Teen Dies After Officers Use Taser to Subdue Him

[The Rabbi]

Would the libs prefer that I use this over the tazer?

I don't count myself a liberal, as should be apparent from (an unbiased) reading of my posts, but to answer the central question:
If that type baton is shown safer for the target under typical usage conditions then yes the police should use it instead of a tazer.

I do find it ironic that a police officer has an avatar with the hammer an sickle of communism. Though as another poster suggested, I suppose totalitarianism appeals to police. In fact is makes a certain amount of sense that Police support a Police State.

You should count yourself as a moron.
There is nothing that is "safe" inherently. A baton can inflict grievous wounds.

The "irony" you sense is obviously lost on you. It is the hammer and sickle in a pattern reminiscent of Obama's campaign logo. As such it suggests tht Obama is really closer to the masters of the old Soviet Union than he is to America. I'm not sure that's wrong either.

 

[eagleseven]

On a somewhat funny, yet relevant, note...

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SBwK3KRmHVA&feature=related]YouTube - [DOS] What Not to Do in Police Quest 1 VGA & Other Observations[/ame]

 

[Single Dad]

Would the libs prefer that I use this over the tazer?

I don't count myself a liberal, as should be apparent from (an unbiased) reading of my posts, but to answer the central question:
If that type baton is shown safer for the target under typical usage conditions then yes the police should use it instead of a tazer.

I do find it ironic that a police officer has an avatar with the hammer an sickle of communism. Though as another poster suggested, I suppose totalitarianism appeals to police. In fact is makes a certain amount of sense that Police support a Police State.

The avie shows Obama politics.

I will show the other guys at the Sheriff's office your postings. They will get a laugh! I will also let them know that you approve of the collapsible baton useage.

 

[Diuretic]

Would the libs prefer that I use this over the tazer?

I don't count myself a liberal, as should be apparent from (an unbiased) reading of my posts, but to answer the central question:
If that type baton is shown safer for the target under typical usage conditions then yes the police should use it instead of a tazer.

I do find it ironic that a police officer has an avatar with the hammer an sickle of communism. Though as another poster suggested, I suppose totalitarianism appeals to police. In fact is makes a certain amount of sense that Police support a Police State.

You should count yourself as a moron.
There is nothing that is "safe" inherently. A baton can inflict grievous wounds.

The "irony" you sense is obviously lost on you. It is the hammer and sickle in a pattern reminiscent of Obama's campaign logo. As such it suggests tht Obama is really closer to the masters of the old Soviet Union than he is to America. I'm not sure that's wrong either.

If a baton inflicts grievous wounds then it hasn't been used properly because it's not intended to do so. Besides, it's bloody hard work.

 

[eagleseven]

If a baton inflicts grievous wounds then it hasn't been used properly because it's not intended to do so. Besides, it's bloody hard work.

How do you hit someone with a two-foot-long piece of steel and not inflict grievous bodily harm? Yes, it is less lethal than a gun, but not by much.

 

[Single Dad]

If a baton inflicts grievous wounds then it hasn't been used properly because it's not intended to do so. Besides, it's bloody hard work.

How do you hit someone with a two-foot-long piece of steel and not inflict grievous bodily harm? Yes, it is less lethal than a gun, but not by much.

Trust me..... My collapsable baton is WAY LESS lethal than my Glock Model 22

Not even close!

 

[eagleseven]

I'm not arguing that...my point simply is, in many states, the baton is legally considered a lethal weapon. Otherwise, I'd be carrying one here in NY.

 

[Diuretic]

If a baton inflicts grievous wounds then it hasn't been used properly because it's not intended to do so. Besides, it's bloody hard work.

How do you hit someone with a two-foot-long piece of steel and not inflict grievous bodily harm? Yes, it is less lethal than a gun, but not by much.

I don't want to split hairs here but the point is that the baton, even the ASP, is an instrument that must be deployed and used both within the strictures of the law and policy. As I said, if it's use results in serious harm then it hasn't been deployed properly. The variables, obviously, are the power behind the strike and the number of strikes and the part of the body being struck. It's quite easy to use an ASP or a PR24 on someone and not inflict serious bodily harm on them, you just have to use the impact weapon properly.

 

[Shogun]

Here's an idea: don't be combative with cops and they won't taze you. I applaud the use of tazers instead of guns. You stupid motherfuckers who think otherwise should remember which actor in this play was breaking the law and which were trying to uphold it. When vigilante cops start combing the streets looking for innocents to taze then leap on your soap box. Until then, a non-lethal alternative - EVEN IF IT KILLS A FEW CRIMINALS - is a better survival rate than getting shot with a .38.

 

[eagleseven]

I can't believe I'm agreeing with Shogun...

 

[Charles Stucker]

I will also let them know that you approve of the collapsible baton useage.

I see you failed reading comprehension. When a sentence is begun with IF then it indicates a possibility. Unfortunately I know of no way to be clearer than
IF a baton is shown to be less lethal than a Tazer
THEN it should be used instead of the Tazer.

I suppose a semiliterate supporter of a police state cannot be expected to understand logic or common English language constructions.

As to the idiot who called the deceased teen a "criminal" - unless he has a conviction on his record he can never be a criminal. He'll never be tried, and so by the law he won't be convicted of any crime. Really the police go break up a fight between three guys at a housing project (that is where effectively the sort of place they were staying, right) and one is too wound up, perhaps because the other two had been double teaming him, to immediately kowtow and suddenly he MUST be the bad guy to excuse the police officer who killed him. I recall a case I read of from the 70's in Dallas where a 16 year old boy was convicted as an adult for murder because he shot a 17 year old boy to prevent said 17 year old from knifing his 14 year old brother. Apparently defending your own kin against armed assault is not permitted, but any time a guy with a badge shoots an unarmed child, well that sort of thing happens and blah, blah, blah

Darn I feel really used after I tried to convince someone that Fascism did not exist in 21st century America. You guys make that point painfully clear.

 

[Diuretic]

IF a baton is shown to be less lethal than a Tazer
THEN it should be used instead of the Tazer.

Can I just make a point from this? And I'm not intending to nitpick.

Baton and Taser/Tazer/ECD are less than lethal weapons. They are to be deployed where less than lethal force is required. The crucial difference between the two is the distance between the user and the subject when the instrument is deployed. A baton is used in close quarters. A Taser - I've never used one so I'm only going on what I've read and been told - is designed to be used at a distance. I know there is the close quarters stun facility (and I suspect that's where some of the problems arise) but for the moment I'd just like to focus on the distance issue.

Let's get one thing out of the way. Where a subject is threatening anyone with a firearm then a police officer will likely resort to the use of firearm to deal with the situation. I'm generalising out of necessity.

Where the ECD instrument is useful is where there is a need for distance but the threat is not from a firearm. Most commonly it would be a sharp-edged weapon. As common sense tells us, get too close to someone with a knife and you're in trouble. The ECD can be deployed at a distance and incapacitate a person wielding a knife or sword or similar. It is preferable to use an ECD device in such a situation, as a less then lethal weapon, rather than a firearm which is a lethal weapon. For me at least that's the prime reason for the issue and use of ECD devices.

A baton is not useful in the above circumstances, in fact it might be courageous but it would be not appropriate. But if you have no ECD device then you have to resort to the firearm, which is not good.

Aside from the above is the concern that some officers may use the ECD as a compliance device, for example using the stun facility at close quarters rather than using a baton or grappling. Perhaps that's where the controversy lies.

 

[Si modo]

I can't believe I'm agreeing with Shogun...

Me too.

 

[Charles Stucker]

Where the ECD instrument is useful is where there is a need for distance but the threat is not from a firearm. Most commonly it would be a sharp-edged weapon. As common sense tells us, get too close to someone with a knife and you're in trouble. The ECD can be deployed at a distance and incapacitate a person wielding a knife or sword or similar. It is preferable to use an ECD device in such a situation, as a less then lethal weapon, rather than a firearm which is a lethal weapon. For me at least that's the prime reason for the issue and use of ECD devices..

Aside from the above is the concern that some officers may use the ECD as a compliance device, for example using the stun facility at close quarters rather than using a baton or grappling. Perhaps that's where the controversy lies.

Those are excellent points in favor of the ECD, and one can hardly expect a police officer to be overburdened with every possible weapon when they already wear protective (and as I understand it moderately heavy) body armor. I certainly agree with your final observation.
Always a delight to see a literate, articulate poster.

 

[auditor0007]

Let's imagine for a moment that everybody that has ever been shot with a taser was shot with a .38 caliber police service pistol instead.
Feel better yet?

It's all conjecture and anectodal. In some cases, there just is no choice other than to use a taser. At the same time, we have seen the use of tasers when they were absolutely not necessary. In this case, who knows.

 

[eagleseven]

Also worth noting, all officers who posses tasers are tased during the course of their training, so they know exactly what its use entails.

In contrast, you would not shoot an officer with a .45 ACP before he can use his firearm, nor would you beat an officer before he can use his baton.

But we do tase officers before they can carry tasers...

 

[The Rabbi]

If a baton inflicts grievous wounds then it hasn't been used properly because it's not intended to do so. Besides, it's bloody hard work.

How do you hit someone with a two-foot-long piece of steel and not inflict grievous bodily harm? Yes, it is less lethal than a gun, but not by much.

Trust me..... My collapsable baton is WAY LESS lethal than my Glock Model 22

Not even close!

Well, no not really.
A well trained professional grappling with an untrained person holding a Glock will use his baton to break the other person's hand and/or neutralize him with repeated blows to the head and other vital areas.
But typically the baton and the Tazer are classed as less than lethal. It doesnt mean they can't kill someone. It means that isn't the purpose.

 

[CryGlennCry]

All I know is it is being used far too often.

 

[Diuretic]

And that's my worry as well. Bit of "ECD creep" there. I can understand it in a sense. Hands on fighting is hard work, I mean really hard work unless you're an exceptionally fit and powerful individual. From what I've seen first hand many police officers in the US work solo and the ECD would be probably coming out earlier than it would if two officers were in the same patrol car. I've been in solo situations (stationed in small outback towns) where I had to go in hands on and it's not very comforting when you find yourself fighting for what you suspect is your life (exaggeration of course but when you hit the deck and there are a few baddies around you really need to get up again very quickly).

But where it's just about compliance and there are plenty of hands around ("don't taze me bro!" I reckon it might be a wee bit of overuse.

I suppose Joe Wambaugh might have to amend Kilvinsky's Law

"Kilvinsky's law says if a guy uses his fists, you use your stick. If he pulls out a knife, you use your gun and cancel his ticket right there."

The New Centurions - the character Kilvinsky to his younger partner Fehler.

 

[JW Frogen]

"Kilvinsky's law says if a guy uses his fists, you use your stick. If he pulls out a knife, you use your gun and cancel his ticket right there."

The New Centurions - the character Kilvinsky to his younger partner Fehler.

This is the law of civilisation.

First order, then peace, then books, pop music and fast food.

But never forget the order.