Probably because we're mostly NYers and hardly any of us have cars or drive very often.

A handgun is a necessary evil. I've tried to explain the problem with escalation of force for tasers here.

shit happens Just visualize it on a tombstone:


Here Lies John Doe

Shit Happened
How many people get intoxicated get into a car and kill someone? Straw-man.

ohh thats right I forgot most new yorkers are carrying the TASER 3000XX....I hear it comes in PINK for women....its kept for those occasions when the bums are sleeping on the subway platform benches.

Not only that, a poor fitting one Zip.

T5P, when was the last time you could carry your groceries home in a Tazer?

Apples and Elephants here my friend.

the taser will not go away....it must be watched for abuse.....but the coppers use it so they don't have to shoot...would you like to give them a sock full of rubberbands maybe or maybe we could call for a timeout like we use to when we were 9 yrs. old

ZIPPY sorry to offend you but the expression was meant to make like light of dicsussion we could have until the cows come home.....sometimes people die and it is a problem for law enforcement, these men and women take the risk of putting on the uniform and strapping on the taser....they too have fear, we are not superheroes like in the movies....we have love one's who worry at home or work...worry if we will get hurt, die or if we do something that's not in the public's opinion totally right, what may happen all for pennies a day.

T5P, the point being that cops do not appreciate the instrument they are weilding. they see it on a level that is not appropriate with its actual risk.

Teh thing they have to appreciate is the pain it brings, and the distinct possibility that it can, and has caused, death.

The example of the sicko on the ledge is just plain stupidity. They could have just used a pole and shoved him off the ledge. The cop was not thinking. But in other cases, it is used a bit too liberally because it is SO easy and completely allowed.

We are only seeing the tip of an iceberg here. As the SWORN statements released by that cop that tagged that bike rider in NYC, we can never be sure when a cop is doing the right thing just because his squad mates say he is.

This is not a problem with all cops and all departments. This is probably a relatively small % that are making things difficult. The answer lies in making uer teh cops are willing to not only educate the force in the true weight of the weapon they are carying, but also in the honor and image they are supposed to be projecting.


The public should not live in fear of the police. It does not help the people, and it doesn't make a cops job or life any easier.

I agree with you Ninja but the other side of the coin is the taser is a tool that law enforcement has chosen to use......the small percentage of law enforcement that actually carry it would suprise yourself. Please remember in the city in the last ten years you have not recruited the cream of the crop.......you could almost call them square badges a term we use for cops who might be suited elsewhere
Despite what you hear from city hall the people that have been hired well let we say are just a warm body to fill a seat. The promise of an exciting career does not out weigh paying the bills and that is the plain truth......the taser will stay, you will never see a cop carrying it unless the are in emergency services and most of those men and women have military backrounds, but for the majority they are carried by supervisor's....

You're missing what I'm saying.

It 's not about the choice between using a taser or a handgun. It's about situations where neither should be used.

And analogies such as "using rubberbands" or "timout for 9 year olds" are just more straw-men. And silly.

Zippy can we agree that tasers are an effective tool.....and should be used when necessary?
At least that way I know where I stand on this conversation with you.

Also the references I used about the timeouts are intended to be taken as part of a spirited debate over a subject that recently was not in the media.

The topic of this thread is not whether tasers are an effective tool, but how they are being used (or misued) by law enforcement.

There are six examples of police taserings in this thread. Are any of them justified?

Reduce Suspect Injuries By Up To 80%
While most people know that a TASER ECD is certainly far safer to the recipient than a bullet from a firearm, many people do not realize that a TASER device exposure represents a significantly lower risk of injury than traditional hands-on force tactics. When faced with a violent, resistant subject – the use of a TASER device reduces the risk of injury not only to the officers involved, but the offender as well. (See Figure 1.3).
http://www.taser.com/Styles/Images/spacer.gif
Figure 1.1 http://www.taser.com/SiteCollectionImages/le/le_001.jpg Figure 1.2 http://www.taser.com/SiteCollectionImages/le/le_002.jpg Figure 1.3 http://www.taser.com/SiteCollectionImages/le/le_003.jpgZippy overall the use of the taser is far more effective than you care to agree....And of course the incident in the Village was wrong, but the incident with the naked man walking was absolutely right on. If things were done on a case by case basis we still would be using rubberbands.
I see how your thinking to this topic is, you did.t answer the question I had previously asked you so your non answer is your answer.

Zippy, who do you think you are to question the conduct of an officer of the law? Only those in the line of fire may judge how police authority and force is meted out and whether it is justified. Mere civilians should get on their knees and start licking boots, otherwise they get what's coming to them. If they're lucky it'll be a taser rather than a firearm.

From PoliceOne.com:
Officers often find that it was much easier winning the actual "battle" on the street than winning the "war" in court. We need to remember that it is not enough to do the right thing. An officer has to be able to explain why his/her use of force was the right thing to do. To this we often have to "educate" the jury to the realities of the use of force. To do this, an officer needs to be able to "articulate", i.e. explain why their actions were "reasonable."

A great tool for this purpose is to understand what are referred to as "Special Circumstances" in an officer's Threat Assessment Opportunities. These refer to an open-ended list of reasons for what is often referred to as "skipping steps" or "rapid escalation" through an officer force options. In short, things are getting crazy and the normal step-by-step escalation of force isn't going to suffice. Officer Safety requires rapid escalation to top force options.

Here is a partial listing:

If your an EDP be glad its a taser and not the firearm or a nightstick across your skull, they tend to be much more messy.

If you're not going to address the point I'm making, there's no point in continuing this debate with you.

While most people know that a TASER ECD is certainly far safer to the recipient than a bullet from a firearm, Again, we're not talking about a comparison between a taser and a bullet. It's between a bullet and no force, or a taser and no force.

If things were done on a case by case basis we still would be using rubberbands. So after I tell you that "rubberbands" is a silly straw-man, you offer a muddled explanation, and then go right back to it.

"Much more messy" in court, right?

In which of the examples was there an EDP?

Zippy
I see no further response from me it seems this will not get us anywhere.

Ohh sorry the guy walking down the road mumbling about Bruce Willis...thats an EDP emotionally disturbed person

And he was a danger to whom?

Bruce Willis?