The difference between Us and Them

[usmarine0352_2005]

ttttttt.

Some UK Forces Say No to Tasers

Posted: Monday, June 22, 2009
Updated: June 22nd, 2009 12:12 PM GMT-05:00

Several major British police forces say they are refusing the government's calls to extend the use of Taser stun guns to thousands of officers.

The Sussex Police have joined the London Metropolitan Police in refusing to extend the use of Tasers to officers who are not specially trained to wield the weapons, The Daily Telegraph reported Monday.

Still undecided on whether to roll out the non-lethal weapons to more officers are the South Yorkshire Police and Devon and Cornwall Constabulary, the newspaper said.

Concerns over providing 10,000 such weapons to 30,000 officers nationwide have reportedly been sparked by video footage from Nottingham, England, that appeared to depict an officer shocking a man at least twice while he was lying on the floor.

"Tasers should be left in the hands of specially trained firearms officers," Tom Brake, a Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman, told the Telegraph. "By making Tasers available to 30,000 officers we are descending down the slippery slope towards fully armed, U.S.-style policing."

.

 

[cambeul41]

Oh, goody!

 

[cchris]

Don't tase me, bro!

I'd say if you've gotten tased before and you know what it's like, it gives you the right to carry it. No comment about that last line, but I'd hate to see what garbage Jeremy Clarkson thought of it.

 

[Kwanger]

At a time when the UK is rapidly becoming 'Knife attack capital of the world', I'd suggest some 'US style policing' is what is needed......never mind tasers.

 

[MattTheHat]

"Tasers should be left in the hands of specially trained firearms officers,"

Sounds like maybe they should consider a little training, then.


-Matt

 

[Shadow 7D]

Funny, one of the Youtube gun control videos had a British cop talking about how they never needed gun until they were outlawed. In S&T the mention of tasers brings up that under many departments guideline Less Than Lethal isn't to be used unless the officer has backup with pistol drawn.

my 2 cents, i guess they would be better than nothing

 

[Neverwinter]

One step isn't a slippery slope.

Give them the tasers after they've been trained, not before. The training should define the appropriate use of the taser as a matter of policy.

 

[george29]

The world is round, what was is what will be. Early 1900's London, the police were unarmed but almost all gentlemen carried a pistol discretely. Another 20 years and it will be back there.

 

[SCKimberFan]

"Tasers should be left in the hands of specially trained firearms officers,"

After all, they are the only ones professional enough...

 

[NoirFan]

There's really really nothing wrong with what they're doing. Why would you issue tasers to police without proper training?

 

[Harve Curry]

From what I have read of England, the original concept of British police was that the citizens be armed and the police unarmed. When and if a policeman needed help he had the armed citizens for back up. It was your duty to back up a unarmed police and it provided a buffer , check and balance between the police authority and citizens. Having armed police over the citizens would become corruptable. Historically that's why British Bobbies were unarmed untill recently.
I probably haven't recited it closey, but you'll get the jest of it. It would be interesting for a UK'r to chime in.

 

[Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow]

"Tasers should be left in the hands of specially trained firearms officers,"

Well they got that part straight!

But as for going down to road toward "fully-armed, US-style policing", regardless of whether or not "fully-armed, US-style policing" is a good or bad thing, which is arguable, one could make a pretty plausible argument that issuing tasers takes them in the 180 degree opposite direction from the road toward "fully-armed, US-style policing", since tasers are a less-lethal ALTERNATIVE to being "fully armed" - fully armed implies FIREARM, and since a taser is a substitute or alternative to being fully-armed, issuing them actually prevents the necessity of going fully armed, in order to handle the (obviously) increasingly-unruly criminals there.

But lots of training, yes, absolutely. Don't be stupid.

 

[RyanM]

"By making Tasers available to 30,000 officers we are descending down the slippery slope towards fully armed, U.S.-style policing."

"Yes, we must continue to only arrest 10% of criminals, not 25% like those seppos!"

 

[youngda9]

Just how does an unarmed police force go about stopping and catching armed bad guys????

 

[Mr_Rogers]

I think the UK police deserve praise for, at least, thinking carefully about levels of response. Which do you prefer, a discussion about appropriate levels of training and response or the mindless supply of automatic weapons to the small number of police officers who, as proven by no-knock, wrong house, assaults, can't be trusted with a map?

 

[Mike OTDP]

Concur 100%.

That being said, what the British police could use are some good S&W revolvers. Enough gun to protect, not enough gun to play 'Badged Bully' with.

 

[Zundfolge]

Don't tase me, bro!

Actually shouldn't that be "Don't tase me, bloke!"?

 

[Foofles]

I'll agree with them on the part where they don't want untrained individuals to be issued tasers... but that has a simple solution. Train them!

I find that "leading down the slippery slope... " line to be humorous since as far as I know the londom metropolitan police was just built as a failtacular copy of the NYPD.

 

[feedthehogs]

I'd say if you've gotten tased before and you know what it's like, it gives you the right to carry it

Sorta like if you've been shot before and you know what it's like, it gives you the right to carry a gun

Otherwise your just being a poser, right?

 

[cchris]

Not quite the same. See, firearms do lasting damage to the human body, whereas the impact from a nightstick, the spray from mace, and the shock from a taser are not permanent and a person can recover from them.

With that being said, if a cop didn't know that his nightstick could crack someone's ribs, he might use it a little more than if he got hit with it and knew it hurt.

The same case goes for mace - if you know how much it hurts, are you going to be so quick to reach for it? And in the same manner, if a taser was very painful for you, are you going to immediately reach for it without recalling how painful it was for you?

 

[KarenTOC]

Just how does an unarmed police force go about stopping and catching armed bad guys????

Very, very carefully.

 

[danprkr]

From what I have read of England, the original concept of British police was that the citizens be armed and the police unarmed. When and if a policeman needed help he had the armed citizens for back up. It was your duty to back up a unarmed police and it provided a buffer , check and balance between the police authority and citizens. Having armed police over the citizens would become corruptable. Historically that's why British Bobbies were unarmed untill recently.

If true that is the coolest thing I've ever heard about British cops. Do you have a source?

 

[Eyesac]

Cheebis, only specially trained cooks should be able to use pointy knives in the UK. Those poor bastards.

 

[inSight-NEO]

Tasers should be left in the hands of specially trained firearms officers

This makes me laugh (along with a healthy dose of head shaking)...

Oh, and define "specially trained"...

 

[Neverwinter]

I'd say if you've gotten tased before and you know what it's like, it gives you the right to carry it.

Experiencing its effects is not the same as knowing how to use it. Otherwise riding in a car should give you the right to drive one.