on Tasers- by the Journal of Emergency Medical Services (JEMS)

TBO-
You continue to miss the point. No one here is saying they should be banned; just that they should be seen for what they are: Alternative Use of FORCE; not a "Compliance Tool".
Click to expand...
No, that is exactly my point. They are a Use of Force tool.
Secondly, a Use of Force tool can be used to gain compliance.
That is what others are missing.
A Goose-neck, pressure point, brachial stun, are Use of Force tools, and are used to gain compliance.

The noise on Tasers comes primarily 2 fold.

1) Thinly veiled LEO bashing (same thing happened with OC)

2) A segment of society that says "I don't want to be subject to a Taser hit (no matter my behavior, and since I don't intend to modify my behavior or thought process, I don't want the Taser around)."

jmho
 
that is exactly my point. They are a Use of Force tool.
Click to expand...
Sigh.
Then use it in place of Equivalent or More Deadly force. ie: In place of OC Spray, a Baton or a Firearm. If the force escalation of the situation does not require use of any of those items, it does not require use of a Taser.

Does a grounded and prone woman, once tased in a routine traffic stop, require use of a Baton, OC or Firearm for two officers to cuff her? If not then DON'T Taser her a second time.

Does a pre-adolescent child, unruly at school, deserve OC, baton or firearm? If not then DON'T Taser the child.

I'm arguing against it's use as a casual compliance tool. You're arguing that it's a humane way to gain "compliance". You call that "thinly veiled LEO bashing"? I submit your position demonstrates a dangerous disregard for American citizens and their growing anxiety about what might happen if they fail to immediately comply with a Civil Servant.
Rich
 
The "noise on Tasers" I have is that I believe the manufacturer is exaggerating the safety of the devices based on (at best) poor science.
Physicians commenting on "skin effects" without actually verifying and understanding what they are talking about calls into question the other results they have found.
Electricity and humans are a dangerous combination. Our entire central nervous system depends on very small currents produced by moving charged ions around. Disturbing the conduction can have anything from no affect to death.
Until better science is in place the device should not be used casually since it ‘appears to be safe’. It should be placed in appropriately in the force continuum realizing it might cause death.
 
Does a grounded and prone woman, once tased in a routine traffic stop, require use of a Baton, OC or Firearm for two officers to cuff her? If not then DON'T Taser her a second time.
Click to expand...
I think you're right on target here, Rich.
 
I think your [snip] missed MY point. A Taser can be abused, like any other weapon available to a police officer. Do I approve of inappropriate use? Hell no!!! While I wasn't there, I can't see where its use against the woman was necessary. I can't honestly see ANY case where its use against a small child is necessary. Will I use it against someone that outweighs me by a hundred pounds and is advancing with the intent of kicking my keister? YOU BETCHA!! A Taser is not meant to be used against someone that engages in passive resistance. It is meant to put a stop to violent behavior while preventing injury to both officer and actor, and nothing else. That's why we have a use-of-force continuum. It varies somewhat from dept. to dept., but with us, it is just above bodily force and just below impact weapons like the ASP. Most dept. policies (including mine) require a highly detailed use-of-force report for ANY use of force. It is thoroughly reviewed by my Sgt., then me, then operations, and finally by the chief. Anyone reviewing MUST refer the case to Internal Affairs if it appears suspicious or inappropriate. We take EVERY use of force seriously, and any abuses are dealt with. To stop abuses involving a Taser, the first step is to educate the officer on when to use it, and when not to. The second step is a fair but firm disciplinary procedure. When abuses occur, the fault lies more with the officer's command structure than it does with the officer, and both should be held accountable.
 
Capt-
As always, well said. If only we could get Bush to give YOU Gonzales' job, I think we'd all be considerably more safe and significantly more free.

Unfortunately, that would never happen. You speak too clearly to be a politician.
Rich
 
Under the training and through the verbage taught to law enforcement, "Use of Force" is not mutually exclusive with "Complience"/"Complience Tool."

Rich, a lot of what's rankling you (understandably) is this talk about using force options as "complience tools."

Consider, that the first step of the Use of Force Continuum is "Command Presense." That "force" is to gain complience. Then there's "Verbal Commands." These are used to gain complience. Then empty hands, and on up the line.

I'm not going to say "don't worry about it," but I am going to say that the concern need not be as great as I think you're seeing it to be. Cops have been carrying OC for years, but really rarely use it. Back in the time when my dad started in law enforcement (1960's), a sap was a common tool. Okay, that was being abused by some (as a "complience tool"), so its use has declined. Cops still carry expandable batons, but rarely use them, either.

Good department policy (and, I think, most state standards) requires a report when force options beyond empty hands is used. Heck, I know a fairly local Texas county that requires a report for every time handcuffs are used... even inside its jail! :eek: While that may be a tad overboard, it does demonstrate a certain oversight of force use. (Though, as an aside, I understand that the county in question has now banned batons now their patrol carries Tasers!?! Holy cow. Missing the point entirely.)
 
Matt-
The problem comes in the watered down use of the word "compliance". Once upon a time it meant compliance with an attempt to arrest. Today many think it means compliance with "Step over here" or compliance with "Now roll over lady, so I can cuff you".

OC is somewhat self limiting, given the opportunity for blowback. Tasers are different and the temptation exists to use them simply to avoid having to be creative in the "New Compliance" era. They ARE being used in that way in certain jurisdictions and Cops & Citizens alike are being desensitized to believe it's perfectly safe and humane in situations where the subject has done little more than question an "order". It is neither safe nor humane to use in that manner.

I recently had occasion to reread the transcript of the Hiibel stop. This cop could have defused the situation at least as easily as Hiibel...simply by engaging him in REAL conversation or engaging the daughter. He was so caught up in the "Force Continuum" that the first stumble over "Command Presence" became a wall he was much more willing to build than scale. He was unwilling to think 30 cents worth out of the box.

So it is with Tasers. Yes they should be issued. Yes, they should be used. But we sure as hell better start defining what we mean by "compliance situations" first....preferably along Capt Charlie's definition.

Force Continuum is NOT a Policy; it's a series of tactics to be used ***with discretion****, depending on a Reasonably Perceived threat, case by case. In fact, there are many situations, such as Hiibel, where the LEO, after about 10 seconds observation should be absolutely willing to relinquish the "dictat" for "Command Presence" and recognize that Citizens have every RIGHT to question why they are being asked to comply with certain "commands" that risk encroaching their RIGHTS.
Rich
 
A Taser is not a "compliance tool" (yes, it can be used that way, so can a pistol, so can a wet noodle).
Click to expand...
Could you explain this assertion a little bit more clearly?

Also (not wishing to pick on you alone, this is a general question for anyone who wishes to tackle it) how can we as a society condemn the practice of parents correcting their children via the use of corporal punishment but at the same time condone the use of submission devices by the police? To me that seems to be a little bit contradictory. A parent is motivated by love toward his child and the desire to train the child in the direction of personal growth, which to me seems a higher motive than keeping order among relative strangers. A spanking produces a relatively mild amount of pain as compared to a tazing. So why is the one so frowned upon and the other so accepted?
 
We need a better name for the Florida taser on woman incident, if we're going to refer to it. Some time from now we may reread this and wonder what it was about. :)

In that incident and many others, the officers are seen to continue zapping the suspect until they have complied by putting their hands behind their back. I find it interesting that people reference the woman in Florida incident, but not the famous incident in which the trooper tasers the non-complient drunk in the right lane of the highway. ("I can't! You friggin' hammered me!" when told to put his hands behind his back.) If the initial tasering was appropriate (aggressive, physically resistant individual), that is an appropriate expectation. The goal is not to be physically assaulted when cuffing them, and to stop any further threat. Once you've put hands on 'em, the taser is no longer an option, so you want it to be quick. In the FL case, the woman had batted at the cover officer.

The old method that I was taught was to cuff a wrist when the driver inevitably gripps the wheel and refuses to come, and crank the cuff to the side while pulling her out of the car. The arrestee WILL follow (on her back), because it hurts too much not to. I wonder if anyone has any stats on how many lifelong injuries have been caused by that technique? Don't get me wrong-- I'm glad I've got it in my bag of tricks, but I suspect that it's far more likely to cause injury than a Tasering.

Say Rich, do I sense a Publisher's Editorial bubbling to the surface?? :)
 
Say Rich, do I sense a Publisher's Editorial bubbling to the surface??
Click to expand...
No editorial. It just seems that if the Legislature, Courts and Policy Makers all choose to stack the deck against a Free Society, our last hope is that citizens (LEO's included) will come together to preserve that way of life.

"Compliance" is becoming a terribly NewSpeak term. We're being dumbed down to believe that compliance (meaning blind OBEDIENCE) to State demands is, somehow, DoublePlus Good; anything short of that marks us as "He/She probably had it coming". Again, look at the Hiibel stop. It's really pretty chiiling when you stand back from it a bit.
Rich
 
Compliance

Suspect is under arrest, has resisted arrest, Officer & suspect are now on the ground. Suspect refuses to place his hands behind his back (laying on stomach, hands pulled tight under his chest). Suspect refuses verbal commands, resists physical attempts to move his hands behind his back.

OC/Taser used to complete arrest. That is an example of "compliance use", and it is legal (even though some have a problem with it).

TBO
 
TBO-
Zero problem with use of Tasers under that definition of "compliance". Zero problem with use of Tasers even before the officer is forced to go to ground.

Unfortunately, we have seen Tasers used under FAR LESS drastic circumstances. That, I have a Big Problem with.
Rich
 
Hey guys!

Hope you don't mind me sharing my excitement with you, but I got a "shock" ( :D ) when I arrived at work today. Message waiting: See the chief immediately. I'm thinking "Oh cr*p! What'd I do THIS time?!" Chief went over a couple of minor things, and I'm thinking "C'mon, drop the hammer already". When he did, I was speechless. It seems Taser International has awarded me the John H. Cover Award for Taser use to save a life! Fancy medal, uniform ribbon, and framed certificate to be awarded by the mayor at city council meeting tomorrow evening. It's nice when life throws in an occasional attaboy with all those awsh*ts. :D Now, back to the debate. :D :D :D
 
I happened to re-read most of Milgram's Obedience to Authority today... the experiments are instructive; Milgram's chapters of analysis and reflection toward the end are less so.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/006073728X

I would hope LEOs consider who they are and what they're doing at all times. Just because one has a departmental use of force policy and a Lt. who will stand behind that policy doesn't mean one should follow those procedures blindly.

You have a few more arrest powers for minor crimes, and in some cases you have retained arrest or pursuit powers while the rest of us lowly citizens have had them unconstitutionally stripped away. But each day when you go to work, you are a citizen, just as we are. You don't operate at some entirely different level with arrest powers that are totally different from those of citizens.

If you, as a private citizen, wouldn't tase someone who passively resists a citizens arrest (or is otherwise being a nuisance), you should take a long hard look at yourself and ask yourself why you would tase them in the name of your police department.
 
Holy Crap, Capt.

Congratulations Capt Charlie, I'm sure I don't need to tell you but the Cover medal is very prestigious. I don't know anyone else with one. It may be a touchy subject these days but HOOYAH on a job well done.
 
Tyme, there is a BIG difference. As a citizen you have the option of walking away and calling us. We have a duty and obligation to act and we can't call anyone but our brothers and sisters.
 
there is a BIG difference. As a citizen you have the option of walking away and calling us. We have a duty and obligation to act and we can't call anyone but our brothers and sisters.
Click to expand...
SCCop-
#1 Many of "us" are your "brothers and sisters", too, brother. Don't ever doubt it and, for God's Sake, don't Blow It!
#2 You know as well as I do that the Highest Court in the Land has ruled that you have no "duty" to do any such thing.

You don't get to have it both ways, SC; you don't get to quote "what the courts have ruled", when defending enforcement of BS laws, while conveniently **forgetting** what they have ruled when trying to place yourself above us mere "civilians". The last gunfight I was in, there were NO "brothers or sisters" to call. Count yourself lucky in that regard...the rest of us are out there on the "mean streets" all alone.

__________


Capt Charlie:
Hot Damn! Shiners all around. I'm certain you deserve that award and would like to see a separate thread about it.
Great job.
Rich
 
#2 You know as well as I do that the Highest Court in the Land has ruled that you have no "duty" to do any such thing.
Click to expand...
You are misinterpreting this.

There is no individual responsibility in as much as "The Police" can not be held responsible for you being robbed on your way home walking through the park because "The Police were not there".

If an Officer is sent to a call or witnesses a crime/situation, he has to take action.

By your interpretation, an Officer could respond to an assault call, look at the perp beating someone who is down, and say, "eh, what the heck", and just walk away, all with no consequence.

Here's a hint, look up "Misfeasance, Malfeasance, and Nonfeasance"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top