taser (1 Viewer)

[Spitfrnd]

Well according to their website Thomas A. Swift's Electric Rifle is the correct answer so that is good enough for me.

Yes that is the problem with refusing to consider contrary information.

 

[fmethorst]

Debrito...

policing violent suspects is difficult and yes if you want a one on one then you have to have police officers having full on fist fights with suspects etc. Does not look good and many people in this country see five of six police officers restraining say one chap or a woman (they are harder to deal with) even old guys and think its terrible but, its about restraining not fighting and thats harder to do.

I think its about safety not guts. A taser stops the threat (on most occasions) immediately so as officers can handcuff a suspect quickly and descale real threats.

I see what you are saying sort of but, the coin side you are stating leads to more dead individuals on both sides. Then there would be something to moan about.
Pity it was not in the general section as its an interesting topic
Mitch

Actually the Robert Dziekanski incident is a low point in Canadian policiing and a disgrace.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Dzieka%C5%84ski_Taser_incident

I agree that the Taser is a useful tool in the police arsenal, however, I also believe that its "non-lethal" status potentially tempts officers to deploy it in more situations than are appropriate.

 

[thebritfarmer]

Yes that is the problem with refusing to consider contrary information.

We will agree to disgaree on this although I note you keep refering to it as a gun instead of rifle. You also say the A was added later so you have just condradicted yourself.

 

[Spitfrnd]

We will agree to disgaree on this although I note you keep refering to it as a gun instead of rifle. You also say the A was added later so you have just condradicted yourself.

I don't no what combative streak this has opened in you mate but there is nothing to disagree about. I have given you the historical explanation for the geneses of the name and why the A has no meaning and never did. If you chose to ignore the information for whatever reason, that is entirely up to you but it does not make it correct, no matter how much you want to trifle with it. FWIW, the Gun reference was a simple typo as I suspect you probably know. There is also no contradiction at all in noting that the A was added to the name, but that does not change the fact that the A has no meaning, contrary to the urban legend, there is no Thomas A Swift.

 

[thebritfarmer]

I don't no what combative streak this has opened in you mate but there is nothing to disagree about. I have given you the historical explanation for the geneses of the name and why the A has no meaning and never did. If you chose to ignore the information for whatever reason, that is entirely up to you but it does not make it correct, no matter how much you want to trifle with it. FWIW, the Gun reference was a simple typo as I suspect you probably know. There is also no contradiction at all in noting that the A was added to the name, but that does not change the fact that the A has no meaning, contrary to the urban legend, there is no Thomas A Swift.

I never said there was a Thomas A Swift, I simply stated that is what TASER stood for.

I know it was Thomas Swift Electric Rifle but it was changed to Thomas A Swift Electric Rifle which goes back to the original question what does TASER stand for.

 

[Mitch]

Frank...

Thanks for the link and we have in the UK had images where officers have gone ott as has the US and this seems to be Canada's. I think mI would rather be tasered than hit with batons which, I always believed were lethel weapons. I agree that officers now, not so much in the uk as its not readily available to front line officers, view this as primary defensive weapon rather than baton CS spray or gun but, thats a matter for training departments of the forces involved.

Its always a contentious issue when police are given new defensive tools and, as always seems to happen small numbers will spoil things for the majority of officers who will probably never deploy any of these tools.
Mitch

Actually the Robert Dziekanski incident is a low point in Canadian policiing and a disgrace.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Dzieka%C5%84ski_Taser_incident

I agree that the Taser is a useful tool in the police arsenal, however, I also believe that its "non-lethal" status potentially tempts officers to deploy it in more situations than are appropriate.

 

[Spitfrnd]

I never said there was a Thomas A Swift, I simply stated that is what TASER stood for.

I know it was Thomas Swift Electric Rifle but it was changed to Thomas A Swift Electric Rifle which goes back to the original question what does TASER stand for.

Never mind mate, we cannot seem to simply agree on a few simple words so the point is obviously lost in translation. The point is that there was never a Thomas A Smith in the context for which the device was named, hence there is no such name as Thomas A Swift Electric Rifle. That phrase is an after the fact creation by those with an apparent inability to understand the correct origin and history of the name. So if you want to believe TASER stands for an artificially made up name that never existed to join those ranks, please feel free; in a few more years they will probably even invent a name to go with the A.

 

[debrito]

Debrito...

policing violent suspects is difficult and yes if you want a one on one then you have to have police officers having full on fist fights with suspects etc. Does not look good and many people in this country see five of six police officers restraining say one chap or a woman (they are harder to deal with) even old guys and think its terrible but, its about restraining not fighting and thats harder to do.

I think its about safety not guts. A taser stops the threat (on most occasions) immediately so as officers can handcuff a suspect quickly and descale real threats.

I see what you are saying sort of but, the coin side you are stating leads to more dead individuals on both sides. Then there would be something to moan about.
Pity it was not in the general section as its an interesting topic
Mitch

First, I am sorry for my kind of frustration, apologise for that. However, there were many others incidents when police without any reason of use this weapon improperly (killing people) that makes me react like that. I am old fashion person, and I have no problem the fact that touching is wrong, so take the guy down put the knee on the head and neutralize him – handcuff the guy and send to the station. They are police, and have been training for that.

 

[Mitch]

debrito...

No need for apologies to me mate. Its just not as easy to bring the training environment into the real world. Its a dangerous world we live in and not every police officer reacts the way we may want or expect. I always breath and remember first they are human beings and, what we see as not a threat or a situation which may have not required this or, should have required that is often seen differently to those who the threat is aimed at.

I am not condoning some of the excessives that are seen it just has to be looked at as a whole not just the high profile negative cases.
Mitch

First, I am sorry for my kind of frustration, apologise for that. However, there were many others incidents when police without any reason of use this weapon improperly (killing people) that makes me react like that. I am old fashion person, and I have no problem the fact that touching is wrong, so take the guy down put the knee on the head and neutralize him – handcuff the guy and send to the station. They are police, and have been training for that.

 

[Fusilier]

First, I am sorry for my kind of frustration, apologise for that. However, there were many others incidents when police without any reason of use this weapon improperly (killing people) that makes me react like that. I am old fashion person, and I have no problem the fact that touching is wrong, so take the guy down put the knee on the head and neutralize him – handcuff the guy and send to the station. They are police, and have been training for that.

Debrito-
I would like to chime in as a law enforcement officer. First off, the TASER is not what many people think it is. It is certainly not a super, end all, be all thing. It is a tool, just like everything else we carry. Too many people, especially law enforcement officers, think of the TASER as a safety net. Some officers do, even if it is subconsciously, feel that they don't have to worry about thier combative skills since they have this tool. Nothing could be further from the truth.

As you say, it is from time to time used improperly. While that is not the majority of the time, it does happen. Part of the problem is virtually every agency has different policies on the use of the TASER. For example, the agency I work for has the TASER listed on our force continuum (levels of control) at the same level as an impact weapon, ie, the baton. So, I would only be justified in using the TASER if I would also be justified in using the baton in the same circumstances.

However, other agencies I am near have vastly different policies. Some agencies list the TASER at the same level as pressure point techniques or striking techniques. Obviously, an officer in these agencies can deploy a TASER in circumstances with a much lower level of resistance. This aspect alone can explain some of the wide range of use with this tool.

At the same time, during training, most officers who carry the TASER are required to experience it. Let me tell you, it seems about the longest 5 seconds of your life. Especially if you enjoy the sensation of breathing..... But anyway, officers are taught, that after deploying the TASER, the subject is mostly likely immediatly incapacitated, with no major injuries afterwards. This is in obviously in contrast to the use of strikes, baton, ect, where you can have injuries following. I think some officers are afraid to strike with fist, knee, or use baton because they are afraid of causing injury, which they might be sued for later. Some of these offices will think, 'Hey, I just tase this guy, he will be fine, then situation resolved." They fall into the 'TASER is the end all, be all' crowd. This applies to both male and female officer too, in case anyone was wanting to ask.

I guess what it comes down to is the officer has to justify what they do, just like everything else. In my agency, the threshold for using any technique or tool it this: Does the use of this technique or weapon fall into the legal, medical, and tactical considerations of this situation. If so, you are fine. If not, you have a lot to answer for.

The TASER itself is not the problem. It is the misapplicaiton of it that causes sensational stories like the in Canada you referenced. I was not there, so I will not say whether or not they were correct. I will allow though, it doesn't look good to those outside this profession. Sorry this is a little long, but it is important to me.

Noah

 

[Mitch]

The most important tool a policeman carries in his defensive capability is his mouth.
Mitch