"Minimum force" - it's a noun...

The word "force"... It's so confusing. One day, it's a noun. The next day, it's a verb. One can hardly be expected to keep up...

Lockport, NY — A Niagara Falls police lieutenant testified Monday that an assistant county prosecutor gave officers the go-ahead last fall to use “minimum force” necessary to take a DNA sample from a man who was subsequently shocked by a taser when he wouldn’t submit to a mouth swab. ... [LINK]

The thing is, this distinction was clearly understood back in the turbulent late-1960s. Protesting students were often lifted bodily, using minimum lawful 'force' (noun), and carted off. But everyone knew during that era that lawful 'force' was a noun. They didn't get away with using cattle-prods to 'force' (verb) people to obey.

Every now and then society takes a giant step backwards. Allowing the law enforcement community to get confused by the word 'force' is one such example.

And allowing a company to openly sell what is clearly "an instrument of torture" is a huge error.


By the way - anyone out there conquered the Cigarette Challenge [LINK] yet?

Why can't the police just use the glowing end of a lit cigarette to cause pain? Both the taser and a lit cigarette can leave minor burns. Both cause more-than-intense pain. The cigarette might be safer. They seem to be perfectly equivalent from a functional point of view. Please explain what's the legal, moral, and ethical difference? Well?

Hey buddy - allow us to take a DNA swab from your mouth or we will burn you in the shoulder for two seconds with this glowing cigarette.