Tazers

[Wolf]

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]

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]

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]

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?

**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]

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?

[Wolf]

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]

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?

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]

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.

[scumdog]

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.

[Fluffy Cat]

How do we deal with violent offenders?, you guys keep saying that over and over. I was a cop i dealt with violent offenders over and over never used my stick. So why would i need a tazer?.
Woman in the car is/was an example was not comparing countries but i have worked with US exchange cops and they dont shoot every one who lets go of the steering wheel when stopped and as said they can use there firearm. The prob overthere the UK and here is single crewing of cars. This has and always will be a prob, police are expensive and you do not always double up.
Now just one niggle with the dumb ass/s who think getting punched or hit with a stick is the same as an eletrical shock please for the sake of the children think!...come on you can do it.

[scumdog]

How do we deal with violent offenders?, you guys keep saying that over and over. I was a cop i dealt with violent offenders over and over never used my stick. So why would i need a tazer?.
...come on you can do it.

I too have not needed to use my baton or spray - but come the day I need something effective I hope I have it with me, be it Glock or Tazer.

And are you trying to tell us that EVERY situation can be overcome without violence or force? c'mon, you were just lucky.....or didn't stay in the job long enough.

[Ixion]

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?

By the nature of things definitive evidence of misuse will be ahrd come by. No cop is going to fill in a report saying "I pepper sprayed im cos I didn't like the way he was looking at me"

Does it happen? People in a position to have a good idea what theya re talking about seem to think so

Police use of pepper spray during a protest in Rotorua has come under fire from a District Court judge, who said officers failed to exercise tact, tolerance and restraint in policing a demonstration in January.

Judge James Weir has forwarded his finding to the Police Commissioner, saying the use of pepper spray in the case raised more questions than answers.

Gary Gotlieb from the Auckland District Law Society agrees, saying he frequently hears complaints of inappropriate police behaviour.

The Minister of Police told Parliament that there were 2000 recorded uses of pepper spray by the police in 2005. I do not know if it is possible that there were other , unreported , instances, but I would presume that it would be pretty simple for a cop to "forget" to report spraying someone, and such amnesiac instances would, by definition, be more likely to be those of dubious nature.

If we assume that half the pepper spraying would be replaced by taserings , then that would give 1000 people tasered per year. Plus unrecorded ones.

[Fluffy Cat]

Come on, how on an internet chat site in less than 2000 words can i cover every situation?. The sidearm i have no prob with but it has a whole different pattern of use ie the cuffed guy on the ground kicks up a fuss...bang bang double tapp to the chest, i dont think so. Might be thats what some want?, i don't know, but its not my line. But consider this, cuffed guy on the ground, zap with the tazer. Had undiagnosed heart defect.....this would be avoidable.
There have been recorded deaths in countries that use these devices.
How did police forces cope in the past are the times more or less violent?....Times are very much less violent.
Its a case of where does it lead, as for time in the job only four years. But this is in the Greater Metropolitan area of a small city called London with lets say 10 million people. Crime rates are different and i would think slightly higher in this area than say Auckland pop 1.5 million. Firearms incidents in this area are also high due to many factors but poverty plays its part. I never had a firearm but was trained to use one during my time in the army. Now i work in public hospitals guess i have a little experience. The use and carrying of firearms by police i have no probs with but tazers in my opinion are unnecessary, and may cause deaths that could be avoided. Remember the police are there to protect the public not harm the public.

[Wolf]

How do we deal with violent offenders?, you guys keep saying that over and over.

Because that is the function of the weapons.

But consider this, cuffed guy on the ground, zap with the tazer. Had undiagnosed heart defect.....this would be avoidable.

"You guys" keep saying that.

The conviction that so many people on here have that our cops are all thugs who'd like nothing better than to tase people that have already been subdued is truly astounding and not a little scary.

Honestly, if people here are so convinced that the cops cannot be trusted, perhaps they should accept SD's invitation and join up to build a police force of people who don't go around tasing cuffed people.

Lou, if the number of corrupt or violent cops is too high for you, then get ready to become unemployed because the percentage would be lower than the percentage of people who drive cars or ride motorbikes irresponsibly or dangerously so by your argument we should outlaw both as having an unacceptably high injury/mortality rate.

Consider this for a scenario: Cuffed crim on the ground calling the cop's mother 10 kinds of whore, cop forgets his professionalism and boots him in the ribs with his government-issued "Boots, Leather, Black - Feet, for the protection of." Chummy sustains punctured lungs from the busted ribs, drowns on his own blood.

That could have happened for a great number of years - long before pepper spray or tasers.

Shall we send the cops out naked because I personally know a way of turning every item of a cop's uniform into a lethal weapon?

The use and carrying of firearms by police i have no probs with but tazers in my opinion are unnecessary, and may cause deaths that could be avoided. Remember the police are there to protect the public not harm the public.

So shooting people with a firearm is less harmful than tasing them? Sorry, FC, I cannot comprehend your train of thought.

If the cops only had firearms with which to respond to those incidents where everything else has failed then there would be more avoidable deaths - deaths that would have been avoided if the police officer had access to a ranged, less-than-lethal alternative to drawing and firing a pistol.

You seem also to assume that the police are going to wander into every situation with the taser drawn and aimed, snarling "STEP AWAY FROM THE CAR, MOTHERFUCKER, GET ON THE FUCKING GROUND!" like something out of a bad cop movie.

Do the cops currently approach everyone with baton or pepper spray or Glock drawn at the moment? No. Yet you have this assumption they're all going to turn into John-fucking-Rambo or the Terminator the minute they get their mits on a Taser.

Thank you for inferring that our police force is comprised of gung-ho gun-mad children that vault into every situation guns a-blazin', and violent offenders that are just looking for an excuse to torture cuffed subjects.

I get to watch the cops in action bloody-near every day because of the number of street scum that infest Ward Street outside where I work. The scum became such a problem the cops set up a permanent base in one of the buildings so they can better respond to calls from the shops or concerned citizens.

The cops go past every day with pepper spray on their belts and frequently tell aggro, drunk, P'ed-up or just plain stupid gangs of youths to disperse, get out of the shops. Occasionally arrests are made.

Not once have I seen the cops draw their spray to intimidate, coerce or threaten any of the smart-mouthed, often belligerent scum (after all, it's their right to lurk inside shops when they have no intention of buying anything, pick fights or stare down shoppers, how dare the pigs ruin their fun?)

But you can believe what you like.

[Fluffy Cat]

Wolf man....chill out.
Go back read what i said then rant!.
Of course a gun is more lethal, a police officer that would spray a restrained man on the ground is unlikley to shoot the said man. Got it so far?.
But he may be tempted to use a less lethal weapon?, i think there is a higher chance that this sort of scenario will occur in the future. Purely because the choice is there!. In the past it would have been give him a wack with the stick or a punch. Now i can zap him a bit.
No i dont think all police officers are bad. Society needs some form of comformity, thats what makes it. But you can help people make choices by the structure of the system. So no tazer no zap, no accidental death, life goes on. Then again they have cops with sidearms in many countries around the world and it does seem to be the trend to turn them into walking battle waggons. You are as a cop a target for some people. This seems to me to be a knee jerk reaction. High profile but little substance. Will it really make a difference?.
As you said i can believe what i want but it did help watching it on tv along with thousands of others. That guy if i can use your words must have been scum?.