Tasers, LRADs, and other weapons

[TheChamp]

Do you think it is excessive force to use painful and debilitating weapons like tasers on pregnant women who are stopped for traffic violations? Well, the Supreme Court doesn't!

Use of Taser on Pregnant Woman Not Unconstitutional, Court Rules

All of these new police issued weapons are designed to completely disable you. The problem is that police are using them in situations which simply don't call for it. Don't tase me bro is one example, but they've been caught tasering people off bikes for asking questions, tasering pregnant women for complaining about a traffic ticket, and worse! By giving police a weapon other than a gun or stick to bludgeon you gives them a device which lets them treat you like cattle.

[Apeman81]

My issue with “less than lethal” weapons for use by law enforcement is not the weapon, but the oversight of the use of such.

In the past, the officer had a gun, a club, and his fists. The officer used that which offered him the best ability to deal with a miscreant.

The citizenry new full well that to engage the officer was to face bodily injury. Thus, the people divided themselves into two groups, those who obey the commands of the officer and face no physical harm, and those who offer physical resistance. (Please, I know full well that some abuses occurred. That makes no difference for this argument)

Societal changes that coincided to affect that status qou was an ideal that the officer should use the minimal force necessary to dissuade an offender. As well, a move was afoot to shift the responsibility of personal protection from the individual to the state.

This influence imparted more impetus to minimizing the injury at the hands of the state, forcing the officer to develop other responses. This was further influenced by growing attention to the actions of the officers by civilian panels.

This lead to an attempt to rigidly define the response of the officer based upon scenario driven regulation. If suspect does x, respond with y. The y response morphed from suggestion to regulation. The specific responses to specific situations were not only known to the officer, but to the criminal as well. Knowing the limitations placed upon the officer, the criminal’s lack of limitation as employed to exploit the situation.

The mindset of “less than lethal” response becomes confused with a “non-injurious’ ideal that exists only in the mind. To confront and resist an officer is to put oneself in harm’s way. That is being , but cannot be, forgotten.

[Chaossaber314]

How did her being pregnant keep her from exiting the car?
If getting out of a car is too traumatic for her, why wasn't she on bedrest?

[TheChamp]

It is a violation of the 5th Amendment to force her to sign anything anyways.

[TheChamp]

'Super-Taser' shotgun bullet that can knock down criminals from 100ft assessed by Home Office

By Daily Mail Reporter
Last updated at 1:00 PM on 30th March 2010

A new 'super-Taser' stun gun that fires a 500-volt wireless 'bullet' up to 100ft is being considered for use by UK police forces, the Home Office said today.

The extended Range Electronic Projectile (XREP), already used by police in the U.S., fires a barbed electrode from a modified 12-bore shotgun.

It hooks into the target's skin before administering a 20-second shock which renders the subject totally incapacitated.

'Super-Taser' shotgun bullet assessed by Home Office | Mail Online

honestly i'd love one of these, but its sick that law enforcement uses less than lethal take down methods for petty and small domestic situations (traffic tickets, etc). I mean I understand using a taser when facing someone armed or violent, but they just tase you like cattle now to keep you in line.

[Apeman81]

[QUOTE=TheChamp; honestly i'd love one of these, but its sick that law enforcement uses less than lethal take down methods for petty and small domestic situations (traffic tickets, etc). I mean I understand using a taser when facing someone armed or violent, but they just tase you like cattle now to keep you in line.[/QUOTE]

Part and parcel of the "less than lethal" weapons deployment schema.

Once you’ve integrated such a “non-injurious” tool, the bright boys on civilian review boards start the call for “how to handle situation x” documentation, moving injurious methods farther and farther away from the start of a confrontation.

The scenarios employed in writing these rules of engagement cannot be as specific as the officer will encounter. So they learn that to apply pain techniques, choke holds, Tasers, etc . in an escalating pattern to anyone that refuses an officers commands. Anyone.

And God forbid you fail to follow the “preferred” pattern of actions. Unless you like riding a desk or staying home without pay, you stick to the plan. Officer level decision making is punished out of the officer, replaced with doctrine.

Not that all officers are as afraid as to deny common sense. But too tight an attempt at control and standardization tends to lead many officers to err on the side of doctrine rather than apply common sense.

[TheChamp]

Interesting and well put

[Chaossaber314]

It is a violation of the 5th Amendment to force her to sign anything anyways.

Negative. It's a signature in lieu of posting bond for an offense garnering a summons. The alternative is being arrested, booked, and then posting bond which is the other form of assurance that you will appear to take care of your charge.

In fact one of the phrases taught to young officers is "I just need you to sign here on the line. It is not an admission of guilt. It just says that you will pay your fine or show up to court."

[Thanatos]

honestly i'd love one of these, but its sick that law enforcement uses less than lethal take down methods for petty and small domestic situations (traffic tickets, etc). I mean I understand using a taser when facing someone armed or violent, but they just tase you like cattle now to keep you in line.

I managed to acquire some (definitely non-shocking) less lethal 12 gauge ammo and I'm pleased with the results. Check your local laws.

I blame Star Trek for giving people unrealistic expectations. Some day there may be a stun ray that works on adults, children, the elderly and raging Klingons every time witn no damage no matter where you hit them. It doesn't exist yet - and as you suggest it might not be a good thing because people would be tempted to overuse it.

Wait a minute, both Champ and Ape said kind of smart things. I must be really tired.

[Apeman81]

I managed to acquire some (definitely non-shocking) less lethal 12 gauge ammo and I'm pleased with the results. Check your local laws.

I blame Star Trek for giving people unrealistic expectations. Some day there may be a stun ray that works on adults, children, the elderly and raging Klingons every time witn no damage no matter where you hit them. It doesn't exist yet - and as you suggest it might not be a good thing because people would be tempted to overuse it.

Wait a minute, both Champ and Ape said kind of smart things. I must be really tired.

It happens. Deal with it.

[TheChamp]

Negative. It's a signature in lieu of posting bond for an offense garnering a summons. The alternative is being arrested, booked, and then posting bond which is the other form of assurance that you will appear to take care of your charge.

In fact one of the phrases taught to young officers is "I just need you to sign here on the line. It is not an admission of guilt. It just says that you will pay your fine or show up to court."

It does violate the 5th amendment, the 5th Amendment doesn't protect you only from an admission of guilt but from being a witness against yourself, meaning by signing that document you're admitting two 1. being there 2. being given the ticket. Those two factors CAN AND ARE used against you in court. They still retain the authority to arrest and book you for the traffic violation.

[TheChamp]

I blame Star Trek for giving people unrealistic expectations. Some day there may be a stun ray that works on adults, children, the elderly and raging Klingons every time witn no damage no matter where you hit them. It doesn't exist yet - and as you suggest it might not be a good thing because people would be tempted to overuse it.

Wait a minute, both Champ and Ape said kind of smart things. I must be really tired.

hahaha. Well, they did invent a few other non-lethal weapons. The LRAD is a sound cannon (that knocks you on ur butt). And there is this other gun that shoots out a massive amount of thick super sticky expanding foam and it stops you from moving almost entirely (its not painful at all but super gross)