Right
on schedule, Taser's launching the TASER X3 "force option," which allows "peace officers" the ability to shoot up to three probes in quick succession in order to "incapacitate" their "targets." Not only that, but the X3 can display a "warning arc" when loaded, allowing officers to "gain voluntary compliance" and "avert use-of-force" by putting on a light show. When it comes time to take down that unruly Trustafarian, however, it'll get done with style -- the probes are aimed with laser sights, and the new Pulse Calibration System actively monitors the perp to deliver a Precision Shaped Pulse(TM) that provides "consistent effects." Yeah, we want one. Video after the break.
posted Jul 27th 2009 6:26PM
how much?
All of your civil liberties.
@Sisyphus
Best reply I've seen in the couple years I've been reading Engadget.
@sisyphus: Are you saying that the police should default to real guns, or that we shouldn't have police at all? Sure, every once in a while there's an idiotic incident of excessive force, giving a bad name to everybody else, but if you compare that to the number of times non-lethal force is used every day, you'll find it to be infinitesimally small. Taking tasers away from from cops isn't going to reduce excessive force because tasers aren't the cause. Besides, that thing looks freakin' sweet. I know I'd be intimidated into "voluntary compliance".
I'd be okay with little to no police.
Your left and right nuts. With an extra taser shot to each of them if the first one fails.
Just like LA was, right?
Sisyphus the way your avatar looks at the OP is just icing on the cake.
According to my local news $1,800.
There are multiple cases where police officers use tazers in completely unnecessary situations. See the death of Robert Dziekanski at the Vancouver airport.
I think that the only situations that warrant tazer use are stand offs with subjects clearly holding potentially deadly melee weapons that could inflict serious hard on police if they try to subdue by hand. There's too many factors that could lead to the death of someone that a tazer is used upon.
How long before taser gatling guns?
Tazer International still goes to extraordinary lengths to claim that its products are non-lethal yet there are many documented instances where that is clearly not the case. One of the most compelling is the case of a new immigrant, Robert Dziekanski, who was Tazered 4 times by four RCMP officers at Vancouver airport and died within minutes. The police issued laughable excuses that were later disproven in an investigation and may yet be held criminally liable. If one of those offices had had an X3, I guess he'd have died even more efficiently. The argument that Tazers are less lethal than a bullet depends on how they are used. Police forces are far more likely to discharge a Tazer than a firearm simply because they believe that these devices are non-deadly.
Guns are not always fatal.
So we should classify them as non-lethal?
It boils down to this, would you rather a crack dealing child molester gets shot by a gun and dies or a taser gets arrested, 6 months later is on the streets again.
I bet most of you hippies (sissyfus) are fans of Boondock saints but you hate guns, war and police. You dont understand PEOPLE WANT TO HURT YOU!!! Until you realize that you will always be the victim. I have seen kids in school fight each other and have to go to the hospital because of concussions, broken bones and even ruptured kidneys- all of these could have been fatal if not treated in time yet guns/tasers are dangerous? you people live in the bubble of your moms basement; get out in the world and live!!!
An officer should use force when necessary. Now we have the technology to use non-lethal (most of the time) force in an effective way. Officers should treat tasers the same way they treat guns. Unfortunately, they sometimes feel it is ok to use a taser when there is no need for a gun. You wouldn't shoot someone in the back if they were resisting arrest. Where are your rights if you allow police to tase you when they feel like it?
If you are resisting arrest you forfeit your right not to be tazered. It's that simple.
Example
There is a drunk man at a parade, he is in a crowd of people trying to start a fight- a police officer tells him to calm down or leave the parade. The drunk man then raises his voice and turns to the crowd shouting how he has freedom of speech and he is aloud to tell whoever he wants whatever he wants. The police seeing the man growing more and more agitated and will soon become overly aggressive and will soon hurt someone in the crowd, the officer or himself. The officer then pulls out his taser and tells the man to calm down or he will be tased; the man now even more upset takes a step towards the officer, the crowd steps back waiting for the officer to react, and the officer pulls the trigger shocking the belligerent man, slaps some cuffs on him and then, BAM, the situation is dissolved the crowd can go back to its celebration, the officer is safe and filling out a handful of paperwork explaining why he used his taser, the man is calming down in the back of a police car.
"I bet most of you hippies"
Actually I'm a well-educated, philosophically radical, agnostic, libertarian gun owner who believes in the constitution, second amendment rights, and all of the other rights afforded me as a citizen of my country. And I'd be okay if everyone in my neighborhood owned guns too, because they'd get to help themselves out a hell of a lot quicker than the police ever could.
But go on calling 90% of people "hippies," while you relax in "Real America" and lick Sean Hannity's ballsack for blathering on about good and evil.
I would rather have little to no criminals.
Stun guns should only be used in place of guns. Not all the freaking time. You have to look at the situation and go 'would I shoot a person here'. If the answer is yes then you shoot them with your taser. If the answer is no then you don't shoot them with a taser. It's not a hard concept. Cops are way too trigger happy...
@murmermer
"If you are resisting arrest you forfeit your right not to be tazered. It's that simple.
Example........."
nice little story, but you are being sarcastic right? I can't tell whether you are joking or not...
A drunken man being boisterous, rude and offensive even, is in no way justification to tazer him. If he has no weapon he is not a lethal threat to anyone. A Tazer should really only be used in a similar situation that you would use a gun. Would you shoot a man with a gun for shouting?
If a policeman cannot subdue a drunk man without using a gun or a tazer, then he is not much of a policeman. Isn't that the reason they have night sticks?
murmermer
There is nothing you can do that forfiets your fundamental human rights, even convicted criminals and prisoners of war maintain basic human rights. Police are required to use a proportional response to a threat, so physical force can only be used to subdue a physically violent person. A taser is supposed to be an alternative to a gun, a last option before lethal force to subdue a violent person, sadly what the police are actually doing is using it as an obeidience tool to beat people into line when they don't jump fast enough at a command.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmByfTKKUV4
Here's a guy who is fully compliant at all times and never threatening actually being told to lie down so he can be tasered
He even does so, displaying absolute compliance and is still tasered!. That's not a professional police officer, that's just a vindictive idiot who can't wait to use his new "toy"
Don't Tase me bro!
Here in the real world, where there's a population density of more than a couple people per square mile, abstracted libertarian "ideals" don't hold up because most people are too goddamned stupid to use weaponry only for defense. The best compromise is a well-equipped, well-trained police force, and this is an effective step toward that. I'd rather see people get shocked and in very rare cases done lasting harm than beaten with clubs and have it happen every time.
Police brutality makes the news because--guess what--it IS news. It's not common. The innocent have nothing to fear. If you don't want to be tased stop breaking the law. If you're not breaking the law then this shouldn't matter to you at all.
Taser, Taser, Taser? So they tase all the girls at the company?
lol @ Americans
lol @ sanctimonious jackasses from other countries who think they are better than Americans when in reality they have the same public safety issues to be concerned with.
Here's an idea, each time a cop uses a taser he has to pay 300 bucks out of his own pocket, I wonder how necessary to save lives it would then suddenly be eh.
At least we don't spend more time talking about HOW to do things than we do actually DOING them.
I guess I wouldn't know about since I hate freedom and all that jazz.
I'm surprised the girls were wearing white pants. My neighbor got tazed in a drunken stupor a couple years ago and unloaded her bladder super quick.
I don't think those girls were in a drunken stooper.
Btw: I've been tased and I didn't wet myself.
@nrb
I'm so proud of you! Not wetting your pants while being tased is remarkably difficult eh? Perhaps we should all try to understand what being tased feels like as you have.
"I'm so proud of you! Not wetting your pants while being tased is remarkably difficult eh?"
Your sarcasm is noted. You may also notice that this sub-thread was about wetting onesself when being tased. It happens, especially to drunks with full bladders. Yes, there is a humorous side to it, but it's a legitimate issue.
"Perhaps we should all try to understand what being tased feels like as you have."
If it's a topic that you're passionate about, I would recommend you go through it. Make sure you pee first.
Holy crap! You don't faze me bro!
Hey, i am 12 and what is this ?
i don't even
should I?
too late. http://lmgtfy.com/?q=taser
This is the device that allows u to pwn 3 n@@bs at once (in a good way)
I hope this taser will be in Modern Warfare 2. :)
Considering all of the 'non-lethal' activity taking place, concluding with Police using excessive force to taser a man's rectum in Boise, Idaho, I'm not happy to be hearing a member of Engadget's staff talking about these as if they're the latest and greatest toys. How you'd like to be tasered and then die from a 'non-lethal' heart-attack. Geez.
Hmm... was it Australia where they tazed a man and he lit on fire? I see nothing good coming from 3 human fires, especially in Australia.
If I had to choose between being shot with a taser and being shot with a normal gun I know what I would pick
"Warning arc"? From the website and all info I can gather about Tasers, you get 1 (or 3) shots. If you miss, the perp is on you and your Taser is useless. Why not put a traditional stun gun on the Taser in case you miss? .. or get a .38 special.
- Texas resident
@Phil Perman: that only works if tasers are used in place of guns. Evidence (here in Canada at least, see "Robert Dziekański") shows they are not. If I had to pick between a beat down or being shot by a potentially lethal taser, I'd probably take a beat down.
@Phil Perman
Can I ask why you assume that any given situation only has two outcomes: Gun or Taser? What happened to using self defense skills to disable your opponent with minimal harm to both. All I ask is that if we were to adopt the use of Tasers then we should treat it like a gun and ONLY use it as a last resort. Using a taser against someone who is UNARMED is unethical and dubious. If the suspect has a gun or a knife then yes a police officer should have the option to use the taser. Otherwise it is excessive.
@ Matt: Yes, usually if you tase a gasoline-soaked man, he will catch on fire. However, when he douses himself in gasoline and threatens to set himself on fire with a lighter while running towards you, you have to do what you have to do. They could have shot him, but didn't. Learn the whole story before jumping on the LE-bash bandwagon.
@ Chip: If you remove the cartridge the arc still exists across the two terminals, and can be used as a traditional stun "gun." You're right about the missing concern. That's the biggest flaw about the Taser. Until we get star trek style phasers, it will also continue to be a concern. Plus, you can't always use a firearm in situations where a Taser might be appropriate.
Of course, most people believe they are being somehow morally superior by being opposed to Tasers and screaming "OMG POH-LEESE OPPRESHUNS!!1111oneoneon" without:
1) Ever having been actually oppressed by the police.
2) Somehow not realizing that it's far, far worse to be tackled by multiple policeman and/or hit with an ASP baton or even OC spray. Getting tased is a far better alternative than any of those, both for you and the officer.
Chip, it's not useless on a miss. The catridge pops off and you can use the Taser as a traditional, and very powerful, stun gun.
Phil, that's exactly the point. Many departments use the Taser as an alternative to shooting you. In fact, many departments require lethal cover (another officer with gun drawn) before the taser is deployed.
Matt, yes there is a risk. In fact, they discourage deployment while spraying mace. The mace itself isn't the issue, but the propellant is. Once done spraying, Taser away.
No, crrp, a Taser is not an acceptable self-defense tool for use against an armed man. For those situations, deadly force is needed. A Taser never was and never is intended as a replacement for a defensive firearm. It should never be used as such, whether by LEO or by law-abiding citizen.
It is intended exactly for what you said - for taking down possibly unarmed people who are a danger to themselves, others, and/or a LEO. Example: an angry, most likely unarmed and combative drunk guy.
Scenario 1: Tackle and hit drunk guy, cut and bruised cops, and broken bones and bruises on drunk guy. Lots of assault charges on the guy.
Scenario 2: Drunk dude gets Tasered. Everyone goes home uninjured. Drunk guy gets drunk and disorderly charges, and gets to walk out later on without injuries that would've had to have been treated with taxpayer dollars.
These weapons have been proven to be lethal, especially when they are abused by repeatedly "tasering" a person. Pepper-ball guns like those used by the border patrol are much safer and can fire far more than 3 shots without reloading. There have been several reported deaths from pepper-ball guns, but they are from a higher power version than is required are they are no more dangerous than pepper spray or paint ball guns. If you couldn't survive a hit with a pepper-ball, there's no way you'd stand up to a taser.
Bob, do you have verifiable proof of the massive deaths resulting from Tasers or are you bandwagoning? The only deaths I've heard of are from people who already have compromised systems and probably would've died or otherwise been seriously injured from the shock of OC spray or being tackled (or hit with an ASP). The taser itself hasn't killed as far as I'm aware. You are far better off getting tased than hit with a baton or fist.
I would encourage those who are complaining to actually go through it. Take a course to understand it and then get tasered. It's a unique experience and, as Paul indicates, it beats the daylights out of getting tackled. The instant recovery is even more amazing than the instant disablement.
Once last comment before I take my leave.
It occurs to me that people who argue for the Taser believe that often it is a do or die situation. Many seem to think that thousands of volts of electricity going through a person's body will do no damage whatsoever. The warnings we see on electrical products apparently have no value then it it's okay to have that much electricity running through one's body. Cooking someone's insides because you don't want to use your fist to stun a subject then arrest them is really pathetic. I pose this question rhetorically, what if someone has a medical condition such as a pace maker or if they suffer from seizures and for SOME REASON the officer THINKS they're a danger; is it okay to electrocute the person and kill them without knowing their medical history. I say this because a punch to the head and subsequent arrest would ensure the above two suspects live. How ironic that the most 'non-lethal' is a fist in those two scenarios.
It's clear to me and many others that those who support the unabashed use of Tasers WITHOUT reasonable processes in place are not concerned with an officer's safety but rather the excitement and adrenaline that comes from having someone's life in their hands with the power to execute at will. You're not defending justice or an officer; you're defending tyranny and authoritarianism when you allow these abuses to be sidelined. Again, I support the use of the taser but not when a person is unarmed, particularly when you don't know their medical conditions and you would kill them.
At least we're discussing this issue...I suppose that in and of itself is a positive thing.
Interesting statements but departments only use tasers on subjects that are 'physically combative" - that is --- the fight is already on. Officers don't like fights anymore than anyone else. Cops don't like going home with broken noses 5 days a week and the risk of getting into a fight is a daily occurrence. One statement was made "Cooking someone's insides because you don't want to use your fist to stun a subject then arrest them is really pathetic"
If you've ever been trained in hand-to-hand, using a fist to stun someone only happens in the movies. In a real fighting situation, with a motivated subject there is no such thing as a one-punch take-down. Tasers are proven effective. Any deaths that have occured have all thus far been traced back to underlying circunstances, drugs, illness, whatever. Did the taser aggravate the bodily circumstances? yes. but if the person doesn't want to get tased, then they should submit. Officers are trained to deploy the taser when the fight is imminent - do officers misjudge? yes, sometimes - but usually not. If someone gets tased, that is because the officer is running out of options and has to switch to other tools on the tool belt based on the behavior of the subject.
@crrp6501 I agree. I'm in Vancouver where a polish man was tasered multiple times and killed by the police. I hear about a lot of stories like this in Canada and the US. Some officials have deemed tasers as dangerous because of improper training and abuse by the officers. They market it as non-lethal and some of you act like it's a joke but it does kill and it is misused because of this perception. Maybe if people took them more seriously there would be less causes of misuse. The police should disarm the screaming grandma by hand instead of resorting to a taser so quickly.
Ok, one more comment :)
@Prometheus Fire
"If you've ever been trained in hand-to-hand, using a fist to stun someone only happens in the movies. In a real fighting situation, with a motivated subject there is no such thing as a one-punch take-down. Tasers are proven effective. Any deaths that have occured have all thus far been traced back to underlying circunstances, drugs, illness, whatever. Did the taser aggravate the bodily circumstances? yes. but if the person doesn't want to get tased, then they should submit. Officers are trained to deploy the taser when the fight is imminent - do officers misjudge? yes, sometimes - but usually not. If someone gets tased, that is because the officer is running out of options and has to switch to other tools on the tool belt based on the behavior of the subject."
If I'm understanding correctly that a few punches to the head or gut won't stun a person long enough to put handcuffs on a suspect, what did your department do prior to the introduction of tasers? I'm really curious (no sarcasm). How were you able to successfully arrest a suspect in scenarios for which you now use Tasers?
You bring up a very good point about 'underlying causes' and agreeing that a taser can 'aggravate the bodily circumstances'. If you are not aware you may be killing someone due to an unknown medical history why use it? I think the families of those suspects who die would rather apologize to an office for their son's unruly behavior and the broken nose then have have to bury him.
Again, I'm not against using a Taser but for use of it ONLY as a last resort. Using it tackle someone when you might kill them is irresponsible and will bring police and public relations to a new low. Not to be offensive but the term 'Pigs' used to describe Police is actually derived from George Orwell's book 'Animal Farm'. In the book, the Pigs were the brains of an operation to free the animals on the farm from the Farmer, who made them work slavishly. All the animals loved the pigs for what they were doing; boldly standing up to oppression and making a stand for freedom. That was, until the pigs then decided to make a deal with the farmer. In exchange for power and their own freedom they would get the other animals to give up theirs so the Farmer could return. People are hurting as a result of these taser incidents and often the Police cover up incidents or say nothing at all but that it was necessary and that the tasers are generally non-lethal. So who the hell are the police protecting here?
Prometheus Fire, what is your department's code regarding those with medical devices/illnesses and who is considered 'elderly'?
All of the people that have gotten tasered were guilty of resisting arrest!! I hope someone breaks into your house and robs you blind. A liberal like yourself obviously has no protection- a perfect target!
@mermerer
What is 'resisting arrest' to you? Someone who has his ass lit up WHILE in handcuffs; maybe it was an unarmed man who doesn't understand what the police office is asking and only sees a device which looks like a gun pointed at him, and then gets tasered and dies from an "underlying cause" aggravated by the thousands of volts going through his body; how about while the suspect is on his knees and the officers rush him only to taser him instead of simply putting the handcuffs on him. ANYTHING can be 'resisting arrest'. Like grandma who is being evicted from her home but cannot bear the thought of leaving so she resists arrest. Should she be tasered. It is not Liberal or Conservative to value life. It is human.
BTW, I'm not Liberal and I have many Conservative friends who agree with my position. Use it but ONLY as an absolute last resort.
So Murmermer, take your politics and shove it. I want all my friends, conservative and liberal, to be protected and to know that if they go out drinking one night that I won't read how they choked on their own vomit after being tased and died.
Let us really examine this whole situation before we make our opinions here. This is going to be another long winded post from me so go grab a sandwich and milk or something...
Ready? OK.
One of the key components to really understanding this whole argument is to define what being a Law Enforcement Officer (LEO) is and is not. The problem here is most people either see them as more powerful versions of mall cops, or as a paramilitary force tasked occupying and securing urban centers. It can be easy to understand the former if you ever have gotten a ticket when you know you did nothing other than be there (or you irked the LEO, which is a no no in any case but still), and if you ever talk to a LEO that worked in the tougher districts of larger metropolitan cities it isn't to hard to imagine the latter. Truth of it is it's more of something in the middle. It's not as easy as the military where most of you problems can be solved with a 556 round or " the careful application of high explosives" (2 points for guessing the movie). Policing a population is an extremely difficult task. They do know that you are a citizen with legal rights and for about 85 - 90% of officers they will respect you as long as you can respect them. That being said there are the 10% known as assholes, but lets throw them out of the equation as outliers for a second.
Whenever you enter into a LEO's sphere of influence they are taught to do a few things in general, the main thing is to bring you into compliance. This doesn't always have to end up with you face down on the deck with 3 guys sitting on your back trying to secure you. The simple act of you doing what they say is you being compliant. They light you up, you comply by pulling over. The problem is when you run into someone who decided they don't have to. So then they have to rely on two things to gain compliance - tools and training.
In the last 15 years we have seen an explosion as far as tools LE has available to do their jobs. The computer was a huge help, along with beanbag rounds, OC, and of course the taser. Before we jump into it lets look at the history. For the longest time officers only had one real tool to get compliance - firearms. Dangerous sitation, draw down on someone, order them to comply. This can only end in so many ways - they comply, you shoot them, or they try to run away. While a lot of people feel like the other tools are dangerous to people, they are still so useful because they give the officer options. They do not have to kill you, maim you (or chase you down!)
The tools themselves are very useful, and given a normal data set with no mitigating circumstances, deaths resulting in their application are within reason. What we are concerned with here is their misuse - which is an issue pertaining to training. Now for most departments to carry less-than-lethal (LTL) tools, you have to have them used on you. Want OC? You have to be sprayed. Want a taser? Gotta get tased bro. What we lack is really any comprehensive training for LEO's to understand when to apply LTL tools. In the bigger departments they address this, but most places only really train an officer on when to draw their sidearm and how to proceed. There is no real mapped out escalation of force for the use of LTL tools. And why is this? Well it is fuzzy. Lets take the example of the man tased in Vancouver. Here you have a clearly belligerent individual who is obviously going to get into it with you. He may just be mad, or he may be mad and intoxicated/high. Even with four officers getting compliance isn't so simple just with manual force. If you follow the situation tasing him was the correct action. Tasing him more than once was where the situation breaks down. With four officers, tasing the individual once provides the opening you need to restrain the man. No more voltage need be applied there. This is where most of these incidences take place. The application of the taser there was not the issue. Its misuse is the issue. And I still belive this is a training issue. They do not understand the dangers of repeated tasings. It is understandable if you are not really telling them, they are human after all. Adrenaline is going, you are reacting instead of thinking. In these instances well trained officers always default to their training, but if you are not training them to respond properly in these instances then this is going to continue to happen.
So I would say do not blame the officers, blame the department. Then write a letter to you state representatives (or MLA) telling them to fund your LEO's better for training. Now that goes into a whole different discussion that I know none of you want to read so congrats if you made it this far.
I love people talking about other non-lethal ways of taking down bad guys. Keep citing the handful of incidents that involved deaths with tasers. Then take a look at statistics of people dying in hand to hand combat. Odds of one person getting seriously wounded or killed in hand to hand combat is FAR greater.
It's safer for the law enforcement official AND the suspect to get tasered 99% of the time.
I love how people volunteer to get tasered. How many folks would lineup for a police beat down with clubs and spray? Give me a taser any day of the week over an official beat down.
@bjsguess
So if the 1 person who is to die by your reasoning (99% incidents ok) is your family member you're ok with that? I don't give a shit about odds, especially when those odds should have been non-existent. What would take for you to understand that no matter how statistically small (it really isn't; how many precincts point out their failures), it not insignificant that a person should die. How many people have died during physical altercation scenarios vs. those same scenarious where a taser was deployed? The odds of suffering a sever medical situation is reduced by NOT using the taser. Again, if the suspect has a weapon then your gun or taser should be used. Not when the suspect is belligerent or 'rude' to you. Hurt feelings. Come on.
@Col. Readily
Thank you for your thoughts on the matter. And thank you for being honest at least with what part of the problem is (lack of training). There is the simple fact that, as you admit, there are %10 of police officers working who are assholes. These assholes are going to give one iota about protocol and as we've seen, they're the nut jobs abusing the taser in obscene ways. What should we do when one of these assholes kill one of our family members? I understand and appreciate your analysis but that is only half the problem. Why is a department, knowing that their officers aren't trained appropriately, issuing these devices. A family who lost a member is given no recourse except that their 'son or daughter' did something to warrant their death when, in the incident you described in Vancouver, it could have been avoided.
Safety, yes...but not at the expense of another innocent human being. People being tased aren't just murderers or child molesters...they're thieves of a local grocery store or they're loitering too long at a local restaurant or they've been at the bar too long and may have a caused a fight.
"I don't give a shit about odds"
Here lies the problem. They're playing the odds in an attempt to reduce serious injury or death. The fact that they can't seem to eliminate it is unacceptable to you. If the taser were to go away, serious injury or death would actually increase. But then you don't give a shit about that.
Acceptable behavior is another issue. This is a tool. Like any other tool, there is a right way and there is a wrong way.
@nrb
This right here is the problem:
"If the taser were to go away, serious injury or death would actually increase. But then you don't give a shit about that."
We fundamentally disagree on whether removing the Taser would result in more serious injury or death. For centuries (imagine!) police have used regular force (hands and feet!) to disarm their suspects with a gun being used in serious situations. Because the Taser is more lethal than the use of regular force, it should only be used sparingly and appropriately. When the odds are that an innocent man will die because the use of a non-lethal device is mis-used; you're right I don't give a shit about those odds when there shouldn't be any in the first place by using regular force. Civilian casualties continue to climb and, yes, that worries me.
@crrp6501
Thanks. Yeah I'll give you that. I decided I'd get a professional opinion on the whole taser thing and I e-mailed a buddy of mine from the Corps who went into LE in Orlando. Here is what I got from him.
"...simply put tazers are for pussies. Yeah I know they have their uses but if half of these jackasses were in any kind of shape, detaining some of these people is not a real problem. You would be real suprised how many of the men and women I work with who don;t do any kind of real PT. I actually had to go pull one of my guys out of a ditch that was maybe 2 meters deep at the most that he could not climb out of...
... THe real issue here is that they just apply the damn things all wrong. If I run into a guy twice my size flying high on some real serious shit then yeah I'd zap him, but if your rolling 3-4 guys deep on some skinny college student just slap his ass around some and restrain him. There is no reason to taze kids, drunks, old people and pregnant women. A lot of these clowns just can't do there jobs. Wrestling a guy to the ground will net you about the same amount of scrapes as mcmap sparring dude."
Now I'd take this with a grain of salt. He only does street patrol because they are short like everyone else. He is actually on their SWAT team. Even so it looks like among the LE community they have differing opinions on the matter.
@Col. Readily
Now this is a discussion :) I appreciate your getting a professional opinion and sharing it with all of us. It is very interesting and welcome to hear that some (many?) in law enforcement oppose the reckless use of Tasers. They really, really need to speak out and identify to their colleagues that certain behavior is unacceptable when applying the use of a taser. This would help on two fronts: mitigate the risk to the public by making an office think twice about the appropriate use of a taser on a suspect and it would demonstrate to the public that Police aren't themselves 'gung ho nut jobs' who will disregard proper protocols for the chance to electrocute someone any chance they get.
Time will tell which side prevails: reason or madness
LOL, what is the point of doing this to, and interviewing Taser employees?
I am sure they aren't biased in their answers at all... no...
ummmm is it just me or is there something wrong with them using 3 girls as the targets while 2 men hold up each girl??? haha that was ridic
lol yeh i felt that was just wrong.
I think that was just the point that they were trying to prove. It can be used to temporarily paralyze men and women alike, but it is not lethal.
are these legal in washington state???
civilians cant have them
Bet the LAPD will love this...
The second girl didnt mind to be tazed again... giggidy
She's the kind you don't take home to mother.
All chicks? That's messed up. They were cute too
tazers are effective we use them on my department. largely though, they are more a deterrent than anything. the sight of the bright yellow gun has calmed many people down. my department is pretty restrictive on their use - only "physically combative" subjects. No children, no elderly, not when someone is actually running (that fall is really gonna hurt) and not when they are standing in water. We changed the type of pepper spray from an oil based one to a water based one to prevent spontaneous combustion of people.
No, i've not "ridden the lighting" yet as my department is watching the spending and not everyone has been issued them. Been tazed during training to use it is optional though I intend to do it. I'm a believer in officers feeling the effects of our equipment so that we fully understand what we are doing to people when we use them. And yes, before anybody asks, I would be willing to be shot in the chest (wearing body armor, silly) in training with a gun so that I understand what to expect when the big shootout at the bank happens.
Anyhow, this upgrade to the tazer is a good one. The current tazer is a single shot job with a quick reload. The extra cartrigde is stored in the handle, but it takes time and time is not always willing.
lol how do you feel now? Good!
Engadget doesn't even have to waste money on the product review. You can see for yourself when the pigs shoot your pregnant wife!
Right, because cops go around tasing people for absolutely no reason. Yup, you must be so smart!
@Paul34
Right, because cops use precaution when approaching suspects and don't misjudge scenarios. Yup, you must be so stupid!
I want to taze the cops
Dont these things shoot barbs that stick into your skin? Wouldn't that hurt like hell to pull out? I would never let someone shoot me in the back with something like that, what happens if they hit your spine? OWWW.
@Meikat: yes. typically the barbs stick to clothes, however, if your skin is exposed, little barbs go into the skin. there is a tiny disk around it to prevent deep penetration. A trained operator does the needed first aid which amounts to a anti-bacterial swab and maybe a band-aid if there is any bleeding. Generally though, in comparison, you've had splinters that were more severe.
http://halo.wikia.com/wiki/Type-25_Carbine
Long-lost brothers?
I really hope you were not using the connotation for "peace officers" that you implied because if you were.... FU
You "want one", Engadget? These things are killing people for fuck's sake.
Yeah because its not like guns don't kill people.
@ E C S Sucks
But nobody in the USA owns or wants to own a firearm!
Oh wait... nevermind. I am seriously considering getting a taser for home protection of me and my family. As much as I believe in the 2nd amendment I don't know that I want a firearm in my household or to have to rely on one for self defense.
Yeah, Tazer is a horrible home defense weapon. Limited capacity, range and effectiveness, especially in a tight environment like the home, where in all likelihood you will not land you first few shots.
The last thing you want to do is get in close with a criminal, even if you are trained. The likely scenario of a person using this on a home invader, is they are going to be disarmed and have that weapon used against you. A small shotgun would be a much better weapon, and requires less visibility (and exposure of yourself and your family to danger) to use since you get a spread and if you really want to show mercy to someone who would break into your home with a weapon to do harm to your children you could always load it with Beanbag rounds (with the last 2 a Buckshot and a slug just in case things get desperate).
No child is going to shoot themselves with a shotgun either, you would have to be damn tall just to pull the trigger with it aimed at yourself. No waiting period, cheap to use, easy to secure and lockup, yet simple enough your wife could use it to protect your family if your not home... Try that with a tazer when you a 100lbs woman, you will end up battered at least, dead more likely.
If your going to resist someone willing to breach the threshold of your families home, don't think for a second they will show you any mercy. They already violated your home, and their adrenaline (and drugs possibly) is pumping. As soon as they notice you, they will assume you are going to kill them, so they will either run (hopefully) or harm/kill you before you can do something to them. These are criminals friend, your family can't afford for you to be an idealist. Worst case, it never happens and your shotgun sits safely locked up in your bed, and you have something to give you son when he turns 16 to shoot clay pidgeons with.
The whole point of the decline of the sword and the birth of the gun was to equalize that ability of all people to use force. No longer does the biggest guy have the ability to impose his will on anyone without consequence. These weapons have their purpose and I believe in most cases, if the person wasn't committing a crime, they probably wouldn't be subject to LTL or any force at all. We don't live in a perfect world where you can always say the something is or isn't lethal nor whether the police are always justified (they aren't, many lack training and some are just worthless individuals, but you get that with any profession).
Typos galore, I sound like I'm sending a scammer email from Nigeria. Stupid phone's auto correct was going wild!
I so want one of those.
since no one took the liberty..."stop....don't taze me bro!"
I want to try cooking some steaks w/ it. 3 at a time!
Holy shot! This is the beginning of the end.
Now if Idaho Police Dept. is going to use those X3 Tasers, you better run!
http://carlosmiller.com/2009/07/23/idaho-police-sodomize-man-with-taser/
I got tasered 3 times last november and it was not fun.. prior to this I was in the hospital because of an abnormal heart rythm. So.. I am hear to talk about it but It could have caused my heart to stop or give me further heart problems. Police do not care and will use these in situations where they are completley unnecessary. It scares me when I see articles like this because the police stations around the country will jump all over this stuff and be excited to go test them in the streets.. just wait until it happens to you someday and it wont be so funny anymore. Call me crazy but I'd rather be shot
You got tasered 3 times and you were doing nothing wrong? I'm calling shenanigans
I'm gonna go ahead and assume you deserved it....three times.
Excuse me sir. Could you stop waving the knife so I can get your medical history? I need to know if I should use the taser or the baton.
Get real.
Oh yea:
"Call me crazy but I'd rather be shot"
That's not crazy, that's clinically insane.
@nrb
Not I or rube here suggested you don't taser people...just don't do it when their UNARMED (ie. they aren't waving a knife). Do you read? If so you would have read that many of the comments I've made specifically suggest that people have been tasered who were UNARMED and have died due to 'underlying causes' exacerbated by the thousands of volts of electricity coursing through their body. If they're waving a knife, they're fair game and it becomes reasonable for that officer to protect themselves. How come it has become so unreasonable to ask that a dangerous weapon be used sparingly? No, you argue it like it's no big deal that some should die as a result and that the rest of us should just accept it. You know what you are if you believe that...a clinical sociopath.
crrp, we've two different arguments occurring.
One is to weather or not the taser is a bad idea when used in the appropriate situation.
The other is to weather or not the taser gets used appropriately.
I'm avoiding the second, as it always turns into a bunch of people calling cops idiots. The first, you tend to avoid for some reason.
Because we're arguing on different, yet highly related, topics, the arguments are not productive.
hi ya there
Step 1: E.M.P.
Step 2: MANO-A-MANO
Step 3: Spit.