Axiom Home Page Forums General Discussion The Water Cooler OT: LAPD to ban big metal flashlights

LAPD to ban metal flashlights

OK...is it me, or is this the stupidest thing you've ever heard? Isn't the issue that cops are beating people on the head, not what they doing it with?

Rather than banning metal flashlights, how about stopping the cops from beating people?

That's a lot like the ban against chewing gum in Singapore. They ban gum because people throw it on the ground. Doesn't it make more sense to ban throwing it on the ground?

Spiff - your insight is correct and your analogy is apt.

However, if you take the mechanism of abuse away from people, the problem is easier to manage. Telling a cop to stop hitting people on the head might not stop him from doing it (especially if he's got a prior disposition to do so). In fact, most people don't need to be told not to abuse others. The Singapore analogy definitely highlights the fact that those in charge, (while not ignoring the issue), are not addressing it head on either....

I think that this ban can also be compared to a ban on assault rifles. No, people shouldn't need to be told not to take an uzi into a mini-mall. But some people are crazy enough (we'll call it pre-disposed) to do just that. One solution - tell people not to do it, and then when they break the law, clean up the mess (and mourn the dead while you're at it). The second solution is to take the assault rifle out of the hands of the crazed individual. While this abridges some freedoms and potentially some rights that he may have, you've effectively eliminated the problem of the uzi/mini mall affair... I'm sure that the relatives and loved ones of the victims of our mini mall melee would prefer the latter solution.

Ultimately, this doesn't address the issue head on. If a guy is crzed enough, he'll find another tool to kill a bunch of people at the mini mall if he is that determined, just like a cop will find something else to beat criminals (and innocents) over the head with. But, if you make the cops or the lunatics jump through a few more hoops, you might jar some sense into these people.

So, while I agree with you in regard to the absurdity of removing metal flashlights from policemen's hands while not directly addressing the issue that maybe we should get some anger management counselers on the scene - the tools and methods that they are implementing cut to the chase. They provide a profolactic solution to a problem which cannot be solved without great cost, the expenditure of great energy and (very likely) the re-ordering of certain people's mindsets (not an easy task).

Anyway, rant over. Interesting catch.

i own 2 Mag-lites.. very functional items.

i agree with both of ya'll.. goes back to the same ole question.. is it the gun that kills, or the person firing it??

food for thought!!

bigjohn

Excellent point. I guess the issue that bugs me isn't so much that they're taking away the big MagLites, but that they're not going after the abusive cops. The next time a cop beats the crap out of somebody who's clearly been subdued already, they need to lock him/her up and throw away the key. Then the next cop might think twice before venting their frustration out on someone's head.

Spiff - without a doubt, the powers that be need to punish those cops who act inappropriately. However, putting a guy in jail doesn't undo the fact that some poor schmo just got his head caved in by a maniac with a badge and an 8 pound flashlight.

To reiterate my point: if you take the flashlight out of his hands, maybe he won't hit at all. Maybe he'll hit with something less violent, or maybe he'll have to go look for something violent to hit him with, and in the meantime, come to his senses. In these last three scenarios, the victim is better off.

In truth, the law is trying to PROTECT victims as a first level of defense. As a second level of deterrence, the law will PUNISH the wrongdoing cop. If PROTECTION is your main goal, and PUNISHMENT doesn't serve to protect, only deter, then the primary goal has failed.

No, cops shouldn't hit people on the head. But they do. If it were me, I'd rather be hit on the head by something softer and lighter, AND see the cop get punished rather than take my licks with a heavy-weight flashlight, and revel from my hospital bed about the fact that some low-life cop is being reprimanded or jailed.

Now, hold on just a darn minute here.

I object to the generalization that most/all of the people getting bonked by police flashlights are "victims" who don't deserve it. I also object to asking police officers to keep the peace without giving them the tools to do so.

How many of you would actually be willing to do field police work in return for the compensation offered? You deal with the absolute dregs of society on a daily basis while putting your life on the line in return for a middle-class existence.

OF COURSE police officers should not be allowed to brutalize innocent people. The penalty for doing so should be many times what it would be for an ordinary citizen.

But taking away flashilights because they have the potential to be used inappropriately does not make me feel safer, and does not help these public servants do their important jobs.

When flashlights are outlawed, only criminals will have flashlights.

Ummmm....can't the police pistol whip someone as easily as they could use their flashlights?

They've also got those handy wooden night sticks. That's part of the reason I thought taking the flashlights seemed foolish.

In reply to:

---

is it the gun that kills, or the person firing it??

---

Answer: The person uses the gun to kill, ie both of them.

Take the gun away and at the very least its slightly less likely that person will be able to kill.

No I'm not saying take all guns away, but I am for gun control.... and yes I'm a conservative.

Chris Rock had a better solution: No gun control, but charge ridiculous amounts of money for ammo. Like $500 per bullet.