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.

Yes, tazers have been a great way to de-escalate a bad situation.

Are they abused? Yes. This is yet another reason why i think police should have go pro style cameras mounted on their person. It's a fail safe way to prove or disprove an accusation as well as a great way to make that officer think "ya know, there IS a camera recording my every move, maybe I shouldn't taze this guy"

 KingCracker wrote:
Yes, tazers have been a great way to de-escalate a bad situation.

Are they abused? Yes. This is yet another reason why i think police should have go pro style cameras mounted on their person. It's a fail safe way to prove or disprove an accusation as well as a great way to make that officer think "ya know, there IS a camera recording my every move, maybe I shouldn't taze this guy"

Great point. Logistically, on an 8 hour shift, that would be hard though.

 KingCracker wrote:


Are they abused? Yes. This is yet another reason why i think police should have go pro style cameras mounted on their person. It's a fail safe way to prove or disprove an accusation as well as a great way to make that officer think "ya know, there IS a camera recording my every move, maybe I shouldn't taze this guy"

I honestly think this is the best solution.

Although it didn't prevent the cop in Utah from shooting the kid outside a convenience store....

Still waiting for that rioting, especially since the cam footage shows it was a dubious shooting at best.

 cincydooley wrote:

 KingCracker wrote:


Are they abused? Yes. This is yet another reason why i think police should have go pro style cameras mounted on their person. It's a fail safe way to prove or disprove an accusation as well as a great way to make that officer think "ya know, there IS a camera recording my every move, maybe I shouldn't taze this guy"

I honestly think this is the best solution.

Although it didn't prevent the cop in Utah from shooting the kid outside a convenience store....

Still waiting for that rioting, especially since the cam footage shows it was a dubious shooting at best.

And maybe this is a situation where a Tazer would have beneficial. I could see this situation as being an argument for tazers. I also think the LEO felt he could fire due to a system in place that gives no reprucussions for poor decision making in regards to lethal force. That goes back to my example about the Platoon Leader doing the right thing and still getting punished. Why are our civilian law enforcement not held to the same standard they hold the average citizen to?

I guess to actually address the topic:

redleger wrote:

Should LEOs be allowed to carry tazers

Yes. They are a tool, nothing more and nothing less. The more tools at their disposal the easier it is for them to choose the appropriate tool for the situation.

and continue to weild them with undisciplined power?

I don't see them routinely used with undisciplined power now. Some people use them in undisciplined ways right now, but some people also use their fists, pepper spray, or guns in undisciplined ways. That's a problem with the cop, not with the tool.

Should there be an esculation of force criteria that is as strict or less strict as use of deadly force?

If you have strict escalation of force guidelines they will address everything from twisting a pinkie to ensure compliance to shooting someone, and include all the steps in between. The guidelines should cover every single tool available to the officer. A tazer should not be as restricted as a gun, but should be more restricted than pepper spray. A tazer should never be used out of convenience and appropriate use of force guidelines will address that.

If you are found to taze someone as a LEO and turns out that was a bad call, should you get fired?

Depends on the "bad call".

I think that tasers are a tool to be utilized, but only in situation where it is absolutely necessary. Like if your only other choice is to shoot them in the leg.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
I think that tasers are a tool to be utilized, but only in situation where it is absolutely necessary. Like if your only other choice is to shoot them in the leg.

Which you shouldn't be doing in the first place. If you're pulling your firearm, you should being doing so with the potential intent to end a life.

I have no knowledge on guns or police procedures, so yeah.

 cincydooley wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
I think that tasers are a tool to be utilized, but only in situation where it is absolutely necessary. Like if your only other choice is to shoot them in the leg.

Which you shouldn't be doing in the first place. If you're pulling your firearm, you should being doing so with the potential intent to end a life.

And this is my point. Tazers are creating that "no harm, no foul" mentalility in many law enforcement officers. How many times has dash board cam shown 3 cops on top of a suspect, and another cop reaching down and hitting him with the tazer. I mean, really! If you intend to gain compliance, and they don't comply but are unarmed, then you have a night stick, and you are supposed to be trained in take down techniques. a tazer is a tool. Just not a tool I think many LEOs with the us vs them mentaility should be weilding.

So you'd actually prefer they use a night stick than a Tazer?

 cincydooley wrote:
So you'd actually prefer they use a night stick than a Tazer?

In the context you are using, no. I am saying you are either needing to use Lethal means to subdue a combatant civilian, or you are using influence. A tazer is creating an option that is the "go to" for rmany LEOs and the excuse is "i felt threatened" there is no way to quantify that. If someone is trying to kill you, you try to kill them right back, or someone is being non compliant, inwhich you find a way to make them compliant, until they become a threat then refer to the lethal force option. There should not be a make them piss themselves option.

If you throw a punch at a police officer, and you get shot, that is your fault, not the LEOs. If you don't get out of the car fast enough, and you get tazed, that is the LEOs fault. There should be no inbetween. You are either doing something worthy of being shot, or you are not. There is no inbetween.

 cincydooley wrote:
So you'd actually prefer they use a night stick than a Tazer?

Nightsticks, because baseball bats are passe' .