Taser Article.

[sgtmac_46]

I am not knowledgable on the issue, but I assume that officers wouldn't be allowed to taz someone who is restrained (cuffed). Is that correct?

Paul

Handcuffs are not magic restraint devices that automatically make someone compliant. I can injure you severly with my hands cuffed behind my back. Hans Marrero made a video where in he is handcuffed, and then disarms an officer and shoots him with his own weapon, the whole time being handcuffed behind his back. The point is, being handcuffed does not automatically make you "restrained", a myth it's time to dispell. If you are handcuffed, you can still kick, bite, headbutt, etc. No reasonable policy should automatically state "no handcuffed subject should be tasered". If so, what level of force should be used on a violent handcuffed subject? That statement is not meant as any disrespect, however, as the handcuff belief is common among folks who have never dealt with a violent, resisting, handcuffed subject. I think it comes from watching TV and seeing that on TV, when the handcuffs are on, the fights over. But, as with much in real, violent situations, much of what people believe about it is myth.


As for the earlier statement about Amnesty International and the ACLU, the proof of their real intent is shown in their process of selecting issues to crusade. Increasingly, Amnesty International has been nothing more than a tool for attacking US policy and law enforcement. They no longer champion human rights world wide, so much as make every attempt to handcuff and restrain civilian law enforcement from being able to enforce the law. This mind set is based upon the ideology of many of AI's current leadership, which have a radical left wing agenda. AI works hand in hand with many of the anarchist and neo-marxist groups who manage to cause such havoc anytime a G8 or WTO summit comes to town. The real reason that Amnesty International dislikes Taser and other less lethal technology, is that they feel less lethal technology is a threat to it's radical agenda. Protesters thrive on violent confrontations with the police. They spread their message by forcing the police in to an overreaction that results in bloodshed, thereby showing how "violent" and "repressive" the government is. Any tool that allows police to subdue violent protestors without bloodshed shortcircuits the protestors intent by denying them the sort of violent police response that will guarantee them media coverage and a sympathetic public. This is a concerted effort to deny the use of effective less lethal weaponry in the hands of law enforcement for a political agenda.

I've probably got more experience with the Taser M26 and X26 than anyone so far in this forum. I've been shocked numerous times with the taser, and the controversy over it's medical safety is purely contrived. AI's agenda is to force the Taser in to being a substitute for LETHAL force only. The ultimate goal of AI is to disarm law enforcement from carrying firearms, and force law enforcement to carry the taser in the place of the firearm, with the same restrictions as currently given to the firearm.

Don't fall for the fact that AI and the ACLU they desire any kind of independent study or any reasonable questions about the Taser to be answered. AI and the ACLU have an agenda, and they will not stop their onslaught until they achieve that agenda, which has nothing to do with the safety of the Taser. Many of the statistics provided by the ACLU and AI are distortions and outright lies.

The idea that Taser use has increased the incidents of use of force is a wild distortion of reality. The truth is that the Taser has been substituted for other uses of force. Our overall departmental uses of force have actually declined since we instituted the Taser. Further, the Orange Co. study cited a 76% reduction in SUSPECT injury since the Taser was introduced, in addition to the 86% reduction in Officer injury. AI and the ACLU don't cite that, they merely try and cook the numbers to reflect their agenda. If the Taser was not safe, it wouldn't be REDUCING injuries to suspects.

Ask the suspects what use of force they'd prefer given the choice. I know if I was a suspect, i'd far rather be Tasered, than pepper sprayed, struck with a baton, bean bagged, etc. (I've been hit with all of them.) When the Taser is turned off, it's over. OC Spray makes you suffer long after you've been subdued.

This same controversy occurred from AI and the ACLU 10 years ago over OC Spray. 20 years ago it was the LVNR. The Taser is just the cause du jour. They will distort, lie and manipulate public opinion until they get what they want.

I have an open invitation to anyone who believes that, though they have never worked in any kind of law enforcement capacity, that they know better than law enforcement how and when to use force, and how much force is reasonable. In the past i've volunteered to play "suspect" while these folks test out their "theories" about force. Most folks usually leave with a whole new perspective about force and what a reasonable officer should do in a given situation. The most eye openning are the ones who believe that a handcuffed suspect is restrained. A few kicks to their legs and a few knees to their body takes care of that illusion.

If this topic seems like it is one I take personally, it's because I do. I hear an awful lot of opinions about the Taser that have no basis in reality. There's a huge misunderstanding about the Taser and what it will and won't do. What really irritates me is that much of this misunderstanding is being purposely fostered by some with a political agenda. I know from intimate, personal experience with the Taser, that much of what is being said isn't true. Being shocked with the Taser is unpleasant, but it's nothing like what is being claimed. Anyone who has the experience of having been shocked by the Taser will know what I am talking about.

 

[sgtmac_46]

I thought this might add some insight in to the discussion. This is a debate between Taser CEO Rick Smith and Amnesty International USA President William F. Schultz.
You can see the video here:
http://www.criticalmention.net/vg/taser
Or download the video here:
http://www.taser.com/debate_audio.wma
Or simply download the transcript here:
http://www.taser.com/documents/TASER_AIUSA_debate.pdf

In my opinion, Schultz's most honest statement was that he didn't know the truth. The rest was hyperbole and vague generalizations that were meant more for emotional response than any real addition to the dialogue. The grandmother analogy was a hoot, and it worked against Schultz. It doesn't take a genius to know that Amnesty doesn't have much real standing on this issue, as evidenced listening to their spokesman and president here. I don't think Amnesty International wants too many people to hear this (as evidenced as the fact that I couldn't find any obvious link or mention of the debate, by it's president, on it's website). Schultz had an ax to grind, and it came out as arrogance and sarcasm. Rick Smith ate his lunch, and even came off sounding like the nicer guy. Schultz just came off as an intentional distorter of facts and a chicken little scare monger. Listen to him spin when an audience member pins him down and asks him what other options police should use. He didn't sound exactly comfortable giving a straight answer. It also seemed as if he had to strain to be reasonable and admit police had a job that needed to be done. Specifics is where the rubber hits the road.

 

[PeachMonkey]

They no longer champion human rights world wide, so much as make every attempt to handcuff and restrain civilian law enforcement from being able to enforce the law.

So when AI members write letters to repressive dictatorships around the world asking them to free political prisoners, is this simply trying to handcuff and restrain civilian law enforcement?

AI works hand in hand with many of the anarchist and neo-marxist groups who manage to cause such havoc anytime a G8 or WTO summit comes to town.

Do you have evidence of AI's ties to radical protest groups?

The real reason that Amnesty International dislikes Taser and other less lethal technology, is that they feel less lethal technology is a threat to it's radical agenda.

Quite right -- I know that a policeman with a taser is a definite threat to my radical ability to write a letter of protest.

Protesters thrive on violent confrontations with the police.

ALL protestors, of course, just like ALL police with tasers misuse them?

You've claimed time and again that AI and ACLU have an agenda and that their statistics are fabricated; I suggest that you prove the existence of this agenda, or I'll simply consider you a troll.

 

[Tgace]

While Im not a rabbid "AI basher", this article sums up some of the "issues" with AI many of us have...

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/631062/posts

 

[Rich Parsons]

While Im not a rabbid "AI basher", this article sums up some of the "issues" with AI many of us have...

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/631062/posts

Tom,

When I read AI, as I jumped to your post as the newest, I thought Artificial Intelignece. Then I remembered a discussion from a Phil/Psych class where the instructor mentioned that some in a class thought AI was Artifical Insemination, then I clicked the link and Amnesty International is what you meant by AI.

 

[sgtmac_46]

So when AI members write letters to repressive dictatorships around the world asking them to free political prisoners, is this simply trying to handcuff and restrain civilian law enforcement?


Do you have evidence of AI's ties to radical protest groups?


Quite right -- I know that a policeman with a taser is a definite threat to my radical ability to write a letter of protest.


ALL protestors, of course, just like ALL police with tasers misuse them?

You've claimed time and again that AI and ACLU have an agenda and that their statistics are fabricated; I suggest that you prove the existence of this agenda, or I'll simply consider you a troll.

Consider me what you will, but AI's behavior speaks for itself on the domestic front. Tgace posted an article that perfectly outlines my issues with AI. I suggest you deal with the facts, and not make the subject about me (otherwise known as an ad hominem attack).

 

[arnisador]

http://www.cnn.com/2005/EDUCATION/11/08/taser.cam.ap/index.html?section=cnn_latest

A camera to go on your taser to record the altercation.

 

[Icewater]

Aside from the political agenda, I've been told by police officers not to let me wife rely on tasers as a good SD weapon. Other than the obvious reason that getting it out of teh purse in time won't work, I was also told that unless you hit the attacker in the torso, they can still be dangerous. That true? Or should I have read pages 3,4,5 of the post?

 

[arnisador]

There was a Taser skit on Saturday Night Live this weekend. It's now mainstream!