Tazers

[Indoo]

Wolfs hardly ranting, hes making a coherent argument.

Obviously your experience in the UK being a bobby on the beat is vastly different to what being a cop is like over here, particulary in South Auckland and the likes.

I've had to use my spray around 8 times in 4 and a bit years on people, only around three of those times was it sucessful in stopping them. The other times it managed to distract them enough that we were able to overpower them. Had we not been big guys and lost, we would have had the crap beaten out of us if not worse. On other occasians we've had to flee back to our cars when guys have produced baseball bats and other weapons, the only thing that saved us was that we were more motivated to escape than they were to chase us.

I've pulled a firearm with the intention to use it only once, that was with a 14 year old drunken kid who had just slashed up his brother with a machete. He advanced on us with the machete even though we had guns pointed at him, fortunately he stopped, had he not we would have had to shoot and potentially have killed a 14 year old kid.

Had we had tasers we wouldn't have been put in that situation in the first place. I think its a bit pathetic that some people expect Police to put themselves in those kind of situations to protect the public, without giving them appropriate means to defend themselves. I would suggest to those people that before they make a judgement on whether or not Police 'need' tasers to spend just one Friday night out with Police in South Auckland.

Make the guidelines extremely strict and punish those who breach them, don't punish the vast majority of cops who will use it reasonably and in situations where the cops life or the crims will be saved as a result.

Although that said I would find it an ok alternative if my pay was to say go up to the 200k mark to compensate for the risk and we were given at least two whole days a week to train in martial arts and defensive tactics so we could become these amazing unarmed cops able to disarm baseball bat wielding maniacs with our bare hands.
And at least a 50 percent discount at Dunkin Donuts.

[Fluffy Cat]

Funny that i am not trying to argue.
But you are trying to tell me that south Auck is not comparable to areas in London like say Brixton or Aston in Birmingham etc(you must be joking). Possibly not but i think you need to go there first. Me i am from Birmingham and i know where i can go and where i cant. NZ will have very few of these places and i lived in south Auck for a year and there are some rough types for sure but its just not on the same scale. My beat area included Sheerwater the largest council estate in the UK when it was built. The core flats on this estate are 5 floors high and are surrounded by 3 floor units, which fan out to terrace houses. There are 2 schools in this estate, and two industrial estates.I think it used to take about half an hour to go from one side to the other.But it was'nt a bad place. Poverty is poverty and bad people are the same everywhere you go.
Never had a gun or tazer just a stick and a radio. We were lucky that we bordered the Met and could call on them for assistance. I think that is a big difference to here, as you just do not have the troops. Yeah i've been booted out of pubs a few times doing the checks, like i said, on the radio and 10mins later 20-30 of us ready to do our check. I've been in a few situations involving guns, crossbows etc and lady luck was always there so only a bump and some stitches. As a police officer i always felt obliged to put myself in danger if needed,that was afterall my job.
I agree with you on many of your points but i still am not convinced that electrocution is the way to go.
I think you should transfer to a Brit city for a year or so. Make sure you work innercity, i never did but then i came from one. Then tell me how they compare to south Auck. Try Manchester, Coventry,Birmingham,London etc, and if you already have, what happened to the memories?.
I really think a large part of the prob is staffing but even in the Met and, they have over twentythousand officers there still are not enough.
I thought we policed with consent...

[Indoo]

Funny that i am not trying to argue.
But you are trying to tell me that south Auck is not comparable to areas in London like say Brixton or Aston in Birmingham etc(you must be joking).

I was born in England and lived there a while in a number of places althought mostly manchester area (which I don't think is as bad)and to be honest from that, but also speaking to a ton of UK cop's they find places like South Auckland far worse. Simply due to the amount of domestics and violence that goes on that you are expected to deal with on your own with absolutely no chance of backup.

Having to go into someones home and face them in home territory not knowing what to expect takes a toll. The amount of times you have to talk yourself out of a hiding is shocking, and I don't think Police should ever have to rely on the gift of the gab as much as we do now, having to talk crims out of giving them a hiding because they are out gunned and out manned. Hell alot of the time one up units are sent to violent domestics on there own, simply because we do not have the resources.

Never had a gun or tazer just a stick and a radio. We were lucky that we bordered the Met and could call on them for assistance. I think that is a big difference to here, as you just do not have the troops.

True, we don't.

I've been in a few situations involving guns, crossbows etc and lady luck was always there so only a bump and some stitches. As a police officer i always felt obliged to put myself in danger if needed,that was afterall my job.

Your obviously a bigger man than me in that instance. I can't really accept being assaulted and relying on lady luck to stay alive. With a family I don't feel obligated to put myself in unnecessary danger because they come first, not the ever grateful public.

I agree with you on many of your points but i still am not convinced that electrocution is the way to go.
.

I think your over stating the effect tasers actually have based on the U.S example. American cops also pump 60 odd rounds into unarmed 'suspects' because they thought they might have had a gun. U.K cops are of a vastly higher calibre to the U.S in general and I think its interesting how tasers are panning out there compared to the states.

[scumdog]

Indoo said it all in the above.

So at present the need for Tazers could be obviated by more staff being made available (to a greater extent) according to Fluffy Cat, - yeah right, like that's going to happen with this tight-arsed Government!

Tazer leave wounds so unneeded use of them is going to leave a 'trail' that will require explaining - it's not that you can have the argument "He Tazered me" - "No I didn't" - "Yes he did"- "No I didn't" etc.. as there IS proof the Tazer was used.

Another of my 2 cents worth on this site. (must be up to $1:28 by now).

[spudchucka]

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

16 deaths? In how many deployments? The information that I've read says that most deaths have been when the subject has had a pre-existing heart condition. How are the cops to know whether the mad fucker wanting to cut out their liver has a heart condition or not?

How many deaths would there have been in those situations, (cop or non cop) if the cops didn't have the Tazer but used a firearm instead?

How many lives have been saved through the use of Tazers? Has anyone bothered to find that out?

[Patrick]

16 deaths? In how many deployments? The information that I've read says that most deaths have been when the subject has had a pre-existing heart condition. How are the cops to know whether the mad fucker wanting to cut out their liver has a heart condition or not?

How many deaths would there have been in those situations, (cop or non cop) if the cops didn't have the Tazer but used a firearm instead?

How many lives have been saved through the use of Tazers? Has anyone bothered to find that out?

Haven't read the whole thread, but I guess many people are moaning about Tazers. It is only one step removed from shooting someone with a semi auto, which has a much higher kill rate. It aint rocket science folks.

Tazer or semi auto... hmmmm choices, choices....

[spudchucka]

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.

Pointing a firearm at somebody is a very humbling experience. Thinking about how close you came to pulling the trigger is even more humbling. Wondering what exactly it was that caused that crazy fecker to comply is the million $$$$ question, they are all different and the knowledge that the next one could work out totally different is at times a hard thing to reconcile yourself with.

[spudchucka]

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.

You'd rather good cops were killed or maimed because they didn't have the necessary tools to protect themselves?

[Grahameeboy]

[QUOTE=scumdog
[B]Another of my 2 cents worth on this site. (must be up to $1:28 by now).[/[/B]QUOTE]

Can hear your penny jar rattling..................

[Grahameeboy]

You'd rather good cops were killed or maimed because they didn't have the necessary tools to protect themselves?

I agree............no time to think of later consequences when you are dealing with what is happening.

It is a shame that the Police need to resort to tazers, however, good old paly police work just isn't working........at least with tazers you live to live the tale and will probably think twice.....unless of course you have a heart condition.....guess Police will need to check pulse rates beforehand???

[Wolf]

Tazer leave wounds so unneeded use of them is going to leave a 'trail' that will require explaining - it's not that you can have the argument "He Tazered me" - "No I didn't" - "Yes he did"- "No I didn't" etc.. as there IS proof the Tazer was used.

I'd think the cuffs would also leave some "pretty" marks if you did the Electric Fandango whilst wearing 'em.

This is rapidly becoming a pointless argument, alternating between "the face of crime is changing and the police need the means to defend themselves - less-than-lethal for preference" and "the small number of cops that might abuse them means that none should have them. We all know how crooked the pigs are."

No matter what saner minds might say, there will always be those conspiracy theorists who will just take it as read that a significant number of cops are as bad as the gangs and that the taser will suddenly become their weapon of choice - despite the fact that it is potentially lethal and leaves incriminating marks. They''ll just work on the idea that these teeming masses of crooked cops won't stick with the tried-and-true boot or truncheon which, although they leave marks, can be explained away with "Dunno, must've bin when 'e tripped down that flight of stairs, Sir."

FC, those who've been here a while know exactly what my rants are like - on a still day, you can hear the eyes glazing over...

Countering your assertion that our cops are going to misuse Tasers (it makes me wonder about the cops that you worked with, big on cudgelling cuffed prisoners were they?) and asking how using a Taser instead of a firearm is guaranteed to cause "avoidable deaths" does not constitute a "rant".

The level of violence in crime has escalated dramatically in recent years - a case in point being the Westie that was stabbed in the throat when he went out to challenge a guy who was tampering with his motorbike - once upon a happier time the would-be thief would have just legged it when he saw the owner approaching, relying on the fact that the owner would be more than happy the prick was off the property and his bike was safe. Now, the scum seem to think it acceptable to damn-near kill people for having the gall to ask WTF they're doing.

It is only fair that the cops have the means to defend themselves when entering a hostile situation where the person's rage may well be redirected at them. They are there to protect the public, as you say. They cannot do that if they're bleeding-out on the floor of a South Auckland P lab. The cops are "public" too, they have families, friends and colleagues.

Or are you saying that they must defend the public at the cost of their own lives? Trust that the offender will be satisfied with taking the cop's life and decide to stop beating his wife to death with a 4-foot iron bar?

They're defenders of the honest public, not punching bags for crims to vent their spleen on.

For some considerable time it has been a fairly simple matter for cops to check a Glock out of the armoury - I work with ex-cops who used to "carry".

Funnily enough, they weren't all charging 'round like John Wayne or Clint Eastwood waving their pieces under people's noses.

I can see a time coming when our cops are going to be visibly armed like those in Aus or the US, and I'd personally be happy to see a ranged less-than-lethal option on their belt as well as the Glock - I would rest easier knowing that their training may well prompt them to draw the Taser rather than the Glock in a hairy situation. If they miss the perp and hit an innocent bystander with a taser, the statistical likelihood is that the person who was hit is going to survive - rather than the high likelihood of death were that bystander hit by a stray bullet.

I constantly make the distinction of ranged less than lethal weapon to stress that this is where the Taser is unlike the pepper spray and more like the Glock. Pepper spray entails getting very close to the violent offender, is ineffectual in wind and has a higher chance of hitting the wrong person - often the cop that used it.

The Glock has a greater range but is more likely to have lethal results, the Taser has an intermediate range and is less likely to cause death than either the Glock or pepper spray (yes, people have died from pepper spray - most due to respiratory problems or inappropriate handling after being sprayed.)

Batons are also merely "less than lethal" - they certainly aren't "safe" or "non-lethal".

And as to the level of backup you enjoyed in London, if a cop called for back-up here some other cop would have to put down his laser and then the ACC would be wanting a detailed explanation as to WTF the cop was thinking gallavanting about the place protecting his colleagues and sundry citizens when he should be policing their latest "cure" for the road toll.

[Wolf]

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.

If the retrained person is face down on the ground, there is an extremely high likelihood of death by asphyxiation if he were sprayed - decreased breathing passages, shortness of breath, unable to properly inflate lungs due to one's own weight and unable to lift oneself off the ground to aid breathing.

How many cops would spray or cudgel a restrained person? How many would be stupid enough to fire barbs into a restrained person?

1%? Less?

Then take the far less than 1% chance that they will die from being tased and you can see exactly how unlikely the scenario you describe is. You talk as if beating or pepper spraying subdued prisoners is a routine occurance and the percentage of accidental deaths from tasering is up around the percentage of deaths from motor vehicle accidents.

I had what I felt to be just cause to be extremely insulting and sarcastic to a cop once. Somehow I managed to avoid being cuffed and beaten up because of it - and this particular cop was a belligerent, arrogant, foul-mouthed prick.

If I encountered another shit like that today, I'd still give him the response he deserved, even if he did have a Taser on his belt.

So no tazer no zap, no accidental death, life goes on.

Care to apply the same argument to boots and batons as well? More people have been beaten to death by cops or accidentally killed by bludgeoning damage in the world's history than by Taser.

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?.

Are we still talking about the clip of the cop tasing the woman?

Lovely unbiased bit of reporting, that, clearly showed both sides of the argument in a clear and impartial way. Love the way they showed the number of cops who had been gunned down in the US and had someone explain why the cops in the states tend to be a trifle paranoid when the suspect's hands vanish from view. Did a great job of highlighting that the clip was reviewed by police trainers and was deemed to be the correct response to the situation.

Oops, I'm sounding as sarcastic as Lou.

As I said, unless our level of violent crime alters to the point where people stopped for routine checks or minor traffic violations take to producing firearms and shooting at the cop who comes to challenge them, that sort of situation is not likely to arise here.

[Lou Girardin]

You'd rather good cops were killed or maimed because they didn't have the necessary tools to protect themselves?

That's the balancing act. And that's why all the negative actions by some of your colleagues are tipping the scales against you.

[Lou Girardin]

How many cops would spray or cudgel a restrained person? How many would be stupid enough to fire barbs into a restrained person?

1%? Less?

1% is around 70 rogue cops. I think that's a tad high for a professional Police force.

BTW. The woman being tasered was on her cellphone. I guess less than instant obedience warrants being tasered in some peoples minds. Especially some cops minds.

[Wolf]

1% is around 70 rogue cops. I think that's a tad high for a professional Police force.

So we'll go with "less", then.

"Rogue" some might be but stupid they are not (not if they've managed to stay on the job) so I doubt many of the rogue cops would fire a couple of barbs into a cuffed victim.