View Full Version : Tasers dont always work
Lias
26th October 2006, 13:47
Chew on this ya liberal bastards! Give our coppers guns!
TUALATIN, Ore. (AP) - A Washington County sheriff's deputy shot and killed a man who broke into a woman's apartment Sunday morning, the second fatal shooting involving the sheriff's office in just over a month.
Authorities say the deputy fired after Taser shocks and bean-bag rounds failed to slow the intruder and the man tried to reach inside a patrol car for a weapon.
A Sheriff's Spokesman says the incident started when a woman awoke to find the intruder standing by her bed.
She screamed, grabbed her cell phone and ran into her young daughter's bedroom.
The man followed her into the room and began attacking her, but she reportedly fought back and was able to phone 911 and avoid serious injury.
The woman says her daughter, 8, joined in the battle by repeatedly punching the intruder in the face.
She says action by her daughter allowed her to get the upper hand in the attack and that at one point she had her hands around the man's neck and was strangling him.
She was also able to get a knife from her kitchen.
The suspect, identified as Jordan Laird Case, 19,eventually left the home where he was confronted by police, who used high-voltage stun weapons and less-lethal beanbag rounds to no effect.
When Case reached inside a police car to get a shotgun, the officer opened fire, hitting Case multiple times. Case died at the scene.
Case was identified by a citizen who saw the drawing of a tattoo that was released Monday.
No further details about Mr. Case are available at this time. His next of kin have been notified.
Deano
26th October 2006, 13:53
So a woman and her 8 year old daughter managed to shake off the offender with their bare hands, but a deputy needed to shoot him dead to prevent him getting access to the deputy's own shotgun ?
ROFLMFAO !!
McJim
26th October 2006, 14:32
So if the police hadn't carried lethal weapons he wouldn't have had access to lethal weapons.
But it's in the USA where more people are shot dead each day than in Iraq so he's just another stat.
Squeak the Rat
26th October 2006, 15:08
Chew on this ya liberal bastards! Give our coppers guns!
Aha, so it's Lias that's the "strong force" that is pressuring the commissioner to arm our cops if the taser trials don't work!
http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,3839893a11,00.html
I will refrain from commenting on the commissioners comments. :shutup:
Lias
26th October 2006, 15:40
Aha, so it's Lias that's the "strong force"
*does arnie pose*
*frowns at drooping muscle*
Nope I'm not the strong force sorry mate lol
It wouldnt eliminate violent crime, but I do think cops carrying guns 24/7 would certainly reduce it.. Its not like the crims dont carry guns at it is.
Colapop
26th October 2006, 15:52
I'm actually surprised the offender managed to get outside... America the land of personal armoury's and all...
Steam
26th October 2006, 15:59
...but a deputy needed to shoot him dead to prevent him getting access to the deputy's own shotgun ?
So if the police hadn't carried lethal weapons he wouldn't have had access to lethal weapons.
MAHAHAA! Irony, oh so sweet. I wonder if the cops were reprimanded for being incompetent, or commended for erasing a bad guy?
Sniper
26th October 2006, 16:53
:corn: watch the excuses fly as to why cops shouldnt carry guns, thats why america is going to the dogs, ect ect.
slimjim
26th October 2006, 17:19
:innocent: far out, that's pretty fucked up,mother and daughter beat's the shit out of him , and yea cop has too kill him with a 9mm, strange land over there, they shoot horse's too ?:eek: :drool:
Timber020
26th October 2006, 21:22
Guns dont make for better or safer police. It just makes for better armed criminals.
sAsLEX
26th October 2006, 21:30
Guns dont make for better or safer police. It just makes for better armed criminals.
And at present the fact that Arms are freely available and rampant in the criminal underworld.........but somehow certain cops having easier access to pistols is going to lead to a huge increase in firearms coming in to the country and into the criminals hands?!
Half the reason America is fucked is their very liberal weapons laws, which we don't have.... but hey better not base an argument on evidence.....
I know I wouldn't want to be patrolling South Auckland with all the lawless fucks down that way without a bit of back up on my hip/thigh.
Skyryder
26th October 2006, 21:48
Guns dont make for better or safer police. It just makes for better armed criminals.
And unsafer for the rest of us.
Skyryder
scumdog
26th October 2006, 23:46
And unsafer for the rest of us.
Skyryder
Like it is just soooooo safe now? and getting better?
I say remove Tasers, Glocks, Bushmasters, pepperspray and batons from the Police, that way the criminals will feel less threatened and safer and will stop carrying weapons and then we'll ALL by safe.
Tuis moment here.
sAsLEX
27th October 2006, 09:06
And unsafer for the rest of us.
Skyryder
Want to justify that statement with some reason or Logic?
Situation 1.
Your average 18-25 years old polynesian or Maori about 180cm tall large build wearing a dark hoodie and balaclava is roaming around the streets high on P wielding a semi auto shot gun looking for a rival gang member in suburban where ever.
Do you suppose the police laugh him to submission with a well aimed joke? Or just leave him wondering about armed and dangerous until he finds what he thinks is his target on his P soaked mind?
Ixion
27th October 2006, 09:10
How many of the 16 (or whatever number it is) of Taser "presentations" so far here have been against P crazed shot gun toting gang members? Or similar?
Squeak the Rat
27th October 2006, 09:38
This argument has two levels. At the micro level you have the individual incident and the need to ensure the safety of the policeman (and any innocent parties) and the apprehension of the offender.
At the macro level we have the societal issue. What is the impact on society of having our cops armed? Do we finally start believing that we are not a friendly, safe society and if so what's the impact of this on us as a society. How does this affect the way the police act towards citizens and how in turn does this affect peoples opinions of the police? etc etc etc.
I'm sure most NZ'ers would say that they are all in favour of protecting the frontline cop, but not for having an armed police force.
sAsLEX
27th October 2006, 10:55
At the macro level we have the societal issue. What is the impact on society of having our cops armed? Do we finally start believing that we are not a friendly, safe society and if so what's the impact of this on us as a society. How does this affect the way the police act towards citizens and how in turn does this affect peoples opinions of the police? etc etc etc.
I'm sure most NZ'ers would say that they are all in favour of protecting the frontline cop, but not for having an armed police force.
Parts of New Zealand are no longer the once safe and happy places they used to be. South Auckland is taking a dive and becoming a hotbed of murders and crime we hear about every weekend.
In arming the police force do they need to do it in Ashburton were the major crime is old people riding their scooters on the footpath? Or would a more logical area/risk based policy be appropriate?
Skyryder
28th October 2006, 14:24
Want to justify that statement with some reason or Logic?
Situation 1.
Your average 18-25 years old polynesian or Maori about 180cm tall large build wearing a dark hoodie and balaclava is roaming around the streets high on P wielding a semi auto shot gun looking for a rival gang member in suburban where ever.
Do you suppose the police laugh him to submission with a well aimed joke? Or just leave him wondering about armed and dangerous until he finds what he thinks is his target on his P soaked mind?
Of course reason and logic is subjective.
Situation 1
Armed bank robbers are exiting a bank after and armed robbery and spot an armed police officer unaware of the robbery. Officer is shot dead before he can draw his weapon. In the ensuing panic by the robbers an innocent biker child is killed after riding into the fusilade from the robbers.....................Got the message sAslex. I could write a whole story on how things could go from bad to worse on this, simply because of an armed police officer.
We can all use our imagination to support our views.
Skyryder
Skyryder
28th October 2006, 14:30
Like it is just soooooo safe now? and getting better?
I say remove Tasers, Glocks, Bushmasters, pepperspray and batons from the Police, that way the criminals will feel less threatened and safer and will stop carrying weapons and then we'll ALL by safe.
Tuis moment here.
That's just plain silly SD. Not your usually well reasoned reply.
I too can make a silly response.
If you want a job where you are armed go and join the Army. But remember the other guys also believe they have a right to shoot back andon most occsions shoot first.
Skyrder
RT527
28th October 2006, 15:00
Of course reason and logic is subjective.
Situation 1
Armed bank robbers are exiting a bank after and armed robbery and spot an armed police officer unaware of the robbery. Officer is shot dead before he can draw his weapon. In the ensuing panic by the robbers an innocent biker child is killed after riding into the fusilade from the robbers.....................Got the message sAslex. I could write a whole story on how things could go from bad to worse on this, simply because of an armed police officer.
We can all use our imagination to support our views.
Skyryder
Too many what ifs, man walks into a bank with a weapon , takes child as hostage puts gun to childs head ...BANG,...damn safty wasnt on...here comes a cop shit ...its ok its a kiwi cop, he hasnt go a gun .....BOOOM cop falls down.....this country is too damn pc because of the what if`s, A boy cant climb a tree because he might fall and hurt himself or worse....I say arm the police , in specific districts that need it.
Lou Girardin
28th October 2006, 16:18
How many of the 16 (or whatever number it is) of Taser "presentations" so far here have been against P crazed shot gun toting gang members? Or similar?
Two instances, one was armed with a weedeater, one with a screwdriver.
No P crazed polly's with shotguns yet. The cops are never around when they shoot up houses.
Lou Girardin
28th October 2006, 16:21
Too many what ifs, man walks into a bank with a weapon , takes child as hostage puts gun to childs head ...BANG,...damn safty wasnt on...here comes a cop shit ...its ok its a kiwi cop, he hasnt go a gun .....BOOOM cop falls down.....this country is too damn pc because of the what if`s, A boy cant climb a tree because he might fall and hurt himself or worse....I say arm the police , in specific districts that need it.
Or, you could have the case where the cops staked out a bank in Taranaki. When the robbers entered there was a shootout, multiple rounds fired by the cops, no one hit. (no hits on innocent bystanders either, luckily). It may sound like Keystone cops, but I'm with Skyrider on this.
scumdog
28th October 2006, 16:29
That's just plain silly SD. Not your usually well reasoned reply.
I too can make a silly response.
If you want a job where you are armed go and join the Army. But remember the other guys also believe they have a right to shoot back andon most occsions shoot first.
Skyrder
So where's the balance?
Or do you accept the status quo? (Which slowly changes and evolves without you noticing it anyway)
And why should I join the Army? The odds are not so much in my favour in THAT service.:yes:
RT527
28th October 2006, 18:05
Or, you could have the case where the cops staked out a bank in Taranaki. When the robbers entered there was a shootout, multiple rounds fired by the cops, no one hit. (no hits on innocent bystanders either, luckily). It may sound like Keystone cops, but I'm with Skyrider on this.
Aha...so if they were staking out the bank they had prior knowledge that a robbery was going to happen , then wouldnt it be simpler to close the banks?...or maybe if they know then they might know the offenders, therefore arresting them before theres a shootout?.....bugger it , ill never be right because of the liberal shits out there that insist everyone has rights.......rights should be for law abiding citizens, not crims!!!!.
R6_kid
29th October 2006, 08:41
So a woman and her 8 year old daughter managed to shake off the offender with their bare hands, but a deputy needed to shoot him dead to prevent him getting access to the deputy's own shotgun ?
ROFLMFAO !!
my first thought exactly... i dont understand these american cops, if i can hit a pukeko at 70m while its walking then surely they can put a non lethal shot into a person at less distance. Either way, the scumbag is dead so whats the worry? Least he wont be costing the taxpayers for each year he spends in prison.
Edbear
29th October 2006, 08:52
Aha...so if they were staking out the bank they had prior knowledge that a robbery was going to happen , then wouldnt it be simpler to close the banks?...or maybe if they know then they might know the offenders, therefore arresting them before theres a shootout?.....bugger it , ill never be right because of the liberal shits out there that insist everyone has rights.......rights should be for law abiding citizens, not crims!!!!.
Problem for the Law is that someine actually has to do something illegal before they can be arrested, (could have the situation in that movie about putting people in jail 'cause it was foretold that they would commit a crime).
Apparently the Police have ready access to firearms as they need them now, so my question would be to those Police as to whether they, the ones who are facing these situations feel they want a change, or do they feel they have sufficient support now?
sAsLEX
29th October 2006, 10:03
my first thought exactly... i dont understand these american cops, if i can hit a pukeko at 70m while its walking then surely they can put a non lethal shot into a person at less distance. Either way, the scumbag is dead so whats the worry? Least he wont be costing the taxpayers for each year he spends in prison.
You aint trained to shoot non lethal rounds. If you want non lethal use a stick or something, if you draw your weapon and fire it you aim to put the suspect down with rounds through the CoM not through the knees.
Patrick
1st November 2006, 12:46
Aha...so if they were staking out the bank they had prior knowledge that a robbery was going to happen , then wouldnt it be simpler to close the banks?...or maybe if they know then they might know the offenders, therefore arresting them before theres a shootout?.....bugger it , ill never be right because of the liberal shits out there that insist everyone has rights.......rights should be for law abiding citizens, not crims!!!!.
To lock someone up for "Attempted" Aggravated Robbery means the only sentence the courts can impose is halved immediately...
Conspiracy would get someone a sentence of community work.
Actual Armed Agg Robbery means jail time, no ifs, no buts... Close the banks? How long for? Which ones? If one was closed, off they go to another....game on still... Just a shame the cops aim wasn't spot on that day, being A.O.S and all...but that is the old revolvers for ya. They should have thrown them at the baddies, would have caused more damage that way...
jrandom
1st November 2006, 13:04
if i can hit a pukeko at 70m while its walking...
Don't be a moron.
Sure you can, with a scoped rifle, a nice comfy place to sit in a paddock, and nothing within a hundred kilometers capable of hurting you.
Try repeating the feat with a handgun while your target's shooting back at you.
In that situation a hit at 7 meters, not 70, is stellar performance.
fozz rock
1st November 2006, 13:31
She was also able to get a knife from her kitchen.
.
and maybe she used it and thats way he left :yes:
people talk shit about cops, shouldnt have this and that but then their ass is on the line oh how the worm turns
RT527
5th November 2006, 09:34
Don't be a moron.
Sure you can, with a scoped rifle, a nice comfy place to sit in a paddock, and nothing within a hundred kilometers capable of hurting you.
Try repeating the feat with a handgun while your target's shooting back at you.
In that situation a hit at 7 meters, not 70, is stellar performance.
This doesnt just apply to cops ...in crash situations or even fires , youve got adrenalin...stress....loads of things happening around you, it becomes very easy to forget the important things, Training helps big time in this BUT it does not alleviate it, just makes it easier to deal with.
scumdog
5th November 2006, 12:25
Apparently the Police have ready access to firearms as they need them now, so my question would be to those Police as to whether they, the ones who are facing these situations feel they want a change, or do they feel they have sufficient support now?
Bring on the tazers.
At least then there's a good chance if I use it I won't be through the crap that 'Constable A' had to.
(Unless the poor loser is one of those supposed 'hundreds' that get killed by Tazers - but then I guess he picked a bad day to be a tazer target):innocent:
Steam
5th November 2006, 12:37
What's all this about arming the police? Don't the cops already have pistols? The ones I see at the Wellington Railway Station mostly do.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.