SCOTUS fails 'force' noun/verb distinction

Ref. Torture in America - Buckley v. Haddock [LINK]

The US Supreme Court declined to take up the case of a handcuffed Florida motorist who was tased three times because he disobeyed a deputy sheriff's command to stand up and walk to a patrol car. [LINK][LINK]

If you examine the issue closely, you'll notice that there is a clear distinction between force the verb (The deputy tased him three times before...) and force the noun (...backup arrived, and the two officers walked Buckley to the patrol car.)

The former is clearly torture; pain intended to force (verb) compliance. The latter is reasonable force (noun).

Perhaps three unwarranted (and completely useless) taserings isn't enough. How about 20? How about 50? The batteries will be dead before 200, so if you're going to pick a number, better make it less than that.

Roadside water-boardings anyone?

Maybe some pliers applied to sensitive body parts?


Nobody - and I mean nobody - has ever answered the Cigarette Challenge.

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?

And this in spite of the many pro-taser, law-and-order (sic) taser fan-boys that frequent this blog. They're all mouthy, but go strangely silent when presented with the Cigarette Challenge (it's because there is NO difference). I'll bet that not even the Justices on SCOTUS could answer that very simple question. [LINK][LINK]


Tasers used in this mode, and for this sort of application, are clearly an instrument of torture.