Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

So I recently got into a debate with another person at work about why I think Tazers are inappropriate for LEOs to carry. I am not going to list my arguments but I would like to hear the ideas and statements of the other very boisterous personnel of this community.

Should LEOs be allowed to carry tazers and continue to weild them with undisciplined power?
Should there be an esculation of force criteria that is as strict or less strict as use of deadly force?
If you are found to taze someone as a LEO and turns out that was a bad call, should you get fired?

Feel free to expand on the topic. I have 24 hours sitting behind a desk babysitting grown men so lets hear it all.

Training Training Training Training Training Training Training Training

redleger wrote:
Should LEOs be allowed to carry tazers and continue to weild them with undisciplined power?
Should there be an esculation of force criteria that is as strict or less strict as use of deadly force?
If you are found to taze someone as a LEO and turns out that was a bad call, should you get fired?

1a.) Yes 1b.) No

Taser are a less-lethal device and save lives. The fact they can be abused and also used as torture devices doesn't obviate that. However, I think a taser deployment should be reviewed nearly as critically as an actual shooting.

2.) Yes, same as above

3.) That's kind of an open question, and it depends on the circumstances and the intent. If you have a guy down on the ground in cuffs and you're screaming insults at him and tasing him over and over again to no lawful purpose, sure, he should get fired... and arrested, and prosecuted.

However if you see someone reach for something, and you tase them, and it turned out the person was reaching for a wallet, but you had legitimate reason to fear for your safety, it should be reviewed but not automatically fired, no.

Yes, yes and maybe. The latter depends on the situation. Did he make a bad call on purpose? Then sue him. Did he make a bad call because he was in a dangerous situation he could not overlook? Then no.

 Sigvatr wrote:
Yes, yes and maybe. The latter depends on the situation. Did he make a bad call on purpose? Then sue him. Did he make a bad call because he was in a dangerous situation he could not overlook? Then no.

If that LEO had no Tazer and had only his issued weapon would he be a little more critical of his actions do you think. How do you think you would handle that situation with each instance. I believe that tazers get pulled a little too quickly and used with more regularity than they should. There are multiple instances of this occuring and thankfully they are getting reported more and more, and coming to public scrutiny.

I know if a Lieutenant in Afghanistan is now spending the rest of his life in jail for following ROE and ordering his Platoon to open fire on spotters with cell phones who were adjusting indirect fires on to their position then a LEO who tazes first and asks questions later should atleast get fired.

Edit:changed word not to now.

redleger wrote:
So I recently got into a debate with another person at work about why I think Tazers are inappropriate for LEOs to carry. I am not going to list my arguments but I would like to hear the ideas and statements of the other very boisterous personnel of this community.

Should LEOs be allowed to carry tazers and continue to weild them with undisciplined power?
Should there be an esculation of force criteria that is as strict or less strict as use of deadly force?
If you are found to taze someone as a LEO and turns out that was a bad call, should you get fired?

Feel free to expand on the topic. I have 24 hours sitting behind a desk babysitting grown men so lets hear it all.

I agree. Police shouldn't have tazers. If you don't want the crack of a nightstick against your skull, well you shouldn't have been doing what ever you were doing.

"She called the cops to take me in
And I said, "You're never gonna do it friends."
And they just smiled
And said, "Oh, yes we will."
Now a stick to the head
And some kicks to the shins
And a several bites by Rin Tin Tin
And I couldn't wait to get into that jail

It was an attitude adjustment
Oh I went along peacefully
Attitude adjustment
They made me clearly see
Cause my head is black
And my legs are blue
And both knee caps are bit clean through
It was an attitude adjustment
It made my whole outlook brand new
Just a attitude adjustment
It made my whole outlook brand new"

-Attitude Adjustment (Hank WIlliams)

1a) Yes 1b) No; training should absolutely be required, and consistently. The problem is that while tazing is "generally" safe on normal sized moderately fit people, its extremely unsafe for very large or very small people, or the unfit and obese. Hypothetically, had the cops in the Garner case tazed him, there's a good chance his body would have responded poorly. Would he have died? Who knows. Pure speculation.

2) There already is. The problem is that we obviously have an increasingly large population of people resisting arrest. Police officers already put their lives in jeopardy any time they work; I don't expect them to take more risk because someone can't follow their instructions.

3) Completely situational. If the use of the tazer is malicious or deemed unnecessary, i think they should be prosecuted like anyone else would be. I don't think mistakenly tazing someone because you tell them to put their hands up and they reach to pull up their pants or some other nonsense is that situation.

 Ouze wrote:

redleger wrote:
Should LEOs be allowed to carry tazers and continue to weild them with undisciplined power?
Should there be an esculation of force criteria that is as strict or less strict as use of deadly force?
If you are found to taze someone as a LEO and turns out that was a bad call, should you get fired?

1a.) Yes 1b.) No

Taser are a less-lethal device and save lives. The fact they can be abused and also used as torture devices doesn't obviate that. However, I think a taser deployment should be reviewed nearly as critically as an actual shooting.

2.) Yes, same as above

3.) That's kind of an open question, and it depends on the circumstances and the intent. If you have a guy down on the ground in cuffs and you're screaming insults at him and tasing him over and over again to no lawful purpose, sure, he should get fired... and arrested, and prosecuted.

However if you see someone reach for something, and you tase them, and it turned out the person was reaching for a wallet, but you had legitimate reason to fear for your safety, it should be reviewed but not automatically fired, no.

1. I absolutely agree they should be scrutinized. Unfortunately many times they are given the cursory check the block review and the LEO is sent on his merry way to continue with his behaviors.

2. so should the criteria be the same or lower?

3. Agree on all points. However I believe once you pull a weapon, it should be with the intent to defend yourself, not as a precautionary measure. I understand LEOs are CIVILIANS who voluntarily choose to put themselves in positions to uphold the peace and law. That doesn't mean they should be let off because they "felt threatened"

I walked the streets of Baqubah Iraq every day for 6 months. I felt threatened every moment of every patrol. Didn't mean I shot the first person that walked up to me wanting to ask me a question.

redleger wrote:


I walked the streets of Baqubah Iraq every day for 6 months. I felt threatened every moment of every patrol. Didn't mean I shot the first person that walked up to me wanting to ask me a question.

But that's much different than someone disobeying your commands, yes?

 cincydooley wrote:

redleger wrote:


I walked the streets of Baqubah Iraq every day for 6 months. I felt threatened every moment of every patrol. Didn't mean I shot the first person that walked up to me wanting to ask me a question.

But that's much different than someone disobeying your commands, yes?

No. it is not. There is a safe bubble around every Soldier. Civilians should not break that bubble. However breaking it is not grounds for shooting. Hostile intent is our criteria. If I fired my weapon every time I felt threatened. there would have been a bloodbath in that town. Feeling threatened is not a reason for using force IMO. It is too hard to quantify. Attempting to harm you is definately a license to ruin someones day, and a LEO should, IMO, make that person hurt just a bit as a lesson for making that attempt. However feeling threatened is not a reason.

Ever seen Generation Kill. They shot the dude just because he didn't understand what stop meant in english. That was an invasion, and that was a questionable move. Tazing someone for not turning and getting on their knees on the streets of America is not questionable, it is a violation of authority.

Edited because I can not type today

redleger wrote:
That doesn't mean they should be let off because they "felt threatened"

What I actually said was "you tase them, and it turned out the person was reaching for a wallet, but you had legitimate reason to fear for your safety,". Not just that if you feel threatened you can tase anyone.

There was a case recently where a cop shot (did not kill) a motorist who reached into the car to produce his wallet, as ordered. That cop should be in jail, in my opinion.

 Ouze wrote:

redleger wrote:
That doesn't mean they should be let off because they "felt threatened"

What I actually said was "you tase them, and it turned out the person was reaching for a wallet, but you had legitimate reason to fear for your safety,". Not just that if you feel threatened you can tase anyone.

There was a case recently where a cop shot (did not kill) a motorist who reached into the car to produce his wallet, as ordered. That cop should be in jail, in my opinion.

I agree. But the question is; Is he in jail?

redleger wrote:
I agree. But the question is; Is he in jail?

He has been fired, charged, and is looking at 20 years. So, he might wind up there, yes.

After watching the video of that incident, the officer was so in the wrong it's amazing to behold.

Of course, I then went to reddit/r/protectandserve and saw people saying the guy deserved to be shot, policeman is great, etc.

 Ouze wrote:

redleger wrote:
I agree. But the question is; Is he in jail?

He has been fired, charged, and is looking at 20 years. So, he might wind up there, yes.

Unfortunately this is not the trend for wrong doing on a Police officers part. I know I am starting to look anti law enforcement, I promise you that is not the case. I respect the job they have to do. However scrutiny is a part of the job, and it should be to keep you honest. Why do you think Media was allowed during the invasion. Nothing kept me more honest than the thought of never seeing my wife and kids again because I accidently shot some ButtHead who was probably burying an IED in an attempt to kill me or my friends. When you pull the trigger, you are not only going to take their life, you are going to take yours, and yourself away from the lives of your family if you have not trained the scenarios, and learned what to do under pressure like your life depends on it. Because it does. LEOs as a general rule are not trained enough, hard enough, well enough, and often enough to be responsible for life and death in most situaions IMO. Many state and Federal organizations train like the Army, however any dude can become a sheriff deputy, and then guess what you now have a recipe for.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 MrDwhitey wrote:
After watching the video of that incident, the officer was so in the wrong it's amazing to behold.

Of course, I then went to reddit/r/protectandserve and saw people saying the guy deserved to be shot, policeman is great, etc.

Wrong is wrong, right is right. Unfortunately too many people allow feelings to enter into the decision making process.

The main difference between the majority of LEOs and Soldiers: A Soldier is daily reminded that if you see someone do something immoral or illegal, and you help cover it or don't stop it, you are just as wrong. A police officer will stop and talk with is buddy about what the story is going to be. This is of course not necessarily true for all. there are bad Soldiers, and good Cops. However most generalizations follow statistics.

Well, I also agree that in many cases, the police are allowed to use excess force without serious consequence and that's a real problem in our country. I don't think that opinion makes you anti-police; it simply means I'm a fan of good policing.

 Ouze wrote:
Well, I also agree that in many cases, the police are allowed to use excess force without serious consequence and that's a real problem in our country. I don't think that opinion makes you anti-police; it simply means I'm a fan of good policing.

Agreed.

There is hope for the world when we can have a conversation and not get trolled and come to some resemblance of agreement. Maybe we are not doomed after all.

redleger wrote:
There is hope for the world when we can have a conversation and not get trolled and come to some resemblance of agreement. Maybe we are not doomed after all.

I don't know what this means, but I don't think gak like what is happening in St. Louis (and more specifically Sandwich Criminal) helps anything.

There are too many people that automatically jump on either side instead of waiting for, you know, FACTS to come out. But a good, old fashioned riot is a better idea.

And yes, I know there are problems with the "blue line" and protecting cops.

But then again, I'm 100% okay with the solution to that: get rid of police unions.

 Ouze wrote:
Well, I also agree that in many cases, the police are allowed to use excess force without serious consequence and that's a real problem in our country. I don't think that opinion makes you anti-police; it simply means I'm a fan of good policing.

Bingo! Exalted!

 Ouze wrote:
Well, I also agree that in many cases, the police are allowed to use excess force without serious consequence and that's a real problem in our country. I don't think that opinion makes you anti-police; it simply means I'm a fan of good policing.

Agreed. However, in cases like that huge dude on NY, or the Ferguson shenanigans, I feel that it is impossible to have "good policing" via appropriate scrutiny/investigation of incidents while there is a lynch-mob running around with pitchforks and torches. (not so much the guy in NY, or at least not as extreme) I mean, how many debates have there been on Dakka stemming from someone posting articles about "Cops gone Wild" or a possible excessive use of force situation?

 cincydooley wrote:

redleger wrote:
There is hope for the world when we can have a conversation and not get trolled and come to some resemblance of agreement. Maybe we are not doomed after all.

I don't know what this means, but I don't think gak like what is happening in St. Louis (and more specifically Sandwich Criminal) helps anything.

There are too many people that automatically jump on either side instead of waiting for, you know, FACTS to come out. But a good, old fashioned riot is a better idea.

And yes, I know there are problems with the "blue line" and protecting cops.

But then again, I'm 100% okay with the solution to that: get rid of police unions.

Police unions? What are they doing?

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

Police unions? What are they doing?

The same thing that all unions do: prevent their members from being fired/reprimanded/negatively impacted, etc.

IMO, he's kind of correct... Again, IMO, the union's sole reason for existence should be protection of pay/benefits, as well as protection (lawyers) for actual wrongful termination. Instead they do all the payroll/benefits stuff, but they have the appearance from the outside looking in, of PREVENTING almost any negative action taken against one of their members, unless it makes national headlines.

I usually find that any complaints of "union tries to protect bad apples from getting fired" really should be "managers are too lazy or incompetent to fire people, blame unions".

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:


IMO, he's kind of correct... Again, IMO, the union's sole reason for existence should be protection of pay/benefits, as well as protection (lawyers) for actual wrongful termination. Instead they do all the payroll/benefits stuff, but they have the appearance from the outside looking in, of PREVENTING almost any negative action taken against one of their members, unless it makes national headlines.

Yep.

I've told my wife many times that I think she, as a teacher, would benefit a great deal more if she had something akin to malpractice insurance instead of her union.

What about for benefits?

 d-usa wrote:
I usually find that any complaints of "union tries to protect bad apples from getting fired" really should be "managers are too lazy or incompetent to fire people, blame unions".

I don't disagree with you, per say...but sadly I don't think it's always the case. To get rid of a union teacher, it takes a LOOOOOOOOT of effort and evidence. Sadly, with the declining budgets in school districts, this is sometimes hard because many schools only have one administrator that not only has to evidence those "bad apples" but also do their normal job for the good teachers and the students.

However, I do think that theres a big difference b/w a teachers union and the police union.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
What about for benefits?

What about them?

If you're valuable and competent, individual bargaining is much better for you than collective bargaining.

 cincydooley wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
I usually find that any complaints of "union tries to protect bad apples from getting fired" really should be "managers are too lazy or incompetent to fire people, blame unions".

I don't disagree with you, per say...but sadly I don't think it's always the case. To get rid of a union teacher, it takes a LOOOOOOOOT of effort and evidence.

But that also means that you cannot get rid of a teacher because you don't like them or because you want to replace them with a cheaper teacher. It prevents managers from firing anybody unless they have good cause.

But I imagine that this is getting off-topic, so I'll go ahead and drop it

 d-usa wrote:


But that also means that you cannot get rid of a teacher because you don't like them or because you want to replace them with a cheaper teacher. It prevents managers from firing anybody unless they have good cause.

But I imagine that this is getting off-topic, so I'll go ahead and drop it

In my experience it's nearly impossible to get rid of a teacher with a continuing contract (tenure). Continuing contracts, up until maybe 5 years ago, were given out routinely. Now, many (if not most) districts give out VERY FEW continuing contracts.

So what you end up with is a lot of older, and sometimes complacent, teachers on continuing contracts not getting cut when the budget is slashed. It's more common that you'd see 2 first year teachers making $40K a piece get cut than 1 15 year teacher with a continuing contract and an $80k salary get cut.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
But yes, you're right, we're veering here Sorry guys!

I could go on and on about education

That esculated quickly!! But I agree police unions can be the cause of what seems to be a lack of standards enforcement within the LEO community.

However I think the bigger solution would be to enforce the training to prevent the situations from happening in the first place.