Won't sign a traffic ticket? That's a tasering!

[78RATS 0]

Quote

By sitting by and allowing them to waste 4 hours of your time searching a vehicle that you didn't want searched you did, in fact, give up your rights. There are at least two ways that I know of that you could have LEGALLY stopped them from searching your car, but you chose to allow them.

To recap: Cop stops FTF for speeding. Cop ask FTF if he can search the car. FTF refuses.

Please explain the two things FTF could have done to legally stop the cops from calling in the dogs in an attempt to develop the probable cause they obviously did not have. (cuz if they had PC they would just search).

Rat for Life - Fly till I die
When them stupid ass bitches ask why

[KelliJ 0]

The disparity between our opinions seems to be based on our view of the lethality of a taser. Yes, tasers have been blamed for deaths but those are rare and almost always there are other factors involved. In consideration of that I view tasers as being a viable less-than-lethal option that police have at their disposal. Faced with the options of physically overpowering the guy, tasering him, or pulling their guns out and hoping he gives up peacefully (all while keeping in mind that these officers were responding to a shooting and did not know it was a hoax) I still feel they made the proper decision facing someone they had to assume, under the circumstances, was armed.
You seem to be of the belief that using a taser will cause death a substantial percentage of the time. If that were the case then any use of a taser is unwarranted unless that situation also warrants use of a firearm.
Any use of a taser is subject to the question of whether or not it was necessary. Only those who face those situations can make that judgement, not us who sit in the safety of our homes looking at the situation in hindsight.

[KelliJ 0]

When I mentioned he could have legally stopped them I was under the impression they were searching inside as well as outside his car. It wasn't until a later post that FTF told us they only did a walk around with a dog.
Big difference.

[Amazon 7]

I am just curious.. but are you in a criminal justice track in college???

[n23x 0]

I don't believe that a tazer results in death or serious injury more often then a couple percent (probably far less) of the time.

I do, however, think that the small percentage of time that a tazer does result in death or serious injury should deter officers from using a tazer so 'casually'.

I understand the call that the officers were responding to. I understand the perceived threat. I also think that there were, as in many tazer cases, alternate solutions that would have ended in a more peaceful manor.

Quote

Any use of a taser is subject to the question of whether or not it was necessary. Only those who face those situations can make that judgement, not us who sit in the safety of our homes looking at the situation in hindsight.

Well, you're wrong. The "heat of the moment" arguement is the biggest load of horseshit of all time. If you fuck up, admit it, and don't say, "I didn't fuck up, you don't know what it's like". LEOs are trained to operate in a high stress environment, correct? If you can't make the correct (or even frequently correct) choice in the work environment you chose, or own up to your mistakes, don't work there anymore.

.jim

"Don't touch my fucking Easter eggs, I'll be back monday." ~JTFC

[KelliJ 0]

Quote

I am just curious.. but are you in a criminal justice track in college???

LOL!!...No, I am not.

[KelliJ 0]

I happen to feel that you are wrong, so there.
Nobody has said "I didn't fuck up, you don't know what it's like". What they did say was that a mistake was made and they apologized.
Yes, cops are trained to operate in a high stress environment. They are also trained to make decisions based on the assumption that the information they have at the time is accurate and factual, not under the assumption it is false. They made the correct decision based on the information they had at the time they had to make that decision.
Playing armchair policeman is safe and easy.
Doing it for real is neither.

[billvon 2,426]

>In consideration of that I view tasers as being a viable
>less-than-lethal option that police have at their disposal.

It sounds like a lot of the problem with tasers come from people who consider then as less-than-lethal weapons instead of potentially lethal weapons. If cops used tasers in the same situations they would use their guns we wouldn't be seeing this rash of fatalities.

[KelliJ 0]

It sounds like a lot of the problem with tasers comes from people who don't understand that even though they can cause death in a rare case they have saved many police officers and many suspects who were apprehended by use of a taser rather than use of a firearm. Try to focus on the positive side as well as the negative.


If cops only used tasers in situations where they would use their firearms then why even have them?
Maybe it's because, until somebody comes up with something that does the same thing as a taser but without the risks, it's the best we have to give our LEOs to fill the gap between trying to physically overpower a person and shooting them.

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

Try to focus on the positive side as well as the negative.

If cops only used tasers in situations where they would use their firearms then why even have them?
Maybe it's because, until somebody comes up with something that does the same thing as a taser but without the risks, it's the best we have to give our LEOs to fill the gap between trying to physically overpower a person and shooting them.

Asking you some questions I posed recently in another thread ...

Do you think that new technologies being used as a substitute or short-cut – that’s a little too pejorative of a characterization but hopefully the idea is conveyed – for good training and for maintaining professionalism in LEO?
I don't think there's evidence to suggest that's the intent ... but it may be an unintended consequence.

Instead of valuing professionalism and judgment that comes from training and experience, is there a trend to short cut with technology?
I hope not but ...

Do you think that tasers (& other non-lethal/less lethal [the NIJ term]/"weapons which do not cross the death barrier") may/will/have lead/led to an escalation/increased tendency to use of less lethal force? Or lowering/lowered the proverbial bar to use of force when previously control of the situation was dependent on the professionalism of the officer?

VR/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[kallend 1,644]

Quote

Playing armchair policeman is safe and easy.
Doing it for real is neither.

I HAVE been a policeman, and I think YOU are wrong.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Zipp0 1]

The problem with less lethal weapons is their massive potential for overuse and abuse.

Why is it that in some places a camera takes a picture of your license plate and you get your ticket in the mail, and in other places you don't want to sign the ticket and you are tasered?

Just wait until the 'area denial' weapons now used in Iraq are used on protests in DC. They will be the firehose of the 21st century. Again, huge potential for abuse.

--------------------------
Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down.

[KelliJ 0]

Quote

Do you think that new technologies being used as a substitute or short-cut – that’s a little too pejorative of a characterization but hopefully the idea is conveyed – for good training and for maintaining professionalism in LEO?

No, I don't feel they are being used as a shortcut. I believe most problems with officers not using them correctly is a result of us still being on a learning curve as to the proper instruction on the use. That is, we are still learning how to train cops how to use them and when to use them.

Quote

Do you think that tasers (& other non-lethal/less lethal [the NIJ term]/"weapons which do not cross the death barrier") may/will/have lead/led to an escalation/increased tendency to use of less lethal force? Or lowering/lowered the proverbial bar to use of force when previously control of the situation was dependent on the professionalism of the officer?

Absolutely and it goes back to training. But at the same time I think the use of firearms to gain control of a situation has been reduced due to the availability of a taser. Also, though it would be hard if not impossible to show statistically, I feel the use of a taser in some situations that demand less-than-lethal force has prevented undue injury to both cop and robber. A side-handle baton, when used improperly, can easily crush the larynx or fracture the skull, both of which have resulted in death.

It would be wonderful if every situation an officer finds himself in could be resolved peacefully and without force. No matter what officers do there will always be those situations where force will be needed. It is also an unfortunate fact that when force is used there will be instances where a person is injured or, in rare cases, killed. We do what we can to make the use of force as safe as possible but we can't control every possible scenario.

[Zipp0 1]

Quote

Quote

Playing armchair policeman is safe and easy.
Doing it for real is neither.

I HAVE been a policeman, and I think YOU are wrong.

Hey, I was Shore Patrol once, does that count?!

--------------------------
Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down.

[KelliJ 0]

Quote

Quote

Playing armchair policeman is safe and easy.
Doing it for real is neither.

I HAVE been a policeman, and I think YOU are wrong.

Wrong about being an armchair policeman is safe and easy, or wrong about doing it for real is neither safe nor easy?

[skycop 0]

Quote

If cops used tasers in the same situations they would use their guns we wouldn't be seeing this rash of fatalities.

Then there would be a much larger "rash" of suspect and officer injury. In departments that started using tasers there have been drops in suspect and officer injury in the 40-80% range. The taser fits between empty handed and physical force, sometimes between physical and deadly. There are times it comes directly after verbal, such as preventing a physical confrontation at side of a busy highway. I'm not speaking of this situation specifically just in general.
I've stated in the Utah case the trooper went to the taser too early, Austin Texas as well IMHO to the extreme. I've said that technology does not replace communication skills.
Every situation is different, all it takes is hesitation for a split second then deadly force may have to be used. It comes down to training and supervision.

"Just 'cause I'm simple, don't mean I'm stewpid!"

[Zipp0 1]

Doesn't a taser sometimes make it more dangerous for the cop? Example - cop pulls his taser, bad guy pulls a glock. Now the cop has to drop the taser and go for the firearm, unless the bad guy is really close.

Also, doesn't pointing a gun at someone encourage compliance? It seems cops just want faster compliance, so instead of waiting and communicating, they tase.

--------------------------
Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down.

[billvon 2,426]

>Try to focus on the positive side as well as the negative.

There are indeed positive sides. However, killing innocent people is very, very, very bad; this should be by far the most significant consideration.

>If cops only used tasers in situations where they would use their
>firearms then why even have them?

Because:

a) they kill people less often, and thus may save the life of an innocent person

b) you are more likely to solve a crime with a live suspect than with a dead one

[Zipp0 1]

Quote

>Try to focus on the positive side as well as the negative.

There are indeed positive sides. However, killing innocent people is very, very, very bad; this should be by far the most significant consideration.

>If cops only used tasers in situations where they would use their
>firearms then why even have them?

Because:

a) they kill people less often, and thus may save the life of an innocent person

b) you are more likely to solve a crime with a live suspect than with a dead one

Yes, but a dead guy can't beat the rap.

--------------------------
Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down.

[KelliJ 0]

Quote

>Try to focus on the positive side as well as the negative.

There are indeed positive sides. However, killing innocent people is very, very, very bad; this should be by far the most significant consideration.

>If cops only used tasers in situations where they would use their
>firearms then why even have them?

Because:

a) they kill people less often, and thus may save the life of an innocent person

b) you are more likely to solve a crime with a live suspect than with a dead one

My point exactly except that I have no problem with tasers being used in situations where the officers has to use force and would be at substantial risk of injury to himself or the suspect if he must try to physically overpower someone. This includes instances where the officer has every reason to believe the suspect has a weapon.

[skycop 0]

Quote

Doesn't a taser sometimes make it more dangerous for the cop? Example - cop pulls his taser, bad guy pulls a glock.

No more dangerous than other uses of force, I pull a baton, bad guy pulls a gun etc. Good tactics SHOULD prevent that from happening. Tactics and skydiving have something in common, in rare circumstances one can do everything right, and still end up dead.

Quote

Also, doesn't pointing a gun at someone encourage compliance?

No, essentially you are using a huge bluff, if someone calls you on it, then it causes more problems than it solves. Also now the weapon is out, not secured in the holster in case the situation turns physical. The bottom line is that the weapon is out, you should already be justified in it's use should the situation arise.
The taser does have that effect. The red-dot on the chest is a great compliance tool. Plus if it's used it falls in the physical force catagory, and it doesn't leave a small bloody hole on one side, a large gaping hole on the other.

Quote

It seems cops just want faster compliance, so instead of waiting and communicating, they tase.

A fine line with the time factor, I think we both agree on the communication aspect.

"Just 'cause I'm simple, don't mean I'm stewpid!"

[billvon 2,426]

>My point exactly except that I have no problem with tasers being used
>in situations where the officers has to use force and would be at
>substantial risk of injury to himself or the suspect if he must try to
>physically overpower someone. This includes instances where the officer
>has every reason to believe the suspect has a weapon.

If taser usage were indeed confined to the circumstances you listed (i.e. the officer suspects the guy has a weapon, and physically restraining him might reasonably result in serious injury or death to themselves or someone else) then I think there would be a lot less hoo-ha over their usage.

[misaltas 0]

Quote

I don't think anybody's disputing the fact that a less lethal weapon can and should be used to defend an officer's life.
Opinions?

Then count me in as "anybody".

If an officer's life is threatened and needs defending, I'd say they can opt for the 'lethal' weapon rather than this 'less than lethal' one you say they 'should' use.

Ohne Liebe sind wir nichts

[DSE 3]

Officer was given leave and took a communications class. He still faces civil charges from the driver.