I love the sound of a Taser in the morning!

[chris russell]

Originally Posted by ParisDakarBmw

Your able to think as you wish, and you can have your opinion. I won't even say that some officers don't use excessive force sometimes, and those cases are truly disturbing, but there are emerging regulations to handle the use of force.

The particular tool in question has been used to save countless lives, and end hostile situations. Of course human life is the most important thing. I do think that a person who argues the use of the most modern "less lethal devices" has a limited point. If someone has already met the criteria on the use of force continuim, and has to be handled, why would you prefer a lethal device instead?

If someone is in a psychotic state, and shows the ability to harm themselves, and others, why not use a less lethal device? What other alternative would you suggest? Lock them in the room, and come back 6 hours later? No. How about allowing the person to wreck the entire emergency room so other people are denied treatment? No. How about use the least amount of force to subdue the person, and document the event for the routine internal review? If there is a magic whistle you know of that calms the violent person upon hearing it..........I'd like to know!

If my family members ever end up having less lethal devices used on them, rather than lethal force, so be it. Of course the officer should never do it to punish a person, and that is a different issue. The OP was talking about an incident that ended without anyone hurt, killed, and he was happy it ended quick.

Some people don't like police. That's fine. Some people fail to see that in years past, people would have been lucky to live to see the next day because the devices were not available, and ended worse.

Two things: First, I wasn't writing to you. Second, as you will see elsewhere in this thread, I never said there was no appropriate use for this weapon. In fact I recognize that it can be a useful, mostly non-lethal tool in the right circumstances. The issue I brought up was entirely to do with the fact it is used much more often inappropriately, and that I objected to the jovial, har-de-har stance of some of the posts here, including the original one. These things are weapons, plain and simple. Neither their inappropriate 'deployment', nor even their appropriate use, falls into any context that I see as 'funny'. That's pretty much it.

[Numismatist]

I'm sorry, but when someone who behaves in an over the top irresponsible way and threatens others - then gets what they deserve - a taze. It's funny - I laugh.

All the other stuff, inappropriate police use/abuse, I totally agree. That's not funny - I don't laugh.

[joeychitwood]

Originally Posted by chris russell

..... I objected to the jovial, har-de-har stance of some of the posts here, including the original one. These things are weapons, plain and simple. Neither their inappropriate 'deployment', nor even their appropriate use, falls into any context that I see as 'funny'. That's pretty much it.

Re-read my original post. Nowhere do you see me saying it was funny. However, after dealing with disturbed patients in the ER for 25 years, including 13 years as a licensed police officer and SWAT physician, I've learned to appreciate the quick and relatively painless end to a situation which in the past before Tasers, not infrequently resulted in injuries to me or my staff. With the crack of the Taser, I knew the fight was over, a fact that indeed made me happy.

Originally Posted by chris russell

....your inappropriate 'humorous' use of a reference to the film 'Apocalypse Now', and Robert Duvall's quote, 'I love the smell of napalm in the morning', reveals your actual disinterest in overall public safety in preference to a combative, no-prisoners stance framing of your own personal point of view, in opposition those who might prefer a more measured stance.....

....Your own controversial and confrontational presentation of this topic of discussion in your posts reveals otherwise about yourself. This $#!t still isn't funny. Sorry.

I'd be very interested in hearing about a more "measured stance" that could end such a situation more satisfactorily. No staff is injured. The patient, who faced potential death in his meth-induced psychotic rage, is rendered incapable of fighting long enough for us to save his life with chemical restraints given IV, the structural damage is limited to a broken chair and dented sheetrock. I am extremely satisfied with the outcome and see no controversy in my thread topic.

[Mosco]

Originally Posted by Numismatist

I'm sorry, but when someone who behaves in an over the top irresponsible way and threatens others - then gets what they deserve - a taze. It's funny - I laugh.

All the other stuff, inappropriate police use/abuse, I totally agree. That's not funny - I don't laugh.

Yep, couldn't have said it better myself.

Let's just agree to disagree, otherwise we know where this is headed. Besides, it appears we have too many 'trainwrecks' goin' on as it is for some peeps.

[ParisDakarBmw]

Originally Posted by chris russell

nor the duty of the police to PUNISH ANYONE. That is the sole domain of the courts. If the police resort to punishment, they are BREAKING THE LAW, and probably on a far more serious level that the alleged offense of the suspect.
I'm pleased to see you recognize that. In my opinion, it should be the first and the last thing police recruits learn in their training. sort of like the Hippocratic oath, 'First, do no harm': 'Police may Never Punish'.

Chris.......Your blanket statement is what I actually take issue with. You and I walk the streets in our community, and would take offense to any law enforcement officer abusing the delicate balance between life, and death. I agree that it is up to the legal system to set the punishments. As a police officer, I take my oath serious, and treat people as I would hope to be treated.

The statement made leads one to believe that all police are violating human rights by abusing innocent people with less lethal devices.

I could make a comment about most people being criminals and out to harm the general public, but that would be rediculous. You take a personal stance against law enforcement, and think they are just out to harm, but I would find you shaking under your bed if police were absent for a month, and the worst of society was allowed to run the globe with no law.

I think your mind would change if you had to deal with criminals in your own space, and had nobody to call.

[93 Turbo]

Taser = Less than lethal force. Good to see it employed appropriately, allowing you and your staff to provide the highly skilled services that patients require, with minimal intervention or exposure to risk and injury to the staff. Cheers J

[mailman]

Originally Posted by chris russell

'whining in your reponse to it, your second post amounted to a personal attack on me and a straightforward alternative point of view. That, plus your inappropriate 'humorous' use of a reference to the film 'Apocalypse Now', and Robert Duvall's quote, 'I love the smell of napalm in the morning', reveals your actual disinterest in overall public safety in preference to a combative, no-prisoners stance framing of your own personal point of view, in opposition those who might prefer a more measured stance. Unfortunately, that attitude pretty much defines the type of person who tends to get 'lippy' in 'discussions' with authority figures and ends up on the wrong end of a taser when said authority figure 'overreacts' to a perception of 'attitude' on his/her part. That kind of person seldom appreciates the potential for abuse by authority until it comes home to roost in his/her own back yard.

Beyond that, in your use of the terms, 'Deaths supposedly linked to tasers', and 'very few have actually been linked', and 'alledged', (sic), you closely parrot the public stance of the manufacturer, who has a vested interest in these things proliferating like locusts. It doesn't jibe with the emerging points of view of judges and public safety officials all over the continent and the world who recognize that there remains the question of overall effect on the safety of the public when the weapon is used inappropriately, and whether they are in fact a net plus to society. They realize that police personnel are human beings, no better and no worse than the rest of the public, and not one bit less likely to misuse a 'tool' when emotions come into play, and not one iota less likely to lie about it in the aftermath. The instances I quoted in my first post are actual events in the public record. I could go on for fifty pages listing similar cases of abuse of the weapon that are also in the public recorord, and those are only the ones that have made it into the media, which is likely to be far less than 1% of the actual total. I suspect you may know that as well as I do, unwilling though you may be to admit it.

I chair the board of directors of a community safety agency, which includes members of the executive level of the police force, so don't try to tell me I don't know what I'm writing about. I'm involved with promoting public safety myself on that and two other levels in my own community. That's the only priority I have on this subject. Your own controversial and confrontational presentation of this topic of discussion in your posts reveals otherwise about yourself. This $#!t still isn't funny. Sorry.

Originally Posted by chris russell

nor the duty of the police to PUNISH ANYONE. That is the sole domain of the courts. If the police resort to punishment, they are BREAKING THE LAW, and probably on a far more serious level that the alleged offense of the suspect.
I'm pleased to see you recognize that. In my opinion, it should be the first and the last thing police recruits learn in their training. sort of like the Hippocratic oath, 'First, do no harm': 'Police may Never Punish'.

Originally Posted by chris russell

Two things: First, I wasn't talking to you. Second, as you will see elsewhere in this thread, I never said there was no appropriate use for this weapon. In fact I recognize that it can be a useful, mostly non-lethal tool in the right circumstances. The issue I brought up was entirely to do with the fact it is used much more often inappropriately, and that I objected to the jovial, har-de-har stance of some of the posts here, including the original one. These things are weapons, plain and simple. Neither their inappropriate 'deployment', nor even their appropriate use, falls into any context that I see as 'funny'. That's pretty much it.

Two things: First, I am talking to you. You seem to be the only one whining in this thread.

Second, you've had more than enough of your say in this thread. Everyone humored you and let you have a go at it. Enough's enough. I won't tell you again.

Your profile reads; Watch: your mouth. I suggest you do so before replying again.

[mailman]

Originally Posted by JJ Irani

I betcha all your Sicilian cousins carry one, uh?

I told you before, we...I mean they use Louisville Slugger baseball bats

[Mosco]

Originally Posted by mailman

I told you before, we...I mean they use Louisville Slugger baseball bats

Lunch money is in the mail.

[mailman]

Originally Posted by Mosco

Lunch money is in the mail.

Thanks bro but you're safe Matter of fact, we need to have a sit down. You're a boxer and 'we' could always use someone like you For your street smarts that is

[Esexx]

Hmmm...

My X26 is a trusted tool and it has saved some from injury or worse.

It is a good tool.

[ft laud mike]

Originally Posted by chris russell

'whining' in your reponse to it, your second post amounted to a personal attack on me and a straightforward alternative point of view. That, plus your inappropriate 'humorous' use of a reference to the film 'Apocalypse Now', and Robert Duvall's quote, 'I love the smell of napalm in the morning', reveals your actual disinterest in overall public safety in preference to a combative, no-prisoners stance framing of your own personal point of view, in opposition those who might prefer a more measured stance. Unfortunately, that attitude pretty much defines the type of person who tends to get 'lippy' in 'discussions' with authority figures and ends up on the wrong end of a taser when said authority figure 'overreacts' to a perception of 'attitude' on his/her part. That kind of person seldom appreciates the potential for abuse by authority until it comes home to roost in his/her own back yard.

Beyond that, in your use of the terms, 'Deaths supposedly linked to tasers', and 'very few have actually been linked', and 'alledged', (sic), you closely parrot the public stance of the manufacturer, who has a vested interest in these things proliferating like locusts. It doesn't jibe with the emerging points of view of judges and public safety officials all over the continent and the world who recognize that there remains the question of overall effect on the safety of the public when the weapon is used inappropriately, and whether they are in fact a net plus to society. They realize that police personnel are human beings, no better and no worse than the rest of the public, and not one bit less likely to misuse a 'tool' when emotions come into play, and not one iota less likely to lie about it in the aftermath. The instances I quoted in my first post are actual events in the public record. I could go on for fifty pages listing similar cases of abuse of the weapon that are also in the public recorord, and those are only the ones that have made it into the media, which is likely to be far less than 1% of the actual total. I suspect you may know that as well as I do, unwilling though you may be to admit it.

I chair the board of directors of a community safety agency, which includes members of the executive level of the police force, so don't try to tell me I don't know what I'm writing about. I'm involved with promoting public safety myself on that and two other levels in my own community. That's the only priority I have on this subject. Your own controversial and confrontational presentation of this topic of discussion in your posts reveals otherwise about yourself. This $#!t still isn't funny. Sorry.

Your desire to "promote public safety" is great. How about promoting the safety of the police force over the criminals? Police are attacked physically quite often, and in the aftermath we have to worry about:
1. the possibility of our dept not backing actions taken a) in the heat of battle & b) with little time for a decision which could end with us dead
2. The liberal media describing us as the aggressor
3. The general public who knows nothing of the job but is quick to monday morning quarter back and tell us how they would have handled it

Originally Posted by chris russell

What you witnessed was a completely uncalled-for and unethical use of a dangerous weapon, according to more and more judges and public safety officials all over the continent. They say this weapon should ONLY be used in case of an actual threat to the officer's or the public's physical safety. Its use for non-threats should be against the law everywhere, if it isn't already. Your obvious amusement at the abuse of authority is completely inappropriate and irresponsible.

So, what is the correct action to take in such an instance? Chase & tackle the person? which would have more than likely injured the police officer & criminal. Do you know why the criminal was running? Please, I'm interested in how you, personally believe the situation should have been handled.


I am truly glad I do not have someone applying your logic as a " chair the board of directors of a community safety agency"

[johnny80s]

From what I understand most of the deaths are operator error. You can't hit someone with a taser and give them a ride for 40-60 sec. You have to give the offender time to comply with your verbal direction and to cease his actions, otherwise it's like choaking out the subject for the entire time he's connected. There has to be a pause after the initial 5 sec. Most of the deaths from the taser is a secondary cause, ie od, uderlying health issues. I haven't researched this for awhile and somethings may have changed. I know taser has recently change where they recommend hitting a subject with the probes. JJ effective range is 21 feet...but 15-18 is recommeded as not to break the wires. I think it's one of the best tools, I'll try never to fight with someone again. If i have to strike them, I can taser them. As far as being "funny" watch some of the videos of people being tasered, talking s**t and fighting then being tasered and all apologitic ending the situation with min injury. How about this, when dealing with law enforcement, don't put yourself in the situation to be tased. Comply and follow directions. But there is just a portion of society that wants to question authority always. I love the one a few years ago that was all over the news in Chicago. "POLICE TASER 14 YEAR OLD BOY"..The best part they leave out was the "14 Year Old Boy" had just punched out a glass door of a business, and the "14 Year Old Boy" was 6'02 and 215 lbs funny how that part was left out. People don't understand that the Police don't get paid to lose. Because if we lose that means we are going to the hosiptal or worst, to the morgue.

[daveathall]

It is a fine line between self defence and punishment, the LEO have my full respect, in the heat of the moment, under extreme provocation they have to come up with the correct decision, I have been under very tight rules for opening fire, so much so that a person about to throw a grenade at me would have been a legitimate shoot to kill target, the minute he lets go of that grenade though, all change, he is no longer a threat, to kill him would be punishment, a split second decision that has to be made while raising a rifle to fire.

It is not easy, those that say it is have not been under that pressure, another example would be the person throwing a petrol bomb at you, pretty harmless really, easy to dodge or put out, all changes if that person is about to throw the petrol bomb into an old peoples home or a hospital though.

My point being that there are very few occasions where a stock answer will do, that is down to the skill of the LEO or soldier. A taser is not designed to be fatal, the LEO would pull his gun if he wanted to use the ultimate force, take away the taser and you take away one of the non lethal layers that aid his decision making process.

[Mosco]

Originally Posted by mailman

Thanks bro but you're safe Matter of fact, we need to have a sit down. You're a boxer and 'we' could always use someone like you For your street smarts that is

I have much to contribute

[rxonmymind]

JUST took the use of force class. First and foremost in every line of law enforcement would be the sanctity of human life. There are checks and balances believe me! As. Officer's we not only have to fight administration on the use of OC, baton, OR ANY OTHER STATE ISSUED tool but justify it to Monday morning review panel. There are those in administration that make their bones writing up officers even if you did everything correctly. So as officers whenever we use force we open ourselves up to civil lawsuits, administrative reprimand, other legal issues. It can be daunting. But bottom line in the use of force TO GAIN COMPLIANCE WITH A LAWFUL ORDER. Everything stems from that. From personal experience I know using pepper spray in a rehabilitation hospital where people are on respirators and negative air flow rooms is not an options. A baton on someone on that same Samoan who is 6'4 and 280lbs while they have your partner in a elbow choke holed will work. I have a 38 but don't find that even an option. I wish I had a tazer. Luckily in this instance the Sergeants stepped up for my partner and I as the "politics"of the situation took over with administration er HQ. Will officers be right in every situation? No. But as new kids come out of the Academy they are more aware of the use of force options and consequence of them. The Vast majority of the time its 85% talking down a felon than frontal assault. Well I've ranted enough. Keeping the peace!

[cajunron]

Originally Posted by daveathall

It is a fine line between self defence and punishment, the LEA have my full respect, in the heat of the moment, under extreme provocation they have to come up with the correct decision, I have been under very tight rules for opening fire, so much so that a person about to throw a grenade at me would have been a legitimate shoot to kill target, the minute he lets go of that grenade though, all change, he is no longer a threat, to kill him would be punishment, a split second decision that has to be made while raising a rifle to fire.

It is not easy, those that say it is have not been under that pressure, another example would be the person throwing a petrol bomb at you, pretty harmless really, easy to dodge or put out, all changes if that person is about to throw the petrol bomb into an old peoples home or a hospital though.

My point being that there are very few occasions where a stock answer will do, that is down to the skill of the LEO or soldier. A taser is not designed to be fatal, the LEO would pull his gun if he wanted to use the ultimate force, take away the taser and you take away one of the non lethal layers that aid his decision making process.

I fully agree. Both my father and younger brother were police officers for MANY years and they put their lives on the line EVERY day. A taser is a tool for Law Enforcement to use before having to resort to the more lethal tool, the HANDGUN. The reason these people are being tasered in the first place is for non-compliance or threatening, aggressive, psychotic behavior. Most of the time when fatalities have occurred, drugs and/or alcohol have been a contributing factor. Obey the law and law enforcement personnel and I would be willing to bet that the chances of getting a taser used on you are very slim. Some people just don't understand that and are confrontational by nature.

[Gladius]

Originally Posted by joeychitwood

Me: "So how exactly did that avocado (or perfume bottle, lightbulb, vibrator or cucumber) get stuck in your rectum?"
Patient: "I sat on it after my shower."
Me: "OK."

It's amazing how common this is...

[cajunron]

Originally Posted by mailman

In order for one of our local LEO's to carry a taser, they have to be trained with it. I'm sure that's the case with most Depts. One of the training exercises is they have to get hit with it.

No hit, no taser for the officer.

Yeah, I forgot to mention this. No law enforcement officer can carry or operate a taser without being shot and shocked by it first. Right on Mailman!

[joeychitwood]

In the case I described in the first post, the patient suffering from meth rage/psychosis himself was in great danger, as they not infrequently die of hyperthermia or cardiac arrest due to the extreme muscle activity. The Taser activation was actually "therapeutic" in that it enabled the nurses to approach him and start a very fast IV, through which we were able to inject sedatives and anti-psychotic drugs.

Because I've been in the ER for a quarter century, I'm old enough to remember the days of coke rage/psychosis which frequently resulted in injuries, sometimes serious, to ER staff and patients. There was no easy, quick way of gaining control over the patients, and we struggled mightily trying to manage the cases.

Along came the Taser, and now upon hearing the reassuring craaaacccckkkk!!!! of the instrument, I know the battle is over. I don't argue that the Taser has been very rarely abused over the years, but I can attest to the fact from my own experience that they have prevented many, many injuries to perpetrators, officer and innocent bystanders. I have yet to personally see an injury attributable to a Taser. In turning the thread into a rant against police abuses and Tasers in general, Chris Russell completely missed the point of the first post.

[mailman]

Originally Posted by Mosco

I have much to contribute

In more ways than one my friend

[spuds]

Originally Posted by mailman

Two things: First, I am talking to you. You seem to be the only one whining in this thread.

Second, you've had more than enough of your say in this thread. Everyone humored you and let you have a go at it. Enough's enough. I won't tell you again.

Your profile reads; Watch: your mouth. I suggest you do so before replying again.

.

[ft laud mike]

Originally Posted by spuds

.

[Dilemma]

Your obvious amusement at the abuse of authority is completely inappropriate and irresponsible.

It was still amusing. Look. The LEO told the guy to stop. He didnt. Fleeing an officer is not a good policy in my estimation. For all you and I know, he might have just committed a violent crime and attempted his escape on his bicycle. The LEO stopped him. For all you and I know, he MAY have been jacked on meth. or carrying a conceiled weapon.

[Brunotheboxer]

[rxonmymind]

CAL. PEN. CODE § 835a : California Code - Section 835a

Any peace officer who has reasonable cause to believe that
the person to be arrested has committed a public offense may use
reasonable force to effect the arrest, to prevent escape or to
overcome resistance.
A peace officer who makes or attempts to make an arrest need not
retreat or desist from his efforts by reason of the resistance or
threatened resistance of the person being arrested; nor shall such
officer be deemed an aggressor or lose his right to self-defense by
the use of reasonable force to effect the arrest or to prevent escape
or to overcome resistance.

ALWAYS include this in your report.
Now the key here "resonable force" that "shall be defined as the force that an objective, trained and competent LEO, faced with similar facts and circumstances, would consider necessary and reasonable to gain compliance.

Then there's unnecessary force : A guy is on the ground & you have control of the felon but you decide to "give" him an extra kick in the ribs because he spit on you partner.

Excessive force: A guy is handcuffed and no threat to you (now) but you decide to Taze & baton repeatedly because this felon served a right uppercut 2 min ago to a female officer.

An officer may use resonable force if there is a direct threat to self, others, or property that may cause a major public riot.(Anarchist come to mind)

BUT MOST IMPORTANT: DO NOT DAMAGE YOUR ROLEX during all this!! THAT my friends is the consummate professional

[ratae1950]

I fail to see the point of this thread Inflicting pain, although perhaps necessary, is not that funny.

[unclesallie]

The OP first used the term 'whining' to describe Mr. Russell's statements towards the OP's attitude of "I love the smell of taser in the morning."
It was the OP who attacked Mr. Russell. Mr. Russell was offended by the OP's celebratory attitude towards the use of force, and stated that opinion. He was then attacked and labeled by members here, and finally verbally tasered into silence. What followed was a smack-down party.

[rajurama]

Originally Posted by unclesallie

the op first used the term 'whining' to describe mr. Russell's statements towards the op's attitude of "i love the smell of taser in the morning."
it was the op who attacked mr. Russell. Mr. Russell was offended by the op's celebratory attitude towards the use of force, and stated that opinion. He was then attacked and labeled by members here, and finally verbally tasered into silence. What followed was a smack-down party.

x2!!!

[rajurama]

btw isnt is one of the rules not to discuss weapons???! for good or bad!

n: