Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Taser Use? Yes or No

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    In Wisconsin, only police officers are allowed to use any electronic device. Private security persons are not allowed to use 'tasers'.

    Tasers kill a lot of people every year. We've had at least 4 deaths this year in WI when police tasered suspects. They can be a useful tool but they are often used when it is not necessary.
    "People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf."

    ~~George Orwell.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by N. A. Corbier
      Actually, that isn't a higher standard. NO citizen of the United States may posesss ammunition or a firearm, nor have access to them, under the Clinton-Era Federal Domestic Violence Act. This is why a LEO loses his job, as well as an armed security officer gets to be unarmed, the states have no say in the matter.

      When this came about, many LEOs protested because they were hired on with a misdemeanor violation for DV, and boom, you have to find a desk job for the guy or terminate him.

      Again, you have no more or nor less rights than a private citizen as a security officer/guard/person unless the state grants you extra-ordinary powers. Those states that deny you the basic priveliages of every other citizen (self-defense, carrying of weapons openly when citizens may do so, self-incrimination, etc...) are creating second class citizens based on profession.
      I'm a little late in getting back to your post here, but better late than never. You took my comment about a higher standard out of context. A private citizen doesn't necessarily lose their job when convicted of a domestic violence offense. As I stated, a LEO or armed SO will. So, in that sense it IS a higher standard.
      Security: Freedom from fear; danger; safe; a feeling of well-being. (Webster's)

      Comment


      • #18
        Picking Up This Thread Again

        Whether it's the TASER, OCP, baton or firearm, my experience is that the number of incidents involving improper use are directly related to two related issues, namely:

        1. The training officers have received (and the skills they maintain!) in lower-level force methods, starting with the concept of "officer presence", rapid conflict resolution, and unarmed defensive measures (here, I prefer a combination of Krav Maga, together with LEO-oriented locks, take-downs and come-alongs such as those taught by MOAB in their LEO courses, underpinned by a regular program of strength training and aerobics). These should be intensively maintained on a programmed, ongoing basis and refresher courses taught annually. Oddly enough, it seems that the more that people are skilled in the low-level methods, the less they even have to use those, perhaps because of a certain confidence they exude - who knows?

        2. Adequate response forces. Ask anyone to face down a 300-lb belligerent drunk or PCP dopehead without backup, and the results probably will not be pretty no matter what happens because someone's going to get hurt, and then an "improper use of force" decision may well wind up being handed down by a jury that's second-guessing the situation from the comfort and safety of their courthouse chairs in a civil suit a year or two after the fact. (The plaintiff, of course, is now wearing a clean suit, isn't dribbling drool down his chin or waving a knife, and limps into court on crutches - rented for the day - in the company of his poor, sniffling granny while squadrons of "good people" parade across the witness stand attesting to his general wonderfulness - "Why he wouldn't hurt a fly".)

        I've commented elsewhere on the forum that security vendors should refuse to enter into inadequate security contracts on many grounds, not only because we must make a sufficient rate to pay decent wages, but also as a matter of our own liability and safety, AND because such contracts can actually increase, rather than decrease, the security liability of the client.

        "Inadequate" can mean many things, of course, but in this context it means "not allowing for a sufficient number of officers to deal with reasonably foreseeable adverse events". "Foreseeability" is determined by the facility's history, it's environment/location, the history of other similar facilities, etc.

        If your facility, such as a healthcare emergency room, for instance, has a reasonable foreseeability for violence or threatened violence toward patrons, employees or visitors, and your security contract (or the internal security department) does not provide sufficient forces to deal properly with such incidents...look out for lawyers, 'cause they're coming. They might be suing on behalf of the injured patron, the family, the injured security officer, or even your client (to recover their own lawsuit losses), an injured bystander or employee...but count on it, they're coming and it's not a matter of "if", but "when".

        What many security clients do not realize (because WE have not taught them, as we scrabble like monkeys in heat for the lowest bid) is that their greatest risk in many cases is not that of what they would lose if they were burglarized or robbed or even if their building burned down...it is their exposure to legal liability in the form of: (1) the huge, huge, $million awards that are being pumped out of courtrooms by juries for negligence, and that are often NOT entirely mitigated by insurance, and (2) the uninsurable business losses that result from the unfavorable PR and the interruption of business caused by the enormous time and expense of responding to lawsuits - even when they don't go to trial. Burglaries, robberies and even fires won't usually take businesses down...but legal liabilities can and do, every day of the week.

        There is no substitute for adequate security contracts which, in turn, are serviced by truly professional security organizations. "Security on the cheap" will sooner or later wind up proving to be no security at all.
        Last edited by SecTrainer; 12-08-2006, 08:14 AM.
        "Every betrayal begins with trust." - Brian Jacques

        "I can't predict the future, but I know that it'll be very weird." - Anonymous

        "There is nothing new under the sun." - Ecclesiastes 1:9

        "History, with all its volumes vast, hath but one page." - Lord Byron

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Mr. Security
          I'm a little late in getting back to your post here, but better late than never. You took my comment about a higher standard out of context. A private citizen doesn't necessarily lose their job when convicted of a domestic violence offense. As I stated, a LEO or armed SO will. So, in that sense it IS a higher standard.
          Oh, I found something really interesting from Paul over at SPE. VERY few police officers have lost their jobs due to domestic violence convictions. Most had their records expunged before the law passed, and others... The agencies just didn't check.
          Some Kind of Commando Leader

          "Every time I see another crazy Florida post, I'm glad I don't work there." ~ Minneapolis Security on Florida Security Law

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by N. A. Corbier
            Oh, I found something really interesting from Paul over at SPE. VERY few police officers have lost their jobs due to domestic violence convictions. Most had their records expunged before the law passed, and others... The agencies just didn't check.
            The good-ole-boy network strikes again.
            Security: Freedom from fear; danger; safe; a feeling of well-being. (Webster's)

            Comment


            • #21
              Tasers are impressive!!!

              I watched a COPS episode where a HUGE muscle bound guy who was "mad at the world" wanted to kick butt with two smaller cops, one on each arm. The cops knew they were in trouble and tried to convince the guy not to resist. Backup arrived with a taser just in time for the fight. One shot and the guy was down on his back with an instant personality change: "Don't do that again...I'll do anything you ask me too....yes sir; no sir."

              After he recovered, he admitted that being tased hurt more than when he was stabbed or shot. He was now a gentle giant.
              Security: Freedom from fear; danger; safe; a feeling of well-being. (Webster's)

              Comment


              • #22
                Here is why I like tasers.

                You have security guards, security officers, call them what you will. They are assigned to residential areas, or factory areas, or whatever. They are, 9 times out of 10, alone. This means that they must manage a violent encounter, call 911 and deal with the dispatcher who has 9 million questions before she will even send the police, and keep control of the violent offender while waiting for the police.

                This violent encounter could be offender vs. third-party victim, or it could be offender vs. guard. In either case, the guard has to take action to protect someone, either himself or someone else. And he is alone in this.

                It can take the police up to 1 hour to respond to a criminal complaint. (Seriously.) You now have 1 hour alone with chuckles who is angry as hell that you stopped him from hurting someone (you, someone else), and wants to kick your ass again.

                Most guard companies aren't going to issue anything except a uniform. Some may issue a flashlight. If they don't allow anything else, but allow a taser, the guard can tase the offender, prone him out, then use follow up taser cycles if he attempts to move or do anything stupid.

                No handcuffs, no liability about "arresting," just the guy goes down.

                This, of course, is not a realistic scenerio, but it does illustrate how a taser can be used effectively when alone.
                Some Kind of Commando Leader

                "Every time I see another crazy Florida post, I'm glad I don't work there." ~ Minneapolis Security on Florida Security Law

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by N. A. Corbier
                  Here is why I like tasers.

                  You have security guards, security officers, call them what you will. They are assigned to residential areas, or factory areas, or whatever. They are, 9 times out of 10, alone. This means that they must manage a violent encounter, call 911 and deal with the dispatcher who has 9 million questions before she will even send the police, and keep control of the violent offender while waiting for the police.

                  This violent encounter could be offender vs. third-party victim, or it could be offender vs. guard. In either case, the guard has to take action to protect someone, either himself or someone else. And he is alone in this.

                  It can take the police up to 1 hour to respond to a criminal complaint. (Seriously.) You now have 1 hour alone with chuckles who is angry as hell that you stopped him from hurting someone (you, someone else), and wants to kick your ass again.

                  Most guard companies aren't going to issue anything except a uniform. Some may issue a flashlight. If they don't allow anything else, but allow a taser, the guard can tase the offender, prone him out, then use follow up taser cycles if he attempts to move or do anything stupid.

                  No handcuffs, no liability about "arresting," just the guy goes down.

                  This, of course, is not a realistic scenerio, but it does illustrate how a taser can be used effectively when alone.
                  Can you help me get the law changed in Canada so I can get one? My duties are exactly what you have written & most of the time I work alone but up here in the Great White North (still no snow this year however) I am NOT allowed a Taser, Pepper Spray etc
                  I enforce rules and regulations, not laws.
                  Security Officers. The 1st First Responders.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    The first step is to ask your ... whatever it is that represents you in your proviencial area... why citizen's can't have them.

                    Keeping in mind that weapons are strictly controlled in all former UK holdings, except Amercia... I'm not sure how this would work. Especially since most states authorize security to have tasers because citizens may. (i.e. they don't actually authorize it, they just say, "well, citizens can...")

                    Michigan is currently trying to pass a bill that allows Act 330 Security Police Officers to have tasers. The AP, of course, called them security guards and only at the very end of the 3 page article noted that they were "arrest powers security guards," or properly known as Act 330 Security Police. The AP's slant on the story was that it was dangerous to have security guards (which Act 330s aren't) to have them.
                    Some Kind of Commando Leader

                    "Every time I see another crazy Florida post, I'm glad I don't work there." ~ Minneapolis Security on Florida Security Law

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by N. A. Corbier
                      The first step is to ask your ... whatever it is that represents you in your proviencial area... why citizen's can't have them.
                      Actually it's a Federal law that prevents us from having them. I have in the past spoken to my member of parliament but there are not enough of us asking to make any difference. I'd say that not only are there a lot of Warm Body Security Companies around but there are a lot of Warm Body Security Guards who are happy observing, reporting & running away
                      I enforce rules and regulations, not laws.
                      Security Officers. The 1st First Responders.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Generally, laws like this would require to give all citizen's the authority to carry, unless previous law gives "security agents" the authority to carry another weapon, such as a baton.

                        Very few states give certain private citizens the ability to carry things other than a firearm when the majority of private citizens cannot. This is due to the "no more or no less powers" mantra that states have developed in licensing and law.
                        Some Kind of Commando Leader

                        "Every time I see another crazy Florida post, I'm glad I don't work there." ~ Minneapolis Security on Florida Security Law

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Citizens can carry Tasers in 46 states w/o a license, according to the Taser website.
                          "Every betrayal begins with trust." - Brian Jacques

                          "I can't predict the future, but I know that it'll be very weird." - Anonymous

                          "There is nothing new under the sun." - Ecclesiastes 1:9

                          "History, with all its volumes vast, hath but one page." - Lord Byron

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by SecTrainer
                            Citizens can carry Tasers in 46 states w/o a license, according to the Taser website.
                            CT is one that prohibits tasers. NY is probably another one.
                            Security: Freedom from fear; danger; safe; a feeling of well-being. (Webster's)

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by SecTrainer
                              Citizens can carry Tasers in 46 states w/o a license, according to the Taser website.
                              I live in one of the states where tasers are "Law Enforcement/Military Only." Taser has, according to them, no plans to change this with the current administration (Doyle.)
                              Some Kind of Commando Leader

                              "Every time I see another crazy Florida post, I'm glad I don't work there." ~ Minneapolis Security on Florida Security Law

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                my company does not allow us to carry tasers simply because of the fact that people love to sue when they get tased, or in the event of an accidental death because of one then it would be even a bigger case. The police dept and taser has basically unlimited money to fight cases whereas my company does not have the resources to fight lawsuit after lawsuit. Its funny how I can carry a leathal weapon no probs but a non-lethal weapon is totally off limits. If your company allows you to then go for it, but first see what kind of insurance policy and legal support they give you just incase of an incident.

                                Comment

                                Leaderboard

                                Collapse
                                Working...
                                X