Police Shoot Chief Constable

Well that got your attention. Here's the story:

"MANCHESTER's Chief Constable Mike Todd put himself in the firing line by allowing himself to be shot by a Taser stun gun - and then called for them to be given to all frontline officers." http://www.manchesteronline.co.uk/me...un_target.html

How much fun must that officer have had? "Today constable I'd like you to shoot me!". Hope it's on Granada Reports later.

And no, I don't want tasers brought in. Did you need to ask?

[Ramrod]

I saw the pics yesterday.......looked painful. He was up and about with no ill effects in 45 secs.

[Rob M]

I like the bit where Amnesty International point out that 74 people have been killed in America after being shot by American police using these things.....I woner how many were killed after being shot by American police using real guns

Originally Posted by Ramrod

He was up and about with no ill effects in 45 secs.

Unfortunately not true for all on the receiving end of a taser: http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/engamr511392004 I have a heart condition - wonder what one would do to me

[Paul]

Originally Posted by andyl

I have a heart condition - wonder what one would do to me

Well, if you ask Mike Todd nicely......
Seriously though, if you are against the use of this sort of device how would you prefer the Police to incapacitate dangerous (sometimes armed) people who are refusing to be cuffed and arrested?

[Jon M]

Exactly, I'd rather see our cops with taser's than more lethal things like guns.

I was told not long ago that the MET were looking to get all officers armed within the next couple of years.
I'd be a lot more comfortable if they stop short of that.

Deaths by taser are rare judging by those numbers, I'd imagine almost as many deaths are caused by hand to hand confrontations like restraining in custody.

No death is insignificant though, but I think in the situations that many cops have to deal with these days, especially inner city gang crime, a taser is something I'm fairly comfortable with.

[Rob M]

Originally Posted by andyl

Unfortunately not true for all on the receiving end of a taser: http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/engamr511392004 I have a heart condition - wonder what one would do to me

Thanks for that link to the AI site, I'm gonna have a read through that with some interest.

[allieyoung666]

Originally Posted by andyl

Unfortunately not true for all on the receiving end of a taser: http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/engamr511392004 I have a heart condition - wonder what one would do to me

If you had a pacemaker it could possibly damage that, I would be more worried about people who suffer from fits or have a mental illness

It depends in what situation they are to be used.

If they are to be used instead of a firearm then fine. If they are to be used to just generally incapacitate someone then no. Pepper spray or a baton seem to work fine.

I saw a program where they used been bags shot out of shot guns, these would knock you to the ground but not cause any serious damage. They should look at using these.

[punky]

Taser are, I think, a good idea. They are better than beating someone with a truncheon. For one thing, a tazer hurts for a 5 second burst, and then stops. If you hit someone with a truncheon, it will hurt for days.

Andyl, you say you have a weak heart, but could you say a tazer would put you at more definite risk than having a very physical encounter? Being wrestled to the floor and hit with a truncheon and choked? I went through this on another forum where a woman was tazed on camera, and the general consensus was that tazers are more human than physical combat.

I think certain people would only be happy when the police have to catch violent criminals that have guns and baseball bats, with a whistle and a pea shooter. People complained the pepper spray is bad too.

BTW all police training, here and in the US involves trainees using weapons on each other. That means every trainee will be tazed and hit with pepper spray.

[Caspar]

Originally Posted by Raistlin

I like the bit where Amnesty International point out that 74 people have been killed in America after being shot by American police using these things.....I woner how many were killed after being shot by American police using real guns

Yeah, but I wonder what caused their death...the tazar or the mass beatings that followed the incapactitation!

[Graham]

Well I agree that, wherever possible, non-lethal options should be used, ie *if* it comes to a situation where normally a firearm would have to be employed instead.

However I most certainly do not agree that they should be generally issued to officers on the beat otherwise you will end up with situations like one that was (I think) posted on here a while back, when US Officers wanted a woman to get out of her car and she refused because she was telling her brother on the phone what was happening, so they tasered her!

[danielf]

I think this sets a great precedent.

In fact, I think everybody should be allowed to fire a Taser at their boss at least once.

Originally Posted by punky

Taser are, I think, a good idea. They are better than beating someone with a truncheon. For one thing, a tazer hurts for a 5 second burst, and then stops. If you hit someone with a truncheon, it will hurt for days.

Andyl, you say you have a weak heart, but could you say a tazer would put you at more definite risk than having a very physical encounter? Being wrestled to the floor and hit with a truncheon and choked? I went through this on another forum where a woman was tazed on camera, and the general consensus was that tazers are more human than physical combat.

I think certain people would only be happy when the police have to catch violent criminals that have guns and baseball bats, with a whistle and a pea shooter. People complained the pepper spray is bad too.

BTW all police training, here and in the US involves trainees using weapons on each other. That means every trainee will be tazed and hit with pepper spray.

The potential for abuse with tasers is obvious. Those Utd fans who were baton charged last week - terrible policing! - could have equally been tasered; just for protesting.

I cannot for definite say that I was at higher risk but having 50,000v passing through a heart with one narrowed artery is, I'm guessing, not good.

Pepper spray would IMO be a better alternative if such measures need to be deployed. I was talking to a copper I know the other day and he seemed quite happy with the implements at his current disposal.

[punky]

Originally Posted by Graham

However I most certainly do not agree that they should be generally issued to officers on the beat otherwise you will end up with situations like one that was (I think) posted on here a while back, when US Officers wanted a woman to get out of her car and she refused because she was telling her brother on the phone what was happening, so they tasered her!

I assume you meant this:

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/co...er_video4.html

How can say he used unreasonable force? He gave her an order about 5 times, and waited at least 30 seconds. Eventually he tazered when she struck out at the other officer. She was on a suspended license so she was under arrest regardless. Since when should criminals be issuing cops with orders, and cops being made to wait until they finish the phone call? If you are worried you are pulled over by someone who isn't a real cop, then a cop will let you dial 999/911 and prove his credientials, but he shouldn't have to sit there why the woman finishes her phone call to her brother. That's not how it works. Cops give the orders, criminals follow them. Not the other way around. If anything he was probably a bit lienient, he shouldn't have to order a suspect 5+ times to follow an order, especially when she is under arrest.

Incidently then, how long should a cop wait while a criminal is on the phone before arresting her?