GUWonder

I'm familiar with some of the stories and stories about studies involving tasers. With tasers, people armed with such may be willing to fire more often than they would if armed only with a gun. And that is a concern that should be factored in when thinking about this issue too.

Deeg

That is their purpose. Tasers are intended to be a non-lethal weapon. They are roughly equivalent on the use of force continuum to an expandable baton.

And, for what it's worth, the studies about Taser-related deaths are not conclusive yet. Cities have generally found that both officer injuries and suspect injuries have decreased after Tasers are introduced as an option.

GUWonder

There is a reason why I said "stories and stories about studies" and not the studies themselves.

Were the tasers additions or substitutions in the cities you mention?

Deeg

I'm far from an expert on Tasers, but they are usually issued in addition to OC spray and expandable batons. The officer chooses which device(s) to carry.

According to the Minnesota State University Force Science Research Center's analysis of another group's work:

Columbus (OH) P.D.: Tasers were effective nearly 90% of the time that fired probes struck on target. Ineffectiveness was tied to suspects' thick clothing, misses generally to deployment during foot pursuits. Once Tasers were on the street, excessive force complaints declined more than 25%, subject injuries more than 24% and officer injuries more than 23%. The devices were credited with preventing a dozen suicides.

Seattle P.D.: Injuries to subjects and officers are reported "low in Taser deployments when compared with other use-of-force situations." Of subjects Tasered, 71% were impaired by alcohol, mental illness or delusion," (conditions that often blunt a suspect's reaction to chemical sprays and other pain compliance techniques). Twenty-three per cent of suspects Tasered were armed, primarily with knives.

Cincinnati P.D.: After more than 300 Taser deployments, arrest-related injuries to officers were down 70%, with suspect injuries down 40%. Use of force by "other traditional means" dropped 50%. The department notes a decrease in citizen complaints regarding use of force.

Madison (WI) P.D.: Tasers were successful in producing incapacitation 77% of the time. More than 6% of use was to subdue suspects "whose actions would have justified the use of deadly force." Reduced injuries to officers and subjects alike were reported.

Toronto Police Service: "In 65% of all incidents, the presence of the device contributed to a successful resolution without being used. The device was effective in 88% of the incidents in which it was actually used." More than one-third of the incidents involved individuals who were armed (overwhelmingly with edged weapons).

Orange County (FL) S.O.: Among all "lower-lethality options," Tasers had "the highest level of de-escalation (subjects were less likely to fight harder against an arrest after use)" and also the "highest deterrent effect (people were less likely to resist or fight once they were aware the device might be used)." Workers' comp claims related to arrest injuries have dropped 50%. Taser's rate in controlling resistant suspects was much higher than that of "conventional hand-to-hand techniques," which besides being ineffective nearly 30% of the time also resulted in the "largest number of subject and officer injuries."

bambi47

In my opinion, every cop should have a police dog with them. I've seen more people stop when the dog is let loose than with anything else. A policeman may miss with a gun, never with a dog. But that's my opinion.

GUWonder

American airports are not Abu Gharib. Unless the dogs are bomb detectors par excellence, not necessarily a good idea.

... you have not seen people run away from a dog? Kids do it most of the time.

Superguy

And if you're in a group of people with a dog after you ... you don't have to outrun the dog. You only have to outrun the slowest person.

bambi47

Not talking about bomb dogs. Just police attack dogs. I've seen plenty of people run away from dogs, but not police dogs. When a police handler sends his dog after you, they usually get you. I believe the air marshalls did the right thing yesterday, but are you saying there wouldn't have been a better outcome if they had sent a dog after him?

GUWonder

I'm referring to police (& paramilitary/military) attack dogs too.

What would a police attack dog do to a suicide bomber in such a situation? Die too; little else.

GUWonder

I've heard a variation of that joke too.

urlbuster

I don't know about tasers for FAMs. Just to throw a scenario out there:

Bad guy says "I have a bomb"
FAM gets involved and tases the bad guy
Bad guy is temporarily down
Now what?

The bad guy still may have the bomb. I don't think it would be a good idea to have a FAM try and disarm an improvised device he has no knowledge of. Even the best EOD training may not be enough. Bad guys can make bombs in so many ways, I can't see any one or two FAMs being able to restrain a potential bomber while trying to neutralize the threat. On top of that, you don't want a restrained bomber just sitting around trying to detonate himself while you wait for the plane to land, people to evacuate, etc. An actual bomber on an aircraft is a losing situation. I say take him out and eliminate the human threat. The bomb can't think for itself or try and detonate itself. What say ye?

whirledtraveler

So let's suppose that they taser him and he does have a bomb. They could bring along a gun along and then just shoot him when they discover he really has a bomb, since it's hard to hold him down, right? What do you say to that?

Dovster

You're wrong.

Every man in my anti-terrorist unit was able to make a head shot against a moving target -- and remember, we were a reserve unit.

Yes, we were using sniper rifles, not hand guns, but we were also shooting from 100 meters, not the short distances presenting themselves in a commercial plane.

At such short range leading the target is not a factor, you don't have to consider windage, and a slightly misaimed shot means hitting the side of the head instead of the center.

FlyingToFly

Good lord, Sanosuke, you were kidding when you said this right? Please tell me you were.

FlyingToFly

Hm, I see you weren't joking.

Sanosuke, you need to start verifying your fact more before you post. I'm not going to make any personal attacks, but I think it would be fair to say that most of your posts have been incredibly uninformed. Please, in the future, try to do more research before posting.

1. Just because a bullet has a metal jacket and is thus conductive, doesn't mean it carries an electrical charge. Anyone who has taken elementary physics knows the difference between "conductive" and "holds charge."

For example, a metallic knife is just as conductive bullet casing, but if I attacked you with said knife, you wouldn't get electrocuted to death, you would be wounded by the cutting action of the blade.

2. Actually, you can shoot at a block of C4 plastic explosive with a rifle and it won't explode. You can even set it on fire without worrying too much. It's activation of the detonator that you need to worry about.

3. We don't know what type of bullet was used in the shooting. I do know that there is special ammunition available for airline use (Kevlar with lead shot, although I may be mistake, Deeg probably knows more about this than I do) -- in which case, your incorrect assumptions regarding a bullet's ability to conduct charge wouldn't even come into play.

By the way, I'm still waiting for your response to the post I made after seeing your tirade on non-lethal alternatives in the other thread. I've asked you several times to address it, but you never seem to get around to it.