25 October 2012

Talk before you taser

| johnboy
Join the conversation
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…

Join the conversation

79
All Comments
  • All Comments
  • Website Comments
LatestOldest

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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_Nerd6:58 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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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_Nerd3:51 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.

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.

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.

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….

Jethro,

Thanks for a well thought out and reasoned response. Others should take note you did so without a single insult. I won’t respond to every point, but will pick a few.

It does appear that TASERS are sold to law enforcement agencies as an extra piece of equipment and not a substitute for lethal force.
But that is not how they have been sold to the public. Whenever Tasers have been rolled out or their use has had to be justified, the refrain has been that they provide police with a less (or non) lethal alternative to firearms.

In two paragraphs you have gotten across the point that I suspect c_c was (and still is) trying to make and I agree with you entirely. My point is well summarised in your first paragraph and the point c_c was trying to make – and failed catastrophically in doing so – is summarised in your second paragraph.

A lot of people think Tasers are only to be used as an alternative to lethal force and are outraged when they’re used against highly violent, but unarmed people. I’m not sure if that’s what c_c was implying in his first post, but that’s how I read it.

The hyperlinks you posted show what the public mean when they are talking about these devices being used for non-compliance. Both incidents are unacceptable. However there are legitimate ways to use Tasers for non-compliance, such as “drop the weapon or…”.

However, don’t pretend that they’re not being sold to us as anything but a non-lethal alternative to firearms.

Like I said, that’s not what they are designed for, which was what I said in my original response to my blacklisted friend. The fact senior police are saying it is, does not change that fact and I think people should learn to think for themselves rather than blindly swallowing police propaganda. If people educated themselves, they would know, as I do, that these devices are not designed to replace lethal force.

This is my last post on this thread, because if experience has taught me one thing, it’s that the tone of this thread can only go downhill. I’ll leave the thread by saying that I’d be happy for Tasers to be banned from police forces across Australia. Police have adequate protection against all weapons (firearms) and for lesser incidents (baton, spray). That’s just my opinion. All it does is put the cops in two minds in certain situations and it gives the public ammunition to bag them when they actually do have to shoot someone (“Why didn’t they use the taser against that knife/gun/machete wielding man?”).

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.

I can’t believe what I’m reading, are you really so stupid?

As predicted, the obligatory insult (which would never be repeated face to face), followed by the “I’m right, you’re wrong, lalalalala” response, despite being comprehensively slapped down in my last post. BTW, have a read of Jethro’s response to that same post. That’s how an intelligent person responds, and although I disagree with much of what he wrote, I respect him for the way in which he wrote it.

You’re confusing the terms substitute, with replacement. A Taser is not a replacement, it is a substitute if circumstances are appropriate.

This is what you said: What can you cite that says Tasers are not a substitute for lethal force?

I then cited numerous sources proving you wrong. Suck it up, take the loss like a man. You are embarrassing yourself.

Of course a Taser isn’t a deadly force weapon, no one said it is. No one has ever said it is.

Plenty of people say it is. I’m guessing you don’t watch or read the news. Read some of the anti-taser propaganda out there and you’ll get a clue.

If the objective is to apply deadly force for whatever reason (range, speed, etc), then a firearm is required.

Um, yeah, I know, as does anyone with half a brain.

But where the objective is to disable a threat, even one with a firearm, then a Taser can be a substitute for deadly force. And in high risk situations, Police will often have one officer with a firearm, another with a Taser, each ready to deploy whichever is most appropriate.

That’s not what you were implying originally, so don’t try to move the goal posts. You implied Tasers were to be used as an alternative to lethal force and not lesser incidents, which is untrue. Now if you didn’t mean to make that implication, then it’s your own fault for not writing a clear and concise argument. If you’d expressed yourself clearly in the first place, we wouldn’t be having this discussion. In a high risk situation, a Taser would NEVER be used without the back up from someone with a firearm. Ever.

Lethal threats require lethal alternatives!
You would flunk out of the admission process so quickly for specialist tactical police teams.

You would flunk out of comprehension classes. I didn’t write that line – it was quoted from an article, genius. If you knew anything about the admission process for tactical teams, you’d know it’s not particularly cerebral, which may suit you.

You should probably look up some hard stats on just how very, very few, lethal threats C019 respond to in a year, and on how few occasions they end up actually shooting.

What the hell is C019? Yes, Alan Jones, I should look up stats to justify your non-existent argument.

The rest of the time, they force compliance using non-lethal means, which is what they’re trained to do. Trigger happy nutters who go by the calculation, a gun for a gun, wouldn’t last 5mins.

Having seen tactical teams in operation a bazillion times more than you, I can tell that you have zero knowledge other than what you’ve seen on tv.

Going by your loose interpretation of compliance, a firearm would be used to force compliance ie. “Stop, drop the knife, or I’ll shoot.” Your complete misunderstanding of the term in a policing context is staggering. When the public are complaining about Tasers being used for non-compliance, they are talking about unjustified uses.

I’ll make sure I’ll impress my mates in the SRG with my new found knowledge. Thanks friend. I’ll be sure to remind them if someone is shooting at them with a gun, then they shouldn’t shoot back because that would make them trigger happy nutters.

You had your chance to walk away from this thread with your dignity intact. Instead you chose to ‘contribute’ again and make an even bigger fool of yourself. You are now on my blocked list, because frankly, the unintelligent dribble you have just posted isn’t worth my time responding to, and if I keep slapping you down, I’ll start being labelled a bully, which I’m not. So I get the last word…nyah nyah.

unclebill said :

Perhaps local cops are behaving with their tasers because they are being sued by X amount of people for overusing capsicum spray & foam on detainees at the watch house including a naked female in a padded cell….. or is this ancient history already?

x = 0.

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.

Tooks said :

Lethal threats require lethal alternatives!

You would flunk out of the admission process so quickly for specialist tactical police teams.

You should probably look up some hard stats on just how very, very few, lethal threats C019 respond to in a year, and on how few occasions they end up actually shooting.

The rest of the time, they force compliance using non-lethal means, which is what they’re trained to do.

Trigger happy nutters who go by the calculation, a gun for a gun, wouldn’t last 5mins.

Tooks said :

“Tasers are not a replacement for firearms. The device is currently labelled by various law enforcement agencies as a ‘non-lethal’, ‘less-lethal’ or ‘less-than-lethal’ weapon and is
considered an additional use of force option for police.”

“Tasers are not a substitute for firearms —rather they provide officers with another
use of force option.”

This from a Taser policy document. CEW stands for conducted energy weapon:

“The CEW is not meant to be used in deadly force situations. The CEW should not be used
without a firearm back up in those situations where there is a substantial threat present.”

From a criminology website:

“The ECD is not intended to replace a firearm, but provide a safer means of dealing with non-deadly force situations.  The best-known and most successful ECD to date is the Taser, manufactured and distributed by Taser International.”

This from Hendon Publishing:

“The TASER should never be identified or promoted as a deadly force device via policy or procedural design. It should not be used when deadly force is clearly called for. A simple axiom should be used in terms of realistic officer safety and security when addressing life-threatening confrontations: Lethal threats require lethal alternatives!

However, the TASER was not designed, nor should its delivery be recognized or used as a deadly force weapon. Officers must be trained to deploy the weapon in those confrontational settings that involve incidents with threats not likely to cause death or great bodily harm. This device is not to be deployed as a substitute to lethal force.”

I can’t believe what I’m reading, are you really so stupid? You’re confusing the terms substitute, with replacement. A Taser is not a replacement, it is a substitute if circumstances are appropriate.

Of course a Taser isn’t a deadly force weapon, no one said it is. No one has ever said it is. If the objective is to apply deadly force for whatever reason (range, speed, etc), then a firearm is required.

But where the objective is to disable a threat, even one with a firearm, then a Taser can be a substitute for deadly force. And in high risk situations, Police will often have one officer with a firearm, another with a Taser, each ready to deploy whichever is most appropriate.

Tooks said :

c_c™ said :

Tooks said :

c_c™ said :

Tooks said :

Firstly, Tasers are NOT a substitute for lethal force. It’s this kind of misinformation that clouds the issue.

They are simply an extra use of force option, which may reduce the chances of using lethal force in a certain situation under certain circumstances.

You’re very ignorant quite simply.

Good comeback champ. I like the part where you proved I was ignorant by citing facts. Oh, wait…

Your comment was too stupid to bother, not to mention in conflict with years of statements from law enforcement and the makers of the Taser.

Where’s your facts? What can you cite that says Tasers are not a substitute for lethal force?

Objective of lethal force isn’t to kill the suspect, it’s to immediately disable a suspect who poses an imminent threat to life. And until Tasers, the only effective way to do that was with a firearm. Tasers have the exact same effect, immediately rendering the suspect’s muscles useless and disabling the threat.

Ah, the old “you’re stupid, nyah nyah” defence. Very intelligent and compelling. Taser is not designed as a replacement for lethal force. The following three paragraphs are quoted directly from the Crime and Misconduct Commission Qld:

“Notwithstanding that Tasers are not a substitute for lethal force, some overseas law enforcement agencies have reported a decrease in the number of police shootings following the introduction of Tasers”

“Tasers are not a replacement for firearms. The device is currently labelled by various law enforcement agencies as a ‘non-lethal’, ‘less-lethal’ or ‘less-than-lethal’ weapon and is
considered an additional use of force option for police.”

“Tasers are not a substitute for firearms —rather they provide officers with another
use of force option.”

This, from an anti-Taser blog:

“As I understand it, the myth that Tasers equals less use of lethal force by police has been both refuted as well as documented, including within the 2011 Montpelier Taser Committee report (pages to read include: iii, 13 & 14), here.
It should also be noted about how Tasers are not a substitute for the use of other means or forms of lethal force, nor have they ever been, either.”

This from a Taser policy document. CEW stands for conducted energy weapon:

“The CEW is not meant to be used in deadly force situations. The CEW should not be used
without a firearm back up in those situations where there is a substantial threat present.”

From a criminology website:

“The ECD is not intended to replace a firearm, but provide a safer means of dealing with non-deadly force situations.  The best-known and most successful ECD to date is the Taser, manufactured and distributed by Taser International.”

This from Hendon Publishing:

“The TASER should never be identified or promoted as a deadly force device via policy or procedural design. It should not be used when deadly force is clearly called for. A simple axiom should be used in terms of realistic officer safety and security when addressing life-threatening confrontations: Lethal threats require lethal alternatives!

However, the TASER was not designed, nor should its delivery be recognized or used as a deadly force weapon. Officers must be trained to deploy the weapon in those confrontational settings that involve incidents with threats not likely to cause death or great bodily harm. This device is not to be deployed as a substitute to lethal force.”

You’re probably feeling a bit silly now, but I don’t expect an apology or for you to even swallow your pride and admit you’re wrong. In fact, you’ll probably come back with another insult but little else, in essence, saying “nup, I’m right you’re wrong lalalalalala.” I’ll let others read our posts and draw their own conclusions.

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?

It does appear that TASERS are sold to law enforcement agencies as an extra piece of equipment and not a substitute for lethal force.

But that is not how they have been sold to the public. Whenever Tasers have been rolled out or their use has had to be justified, the refrain has been that they provide police with a less (or non) lethal alternative to firearms.

An alternative to deadly force : That is the line we have been given. It is fair enough that people have an issue with the fact that that is not how they are used (and judging from the quotes you provide, not how they are intended to be used).

Evidence of this being how Tasers have been sold to the public.

“We’ve always supported the use of Tasers as a non-lethal alternative… Tasers versus guns is a clear choice.” (NSW Premier Barry O’Farrell)

“The rules say Tasers should be used only as a less lethal alternative to a firearm where loss of life or violence are threatened.” (smh.com.au)

“”If this is but one option that gives the police officers in the streets of NSW some alternative rather than to use deadly force, rather than to shoot somebody and killing them, then this is a good option.” Police Commissioner Andrew Scipione

“Superintendent Pat Ryan said Tasers provided officers with another option in dangerous and violent situations, without having to draw their guns.” Redcliffe Herald (QLD)

Tasers used instead of guns… that’s what we are told. But not what they are actually intended for. And certainly not what they are used for.

They are used to enforce compliance and brutalise people already under police control.

The issue with tasers is that police see that as non-lethal and something that doesn’t leave huge amounts of evidence (like a beating would), so crooked cops are far more likely to use them inappropriately. I think Canberra has it fairly right, with a number of safeguards in place to ensure police don’t misuse tasers. However, don’t pretend that they’re not being sold to us as anything but a non-lethal alternative to firearms.

Lookout Smithers7:02 pm 26 Oct 12

I had been given the raw end of the deal with the cops a few times back in the day. And I probably deserved it no doubt. I have been genuinely scared of a few loose coppers too, they can be quite scary when they have a badge and gun but without good sense. But this kind of cop is rare , even in WA where there is a shocking record of people going to jail on false police evidence and testimony. But it is rare compared with the overall good intentions of police. Its a pretty thankless job and one that sees them exposed to negativity constantly which would affect you over time. It can’t not. That deserves respect in itself. I have every piece of memory complete with bad taste left over from a certain dealing with police. But that is the cost of having a civilised and statistically safe society. Sometimes you have to look at the bigger picture. An idiot in the police force isn’t and idiot copper. Its just an idiot in the police force who will be an idiot regardless of the job they do and in any case won’t last long before being found out. If it ever becomes the case in Canberra or Australia for that matter where you can’t pick up the phone and call for help and have the police show ready to, you can complain then. Perspective is always needed here.

It really is disgusting…

http://www.theage.com.au/national/expolice-officers-accused-of-torture-20101223-196l6.html

Because these police officers are in a position of such authority and community trust it makes this crime far worse. These sentences are a joke. They should still be in jail.

The age old question, who polices the police?

unclebill said :

Perhaps local cops are behaving with their tasers because they are being sued by X amount of people for overusing capsicum spray & foam on detainees at the watch house including a naked female in a padded cell….. or is this ancient history already?

Well he was found not guilty on the grounds that it was his duty to spray her to stop her harming herself. Go figure.

Perhaps local cops are behaving with their tasers because they are being sued by X amount of people for overusing capsicum spray & foam on detainees at the watch house including a naked female in a padded cell….. or is this ancient history already?

aceofspades said :

Tooks said :

c_c™ said :

The problem is the accepted role of tasers seems to have shifted. Remember in the early days they made it clear they were an alternative to lethal force options and would specifically not be used as a compliance device. Well, they clearly are been used as a compliance device.

Firstly, Tasers are NOT a substitute for lethal force. It’s this kind of misinformation that clouds the issue.

They are simply an extra use of force option, which may reduce the chances of using lethal force in a certain situation under certain circumstances.

Secondly, there is no evidence whatsoever that ACT police are using Tasers as a compliance device. None. The three actual uses (not just drawing or aiming the Taser) listed in the report are justified.

The biggest concern I think for most people is so-called ‘Taser creep’, which is the tendency for officers to use Tasers in situations for which they weren’t intended. A prime example would be NSW police. I was disgusted to see a suspect on his knees with his hands on his head (apparently compliant) tasered for no apparent reason (on the news recently). Apparently this is happening far too often in NSW.

Regarding the Brazilian bloke who died earlier this year after being tasered multiple times? I wasn’t there, but he was tased AFTER being handcuffed? That, in my opinion, can never be justified. One of the male officers involved was apparently 55kg. Do we need to bring back minimum physical requirements for police? Is their use of force training neglecting basic hands-on methods?

Tasers will eventually be rolled out to all police in the ACT, I’m sure. Only then, we’ll see if the ACT develops the same ‘Taser creep’ as other states.

It appears I have misjudged you Tooks, please accept my apology.

I appreciate your apology, but there’s no need. Whilst it’s no secret I am supportive of police, I am also supportive of police accountability, hence my continued advice to people on this site over the years to make complaints where appropriate (I’ve given this advice many many times). Some of the stories I hear (including some on this thread) make me cringe, but most of the guys and girls in blue are there for the right reasons and do a good job.

kakosi said :

And until Tasers, the only effective way to do that was with a firearm. Tasers have the exact same effect, immediately rendering the suspect’s muscles useless and disabling the threat.

except when they’re very fit, on drugs, or the probes don’t make contact properly.

Also, if they’re holding a blade, the muscles will retract and they’ll still be holding onto the weapon….. or stab themselves as an involuntary action.

CS spray seems to work all the time, with the exception of when they’re wearing a gas mask

c_c™ said :

Tooks said :

c_c™ said :

Tooks said :

Firstly, Tasers are NOT a substitute for lethal force. It’s this kind of misinformation that clouds the issue.

They are simply an extra use of force option, which may reduce the chances of using lethal force in a certain situation under certain circumstances.

You’re very ignorant quite simply.

Good comeback champ. I like the part where you proved I was ignorant by citing facts. Oh, wait…

Your comment was too stupid to bother, not to mention in conflict with years of statements from law enforcement and the makers of the Taser.

Where’s your facts? What can you cite that says Tasers are not a substitute for lethal force?

Objective of lethal force isn’t to kill the suspect, it’s to immediately disable a suspect who poses an imminent threat to life. And until Tasers, the only effective way to do that was with a firearm. Tasers have the exact same effect, immediately rendering the suspect’s muscles useless and disabling the threat.

Ah, the old “you’re stupid, nyah nyah” defence. Very intelligent and compelling. Taser is not designed as a replacement for lethal force. The following three paragraphs are quoted directly from the Crime and Misconduct Commission Qld:

“Notwithstanding that Tasers are not a substitute for lethal force, some overseas law enforcement agencies have reported a decrease in the number of police shootings following the introduction of Tasers”

“Tasers are not a replacement for firearms. The device is currently labelled by various law enforcement agencies as a ‘non-lethal’, ‘less-lethal’ or ‘less-than-lethal’ weapon and is
considered an additional use of force option for police.”

“Tasers are not a substitute for firearms —rather they provide officers with another
use of force option.”

This, from an anti-Taser blog:

“As I understand it, the myth that Tasers equals less use of lethal force by police has been both refuted as well as documented, including within the 2011 Montpelier Taser Committee report (pages to read include: iii, 13 & 14), here.
It should also be noted about how Tasers are not a substitute for the use of other means or forms of lethal force, nor have they ever been, either.”

This from a Taser policy document. CEW stands for conducted energy weapon:

“The CEW is not meant to be used in deadly force situations. The CEW should not be used
without a firearm back up in those situations where there is a substantial threat present.”

From a criminology website:

“The ECD is not intended to replace a firearm, but provide a safer means of dealing with non-deadly force situations.  The best-known and most successful ECD to date is the Taser, manufactured and distributed by Taser International.”

This from Hendon Publishing:

“The TASER should never be identified or promoted as a deadly force device via policy or procedural design. It should not be used when deadly force is clearly called for. A simple axiom should be used in terms of realistic officer safety and security when addressing life-threatening confrontations: Lethal threats require lethal alternatives!

However, the TASER was not designed, nor should its delivery be recognized or used as a deadly force weapon. Officers must be trained to deploy the weapon in those confrontational settings that involve incidents with threats not likely to cause death or great bodily harm. This device is not to be deployed as a substitute to lethal force.”

You’re probably feeling a bit silly now, but I don’t expect an apology or for you to even swallow your pride and admit you’re wrong. In fact, you’ll probably come back with another insult but little else, in essence, saying “nup, I’m right you’re wrong lalalalalala.” I’ll let others read our posts and draw their own conclusions.

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?

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd11:25 am 26 Oct 12

NoImRight said :

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

NoImRight said :

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

HenryBG said :

Pork Hunt said :

If a human being acts in a way that causes a copper to draw their weapon or taser, then they are being a grub at that point in space and time.

So you’re on your way through Civic of an evening at about 9:30pm after drinking half a dozen pints at the Phoenix after work when suddenly you’ve got what looks like every copy in town surrounding you and yelling at you a cacophony of conflicting directions including put your hands on your head/get on the ground/get in the van/who knows what else. Most people with a few pints in them and no guilty conscience will tell the cops to fuck off. With an inevitable result. How does that make them a grub?
Answer: it doesn’t.

I’ve been in this situation and it took an inordinate amount of patience and self-control to talk these f#$%with cops down and explain to me WTF was going on.
The fact it turned out I wasn’t the grub they were looking for meant that it was very lucky they didn’t have tasers. (The grub they were looking for was particularly grubby and deserved a good tasering).
Future innocents may not be so lucky.

Plus one.

I have also been slammed by the local cops for no reason other than trying to talk down a fight between two large men ready to kill each other. I was pushed against a wall and told to shut up or I will be charged with assaulting a police. I raised no fist, I raised no voice, all I did was try to explain the situation. That was not good enough. Be silent or get locked up. Nice one.
Seriously, so disgusting. Especially considering I could have disarmed and done whatever I wished with their side arms if I felt like it. But no I’m a law abiding citizen with infantry training who try’s to do the right thing but gets pushed against a wall by the AFP.

Its great that you use your super powers for good and not evil. Just curious how you know what training the coppers might have had in their past? Plenty of ex military floating around in Police and security. Some may even be better trained than a pongo.

One young woman and a guy i guess in his mid 20’s. Both smaller than me(im not a big guy either.) Im just saying, it wouldnt have taken much. He was on some sort of power trip and i dont think he cared who he got physical with. That was my point.

Of course it was. The stuff about you overpowering them and making them your playthings doesnt at all reflect what attitude you may have had then or now I expect.

As i said, my attitude consisted of me being polite, calm and softly spoken. I always respect police but i hate bullys and a differnt type of person in the same situation could have easily made life very bad for those officers, all becuase he wanted to act the big man with authority.

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

NoImRight said :

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

HenryBG said :

Pork Hunt said :

If a human being acts in a way that causes a copper to draw their weapon or taser, then they are being a grub at that point in space and time.

So you’re on your way through Civic of an evening at about 9:30pm after drinking half a dozen pints at the Phoenix after work when suddenly you’ve got what looks like every copy in town surrounding you and yelling at you a cacophony of conflicting directions including put your hands on your head/get on the ground/get in the van/who knows what else. Most people with a few pints in them and no guilty conscience will tell the cops to fuck off. With an inevitable result. How does that make them a grub?
Answer: it doesn’t.

I’ve been in this situation and it took an inordinate amount of patience and self-control to talk these f#$%with cops down and explain to me WTF was going on.
The fact it turned out I wasn’t the grub they were looking for meant that it was very lucky they didn’t have tasers. (The grub they were looking for was particularly grubby and deserved a good tasering).
Future innocents may not be so lucky.

Plus one.

I have also been slammed by the local cops for no reason other than trying to talk down a fight between two large men ready to kill each other. I was pushed against a wall and told to shut up or I will be charged with assaulting a police. I raised no fist, I raised no voice, all I did was try to explain the situation. That was not good enough. Be silent or get locked up. Nice one.
Seriously, so disgusting. Especially considering I could have disarmed and done whatever I wished with their side arms if I felt like it. But no I’m a law abiding citizen with infantry training who try’s to do the right thing but gets pushed against a wall by the AFP.

Its great that you use your super powers for good and not evil. Just curious how you know what training the coppers might have had in their past? Plenty of ex military floating around in Police and security. Some may even be better trained than a pongo.

One young woman and a guy i guess in his mid 20’s. Both smaller than me(im not a big guy either.) Im just saying, it wouldnt have taken much. He was on some sort of power trip and i dont think he cared who he got physical with. That was my point.

Of course it was. The stuff about you overpowering them and making them your playthings doesnt at all reflect what attitude you may have had then or now I expect.

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd10:56 am 26 Oct 12

NoImRight said :

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

HenryBG said :

Pork Hunt said :

If a human being acts in a way that causes a copper to draw their weapon or taser, then they are being a grub at that point in space and time.

So you’re on your way through Civic of an evening at about 9:30pm after drinking half a dozen pints at the Phoenix after work when suddenly you’ve got what looks like every copy in town surrounding you and yelling at you a cacophony of conflicting directions including put your hands on your head/get on the ground/get in the van/who knows what else. Most people with a few pints in them and no guilty conscience will tell the cops to fuck off. With an inevitable result. How does that make them a grub?
Answer: it doesn’t.

I’ve been in this situation and it took an inordinate amount of patience and self-control to talk these f#$%with cops down and explain to me WTF was going on.
The fact it turned out I wasn’t the grub they were looking for meant that it was very lucky they didn’t have tasers. (The grub they were looking for was particularly grubby and deserved a good tasering).
Future innocents may not be so lucky.

Plus one.

I have also been slammed by the local cops for no reason other than trying to talk down a fight between two large men ready to kill each other. I was pushed against a wall and told to shut up or I will be charged with assaulting a police. I raised no fist, I raised no voice, all I did was try to explain the situation. That was not good enough. Be silent or get locked up. Nice one.
Seriously, so disgusting. Especially considering I could have disarmed and done whatever I wished with their side arms if I felt like it. But no I’m a law abiding citizen with infantry training who try’s to do the right thing but gets pushed against a wall by the AFP.

Its great that you use your super powers for good and not evil. Just curious how you know what training the coppers might have had in their past? Plenty of ex military floating around in Police and security. Some may even be better trained than a pongo.

One young woman and a guy i guess in his mid 20’s. Both smaller than me(im not a big guy either.) Im just saying, it wouldnt have taken much. He was on some sort of power trip and i dont think he cared who he got physical with. That was my point.

c_c™ said :

The problem is the accepted role of tasers seems to have shifted. Remember in the early days they made it clear they were an alternative to lethal force options and would specifically not be used as a compliance device. Well, they clearly are been used as a compliance device.

Yes. +1

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

HenryBG said :

Pork Hunt said :

If a human being acts in a way that causes a copper to draw their weapon or taser, then they are being a grub at that point in space and time.

So you’re on your way through Civic of an evening at about 9:30pm after drinking half a dozen pints at the Phoenix after work when suddenly you’ve got what looks like every copy in town surrounding you and yelling at you a cacophony of conflicting directions including put your hands on your head/get on the ground/get in the van/who knows what else. Most people with a few pints in them and no guilty conscience will tell the cops to fuck off. With an inevitable result. How does that make them a grub?
Answer: it doesn’t.

I’ve been in this situation and it took an inordinate amount of patience and self-control to talk these f#$%with cops down and explain to me WTF was going on.
The fact it turned out I wasn’t the grub they were looking for meant that it was very lucky they didn’t have tasers. (The grub they were looking for was particularly grubby and deserved a good tasering).
Future innocents may not be so lucky.

Plus one.

I have also been slammed by the local cops for no reason other than trying to talk down a fight between two large men ready to kill each other. I was pushed against a wall and told to shut up or I will be charged with assaulting a police. I raised no fist, I raised no voice, all I did was try to explain the situation. That was not good enough. Be silent or get locked up. Nice one.
Seriously, so disgusting. Especially considering I could have disarmed and done whatever I wished with their side arms if I felt like it. But no I’m a law abiding citizen with infantry training who try’s to do the right thing but gets pushed against a wall by the AFP.

Its great that you use your super powers for good and not evil. Just curious how you know what training the coppers might have had in their past? Plenty of ex military floating around in Police and security. Some may even be better trained than a pongo.

aceofspades said :

I used to think like this until I witnessed a police officer and his partner manufacture evidence and lie in court. I know they did because I was there in court and at the seen that they lied about. Police officers create their own bad reputation.

Have to agree. Not about the evidence manufacturing thing, not having any involvement in the case, but that the police build their own reputation. Some of them are nice and some of them are dicks but luckily for us, most of them behave professionally. It’s annoying to see people like Johnny-Mo claim we live in a police state, but it’s equally annoying when people claim the opposite, that the police are always professional and never abuse their power.

When you get down to it, police officers are still people, with all the good and bad that comes with it.

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

Seriously, so disgusting. Especially considering I could have disarmed and done whatever I wished with their side arms if I felt like it. But no I’m a law abiding citizen with infantry training who try’s to do the right thing but gets pushed against a wall by the AFP.

Heh. Reminds me of *another* time I was at the Phoenix with a friend. We were a bit sick of the hubbub and went outside to the bus stop out the front of the phoenix where we sat down and had a quiet chat while we drank our beers.
A cop car pulled up in front of us, with a pair of cops jumping out of their car to dash down the street to collar some scum who were doing something scummy. My friend thought it was a good idea to stand up, follow the cops down the street and say to the driver,
“Excuse me, did you realise you forgot your keys in the ignition? Some of these people around here are pretty dodgy and they could nick your car”.

I, always a cynic, was cacking myself, thinking, “This couldn’t possibly end well”.

Who thinks the cop thanked him for trying to be a pro-actively good citizen?

NoImRight said :

aceofspades said :

bigfeet said :

If you read the article you will see that ‘used’ has a pretty broad definition. It includes just drawing it from its holster. Tasers were only actually fired on three occasions.

I would hazard a guess that in every other instance the negotiations took place after drawing . Something like this: ‘Get on the ground or I’ll taze you’. The grub is given two options, it’s up to him which one he takes. Most appear to have taken option one thereby not requiring a tazing. Now that is good negotiation skills!

That is exactly the problem. Anybody that a police officer has anything to do with is automatically assumed to be a “grub” regardless of the situation. I have no doubt that many young police officers have the best of intentions when they join the force but years of dealing with the filth of society turns them into filth themselves. They end up the worst filth of all, filth with a badge and a gun that under absolutely no circumstances will admit they may have made a mistake.

You are concerned that some posters are making a judgement on a group of people and labeling them “grubs” which is unfair as they should be treated as individuals? You dont think maybe you are doing something just a teesy bit similar?

Yes agreed. I have generalised. There are always exceptions to the rule.

Tooks said :

c_c™ said :

The problem is the accepted role of tasers seems to have shifted. Remember in the early days they made it clear they were an alternative to lethal force options and would specifically not be used as a compliance device. Well, they clearly are been used as a compliance device.

Firstly, Tasers are NOT a substitute for lethal force. It’s this kind of misinformation that clouds the issue.

They are simply an extra use of force option, which may reduce the chances of using lethal force in a certain situation under certain circumstances.

Secondly, there is no evidence whatsoever that ACT police are using Tasers as a compliance device. None. The three actual uses (not just drawing or aiming the Taser) listed in the report are justified.

The biggest concern I think for most people is so-called ‘Taser creep’, which is the tendency for officers to use Tasers in situations for which they weren’t intended. A prime example would be NSW police. I was disgusted to see a suspect on his knees with his hands on his head (apparently compliant) tasered for no apparent reason (on the news recently). Apparently this is happening far too often in NSW.

Regarding the Brazilian bloke who died earlier this year after being tasered multiple times? I wasn’t there, but he was tased AFTER being handcuffed? That, in my opinion, can never be justified. One of the male officers involved was apparently 55kg. Do we need to bring back minimum physical requirements for police? Is their use of force training neglecting basic hands-on methods?

Tasers will eventually be rolled out to all police in the ACT, I’m sure. Only then, we’ll see if the ACT develops the same ‘Taser creep’ as other states.

It appears I have misjudged you Tooks, please accept my apology.

kakosi said :

Objective of lethal force isn’t to kill the suspect, it’s to immediately disable a suspect who poses an imminent threat to life. And until Tasers, the only effective way to do that was with a firearm. Tasers have the exact same effect, immediately rendering the suspect’s muscles useless and disabling the threat.

…and occasionally killing the “threat” – especially if the threat has a medical condition like a heart problem. But then of course the person given a taser treatment always deserves it, right?

Being a policeman is a crappy job most of the time, so we can’t expect them not to use a weapon like a taser more often than they would ever use a gun, especially if they think it’s “harmless”.

Firstly the majority of coppers/fuzz/plod etc do a magnificent job and there is not enough of them patrolling the territory which puts them under further stress, however…
A couple of years ago, when I first found out that I had a tumour in my head, I made a calculated decision to go out, hit the bars in Civic, get wasted to relieve some tension and anxiety (it was going to be weeks before neurosurgeon could give a prognosis).
After achieving my goal of getting wasted (bar crawling), I found myself in a situation whereby two police officers were dealing with some bloke for unknown reasons and as I happened along I was told to move along. I obviously didn’t move along far enough because back-up was called and I soon found myself surrounded by half a dozen officers. I was amazed that the first young back-up officer, without even bothering to talk to me, pulled out a can of pepper spray and started shking it up. Thinking I was 10 foot tall and bulletproof, I told him to “stop shaking the shit up and to talk to me like a man”. I don’t remember seeing a taser, but I have no doubt one of the officers had one ready. To the credit of the senior officers, they eventually let me walk off into the night. It was only days later that the endocrinologist was alarmed at my low cortisol levels meaning a taser and even pepper spray could have had dire consequences for me.

Objective of lethal force isn’t to kill the suspect, it’s to immediately disable a suspect who poses an imminent threat to life. And until Tasers, the only effective way to do that was with a firearm. Tasers have the exact same effect, immediately rendering the suspect’s muscles useless and disabling the threat.

…and occasionally killing the “threat” – especially if the threat has a medical condition like a heart problem. But then of course the person given a taser treatment always deserves it, right?

Being a policeman is a crappy job most of the time, so we can’t expect them not to use a weapon like a taser more often than they would ever use a gun, especially if they think it’s “harmless”.

Tooks said :

c_c™ said :

Tooks said :

Firstly, Tasers are NOT a substitute for lethal force. It’s this kind of misinformation that clouds the issue.

They are simply an extra use of force option, which may reduce the chances of using lethal force in a certain situation under certain circumstances.

You’re very ignorant quite simply.

Good comeback champ. I like the part where you proved I was ignorant by citing facts. Oh, wait…

Your comment was too stupid to bother, not to mention in conflict with years of statements from law enforcement and the makers of the Taser.

Where’s your facts? What can you cite that says Tasers are not a substitute for lethal force?

Objective of lethal force isn’t to kill the suspect, it’s to immediately disable a suspect who poses an imminent threat to life. And until Tasers, the only effective way to do that was with a firearm. Tasers have the exact same effect, immediately rendering the suspect’s muscles useless and disabling the threat.

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

HenryBG said :

Pork Hunt said :

Especially considering I could have disarmed and done whatever I wished with their side arms if I felt like it. But no I’m a law abiding citizen with infantry training who try’s to do the right thing but gets pushed against a wall by the AFP.

Your saying you could use military training to disarm and use police weapons against themselves, however are worried about the police use of force. I’m not a fortune teller however I suspect that if you did manage to disarm the police officer of their sidearm you would suffer a severe case of lead poisoning almost immediately.
Think about going to work everyday not knowing whats going to happen or if your not going home after and then think about if its ok to take some extra precautions.
Disclaimer
Not a member of the AFP, however have had a extremely positive and close relationship with the AFP over the last nine years of bouncing civic nightclubs

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd8:53 pm 25 Oct 12

HenryBG said :

Pork Hunt said :

If a human being acts in a way that causes a copper to draw their weapon or taser, then they are being a grub at that point in space and time.

So you’re on your way through Civic of an evening at about 9:30pm after drinking half a dozen pints at the Phoenix after work when suddenly you’ve got what looks like every copy in town surrounding you and yelling at you a cacophony of conflicting directions including put your hands on your head/get on the ground/get in the van/who knows what else. Most people with a few pints in them and no guilty conscience will tell the cops to fuck off. With an inevitable result. How does that make them a grub?
Answer: it doesn’t.

I’ve been in this situation and it took an inordinate amount of patience and self-control to talk these f#$%with cops down and explain to me WTF was going on.
The fact it turned out I wasn’t the grub they were looking for meant that it was very lucky they didn’t have tasers. (The grub they were looking for was particularly grubby and deserved a good tasering).
Future innocents may not be so lucky.

Plus one.

I have also been slammed by the local cops for no reason other than trying to talk down a fight between two large men ready to kill each other. I was pushed against a wall and told to shut up or I will be charged with assaulting a police. I raised no fist, I raised no voice, all I did was try to explain the situation. That was not good enough. Be silent or get locked up. Nice one.
Seriously, so disgusting. Especially considering I could have disarmed and done whatever I wished with their side arms if I felt like it. But no I’m a law abiding citizen with infantry training who try’s to do the right thing but gets pushed against a wall by the AFP.

Tooks said :

c_c™ said :

Regarding the Brazilian bloke who died earlier this year after being tasered multiple times? I wasn’t there, but he was tased AFTER being handcuffed? That, in my opinion, can never be justified. One of the male officers involved was apparently 55kg. Do we need to bring back minimum physical requirements for police? Is their use of force training neglecting basic hands-on methods?

Yep and lets face it a female police officer is at a huge disadvantage against a male of average size when it comes to physically controlling them (let alone a large male).

Tooks said :

c_c™ said :

The problem is the accepted role of tasers seems to have shifted. Remember in the early days they made it clear they were an alternative to lethal force options and would specifically not be used as a compliance device. Well, they clearly are been used as a compliance device.

Firstly, Tasers are NOT a substitute for lethal force. It’s this kind of misinformation that clouds the issue.

They are simply an extra use of force option, which may reduce the chances of using lethal force in a certain situation under certain circumstances.

Secondly, there is no evidence whatsoever that ACT police are using Tasers as a compliance device. None. The three actual uses (not just drawing or aiming the Taser) listed in the report are justified.

The biggest concern I think for most people is so-called ‘Taser creep’, which is the tendency for officers to use Tasers in situations for which they weren’t intended. A prime example would be NSW police. I was disgusted to see a suspect on his knees with his hands on his head (apparently compliant) tasered for no apparent reason (on the news recently). Apparently this is happening far too often in NSW.

Regarding the Brazilian bloke who died earlier this year after being tasered multiple times? I wasn’t there, but he was tased AFTER being handcuffed? That, in my opinion, can never be justified. One of the male officers involved was apparently 55kg. Do we need to bring back minimum physical requirements for police? Is their use of force training neglecting basic hands-on methods?

Tasers will eventually be rolled out to all police in the ACT, I’m sure. Only then, we’ll see if the ACT develops the same ‘Taser creep’ as other states.

Tooks, thank you for that.

I hold the fond hope that ACT Policing will recognise the barbarity of these recent NSW cases, and ensure that our locals have a bit of a think before loosing these devices.

I was a victim of a boarding school and totally abhore bullying. I consider the actions of the NSW officers to be nothing but. These ‘officers’ should be in front of a court on assault charges.

HenryBG said :

Pork Hunt said :

Unfortunately, my life isn’t as exciting yours (refer to my last sentence)
ie,
“I choose to NOT to create the environment in my daily life that would lead to me being tasered or worse.”

Unh, “she was wearing a short dress, so she deserved it”. Nice. You from the same retirement village as Mr G.?

Pork Hunt said :

but at that point in time and space you were a grub in their eyes.
You may have had four aces but they had the Smith & Wesson…

Well, I think that’s kind of the point – the gun isn’t going to come out unless something exceptional is going on. The tasers on the other hand are being used as a casual adjunct to bullying.

OK Henry,I’ll give you some ammo for ‘our’ Smith & Wesson.
I ride high powered motorcycle. Sometimes I come across dickheads on the road and sometimes I am the dickhead.
I drink beer, have done so for near on 32 years legally. I have never been arrested or been done for DUI.
I have enjoyed the odd bong every now and even then still keeping my nose clean.
It is possible to “wear the short dress” and not create the environment for shit to happen.
For the record, I will be 50 next birthday.

Thanks for the Mr G comparison, but you didn’t indicate what you were wearing when sprung..

c_c™ said :

Tooks said :

Firstly, Tasers are NOT a substitute for lethal force. It’s this kind of misinformation that clouds the issue.

They are simply an extra use of force option, which may reduce the chances of using lethal force in a certain situation under certain circumstances.

You’re very ignorant quite simply.

Good comeback champ. I like the part where you proved I was ignorant by citing facts. Oh, wait…

Woody Mann-Caruso7:29 pm 25 Oct 12

a Policeman or any other authority figure

The policewomen (sorry, ‘Policewomen’) are just there to hold the drive-thru Maccas.

Tetranitrate7:13 pm 25 Oct 12

Tooks said :

One of the male officers involved was apparently 55kg. Do we need to bring back minimum physical requirements for police? Is their use of force training neglecting basic hands-on methods?

I think the answer to those questions are most assuredly yes.
How tall was this guy? because you’d have to be very short for an Australian male to have a weight like that and not be quite underweight via BMI (I know it has limits, but they’re more on the other end of the scale), He’d have to be something like 160cm, 5 foot 3 inch, to have a BMI toward the lower end of the ‘healthy’ range.

Sounds like they could do with a few more doughnuts.

Pork Hunt said :

Unfortunately, my life isn’t as exciting yours (refer to my last sentence)
ie,
“I choose to NOT to create the environment in my daily life that would lead to me being tasered or worse.”

Unh, “she was wearing a short dress, so she deserved it”. Nice. You from the same retirement village as Mr G.?

Pork Hunt said :

but at that point in time and space you were a grub in their eyes.
You may have had four aces but they had the Smith & Wesson…

Well, I think that’s kind of the point – the gun isn’t going to come out unless something exceptional is going on. The tasers on the other hand are being used as a casual adjunct to bullying.

HenryBG said :

Pork Hunt said :

If a human being acts in a way that causes a copper to draw their weapon or taser, then they are being a grub at that point in space and time.

So you’re on your way through Civic of an evening at about 9:30pm after drinking half a dozen pints at the Phoenix after work when suddenly you’ve got what looks like every copy in town surrounding you and yelling at you a cacophony of conflicting directions including put your hands on your head/get on the ground/get in the van/who knows what else. Most people with a few pints in them and no guilty conscience will tell the cops to fuck off. With an inevitable result. How does that make them a grub?
Answer: it doesn’t.

I’ve been in this situation and it took an inordinate amount of patience and self-control to talk these f#$%with cops down and explain to me WTF was going on.
The fact it turned out I wasn’t the grub they were looking for meant that it was very lucky they didn’t have tasers. (The grub they were looking for was particularly grubby and deserved a good tasering).
Future innocents may not be so lucky.

Unfortunately, my life isn’t as exciting yours (refer to my last sentence) but at that point in time and space you were a grub in their eyes.
You may have had four aces but they had the Smith & Wesson…

ScienceRules6:19 pm 25 Oct 12

Guys, I have to put in my 2c worth on this topic.

I’ve worked very closely with AFP coppers for the past 10 years or so and I have to say that use of force is way down their list of things to do when dealing with the public. You’ve really got to work hard to get a copper to lay hands on, much less anything else.

The fact is that they are very closely scruitinised when it comes to force and have to justify even the use of handcuffs.

Regarding tasers, I sure don’t want us to get like the US where they are used as compliance devices, punishment options or in cases of sheer bloody mindedness on the part of the cops. In the ACT it’s only substantive sergeants that carry them at all, so by the time the boss has arrived on the scene, there has been a bucket load of negotiation already carried out.

I also reject the notion that police have no negotiation/people skills. That’s pretty much 80% of the job when it comes to dealing with the public. They are generally very good at it and don’t want to go “hands on” any more than other members of the public.

I realise I’m coming from a particular viewpoint (aren’t we all), but I reckon we’ve got a better community policing force than NSW and far better than Vic.

And I’m not a copper either, in case you’re wondering…

Pork Hunt said :

If a human being acts in a way that causes a copper to draw their weapon or taser, then they are being a grub at that point in space and time.

So you’re on your way through Civic of an evening at about 9:30pm after drinking half a dozen pints at the Phoenix after work when suddenly you’ve got what looks like every copy in town surrounding you and yelling at you a cacophony of conflicting directions including put your hands on your head/get on the ground/get in the van/who knows what else. Most people with a few pints in them and no guilty conscience will tell the cops to fuck off. With an inevitable result. How does that make them a grub?
Answer: it doesn’t.

I’ve been in this situation and it took an inordinate amount of patience and self-control to talk these f#$%with cops down and explain to me WTF was going on.
The fact it turned out I wasn’t the grub they were looking for meant that it was very lucky they didn’t have tasers. (The grub they were looking for was particularly grubby and deserved a good tasering).
Future innocents may not be so lucky.

Give them tasers and they’ll just taser people for nothing worse than being argumentative. It’s inevitable. It’s happening in NSW, it will happen here.

I have no idea why you would think it’s a good idea to taser somebody 16 times, would’ve been much more effective to use a couple of bullets on him.

As far as I’m concerned though – you start a violent rampage through Sydney streets, you got to take what comes. All these whingeing Brazilians should remember who the criminal was in that story.

aceofspades said :

bigfeet said :

If you read the article you will see that ‘used’ has a pretty broad definition. It includes just drawing it from its holster. Tasers were only actually fired on three occasions.

I would hazard a guess that in every other instance the negotiations took place after draw
ing . Something like this: ‘Get on the ground or I’ll taze you’. The grub is given two options, it’s up to him which one he takes. Most appear to have taken option one thereby not requiring a tazing. Now that is good negotiation skills!

That is exactly the problem. Anybody that a police officer has anything to do with is automatically assumed to be a “grub” regardless of the situation. I have no doubt that many young police officers have the best of intentions when they join the force but years of dealing with the filth of society turns them into filth themselves. They end up the worst filth of all, filth with a badge and a gun that under absolutely no circumstances will admit they may have made a mistake.

If a human being acts in a way that causes a copper to draw their weapon or taser, then they are being a grub at that point in space and time.
They might be under the influence of drugs or alcohol and normally do not behave like grubs but on that particular occasion have over stepped the line.
I choose to NOT to create the environment in my daily life that would lead to me being tasered or worse.

Tooks said :

c_c™ said :

The problem is the accepted role of tasers seems to have shifted. Remember in the early days they made it clear they were an alternative to lethal force options and would specifically not be used as a compliance device. Well, they clearly are been used as a compliance device.

Firstly, Tasers are NOT a substitute for lethal force. It’s this kind of misinformation that clouds the issue.

They are simply an extra use of force option, which may reduce the chances of using lethal force in a certain situation under certain circumstances.

Secondly, there is no evidence whatsoever that ACT police are using Tasers as a compliance device. None. The three actual uses (not just drawing or aiming the Taser) listed in the report are justified.

The biggest concern I think for most people is so-called ‘Taser creep’, which is the tendency for officers to use Tasers in situations for which they weren’t intended. A prime example would be NSW police. I was disgusted to see a suspect on his knees with his hands on his head (apparently compliant) tasered for no apparent reason (on the news recently). Apparently this is happening far too often in NSW.

Regarding the Brazilian bloke who died earlier this year after being tasered multiple times? I wasn’t there, but he was tased AFTER being handcuffed? That, in my opinion, can never be justified. One of the male officers involved was apparently 55kg. Do we need to bring back minimum physical requirements for police? Is their use of force training neglecting basic hands-on methods?

Tasers will eventually be rolled out to all police in the ACT, I’m sure. Only then, we’ll see if the ACT develops the same ‘Taser creep’ as other states.

It appears that it was the puny 55kg cop that tasered the brazilian immediately after one of the other cops made a pathetic attempt to bring the brazilian down by grabbing him by around his shoulder hence my comment that they don’t know how to tackle someone.The other problem was that they didn’t roll the student over and handcuff him from behind whilst he was still partially incapacitated which would have made their job so much easier.

It was keystone cops at its best!

Tooks said :

Firstly, Tasers are NOT a substitute for lethal force. It’s this kind of misinformation that clouds the issue.

They are simply an extra use of force option, which may reduce the chances of using lethal force in a certain situation under certain circumstances.

You’re very ignorant quite simply.

c_c™ said :

The problem is the accepted role of tasers seems to have shifted. Remember in the early days they made it clear they were an alternative to lethal force options and would specifically not be used as a compliance device. Well, they clearly are been used as a compliance device.

Firstly, Tasers are NOT a substitute for lethal force. It’s this kind of misinformation that clouds the issue.

They are simply an extra use of force option, which may reduce the chances of using lethal force in a certain situation under certain circumstances.

Secondly, there is no evidence whatsoever that ACT police are using Tasers as a compliance device. None. The three actual uses (not just drawing or aiming the Taser) listed in the report are justified.

The biggest concern I think for most people is so-called ‘Taser creep’, which is the tendency for officers to use Tasers in situations for which they weren’t intended. A prime example would be NSW police. I was disgusted to see a suspect on his knees with his hands on his head (apparently compliant) tasered for no apparent reason (on the news recently). Apparently this is happening far too often in NSW.

Regarding the Brazilian bloke who died earlier this year after being tasered multiple times? I wasn’t there, but he was tased AFTER being handcuffed? That, in my opinion, can never be justified. One of the male officers involved was apparently 55kg. Do we need to bring back minimum physical requirements for police? Is their use of force training neglecting basic hands-on methods?

Tasers will eventually be rolled out to all police in the ACT, I’m sure. Only then, we’ll see if the ACT develops the same ‘Taser creep’ as other states.

aceofspades said :

bigfeet said :

If you read the article you will see that ‘used’ has a pretty broad definition. It includes just drawing it from its holster. Tasers were only actually fired on three occasions.

I would hazard a guess that in every other instance the negotiations took place after drawing . Something like this: ‘Get on the ground or I’ll taze you’. The grub is given two options, it’s up to him which one he takes. Most appear to have taken option one thereby not requiring a tazing. Now that is good negotiation skills!

That is exactly the problem. Anybody that a police officer has anything to do with is automatically assumed to be a “grub” regardless of the situation. I have no doubt that many young police officers have the best of intentions when they join the force but years of dealing with the filth of society turns them into filth themselves. They end up the worst filth of all, filth with a badge and a gun that under absolutely no circumstances will admit they may have made a mistake.

You are concerned that some posters are making a judgement on a group of people and labeling them “grubs” which is unfair as they should be treated as individuals? You dont think maybe you are doing something just a teesy bit similar?

bigfeet said :

If you read the article you will see that ‘used’ has a pretty broad definition. It includes just drawing it from its holster. Tasers were only actually fired on three occasions.

I would hazard a guess that in every other instance the negotiations took place after drawing . Something like this: ‘Get on the ground or I’ll taze you’. The grub is given two options, it’s up to him which one he takes. Most appear to have taken option one thereby not requiring a tazing. Now that is good negotiation skills!

That is exactly the problem. Anybody that a police officer has anything to do with is automatically assumed to be a “grub” regardless of the situation. I have no doubt that many young police officers have the best of intentions when they join the force but years of dealing with the filth of society turns them into filth themselves. They end up the worst filth of all, filth with a badge and a gun that under absolutely no circumstances will admit they may have made a mistake.

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd4:33 pm 25 Oct 12

c_c™ said :

The problem is the accepted role of tasers seems to have shifted. Remember in the early days they made it clear they were an alternative to lethal force options and would specifically not be used as a compliance device. Well, they clearly are been used as a compliance device.

Exactly. Any police that uses a taser on someone for non compliance or mouthing off needs to be up on assault charges.

The problem is the accepted role of tasers seems to have shifted. Remember in the early days they made it clear they were an alternative to lethal force options and would specifically not be used as a compliance device. Well, they clearly are been used as a compliance device.

If you read the article you will see that ‘used’ has a pretty broad definition. It includes just drawing it from its holster. Tasers were only actually fired on three occasions.

I would hazard a guess that in every other instance the negotiations took place after drawing . Something like this: ‘Get on the ground or I’ll taze you’. The grub is given two options, it’s up to him which one he takes. Most appear to have taken option one thereby not requiring a tazing. Now that is good negotiation skills!

aceofspades said :

Tooks said :

Wow (comments 1 and 2), my very own Riot Act stalkers trying to get a bite. Sorry lads, no dice! Have a lovely day though 🙂

Oh Tooks, I am so disappointed, I love your banter! I didn’t realise that reading RA posts came under the category of stalking though. Do you wanna call a cop?

When you start naming me in your posts in an attempt to elicit a snarky response, then it kind of feels like stalking. I just thought it was…a little odd.

aceofspades said :

Tooks said :

Wow (comments 1 and 2), my very own Riot Act stalkers trying to get a bite. Sorry lads, no dice! Have a lovely day though 🙂

Oh Tooks, I am so disappointed, I love your banter! I didn’t realise that reading RA posts came under the category of stalking though. Do you wanna call a cop?

What Tooks is a cop? surely not!

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd3:29 pm 25 Oct 12

Johnny_Moe said :

The main problem with cops, more so constables, is they have no interpersonal skills whatsoever, they are just brain dead drones who resort to weapons because they aren’t smart enough to string a sentence together. They get off on the pain they inflict, they want to inflict pain.

Do you find it hard to communicate with your fellow man? Do you want to demand respect, without actually earning it? Do you lack free thought and basic human empathy? If you answered yes to all these questions, then I have the career path for you.

Not to mention a lot of them either didnt make it into the military or got in but spent their time at kapooka in digger james platoon, making them very bitter and angry peeps who now have some authority.

Tooks said :

Wow (comments 1 and 2), my very own Riot Act stalkers trying to get a bite. Sorry lads, no dice! Have a lovely day though 🙂

Oh Tooks, I am so disappointed, I love your banter! I didn’t realise that reading RA posts came under the category of stalking though. Do you wanna call a cop?

FXST01 said :

Something tells me that Johnny_Moe and Aceofspades have never spent a day in uniform and really have no idea what goes on in the life of a Policeman or any other authority figure.

Just keep whinging and complaining and stealing oxygen.

Tase them … go on … tase the sh1t out of them … you know you want to.

Well i hope the ACT cops are nothing like their NSW counterparts given that the NSW Ombudsmen has detailed a less than complimentary report on police brutality and misuse in the past two years.
Case in point was the absolutely woeful display which resulted in the death of the young Brazilian in Sydney.One of the cops said he was too scared to tackle the student due to his size?? The Brazilian student would have been no more than 90kgs and even at my age and 10 less kgs i would’ve had no trouble in bringing him down from what i saw of the footage.

Tasers should only be used in a life threatening situation not to punish someone because of one’s own incompetence!

FXST01 said :

Something tells me that Johnny_Moe and Aceofspades have never spent a day in uniform and really have no idea what goes on in the life of a Policeman or any other authority figure.

Just keep whinging and complaining and stealing oxygen.

I used to think like this until I witnessed a police officer and his partner manufacture evidence and lie in court. I know they did because I was there in court and at the seen that they lied about. Police officers create their own bad reputation.

Wow (comments 1 and 2), my very own Riot Act stalkers trying to get a bite. Sorry lads, no dice! Have a lovely day though 🙂

Something tells me that Johnny_Moe and Aceofspades have never spent a day in uniform and really have no idea what goes on in the life of a Policeman or any other authority figure.

Just keep whinging and complaining and stealing oxygen.

Johnny_Moe said :

The main problem with cops, more so constables, is they have no interpersonal skills whatsoever, they are just brain dead drones who resort to weapons because they aren’t smart enough to string a sentence together. They get off on the pain they inflict, they want to inflict pain.

Do you find it hard to communicate with your fellow man? Do you want to demand respect, without actually earning it? Do you lack free thought and basic human empathy? If you answered yes to all these questions, then I have the career path for you.

Cue for keen golfer and tooks, the local AFP public relations team to step in, tell us what rubbish this is, quote some procedural crap and tell us it must be all in our imaginations because there is just no such thing as a bad police officer.

The main problem with cops, more so constables, is they have no interpersonal skills whatsoever, they are just brain dead drones who resort to weapons because they aren’t smart enough to string a sentence together. They get off on the pain they inflict, they want to inflict pain.

Do you find it hard to communicate with your fellow man? Do you want to demand respect, without actually earning it? Do you lack free thought and basic human empathy? If you answered yes to all these questions, then I have the career path for you.

Daily Digest

Want the best Canberra news delivered daily? Every day we package the most popular Riotact stories and send them straight to your inbox. Sign-up now for trusted local news that will never be behind a paywall.

By submitting your email address you are agreeing to Region Group's terms and conditions and privacy policy.