People are questioning the safety.
And people are questioning the attitutes of those who mock them for questioning the safety.
Joe ~
In the real world, there are a limited number of things an officer can do with a non-compliant subject who has committed an arrestable offense:
1) They can ignore the lawbreaking and let the person go. Bad idea if you like civilization, and a bad idea for the cop who wants to keep his job.
2) They can talk until they're as blue in the face as they are in the uniform. And they often do -- but talking doesn't always work. If the arrestee remains non-compliant (a fancy word for "wants to fight"), the officer is going to have to choose one of the options below.
3) They can go hands-on. That sounds so tidy, doesn't it? In real life, that means twisting the arrestee's arm or wrist to the point where it will break if the arrestee doesn't comply. Or yanking the guy off-balance, shoving him face-first to the sidewalk, and placing a firm knee in between his shoulder blades so that he cannot even lift his head --
while holding his arm in such a fashion that his shoulder is likely to be dislocated if he keeps fighting. He's at risk for suffocating in that position too, btw, which is one reason why some arrestees die while being arrested. That's if everything goes
well. Oh, and don't think getting driven face-first into the pavement doesn't result in injuries or even sometimes in death. You could look it up.
4) They can use the baton. Essentially the same thing as bare hands above, only add in that the arrestee is getting beaten, twisted, or choked with a big stick. Dangers to the arrestee include broken bones, crippling injuries, or death. Oh, both 3) and 4) also include the risk of death from heart attacks and/or stroke as the overwrought arrestee fights back.
5) They can use OC (pepper spray) or some other form of chemical persuasion. A certain percentage of the population is all but immune to these, so OC may not be efficacious -- especially since a lot of criminals have often learned to fight through OC exposure (if the police can learn to do it in Academy, the thugs can learn to do it in the hood). Is OC dangerous? Not according to its promoters -- but a certain percentage of the population is deathly allergic to its primary component and could die from anaphylactic shock. The OC itself is billed as "non-injurious," but its use can nevertheless result in injury or death. For instance, the blinded but not yet restrained subject could wander out into traffic and get killed. And it is very, very unpleasant for the arrestee, especially given that it will be at least two hours before he will be able to decontaminate. If he's even remotely claustrophobic, that's going to be a very terrifying two hours.
6) Or they can use a taser. Is taser use "safe"? Particularly, is it "safe" for the arrestee? Compared to
all other methods the officer may use to gain compliance from an arrestee who is determined to fight, yes it is. Any force at all is more dangerous than simply talking, but once you're past the talking stage, the taser is just about the safest tool in the box. The reason folks keep "mocking" those who ask the question is because no one is listening to the answers! The answer is simply, "Yes. Taser use is safer than allowing a disturbed and possibly violent person to go free. It is safer than slamming that person into the pavement by nearly breaking his arm. It is safer than beating on him with a stick. And (statistically and experimentally) it is both safer and more pleasant
for the subject than using OC."
pax
not an officer, just hates shoddy thinking.
