Stun Weapons
Sat Jun 19, 2004 9:45 am
Sat Jun 19, 2004 12:24 pm
But human rights groups are appalled by the fact that no independent safety tests have been carried out, and by their potential for indiscriminate use.
Sorry ma'am, didn't know your husband had a pacemaker...
Sat Jun 19, 2004 5:59 pm
I loved the fact that they claimed to be offering them for sale in the us and europe when we all damn well know that they'll really be shipping them en masse to China and other places where they'll be used less discerningly.
Sun Jun 20, 2004 1:45 pm
For every one dead pacemaker wearer, there may be fifty guys who live to tell about (after a nasty shock) how they reached for their wallet a little to quickly or made some other sudden movement in front of a nervous cop.
Sun Jun 20, 2004 2:48 pm
One dead is too much.
Sun Jun 20, 2004 2:55 pm
You get more than one dead with a real weapon...
Sun Jun 20, 2004 7:44 pm
"One dead is too much" has got to be one of the most overused and silly sayings these days.
Take, say, vaccination. Some unlucky kid has a bad reaction and dies, and people say it should be removed off the market, because "one dead is too much," not couting the millions of lives saved because of widespread vaccination.
The same could be said of water treatment, medicines... or on the topic of law enforcement... pepper spray?
Look at it this way... say every year the cops are involved in 2,000 incidents where the person in question is innocent but makes a movement that results in the cop resorting to deadly force. If stun weapons are not permitted, then.. maybe 400 of these result in the death of an innocent person. If stun weapons are allowed, then maybe it's 40. Now, is "one death" really "too much"? How silly does that statement now sound?
Like all police weapons, cops are required to follow a Use of Force Doctrine which requires using the lowest means necessary to compel compliance and protect the officer. Stun weapons would probably be designated at least level 5 (baton) if not level 6 (sidearm). Above these are level 1 (officer presence), 2 (verbal command), 3 (soft hand methods), and 4 (hard hand methods). If I remember right, pepper spray is considered level 4. BTW, these are Coast Guard levels, so police levels may be slightly different. (I had the training a while back, but have never been a boarding team member.)
Stun weapons would provide the officer with a lower level means of incapacitating an assailant at a distance. The only problem I see is, if I thought someone was drawing a weapon, I would use mine, not a stun gun, unless I really, really trusted it to work--so it would be both a matter of training and doctrine, and just plain time with it in the field before you would see the benefits of fielding them during one-on-one stops.
Take, say, vaccination. Some unlucky kid has a bad reaction and dies, and people say it should be removed off the market, because "one dead is too much," not couting the millions of lives saved because of widespread vaccination.
The same could be said of water treatment, medicines... or on the topic of law enforcement... pepper spray?
Look at it this way... say every year the cops are involved in 2,000 incidents where the person in question is innocent but makes a movement that results in the cop resorting to deadly force. If stun weapons are not permitted, then.. maybe 400 of these result in the death of an innocent person. If stun weapons are allowed, then maybe it's 40. Now, is "one death" really "too much"? How silly does that statement now sound?
Like all police weapons, cops are required to follow a Use of Force Doctrine which requires using the lowest means necessary to compel compliance and protect the officer. Stun weapons would probably be designated at least level 5 (baton) if not level 6 (sidearm). Above these are level 1 (officer presence), 2 (verbal command), 3 (soft hand methods), and 4 (hard hand methods). If I remember right, pepper spray is considered level 4. BTW, these are Coast Guard levels, so police levels may be slightly different. (I had the training a while back, but have never been a boarding team member.)
Stun weapons would provide the officer with a lower level means of incapacitating an assailant at a distance. The only problem I see is, if I thought someone was drawing a weapon, I would use mine, not a stun gun, unless I really, really trusted it to work--so it would be both a matter of training and doctrine, and just plain time with it in the field before you would see the benefits of fielding them during one-on-one stops.
Sun Jun 20, 2004 8:21 pm
I heard a while back about a riot gun that when they pointed it at you and pulled the trigger it made you immediatly drop a deuce. The person coulda been lying, but it sounds like it would be funny.
Sun Jun 20, 2004 9:38 pm
lol...
Sun Jun 20, 2004 9:53 pm
Originally posted by Hairy Ballsagna
I heard a while back about a riot gun that when they pointed it at you and pulled the trigger it made you immediatly drop a deuce. The person coulda been lying, but it sounds like it would be funny.
no I heard about that too, can't remember where though. I'll pot a link if I can find one.
Mon Jun 21, 2004 1:35 am
The stun weapons in question are for atacking crowds. Nothing to do with an officer incapacitating an assailant.
Mon Jun 21, 2004 11:29 pm
Good point, but my argument remains valid. This would provide the cops with an additional, non-lethal means of disrupting and dispersing violent crowds before having to resort to firearms - that saves lives.
Tear gas can cause severe problems for a few people as well.
Tear gas can cause severe problems for a few people as well.
Mon Jun 21, 2004 11:42 pm
Why don't they use sleeping gas...?
Non-lethal, and you wake up nice and refreshed.
Non-lethal, and you wake up nice and refreshed.
Tue Jun 22, 2004 12:36 am
They could change their uniforms to red and hand out bags of candy, no one would attack a fat man in red distributing candy, would they?