Legally, that's the "eggshell skull" doctrine. You don't get a break if the person's skull is so thin that a light tap cracks his skull - you're still liable for cracking his skull. If using the taser was improper (in the U.S.), LEOs may lose their limited immunity from being sued.
Opinion on Tazers
- Thread starter yesit'sloaded
- Start date
- Status
silverlance
Member
the taser C2 is $234.00 from topglock.
tasers are good. however, you dont need a taser to take down a 45 year old idiot in an airport when you have 8 big cops.
what happened to a good old fashioned takedown?
tasers are good. however, you dont need a taser to take down a 45 year old idiot in an airport when you have 8 big cops.
what happened to a good old fashioned takedown?
yesit'sloaded
Member
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2007
- Messages
- 1,662
My point exactly. I think that a Tazer carrier that is assaulted will become either a gun owner or another murder victim.
Teufelhunden
Member
Unless said guy is a distance away, on the other side of an obstacle, or otherwise unable to close the distance, a knife constitutes a lethal force encounter, for which the appropriate response would be a firearm.
Consider we're really talking blindly without knowledge of the Mounties' policies and procedures. Some agencies I know of place the TASER just above soft/empty hands, which means you would try it before attempting to take someone down. The 4 cops involved could have been perfectly within their departmental guidelines, and not 'rogue' or 'bad' cops as some posters have implied.
For many agencies, the TASER is viewed as a better option than OC because recovery from the TASER is immediate, and it is contained to the target instead of contaminating an entire area and every one within it. Any cop here who's ever sprayed a non-compliant subject will tell you that everyone involved gets some of it. I will repeat the argument that the TASER beats the alternatives in many situations. Taking someone to the ground or beating them into submission with an impact weapon (ASP or full baton) is not an injury free occasion either. 99.9% of the times, TASER recipients recover fully and immediately after the 5 second pulse, whereas someone who required being violently controlled and taken into custody has a great likelihood of suffering lasting injury. Ultimately, the TASER interjects another level before lethal-force, which is always a good thing. One suffers a statistically minuscule chance of death when being the recipient of a TASER deployment, but hazards a much greater chance of permanent harm if they take multiple shots COM.
When looking at any use-of-force incident, we must consider the totality of the circumstances. Here we had a subject that had been physically violent with weapons of opportunity (furniture), in a highly visible and highly trafficked area (airport) that demanded an rapid resolution. Also, any disturbance in airports since 9/11 automatically gets stepped up on the response scale. Lastly, there was no visible attempt on his part once approached by law enforcement to surrender or give any other indication that he wanted to cease his violent behavior of his own volition, which demanded an escalation of force since the policy-makers and administrators decided they needed a resolution immediately.
Is it unfortunate that a man died as a result of law-enforcement reaction? Yes. Is an airport the place to force an engagement with law enforcement? Definitely not in the post-9/11 world.
-Teuf
ClickClickD'oh
Member
For the people who think Tasers shouldn't be LEO issued anymore, a little interlude of regimented crazyness.
Once upon a time, the department I work for was under pressure from the ACLU because an officer had truly lost it during an arrest and used his maglite as an impact weapon, in front of a video camera no less. Well, the ACLU was making a huge stink about large metal flashlights in the hands of jack booted thug police and the word "lawsuit" was flying around everywhere... never mind the fact that the officer involved had already been fired and talks for restitution to the victim were underway elsewhere. Well, civie types who like to dress up as COs decided that we needed a kinder gentler police force on the streets so we all got promptly ordered to no longer carry dangerous items like maglites and ultra-stingers. Yup, the big metal flashlights were out. Simply too dangerous to use. Much smirking was involved by those of us already carrying small Surefire lights. Yeah, we knew they were superior, and now we were the only guys with lights, at least for the week it took Galls to ship out masses of them to everyone else. The ACLU lawyer types and our big brass all got together to take some nice hand shake photos and pat each other on the back because now the dangerous and unruly police had been disarmed and the world was safe for the lawless types to not be smacked around.
Little did they know we still had SIGs, ASPs, OC and Remmingtons.
Moral of the story: Take away our "less than lethal" weapon all you want, we'll still have the lethal ones. Officers like going home at the end of the day, it's your choice how we do it.
Once upon a time, the department I work for was under pressure from the ACLU because an officer had truly lost it during an arrest and used his maglite as an impact weapon, in front of a video camera no less. Well, the ACLU was making a huge stink about large metal flashlights in the hands of jack booted thug police and the word "lawsuit" was flying around everywhere... never mind the fact that the officer involved had already been fired and talks for restitution to the victim were underway elsewhere. Well, civie types who like to dress up as COs decided that we needed a kinder gentler police force on the streets so we all got promptly ordered to no longer carry dangerous items like maglites and ultra-stingers. Yup, the big metal flashlights were out. Simply too dangerous to use. Much smirking was involved by those of us already carrying small Surefire lights. Yeah, we knew they were superior, and now we were the only guys with lights, at least for the week it took Galls to ship out masses of them to everyone else. The ACLU lawyer types and our big brass all got together to take some nice hand shake photos and pat each other on the back because now the dangerous and unruly police had been disarmed and the world was safe for the lawless types to not be smacked around.
Little did they know we still had SIGs, ASPs, OC and Remmingtons.
Moral of the story: Take away our "less than lethal" weapon all you want, we'll still have the lethal ones. Officers like going home at the end of the day, it's your choice how we do it.
cassandrasdaddy
Member
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2006
- Messages
- 4,206
i'm guessing most of the commandoes waxing poetic over tasers versus getting slammed and thumped are basing their expert opinion on watching cops. please taser me rather than "wrestle me to the ground" sounds so neat and delicate from a couch in a living room feels a lil different when 350 pounds of beef ram your face in the mud then try to get your joints to bend in ways god didn't design em to.but then unfortunatly my opinion is practical rather than academic
Phil DeGraves
Member
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2006
- Messages
- 1,531
"I call B.S. on this comment....
just because a person has an undiagnosed heart condition doesn't mean that the officer who shocked them with a taser didn't cause there death. Lot's of people live to 60+ years old with undiagnosed heart conditions and die of other "natural" causes."
But those aren't the people fighting the police. But if any of those people were to fight it out with the police, they'd probably die from the effort regardless if the TASER was used or not. Obviously, any police officer who uses excessive force should be held liable, regardless if it's a TASER, empty hands or firearms, but alot of the arguments some of you are giving to take the TASERs away from the police sound an awful lot like the arguments that the antis give for not letting the rest of us have firearms. You can't take the actions of one or two rogue officers and apply it to all of law enforcement. I haven't seen this particular video; I make no judgements as to the rightness or wrongness of it. Some officers use excessive force; that is a fact. Some bad guys use legally acquired guns to commit crimes. Those officers that use excessive force don't need the TASER to use excessive force. Just because some officers use excessive force is not a reason to take away a useful tool from responsible officers. Just because some bad guys use legally acquired firearms is no reason to ban legally acquired firearms from everyone else.
just because a person has an undiagnosed heart condition doesn't mean that the officer who shocked them with a taser didn't cause there death. Lot's of people live to 60+ years old with undiagnosed heart conditions and die of other "natural" causes."
But those aren't the people fighting the police. But if any of those people were to fight it out with the police, they'd probably die from the effort regardless if the TASER was used or not. Obviously, any police officer who uses excessive force should be held liable, regardless if it's a TASER, empty hands or firearms, but alot of the arguments some of you are giving to take the TASERs away from the police sound an awful lot like the arguments that the antis give for not letting the rest of us have firearms. You can't take the actions of one or two rogue officers and apply it to all of law enforcement. I haven't seen this particular video; I make no judgements as to the rightness or wrongness of it. Some officers use excessive force; that is a fact. Some bad guys use legally acquired guns to commit crimes. Those officers that use excessive force don't need the TASER to use excessive force. Just because some officers use excessive force is not a reason to take away a useful tool from responsible officers. Just because some bad guys use legally acquired firearms is no reason to ban legally acquired firearms from everyone else.
How many cases of taser use by women have resulted in the criminal getting up and restarting the attack?
Seems to me that the OP and others are just bashing cops as compares to having an evidential base for the comments. Injuries and deaths are down. That more than compensates for the small number of deaths after tasering. Of course, someone might misuse them. Happens with everything. Happened with OC at times.
The rant about the taser parties was simply strange and had some other subtext. Women learning to use an effective tool is a good thing.
Seems to me that the OP and others are just bashing cops as compares to having an evidential base for the comments. Injuries and deaths are down. That more than compensates for the small number of deaths after tasering. Of course, someone might misuse them. Happens with everything. Happened with OC at times.
The rant about the taser parties was simply strange and had some other subtext. Women learning to use an effective tool is a good thing.
Lethal weapons: Weapons likely to casue death or serious physical injury when used as intended.
Less than lethal weapons: Weapons not likley to casue death or serious physical injury when used as intended.
Tasers are less than lethal weapons.
Those of you who believe their use is statistically more likely than more traditional methods to cause physical injury to a non-comliant person, let alone serious physical injury or death, are wrong.
When injury results from their use, it is typically unsevere in nature
and typically the result from the fall to the ground.
Less than lethal weapons: Weapons not likley to casue death or serious physical injury when used as intended.
Tasers are less than lethal weapons.
Those of you who believe their use is statistically more likely than more traditional methods to cause physical injury to a non-comliant person, let alone serious physical injury or death, are wrong.
When injury results from their use, it is typically unsevere in nature
and typically the result from the fall to the ground.
Other typical less than lethal weapons:
Less than lethal projectiles: (rarely used, I'd almost argue that it is not "typical") You're much less likely to be injured with a Taser than less than lethal projectiles.
Baton: (frequently used) You're much less likely to be injured with a Taser than a baton.
Improvised weapons: (frequently used) You're much less likely to be injured with a Taser than with improvised weapons.
Empty hands: (frequently used) You're much less likely to be injured with a Taser than empty hands. Remember, empty hands encompasses not just firmly turning someone around before applying handcuffs but also knock-down, drag out fights resulting in serious physical injury. The initial "soft" application of which is statistically, overwhelemingly, where LEOs are phyically assaulted. Mitigating this danger, to LEOs and the public, is the Taser's beauty.
OC spray: (frequently used) You're much less likely to be injured with OC spray than with a Taser. But, if you remain non-comliant, its hands on or the baton for you, in which case you're more likely to be injured, except that now you're injured and miserably in pain for about an hour.
---
Anyway, while there are doubtless some who'd prefer to be fought and clubbed into submission given their understanding of the odds of injury to themsleves I'd given mine I'd rather be Tased under those circumstances. "TASE ME, BRO!"
Less than lethal projectiles: (rarely used, I'd almost argue that it is not "typical") You're much less likely to be injured with a Taser than less than lethal projectiles.
Baton: (frequently used) You're much less likely to be injured with a Taser than a baton.
Improvised weapons: (frequently used) You're much less likely to be injured with a Taser than with improvised weapons.
Empty hands: (frequently used) You're much less likely to be injured with a Taser than empty hands. Remember, empty hands encompasses not just firmly turning someone around before applying handcuffs but also knock-down, drag out fights resulting in serious physical injury. The initial "soft" application of which is statistically, overwhelemingly, where LEOs are phyically assaulted. Mitigating this danger, to LEOs and the public, is the Taser's beauty.
OC spray: (frequently used) You're much less likely to be injured with OC spray than with a Taser. But, if you remain non-comliant, its hands on or the baton for you, in which case you're more likely to be injured, except that now you're injured and miserably in pain for about an hour.
---
Anyway, while there are doubtless some who'd prefer to be fought and clubbed into submission given their understanding of the odds of injury to themsleves I'd given mine I'd rather be Tased under those circumstances. "TASE ME, BRO!"
Gingerbreadman
Member
I think tasers are just another tool for defense that can be easily abused and misused. I am still in favor of having them as an option.
Several years ago the police officer assigned to my high school was issued an X-26 taser. Later that year it was used on a student. I was not there to witness it, but from what I have heard from people who were there, he used it correctly. The student in question had been suspended/ expelled the day before, but came in anyway. When she was told to leave she became unruly. The police officer and a few administrators were called to the area. Again, they told her to leave. She then tried to punch the police officer. Instead of making contact with the officer, her arm got tased on coontact with the taser. She tried to hit the officer again, with the same result. It took three big people to wrestle her to the ground.
Afterwards, there was the usual criticism of the officer for using a taser in school. Personally, I trusted that police officer much more after the taser incident, and am glad that he had the taser option. He also had the option of OC, baton, and 9mm Glock handgun...
I think that things like "don't resist police officers"/ avoiding fights and such should be taught in health class.
Several years ago the police officer assigned to my high school was issued an X-26 taser. Later that year it was used on a student. I was not there to witness it, but from what I have heard from people who were there, he used it correctly. The student in question had been suspended/ expelled the day before, but came in anyway. When she was told to leave she became unruly. The police officer and a few administrators were called to the area. Again, they told her to leave. She then tried to punch the police officer. Instead of making contact with the officer, her arm got tased on coontact with the taser. She tried to hit the officer again, with the same result. It took three big people to wrestle her to the ground.
Afterwards, there was the usual criticism of the officer for using a taser in school. Personally, I trusted that police officer much more after the taser incident, and am glad that he had the taser option. He also had the option of OC, baton, and 9mm Glock handgun...
I think that things like "don't resist police officers"/ avoiding fights and such should be taught in health class.
fearless leader
Member
Taser Abuse
When I was training at a FL Police Academy, they explained the "Continuem of Force". It was roughly described like this:
1) Officer Presence. This can cause someone to "straighten up and fly right"
2) Verbal Commands.
3) Soft Contact. This involved putting on of hands, as in escort positions, and "come along" holds.
4) Hard Contact. This involved physically subduing someone by stunning major nerve centers.
5) Intermediate Weapon. This is where OC spray and Batons come in, and according to the definition of an intermediate weapon, SHOULD be where Tasers come in.
I have heard of too many officers tasing 8 year olds, 88 year olds and people that are being held down where they cannot possibly be a threat.
Officer, if you can't contain a 8 year old, or 88 year old, or someone who is held to the point they can't resist, you should look into another profession.
Police Tasing somone un-necessarily (which in my estimation is putting level 5 before level 3) should be charged with ASSAULT WITH INTENT TO BARBEQUEand dismissed, or put on diciplinary duty like crossing guard with your battery in your front shirt pocket.
Can an officer use a baton on you because you didn't comply with his command to look at him? Stop talking? Can he mace you for not leaving? Can he shoot you with a bean bag round because you won't get up? I suppose there is a "sometimes" answer to all of the above, but would the effective and efficient officer, the one who is supposed to have things under control approve of these tactics on his 88 year old mother?
He shouldn't be allowed to Tase you for it either. I have heard so many officers complaining about the danger of the work. So? You knew it was a dangerous job when you took it! Yes there are risks! If the 8 year old is that scary, you really need to find a less stressful line of work.
I don't want to sound anti police; a police officer saved my life one day. For all of you reasonable, prudent police out there who are on the job, doing it the tried and proven way, with patience, integrity and GUTS, I thank you.
For the few that feel somewhat akin to modern day Gestapo, you could always get a job in code enforcement. I understand the heavy handed, hard nosed, over top, do it or else, Gestapo mentality is real big there.
End of sermon.
When I was training at a FL Police Academy, they explained the "Continuem of Force". It was roughly described like this:
1) Officer Presence. This can cause someone to "straighten up and fly right"
2) Verbal Commands.
3) Soft Contact. This involved putting on of hands, as in escort positions, and "come along" holds.
4) Hard Contact. This involved physically subduing someone by stunning major nerve centers.
5) Intermediate Weapon. This is where OC spray and Batons come in, and according to the definition of an intermediate weapon, SHOULD be where Tasers come in.
I have heard of too many officers tasing 8 year olds, 88 year olds and people that are being held down where they cannot possibly be a threat.
Officer, if you can't contain a 8 year old, or 88 year old, or someone who is held to the point they can't resist, you should look into another profession.
Police Tasing somone un-necessarily (which in my estimation is putting level 5 before level 3) should be charged with ASSAULT WITH INTENT TO BARBEQUEand dismissed, or put on diciplinary duty like crossing guard with your battery in your front shirt pocket.
Can an officer use a baton on you because you didn't comply with his command to look at him? Stop talking? Can he mace you for not leaving? Can he shoot you with a bean bag round because you won't get up? I suppose there is a "sometimes" answer to all of the above, but would the effective and efficient officer, the one who is supposed to have things under control approve of these tactics on his 88 year old mother?
He shouldn't be allowed to Tase you for it either. I have heard so many officers complaining about the danger of the work. So? You knew it was a dangerous job when you took it! Yes there are risks! If the 8 year old is that scary, you really need to find a less stressful line of work.
I don't want to sound anti police; a police officer saved my life one day. For all of you reasonable, prudent police out there who are on the job, doing it the tried and proven way, with patience, integrity and GUTS, I thank you.
For the few that feel somewhat akin to modern day Gestapo, you could always get a job in code enforcement. I understand the heavy handed, hard nosed, over top, do it or else, Gestapo mentality is real big there.
End of sermon.
Most of us think we have rights. We really don't. The courts have ruled that cops can use whatever level of force they choose as long as they use the right words and phrases to describe the incident after the fact. This has been going on for a long time. It is not new. And if independent witnesses to the incident had a different story, the courts generally did not accept it.
What is new is video being so widely available. It is very hard to discount video. If you look at police reports of incidents where the incident is secretly recorded, most of us would look at the report and the video and never even guess it could be the same incident.
Most of us also do not have a clue as to just how much unchecked power we have handed to LE. Most of us tend to think in an encounter with LE that we have some rights. That may be true, but those rights come in at a very distant second to whatever government and their agents want.
If government decides to set up roadblocks and hassle a thousand people one Friday night on the possibility of catching a few drunks, the courts say it is OK.
You think you have a right to not be searched w/o PC, think again. The courts will accept just about any excuse as PC as long as the excuse is phrased using the magic words the courts always accept.
You think you have a right not to incriminate yourself, think again. Cops routinely use this as PC to claim you are somehow acting in a suspicious manner.
You think you have some right not to be attacked by LE unless you have actually committed some crime. Just not so. The courts have made it very clear that just anything LE does is acceptable to them, as long as the right weasel words are used after the fact to describe what happened.
You want to change things, you need to change the politicians and demand they fix it. Otherwise it will just get worse.
tazers
Tazers are a great tool and nothing more. I have carried mine for a few years now and used it once. The authorized use of our tazers falls just below the use of lethal force. I did my job before the tazer and I have no need for it unless im in an extreme situation.
I will have none of: miss, can you step out of the vehicle for me. But sir I really don't see the need.......zap......
The use of tasers needs to be spelled out very clearly in general orders and needs to fall just below lethal force. Then their use can be monitored and if it was used each incident can be reviewed to determine if it was neccesary or not.
You can drive thirty minutes in either direction of my department and find agencies where the above situation would have been justified for non compliance.
Most of of the people tazed in this country that do die are loaded up with alcohol and drugs.
flag2442
Tazers are a great tool and nothing more. I have carried mine for a few years now and used it once. The authorized use of our tazers falls just below the use of lethal force. I did my job before the tazer and I have no need for it unless im in an extreme situation.
I will have none of: miss, can you step out of the vehicle for me. But sir I really don't see the need.......zap......
The use of tasers needs to be spelled out very clearly in general orders and needs to fall just below lethal force. Then their use can be monitored and if it was used each incident can be reviewed to determine if it was neccesary or not.
You can drive thirty minutes in either direction of my department and find agencies where the above situation would have been justified for non compliance.
Most of of the people tazed in this country that do die are loaded up with alcohol and drugs.
flag2442
fearless leader
Member
Assault with intent to barbeque
Why would they be holding him? Is it illegal to talk? Did he hurt or threaten to hurt anyone that necessitated taking him down like an insolent royal subject. Shame on him.I still haven't understood what his crime was. If heckling a perceived dumbass is illegal, than the Richards guy from the Seinfeld show should have had his hecklers arrested and tasered.
Is he guilty of Heckling in the first degree? Or is he guilty of what Florida Police call Florida Statutes 0.0 POP (Pissin' Off Police)?
How can you sit through a John Kerry speach and NOT heckle him?:banghead:
I guess when you go to College to educate yourself, you learn to leave your First & Second amendments at the gate.
I have seen the video and I agree he was moving his arms somewhat, but YOU don't know how much discomfort you can be in from some of these holds. I still don't understand why they didn't cuff him, if he was being such a threat. My God man, there were like 3 officers there. Can't they restrain and cuff one college kid? I would hang my head in shame.
HTML:
If you go back to the dumbass college student and look at all the videos, you'll see he was actively resisting.... he got what he had coming... he yanked away from a non-pain complaince escort, flailing his arms...Is he guilty of Heckling in the first degree? Or is he guilty of what Florida Police call Florida Statutes 0.0 POP (Pissin' Off Police)?
How can you sit through a John Kerry speach and NOT heckle him?:banghead:
I guess when you go to College to educate yourself, you learn to leave your First & Second amendments at the gate.
I have seen the video and I agree he was moving his arms somewhat, but YOU don't know how much discomfort you can be in from some of these holds. I still don't understand why they didn't cuff him, if he was being such a threat. My God man, there were like 3 officers there. Can't they restrain and cuff one college kid? I would hang my head in shame.
Old Dog
Member
My italics. Okay, cite some case law here, Mr. ilbob, if you please, since this is not a fact in accordance with my training nor does your statement square with the way court decisions re use of force are actually written.
Hmm. And your expertise in this area derives from what experience?
Gee, things must be really different in Illinois ...
Let's please get this non gun-related thread closed, it's just gettin' too deep in here.
ClickClickD'oh
Member
Unadulterated horse pucky.
Tresspassing.
cassandrasdaddy
Member
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2006
- Messages
- 4,206
fearless one could you share with us your experience with restraining ior cuffing someone? are you a gambling man?
stevereno1
Member
I have a police friend who carries a taser. In his department, the officer that wishes to carry a taser must get "Tased". The full 5 second burst. He told me that it was the most painful 5 seconds of his life, and would not do it again if he had to in order to carry one. He further stated that he has used it 20 times in the past 3 years, and there has never been an instance of failure to comply after dispaching a subject with the taser. I don't want to be tased, maced or shot, and he doesn't want to kill anyone. He explained it to me like this - the taser gets you jail, the .40 glock sends you to hell.
- Status
