Tasers save lives
Aug 24th, 2009 by David Anderson
This weekend a Dover man allegedly pulled a sawed off shot gun on a family then ran off when one of the residents called the police. When the police tracked down the suspect, he ran. Knowing that witnesses had said the man was armed, deadly force was always a possibility if the perception of the police were that he moved in such a way to endanger them. Instead of succumbing to fear, the police used non lethal force and tasered the suspect.
I am opposed to wonted use of Tasers. They are not to be used at whim or for punishment. I do support their use by law enforcement or citizens in situations where there is danger. I believe that non-lethal force should always be preferred over lethal force when it is a viable alternative.
The benefits to using non lethal force include the protection of those who may be a victim of mistaken identity. Suppose the man who ran was just a shoplifter who looked like the suspect. You can not just move on after a serious injury or worse.
There is an anti-Taser movement in the state. It must be opposed. The instruments are safe and effective tools of self defense and law enforcement. They add to the arsenal of law abiding citizens and law enforcement an option which can stop most attackers and does not pose a significant risk to the well being of the attacker. Yes, like anything some people are sensitive to it or it can be misapplied. The fact is that we are comparing it to no protection or lethal options. In that light any risk is minuscule in my judgment.
The movement to eliminate them is an ACLU inspired effort to handicap the good guys. The ACLU opposed pepper spray with many of the same arguments. The fact is that most of the deaths in custody are the result of drug delirium. They occur because of excitement in the drug induced state not the method used to take them down. Almost every study (according to the Cincinnati Enquirer) shows that Tasers lower death rates instead of increasing them. I support law enforcement, but just as importantly I support trying to protect suspects so that everyone gets his or her shot a justice. A knee jerk reaction against the unpleasantness of Tasers should not get in the way of protecting the suspects from injuries during “take downs” or shootings, nor should it get in the way of protecting the lives of those who protect us. It is a win win.
A taser is a deadly weapon. If someone points a taser at you, you are in a fight for your life, one which you should plan to win if possible. Hopefully there will be an active Second Amendment supporter nearby to help save your life.
Sweep your hand in front of the strike area to try to break the wires, while simultaneously giving the shooter a great big bear hug before he pulls the trigger to begin the electrocution.
Thank you for your comment. I don’t quite get how the second paragraph works, but I will address the first. It is not a deadly weapon. A deadly weapon is one by its design would bring a high likelihood of death. If this is used as designed, it does not result in death. Its very design is to incapacitate temporarily not permanently disable or kill. I had a friend who owned one. He often played with it shocking himself. Imagine him shooting or stabbing himself.
I don’t quite get how the second paragraph works
Maybe you don’t know how tasers work. They shoot a pair of darts into your body, each dart connected to a thin metal wire leading back to the gun. Once the darts are embedded in your body, the shooter pulls a second trigger to begin sending high voltage into your body.
If you can break or ground the wires first, you will not be electrocuted.
And theoretically, if you can make close enough contact with the shooter, you might be able to share his voltage with him. I am not real keen on testing this to see if it works though.
I am guessing your friend owned a low power hand-held “stun gun” rather than a Taser.
Not to mention, once the shooter begins electrocuting you, some tasers permit you to hold down the trigger and continue applying the electocution as long as you want. This gives the taser an alternate use as a torture device.
The fact is that most of the deaths in custody are the result of drug delirium.
Followed closely by “falling down the stairs” and “shot while trying to escape.”
“Tasers save lives”
Yeah, except for the people they kill.
These are dangerous weapons and the mere idea of them, ie. electroshocking human beings using severe momentary pain to coerce compliance with law enforcement commands often made at whim, is in itself reprehensible.
If someone suffers physical trauma by resisting officers attempting to physically control or subdue them with appropriate force, the onus is on the resister.
But to apply electric shock to any person, with the potential to cause death, as often happens not when the person is physically resisting but merely not exactly following whatever commands (often) shouted at them, is plain out excessive, amounts to a form of torture, and is abhorrent to any notion of American civil rights and liberties.
I think we both agree that they should not be used in that way. I said that in the post. They are not a tool for punishment. They are serious weapons. They can also be misused. Professionals never shoot them to the neck.
Thank you for explaining the strategy, Noman. I still don’t see it working too well. Just stick with the first part of it and avoid the bear hug.
How about this case where you had an armed suspect who had not drawn his weapon? If he draws his weapon, you shoot him. If not do you let him just run away after he allegedly threatened two kids and a 67 year old man in their own home? This is an example of smart policing. They protected the public while not over reacting even though there was a potential risk to themselves.
I think we both agree that they should not be used in that way.
You can’t stop it from happening. Your tut-tutting is ineffective.
Just stick with the first part of it and avoid the bear hug.
When someone is trying to kill you or torture you, you should be using any weapon you can to stop the attack.
How about this case where you had an armed suspect who had not drawn his weapon?
I very carefully didn’t say anything about police so far. If you are being legitimately arrested you should submit.
I think that the tazer makes a good compliment to a police arsenal that includes fire arms. It fills a what I would consider a gap in the options police have for the escalation of force.
I’d rather have someone pull a Tazer on me than a .45…you can run from a Tazer.
I have an old friend who, 60 years ago was a cop in Salisbury. No tazers, No pepper spray, just a night stick and a revolver.
back then, If a dumbass (like noman) tried to fight with a cop barehanded, he got the nightstick, if the dumbass had a weapon (club, knife, gun) he was shot and killed. no second guessing, dead.
I think the Tazer is an improvement.
I’d rather have someone pull a Tazer on me than a .45…you can run from a Tazer.
You SHOULD run from a Taser – don’t just stand there like a lamb for the slaughter. The range is 25 feet. And if you are already shot you can break the wires or pull out the darts by running or rolling. That will give you some time to try to escape or find a weapon.
It is true that your attacker might try to shoot you while you are running away. In that case he is a murderer and you should run faster.
If you think fast and have something metal handy, say your car keys or a soda can, or possibly even the sheet metal of your car, you can try to jumper the darts and send the voltage back to the gun.
Still not talking about police…