TASER OPINIONS?

[RangerRay]

...warning shots then starting at the knees before moving up to lethal area's would be an option...

Where would that warning shot go?  Someone's house?  Someone walking down the street a block or two away?  Not good.

Shooting the knees?  Have you ever fired a handgun, let alone done so under stressful conditions?  They are not very accurate to hit a 2" X 2" target at 25 yards.

When one is pepper sprayed, you have to deal with the effects until someone is nice enough to decontaminate you.  Not fun.  Dirtbags with prior medical conditions have been known to die after being sprayed.  As well, determined and wacked out people can work through the spray and continue resisting or attacking.

With a taser, the effects end as soon as power is shut off.

 

[adaminc]

I think that a Taser should only be used in a situation where they would use a firearm, which from all the stories I have read (nonlethal and lethal) doesn't seem to be the case.

Also, enforce copious amounts of paper work to be filled out in triplicate if a taser is used. I think that would prevent overzealous use of a Taser. I am also wondering if it would be possible to measure the heart of the person after being tased, but I'm thinking that the lines are too long and would pick up too much interference.

 

[Snafu-Bar]

Don't get me wrong, i'm not against Authorities having to use force during thier daily jobs, nor am i against the use of deadly force when it's required. It just seems that with all the other options out there for use besides tasers there would be a better choice.

Bad people don't care about rules and laws and most of all they don't care about anyone trying to prevent them from doing harm to others, the options get narrowed down pretty fast when having to deal with that type of mentality. As for warning shots, that's not the best idea(my oversight) but if people are forcing authorities to alternative then perhaps just letting them clearly warn the perpetrator that force will be used and it will be thier own fault for the consequences.

 

[muskrat89]

To my knowledge they are all told repeatedly that they will be taser'd, if they don't comply

Look - people keep "tossing out ideas" that quite frankly - make them look silly. The Use of Force Continuum for police agencies isn't something they wrote on a napkin in the lunchroom. It is the result of experience, training, law, and the technology that is available. Officers, shrinks,lawyers,behavioralists - everybody and their dog has had input, before a Department makes it policy.

I'm not someone required to use any force in my line of work - that's why I have stayed out of this thread. I've never been wrongly detained, accused, roughed up or pulled over, even here in the big bad US. We don't like it when people outside of the military question our tactics - I will not do the same thing to the police.

 

[stryte]

A lethal force option to combat a lethal force threat................bottom line.

I would waive caution with that statement solely on the basis that the article simply does not provide enough information. S.25 of the C.C.C. speaks to use of force which is both reasonable and necessary. Simply stating the subject had a knife would not suffice for a lethal force control response in my opinion. It may be perfectly reasonable to use lethal force however without hearing the officers articulation of the event we cannot know that if it was necessary. (I would like to point out that I do believe from the officers perspective it was reasonable and necessary and they acted appropriately.)

To my knowledge they are all told repeatedly that they will be taser'd, if they don't comply

Look - people keep "tossing out ideas" that quite frankly - make them look silly. <b>The Use of Force Continuum</b> for police agencies isn't something they wrote on a napkin in the lunchroom. It is the result of experience, training, law, and the technology that is available. Officers, shrinks,lawyers,behavioralists - everybody and their dog has had input, before a Department makes it policy.

I'm not someone required to use any force in my line of work - that's why I have stayed out of this thread. I've never been wrongly detained, accused, roughed up or pulled over, even here in the big bad US. We don't like it when people outside of the military question our tactics - I will not do the same thing to the police.

Emphasis added to quote. I am not aware of any police agency in Canada which uses a use of force <u>continuum</u>. We have the National Use of Force Framework which the majority of police agencies (with the exception of the RCMP who use IMIM) use as their use of force <u>model</u>. The problem with continuum's is much like a ladder where one must move up in increments where as with the model where you enter it is dependant on the level of resistance presented by the subject taking into consideration your training and if your agencies uses the PPCT one plus one theory or similar response with one level of control higher than resistance encountered.

A couple general comments on some of the previous posts:

Saying that police should shoot for the arms, legs, knees etc. is unrealistic. In a lethal force situation it is unlikely based on the stress and time that you will have time to think about such a thing. What hopefully will happen is that you'll act, and the way you act with be consistent with the training you receive which is two to the centre mass of the chest. Agencies do not practice shooting at legs or arms or knees, to suddenly expected in a high stress situation is why I feel it is unrealistic.

I would also like to point out it is not necessary to first warn a subject that you are about to taser, spray, hit or shoot him. Whatever level of control you are going to use you want it to be effective, giving the subject a heads up on whats coming is simply not practical. There is no level of control that will work absolutely all the time in every situation. There are plenty of videos of people who are get tasered and are unaffected and I will leave it up to you to search youtube or blutube for them.

Lastly here is a summary from a June 2008 study by the U.S. Department of Justice's National Institute of Justice on Deaths Following Electro-Muscular Disruption

Study of Deaths Following Electro Muscular Disruption: Interim Report presents interim findings from a NIJ study of deaths of individuals following exposure to electro muscular disruption (EMD) technology from conducted-energy devices (CEDs). CEDs use a high-voltage, low-power electrical charge to induce involuntary muscle contractions that cause temporary incapacitation.

This report presents the findings of a medical panel composed of physicians, medical examiners, and other specialists in cardiology, emergency medicine, epidemiology, pathology, and toxicology, based on mortality reviews of CED-related deaths and a review of the current state of medical research relative to the effects of CED.

The report includes sections on background, methodology, findings, recommendations for post-event medical care following CED exposure, and considerations in death investigations for deaths that occur following deployment of a CED. It also includes a glossary and an extensive list of selected references.

Full text here: http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/222981.pdf

 

[muskrat89]

Emphasis added to quote. I am not aware of any police agency in Canada which uses a use of force continuum. We have the National Use of Force Framework which the majority of police agencies (with the exception of the RCMP who use IMIM) use as their use of force model. The problem with continuum's is much like a ladder where one must move up in increments where as with the model where you enter it is dependant on the level of resistance presented by the subject taking into consideration your training and if your agencies uses the PPCT one plus one theory or similar response with one level of control higher than resistance encountered.

Please note my LOCSTAT. I understand the difference you noted between continuum and model; that being said, in the context of this thread, I would say that it is semantics. Whether an agency uses a model or continuum, my point was that it was not some arbitrary thought process.

 

[stryte]

Please note my LOCSTAT. I understand the difference you noted between continuum and model; that being said, in the context of this thread, I would say that it is semantics. Whether an agency uses a model or continuum, my point was that it was not some arbitrary thought process.

Fair enough. The very end of my original post and link to the published document was what I originally came on to share. It wasn't my desire to drift off into another topic but did choose to provide some input after reading some previous posts which I hope helped with your point (which I agree with) that it is not some arbitrary thought process.

 

[zipperhead_cop]

Simply stating the subject had a knife would not suffice for a lethal force control response in my opinion.

I would hope so.  Be a pretty bad shift if I ever had to do a call in a steak house. 
"He's got a knife!" POW
"She's got a knife!" POW
"THEY ALL HAVE KNIVES!!"  POWPOWPOW....
;D

A quote from the provided link:

Although exposure to CED is not risk free, there is no conclusive medical evidence within the state of
current research that indicates a high risk of serious injury or death from the direct effects of CED
exposure. Field experience with CED use indicates that exposure is safe in the vast majority of cases.
Therefore, law enforcement need not refrain from deploying CEDs, provided the devices are used in
accordance with accepted national guidelines.

Which is what we have been saying for a while. 
BTW, in Ontario we call the use of force "model" a continuum.  And there is no requirement to go from one step to the next per se.  You can jet right to lethal force if you need to. 

 

[marshall sl]

CSC calls it a" SITUATION MANAGEMENT MODEL"  All use of force is inmate driven..We use force accordingl to his/her behaviour.

Situation Management Model
CSC Staff and Management will prevent, respond and resolve situations using the safest and most reasonable intervention
http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/text/plcy/cdshtm/567-cd-eng.shtml#_16

 

[EDS334]

First and foremost, I'm all for the use of tasers by LEO's.  Just one more piece of kit for those who protect and serve; just one more tool.

The problem as I see it, is that the idea of tasers was sold to the public (by the media) as a non-lethal weapon, when in fact they are less-than-lethal weapons.  Civilians who can't/won't try to understand the the difference between "non" and "less than" cry outrage at the appeared overuse of a weapon they don't fully know.  The common argument is "would you rather the cop use his gun outright?" Most I know would answer "No, BUT!.." and bring up use-of-force.

I would hazard the guess that most people like the idea of the "ideal" taser.  A stun gun with no long term ill effects on anyone zapped, while actually stunning them long enough for them to be safety secured.  The problem is there are way to many "what if's" to guarantee the "ideal" taser (presently).  So they must be labeled - correctly - as less than lethal. Not "non-lethal".

The solution:  Educate the public to "use of force" and reality via video footage of reality imho.  Helmet cameras, or similar, could (with proper censorship to maintain privacy rights) provide the public with an unbiased view of what the LEO is having to deal with.  From that point, whether the civilian is sitting at home watching it on TV, or in a court room, they are able to interpret what they see, and ignore the increasing opinions of reporters.  Also, that footage would be an immense training tool for applications of the departments' protocols.

 

[stryte]

BTW, in Ontario we call the use of force "model" a continuum.  And there is no requirement to go from one step to the next per se.  You can jet right to lethal force if you need to. 

Well I stand corrected. Thank you for letting me know. If the steakhouse situation ever becomes a <b>good shift</b> start to worry. 

<b>EDS334</b>:You make some good points. A lot of police services are offering citizen police academy's or auxilary policing which I think goes towards educating the community. Another good step would be to invite the media to view some of the training and educate them there.

 

[muskrat89]

offering citizen police academy's

Coincidentally, where I learned about the use of force continuum  ;D

 

[larry Strong]

Best way to educate the public, is to start making the penalties stiffer so people realize there are repercussions

 

[medaid]

I think that a Taser should only be used in a situation where they would use a firearm, which from all the stories I have read (nonlethal and lethal) doesn't seem to be the case.

That's because if it warrants the use of a member's sidearm, it is often to the point beyond TASER. It's escalated to deadly force already.

It's also a common mistake to reference the Criminal Code as the Canadian Criminal Code. There is no such thing, it is only the Criminal Code, since there is no other form of such an item here... in Canada.

 

[stryte]

That's because if it warrants the use of a member's sidearm, it is often to the point beyond TASER. It's escalated to deadly force already.

It's also a common mistake to reference the Criminal Code as the Canadian Criminal Code. There is no such thing, it is only the Criminal Code, since there is no other form of such an item here... in Canada.

In school depending on the professor and subsequently in training depending on the instructor some wished us to put CCC but not to stand for the Canadian Criminal Code rather the Criminal Code of Canada which I thought was its proper long title but I was wrong.

 

[medaid]

Mate, it was a painful mistake that I had to go through. Having had a judge look quizically at you after reading a brief and ask "what's C.C.C?" will fix one up quick.

 

[zipperhead_cop]

People seem to have a hard time with what force can be employed at the point of "assaultive".  The serious bodily harm/death one is pretty straight forward.  The officer's life is in some fairly serious jeopardy. 
Assaultive means just that.  The criminal is resisting beyond simply struggling to not get arrested.  They are throwing punches, kicks, biting etc.  They can also be verbally demonstrating their intent.  Now, this is the part that many people have a hard time with.  The force used is based on the officers perception of the situation.  For my part, I know what I can handle physically and I generally am fairly good at assessing a criminals ability.  This comes from training and experience.  So I might have some crackhead calling me on (happens so frequently, it's kind of amusing) and my reaction will be to:
1.  Giggle to myself
2. Advise said crackhead of his imminent situation and flawed thinking
3.  Move in and rag doll him.
But another officer in the same situation might do it differently.  With demonstrated assaultive behavior we have the green light to use baton, spray or taser (if we have them, which most of us don't in Ontario) or still go with hands.  No one can tell the officer what they should use.  It's that officers decision based on all of the factors going on at the time.  And as always we are not getting paid to get hurt.  We do not fight fair.  We do not give bad guys the chance to get one in.  If things have to be physical, it is swift, brutal and decisive.  To the public, it can look harsh but they aren't the ones who are expected to go towards the hate.  We are. 
Please believe that the Taser is still the best option for the bad guy in most situations.  These clods that died would have anyway. 
Here is the Ontario Use of Force continuum/model/guideline:

 

[stryte]

Good points Zip. Especially:

Please believe that the Taser is still the best option for the bad guy in most situations.  These clods that died would have anyway.

Eventually I believe this will become evident. It seems that the majority of these individuals who die are already in a state of excited delirium when they are Tasered. Some argue it reduces the already limited amount of time they have prior to dying which may be true. Regardless I see it as a trade off. The sooner we can gain control of the subject the sooner we can get them medical attention and the Taser is the best option. Hopefully more research is done like the article I had linked and that it's taken into consideration by the decision makers. Here in Saskatchewan the Police Commission has pulled back on its deployment of Tasers based on the RCMP findings.

 

[medaid]

Eventually I believe this will become evident.

Several reports have already outlined Excited Delirium as the cause of death rather then the TASER itself.

 

[Snafu-Bar]

Just read this one locally.


http://www.thespec.com/News_Wire/National/article/413469  :skull: