The Down Range Forum
Member Section => Down Range Cafe => Topic started by: jnevis on December 31, 2009, 07:26:31 AM
-
It looks like they're at it again in CA. With the new ruling Officers are limited as to when they should use their tazsers. They have to be in physical danger, the person has to warrant the use of the device, and there can't be any other means to subdue the suspect. What a crock! A restisting suspect, within range of a tazer, is a danger to the officer, visible weapon or not.
http://www.policeone.com/less-lethal/articles/1984210-Calif-officers-stun-gun-use-faces-new-scrutiny-after-federal-ruling/
-
It looks like they're at it again in CA. With the new ruling Officers are limited as to when they should use their tazsers. They have to be in physical danger, the person has to warrant the use of the device, and there can't be any other means to subdue the suspect. What a crock! A restisting suspect, within range of a tazer, is a danger to the officer, visible weapon or not.
http://www.policeone.com/less-lethal/articles/1984210-Calif-officers-stun-gun-use-faces-new-scrutiny-after-federal-ruling/
Hang on now. I don't want to be tased just for arguing with a LEO. Unlike OC, which shouldn't be used other to subdue either, and other chemical weapons, taser can cause serious physical injury. Being noncompliant, and argumentative probably doesn't warrant be popped with a taser. I think their thought process here may be to deter police from tasing disagreeable members of the public. What's the difference between someone resisting arrest by standing or sitting there not putting their hands behind there back, and someone who wants to fight? Do you tase the argumentative fellow, or lady, just like a fighting suspect?
-
If I was an officer facing "Physical danger" I would pull my firearm, not my taser.
Tasers save lives (unfortunately for tax payers), this is going to get a lot of cops killed as well as civilians
-
If I was an officer facing "Physical danger" I would pull my firearm, not my taser.
Tasers save lives (unfortunately for tax payers), this is going to get a lot of cops killed as well as civilians
How's this going to get cops killed? It sounds like all it does is say that a taser is not an instrument to force compliance, only to protect yourself when lethal force isn't needed. Maybe this is all going over my head. ::)
-
How's this going to get cops killed? It sounds like all it does is say that a taser is not an instrument to force compliance, only to protect yourself when lethal force isn't needed. Maybe this is all going over my head. ::)
It will cause incidents to escalate further then they need to. Officers will now have more incidents where they will have to grapple and fight with suspects, and I think there may also be more incidents where cops are staring down the end of a barrel.
There have been several studies that point to the Taser as the primary reason why police deaths have been decreasing.... This ruling essentially takes the ability to use a Taser away from the officer. The way I read it, they really can only use a taser now in situations where they SHOULD be using their firearm.
-
The facts are out there: some LEOs use TASERs in an inappropriate fashion; little old ladies, handicapped people, etc. And it is also a fact that a shot from a TASER can cause long-term problems (even death, the longest-term problem). HOWEVER, I would rather get a TASER blast than a 9mm blast. And, I would (I think) rather be TASERed than take a night-stick to the side of a knee (though I will admit I haven't done any research to verify this position). What I am trying to say here is that the valid uses of non-lethal electronic control mechanisms have saved many more lives than they have taken. It gives LEO an option. And, while it may not be appropriate when writing a jay-walker with a large mouth, the LEO on the scene should be the one to make that call. And I am in the camp of those who feel that BGs pretty much surrender their rights to polite behavior from others when they do whatever it was that made them a BG. (For example: I was disappointed that the molesting cretin in Phoenix last week didn't resist enough to warrant two to the chest and one to the head.)
The other commonly used option is swarming an offender and I have witnessed that go rapidly nuclear. LEOs in numbers taking down one BG have frequently escalated the action well beyond the force necessary to subdue and it becomes a "punish the perp" exercise. Bruises to kidneys and livers, broken collar bones, broken jaws, brain damage are all possible if not likely outcomes.
So, my vote is let the LEO make the call. If he/she makes the wrong call, give a little one-on-one Come to Jesus meeting. If the wrong call becomes a habit, that LEO needs to find another line of work. But keep the 9th Circus Jerks of Schlemiels out of it.
-
OK don't hang me, But this is the first time I agree with the 9th Circuit. L E has a tough job to do and I respect them for it. I will back an officer most of the time. It just seems that the tazer has become a tool that is being used way to often. As far as I know its not against the the law to raise your voice to LE . So if an officer doesn't care to stand there, out comes the tazer and argument over. No threat, no violence,end of discussion. Now he has to arrest the person because you cant pull the trigger without a report. More wasted time. I could go on for reasons to and not to use a tazer and that is up to the officer to decide. I just believe the court wants LE to start to think before the trigger is pulled. Just my 2 cents.
-
Erics reasoning is faulty, if the cop is "staring down a barrel" the taser is not the proper tool anyway.
Tasers have been in GENERAL use (not just a few big cities ) for what, 5 years or so ? But Police deaths have been consistently falling for over 10 years, Statistics also show that the number one killer of on duty Police officers are traffic accidents.
Stricter guidelines for Taser use is not likely to lead to an increase in Officer deaths.
As to the other comments, I personally would even tase people who were not resisting arrest if they were annoying enough, like say, oh, the 2 Peace hypocrites on the town square sat. mornings.
But that's just me and I am graduating to "Grumpy old man" status.
-
Erics reasoning is faulty, if the cop is "staring down a barrel" the taser is not the proper tool anyway.
Tasers have been in GENERAL use (not just a few big cities ) for what, 5 years or so ? But Police deaths have been consistently falling for over 10 years, Statistics also show that the number one killer of on duty Police officers are traffic accidents.
Stricter guidelines for Taser use is not likely to lead to an increase in Officer deaths.
As to the other comments, I personally would even tase people who were not resisting arrest if they were annoying enough, like say, oh, the 2 Peace hypocrites on the town square sat. mornings.
But that's just me and I am graduating to "Grumpy old man" status.
1. I said cops staring down the barrel would RESULT from escalated events that might have been stopped sooner through the use of a taser.
2. If cops can not have a usable means to make a suspect comply before things get out of hand, then yes more cops will die.
-
OK don't hang me, But this is the first time I agree with the 9th Circuit. L E has a tough job to do and I respect them for it. I will back an officer most of the time. It just seems that the tazer has become a tool that is being used way to often. As far as I know its not against the the law to raise your voice to LE . So if an officer doesn't care to stand there, out comes the tazer and argument over. No threat, no violence,end of discussion. Now he has to arrest the person because you cant pull the trigger without a report. More wasted time. I could go on for reasons to and not to use a tazer and that is up to the officer to decide. I just believe the court wants LE to start to think before the trigger is pulled. Just my 2 cents.
I think this is the key. The problem is that some, not all, LEOs tend to get a little trigger happy and badge heavy with non lethal weapons. They tend to respect the pistol and night stick because they know if they put someone in the ER or the morgue they better have a damn good reason. Without being anti-cop, I think its fair to say there is a bit too much macho swagger from the boys and girls in Blue and using pepper spray or tear gas is an easy way of punishing "contempt-of-cop". Hell, look at the famous "Don't Taze me 'Bro" incident. There were 4 LEOs on one mouthy college kid whos only crime was being an a-hole to Al Gore. Yet they tazed him. Why? He was facing maybe a misdeanor for didorderly conduct. Life threatening? A threat to public safety? Hardly. Granted I want to give cops maximum reasonable discretion, but I've lived in the real world long enough to know that if you give some one power without accountability, bad stuff happens. Did the court go too far? Maybe, but thats what happens when stuff goes to an appellate court. They want to set a broad rule so that they don't have to Monday morning QB every taser incident. This should have been dealt with at the departmental policy level.
FQ13
-
I don't know about your local LEAs, but around here, unless they have back up with guns drawn, they can not use a tazer. The fact is, they can be beat. When they are beat, there is not enough time for you to draw your gun, before the tazee to be on you.
-
Actually Tazers have been in use for most of the ten years you mention, WIDESPREAD use hasn been for the last five.
Like I said earlier, if the suspect is within Tazer RANGE (20-30ft) then they are more than capable of attacking said officer. A non-complying loud mouth at 50-100ft is handled much differently than one at 10-20 or even 30 ft. Just yelling at the officer probably doesn't warrant use of force, but non-compliance to commands "Let me see your hands!" "Back up and turn around!" along with a verbal tirade at 20ft, in the dark alone? I'd prefer to have the tazer as an option. It all will boil down to how the individual departments read the rulling and implement Departmental Policy, plus considerable word-craft on the officer's part to explain why they used the tazer in the report. Unfortunately when it comes to that, more officers will be second guessed by the Department and be found liable or fired for something that was entirely justifialble and correct.
I read a book recently (can't remember the name off hand) that basically spells out how INCREASED Rules of Engagement, in this case Department Policy and federal case law, have actually increased the likelyhood of a lethal attack. If a soldier or officer has to run down a checklist in his/her mind before reacting to a problem they are more likely to be injured or killed, hestitation, or bypass the force ladder going straight to deadly force, overreaction. A set of RoE that is simple and based on self survival without a bunch of restrictions is easier to follow and is actually followed better. The Blackwater shoots a few years ago are an example. The contractors had such detailed RoE that they started getting hammered due to hestitation. A few weeks of that and the next time your out instead of checking for a problem a car with bad brakes that didn't stop fast enough for you becomes a "threat" and is obliterated.
-
Don't Taze Me Bro!!!!
The training of the officer will dictate response initiative. Lethal, non-lethal, etc,....
Unruly drunk on a Tues. at 2:00 am? may not need to get blown away for running his mouth like a drunken idiot.
Wanted felon, with outstanding warrants, with a stolen car, and a big knife/pistol? Different story.
None of us, (unless you've been there), can dictate the level of response to a threat. Too many variables, that the LEO must be given the leeway to determine.
Pull up to a unknown car with 4 subjects in it, alone in the middle of the night, in a ghetto & drug infested neighborhood.
Until the circumstances unfold, being judgmental is very tough.
-
Department policy and training will dictate when it is used. My department it is right above officer presence. Less hands on and less officer and public being injured in altercations.
-
I think their needs to be some rules for Taser use that include Physical danger to the officer or the public. Simple non compliance is not enough to zap someone!
-
6'6" 350 offender vs 5'9" 180 officer. Simple non compliance will get you a heap of trouble when you are trying to get them into cuffs. I know I have wrestled those types into cruisers even when you got them into cuffs it is hard. Small women are the worst. It is like trying to give a bobcat a bath.
-
Don't Taze Me Bro!!!!
The training of the officer will dictate response initiative. Lethal, non-lethal, etc,....
Unruly drunk on a Tues. at 2:00 am? may not need to get blown away for running his mouth like a drunken idiot.
Wanted felon, with outstanding warrants, with a stolen car, and a big knife/pistol? Different story.
None of us, (unless you've been there), can dictate the level of response to a threat. Too many variables, that the LEO must be given the leeway to determine.
Pull up to a unknown car with 4 subjects in it, alone in the middle of the night, in a ghetto & drug infested neighborhood.
Until the circumstances unfold, being judgmental is very tough.
that is a very scary statement... "the police know whats best for me"
-
that is a very scary statement... "the police know whats best for me"
In a perfect world ... YES, the know the best way to handle you. However, this is not a perfect world, and we must deal with officers making poor choices. Now this brings up an even stickier question - Who should make the rules for law enforcement? Should it be different levels of LE or should it be the Courts ... Outside of the worst of the LEO's, I trust LE more than the Courts.
-
that is a very scary statement... "the police know whats best for me"
Be a threatening as****le to any LEO in any state and see the result. If your just a run of the mill as****ole, you will be booked, and processed, make bail and go to court.....
The police know what's best for you, when you never need them.
-
The police know what's best for you, when you never need them.
and that is why alot of people hate the police. LEOs are public servants, they need to act like it. I know several that don't understand what I'm saying when I say "I sign your check"
I deal with several diffrent LEAs on the professional level several times a month( lock outs, filing police reports for property owners... etc) For the most part, the "custmer service" I get from them, or should I say lack there of, at the very least would make me take my biz else where, if not out right sue them if they were a private company.
There is one agency( CHP) that I have never had a issue with. Infact just the opposite, for the most part they have "bent over backwards" trying to help me. Something as small as helping me get a broken trailer out of the road way, to going to a county code enforcment office and telling them to "back the f..k off"( actually words used) Every single time I've had contact with them, I have at the very least sent a letter to thier CO thanking them for how professional/ nice they were. twice I've catered lunch for thier entire office after they helped me out. So I am by no means a "LE) hater"