Civilian Tasers
- Thread starter MJS
- Start date
That would be funny if it weren't so damned infuriating, kcast. You guys can point Tasers at me and zap the hell out of me with impunity because a Taser isn't dangerous. But it's deadly force if it's pointed the other way. Uh-huh. Right.
not trying to start an argument, but I was partially joking, but being truthful, why would you be getting tased anyway??
He may have been joking -- but I'm not. You point some sort of stun gun at me, and I'm responding with lethal force, because during the several seconds that I'm incapacitated by the stun gun, you get access to my gun and everything else.
Which leads nicely to one problem I have with civilian-use Tasers and stun devices. You light the ogre up... Now what? Unless they make a radical change for the civilian model, the current versions of the Taser give a 5 second ride, during which the subject is incapacitated and immobilized. For a police officer -- that's great. Have someone move in fast and cuff them, or even hit them again if their conduct warrants it. Remember -- a cop's end goal is to take that guy into custody. A civilian's end goal is to get the hell out of there... 5 seconds might be enough to get away -- but it might not. There have been several incidents where animals were hit with Tasers; one video I know made the YouTube rounds. In one that happened in my area, a dog took the Taser hit. It was immobilized for 5 seconds, then right back up and charged again, and had to be shot. The same sort of thing has happened with people, as well.
The other problem I have is a reality check sort of thing; these devices aren't magic bullet solutions that work every time. If the barbs don't make appropriate contact past clothing, etc. or you just plain miss, or the ogre gets up after the first hit... you need to be ready to go to another force option. Standard doctrine in law enforcement is to have another force option ready to supplement or replace a less-lethal item like the Taser if it's not successful. (Yes, that often means a gun.) But a civilian probably doesn't have someone to play "back up" like that; if they did, they probably wouldn't be being attacked!
pankration
White Belt
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2007
- Messages
- 13
- Reaction score
- 0
Is it so dangerous for the average citizen that he is forced to carry a weapon? Anything that is used for self-protection can be used for assault. Where I live, the new weapon of choice for criminals is bear spray, usually police issue size. We had to close a whole MALL because a couple of moroons got into it and one sprayed pepper spray in the food court. I had to empty a classroom (I'm a Law and History teacher) again because someone let loose with some spray in the hallway. The point is, what's self-defense today, is an offensive weapon tomorrow. Tasers don't always work, just ask Rodney King.
OP
- Thread Starter
- #9
Some great replies!! Keep them coming! 
Speaking for myself, I personally think its a bad idea. There are civilians running around that own guns, and there are many cases of accidents happening with them. IE: not keeping them secured properly in the house. JKS brings up some very good points. The Taser is not a magic solution. LEOs go thru a training course and re-certs for these devices. If they're going to be given to civilians, they should also be required to be properly trained. I saw in the article that background checks are going to be conducted, but nothing on training. Here is another interesting comment:
It'll be interesting to see how many cases come up of MV stops and the police finding a Taser in the car or on someone. Another thing to take into consideration is what happens when they fall into the hands of the bad guys? We have people mugging others and using a gun, now they can just run up behind the person, zap them, etc.
It'll be interesting to see how things turn out.
Mike
Speaking for myself, I personally think its a bad idea. There are civilians running around that own guns, and there are many cases of accidents happening with them. IE: not keeping them secured properly in the house. JKS brings up some very good points. The Taser is not a magic solution. LEOs go thru a training course and re-certs for these devices. If they're going to be given to civilians, they should also be required to be properly trained. I saw in the article that background checks are going to be conducted, but nothing on training. Here is another interesting comment:
It'll be interesting to see how many cases come up of MV stops and the police finding a Taser in the car or on someone. Another thing to take into consideration is what happens when they fall into the hands of the bad guys? We have people mugging others and using a gun, now they can just run up behind the person, zap them, etc.
It'll be interesting to see how things turn out.
Mike
I hear ya brother..
Basically pepper spray strong enough to take down a bear! Oleresin Capsicum (O.C) <--thats if I spelled it right
Cheers! Not much call for that here I'm afraid, we hunted our bears to exctinction! Seriously though not very pleasant I should think when used on humans to say the least, more worrying than a taser though.
Cruentus
Grandmaster
Civies aren't allowed to carry tazers or stun guns in my state. This is a point of controversy among my LE friends and trainers. Opinions vary on this.
I think that reasonableness due to circumstance is what should vary between civie and LE, not tools of force.
I am of the opinion that for what is true for an officer regarding carry and use of force should be true for the citizen. I ascribe to the "old west" philosophy that the police are citizens with trusted responsibilities that go with the badge, but are citizens just the same. And I believe that it is every citizens responsibility to do what it takes to protect themselves and their own communities, not just the police.
Considering this, I don't think that the police should be allowed to carry a tool of force that the public can't, and vice versa. If the police can carry tazers, then so should private citizens. Reasonableness isn't bound only to those with a badge or to those without. A civie would still have to use reasonableness if he/she used a tazer, or be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
The reasonableness due to circumstance regarding use and carry of a tool is what should vary between officer and civie; but not ownership or carry of the tool. In other words, it would be reasonable for an officer to taze someone, if given fair warning, for not complying to reasonable verbal directives, as this avoids a physical altercation that could be injurious to both parties while making an arrest. In most circumstances, it would not be reasonable for a civie who's job IS NOT to enforce the law and who IS NOT making an arrest to taze someone for not complying with a verbal directive.
So, what varies is what is reasonable for an officer vs. a civie. What should not vary is the tool of force.
That said, using lethal force if under threat of a tazer should be considered reasonable under the right circumstance, for a civie or LE, as incapacitation could lead to severe injury or death. This is pending the totality of the circumstance, however. Obviously, I can't legally shoot an officer who gives fair warning of a pending taze because I am under arrest and I am not complying, where as a cop could shoot a criminal threatening him/her with a tazer, provided that it could be assumed that the intentions were to inflict grave bodily damage or death (by disarming the incapacitated officer and inflicting more damage, for example).
But, that is just what I think. Too bad that I think a lot of people will probably disagree with me on this.
I think that reasonableness due to circumstance is what should vary between civie and LE, not tools of force.
I am of the opinion that for what is true for an officer regarding carry and use of force should be true for the citizen. I ascribe to the "old west" philosophy that the police are citizens with trusted responsibilities that go with the badge, but are citizens just the same. And I believe that it is every citizens responsibility to do what it takes to protect themselves and their own communities, not just the police.
Considering this, I don't think that the police should be allowed to carry a tool of force that the public can't, and vice versa. If the police can carry tazers, then so should private citizens. Reasonableness isn't bound only to those with a badge or to those without. A civie would still have to use reasonableness if he/she used a tazer, or be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
The reasonableness due to circumstance regarding use and carry of a tool is what should vary between officer and civie; but not ownership or carry of the tool. In other words, it would be reasonable for an officer to taze someone, if given fair warning, for not complying to reasonable verbal directives, as this avoids a physical altercation that could be injurious to both parties while making an arrest. In most circumstances, it would not be reasonable for a civie who's job IS NOT to enforce the law and who IS NOT making an arrest to taze someone for not complying with a verbal directive.
So, what varies is what is reasonable for an officer vs. a civie. What should not vary is the tool of force.
That said, using lethal force if under threat of a tazer should be considered reasonable under the right circumstance, for a civie or LE, as incapacitation could lead to severe injury or death. This is pending the totality of the circumstance, however. Obviously, I can't legally shoot an officer who gives fair warning of a pending taze because I am under arrest and I am not complying, where as a cop could shoot a criminal threatening him/her with a tazer, provided that it could be assumed that the intentions were to inflict grave bodily damage or death (by disarming the incapacitated officer and inflicting more damage, for example).
But, that is just what I think. Too bad that I think a lot of people will probably disagree with me on this.
Cruentus
Grandmaster
Bear Spray is a needed tool for the woods in areas where bears, or even wolves and Coyotes are plentiful. The results are pretty nasty on humans, though. I would definatily rather be tazed then recieve bear spray to the face...
Wow. Another chance for the fifty cent version of my OC rant...
I suppose OC is better than nothing. It beats screaming for help, but let's take a good hard look at it.
When pepper spray first came out it was like a Star Trek phaser with a stun setting, at least according to the manufacturers. It blinded. It shut down "all but life support breathing". It would stop a charging bear in its tracks. It was a perfect protection against robbers and rapists. The FBI Academy's tests proved that it was 100% effective. In other words, it was just like every other new self defense product.
Then reality started to set in.
First, the agent in charge of the experimental trials at the Academy was convicted of taking an $800,000 bribe to slant the experiment the way the manufacturer wanted. After a couple high-profile cases of cops using it exactly as directed and getting stabbed to death the FTC got involved. MSI Mace was forced to retract all claims that it would stop violent attackers.
Then there was a bit of independent research. Once more, we all have to thank the peerless Phil Messina of Modern Warrior. He and his (mostly NYPD police officer) students have done quiet literally thousands of trials. Special cop-only pepper spray. Students who aren't enraged or on drugs. Trained dogs. Untrained dogs. Journalists. Regular people used as control subjects. The results were always absolutely consistent. It doesn't stop a goal-oriented person from carrying out his plan. Period.
The Berkeley PD department study was in line with this. Officers found that it made the situation worse as often as it helped, and more than half the time the officer got hosed down as well. Now pretty much every police or security guard training course for OC includes spraying the students so they understand you can fight through it.
ASLET, the American Society of Law Enforcement Trainers, has covered it over the years. Their recommendation was that it worked on "non-compliant non-violent suspects". In other words, Bubba doesn't want to get into the car, but Bubba isn't about to massage your head with a tire iron to underline the point. Hose Bubba down with OC, then cuff and stuff. It also works great for torturing passive protestors who have chained themselves to old growth redwoods.
I've been sprayed with special umpty hundred thousand SHU not-for-sale-to-mere-civilians cop-only OC by accident. Right in the face. I wasn't ready for it. You know what? I got motivated and goal oriented within about a tenth of a second. I decided that I had to extricate myself from the hold I was in, walk across a wrestling gym the size of a small airplane hanger (literally), go out the door, find the drinking fountain and start washing it out of my eyes. If I'd been doing crime that would have been about enough time to rob, rape and kill someone (in no particular order) and be halfway through my second beer. I made a serious unfriend in a local PD who came in to extoll the virtues of OC and his particular course. My standing offer of "I get a wooden knife or lipstick. You get the OC. $5 a cut. $10 a stab. No more than $1000" went begging for reasons at which I can only speculate :wink1:
Another thing to consider is the physiological effect. What does OC do, basically? It causes an allergic response. What is the body's immediate reaction? It dumps adrenaline. Congratulations. If he's still moving, he's really ticked off, and he's stronger, angrier and more impervious to pain. In fact, tests before and after spraying with OC show a marked increase in grip strength.
In short, there's a place for it. That place is not, no way, no how, not even a little for defense against violent criminals who lead you to fear that you are in danger of sexual assault, death, or serious injury. Maybe if you shove the canister down his throat and empty it it will stop him. Otherwise, no.
I suppose OC is better than nothing. It beats screaming for help, but let's take a good hard look at it.
When pepper spray first came out it was like a Star Trek phaser with a stun setting, at least according to the manufacturers. It blinded. It shut down "all but life support breathing". It would stop a charging bear in its tracks. It was a perfect protection against robbers and rapists. The FBI Academy's tests proved that it was 100% effective. In other words, it was just like every other new self defense product.
Then reality started to set in.
First, the agent in charge of the experimental trials at the Academy was convicted of taking an $800,000 bribe to slant the experiment the way the manufacturer wanted. After a couple high-profile cases of cops using it exactly as directed and getting stabbed to death the FTC got involved. MSI Mace was forced to retract all claims that it would stop violent attackers.
Then there was a bit of independent research. Once more, we all have to thank the peerless Phil Messina of Modern Warrior. He and his (mostly NYPD police officer) students have done quiet literally thousands of trials. Special cop-only pepper spray. Students who aren't enraged or on drugs. Trained dogs. Untrained dogs. Journalists. Regular people used as control subjects. The results were always absolutely consistent. It doesn't stop a goal-oriented person from carrying out his plan. Period.
The Berkeley PD department study was in line with this. Officers found that it made the situation worse as often as it helped, and more than half the time the officer got hosed down as well. Now pretty much every police or security guard training course for OC includes spraying the students so they understand you can fight through it.
ASLET, the American Society of Law Enforcement Trainers, has covered it over the years. Their recommendation was that it worked on "non-compliant non-violent suspects". In other words, Bubba doesn't want to get into the car, but Bubba isn't about to massage your head with a tire iron to underline the point. Hose Bubba down with OC, then cuff and stuff. It also works great for torturing passive protestors who have chained themselves to old growth redwoods.
I've been sprayed with special umpty hundred thousand SHU not-for-sale-to-mere-civilians cop-only OC by accident. Right in the face. I wasn't ready for it. You know what? I got motivated and goal oriented within about a tenth of a second. I decided that I had to extricate myself from the hold I was in, walk across a wrestling gym the size of a small airplane hanger (literally), go out the door, find the drinking fountain and start washing it out of my eyes. If I'd been doing crime that would have been about enough time to rob, rape and kill someone (in no particular order) and be halfway through my second beer. I made a serious unfriend in a local PD who came in to extoll the virtues of OC and his particular course. My standing offer of "I get a wooden knife or lipstick. You get the OC. $5 a cut. $10 a stab. No more than $1000" went begging for reasons at which I can only speculate :wink1:
Another thing to consider is the physiological effect. What does OC do, basically? It causes an allergic response. What is the body's immediate reaction? It dumps adrenaline. Congratulations. If he's still moving, he's really ticked off, and he's stronger, angrier and more impervious to pain. In fact, tests before and after spraying with OC show a marked increase in grip strength.
In short, there's a place for it. That place is not, no way, no how, not even a little for defense against violent criminals who lead you to fear that you are in danger of sexual assault, death, or serious injury. Maybe if you shove the canister down his throat and empty it it will stop him. Otherwise, no.
OP
- Thread Starter
- #17
Well, I'm not going to disagree on everything you said, as I think that you made some great points.
I'm not against guns or devices that people have to protect themselves, their families, etc. What I am against is the people who are careless with their actions. Going back to your wild west paragraph. Yes, the police are citizens who have that extra capability, duty, etc. My concern is that I'd like to see proper training. If a cop has to go thru training, a civi should as well. Proper use, storage, understanding the weapon...these are all things that need to be taught.Mike
Cruentus
Grandmaster
I think that the issue of OC spray is worth it's own discussion.
That said, I agree with a lot of what tellner said regarding it, but I don't agree fully with the assessment that it is near useless as a tool of less-lethal force or self-defense.
The problem with these tools is that the research used to sell the product is sponsered by companies with a business interest; so they tend to inflate the effectiveness of the tool.
The fact is, OC does restrict breathing and vision. With proper tactics, this could aid in a defenders escape, as it is difficult to chase and subdue someone with reduced visual and respitory functioning. Not to mention this, most criminals aren't completely determined psycho's or particularly athletic. They aren't looking for a sparring partner or a fight, they are looking for an easy victim most of the time. OC makes that task not easy for them.
So I think that it does have it's place for Self-defense if properly used.
That said, I agree with a lot of what tellner said regarding it, but I don't agree fully with the assessment that it is near useless as a tool of less-lethal force or self-defense.
The problem with these tools is that the research used to sell the product is sponsered by companies with a business interest; so they tend to inflate the effectiveness of the tool.
The fact is, OC does restrict breathing and vision. With proper tactics, this could aid in a defenders escape, as it is difficult to chase and subdue someone with reduced visual and respitory functioning. Not to mention this, most criminals aren't completely determined psycho's or particularly athletic. They aren't looking for a sparring partner or a fight, they are looking for an easy victim most of the time. OC makes that task not easy for them.
So I think that it does have it's place for Self-defense if properly used.
Cruentus
Grandmaster
Well, I'm not going to disagree on everything you said, as I think that you made some great points.
Mike
Yes, but the burden is on the individual to seek proper training. I may not be required to seek proper training to drive a boat under 65 feet, but that doesn't mean that I won't be held to the same standards as everyone else on the water.
So one should get "training," but I think that it is their responsibility to do so. They are the ones who will have to face the consequences if they don't.
