Tasers:
We have given the police the power of Zeus, to cast lightning bolts, and just like the Greek God, they are capricious and arbitrary. All the human frailties we all suffer from are present in our police, they are us, the panic, the rage, the desire to take the easy course, all of it. Now they have a weapon that allows them to indulge these, as a pistol or baton never could.
I would rather see them use a Taser than a pistol, of course, but why must they have ones that are capable of multiple usage? Surely it would reduce the risk of abuse or accident if they were equipped with “edisonic epidural educators” that would only fire a couple of times, or three, certainly less than five times?
Another question that springs to mind, perhaps it’s possible to reduce the amperage, make it still effective but less likely to induce deleterious side-effects

Why have terrorists if they don’t instill terror. It is no good giving Police absolute power, and making them totally unaccountable, unless you give them a true terror weapon to go with it. The report from North Queensland indicates that the fellow Tasered and murdered at Brandon, was hit up to fifty three times. This deadly weapon would not be available to anyone, in a democracy. In a democracy, this terrorist weapon would be locked is a safe, and used as a last resort in a riot situation.

There would not be one Police Officer in all of Australia who would use one, if they knew they could be sued in a fair just and impartial court. Inflicting GBH, has always been a crime. These things are capable of inflicting GBH and even death. Just fix up the Federal Courts, so anyone tasered by a State Policeman can sue for damages as a member of the Commonwealth, without restriction, and get a fair go there and a jury trial, paid for by the Commonwealth, as Parliament has legislated, and the ten million dollars spent by Nathan Rees on Tasers, will be wasted.

What are they scared of? Are they so morally bankrupt that they must give more and more weaponry to an increasingly isolated and demoralized Police Force. Why is it impossible to retain Police in New South Wales? Is it because their own internal moral code rebels against the jobs they are asked to perform?

I think the Commonwealth should take over all policing, under S 51 Placitum Vi Constitution. They have the power, and they should be protecting us all from State sponsored terrorists. The war on terror, should have a home grown aspect. By S 114 Constitution The States have raised a paramilitary force without Commonwealth consent. They are also taxing property belonging to the Commonwealth. All freehold land reverts to the Commonwealth, as soon as it becomes freehold, so land tax is also illegal.

Tasers are just the latest in a State reign of terror, started in 1970. With courts not Courts they will not last

Just like the quick fixes they use on children with ADD[retinol] so is the taser to policing. Policing skills are lost and the taser will replace communication and good judgement.

"All the human frailties we all suffer from are present in our police, they are us, the panic, the rage, the desire to take the easy course, all of it."

You've hit the nail right on the head, Maximillion. You've got to ask whether the police will start using these weapons a lot more because they've been sold the idea that tasers are non-lethal, when recent events have shown that they can be lethal. Even if the technology doesn't kill you, it can seriously humiliate.

Every time I see a senior policeman or a police union spokesman get in front of the camera, all we ever hear is the point of view of the policeman in the situation. How he was protecting himself etc etc. While there are always situations which turn out this way, there are instances where cops carry out actions against people that are marginalised and who they think either won't complain or have anyone complain on their behalf. This is probably just as illegal as other bad behaviour they are supposed to be policing. But who's doing anything about bad police behaviour?

At the end of the day, it is the policeman who decides to use force. The initial response of police command is to support the officer concerned no matter what. That's a one-eyed view and, by itself, can't possibly be justice.

With the idea of reducing unecessary deaths during attempted arrests, first it was the longer baton; then they scrapped the longer baton for the silly little 'asps' which are easier to pack. So, back to shooting in self-defence. The goody two shoes complained even more about the deaths of criminals who were threatening the lives of police doing their job to protect society. So, voila, we have the tazer.

Now a violent person has died after being 'tazered'. We all knew that this would happend soon enough. How is anyone to know that a person has a physical condition that won't stand up to an electric shock.

Do the bleeding hearts have any further suggestions to protect thugs resisting arrest and attacking police? Probably not.

Let's stop this poor criminal rot. 99.9% or the population will never be arrested by police, and those who will be arrested need only to obey reasonable and lawful requests made by police.

If they attack police, particularly with weapons, shoot them!

Leigh, that would be fine, if our police weren’t human, and only ever used Tasers as and when they were supposed to, but that’s not how it works out on the street.
That was the point of my questions. Not whether they should have them, but how to deal with the problems associated with them.

the pitiful bleatings of the impotent and incompetent.
a product of the paralysing gender confusion
created by the male hegemony of exclusively men's legislatures
and a sole men's jurisdiction at law.
crime is managed not prevented.
shoot people you've abandoned a duty of care, nicely.

provide a women's legislature alongside the men's,
and deviant behaviour
both male and female
is far more effectively understood
and eliminated
prevention not incomprehension
so you can put down your guns gentlemen

The problem is that the taser will be used as the first line of resort rather than assessing a situation and calming it down,you pull the taser and let rip.

The gun is always the last line of resort and everything else is tried beforehand.The taser if used prolifically,will further alienate the police from the public.

The police these days are inadaquate in both size and training,thus there is a huge scope for abuse.

Common and a sense of proportion dictate that not every attempted arrest is the product resulting in a tasering of a 'thug' or as a result of “bleeding heart “, “goody two shoes” and other over the top intolerance laden generalisations.
I can easily imagine circumstances where these emotional attitudes could potentially create a tasering.

As the son of cop and an ex long term crisis intervention counselor I know how perilous some situations can be. Yes, I've been bashed, cut and threatened with items like bars, knives, needles and guns....
NB my mum didn't raise any heroes nor am I excessively fool hardy.
My experience tells me that the issue isn't that clear or cut and dried.
I have seen a father who's daughter had been bashed and raped had gone out end bashed the boy HE thought was the perpetrator. When the police came he went ballistic and several people were injured including me. A later investigation found that the policeman involved (inexperienced, under-trained) caused the problem all because his ego his sense of authority. Might I add this is a common mind set see psychology 202.
Clearly there are many unique factors in every situation that makes hard generalisations unwise.
Also out that in a recent Tasering the (Aussie) person was Zaped 20 times and he died.

Tasers like guns are tools the problem is often the tool handling them.

IMHO Police in general are under vetted, under resourced, under trained, under respected and under paid.

We have a society that honours the takers rather than the givers. We are a selfish lot and resort to the extreme too often and unnecessarily.

It's a bit like taking an analgesic for a brain tumour. The problem will lurch from one crisis to the next until we address the key issues.
Idealistic? No simply realistic.

PS Max Mixing mythologies how journalistic tsk tsk :-)(joke?)

Interesting article.

http://www.infonews.co.nz/news.cfm?l=1&t=0&id=38129

I feel totally frustrated that the debate is always hotter when there is a shooting (tasering this time) by the police than when police is shot at by the criminals. Don’t forget the police force is there to protect law abiding citizens and they need support from the people they are protecting.

In deed there is chance for the taser to be abused. This is no different to guns or any other weapons. The police officers who abuse the weapon will be dealt with by law. I have absolute faith that there are less potential criminals in the police force than in the general public. Removing the weapons from then for fearing of misuse is not at all a logic option.

I, like all other law abiding Australian, would not need to worry about being tasered or shot at by police. For those offenders who dare to use force to resist police arrest, it is already a leniency for the police to use a taser, not a gun on them.

Maximillion,

OK. My answer is "I don't know", and I'm glad I don't have the responsiblity to work this out. I do believe, however, that the safety of police, or anyone dealing will unruly and lawless people must come first.

I think that Arjay has a good point when he says: "The police these days are inadaquate in both size and training,thus there is a huge scope for abuse."

We should also look at the role of female police officers. A woman police officer friend of my wife's says that they bring a different outlook to the job but, as valuable as that may be, I don't think they are up to dealing with violent makes twice their size and weight.

I'm a smallish, lightly built old bloke, but some of female police officers I see look like midgets alongside me. What hope they would have without weapons against many offenders is anyone's guess. Proper training is one thing; being attacked my a huge, angry male is another.

Now now Examinator, I didn’t, Zeus was equated with Jupiter in the ancient world, and the Etruscans called him Tinia, lol.
I agree by and large with Arjay and thee, but I suspect wchh is a little b&w.
If our police were all wonderful Cark Kent types, that attitude might hold water, but they aren’t, and it doesn’t.
Police world-wide are over-using them and abusing their own rules. There was a recent item on the media showing the recording from the police vehicle, of a cop tasering an argumentative 80 yr old woman! For a traffic offence! Another was that guy they tasered repeatedly in the eastern states, Q’ld?, for not crossing a road quickly enough to satisfy them! He wasn’t resisting arrest, or them, in any way. Plus people are dying everywhere that tasers have been introduced, an un-acceptable risk in my book.
I also have serious reservations about them being held accountable under the law, police forces tend to protect their members no matter what, and even when disciplined, it’s no more than a slap on the wrist as a general rule.
Wchh’s last statement beggars belief, not only because many innocent people are harassed by police, and arrested, but also because of his attitude of utter contempt for civil rights. Police are not judge, jury, and executioners, they are an arm of government, and our servants, and are not saints. Anyone has the right to resist an unwarranted or illegal arrest, that doesn’t give cops the right to shoot them, with anything!
The police here in the NT are the most careful, considerate, sensitive mob I’ve ever seen, they outshine any other Ozz force, in my opinion, yet they have their wrong’uns too, and commit offences, and get drunk etc etc, just like the rest of the population, but I still don’t like to see them armed with a supposedly “safe” weapon that can easily kill.

Leigh, if you eliminate the need for a woman to be attacked my a huge, angry male,
if you empower women in their own right,
with a women's legislature,
women looking after women's business,
you eliminate tasers in cross gender crisis.
meanwhile, let's play drive 'em psycho with a justice system
comprised of guessing as to just what might be on the mind of the other gender,
then stop 'em.

The recent death was dreadful, 36 times?
Was the cop full of fear? frozen?
Or a coward unable to stop?
Was he/she a sadist?
All these things are true of some police, some humans in every walk of life.
A few gladly few, police put the ego on with the uniform.
But would you rather we let criminals kill them?
Let them use tazers, but in the right way at the right time.
We should not let the few who are egos in uniform color our views a good cop is worth more than we pay them.
And if you need one you will not care if he/she uses a gun or tazer.

Count me among those who think Tasers are a good idea.

As others have said, there have always been rotten eggs in the police force. Not satisfied with being a policeman, they appoint themselves judge jury and executioner. Yes, they will abuse Tasers. But before Tasers they beat, pummel and otherwise abused their victims. Tasers might alter the form of abuse, but I don't see them altering the number of incidents, or making the problem worse. The reverse in fact. A night stick doesn't record how many times it was used to hit someone.

In fact, that seems to be the answer to the problem. Surveillance. It seems more and more those police that do cross the line get caught out on surveillance cameras. Putting cameras in the police cars would be a good step. Maybe one day we can put cameras in the police hat.

One step I would like to see taken though. Now the police have a reliable and moderately safe way to disable someone, it is time to lock the guns in the boot, where there were in yesteryear. The world will be a safer place for everyone - including the police.

"Just like the quick fixes they use on children with ADD[retinol] so is the taser to policing."

Ritalin. Retinol is a vitamin.

Ritalin is stupid. Sorry that was a bit simple but as accurate as I can get right now.

Tasers, stupid also (see aforementioned apology) and kids are already showing up to local parties with them - great.

Why don't we have the CCTV (is that correct?) like England?

Taser company denies gun killed man
By Annie Guest for The World Today
June 19th, 2009

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/06/19/2603457.htm?section=australia

I came across this article, I realise this doesn't mean it is okay to attempt to cause someone pain with your new toy.

If the secularist had not won in breaking down respect for all authority we would not have a quarter of the drug and violence problem we have now. You would have to be a mug to be a policeman or woman where the law seems to favour the drug filled violent men and woman rather than the law enforcers.

Dear Max,

I agree with you, tasers are preferable to guns.
But 'nets' would be even better. (The kind they
throw over wild animals - when they capture them).

However what would be even more preferable would
be the education and re-training of our police force,
so that they could be taught to handle all sorts
of situations without having to kill, maim, or
destroy the people they're supposed to protect.

It is a judgement call - but to date it seems that
all they've been taught to do is aim for the chest
and shoot to kill - in any 'threatening,' situations.

There has to be better training than that. Anybody
can be taught to shoot to kill. But as police officers,
there must be other options in the training manuals.
Perhaps advice from other law enforcement forces - such as the LAPD (Los Angeles Police Department),the
training units of their Academy,
could assist in this matter.

Giving police officers tasers - which do have serious
side effects - and the capability to kill - surely
can't be the only option that's available.

To all those posting re’ police being assaulted etc, I think we can take it as a given their responses are justified, it’s the use of tasers in other circumstances that creates the problems. Once carrying them, police tend to use them whenever there’s a confrontation, it’s quicker and simpler for them, and they are human after all. One officer having a bad day, or in the middle of a divorce etc, can ruin it for the others, and it is happening with increasing frequency.
That is why I asked about reducing the ability to continuous-zap, building in a re-charge period, after perhaps two shots. If an assailant is still kicking after that, more won’t make much difference after all. A system of having to justify it’s use every single time, the same as a gun usage now has, and severe penalties for wrongful use might help.
Foxxy, I think you underestimate the reality and violence police regularly face, a lot of the time there really is no other option than physical force, drunks, druggies, mindless thugs who don’t give a royal, they get them all. How do you reason with or restrain a violent mental patient? Someone totally off the planet on Ice? The police need weapons, that’s a fact of the 21st century, but we need to make sure they have ones that won’t encourage misuse, as tasers do. People are DYING, un-necessarily, and that’s not acceptable to me for one.

This is a difficult one Maximillion. I have seen a lot of what police have to deal with and no matter what new toy they come up with to essentially reduce harm, it seems to be ever fraught with issues.

Whilte tasers are not perfect, they are better than a dependency on guns particularly in the hands of a young untrained and nervous police officer. The risk of taser death is much lower.

The real issue is in police training and culture. Most police I have dealth with will always use negotiation as a first step. It is a heavy emphasis in the training and of course despite this, there will be the few that abuse their power.

However, we expect a lot from our police forces and they do not receive much in the way of public support nor an understanding of the dangers to their safety. How many of us risk injury or worse when we turn up for work each day?

With an increase in binge drinking and drug affected offenders out of control on the streets at night (Melbourne is a prime example) taser use will no doubt increase. How does, even the most experienced negotiator deal with a drunken or drug affected offender who is not capable of reason?

Maybe a dart gun with a one-off sting and a strong sedative might work but there is always a risk no matter if the subduing weapon is a baton, a gun or another tool.

As one poster said most of us will never feel the jolt of a taser while we go about our law abiding activities.

Dear Max,

I'm fully aware of the risks that police officers
take on a daily basis. I lived and worked in Los
Angeles for approximately ten years, and a close
family friend was a member of the Los Angeles
Police Force. The training they received was very
different from the one that seems to be given to our
police officers. That's why I suggested that perhaps
it would be advantageous to our law enforcement sectors
to acquire training methods from other law enforcement
agencies.

It certainly couldn't hurt.

Simple point.
(1) Hand the police a weapon that can and does kill.
(2) Tell them it's "non-lethal"
(3) Any associated deaths are then "accidents"
Training can only do so much, and human nature and emotions can and do short-circuit the training.
We should be treating each death as accidental manslaughter, and charging the officers who kill. Every single use of the taser should be treated as assault, and charges laid, unless it can be clearly demonstrated as a life-saving, no other option, necessity.
We need to make the police reluctant to use it unless they absolutely have to, the complete opposite of the current situation. The operating mind-set seems to be "why would any cop risk getting a bruise or two when they can stand back and "zap the sod"?
Faced with assailants with knives or guns, fair enough, but no other excuse seems justified.