Taser/Lethal force question

[WC145]

Posted by ChaoSS-
WC145, your post makes you sound like the type of cop who uses his tazer and excessive force so you don't have to do your job properly.

I'm sorry if this is offensive, but there was a time when cops were real men. These days some of the cops I see out there are real nancy boys who are going to have no choice but to use a possibly lethal tazer in any physical confrontation. They should never be allowed to call themselves cops.

If the cop is the arm of the law, he should be able to perform that duty without using what often amounts to dangerous force, he (or often she) should not be given the job.

If I standing off against two cops, and shot one of them with a tazer, they would consider it sufficient provocation that the second cop would feel justified in shooting (with a real gun). They need to be consistent and consider the tazer what it is, a dangerous tool that should be used to end a dangerous situation, not a tool for lazy cops to use to torture people into submission.

ChaoSS,

Sorry it has taken me so long to get back to you, I've been busy zapping old women and pepper spraying little kids waiting at school bus stops. Tough job but someone has to do it.

Obviously, you have no idea as to the meaning of a force continuum. When I'm faced with someone that does not want to comply I don't meet resistance with equal resistance. I respond with the amount of force necessary to overcome the resistance. That means that I don't waste my time exchanging words or blows. There are times when going hands on is appropriate, or using a baton, or OC, or a taser. What I do is up to my discretion and I make that decision based on my training and experience plus a miriad of other factors - location, traffic, number of suspects, the crime or violation, etc, etc.

Now, so you know, any force is "dangerous force" (as you put it). Any time I have to go hands on with someone there's a risk of injury or death to both of us. That's the reason for the development of tools like OC spray, Mace, and the taser. They allow me options to overcome your resistance while minimizing the possiblity of serious injury.

Since we're referencing the taser in this thread, I'm going to tell you a secret. Getting shocked with a taser sucks, it hurts like a SOB, trust me, I know, like I said earlier, I've tried it. Here's the secret - it sucks for exactly 5 seconds. That's how long the shock lasts and when it is over, it is over, no residual pain or spasms, it's just like turning off a light - no more juice running through the bulb. Of course, if you decide to start resisting again I'll give another 5 second ride and I'll do that as many times as it takes to get you to cooperate but each time it's over, it's over. This is one of the things that makes the taser such a useful tool, and a very humane way to gain compliance, much more so than beating someone into submission or spraying them so that they choke and puke and burn and are blinded until I decide to decontaminate them. And often when you spray someone they keep fighting so you still end up wrstling them to the ground and pepper spray gets all over both of you.

Also, my taser discussion only applies to police tasers, you'll probably be surprised to know that the civilian tasers have a 30 second shock time and can "rezap" up to 50 times on a charge. That's 25 minutes of near continuous electricity if you keep pushing the button. Hmm, I wonder which one has more potential for torture and abuse.... 5 secs.... 30 secs.... I'm sure you an figure it out. Plus it comes in pink for non-LEO Nancy Boys.

Two more things-

1. If you're stupid enough to get into a stand off with two cops and you shoot one with a taser you deserve to be shot. Also, if you shot him with his police issue taser I'd shoot you because it has two sets of probes. If we were both incapacitated what would keep you from further disarming us and murdering us with our own weapons.

2. I do not carry a taser. I have tried it out in training so that I would understand how debilitating it is and now I understand that if faced with someone wielding a taser I will not underestimate the gravity of the situation. My concern is not being "tased" (I know it's not going to kill me) but what may happen while I am incapacitated.

I suggest that, so you may better understand what you're talking about, you go find someone that will let you experience the effect of a taser for yourself. Then perhaps next time a subject comes up that you don't know anything about you might think before you start typing.

Sincerely,
WC145
Your friendly neighborhood, 250lb, kempo instructor, former kickboxer, nancy boy cop.

 

[ChaoSS]

I understand the concept just fine. I have no problem with the idea. In fact, I think that police officers should be permitted to use the same force that a civilian can (after all, you volunteered for the job, if I'm in a situation where I'm being threatened, I didn't have a choice in the matter). Thus, you should be able to use whatever force is reasonably necessary to defend yourself (or others in the area)

Some drunk guy is standing in his yard, waving a knife around. There's no one close enough for him to injure. (I'm assuming a yard like my own, fenced in, just to make things simple) He's yelling about how the "mother ******* who took my job" are going to pay for it. Most cops that I've met would probably taze the guy, or use some other form of "less lethal" force to bring him down. The question is, is that really necessary? Is it really reasonable to use force that could kill the guy (if you hit him with a tazer or knock him over with a bean bag round, he could fall on his knife) when he really isn't an immediate threat to anyone? It seems many police are all too ready to use force that is unnecessarily dangerous because they don't feel like waiting for a peaceful resolution to the problem.

It's the same principle as cops who execute a SWAT style raid on a house where drugs are being sold, when it would often be more prudent to wait for the guy to come out and arrest him outside the house. Instead, they execute a dangerous raid that sometimes leads to people being killed.

Let me demonstrate why I don't like your attitude toward police work:

1. If you're stupid enough to get into a stand off with two cops and you shoot one with a taser you deserve to be shot. Also, if you shot him with his police issue taser I'd shoot you because it has two sets of probes. If we were both incapacitated what would keep you from further disarming us and murdering us with our own weapons.

Lethal force may or may not be appropriate here, it depends on the situation, so I'm not arguing that. What I am saying, is that police officers consider it enough of a threat that they would respond with lethal force, thus, they should treat their own tazer usage with the same respect.

It's interesting to note, however, that you say that anyone that stupid deserves to be shot. That kind of judge dredd attitude needs to go.

2. I do not carry a taser. I have tried it out in training so that I would understand how debilitating it is and now I understand that if faced with someone wielding a taser I will not underestimate the gravity of the situation. My concern is not being "tased" (I know it's not going to kill me) but what may happen while I am incapacitated.

Why not? I even acknowledge it has a place, and you have been hailing it as a highly useful tool. What if there's a drunk out in his yard with a gun? Someone that irresponsible probably deserves some jail time, probably shouldn't be allowed guns, but does he deserve to die for that act of indiscretion? Probably not. So what are you going to do, gun him down? Or maybe you'll just kempo him into submission.

 

[WC145]

You know what, you're right. We shouldn't do anything but stand by until whatever is driving these people runs it's course. The guy in the yard with a knife- he's bound to fall asleep eventually, no chance of him injuring himself or turning on others, never mind how much distance he can cover and how much damage he can do in a matter of seconds (familiar with the Tueller Drill?). Drug dealers should be left alone when at home, we'll just pick them up on their way out to the store so that the shoot out can take place in the front yard where there's more chance for collateral damage. And when you decide to get into a stand off with a couple of cops we'll just let you shoot us with the taser so that while we're incapacitated you can kick the crap out of us, take our guns and murder us, and then go on whatever other spree you have planned with your new found armament. After all, that's what we're being paid for.

By the way, I didn't say that ANYONE stupid deserves to be shot, I said that if you're stupid enough to get into a stand off with two cops and shoot one with a taser you deserve to be shot. Big difference, that's not randomly shooting stupid people, that's Darwin's theory at work.

Anyway, when you decide you to put on a badge and show the rest of us how it's done you come back and tell me how I should be doing my job. Until then you should stick to whatever it is that you do and stop commenting on things you don't know anything about.

 

[ChaoSS]

I hope you are smarter than this in real life. Cops with severely limited reading and comprehension skills are the reason so many raids get carried out on the wrong houses.

There's no reason why you can't stand by and wait until wait until they guy is no longer a threat. (Hell, maybe his friend, or his wife will show up, and knows how to deal with him when he's drunk)

Most people leave their house at some point, and could easily be dealt with say, when they are leaving the store and coming back to their car. I'm sure you could find a time when he's not carrying a gun, and if approached properly, probably won't be stupid enough to draw a gun if he has one. On the other hand, kick in someone's door and you are just asking them to shoot back at you. I know, I know, it's more fun to go put on the ninja wear and use those big fancy guns.

And I never suggested that you should just let someone shoot you with a tazer. I'm just suggesting that you should apply the same standards to yourselves.

And again, your choice of words reveals your attitude. Is it necessary to shoot someone and kill them sometimes? Yes. But the attitude that they just deserve to die is where you go wrong. That's not your decision, that is the decision of the courts. If you have to kill someone to save your life, then I don't hold it against you. You just have the wrong attitude going into it.

 

[30mag]

I hope you are smarter than this in real life. Cops with severely limited reading and comprehension skills are the reason so many raids get carried out on the wrong houses.

If you are of such superior intelligence, why do you misspell:

they should treat their own tazer usage with the same respect.

TASER.

Second:

There's no reason why you can't stand by and wait until wait until they guy is no longer a threat. (Hell, maybe his friend, or his wife will show up, and knows how to deal with him when he's drunk)

Some drunk guy is standing in his yard, waving a knife around...he really isn't an immediate threat to anyone

What if there's a drunk out in his yard with a gun? Someone that irresponsible probably deserves some jail time, probably shouldn't be allowed guns

Your choice of words reveals your intelligence.
Are you a cop?

 

[WC145]

You've got me beat ChaoSS. I can't compete with that kind of "living in Mom's basement and leading a fantasy life online" kind of logic.
Good luck out in the real world, I hope it isn't too much of a shock. Of course, that's assuming you ever get there.

 

[bigger hammer]

Tazers should be lethal force alternatives only.

No jury that's heard a case agrees with this assessment.

If I am charging a cop with a knife, a tazer is a perfectly acceptable tool to stop me.

I disagree. One does not use less–lethal force against someone who's using deadly force.

It's use could lead to my death

So could wresting you to the ground. So far no jury has ruled that any death has been due to the taser.

In a situation where the cop is simply impatient to force me to comply, he can not know if there are any other circumstances that would contribute to the tazer killing me.

Impatient? LOL. The longer it takes to get you into custody, the more chance there is that someone, you included, can be injured. Don't like it? Don't put yourself into situations where you resist arrest or detention. If you do, expect that the officer will take you into custody as efficiently as possible. That means, among other things, without injury to himself.

 

[bigger hammer]

Some drunk guy is standing in his yard, waving a knife around. There's no one close enough for him to injure. (I'm assuming a yard like my own, fenced in, just to make things simple) He's yelling about how the "mother ******* who took my job" are going to pay for it. Most cops that I've met would probably taze the guy, or use some other form of "less lethal" force to bring him down. The question is, is that really necessary?

How long are you going to stand around waiting for him to voluntarily drop the knife? At some point it become obvious that he's not going to. Next he'll start walking towards one of the neighbor's homes. You can't evacuate the entire city and so at some point, since he won't volunteer to put down the knife, you have to make him.

Is it really reasonable to use force that could kill the guy (if you hit him with a tazer or knock him over with a bean bag round, he could fall on his knife) when he really isn't an immediate threat to anyone? It seems many police are all too ready to use force that is unnecessarily dangerous because they don't feel like waiting for a peaceful resolution to the problem.

How long is it reasonable to wait. You're going to tie up several officers with such a call, and the longer it goes on, the longer the rest of the city does not have police service. On a big city this won't make much difference. On a small city you could have the entire shift dealing with this.

It's the same principle as cops who execute a SWAT style raid on a house where drugs are being sold, when it would often be more prudent to wait for the guy to come out and arrest him outside the house. Instead, they execute a dangerous raid that sometimes leads to people being killed.

Except for the fact that often it's not just one guy selling the drugs. So waiting for him to come out just means that others have plenty of time to dispose of the evidence.

Lethal force may or may not be appropriate here, it depends on the situation, so I'm not arguing that. What I am saying, is that police officers consider it enough of a threat that they would respond with lethal force, thus, they should treat their own tazer usage with the same respect.

Here's where your argument falls apart. Police regard the situation as one where it's reasonable to believe that the person tasing them will take their firearm and kill them. That's NOT the case with the police officer tasing the suspect.

Why not? I even acknowledge it has a place, and you have been hailing it as a highly useful tool. What if there's a drunk out in his yard with a gun? Someone that irresponsible probably deserves some jail time, probably shouldn't be allowed guns, but does he deserve to die for that act of indiscretion? Probably not. So what are you going to do, gun him down? Or maybe you'll just kempo him into submission.

One does not use "less lethal" force against a threat that is exhibiting deadly force. A Taser is not the appropriate tool for this job.

 

[bigger hammer]

I hope you are smarter than this in real life. Cops with severely limited reading and comprehension skills are the reason so many raids get carried out on the wrong houses.

And the rudeness and insults just keep a–coming. The "reason so many raids [actually the number is VERY small] get carried out on the wrong houses" is that police departments keep making the same mistake, hiring human beings. I doubt that there are many other industries that have as low an error rate.

There's no reason why you can't stand by and wait until wait until they guy is no longer a threat. (Hell, maybe his friend, or his wife will show up, and knows how to deal with him when he's drunk)

How long is reasonable to wait? And what should we do when he decides to take the act on the road and starts walking down the street?

 

[ChaoSS]

You've got me beat ChaoSS. I can't compete with that kind of "living in Mom's basement and leading a fantasy life online" kind of logic.
Good luck out in the real world, I hope it isn't too much of a shock. Of course, that's assuming you ever get there.

Sarcasm and insults. Good to know Maine's finest has such a good defense for his actions defending our way of life.

No jury that's heard a case agrees with this assessment.

No jury has ever convicted OJ of killing a woman either. Doesn't mean it didn't happen.

I disagree. One does not use less–lethal force against someone who's using deadly force.

One uses the necessary force. Granted, in certain circumstances, a gun may be appropriate. If a cop is surprised by someone who jumps at them with a knife, it may be a faster reflex to draw with their gun than with the taser (tazer is just as good a spelling) that is strapped to their weak side. This is why I changed my example, start with the drunk ranting and raving in his front yard.

You asked a couple of times how long it is reasonable to wait. Honestly, you wait however long is needed, but it won't be long. Situations do not tend one way for long, unless it's the sort of professional hostage situation that you really only see in the movies. In my example, the guy is going to go one of two ways. Either the fresh air is gonna sober him up enough that he realizes what he's doing, and he defuses the situation himself. Otherwise, he escalates the situation, and becomes a threat to others. For example, he starts walking toward the people outside the fence, still brandishing the knife. This is where it becomes a real threat, and the police taze him.

Impatient? LOL. The longer it takes to get you into custody, the more chance there is that someone, you included, can be injured. Don't like it? Don't put yourself into situations where you resist arrest or detention. If you do, expect that the officer will take you into custody as efficiently as possible. That means, among other things, without injury to himself.

That depends. Are we talking about an active struggle? Because that is a situation where someone is being threatened. But that's not always the case. I've seen cases where a cop told someone to get down on the ground, and the person refused, so the cop gave him the juice. He wasn't threatening anyone, he just wasn't quite ready to accept the fact that he was going to jail. That kind of acceptance can take a minute.

Let me give you a personal example. I was once arrested by a cop when I had done nothing wrong. (I know, I know, everyone says that, but the DA threw my case out the case, and the cop had been harassing me, I could have sued them if I'd had any sort of recorder running during my various encounters with him.) So here I am, being arrested, and feeling that I have done nothing to deserve this, a thought echoed by many people, regardless of real guilt or innocence. I know I don't have the money to post bail, and I know full well that if I miss much work, I'm going to lose my job, and there's no way I can get anything nearly as good as it. Obviously, it's not logical to resist arrest, and I didn't. But I can tell you, there is an overwhelming urge to do so, and the way that most cops go about it escalates the situation to where most people will want to resist. Cops should be trying to de-escalate the situation, not escalate it themselves.

Except for the fact that often it's not just one guy selling the drugs. So waiting for him to come out just means that others have plenty of time to dispose of the evidence.

Do it my way, and no one will even think to flush the evidence. Arrest one guy away from home, tell him it's for his burnt out headlight, whatever. He calls someone to arrange bail, and suddenly you have at least one more out of the house with no struggle.

One does not use "less lethal" force against a threat that is exhibiting deadly force. A Taser is not the appropriate tool for this job.

Actually, a taser might be a more effective weapon, if it is possible to use it then. Someone who is sufficiently impaired might be able to get a round or two off after being shot with conventional weapons, whereas someone hit with a taser should not be able to do anything.

And the rudeness and insults just keep a–coming. The "reason so many raids [actually the number is VERY small] get carried out on the wrong houses" is that police departments keep making the same mistake, hiring human beings. I doubt that there are many other industries that have as low an error rate.

Yeah, but there's a difference. When I make a mistake at work, I don't go kicking someone's door in and point a gun at them. My boss yells at me, and I fix it. The fact is that cops are human, and they do make mistakes. They do shoot people who are doing nothing wrong because they think they were reaching for a gun. They break into the wrong houses sometimes and kill completely innocent people. They make mistakes just like I do, but their mistakes can have much more significant consequences, which is why they should work to de-escalate a situation rather than to escalate it.

 

[bigger hammer]

Earlier I wrote, (referring to the statement that Tasers have killed)

No jury that's heard a case agrees with this assessment.

No jury has ever convicted OJ of killing a woman either. Doesn't mean it didn't happen.

The civil jury that heard the OJ case found that he killed a woman AND a man.

AND there have been scores of wrongful death suits alleging that the Taser killed people, not just two as with the OJ case. That puts OJ at 50% and the Taser at 0.00%.

Earlier I wrote,

I disagree. One does not use less–lethal force against someone who's using deadly force.

One uses the necessary force.

LOL. yes, I know. and less lethal is inappropriate against deadly force. The fact that a few have done so does not change this.

Granted, in certain circumstances, a gun may be appropriate. If a cop is surprised by someone who jumps at them with a knife, it may be a faster reflex to draw with their gun than with the taser (tazer is just as good a spelling)

Actually it's not. "Taser" is the copyrighted name of a product. It should be capitalized and spelled as they do, just like with someone's name.

that is strapped to their weak side. This is why I changed my example, start with the drunk ranting and raving in his front yard.

A gun is "appropriate" when deadly force is justified. This is the case with a person holding a knife if the officer reasonably thinks the person will try to stab him and the distance is close enough that it's reasonably possible.

You asked a couple of times how long it is reasonable to wait. Honestly, you wait however long is needed, but it won't be long.

Pretty vague especially since time is relative. Ten minutes is an eternity if someone is trying to hold their breath. That's why I asked for a specific time rather than the fuzzy "however long is needed." Let's be more specific. Is one hour reasonable? Five? Ten? Keep in mind that for a small city this might tie up the entire shift.

Situations do not tend one way for long, unless it's the sort of professional hostage situation that you really only see in the movies.

Again, pretty vague.

In my example, the guy is going to go one of two ways. Either the fresh air is gonna sober him up enough that he realizes what he's doing, and he defuses the situation himself. Otherwise, he escalates the situation, and becomes a threat to others. For example, he starts walking toward the people outside the fence, still brandishing the knife. This is where it becomes a real threat, and the police taze him.

The Taser is still not the appropriate tool for the situation you describe. Hopefully the police will have evacuated the people surrounding the scene but as I also said, you can't evac the entire city. A police Taser has a range of about 26 feet. That's very close to the distance that a person can cross and become a deadly threat to the officer. The bottom line is still the same. A Taser is not an appropriate tool against any kind of deadly force.

Earlier I wrote,

Impatient? LOL. The longer it takes to get you into custody, the more chance there is that someone, you included, can be injured. Don't like it? Don't put yourself into situations where you resist arrest or detention. If you do, expect that the officer will take you into custody as efficiently as possible. That means, among other things, without injury to himself.

That depends. Are we talking about an active struggle? Because that is a situation where someone is being threatened. But that's not always the case. I've seen cases where a cop told someone to get down on the ground, and the person refused, so the cop gave him the juice. He wasn't threatening anyone, he just wasn't quite ready to accept the fact that he was going to jail. That kind of acceptance can take a minute.

I have seen many instances where people were given commands repeatedly and refused. THEN they were told one last time. When they refused to comply, they were Tased. Looking at the dozens of dashcam videos out there NEVER have I seen one where a person was immediately Tased after being given a command once. Can you show us one?

Earlier I wrote,

Except for the fact that often it's not just one guy selling the drugs. So waiting for him to come out just means that others have plenty of time to dispose of the evidence.

Do it my way, and no one will even think to flush the evidence. Arrest one guy away from home, tell him it's for his burnt out headlight, whatever. He calls someone to arrange bail, and suddenly you have at least one more out of the house with no struggle.

The law (here at lest) requires that an arrested person be told the reason for their arrest. Lying to them about this is a violation, especially if it's at the "call a bondsman" stage. But even if it's OK in your jurisdiction, removing one more person from the house doesn't empty the place out.

Earlier I wrote,

One does not use "less lethal" force against a threat that is exhibiting deadly force. A Taser is not the appropriate tool for this job.

Actually, a taser might be a more effective weapon, if it is possible to use it then. Someone who is sufficiently impaired might be able to get a round or two off after being shot with conventional weapons, whereas someone hit with a taser should not be able to do anything.

Shooting someone with a Taser does not guarantee instant incapacitation. Sometimes one probe misses. They're not nearly as accurate as firearms and we know that police often miss with them. Even if both probes stick, sometimes they don't work. AND perhaps most importantly, the distance for reliable use for a Taser is far less than for firearms. Merely approaching someone close enough to use the Taser puts the user at risk.

Earlier I wrote,

And the rudeness and insults just keep a–coming. The "reason so many raids [actually the number is VERY small] get carried out on the wrong houses" is that police departments keep making the same mistake, hiring human beings. I doubt that there are many other industries that have as low an error rate.

Yeah, but there's a difference. When I make a mistake at work, I don't go kicking someone's door in and point a gun at them. My boss yells at me, and I fix it. The fact is that cops are human, and they do make mistakes. They do shoot people who are doing nothing wrong because they think they were reaching for a gun.

The mistake was made by the person reaching for something. The police officer did the right thing in these cases.

They break into the wrong houses sometimes and kill completely innocent people. They make mistakes just like I do, but their mistakes can have much more significant consequences, which is why they should work to de-escalate a situation rather than to escalate it.

Making a mistake (as we're discussing here – hitting the wrong house) has nothing to do with escalation or de–escalation. You're mixing two situations.

 

[SHvar]

Wow, school is definitely out.
Im not going to bother until this kind of BS is done.
Chaos, you said.
"you say that anyone that stupid deserves to be shot"
But what he said was nowhere near the same.
"If you're stupid enough to get into a stand off with two cops and you shoot one with a taser you deserve to be shot".
This converstaion has eroded to stupidity, at least on the side of the criminals defense.

 

[DHJenkins]

I'd just like to point out, as someone who has been tased, that a hornet or scorpion sting not only hurts more but lasts longer.

It's not a guillotine, for god's sake. You get shocked, you drop, you're in a squad car, it's over. No bruising, No bleeding, No broken bones, No dislocated shoulders, no stinging eyes for hours - what could be more 'kid gloves' than a taser?

I mean, the last time I checked, the police aren't being issued pillow cannons.

 

[usmarine0352_2005]

.
See ChaoSS posts?


Please don't feed the troll.

.

 

[ChaoSS]

Bigger Hammer, a taser can absolutely be the appropriate level of force against lethal force, especially against a knife. Cops should be allowed to do what they must to stay alive, yes, but at the same time, they are police, not judge dredd.

If a taser were only effective as a means of forcing compliance, they would not be sold to civilians.

As to the "wait it out" policy, I know I am being ambiguous. What is the appropriate amount of time to wait in a hostage situation? There is no set amount of time.

Fortunately, this sort of situation is different. These things happen when someone is highly emotional or impaired, and those states have a tendency to escalate or de-escalate quickly. I'd love to give you statistics on it, but the police don't like to wait, they prefer to escalate the situation as quickly as possible. To me, it seems better to tie up two officers for a longer period of time than to possibly kill a guy when you taser him and he falls on his own knife. After all, it may be a volatile situation, but he really hasn't committed any crime (other than possibly some bs disturbance citation.

The point is that police are far to ready to use their tasers to torture people into submission (As evidenced by the police who used their tasers to extract a DNA sample) and they are far too ready to escalate a situation that does not need to be escalated.

 

[DHJenkins]

Tasers don't escalate a situation. They end them.

 

[ChaoSS]

Tasers don't escalate a situation. They end them.

Yeah, sometimes permanently.

 

[bigger hammer]

Bigger Hammer, a taser can absolutely be the appropriate level of force against lethal force, especially against a knife.

I'm sorry but you're wrong. Police officers have the right and the obligation to use enough force to overcome that used by the suspect. That means MORE force than he's using. A Taser has never been classified as deadly force by anyone except Amnesty International and a few other nutballs. A knife, clearly is deadly force.

An officer may make a personal decision to use a Taser against someone who's armed with a knife but unless he has armed backup immediately present, he's a fool. OR he's one of those who isn't capable of taking a life and doesn't belong on the job.

Cops should be allowed to do what they must to stay alive, yes

They are.

but at the same time, they are police, not judge dredd.

I think you've made this "Judge Dredd" comment several times now. I must tell you, it's a bit silly. The classic line from this movie is "I am the law." No right thinking police officer thinks that "he is the law." But he has every right AND an obligation to other officers present, to the public and his family, to use deadly force when it's used against him. .

If a taser were only effective as a means of forcing compliance, they would not be sold to civilians.

Tasers are sold to citizens because there's a demand for them and so the company made them available. USUALLY it has nothing to do with "forcing compliance, USUALLY they're sold to people who want to defend themselves against crooks but are afraid of guns or their jurisdiction won't allow them to carry one. They're a poor second choice for self-defense if one has the ability to carry a gun.

As to the "wait it out" policy, I know I am being ambiguous. What is the appropriate amount of time to wait in a hostage situation? There is no set amount of time.

Thanks for making my point.

Fortunately, this sort of situation is different. These things happen when someone is highly emotional or impaired, and those states have a tendency to escalate or de-escalate quickly.

Either you're inexperienced in these matters, you're just guessing or you're playing Devil's advocate. The accurate statement is that "SOMETIMES these situations have a tendency to escalate or de–escalate quickly." It's best if the police have a plan to fit both situations. Yours only covers the short term.

I'd love to give you statistics on it, but the police don't like to wait, they prefer to escalate the situation as quickly as possible.

Again the first sentence in my last paragraph applies. One more option, as another poster has said, you're just a troll who's here to be a nuisance, but I've given you the benefit of the doubt, and I have the spare time. LOL. Quite simply you're wrong. I'd guess you've been watching too much TV if this is what you think.

To me, it seems better to tie up two officers for a longer period of time than to possibly kill a guy when you taser him and he falls on his own knife.

Oh boy, you really like to go for the least possible situation just to make it fit your argument don't you? Let's try it this way. There have been hundreds of thousands of people Tased since police have been using Tasers. Thousands of them have been holding knives. I've never heard of one even sustaining a slight cut, much less falling on the knife and dying. Since you seem to be in love with this scenario, I'll ask you show us even one instance of it happening.

After all, it may be a volatile situation, but he really hasn't committed any crime (other than possibly some bs disturbance citation.

He's brandished the knife in the presence of police officers. In most jurisdictions, that's a felony and he could be shot for it.

The point is that police are far to ready to use their tasers to torture people into submission (As evidenced by the police who used their tasers to extract a DNA sample)

I’m not familiar with this incident. Got a link? But even if you do, you've managed to generalize one incident and have applied it to all police. That's just inane.

and they are far too ready to escalate a situation that does not need to be escalated.

Another generalization.

 

[bigger hammer]

Tasers don't escalate a situation. They end them.

Yeah, sometimes permanently.

There have been at least 80 lawsuits for wrongful death against Taser and not one jury has agreed with you. They've heard the facts from both sides of the discussion. You have not. I'll place more weight on their judgment than yours.

Repeating something that's been shown to be wrong over and over again just diminishes your credibility.

 

[DHJenkins]

Yeah, sometimes permanently.

And 'sometimes' I can hit a strike bowling backwards through my legs.

I think instead of "sometimes" you should be using the words "vary rarely".

I'd rather be tased than hit with the 8% OC I carry in my truck for uppity homeless people.

I'd rather be tased than hit with the 5-cell maglite I keep in my truck.

I'd rather be tased than hit with the aluminum baton that's under my couch.

I'd rather be tased than hit with the ASP I'm probably not supposed to have.

In short, I would rather have been tased than involved in a physical altercation with the 5 officers from 3 jurisdictions it took to put me on the ground using all of the above.

I was a 'bad guy' once because I was stupid kid with something to prove, and through personal improvement and the help of my wife, I have become what's considered an 'upstanding citizen'. I haven't had so much as a ticket in a decade.

I believe I deserved everything that happened to me, including being hog-tied and carried into the 'tank like a suitcase.

Had I been tased, everything would have ended much earlier, I would have had less physical damage, and my legal bill would have been less than $8k.

My advice to you is to grow up. Your arguments are based not on experience or logic, but ignorant idealism. Spend some time in the real world, then maybe you can offer an informed opinion instead of your unrealistic, ideological drivel.

 

[30mag]

TAZER is NOT a word.

TASER is an acronym.

You obviously don't know what you're talking about Chaos.

Bigger Hammer, a taser can absolutely be the appropriate level of force against lethal force, especially against a knife. Cops should be allowed to do what they must to stay alive, yes, but at the same time, they are police, not judge dredd.

Anyone acting in self-defense CAN be judge, jury and executioner under US law. So, they may not be 'Judge Dredd', but they sure as heck can be in certain situations.

Sarcasm and insults. Good to know Maine's finest has such a good defense for his actions defending our way of life.

Hey, why are you complimenting him? Oh, you were using sarcasm (or sarcazm as I like to spell it sometimes) to insult him.. but weren't you just saying that.. oooh.

Actually, a taser might be a more effective weapon, if it is possible to use it then. Someone who is sufficiently impaired might be able to get a round or two off after being shot with conventional weapons, whereas someone hit with a taser should not be able to do anything.

Or a more retarded weapon.. ammo capacity:
9mm: 10-18
.45: 7-13
12 gauge:4-8
.357:5-6

TASER: 1-2

I don't know how long it takes to reload a TASER, but if you miss.. well... good luck.

If a taser were only effective as a means of forcing compliance, they would not be sold to civilians.

Elaborate? Umm.. I think we call this a non sequitur..?
What the heck else is a TASER useful for?

 

[ChaoSS]

I'm sorry but you're wrong. Police officers have the right and the obligation to use enough force to overcome that used by the suspect.

Correct.

That means MORE force than he's using.

Incorrect. If I attack a cop with, say, a flame thrower, or a missile launcher, that doesn't mean that they have to come in with a missile of their own, when a sniper will do just fine. Force that is sufficient to put someone down is sufficient to defuse any amount of force, whether it is a knife or nuclear weapon. The reason I don't encourage the use of tasers against someone attacking police with a gun is because of the taser's inferior range and capacity. If tasers could be developed to where their range, accuracy, rate of fire, and capacity matched that of a firearm, I would advocate taking guns away from the police. (For those who don't like that, I would point out wrongful shootings. Even one is enough to justify my point of view.

A Taser has never been classified as deadly force by anyone except Amnesty International and a few other nutballs. A knife, clearly is deadly force.

Again, it's deadly force, but when you pit a taser against a knife, the taser wins because of it's superior range.

I think you've made this "Judge Dredd" comment several times now. I must tell you, it's a bit silly. The classic line from this movie is "I am the law." No right thinking police officer thinks that "he is the law." But he has every right AND an obligation to other officers present, to the public and his family, to use deadly force when it's used against him. .

The Judge Dredd comment is not so much a reference to "I am the law" so much as it is to the way cops like to kill people when it's not really necessary. The law may say that it is acceptable, but it is often not necessary. I truly believe that many deaths could be avoided if police were to change their tactics.

Look at the recent case of the guy who killed two cops, they chased him to his house (or his girlfriend's house, i don't remember) and he killed two more before they got him. I don't think they used excessive force there, or did anything wrong. (Although they may have been careless, I don't know) The point, however, is that this sort of entry, which is used for drug dealers and other petty criminals, is dangerous both to the police and to nearby innocents. The police are going into somewhere where they are at a disadvantage, they are going into someone's home. To compensate, they use overwhelming force. This can often mean that someone's reflexive reaction, which may not be anything dangerous at all, can get them killed.

It would be much safer for everyone involved if the police were to use different tactics. The militarized "us vs them" mindset is simply wrong, whether it's legal or not.

Either you're inexperienced in these matters, you're just guessing or you're playing Devil's advocate. The accurate statement is that "SOMETIMES these situations have a tendency to escalate or de–escalate quickly." It's best if the police have a plan to fit both situations. Yours only covers the short term.

Ok, so have another plan. But the way things work now, hit em hard and hit em fast, even if no one is really being threatened, simply leads to more injuries and deaths.

Oh boy, you really like to go for the least possible situation just to make it fit your argument don't you? Let's try it this way. There have been hundreds of thousands of people Tased since police have been using Tasers. Thousands of them have been holding knives. I've never heard of one even sustaining a slight cut, much less falling on the knife and dying. Since you seem to be in love with this scenario, I'll ask you show us even one instance of it happening.

The fact is that it's a possibility, a risk that should not be taken when it's not needed.

He's brandished the knife in the presence of police officers. In most jurisdictions, that's a felony and he could be shot for it.

The law is not always in the right. If he has not threatened anyone, there is no excuse for allowing the execution of the person.

I’m not familiar with this incident. Got a link? But even if you do, you've managed to generalize one incident and have applied it to all police. That's just inane.

Happy to oblige. The cops screwed up the first DNA sample, and so got another warrant for it. The suspect refused to give the sample, and so the officers, instead of having the suspect held in contempt of court for as long as needed (a perfectly viable alternative) they used the taser to force him to comply. We don't even treat prisoners of war like that.
http://www.buffalonews.com/home/story/692141.html

Another generalization.

Yes, it is a generalization, but I'm really only trying to generalize a group of cops that fits the generalization. (which is far too many)

I've met cops who were genuinely good people, cops who don't deal with BS, but they don't give it to you either. I've met cops that came at you with the attitude that makes you want to work with them, and I've met cops that give you the overwhelming urge to beat them to a pulp. Many of these cops do it intentionally, I've seen it in their eyes. I've had cops harass me, try to find a reason to arrest me (one cop was so good as to inform us that she was holding us until she could find a reason to arrest us, 5 hours later she let us go when she couldn't find a reason), and when they can't find a reason to take you down, they do their best to intimidate you into giving them a reason. These are the cops that need to be kept on a short leash. The good cops, most of them use their tasers when it is appropriate, not when they feel like inflicting pain on someone or are too lazy to do their job.

 

[ChaoSS]

DH Jenkins, I'm not trying to get rid of tasers completely. If you were fighting with the cops, if you were a danger to them, it's different. I'm tired of cops using tasers on people who simply refuse to lay down, but aren't a threat, people who are cuffed but still pushing around (but no longer a threat) etc.

 

[WC145]

Bigger Hammer, SHvar, DHjenkins, 30mag -
You guys are all doing an admirable job of trying to talk sense into ChaoSS but it's a waste of time, like trying to describe colors to a blind person (no offense to any blind people out there). I suggest you just give up. Besides, it's late and he'll have to go to bed soon. If you guys have the energy, I'm sure he'll be posting before school tomorrow morning.

 

[ChaoSS]

Oh look, WC145 made another funny. Good to see your comic skills aren't as bad as your debate.

I know you, as a cop, think that you guys are always right. But the fact is that police overuse of power is on the rise in a dramatic way. The police are abusing their authority way too much now, and it needs to end.