Taser Controversy

I was looking for the old thread regarding the death of Robert Dziekanski who was Tasered repeatedly by the RCMP at Vancouver International Airport, but I suspect the recent server crash erased it. Anyhow, I wanted to update everyone on a CBC special report I saw this evening. Apparently Taser International has been doing their best to subvert all studies which contradict their tale that tasers are safer than Tylenol. A physician from Chicago (sorry I don't have the data handy) who is also a SWAT team member did studies on pigs and discovered that if the electrical stream crosses the heart, that heart starts beating VERY irregularly instantly and can remain that way for many minutes afterward including complete cardiac failure. Taser's people keep trying to promote the idea of "excited delirium" as the actual cause of these deaths and say all of their executives have been Tasered themselves! of course, the clips they show are all of their people being Tasered in the back.

My feeling at this point is that Taser International should simply state that any electrical impulse running through the heart muscle, including that of the Taser, may result in cardiac arrest or death. This appears to be the truth and I'm sure that most police officers, when armed with that truth, will be able to act in an appropriate manner. Currently cops are under the misconception that Tasers are perfectly harmless. None of those cops are under the misapprehension that their pistols are perfectly harmless I'm sure.

X

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xman

My feeling at this point is that Taser International should simply state that any electrical impulse running through the heart muscle, including that of the Taser, may result in cardiac arrest or death. This appears to be the truth...

---

You don't have a marketing degree, do you?
If tasers lose their harmlessness, they will also lose a good chunck of sales. Or at least have to work harder to make those sales.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xman

Currently cops are under the misconception that Tasers are perfectly harmless.

---

I don't know about the rest of the world, but all police officers in Oklahoma City who carry a taser have to be shot with a taser before they are allowed to carry it. Same rules apply for pepper spray. With that being said, we have had one taser death in Oklahoma City. The deceased would not comply with officer's demands, and was combative and therefore was repeatedly tasered. I'm not sure if the toxicology reports are in on the person or not.

I don't know if police should have tasers. The use of them is getting way out of hand and in many cases I think they are getting used far too quickly by police. You can read all about these cases on the net. Many times police have tasered people wrongly and without the person being able to explain anything to the cops. Many people have been killed by the use/misuse of tasers even though, if you watch the video of the man at the airport, he did not appear to look threatening in any way. He looked like he was relieved to see police there, maybe his problem would be taken care of now. But, the RCMP murdered him. For nothing. He was lost, didn't know where he was, didn't speak the language. These cops should be up on charges. They never gave the man a chance to explain the problems he was having. To me, it looks like it's getting to a point where it will be "Tase first, if they survive, ask questions".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sensei_kyle

I don't know about the rest of the world, but all police officers in Oklahoma City who carry a taser have to be shot with a taser before they are allowed to carry it. Same rules apply for pepper spray.

---

I believe newly trained policemen in certain regions of Canada have to undergo the same procedure, but I believe it was only recently implemented. The fact remains that electrical impulses form the basis of our inner workings and if it manages to affect critical areas, you can easily end up dead.

Since I am new here I will tread lightly on this issue as it seems that my post will be running against the grain of popular opinion in this thread. I am a police sergeant in Washington State. I have been shot with the tazer several times and have deployed it many times against non-compliant suspects. I know just how very painful the tazer is and do not deploy it lightheartedly.

I my own experience, the tazer has saved me from having to shoot two people in the four years that we have used it. None of the people who have forced me to deploy the tazer against them have suffered anything more than transient pain and minor dart puncture wounds. The only “injury” beyond this in my deployments was a man who was hit in the lip with the tazer dart and had to be taken to the hospital to have it removed. That being said, that same man was mere seconds away from being shot in the chest with my M14 and only my cover officer's quick action with the tazer saved him as he advanced on our position with an axe. Think about that for a moment will you? In four years the tazer made it possible for me to take two disturbed human beings to court rather than to the hospital or the morgue.

These kind of saves happens every day all across the nation and it progresses well beyond just averted lethal force. In our department before we procured the tazer, each year we averaged 8 officers (from a patrol staff of 20) having to receive medical attention at the hospital for wounds received in physical altercations with suspects for injuries such as broken fingers, lacerations, dislocations, strained joints, torn muscles, ligaments and tendons, back injury etc. In the four years since we have had just two officers with assault related injuries. The number of suspects attending hospital for injuries that they have suffered in altercations with us has dropped by a very significant amount (I do not have the numbers available to quote though). A suspect that would have otherwise had to have been controlled with counter joint, blunt force, chemical agents and other forms of force are now incapacitated and handcuffed before it comes to that.

Suspects die in altercations involving less-than-lethal force, it is a fact of life and was an issue long before tazers came on the scene. Often times it is easy to attribute a secondary case to that fatality. Often it is a cardiac arrest issue or intoxication... sometimes it is (if you will pardon the term and not meaning to sound flippant) a head scratcher. That these tertiary fatalities should occur in conjunction with tazer deployment should come as a surprise to no one. Fighting with the police is a strenuous activity weather it is with hand and feet or one is shot with a tazer.

It is interesting to note that not one of the tens of thousands of officers who are tazed have ever died. To counter the argument that officers are only tazed from the back, this is just not the case. I, for instance, was tazed in the front with the top dart just below my right clavicle and the lower dart just above my belt on the left side. Most officers are tazed with one electrode on the foot and one on the collar although many who care actually shot are shot in the back to avoid uncomfortable nipple shots.

To condemn the tazer due to a several “tazer related” fatalities is akin to throwing the proverbial baby out with the bathwater. This a fabulous tool that saves hundreds of lives and countless injuries. There is a risk to almost anything that we do... we are in a straight razor forum so who know better than we... but we are not looking to ban airbags because on the rarest of occasions they cause injury or even death. If there is an issue with an officer applying force inappropriate to the circumstances of the situation then the officer should be retrained, disciplined, terminated or prosecuted as the case may be but to take this amazing, lifesaving tool out of every officer's “tool kit” would be a shame.

Quote:

---

f there is an issue with an officer applying force inappropriate to the circumstances of the situation then the officer should be retrained, disciplined, terminated or prosecuted as the case may be but to take this amazing, lifesaving tool out of every officer's “tool kit” would be a shame.

---

Now I agree with this, the problem is, even with the use of excessive force sometimes they simply get off with a proverbial slap in the wrists, nothing more than for show.

In Toronto for example, there have been cases with overly excessive force, resulting in MULTIPLE deaths, where the officers have gotten off scot free, mostly due to coverups. I mean how do officers justify emptying nearly a hundred rounds at point blank range into a suspect's car who appears to be pulling out a gun?

In this case one officer thought he saw the African-American reach for a gun, whether this was true or not - he fired. That shot ricocheted and hit another officer's vest. The end result was total mayham as several officers emptied into the car. Now there's no question about it, if he truly thought that man was reaching for an gun that he should be shot.

In the tazer incident in Vancouver, thus far the officers in question have simply been relocated. I don't think they've actually been reprimanded severely for the death.

Quite right Ziggy, those officers were reassigned to different front lines and remain on duty.

w12code3; I hear you loud and clear and couldn't agree with you more. Equip good officers with good information and good tools and we can expect good results. If you or anyone out there is inferring from me that the Taser is an inappropriate tool, then I must apologise. I support the proper use of this non lethal weapon. I am against its physical abuse by officers and its intellectual abuse by executives. Let's have the truth of it and we'll all be better off, is my opinion.

X

It's not about whether tasers are harmless-- It's about whether they're less dangerous than their alternatives.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ScottS

It's not about whether tasers are harmless-- It's about whether they're less dangerous than their alternatives.

---

Well when ya get right down to it, I'd much rather be tased than shot with a sidearm...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by w12code3

Since I am new here I will tread lightly on this issue as it seems that my post will be running against the grain of popular opinion in this thread. I am a police sergeant in Washington State. I have been shot with the tazer several times and have deployed it many times against non-compliant suspects. I know just how very painful the tazer is and do not deploy it lightheartedly.

I my own experience, the tazer has saved me from having to shoot two people in the four years that we have used it. None of the people who have forced me to deploy the tazer against them have suffered anything more than transient pain and minor dart puncture wounds. The only “injury” beyond this in my deployments was a man who was hit in the lip with the tazer dart and had to be taken to the hospital to have it removed. That being said, that same man was mere seconds away from being shot in the chest with my M14 and only my cover officer's quick action with the tazer saved him as he advanced on our position with an axe. Think about that for a moment will you? In four years the tazer made it possible for me to take two disturbed human beings to court rather than to the hospital or the morgue.

These kind of saves happens every day all across the nation and it progresses well beyond just averted lethal force. In our department before we procured the tazer, each year we averaged 8 officers (from a patrol staff of 20) having to receive medical attention at the hospital for wounds received in physical altercations with suspects for injuries such as broken fingers, lacerations, dislocations, strained joints, torn muscles, ligaments and tendons, back injury etc. In the four years since we have had just two officers with assault related injuries. The number of suspects attending hospital for injuries that they have suffered in altercations with us has dropped by a very significant amount (I do not have the numbers available to quote though). A suspect that would have otherwise had to have been controlled with counter joint, blunt force, chemical agents and other forms of force are now incapacitated and handcuffed before it comes to that.

Suspects die in altercations involving less-than-lethal force, it is a fact of life and was an issue long before tazers came on the scene. Often times it is easy to attribute a secondary case to that fatality. Often it is a cardiac arrest issue or intoxication... sometimes it is (if you will pardon the term and not meaning to sound flippant) a head scratcher. That these tertiary fatalities should occur in conjunction with tazer deployment should come as a surprise to no one. Fighting with the police is a strenuous activity weather it is with hand and feet or one is shot with a tazer.

It is interesting to note that not one of the tens of thousands of officers who are tazed have ever died. To counter the argument that officers are only tazed from the back, this is just not the case. I, for instance, was tazed in the front with the top dart just below my right clavicle and the lower dart just above my belt on the left side. Most officers are tazed with one electrode on the foot and one on the collar although many who care actually shot are shot in the back to avoid uncomfortable nipple shots.

To condemn the tazer due to a several “tazer related” fatalities is akin to throwing the proverbial baby out with the bathwater. This a fabulous tool that saves hundreds of lives and countless injuries. There is a risk to almost anything that we do... we are in a straight razor forum so who know better than we... but we are not looking to ban airbags because on the rarest of occasions they cause injury or even death. If there is an issue with an officer applying force inappropriate to the circumstances of the situation then the officer should be retrained, disciplined, terminated or prosecuted as the case may be but to take this amazing, lifesaving tool out of every officer's “tool kit” would be a shame.

---

Very true. Having worked the streets of Baltimore, many was the time I wished that I had something to bridge the gap between a baton and my sidearm.

The incident in question was caught on tape...the time between the officers arriving on the scene and the suspect ending up on the floor was less than a minute...the officers did not appear to make any effort to diffuse the situation or to calm the man - he was lost, had been given the runaround by the airport, had to deal with airport rent-a-cops, and didn't speak English (he was from Poland). He did not appear to be armed and was backed against a wall. Granted, having only the video to view does not give 100% of the facts, but viewing it using logic and following the timeline, you can see there was improper use of force.

I think the vid is still on YouTube.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ScottS

It's not about whether tasers are harmless-- It's about whether they're less dangerous than their alternatives.

---

I think that the answer to this question is an unequivocal "yes." The majority of tazer related injuries are associated with the fall. The incidents of fatalities associated with a tazer deployment are statistically insignificant. I know that sounds cold, but it's true. There are thousands and thousands of tazer deployments every day and one or two suspect deaths that occur each month. Almost every one of these deaths are found at autopsy to have been related to some other issue such as a pre-existing heart condition or extreme drug/alcohol intoxication. Now compare this to the fatalities associated with hand to hand confrontations and the rate of fatalities is significantly higher.

In other words, if given the same set of circumstances, the tazer was not used and the suspect had to be "wrestled" into custody, the evidence seems to indicate that a fatal result would have been the outcome in either event and is more likely in physical combat.

Lets set aside fatalities for a moment and just talk about injuries in general. If I am faced with a extremely agitated suspect who has failed to comply with my lawful commands to cease his or her aggressive behavior I could taze them in which case they would seize up for five seconds and topple over to the ground then I can move in and place them in handcuffs, once the five second cycle is over they are no longer in pain and there are no lasting effects aside from two bloodless punctures in their skin. Without the tazer I would have to move in and engage them in had to had combat. We have more politically correct terms for it, but lets call a duck a duck... its hand to hand combat. I'm going to do anything and everything (short of biting not for reasons of nobility, rather hygene) to wind that fight. I am 6'2" tall and about 250 lbs. The likelihood that the suspect is going to sustain an injury skyrocket not to mention the likelihood that I will get hurt. If I poorly aim an elbow strike for instance, or the suspect 'jukes' and my strike hits them in the throat or the solar plexus or the temple or base of the skull... well, we have real problems. Thats not to mention the routine injuries to joints such as dislocated shoulders, broken wrists, forearms, noses, hyperextended knees and elbows, laceration, abrasions... the list goes on and on.

I HATE hurting people... that probably sounds strange coming from someone who has to do it professionally but it's true. I despise causing other people injury but sometimes I have no choice. The best that I can do for someone who had decided that they are going to force me to hurt them is to mitigate the damage as best I can, but when it moves beyond noncompliance to assault I fight to win every time and that means that the suspect is going to get hurt.

The taser changes all that, now I can stop them with little to no injury... ask yourself, would you rather have 50,000 volts, temporary partial paralysis, and extreme pain for five seconds or a broken orbit, broke nose, and dislocated elbow. What is more dangerous? Not just for the suspect but for the officers.

As far as these officers in B.C. are concerned... I have not seen the video or read any official reports. One thing that I have learned about these videos is that you usually get a small fraction of a larger event that is frequently not representative of the situation in its totality so draw your conclusion with caution. If there was anything I would ask civilians to keep in mind about cops is that fact that we are just like you in every way except that you have asked us to be exceptional and we have accepted. Your demands are many but everyone seems to forget that we are you... just like you. We get scared, we make mistakes, we get angry, but the public isn't willing to accept any of this from us. We aren't willing to accept it from ourselves either. Its hard to do. When I was a project manager for a tech logistics firm and I made a mistake, 15 laptops went to Topeka instead of Buffalo and everyone was pissed off. Now when I make a mistake Davey Dumbass winds up with a smoking hole in his chest, I have to live with that for the rest of my life, the public labels me a murderer, and I will loose my job, my house and possibly my freedom. All this for $35,000 a year... yeehaw.

I'm all for the tazers. Yeah, some police misuse them, but I feel like there comes a point where you just have to realize that no matter what they have, whether it's a tazer or something else, they'll still misuse it. That's a failure in HR, not a faulty choice of weaponry. Just imagine all the needless deaths because someone decided to be stupid. Instead of trying to pull off a good, non-lethal shot, the policeman can temporarily paralyze the person and subdue them without risk to either party. Yeah, it can be risky due to pre-existing conditions, but the good heavily outweighs the bad I think.

Yes so given the option of a sidearm or tazer, I'll go for the latter, my odds of survival are better. BUT for the tazer people to play the "harmless" card is weak. The tazer is not harmless, if it was, it wouldn't work. Electricity is powerful stuff that can do really good/bad things to a person. On the good side think of all the people who are basically brought back to life by those paddles in hospital and ambulances after cardiac arrest. It's no accident that they shout "CLEAR" before firing them, the electricity that jolts a stopped heart and gets it beating can really bugger up a heart beating with proper rhythm.
With that said I think officers should have the tazer, I think shooting someone is hard on both people, victim and shooter. Modern sidearms turn most peoples innards into soup upon impact, especially under say 50 feet, combine this with marksmanship (officers are trained) the odds of fatality are very high for the victim. You cant take that back, the instant the trigger is pulled, most people are dead. That can be a very high price to pay for both parties.

Just my 2 cents.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gomez

Yes so given the option of a sidearm or tazer, I'll go for the latter, my odds of survival are better. BUT for the tazer people to play the "harmless" card is weak.

---

"Less than lethal" doesn't quite sound enough like "harmless" that people should confuse them.

the Canadian Border Services Agency has released their official report on the Dziekanski affair. I haven't read it, but I'll bet it doesn't say much more than this article reveals.

15 seconds after appearing on the scene the RCMP address Mr. Dziekanski who is non-violent and appears to be trying to explain something, perhaps why he broke a computer. Within 30 seconds of their contact with him the RCMP surround and Taser him. After 15 seconds of shock the offices descend on him. It is unclear how long the Taser shocking continued. 2 minutes after the RCMP arrive, Mr. Dziekanski appears to be dead. No fight on his part. No attempt to solve the problem verbally by the RCMP. This is very bad for the RCMP indeed.

X

In this case it sounds like the taser version of a Rodney King type beating.

One thing I wonder is if the psychological effect of having a "less than lethal" option makes it more likely that the police are going to be willing to escalate a situation to that level rather than keep it on a lower level for longer and talk their way out of a situation. I also wonder how many officers have been hurt while in indecision about the level of force appropriate to the given situation they used to have only one after talk but before kill now many officers have three.

w12code3

I think you would have done us all a favor if you had shot the guy with the ax coming at you attacking a guy with a rifle when carrying and ax deserves to be fatal stupidity whether or not he did anything else wrong.

Of course I'm of the mind that anyone who does not comply with the directions of the guy who is holding a gun pointed at him really doesn't deserve much consideration. Survival of the fittest and all that.

I suppose I can put my .02 in here.

First I would like to say that I appreciate the job that is done by law enforcement. I know it is not easy and hardly worth the money. I also think that officers should be allowed to carry tasers so they are better able to defend themselves. But when should it be used. I have seen a video of a guy who is trying to explain something standing ten feet from a cop and making no moves toward the officer get tazed. The guy was just talking and hardly combative. It seemed that the officer just did not want to hear the guy say anything else so he tazed him. I doubt this is the norm but I would not be surprised if this cop is abusive of his power more often. Abuse of power happens.

If a person charges you of course its time to take out the tazer, but this guy did not appear to fight. To me it seemed like an officer thought he had the easiest way to handle the situation.

im sorry but I can not resist

[youtube]<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/y3FFnpS-eYA&rel=0&color1=0x234900&color2=0x4e9e00&hl=en"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/y3FFnpS-eYA&rel=0&color1=0x234900&color2=0x4e9e00&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>[/youtube]

I dont spend a lot of time in the off-topic forum but i found this particular discussion interesting.

I dont know all of the facts surrounding this event but I would suggest that the problem here is training. Police in australia have are in a similar situation in that there is never enough time or money to train them for every situation they are likely to encounter.

Mental health particularly... there have been a number fo incidents where force has been used to subdue individuals there were having some kind of "episode" and the responding officers were either not trained or not equiped to deal with such a situation.

At the end of the day, I guess, my opinion is this... Our police do a difficult and thankless job.. they work round the clock and everything they do comes under enormous scrutiny... it's not a job I could do.

Every police officer deserves to be able to do his/her tour and go home in the same condition they went to work in... i believe they have the same entitlement to safety in the workplace that you and I have come to expect in ours.

The wider public need to be re-trained in the idea that if you come at a police officer with violent intentions (i'm not talking about the canadian incident here) then things are likely to end badly for you. Maybe over time the message will get through and people will be less inclined to "have a go" at a cop.

Look at it this way... if we take the taser away from officers... it leaves room on their belt for another mag of 9mm ammo

Greg Frazer

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xman

... any electrical impulse running through the heart muscle, including that of the Taser, may result in cardiac arrest or death.

---

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 ZiggyDeath

I mean how do officers justify emptying nearly a hundred rounds at point blank range into a suspect's car who appears to be pulling out a gun?

---

That's simple you fire until the threat has subsided.
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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sensei_kyle

I don't know about the rest of the world, but all police officers in Oklahoma City who carry a taser have to be shot with a taser before they are allowed to carry it. Same rules apply for pepper spray. With that being said, we have had one taser death in Oklahoma City. The deceased would not comply with officer's demands, and was combative and therefore was repeatedly tasered. I'm not sure if the toxicology reports are in on the person or not.

---

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 cannonfodder

And that is a problem?

---

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.

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

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

---

: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.

Ok, I’ve read enough, time to talk.

First, there is a verbiage correction I would like to make. We need to change “less than lethal” to “less lethal”

Second, I am horrified that some one is testing arching electrical currents across the heart of pigeons!!!!! This must stop people!!!!! Call you congressman!

Bottom line, a taser is better than getting shot! I have been tasered, stun gunned, and mased with an array of different products and they all suck! But I would take them instead of a bullet any day, all on the same day actually. As for miss use it goes like anything else. Cops are people and people aren’t perfect. If you have ever been in a situation that calls for lethal force you would not be saying a lot of what has been spewed here! It is obvious some of the posts here are from the outside looking in. I have carried and used everything from a 12 gauge shotgun, to an ASP to hand guns to pepper spray, and when it come down to it you never know how you’ll react or whether your training will kick in and take over, or if you’ll freeze and some one will die because of it, until it happens to you. Any less lethal device is just that, less lethal! Taser, bean bags, rubber pellets, concussion grenades, any of it has the potential to be fatal, but at the end of the day any solution that will do more good than harm is worth the risk!

The real issue is proper use, and I do not for an instant believe that any LEO has the illusion of a taser being completely harmless as was stated before! Tasers have their place and have saved countless lives since being implemented. Drunk, mentally deficient, high, just saving people from themselves, tasers are a wonderful and necessary tool, not only for the criminals, but for the officers and others who implement them every day. No one wakes up in the morning hoping to get to use their firearm in the line of duty. Double duty goes to the officers and their families to know that not every situation is life or death. You have an option to save a life and the taser is said option! After all, just like a gun, a taser has never made up it’s mind to target some one. It is a tool, and as any tool goes, it is only as useful and skillful as the hands it is in!

Done!

Oh crap!!! Its the appropriate vernacular police!

Its not less than lethal; its "less lethal"
Its not an accident; its a "collision"
Its not policeman; its "police officer"
Its not an ass-whoopin'; its the "reasonable application of the minimum force necessary to gain compliance with lawful demands."
Its not garbage; its trash (that's a McDonald's joke for the other poor losers who had to work there in high school: note if you are currently employed by McDonald's I apologize for my insensitive remark about losers and will strive to be more sensitive to others and respect the differences that make us all special people... or something)

Speed_Pigeon... well put and I apologize for my less-than-logical wording. I do so hate to disappoint the semantic enforcers. Less lethal, less than lethal... how about "that thing that's gonna hurt 'em without probably killing their dumb ass" I can remember that one.

Dave... every time I see your handle I picture you running code to "Aces High" then I laugh my ass off.

bbqncigars... yeah, thats not cool. I know quite a few officers who are exactly the same. One of the ways that I encourage marksmanship on my own shift is my giving one of my vacation days to the most improved officer at each bi-annual qaulification and three days to any officer or coproral in the departments who can beat me on range day. I have never lost three days, but then I am hard to beat.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by w12code3

One of the ways that I encourage marksmanship on my own shift is my giving one of my vacation days to the most improved officer at each bi-annual qaulification and three days to any officer or coproral in the departments who can beat me on range day. I have never lost three days, but then I am hard to beat.

---

I've gotta say that Justin is one all around cool dude.
I'm sorry officer w12code3, I mean no disrespect, Sir! No, don't taser me, bro!

The less lethal, less than lethal correction was not for you w12. Anyone who knows anything about the subject or has been involved first hand understands that either term’s meaning is the same. The correction was for the moronic, uneducated, “I just want to spew some shit and be part of the conversation” readers and posters who attempt to twist the term ‘less than lethal’ into a benign, harmless one. The uniformed take this to mean that anything listed under this umbrella is believed to be in no way fatal. Hence the problem; and the entire reason for this thread and the debate in general. Once the jerk-offs among us begin to think ‘less lethal’ suddenly the argument takes on a more accurate and intelligent tone. Believe me, I’m not writing the report or testimony by any means and am the last person to correct grammar or spelling. The mistake I wanted to correct was the mistake in thought process, not in actual terminology being used.

And I can’t tell you how many times I have told a LEO that I used the least amount of force required to defuse the situation, as some guy is mumbling through a broken jaw and choking on his own blood. :shrug:

Like I said, I’m not try to write anyone’s testimony, just get the slow ones among us on the right page. :tu

Quote:

---

One of the ways that I encourage marksmanship on my own shift is my giving one of my vacation days to the most improved officer at each bi-annual qaulification and three days to any officer or coproral in the departments who can beat me on range day. I have never lost three days, but then I am hard to beat.

---

How else could you be a professional cat herder... Those things are fast and hard to hit.

Just an update. The official inquiry starts today.

X

Looks like we're finally getting somewhere on this issue. I agree with the findings of the Commission for Public Complaints and independent review. Here's the CBC's main page on Tasers and all the related issues.

X

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xman

I agree with the findings of the Commission for Public Complaints and independent review.

---

I wonder is it even possible for you to agree or disagree with their findings. I don't think any of us were on the review commission and not only don't have access to the data, but are probably unqualified to analyze it as well.
I do agree that it was a good idea to have a review and I hope based on the results the policies would be improved.

Based on the video, the findings seem fair, if not even a bit lenient. If the policy is for tasers to be used against resisting subjects, then the man in the airport does not seem to fit that category, as I cannot see how walking away from the police is "resisting".. The term is "non-compliant" and a police officer addresses that differntly. Having dealt with many non-compliant individuals and many more resisting individuals while a patrol officer in Baltimore, the escalation of a situation is equally in the hands of the officer and the subject. These RCMP officers escalated to the use of force immediately.

On a side note, the airport staff called and said the man was banbing on windows and throw in furniture and computers. That must of occurred off camera or else the airport staff/rent-a-cops were exaggerating to get a faster response, in which case they set up both the RCMP officers and the victim for confrontation by presenting flase information. As a result, a man died. Where is the review of the airport staff's actions?
:nono:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gugi

I wonder is it even possible for you to agree or disagree with their findings. I don't think any of us were on the review commission and not only don't have access to the data, but are probably unqualified to analyze it as well.
I do agree that it was a good idea to have a review and I hope based on the results the policies would be improved.

---

Quite right. More accurately, I agree with the implications and recommendations and a .pdf file is available on the first page I provided a link for.

X