Tazers

[madboy]

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]

[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]

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]

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 ( ), 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[spudchucka]

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]

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.