sgtmac_46 said:
Yes, that was classic!!:rofl:
Mike
The continuing war against Taser Internation
- Thread starter sgtmac_46
- Start date
Yes, that was classic!!:rofl:
Mike
OP
sgtmac_46
Senior Master
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2004
- Messages
- 4,753
- Reaction score
- 189
- Thread Starter
- #23
I've hard it best said, that Taser has simultaneously been A) One of the most wonderfully effective and safe tools to ever become available to law enforcement and B) A public relations nightmare. How these two things could have happen bears some examination.arnisador said:
Was this the result of some sort of flawed marketing and PR work on the part of Taser International or on the part of Police, or is it the result of forces beyond the control of either one?
I think it sounds too much like a sci-fi weapon to people. Electric shock sounds cruel--people don't stop and think that getting shot is the alternative in many cases.
I don't know if others will think this a related topic, but I do:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051127/ap_on_re_us/armed_off_duty
Do we need non-lethal alternatives to guns? Yes, I think so.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051127/ap_on_re_us/armed_off_duty
Do we need non-lethal alternatives to guns? Yes, I think so.
OP
sgtmac_46
Senior Master
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2004
- Messages
- 4,753
- Reaction score
- 189
- Thread Starter
- #26
"An old police tradition of requiring off-duty officers to carry their weapons — "always armed, always on duty" — is being scaled back in police departments nationwide, increasingly being blamed for the deaths of officers shot by colleagues who thought they were criminals. "
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051127/ap_on_re_us/armed_off_duty
The case of officers shooting armed off-duty officers is almost entirely a training issue. It is the duty of the off-duty officer to respond appropriately upon the arrival of uniformed officers. Failure to respond appropriately can lead to misidentification, with sometimes deadly consequences.
The statement that it's the on-duty officers responsibility to recognize off-duty officers is bogus, for the most part, as it's far easier to identify an on duty officer (duh, uniform), than a plain-clothes one. Again, it's the off-duty officers responsibility to properly identify himself and respond appropriately.
Also, I feel the citation of 43 officers killed by 'friendly fire' statistic is misleading. The reality is, maybe 6 or 7 officers have been killed as the result of misidentification since 1987, which hardly represents any kind of trend, and basically relegates the situation to the realm of 'freak accident'. The biggest threat to law enforcement officers, at the present time, is traffic.
I do agree, however, that officers should not be required to intervene off-duty. A little discretion goes a long ways in preventing just this type of incident.
It should be noted that congress passed the National Law Enforcement Right to Carry law last year, allowing certified police officers to carry off-duty anywhere in the country. I believe this was a very good law, and long overdue. Again, however,it is the responsibility of the carrying officer to ensure his own safety and security with virtue to responding officers.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051127/ap_on_re_us/armed_off_duty
The case of officers shooting armed off-duty officers is almost entirely a training issue. It is the duty of the off-duty officer to respond appropriately upon the arrival of uniformed officers. Failure to respond appropriately can lead to misidentification, with sometimes deadly consequences.
The statement that it's the on-duty officers responsibility to recognize off-duty officers is bogus, for the most part, as it's far easier to identify an on duty officer (duh, uniform), than a plain-clothes one. Again, it's the off-duty officers responsibility to properly identify himself and respond appropriately.
Also, I feel the citation of 43 officers killed by 'friendly fire' statistic is misleading. The reality is, maybe 6 or 7 officers have been killed as the result of misidentification since 1987, which hardly represents any kind of trend, and basically relegates the situation to the realm of 'freak accident'. The biggest threat to law enforcement officers, at the present time, is traffic.
I do agree, however, that officers should not be required to intervene off-duty. A little discretion goes a long ways in preventing just this type of incident.
It should be noted that congress passed the National Law Enforcement Right to Carry law last year, allowing certified police officers to carry off-duty anywhere in the country. I believe this was a very good law, and long overdue. Again, however,it is the responsibility of the carrying officer to ensure his own safety and security with virtue to responding officers.
Good news for Taser Intl. from the SEC, which found in its favour:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051213/ap_on_bi_ge/taser_sec_7
Albuquerque police getting more Tasers:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/koat/20051215/lo_koat/3125314
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051213/ap_on_bi_ge/taser_sec_7
Albuquerque police getting more Tasers:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/koat/20051215/lo_koat/3125314
arnisador said:
News this week looks a lot better.
Taser international has filed the forms needed and will be back on the boards as TASR as of Friday.
http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/051222/taser_delisting.html?.v=1
The eighth wrongfull death suit against the company has been dismissed, there has never been a loss against them.
http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=129937&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=798094&highlight=
And Arizona has agreed that the new language they use for their product indicating that it has a lot better record than any other police device is acceptable and has dropped their case against them.
http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/051222/taser_arizona_inquiry.html?.v=2
All this week.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051227/ap_on_re_us/police_shooting
I saw some of this on CNN. They used pepper spray and it did not work. The guy was surrounded by about 20 police officers and when he finally lunged at them quite a few let loose at the same time.
Its weird that this happened just after I posted on this thread.
I have to wonder if the reason none of these guys had a taser was because they were worried about the possibilities of it killing a suspect.
But in this case, there was never even the possibility of trying to save him while stopping his attack. A mentally ill man has been killed in a justified shooting- possibly because of the worries created by trial lawyers.
I saw some of this on CNN. They used pepper spray and it did not work. The guy was surrounded by about 20 police officers and when he finally lunged at them quite a few let loose at the same time.
Its weird that this happened just after I posted on this thread.
I have to wonder if the reason none of these guys had a taser was because they were worried about the possibilities of it killing a suspect.
But in this case, there was never even the possibility of trying to save him while stopping his attack. A mentally ill man has been killed in a justified shooting- possibly because of the worries created by trial lawyers.
OP
sgtmac_46
Senior Master
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2004
- Messages
- 4,753
- Reaction score
- 189
- Thread Starter
- #31
I have little doubt the over-emphasis on bogus allegations against Taser kept this life-saving tools out of these officers hands. A Taser might have meant this guy would be getting help, instead of being buried.Don Roley said:
I wonder what we think about Amnesty Internationals proposed moritorium in light of this?
As for killing suspects, the Missouri State Highway patrol had an in custody death the other day, of a male subject high on PCP that fought with two troopers for 10 minutes. After finally restraining him, with the help of a passing off-duty MP, he collapsed and went in to cardiac arrest. Just like all the Taser deaths...except no Taser. Why? Because none of the Taser deaths were caused by Taser, they were caused by a larger problem. Drug induced, violent, combative suspects going in to cardiac arrest as a result of exertion and drug use.
