The Taser issue .....

Dis86 · 31 Jan 2015 at 11:28

My dad was firmly against them. This is the man who tackled a mentally ill chap armed with a machete.
The pc who was his partner ran away...nice of her eh? Then after my dad had subdued the guy and disarmed him she returned and sprayed him in the face with cs catching my dad in the process. Probably why he was against giving other officers weapons...

Oh he received an official commendation for his actions.

aardvark · 31 Jan 2015 at 11:30

there might be a legitimate reason for giving police tasers, but using terrorism as an excuse is pretty pathetic.

Glaucus · 31 Jan 2015 at 11:31

I don't like the idea, mainly from a training standpoint. Imo they should be treated as a fire arm and as such, intensive and regular training, which an every day cop just isn't going to be able to do.

Repta · 31 Jan 2015 at 11:32

Redz said:
Only to police officers who are responsible enough to be trusted with the weapon.

When idiots like the one in this story have access to them it doesn't make the streets any safer.

I would argue if a police officer can't be trusted to be responsible enough they should be out of a job.

garak112 · 31 Jan 2015 at 11:32

dowie said:
so it is pretty cheap then....and not all the 120k or so police officers are going to be out on a regular patrols in uniform where they may be a target

How many of those officers do you have to cut to fund this though?

Repta · 31 Jan 2015 at 11:34

Glaucus said:
I don't like the idea, mainly from a training standpoint. Imo they should be treated as a fire arm and as such, intensive and regular training, which an every day cop just isn't going to be able to do.

Why not? The PSNI has no problems keeping every officer trained in firearms use so either its possible to do or the standard of police officers on the mainland is severely lacking.

Glaucus · 31 Jan 2015 at 11:42

Or the standard of police forces else where is lacking. It is not possible to train an entire police force effectively. Unless you have a huge budget and more police officers to compensate for significant training time each year.

dowie · 31 Jan 2015 at 11:44

garak112 said:
How many of those officers do you have to cut to fund this though?

0

there exist other budgets for this sort of thing - especially if you attach the word 'terrorism' to it

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-31051588

Scotland Yard's commissioner has said millions of pounds of funding is needed to protect London from terrorism.

Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe said "tens of millions" was needed to ensure London was prepared in case of a similar incident to the Paris attacks.

The national counter-terror budget currently stands at £564m, with an additional £130m set to be distributed.

could start phasing in tazers from things like that

garak112 · 31 Jan 2015 at 11:53

I think I'd rather the police spend counter terrorism money on countering terrorism, rather than buying stuff they don't need just because someone with an axe to grind attached the terrorism label to it.

If the police wanted to buy tasers to combat terrorism they would have already reprioritsed and done so, the fact that they haven't speaks a lot about the need for this.

Freefaller · 31 Jan 2015 at 11:54

Tasers I mind less than a gun. I'd rather we incapacitated people than kill them no matter what their crimes.

That said that money and training could be used to bring more cops on the front line which would be more useful.

dowie · 31 Jan 2015 at 11:58

garak112 said:
I think I'd rather the police spend counter terrorism money on countering terrorism, rather than buying stuff they don't need just because someone with an axe to grind attached the terrorism label to it.

If the police wanted to buy tasers to combat terrorism they would have already reprioritsed and done so, the fact that they haven't speaks a lot about the need for this.

they might still do in future - and if they were to would you then change your mind and state that the fact they have bought them speaks a lot about the need for this

part of the reason for the suggestion is terrorism related so it isn't just attaching a label to it - it would be useful for other purposes though - point was that the assumption you'd need to cut officers in order to fund it is flawed

stopper · 31 Jan 2015 at 12:04

"Lets tell the people we will protect them, then we will disarm them, and then we will arm ourselves. That way there will be less chance of a rebellion and we will always stay in control."

Tazers won't be used on suicide bombers though will they, they will be used on people refusing to stop and search or some thing.
Terrorism is being used to arm the police in order for TPTB to stay in control, it is a massive con.
Police are supposed to be our public servants.

dowie · 31 Jan 2015 at 12:12

stopper said:
Tazers won't be used on suicide bombers though will they, they will be used on people refusing to stop and search or some thing.
Terrorism is being used to arm the police in order for TPTB to stay in control, it is a massive con.
Police are supposed to be our public servants.

the reason for the suggestion wasn't suicide bombers - that is a bit of a straw man you're attacking there...

it is incidents like this:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...rial-footage-of-attack-released-by-court.html

which are being planned still:

https://news.vice.com/article/british-security-services-foil-islamic-state-style-terror-plot

Amp34 · 31 Jan 2015 at 12:17

dowie said:
they might still do in future - and if they were to would you then change your mind and state that the fact they have bought them speaks a lot about the need for this

part of the reason for the suggestion is terrorism related so it isn't just attaching a label to it - it would be useful for other purposes though - point was that the assumption you'd need to cut officers in order to fund it is flawed

The head the union specifically states "terrorism"* as the reason for arming every police officer. He's arguing for it as a self defence mechanism, not that it should be brought in to help with policing (although that would be what would happen if they were brought in).

*Attacks against the police because they are police.

Luckily he is just that, a union head. Unluckily he is very close to politicians and may manage to lobby them to actually do it.

Amp34 · 31 Jan 2015 at 12:18

dowie said:
the reason for the suggestion wasn't suicide bombers - that is a bit of a straw man you're attacking there...

it is incidents like this:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...rial-footage-of-attack-released-by-court.html

which are being planned still:

https://news.vice.com/article/british-security-services-foil-islamic-state-style-terror-plot

And that's a prime example of an event that a taser wouldn't have helped.

And as I said before, why are we arguing for people to carry weapons for self defence? All the arguments against the public having weapons for self defence are still relevant here.

garak112 · 31 Jan 2015 at 12:22

dowie said:
they might still do in future - and if they were to would you then change your mind and state that the fact they have bought them speaks a lot about the need for this

part of the reason for the suggestion is terrorism related so it isn't just attaching a label to it - it would be useful for other purposes though - point was that the assumption you'd need to cut officers in order to fund it is flawed

Suggesting that nothing would need to be cut to fund it is also flawed. This year the police received £8.6bn from government, next year they are getting £8.3bn, assuming all the additional counter terrorism money goes to the police leaves them with £8.4bn. They already have to cut £200m of costs from their budgets, if they buy tasers they would need to find a further £20m+.

garak112 · 31 Jan 2015 at 12:24

Amp34 said:
The head the union specifically states "terrorism"* as the reason for arming every police officer. He's arguing for it as a self defence mechanism, not that it should be brought in to help with policing (although that would be what would happen if they were brought in).

*Attacks against the police because they are police.

Luckily he is just that, a union head. Unluckily he is very close to politicians and may manage to lobby them to actually do it.

The Police Federation and the politicians don't get on:

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/may/21/theresa-may-police-federation-power

The suggestion that the police are not given the tools to tackle terrorism is most likely another power play.

adolf hamster · 31 Jan 2015 at 12:26

all the cops here in ni carry guns, yet theres hardly anyone gets shot these days.

the only problem with tazers is they might feel more gung ho about using them but i'd rather the police have the luxury of choosing than being at risk.

they should be properly instructed about how and when to use them for definite.

Will21st · 31 Jan 2015 at 12:28

Glaucus said:
Or the standard of police forces else where is lacking. It is not possible to train an entire police force effectively. Unless you have a huge budget and more police officers to compensate for significant training time each year.

so you're saying that basically all police forces in the west are not up to scratch? You know that's nonsense.

dowie · 31 Jan 2015 at 12:30

Amp34 said:
And that's a prime example of an event that a taser wouldn't have helped.

not necessarily - it is an example of the sort of event they want to protect against... sure you'd not be able to defend against being run over by a car, but you could defend against someone wielding a knife