sgtmac_46
Senior Master
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2004
- Messages
- 4,753
- Reaction score
- 189
Handcuffs are not magic restraint devices that automatically make someone compliant. I can injure you severly with my hands cuffed behind my back. Hans Marrero made a video where in he is handcuffed, and then disarms an officer and shoots him with his own weapon, the whole time being handcuffed behind his back. The point is, being handcuffed does not automatically make you "restrained", a myth it's time to dispell. If you are handcuffed, you can still kick, bite, headbutt, etc. No reasonable policy should automatically state "no handcuffed subject should be tasered". If so, what level of force should be used on a violent handcuffed subject? That statement is not meant as any disrespect, however, as the handcuff belief is common among folks who have never dealt with a violent, resisting, handcuffed subject. I think it comes from watching TV and seeing that on TV, when the handcuffs are on, the fights over. But, as with much in real, violent situations, much of what people believe about it is myth.Tulisan said:
As for the earlier statement about Amnesty International and the ACLU, the proof of their real intent is shown in their process of selecting issues to crusade. Increasingly, Amnesty International has been nothing more than a tool for attacking US policy and law enforcement. They no longer champion human rights world wide, so much as make every attempt to handcuff and restrain civilian law enforcement from being able to enforce the law. This mind set is based upon the ideology of many of AI's current leadership, which have a radical left wing agenda. AI works hand in hand with many of the anarchist and neo-marxist groups who manage to cause such havoc anytime a G8 or WTO summit comes to town. The real reason that Amnesty International dislikes Taser and other less lethal technology, is that they feel less lethal technology is a threat to it's radical agenda. Protesters thrive on violent confrontations with the police. They spread their message by forcing the police in to an overreaction that results in bloodshed, thereby showing how "violent" and "repressive" the government is. Any tool that allows police to subdue violent protestors without bloodshed shortcircuits the protestors intent by denying them the sort of violent police response that will guarantee them media coverage and a sympathetic public. This is a concerted effort to deny the use of effective less lethal weaponry in the hands of law enforcement for a political agenda.
I've probably got more experience with the Taser M26 and X26 than anyone so far in this forum. I've been shocked numerous times with the taser, and the controversy over it's medical safety is purely contrived. AI's agenda is to force the Taser in to being a substitute for LETHAL force only. The ultimate goal of AI is to disarm law enforcement from carrying firearms, and force law enforcement to carry the taser in the place of the firearm, with the same restrictions as currently given to the firearm.
Don't fall for the fact that AI and the ACLU they desire any kind of independent study or any reasonable questions about the Taser to be answered. AI and the ACLU have an agenda, and they will not stop their onslaught until they achieve that agenda, which has nothing to do with the safety of the Taser. Many of the statistics provided by the ACLU and AI are distortions and outright lies.
The idea that Taser use has increased the incidents of use of force is a wild distortion of reality. The truth is that the Taser has been substituted for other uses of force. Our overall departmental uses of force have actually declined since we instituted the Taser. Further, the Orange Co. study cited a 76% reduction in SUSPECT injury since the Taser was introduced, in addition to the 86% reduction in Officer injury. AI and the ACLU don't cite that, they merely try and cook the numbers to reflect their agenda. If the Taser was not safe, it wouldn't be REDUCING injuries to suspects.
Ask the suspects what use of force they'd prefer given the choice. I know if I was a suspect, i'd far rather be Tasered, than pepper sprayed, struck with a baton, bean bagged, etc. (I've been hit with all of them.) When the Taser is turned off, it's over. OC Spray makes you suffer long after you've been subdued.
This same controversy occurred from AI and the ACLU 10 years ago over OC Spray. 20 years ago it was the LVNR. The Taser is just the cause du jour. They will distort, lie and manipulate public opinion until they get what they want.
I have an open invitation to anyone who believes that, though they have never worked in any kind of law enforcement capacity, that they know better than law enforcement how and when to use force, and how much force is reasonable. In the past i've volunteered to play "suspect" while these folks test out their "theories" about force. Most folks usually leave with a whole new perspective about force and what a reasonable officer should do in a given situation. The most eye openning are the ones who believe that a handcuffed suspect is restrained. A few kicks to their legs and a few knees to their body takes care of that illusion.
If this topic seems like it is one I take personally, it's because I do. I hear an awful lot of opinions about the Taser that have no basis in reality. There's a huge misunderstanding about the Taser and what it will and won't do. What really irritates me is that much of this misunderstanding is being purposely fostered by some with a political agenda. I know from intimate, personal experience with the Taser, that much of what is being said isn't true. Being shocked with the Taser is unpleasant, but it's nothing like what is being claimed. Anyone who has the experience of having been shocked by the Taser will know what I am talking about.
