Cops should not be allowed to tasered you if you refuse to get out of a vehicle

-As I already stated above I don't care about "acceptance" of an argument or the plan or counterplan or the 'judge' voting con or pro or the "underview" or the resolution. I just joined this site a few weeks ago and am interested in the philosophical reason why people believe something and want to know if they can back up their argument with sound reasoning. I don't care who "wins" rounds. -You keep saying I changed my original argument. First off, I don't think I did because I say in my original argument the following things "..if you refuse to get out of a vehicle" and "Tasers should only be used to protect the police or the public if they are in immediate and direct physical harm (e.g. somebody raising a gun or fist to hit them)" and "Non violence should not be met with violence" All of those things suggest the person is not fighting or hitting or shooting the cops. -You keep saying how lifting somebody out of a vehicle is such a bad option and how tasering is so much better otherwise shooting the person to death is all that is left. You say tasering immediately subudes; lowers the possibilty of further injury, deters further resistance, increases the control of the state, reduces the crime rate, is a suitable punishment and is effective. As I said before it may be the EASIEST option for the cops, but it does not take into the affect on the person receiving the tase. I find it funny how you talk about how lifting somebody up can injure somebody but in the same breath say "...tasering does not lead to death IN THE MAJORITY OF CASES..." That should tell you right there that is is harmful if it has the potential for death (even in the minority of cases) How often has somebody died from getting picked up? Take that and compare it to the number of taser deaths. Then you want to talk about control of the state suitable punishment and all that. Remember, all this person has done is refuse to comply with the cops orders to stand up instead of sit down or move from here to there, it should not be grounds to shock the hell out of them and it is not harmless. As I said in my last round which you have failed to address" "I think if you poll 100 people, most if not all would say they would rather get forcefully lifted up than have 100,000 jolts of electricity forced through their body so a taser is not the least aggressive method." The fact that most people would prefer being lifted should also give credence to the fact that tasering is not the best option. So don't tell me I "....haven't given any reason why tasering itself is actually worse than lifting." There are two reasons you just ignored: it can and has KILLED people and most polled peopled would prefer lifting to tasering. Don't ignore those reasons this time. -Lifting somebody out of the vehicle is a viable option. What do you think they did before they had tasers? The reason I suggest they call for backup is because some people are heavy and it may require more than one person. Have you ever moved to a new house and had to lift a large object like a couch. It is easier with two people and not just 1, right? Do you understand that? It is called physics. that is why the 'MORE THE MERRIER' It is also good to have more than 1 cop there because if the person resists it is better in case the person does start to hit the cops, they can actually subdue the person and may have to taser them because at that point they care causing physical harm. Even if lifting somebody out of a car usually leave to a physical fight, people have a right to not be shocked until they actually start fighting. That is called serving the people and not controlling the people. It is the job cops signed up for. The might get into physical confrontations. The person did not sign up for that (and are not getting paid) even if they are not listening because that is all they are doing at that point is not listening. As I said before "Non violence should not be met with violence" Just like if somebody was protesting and blocking traffic or an entrance to a building you don't just say "lets tase them because that is is easier than moving them." -You say I concede the effectiveness of tasers. Sure, they are effective and increase control and deter resistance and are punishment, etc. But using that logic a bullet to the head would be more effective and a bomb even more effective and so on. So it is not simply about the 'EFFECTIVENESS' -Lastly you go on about a presidential executive order, global warming, and all this other nonsense about legislation that really isn't relevant