdrawn without use is counted as being used!

Which article used the phrase "fired at black people" can anyone see it? is it in the BBC article because that link didnt work and I looked at another.

Are you sure you read and understood the article because it makes it clear the difference between drawing the taser and discharging it. Its perfectly sensible to record taser usage. Nothing disingenuous about it.

Disagree. Thought they were both fine. The purpose of a headline is to grab your attention. Both artciles made relevant points.

 

I was horrified by neither but found it informative.

 

 

Which article used the phrase "fired at black people" can anyone see it? is it in the BBC article because that link didnt work and I looked at another.

 

Are you sure you read and understood the article because it makes it clear the difference between drawing the taser and discharging it. Its perfectly sensible to record taser usage. Nothing disingenuous about it.

The article stated ' black people FIRED at' then when on to state that the usage included either drawing, aiming or firing.

So if the article stated 'FIRED AT' to grab headlines and then goes on to state this includes drawing, aiming or firing later in the article

Look at the percentages then work it out for yourself.

Disingenuous?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34511532

The article stated ' black people FIRED at' then when on to state that the usage included either drawing, aiming or firing.

 

So if the article stated 'FIRED AT' to grab headlines and then goes on to state this includes drawing, aiming or firing later in the article

Look at the percentages then work it out for yourself.

Disingenuous?

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34511532

The headline is

Black people 'three times more likely' to be Tasered

Which is correct.

The first sentence I can see which contains the word fire is

The numbers show the electric stun gun was drawn, aimed or fired 38,000 times in England and Wales over five years.

Which seems perfecly correct and not misleading at all. That figure includes all three possibilities as it states. They are reporting on figures given by the Home Office, collected in a way they are required to. They are required to note it doen as an incident if they draw, aim or fire their taser. If you read the whole article its quite clear what the figures mean. Not disingenuos and it was informative.

Think you have misled yourself. Cant see anything sensationalist in it, incorrect or disingenuous. Did you read the whole article?

The headline is

 

 

Which is correct.

 

The first sentence I can see which contains the word fire is

 

 

 

Which seems perfecly correct and not misleading at all. That figure includes all three possibilities as it states. They are reporting on figures given by the Home Office, collected in a way they are required to. They are required to note it doen as an incident if they draw, aim or fire their taser. If you read the whole article its quite clear what the figures mean. Not disingenuos and it was informative.

 

Think you have misled yourself. Cant see anything sensationalist in it, incorrect or disingenuous. Did you read the whole article?

oh ok. Thanks for putting me right.

I get where you are comong from as when I read it I was surprised to see even drawing your taser is counted as an incident you need to report, but thats down to detailed data collecting. I get your point that the times a taser was fired was only a small % of the time, which is interesting in itself to know.

There was also the statsitic that only in 20% i.e 1 in 5 chance of the weapon being fired once used.

There was also "In 80 per cent of Taser uses in the UK, the mere presence of the device is enough to resolve the violent or potentially violent situation without any force being used."

So it is informative to see merely drawing and the potential threat of a taser can make the party calm down It makes sense if you read it all including the analusis at the bottom.