The Taser issue .....

[TheVoice]

I'm in favour of an increased Taser rollout. I don't think there's any need to do it under the guise of an increased terror threat (unless that somehow helps with funding and procurement), the fact that it's another option for police officers to use to protect themselves and others should be reason enough. Rolling out Taser should also mean there's less call for the police to be routinely armed.

Scotland already has some police officers wandering around with guns.

No we don't. We had ARV officers getting involved with 'routine' calls as is often the case across the UK. Some people got unnecessarily upset, some ministers got involved implying that Police Scotland had begun arming 'bobbies on the beat' which led to the current policy change situation where ARVs are no longer allowed to attend non-firearms calls. week

 

[dowie]

it really is. the military gear is mainly used for drug enforcement. US police is encouraged to forfeit assets, which is also mainly driven by the ill-gotten gains of the drug world.

asset forfeiture has been reduced as they've clamped down on local police being able to use federal laws to steal from citizens, there are still local laws allowing it unfortunately

it is pretty unbelievable when you look at some of the cases, people getting pulled over for speeding etc... then having a large quantity of cash taken from them which they can account for - like people who are buying/selling businesses, buying a house/car etc... granted it is a bit silly to carry cash like that but you don't expect the police to be able to steal it legally and potentially cost you thousands if you want to try and claim it back

 

[jumpy]

Nope.
The 'less than lethal response' should be the domain of the armed response unit for a situation where a firearm would not be appropriate.
For example disarming someone who presents a danger to others with an edged or blunt weapon - shooting that person with a firearm would be disproportional - there is no 'shoot to wound', only to kill.

Tasers should not be given to your average beat copper; they'll only be used to coerce unarmed citizens in increasing numbers as a way to expedite the use of police time and manpower.
It would start with dealing with rowdy drunks after the pubs shut and gradually spread into any other situation where the copper felt threatened; like you talking back, refusing to identify yourself, refusing to move on from a protest or demonstration, refusing to comply with an arbitrary stop and search etc. Mission creep.


A better idea than spending money on more kit - how about having more, better trained officers? Part of officers duties ought to be weekly mandated physical training (not simply yearly assessments to pass), dunno if that's a thing already, but I've seen plenty of fat pc's.
Also, do the police still have a height requirement these days or has that gone away due to 'equal opportunities'? Look back to the 70's and you don't really see any short coppers. Something about maintaining a presence is lacking when you're facing an officer who's a gnats pube over 5 foot.

 

[dowie]

I want them all wearing personal body cams, first.

perhaps it should be a requirement for carrying tazers/firearms

 

[Glaucus]

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

:rolleyesdo you even read bro.

 

[FishFluff]

I don't mind the police having tasers provided they also have body cams.

 

[andi]

It's about time this issue is put into the public eye. Many officers have been calling for increased Taser rollout for a while now, and the recent terror threat and intelligence is just part of the issue. Taser is an excellent tool against anyone who is violent and at present are just too thin on the ground. The idea they should be only given to ARV officers is just ridiculous. In my area, an ARV can be 40+ minutes away. You can do a lot of damage with a weapon in 40 minutes.

 

[garak112]

if x is required for 'terrorism' and can be sourced from an additional budget set aside for 'terrorism' then the impact of purchasing x only affects other Y, Z etc.. items which would have otherwise come from that terrorism budget

So we should reallocate money from a terrorism budget, which has presumably been doing quite well given the lack of terrorist incidents in the UK, and buy tasers on the basis of a rather shaky assertion that they will be used for counter terrorist purposes?

The 'additional' £130m will have already been earmarked for specific purposes otherwise it wouldn't have been given. So in reality there will be little if anything free for projects like this with questionable counter terrorism value.

 

[Broady21.pb]

I'm firearms trained, it doesn't make me reckless. If anything the training i've received has made me more perceptive to the potential threat level and options available. I'm not militarised either. The bosses are very careful in how we present ourselves to make sure we don't come across as paramilitary. We're still the smiling face of the force, we just have some extra equipment on our possession.

I think that a higher percentage of the force should be armed. After serving over 3 years in N Ireland were all the force are armed. I found that the officers had a greater respect to what force they can and can't use. Times have changed and we need to move with the times. We all change and adapt our computers to move with the times, so shouldn't our security, and if that means more armed officers then so be it. As the saying goes. "I'd rather have it and not need it, then need it and not have it" Thats just my opinion on the matter.

 

[Amp34]

I'm firearms trained, it doesn't make me reckless. If anything the training i've received has made me more perceptive to the potential threat level and options available. I'm not militarised either. The bosses are very careful in how we present ourselves to make sure we don't come across as paramilitary. We're still the smiling face of the force, we just have some extra equipment on our possession.

And how much time and money was spent training you?

Do you believe the same training would be given to every member of the police force if firearms were given to all police officers? Of course not.

There is a difference between a select few highly trained members having access to a (potentially lethal) weapon and it being widespread throughout the force.

 

[TheVoice]

Nope.
The 'less than lethal response' should be the domain of the armed response unit for a situation where a firearm would not be appropriate.
For example disarming someone who presents a danger to others with an edged or blunt weapon - shooting that person with a firearm would be disproportional - there is no 'shoot to wound', only to kill.

That means waiting for an ARV to arrive while officers are forced to either keep back or put themselves (and others) at greater risk by getting involved but lacking the means to actually resolve the situation. Tasers are already in use by non-firearms officers anyway. Also, it's 'shoot to stop' not 'shoot to kill'.

Tasers should not be given to your average beat copper; they'll only be used to coerce unarmed citizens in increasing numbers as a way to expedite the use of police time and manpower.
It would start with dealing with rowdy drunks after the pubs shut and gradually spread into any other situation where the copper felt threatened; like you talking back, refusing to identify yourself, refusing to move on from a protest or demonstration, refusing to comply with an arbitrary stop and search etc. Mission creep.

If a police officer wants to use force to coerce you they already have plenty of tools with which to do that.

The use of Taser also comes with a great deal of accountability; the devices themselves are able to record when they're used (and in what manner e.g. safety off, red dot, arced, or discharged) and when fired they also deploy dozens of tiny discs which bear the serial number of the cartridge.

A better idea than spending money on more kit - how about having more, better trained officers? Part of officers duties ought to be weekly mandated physical training (not simply yearly assessments to pass), dunno if that's a thing already, but I've seen plenty of fat pc's.

Being better trained doesn't negate the need for a Taser or any other type of weapon. Training can reduce the need to use that weapon (be it via other means of physical force or being able to verbally de-escalate the situation) but there will still be times where Taser is required.

 

[Amp34]

You volunteer to carry one. Have to pass a stringent paper sift and your record is scrutinised to the nth degree. Then you need to sit and pass a 8 week course of which you are continually assessed.

I think given the way the country it is then taser is a good option for officers, even if its just one or two officers on a shift with a taser. It provides a different option.

My opinion is at some point taser training for every officer should be mandatory. As for conventional firearms, I don't see the need for it for everyone but an increase in numbers wouldn't hurt. As long as they undergo the same vetting I did.

I can't really speak for my fellow officers in that respect, some don't like firearms but like the idea of having the option of a taser. We carry a spray thats an irritant, doesnt mean its used on every occasion someone fights. Same if your carrying a taser. The gung ho types are usually found out quite quickly in my experience.

Not necessarily

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/jan/28/dozens-london-police-disciplined-royal-family

ighty elite police officers and staff responsible for guarding the royal family, political leaders and public events in London have been disciplined for misconduct since 2010, the Guardian has learned.

The vast majority – 60 – of those reprimanded were attached to Scotland Yard’s diplomatic protection group, the unit that came under the spotlight over the Plebgate saga.

That highly trained squad, SO6, is to be overhauled this year following concerns raised by Assistant Commissioner Mark Rowley that unacceptable “pockets of behaviour” had developed over many years.

(Not aimed at you, just pointing out that there are problems in even "elite" forces, let alone the problems with lesser trained members of the police).

 

[dowie]

But did that misconduct occur before or after they joined that unit?

The other poster could still be completely correct in saying that they require good records to join. It doesn't necessarily contradict what he posted.

 

[dowie]

So we should reallocate money from a terrorism budget, which has presumably been doing quite well given the lack of terrorist incidents in the UK, and buy tasers on the basis of a rather shaky assertion that they will be used for counter terrorist purposes?

The 'additional' £130m will have already been earmarked for specific purposes otherwise it wouldn't have been given. So in reality there will be little if anything free for projects like this with questionable counter terrorism value.

Not necessarily, it depends on the needs of the force... I'm just pointing out that your question of how many officers need to go isn't necessarily appropriate as there are also separate budgets available with regards to terrorism

 

[Amp34]

I want them all wearing personal body cams, first.

With an independent body, completely independent of the police, overseeing them.

There does seem to be a "them and us" rule at the moment. It's taken 2 years for the police and then the IPCC (or whoever took them over) to investigate how 6 police officers broke the neck of a club goer, and there still isn't a resolution. I no way would it take that long if there wasnt police involvement...

Apparently (according to the police) he was kicking and screaming when they carried him in to the van, which was a medical impossibility according to doctors who point out his spinal cord was completely severed, and witnesses to the event.

That, along with "Plebgate" where police were found to have lied for their colleagues (there are calls to reinstate them after the ruling Mitchell may have said pleb, even though that had nothing to do with the reason they were fired) does make you question just how often this sort of thing goes on. Unfortunately Most people don't have senior politicians to put pressure on police forces to investigate properly.

 

[MrMoonX]

Just an excuse for the police to arm themselves, no doubt more innocent people will die at the hands of more tasers. What with the news this week that the police don't investigate corruption, the police force is a joke

 

[jumpy]

That means waiting for an ARV to arrive while officers are forced to either keep back or put themselves (and others) at greater risk by getting involved but lacking the means to actually resolve the situation. Tasers are already in use by non-firearms officers anyway. Also, it's 'shoot to stop' not 'shoot to kill'. Have more firearms officers (employ more officers in general as I said before) so they can be deployed to incidents where 'someone is brandishing a weapon' - shoot to stop = don't argue semantics, the police are not trained to wound - center mass to stop the individual runs a high risk in killing. Given the experience of a former police marksman's view on the subject; shooting an individual is always viewed with the result as a fatality.



If a police officer wants to use force to coerce you they already have plenty of tools with which to do that. So why have more tasers then?

The use of Taser also comes with a great deal of accountability; the devices themselves are able to record when they're used (and in what manner e.g. safety off, red dot, arced, or discharged) and when fired they also deploy dozens of tiny discs which bear the serial number of the cartridge. So what? How much time will be wasted in assessing accountability when tasers could be deployed to deal with nothing more than a rowdy drunk on a saturday night who should be controllable by physical restraint?



Being better trained doesn't negate the need for a Taser or any other type of weapon. Training can reduce the need to use that weapon (be it via other means of physical force or being able to verbally de-escalate the situation) but there will still be times where Taser is required. By better trained I refer to being physically strong enough to restrain an individual without resorting to using a cattle prod because you're a manlet. But I explained this in my post already.

 

[Unbeliever]

And how much time and money was spent training you?

Do you believe the same training would be given to every member of the police force if firearms were given to all police officers? Of course not.

There is a difference between a select few highly trained members having access to a (potentially lethal) weapon and it being widespread throughout the force.

The training would need to be approved by the governing body who dictates all police firearms training. A program would be developed and delivered across the whole country and it would be rigourous. Instructors have to justify their decision in passing you competent to carry a firearm. I'm up every month for refresher training. We take it very seriously.

 

[TheVoice]

I'll reply to your points as one seeing as you've replied inside my quote for some reason.

Having more firearms officers in general doesn't solve the issue of the first officers on scene who are most likely to be unarmed being unable to potentially resolve a hostile situation or react to a situation that turns hostile. If the presence of Taser allows that situation to be dealt with there and then (often just as a result of its presence) then that's a far safer resolution than either waiting for an ARV or forcing officers to use other means.

Why have more Tasers? As above.

The accountability is there to reduce misuse in the first place, therefore if officers know that any use of Taser will be recorded it'll always be at the back of their mind when considering its use.

"By better trained I refer to being physically strong enough to restrain an individual without resorting to using a cattle prod because you're a manlet. But I explained this in my post already."

Physical restraint which can result in physical injury to the individual and the officers, especially if there's a weapon involved.

Edit: As for 'arguing semantics', it isn't; the policy is called shoot to stop therefore it's shoot to stop. Officers are not trained nor instructed to kill the target and that's evident from the way they're taught to assess each shot. Obviously death can result from that but not very often; one person died as a result of being shot by police last year.

 

[Westyfield2]

I'd rather be tasered than shot. But then on the assumption that I'm a criminal, perhaps the police should be doing the exact opposite of what I want? Because I'm less scared of the taser, am I more likely to do whatever it is that I shouldn't be doing?