you have not completely convinced me that tasers are harmless. The burden of proof would matter if I was trying to convince a neutral party such as in a formal debate. I remember what I heard on t.v. and just because I can not find the clip does not mean that I'm wrong. I have already admitted that I made a mistake earlier when I said I may be wrong. I didn't say that I am wrong because I am not certain that I am. There is a difference between being unable to prove your position and being wrong.
Originally Posted by rw4th
In this case you are both. The news misreported or you made and error of comprehension or just don't remember it accurately.
Originally Posted by pokeroo
Sorry for resurrecting an old thread but saw this recently and I haven't seen it on here before. It is a police training video or seminar from the early 90's (I'd say) with Shoto Tanemura.
Dailymotion - shoto tanemura - self défense - Part 1 - une vidéo Sports et Extrême@@AMEPARAM@@http://www.dailymotion.com/swf/x5848i_shoto@@AMEPARAM@@x5848i_shoto
Originally Posted by Caboose
Did you see the pictures presented earlier in this thread?
You're not going to be able to reliably defend against a stabbing attacker, even if you train one hour 4 days a week for a month. It's similar to assume that there's some way a boxer could make himself immune to ever getting struck to someone else's punch... It's possible in SPECIFIC INSTANCES, but there has to be a huge skill level deficient on the side of the opponent.
I'm afraid that this training may give police officers a false sense of security. It is probably better for a cop to respond to a deadly threat with deadly force. If a crazy/drugged up/imbred/retarded criminal doesn't want shot, all he has to do is not act like he wants to kill a cop.
I'm sure you will have to agree, it's much simpler this way.
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO