Law Enforcement Agents: What do you think of this...?

Question

Should stun guns be used for anything other than an absolute last resort?

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=2675812&page=1

I am not saying they should be outlawed but used with similar if not the same discretion of a firearm.

Patti: Read the link

I take it Law Enforcement is not adequately trained to deal with persons with epilepsy. This is really quite frightening.

Answer 1

Tasers should be a weapon of last resort because they kill, all right. But because they are supposed to be non-lethal, I think police are too ready to use them.
There was a particularly brutal incident in Vancouver, British Columbia on October 14, and that was the 3rd death by taser in BC this year. They have been linked to over 100 deaths in the US since 2002.

Answer 2

Until you have looked into the eyes of someone who has no soul you will never realize how much danger we law enforcement officers are on a daily basis. There are more times when a stun gun is of no use. Emotionally disturbed people for example. They pose a great risk to LEO (law enforcement officers) they are unpredictable and dangerous but you will rarely find any LEO who will use a stun gun on such a person. In addition stun guns sometimes don't work. Given the choice between something uncomfortable for a short time instead of say a broken arm, (one of the side effects from an asp) or an asthma attack (side effect of OC spray which more times than not is not effective either) which do you choose? LEO's use their gun only in dire situations. I find it absurd that people who usually complain the loudest about the use of weapons by LEO's forget that there was another person involved in the situation. The guy who stole from the department store who refused to stop when asked who pulled a gun in a place where kids were. The guy who raped a child who refused to stop and pulled a gun. The guy who did not comply when asked to leave and instead threw a punch at an LEO. Why does the public seem to forget that the other person (the one tased) was committing or had committed a crime? As one of those persons who risks their lives nightly so others can sleep peacefully, I question the quickness of others to make judgements based on the criminals portrayal of "wrongdoing." I will admit there are bad apples in every profession. When those apples commit crimes they too need to be prosecuted. I wish it was the same for the criminals. Too often the courts allow those who hurt others to "get out of jail free" to commit more crimes and threaten other people.

Answer 3

The News just reports the details of the story as they've been given them. It doesn't mean the details are correct.

Quite a coincidental chain of events. Someone just happens to have a seizure, that happens often enough. But now, a neighbor sees the seizure and interprets it as a 'criminal act'?

And then the police get there, who have seen epiliptic seizures many times, but suddenly can't figure this one out and taze the guy?

And it's a Grand Mal, enough to make him go through the fits, but wait, it's not really, because it's only a 'partial' fit and it causes aggressive behavior? Oh, please! Even soap operas make more sense!

Had there actually been a medical excuse for the defendant's actions, a doctor would have been able to specify it at trial. Instead, the defendant had to relay on a 'temorary insanity' defense to beat the rap.

And people also tend to overuse their epilepsy as an excuse for behavior that is actually unrelated to it. Tasers don't kill people and the defendant's statement that it could have resulted in his death due to his epilepsy is a specious argument.

Answer 4

What do you think police should do? Just because these officers may have used poor judgment (you weren't there) doesn't mean teasers should be outlawed. They are a valuable tool for educated officers. Tasers save lives. Criminals have a much higher chance of survival when tased as opposed to getting shot with a gun. I hate to see naive people fall victim to sensationalism from the media.

Answer 5

No.

His medic alert bracelet? I'm supposed to walk up and try to read it. The symptoms of his partial complex seizure they listed, are the same symptoms an AH whacked out on dope displays.

It seems like those that are not law enforcement will never get it. We do not have the luxury of trying to calmly stop and hold the hand of every suspect because they may be having a seizure or some other issue.

That BS will get us killed. Alot less cops are killed because we have to be careful. Is there a solution for this. Not that I can see.

Answer 6

A bullet is a last resort. Stun guns keep police officers and the people they protect safer. They give officers an extra step between OC, baton, and gun, which means a suspect has a greater chance of surviving.

Answer 7

i dont think they should be outlawed,, but i do think they are being used far to much and for the wrong reasons... ie:Vancouver Airport.. beforethe taser officers were able to take down offenders without the tasergun,,by hand...( hand to hand combat training) so why dont they continue to do it that way,,because blasting someone with a taser is easier and faster..

Answer 8

Again, I would rather a tazer be used on a love one, then a cop emptying their firearm into them. Less than lethal force (usually less than lethal) is a step forward, not backwards.

Answer 9

IN THE ESCALATION OF FORCE CHART, DEADLY FORCE AS THE LAST RESORT WOULD BE A WEAPON.

THE STUN GUN IS ABOUT TWO STEPS BELOW THIS AS A USE OF FORCE UNDER AGGRAVATED AGGRESSION.