Cop not taking control

[sooners04]

Sooners, I want your specific response to this one question. The tazer was designed to be used IN LIEU OF DEADLY FORCE. Meaning, that a tazer is the last resort to using your sidearm. This means that the ONLY time a tazer is justifiably used is when the officers life is in danger or another human beings. So then, in all cases where a taser was used as a "convienient" method of subduing a person so that the officer did not have to use physical force, this would be a case a blatant excessive force and the officer would be breaking the law? Would you not agree with that?

Tazers are dangerous weapons. They have caused over 100 deaths so far. A tazer is not a non-lethal weapon, it is a LESS THAN LETHAL WEAPON. The tazer is only permitted to be used in a situation where the officer would have otherwise drew his firearm and ended the suspects life.

Well I agree with you too some extent on the taser. My city's police department is the only department in the state that DOES NOT have tasers. The taser can be used wherever the Chief/Sheriff places it on the force continuum. Some departments would rather tase someone than get into a wrestling match and the officer/suspect or both get injured and then both take money from the city. There are plenty of situations where people would be DEAD right now from gun shots that are still alive because of a taser. The examples you give of people dying from tasers is probably accurate except you are forgetting that many of those people were on some kind of intoxication substance that the taser just made stronger per se. Over 100 deaths, but how many lives have been saved due to not being shot? What percentage is 100 deaths to the number of times it's been used? Our Chief cannot decide where to put it in the force continuum so our department doesn't have one, until someone gets shot and dies when they could have been tased and lived, then the family sues and owns the city, then we MIGHT get tasers.

[thegodfather]

Well I agree with you too some extent on the taser. My city's police department is the only department in the state that DOES NOT have tasers. The taser can be used wherever the Chief/Sheriff places it on the force continuum. Some departments would rather tase someone than get into a wrestling match and the officer/suspect or both get injured and then both take money from the city. There are plenty of situations where people would be DEAD right now from gun shots that are still alive because of a taser. The examples you give of people dying from tasers is probably accurate except you are forgetting that many of those people were on some kind of intoxication substance that the taser just made stronger per se. Over 100 deaths, but how many lives have been saved due to not being shot? What percentage is 100 deaths to the number of times it's been used? Our Chief cannot decide where to put it in the force continuum so our department doesn't have one, until someone gets shot and dies when they could have been tased and lived, then the family sues and owns the city, then we MIGHT get tasers.

Please see the article below..

CHARLOTTE, N.C. -- Autopsy results released this week reveal why a 17-year-old who police shot with a Taser died in March.

Darryl Turner was in an altercation with his boss at the Food Lion on Prosperity Church Road in north Charlotte when someone called police. Police said he was highly agitated when an officer shot him with a Taser. Turner was pronounced dead at the hospital a short time later.

Turner's autopsy says the stress of the situation and the shock from the Taser was too much for his body to handle. It says he died of acute ventricular dysrhythmia and ventricular fibrillation. In other words, his heart was pumping so fast and irregularly that he died.

The report states Turner did not have heart problems and he didn't have drugs in his system except for the medicines emergency workers used trying to save his life.

Turner's grandfather, Donald Fontenot, saw the report and said he's angry."

Very much so. Why wouldn't I be? You know, you take a 17-year-old child away," he said.

Turner's family has not said whether they plan to sue police. They hired an attorney in March after a witness said Turner was obeying the officer’s commands when he was shocked. Police said Turner had been threatening the officer.

Police are doing their own internal investigation to see if the officer who used the Taser followed the rules. That officer is back on active duty after being put on administrative leave following the incident.

I'm sure Darryl Turner, if he were alive right now, would disagree with your assessment that tasers save lives because cops dont need to shoot people. In this case, the cop did not need to shoot him with a firearm, and therefore did not need to shoot him with a taser. There were no drugs in his system. If you were in court right now, and you stated that tasers usually kill people who are intoxicated, I would say "Objection...calls for the witness to reach a medical conclusion..." Only a medical expert can make statements to the lethality of the taser, and they have. Medical examiners across the country have ruled deaths the result of tasers, only to be sued by Taser Inc., to change their expert medical opinion. I would say that in and of itself is enough evidence that something is ary.

I would say it puts police between a rock and a hard place. The officers primary goal is to preserve his own life, but he is also charged with PROTECTING the citizenry, even if it means from himself.

To be quite honest Sooners...I would much rather see officers use deadly force against people who are a threat to the officers life or someone elses, then to have the taser available to "save" those deadly threats, while at the same time killing innocent people who posed a lesser threat, but who police decided they would rather subdue with a taser then have to get off of their fat ass's and subdue with some muscle.

[sooners04]

Please see the article below..



I'm sure Darryl Turner, if he were alive right now, would disagree with your assessment that tasers save lives because cops dont need to shoot people. In this case, the cop did not need to shoot him with a firearm, and therefore did not need to shoot him with a taser. There were no drugs in his system. If you were in court right now, and you stated that tasers usually kill people who are intoxicated, I would say "Objection...calls for the witness to reach a medical conclusion..." Only a medical expert can make statements to the lethality of the taser, and they have. Medical examiners across the country have ruled deaths the result of tasers, only to be sued by Taser Inc., to change their expert medical opinion. I would say that in and of itself is enough evidence that something is ary.

I would say it puts police between a rock and a hard place. The officers primary goal is to preserve his own life, but he is also charged with PROTECTING the citizenry, even if it means from himself.

To be quite honest Sooners...I would much rather see officers use deadly force against people who are a threat to the officers life or someone elses, then to have the taser available to "save" those deadly threats, while at the same time killing innocent people who posed a lesser threat, but who police decided they would rather subdue with a taser then have to get off of their fat ass's and subdue with some muscle.

The lawsuit's that come from deadly force situations have been much less due to tasers. You gave ONE example of a horrible situation, where there are MANY positives that happen as well. Just like you said, rock and a hard place, the bottom line in ANY government is about money. Taser's have been able to LESSEN the number of lawsuits against the city due to LESS deadly force deaths. I'm not saying I agree with tasers, obviously our Chief doesn't, but they do prevent officers from beating people with physical force and or shooting them dead.

[thegodfather]

The lawsuit's that come from deadly force situations have been much less due to tasers. You gave ONE example of a horrible situation, where there are MANY positives that happen as well. Just like you said, rock and a hard place, the bottom line in ANY government is about money. Taser's have been able to LESSEN the number of lawsuits against the city due to LESS deadly force deaths. I'm not saying I agree with tasers, obviously our Chief doesn't, but they do prevent officers from beating people with physical force and or shooting them dead.

I could also argue that shooting them dead saves the tax payer more money, rather then the cost to incarcerate one prisoner for one year, which burdens the tax payer to the tune of $60,000 per prisoner per year..

[sooners04]

I could also argue that shooting them dead saves the tax payer more money, rather then the cost to incarcerate one prisoner for one year, which burdens the tax payer to the tune of $60,000 per prisoner per year..

Your missing the point about the CITY saving money not the taxpayers. The city has to pay the officer's wages if he gets hurt on duty fighting with someone, not to mention the lawsuit from the family of the person who the cop shot dead. It's not about the taxpayers, it's about the CITY government saving money. Not that it's right, but it's how they think and how they base their decisions. Taxpayers across the STATE have to pay for incarceration of criminals there is nothing you can do to prevent that. But city's can decrease lawsuits against themselves and they can decrease the number of officer's that are injured on duty this way. Plus when an officer shoots someone he/she is put on leave until the grand jury hearing, which again the city is paying money to an officer who is sitting at home because he shot someone instead of tasing them.