Taser proposal will move forward

|
(77)

Following a hearing at the San Francisco Police Commission that stretched late into the night, the seven-member panel voted 6 to 1 to authorize the San Francisco Police Department to develop a proposal for implementing Tasers or other less-lethal weapons.

Representatives from immigrant advocacy groups, communities of color, queer and transgender communities, mental-health professional organizations, and civil-rights watchdog groups turned out en masse to voice opposition to the plan. Out of around 50 speakers, just one spoke in favor of adopting Tasers.

As the discussion wore on, commissioners revised the resolution again and again. Interim Police Chief Jeff Godown had initially requested permission to draft a proposal in 30 days; it was extended to 90. Instead of researching the feasibility of Tasers alone, commissioners said the SFPD should look into other less-lethal weapons as possible alternatives. Another amendment prioritized outreach to marginalized communities.

Commissioner Petra DeJesus cast the lone vote of dissent, saying, “No matter how you dress it up, it’s a soft-pitch way to authorize Tasers.” DeJesus voiced concerns about how the departmental budget would be impacted. She also noted, “They’re being used more in the minority community, and that’s the community we’re trying to build trust with.”

Commissioner Angela Chan invited a series of guests to testify about concerns surrounding Tasers. Among them was Attorney John Burris, who has sued police departments over misuse of Tasers; a University of California Berkeley professor who gave a detailed presentation about Tasers and cardiac arrest; and Allen Hopper of the American Civil Liberties Union, who presented a video clip showing outrageous instances of Taser use. At the end of the night, however, Chan was persuaded to go along with the proposal.

Chan later told the Guardian that she supported the resolution because the timeline had been lengthened, which allowed for greater community outreach, and because the discussion had been broadened to include discussion about less-lethal weapons other than Tasers. Also, Chan noted that her suggestion for the force to review their use-of-force tactics as part of moving forward with the program was integrated into the resolution.

Several members of the San Francisco police force told horror stories about situations in which they said they could have used Tasers. A Mission Station officer suffered an attack by a Nortenos gang member in Garfield Park, and feared for his life until backup arrived. A Tenderloin Station officer was thrown into a store window after responding to a call about a trespasser. Just before it happened, “I was reaching for my firearm, and I was going to shoot him,” the officer said.

During the hearing, Chief Godown asked all SFPD officers to stand. He announced, “Everybody that’s in this room are my kids. I’m passionate about making sure they don’t get hurt.” Following a role-playing scenario in which a person waved a knife at an officer, Godown said that without a Taser, “That officer would have had no other option but to shoot that man.”

Equally disturbing, however, were stories about Taser deployments gone wrong. There was the petite African American woman who was at a drugstore buying candy when police attacked and Tasered her because they mistook her for a shoplifter. There was the Virginia couple that was hosting a backyard baptism celebration when police responded to a noise complaint and Tasered them both; the woman was pregnant, and could have suffered a miscarriage due to the electric charge. There was the 17-year-old grocery store clerk who suffered a heart attack and died after police Tasered him -- the whole thing started with his employer’s complaint that he was eating a hot pocket he didn’t pay for. Then there was the man who was Tasered during a traffic stop by cops who thought he was drunk. In reality, he was in diabetic shock.

Mayor Ed Lee’s Deputy Chief of Staff, Cristine DeBerry, made an appearance to say Lee was in support of the department’s proposal to move forward with investigating the use of Tasers.

Sheriff Mike Hennessey also offered comments, saying Tasers have been an effective tool in San Francisco jails, yet are rarely used.

Community members, meanwhile, raised a slew of concerns. They highlighted pending budget cuts and asked how these new and expensive instruments could possibly be paid for. They questioned the erosion of trust between police and the public, particularly in communities of color, where Taser use tends to be disproportionately high. Many people, particularly from the mental health community, voiced concerns about accidental deaths due to Taser use.

“I’m a great-grandma with a heart murmur," said Terrrie Frye, "and I wonder if the police will be able to recognize that when we’re all protesting the budget cuts that will result from these Tasers.”

*This post has been updated from an earlier version.

Comments

Thanks, Rebecca, for your article above. Some comments follow.

You say:

“Out of around 50 speakers, just one spoke in favor of adopting Tasers.”

People are no longer fooled when Homelessness Inc packs public meetings with their clients and operatives.

For example, on the various hearings on the civil-sidewalks law (Prop L), Homelessness Inc brought in their forces en masse to denounce the measure.

Yet the voters ended up passing it by a 9% margin.

You say:

“Commissioner Petra DeJesus cast the lone vote of dissent … DeJesus voiced concerns about how the departmental budget would be impacted.”

Petra DeJesus is one of the most ignorant public officials I have ever encountered. An example was the debate on the civil-sidewalks law.

At a public meeting of the Commission, she was surprised when I pointed out to her that the Commission’s own General Orders required the police to identify civilian complainants before ordering sidewalk blockers to move on.

She had no idea that the body of which she herself was a member had ever approved this requirement, yet she was spouting off about the issue.

You say:

“There was the petite African American woman who was at a drugstore buying candy when police attacked and Tasered her because they mistook her for a shoplifter.”

There can be horrific instances of misuse with any armament used by police – guns, clubs, tasers. The important thing is to have proper training in place for any armament and to see that the training is followed in practice.

You quote Terrie Frye:

“I’m a great-grandma with a heart murmur, and I wonder if the police will be able to recognize that when we’re all protesting the budget cuts that will result from these Tasers.”

Spare me your posturing, Terrie.

I’m a senior citizen with a large, life-threatening aortic aneurysm that could pop at any moment, resulting in immediate death. Stress is the big danger that could provide the trigger.

Yet where I live, the street people (mostly males) constantly harass residents with crazed, drug-fueled, alcohol-fueled behavior, sometimes violently. The harassers especially target the elderly, persons with disabilities, women, and men they believe to be gay.

It’s time to get the city’s public addicts, alcoholics, and psychotics under control, for the sake of the common good. Tasers, properly used by police who are properly trained, would help.

It will no longer do for Homelessness Inc to pack public meetings and pretend there isn’t a serious behavior problem with the city’s street people, and especially so in poor neighborhoods and at-risk neighborhoods.

The voters will no longer buy into such denial. They can see with their own eyes what’s coming down.

There’s nothing progressive about denial. There’s nothing progressive about empowering drug-fueled abusive behavior.

Posted by Arthur Evans on Feb. 24, 2011 @ 3:31 pm

Arthur says this: "I’m a senior citizen with a large, life-threatening aortic aneurysm that could pop at any moment, resulting in immediate death. Stress is the big danger that could provide the trigger."

Since you have a large, life-threatening aortic aneurysm from likely not eating properly or exercising (in other words, your health problem is YOUR FAULT, not the fault of the homeless), anyone with half a brain would get off of stressful message boards and take care of themselves instead of worrying about every homeless person they encounter 24/7, 365 days a year. Don't you have anything else to do you in your pathetic life but to hate on the homeless and referring to their advocates with the pejorative "Homeless Inc?" The homeless is not responsible for your pathetic health problems. Go get help. Leave the homeless alone. But if you want to die, keep stressing on these message boards.

You want to live in Mayberry but you don't want to see Otis or Ernest T Bass. You want to see Aunt Bea, Oppie, Clara and Andy only. That is not reality. No major city is Mayberry. Get a life. Go do some exercise and it might just help lift you from your perpetual horrible mood.

Bay Guardian Staff: Why do you continue to allow this person to post pejorative, hateful-anti-homeless stuff on your site? He is rabid, smug, in your face, a right-wing sicko. Wny do you allow him to post his hate? He hates anything and everybody, except the extreme right wing. There are plenty of other message forums for these types out there. Why give him a forum?

I oppose the cops having tasers. They too frequently abuse them, regardless of how much training they have had. Remember "don't tase me, bro?"

Posted by Life-threatening Aortic Aneurysm on Feb. 24, 2011 @ 6:04 pm

Stop resisting common sense.
Our police officers already have more than enough "tools" at their disposal.

In the video linked here, a homeless man in a wheelchair throws away his knife AFTER being shot with a non-lethal beanbag round from a shotgun.
After he throws the knife in a direction away from the officers, they shoot him with real bullets.
This man was disarmed using a non-lethal "tool" that the police already have in their arsenal.
In an example of Orwellian logic, this incident, which was clearly solved with the non-lethal shotgun round, has been used as justification for demanding Tasers.

In reality, this video is an argument that Tasers are not needed by the SFPD.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1LNO-OgmKGE

Youtube also readily provides plenty of video evidence of Taser abuses against people by overly aggressive police that tarnish the good reputation of their fellow officers (to whom we owe our respect, thanks, and a good monetary compensation) and thus undermine the confidence of the American people in these trusted servants.

64 Year Old Man Tasered in His Home
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eSzAHM97LJQ

Police Overreact with a Taser Gun
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmByfTKKUV4&feature=related

Warren Police Officer Tasers Handcuffed Woman Multiple Times
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KMpEr-MOSyk&feature=related

Women Tasered While Under Restraint
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MhfIP-gHSY&feature=related

Police taser driver infraction in seconds
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=svMi0rI9GV8

Good Cop speaks out on taser abuse
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=84KnVn0HbuU&feature=related

Posted by Guest on Feb. 24, 2011 @ 8:30 pm

Outfit all cops with cameras that record video constantly while they are working.
This will protect them from being falsely accused of not following the law or doing their job badly, and restore the public's faith in the many officers who work hard to do their job well.

Posted by Guest on Feb. 24, 2011 @ 8:32 pm

It certainly makes more sense. A small camera that shows the officers day.
It would be pretty easy to make.

I also wonder what kind of a $$ deal is being worked out with the company that sells Tasers.

Wish I could have been at the meeting.

Robert

Posted by Guest Robert Kolbe on Mar. 01, 2011 @ 9:43 pm

Apparently they sell the cure for the problem as well as the source of the problem.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/12/29/national/main6034545.shtml

Posted by Guest on Mar. 01, 2011 @ 9:52 pm

“I’m a great-grandma with a heart murmur, and I wonder if the police will be able to recognize that when we’re all protesting the budget cuts that will result from these Tasers.”

- Terrie Frye

People with disabilities are commonly the targets of the city's nomadic addicts, alcoholics, and psychotics. I know this fact from personal experience and from the experiences of friends who have disabilities.

The most abusive of the street people are males. They pose the most danger, not only to residents, but to other street people.

Most of the injuries suffered by the street people are from other street people, especially males. Not from police. Not from residents. Not from tourists.

Tasers provide a less lethal means of controlling crazed street men on drugs and alcohol, than guns. No sane person, faced with the choice of being shot with a gun or hit with a taser, would choose a gun.

Homelessness Inc can continue to shout and scream and engage in ad hominem diversions. These tactics don't work anymore, although they provide pyschological relief to the screamers.

The Police Commission has decided there should be a study of the effectiveness of tasers. This is a reasonable decision, especially in light of the harm that public addicts, alcoholics, and psychotics continue to cause in many neighborhoods in SF.

Posted by Arthur Evans on Feb. 24, 2011 @ 9:29 pm

Tasers are just one of many possibilities in dealing with thuggish behavior on the city's streets. Another is an expansion of community courts, suggested by D.A. George Gascon.

These suggestions reflect the fact that the voters are tired of hearing excuses for thuggish behavior on the streets. The biggest excuse-maker is Homelessness Inc.

Their day has passed, as the new political realities in SF now make clear.

“He [D.A. George Gascon] said the ballot battle over San Francisco’s new sit-lie ordinance designed to help police officers deal with thuggish, aggressive behavior on the streets showed him that city residents are calling for personal safety. By dealing with neighborhood crimes at their source, he said he will try to persuade community groups to become involved in safety issues, possibly even training nonlawyers to work as mediators."

Click here:

http://www.sfexaminer.com/local/columnists/2011/02/new-da-brings-lofty-g...

Posted by Arthur Evans on Feb. 24, 2011 @ 9:48 pm

I am sick of Arthur Evans's hate-mongering.

Posted by Guest on Feb. 24, 2011 @ 10:17 pm

Why is this Arthur Evans so insistent on cops getting tasers? What is that about? Why do you hate homeless people so much, bro? Why does Arthur Evans hate everybody pretty much? What caused Arthur's hatred towards others?

Tasers are abused and that's well documented, especially in torture cases. Do you think that being homeless is a reason for taser torturing by the "well-trained" cops?
Many police departments who use tasers have documented taser abuse cases. Don't tase me, Arthur.

How is that life-threatening aortic aneurysm doing about now? Is it because you are so miserable Arthur that you wish your misery on others through the use of tasers and homeless prisons?

Posted by Life-threatening Aortic Aneurysm on Feb. 24, 2011 @ 10:49 pm

I've been following this taser story on this and other threads and feel the need to make a comment. I've noticed the code words that Arthur Evans uses such as civil and sensible. They are two that I've noticed from his many posts. Both words are very 1984 and are intended to push a right-wing agenda promoted by the media.

I talked with someone after sit-lie passed and this person was for sit-lie. The first word out of his mouth was "civil." This person, like most who voted for sit-lie, had been indoctrinated with the code word "civil" by the pro sit-lie corporate media and Chamber of Commerce. I reminded this person that we don't live in a civil society because a civil society does not drone innocent people in Pakistan, for example. The person agreed, so I had slapped down that civil code word.

In recent posts, Arthur has been working the word thuggish as much as possible to help give the cops tasers. Arthur Evans is very big on code words (like Homelessness Inc) and he uses them for a reason: To deceive. He's a big believer in propaganda.

I agree with another person that Arthur Evans is constantly trying to push his personal misery onto others, like homeless people and the poor.

Posted by Jorge Orwell 1984 on Feb. 24, 2011 @ 11:27 pm

The biggest threat on Haight Street is Arthur Evans. His continued hate towards the homeless on Haight Street and throughout the rest of The City is a menace. Arthur Evans is the only reason this City would ever need tasers. Arthur, have you considered the thought that you might accidentally be tasered with your blood vein ready to blow out from the overload of stress from message boards such as this one?

"Don't tase me, bro."

Posted by Life-threatening Aortic Aneurysm on Feb. 24, 2011 @ 11:35 pm

The Police Commission's decision on tasers was to have the police conduct a additional study on them, and other methods, and report back to the Commission.

Opponents did not want the study. They did not want more information.

There's nothing progressive about closing your mind to new information.

Nor is there anything progressive about sidetracking discussions with ad hominem diversions.

Hostility to new information and a fondness for ad hominem diversions are charactistics of the extremes of the political spectrum, both the far right and the far left.

Let's be reasonable.

Posted by Arthur Evans on Feb. 25, 2011 @ 11:25 am

"Let's be reasonable" is another code phrase with the word "reasonable" being the real code word. Cutting through the BS it really means "let's give the cops tasers."

I see the word progressive is being used in a negative sense as is usually the case with a certain person who writes spam type comments. I really don't know why anyone would be concerned about imagined progressives since there are very few progressives around anywhere these days.

Then there's the frequent use of the "ad hominem diversions" (sometimes the word "attack" is used instead of the word diversions) which is really a diversion tactic in itself to avoid answering other people's questions.

Hostility is another code word used. Like all of these code words, it is intended to generate an emotional response and approval of draconian measures being put forth in the name of "safety" and "safe neighborhoods" by the right-wing because how could anyone disagree with anything that is described as "reasonable" and "sensible" and "civil" in the name of "safety."

Again, it's all propaganda from the right-wing who pretend to be something other than what they really are.

"Let's be intelligent" and ignore the propagandists who constantly use various code words to deceive people and spread their hate.

Posted by Jorge Orwell 1984 on Feb. 25, 2011 @ 1:30 pm

Both sides use debate killer words, "hate" by the left is be the end of the discussion, once you have spouted hate speech, meaning not agreeing with the left, you should go to training.

everyone uses these tactics

"common sense" means banning abortion, because my sky god tells me so.

"lets be reasonable" and have both sides of the aisle agree with me on this.

"Lets tone down the rhetoric" so I can shout for awhile.

"the people" that I interact with think that this is great/awful, although the only people I interact with are the leadership of SEIU, race hucksters, neighborhood activists and elected and appointed city flunkies.

Posted by matlock on Feb. 25, 2011 @ 2:20 pm

Oh.
Both sides do it.
Does that mean you also spend a lot of time on conservative blogs, attacking the writers and commenters?
Of course you don't.
No one is fooled by your false equivalency, you right wing jughead.

Posted by Arthur Evans In 1933 on Feb. 26, 2011 @ 12:01 am
har

1. You know what I do outside of here, it's odd, dumb right wingers on conservative web pages make that same idiotic argument about my posts.

2. "false equivalency" I gave examples, debunk them.

Posted by meatlock on Feb. 26, 2011 @ 2:06 am

In a post above, Jorge Orwell, you say:

"it's all propaganda from the right-wing who pretend to be something other than what they really are."

Anyone who disagrees with any of your dogmas is a "right-winger," right?

You remind of me right wingers I encountered in a small PA town in the 1950s. They accused anyone who disagreed with any of their dogmas of being a "commie."

The real targets of both extremes are independent-minded people who think for themselves.

Getting back to the topic of this thread:

I support tasers, provided there will be proper training for the police in their use. The proposed report to be made to the Police Commission should focus on this question.

I do not support those, like Commission Petra deJesus, who do not want the report to be made, who do not want to look at additional evidence.

There's nothing progressive about obscurantism.

Posted by Arthur Evans on Feb. 25, 2011 @ 3:04 pm

"The real targets of both extremes are independent-minded people who think for themselves."

Obviously you're not one of them (who thinks for themselves). Remember you're the one with the life-threatening aortic aneurysm WHICH COULD BLOW AT ANY TIME and who meanwhile insists on staying on stressful message boards and staying on dysfunctional streets with homeless people on them that you can't stand. That doesn't sound like independent-minded to me. That sounds masochistic and sick and like someone who doesn't give a damn about their health and whether they live or die.

Posted by Life-threatening Aortic Aneurysm on Feb. 25, 2011 @ 6:00 pm

A rational discussion about tasers would welcome the study approved by the Police Commission, and then weigh the merits of tasers, based on the evidence presented.

An irrational discussion would condemn the study and then try to divert attention away from the issue by using ad hominem diversions.

There's nothing progressive about irrational discussions

Posted by Arthur Evans on Feb. 25, 2011 @ 6:52 pm

The code words continue to fly: rational and irrational are the most recent ones out of the chute, meaning that those for tasers are "rational" and those opposed to tasers are "irrational." That's cutting out all the BS and getting to the bottom line.

A previous person has already provided many videos re tasers. There's plenty of info on the internet about tasers. Why is there any additional need for a money to be wasted on a "study" of tasers?, unless one has not informed themselves to begin with about tasers.

I see that a previous person has urged a ""let's have a rational discussion about tasers." Based on what I've seen from the person who for some reason wants to have a "rational discussion" (what more is there to discuss?), all the person really wants to do is to argue and pick apart what one says like he did to Rebecca Bowe's article. He will likely be dissecting what the definition of "is" is but he will say he's "using critical analysis" as an "independent thinker". I don't know that a "rational discussion" is possible with that person calling for the "rational discussion." I'll pass. I have better things to do than to rehash hash and to read more code words and make dust out of hash.

Here, use these code words and overused phrases for a change: Expand your intellect with these:

Rolling up my sleeves to get the job done.
Building bridges
Pushing the envelope
Leaving the job to spend time with my family
Drawing a line in the sand
Thinking outside the box

Those are a lot better than these:

ad hominem diversions
rational
irrational
civil
sensible
Homelessness Inc
divert attention away
hostility
proper training
reasonable
migratory packs

Cut the BS, Arthur Evans, and save yourself all of this spam typing. Get to the point: Arthur Evans wants tasers. Period. Any other discussion is not welcome by Arthur. He wants tasers to somehow protect him from those evil, migratory pack addict homeless people that he constantly spams about. He despises homeless people. He's made that perfectly clear.

Has anyone known a large city without homeless people?

Foreclosures are rising, unemployment is high and wages are down and health care is outrageously expensive. Does this provide a clue to the homeless problem? No, the homeless are just out there to bother Arthur Evans who has convinced himself that tasers are needed.

Interestingly enough, I walk by and talk with homeless people every day and I don't have any trouble with them, but then I don't look down on them either.

Posted by Jorge Orwell 1984 on Feb. 25, 2011 @ 7:59 pm

Note to Jorge Orwell (or Bárbara Chelsai, or Life-Threatening Aortic Aneurysm, or Guest, or whatever):

Claiming that anyone who disagrees with any of your dogmas is speaking in a secret code is absurd. Such paranoia just makes voters rolls their eyes and vote the opposite of what you want.

That's what happened with Care Not Cash and Prop L. You'd think you would have learned your lesson by now.

There is a serious behavior problem with the city's migratory addicts, alcoholics, and psychotics (especially the males). They are becoming increasingly territorial and belligerent. It won't do anymore to put your head in the sand and pretend that such is not the case. The voters know better.

Tasers can be a way to deal with the abusive and dangerous behavior of the street people, provided there is good training and effective oversight in the use of tasers.

It makes sense to have a study done on these questions. That's what the Police Commission voted for.

Openness to information, not paranoia. Acceptance of reality, not dogmatic fantasy. Regard for the common good, not excuse-making for malefactors.

These provide sound bases for formulating public policy.

Posted by Arthur Evans on Feb. 26, 2011 @ 12:15 am

"Claiming that anyone who disagrees with any of your dogmas is speaking in a secret code is absurd."

A secret code? No. I think most people on here understand what I was talking about even though it's way beyond you. I think it's time for you to go play with your trains.

Posted by Jorge Orwell 1984 on Feb. 26, 2011 @ 1:01 am

Thanks to the recent vote of the Police Commission, a study on tasers will come back to the commission, with new info.

This is as it should be. The police need to show that there will be proper training in their use and that the training will be effectively observed in practice. If such is the case, then police should be allowed the use of tasers.

It's not to the credit of Homelessness Inc that they tried to block the study. This sort of reactionary, don't-look behavior on their part over the years has caused them to lose standing in the eyes of the voters.

Neighborhood safety is a progressive issue. Let's take intelligent steps to promote it.

Posted by Arthur Evans on Feb. 26, 2011 @ 10:58 am

You've said this redundant, paranoid, reactionary pro-taser stuff many times. Your efforts are called spamming. Either that, or you don't remember that you've said the same thing many times. In that case, not only do you have a life-threatening aortic aneurysm which is about to blow but you also have dementia/Alzheimer's and can't remember what you've spammed in the past (even hours before). Most people on here are pretty bright so they likely got your drift the first time. You seem to like to be the last person who posts (spams) a thread so that it's your message to be the last one to be read and stays in people's minds. This "study" which the SFPD is engaging in is nothing more than a way of bringing tasers into the department. Of course, the "study" will be skewed in a positive light (pro taser). It also won't be long before the public starts carrying tasers. There's talk about that now in Michigan. Oh what a wonderful country we're becoming in this downward to-the-right spiral. Guns, tasers, pepper spray. What's next? Arthur Evans calls himself a "senior citizen." I have a relative who is 96 and if you call her a "senior citizen" you will regret it. She says she's no senior citizen. She says that other than with health problems, being "old" or "senior" is in your head. It's a mindset that people adopt. She says she's 96 but she ain't old. She doesn't act "old." She was up on the roof last Fall repairing the loose shingles on her home. Can you imagine Arthur Evans up a roof? LOL. As she says, some people choose to die long before they actually do.

Posted by Life-threatening Aortic Aneurysm on Feb. 26, 2011 @ 3:57 pm

Here's some for you:

64 Year Old Man Tasered in His Home
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eSzAHM97LJQ

Police Overreact with a Taser Gun
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmByfTKKUV4&feature=related

Warren Police Officer Tasers Handcuffed Woman Multiple Times
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KMpEr-MOSyk&feature=related

Women Tasered While Under Restraint
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MhfIP-gHSY&feature=related

Police taser driver infraction in seconds
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=svMi0rI9GV8

Good Cop speaks out on taser abuse
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=84KnVn0HbuU&feature=related

Posted by Guest on Feb. 26, 2011 @ 12:40 pm

It's foolish for Homelessness Inc to launch ad hominem attacks on those who are concerned about neighborhood safety.

Whenever any issue is framed in public debate as "Homelessness Inc vs. Neighborhood Safety," Homelessness Inc loses.

It's foolish for Homelessness Inc to claim that enough info already exists about tasers. We haven't yet heard the police department's protocol for training its members with tasers or for overseeing their use, once police are trained.

Let's stand up for neighborhood safety and be open to new information.

Posted by Arthur Evans on Feb. 26, 2011 @ 5:27 pm

Red alert. Frequently used code words and phrases from Arthur Evans:

"Foolishness"
"Homelessness Inc"
"ad hominem attacks"
"neighborhood safety."
"Homelessness Inc vs. Neighborhood Safety,"
"proper training"
"Let's stand up"
"neighborhood safety"
"be open to new information."

Still dumping on the homeless again, Arthur?

Let's dump on people who refuse to eat properly and take care of themselves and end up with a life-threatening aortic aneurysm which ends up costing the tax papers precious health care dollars that they could have spent on themselves, but instead had to spend on someone's life-threatening aortic aneurysm. The person is supposed to reduce stress in their life but what do they do? They opposite. They stay on stressful message boards, spamming them.

"Let's stand up" against hate towards the homeless from people like Arthur Evans. "Let's use civility" and stop dumping on the homeless, Arthur Evans. You don't seem to know the definition of civility. You think that despising the homeless is civility? "Let's stand up" against those like Arthur Evans who hide behind the word progressive and claim to know what it means when he is anything but progressive and they talk about neighborhood safety being a progressive issue when the issue of tasers has nothing to do with progressive.

I'm probably on the verge of getting a warning or getting kicked off because I will be accused of picking on Arthur Evans or causing a "flame war." I've noticed that on this site that when progressives take on the right-wing or trolls, that it's not the right-wing or the trolls who are reprimanded. It's the progressives who are warned and thrown off the site. This site seems to like Arthur Evans and the other trolls like that matlock and that nasty piece of trash Lucreatia Snapples. They can say anything they want to anyone and they're not reprimanded. Nothing is said to them at all. You kinda have to wonder, are they part of the Guardian? Why would the BG "protect" the nasty trolls who come here and criticize them every day of the year? I can't figure it out, unless they like the hits they get from them for ad purposes. So for the BG, it's okay for Arthur and other trolls to dump on and hate on the homeless 24/7, 365 days a year. But don't take on Arthur Evans or the BG will warn, reprimand or throw you off and it's usually that Marke guy that does the warning and he doesn't even know politics or even work in that department!

"Let's be civil" and stop hate speech on the BG. It's always easy to punch the one who can't punch back, huh, Arthur?

Posted by Jorge Orwell 1984 on Feb. 26, 2011 @ 6:36 pm

Jorge,

What Arthur and these other trolls are doing is called bullying on the homeless due to their prejudices of the homeless. Arthur is extremely prejudiced towards the homeless & poor. What I mean by that is that he has no idea as to the reason a particular person is homeless or poor. Yet he still pre-judges them without knowing them or their particular situation. The trolls (including Arthur) are also bullies on here. Just troll garbage. Arthur tries to come off as a leader of something with his smug "let's" do such and such as if he's an authority and superior no matter what the subject matter. That's often how he ends each spam post. As long as he bullies somebody who can't attack back, that's fine with him. Otherwise, he needs tasers in his paranoid mind. He's so very afraid. Will someone please get Arthur his pacifier, I mean his taser. Arthur needs a taser to play with. ZZZZZZZZZZZ.

Posted by Life-threatening Aortic Aneurysm on Feb. 26, 2011 @ 10:51 pm

Most of the homeless in SF are not San Franciscans who have become homeless.

Most are migratory addicts, alcoholics, and psychotics who have come here from elsewhere in search of easy access to drugs and poor law enforcement. Many refuse help and offered services.

They have created a behavior problem:

*Assaulting passers-by and each other

*Setting fires

*Urinating and defecating on sidewalks

*Destroying park areas

*Ditching used hypodermic needles in children's sandboxes

When they are drugged, stoned, or crazed, they can do terrible things that they are not aware of doing at the time of the incident and that they don't remember later.

When they are violent, they particularly target the elderly, women, people with disabilities, and men whom they believe to be gay. They have a destabilizing influence, especially in poor neighborhoods and at-risk neighborhoods.

In the name of public safety, sanitation, and sanity, it's time to get them under control.

Posted by Arthur Evans on Feb. 27, 2011 @ 12:34 pm

This SFBG forum is an amazingly intolerant place. Talk about sandboxes...this is one big playground of bullies on both sides. Actually, I think Arthur Evans makes good sense in many of his posts. I read this forum regularly and I am saddened at the attacks on people's basic right to free speech. If anyone dares to step even a margin outside the leftist directive, there is a small horde of nasty invective aimed at you. No wonder San Francisco gets laughed at.
And to the person making fun of "senior citizens", you just wait until you get old. Yes, some things in life can be somewhat mitigated by taking good care of yourself, but I would imagine YOU never drank too much, smoked too much, got too baked on weed, never slept with too many people, never ate too much and exercised too little, and of course, NEVER had a negative thought. Wow,must be great being so perfect!

Posted by Guest on Feb. 27, 2011 @ 2:29 pm

"I think Arthur Evans makes good sense in many of his posts"

Why don't you choose one of his posts from this thread and tell us what part of it "makes good sense"?

In other words, get specific.
Don't wander in here and tell everyone to tolerate intolerance. It's not going to happen.
And it has NOTHING to do with politics, no matter how many times the misanthropic little monster repeats it. And he will repeat it.
And repeat it.
"It's not progressive to (fill in the blank)."
Over and over.
And over.
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=arthur+evans+%22not+progressive%22

Arthur Evans' constant repetitious spew of nasty, invective ridden rants, insults, and constant attacks on the freedoms of his neighbors is impossible to stomach by any reasonable person who gives two shits about human beings other than themselves.
Are you a man, by the way?
Because Arthur Evans' views of men (all men) can be described as nothing. if not intolerant.
How is that intolerance acceptable to you?

This thread, by the way is about Tasers.
Which Arthur Evans believes should be used on homeless people "to get them under control."
Rather than castigating him for "step(ping) even a margin outside the leftist directive," a number of other commenters have replied with long thoughtful posts refuting his hatred of homeless and poor people. Or in Evans Speak: "nomadic addicts and alcoholics".
Have you bothered to formulate an opinion about Tasers?
Or are you just here to defend one man's hatred and vitriol?

Posted by Guest on Feb. 27, 2011 @ 6:28 pm

enjoys watching you people go unhinged.

I find his posts a bit repetitive so I usually just skim the rants against him, I already know what he's going to say.

He's sick of the cities entitled bums and their enablers, who isn't(?) but the cities bums and their enablers? So he just winds you up and watches you go.

"Don't wander in here and tell everyone to tolerate intolerance. It's not going to happen." I keep laughing and laughing at that, hilarious. Progressives are tolerant, thats so funny.

Posted by meatlock on Feb. 27, 2011 @ 9:12 pm

Nobody was talking to you.

Posted by Guest on Feb. 27, 2011 @ 9:29 pm

I am female,thank you very much.
Arthur has strong opinions. So do I. So do other commenters on this forum.
Gee, I thought we had free speech in this country?
I guess not. This is political correctness, in its' purest form.
That is why I am no longer a liberal.

Posted by Guest on Feb. 27, 2011 @ 8:19 pm

Hello Arthur (or I mean "Guest"). You're quite confused. There is a difference between freedom of speech and hate speech. Research the difference. But I imagine you already know what the difference is and freedom of speech has nothing to do with hating on homeless people or poor people. I can see why you would agree with most of what Arthur Evans has said since you are likely Arthur Evans posing as "Guest." When were you ever a liberal? Not. Because every liberal or progressive I've ever known has a very clear understanding of the difference between hate speech and freedom of speech. The right-wing has no clue as to the difference. Hating the homeless and poor is not freedom of speech. Your term political correctness also gives you away as right-wing. I doubt you understand that term either, otherwise you wouldn't be against it. Political correctness is the difference between calling you a woman versus a bitch. Wouldn't you prefer to be called a woman?....even when you act like the latter.

Posted by Life-threatening Aortic Aneurysm on Feb. 27, 2011 @ 9:02 pm

Hello Arthur (or I mean "Guest"). You're quite confused. There is a difference between freedom of speech and hate speech. Research the difference. But I imagine you already know what the difference is and freedom of speech has nothing to do with hating on homeless people or poor people. I can see why you would agree with most of what repetitive and redundant Arthur Evans has said in his many spam posts since you are likely Arthur Evans posing as "Guest." When were you ever a liberal? Not. Because every liberal or progressive I've ever known has a very clear understanding of the difference between hate speech and freedom of speech. The right-wing has no clue as to the difference. Hating the homeless and poor is not freedom of speech. Your term political correctness also gives you away as right-wing. I doubt you understand that term either, otherwise you wouldn't be against it. Political correctness is the difference between calling you a woman versus a bitch. Wouldn't you prefer to be called a woman?....even when you act like the latter.

Posted by Life-threatening Aortic Aneurysm on Feb. 27, 2011 @ 9:05 pm

"I think Arthur Evans makes good sense in many of his posts"
-Guest on Feb. 27, 2011 @ 2:29 pm
Why don't you choose one of his posts from this thread and tell us what part of it "makes good sense"?

"I am female,thank you very much."
Do you hate men as much as Arthur Evans hates men?

Gee, I thought we had free speech in this country?
-Guest on Feb. 27, 2011 @ 8:19 pm
What evidence do you have to suggest we don't have free speech in this country?

Also, what is your opinion of Tasers, given the rampant abuse of them evidenced in the above videos?
You are commenting on a fucking Taser story. Not an Arthur Evans story.

Posted by Guest on Feb. 27, 2011 @ 9:26 pm

yeah, hate speech is not agreeing with you.

Here again is another area where the right and left have met up around on the other side of the spectrum.

hate speech for the left ='s anti Christian bigotry on the right

Not letting right wing Christians force other people's kids to pray in school is anti-Christian and TV idiots ranting about the "war on Christmas", this is the same as all the robot like "tolerance" and "hate speech" ravings of the left.

Some people are just hard wired to believe this crazy irrational revealed propaganda. These people include; TV preachers, AM radio gasbags, studies professors and their students, SF progressives, Ayn Randists, 911 truthers, Larouchites, militiamen, and all the world's other crack pots.

Posted by meatlock on Feb. 27, 2011 @ 9:25 pm

I once again have not followed my own common sense and have blundered into the middle of bully central. The bullies in this place are unbelievable.
Yes, I understand this is a discussion on tasers and I apologize I have not entered that discussion. I have mixed feelings on that, because I am aware of abuses with tasers as with guns. I would not want to be a police officer on the front lines, having to make tough decisions on the spot. I do not know what the correct answer would be, except for plenty of community involvement on both sides of the issue.
I can offer no answer to other comments because you already attempted to have me signed and delivered to outer darkness. Sorry, not going there!
I am a woman and a lady and I do not hate men, I love one. I do not agree with hate speech and I do not hate the homeless or the poor, I myself am on the financial edge every month. I just would like to have a dialogue without curses being hurled. Just because someone disgrees with someone, does not make it hate speech.
I guess this is not possible.
Arthur at least is fully engaged in the political process in this town and for that, I admire him, whether I agree with every one of his posts or not. I do not attend all these meetings because I am busy surviving.
Yes, I am a conservative. No, I do not try to force any of you to agree with my point of view. Yes, I was a liberal for 30+ years and watched chaos descend from too much fun, in my own life and lives of others (sex, drugs, alcohol, etc, from the if it feels good, do it school of thought). For me, I learned the hard way.
Ok, kids, I have had enough, this time for good. No more fray jumping on SFBG forum. Have fun tearing each other apart.

Posted by Guest on Feb. 27, 2011 @ 11:09 pm

If disagreeing with you, or asking questions regarding your vaporous statements is what you call bullying, then you have my sympathy.
You appear to live in a frightening world of flat liners and bullies with nothing in between.
Which is fine with me.
I do take issue with your conflating your time as a "liberal" with your own poor impulse control regarding drugs or sex or whatever,
That was your personal responsibility, and plenty of people have been "liberals" their entire adult lives without watching "chaos descend from too much fun, in their own life and lives of others".
If you want to try to escape responsibility for your personal choices, I would suggest that you join the church. But you can't blame "liberals" without having people laugh at you.

Posted by Guest on Feb. 28, 2011 @ 10:55 pm

Most people in this country now seem to sleep walk through so much of our own state sponsored terrorism, killings, endless wars and dronings. Tasers are yet another escalation of the culture of violence in this very violent-loving nation along with electronic surveillance, airport scanners, weaponry and other things. Few people these days are saying anything about the wars-occupations. Most people seem to have forgotten about them. The Western regional rep of Amnesty International says that tasers = torture. Thanks to the person who provided links to the videos about tasers. Will our cops end up with tasers. Probably, the rate things are going.

Posted by Life-threatening Aortic Aneurysm on Feb. 27, 2011 @ 11:18 pm

Would you rather be shot or tasered?

Posted by knuckles on Feb. 28, 2011 @ 12:14 am

I wish that it were not the case, but it is.

There are some people who are violently disposed toward others. If left unchecked, they will go to any length - beatings, rapes, torture, killings.

Such people can only be restrained by the use of a counter-force.

But the counter-force must be rational. There's the catch.

The question the city must now address is whether the use of tasers, by a police force properly trained and supervised, is a rational use of such a counter-force.

Part of the decision-making process in answering this question will be a report to be submitted to the Police Commission on tasers, and on the training and protocol of their use.

To oppose the making of this report, and to denounce as a right-winger anyone who would even consider it, is irrational.

There's nothing progressive about irrationality.

Posted by Arthur Evans on Feb. 28, 2011 @ 12:19 am

Amnesty International
Taser Reports and Briefings by Amnesty International
Taser Abuse in the United States

http://tinyurl.com/ddzfde

Posted by Life-threatening Aortic Aneurysm on Feb. 28, 2011 @ 1:54 am

Here’s an SFPD officer threatening to break a young man’s arm “like a twig” while he is offering no resistance whatsoever. Should we give this officer a taser?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gAsUOZpPN9w

Here’s a video of SFPD officers usinga stun gun to attack and abuse an innocent man:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/object/article?f=/c/a/2007/05/24/MNGJSQ0N5...

Here’s the article about an SFPD officer’s use of a stun gun:

“In one incident, a young man who told Officer Jesse Serna he would be making a complaint against him said that moments later he was thrown to the ground by officers in North Beach and was zapped 12 times with a stun gun as he lay handcuffed on the street.”
http://articles.sfgate.com/2007-05-24/news/17243340_1_excessive-force-of...

Article about part of the fortune in taxpayer’s money this out of control violent civil servant cost you and the rest of San Francisco:
http://www.sfexaminer.com/blogs/under-dome/tazed-doctor-reaches-385000-s...

Posted by Guest on Feb. 28, 2011 @ 9:25 am

During the hearing, Chief Godown asked all SFPD officers to stand. He announced, “Everybody that’s in this room are my kids. I’m passionate about making sure they don’t get hurt.”

too bad he doesn't share the same concern for the people he serves and ho pay his ridiculously exorbitant salary.
Send this clown back to LA where he belongs.

Posted by Guest on Feb. 28, 2011 @ 1:59 pm

Some posters believe that by listing instances of the abusive use of tasers, they have proved that tasers should not be used.

But you can find many instances of abuse with any kind of weapon, including guns, clubs, and pepper spray.

The question is whether a proposed weapon's use can be so regulated that, on the whole, it proves effective in maintaining order in a rational way.

That's the question that the forthcoming study on tasers will address.

It won't do to shout "Right winger!" in the faces of those who want to see the results of such a study.

The shouters are like the doctrinaire opponents of Galileo. They refused to look through his new telescope, and they demonized anyone else who wanted to look, too.

There's nothing progressive about closing your mind to new information.

Posted by Arthur Evans on Feb. 28, 2011 @ 3:13 pm

" you can find many instances of abuse with any kind of weapon, including guns, clubs, and pepper spray."
-Arthur Evans on Feb. 28, 2011 @ 3:13 pm

Let's be reasonable and rational.
Let's study reform of the current system before granting police more powers over us, or more weapons for potential abuse.

Posted by Guest on Feb. 28, 2011 @ 4:21 pm