I have GOT to start partying with you!
Tasers are Safe ? Myth Busted!
- Thread starter Hermiod
- Start date
I have GOT to start partying with you!
Did you really need me to express my agreement that in the wrong hands anything can be dangerous ?
Well put, Colonel Green.
Now there's an idea. If there's one thing police officers hate, and this goes back to when my late grandfather was a policeman, it's paperwork.
Exactly
QFT
And you thought my comment about hoping law enforcement weren't using nerf balls was serious ?
Come on up. There's a pull-out in the living room.
Law enforcement should use Nerf balls. That'd be awesome.
"Hey you, FREEZE!" *pop pop pop*
Completely agree.
For the record, pepper/CS spray is notoriously unreliable.
Actually, that's not really true. When a taser is discharged the effect lasts only as long as the trigger is depressed. Some people are able to get straight back up after the current is stopped. The barbs stay in for the exact reason that you can give them another 'shot', threatening them with another jolt is usually enough. This is exactly how you are trained to use a taser by its manufacterers and trainers, its 'recommended' use, if you like. No, it's not pleasant; it's painful, degrading to their dignity, and a major use-of-force justification should always be needed. But sometimes it is a proportionate less-lethal alternative to batons or guns.
Here, this is the case. Deployment of a taser is not at the officer's discretion except in extremly time-critical cases, but decided by someone high up via comms. When a taser is deployed it emits hundreds of tiny markers bearing the ID of the officer, so each use can be traced. And just as with any use of force it must be justified.
The curretn scenario in Britain is that firearms officers have tasers, but as recently announced the decision has been made to issue all frontline officers over the next few years with tasers. This is not something I'm a huge fan of. It's a step too far down the road to being an armed police force, imho, and that's definitely not somewhere we should be going.
Having said that, a taser does have uses as a less-lethal force option even in a force that doesn't habitually carry guns - Between beign tasered and being hit with a police baton, I know which I'd choose.
Captain X
Rear Admiral
Actually no, it wouldn't, because if you fly high enough, you actually can see the curvature of the Earth.
The shocking lack of common sense I see here is the complete brain fart of an idea to ban tazers because they have been misused and because under certain circumstances they can be lethal or do perminant damage. This is the kind of mentality that would ban anything that could potentially be harmful, and frankly people who think like that should have themselves committed so they can be nice and safe in a pillowy soft padded room and spare the rest of us their insecurities and paranoia. Basically what I see the OP advocating is that law enforcement lose a valuable alternative to subdoing a suspect that is far less likely to kill that suspect and even less likely to harm any bystanders than a firearm.
The shocking lack of common sense I see here is the complete brain fart of an idea to ban tazers because they have been misused and because under certain circumstances they can be lethal or do perminant damage. This is the kind of mentality that would ban anything that could potentially be harmful, and frankly people who think like that should have themselves committed so they can be nice and safe in a pillowy soft padded room and spare the rest of us their insecurities and paranoia. Basically what I see the OP advocating is that law enforcement lose a valuable alternative to subdoing a suspect that is far less likely to kill that suspect and even less likely to harm any bystanders than a firearm.
I'm very against Police having tasers, because they are routinely abused. There are some lovely examples one can find on Youtube. Cops will use them any time they don't get absolute, immediate compliance. You'll see people getting tased in the middle of asking a question. And almost invariably, there is no practical recourse for a citizen so abused. Another case of finding "no wrong doing".
As funny as it was, the "don't Tase me Bro" incident was another example. It wasn't necessary. They use tasers for their convienence, and the added bonus of terrorizing the onlookers. That guy could have been escorted out by competent, non-lazy security personnel. Popping donuts and firing the taser. No thanks.
As funny as it was, the "don't Tase me Bro" incident was another example. It wasn't necessary. They use tasers for their convienence, and the added bonus of terrorizing the onlookers. That guy could have been escorted out by competent, non-lazy security personnel. Popping donuts and firing the taser. No thanks.
I've been "abused" by police powers...and that chicken shit of an officer would've tazed me in a heart beat had I offered any resistance to his cuffing me...a bad officer is still a bad officer if armed with a Tazer..pepper spray (which are often seen abused in Youtube as well ) a baton, a shotgun, sniper rifle or pistol...tazers often have SAVED lives of perps or innocents who otherwise would have been on the receiving end of a lead slug...one thing I'm in favor of...all officers who use tazers be trained in proper use and get TAZED THEMSELVES as part of the training.....so they might be less inclined to use the device when it's in-appropriate to use it..
Yes, I honestly think they are less likely to overuse their firearms in an abusive way. Because they are guns.
As for "falling back on", I would rather see them all mandated to be regularly trained in martial arts. Then I might trust them with the tasers.
There are literally thousands of people walking around today because they were restrained using a Taser rather than the officer(s) having to escalate to a higher and deadlier use of force technique or weapon.
Are Tasers 100% foolproof or effective? No. Can they be misused by persons with insufficient training or ethics? Yes.
They are a tool. Nothing more, nothing less.
I've been Tased. It wasn't pleasant. It was, however, more than sufficient to immobilize me long enough for officers to place restraints on me.
Tasers are a less-lethal device. Less-lethal = Reduced likelihood of leading to death. Not non-lethal. They can and are used in situations where that level of force is justified, such as getting a combative person into restraints.
Without the use of a Taser, an officer might be forced to either utilize focused blows (such as elbow/knee strikes), pepper-spray (which is largely ineffective on people in an altered stated and more likely to incapacitated your fellow officers), or focused blows with a baton.
Many people mistakenly believe the Taser is a pain compliance device. It's not. Oh, sure, it hurts like hell, but that's not the point. The Taser's electrical discharge is on the same 'frequency' as your body's voluntary muscle control. Thus, when subjected to it, your body's ability to relay messages from your brain to your muscles is momentarily neutralized. This leaves the target unable to fight, giving officers time and opportunity to get the person into restraints without having to resort to extreme physical violence.
Personally, given the options, I'd rather take a five second ride on a Taser which leaves no residual damage than be struck multiple times and wrestled into restraints.
Like I said, no weapons system is perfect and beyond being misused by the ignorant or untrained, but given the alternatives, the Taser can be an excellent tool that actually saves lives.
Are Tasers 100% foolproof or effective? No. Can they be misused by persons with insufficient training or ethics? Yes.
They are a tool. Nothing more, nothing less.
I've been Tased. It wasn't pleasant. It was, however, more than sufficient to immobilize me long enough for officers to place restraints on me.
Tasers are a less-lethal device. Less-lethal = Reduced likelihood of leading to death. Not non-lethal. They can and are used in situations where that level of force is justified, such as getting a combative person into restraints.
Without the use of a Taser, an officer might be forced to either utilize focused blows (such as elbow/knee strikes), pepper-spray (which is largely ineffective on people in an altered stated and more likely to incapacitated your fellow officers), or focused blows with a baton.
Many people mistakenly believe the Taser is a pain compliance device. It's not. Oh, sure, it hurts like hell, but that's not the point. The Taser's electrical discharge is on the same 'frequency' as your body's voluntary muscle control. Thus, when subjected to it, your body's ability to relay messages from your brain to your muscles is momentarily neutralized. This leaves the target unable to fight, giving officers time and opportunity to get the person into restraints without having to resort to extreme physical violence.
Personally, given the options, I'd rather take a five second ride on a Taser which leaves no residual damage than be struck multiple times and wrestled into restraints.
Like I said, no weapons system is perfect and beyond being misused by the ignorant or untrained, but given the alternatives, the Taser can be an excellent tool that actually saves lives.
Whenever we hear about tasers used to ill effect, or death, why haven't we heard before about tested tasers output? An uneven charge or overcharge of 50% is wildly outside safety margins. They are not meant to be lethal, and more often than not, are not. They are used without consideration of health risks because it's assumed that there are few and temporary. Tasers should have a reliably tested discharge rate with very narrow tolerances.
I agree with Chaos Descending, the idea of a Taser being used to humiliate and gain compliance when ordinary physical force could subdue an offender is disturbing. Of course I should have thought of it before because I've seen it on video, groups of cops using batons to beat a person lying prone on the ground. Now they have a tool that usually leaves no marks.
I agree with Chaos Descending, the idea of a Taser being used to humiliate and gain compliance when ordinary physical force could subdue an offender is disturbing. Of course I should have thought of it before because I've seen it on video, groups of cops using batons to beat a person lying prone on the ground. Now they have a tool that usually leaves no marks.
Officers are under no obligation to risk physical injury fighting with a resistive subject when they have an effective tool for temporarily immobilizing that subject. Many people seem to think a physical struggle unfolds like something on scripted television. It doesn't. The longer a fight lasts, the greater the likelihood that both the officer(s) and the subject involved are going to sustain injuries as a result.
If the officers can utilize a Taser to incapacitate the subject long enough to get him/her into handcuffs and/or ankle restraints, they should do so. In the end, both the cops and the arrestee minimize the risk of injury.
If the officers can utilize a Taser to incapacitate the subject long enough to get him/her into handcuffs and/or ankle restraints, they should do so. In the end, both the cops and the arrestee minimize the risk of injury.
Last edited:
Therein lies one problem. Imagine a police officer under no obligation to risk injury? In a one-on-one situation, or two officers even, I can see the hesitancy. But groups of 4 - 6 still feel that's it too much of a hassle, or risk.
Going back to the OP. These tools should be nearly infallible.
Going back to the OP. These tools should be nearly infallible.