Tasers - An Electronics Tech's Opinion

[Fuller Malarkey]

Also, for those the question the accountability of Tasers, ours actually have a micro chip in it that records any and all uses. So for example, if I were to Tase someone for no reason (never happen) and then leave. They could file a complaint. My Taser would get pulled and they would actually check the chip to see if/when it was used. It'll tell them how many times, how long of a duration, etc. All of our catridges are also serial numbered and tracked. This information goes with us to court if/when it ever comes up. There have been cases where the Judge has ruled ok the first 3 hits have been good, but no the 4th hit was un needed. And again, most (all I would bet) require a Use of Force report to be filed if/when the Taser is applied. This along with the data from the Taser is what is used to determine if the cop was being exessive or not.

There's actually MORE accountability with the Taser then say a Baton. How do you track how many strikes to the body? Bruises? Maybe.

Again, Tasers are a good thing for both sides.

This is meaningless drivel. A record of use, even video depicting a tasing may not reveal the antagonistic escalation on the part of police that led to the use of the taser. IF the matter is investigated, who will be doing the investigating? Police investigating police is less than objective. What's ironic is that for investigative purposes, police are trained and encouraged to lie.

The issue runs much deeper than the taser.

 

[eye95]

I have heard rumors of firearm bans in other countries.:uhoh:

Do we really want to ban a tool, instead of holding the users accountable? Seems like a dark road to me.:uhoh:

Yeah. That. Some people like the ban thinking--unless it is applied to them.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

 

[Citizen]

SNIP Its a proven tool that reduces death and injury to citizens. The argument "well its killed someone" its akin to saying we should walk around in our underwear with nothing at all. Literally having has killed someone. Boots being handcuffed tasers batons oc spray guns hands feet getting pushed.

I'm not going to comment. I'll just ask a few questions for interested readers to do their own evaluation of the bolded comment.

How does a taser reduce death and injuries to citizens unless police were misusing their previous non-lethal weapons?

If a situation did not justify lethal force, then police would have been resorting to batons and pepper spray and so forth. How does a taser represent a reduction in deaths and injuries from previous non-lethal weapons employed in situations that did not call for lethal force, unless those weapons were previously being misused, with excessive force being applied?

 

[eye95]

I'm not going to comment. I'll just ask a few questions for interested readers to do their own evaluation of the bolded comment.

How does a taser reduce death and injuries to citizens unless police were misusing their previous non-lethal weapons?...

Because the taser was not designed to replace only non-lethal options. It also replaced lethal options.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

 

[Citizen]

Because the taser was not designed to replace only non-lethal options. It also replaced lethal options.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

Hang on a second. Are you really suggesting that cops will resort to their taser when they're justified in using a gun?

Aside from interrupting a rape or aggravated assault, I don't see it. Pull a knife on a cop inside 21' and see if you don't get swept with a muzzle or worse.

While there might be a vanishingly small percentage of police who would resort to a taser when confronted with a lethal threat to themselves or someone nearby, meaning the number is not zero, I don't see it being much higher. Think about it. A cop is confronted with a lethal threat to himself or someone nearby. Is he really gonna pull his taser?

 

[eye95]

Nope, just that prior to the taser, a cop may have had to resort to a gun when, after the taser, he had another option. I remember when departments first started using tasers, they were used as a non-lethal option to guns. They could stop a suspect at a distance (a club could not) with almost zero chance of death, as opposed to stopping the BG with a gun.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

 

[Grapeshot]

Definition of less lethal

Non-Lethal Weapons - This term is used to describe weapons that are not fundamentally designed to kill or cause serious bodily injury. However the munitions deployed from these non-lethal weapons may; in extremely rare cases injure a person to the degree which may result in death under unique circumstances. Based upon a calculated risk factor, the chances of injury meeting the deadly force definition are only marginal. It is true that non-lethal weapons and tactics have been attributed to deaths both in the United States of America and Internationally. If lethality levels increase to beyond statistical outliers the weapon should be reclassified. At this time there are no national or industry standards for these weapons or munitions.
http://www.policeone.com/CERT/articles/94021-Definition-and-explanation-of-less-lethal/

 

[77zach]

This is meaningless drivel. A record of use, even video depicting a tasing may not reveal the antagonistic escalation on the part of police that led to the use of the taser. IF the matter is investigated, who will be doing the investigating? Police investigating police is less than objective. What's ironic is that for investigative purposes, police are trained and encouraged to lie.

The issue runs much deeper than the taser.

+1

These "investigations" are by definition tainted. Specially convened citizen review boards is are an interesting idea. These review boards should have absolute power to discipline individuals employed to protect the peace.

 

[Primus]

I'm not going to comment. I'll just ask a few questions for interested readers to do their own evaluation of the bolded comment.

How does a taser reduce death and injuries to citizens unless police were misusing their previous non-lethal weapons?

If a situation did not justify lethal force, then police would have been resorting to batons and pepper spray and so forth. How does a taser represent a reduction in deaths and injuries from previous non-lethal weapons employed in situations that did not call for lethal force, unless those weapons were previously being misused, with excessive force being applied?

Your first question.... reduced chance of death or injury because taser causes less damage. I gave an example. If you are being combative saying kicking at me or hitting someone else. Either I can use a baton and strike you (a metal pipe) which will cause cruising at least maybe broken bones. Also its easy to miss and strike someone in a red area (head). No replace baton with taser. You are attempting to fight and get shot with taser two probes go in you and you get a 5 second shock. When its done a regular person immediately recovers. No lasting damage.

A taser is less lethal then a baton I would say. Leads chance of injury also. I would say in list of severe weapons you gave hands/feet then oc spray then taser then baton then gun.

These weapons coincide with the use of force continuum for a reason. So using a taser of a baton (more deadly) of gun (even deadlier) means less risk of death or injury.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

 

[77zach]

Nope, just that prior to the taser, a cop may have had to resort to a gun when, after the taser, he had another option. I remember when departments first started using tasers, they were used as a non-lethal option to guns. They could stop a suspect at a distance (a club could not) with almost zero chance of death, as opposed to stopping the BG with a gun.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

How altruistic of those heroes in blue! I think the main reason cops want them is to make people comply. Say you have a really big guy who's drunk and doesn't want to move or put his hands behind his back to get cuffs on. Heat him up a little bit with some juice and he bends more easily.

 

[MAC702]

...Heat him up a little bit with some juice and he bends more easily.

And he'll probably survive!

 

[solus]

primus, your five second jolt would leave me w/o a pulse no if ands or buts, and unless you have a defib on the site for immediate cardio conversion, i have died at the scene as readily as being shot.

as i have seen the ability of some LE to fire their firearms in emergency, panic situations and witnessed their remarkable high lack of accuracy (which is why they normally empty their mags when in those kinds of situations) i will take being shot at as my chances at surviving are incredibly high.

one form which has fallen out of LE favor is the paint ball gun filled w/pepper spray balls and shot at bad guys chest or head or the bean bag shotgun aimed mid chest or genital area...

ipse

 

[Primus]

primus, your five second jolt would leave me w/o a pulse and unless you have a defib on the site for immediate cardio conversion, i have died as readily as being shot.

as i have seen the ability of some LE to fire their firearms in emergency, panic situations and witnessed their remarkable high lack of accuracy (which is why they normally empty their mags when in those kinds of situations) i will take being shot at as my chances at surviving are incredibly high.

ipse

Solus if your saying that u have a heart condition or a pacemaker you'd still survive 5 seconds. Especially if you were struck across the back.

And solid if your in some medical state or condition then I hope you won't be trying to fight police or any other person any time soon.

Best of luck.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

 

[Grapeshot]

--snipped--

one form which has fallen out of LE favor is the paint ball gun filled w/pepper spray balls and shot at bad guys chest or head or the bean bag shotgun aimed mid chest or genital area...

ipse

I know that these have been used in a DoC (corrections) environment, but am not aware of LE using these in a non-institutional situation. DoC also uses rubber pellets. Shooting any of these at the head is contrary to training,

 

[eye95]

How altruistic of those heroes in blue! I think the main reason cops want them is to make people comply. Say you have a really big guy who's drunk and doesn't want to move or put his hands behind his back to get cuffs on. Heat him up a little bit with some juice and he bends more easily.

Do you remember their introduction? Cops did not want them. You find the very kind of people who pushed them on the police posting on this forum.

Ya gotta love irony!

 

[Firearms Iinstuctor]

I am guessing all those that are so against tazer have a lot of experience taking a noncompliance person into custody.

Or actually had some drugged or other wise intoxicated person want o kick the Sh!t out of them.

Please tell me how do you personally take a person that tells you to F off I am not going, into custody.

Please the Law enforcement world well pay you millions of dollars for your proven advice and techniques.

All I been hearing from the anti tazer crowd it is bad, please come up with some thing better there is lots of money to be made.


Feel free to post any true story about how you personally handled a person who wants to kick the sh!t out of you.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

No people have died from a punch in the face? Is that an assertion to be taken seriously or is it sarcastic irony? Or is it merely poorly expressed?

The results can be deadly, a person can fall on the ground and die, like what happened to a guy in Seattle. If one punch is going to be administered is going to end there? How many more will come and people have died from getting beat to death. So yes maybe poorly expressed but made to counter a silly argument by Primus, one he hasn't responded back to.

 

[OC for ME]

Correct. Just as the gun can be used unjustifiably, so too can the taser. But the claims made by some that the taser is "less than lethal" is a false statement. If the taser is classified as a lethal weapon that kills far less often than a gun, then I am on board with cops carrying tasers. But don't call it what it is not. Be truthful and place the tool in the same category as the gun and then the users acts will be seen in the same light as his acts with a gun.

Nothing more and nothing less.

If the taser remains classified as a less than lethal weapon then I will continue to call for the removal of tasers from cops.

Reiteration.

 

[Citizen]

Nope, just that prior to the taser, a cop may have had to resort to a gun when, after the taser, he had another option. I remember when departments first started using tasers, they were used as a non-lethal option to guns. They could stop a suspect at a distance (a club could not) with almost zero chance of death, as opposed to stopping the BG with a gun.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

Tennessee v Garner (1978?) eliminated using lethal force to apprehend most suspects. The case left only fleeing suspects presently dangerous to the community, and perhaps a few variations on that same theme. From that case until the advent of tasers, police were not allowed to use lethal force to apprehend except for those particular situations. Thus, police had years and years where they were not allowed to use lethal force anyway to apprehend suspects outside the category described in the case.

So, setting aside the not-zero/very tiny number of situations where a cop might actually use a taser when lethal force was justified, how do tasers save lives and injuries unless cops were using excessive force between Tenn v Garner and tasers?

I think Primus either accidentally gave away the extent of excessive force, or way over-stated his argument in favor of tasers.

 

[Grapeshot]

--snipped--
So, setting aside the not-zero/very tiny number of situations where a cop might actually use a taser when lethal force was justified, how do tasers save lives and injuries unless cops were using excessive force between Tenn v Garner and tasers?

I think Primus either accidentally gave away the extent of excessive force, or way over-stated his argument in favor of tasers.

Aaah because maybe tasers are less likely to cause death or serious bodily harm. I believe that is part of the purpose in their use.