How do feel about Tasers?

Status
Not open for further replies.

CZ-100

Member
Joined
May 12, 2003
Messages
979
Location
Sourh FL/East TN
I does seem that the police are quick in using them and using them on very young kids.

I still do not know how I feel about this one, really could not see in the SUV, but It does seam that the officer did make his intentions clear that he would use the Taser many times.

There are 4 video
The speeding SUV
The traffic stop
The arrest
and McNevin on radio

the arrest is knidy funny, in that she is Really Stupid.

link here
 
The (some anyway) police seem to think they're safe enough to use for any old reason, on anybody. But they aren't, and people die.

Using force like that should be only as a potentially fatal last resort, not for crowd control or calming down a belligerent drunk.

Likewise, I can't see a private citizen wanting one, because I doubt it could stop an agressor as reliably as an appropriatly chosen handgun.
 
The taser should be used when an officer thinks that he is justified in using deadly force, but beleives that he can resolve the situation without it. Police should be lauded for using the taser in lieu of killing someone- this shows retraint.

It should not be used as an argument winner, debate tool or form of punishment. The police should be punished when they use the taser on people that do not represent a serious threat to those around them. Hurting people is still wrong when it doesnt leave permanent marks. This is just another variation on the "ginger beer trick*" variety of police coercion tools. We only hear about the ones that get caught on camera.

I am betting it will take a few high profile court cases to put a stop to the abuse. It wasnt more than 40 years ago that police in some areas would routinely shoot at speeders and other non felonious fleers of justice.

*Apologies to Terry Prachet, but the ginger beer trick was actually invented in Mexico- the police officer tilts the cuffed prisoner back and squirts carbonated beverage up his nose and into his sinuses. No marks are left, but it is very painful.
 
The Taser is sorely misunderstood by the general public

The Taser is not a substitute for deadly force under any circumstance. It may be used in lieu of, but it is not a replacement for.

TThe Taser isnt used enough. The rate of death subsequent to the use of the Taser on a per apllication basis is negligible and in every documented case thereof with one exception the ME found other causal factors in the person's death. The Taser has never, repeat never been known to be the definite cause of someone's death. It causes FAR less damage, some would say none, than active countermeasures, impact weapons, kinetic impact munitions and I fully expect it to be determined to be of less risk than aerosal irritants

The Taser saves lives and reduces injury. It is the closest thing to setting a phaser on stun that we will see for the forseeable future
 
I have read stuff lately (our newspaper did a spread on the recent police use of Tasers, admittedly on some people who were not behaving right) that makes me think that the police are resorting to their use just to make their own jobs easier, and NOT because their use is really and truly justified and necessitated.

They have reportedly been using them in situations in which they would NOT have used their batons, nightsticks, or even pepper spray.

I think that the situation needs to be VERY carefully observed, analyzed, and evaluated. But this is a relatively new piece of police equipment, and like anything, it will come with questions that have to be ironed out.

In the meantime, though, I would like to see a decrease in what appears to be the frivolous use of them.

-Jeffrey
 
Point of Clarification

The Potomac Instutue report on the Taser re-analyzed the 72 deaths cited in the Amnesty International study. Of those cases only one death had no apparent underlying cause of death, however there hasnt been any proof that the Taser caused the death - it is just that no other cause was found. To reiterate, there is no documented case or research of which I am aware that the Taser was the immediate and sole cause of a person's death
 
centac,
Can it be said that those other underlying causes of death (cocaine intoxication, methamphetamine use, alcohol, obesity, etc.) would have caused relatively immediate death (relative to the police interaction) ON THEIR OWN, RIGHT THEN, and WITHOUT the addition of the shocks by the taser?

THAT is what we should be looking at.

The taser might not have caused the deaths by itself.
But neither might have those other factors caused the deaths
UNTIL the taser was used on people with aggravating circumstances.

It just may be possible -- can we consider this for a second -- that drug-user suspects may NOT be suitable for being safely tased during police action? Perhaps a new protocol will shortly be developed that says, "Whoa whoa whoa, the following types of suspects cannot be safely tased because the use of the taser may aggravate their conditions (intoxication from drugs or alcohol; heart disease; young or old age) and in conjunction with these conditions cause untimely death."

-Jeffrey
 
How do I feel about TASERs?

I feel they save lives, and prevent injuries.
 
I'm sorry to tell you, but batons, and pepper spray are also deadly under certain circumstances. IMHO, Tasers fit right into that group.

Heck, police putting force on someone to subdue them can be fatal. If we restricted police to do nothing that could cause death, they'd be able to do pretty much do nothing unless the detainee completely complied.

Another point, Tasers are the newest tool available. What happens when a new gun comes out? THe anti-gun groups will immediately tear it apart simply for being different. I have no reason to believe that anything other than this is happening with the Taser.
 
Tazer or no Tazer, when the time to kill is upon me I will kill whoever is threatening me.

It seems more and more, especially here that the folks who are quick to rush to judgment about any type of police action are the first to admit they have no LE experience and no desire to gain any either.

I was just getting into LE when OC hit the LE market hard and heavy in the early 1990’s and the story was the same, folks were being sprayed all the time and according to the media dropping dead like flies apparently from OC induced asthma attacks or other breathing related trauma. They ignored the fact that OC and Mace in general had been used by cops for quite a while prior to the FBI adopting it and setting standards for it’s deployment which in a nutshell said if you verbally resist an officer, we could spray you.

Personally a Tazer is a very effective tool which more times than not, is only brandished and not used.

People understand that Tazers are very effective and that we can use them at a very low threshold of force and the uneducated and ignorant among us believe you can die from them and this alone will end a potentially hostile situation. But all this notwithstanding the fact that both the FBI and Tazer International freely admits that every death where the Tazer was used also involved a suspect that was either…

So drunk there was serious questions raised by medical examiners about the likelihood the person would have even lived if they had not been Tazered.

Had an already fatal level of illegal narcotics in their system.

Had serious underlying heart problems, which the officer would have had absolutely no way of known about.

Amnesty International will not even approach the question let alone answer it publicly as Tazer International has placed it to them many times.

But again the Keyboard Commandos all seem to oh so confidently misplace sight of the catalyst of the entire situation, the person who was Tazed was drunk, doped up or worse, fighting with and resisting the officers, justifying it’s use.

As I have said before and will say again nowhere in Georgia law can you find the code section which states that I must tote an @$$ whipping simply because I am a cop, but I can show you the (2) two which gives me the lawful authority to use any means of force to effect the arrest I feel is justified up to and including deadly force.

Sadly people, the public in general especially the minority crowds have lost sight of the uncomplicated and straightforward reality you do not fight with the police and that stupidity will get you killed, Darwin was right all along.


:banghead:
 
In Louisville the last few years activists have screamed about shooting victims of the Police. No matter that people tried to run over the cops with autos, cut at them with box cutters and even pull guns on them. Now the Metro Police dept. is getting tasers these same people will scream some more about tasers. You so not resist arrest, fight the police or even try to kill an officer without being subdued in some way. I think in the long run lives, maybe including that of police officers may be saved but just hope the police don't rely too much on them with some of the animals they're called on to deal with.
 
We have long known what the accepted protocol for using a gun in police work is.

Don't tell us that you have no reason to think that this is anything other than "xenoweaponphobia" because you DO have reason. The fact is, we don't yet have a good, proven, established protocol for taser use. That is why we are seeing them trotted out when some drunk teen doesn't lie face down on the ground after the cop tells him twice. The hypothetical teen suspect is not brandishing a weapon, nor is he threatening anyone or even shouting. But he doesn't do what the cop demands, and he gets tasered into compliance.

These weapons (and they ARE weapons) are being used as COMPLIANCE ACHIEVEMENT DEVICES, and that is an illegitimate use. They are supposed to be used as alternatives to using deadly force where deadly force would otherwise be justified, period.

-Jeffrey
 
Had serious underlying heart problems, which the officer would have had absolutely no way of known about.

I have read of CONVICTIONS where a person simply shoved or otherwise had a scuffle with someone fitting this very description, and the unknown heart condition caused a fatal heart attack, and the verdict was "guilty of manslaughter," even though the same shoving match would have merely bruised egos, were a different person involved.

Why should cops get different treatment or be held to a different standard?

-Jeffrey
 
I don't like the way Tasers are being used either, but the fact is, if you comply with the lawful orders of an officer, you will not have any problems.

The worst an officer can do to you, legally, is arrest you for no cause. And if that happens the officer will get into trouble. So let them arrest you. I have very little sympathy for the rodney kings of the world.

Officers have a difficult job, but Tasers should not be used unless the suspect is actively resisting. Simply not following orders just doesn't cut it as an excuse.
 
Why should cops get different treatment or be held to a different standard?


Because of the statutory authority to use force to affect an arrest, if a shoving match ensued with an officer during a lawful stop/arrest you are violating any one of a number of laws from local ordnances to state statues for battery upon a peace officer to obstruction.

If the officer had no lawful authority then he or she would be held to the same standards you would. If I showed up at a quickie store to buy a cup of coffee and got into a shoving match because some guy broke in front of me at the register and he died from a heart attack because of the assault then yes I would be tried for manslaughter.

Whether you agree with it or not, like it or not law enforcement officers are given the power to use force to achieve a goal in situations where non-LE are not.

If you fight with someone and you are not justified to engage in that fight and the person drops dead from a heart attack yes you will face some type of manslaughter charge, because your (on it’s face) illegal activity was indirectly responsible to a death.

Again, whether you agree with it or not, like it or not law enforcement officers are given the authority to use force to achieve a goal in situations where force is necessary.

The Tazer is an effective tool, one that is here to stay.
 
if you comply with the lawful orders of an officer, you will not have any problems.

Amen Brother!!!


And if that happens the officer will get into trouble. So let them arrest you. I have very little sympathy for the rodney kings of the world.


Again, Amen Brother!!!


Tasers should not be used unless the suspect is actively resisting. Simply not following orders just doesn't cut it as an excuse.

Agreed, but "actively resisting" as court have held can take on many forms and must be judged on a case by case basis.
 
Weasel, this has nothign to do with being an armchair LEO, this has everything to do with understanding exactly what modern LEOs are used for and beleiving it has no place in a free society.

The problem is not merely that police are using force to protect their authority, the problem is that they have so much authority to begin with. 90 percent of the average cop's work is using the million petty laws of society to hammer down the nail that sticks out. We have a sea of petty laws on guns, drugs, knives, taxes, permits, fees, zoning, driving etc NOT because there are great harms being righted by these prohibitions- we have these laws because it creates an atmosphere in which everyone is guilty of something and in which police have to intrude into the private lives of citizens to perform their jobs. A million victimless crimes has created millions of inspector javerts with tazers and OC spray. Is the world of 1984 really the America we want?

Police are eager to resort to force because they probably realize that there is no honest reason for them to be imposing themselves on other citizens. The law provides them ample excuses to push people around, and they do so regularly. Why? Partly because it is the easiest way to get compliance from 99 percent of the population, but also because it draws out resisters so they can be neutralized before they gather in large numbers.

Am I wrong? Does anyone honestly perceive LEO's primary mission in this country as one of pursuing justice? Or is the daily grind of being an LEO about violently pursuing political goals for their employers and about ensuring that people conform to societal norms?

If this isnt the case, why is trial by jury dead, why are there so many laws even lawyers dont understand them all and why are there so many people in jail in this country for political crimes?
 
Am I wrong? Does anyone honestly perceive LEO's primary mission in this country as one of pursuing justice? Or is the daily grind of being an LEO about violently pursuing political goals for their employers and about ensuring that people conform to societal norms?

Wow...

I mean, man... that is one disturbing statement.
 
I'm all for police having the authority to escalate all situations to violence and then lethal force when ordinary civilians have the same rights.

If I disagree with a cop giving me a speeding ticket, why shouldnt I be able to escalate to fists or guns to win the argument without getting in trouble? I mean, that is essentially what they do.

The police are just a better-than-average organized gang. At least the mafia left people alone.
 
Just because you are supposed to stay off my property and not trespass, does not mean that I am allowed to leave lethal booby-traps for you and then say, "Well, if you hadn't gone where you shouldn't have gone, you'd still be alive."

If the cops KNOW -- as they do -- that taser use can and very well may exacerbate unknown and unknowable health conditions, the fact that people are not complying with police directives is irrelevant and does not excuse the use of the dangerous device, necessarily. Non-compliance by some portion of the criminal-suspect public is absolutely expected. To have reckless disregard for the possible ramifications of use of tasers on even those people who don't comply with police orders is inexcusable. They're criminals -- obviously they may disregard the police!

-Jeffrey
 
"These weapons (and they ARE weapons) are being used as COMPLIANCE ACHIEVEMENT DEVICES, and that is an illegitimate use. They are supposed to be used as alternatives to using deadly force where deadly force would otherwise be justified, period."

That statement is factually incorrect. Every force tool an officer has is used in an attempt to gain compliance. The Taser is not designed to be an alternative to deadly force - there is no such thing. When deadly force is required, there are other tools to use, namely guns. The fact that Tasers have been used in cases in which deadly forcee is justified does not mean that deadly force couldnt have been used, just that the officer was able to resolve the situation with a lesser force application.

I am comfortable in claiming that myself and many, many other officers have been in numerous situations where we would have been justified in using lethal force, but instead used lesser force options to win the confontation. That doesnt mean that we are required to do so, we just make those decisions based on our analysis of the situation.

The contention that the Taser is unsafe to use on certain people such as drug users is unproven. There have been deaths, but again, the role of the Taser in those deaths is unclear and by no means definitively defined. Additionally, intoxication is a voluntarily assumed condition. The only person responsible for that is the pserson who drugged up or drank. Therefore the person responsible for any negative effects is that same person. The drunk and high are the "best" population for Tasing. If we have to go back to beating them with sticks the death and injury rate will shoot back up.

We really are talking about a very small number of deaths. Civilians may not realized just how often the device is used because you seldom hear of the "good" uses. The number of cops alone who have been whacked intraining probably number in the tens of thousands, and we seem to do just fine. Statistically any deaths that may even be remotely Taser involved are a tiny fraction versus the number of deployments.

I would really like the anti_Taser contingent to pony up some real live research, cause I dont know where all this negativity comes from. The AI report is the only "negative" research I have seen and IIRC even they said that more research was needed, not that theirs was definitive
 
I am comfortable in claiming that myself and many, many other officers have been in numerous situations where we would have been justified in using lethal force, but instead used lesser force options to win the confontation. That doesnt mean that we are required to do so, we just make those decisions based on our analysis of the situation.

*golf clap*

I would really like the anti_Taser contingent to pony up some real live research, cause I dont know where all this negativity comes from. The AI report is the only "negative" research I have seen and IIRC even they said that more research was needed, not that theirs was definitive

Oh my objection isnt that it sometimes kills people. Getting up in the morning sometimes kills people. My objection is that many cops feel they are justified in the use of any force necessary to control a situation, even when they are in the wrong. Anyone remember the cop who tazered the marine in his own home? Remember how Federalist Weasel and his ilk came out of the woodwork to defend the cop for taking the steps necesasry to take control of the situation, even though the cop was completely in the wrong?

Why am I the only person who sees this as a problem? I am trying really hard to like cops, but every cop I have met for years has fallen somewhere between dangerous and useless. And its a shame because many of them are wonderful people. I will make a separate thread.
 
http://www.saveourcivilliberties.org/en/2005/05/1086.shtml

HPD use of Tasers in 14 cases of 'verbal aggression' debated

author: ROMA KHANNA [Houston Chronicle] e-mail: [email protected]
Houston police officers have used Tasers to subdue "verbally aggressive" people at least 14 times since early December, according to department figures that raise concerns among activists about possible infringement on free speech.
Houston Taser Usage
Houston Taser Usage
Houston police officers have used Tasers to subdue "verbally aggressive" people at least 14 times since early December, according to department figures that raise concerns among activists about possible infringement on free speech.

A high-ranking police official defended the incidents Tuesday, saying the vocal outbursts led officers to believe that "assault was imminent" in each case.

Executive Assistant Chief Charles McClelland added that some comments were accompanied by gestures, although the instances are listed separately from those in which people were combative or resisted officers.

The "verbal aggression" incidents account for about 7 percent of all Taser use between Dec. 3 and March 24, according to a Houston Police Department summary report. The 50,000-volt stun guns went into widespread use by HPD officers on Dec. 3.

Community activists questioned how officers distinguish between aggressive talk and comments that signal a true threat.

"The policy needs to be pointed as to where to draw the line because, right now, it seems it is up to the officer," said Quanell X, a leader of the New Black Panther Party. "If a cop doesn't like you questioning them in a loud tone of voice, that does not give them the right to (shock) you. A person has a constitutional right to speak their minds."

The police department has refused to release reports on the 191 incidents in which officers used their Tasers between Dec. 3 and March 24, citing concerns for the privacy of those who were shocked. McClelland said, however, that aggressive speech alone did not provoke the officers to use their Tasers.

"The verbal words were accompanied by a belief that a suspect was about to assault them," he said. "(Officers) don't have to wait to be hit to use their Tasers. No Houston police officer is trained to use any force (in response to) words alone."

HPD purchased 3,700 Tasers last year as Police Chief Harold Hurtt sought to meet Mayor Bill White's mandate to ensure that officers use their firearms only when justified.

Since Tasers went into widespread use, officers have used them at a rate of more than once a day, employing them as an alternative to guns and in situations when they might otherwise have used batons or other physical force.

The rate of use, and the death of a man after he was shocked by Harris County Precinct 1 deputy constables in February, prompted the American Civil Liberties Union to call for a moratorium on Taser use by police in Texas until policies, training and safety are reviewed.

When HPD statistics revealed in March that nearly 90 percent of the people shocked by officers were minorities, other groups, including the League of United Latin American Citizens and the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, also voiced concerns.

David Klinger, a professor at the University of Missouri-St. Louis who studies use of force, noted that widespread use of Tasers is new. He said it will take time for police agencies and communities to settle on how they are best used.

"There is a movement afoot around the country among police executives to limit the use of the Taser when there isn't an overt attack on the officer," said Klinger, a former police officer. "Several agencies that located Tasers at the lowest level on their use-of-force continuum have moved it higher because of concerns that officers are using the Taser when lesser force would have been appropriate."

Harris County Assistant District Attorney Tommy LaFon, who spent five years in the police integrity division, said public acceptance will play a large role in determining how officers use Tasers when they do not face an active threat.

"I don't think society is prepared to say 'OK, any time you have to lay hands on somebody, it is OK to Taser them," said LaFon, who last year prosecuted a Baytown police officer who had used a Taser on a 59-year-old woman who he said threatened him with a brick.

Randall Kallinen, president of the ACLU's Houston chapter, said Taser policies should remind officers that they cannot shock people just for speaking.

"That violates the First Amendment, which prohibits hindering free speech," he said. "Verbal aggression is protected."

McClelland emphasized that no officers or citizens have been seriously injured as a result of HPD's Taser use.

"I know that would not be the case in 200 incidents where officers and citizens engaged in physical confrontations with batons and (pepper) spray," he said.

Quanell X argued that Tasers have injured people. He said the New Black Panther Party plans to hold a town hall meeting this month for people to share their accounts of being shocked.

Quanell X has criticized HPD officers' use of force and has led several protests in the past year. He was convicted of fleeing a police officer in November after attempting to arrange the surrender of a man suspected of wounding a Houston officer. He is appealing the conviction.

No HPD officer has been disciplined in the Taser incidents since December, McClelland said, but residents have filed complaints in four or five incidents.

Hurtt met Quanell X and other activists last month and announced that a committee of police and civilians will review the first instances of Taser use.

The committee has not yet been formed because the community groups have not submitted a full list of potential panelists from which Hurtt can choose, McClelland said.

-source url: http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/topstory/3166871
 
I don't think your perspective is very balanced, beerslurpy. When you consider the number of confrontations (hundreds of thousands?) cops have every day where they must use some level of force to restrain/arrest, there really aren't many reported excesses.

Video cameras abound, and police departments are easy marks for lawsuits. If cops were as abusive as you claim there would be many more reported cases of 'excessive force'.

I'm certainly no apologist for the police, the times I've needed them, they either found excuses not to respond, and when they did respond they were no help whatsoever. In fact, in once instance, they created problems that did not exist before.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top