I have a question regarding tasers. There appears to be two types. Both use darts but one type uses wires to deliver the charge while the other uses high capacity batteries or some such thing in the dart itself. So in game terms how does each one work?
If someone hits with a wired one can they just keep putting the juice to the victim every pass? Is there only the ability to fire once? I know how they work in real life but the game terms are very vauge?
Are the wireless ones just one shot wonders that discharge in a single pass?
Thanks in advance.
Full Version: Taser questions.
I wouldn't call it an "auto hit" every round or anything like that, but I'd certainly let someone describe a second (or third, or fourth) shot from a taser as just holding down the trigger. If that second (or third, or fourth) shot missed, I'd describe it as their victim spasming horribly and dislodging the darts, or something.
Then again, with something using the common Pistols skill with a damage code of 9D (stun) or so, how many shots do you need, really? Those things are notoriously lethal in my table top group, where the players have accidentally tazed people to death three or four times.
Then again, with something using the common Pistols skill with a damage code of 9D (stun) or so, how many shots do you need, really? Those things are notoriously lethal in my table top group, where the players have accidentally tazed people to death three or four times.
I take it that the wires cut themselves off once the appropriate amount of juice gets passed through them. And the wireless ones just discharge once.
| QUOTE (Critias @ Mar 16 2005, 06:21 PM) |
| ... where the players have accidentally tazed people to death three or four times. |
IIRC, that's pretty difficult to do within the SR rules, seeing as you'd need 20 successes over and above D Stun. Admittedly, it's been a while since I looked at these rules, but I seem to recall that Overdamage rules require 2 successes per box of Physical damage (or is that just for melee combat?).
| QUOTE (Fortune) | ||
IIRC, that's pretty difficult to do within the SR rules, seeing as you'd need 20 successes over and above D Stun. Admittedly, it's been a while since I looked at these rules, but I seem to recall that Overdamage rules require 2 successes per box of Physical damage (or is that just for melee combat?). |
It mostly occured from players reflexively double-tapping with a semi-auto taser, and/or concentrating their fire. If you knock someone out, then deal another Deadly stun to him, then deal another, and another?
These are things that were drilled into them during normal combat. It makes sense to shoot someone twice instead of two people once, and it makes sense to have everyone shoot 'till a bad guy drops (instead of spreading fire out and just dealing Light wounds to every opponent). These basic tactics, however, backfired when it came time to subdue rather than kill.
"We've gotta capture that guy! Make sure he falls down!"
*zap, zap, zap, zap*
"Whoops."
I think that the above conversation pretty much answers the question. If tasers are designed to be non-lethal, and a second or third 'jolt' would be lethal, then they are probably not designed to deliver a second 'jolt' with the same shot. It would defeat the non-lethal purpose of using a taser. Dunno how it works IRL, though. Never had the pleasure.
I always thought any stun damage dealt after deadly translated directly to physical. I.E. You take a D stun wound and fall down unconcious. You take another D stun wound, and it translates straight to physical, and now its the equivilant of having taken a D Physical wound.
That's exactly it, Tarantula. That's what they mean when they say that multiple taser shots are deadly.
Alright, but doesn't the shock do 10S Stun that can't be staged? Requireing 4 hits to drop them down to dead? 6(serious wound) * 4 = 24 boxes of damage, so it puts them 4 into overflow also.
I'm not seeing your point, T.
My point is that tasers are designed to shock someone into incapacity. One shot should do that, so there is no reason to design a taser that delivers multiple shocks with one shot, because they're just too dangerous.
My point is that tasers are designed to shock someone into incapacity. One shot should do that, so there is no reason to design a taser that delivers multiple shocks with one shot, because they're just too dangerous.
I'm more just trying to make sure I'm understanding how multiple taser shots work. Now that I'm sure on that, I don't see how having it do a S base damage, unstagable, is at all designed to incapacitate, as it takes a minimum of 2 shots to incapacitate someone.
It would take 2 shots to put someone unconcious. Most rational people would stop fighting after the first. Or to put it in game terms: a +5 modifier should count as incapacitation in most cases.
+3 modifier. Its not the # of boxes of damage, but the wound level. A Serious wound is +3 TN, -3 Init.
You're right, most non-professionals/crazies would stop after 1 shot. But Incapacitate means knock-out. Not make them hurt a lot, not make most people stop resisting, it means, make them unable to resist. Especially if this was a police weapon, it should be doing a D stun.
I said minimum of 2 shots, as people can still resist the 10S Stun. Especially if they're in runner undies that are non-conductive (as mine usually are). Dropping it down to 5S Stun (-4 from non-conductive, -1 impact). Which isn't too terribly hard to resist, especially if you're a combat monkey of any kind.
Say they do moderates each shot, due to lack of staging. It now takes 4 shots to drop someone unconcious, and that includes most trolls, and a good number of orks and dwarves in being able to do that. At least 3 shots. (S + M = 9 boxes)
You're right, most non-professionals/crazies would stop after 1 shot. But Incapacitate means knock-out. Not make them hurt a lot, not make most people stop resisting, it means, make them unable to resist. Especially if this was a police weapon, it should be doing a D stun.
I said minimum of 2 shots, as people can still resist the 10S Stun. Especially if they're in runner undies that are non-conductive (as mine usually are). Dropping it down to 5S Stun (-4 from non-conductive, -1 impact). Which isn't too terribly hard to resist, especially if you're a combat monkey of any kind.
Say they do moderates each shot, due to lack of staging. It now takes 4 shots to drop someone unconcious, and that includes most trolls, and a good number of orks and dwarves in being able to do that. At least 3 shots. (S + M = 9 boxes)
+5 is right +3 from damage and +2more from the shock of a tazer. they are some nasty weapons
On that note, why isn't there a +2 with any elemental manipulation spells that shock people? (Lightning bolt for instance)
| QUOTE (Tarantula) |
| On that note, why isn't there a +2 with any elemental manipulation spells that shock people? (Lightning bolt for instance) |
Because people don't survive getting lightning bolted particularly well.
Oh wait, that's the game I'm in where lightning bolt is minimum force 10... *cringe* Hence why the Sam has a phobia of lightning
So? All the spell lightning bolt does is cause lots of electricity to hit the target.... similar to a lightning bolt. All a taser does is send a lot of electricity into the target via conduction... similar to a lightningbolt. Why should the aftereffects be any different?
Incapacitate: to disable, to make ineligible.
Incapacity: lack of sufficient strength or power.
Stick your tongue in a light socket. You will note that although it probably did not knock you out, you don't feel like doing much afterwards.
Stun weapons do add an additional +2 modifier for a short period, reduced by a Body test of some sort. Add that to a serious wound modifier. voila, +5 (edit: I see some of you guys beat me to this point.)
And the design of tasers, I insist, is NOT to knock people out. It is to make them settle down so they can be arrested or restrained. Since the people who build them want to avoid being sued excessively, they probably will make tasers that have a minimal risk of killing someone.
Of course that means that said tasers won't be as effective against an armored, insulated, metahuman "combat monkey". Against a typical person, they do quite nicely. And a more powerful taser, against a typical person, is too dangerous.
Atypical people, like the ones you suggested, are one reason why cops don't JUST carry tasers. Tasers don't have the versatility and the stopping power against a serious combatant. A cop who's in danger is not going to screw around with someone he thinks is going to hurt him, he'll use a firearm. The taser is for the unarmed shirtless guy in the back alley who just refuses to cooperate.
Your numbers are mostly right, though. Tasers suck in serious combat. They're not made for it.
(edit: as to the lightning issue: maybe its an AC/DC thing?)
Incapacity: lack of sufficient strength or power.
Stick your tongue in a light socket. You will note that although it probably did not knock you out, you don't feel like doing much afterwards.
Stun weapons do add an additional +2 modifier for a short period, reduced by a Body test of some sort. Add that to a serious wound modifier. voila, +5 (edit: I see some of you guys beat me to this point.)
And the design of tasers, I insist, is NOT to knock people out. It is to make them settle down so they can be arrested or restrained. Since the people who build them want to avoid being sued excessively, they probably will make tasers that have a minimal risk of killing someone.
Of course that means that said tasers won't be as effective against an armored, insulated, metahuman "combat monkey". Against a typical person, they do quite nicely. And a more powerful taser, against a typical person, is too dangerous.
Atypical people, like the ones you suggested, are one reason why cops don't JUST carry tasers. Tasers don't have the versatility and the stopping power against a serious combatant. A cop who's in danger is not going to screw around with someone he thinks is going to hurt him, he'll use a firearm. The taser is for the unarmed shirtless guy in the back alley who just refuses to cooperate.
Your numbers are mostly right, though. Tasers suck in serious combat. They're not made for it.
(edit: as to the lightning issue: maybe its an AC/DC thing?)
Cops in the times would have to acknowledge that Trolls, Orks, and Dwarves all exist, and most of them (especially trolls) are not going to be incapacitated much by a taser (Especially if the TN mod is off a body test).
As far as pulling a gun, I'm sorry, cops are only allowed to respond with equal force. If you have no weapon, a taser is as far as they can go, you pull a blunt object of somekind, now they can use a nightstick, and a knife or gun, they get their gun. Now, the trick is if they think you have a weapon, and if they say they thought you reached into your pocket to pull one, they're in the clear. But they're supposed to not be shooting guns at unarmed combatants.
You're right, tasers aren't designed to knock people out, and with the abstract damage rules in SR, especially with the staying concious after a deadly wound in MM, they wouldn't even with a DStun Damage code. You'd be laying on the ground, twitching perhaps, moaning unintelligibly, but not be dead. Just train your cops that they don't have to shoot more than once unless they miss or you don't flop to the floor.
As far as pulling a gun, I'm sorry, cops are only allowed to respond with equal force. If you have no weapon, a taser is as far as they can go, you pull a blunt object of somekind, now they can use a nightstick, and a knife or gun, they get their gun. Now, the trick is if they think you have a weapon, and if they say they thought you reached into your pocket to pull one, they're in the clear. But they're supposed to not be shooting guns at unarmed combatants.
You're right, tasers aren't designed to knock people out, and with the abstract damage rules in SR, especially with the staying concious after a deadly wound in MM, they wouldn't even with a DStun Damage code. You'd be laying on the ground, twitching perhaps, moaning unintelligibly, but not be dead. Just train your cops that they don't have to shoot more than once unless they miss or you don't flop to the floor.
| QUOTE (Dog) |
| maybe its an AC/DC thing? |
Hey dont bring the band in to this!
Some wire trail tasers, IRL, have the capacity (no pun intended) to deliver repeat shocks to keep an assailant incapacitated for a maximum amount of time allowing for either escape or help to arrive. That same taser also has a built in stun gun in case you had multiple assailants you could taser one and still not be defenseless against any others.
Theres no reason the electricity in the lightning bolt spell couldn't be AC. It doesn't really say.
The difference is in Voltage. Tasers deliver high wattage at decent Voltage enough that it can seriously mess with your system and yes if done enough times might kill you. Lighting hower is huge wattage at unbelievable Voltage. The result fries your flesh, scrambles nerves, and can literally make an ash of you.
Notice the word can. I have taken 110 often enough to say "Ouch, I know better than that". My father has taken 440 hand to hand and survived (it paralyzed a small muscle in his heart. Countless people survive getting hit by real lightning. Some people have died from lower powered Tasers. Electricity is not always predictable.
Notice the word can. I have taken 110 often enough to say "Ouch, I know better than that". My father has taken 440 hand to hand and survived (it paralyzed a small muscle in his heart. Countless people survive getting hit by real lightning. Some people have died from lower powered Tasers. Electricity is not always predictable.
Alright, lorth, if the voltage is the reason it screws with your system, wouldn't a higher voltage simply 'blow out' nerves causeing even more issues and a higher mod than lesser?
Actually I higher Volatge would do so, but past a certain point and you're either cooked or dead first so it doesn't really matter.
How bout we talk about the actual tasers in the game?
Dog stated that it makes not sense to have multiple shots because it's too easy to kill someone or whatever. So one of the tasers in SR3 has 4 shots. How do I keep players from abusing this new found power? It bypasses armor correct?
Dog stated that it makes not sense to have multiple shots because it's too easy to kill someone or whatever. So one of the tasers in SR3 has 4 shots. How do I keep players from abusing this new found power? It bypasses armor correct?
Half impact applies. I have ruled that hardened armor stays just that, if the power is not more than the impact it doesn't help. You could be nice and make each additiona shot form a taser after the first deal a Light Stun Wound and keeps the penalty going. So 4 shots would almost fill the condition monitor of the normal person and keep them twitching for a while.
There's no reason to just ignore an entire column of the weapon's statline and decide it only has one shot 'cause Dog said so. I mean, if it's capable of having more than one shot, leave it that way -- just make your players learn (the hard way, the way mine did) not to use it more than once per target.
| QUOTE |
| As far as pulling a gun, I'm sorry, cops are only allowed to respond with equal force. If you have no weapon, a taser is as far as they can go, you pull a blunt object of somekind, now they can use a nightstick, and a knife or gun, they get their gun. |
This is a common myth. It's not true, at least not where I live, and not any of the places where I know officers. The catch here is that it's impossible to engage a cop and not have it be an armed conflict, because the officer is carrying a gun. If a person physically assaults a cop and the cop shoots the perpetrator it's frowned on, but barring some extenuating circumstances the shooting will be deemed justifiable because in such a situation the cop is carrying a lethal weapon and the perp could possibly take it from him. I work for the local PD, and this is how it's done here.
This does not mean that cops are going to start opening fire on fistfights, but assaulting an officer is a justification for the officer to return fire if he feels the response is warranted. It has happened, and pretty much every time the officer has gotten off.
That idea is incredibly persistent however, and people keep believing it.
This does not mean that cops are going to start opening fire on fistfights, but assaulting an officer is a justification for the officer to return fire if he feels the response is warranted. It has happened, and pretty much every time the officer has gotten off.
That idea is incredibly persistent however, and people keep believing it.
| QUOTE |
| Now, the trick is if they think you have a weapon, and if they say they thought you reached into your pocket to pull one, they're in the clear. But they're supposed to not be shooting guns at unarmed combatants. |
There's no such thing as a non lethal combat with a cop, because by the very nature of the engagement the cop brings a lethal weapon with him.
By extension, this is why there are no guns at all in jails. None. They don't want to be forced into those rules of engagement. All guns are locked up at the doors before entry, or in the sallyports.
By extension, this is why there are no guns at all in jails. None. They don't want to be forced into those rules of engagement. All guns are locked up at the doors before entry, or in the sallyports.
| QUOTE (BitBasher) |
| By extension, this is why there are no guns at all in jails. None. They don't want to be forced into those rules of engagement. |
Atlanta, last week, anyone? That's why what happened was called a fuck-up and a tragedy, not just a tragedy.
It's always been my understanding that cops are trained to try and respond with the minimum necessary force, depending on the circumstances. If that means a nightstick against a fist, great. If it means a gunshot against a knife (or another gun), so be it. Sometimes it's not plausible, though. Especially with so many fucktards out there being all hopped up on crazy stuff, it's sometimes just not a risk an officer can take.
also, the whole AC/DC lethality thing comes from the early days of Electricity coming into the home. Edison wanted folks to buy his product, not the other guys. Being that most people accepted him as the foremost expert on electricity in his time, when he wrote a letter to the govenor of a perticular state (I foget which) stating that the other guys current (I can never remember if it's AC or DC) would be more effective in execution as it causes more damage to the body. It was an exageration as either current is incredibly lethal when applied through a device like Old Sparky.
The "fuck-up" in Atlanta came from several issues:
The suspect was allowed to appear in court in "street clothes" because he had been out on bail.
The suspect was not in handcuffs, a huge mistake for anyone on trial for a violent crime (in this case aggravated assault, rape and sodomy).
The facility's budget was highly constrained and they did not have enough guards on duty for the size of the building for each court room.
The suspect was allowed to appear in court in "street clothes" because he had been out on bail.
The suspect was not in handcuffs, a huge mistake for anyone on trial for a violent crime (in this case aggravated assault, rape and sodomy).
The facility's budget was highly constrained and they did not have enough guards on duty for the size of the building for each court room.
that myth comes from the escalation-of-force concept that come into play for military peacekeepers and, i'm pretty sure, police. it's not that force can only be met with equal force, it's that force can only be met with appropriate force. a policeman who shoots an old woman who's poking at him with her walker is going to be in trouble. a policeman who uses his nightstick on someone who's arguing rationally about a parking ticket is going to get in trouble. a policeman who opens fire on a peaceful protest is not doing his job, and ought to get in trouble unless unusual circumstances come into play.
| QUOTE (lorthazar) |
| Actually I higher Volatge would do so, but past a certain point and you're either cooked or dead first so it doesn't really matter. |
Great, as far as game effects go, it doesn't matter what you TN penalty is if you're unconcious or dead, which covers being fried or cooked first. Otherwise, why shouldn't lightning bolt/ball cause the same +2 penalty a stun gun does?
| QUOTE (BitBasher) | ||
| This is a common myth. It's not true, at least not where I live, and not any of the places where I know officers. The catch here is that it's impossible to engage a cop and not have it be an armed conflict, because the officer is carrying a gun. If a person physically assaults a cop and the cop shoots the perpetrator it's frowned on, but barring some extenuating circumstances the shooting will be deemed justifiable because in such a situation the cop is carrying a lethal weapon and the perp could possibly take it from him. I work for the local PD, and this is how it's done here. This does not mean that cops are going to start opening fire on fistfights, but assaulting an officer is a justification for the officer to return fire if he feels the response is warranted. It has happened, and pretty much every time the officer has gotten off. That idea is incredibly persistent however, and people keep believing it.
There's no such thing as a non lethal combat with a cop, because by the very nature of the engagement the cop brings a lethal weapon with him. By extension, this is why there are no guns at all in jails. None. They don't want to be forced into those rules of engagement. All guns are locked up at the doors before entry, or in the sallyports. |
I never said the guy was engageing the cop. I just said the guy had a whatever. If i'm argueing with a cop, and he shoots me, hes in trouble. If I'm argueing with a cop, and he hits me with a nightstick hes in trouble. If I'm argueing with a cop, and he hits me with his fist/foot/body part hes in trouble. Its all about perceived threat. If they think that you with a stick = deadly force, they'll respond in kind. If they think its a mild risk, they'll probably respond with taser/nightstick. Etc. Its all about the cops perception of your threat with what you are armed with. If you're walking out of the ultimate championship fighting tournament after having just one the big title and all, and a cop is trying to arrest you for being drunk after you're celebrating, I wouldn't blame him for having a taser/nightstick/multiple cops for doing so, because the perceived threat you pose is considerably higher.
Why do folks always forget the pepper spray. that stuff is no joke what-so-ever.
| QUOTE (Nikoli) |
| also, the whole AC/DC lethality thing comes from the early days of Electricity coming into the home. Edison wanted folks to buy his product, not the other guys. Being that most people accepted him as the foremost expert on electricity in his time, when he wrote a letter to the govenor of a perticular state (I foget which) stating that the other guys current (I can never remember if it's AC or DC) would be more effective in execution as it causes more damage to the body. It was an exageration as either current is incredibly lethal when applied through a device like Old Sparky. |
Edison was DC, and I beleave Tesla and/or Westinghouse was AC. Unfortunatly for Edison, DC has serious drawbacks as far as transmitive power goes. DC cannot be transmited long distances over wires without loosing a lot of energy. This would require powerplants every couple of blocks and large buildings having there own generatiors. AC, just use a transformer to jump the voltage up, and you can distribute it large distances with little lose, then when you reach a neighborhood transform it down agian for use.
Ah, so another reason why he'd play up the 'danger' of AC, cause DC wasn't as efficient for lighting cities.
| QUOTE (Nikoli) |
| The "fuck-up" in Atlanta came from several issues: The suspect was allowed to appear in court in "street clothes" because he had been out on bail. The suspect was not in handcuffs, a huge mistake for anyone on trial for a violent crime (in this case aggravated assault, rape and sodomy). The facility's budget was highly constrained and they did not have enough guards on duty for the size of the building for each court room. |
Actually that's entirely wrong, as is the description of the event as it's portrayed in the media right now.
I have an inside line on this because of the nature of where I work, and the "make sure this doens't happen here" information that gets out as a result. I'm not sure how the media is screwing this one up so badly.
The thing was he wasn't in street clothes, he started out in a jail jumpsuit, and in chains. He was not out on bail. The CO (Corrections Officer) was a dimunitive and elderly woman, close to retirement age. She locked up her gun in a gun locker just like she was suppsoed to, then escorted him into a dressing room where he was unchained and allowed to change clothes into his court attire, which is SOP. In order to change clothes the inmate has to be take out of his irons.
He then overpowered the CO, and used his irons to chain her to a chair. From her pocket he took her lock box key, walked to the gun box and got her gun, walked down the private hallway in the courthouse and shot the judge and another individual in the back of the head, they didn't even see it coming.
Political correctness enforced by the state caused these deaths. The issue is it's illegal to discriminate by age or sex for the CO positions, so thay had someone unfit for the position escorting a violent criminal because someone caused a stink becuase outside of issues like this escort is a pretty easy job. It's also illegal to only put stong well built in this position. As long as someone passes the physical they cannot deny them the job. They also can't put a second with them, because then if everyone doesnt have a second then it's discrimination. Crap, ANYthing can warrant discrimination.
They followed procedures just like "the book" says, and the shit hit the fan. Death by political correctness.
Wow, that's a completely different tale than was told by the local media the day of the escape. It also makes much more sense.
| QUOTE (Tarantula) |
| Great, as far as game effects go, it doesn't matter what you TN penalty is if you're unconcious or dead, which covers being fried or cooked first. Otherwise, why shouldn't lightning bolt/ball cause the same +2 penalty a stun gun does? |
Because even though they are resisted with (1/2) Impact armor, Lightning Bolt/Ball do Physical damage, and (usually) cause an Elemental side effect like fire. It isn't so much shocking the body as burning it. You could always rule that a Stun effect similar to that of tazers is part and parcel of the Elemental effect of the spell if you see the need.
| QUOTE (Nikoli) |
| Wow, that's a completely different tale than was told by the local media the day of the escape. It also makes much more sense. |
Yeah, I said the same thing. It got more convoluted after that, but that's the gist of it.
You'd probably be surprised how often the media totally botches things like that. I never had any idea until I was at my current job.
Just to clarify, I'm not arguing against a taser that can be fired more than once. I mean, what if you miss?
The original question, if I understood it right, was about firing more juice into the target with a shot that has already hit, via the wires trailing it. That's the only part I have a problem with. Sorry if it sounded otherwise.
Oh, and I had a chat with some local cops (who don't carry tasers now, but the city is considering it due to recent events.) They generally don't like the idea of having them, because to paraphrase: "It's one more piece of equipment to fumble with, and more scrutiny in court. Now every time you draw your gun, you have to be able to justify why didn't pull your taser instead." Or to put it another way, I think they feel it violates the KISS principle.
The original question, if I understood it right, was about firing more juice into the target with a shot that has already hit, via the wires trailing it. That's the only part I have a problem with. Sorry if it sounded otherwise.
Oh, and I had a chat with some local cops (who don't carry tasers now, but the city is considering it due to recent events.) They generally don't like the idea of having them, because to paraphrase: "It's one more piece of equipment to fumble with, and more scrutiny in court. Now every time you draw your gun, you have to be able to justify why didn't pull your taser instead." Or to put it another way, I think they feel it violates the KISS principle.
| QUOTE (Fortune) |
| Because even though they are resisted with (1/2) Impact armor, Lightning Bolt/Ball do Physical damage, and (usually) cause an Elemental side effect like fire. It isn't so much shocking the body as burning it. You could always rule that a Stun effect similar to that of tazers is part and parcel of the Elemental effect of the spell if you see the need. |
You're right, they cause physical damage. And an electrical elemental effect. I.E. lots of electricity. So much, that they cause physical damage, rather than simply stunning.
| QUOTE (Dog @ Mar 16 2005, 09:07 PM) |
| Just to clarify, I'm not arguing against a taser that can be fired more than once. I mean, what if you miss? The original question, if I understood it right, was about firing more juice into the target with a shot that has already hit, via the wires trailing it. That's the only part I have a problem with. Sorry if it sounded otherwise. Oh, and I had a chat with some local cops (who don't carry tasers now, but the city is considering it due to recent events.) They generally don't like the idea of having them, because to paraphrase: "It's one more piece of equipment to fumble with, and more scrutiny in court. Now every time you draw your gun, you have to be able to justify why didn't pull your taser instead." Or to put it another way, I think they feel it violates the KISS principle. |
I don't agree with that. You have stunning weapons for when you don't want to kill someone and you have killing weapons for when you do what to kill someone. It is as simple as that.
When you want to disable someone without killing them a gun is rather useless. Situations where it is necessary to subdue someone but there is no justification for using lethal force are far more common than situations where there is a real need to kill someone.
Not too long ago there was a case where a small boy, around 6 years old, broke a picture frame in a principal's office and was using a shard to hold police at bay, hold the principal hostage, and mutilate himself. The police used a taser to subdue him. There was much uproar over it hand they had a hard time justifying the use of the weapon on such a young boy. However, the boy was armed with a deadly weapon and had shown willingness to use it. If they had no tasers the their only alternative would have been to kill him. That would have been even harder to jusitfy to the public.
In another conroversial case a police officer used a taser to stun a girl who was about to run out into traffic and get herself killed. There was no way that he could have chased her down. If the officer had not had a taser the only possible way he could have saved her life would have been too shoot out her kneecaps
Both of these cases show how tasers can be useful when guns aren't a reasonable option.
The first one, if he was 8-10 the cop could have easily subdued him with his baton rather than a taser. An adult compared to a 8-10 year old boy, can easily outreach the boy, especially if wielding a baton, and when you factor in having had training in the use of a baton, could have easily force the boy to drop the glass shard (by hitting his hand) without the use of a taser. Yes, it was a good situation for a taser, but it wasn't the only option.
As far as the girl, while its an innovative use of a taser, how about yelling out to her? Yelling at the cars? Turning on sirens (if in a car)? And a variety of other options.
As far as the girl, while its an innovative use of a taser, how about yelling out to her? Yelling at the cars? Turning on sirens (if in a car)? And a variety of other options.
Lemme see, what causes more of an outcry?
Adult male, in good physical condition using a bat to hit a small boy
Same guy using a Taser, design not to injure, not to kill, not to break small bones to knock out boy.
Adult male, in good physical condition using a bat to hit a small boy
Same guy using a Taser, design not to injure, not to kill, not to break small bones to knock out boy.
One would assume the second one, unless the boy is epileptic or has a heart condition ........ then it would kill!
torz
torz
Hyzmarca, what is it you don't agree with? You don't agree that some cops told me that or you don't agree with what they said? Your argument is kind of fragmented. Who's the 'you' that you referred to? IRL police? Shadowrunners? Me?
It seems to me that:
1. Cops doing pretty much anything to a six year old is gonna create an outcry.
2. When lives are on the line, the cops're more likely to do what solves the problem than what public opinion would approve of.
3. A story involving a six year old holding a man hostage with a piece of glass while cutting himself with it is highly suspicious.
4. I don't know of many cops (or other people) who have fired a gun because they WANT to kill someone.
5. When a situation calls for a weapon, any person is most likely to use the weapon they are most familiar with. More tools just means more difficult decisions to make in times of crisis, is I think what the cops were getting at.
6. Using a handgun to shoot a running person in the knees is kind of... ridiculous.
7. To make a general observation: police will use non-lethal measures to subdue people (tasers, batons, PPCT) but pull out all the stops to protect themselves. Who wouldn't?
But here I am just talking about cops. My character usually carries a taser, 'cause it's good for dropping folks who you need to question or innocents who happen to get in the way. If he's under attack, out comes the smg.
It seems to me that:
1. Cops doing pretty much anything to a six year old is gonna create an outcry.
2. When lives are on the line, the cops're more likely to do what solves the problem than what public opinion would approve of.
3. A story involving a six year old holding a man hostage with a piece of glass while cutting himself with it is highly suspicious.
4. I don't know of many cops (or other people) who have fired a gun because they WANT to kill someone.
5. When a situation calls for a weapon, any person is most likely to use the weapon they are most familiar with. More tools just means more difficult decisions to make in times of crisis, is I think what the cops were getting at.
6. Using a handgun to shoot a running person in the knees is kind of... ridiculous.
7. To make a general observation: police will use non-lethal measures to subdue people (tasers, batons, PPCT) but pull out all the stops to protect themselves. Who wouldn't?
But here I am just talking about cops. My character usually carries a taser, 'cause it's good for dropping folks who you need to question or innocents who happen to get in the way. If he's under attack, out comes the smg.
So so keep this on-topic. I am wondering exactly WHAT can a NPC do if they get hit by one of these tasers? They likely can't resist 10S stun and then all the person would have to do in RL is pull the trigger on their turn every pass and keep piling it on. I have read every post in this thread and I haven't heard many good ideas.
So when you get hit with a light pistol you will most likely be able to keep going and do something the next round. Not so with a taser correct? Seems too powerful. The way it's shaping up I'd prefer a taser over a gun any day. Granted there is the range factor.
So when you get hit with a light pistol you will most likely be able to keep going and do something the next round. Not so with a taser correct? Seems too powerful. The way it's shaping up I'd prefer a taser over a gun any day. Granted there is the range factor.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.