Printable View
And that is a problem? Personally, if I have cause to Taser someone, I have cause to use more lethal means. They have their place and the risk does not bother me, given the other option was for the officer to shoot the person. Personally, I will never carry a Taser, as I said, if I have cause to use one than things are real bad. I would prefer a more permanent solution.Quote:
Originally Posted by xman
That's simple you fire until the threat has subsided.Quote:
Originally Posted by ZiggyDeath
I am not a police officer, but i do have extensive hand gun training, and have taken self defense and concealed carry classes. The simple answer to the question of how much force to use, is as much as necessary.
If an assailant is trying to bring a gun to bear on me, I am legally allowed to fire upon him until such time as he ceases his attack, or is no longer an immediate threat. This is under California law, so it's pretty much the strictest law, I can't persue an assailant once he flees, and technically if there is an escape route I'm supposed to try, but in the case of an armed or suspected armed attacker, I can fire on him until he ceases the action that made me fear for my life in the first place.
If there are 20 officers, and one of them is struck by a bullet, they are justified n firing until they see the assailant stop reaching for a gun, surrender, or until they would reasonably deem him to not be a threat. If each officer fires 5 shots, it could easily reach 100 rounds, this can happen in a matter of seconds.
I'm not justifying every police action, I'm just making the point that every use of force is looked at as being extreme, we need to remember they are putting their lives on the line every day, and under a lot of stress.
As for Tazers, they are labeled by the officers I know as less-than-lethal weapons, not as non-lethal... So the officers do respect that there are circumstances where a tazer may be fatal. Every case must be examined on a case by case basis, but frankly I'm glad they have it in their options. Any weapon that gives the officer an opportunity to spare your life should be heralded as an advance. Not only is the tazer merciful to murderers, and rapists, it saves the officer from having to live with the knowledge that he killed someone. What happened in Canada was unfortunate, and I'm confident that it will be investigated, and if any wrong doing occured on the part of the officers they will be punished.:shrug: They have to live with their actions.
This incident doesn't make the tazer a bad option... It's still better than anything else in their inventory.
Seems like we had a similar thread over at B&B that got VERY heated...so I guess I'll throw my .02 in here as well.
-First, thank you all for keeping this civil thus far...
and secondly, I am a law enforcement officer...I don't play one on TV:D
So, here's my opinions both personally and from a professional standpoint:
-Tasers are not meant to be used as a replacement for a real gun....they're less-than-lethal by design. The officer who used the taser rather than the rifle was covered by other officers who had rifles, so he was right in doing so. Had he been the only one there, he'd have shot the ax-wielding offender, talked to the police shrink, taken a few days off for evaluation, and gotten back to work. The goal of police isn't to kill its citizens unless we have to.
-As for the cops who shot 100 rounds at the offender reaching for a gun, I can explain that in a phrase: Auditory Exclusion. Any of you combat veterans here can surely attest to this. The cops shot the guy because tunnel vision sets in, they can't hear what is going on around them,and each cop can't tell what the other guy is doing. This is simple human survival instincts, and cops are still allowed to have it, too. Trust me, I've been there...this is why the cops shot the suspect that many times.
-Last but not least, as far as Taser calling their product safe...well, it's their product. Last time I watched TV, Gillette says their Fusion power is the best thing since sliced bread. I've been tasered and maced. Both hurt like hell, but when the tasering was over, it was over. I wasn't shot in the chest, but these probes were taped to my chest and my abdomen near the belt line...did the same thing as being tasered in the back...as for the probes being taped rather than shot, we had a poor trooper get stuck with a probe in his scrotum when he was shot, and rather than embarrass somebody else, they decided to tape the rest of us.:eek:
I hope this might clear up any questions from somebody who is on the front lines, so to speak. I'm not a Taser spokesman, and I don't have stock in the company. The Taser works well most of the time. In all the years since we've had it, I've only had to actually use it just once on an unruly DUI arrest....and I'm damn glad I had it. He got his 5 second ride, I handcuffed him, and took him to jail....end of story. Had I had to Mace him or go hand-to-hand with him, I wouldn't have had the same results, and one, or both of us, could've gotten hurt. The rest of the time, the fact that I had the Taser was enough to de-escalate the situation.
I hope agencies don't do the typical govt. knee-jerk and pull the Taser off the streets. It is an intermediate tool, and once it is removed, you're left with bare hands....and next you have lethal force.....doesn't make too much sense to do that if public safety is the intent, now is it?:thinking:
Oh, and thanks for listening.
I'm not a trusting person, in my government or the local law enforcement. Honestly I have no respect for the police departments in my town because they have lied to me before over things they didn't have to lie about and abused their power. That being said, I would MUCH rather the police have the option of the taser. If Officer Jimbob decides I'm a threatening person, you bet your ass I want him to tase me. I'd rather be able to file suit myself than have my mrs do it for me while I'm in ICU or 6 feet under.
My personal issues with backwoods Oklahoma police aside, the taser is a lifesaver on both sides. The officer is safe since the threatening person is rendered immobile, the threatening person gets to walk away (for the most part). Once again, it beats the hell out of him shooting at me until he feels safe!
EDIT: As an aside, I'm not a cop hater. I understand that for the most part we're protected by good men and women making a difference in the world. It just so happens that those good ones are in short supply around my parts- boy the stories I've got. Hopefully when I move there will be better ones to take the bad taste from me.
I find this whole situation to be the product of a good tool used with bad judgment.
A straight razor is all well and good until you make a mistake and use it drunk/tired/something else. most officers out there are more sensible than these were in the use of force, but we only hear the stories about the bad judgments.
Out of curiosity for those law enforcement types, I imaging you have to periodically go to refresher courses on gun safety (I may be wrong) if so do you have to do the same for the tazer?
I've had the privilege of knowing many LEOs, from local cops to senior federal marshals. The one thing they all shared (besides being good people) was none of them practiced regularly with their sidearm. Most only shot their guns during their annual mandatory qualification. Given this level of expertise, it's no wonder that unfortunate trooper got tacked in the sack. ;-) At least with Tasers, a miss doesn't put bystanders at much risk.
Wayne
But does the PD use the taser only on the condition that it is 100% non lethal? Even pepper spray can blind someone causing them to hasten their own death through hazardous behavior. Let the studies be released and let the police do their jobs!Quote:
Originally Posted by sensei_kyle
It's not a problem if the facts are out. As long as information is obfuscated there are many more opportunities for abuse. I say, LET cops have Tasers. A also say, INSIST that they are properly informed and well trained. I'm not seeing those latter to my satisfaction.Quote:
Originally Posted by cannonfodder
X
All it takes is a couple of occasions of misuse and the agencies would want to take the Tasers away... If they did the math, they'd probly save money just from not having wrongful death suits by people who were killed with a firearm if they were instead subdued with a Taser.
I'm sure Eleanor Bumpurs would be alive today if they had Tasers.....
I've seen the Taser in action and I tell you it is a wonderful thing...
I was watching COPS one night and they pulled over this guy that was huge. He must've been 6'5" and 250 lbs. All muscle he could've been a lineman for the Giants. He wasn't being compliant (intoxicated) and I'm sure it would've taken like 5-6 guys to subdue and cuff him... After three unheeded commands, BANG this guy is down on the ground crying like a bbiiiatch..
Next command issued by the cop was fully heeded no and , if's or buts...
I say if you want to get rid of crime, let all law abiding citizens carry Tasers!!!
I think if the Taser is used, a plume of serialized labels are shot out with the needles... so it can be traced who owns the taser....
Quote:
Originally Posted by bbqncigars
:D Just to clarify, the reason the poor guy got sack-tagged is because the 2nd probe arcs out from the first probe at a downward angle of 7 degrees. This was an unintentional consequence...at least that's what they claimed...The guy who shot him is a firearms instructor and is Taser certified.
....And for what it's worth, I practice with the shotgun and handgun as often as I can. I try to get out at least once a month.