Tazers [Archive] - Kiwi Biker forums

Wolf

11th August 2005, 11:40

I don't get it...

You have to get just as close with a tazer as you would with a PR24.

I think you're thinking of the hand-held tasers the US public is allowed to buy and that we see in alll the movies. They're depicted as a quick jab and the villain is down - crap! You have to hold them against the attacker's body for 4 or more seconds.

They're as much use as a banana in a real-life situation - part of Massad Ayoob's self defence training involves being zapped for the requisite four seconds with a commercial "self defence" taser then firing five rounds into a target within a short time frame. He has had no one fail this part of the training. Even after four seconds, none of his trainees have been incapable of using a firearm.

The tasers the cops will be using are the ones that fire two darts on wires - they hit the body a fair distance apart and jangle the nervous system - unlike the comercial ones that have a gap of a couple of inches between the prongs. They are a ranged weapon and quite effective from various accounts - unlike the toys that unscrupulous US companies sell for "self defence". (What? Let the public have a non-lethal weapon as powerful as the Law Enforcement agencies use? No way, let 'em buy a .50 cal Desert Eagle instead...)

I would happily take a zap from one of the commercial tasers- but not from a proper Law Enforcement one.

I'm all for the cops having a variety of non lethal weapons at their disposal and I am also for them wearing sidearms (pistols) at all times. I think our police (after their probationary period) should be armed with both lethal and non-lethal weapons and properly drilled in the use of both. This would include training on dealing with various situations with a view to promoting good decision-making processes as to which to use.

Lou Girardin

11th August 2005, 12:29

They don't kill, so why not. Zap the fuckers

Wanna bet?

bugjuice

11th August 2005, 12:33

all I can see is the cops in the locker rooms with a fist full of cash, stunning each other for as long as they can hold..

I say use 'em. Most of the twots that will get it are often people who can take a good buzz. It's not like it's going to be used on some elderly person with a pace maker, is it? And it's not like they don't get a warning or just appear with a tazer and do it.. They'll know it's coming

scumdog

11th August 2005, 12:37

Wanna bet?

Hell, if you get killed by one then you just picked a bad day to be an arsehole, bad luck. Next.

Since it's unlikely to be you Lou I don't see why you worry.

Lou Girardin

11th August 2005, 13:06

Hell, if you get killed by one then you just picked a bad day to be an arsehole, bad luck. Next.

Since it's unlikely to be you Lou I don't see why you worry.

Are you *gasp* saying I'm not an arsehole?
I'll have to stick to religeous slurs to get neg rep then.

placidfemme

11th August 2005, 14:50

I'm fully for it... NZ (And most other countries) are way too PC, so criminals are not afraid of the law officers. Ok so it's 50,000 volts or whatever... but if your not doing anything wrong you don't have a problem do you...

Or would you rather they had guns?

scumdog

11th August 2005, 14:56

placidfemme

11th August 2005, 15:03

We do and look at the shit-fight when they're used - the "Heshoulda" gang really goes to town then!!

I'll take your word for it (the gun thing). I've never seen a cop with a gun in NZ, but then again when I do see cops its just in passing so I don't study them...

Like I said NZ is too PC. You reckon the cops are given shit if they actually use the guns... which again boils down to being too PC.

I don't think it's right that the criminals have more rights then the victims and the law officers. Sure you get your bad cops, but bottom line they still do their job correctly 80% of the time...

Just zap the bastards with the tazers (or shoot them however it works). Like I said if your not doing anything wrong then you won't get hurt... and chances are when they do start zapping people 99% of the "zaps" will be fully justified.

Put some fear back into the crim's is what I say... and if that requires 50,000 volts going through them... then so be it

riffer

11th August 2005, 15:10

I think you're thinking of the hand-held tasers the US public is allowed to buy and that we see in alll the movies. They're depicted as a quick jab and the villain is down - crap! You have to hold them against the attacker's body for 4 or more seconds.

Yeah, those were the ones I was thinking of Wolf. I didn't know there was a difference.

Wolf

11th August 2005, 16:11

Yeah, those were the ones I was thinking of Wolf. I didn't know there was a difference.
Major difference. The LE ones fire barbed prongs which hook the skin or clothes and when activated give a timed zap to incapacitate. The officer can then stand a safe distance from the aggressor and zap him again if he's still aggro when he recovers.

The commercial ones have to be physically held against your attacker for a long time with the button depressed - presumeably while the attacker does his/her level best to stop you from doing this. Massad Ayoob's students only got the full jolt because they had been instructed to endure it. Most said it was not too bad and it certainly did not stop any of them from accurately putting five rounds into a distant target. Please note that these are average citizens, many of them women, attending a self defence firearms course not Special Forces soldiers trained to function with both legs and one arm ripped off.

Basically, if you are capable of holding a commercial taser against a person for four seconds or more against their will, you don't need one - just beat the bastard to a pulp with your fists.

11th August 2005, 18:13

I agree, shock the shit out of the bastards who deserve it!

Al

sAsLEX

11th August 2005, 20:07

Wheres the option for all front line police can have Glocks as permanent side arms and big MO FO sub machine guns in the boot? That should sort out all those boy racers.

nah what you need is a big maori bloke holding a folding stock 12 gauge making it look like a little toy, kinda like the auto driver in MIB2, now that would be more effective than skinny white boy with glasses holding a little sub machine gun!

Wolf

12th August 2005, 08:53

How the fuck did that gay shirt weaing Mr Skid vote on all the options?? He's ruined the poll.
The option boxes are square, meaning you can select multiple answers rather than just one (as with round option "boxes")

Wolf

12th August 2005, 09:06

nah what you need is a big maori bloke holding a folding stock 12 gauge making it look like a little toy, kinda like the auto driver in MIB2, now that would be more effective than skinny white boy with glasses holding a little sub machine gun!
Firearms are the great "equalisers" I'm sure the skinny white boy with the glasses (and the asthma, SpeedMedic) with a little SMG would be just as deadly as the big Maori dude with the 12 gauge riot shotgun.

Fark, I'd be worried about an eight-year-old with a pistol - physical prowess and size means very little when it only takes a reasonable aim and 4-6lbs of pressure to screw up someone's day.

Worst thing about an 8-yr-old with a pistol - you kill the little bastard in self defence his family and the media will paint you as the biggest monster since GW Bush.

scumdog

12th August 2005, 09:26

nah what you need is a big maori bloke holding a folding stock 12 gauge making it look like a little toy, kinda like the auto driver in MIB2, now that would be more effective than skinny white boy with glasses holding a little sub machine gun!

Nah, safe as houses from the 'big maori bloke holding a folding stock shotgun', I'm mean bloody hell the last 'big maori bloke with a shotgun' that I saw was struggling to hit the flag on the ground!! :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

I suppose as long as you didn't look like the NZ flag you would be pretty safe from even getting shot at let alone getting hit???

wendigo

12th August 2005, 09:38

I don't get it...

Just do what they do in Aussie. A decent-sized handgun, plainly visible.

Much more of a deterrent than a tazer. :yes:

All for that. Used to go to Holland. All the cops there wore handguns & Raybans. If you're dumb enough to give a cop wearing a big fuck of gun shit when you can't see his eyes, then you can't be to surprised when you become an example of Darwinian evolution.

As a deterrent, it worked 100%.

Wolf

12th August 2005, 11:47

Just do what they do in Aussie. A decent-sized handgun, plainly visible.

Much more of a deterrent than a tazer. :yes:
While a prominently displayed pistol would have a deterrent effect on part of the community, other parts of the community would not be terribly deterred by it and may elect to carry weapons of their own in response (a lot are already carrying weapons anyway).

I firmly believe the police should carry a variety of both non-lethal and lethal weapons so they have the ability to make a reasonable response to any given situation.

I do not think it would be ideal that the only defence available to the police was in the form of a lethal weapon, as not all situations warrant a lethal response (drawing a pistol and threatening someone is not an option - a lethal weapon may only be drawn when the situation justifies the use of lethal force)

If the person is right in your face, screaming obscenities and threating to "do you", pepper-spray the bastard into submission; if he's sprinting at you from a distance flailing a baseball bat, the taser should be an effective way of incapacitating him before he gets too close; if he's shooting at you, pull out the Glock (or, better, get the G54 from the boot) and shoot him.

There is no one magic solution to all situations, the best you can do is give the police the options and train them in their use.

vifferman

12th August 2005, 11:51

There was an item in the paper today that said the latest law-enforcement weapon is an "electric bullet"; IIRC it was to be fired from a shotgun, and had a range of up to 50m.

scumdog

12th August 2005, 12:37

If the person is right in your face, screaming obscenities and threating to "do you", pepper-spray the bastard into submission; if he's sprinting at you from a distance flailing a baseball bat, the taser should be an effective way of incapacitating him before he gets too close; if he's shooting at you, pull out the Glock (or, better, get the G54 from the boot) and shoot him.

There is no one magic solution to all situations, the best you can do is give the police the options and train them in their use.

Don't ask me what would happen if I had the Glock and my mate was elswhere with the Tazer - and the above baseball bat wearer was charging at me and showing real signs he was going to do me in....

And you don't always have time to get anything from the boot, sometimes situations crop up and you do what you have to.

I hope you all realise that not EVERYBODY will have a Tazer on them!! Shit no, we carry enough gear as it is but mainly 'cos the Gov't would be too tight to allow everybody a Tazer.

Wolf

12th August 2005, 12:48

Don't ask me what would happen if I had the Glock and my mate was elswhere with the Tazer - and the above baseball bat wearer was charging at me and showing real signs he was going to do me in....
Baseball bat is potentially lethal, go ahead, plug him. Even in the US around 85% of people who are shot do not die (most tend to go down and stay down with the "fight" taken out of them, though)

And you don't always have time to get anything from the boot, sometimes situations crop up and you do what you have to.
Yeah, I realise that.

I hope you all realise that not EVERYBODY will have a Tazer on them!! Shit no, we carry enough gear as it is but mainly 'cos the Gov't would be too tight to allow everybody a Tazer.
Didn't figure they'd be handing them out to everyone - you guys carry more crap on your belts than I do and I look like I've stolen Batman's Utility Belt some days. How bulky are the models they're looking at issuing?

Sniper

12th August 2005, 12:54

Ahh Fuck it, they deserve getting tasered. Besides at least in jail they can say they were

Wolf

12th August 2005, 13:01

Ahh Fuck it, they deserve getting tasered. Besides at least in jail they can say they were
A bit more "street cred" than just a prison term, eh.

"Oh, yeah? Well I was pepper-sprayed, tasered and fatally shot. So there!"

Skyryder

12th August 2005, 20:57

I'd also support them carrying guns on a more regular basis.
We always get this talk about the poor crim/victim,well fuck them they shouldn't be acting like cunts in the first place.
Bloody nuke em'!!!!

That's until you caught in the crossfire.

Skyryder

Lou Girardin

6th September 2005, 08:33

After '60 minutes' last night I'm even less convinced our cops should have these things.
The cop overseeing their trial was a veritable font of knowledge.
He didn't know the figures for the number of people pepper sprayed in NZ, he didn't know that our per capita use of the spray is higher than the UK, he didn't know that the per capita rate of shootings by our 'unarmed' Police force is higher than NSW's armed Police.
He had no comment on the fact that nearly all of our shootings have been by GD cops. The Armed Offenders squad has shot few, if any. A pointer to the lack of training GD cops receive.
Then there was overseas footage of people being tazered, not to protect the cops, but to make them comply with orders. Such as a woman being zapped because she wouldn't get out of her car.
Comments made by Tony Bouchier, ex-cop, now a lawyer, were also not very encouraging. Although I certainly disagree with his assertion that the PI shot in Birkdale when he attacked cops with a machete should not have been.
Unless training and supervision of the Police improves immensely, we will have real problems with Tazers being used indiscriminately.

Lias

6th September 2005, 10:47

Then there was overseas footage of people being tazered, not to protect the cops, but to make them comply with orders. Such as a woman being zapped because she wouldn't get out of her car.

Not sure how much they showed on 60 minutes, but I've seen two internet videos of woman being tased by the cops, in both times they were repeatedly ordered to get out of the car, and repeatedly warned they would be tased if they didnt comply.
If your stupid enough to ignore repeated reasonable commands from the police, and ignore repeated warnings that failure to compy will see you tased, then you goddamned well deserve to get tased!

vifferman

6th September 2005, 10:59

Then there was overseas footage of people being tazered, not to protect the cops, but to make them comply with orders. Such as a woman being zapped because she wouldn't get out of her car.
I found that rather disturbing, the several footages of groups of fat, armed cops standing around yelling at 'perps' and tazering/pepper-spraying them. I'd seen that clip of the woman in the car being tazered twice (they'd obviously downloaded it from the Interdweeb), and without the added voice-over you could hear her talking on her cellphone, oblivious to whatever it was she'd supposedly done. In NZ, the cop would've waited for a while, but the cop just told her to get out of the car, warned her she would be tazered (she's not paying attention, coz she's on the phone) then zaps her. She's so busy screaming and thrashing around she doesn't comply with his request to put her hands out so she can be handcuffed, so he zaps her again.

Interestingly, guys I know in America said stuff like "She was a dumbass; she had it coming!", whereas I was a bit sickened listening to her distress.
But then I'm a wuss...

vifferman

6th September 2005, 11:06

You've probably seen this, about a man testing his newly-bought tazer on himself, but it's too funny to not post it again:

http://www.mr-miata.com/archives/2004/08/bubba_and_the_t.html

Lias

6th September 2005, 11:08

Viffer: Check this out

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/content/news/video/taser_video3b.html

Its the full video footage of "the original tasered woman", complete with comentary from a training officer from that police department. The officer who tasered her did it 100% by the book. Also has some explanations of why a taser was more sutiable that a baton or OC spray.

Here's a link to another video too:
http://files.foundrymusic.com/WMV/loudmouth_woman_tazered.zip

Ixion

6th September 2005, 11:11

What concerns me , is that all the debate centres around them being put forward as an alternative to guns - "better to be tased than shot".

I suspect that the reality will be different , and the taser will become an addition rather than an alternative. Like the woman tased for not getting out of her car. They'll become the revenge weapon used against anyone who annoys a cop. "Smart fuckin' kid. I can't shoot you, that wouldn't go down well, but I sure can tase you. take that , he he "

I'd be particulary concerned at their use in protest/demonstration situations (as they will be). I think I wondered before what would have happened if the Red Squad had had these weapons.

Is it really necessary for our police to be armed with deadly weapons (which these certainly are) as a routine thing ?

ManDownUnder

6th September 2005, 11:27

I like the idea of having weaponry (like tazers, glocks etc) available at short notice, but not carried all the time).

Tazer, glock rifle and any other offensive weapon can be used as required, but with a full measure of accountability behind it.

I see there are stuffed up people out there doing dumb shit ("P" for example) that anything pain inflicting won't worry at all. I think tazers MIGHT overcome that if there is muscle spasm induced in the recipient etc... dunno.

Not being Police myself - I'm open to comment on that (after all - it ain't my nuts I'm volunteering for the crusher).

My personal standard is that the Police are entitled to outgun anyone in society if required. THEY need to be safe in order to be expected to keep US safe... that's reasonable innit?

ManDownUnder

6th September 2005, 11:31

I found that rather disturbing, the several footages of groups of fat, armed cops standing around yelling at 'perps' and tazering/pepper-spraying them. I'd seen that clip of the woman in the car being tazered twice (they'd obviously downloaded it from the Interdweeb), and without the added voice-over you could hear her talking on her cellphone, oblivious to whatever it was she'd supposedly done. In NZ, the cop would've waited for a while, but the cop just told her to get out of the car, warned her she would be tazered (she's not paying attention, coz she's on the phone) then zaps her. She's so busy screaming and thrashing around she doesn't comply with his request to put her hands out so she can be handcuffed, so he zaps her again.

Interestingly, guys I know in America said stuff like "She was a dumbass; she had it coming!", whereas I was a bit sickened listening to her distress.
But then I'm a wuss...

Yeah - in which case the cop should be for the high jump. I have no problems arming the police (as little as necessary), but also rippiung the cowboys out of the force. If you can't trust people when they have power...don't give 'em power (give them a nice sharp pencil so they can assist with the paperwork racked up by those officers that ARE ok with power)

I should have said in my last post - I am also a fan of steel capped Police Boots being standard issue, and the occasional kick up the arse being meted out in lieu of anything requiring paperwork.

Common sense vs. PC bullshit... I know which side I'm on (kick 'em once, in the pants, just hard enough to make 'em think 3 or 4 times before they do it again)

vifferman

6th September 2005, 11:45

Yeah - in which case the cop should be for the high jump. I have no problems arming the police (as little as necessary), but also rippiung the cowboys out of the force. If you can't trust people when they have power...don't give 'em power (give them a nice sharp pencil so they can assist with the paperwork racked up by those officers that ARE ok with power)
Trouble is, with the Police struggling to find enough recruits and lowering the standards, we could end up with dumb-arses who would rather shoot first then ask questions, rather than try to negotiate where possible. It was interesting on that doco that there were very few shootings by the highly-trained/disciplined Armed Offenders unit - almost all the shootings were by 'ordinary' cops whoe presumably couldn't be bothered calling in / waiting for the experts.

If the cops have tazers readily available, it will be very easy for them to go, "I'm tired of pissing about - tazer the bastard!"

ManDownUnder

6th September 2005, 11:58

Trouble is, with the Police struggling to find enough recruits and lowering the standards, we could end up with dumb-arses who would rather shoot first then ask questions, rather than try to negotiate where possible. It was interesting on that doco that there were very few shootings by the highly-trained/disciplined Armed Offenders unit - almost all the shootings were by 'ordinary' cops whoe presumably couldn't be bothered calling in / waiting for the experts.

If the cops have tazers readily available, it will be very easy for them to go, "I'm tired of pissing about - tazer the bastard!"

All good stuff.

My suggestion.
1) Raise Police pay rates to something decent
2) Raise the bar - make it harder to get in (giving us better Police)
3) Equip the Police with those things they need to do their jobs (maps, torches, cars and bikes, weapons as required, support and and respect from their communities).
4) Weed the lazy/slack/gun crazy ones out...

MDU

Lou Girardin

6th September 2005, 12:01

Not sure how much they showed on 60 minutes, but I've seen two internet videos of woman being tased by the cops, in both times they were repeatedly ordered to get out of the car, and repeatedly warned they would be tased if they didnt comply.
If your stupid enough to ignore repeated reasonable commands from the police, and ignore repeated warnings that failure to compy will see you tased, then you goddamned well deserve to get tased!

Except that Tazers are a, supposedly, non-lethal method of subduing a dangerous person. Not to enforce commands.
Would you like them used in interrogations too?

ManDownUnder

6th September 2005, 12:06

Not sure how much they showed on 60 minutes, but I've seen two internet videos of woman being tased by the cops, in both times they were repeatedly ordered to get out of the car, and repeatedly warned they would be tased if they didnt comply.
If your stupid enough to ignore repeated reasonable commands from the police, and ignore repeated warnings that failure to compy will see you tased, then you goddamned well deserve to get tased!

Yeah the problem I have with that is the old "are you DEAF??" ZZZZAPPPP!!!!!!!

... and then it transpires the person actually IS deaf.

Enforcement of commands with a weapon - in a non threatening situation - is a GOOD indicator of who to fire from the Police force...

Biff

6th September 2005, 12:18

Using a tazer as oppossed to a gun to subdue a dangerous fkwit makes far more sense to me. Then you can immobilise him and beat the shit out of him, as oppossed to killing him outright.

spudchucka

6th September 2005, 12:36

He had no comment on the fact that nearly all of our shootings have been by GD cops. The Armed Offenders squad has shot few, if any. A pointer to the lack of training GD cops receive.

Completely missleading nonsense. General duties cops are the first responders to absolutely everything. They are the ones that find themselves in situations where some thing is happening that somebody has to do something about NOW. Most of the incidents where the armed offenders get rolled out are ones where dangerous offenders have gone to ground, not ones where the offender is actively endangering life in public spaces. To spout crap like this without analysing the context of the situations is missleading and utterly pointless.

Then there was overseas footage of people being tazered, not to protect the cops, but to make them comply with orders. Such as a woman being zapped because she wouldn't get out of her car.

Again, what is the context? Was she behaving in a manner that caused the police to believe that she was or may have been a serious threat? Why didn't she get out of the car after repeatedly being instructed to do so? When a person is failing to comply with lawfull instructions it is reasonable for police to take steps to enforce those instructions. Its up to the cop to assess the level of threat and weigh up what is the best tactical option to resolve the incident. The checks and balances are in place to address incidents where excessive force is used.

Comments made by Tony Bouchier, ex-cop, now a lawyer, were also not very encouraging.

There is something about ex police inspectors who become defence lawyers that stinks of a hidden agenda and a personal axe to grind as much as ex traffic officers who constantly berate everything done by the contemporary police service. Just like the so called "expert" witnesses from the Wallace murder trial who Abotts lawyer called the fully paid up members of the dissaffected ex-coppers club.

Unless training and supervision of the Police improves immensely, we will have real problems with Tazers being used indiscriminately.

Just for the benefit of the discussion and so that everybody has an equally clear understanding as you do, please enlighten us all with an explanation of the current training and supervision model employed by the nz police with regards to use of force.

Lou Girardin

6th September 2005, 12:52

madboy

6th September 2005, 12:57

madboy

6th September 2005, 12:58

BTW. When I was in the job, I smashed a Merc's window to extract a recalcitrant driver. Do you think I should have beaten him as well? After all, he didn't obey my instructions.Should always ensure the offender is confined to the cells and/or otherwise incapacitated, and deliver body shots only, they leave the least marks.

Patrick

6th September 2005, 13:02

[QUOTE=vifferman]...almost all the shootings were by 'ordinary' cops whoe presumably couldn't be bothered calling in / waiting for the experts.

Great reading, this topic, but this one I had to respond to...but I take it was said in jest...a bit hard to call in the experts when you've got a scrote in your face straight after arriving to a routine incident, with a weapon, wanting to smash your brains in... What do you do???? Shoot, or say, "hold on a minute mate, lets back up a little and wait for the AOS to come and sort you out??? Don't worry, they will be here in about an hour after thier pagers go off, they drive in to work, kit up and get armed, cover the legal points about shooting/not shooting you, find a patrol vehicle, drive to the location, get into position carefully and cautiously so they don't get shot or become a target themselves..., commence negotiations...please!!!!! Might work in Mills and Boon novels but not in real life...Bloody oath you would call in the experts, if you know what you're getting into...some of these things turn up from nothing...a man smashing windows, a "routine domestic," a noisy stereo, a traffic stop..., anything can go to pus without warning really....The front line ordinary cops are there to sort out the problem now, not later, because they have been called in now, not later...The experts take time to get into place...You might get a few seconds if you're really lucky to decide on what action you take. Whose arse is on the line no matter what? Don't shoot? Maybe end up carried by 6???? Shoot? Probably end up being tried by 12?? No win, really, isn't it? Reality sucks a bit ay? Long live Mills and Boon though...

spudchucka

6th September 2005, 13:10

And thank you Spud. Another eloquent dissertation on why the Police can do nothing wrong and it's all a conspiracy against the poor souls.
Can't hide the facts though.

BTW. When I was in the job, I smashed a Merc's window to extract a recalcitrant driver. Do you think I should have beaten him as well? After all, he didn't obey my instructions.
You're welcome Lou. By the way, I don't believe that the polcie can do no wrong. Its more a case of the polcie can do no right in your eyes.

The so called journalist that fronted the show is very adept at concealing the facts or doing a Awatere-Huata by being economical with the truth.

I'd be inclined to smash the window, spray the naughty driver and then extract them from the vehicle, saves having to get into a scrap on the road side, which is much less untidy and results in fewer injuries to offender and cop.

Wolf

6th September 2005, 13:21

Again, what is the context? Was she behaving in a manner that caused the police to believe that she was or may have been a serious threat? Why didn't she get out of the car after repeatedly being instructed to do so? When a person is failing to comply with lawfull instructions it is reasonable for police to take steps to enforce those instructions. Its up to the cop to assess the level of threat and weigh up what is the best tactical option to resolve the incident.
I agree. We must acknowledge that the case was in the USA where a large chunk of the population is legally allowed to carry a firearm in some States and that there is also a lot of people carrying weapons illegally. Cops over there have been shot approaching cars because there are some wastes of oxygen who think that the attempted murder of a police officer is preferable to a speeding ticket (or perhaps they've got a kilo of speed in the boot they don't want the cops to find.)

The US cops have a strict policy of how they handle a situation when a person is in a car - varies from place to place from what I have seen on news/docos, but is usually a variation on the theme of "keep your hands visible, do not attempt to get out of the car until instructed to do so and when it is instructed, comply immediately." Any deviation from this script could mean the person is preparing to go for a weapon. The last thing a cop wants is to approach a car to discover that the person has used the cover afforded by the car to extract a pistol from any number of convenient hiding places in that car and is now filling the cop full of high-speed lead projectiles.

For all they know the person in the car is a fugitive who's made it into their area and has reason to discourage a close inspection by that pesky cop. Or maybe the driver's drugged up to the eyeballs and not thinking straight. Cops die over there for the "crime" of being careless, who can blame them for being sticklers for potentially lifesaving procedures.

Much and all as I hate to agree with LiasTZ ( :devil2: ), if someone is stupid/oblivious enough not to heed clear instructions from a police officer who has given clear warnings, then they deserve to be zapped. Prior to the advent of tasers, the person in the car may well have been shot.

Yeah, a person was hit with a weapon considered a non-lethal alternative to a firearm - better than the cop saying "she'll be right" and getting into range of someone planning to catch them by surprise with a lethal weapon.

Frankly, I would not want to approach a car in the USA knowing that the occupant is likely to be a) pissed off and b) armed. I, too, would want to ensure I had means of protecting myself and that the person did not do anything in the least suspicious. FFS, that woman lives there, she should know what to expect when pulled over by a cop.

I personally know someone in the States who brandished a firearm at another driver who cut her off on the freeway - and she's a kitten compared with some of these buggers. She's a nominally "law-abiding" citizen (modulo waving firearms at people when lethal force is not warranted), she's not a wanted felon with every reason not to get caught and she was not averse to threatening with a weapon.

*sic

6th September 2005, 14:12

im all for it.

police need more non lethal methods to call on.

explaining each use of the tazer will no doubt be mandatory as they are one shot weapons.

harsh words from police unfortunatly dont always come with the desired effect. so they need something that can pack a punch to stop even the most unruly opposition.

pepper spray sucks when your hit..

getting a batton to the head not nice.

getting shot... all bad.

getting tazed yea it will suck but you only get 2+ holes in ya from the barb entry points. but it comes with the disabling effect that is required for some Nutters that with 4-5 cops on them will still be very dificult to restrain

Lou Girardin

6th September 2005, 14:16

You're welcome Lou. By the way, I don't believe that the polcie can do no wrong. Its more a case of the polcie can do no right in your eyes.

The so called journalist that fronted the show is very adept at concealing the facts or doing a Awatere-Huata by being economical with the truth.

I'd be inclined to smash the window, spray the naughty driver and then extract them from the vehicle, saves having to get into a scrap on the road side, which is much less untidy and results in fewer injuries to offender and cop.

Well there you go, and I managed to arrest him without punching, spraying or beating.
But then I was trained by experienced cops who thought talking someone into co-operation was more effective than fighting.

vifferman

6th September 2005, 14:46

Great reading, this topic, but this one I had to respond to...but I take it was said in jest...a bit hard to call in the experts when you've got a scrote in your face straight after arriving to a routine incident, with a weapon, wanting to smash your brains in... What do you do???? Shoot, or say, "hold on a minute mate, lets back up a little and wait for the AOS to come and sort you out??? etc. etc. blah blah blah {no offense intended}...
Well, if you want to know, I was just parroting what was said on 20/60 last night. I never think things through thoroughly and thoughtfully, as I'm shallow and impressionable.
I have an opinion, but I'm not sure if it's my own:
I think it would be a shame if NZ became like the US. I found it objectionable 'gangs' of cops gathering around single 'perpetrators', shouting at them (which would be bloody confusing), then tazering them when they didn't instantly comply. What if the person was just Joe Public, innocent of whatever the police thought he/she had done, and was not happy with being treated like this and was so to comply? What if they were (like me) an eejit?
Yes, I know that it's the blardy P-heads and other baddies who are helping to feck up our country, necessitating 'more stringent measures', and the police need all the resources available to do their jobs, understaffed as they are. But (however) it will be a sad day when NZ is no different from Fortress Murka, with armed police sheltering behind car doors, screaming at 'perps' then tazering them in case they have a concealed weapon (or congealed brain). I am old enough to remember when virtually no cops had guns, and if we had one murder a year it was major news.

Oh - there was a question in there.
OK - I'm a cop (heaven help us!), there's a scrote in my face, with a weapon, etc etc. I dunno! Give him a jolly good truncheoning? Tazer his sorry arse? Permanently remove him from the gene pool? I dunno.
That's why I'm not a cop.

vifferman

6th September 2005, 14:49

Well there you go, and I managed to arrest him without punching, spraying or beating.
But then I was trained by experienced cops who thought talking someone into co-operation was more effective than fighting.
To be fair, Lou - there probably wasn't a problem with P-baddies then, was there?

Ixion

6th September 2005, 15:59

Yeah the problem I have with that is the old "are you DEAF??" ZZZZAPPPP!!!!!!!

... and then it transpires the person actually IS deaf.

Enforcement of commands with a weapon - in a non threatening situation - is a GOOD indicator of who to fire from the Police force...

Yes. I was at a function today with a lot of deaf people. Very nice people, except they can't hear anything. I wouldn't like them to get tased (and I think it needs to be pointed out that the taser can be very lethal for someone with a bad heart).

And even non deaf people may not understand. They may be in shock, after an accident. They may be bewildered by what is going on. A normal law abiding citizen who accidentally gets caught up in a crime scene can find the whole thing totally confusing. And a common (and logical) response to such confusion is to stay still and not move.

And police (in my obervation) are often very unclear in their commands. They're not as bad as airport PA announcements, but up there with it.

The justification for tasers is always put forward in a context where a police officer (or someone else) is being threatened. But will that be the reality of where they are actually used? I doubt it. I remember seeing the police Red Squad moving in on demonstrators years ago. It was not nice at all.

Lou Girardin

6th September 2005, 16:11

To be fair, Lou - there probably wasn't a problem with P-baddies then, was there?

Contrary to the impression the media give, not everyone uses speed and not everyone that does becomes a homicidal raving berserker.
And the woman tazered on the show was not resisting, just not complying.
I did have to subdue some 'clients' but they were relatively rare.

vifferman

6th September 2005, 16:24

If you're a law-abiding citizen, are doing nothing untoward, but are 'apprehended' by the constabulary, is it not likely that you might feel justifiably annoyed at being stopped and being treated like a criminal? And is it not rather likely that you would remonstrate with the police and attempt to explain your innocence, rather than blindly obey instructions you would (quite reasonably) feel should not be issued to you?

This is just the sort of situation where policemens might go, "Ello, ello - this fucker's not hobeying my lawful hinstructions. I think I might give 'im a bit of a tickle up with my taser!"

It's also not unlikely that knowing that they're equipped with electrical (and other) inducements, police may be less inclined towards patience and more inclined to treating even justifiably outraged non-miscreants as 'scum worthy of having their ideas bucked up'.

spudchucka

6th September 2005, 17:11

Well there you go, and I managed to arrest him without punching, spraying or beating.
But then I was trained by experienced cops who thought talking someone into co-operation was more effective than fighting.
Hey, you're the MAN! Why did you quit if you were such a legend?

Why don't you rejoin and train us yobs how to do it the Lou way?

scumdog

6th September 2005, 17:18

Far too much 'Chicken-Licken' shit here. "Oh my, the sky is falling"

Don't need tazers, guns, batons, pepper spray, - all you need is really well trained cops that know/do everything and do it right - every time!!! (Yeah Right!!!)

Then all you need is to all offenders also appropriately trained and everybody will be happy!! ta-da, end of problem. :wait:

spudchucka

6th September 2005, 17:20

And the woman tazered on the show was not resisting, just not complying.And that incident was in America, which is 100% totally relevant to the New Zealand situation. Yeah right.

I did have to subdue some 'clients' but they were relatively rare.Talked to them huh?

spudchucka

6th September 2005, 17:29

This is just the sort of situation where policemens might go, "Ello, ello - this fucker's not hobeying my lawful hinstructions. I think I might give 'im a bit of a tickle up with my taser!"
For it to get to that stage there would have to be a considerable level of resistance beyond simply ignoring instructions to get out of a vehicle or something like that. If it got to the point that force was necessary to ensure compliance there would have to have been very clear warnings issued prior to the application of force.

Traffic stops can be highly unpredictable incidents. I've had people dig their toes in and refuse to give their name, address etc, which is required under section 114 of the Land Transport Act. They then put themselves in a position where they may be arrested. Once arrest is justified force can be used to affect the arrest if necessary. The level of force required is largely up to the person resisting.

Surely its better for motorists to be aware of their obligations as road users, not get indignant about being stopped legitimately and simply comply with lawful instructions.

Patrick

6th September 2005, 17:47

[QUOTE=vifferman]I think it would be a shame if NZ became like the US. I found it objectionable 'gangs' of cops gathering around single 'perpetrators', shouting at them (which would be bloody confusing), then tazering them when they didn't instantly comply. What if the person was just Joe Public, innocent of whatever the police thought he/she had done, and was not happy with being treated like this and was so to comply?

Good call. I missed the programme itself, but if it gets like USA, last one out turn off the lights, there would be many that would leave...

I have never had to wrestle/baton/spray/handcuff/arrest any "innocent" in 20 years. You can talk to the innocent, they are bloody good to have a yarn with, because they have nothing to hide or worry about...you sure won't taze them! (Or go ourt of your way to piss them off!!!???...

Patrick

6th September 2005, 17:49

Once arrest is justified force can be used to affect the arrest if necessary. The level of force required is largely up to the person resisting.

Sums it up really...inncoents don't get to that stage!

Ixion

6th September 2005, 18:01

Sums it up really...inncoents don't get to that stage!

Hmm. I remember some clowns who would have disagreed with that in 1981

Monsterbishi

6th September 2005, 18:21

Want to see something fun, build your own tazer circuit, it's easy enough to use a few watch cells and it can all easily fit into a table tennis ball... ever seen someone try to catch 100,000V :-)

Pixie

6th September 2005, 23:52

She's so busy screaming and thrashing around she doesn't comply with his request to put her hands out so she can be handcuffed, so he zaps her again.
.
I saw the clip...the jiggling became quite hypnotic

Pixie

7th September 2005, 00:10

We have to think about the weapons we are giving to people who may be described as having dubious morality and intelligence.
I'm refering to the news tonight of the police recruit being sprung as a rapist of a prostitute.
His lack of morals go without saying.
Getting fingerprinted shows his intelligence.
The senior cop said he was someone the police would prefer not to have in their ranks
WTF!!! prefer not to have!!!
I suppose it makes a change catching a sex criminal before he gets into the police

Indoo

7th September 2005, 00:45

Pixie go get some advice from Lou, that was the most blatant troll I have ever seen.

If you want someone to rise to the bait at least you have to make it at least remotely tempting, that pathetic attempt just insults your own intelligence.

Seriously please ask him for some help, I hate seeing you look like his downs syndrome twin.

Lou Girardin

7th September 2005, 08:31

This started as a thread on Tazers and has ended in 'stop picking on the poor cops'.
Look at your public standing guys and get your heads out of the sand.
Your profession has been terribly served by the people who are being promoted to senior rank. That clown Beckett on the report about the rapist recruit is just the latest of many dumb comments.
Like the continual refrain that speed was the cause of these boy racer accidents. Stupidity is the cause, speed was a factor.
If you want to get back public respect it's going to have to be driven by ordinary cops, your bosses don't have the balls to face the Government.

scumdog

7th September 2005, 09:03

spudchucka

7th September 2005, 09:23

Look at your public standing guys and get your heads out of the sand.
The 2002 survey showed 76% had either "full" or "quite a lot" of trust and confidence in the police. Only 5% had little or no trust and confidence. See attached graph.

This has remained reasonably constant between 1997 & 2002. Unfortunately a quick search hasn't come up with any recent relevant survey results. If Lou wants to post something "relevant" that is to the contrary he should go ahead.

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

% % % % % %
Satisfied/Very satisfied 77 80 74 74 77 72
Neutral 10 9 11 14 10 11
Dissatisfied/Very dissatisfied 13 10 13 12 13 17

On the face of these figures I would say that the situation is not as dire as dear old Lou would have people believe.

Wolf

7th September 2005, 09:59

The senior cop said he was someone the police would prefer not to have in their ranks
WTF!!! prefer not to have!!!
That's PC for you - back in the day he could have said "We don't want scum like that in our ranks" but these days the PC brigade would have his arse in a sling for calling the poor underprivileged, misunderstood, broken-homed "differently-sexual" person "scum", so he's got to phrase it "diplomatically".

spudchucka

7th September 2005, 10:03

But when you look at it objectively like you have it negates an opportunity to score some cheap points against the filth. Hence Lou and pixie are incapable of removing their FTP googles for long enough to see what you have.

Wolf

7th September 2005, 10:31

Lias

7th September 2005, 11:17

Hmm. I remember some clowns who would have disagreed with that in 1981
If you genuinely believe the springbok protesters were innocent, you are looking through some seriously rose tinted glasses.

Some probably were innocent, and trying to peacefully protest, but there were definitly segments of the protestors that were there to cause trouble, and were willing to use violence. Lets not forget the destruction of the fences at rugby park, the flour bombing plane, and the ones who tried to use physical force to stop people attending the games.

Lets not forget that even the "innocent" protesters were still breaching the law with regards to unlawful assembly & breach of the peace. The riot squads were fully justified in using force to disperse the crowd. I personally believe that for the most part the cops were pretty restrained in their use of force. Hell lets face it I'm not the greatest fan of law enforcement, but if i'd been in their shoes i'd have kicked the everloving snot out of those protestors.

Patrick

7th September 2005, 11:30

If you genuinely believe the springbok protesters were innocent, you are looking through some seriously rose tinted glasses.

Some probably were innocent, and trying to peacefully protest, but there were definitly segments of the protestors that were there to cause trouble, and were willing to use violence. Lets not forget the destruction of the fences at rugby park, the flour bombing plane, and the ones who tried to use physical force to stop people attending the games. etc...well said too by the way...

There were protesters there with shields that had nails and razor blades sticking out of them...And the firefudge that was thrown??? (Firefudge is a phosphorous fire...water can't put it out, just scrape it off as quick as poss and treat the burns is all you can do...peaceful protest???? Yeah, right... As for the Clowns, what part of "Move" didn't they understand???

Lou Girardin

7th September 2005, 13:04

The 2002 survey showed 76% had either "full" or "quite a lot" of trust and confidence in the police. Only 5% had little or no trust and confidence. See attached graph.

This has remained reasonably constant between 1997 & 2002. Unfortunately a quick search hasn't come up with any recent relevant survey results. If Lou wants to post something "relevant" that is to the contrary he should go ahead.

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

% % % % % %
Satisfied/Very satisfied 77 80 74 74 77 72
Neutral 10 9 11 14 10 11
Dissatisfied/Very dissatisfied 13 10 13 12 13 17

On the face of these figures I would say that the situation is not as dire as dear old Lou would have people believe.

53% approval last year. get up to date Spud

Lou Girardin

7th September 2005, 13:17

If you genuinely believe the springbok protesters were innocent, you are looking through some seriously rose tinted glasses.
.

Ixion was referring to the clowns, they were non-violent, non-threatening, yet still were beaten to a pulp with PR24's.
It was caught on film too.

Lias

7th September 2005, 13:29

Ixion was referring to the clowns, they were non-violent, non-threatening, yet still were beaten to a pulp with PR24's.
It was caught on film too.

Still unlawful assembly at a bare minimum.
That combined with the fact that other groups of protesters WERE definitly violent and threatening gave the police all the justification they need, and IMHO rightly so.

Dont want to get bashed? then dont attend protests like that. To use a military terminology "they put themselves in harms way".

Lou Girardin

7th September 2005, 14:43

Wolf

7th September 2005, 15:21

I guess they were no better than animals.
What a brilliant non-sequitur.

Ixion

7th September 2005, 17:47

Still unlawful assembly at a bare minimum.
That combined with the fact that other groups of protesters WERE definitly violent and threatening gave the police all the justification they need, and IMHO rightly so.

Dont want to get bashed? then dont attend protests like that. To use a military terminology "they put themselves in harms way".

You do not accept, then, that there should be any right to peacful protest in a democracy ? And that merely attending a protest (any protest?) is sufficent justification for a bashing by the police ? And in what way was the assembly unlawful?

The main reason that we, as a country, enjoy such freedoms and liberties that we do (and few enough of them are left nowdays) , is because our ancestors were willing to "put themselves in harms way". On battlefields, in protests. The day that people stop "putting themselves in harms way" then tyranny and despotism have won.

(FTR, I wasn't there , because I didn't really agree with the protesters position. But I will always support their right to protest)

scumdog

7th September 2005, 18:01

What a brilliant non-sequitur.

Ha! Now you're going to have to explain what a 'non-sequitur' IS!!!!

(But not to moi!)

Skyryder

7th September 2005, 18:37

spudchucka

7th September 2005, 20:24

53% approval last year. get up to date Spud
Where? Show me some facts.

Was it an actual public confidence survey or are you just quoting the moral panic surveys done after the 111 nonsense?

Edit:
Oh, there it is, the NBR survey.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10121798

I'm sure that was a totally objective poll. The headline attached
Confidence in force falls as controversies take toll to the Heralds report says a lot about the timing of the survey, which no doubt would have had a major effect on the reults. It wouldn't be anywhere near as interesting to poll people during times of plain sailing.

scumdog

7th September 2005, 20:44

Providing the officer feels that they are in some kind of danger, then not a problem. However the incidents that I saw on tv where one guy was tazored and had his arms up in the air and the other a woman on a cell phone that refused to move was in my view unnessary. If the police here are going down that road then they will lose my support very quickly.

I suspect that at the end of the day after the shift many will no doubt take great delight in reminiscing the pain that they have inflicted, to the delight of their mates.

Skyryder

Listen Cheeze-dick, Next time I am 'socialising' with Dangerous and co. I WILL explain to you the psychology of Police thoughts and actions - and it sure as hell differs a whole lot from your ideas which is out of this planet as far as realism goes!!

If I wasn't so tollerant things would be different.

NZ is NOT the USA - or else you would be paying for your comments.

7th September 2005, 20:54

Lou Girardin

8th September 2005, 09:14

Where? Show me some facts.

Was it an actual public confidence survey or are you just quoting the moral panic surveys done after the 111 nonsense?

Edit:
Oh, there it is, the NBR survey.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10121798

I'm sure that was a totally objective poll. The headline attached to the Heralds report says a lot about the timing of the survey, which no doubt would have had a major effect on the reults. It wouldn't be anywhere near as interesting to poll people during times of plain sailing.

Of course it's not accurate. It says things you don't like.
BTW You can't get more conservative than the NBR.
BBTW That 111 nonsense cost one girl her life and nearly cost Peter Bentley his. But what the hell, we must support you guys in all you do. Right?

Patrick

8th September 2005, 09:42

BTW That 111 nonsense cost one girl her life and nearly cost Peter Bentley his. But what the hell, we must support you guys in all you do. Right?

Wrong... the newspapers make sure that those who are uninformed don't do that with their clear slant on things that make the story sound better...we all have probably complained about the 111 problem and call centres for years too...

Wolf

8th September 2005, 11:51

I take it you haven't seen the whole tape of that lady getting tazered?Obviously you haven't by your comments.

Here's the link (http://www.nearlygood.com/video/ladytazer.html)
Poor innocent doing-55mph-in-a-35mph-zone-in-defective-car-with-no-seat-belt-or-licence woman. My, how she was victimised by that evil policeman who had absolutely no right to pull her over, ask for her (revoked) licence and arrest her. The fucking bastard only gave her three clear warnings to "get out or she would be tased" and he totally ignored her saying "I'm not gonna" - fucking pig - evil bastard should have let her continue speeding up the road in an unsafe vehicle after the courts had decided that she wasn't fit to hold a licence for some reason. The evilness and power-tripping of that policeman was just so bad, wasn't it...

:lou: Bugger - sarcasm smilie doesn't work yet.

Seriously: The way she keeps on "crying" (very fake) ages after the second zap has worn off (hey, I've taken a couple of solid jolts from a bull fence straight into two nerve clusters (armpits - never try to rest your arms on a bull fence) and I was right as rain within a couple of seconds of disentangling myself - despite feeling at the time of the jolts like a team of martial artists had practised "synchonised striking" on several parts of my body) and the cop says "It's done with, we've been tased ourselves and we know the effects."

The woman was not "engrossed in a phone call and oblivious to what the officer was saying" as has been suggested on this thread, she was actively refusing to comply, she had refused pretty much every lawful instruction she was given (understandable why she was refusing to hand over her licence and papers - she knew full well she was going to be arrested once they learned her licence had been revoked) and she was giving them shit.

Back in the days before OC (Oleoresin Capsicum a.k.a. pepper) spray and tasers, that cop would probably have drawn a firearm and ordered her to leave the car. These days they have a less than lethal option. I note he attempted to remove her from the car and she kicked up a fuss so he backed off and drew his taser. She also allegedly took a swing at one of the cops but of course we couldn't see that through the body of the car [so obviously the cop was lying to look good in front of the camera, coz after all he's a pig and they do that shit for the power and she's such a sweet, innocent pleasant woman, really - yeah, right].

But what was he supposed to do, stand there all day arguing with her about whether she is going to get out of the car? Or maybe forcibly drag her from the car, twist her arm up her back and slam her into the pavement - I mean, that doesn't use weapons, right, so it's OK, right? Or maybe draw the firearm he was carrying on his belt and threaten her with it - screw the fact that there's no obvious call for lethal force, show her the gun and let her know he's serious... Or maybe he could've used a night stick - not lethal unless he breaks something really vital, and who cares if she gets a broken arm in the process.

Bollocks. I'm not saying that being tased is a "soft option" - from the rather real screams (as opposed to the histrionics afterwards) she emitted while being tased, I would gather it's not fun (as you would expect from a weapon designed to incapacitate) But it is a better option than many. It has risks, as they all do.

The cops, before they are allowed to use OC and tasers, must first be subjected to them so they know precisely what level of discomfort they are inflicting upon their targets. AFAIK, there has never been an official policy that cops be shot in the chest with a .38 at close range in order that they may better comprehend the level of force at their fingertips.

AFAIK, our own police have the same requirement on use of OC spray - you don't get issued it until you've experienced it - and I'll bet the same will apply to Tasers.

Patrick

8th September 2005, 12:06

....(well put, by the way...I take Tui is a favourite drop???) lol......

The cops, before they are allowed to use OC and tasers, must first be subjected to them so they know precisely what level of discomfort they are inflicting upon their targets. AFAIK, there has never been an official policy that cops be shot in the chest with a .38 at close range in order that they may better comprehend the level of force at their fingertips.

LO even L!!!!! You should be our spokesman... our own police have the same requirement on use of OC spray - you don't get issued it until you've experienced it - and I'll bet the same will apply to Tasers.

Mostly right here...only some tried it (brave or stupid...jury is still out on that one...) but everyone got to see the outcome...responses varied from 1. "Fuck, I died, who revived me.." 2. "Is that my puke???" 3. "ouch, that hurts a bit" and the worst one after getting a full can in the face...4. "Is that water? Wheres the OC spray..(it was the real stuff... it doesn't effect everyone...and for those it doesn't effect, they don't come with a sign advertising that fact...Spray isn't the be all and end all...funniest one though was the Gang Banger who got sprayed, had no effect, and when finally back at the station, went for a piss...he had the stuff on his hands by then after wiping it...he suddenly became not so tough when his meat and two veg was on fire...still get a good laugh out of that one...forget the eyes, go for the knob...

spudchucka

8th September 2005, 12:53

AFAIK, our own police have the same requirement on use of OC spray - you don't get issued it until you've experienced it - and I'll bet the same will apply to Tasers.
Not exactly. Recruits get the option of experiencing it, it isn't compulsary though. There are usually three or four that will put there hands up and take a dose and then their mates have to help them with after care. Most cops would have experienced it to some degree though, you can't deploy the stuff in a confined space without inhaling some and there is always the risk of blow-back in an outdoors situation. One of the funniest things I've ever seen was a cop with his head out the passenger side window like a dog because he'd been sprayed accidentally and needed the cool air blowing on his face.

Good write up on that crazy seppo woman too by the way.

Wolf

8th September 2005, 13:00

...the Gang Banger who got sprayed, had no effect, and when finally back at the station, went for a piss...he had the stuff on his hands by then after wiping it...he suddenly became not so tough when his meat and two veg was on fire...
I am a wicked person and Amnesty International should refuse donations from me. I laughed hard at that one.

Call me brave or stupid, but I would actually be willing to be sprayed and tased (under controlled conditions) so I may better understand what the effects are - not willing to go through all the rigamarole of training to be a cop or act like an aggro dick in front of cops just to get the opportunity, tho'.

Strangely, I'd not be willing to experienced being shot with a 9mm in the CoM at close range, though (a foolish mishap involving a partly charged CO2 airpistol and the palm of my hand at close range felt bad enough) - not even with a certified Level III balistic vest on.

spudchucka

8th September 2005, 13:02

BTW You can't get more conservative than the NBR.

The NBR poll is more about headlines to create controversy in order to sell their rag than it is about anything else.

Its obvious public confidence has slipped but I don't belive it is as bad as you make out. I base that comment on the responses that I receive from the public every single day, not on some survey.

And as Patrick has pointed out in this thread, cops have been critiscising the 111 call taking and despatch system for a hell of a lot longer than you would realise. The only difference is that we believed it would take the death of a cop resulting from the systemic failures before anything would be done, instead it took the dissapearance of the Asher girl before it got the overhaul it required.

Wolf

8th September 2005, 13:10

And as Patrick has pointed out in this thread, cops have been critiscising the 111 call taking and despatch system for a hell of a lot longer than you would realise.
You have made that point yourself in previous FTP threads on this forum, yet the FAWOMFT of "the 111 system is the cops' fault" persists. **Puzzled**

Ixion

8th September 2005, 13:20

Once upon a time I spent several years working quite a bit with oleo resin of capsaicin. (8-methyl-N-vanillyl-6-nonenamide for any chemists here) . Very nasty stuff.

Had to do the full monty hazardous drill, only handled in a pressurised room, full suit, external air supply to hood and mask. Gloves boots etc.

Immediate transfer to hospital in the event of contact.

Very nasty. It can certainly be lethal, induces respiratory collapse. Unlikely in a fit healthy youing male, but definately possible with elderly, very young, or respiratory impaired persons.

Anyone who volunteers to be exposed to the stuff is an idiot.

Paul in NZ

8th September 2005, 13:22

Just as long as people realise (and I've said this before)...

Just as not all shootings with leathal weapons are fatal, not all zappings with non-leathal weapons are NON fatal.

Tazers and spray etc can be deadly in certain circumstances. Just like a good whacking with a baton can easily kill someone...

Its sad enough that we even need a police force in the first place and sadder still that we need to ramp up their armaments. I'm all for the Police protecting themselves but also I'd rather someone spend a bit of time trying to sort out the social issues that require our police to need these things.

Patrick

8th September 2005, 13:34

You have made that point yourself in previous FTP threads on this forum, yet the FAWOMFT of "the 111 system is the cops' fault" persists. **Puzzled**

Missed the earlier comments but... many in the call centres aren't even cops anymore, but generally, they do a bloody great job (yeah, the taxi thing was a major, doesn't get much worse really.....and the farmer incident, ringing the nieghbour to help was a dodgy call...neighbour arrives or confronts them as they leave and gets shot too???...)

"Is the cops fault"...?????? The majority in Control Rooms used to be cops...blame the new minority? Or perhaps it is the 3 (yes, only three) call centres for the entire country...(used to have one in each major city...and it worked...don't recall any taxis ever being sent...)

Lessons always to be learned...who or what is perfect? Shania TWAIN would be close in my books though...damn...!!! (but that is another thread...)

Lou Girardin

8th September 2005, 13:54

The NBR poll is more about headlines to create controversy in order to sell their rag than it is about anything else.

Its obvious public confidence has slipped but I don't belive it is as bad as you make out. I base that comment on the responses that I receive from the public every single day, not on some survey.

It's not as bad as I make out, it's as bad as everybody, but the ostriches, believe.
As for media bias, don't they always seem to be biased when they print something one doesn't agree with. As The Herald showed on Tuesday when they printed letters from National and Labour supporters both accusing them of bias towards the other party.

Wolf

8th September 2005, 14:19

As The Herald showed on Tuesday when they printed letters from National and Labour supporters both accusing them of bias towards the other party.
Hah, absolute insanity, as we all know they're biased towards MacGillicuddy Serious Party... :devil2:

Lou Girardin

8th September 2005, 14:28

Hah, absolute insanity, as we all know they're biased towards MacGillicuddy Serious Party... :devil2:

I really miss them, Winnie is a pale imitation.

Wolf

8th September 2005, 14:29

I really miss them, Winnie is a pale imitation.
Some days he can be funnier than them :devil2:

spudchucka

8th September 2005, 15:03

As for media bias, don't they always seem to be biased when they print something one doesn't agree with.
I'm not talking about media bias. I'm suggesting that that particular poll was conducted at a time, following a number of very high profile controversies, that ensured the poll results showed a dramatic drop in confidence. The results are a good indication of the publics gulability towards media hype and the level of editorial instict of the NBR to spot a commercial opportunity.

spudchucka

8th September 2005, 15:09

Just as not all shootings with leathal weapons are fatal, not all zappings with non-leathal weapons are NON fatal.

Tazers and spray etc can be deadly in certain circumstances. Just like a good whacking with a baton can easily kill someone...
Any use of force is potentially lethal. A push in the chest could cause a person to fall and crack their skull, a punch to the head could cause a hemorage etc etc.

spudchucka

8th September 2005, 15:11

spudchucka

8th September 2005, 15:12

You have made that point yourself in previous FTP threads on this forum, yet the FAWOMFT of "the 111 system is the cops' fault" persists. **Puzzled**
FAWOMFT ???

WTF does that mean???

Lou Girardin

8th September 2005, 15:14

I'm not talking about media bias. I'm suggesting that that particular poll was conducted at a time, following a number of very high profile controversies, that ensured the poll results showed a dramatic drop in confidence. The results are a good indication of the publics gulability towards media hype and the level of editorial instict of the NBR to spot a commercial opportunity.

Then how would you pick a time when there ISN'T a controversy?
This weeks effort is a rapist recruit and DNA tests for newbie coppers.

spudchucka

8th September 2005, 15:25

Then how would you pick a time when there ISN'T a controversy?
This weeks effort is a rapist recruit and DNA tests for newbie coppers.
The difference is the NBR has gone, "Hey, controversy, lets have a poll". They surveyed about 500 people only. Previous public satisfaction surveys have polled three times that sample. A responsible agency would choose to poll at another time because the current climate, (the one at the time of the NBR poll) would lead to the results being a forgone conclusion.

Why can't you see anything positive out of the recruit story? They have 1) solved a 2 year old sex crime and 2) taken a potentially corupt cop out of the ranks before he can cause any damage. The new measures of fingerprinting recruits prior to attending the college and taken DNA off them, (I hadn't actually heard of that before) are both positive and proactive measures to ensure the integrity of the police.

Instead of viewing these measures as taking positive steps to improve the integrity and image of the police you choose to look on it as just another controversy. Take the FTP googles off for once in your life.

Wolf

8th September 2005, 15:43

FAWOMFT ???

WTF does that mean???
Usenet/IRC shorthand for "Frequently Argued Waste Of My Fucking Time".

Anything that has been done to death many times but keeps being resurrected (despite being previously beheaded, staked through the heart and buried in an unmarked grave by a crossroads at midnight with a side-order of garlic and Holy Wafers).

Surprised the term is not well known here... :devil2:

Lou Girardin

8th September 2005, 16:10

Do you actually know the time frame of the survey, they can't conduct them instantly. There would have been pre-planning for it. You're making the same assumptions that you bag others for.
If it's true that there was a warrant issued for that recruit at the time of the offence, then it's hardly a positive circumstance that he got that far into training, is it?
Besides I don't really give a fat rats about that, it was the ridiculous comment from Beckett that really annoyed me. "Prefer not to have him" indeed.

Indoo

8th September 2005, 16:21

If it's true that there was a warrant issued for that recruit at the time of the offence, then it's hardly a positive circumstance that he got that far into training, is it?

Where did you read about the warrant? I understood that there was an attack on a street worker and Police gained fingerprints at the scene but couldn't match them to anyone as the offender obviously hadn't been fingerprinted before.

When his fingerprints were taken at college they were entered onto the system and obviously were matched to the crime.

There are tests and interviews a recruit goes through but really unless the guy is rather thick hes hardly going to admit to an attack 2 years ago.

Besides I don't really give a fat rats about that, it was the ridiculous comment from Beckett that really annoyed me. "Prefer not to have him" indeed.

Understatement of the year but given the guy hasn't been convicted of anything he can hardly call for him to be drawn and quartered.

Skyryder

8th September 2005, 19:59

If you genuinely believe the springbok protesters were innocent, you are looking through some seriously rose tinted glasses.

Some probably were innocent, and trying to peacefully protest, but there were definitly segments of the protestors that were there to cause trouble, and were willing to use violence. Lets not forget the destruction of the fences at rugby park, the flour bombing plane, and the ones who tried to use physical force to stop people attending the games.

Lets not forget that even the "innocent" protesters were still breaching the law with regards to unlawful assembly & breach of the peace. The riot squads were fully justified in using force to disperse the crowd. I personally believe that for the most part the cops were pretty restrained in their use of force. Hell lets face it I'm not the greatest fan of law enforcement, but if i'd been in their shoes i'd have kicked the everloving snot out of those protestors.

I saw more violence from the pro tour faction. Don't ever recall the police taking any action agaist them. The Redsquad was just that Rednecks with a uniform and the authority to use violence once unleashed by their masters.

Skyryder

spudchucka

8th September 2005, 21:04

Usenet/IRC shorthand for "Frequently Argued Waste Of My Fucking Time".
Never truer words spoken, thanks for that.

spudchucka

8th September 2005, 21:11

Besides I don't really give a fat rats about that, it was the ridiculous comment from Beckett that really annoyed me. "Prefer not to have him" indeed.
For christs sake get over it Lou. Show me a official from any Govt agency that doesn't talk PC shit like that to the media.

I don't know anything about the details of the case of the recruits offending and I'm not about to talk about details because it is all before the courts now. However I do concede that if he had been a suspect for the offence at the time then it is very dissapointing that he made it through the recruitment vetting process.

Storm

8th September 2005, 21:18

Usenet/IRC shorthand for "Frequently Argued Waste Of My Fucking Time".

Anything that has been done to death many times but keeps being resurrected (despite being previously beheaded, staked through the heart and buried in an unmarked grave by a crossroads at midnight with a side-order of garlic and Holy Wafers).

Surprised the term is not well known here... :devil2:

It will be, oh yes, it will be *sighs and shakes head dejectedly*

trev

8th September 2005, 21:50

Anyhow back to the Tazers.

I've got my helmet on to deal with the pepper spray , will the leather / cordura jacket stop the prongs ??

Skyryder

8th September 2005, 21:58

Listen Cheeze-dick, Next time I am 'socialising' with Dangerous and co. I WILL explain to you the psychology of Police thoughts and actions - and it sure as hell differs a whole lot from your ideas which is out of this planet as far as realism goes!!

If I wasn't so tollerant things would be different.

NZ is NOT the USA - or else you would be paying for your comments.

Cheeze-dick?? Oh come on Scum is that the best that you can come up with a bit of name calling? And what's with this "If I wasn't so tollerant things would be different? Some kind of veiled threat. O for fucks sake Scum and you accuse me of being a 'dick?

And what's this psychology of police thoughts and actions? You expect me to believe that the boys don't swap stories at the end of the shift? I'm a bloke Scumdog, have been all my life. I know the macho culture of our sex when the boys get together with or without booze.

I'll look forward to some socialising with you via Dangerouse and co. I like to travel light with these guys. Suggest that you do the same leave all your baggage at home. There's no place for it out on the road.

Skyryder

Skyryder

8th September 2005, 22:23

Poor innocent doing-55mph-in-a-35mph-zone-in-defective-car-with-no-seat-belt-or-licence woman. My, how she was victimised by that evil policeman who had absolutely no right to pull her over, ask for her (revoked) licence and arrest her. The fucking bastard only gave her three clear warnings to "get out or she would be tased" and he totally ignored her saying "I'm not gonna" - fucking pig - evil bastard should have let her continue speeding up the road in an unsafe vehicle after the courts had decided that she wasn't fit to hold a licence for some reason. The evilness and power-tripping of that policeman was just so bad, wasn't it...

:lou: Bugger - sarcasm smilie doesn't work yet.

Seriously: The way she keeps on "crying" (very fake) ages after the second zap has worn off (hey, I've taken a couple of solid jolts from a bull fence straight into two nerve clusters (armpits - never try to rest your arms on a bull fence) and I was right as rain within a couple of seconds of disentangling myself - despite feeling at the time of the jolts like a team of martial artists had practised "synchonised striking" on several parts of my body) and the cop says "It's done with, we've been tased ourselves and we know the effects."

The woman was not "engrossed in a phone call and oblivious to what the officer was saying" as has been suggested on this thread, she was actively refusing to comply, she had refused pretty much every lawful instruction she was given (understandable why she was refusing to hand over her licence and papers - she knew full well she was going to be arrested once they learned her licence had been revoked) and she was giving them shit.

Back in the days before OC (Oleoresin Capsicum a.k.a. pepper) spray and tasers, that cop would probably have drawn a firearm and ordered her to leave the car. These days they have a less than lethal option. I note he attempted to remove her from the car and she kicked up a fuss so he backed off and drew his taser. She also allegedly took a swing at one of the cops but of course we couldn't see that through the body of the car [so obviously the cop was lying to look good in front of the camera, coz after all he's a pig and they do that shit for the power and she's such a sweet, innocent pleasant woman, really - yeah, right].

But what was he supposed to do, stand there all day arguing with her about whether she is going to get out of the car? Or maybe forcibly drag her from the car, twist her arm up her back and slam her into the pavement - I mean, that doesn't use weapons, right, so it's OK, right? Or maybe draw the firearm he was carrying on his belt and threaten her with it - screw the fact that there's no obvious call for lethal force, show her the gun and let her know he's serious... Or maybe he could've used a night stick - not lethal unless he breaks something really vital, and who cares if she gets a broken arm in the process.

Bollocks. I'm not saying that being tased is a "soft option" - from the rather real screams (as opposed to the histrionics afterwards) she emitted while being tased, I would gather it's not fun (as you would expect from a weapon designed to incapacitate) But it is a better option than many. It has risks, as they all do.

The cops, before they are allowed to use OC and tasers, must first be subjected to them so they know precisely what level of discomfort they are inflicting upon their targets. AFAIK, there has never been an official policy that cops be shot in the chest with a .38 at close range in order that they may better comprehend the level of force at their fingertips.

AFAIK, our own police have the same requirement on use of OC spray - you don't get issued it until you've experienced it - and I'll bet the same will apply to Tasers.

Nothing in the tape suggested that the officer was in danger. The other guy that I referred to in my post had his arms up in the air and was surrounded by police. He too was tazored. BOTH FOR NO APPARENT REASON. Hell for all I know they were both deaf. Unlikely yes but who here can say that they were not hearing impaired.

My position is clear. If an officer believes that his/her life is threatened or injury is likely then they have that right. No problem. But I suspect in time their use will be more loosely applied than at the time of r introduction. Just like speed cameras...............remember the bulshit that went with their introduction on our roads. Ain't no road sighns now with designated speed zones.

Skyryder

Ixion

8th September 2005, 23:01

Anyhow back to the Tazers.

I've got my helmet on to deal with the pepper spray , will the leather / cordura jacket stop the prongs ??

If not, I have the answer. Saw the COOLEST thing in the Army Surplus shop yesterday (the one in K Road, opposite the billboard of the huge tits. Where you get your gaiters). Bullet proof vests ! Didn't even realise what they were , had to ask.

Now I'm busy trying to think of a reason to justify buying one!.

spudchucka

9th September 2005, 07:00

But I suspect in time their use will be more loosely applied than at the time of r introduction. Just like speed cameras...............remember the bulshit that went with their introduction on our roads. Ain't no road sighns now with designated speed zones.

Skyryder
Come on, you can't compare speed cameras with tazers, that is utterly pointless.

As for the tazer videos, you have to remember that they are from the USA. The cops over there have learnt the hard way that a person that is resisting, even passively, can pose a threat to safety. They have all manner of crazy buggers with guns and god knows what else. Too many cops have ended up in a box because they were complacent in such situations. If some dead shit loser gets zapped because they are too stupid to comply with instructions then thats jsut too bad.

Lou Girardin

9th September 2005, 09:14

If some dead shit loser gets zapped because they are too stupid to comply with instructions then thats jsut too bad.

That would be covered by which piece of legislation?
The "Failing to obey a Policeman immediately Act 2005"?
Or the "Dead shit loser Act 2004"
Or even the "Attitude adjustment Act 2004"

The more you spout this crap under anonimity, the less trust I have in any cop.

scumdog

9th September 2005, 09:18

Patrick

9th September 2005, 09:24

That would be covered by which piece of legislation?
The "Failing to obey a Policeman immediately Act 2005"?
Or the "Dead shit loser Act 2004"
Or even the "Attitude adjustment Act 2004"

The more you spout this crap under anonimity, the less trust I have in any cop.

From the vid I saw, she was getting locked up...Here in NZ it would be Resisting...Summary Offences Act 1981...

Don't know of the other above ones...don't know of the Attitude Adjustment Act, but know of Right Attitude, No Ticket Act...they also refer to it as "discretion..."

Oxygen theft is another that comes to mind....theft is in the Crimes Act 1961....

scumdog

9th September 2005, 09:25

Cheeze-dick?? Oh come on Scum is that the best that you can come up with a bit of name calling? And what's with this "If I wasn't so tollerant things would be different? Some kind of veiled threat. O for fucks sake Scum and you accuse me of being a 'dick?

And what's this psychology of police thoughts and actions? You expect me to believe that the boys don't swap stories at the end of the shift? I'm a bloke Scumdog, have been all my life. I know the macho culture of our sex when the boys get together with or without booze.

I'll look forward to some socialising with you via Dangerouse and co. I like to travel light with these guys. Suggest that you do the same leave all your baggage at home. There's no place for it out on the road.

Skyryder

Too much alcamahol combined with reading too much ranting by others that 'know' what they're talking about - plus more than just a little :Pokey: to get a reaction!!
Apologies all 'round!!
OH, and ask anybody who HAS met me and had drinks with me how agro etc I get.
See you at the Magpie Madness eh?

(P.S., only stumbled across this by accident, thought I'd got a bit 'stroppy' on one thread but couldn't recall which one!)

spudchucka

10th September 2005, 14:57

Wolf

10th September 2005, 23:00

Hell for all I know they were both deaf. Unlikely yes but who here can say that they were not hearing impaired.
Dunno about the bloke as I have not seen that clip, but as for the chick: I can definitely say she's not "hearing impaired", and so can anyone who has watched the vid - she's definitely comprehending what they're saying and actively refusing to do as she is instructed. I don't think even a jury of moronic yokels would buy a "hearing impaired" exuse.

She was breaking the law, she knew she was breaking the law, she knew what would happen once they ran her licence and she was going out of her way to avoid giving them her paperwork. Then she resisted the arrest that she knew was inevitable and she got tased - diddums. Maybe next time she won't drive an illegal car at excessive speeds whilst disqualified - or if she does, maybe she'll have learned to say "It's a fair cop, I'll come quietly."

As to the danger, real or imagined. Dude, we're talkiing about a country where a bloke's excuse for killing another man was "he looked at me funny" and two women shot and wounded each other at close range while fighting over a parking space. If I were a cop in America, I'd be worried about every fuckwit I pulled over, too. From the cops' viewpoint, she could have had a concealed weapon within reach but she had not yet drawn a lethal weapon (lethal force not warranted but still a potentially risky situation)

11th September 2005, 08:37

Nothing in the tape suggested that the officer was in danger. .

Skyryder
Non-compliance with the law.
Was she expecting to be serenaded out of the car with a orchestra ?

Lou Girardin

12th September 2005, 09:58

There are other societies where people are tortured and killed for not doing as they're told.
What's their name again?
Oh that's right, Police states.

scumdog

12th September 2005, 10:15

There are other societies where people are tortured and killed for not doing as they're told.
What's their name again?
Oh that's right, Police states.

And the problem is?????..... :whistle: :wait:

Myself? always found kind words and a lollipop worked when people wouldn't do as asked...yeah right.
Maybe I should start using 'other societies' methods? :rolleyes:

zjet

12th September 2005, 11:21

The onlt prob with the guns is. If 3 cops are tring to cotrol a nutter they may not notice him grabing the gun and some one dies..

Best for the Stunna i say

Indoo

12th September 2005, 16:39

There are other societies where people are tortured and killed for not doing as they're told.
What's their name again?
Oh that's right, Police states.

Thats reaching just a 'tad'. The argument here is Police using the taser to arrest people who are resisting.

The reality is theres less chance of either the offender or cop getting injured by using things like tasers. Perhaps if there were always 5 Police to one unarmed offender they could wrestle them to the ground without causing injury. However do you really expect a 55kg female cop working on her own (which is often the reality thanks to shortages) to physically try and arrest an agro 120kg gang member?

I know you were a bit of a rambo as a traffic cop and often took down groups of resisting speeders without causing a scratch to either you or them, but spare a thought for the mere mortals.

spudchucka

12th September 2005, 20:36

There are other societies where people are tortured and killed for not doing as they're told.
What's their name again?
Oh that's right, Police states.
Drama queen! What a load of shite!

scumdog

13th September 2005, 00:06

Don't feed the troll!!!

Storm

14th September 2005, 20:22

Exactly what Scumbag says- trolls starve quickly

Storm

14th September 2005, 20:23

PS, Scumdog, dont hunt me down and Tazer my cheeky carcass for misspelling your name

There now, that should please everyone :bleh:

Colapop

10th February 2006, 13:15

Now that it has been reported Here (http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,3568084a10,00.html) that Police are going to be trialing Tasers is there anybody here willing to 'help' them and report back some actual results?
I especially liked the bit where they mention that Police are being encouraged to fire from short range so they don't hit crims in the goolies or eyes. I'd move in closer so I could a more accurate shot (on the goolies or eyes!!) :eyepoke:

Monsterbishi

10th February 2006, 13:27

I'd move in closer so I could a more accurate shot (on the goolies or eyes!!) :eyepoke:

That's the beaty of a stun gun though, doesn't matter where it's hits them, it still feels like they're being kicked in the nuts, poked in the eyes, and set on fire, all at the same time as a massive headache from every corner of your skull.

They're not very hard to make either.

Colapop

10th February 2006, 13:29

That's the beaty of a stun gun though, doesn't matter where it's hits them, it still feels like they're being kicked in the nuts, poked in the eyes, and set on fire, all at the same time as a massive headache from every corner of your skull.

They're not very hard to make either.
and then you post the link...

Monsterbishi

10th February 2006, 13:44

and then you post the link...

I could do one better, and send you a 'modified' table-tennis ball that will drop a 150kg man without even trying :-) Having said that, I believe the construction and use of said devices by non law-enforcement in New Zealand is illegal...

Colapop

10th February 2006, 14:07

Not if you don't tell them you've got one. And anyone that does gets zapped by the V02 version!

Indoo

6th June 2006, 18:51

Indoo

6th June 2006, 18:55

Just an update on this thread.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/story.cfm?c_id=1&ObjectID=10385131

And on the same day.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,3691968a10,00.html

But the rights of criminals come first of course.

"Ms Dyhrberg said an independent inquiry should be held to examine the need for Tasers.

Police had not explained why the weapons were needed."

Yep.

Finn

6th June 2006, 19:01

Tazer range is about 6 metres. PR24 is as far as your arms reach. O/C spray has a maximum range of 3 metres and P'd up freaks barely notice the stuff. Guns are carried more than most people realise, my preference is to have a rifle available at very short notice. Glocks are great and a hell of a lot of fun to shoot on the range but nothing says "FUCK OFF" quite like a rifle up the nostril.

Rifles are no good for close combat. That's what glocks are for. If taken by surprise, shoot from the hip. This way you avoid the time it takes to raise the weapon and there's no chance the low life can take it from you. By the way, cross holsters are no good. The weapon should be the same side as your drawing arm.

One day this tip will save your life. Thank me then.

As you were.

Colapop

6th June 2006, 19:04

I was in Auckland on Saturday. My sister in law was telling me about the A-train. The A-train is the service that runs at around 3:30 (after school). A-train is short for Animal train. When you've got wanna be gangsters, miscrients, and assorted forms of criminals in waiting (or current crims) in a confined environment - it spells touble. Unfortunately the ones who get it are the people trying to earn a living.

I'd quite happily work that service with the cattle prod I used to have on the farm. 600mm of "Sit the f*ck down & shut the f*ck up!!" Tazers are a good thing. You're kidding yourself if you think scumbags aren't armed already.

Skyryder

6th June 2006, 19:13

They don't kill, so why not. Zap the fuckers

Guess the publicity blurbs have worked on you. Just do a web search and you will find how wrong you are.

Skyryder

scumdog

6th June 2006, 20:06

Guess the publicity blurbs have worked on you. Just do a web search and you will find how wrong you are.

Skyryder

So do bullets.

Bugger the namby-pamby Tazer things, stick with Glocks.

spudchucka

6th June 2006, 20:06

Rifles are no good for close combat. That's what glocks are for. If taken by surprise, shoot from the hip. This way you avoid the time it takes to raise the weapon and there's no chance the low life can take it from you. By the way, cross holsters are no good. The weapon should be the same side as your drawing arm.

One day this tip will save your life. Thank me then.

As you were.
Thanks for the tips.:zzzz:

Finn

6th June 2006, 20:29

Thanks for the tips.:zzzz:

No problem bud. Can't expect you'd know it all after boot camp in Porirua.

diggydog

6th June 2006, 20:30

Will i'm for it , if they deserve it and out on drugs, like p etc, some idoits are hard to keep at bay.Then you have your nut cases.

Finn

6th June 2006, 20:34

Will i'm for it , if they deserve it and out on drugs, like p etc, some idoits are hard to keep at bay.Then you have your nut cases.

I think cops in general should have guns but half of them coming out of Porirua aren't even on solids yet.

diggydog

6th June 2006, 20:45

I think cops in general should have guns but half of them coming out of Porirua aren't even on solids yet.
yeah would have agree with that, i herd training as young as 17yrs . I would be in favour of guns just like u, but can we really trust them that's the police.:blip:

sAsLEX

6th June 2006, 21:13

yeah would have agree with that, i herd training as young as 17yrs . I would be in favour of guns just like u, but can we really trust them that's the police.:blip:

Think the amount of training they would be get would be enough for them to handle it (guns).

But the question is can New Zealand public handle it. See the hassle that looser that got himself shot in Waitra caused!

Edbear

6th June 2006, 21:46

That's PC for you - back in the day he could have said "We don't want scum like that in our ranks" but these days the PC brigade would have his arse in a sling for calling the poor underprivileged, misunderstood, broken-homed "differently-sexual" person "scum", so he's got to phrase it "diplomatically".

And you have to listen for the undertone of irony or sarcasm in his voice as well.

Shadows

6th June 2006, 21:58

Nah I reckon shoot the fuckers.
Then they don't cost the tax payer $50,000 a year to be kept in a $600,000 cell.

diggydog

6th June 2006, 22:14

But the question is can New Zealand public handle it. See the hassle that looser that got himself shot in Waitra caused!
____WILL THAT'S TRUE, YOU WOULD GET PEOPLE UP IN ARMS OVER THE SMALLEST THING THAT WENT WRONG______________

6th June 2006, 23:43

Will crims get away over winter because of the usual power shortage?
4000 Cops running around dispensing 50,000 volts or whatever. Piss off, I want my water heating left on.
Some good pros and cons raised on here. Of course a zap is better than a bullet in a situation where a bullet (OK many bullets) would have been used. What worries me is the not so perfect policeman, who enjoys the power trip, in a bad mood, who you meet in a dark alley with no witnesses, who now has the means to enforce his opinion on you big time, where before using a gun was out of the question. Now he has an alternative.
But it's Ok the Govt will protect us and make sure, just like our taxes only go to good causes, that tazers will only be used for good causes.

Who saw that poor pig getting zapped in the trials on tonight's One News . That was animal cruelty at it's worse. Couldn't they have 'persuaded' some hand picked prisoners to volunteer. Far more deserving of the suffering than an animal that's done nothing wrong and will have no undestanding of why it's being tortured. Yeah I eat meat, but I still object to the deliberate inflicting of pain on animals for the sake of science or in this case commercial gain.

Smorg

7th June 2006, 08:18

Look at all the trouble the cops get in now without Tazer's.....Pepper spraying people who are already subdued, writing "arsehole" as occupation on speeding tickets.
Think of all the shit they could get themselves into with Tazers.

Lou Girardin

7th June 2006, 08:21

Yeah the cops have sure proved that they're responsible enough to use pepper spray. So let's give them tasers.
And the senior cop running the trial should try and remember what he says;
last year he said they'd use tasers to ensure compliance (get out of your car ma'am), now he says they won't.
And if they're so harmless, why is the manufactureres warning on their use so specific as to the risk of death or injury?

Swoop

7th June 2006, 09:28

This "trial" is the same sham that was used when NZ "trialled" speed cameras.... ("to see if they would be of use here")

Get used to seeing them people...:bye:

Swoop

7th June 2006, 09:34

My personal standard is that the Police are entitled to outgun anyone in society if required. THEY need to be safe in order to be expected to keep US safe... that's reasonable innit?
Then perhaps the ecilops would like to concentrate more on law enforcement instead of revenue gathering???
Cops that cannot respond to criminal or life threatening incidents because they have a bike pulled over and are writing out a ticket...:yes:

Then we have the other problem of the skill level of general duties branch officers using firearms.:gob:

Ixion

7th June 2006, 09:36

My prediction is that the greatest use of Tazers will be, not on violent criminals or deranged P addicts, but on law abiding demonstrators and protesters.

Finn

7th June 2006, 09:41

My prediction is that the greatest use of Tazers will be, not on violent criminals or deranged P addicts, but on law abiding demonstrators and protesters.

I sure hope so. This country is full of professional demonstators and protesters, some of which make it into Government. They should all be tazered to death.

ManDownUnder

7th June 2006, 09:59

Then perhaps the ecilops would like to concentrate more on law enforcement instead of revenue gathering???

I'm quite sure they would.

(laddies and ladies in blue, correct me if I'm wrong here - but...) The police are underfunded so they contract to the LTSA to provide traffic duties.

While they should be busting crims, they have to be out enforcing the anal retentive directives of Mr Knacker-Steed like the 11kph over the limit rule.

Give the Police more funding, tell the LTSA to do their own damned dirty work (and let's face it - it pays for itself!) and we're all happy.

Cops that cannot respond to criminal or life threatening incidents because they have a bike pulled over and are writing out a ticket...:yes:

Then we have the other problem of the skill level of general duties branch officers using firearms.:gob:

Put the pay rate up, make the acceptance criteria of the Police higher and we're all onto a winner - no?

Where's the money coming from? You and me - short term. Longer term it still comes from you and me but there will be less people in prison so the costs aren't so high.

Am I the only one that thinks this would work?

spudchucka

7th June 2006, 11:53

Yeah the cops have sure proved that they're responsible enough to use pepper spray.Correct. Or are you being facetious again?

So let's give them tasers.Thanks, appreciate it.

And the senior cop running the trial should try and remember what he says;
last year he said they'd use tasers to ensure compliance (get out of your car ma'am), now he says they won't.Last night on campbell Live he denied that quote was his and says that it has been falsely attributed to him. He ensured Campbell that they would not be used for that purpose.

And if they're so harmless, why is the manufactureres warning on their use so specific as to the risk of death or injury?Any form of force used against a person has risks associated to it but the warnings are more to do with the companies need to protect itself from litigation.

spudchucka

7th June 2006, 11:54

My prediction is that the greatest use of Tazers will be, not on violent criminals or deranged P addicts, but on law abiding demonstrators and protesters.
Is that why Minto has been to all the rallies?

Pixie

7th June 2006, 12:00

scumdog

7th June 2006, 14:06

Cops should have guns.
It's only the threat of killing someone that makes most cops think twice about using the gun as a coercive tool.
Non lethal weapons are too easily used to punish "contemp of cop" behaviour

Funny how only 'certain' people have that worry - never had any concerns about use of force being misused - even before I had this job and was just a low-life freezing worker, saw a few of my 'mates' get busted and shoved around, personally I thought they brought it on themselves.

Some people are born natural 'victims' - sometimes of their own mouths.

scumdog

7th June 2006, 14:11

Yeah the cops have sure proved that they're responsible enough to use pepper spray.?

Like the public proving they are responsible enough to drive, like politicians proving they are responsible enough to run a country yadda yadda yadda....

"Another fine non-sequitor"

Coyote

7th June 2006, 16:22

Guess the publicity blurbs have worked on you. Just do a web search and you will find how wrong you are.

Skyryder
I've been interested in tasers for a while and have been searching up info on them. They certainly lower a higher mortality rate than guns

Sniper

7th June 2006, 16:26

They certainly have a higher mortality rate than guns

True, but that is because you can never gaurentee if the person has a pre existing medical condition or not. Frankly, if my life was in danger and they died cuase the shock was too much, I wouldnt give a fuck. If I zapped them cause they didnt comply, thats a different story.

Colapop

7th June 2006, 16:28

Funny how only 'certain' people have that worry - never had any concerns about use of force being misused - even before I had this job and was just a low-life freezing worker, saw a few of my 'mates' get busted and shoved around, personally I thought they brought it on themselves.

Some people are born natural 'victims' - sometimes of their own mouths.
Also funny how 'some' people have an aversion to an DNA ID scheme.
The so-called 'human rights' activists should be placed in gen. pop. with some of the scumbags whose 'rights' they are trying to protect. Then we'll see how many of them change their tune. As far as I'm concerned if you commit a crime (bad enough to warrent imprisonment) you effectively waive your entitlement to the rights that everyday Joe Public has.

Coyote

7th June 2006, 16:42

True, but that is because you can never gaurentee if the person has a pre existing medical condition or not. Frankly, if my life was in danger and they died cause the shock was too much, I wouldnt give a fuck. If I zapped them cause they didnt comply, thats a different story.
I have this medical condition where I bleed internally when a bullet goes through me. I however have been shocked with 100,000 volts and came away laughing (bad example, the shock went through my arm and caused no harm). If I was running around school with my grandads sawn off shotgun I inherited, I'd rather have a taser knock me down with the possibility of it killing me than be shot down in a shower of blood (actually, I'd rather be shot)

Sniper

7th June 2006, 16:47

True, I have the same condition, but because of my South African blood, the being shot is more likely going to happen to me rather than you

Coyote

7th June 2006, 16:51

True. I'm more likely to get myself killed than be killed

Lou Girardin

7th June 2006, 17:18

Correct. Or are you being facetious again?
Thanks, appreciate it.
Last night on campbell Live he denied that quote was his and says that it has been falsely attributed to him. He ensured Campbell that they would not be used for that purpose.
Any form of force used against a person has risks associated to it but the warnings are more to do with the companies need to protect itself from litigation.

Now spud, you know I have the utmost respect for your dedication and general level of professionalism.:sick:
But some of your colleagues have proved that they aren't fit to operate tricycles, let alone tasers. A good number can't even keep a cage on the road for God's sake. Even a few half-wits is enough to not take the risk of giving them semi-lethal weapons.

Lou Girardin

7th June 2006, 17:19

I've been interested in tasers for a while and have been searching up info on them. They certainly have a higher mortality rate than guns

Whaaaat?:gob:

Coyote

7th June 2006, 17:25

Whaaaat?:gob:
lol?

Wait, is it lower mortality?

scumdog

7th June 2006, 18:00

lol?

Wait, is it lower mortality?

Yep, the outcome with a gun is close to 90+% fatal, with tasers it's a shitload less (scientific measurement this 'shitload' eh?).

BTW The cops I went with in the USA reckoned the appearance of a taser at an incident quietened things down a great deal without it even being used - the low-lifes realised two things: (1) The cop would use it more readily than a firearm and (2) it was going to have an effect REGARDLESS of their motivation etc. and probably hurt a whole lot.

Saw the threat of it work real well in Las Vegas - never seen a 'big 'ol boy' back down so quick!!

If you got killed by a taser shock there is a good chance you had it coming.

bugjuice

7th June 2006, 18:33

has anyone got the clip of the bull that was shown on the news? That was an eye opener for me.

personally, I'm for them. If the fuckers are warned that it's going to happen, and they still continue, then why dick around, just teach them. They won't do it again, and the wankers might actually think twice before causing grief again.

But, the clip of the bull being stung with one of these tazers... shittin 'ell.. a bull that would stop a speeding freight train, is just instantly dropped and vibrating on the floor like a dildo that's slipped out. Unbelievable. As soon as the tazer is off, it jumps back up, probably pretty pissed. Is it really necessary to have that much power running thru that it can drop a bull clean...???

Skyryder

7th June 2006, 19:23

I can remember when speed cameras were first introduced into this country. The most blatent PR was that the areas were going to be marked. How long did that last. Now we have anothe PR job by the police on why tazers are being trialed. Give a couple of years and the public will so blase' the safe gurads will come off and the judges, just as they do now, will accept the officers word over the victims.

They are in my opinion a torture device and as such have no place in New Zealand.

Skyryder

Edbear

7th June 2006, 19:24

. Is it really necessary to have that much power running thru that it can drop a bull clean...???

Good question. Why are they 50,000volts? I've zapped myself with 240v and I really don't want to do it again! :sick:

Skyryder

7th June 2006, 19:29

Good question. Why are they 50,000volts? I've zapped myself with 240v and I really don't want to do it again! :sick:

Yep saw a guy go down pissing on an electric fence a few years back.

It's not the volts but the amps that do the damage.

I wonder how many amps these things use.

Skyryder

Edbear

7th June 2006, 19:35

:gob:
It's not the volts but the amps that do the damage. Skyryder

Don't let Lou hear you say that... (AMPS?):blip:

Grahameeboy

7th June 2006, 19:41

:gob:

Don't let Lou hear you say that... (AMPS?):blip:

Very good Sir.........................:rockon:

bugjuice

7th June 2006, 19:45

Good question. Why are they 50,000volts? I've zapped myself with 240v and I really don't want to do it again! :sick:
that is one difference tho, thing with house power (I'm sure to get this bit wrong) runs on AC, where as tazers run something like DC, so altho the voltage is intense, it's not lethal, to a degree. It all comes from two batteries, and think how much a battery would put out. 50k house volts would cook something. 50k DC volts gives ya a tingle. I just think (and I know i've kind of been contradicting myself here), it's still a lot if it can drop a bull like that, does it need to be that high for human consumption?

Grahameeboy

7th June 2006, 19:49

that is one difference tho, thing with house power (I'm sure to get this bit wrong) runs on AC, where as tazers run something like DC, so altho the voltage is intense, it's not lethal, to a degree. It all comes from two batteries, and think how much a battery would put out. 50k house volts would cook something. 50k DC volts gives ya a tingle. I just think (and I know i've kind of been contradicting myself here), it's still a lot if it can drop a bull like that, does it need to be that high for human consumption?

Werrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.......ht.......I suspect a Bull's tolerance may not be as good as us humans.....maybe we should test it out on Cowpoos at Manfield in a few weeks as he likes a shot up the bum!!!!

Edbear

7th June 2006, 19:50

Very good Sir.........................:rockon:

Why, thankye, kind Sir!:yes:

Edbear

7th June 2006, 19:51

that is one difference tho, thing with house power (I'm sure to get this bit wrong) runs on AC, where as tazers run something like DC, so altho the voltage is intense, it's not lethal, to a degree. It all comes from two batteries, and think how much a battery would put out. 50k house volts would cook something. 50k DC volts gives ya a tingle. I just think (and I know i've kind of been contradicting myself here), it's still a lot if it can drop a bull like that, does it need to be that high for human consumption?

Oops! Forgot about the AC/DC bit! Can any techie types help us laymen out here?:bye:

Grahameeboy

7th June 2006, 19:55

Why, thankye, kind Sir!:yes:

fair to middling gaffer....mind you Lou has plenty of AC Aggravating Charm and DC Direct Crap.....

Edbear

7th June 2006, 19:59

fair to middling gaffer....mind you Lou has plenty of AC Aggravating Charm and DC Direct Crap.....

Aye! And 'e would'na be a salesman by any chance...?:innocent:

Wolf

7th June 2006, 20:03

Is it really necessary to have that much power running thru that it can drop a bull clean...???
I've heard that people on Angel Dust have absorbed a large number of "lead pacifiers" and still kept coming because they are oblivious to the pain and trauma and nothing instantly fatal has been hit yet.

With Tasers, it's not the pain, it's the temporary scrambling of your nervous system that puts you down - no matter how big, how strong, how high. You need sufficient power delivered appropriately to have any effect - those toy "Taser Wands" they sell for personal defence in the States don't cut it - you have to hold them firmly to the attackers body for a continuous 4 seconds for them to maybe work. The Taser gun, however, spreads the points of contact across a decent area and then delivers the appropriate payload - that will stop a human or a bull or pretty much anything else with a central nervous system.

The bull went down - not because it was hit hard but because it was hit efficiently. Dropping the payload will merely render Tasers less effective against everything.

As to the "self protection" Taser Wands, the movies portray them as more efficient than the Taser guns when in fact part of one self-defence training course is to have an instructor jam a taser wand against your bare flesh for the requisite 4 seconds and then you are to shoot a five-round group into the target with your pistol within a designated time - no one has failed that part of the course. The taser wands have consistently failed to prevent a person functioning as they so desire - and that was people who had agreed to stay still and let the instructor hold the taser wand against them for the 4 seconds - not would-be attackers or rapists who are less likely to be so obliging.

Colapop

7th June 2006, 20:04

Far as my reckoning goes (brains a bit foggy since college) it's something like a pipe full of water,
Volts = volume
Amps = how fast the water is flowing
So you can have a large diameter pipe that has low flow (and not get hurt) or a small dia. pipe with big pressure (and blow a hole through ya)

Least that's the way I 'member it.

Edbear

7th June 2006, 20:07

Wolf

7th June 2006, 20:08

Oops! Forgot about the AC/DC bit! Can any techie types help us laymen out here?:bye:
Both are AC - the Taser circuit converts the DC battery power to AC and steps up the voltage (don't ask me how I know) but the maximum Wattage (volts times amps) of the batteries is low so the increase in voltage at the cost of amps - the wattage (the real thing that gets ya) is considerably lower than the 240V x 10A you get from the mains - it's just delivered better...

[Edit] 50KV is chicken feed - you get well over a million volts when you get a static shock touching a metal door handle or getting out of an un-earthed car with synthetic seat covers - the wattage, however, is negligible as the amperage is near non-existant (there is flow, but only just), you get a lot more damage poking your finger in a wall socket because 240v times 10 amps is 2400 watts or 2.4 kilowatts of electricity coursing down your body.

Colapop

7th June 2006, 20:11

The cattle prods we had on the farm were bloody good for practical jokes too! 50k and 250amps of "Bwahahahaha - you're leg is numb??!!?? Hahahahaha!!!" All ya do is leave one prong side up under a thin jacket under the back of a chair....

Skyryder

7th June 2006, 20:11

Not sure if this is the model that the police are trialing
but here's some specs.

http://www.cookselfdefenseproducts.com/taser-specifications-info.htm

Amps are 133mA.

Skyryder

Wolf

7th June 2006, 20:29

18W - the toaster would give you over 133 times that. And there's a chance you could have the mains current pass through your heart and stop it cold.

Lou Girardin

8th June 2006, 08:58

If you got killed by a laser shock there is a good chance you had it coming.

Point a Stalker at them?
I've had a few now, I must have a high pain threshold - didn't feel a thing.

Lou Girardin

8th June 2006, 08:59

Yep saw a guy go down pissing on an electric fence a few years back.

It's not the volts but the amps that do the damage.

I wonder how many amps these things use.

Skyryder

5 watts. US ones are up to 26.

Lou Girardin

8th June 2006, 09:01

Far as my reckoning goes (brains a bit foggy since college) it's something like a pipe full of water,
Volts = volume
Amps = how fast the water is flowing

T'other way round

Colapop

8th June 2006, 09:06

Ta for that - I knew it was something about a pipe....

scumdog

8th June 2006, 10:56

Point a Stalker at them?
I've had a few now, I must have a high pain threshold - didn't feel a thing.
:nya: Smartass! (sorry Hitcher) I've edited that post.

(But I guess ya ain't met too many Southern lasers Lou! - not like those namby-pamby latte drinking duvet-hugging Dorkland soft ones):wait:

aff-man

8th June 2006, 11:29

hmmm.

I think all these hooty snooty people who decide on what should be used to try a "practice what ya preach" scenario.

Sure the police can be put in a situation where force is needed and an ulternative to lethal force would be the go. But in saying that they are going to be much more willing to wip out the tazor than a gun, so the situation it is needed in becomes a lot less "intense".

As for my practice what they preach. Get someone to tazor them see how they like it. imaging getting hit in the groin or worse the head... by "mistake".

It seems to be a screwed if ya do screwed if ya don't situation.

spudchucka

8th June 2006, 14:54

It seems to be a screwed if ya do screwed if ya don't situation.
Welcome to the world!

Colapop

8th June 2006, 14:59

Police recruits currently have the opportunity to experience pepper spray? so why not a Tazer?

spudchucka

8th June 2006, 15:11

Police recruits currently have the opportunity to experience pepper spray? so why not a Tazer?
Glocks & Bushmasters too? Why not just start smashing them with a batton as soon as they register an interest in joining?

Wolf

8th June 2006, 15:20

Aff-man, as a potential "innocent bystander" I'd rather be accidentally clobbered by a Taser than by a Nine-mil projectile.

From a scientific perspective, I would voluntarily get zapped by a Taser to satisfy myself as to its efficacy and have an understanding of what it feels like. Likewise, I would voluntarily get pepper-sprayed - both experiments under controlled conditions to lessen the chances of secondary injures and with medical personnel on hand in case something about me proves to be unusually susceptible to pepper spray or 50KV.

You will not ever see me volunteering to be shot in my unprotected centre of mass with a nine millimetre projectile for a scientific bit of first-hand understanding.

I'd be extremely leary of getting shot in the chest whilst wearing appropriate armour.

The crims are armed. They have been for years and it's becoming more common-place.

Likewise the cops have had weapons for years to use to protect themselves and the rest of us. At Aramoana the retarded .38 Special revolver failed to be adequate to the occasion and a police officer lost his life - then so did a few more civilians before they could finally take out the gunman. In the wake of that, nine mil semiautos were introduced to replace the toys.

Until pepper spray, the only less-than-lethal option open to the police was the baton - effectively a bludgeon: damaging, potentially lethal, not particularly humane. The cops had them for years: the short billy-clubs and the longer Minto-Bars (which to a martial artist resemble half of a set of Tonfa).

Personally I'd rather be pepper sprayed than bashed over the head with a baton. Likewise, so far as a ranged weapon goes, a Taser is a safer alternative to a Glock under some conditions.

I watched the weapons training episode of the Police College series with great interest. I cannot agree with the assertion that they come out of college totally useless.

The_Dover

8th June 2006, 15:22

Glocks & Bushmasters too? Why not just start smashing them with a batton as soon as they register an interest in joining?

Now you're talking spud.

Best thing you've ever written.

Edbear

8th June 2006, 17:00

From a scientific perspective, I would voluntarily get zapped by a Taser to satisfy myself as to its efficacy and have an understanding of what it feels like. Likewise, I would voluntarily get pepper-sprayed - both experiments under controlled conditions to lessen the chances of secondary injures and with medical personnel on hand in case something about me proves to be unusually susceptible to pepper spray or 50KV.
.

I may be a big wuss, but personally I subscribe to the, "You don't need to put your hand on a hot element to know it's hot!", theory... I definitely consider I'd be "unusually susceptible" to 50,000 volts...:yes: You a braver man than me, Wolf! :bye:

The_Dover

8th June 2006, 17:02

on a side note, it's not the voltage that will fuck you, it's the current.

Edbear

8th June 2006, 17:03

T'other way round

Oh, okay! I guess I can inderstand it that way around too...!:first:

Colapop

8th June 2006, 17:04

Glocks & Bushmasters too? Why not just start smashing them with a batton as soon as they register an interest in joining?
It was a serious question. Police recruits are given the opportunity to see or feel the effects of pepper spray aren't they? They could also be offered to see the effects of a tazer? And recruits are taught how to use batons?

There are some on this site that would suggest new recruits are used to show the effects of said Glocks and Bushmasters....

Sniper

8th June 2006, 17:06

All recruits are run through a firing range using the Glock. Um not sure on the bushmaster. I know the also fire a rifle (M14?)

Lou Girardin

8th June 2006, 17:10

on a side note, it's not the voltage that will fuck you, it's the current.

Especially if you can't swim.

The_Dover

8th June 2006, 17:18

I think spud was referring to turning the Glock and the bushmaster on the recruits.

Could be a goer?

Lou Girardin

8th June 2006, 17:21

I think spud was referring to turning the Glock and the bushmaster on the recruits.

Could be a goer?

It'll be bloody difficult getting a 1000 new cops then.
If Darwin's right, the survivors will be double hard bastards.

The_Dover

8th June 2006, 17:24

It'll be bloody difficult getting a 1000 new cops then.
If Darwin's right, the survivors will be double hard bastards.

And that's exactly what we need to keep these pesky bikers off the streets so they are safe for P cooks and fa'a fa'afini.

scumdog

8th June 2006, 17:38

All recruits are run through a firing range using the Glock. Um not sure on the bushmaster. I know the also fire a rifle (M14?)

The 'old' rifel is a Model 7 Remington that is being replaced by Bushmasters.

The Model 7s will be destroyed when they are phased out "in compliance with United Nations policy".

That's right folks, rifles valued at $300,000 minimum will be destoyed instead of being sold.

And you wonder where all the speed-ticket money goes????.

Skyryder

8th June 2006, 18:34

They don't kill, so why not. Zap the fuckers

Was told that there have been sixteen deaths atributed to taser use. Not too sure if that is true but my source is usualy right on what he quotes. Anyone got the defintive answer on this??

Skyryder

Colapop

8th June 2006, 19:00

I found this (http://forums.officer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=47224&page=1&pp=25) interesting thread about Tazers from an American cop site.

"16th Product Liability Lawsuit Dismissed Against TASER International, Inc.

SCOTTSDALE, Ariz., May 10, 2006 (PRIMEZONE) -- TASER International, Inc. (Nasdaq:TASR), a market leader in advanced electronic control devices, announced that the Superior Court of the State of Arizona in and for the County of Maricopa entered an order dismissing with prejudice the product liability lawsuit filed by Malissa Allen against TASER International, Inc. Dismissal with prejudice prohibits the plaintiff from re-filing this lawsuit in the future. This is the sixteenth wrongful death or injury lawsuit that has been dismissed or judgment entered in favor of TASER International in the past 24 months."

scumdog

8th June 2006, 19:27

ONLY 16 deaths??

I'm surprised that is all - there's enough morons out there with the self preservation instincts of a lemming that would push the boudaries enough to deserve to be shot let alone tazered.

How many of the tazer deaths were innocent bystanders hit by a stray tazer rounds? or how many innocent bystanders were tazered to death while minding their own business?

Tazer is the next step down from a bullet, - at least witha tazer you have a good liklihood of survival compared with a bullet.

Wolf

8th June 2006, 23:04

16 deaths - a lovely figure to wave about the place and get emotional and say "BAN THEM!" What the people who do that fail to do, is say how many people in total have been Tasered.

16 deaths would be terrible if only 32 people had been tasered, but it's of little significance if over a thousand have been tasered. Sure, 16 people died. And if a Glock had been used there would have been a hell of a lot more deaths.

A lot more than 16 people have died riding motorbikes, anyone here going to call for them to be banned as "too dangerous"?

And before the "it's your choice to ride a motorbike" argument comes out: it's also a choice to put yourself in a position where you're likely to be tasered and it's a choice to refuse to comply with an instruction and a choice to continue to do so after a clear warning has been issued or to perform an action that would justify instant use of such a weapon.

I have absolutely no fear of Tasers - or pepper spray or Glocks - in the hands of the police. The chance that I get clobbered by any of those whilst going about my own lawful business is negligible - I have a far higher risk of being clobbered by someone else's vehicle. As I don't do things that are likely to attract the attention of armed police officers, I don't fear being deliberately clobbered either. If perchance I blundered into an area where a cop with a weapon had call to challenge me and make it clear to me that some form of armed force would be forthcoming if I did not instantly stop or back off, I possess sufficient intellect to do as I'm bloody told - I'm not going to argue with an armed police officer.

I choose to risk my life riding motorcycles, I choose not to do things that'll get me tasered or shot.

It's all about choices - like that retard with the toy Glock that was killed by armed police up in Aucks a few years back... he chose to threaten the police with an extremely realisic (at close range, never mind the distance they were viewing it over) replica of a firearm and he chose not to relinquish it and chose to continue aiming it at the police after being wounded by two warning shots. He chose to let the cops put a bullet into a fatal spot.

Me, if I had any object in my hand at all and the cops said "drop it or we'll have to shoot", I would not stop to consider whether or or not it might look like a firearm across a distance under that light, I would drop the damned thing and display all signs of compliance.

Ixion

8th June 2006, 23:07

Two words that refute your entire argument. Red Squad. Happened before, can happen again, except now the New Red Squad would be armed with Tasers.

No-one gives a stuff if some low life crim or maniac P dope head gets tasered . But that's not the argument. Nor is the comparison between a Glock and a Taser. It's between a Taser and a baton , or a Taser and a dog.

Even the toughest cop is going to hesitate before turning a Glock on protesters, or the guy who's just too damn lippy and non-compliant. But they won't hesitate to use a taser in such situations.

Wolf

8th June 2006, 23:17

I may be a big wuss, but personally I subscribe to the, "You don't need to put your hand on a hot element to know it's hot!", theory... I definitely consider I'd be "unusually susceptible" to 50,000 volts...:yes: You a braver man than me, Wolf! :bye:

Thanks for saying "braver" and not the "S" word...

I've taken a hell of a lot more than 50KV in my time - albeit static electricity and not delivered in a way so as to incapacitate (though picking up a large computer monitor and having the static build-up discharge through my metal belt buckle bloody near had me on the floor).

I doubt I'd find the experience pleasant or "repeatable" (never want to repeat the static jolt through the solar plexus experience, either) but it would be an education.

I would be wanting at least a cup of coffee and a biscuit after recovering, I suspect.

Wolf

8th June 2006, 23:23

Two words that refute your entire argument. Red Squad. Happened before, can happen again, except now the New Red Squad would be armed with Tasers.
So it's up to us as a voting public to ensure we never again vote in a psychotic, egomaniacal "Reds-Under-The-Bed" paranoid schizoid like Piggy. Or any other form of delusional self-aggrandising despot, for that matter.

We vote in another cock like that, we deserve a "Red Squad" armed with Tasers...

OK, Lias, hit me with the red bling, I know you want to...

NSR-Dan

8th June 2006, 23:30

From what i watched on jackass a while ago. Jonny knoxville decided to test a few of the security devices available to purchase in the US (pepper spray, hand taser and a taser gun).

He used himself as a human test subject and gave his professional opinion at the end. his vote wa sth pepper spray was the worst as it stays in your eyes and burns like hell, while the tasers just zap you for a few seconds and your sweet.

ive been electrocuted by mains supply working as a sparky on many occasions and i know what it fells like, i know the taser is 10000v but its only 0.5 amps, so 240v at 20amps and 50hz is a shit load worse i bet. i recon i could get a taser shock and walk around fine cause im so used to it.

Ixion

8th June 2006, 23:45

So it's up to us as a voting public to ensure we never again vote in a psychotic, egomaniacal "Reds-Under-The-Bed" paranoid schizoid like Piggy. Or any other form of delusional self-aggrandising despot, for that matter.

We vote in another cock like that, we deserve a "Red Squad" armed with Tasers...

Not quite the point. Muldoon was responsible for the decision to have the tour, he was not (and constitutionally could not be) responsible for police tactcis.

When the police are acting as a paramilitary force (and the Springbok tour was certainly not the first instance, Massey's cossacks and the 1951 specials come immediately to mind , and I don't imagine they will be the last) , the one thing working in favour of the people (ie the ones the police are fighting) is that the police are (usually) limited in their ability to use deadly force (eg Glocks) . And if they are limited to batons, fire hoses etc, the odds are more or less equal - Joe Citizen can wield a stick as well as PC Plod. Arm the police with a semi-lethal weapon (which is what the taser is) and the situation changes. Because it is not actually lethal, the police have little compunction against using it widely,but its effect is comparable to firearms in the short term .

Nor is it too hard to envisage possible scenarios in the near future where such conflict could arise in NZ

Some time soon :

The Iraq / Iran front blows up.
GWB and Tony Poodle call in all their favours, present and future, in search of allies.
Our own Ms Clark sees her chance to secure that UN role , and announces that NZ will make a major military commitment to provide active support for the New Coalition of the Willing.
Sweeping new anti terrorist laws are passed to support this, and a draft scheme is announced to provide NZ troops for the Middle East.
Many New Zealanders strongly object to this.
Demonstrations and protest occur throughout the country.
Squads of police armed with Tasers successfully attack the demonstrators.
All resistance to Helen's new laws is succesfully tasered out.

Unlikely, but far from impossible.

Edbear

9th June 2006, 07:50

Thanks for saying "braver" and not the "S" word...

I would be wanting at least a cup of coffee and a biscuit after recovering, I suspect.

'Sokay! Considered it but it didn't suit the context of your post which, (as usual), was thoughtfully worded. I think I'd be wanting a bit more than a coffe and biscuit afterwards, though! LOL!!!!

Lou Girardin

9th June 2006, 08:20

The 'old' rifel is a Model 7 Remington that is being replaced by Bushmasters.

The Model 7s will be destroyed when they are phased out "in compliance with United Nations policy".

That's right folks, rifles valued at $300,000 minimum will be destoyed instead of being sold.

And you wonder where all the speed-ticket money goes????.

Because we all know that terrorist are hanging out for Model 7's.
That UN policy is directed at military weapons, but any gun is bad to Clark and Co.

Lou Girardin

9th June 2006, 08:23

scumdog

9th June 2006, 09:17

Because we all know that terrorist are hanging out for Model 7's.
That UN policy is directed at military weapons, but any gun is bad to Clark and Co.

Hanging out for a Model 7? They'd have to be amatuer terrorists if they want a five-shot, fixed magazine bolt-action rifle with no 'scope and a feed problem!!

They are an ideal 'beginners' rifle being really basic, easy to keep safe and nice and light to carry. (and cheap - that's why the Govt bought them in the first place, the high quality Sako rifles would cost too much to replace with same).

Lou Girardin

9th June 2006, 10:01

Hanging out for a Model 7? They'd have to be amatuer terrorists if they want a five-shot, fixed magazine bolt-action rifle with no 'scope and a feed problem!!

They are an ideal 'beginners' rifle being really basic, easy to keep safe and nice and light to carry. (and cheap - that's why the Govt bought them in the first place, the high quality Sako rifles would cost too much to replace with same).

I was being sarcastic. My usual state when I'm not asleep.

scumdog

9th June 2006, 10:46

I was being sarcastic. My usual state when I'm not asleep.

Ah yes, I know that and YOU know that but a lot here don't!!

Thing is, your comment gave me an opening to spout more info that others don't know - (and in a lot of case probably don't care).

Fluffy Cat

9th June 2006, 11:24

Has anyone seen the footage of the US cop zapping the lady that would not get out of her car?.
If you think thats acceptable in NZ you are a bunch of dicks.
You don,t need them cops need to use the head muscle more. I worked as a cop in Surrey at the time we had the highest recorded incidence of assault on police in the UK, my beat area was Woking and Byfleet area. 25000 people to police never hit anyone with my stick, or telescopic batton.
Don't mind a hand gun but 99.9% of the time you will never need it. If you accept this then where will it lead?.
NZ is to soft on crims but whos a crim these days?, in the UK they want to give speeders crime numbers. How many Kiwi bikers would be just crims?. The prob aint the police its our criminal justice system. The soft cocks are the courts and our law. Just try getting good access to our law without deep pockets and you will start to understand.
Now i work as an anaesthetic tech in a hospital and i am very worried about the use of these harmless tazers. You may be fit but then again you might have an undiagnosed heart condition or, it might be one of your kids. Night out on the town bit pissed wont do what you are told by the 20 year old cop and zap. Dead is dead and you, they were just a crim?. Had it comming did they?.
Like i said if you can't think your just a dick.

Wolf

9th June 2006, 11:34

The Iraq / Iran front blows up.
GWB and Tony Poodle call in all their favours, present and future, in search of allies.
Our own Ms Clark sees her chance to secure that UN role , and announces that NZ will make a major military commitment to provide active support for the New Coalition of the Willing.
Sweeping new anti terrorist laws are passed to support this, and a draft scheme is announced to provide NZ troops for the Middle East.
Many New Zealanders strongly object to this.
Demonstrations and protest occur throughout the country.
Squads of police armed with Tasers successfully attack the demonstrators.
All resistance to Helen's new laws is succesfully tasered out.

Unlikely, but far from impossible.
I do take your point but I find it surprising that the Police Commissioner would hold sufficient power to decide to create such a force without govermental authority. Surely the order to "sort it out by whatever means necessary" has to come from higher up the chain of command. This is the Police Force we're talking about, not the CIA.

As to using Tasers in the situation you describe, 3 words:

Rate of Fire.

A baton can be wielded rapidly from one target to another, causing serious damage in its wake - enough to ensure that the earlier targets don't cause untoward problems while you're subduing their mates.

A Glock has a similar caharacteristic and it can be used at a range.

A Taser gun, however, is fired at one person to keep them subdued. While that person is being subdued the police officer (and the Taser) cannot be used for anything else. The cop cannot rapidly tase multiple targets. Moreover, once the influence of the Taser is removed and the person has recovered, the person is frequently capable of functioning (and probably fucked off).

A Taser is good at subduing individuals long enough to afix more lasting restraints (such as handcuffs and possibly a muzzle) when attempting to do so would be problematic or dangerous.

As a crowd control device it is crap - unless you have as many cops as you have rioters, each armed with a Taser (and assuming none of those still standing rip the wires from their tased confederates to get them back to combat readiness).

The Glock or the Bushmaster would be a far better "crowd control" device than a Taser.

Wolf

9th June 2006, 11:35

I was being sarcastic. My usual state when I'm not asleep.
I've heard that's your usual state even when you are asleep... :devil2:

Wolf

9th June 2006, 11:46

Fluffycat, like any firearm, the police will need justification to fire a Taser. You can't just tase a drunk teenager who's being lippy.

As to the chick in the states, they have a very set routine over there that has evolved to save officers' lives. You cannot compare the UK or NZ with a country where many of the citizens carry guns in their cars and could be using the "back-chat" to buy time to draw a weapon.

In the US, if you do not display your hands when requested and exit the car in the exact manner you are requested, the cops can and will assume you are going for a weapon and will respond accordingly.

I do not see that scenario occuring here in NZ unless a lot of people start carrying firearms in their cars and plugging the cops as they approach. Maybe then we'd get a policy of "if they don't get out of the car, subdue them".

I watched the footage several times and frankly, if I were a cop in a country where a large number of my colleagues had been murdered at routine licence checks, I'd tase the bitch as well. Before tasers, the cops would have drawn pistols on her and she could have been shot for failing to keep her hands where they could see them.

scumdog

9th June 2006, 12:11

Until now I refrained from commenting on the argument that the woman in the clip was getting zapped 'for not getting out of the car' but Wolf has summed it up nicely.

While it SEEMED that way how were the cops to know she was just being arrogant/snotty whatever and not trying to get a gun??
I have had first hand stories of similar incidents (when in the USA) that looked straightforwards but turned to custard p.d.q. when the subject produced a pistol out of 'nowhere'

I guess a lot out there have (a) never been in that situation and (b) believe everything presented to them on T.V.

Indoo

9th June 2006, 12:15

scumdog

9th June 2006, 12:21

Situation like that don't exist in real life Indoo, people don't actually behave like that, nobody is THAT nasty, there is no need for Tazers, people will only misuse them donchaknow?:whistle:

Edbear

9th June 2006, 13:12

Wolf

9th June 2006, 13:21

I'd like to see how all these vocal opponents of tasers in the following situation.

You and your female partner are called to a violent domestic, theres no-one free to back you up and when you get to the address you hear a violent scuffle inside and a woman screaming. You enter the house and suddenly are confronted by a large gang member amped out on P whose weilding a 4 foot long iron bar and now suddenly has a new target for all his anger.

Spray is ineffective against such people, your 50cm long batton is laughable and if you turn your back and run your going to get an iron bar in the back of your head.

I wonder what they would do?
As a 4-foot pipe is a potentially lethal weapon and well within the 21-foot danger zone (unless the domestic is occuring in Bill Gates' entry foyer), the use of a firearm - the Glock - to stop the attacker is justified.

If I were a family member of the couple concerned, I would personally thank the cop for choosing to use a Taser rather than discharge a nine-mil pistol inside a house when my 3-month-old cousin is in her cot separated from the fray by a couple of layers of gib-board...

Thing is with bullets: they don't conveniently stop when they miss the target. They tend to plough through a couple of layers of gib and the 4" space in between with no problem and still carry sufficient energy to puree the organs of someone sleeping in the next room.

Tasers should only come out when the use of a firearm is already justified - and most likely that would be the constraint.

Unlike on TV, cops - even the ones in the USA - have to play by rules and they have to justify the use of lethal or near-lethal force. Those that don't get to face trial. If they get away with something that is patently wrong, blame the court system.

scumdog

9th June 2006, 13:27

As an adendum, cops in the US told me that most of the time the fact they held a Tazer aimed at the subject was enough to get him/her to put down whatever they were carrying and get on the ground

Very occassionally the the total drugged out or total nutter would not and would get zapped.

Indoo

9th June 2006, 13:33

As a 4-foot pipe is a potentially lethal weapon and well within the 21-foot danger zone (unless the domestic is occuring in Bill Gates' entry foyer), the use of a firearm - the Glock - to stop the attacker is justified.
.

Yep but we don't carry glocks. And even if for some reason that cop was armed and did shoot the guy, the very same opponents for tasers would be the first on the bandwagon wanting the cop prosecuted for murder.

Wolf

9th June 2006, 13:40

Situation like that don't exist in real life Indoo, people don't actually behave like that, nobody is THAT nasty, there is no need for Tazers, people will only misuse them donchaknow?:whistle:
**Chuckle** You're a scamp, SD. You been taking sarcasm lessons from Lou?

Mate of mine was living in a block of flats here in Hamilscum years ago before the place really started getting nasty.

At 4 in the morning he is awakened by a domestic in a neighbouring flat - loud, long and very animated. Being back in the days of a "safe" Hamilton he did not ring the Armed Offenders Squad and suggest military back-up, he went and pounded on the neighbours door and yelled "Shut The Fuck Up!" Now, bear in mind this was a second-floor flat so he was on a narrow balcony running the length of the building with a metal rail behind him.

The door was ripped open and he was slammed hard in the mouth by a reinforced hand - reinforced by the grip of a substantial knife.
Then the knife was at his throat and he was being abused by the husband who did not take kindly to having his "god-given right" to abuse his wife interrupted.

My mate - cold and half naked - was subjected to a lengthy period of terror during which he fully expected his throat to be slit.

He knelt on the balcony, raised his hands and begged for his life. Finally the bloke let him go unharmed and went back to terrorising his wife at knife-point.

"P" didn't exist back then so we can't blame that - the bugger was probably just fuelled by cheap booze.

scumdog

9th June 2006, 13:56

Wolf

9th June 2006, 13:58

Yep but we don't carry glocks. And even if for some reason that cop was armed and did shoot the guy, the very same opponents for tasers would be the first on the bandwagon wanting the cop prosecuted for murder.
True, because the cop should've nimbly wrested the pipe from the bloke's grip, thrown him easily to the ground, cuffed him, slung him over the shoulder, yelled "up, up and awaaaaayyyyyyy!" and flown him back to the station for processing.

That, or grinned impishly while melting the pipe with his heat vision...

In the US, police training is to draw and fire two rounds into the centre of mass within 1.5 seconds - the time it takes for the average person 21 feet away to get within striking distance with a knife. Knives and pipes are deemed potentially lethal at up to that range and they are justified in using lethal force.

If the cop is carrying a taser, the result would be less likely to be fatal and if the attacker is missed, innocent passers-by are not likely to be offed by flying lead.

Wolf

9th June 2006, 15:57

So, opponents of Tazers etc, how DO you expect violent offenders be dealt with? Talk to them until they fall asleep from boredom?

Seriously, how in this utopian society you see through your rose-tinted glasses would YOU deal with these situations???? And since you do the talk, howz about you do the walk too, join up and show all us violent, power hungry abusers of public a better way?:wait:
I gather from the posts that the nay-sayers do not believe they will be used solely against violent offenders, that the cops will draw tasers to threaten drunken high-spirited youths who decide to get a bit too cheeky.

Anyone got figures on how many cops draw their batons to threaten or quell overly-lippy drunks? Or for those who have pepper-sprayed people for being cheeky?

I watched a police officer dealing with a drunk one night - a drunk that had assaulted his girlfriend, then the local Maori Warden and whom an associate of mine and I had subdued with armlocks and held pinned to the ground until the police got there. We had let him loose at the cop's request and the cop had a word with him, all the while with his own hands firmly behind his back so that there was no way the drunk could say the officer had touched him, let alone assaulted him. The drunk in this case was sober enough not to try taking a swing at the cop.

The cop did not resort to violence to take care of a mouthy drunk, he had no need to and he had no justification to.

If a cop tased - or pepper sprayed or bludgeoned, for that matter, and they've had the capacity to do that for ages - someone when the situation did not warrant the level of force, they would be put on a charge. Even if there were insufficient evidence to secure a conviction, they would certainly be put on notice that you don't run around doing that - especially not once the finger of suspicion has been levelled.

Yeah, sure, we've had some very well-publicised instances of police brutality, but when you put the number of instances into the proper context of the number of police and the number of encounters between police and civilians, the ratio of "bad cops" is very low.

Once again, far lower than the chances of you being knocked of your bike by another vehicle - which we all know to be an "acceptable" level of risk.

OK, in the movies the hero cop jumps in his car, speeds around the city, beats or threatens the information out of the appropriate people and guns down the badfdie at the end and saves the day but in reality, even in the US where such crap is usually set, cops cannot do that and any cop who did would be suspended pending trial.

A Taser, or a can of OC or a truncheon or a Glock is not a licence to do as you please. In fact, they carry a heavier level of responsibility than being unarmed.

How many of the nay-sayers have actually carried or used a firearm at all? Let alone for personal defence.

I have carried firearms quite frequently - in order to hunt - and even that entails a degree of care and responsibility the average unarmed civilian does not need to exhibit. I can only guess at how much greater that responsibility would be if I were carrying a firearm with the licence to use it to kill or maim another human if that should become necessary.

It's fine for the average citzen - get drunk, get out of control, get bolshy and threaten to wipe someone's clock for them if they fuck you off... the worst they can do is limted by their strength and how much damage their hands and feet can take before they give up the fight - unless they get really unlucky and push the bugger under a bus or down a flight of stairs.

Those with weapons have to take greater care, exercise more control. The licence to carry is a licence to be busted big time if you fuck up.

Lou Girardin

9th June 2006, 17:06

scumdog

9th June 2006, 17:19

Try this scenario then, a drunken guy has been arrested and cuffed and is lying on the ground calling a cops mother 10 kinds of whore.
Copper forgets his professionalism and gives chummy a zap or 3 with his taser.
Chummy has a heart condition and dies.
Couldn't happen?
My opposition to arming cops with these things is purely because they can't all be trusted with them. OK only a few will abuse them, but a few is too many.
They lied to us about the use of speed cameras, laser guns and pepper spray, they're lying to us about these too.

Fair comment Lou but how DO you expect the appropriate offenders to be subdued?

To go to extreme all batons. cuffs, pepper-spray are also risky and should not be allowed in case Chummy has a heart condition, asthsma or whatever.

Oh and remove patrol cars too - they have been known to crash and hurt people.

Personally I think Tazers are a blessing - as mentioned before, at present we have pepper-spray for violent offenders and then the next step up is fire-arms, at least this way with Tazerswe have something less than lethal (hopefully) that means both parties leave the scene alive and relatively
uninjured.