Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Study: Tasers Safe for Use by Police

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

  • Echos13
    replied
    Well, I have seen them in action. I like the idea. Sometimes just the look of the thing along with the crackle gets most people to cooperate.

    Forest rangers huh. Make sure that camp fire is out!

    Leave a comment:


  • Ron Jessee
    replied
    Smarter than the average bear? we'll see..

    Leave a comment:


  • Hank1
    replied
    US Foresty Service Officers

    I just heard on the Fox News Channel that all uniformed US Foresty Personell have been certified in the us of and now carry Tazers. The surprising thing to me was they haven't been certified all along. Situations were officers work alone and your back up is hours away, dealing with poachers, drug traffickers, murderers and other serious crimes by onesself. It's about time in my opinion.

    As Always...Be safe,

    Hank

    Leave a comment:


  • Lawson
    replied
    Originally posted by Black Caesar View Post
    But people in the know would rather take Tasers than OC any day. I've taken both hits (we don't carry Tasers, that proposal has stalled with our Board of Trustees ) and I'd prefer being Tased.
    Not necessarily. Ive been both TASERed and OCed, but I can't necessarily say I'd rather take the TASER. Sure it's short sweet and simple, but I absolutely cannot stand the feeling of not being able to control my own body. That feeling of absolute vulnerability... augh. At least with OC spray I know that I can fight through it and still operate.

    Leave a comment:


  • ddog
    replied
    Originally posted by jaybird33081 View Post
    well alot of ppl see the use of tasers and disaprove cuz it does look violent but its very effective and it doesnt so much hurt its a weird feeling. i think its one of the best tools cops have. its either that or shoot them or boton or mase and i have been maced and tazed i would take the tazer anyday of the week. when i get a LEO job i would reach for the tazer before i would go for anything else...enless the sidearm is needed
    Yes, electocuting someone is definitely a weird feeling. A SO shot 5 years ago in her back with a taser (by her brother for kicks) still has marks on her back and remembers it well. Instead of $50 disposable electrodes, electric ray guns would be better: no skin punctures or cost per use.

    The technology's here, but that will open up a big can of worms on the streets (and its coming, if already not available). People will be zapping everyone up to every time a battery charges up for the next victim. The weapon's cost will be relatively cheap compared to tasers as well. The only problem is that, of all the alternative energy weapons, 'pure' electricity is the only weapon that is illegal with specific laws on the books (except tasers).
    Last edited by ddog; 10-10-2007, 03:14 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Badge714
    replied
    Originally posted by Black Caesar View Post
    Exactly.

    I've always found Amnesty to be against everything. Mainly because of their political philosophy, a philosophy that rejects the idea that Use of Force is ever legitimate.
    These idiots are insane. I remember when they said that using pain compliance to move protesters was "torture." And they said the same thing about pepper spray.

    Leave a comment:


  • Black Caesar
    replied
    Originally posted by Badge714 View Post
    One thing I noted in the story was a complaint that cops tend to use Tasers on mentally ill individuals.
    If I remember correctly, the Minneapolis cops got Tasers to prevent having to SHOOT mentally ill persons after they shot and killed a mentally ill woman armed with a knife. You just can't please some people.
    This is the Gospel truth. I've always thought that I'd like American Cops and other protective service workers go back to the days of "nothing but guns and sticks and fist and feet" for 1 week, and THEN lets here what people think about Pepper spray and Tasers and other less lethal alternatives .

    Originally posted by jaybird33081 View Post
    well alot of ppl see the use of tasers and disaprove cuz it does look violent but its very effective and it doesnt so much hurt its a weird feeling. i think its one of the best tools cops have. its either that or shoot them or boton or mase and i have been maced and tazed i would take the tazer anyday of the week. when i get a LEO job i would reach for the tazer before i would go for anything else...enless the sidearm is needed
    In a discussion with one of my colleges more liberal Profs last week, I gave him this choice.

    Would you rather:

    A) Be stunned with a TASER, be in terrible pain for 5 seconds and spend the next 2 minutes recovering

    OR

    B) Get sprayed with OC, and be in pain, unable to see, have difficulty breathing and be in general wishing for death for the next 45 minutes

    He looked at me funny and Chose C) "remind mind me not to ever piss you guys off" .

    Thats the thing. Tasers LOOK bad, the buzzing sound, the guy falling to the floor screaming, ect ect. But people in the know would rather take Tasers than OC any day. I've taken both hits (we don't carry Tasers, that proposal has stalled with our Board of Trustees ) and I'd prefer being Tased.

    Leave a comment:


  • Black Caesar
    replied
    Originally posted by SecTrainer View Post
    Thank you. The problem with Amnesty International has always been that their rabid, well-documented bias causes them to repeatedly commit the logical error of reducing complex situations into simplistic conclusions.

    Usually, this consists of what is known as the "post hoc ergo propter hoc" logical fallacy, meaning "after this, therefore because of this". In other words, an individual dies AFTER this (being Tased) and therefore he must have died BECAUSE of that.

    The topic of "excited delirium" often comes up in discussions about deaths while in custody or while being taken into custody (Taser or not). Many medical professionals are highly skeptical about whether ED even exists. However, assuming it does, it usually occurs in the setting of cocaine or other drug intoxication. Recently, there have also been important position papers published in the medical community noting that ED "is a fatal disease in and of itself" and that individuals die from it whether there is any police intervention or not. Amnesty International was quick to jump on the ED concept, but now that has been shot down too.

    Tasers are, as the report you cite indicates, "serious weapons" requiring user training, precautions and well-considered policies for their use. However, their relative safety and effectiveness, when compared to the available alternatives (which is the real question), is becoming pretty well established, which is why you see MORE police agencies, etc. deploying them rather than less. There is certainly a growing body of statistical evidence showing that the Taser not only results in less harm to the citizen than other means of take-down, but much less harm to officers. Some departments cite reductions of up to 80% in their disability costs since deploying Tasers, and this is nothing to sneeze at because most departments don't have the luxury of having a lot of officers on "desk duty"...or, worse, retiring early due to injuries.
    Exactly.

    I've always found Amnesty to be against everything. Mainly because of their political philosophy, a philosophy that rejects the idea that Use of Force is ever legitimate.

    This development is so important to everyone, public, private and the citizenry at large. People should want fewer cops injured (which costs money from the public purse in lots of ways). People should want fewer citizens injured or killed by the police regardless of the crime they are committing. Security Companies in particular should welcome a new avenue of keeping costs down (Injured S/O means big potential problems for a private Security company) . Ect Ect.

    Leave a comment:


  • jaybird33081
    replied
    well alot of ppl see the use of tasers and disaprove cuz it does look violent but its very effective and it doesnt so much hurt its a weird feeling. i think its one of the best tools cops have. its either that or shoot them or boton or mase and i have been maced and tazed i would take the tazer anyday of the week. when i get a LEO job i would reach for the tazer before i would go for anything else...enless the sidearm is needed

    Leave a comment:


  • Badge714
    replied
    One thing I noted in the story was a complaint that cops tend to use Tasers on mentally ill individuals.
    If I remember correctly, the Minneapolis cops got Tasers to prevent having to SHOOT mentally ill persons after they shot and killed a mentally ill woman armed with a knife. You just can't please some people.

    Leave a comment:


  • SecTrainer
    replied
    Originally posted by Black Caesar View Post
    Article



    Just what's been needed, a scientifically conducted study. Everyone has opinions, TASER inc says one thing, Amnesty says another (with their badly skewed "statistics") and no one really knew the truth. I'm bookmarking this page for future referance .
    Thank you. The problem with Amnesty International has always been that their rabid, well-documented bias causes them to repeatedly commit the logical error of reducing complex situations into simplistic conclusions.

    Usually, this consists of what is known as the "post hoc ergo propter hoc" logical fallacy, meaning "after this, therefore because of this". In other words, an individual dies AFTER this (being Tased) and therefore he must have died BECAUSE of that.

    The topic of "excited delirium" often comes up in discussions about deaths while in custody or while being taken into custody (Taser or not). Many medical professionals are highly skeptical about whether ED even exists. However, assuming it does, it usually occurs in the setting of cocaine or other drug intoxication. Recently, there have also been important position papers published in the medical community noting that ED "is a fatal disease in and of itself" and that individuals die from it whether there is any police intervention or not. Amnesty International was quick to jump on the ED concept, but now that has been shot down too.

    Tasers are, as the report you cite indicates, "serious weapons" requiring user training, precautions and well-considered policies for their use. However, their relative safety and effectiveness, when compared to the available alternatives (which is the real question), is becoming pretty well established, which is why you see MORE police agencies, etc. deploying them rather than less. There is certainly a growing body of statistical evidence showing that the Taser not only results in less harm to the citizen than other means of take-down, but much less harm to officers. Some departments cite reductions of up to 80% in their disability costs since deploying Tasers, and this is nothing to sneeze at because most departments don't have the luxury of having a lot of officers on "desk duty"...or, worse, retiring early due to injuries.

    Leave a comment:


  • Black Caesar
    started a topic Study: Tasers Safe for Use by Police

    Study: Tasers Safe for Use by Police

    Article

    In what was called the first large independent study of injuries from Tasers, researchers reviewed 962 cases in six locations. Nearly all the cases they found resulted in no injuries or minor ones such as scrapes and bruises.
    Just what's been needed, a scientifically conducted study. Everyone has opinions, TASER inc says one thing, Amnesty says another (with their badly skewed "statistics") and no one really knew the truth. I'm bookmarking this page for future referance .

Leaderboard

Collapse
Working...
X