Author Topic: Desensitizing?  (Read 240 times)

Jake
  • Monstrous Imp
  • *
  • Posts: 38
  • Karma: +10/-22
Desensitizing?
« on: February 22, 2013, 07:12:30 am »
There is an interesting therapy/intervention used in psychology, which you are almost certainly already aware of: desensitization.

desensitize
1: to make (a sensitized or hypersensitive individual) insensitive or nonreactive to a sensitizing agent
2: to make emotionally insensitive or callous; specifically : to extinguish an emotional response (as of fear, anxiety, or guilt) to stimuli that formerly induced it

Prolonged and repeated exposure to a stimulus eventually "reduces or habituates the initial psychological impact until [the stimulus] does not elicit negative responses."

With that in mind, it is certainly worthy of note that the supplier of shooting targets to the Department of Homeland Security has begun producing a new range of targets. Called "No More Hesitation", take a look at the attached pics to see just what exactly they are shooting at...

Jake
  • Monstrous Imp
  • *
  • Posts: 38
  • Karma: +10/-22
Re: Desensitizing?
« Reply #1 on: February 22, 2013, 07:52:42 am »
Following up on that, seems the company has sold DHS $2 million worth of "products" - mainly consisting of "paper and paper boards" (eg "targets). Among the usual conspiracy groups, the chatter is mainly about

1. how this connects with the DHS recent purchases of 2 billion rounds of ammunition
2. how the targets all depict "caucasian, middle class" people

Regarding the first point, Mark Levin has said:

"To provide some perspective, experts estimate that at the peak of the Iraq war American troops were firing around 5.5 million rounds per month. At that rate, the Department of Homeland Security is armed now for a 24-year Iraq war. A 24-year Iraq war! Iím going to tell you what I think is going on. I donít think domestic insurrection. Law enforcement and national security agencies, they play out multiple scenarios. Ö Iíll tell you what I think theyíre simulating: the collapse of our financial system, the collapse of our society and the potential for widespread violence, looting, killing in the streets, because thatís what happens when an economy collapses. I suspect that just in case our fiscal situation, our monetary situation, collapses, and following it the civil society collapses, that is the rule of law, they want to be prepared. I know why the governmentís arming up: Itís not because thereís going to be an insurrection; itís because our society is unraveling."

As for the second point, ignoring the element of racism contained within the point, the common conclusion that people are reaching is that the future "enemy" is expected/planned to be the burgeoning white, middle classes.

Retired City of Houston police officer T.F. Stern has said: "Thereís something wrong, seriously wrong here. If we start to desensitize law enforcement officers, have them disregard humanity, to feel nothingís wrong in shooting a pregnant lady or an old man with a shotgun inside his own homeÖthen what kind of society have we become? How will police officers react after they no longer believe they are part of the society which they have been charged with policing, when they have become used to shooting pregnant ladies and old men?"

Viz desensitization, I am reminded that in the UK, where police officers are not routinely armed, Tasers were initially provided in limited numbers as a "less lethal" weapon of last resort. This was to be the final response short of deadly force, only to be used in a very limited set of circumstances where there was an imminent risk to life of a police officer or innocent member of the public. In April 2003, a limited, twelve-month operational trial of the M26 Taser began in the UK. In September 2004 the Home Office officially authorised the use of Taser in firearms incidents. Three years later, it extended the use of Taser to incidents "where the authorising officer has reason to suppose the police are facing violence or threats of violence of such severity that they would need to use force to protect the public, themselves or the subject."

By the end of 2012, the police (and the public, by and large) had become so desensitized to the use of Taser that a number of journalists began highlighting serious misuses:

*an innocent, 61 year old blind man was tasered in the back while walking down the sidewalk because police mistook his white cane for a samurai sword

*an 89 year old man suffering from Alzheimers was tasered when he threatened self-harm

This is tip-of-the-iceberg stuff. You don't need to look far on YouTube to find multiple examples of British police using taser as an easy option to arrest people who - clearly - are posing no risk of imminent violence. Arguing with a police officer is now reason enough to be tasered.

Even the Conservative Spectator magazine has questioned what is going on:

Quote
Peter Cox was on his way to carry out some landscaping work at a friendís house in Bridgwater in Somerset when he was pulled over by police on (false) suspicion of driving his BMW without insurance. The officer in question decided that Mr Cox was acting aggressively, and pulled out his Taser gun. Seconds later, Mr Cox had 50,000 volts delivered to his groin. It is a chilling sign of how the British police have changed.

The officer discharged his weapon by accident. But at what point did England license police to draw guns on motorists suspected of traffic offences? For generations, unarmed British police have found various ways of dealing with people whom they regard as aggressive. It is doubtless far easier to point a gun at people, and requires far less training. Our officers do not carry arms because we, as a country, regard it as unacceptable to treat people in such a way.

We have seen coverage from America of police behaving appallingly: one policeman shot a pensioner with a Taser gun when he did not like the way he was being spoken to. We should not take a single step down this road. It is not just that the use of Tasers is a lazy option, which leads to bad policing: there are fundamental questions to be asked about the relationship between police and society.

This magazine opposes identity cards in part because there is the world of difference between a policeman asking, 'Can I have your name?' and one demanding, 'Can I see your papers?' Britain is not a country where it is acceptable to say to a motorist 'Shut up, or Iíll shoot' ó whether talking about bullets, or electronic darts.
« Last Edit: February 22, 2013, 08:04:53 am by Jake »

 

SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk