• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

TASER OPINIONS?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Hatchet Man said:
Didn't mean to suggest your naive, forgot to add the appropriate smilie

And I didn't mean to suggest that you suggested ..., I was trying to be a smart ass.    Ain't the internet grand? ;)

The point we're both making remains the dearth of accurate statistics.  Which stats would, I'm pretty sure take some of the heat off LEAs around the country.  I don't know how they'd get out (if they exist), though - I can't see the MSM jumping on that particular bandwagon.
 
Roy Harding said:
And I didn't mean to suggest that you suggested ..., I was trying to be a smart ***.    Ain't the internet grand? ;)

The point we're both making remains the dearth of accurate statistics.  Which stats would, I'm pretty sure take some of the heat off LEAs around the country.  I don't know how they'd get out (if they exist), though - I can't see the MSM jumping on that particular bandwagon.

Start posting the stats on blogs and message boards, where the MSM usually winds up getting alot of their info anyways ;D
 
Someone wanted statistics? Here is Toronto's 2006 Stats........

Edited to add......

And here are a bunch more, I only went through Toronto's, none of the others so I cannot vouch for it's content. But here is the link to the site that has them, BTW.......is it a little biased that the stats are on the page for TASER? The company that makes the things? I dunno. But at least it is statistics.

http://www.taser.com/research/statistics/Pages/FieldUseandStatistics.aspx


Click on the attachment below......
 
Chesire:

Thanks for the links.  I had come across the Taser.com site, but decided that using those stats would be unwise - as you stated, too much chance of bias.  I'm not saying those stats are slanted, but the possibility of bias would impeach the source.

As I pull more and more stats in (thanks to folks like you), I'll try to post something making sense of what stats are available from reliable sources (like LEAs).
 
Looks like this guy exhausted all his options to be subdued.....I wonder what part of "Drop the weapon!" he didn't understand?

Police shoot suspect after failing to subdue him
Updated Tue. Dec. 18 2007 5:51 PM ET

The Canadian Press

WINNIPEG -- Police in Winnipeg say an officer was forced to shoot and kill an armed man when efforts to subdue him with a Taser were unsuccessful.

Sgt. Kelly Dennison said police were called to a neighbourhood with a rough reputation about 11 p.m. Monday to deal with a 911 call from someone being threatened by a man.

Two officers were "confronted in a threatening manner'' by the man, who was armed with a gun and a bat, Dennison said Tuesday.

One of the officers fired his Taser, but for some unexplained reason it did not work properly. An officer was then forced to use his service pistol, he said.

"From all appearances at this point in time, the Taser was deployed correctly, but it was unsuccessful. The reason it was unsuccessful is still part of this investigation.''

When fired, Tasers shoot two probes that deliver an electrical shock to the target. The stun guns can be finicky, however. They can fail to jolt if one of the probes misses a person and they won't work through thick clothing.

Police do not believe the suspect, whose name was not released, fired his gun.

It's not clear whether the Taser and the gun were fired by the same officer, although Dennison confirmed that under Winnipeg police policy an officer brandishing a Taser would normally be backed up by another officer with a service pistol.

"That's the way we go through our training. One officer, if displaying a Taser, another officer would be in a lethal force position.''

Dennison said it was too early in the investigation to reveal many details about what happened, but he did say the two officers felt threatened when the man confronted them outside a west-end apartment block.

"If our officers are confronted by individuals armed with firearms or weapons, and their lives or other people's lives are in jeopardy, we have to take the appropriate action.

"That's what we're trained for. That's what you pay us for.''

The suspect and the tenant he allegedly threatened over the phone were acquaintances, but it was not a domestic dispute, Dennison said.

"No, they weren't arguing over the hydro bill, but all of those details will come out.''

An entire city block around the Langside Street apartment remained taped off with yellow police ribbon Tuesday morning. Officers were restricting access to the block, which is full of big, old, once-beautiful homes, some apartments and rooming houses. There is also the odd pocket of recently renovated properties.

Neighbour Derek Alberts said he arrived home early Tuesday to commotion. Though the neighbourhood has seen some upgrades, Alberts said there are still rough parts on his street.

"It's `Gangside,''' Alberts said, referring to Langside Street's notorious nickname.

Students at Balmoral Hall, a posh all-girls private school, were not allowed to use the back entrance to their complex, which is directly across the street from the apartment where the shooting took place.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Moron's armed with a gun and they tried to 'tase' him??  A lot braver, or maybe something else, than I would be......
 
Just because someone is holding a gun doesn't necessarily mean they get shot.  For example the bad guy may have had the ability and the means to inflict death or GBH but not showing intent, that is probably why the taser was deployed first - with lethal over watch of course.  The bad guy probably then made some move that would show intent to cause death or GBH which would then compel the officers to use lethal force to stop him.  Once the ability, means and intent to cause death or GBH are present then that is when lethal force is authorized. 
 
This editorial appears in the Chronicle Hearald in NS this morning. It must be said that police here in NS are not using the Taser very much although there was a guy recently who died in holding cells after an incident where he was tased. There has not been any conclusive evidence that the tasering was the reason for his demise.
Shared with the usual disclaimers

Quebec leads on Tasers


Thu. Dec 27 - 4:47 AM

MOST reasonable people would likely agree that when police use force, the amount they deploy should be proportionate to the perceived threat.

But that’s the nub of the controversy over police Taser use. Too often, it appears, police officers have chosen to zap individuals with thousands of volts of electricity even when that person they are engaged with does not represent an imminent physical danger to anyone.

Last week, the province of Quebec did the right thing and explicitly put restrictions on the police use of Tasers. Responding to a provincial task force report that made about 60 recommendations, the Quebec government said Tasers should be only used in those situations where an individual’s resistance to police posed a serious risk to officers, suspects or bystanders. The government further said that police would be required to call for medical help if the suspect appeared "agitated."

As has been noted in recent news coverage, there have now been 15 investigations into police Taser use in 2007. The reason? A string of disturbing deaths after individuals were Tasered by police, and a corresponding public outcry over seemingly inappropriate uses of Tasers – including incidents where people died -- when thoses being zapped did not appear to pose a direct risk to anyone.

The RCMP’s own watchdog – after reviewing the incident at Vancouver airport earlier this fall where a disoriented Polish immigrant died after being Tasered, despite offering no physical resistance to the four Mounties confronting him – recommended the force’s Taser use be restricted to more serious situations. But disturbingly, the report’s author now says the RCMP’s response, though sounding compliant, actually changes nothing in terms of an RCMP officer’s discretion to deploy their Taser.

Meanwhile, recent reports have undermined one of the long-repeated maxims of Taser backers, that the stun gun would save lives by keeping police’s far deadlier weapons, firearms, holstered.

New studies have challenged that assumption. Data from several Canadian cities show that police, after Tasers were introduced, did not discharge their firearms at rates any different from in the past. This despite Taser’s manufacturers, numerous police spokesmen and various politicians all being on record as arguing stun guns are a non-lethal way to handle situations in which someone otherwise might be shot and killed.

There is a mounting international debate over Taser use, for the same reasons as here – police using the weapon far too casually, with far too frequent fatal outcomes. Governments need to follow Quebec’s lead and restrict Taser use.

 
Wow.  That's some "leadership".  They articulated what we already do.  Alakazam, **POOF**  MAGIC!
 
QV said:
Just because someone is holding a gun doesn't necessarily mean they get shot.  For example the bad guy may have had the ability and the means to inflict death or GBH but not showing intent, that is probably why the taser was deployed first - with lethal over watch of course.  The bad guy probably then made some move that would show intent to cause death or GBH which would then compel the officers to use lethal force to stop him.  Once the ability, means and intent to cause death or GBH are present then that is when lethal force is authorized. 

Er...as a cop, I doubt there would be a lot of time spent looking for "intent" vs....I dunno, just holding a gun..? If someone is holding a firearm (or edged weapon) and doesn't drop it immediately upon being told to by police, then getting shot is procedure. Police don't give them any benefit of the doubt - not when their own lives or other innocents lie in their hands.
 
the_midge said:
Er...as a cop, I doubt there would be a lot of time spent looking for "intent" vs....I dunno, just holding a gun..? If someone is holding a firearm (or edged weapon) and doesn't drop it immediately upon being told to by police, then getting shot is procedure. Police don't give them any benefit of the doubt - not when their own lives or other innocents lie in their hands.

Uh... who are you and what kind of experience do you bring to the table?

You don't shoot just because. This is never been the way. Where did you ever get that kind of idea? From Die Hard? Or Lethal Weapon? When you come up to any one with a weapon you assess the situation. You DO NOT unholster, present and shoot away!

By the way QV's got some experience in the area of LE...
 
I never said "shoot just because". I said shoot when one has a weapon and doesn't follow instructions. My point being that police often don't have time in critical situations to assess whether a suspect is going to use their weapon or not. I didn't mean to imply that cops should just "blow people away", but rather that police don't take chances with armed suspects. Of course a situation needs to be assessed, but often there's not a lot of time for assessment in critical situations. If I came across as crass or blunt, I apologize. And no, I've never actually seen 'Die Hard' or 'Lethal Weapon'. ;)

I didn't realize I needed to introduce credentials before coming into an a conversation and offering an opinion. If you're still interested, send me a PM.

 
the_midge said:
I never said "shoot just because". I said shoot when one has a weapon and doesn't follow instructions. My point being that police often don't have time in critical situations to assess whether a suspect is going to use their weapon or not. I didn't mean to imply that cops should just "blow people away", but rather that police don't take chances with armed suspects. Of course a situation needs to be assessed, but often there's not a lot of time for assessment in critical situations. If I came across as crass or blunt, I apologize. And no, I've never actually seen 'Die Hard' or 'Lethal Weapon'. ;)

I didn't realize I needed to introduce credentials before coming into an a conversation and offering an opinion. If you're still interested, send me a PM.

You may be over simplifying things. I have never seen a member shoot because someone didn't follow instructions, but that's not saying when there are times when that is justified. Routinely doing so is NOT justified. There are things called threat ques which assist in the decision making or any member when employing their sidearm, and you're quite right that members don't often take chances with armed suspects. That being said, caution and proper tactical procedures are followed through before a shot is ever fired. Also, time is of the essence, and you may not have time sometimes, but that's where your training kicks in.

You don't have to introduce your credentials, but filling out your profile completely would be helpful. Especially offering opinions on topics such as this, it would often help to know where the person is coming from and what kind of experience or background they have. Many of the board members have been around a long time, and their profiles may be diluted after a while due to varying reasons, but its nice for new members to let us know a bit about them.

It's too bad you've never seen those movies , they were good >:D
 
You may right - I'm probably over-simplifying things. I'm over-sensitive to the general public and their views on police use-of-force. As for my credentials - I'm a supervisor for a campus police service. Lots of training on use-of-force...but not a heckuva lot of respect or recognition.

As for the movies, they're on my list. ;)

 
Police don't and can't shoot someone just for not dropping a weapon when told to do so.  And no it's not procedure.  There have been countless standoffs with armed people that have lasted hours and hours.

If some guy is standing there holding a pistol pointed at the ground and not saying anything like "I'm gonna shoot ya" there is no intent displayed (I'm trying to simplify here).  He is basically just holding a pistol, although it would be n everybody's interest he wasn't.  There is definately a threat of death or GBH with the presence of a pistol like I just described.  A prudent police officer would draw and aim his own firearm, but try and de-escalate from there.

If that same guy does something like point it, starts to raise his arm, or verbalizes that he is going to use it on you, then he has shown intent and lethal force is authorized.  At this point the police will shoot and shoot until the threat has been stopped.  Hopefully the bad guy lives in order to answer to justice. 

Obviously shootings like this are very dynamic and can happen in split seconds.  Many police officers across the country are forced to make a life or death decision in a split second while the courts and media second guess those decisions for months with full hindsight .... and after dragging the officer through hell, they decide it was a clean shot. 

MedTech sounds like he knows what he is talking about, for a MedTech.  ;)



 
 
I see where you're coming from, QV. Just not as able to articulate as you clearly are, from your experience.

 
QV said:
MedTech sounds like he knows what he is talking about, for a MedTech.  ;)

I don't know much :) I just want to learn like everyone else  :D
 
How about the new 12gauge Taser..probless rubber bullet with an extra How ya doing. ;)

(I'll try add pic here)..Can't so here is link.
Go to See armoury (big box), picture number 7
http://dsc.discovery.com/tv/future-weapons/weapons/zone3/slideshow/slideshow.html

Would switching to a probless taser be better or worse?
You get to hear the Shotgun go boom, the bad guy/gal falls to the ground doing a funky chicken in-front of a camera. What would public "outcry" be then? Would there be less Medical complications?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top