Talk before you taser

johnboy 25 October 2012 79

The ABC has a piece on the use of tasers by the constabulary:

A report has found only half of the ACT police officers who drew their Tasers tried to negotiate or de-escalate the situation first.

The Ombudsman conceded it is not unreasonable in some cases for those techniques not to be used, given the speed at which some incidents unfold.

To be fair the sample sizes are a bit small to be drawing conclusions.

But while we’re here…


What's Your Opinion?


Please login to post your comments, or connect with
79 Responses to Talk before you taser
Filter
Order
bigfeet bigfeet 6:49 am 30 Oct 12

buzz819 said :

So out of 31 times the Police “used” the tasers, they only discharged them 3 times. I wonder if the other 28 times the person just magically disappeared when the taser was drawn, or maybe that is when the negotiation happened.
.

Exactly. I see nothing wrong with negotiating over the top of a taser (or a pistol, or OC spray, baton, or anything else).

If the cop thinks that the situation warrants they draw the appropriate item so they have it ready in case negotiations fail badly, and then try to talk the person down from whatever it is they are doing. If the negotiation works then the item is put away. Simple.

I think the thing to focus on is the fact that they were drawn 31 times but only fired three times. So obviously there has been some negotiation otherwise they would have just been fired every time.

The ombudsman also said that these events happen so quickly that sometimes there is no time for prior negotiation. Again, it shows that negotiation can take place over the top of an item.

The other thing, as JB said, it is a pretty small sample size to be drawing any conclusions.

c_c™ c_c™ 10:18 pm 29 Oct 12

buzz819 said :

Been some interesting tales etc. on here.
c_c, a taser is classed as less than lethal, funnily enough OC spray and baton are also less than lethal, but all of them can be lethal.

I’ve posted this fact many times before on RA. Indeed I have said on a couple of occasions I would prefer to be Tasered than sprayed with OC, because the effect of a Taser wears off in minutes to an hour, while OC lasts hours, even days, depending on how quickly and how well treatment is applied. If you just rinse it with water and go home, the irritation can last days.

buzz819 said :

Been some interesting tales etc. on here.
It is in no way a replacement for the firearm, this is easily seen as Police now carry a firearm and a taser – well front line managers do in any event. NSW Police carry both.

Tasers are limited by range, capacity and the nature of the threat. As I have said previous on this thread, they are not a replacement.

Where circumstances permit, they can be and have been a substitute. It’s why when you see C019 but a potentially armed offender, they’ll be an officer with only a Taser ready, beside an officer with a machine gun, because they will if at all possible avoid using their firearms and in over 95% of cases, don’t need to use them. And the marketing line from Police is that they are a potential substitute rather than a compliance device.

buzz819 buzz819 9:08 pm 29 Oct 12

Been some interesting tales etc. on here.
c_c, a taser is classed as less than lethal, funnily enough OC spray and baton are also less than lethal, but all of them can be lethal.

It is in no way a replacement for the firearm, this is easily seen as Police now carry a firearm and a taser – well front line managers do in any event. NSW Police carry both.

So out of 31 times the Police “used” the tasers, they only discharged them 3 times. I wonder if the other 28 times the person just magically disappeared when the taser was drawn, or maybe that is when the negotiation happened.

While I can see that tasers can be used as a compliance tool, this is totally and utterly disgraceful, but I still say that I’d rather be tasered then shot. I’d actually rather be tasered then subject to oc spray or a baton strike to tell you the truth.

Antagonist Antagonist 9:03 pm 29 Oct 12

Yorick_Hunt said :

Antagonist said :

Special G said :

Why should Police have to put themselves at risk to resolve a violent situation? Why should they risk being punched/kicked/bitten/spat on/head butted etc?

Because that is their job, genius. It is not like it should come as any kind of suprise. People join the police force knowing that this is a (dangerous) part of the job. Don’t like it? Don’t join the police force.

According to your logic, airline pilots, racing drivers and construction workers should be allowed to die or get injured willy nilly. WTF?
Read my user name you tool.

@ 72 & #73:

Bollocks. I never said anyone should be subjected to these things as a part of their job. I said that these things ARE a part of the job. We used to call it an ‘occupational hazard’. Just like being shot at is in the job description for a soldier in a war zone. People make a conscious choice to join the police force knowing that they will often be in dangerous situations. This is why cops ‘… should put themselves at risk to resolve a violent situation.’ It is their job to put themselves at risk to resolve violent situations. That is the public expectation, like it or not. Their training is supposed to give them the skills necessary to keep them out of trouble and resolve those situations. So knowing what the job involves and what the expectations are, if you do not like it, do not join the police force. It is that simple.

The big issue, however, is that police are not using their training properly. “A report has found only half of the ACT police officers who drew their Tasers tried to negotiate or de-escalate the situation first.” We train police officers to negotiate or de-escalate (where possible) before drawing their ‘less lethal, not a compliance device’ tasers. That is police policy and also the public expectation, but it is not happening that way. What do you know about Roberto Curti? Or the recent recommendation from the NSW Ombudsman for a complete overhaul of taser use in NSW?

maxblues maxblues 8:50 pm 29 Oct 12

Dougal said :

Antagonist said :

Special G said :

Why should Police have to put themselves at risk to resolve a violent situation? Why should they risk being punched/kicked/bitten/spat on/head butted etc?

Because that is their job, genius. It is not like it should come as any kind of suprise. People join the police force knowing that thi is a (dangerous) part of the job. Don’t like it? Don’t join the police force.

I’m surprised that anyone thinks that people who join the police force should be subjected to punching/kicking/biting etc as part of their day to day duties? Why stop at police? If I don’t like the service I am given at a store, should I expect to be able to give the staff member a backhand?

The general standards of society aren’t adhered to by everyone, hence the reason for the role of police in the first place. You can’t expect a person to deal with the scum of the earth each and every day without giving them the ability to defend themself and protect members of the public.

There is a reason they are issued with accoutrements and have ongoing training and testing. It’s so when arsehats like you inevitably end up in a scrape at a pub they have the advantage and can arrest the person that is flogging the crap ou
t of you.

I agree that police should be given every means possible to defend themselves BUT if they go into that job not expecting to be punched/kicked/ bitten then they area fool to themselves and a burden upon others. If shit will happen and you don’t acknowledge it in advance.., you will breakdown and be less effective. I suggest a read of ‘Consolations of Philosophy’.

When I was a soldier, I fully accepted that I would be shot at and whilst my knees might be trembling I might have to use the gung ho bayonet training.

The important thing to remember (for me and police officers) is that just because I have weapons, doesn’t mean they should be first choice before establishing whether someone is friend, foe or just a little fucked.

Please refer to my post a couple of days ago referring to the incident when I had a tumour in my head.

LSWCHP LSWCHP 8:26 pm 29 Oct 12

Antagonist said :

Special G said :

Why should Police have to put themselves at risk to resolve a violent situation? Why should they risk being punched/kicked/bitten/spat on/head butted etc?

Because that is their job, genius. It is not like it should come as any kind of suprise. People join the police force knowing that this is a (dangerous) part of the job. Don’t like it? Don’t join the police force.

This is utter nonsense.

Dougal Dougal 7:48 pm 29 Oct 12

Antagonist said :

Special G said :

Why should Police have to put themselves at risk to resolve a violent situation? Why should they risk being punched/kicked/bitten/spat on/head butted etc?

Because that is their job, genius. It is not like it should come as any kind of suprise. People join the police force knowing that this is a (dangerous) part of the job. Don’t like it? Don’t join the police force.

I’m surprised that anyone thinks that people who join the police force should be subjected to punching/kicking/biting etc as part of their day to day duties? Why stop at police? If I don’t like the service I am given at a store, should I expect to be able to give the staff member a backhand?

The general standards of society aren’t adhered to by everyone, hence the reason for the role of police in the first place. You can’t expect a person to deal with the scum of the earth each and every day without giving them the ability to defend themself and protect members of the public.

There is a reason they are issued with accoutrements and have ongoing training and testing. It’s so when arsehats like you inevitably end up in a scrape at a pub they have the advantage and can arrest the person that is flogging the crap out of you.

Yorick_Hunt Yorick_Hunt 7:02 pm 29 Oct 12

Antagonist said :

Special G said :

Why should Police have to put themselves at risk to resolve a violent situation? Why should they risk being punched/kicked/bitten/spat on/head butted etc?

Because that is their job, genius. It is not like it should come as any kind of suprise. People join the police force knowing that this is a (dangerous) part of the job. Don’t like it? Don’t join the police force.

According to your logic, airline pilots, racing drivers and construction workers should be allowed to die or get injured willy nilly. WTF?
Read my user name you tool.

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd 6:58 pm 29 Oct 12

Special G said :

Antagonist said :

Special G said :

Why should Police have to put themselves at risk to resolve a violent situation? Why should they risk being punched/kicked/bitten/spat on/head butted etc?

Because that is their job, genius. It is not like it should come as any kind of suprise. People join the police force knowing that this is a (dangerous) part of the job. Don’t like it? Don’t join the police force.

And this is exactly the reason tasers are used by Police. Another use of force option to make their workplace safer.

The type of people who join the Police are those who are willing to put themselves between an extremely violent and armed person and everyone else.

Withholding tasers from all frontline Police should be an OH&S issue. They have already been identified as a piece of equipment to make the workplace safer.

They have also been shown to be used for torture, misconduct and misuse. Where is the ohs for the general public on the wrong end of a police with a grudge against civilians?

Special G Special G 6:12 pm 29 Oct 12

Antagonist said :

Special G said :

Why should Police have to put themselves at risk to resolve a violent situation? Why should they risk being punched/kicked/bitten/spat on/head butted etc?

Because that is their job, genius. It is not like it should come as any kind of suprise. People join the police force knowing that this is a (dangerous) part of the job. Don’t like it? Don’t join the police force.

And this is exactly the reason tasers are used by Police. Another use of force option to make their workplace safer.

The type of people who join the Police are those who are willing to put themselves between an extremely violent and armed person and everyone else.

Withholding tasers from all frontline Police should be an OH&S issue. They have already been identified as a piece of equipment to make the workplace safer.

Antagonist Antagonist 4:49 pm 29 Oct 12

Special G said :

Why should Police have to put themselves at risk to resolve a violent situation? Why should they risk being punched/kicked/bitten/spat on/head butted etc?

Because that is their job, genius. It is not like it should come as any kind of suprise. People join the police force knowing that this is a (dangerous) part of the job. Don’t like it? Don’t join the police force.

Tymefor Tymefor 3:35 pm 29 Oct 12

Special G said :

If you don’t want to be tasered then don’t create the situation where you will be.

There are at least two parties involved in creating a situation where a taser would be used. By not even trying to negotiate or de-escalate the situation first, the officers are themselves creating a more likely situation for a taser to be used.

Not following those sort of procedures is, obviously, creating allot of public resentment. Which may lead to higher and higher risks of them being being punched/kicked/bitten/spat on/head butted etc.

Special G Special G 11:58 am 29 Oct 12

Here’s a thought. Police are there to deal with situations where other people are unable to deal with it. Their primary concern is to go home safely at the end of shift.

Why should Police have to put themselves at risk to resolve a violent situation? Why should they risk being punched/kicked/bitten/spat on/head butted etc?

If a Police officer is telling you to do something chances are they have grounds to do so. They will treat you how you demonstrate you want to be treated. If you react politely then you will get polite. If you react with aggression or violence then reasonable force will be used to protect themselves.

A taser is just another option available. If you don’t want to be tasered then don’t create the situation where you will be.

c_c™ c_c™ 7:05 pm 27 Oct 12

Certainly the stats suggest Tasers are use most often for compliance purposes, which goes to what I was saying previously. That while they’re sold as an alternative to firearms use, and the official Police guidelines for their use place a high bar for their use, they are in practice being used as a compliance device.

HenryBG HenryBG 6:23 pm 27 Oct 12

c_c™ said :

HenryBG said :

If they can only be substituted for 5.4% of uses of lethal force, then they aren’t really a substitute, are they….

That’s not what the statistic says.

It’s not 5.4% of uses of lethal force. It’s 5.4% of uses of the Taser.

Let’s see if I can get this clear – 94.5% of what a taser gets used for is not a substitute for lethal force?

So….94.5% of Taser usage is just to annoy/torture people then?

c_c™ c_c™ 5:09 pm 27 Oct 12

HenryBG said :

If they can only be substituted for 5.4% of uses of lethal force, then they aren’t really a substitute, are they….

That’s not what the statistic says.

It’s not 5.4% of uses of lethal force. It’s 5.4% of uses of the Taser.

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd 3:51 pm 27 Oct 12

For once I agree with tooks(well on one point), if you are some dbag with a weapon or whatever and facing off with police, drop it or prepared to be tased(bro).
The problem is, police seem to be using them for any non compliance.
You should never have to do what a police says unless its justified. They are not our bosses.
The term reasonable force seems to stretch more every year. Or maybe people are just talking about police abuse more.

HenryBG HenryBG 3:40 pm 27 Oct 12

c_c™ said :

You’re right, it’s not the same, it’s one step better. Not only designed but proven many times over as a substitute for lethal force..

Yeah, except for the 94.6% of events where the Taser proven to be no substitute for lethal force.

c_c™ c_c™ 2:39 pm 27 Oct 12

Tooks said :

c_c™ said :

Tooks said :

“Tasers are not a replacement for firearms.

BTW I look forward to you posting quotes from the maker of Taser saying they are designed as a subsititute for lethal force. It should be easy, right?

“5.4% of ECD deployments prevented the use of lethal force – lethal force avoided 5,400 times out of every 100,000 uses of ECD by law enforcement”

Source: Taser International Inc.

Not a substitute for lethal force… sure. Whatever you say. Keep watching Die Hard.

That’s not a quote saying they are DESIGNED as a substitute for lethal force. Keep trying though.

You’re right, it’s not the same, it’s one step better. Not only designed but proven many times over as a substitute for lethal force.

So much so that Taser is now designing multi shot models and long range rifle models to further mirror traditional firearms capabilities.

HenryBG HenryBG 1:51 pm 27 Oct 12

c_c™ said :

Tooks said :

“Tasers are not a replacement for firearms.

BTW I look forward to you posting quotes from the maker of Taser saying they are designed as a subsititute for lethal force. It should be easy, right?

“5.4% of ECD deployments prevented the use of lethal force – lethal force avoided 5,400 times out of every 100,000 uses of ECD by law enforcement”

Source: Taser International Inc.

Not a substitute for lethal force… sure. Whatever you say. Keep watching Die Hard.

If they can only be substituted for 5.4% of uses of lethal force, then they aren’t really a substitute, are they….

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top

Search across the site