Why is there a Corporate-Media Complex Sponsored Police Prison State?

Through subliminal programming embedded in the product of the entire 'corporate-media complex', everything necessary for guided modern living is instilled: not just how to behave in a prison state. Its sum is indoctrination of the finest quality - nothing happens by accident, if it happens you can bet it was planned that way.

So if it is planned this way: what is the plan? The plan cannot just be for a 'police/prison state', as that alone is a pointless, non-productive, endeavour. The fact is: if the police are not held in check, they will enter this cycle of 'absolute power corrupting absolutely'. That alone does not serve a greater purpose, true it will happen if not kept in check, but in isolation it will rapidly become detrimental to the state as a whole. At a critical point, the whole state will be seen as having become unnecessarily onerous whereas it may, in fact, be that only the police have become 'careless' and oppressive to no good aim other than for their supposed own ends and foolish interpretation: of just being a club for bullies and for apparently achieving optimal policing effectiveness.

There must be more to 'the state' allowing its police to be become oppressive than just simply failing to prevent runaway oppressive police standards. To my eyes, the day the 'worm turned' was when in 2007 University of Florida student Andrew Meyer was assaulted and Tasered by campus police whilst he was poignantly questioning Senator John Kerry at an official student Q&A session. It was a disgraceful for such an inappropriate use of force to take place in the presence of this ex-Presidential candidate and for him to have not fiercely reacted at the time, or subsequently, to this violent infringement on legitimate discourse.

I say the ever worsening levels of police oppression and their apparent unaccountability is a symptom of the ever burgeoning tyranny at the core of government. Plato wrote: The secret of freedom lies in educating people, whereas the secret of tyranny is in keeping them ignorant. The corporate-media complex not only normalises the actions of the police but obfuscates the illegitimacy and corruption that is at the very heart of 'the state'.

Those unsuitable for being subjected to a Taser's electric shock

The list of groups unsuitable for being subjected to Taser type shocking, in all but the most exceptional circumstance, should include:

*the elderly
*children
*people with low body-mass (small, thin and light people)
* pregnant women,
* the known to be mentally ill,
* those suspected to be under the effects of psychotropic drugs,
* the disabled,
* the deaf (if they may not understand the threat),
* people exhibiting signs of 'excited delirium',
* people suffering from or with a history of epileptic seizure,
* people carrying or soaked with flammable and explosive substances,
* people with heart conditions,
* people who are already restrained,
* people who are moving, especially running, or can fall causing injury,
* people who simply refuse to comply, are defiant, with instructions but are not posing a violent threat, 
* And people who can be restrained by an alternative means that presents less risk in the circumstances.

The misuse of Taser is a management and training issue.  If controlled correctly by the issuing authority it is a device that can contribute to good policing.  If badly deployed it is a dangerous erosion of the covenant between the Police and the people.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/breaking-news/mp-fears-tasers-used-on-kids-old-people/story-fn3dxiwe-1226422374526

The Nine Principles of Policing
http://www.civitas.org.uk/pubs/policeNine.php

Youngster Tasered in the back, whilst trying to run away handcuffed, falls and suffers vegetative head injury. Cop gets pat on the back.

"Had to Tezer her because she was running out of the door"


Many 'cops' are lazy and will use whatever methods they are allowed to get the result they want. That is life; that is the result of sloppy management. Perhaps that is the result of a nation state where the police are allowed to use unnecessary violent force without criticism. Perhaps the reason this sort of treatment of the public is allowed, passes without prosecution resulting, is to send a subliminal message to all that: the 'state' is the power not the people. It is not to help police do their job - breaking the covenant between the police and the people can never contribute to the successfulness of state authorised policing.
See: http://eubrainwashing.blogspot.com/2011/06/nine-principles-of-policing.html

The recommendation from APCO in the UK for the circumstances when our 'police' can use these devices was: where officers are facing violence or threats of violence of such severity that they would need to use force to protect the public, themselves and/or the subject(s) of their action. That is a fair directive (if a state monopoly on the use of force can ever be seen as such).

The actions of the cop who caused this girl to fall and suffer brain damage do not appear meet this sensible APCO directive. She was not a violent threat. The threat of harm to herself was far greater by making her fall whilst handcuffed than the officer's assertion he was concerned she could have run into traffic - what traffic? This is a LIE.

That she was running substantially increased the threat of injury from falling at speed whilst paralysed from the effect of the device. That she was handcuffed made an injury from a fall extremely likely. Injuries resulting from falls is a substantial threat resulting from the use of Tasers, even if the subject is not moving and unrestrained. This is one of many reasions why their use must be strictly limited to the parameters delineated within a directive such as that proffered by the UK APCO. Their use on a running subject should be only under extreme circumstances of violent threat - not a common situation if a subject is running away from you.


The TASER web info states:

* it is important to remember that the very nature of self-defence, use of force, and physical confrontation or incapacitation involves a degree of risk that someone will get hurt or may even be killed due to physical exertion, unforeseen circumstances, and/or individual susceptibilities.

* The TASER device is to be used only for lawful self-defence or in the defence of others.

* its use can result in injuries, including ...... secondary injuries related to falling.

* Subject may fall immediately to the ground and be unable to catch him/herself.

* see downloads manuals at: www.TASER.com