Canadian aggressors tase immigrant to death

[Donegeal]

Originally posted by Wezil
Donageal -

The point I have been getting at is that policing involves risk and sometimes I expect officers to use good old fashioned force to subdue someone. Particularly with superior numbers and an unarmed suspect. I feel the thinking by officers is shifting to one of talk first (usually anyways) and if they don't comply taser them. I want something more than talking and less than tasering.

And the thing that I keep trying to explain to everyone, is that getting tazered, although it hurts, is much safer for everyone involved (and more effective) than good old fashioned force.

And if you want something between talking and tazering, give me something. I'd gladly have it in my force option continuum.

[Wezil]

Donegeal -

You have something between and it certainly isn't shooting him in the leg and clubbing with your nightstick as you mentioned earlier...

I can understand your desire to not be hurt at work. I don't want officers injured either but I also don't want to see members of the public being killed by a tool the officers will use in lieu of physical restraint simply b/c it is easier and safer for them. I don't expect firefighters to wait until a fire is out b/c that is the safe approach either...

As I mentioned earlier - policing is inherently dangerous and to the best of my knowledge all cops are volunteers.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Donegeal


Dynamite was orginally made to help in construction. What's your point?

Point is that's bait and switch.

[Solver]

How is that tasering is safer? Seriously. I assume that 4 cops would be able to overpower a man who's resisting. There may be bruises, I can even see the suspect's arm being broken in a struggle but that can't be lethal while tasers can. Can you be sure that the guy hasn't got a hear problems or alcohol abuse that will make tasering less safe than old fashioned force?

A related question. I understand that a taser renders a person helpless for a brief period of time. Is there ever reason to tase someone repeatedly, as opposed to restraining after using the taser once?

[germanos]

Originally posted by Donegeal


Dynamite was orginally made to help in construction. What's your point?

That it would be a great thing if we had stuck with the original plan?

[Wezil]

Solver - That is what's bugging me. There is ground between talking and tasering but it involves some element of risk to the officer. I take it Donegeal doesn't think this risk is acceptable. What happens if Tasers are removed from police arsenals? Will they just shoot everyone that doesn't comply?

[Solver]

Originally posted by Wezil
Solver - That is what's bugging me. There is ground between talking and tasering but it involves some element of risk to the officer. I take it Donegeal doesn't think this risk is acceptable. What happens if Tasers are removed from police arsenals? Will they just shoot everyone that doesn't comply?

I'm just thinking about human psychology. People are less hesitant to use something that is less dangerous, period. I imagine that just about any officer will be extremely hesitant to use his gun, knowing that it's a lethal weapon. So they'd use guns only when there is obvious immediate danger, such as armed suspects.

Yes, I believe Donegeal when he says that most officers aren't trigger-happy with tasers either. But still, the knowledge that a taser isn't supposed to kill must make the officer more likely to use it. So maybe it's that fact, together with tasers being completely safe for the person shooting them, is what makes some a bit too quick to use them - like what happened in this case.

As someone with no relevant training, I know this psychology is quite true for me. I wouldn't use a gun except to defend against major danger but I probably would use a taser in a moderately dangerous situation.

[Wezil]

Heck, I'd use a Taser several times daily if the law would let me.

[Kidlicious]

I would have tased my crackhead neighbors last night.

[Wezil]

I absolutely love the cattle prod scene in Casino.

[Donegeal]

Police related injuries (to both officer and subjects) have dropped dramitically where ever the use of a Tazer has been allowed. When I say it's safer, I mean it's safer for everyone. If my kids take a nap at the same time, I'll try to find the stats on this.

[Impaler[WrG]]

It sounds to me that Tazers have completly suplanted the use of billy clubs, in Don's terminology the "force option continuum" is

Verbal->Tazer->Gun

when it used to be...

Verbal->Club->Gun

and many posters here want to see...

Verbal->Club->Tazer

The Tazer is percived by most posters here to be on average more damaging then the Club, a small percentage of people are killed the rest are unharmed vs uniform bruising and frequent broken bones but fewer deaths with a club. This perception may be completly false and generated by media sensationalism, I've never seen any hard statistics one way or another. But I can see that the promise of Tazers as some kind of Star-Trek weapon witch never kills isn't true and the codes of use based on thouse false promises could be putting people in greater danger. The issue should be aproatched statisticly and scientificaly. Could we (right here and with Don's help) create a 10 point scale from the least to the most dangerous situations and then clearly state ware we feel Tazers or a hypotheticaly purfectly non-leathal weapon or other future technologies would be apropriate (IE Taz in threat level 3-7).

[Donegeal]

Originally posted by Solver
How is that tasering is safer? Seriously. I assume that 4 cops would be able to overpower a man who's resisting. There may be bruises, I can even see the suspect's arm being broken in a struggle but that can't be lethal while tasers can. Can you be sure that the guy hasn't got a hear problems or alcohol abuse that will make tasering less safe than old fashioned force?

A related question. I understand that a taser renders a person helpless for a brief period of time. Is there ever reason to tase someone repeatedly, as opposed to restraining after using the taser once?

Tasering is much safer than brute force because I'd say using brute force not only leads to more and longer lasting injuries (like your probability of a broken arm), but has greater chance of lethality. Let me use the case this thread was started for. I as of now, I don't believe the man died from the tazering. There is no evidence of that. However, I do believe that he died from one of the RCMP kneeling on his neck/head. It doesn't take much to close off the flow of blood to the brain, and there is in fact a lethal move in which you strick the neck in the same area where the cops probably had his knee.

A tazer goes for 5 seconds. That's it. Never anymore than that. I would be rather impressed if some was able to Taze someone, get to him, get the cuffs out and place both wrists in them within the five seconds (and to do so without letting go of the Tazer). It does two things to the subject: 1) it gets them in a prone position making putting on the cuff much easier. 2) Makes them not want to get hit again and want to comply with your orders. In this particular situation, I don't see why the any tazering beyond the initial one was needed at all (but then again, I was not privy to all the information).

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Impaler[WrG]
It sounds to me that Tazers have completly suplanted the use of billy clubs, in Don's terminology the "force option continuum" is

Verbal->Tazer->Gun

I don't think holding the suspect down and tazering him fits into this. Or what about when the suspect is in a police station and is just siting there not fighting at all and the police tazer her repeatedly?

[Winston]

Issuing new weapons would obviously put this whole debate to rest.

-There's one! Set for stun.

Or maybe not. Some people would then complain that there's too much stunning going on and too little 'talk'. Not to mention 'candy' and 'big friendly hugs'.