what is your view on the use of tasers by law enforcement offical?

Answer 1

In the incident with Kerry, it was totally unjustified. More importantly...those cops (or security gaurds, or whatever they call themselves) were MORONS!

You don't taser a guy in the middle of a forum like that. You carry him outside first, then beat him up. Any bar bouncer knows this fact.

Answer 2

The use of a taser is better than other, more lethal methods. The problem is when should (not can) an officer use it. The police can, legally do lots of things and almost all of them, to their credit, restrain themselves unless absolutely necessary. The police, in the recent case, were probably legally authorized to use the taser.

Although I wasn't asked the question, and I wasn't there in the scrum to see what was going on, I'll give my opinion anyway. :) In the most recent instance, I don't think they should have used it. Frankly, I don't care what the 'proper procedure' is or how it can be spun to accommodate this instance. There were several security guards on top of this kid (yes - kid). In one photo I count 5 guards and each of them was larger than this kid.

In my opinion, he wasn't out of control at all. He asked his questions clearly and quickly without any type of derogatory language (although the questions themselves were misguided). He wasn't making any threatening gestures, remarks, etc. This was not some sort of threatening environment (ie. gang-infested area, anti-war rally, war zone, etc..). I certainly wouldn't characterize the kid as irate either. He had simply not finished asking his questions. Actually, I was very surprised at how calm he was. Even when the guards tried to take him down, he kept saying 'what did I do?'. Kerry said he would answer the kid's question not once, but twice and security didn't listen to Kerry.

In the end, this reflects on Kerry. I'm really suprised that these guards did something like this when a US Senator was speaking. You'd think that they would be prepared for some silly kid saying something stupid. Even the most uneducated bouncer knows not to come down on a guy until after he's out of the bar. These are trained, professional police officers. They clearly let the situation get out of control if they really needed to use a taser.

I'm all for keeping order, but why can't 5 guards subdue a 150lb kid without tasering him??

Answer 3

If a guy or woman has a pre present situation a taser CAN kill yet in maximum circumstances it wont. law enforcement officials are taught to shoot on the physique in a killing shot so the wrongdoer doesnt get a huge gamble to kill THEM!!! it would be extra perfect to be tasered by a police officer than shot!!! whether i think of using tasers is transforming into user-friendly place and it would be dealt with as a gun is that is as a risky weapon!!! do no longer use except unquestionably needed!!!

Answer 4

If you're talking about the speech Kerry gave, in which a student was tasered because he wouldn't yield the microphone, the cops were way out of line. But instead, the cops are looking at pressing felony charges against the student for violently resisting arrest.

What kind of protests would this have created had the student been black?

If you're talking about tasers in general, the cops need the same restrictions on using them that they have on using deadly force.

Answer 5

Unless you're dealing with a really deranged or drugged out suspect tasers are highly effective. Better than the other options like lethal force or the risk of injury to an officer or officers trying to wrestle the man down.

Answer 6

well i think they are hilarious... no seriously, they are effective and non lethal which is very important, though they do pose dangers. Such as paralysis, burns, numbness, loss of consciousness, nerve, mucle or tissue damage but so far not death, unlike a gun which'll leave a scar at and muscle, nerve or tissue damage at the very least. So if i were a criminal running from the fuzz then i would hope they are coming with tasers so i can shoot them. As i said before the use of tasers poses a danger but not only the unlucky many privey to its direct effects.

Answer 7

They seem to be quite effective. When used by a law enforcement official as self-defense, I approve of their use without reservation. Of course, I approve without reservation ANYONE using them in self defense.

When they are used for the purpose of subduing suspects, I qualify my support. When they are used excessively or abusively, officers are guilty of assault and should be charged just as anyone else. If they are used on an innocent person, the officers are guilty of assault. If an officer had good reason to believe that a person was guilty and made a mistake, it's fair to consider this in sentencing. But it doesn't absolve the officer of their crime.

In my opinion, there is too much acceptance of strong-arm police behavior. Otherwise innocent people who simply resist (or even appear to resist) arrest are said to have gotten what they deserve. I believe that this attitude is damaging to our liberties and it is damaging to the respect that ought to be given well-intentioned law enforcement officers.

Police should be afforded every right to defend themselves in their dangerous occupation. But they are not nor ever should be above the law.

Answer 8

I think that tasers are good when used properly. I know some police officers who can't wait to use them and in this case it is wrong. I just hate to hear police officers brag about using them and how much pain they caused when in my opinion they were not needed. I can't stand bullies in uniform or out.

Answer 9

I suppose it's better than using the old truncheon, or nightstick.

Sometimes people need to be subdued, and it seems ralatively humane and safe. Also, if it prevents the cops from having to wrestle some psycho then I'm all for it.

Answer 10

They are effective.
They produce fewer lasting injuries than other methods of subduing a suspect.
They produce less risk to the public when used on a running suspect.