Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Shock shells in RL
Dumpshock Forums > Discussion > Shadowrun
Pages: 1, 2
fistandantilus4.0
Little blurp from Utah's Daily Herald. I'm sure others can find more.

Taser company works on shocking shotgun shells

PHOENIX -- The nation's largest stun-gun manufacturer is working on a new way to deliver electricity to the human body: through 12-gauge shotgun shells.

Though it's still being developed, Taser International Inc. says the new product will allow police officers and U.S. troops to hit someone from a much greater distance than its current line of Tasers, which Amnesty International has cited in more than 120 deaths.

The eXtended Range Electro-Muscular Projectile, or XREP, will be a shotgun shell designed to combine the blunt-force trauma of a fast-moving baseball with the electrical current of a stun gun.
Kyuhan
I'd sure as hell HOPE they're low velocity. Still, even a fast moving baseball can kill you.
stevebugge
Depends do they mean Nolan Ryan or Randy Johnson fastball or do they mean more along the lines of what the average guy can throw? Still, Ouch!
Reaver
It would probably be a low pressure round, travelling under 300 feet per second. The resulting slug would carry the electrical charge as well as give you a nice bruise. wink.gif
stevebugge
300 FPS is 108000 Feet per hour / 5280 for 20.45 MPH, ok so not too fast. But then they said equal to the blunt force trauma which means comparing masses and impact point sizes, neither of which we have readily available, not just velocity.

Still does that mean Randy Johnson throwing one of these at you would hurt more than being shot with one? biggrin.gif
Austere Emancipator
If you've seen the Jackass movie, Johnny Knoxville gets shot in the abdomen with a beanbag at 250fps. This could be even slower and possible lighter, but also more rigid. Certainly not something I'd want to get hit by at point blank range, even without the electric shock.
SL James
They have a 30 foot meter range according to the press release (and, really, come on. This whole story is based on a company's press release).

So they decided to combine the less-lethal TASER (which has killed people) with the less-lethal beanbag round (which has also killed people) to create a decidedly less-less-lethal combination.

Sweet!
Austere Emancipator
The press release mentions a range of 30 meters, as opposed to 30 feet for a standard TASER.
Fix-it
how are they generating the electricity? chemical? piezo? charged capacitors?
Kyoto Kid
QUOTE (Kyuhan)
I'd sure as hell HOPE they're low velocity. Still, even a fast moving baseball can kill you.

As my character Tomoe has proven.
SL James
meters. Excuse me. I was too caught up in the self-congratulatory BS.
Shrapnel
QUOTE (stevebugge)
300 FPS is 108000 Feet per hour / 5280 for 20.45 MPH, ok so not too fast. But then they said equal to the blunt force trauma which means comparing masses and impact point sizes, neither of which we have readily available, not just velocity.

Still does that mean Randy Johnson throwing one of these at you would hurt more than being shot with one? biggrin.gif

I think you missed a decimal place...

That should be 204.55 MPH.
stevebugge
Good catch, ok that makes the decision a bit tougher shot with one of these or beaned by a Randy Johnson Fastball silly.gif
Edward
The thing that confuses me about the various tazer options is that people are forever complaining that they do sometimes kill people.

The fact of this is not something I dispute but I see it differently.

Law enforcement currently carys powder and lead (iron) firearms and are trained to shoot centre of mass. This is designed to be lethal. Shorly something that is as effective at taking down a target but only kills one in a thousand targets is a better option, even if the fact that its supposed to be non lethal has it being used twice as often that’s still a lot les people being killed.

Edward
Brahm
QUOTE (Edward)
The thing that confuses me about the various tazer options is that people are forever complaining that they do sometimes kill people.

The fact of this is not something I dispute but I see it differently.

Law enforcement currently carys powder and lead (iron) firearms and are trained to shoot centre of mass. This is designed to be lethal. Shorly something that is as effective at taking down a target but only kills one in a thousand targets is a better option, even if the fact that its supposed to be non lethal has it being used twice as often that’s still a lot les people being killed.

Edward

Likely due to the concern that because it is classed as nonlethal that it gets used 2000 times as often. Or that it gets used on someone that would normally not get shot and they die.
Brahm
QUOTE
Good catch, ok that makes the decision a bit tougher shot with one of these or beaned by a Randy Johnson Fastball silly.gif


A better question is catch one of these badboys in the bean without wearing a batting helmet on or take a Randy Johnson fastball in the bean with a batting helmet on?

I'll take option number 3, stay home and read a good book.
Arethusa
QUOTE (Edward)
The thing that confuses me about the various tazer options is that people are forever complaining that they do sometimes kill people.

The fact of this is not something I dispute but I see it differently.

Law enforcement currently carys powder and lead (iron) firearms and are trained to shoot centre of mass. This is designed to be lethal. Shorly something that is as effective at taking down a target but only kills one in a thousand targets is a better option, even if the fact that its supposed to be non lethal has it being used twice as often that’s still a lot les people being killed.

Edward

As Brahm said, the problem is that tazers aren't used in situations where lethal force would have been. The vast majority of tazer uses tend to involve simply noncompliant suspects, as well as a number of abusive incidents (everyone remembers what happens to a woman with no self control and a speeding ticket, right?).
Squinky
Having been tazed myself on numerous occasions, and taking the (company's) instructor course for the newer teeny little taser, I don't think they is any real threat form tasers killing people.
Arethusa
Funny. Having read of many documented cases of tazing leading to fatalities, I think you need to actually do some research.
Drace
It actually depends on the tazer, the ones the cops generally carry can kill, the publicly available ones all differ, and many cannot kill.

The problem with tazer deaths is lack of training (the user keeps going, till victim is dead), racism (person using tazer and keeps going) and that as earlier mentioned, its used more often than a gun, because its easier, has less paperwork, and makes the job easier.
Edward
QUOTE (Drace)
It actually depends on the tazer, the ones the cops generally carry can kill, the publicly available ones all differ, and many cannot kill.

The problem with tazer deaths is lack of training (the user keeps going, till victim is dead), racism (person using tazer and keeps going) and that as earlier mentioned, its used more often than a gun, because its easier, has less paperwork, and makes the job easier.

Then the problem isn’t the lethality of the tazer it’s the rules for when you can and can not use one.

If they could build one with comparable range, shots available and takedown ability to a handgun I would like to see it replace an officer’s side arm, with no, or very little, relaxing of when you may use it.

As to fatalities my understanding was that even a week tazer has a fair chance of killing an old man with a pace maker, and the most powerful tazer designed to be non lethal will never (or almost never) kill a target that is entirely fit and healthy if used properly. The problem is that heart conditions often go undiagnosed for some time and the person shooting dose not know the targets medical history.

Edward
Critias
Keep in mind, though, an awful lot of those "taser deaths" are folks that died in police custody hours, or even days, later (I can't recall hearing of anyone who just died right there on the spot only from tasing), and the autopsies afterwards showed that it was something else that killed them (in many cases, an OD -- with their drug of choice leading to the behavior that got them tased in the first place, for a bit of irony).

Real life tasers aren't much like Shadowrun (where a double tap generally means a horrible death due to stun overflow), or Syphon Filter (where just triggering the taser for more than about 3 seconds meant your target suffered a horrible fiery death, after a brief but dramatic Human Torch impersonation). If the odds of a taser killing someone were that high, every cop in the US that carries one wouldn't have to be zapped with it ahead of time before he got it issued. A 1%, or even .1%, fatality rate would mean there's no way in the world they'd shoot that many of their own guys with them -- think about it.

And, in defense of those law enforcement officers that DO resort to tasers -- remember the cop's other options. He can either (a) shoot someone (which is hardly ever called for, and isn't what tasers are meant to replace), or (b) go "hands on," and deliver unto someone a terrific beating, either with bare hands or a baton. Now, think of how many beatings and shootings get the cops a bunch of flak, and/or lead to a lost job, a ruined family, law suits, etc, etc. And let's not even mention that initiating a hand-to-hand confrontation puts the cop himself in danger (especially if the subject is high and largely immune to pain at the time), and the danger that adds to everyone nearby (since once a cop gets KO'ed, you've got a very pissed off bad guy with a gun or two).

Can you really blame them for opting to tase someone, instead?

None of the cops I know go for a taser as their catch-all item on their utility belt. But all of them appreciate that it's there, when it's needed.
Arethusa
While I realize there is hyperbole over the tazer issue, there are serious, reasonable complains about incidents where use of a tazer was completely uncalled for and unjustified. In those specific cases, yes, I can blame police officers for using them when they clearly should not have.

Concerns about less lethal weapons being mistaken for non lethal and being used without proper discretion aren't immune to being blown out of proportion or used for political gain, but they are most certainly real.
Critias
Note, please, I said "can you blame them for tasing someone, instead?" With the instead relating towards the two other most common options -- a beat down or a drawn handgun.

I'll admit there are times a taser is used when none of those three are required. Those situations where physical force (be it hands on, a handgun, a baton, or a taser) isn't required but is used are deplorable.

But in situations where the legitemate options are a melee, a fired weapon, or a taser, I think most cops (and most suspects, for that matter) will agree that a taser is the lesser of the three evils.
Oracle
I can imagine lots of situations where physical force in the "hands on" way would be perfectly suitable, but the use of a taser would not. A taser should be used only when otherwise a gun would be used.
nezumi
Yes, an inordinate number of tazer deaths are due to the victim having a pre-existing medical condition (heart problems or high levels of drugs in his system being the most common). This is why whenever you are committing a crime, you should wear a white shirt with large, red lettering saying 'WARNING: HEART CONDITION - DO NOT TAZER'. The police really appreciate that sort of kind foresight.

I will also say, in general, if a guy dies because he's charging a cop and gets tazered or is otherwise posing a physical threat, I don't care whether the officer was supposed to use deadly force or not, the guy got what he was asking for. Don't screw with police, period. If someone gets tazed to death because she yells at a traffic stop, that's probably worthy of a lawsuit though.
Edward
QUOTE (Critias)
Keep in mind, though, an awful lot of those "taser deaths" are folks that died in police custody hours, or even days, later (I can't recall hearing of anyone who just died right there on the spot only from tasing), and the autopsies afterwards showed that it was something else that killed them (in many cases, an OD -- with their drug of choice leading to the behavior that got them tased in the first place, for a bit of irony).

When I did my security training I was told of an incident where an officer (police or security I don’t know) died when he and some colleges where playing with there tazers in the locker room. It only killed him because he had a week heart but it wouldn’t have caused him a problem if it wasn’t for the tazer.

Edward
Fix-it
QUOTE (Edward)
QUOTE (Critias @ Feb 23 2006, 05:23 PM)
Keep in mind, though, an awful lot of those "taser deaths" are folks that died in police custody hours, or even days, later (I can't recall hearing of anyone who just died right there on the spot only from tasing), and the autopsies afterwards showed that it was something else that killed them (in many cases, an OD -- with their drug of choice leading to the behavior that got them tased in the first place, for a bit of irony). 

When I did my security training I was told of an incident where an officer (police or security I don’t know) died when he and some colleges where playing with there tazers in the locker room. It only killed him because he had a week heart but it wouldn’t have caused him a problem if it wasn’t for the tazer.

Edward

yeah, but you realize that guys only play those games because tazers are SUPPOSED to be non lethal. if there wasn't a taser, they would have been playing russian roulette wtih a revolver, or something equally idiotic.

I'm suprised Amnesty Int. doesn't whine and biatch about guns and car bombs. but apparently those aren't "Cruel and unusual"
Dawnshadow
It's rather idiotic to use medical conditions as a reason why "x is bad".

You don't ban rollar coasters because a twit that hasn't gotten around to getting pains in his chest checked out took a ride and died. The twit put himself in the position his heart gave out. Regrettable. Not the fault of the rollar coaster. You especially don't blame the rollar coaster if some twit that knows he has a heart condition hops on.

Now, some twit, again, undiagnosed heart condition, doing something that will logically result in a forceful takedown by police. They have the option of shooting him, grappling, or tasing him. Officer picks tasing him, zap, heart attack. Twit dies, again regrettable. Officer's fault? No -- how was the officer supposed to know about an undiagnosed condition? For that matter, how is the officer supposed to know about a diagnosed condition? Mindreading? "Excuse me sir, I'm about to use my taser on you. Do you have a heart condition?"

"Due force" is limitted by what the officer can reasonably know about the situation. Not the actual facts -- those can be different, and may be unknown by all participants.
nezumi
The difference is that a person puts himself on the roller coaster. The roller coaster does not put itself on him. Roller coasters can also have implied consent. You can't put that on the end of the taser saying 'if you do not consent to having a bazillion volts passed through your body, dodge'.

The additional problem is the fact that, if people are told tazers are non-lethal, the implication is that, well, it can't kill people. So they'll use them more liberally than they should, for instance at loud people at traffic stops (not that using tazers on loud people at traffic stops is necessarily WRONG, it's just legally questionable). I would never blame a cop for using a tazer in self defense. I would blame them for using them against some unarmed fellow who is upset about getting a ticket or not being allowed to go home, but who isn't clearly violent. If a man was tazered and died because he was yelling at a cop who said he couldn't go home, but who was not actually threatening the officer, I think that officer should deal with some pretty harsh penalties (possibly even manslaughter). That was an inappropriate level of force.
Cang
opps.... wrong thread! cyber.gif
Dawnshadow
What I was trying to get at was, "in situations where a tazer falls within 'due force', it is regrettable if the person dies, but by causing the situation in which a tazer was within acceptable limits of force, the person has caused their own fate"

If it's not within 'due force' then all bets are off, and said officer should be dealt with as appropriate.
mmu1
QUOTE (Austere Emancipator)
If you've seen the Jackass movie, Johnny Knoxville gets shot in the abdomen with a beanbag at 250fps. This could be even slower and possible lighter, but also more rigid. Certainly not something I'd want to get hit by at point blank range, even without the electric shock.

Reminds me of one of the dumber things I've done - going to play paintball (first time) and then, at the end of the day, joining in a game the other guys called "anarchy" in order to use up all the leftover paint.

The only rules were, you walk off the field when you can no longer take getting hit or run out of ammo - and if you signal that you're out, people are supposed to stop shooting at you.

I was having all sorts of fun initially, because I found I could take getting shot better than just about anyone playing, and was racking up quite a body count by using the "Terminator" approach - simply walking straight at the intended victim, ignoring their fire, concentrating on shooting accurately.

Mind you, I didn't fire on anyone point-blank, and stopped instantly if it looked like they were trying to surrender, giving them the benefit of the doubt if they weren't real clear in communicating it - which ended up biting me in the ass...

One guy, after getting hit with a lot of shots to the torso, threw his hands up, waving them, then turned around, and started to run for the field boundary - so I let him go, figuring he was done, and turned around to look for a new target. The bastard stopped, ran back, and from about 10 feet away put a good dozen shots into the back of my head and neck - and that I felt, because some of the hits were hard enough to break the skin. I couldn't see for a couple of seconds because of the pain from the hits to the head, and ended up with a couple of welts like the one Knoxville had on his gut on the side of my neck and on my jawline.

Definitely gave me an appreciation for the proper safety rules... and I don't want to think about how much something non-frangible, and several times heavier, would hurt.
Platinum
You are a much nicer person than I am, I would have unloaded the rest of my ammo on the guy, then once I was done, beat him over the head with a large tree branch till he was unconcious.
Squinky
QUOTE (Arethusa)
Funny. Having read of many documented cases of tazing leading to fatalities, I think you need to actually do some research.

I have done research, and my findings have been that the few taser deaths linked to the device are usually unconfirmed scientifically and only given credit due to peoples dislike of the device and misunderstanding how it operates. Which is sad, because it saves a lot of people from being shot to death, or the randomness of any physical encounter causing problems.

It dosen't work primarily on pain compliance and electrical shock, it basically scrambles the body's electrical signal to the muscles that cause them to contract, making your poor body contract somewhere around 16 times a second (depending on battery type). It's a horrible feeling, and if anyone ever talks you into it, please, tell them no.

Previous models worked off pain compliance, and those are, in my opinion what causes distrust of the taser, because if a person has a high pain tolerance, you could do some unhealthy things to them by continually shocking them.

The current models do not affect heart muscles, do not affect any organs, and do not cause you to crap yourself, something that I was thankful of while I was being tased. They also, will not burn you (when you are shot with the taser, the points where the barbs entered will feel kinda sunburned), only case I can remember of that was caused by the offender being Oc'ed with oil base OC (mace) and then the spark from the taser got him, poor guy, but isolated incident. I don't personally tie that death to tasers, because any flame can catch the oil, most departments I know of don't use oil based anymore.

Another common issue with tasing someone is that if they are near a fall or sharp object, they can easily fall and hurt themselves or die. This is a pretty common death that people associate with tasers, and again, I don't view it as the taser killing them.

In my mind, the only real threat from taser use is the barbs as they are being fired. they expel from the cartridge and spread apart, vertically. This can cause major eye damage if a person decides to duck down and come at you suddenly, since the barb can easily hit their eye or nasal cavity, which can both lead to permanant disabilitys.

Another thing I would like to point out is that people simply cannot die from being tased continually. The default setting for a taser is a five second ride through hell, in which case most people have had enough, then if they are still fighting, they can get more. I watched a video once of a guy who required being tased off and on for half an hour till back up got there, and he was just fine. You can also team up tasers on people and they will still get the same amount of tasing, even if there are three tasers going on him at once.

In my opinion, which I would like to think is an educated opinion, being as I am pretty liberal as far as human rights, and come from a background of law enforcement, have done some research and have attended classes on the device, is that it is an excellent and safe device as compared to previous choices.

I personally prefer it over getting sprayed OC, since OC lingers forever and a taser is over when it is over.

I personally prefer it over being hit with an asp or baton, for obvious reasons. I'd like to comment here about how people view police officer's hitting someone with a club. Human nature is that they don't like it, and it changes their view of the officer, they will see him as a brute and not understand it's neccesity, tasers are easier for people to sope with seeing.

I personally prefer it to being shot to death also.
mmu1
QUOTE (Platinum)
You are a much nicer person than I am, I would have unloaded the rest of my ammo on the guy, then once I was done, beat him over the head with a large tree branch till he was unconcious.

Nicer has little to do with it... I wasn't able to fire back initially because of the pain, and coming after him later would have definitely gotten me banned from the paintball grounds (if not hauled in for assault, a state and a half away from home), so I settled for letting him be the asshole as far as everyone was concerned...
Brahm
QUOTE (Squinky)
QUOTE (Arethusa @ Feb 23 2006, 01:39 AM)
Funny.  Having read of many documented cases of tazing leading to fatalities, I think you need to actually do some research.

I have done research, and my findings have been that the few taser deaths linked to the device are usually unconfirmed scientifically and only given credit due to peoples dislike of the device and misunderstanding how it operates.

It is probably better to describe it as tasers normally being possibly one of multiple contributing factors in a death, and thus are usually shielded from the absolute confirmation by the old standby "if you eat a can of beans who is to say which one made you fart".
Oracle
QUOTE (mmu1)
[...]coming after him later would have definitely gotten me banned from the paintball grounds[...]

They didn't ban him for that?
mmu1
QUOTE (Oracle)
They didn't ban him for that?

Nope. If he'd done that in a regular game, he definitely'd have gotten thrown off the field (more so for pretending to be out, but then coming back into the game, than for the shooting - you're allowed to shoot at 10', even though it leaves massive welts and can break uncovered skin) but as we were basically suspending a lot of the standard rules anyway...
Oracle
QUOTE (mmu1)
QUOTE (Oracle @ Feb 24 2006, 03:36 AM)
They didn't ban him for that?

Nope. If he'd done that in a regular game, he definitely'd have gotten thrown off the field (more so for pretending to be out, but then coming back into the game, than for the shooting - you're allowed to shoot at 10', even though it leaves massive welts and can break uncovered skin) but as we were basically suspending a lot of the standard rules anyway...

That's why I like full helmets.
nezumi
QUOTE (Dawnshadow)
What I was trying to get at was, "in situations where a tazer falls within 'due force', it is regrettable if the person dies, but by causing the situation in which a tazer was within acceptable limits of force, the person has caused their own fate"

If it's not within 'due force' then all bets are off, and said officer should be dealt with as appropriate.

I agree 100%. But then the problem is, given the apparent risks of this device, how do we define 'due force' for it? I think that's the problem so many people have with it. Due force is defined far too liberally.

A technical question, these barbs, I know they puncture the clothing. Can they (or do they) puncture the skin? How deeply? Do they draw blood? If not, how do they stay in?
Moon-Hawk
Puncture skin? Pretty sure they do. They've got to make good contact, after all.
How deeply? I don't know.
Blood? I don't know.
How do they stay in? Painfully, I'd imagine.
Dawnshadow
QUOTE (nezumi)
QUOTE (Dawnshadow @ Feb 23 2006, 11:39 AM)
What I was trying to get at was, "in situations where a tazer falls within 'due force', it is regrettable if the person dies, but by causing the situation in which a tazer was within acceptable limits of force, the person has caused their own fate"

If it's not within 'due force' then all bets are off, and said officer should be dealt with as appropriate.

I agree 100%. But then the problem is, given the apparent risks of this device, how do we define 'due force' for it? I think that's the problem so many people have with it. Due force is defined far too liberally.

A technical question, these barbs, I know they puncture the clothing. Can they (or do they) puncture the skin? How deeply? Do they draw blood? If not, how do they stay in?

Well.. the other thing is.. due force CANNOT take into account medical conditions. And from what I understand.. that's where most of the fatalities come from. If you blame the officer for not knowing that Random Person Causing Serious Disturbance X has a heart condition.. well.. you're blaming the officer for not being omnipotent?

I don't know what the definitions being used are. But most of the complaints I see pertain to medical conditions. Some of which are use of tazers in the wrong situation, but most of them are "the subject had a heart condition and died".

And, personally, the instant people start tazing each other for fun... well.. that's definately consent. It's also idiocy. Non-lethal or less-lethal.. it's still a weapon. Weapons aren't toys. And anyone with half a brain knows that there is no such thing is a "non-lethal" weapon. You can kill someone with a feather pillow or heavily padded stick. The fact that you can kill them with something designed to incapacitate someone? That should be obvious.
Platinum
QUOTE (Dawnshadow)
And, personally, the instant people start tazing each other for fun... well.. that's definately consent. It's also idiocy.

You also forgot to mention what a great practical joke it would make for the drunken moron at a party. I always did want to zap someone just for fun.
Squinky
QUOTE (nezumi @ Feb 24 2006, 11:00 AM)
A technical question, these barbs, I know they puncture the clothing.  Can they (or do they) puncture the skin?  How deeply?  Do they draw blood?  If not, how do they stay in?

Heres a picture of the common dart:
Taser Dart
Here's another, with a horrible picture of someone shot in the eye, like I mentioned:
WARNING: kinda graphic image of a dart in a guys face, blood and other unpleasantrys.
Poor guy shot in the eye

They do puncture the skin, unless the clothing protects the skin, if there is less than 2 inches distance from the prong to the skin, it will still shock a person. So even baggy clothes won't always protect you, it can, but there's still a good chance of being shocked.

A typical deployment dosen't draw any blood, but that guy that got hit in the eye might beg to differ. They have a little barb to stay in, but in an ideal deployment, can be easily removed by holding the skin down with one hand and tugging with the other.

The aren't painful at all, at least not in my opinion. You don't even feel them piercing your skin because once that happens the horrific muscle spasms start and you don't even notice the barbs in you.

Now, one thing I can say is that I was shot by competent people that I trusted, and knew it was coming. I can only imagine how frightening it would be for someone who didn't know much about it and suddenly felt the instant pain and helplessness, and then see big prong's poking into them.
nezumi
QUOTE (Dawnshadow)
Well.. the other thing is.. due force CANNOT take into account medical conditions.

So you feel if a cop pulls over an old lady (suppose he knows she has drugs in the trunk), throws her on the hood, forces her head into the metal, knocks her legs apart with the night stick for a proper search, cuffs her frail arms behind her back and shoves her into the back seat, that is alright because due force can't take into account medical conditions?

Anyway, the question isn't so much should due force take medical considerations in the individual case, but in the general case. We have to accept there is a percent chance any individual will die when this weapon is used, therefore we should limit its use. As you pointed out earlier, we also know that many cases of death are linked to drug use, so perhaps taser use when the suspect is believed to have been using drugs should be limited - or eliminated - and more dependable methods should be used.

Squinky
I don't even understand this argument, You guys do know that every department and state have specific laws and policys regarding the use of any weapon, less lethal or not.

An old lady shouldn't have to be treated that way unless she gives the officer cause, and since every traffic stop is recorded nowadays, he better have a good damn reason to treat someone like that. If he didn't he will have to face the consequences (and there are plenty, being a law officer is just opening yourself to scrutiny of everything you do. ).

So, pretty much, you use a taser on someone who would require going hands on, that means combatant people, and if it is just a single officer in the field, I would recommend tasing anyone who wants to fight, regardless of age or appearance. Anyone can grab your gun and kill you, you simply can't give them the chance.
Dawnshadow
QUOTE (nezumi)
QUOTE (Dawnshadow @ Feb 24 2006, 11:48 AM)
Well.. the other thing is.. due force CANNOT take into account medical conditions.

So you feel if a cop pulls over an old lady (suppose he knows she has drugs in the trunk), throws her on the hood, forces her head into the metal, knocks her legs apart with the night stick for a proper search, cuffs her frail arms behind her back and shoves her into the back seat, that is alright because due force can't take into account medical conditions?

Anyway, the question isn't so much should due force take medical considerations in the individual case, but in the general case. We have to accept there is a percent chance any individual will die when this weapon is used, therefore we should limit its use. As you pointed out earlier, we also know that many cases of death are linked to drug use, so perhaps taser use when the suspect is believed to have been using drugs should be limited - or eliminated - and more dependable methods should be used.

Wow. Misrepresent much?

If said little old lady is combatative, aggressive and resisting, then yes.
If said little old lady is not, then no.

It has nothing to do with "little old lady". It has everything to do with the behaviour at the scene. And "little old lady" does not negate "threat". All it does is play on sympathy -- which may or may not be justified. If the little old lady has hat pins, then the little old lady has a weapon (stabbing). Not as effective as some, but a weapon non-the-less.

Besides, how do you know she doesn't go running every morning, aerobics, and otherwise stay in good shape? You don't. It's just as possible as an apparently healthy 6'4, 200 lbs, good shape adult male having a heart condition.
nezumi
QUOTE (Squinky)
So, pretty much, you use a taser on someone who would require going hands on, that means combatant people, and if it is just a single officer in the field, I would recommend tasing anyone who wants to fight, regardless of age or appearance. Anyone can grab your gun and kill you, you simply can't give them the chance.

I would agree. History seems to indicate that hasn't been the case, which is why people may be saying more laws should be put in place. That said, not every traffic stop is recorded. Where did you get that from?

Dawnshadow - my point is that a police officer probably WILL take medical condition into consideration. An officer is unlikely to treat an old lady the same way as a strong man, all other things being equal. Any officer who would NOT treat an old lady keeping in mind the likelihood of medical problems is foolish and asking to be sued, EVEN if he is in the right! And again, looking at the history, police do generally treat people differently based on things like that. There was a whole hubub about police putting cuffs on an old lady during a standard arrest. I don't question that was the right thing to do, but they still got a lot of flak. Putting the beat down on one? That cop would never ever ever hear the end of it, even if the old lady had a six inch stilleto.
Squinky
QUOTE (nezumi)
That said, not every traffic stop is recorded. Where did you get that from?


From working in Law enforcement personally for over five years. Mind you, I worked in a small town, but if it was required in a small town, I can assure you it is most likely required in most other places. The name of the game in Law enforcement is Liability reduction, and it would be ignorant not to turn on the recorder.

In fact, if a person did a traffic stop at my previous job, and failed to record it, he would be up for investigation probably.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Dumpshock Forums © 2001-2012