The Taser issue .....

[Amp34]

Officers don't get tasered as part of their training.

I asked that follow up question to find out if you think officers should get batoned as part of their training? Given that batons are less dangerous?

I think a baton carries a much more higher risk of injury than taser and a study in Canada supported this with instances of hospitalisation far higher after baton usage than taser usage.

In terms of lethality, yes taser carries a higher risk - but this higher risk is alongside an already high risk situation. Taser has been used in the UK for well over a decade and it's been used a bucket-load of times in that period with only a handful of cases of the taser discharge being found to be unnecessary and even fewer resulting in the death of the person of it being used on.

And since you mention CS spray, I don't know about you but I remember back in the day when all the officers where issued with CS, there were similar lethality debates. The theory being the extreme pain and panic caused by CS could exacerbate an existing cardiac problem (exactly the same argument for taser, but with the electrical element instead). And yes, this has contributed in the deaths of a few people. But unfortunately, you can't always be aware of how someone is going to react to any use of force. I know of a police officer who merely told someone they were under arrest and the suspect collapsed and suffered a fatal heart attack. That is technically a death in police contact.

Anyway, back the topic - tasers. Not perfect but there never is perfection when you're trying to stop a suspect who presents significant danger to themselves or others.

If tasers are safe enough to use in non lethal scenarios then they should be used in training on the police officers using them... If they are considered too dangerous then they should not be used for non lethal situations.

 

[Mynight]

To be fair I think anyone who uses such a weapon should know how they feel before deploying them on someone else.

Exactly the same as with a gun .

 

[Terminal_Boy]

Would you endorse officers being hit with Taser during training?

Being Tasered to appreciate it's effects was part of the training given to Met CO officers being issued with it a few years ago. No idea if that's still the case.

 

[Amp34]

Me neither.

I am not for Taser being issued to officers against their will but I have no objections to a further roll out for frontline officers.

Some have suggested that the issue of Taser will not prevent a terror attack. Nobody has said that it will. Others have said that it shouldn't be discharged at someone wearing a suicide vest - that's a well known no no and if you are within the Taser distance limit of 21 feet facing someone wearing a vest then you would be pretty much screwed anyway if it went off. Nobody has said otherwise, even those advocating further roll out.

Others have questioned what use it would be against an active shooter scenario such as what we saw in Paris or, although not terror related, the shootings in Cumbria a few years back ? Not a lot. Nobody has said that an AK can be countered with a Taser.

What some may be missing though is that the Lee Rigby murder, as callous as I may sound and I assure you I don't mean to sound that way, was simplistic and easy to plan. A car and edged weapons were all that was used and I personally believe - and I'm not aware of any intel that it is going to happen - that that type of spontaneous act is what you will likely see in the UK and should it happen, the police must be able to defend both the public and themselves and Taser us the bridge between standard PPE and routine arming of police which incidentally has very few fans within the police service, myself included. I have said before I am against routine arming if police officers and the current threat has not changed that. While we're on, some have said we didn't issue Taser to police officers during the Troubles and when the IRA declared all a target so why now ? Was Taser even invented then, certainly in its current X-26 form ?

The majority of cops are single crewed these days and it's a long time since I was crewed up. That's the way it is now as austerity has cut swathes through the frontline despite the Tories saying otherwise.

Police receive fairly good OST these days with self defence and pre-emptive strikes taught including use of batons and incapacitant spray but against someone armed with a knife or a 4x2 they have their limitations and Taser helps to bridge some if those limitations.

What the press don't seem to publish much is that the majority of incidents where Taser is used are resolved with it being drawn and people red dotted often give up without a discharge.

For terrorism alone then I don't agree 100% but for the wider issue of public and police safety then I agree with further roll out. Taser is the same class of weapon as CS in terms of the Firearms Act, Section 5.

I agree that any terrorist attack on a police officer is most likely to be a "lone wolf" style attack as seen in the Lee Rigby attack (rather than bombs like they used to be during the IRA years). The problem with bringing the Lee Rigby attack up again and again when discussing Tasers is that a Taser wouldn't have stopped the incident. You can't shoot a taser through a car windscreen. The reality is if all police were armed with Tasers then a terrorist would come up with an idea of incapacitating the officer before it was used. That could be hiding round a corner, driving at them in a car, or even just wearing thick clothing to reduce the chance of an effective strike if they did decide to make their presence known and then run at the officer.

Essentially my argument boils down to the idea of using a taser as a self defence weapon for police officers, to protect against a targeted terror attack against their person (which is what the federation chief was stating), just won't work. Yes, it may help in normal situations, such as a guy wielding a Machete in the middle of a high street, or a situation the police attend, but it's unlikely to be much use against an surprise attack on the police themselves.

 

[dowie]

If tasers are safe enough to use in non lethal scenarios then they should be used in training on the police officers using them... If they are considered too dangerous then they should not be used for non lethal situations.

they probably don't beat each other with batons at full force in training(at least not without some protective clothing), yet I'd presume that you'd be OK with that non-lethal option?

 

[dowie]

I agree that any terrorist attack on a police officer is most likely to be a "lone wolf" style attack as seen in the Lee Rigby attack (rather than bombs like they used to be during the IRA years). The problem with bringing the Lee Rigby attack up again and again when discussing Tasers is that a Taser wouldn't have stopped the incident. You can't shoot a taser through a car windscreen.

You can't defend much against being taken by surprise by being run over by a car regardless. You can potentially defend against a knife attack/other weapons using a tazer - given that further Lee Rigby style attacks have been planned it isn't unreasonable to look at ways that police can defend themselves against them (in addition to say jumping out of the way of a moving vehicle). There are any number of possible scenarios in another such attack, maybe the car doesn't hit the officer, maybe it does but not sufficiently to incapacitate, maybe a car isn't used - regardless it is the threat of people wanting to decapitate someone in general that is of concern and in plenty of scenarios where you've not been crippled by a car a tazer would be extremely useful when confronting people determined to take your head off with a blade.

 

[Burnsy2023]

If tasers are safe enough to use in non lethal scenarios then they should be used in training on the police officers using them... If they are considered too dangerous then they should not be used for non lethal situations.

For what training value exactly?

Being Tasered to appreciate it's effects was part of the training given to Met CO officers being issued with it a few years ago. No idea if that's still the case.

No the ACPO guidance is that officers aren't tasered during training.

 

[Terminal_Boy]

CO18 must do it for a chuckle then.

 

[Zbornak]

If tasers are safe enough to use in non lethal scenarios then they should be used in training on the police officers using them... If they are considered too dangerous then they should not be used for non lethal situations.

So you would support officers being hit with batons during training? So they know what it feels like?

 

[Von Smallhausen]

I agree that any terrorist attack on a police officer is most likely to be a "lone wolf" style attack as seen in the Lee Rigby attack (rather than bombs like they used to be during the IRA years). The problem with bringing the Lee Rigby attack up again and again when discussing Tasers is that a Taser wouldn't have stopped the incident. You can't shoot a taser through a car windscreen.

To be fair Amp, nobody is really saying otherwise. You are quite right in what you say but the aftermath may have to be resolved fast and Taser is a better tactical option than baton and PAVA, certainly for someone armed with an edged weapon.

I can only guess here as I'm 300 miles away from the Met but I imagine their armed cover to be pretty good and a response to be fairly swift but an attack may be in a non metropolitan force area where armed response is not as swift. Where I work, my assistance is quite often 15 minutes away if things go pete tong. Armed response is often longer. Putting terror aside, there are often spontaneous reports that come in where edged weapons are suspected and used including those with mental health issues including self harm where again, Taser can be the better asset to consider. I'd be interested to hear from any Met cops here about the coverage point above.

The reality is if all police were armed with Tasers then a terrorist would come up with an idea of incapacitating the officer before it was used. That could be hiding round a corner, driving at them in a car, or even just wearing thick clothing to reduce the chance of an effective strike if they did decide to make their presence known and then run at the officer.

I agree but they might miss their chance and even if they don't, the threat has to be neutralised quickly and Taser is an option. Even if the threat was sprayed and went down but was still violent, Taser can be used to dry stun when the front attachment is removed.

Essentially my argument boils down to the idea of using a taser as a self defence weapon for police officers, to protect against a targeted terror attack against their person (which is what the federation chief was stating), just won't work. Yes, it may help in normal situations, such as a guy wielding a Machete in the middle of a high street, or a situation the police attend, but it's unlikely to be much use against an surprise attack on the police themselves.

Agreed but see above.

 

[Von Smallhausen]

No the ACPO guidance is that officers aren't tasered during training.

Officers can experience being tapered but in a different way. I've seen two officers hold a wire while the same voltage was put through it. In the interests of professionalism I will say I didn't laugh at all.

 

[bitslice]

When the Police were recalled to base recently wasn't that down to intelligence suggesting that there was a jihadist plan to kidnap one of them ?

Given the situation with UK muslims returning from sandland then I'm all for giving them a better chance of defending themselves. Our Police signed up to enforce the law, not to be beheaded to make a prophet happy.

Personally I wouldn't even fly over Tower Hamlets in a A-10 with an Empire Death Star as backup, never mind walk around it dressed as a copper armed with a stick.

 

[Von Smallhausen]

I think the intel was specific to the West Mids force area.

 

[Burnsy2023]

I think the intel was specific to the West Mids force area.

It was indeed. What a kerfuffle that was.

 

[Amp34]

You can't defend much against being taken by surprise by being run over by a car regardless. You can potentially defend against a knife attack/other weapons using a tazer - given that further Lee Rigby style attacks have been planned it isn't unreasonable to look at ways that police can defend themselves against them (in addition to say jumping out of the way of a moving vehicle). There are any number of possible scenarios in another such attack, maybe the car doesn't hit the officer, maybe it does but not sufficiently to incapacitate, maybe a car isn't used - regardless it is the threat of people wanting to decapitate someone in general that is of concern and in plenty of scenarios where you've not been crippled by a car a tazer would be extremely useful when confronting people determined to take your head off with a blade.

Then stop using Lee Rigby as an example. Just say a terrorist attack specifically against police.

The reality is the best way to keep police safe in situations like this is to have police always going round in pairs.

Tasers are an option that may need considering but they just don't look like they are useful for the scenario the federation head was talking about.

I'd also still question why we should consider equipping police with a weapon for self defence when a civilian equipping themselves with a weapon for self defence "just in case" would see them jailed. There's a big difference between police using a weapon in the line of duty and having a weapon to use just in case someone attacks them specifically.

For what training value exactly?

To understand how it feels, much like CS...

No the ACPO guidance is that officers aren't tasered during training.

So you would support officers being hit with batons during training? So they know what it feels like?

I'm sure training with batons includes practicing on each other, just not at full strength.

As I said if it's to be used instead of lethal force then it's a very different scenario to being used as a step up from a baton or CS. Either way that's not what the federation head was asking for.

 

[thep02]

Front line police officers suffering injury from being attacked is less than 22% of all injuries according to this.
http://www.hse.gov.uk/services/police/statistics.htm

Of those 22%, how many were when they police were actually forced into a fight on their own and unable to defend themselves and not say when cuffing or surprise attacked by another assailant or many other instances. Very few instances is my bet and how is a drunk or drugged up nutt going to respond when confronted with a taser, no different than before and there are units already called when someone is violent on the street. The argument put forward is invalid. According recent figures violent crime is on the decrease thanks to 'CLEVER' police work. (i.e not treating people like criminals and solving the social economic issues instead).

What are the increase terrorism risks that everyday frontline police officers face that requires a taser. How many instances of police being unable to defend against terrorist attacks have their been? My bet ZERO
Also you dont want to shoot a potential bomber with a gun that fires an electric pulse else it risks detonating the bomb.

All this strikes me as, is a stupid Police chief being used a puppet by a bent MP and media company who are being lobbied by Taser (i.e taking backhanders from Taser) in order to make Taser and said MP and media outlet a lot of cash.

Think how much money a contract for Tasers to Police officers is worth...



If you give police Tasers then the response from people who are doing serious crime is going to be to scale up.
You don't end up living in an evil dictatorship overnight, it happens slowly through small changes. Next the police are required to carry guns in certain (high crime) areas and then the criminals upscale and the areas gets worse.
Never mind all the instances of Tasers being lost or stolen and then winding up being used by criminal elements.

'Officers are being threatened!!', best call in a taser drone to sort those crims out. "Taser police drones Cah-ching crooks and keeping YOU SAFE."

This.

 

[Amp34]

To be fair Amp, nobody is really saying otherwise. You are quite right in what you say but the aftermath may have to be resolved fast and Taser is a better tactical option than baton and PAVA, certainly for someone armed with an edged weapon.

I can only guess here as I'm 300 miles away from the Met but I imagine their armed cover to be pretty good and a response to be fairly swift but an attack may be in a non metropolitan force area where armed response is not as swift. Where I work, my assistance is quite often 15 minutes away if things go pete tong. Armed response is often longer. Putting terror aside, there are often spontaneous reports that come in where edged weapons are suspected and used including those with mental health issues including self harm where again, Taser can be the better asset to consider. I'd be interested to hear from any Met cops here about the coverage point above.

That's a different scenario though. Select police with tasers that can respond to an incident is different to arming every officer. If Lee Rigby were armed it wouldn't have helped him. If on the other hand some of the respondents to the incident were armed then they could have arrested the perpetrators quicker (but not saved his life). It's why I said in the post just above this the reality is not allowing single officers out on the beat will probably be safer.

As I said earlier, I'm not necessarily talking about general threats but specifically about the comment by the federation head in the interview, that officers should be armed with tasers for self defence against terrorists attacking them.

Having specialist trained officers that keep tasers in the back of their cars, only removed when needed (which is what I presume most specialist officers do now) is very different to every officer having a taser on their belt/webbing.

One of the other big questions I would ask is "why now"? The UK is safer than it ever has been in the past. Less murders, less guns, less police deaths. Why do we suddenly need to arm more and more police than we did 30 years ago?

 

[MofoKilla]

we need more police brutality tbh.

oh and give em guns not tasers.

 

[Von Smallhausen]

Tasers aren't kept in the back of cars. They are carried by the user. Some forces use overt holstering, some use covert - the latter being what I would choose.

While stats may show a safer country, it doesn't show the inherently dangerous job policing is and we do not live in the George Dixon era anymore.

I remember speaking to some cops in the US who cant believe we roll about on the deck with violent people.

 

[Burnsy2023]

I'm sure training with batons includes practicing on each other, just not at full strength.

We strike pads, not people in training.

Tasers aren't kept in the back of cars. They are carried by the user. Some forces use overt holstering, some use covert - the latter being what I would choose.

Tasers in Hampshire are carried overtly on the duty belt like this: