Tasers in NI

inspector71

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/7613000.stm

I really don't understand what all the fuss is about?
Surely if you behave yourself - you won't get tasered by a cop carrying a taser? Just like, you won't get shot by one carrying a gun!

Can somone explain to me why this is such a big deal?

metman

They also alleged the introduction breached the right to life and right to freedom from torture under the Human Rights Act.

Says it all really. The only force in the UK where all officers are routinely armed yet the bleeding hearts are whinging about the introduction of less lethal options :rolleyes: Nothing surprises me with the mentality of some in NI.

Fyr.Fytr

Fluffy nunny brigade kicking up a stink as usual "ahh theyre all misunderstood" "wernt hugged enough as a child" "didnt get the nike air max for christmas" screw that.


hmmm tazer or glock, i know which id choose to be taken down with

civdef

Lawyers for the applicant claim there was a failure to carry out a proper equality impact assessment before tasers were brought in.

Are they looking for a rule specifing that people being tasered have to be 50:50 catholic : protestant?

CLADA

civdef wrote: »

Are they looking for a rule specifing that people being tasered have to be 50:50 catholic : protestant?

The lawyers are acting on behalf of an unidentified Belfast child so their submission in relation to the equality impact assesment must be related to age rather than creed.

The PSNI have issued the TASER to their specialist units similar to Garda ERU and as stated by the Chief Constables spokesperson it can only be used in limited circumstances.
The introduction of Taser to specialist units makes those units more human rights compliant as it provides a less lethal option in “certain situations”.

Gavin

Fyr.Fytr wrote: »

Fluffy nunny brigade kicking up a stink as usual "ahh theyre all misunderstood" "wernt hugged enough as a child" "didnt get the nike air max for christmas" screw that.

So you don't think that how someone is brought up is going to affect their perception of the world, their concept of what's moral, knowing what's right and wrong etc ? You think the kid with the druggie parents is going to grow up with a stable world view ? I don't think so. You think the kid who has been sexually abused by parent/uncle/sibling/anyone is going to have a sane view of sex? No, they are far more likely to abuse some other kid than the average non-abused person.

Simply chucking these people in jail isn't going to break the cycle. Calling them 'bad' and mocking them without understanding the root cause means we learn nothing and nothing improves.

hmmm tazer or glock, i know which id choose to be taken down with

I don't have a fixed opinion on tazers. I think they are certainly a good idea for trained firearms units, who are hopefully staffed with well grounded, intelligent people that know when to use what sort of force. I don't know if that's the case, but I'd certainly hope it is.

For the average police officer, I'd be slightly more dubious. I can see the use certainly. Why should a Garda have to endanger their life to subdue a violent person with a baton, when a much safer option is available ? The problem is the ease of use of the tazer. Taking the baton out and hitting someone is extremely physical, it leaves welts/bruises or even breaks bones. A tazer is easier for the officer to use and abuse as seems to be the case in the USA with the amount of taser abuse incidents lately.

With a strict policy in place for when/where to use the things and if the policy is rigidly enforced then maybe. But who knows if the policy would be enforced, these things tend to slide over time.

Fyr.Fytr

Verb i know plenty of people who've had less then desirable up briningings, be in drug/alcahol abuse in the close family (myself included) and those who have had to work damn hard to get where they are, ie fought their way up from the bread line. All of them refused to use is as an excuse and were bigger people and rose above it. So to be honest i dont take that as an excuse at all.

Gavin

Fyr.Fytr wrote: »

Verb i know plenty of people who've had less then desirable up briningings, be in drug/alcahol abuse in the close family (myself included) and those who have had to work damn hard to get where they are, ie fought their way up from the bread line. All of them refused to use is as an excuse and were bigger people and rose above it. So to be honest i dont take that as an excuse at all.

Yeah, I used to think much the same. Unfortunately not all people are born equal. Not all people are as strong as those you are familiar with.

For example, Fetal Alcohol Syndrome (FAS). Women drink alcohol whilst pregnant, this alcohol is transferred to the baby. There are around 117 - 354 children born every year in Ireland with this condition[1]. People that suffer from FAS, amongst other things, suffer reduced impulse control. They aren't able to control themselves as well as the average person and so when angry may become extremely aggressive. They may use violence to solve issues. As an aside, interestingly FAS can also have physical manifestations, such as

wikipedia.com wrote:

* A smooth philtrum — The divot or groove between the nose and upper lip flattens with increased prenatal alcohol exposure.
* Thin vermilion — The upper lip thins with increased prenatal alcohol exposure.
* Small palpebral fissures — Eye width decreases with increased prenatal alcohol exposure.

Useful perhaps to identify potentially dangerous individuals.

So, is it the child's fault that it was born with this condition ? If the state can educate parents to not drink whilst pregnant, this number of children affected by this condition can reduce. Violent incidents will reduce. Of course easier said than done. As with the recent election, political parties like to talk about increased Gardai numbers, bigger jails etc. This doesn't help to solve the problem, it only deals with the symptoms.

Or what about children that are born into a 'crime family' (not the mafia!). A family where at least one member has been in jail or has a criminal conviction. 97% of children who commit crime are from such families. 97% !!! Such children have a veritable smorgasbord of psychological issues[2]. It's reasonable to say from such statistics that crime breeds crime. It's a vicious circle which jail will not fix.

None of this is helped by a lack of understanding and polarised views.

Sorry, this has gone slightly off topic.

[1]http://www.irishhealth.com/?level=4&id=7428
[2]http://www.acjrd.ie/conferences/Annual_Conference_2007.pdf

Fyr.Fytr

Verb wrote: »

Yeah, I used to think much the same. Unfortunately not all people are born equal. Not all people are as strong as those you are familiar with.

For example, Fetal Alcohol Syndrome (FAS). Women drink alcohol whilst pregnant, this alcohol is transferred to the baby. There are around 117 - 354 children born every year in Ireland with this condition[1]. People that suffer from FAS, amongst other things, suffer reduced impulse control. They aren't able to control themselves as well as the average person and so when angry may become extremely aggressive. They may use violence to solve issues. As an aside, interestingly FAS can also have physical manifestations, such as


Useful perhaps to identify potentially dangerous individuals.

So, is it the child's fault that it was born with this condition ? If the state can educate parents to not drink whilst pregnant, this number of children affected by this condition can reduce. Violent incidents will reduce. Of course easier said than done. As with the recent election, political parties like to talk about increased Gardai numbers, bigger jails etc. This doesn't help to solve the problem, it only deals with the symptoms.

Or what about children that are born into a 'crime family' (not the mafia!). A family where at least one member has been in jail or has a criminal conviction. 97% of children who commit crime are from such families. 97% !!! Such children have a veritable smorgasbord of psychological issues[2]. It's reasonable to say from such statistics that crime breeds crime. It's a vicious circle which jail will not fix.

None of this is helped by a lack of understanding and polarised views.

Sorry, this has gone slightly off topic.

[1]http://www.irishhealth.com/?level=4&id=7428
[2]http://www.acjrd.ie/conferences/Annual_Conference_2007.pdf

Im one of those you mention, yet never once been arrested, convitced or suspected of committing an offence, so i must be oe of the 3% so.

FAS i do agree with and i feel the parents should be shot for such a thing.

Verb by no means am i saying that family do not effect who you are, but to be honest im sick of people using it as an excuse, trust me i wish i could have.

It seems to be used by every defence barrister in order to get their client off or get them the probation act, it happens in district court every day they are sitting. Just look at the court blurps in local and national papers.

Its that common now people, myself included are becoming immune to the excuse and take it away from real victims of bad up bringing

inspector71

i think the real point is as i said earlier. "Don't be a dick and you won't get tasered" regardless of up-bringing. thanks for comments

Eru

Ah Jesus I had a long great all conquering post just about finished then with a press of the wrong button its gone.

So I will just say, a child commitying crime may be mimicing but an adult still posesses the ability to make decisions, get help if needed or commit an illegal act despite knowing they are causing pain to someone and will be punished. Personal and criminal responsibility, they used to exist at some stage in life.

Oh and I come from a criminal family, my daddy got a speeding ticket and fined in court. In fact. my brother got cautioned for public order (S4) so I should be a one man crime spree by now.

I was also assaulted as a teenager by a security guard.

Can I beat the **** out of some poor guy tomorrow and have 2 excuses?

PS, 97% is a bull**** percentage and thats a bloody fact! I have arrested a hell of a lot more people than 3% who came from civil, decent crime free families.

civdef

97% of all statistics are made up.

Fyr.Fytr

Karlitosway1978 wrote: »

Ah Jesus I had a long great all conquering post just about finished then with a press of the wrong button its gone.

So I will just say, a child commitying crime may be mimicing but an adult still posesses the ability to make decisions, get help if needed or commit an illegal act despite knowing they are causing pain to someone and will be punished. Personal and criminal responsibility, they used to exist at some stage in life.

Oh and I come from a criminal family, my daddy got a speeding ticket and fined in court. In fact. my brother got cautioned for public order (S4) so I should be a one man crime spree by now.

I was also assaulted as a teenager by a security guard.

Can I beat the **** out of some poor guy tomorrow and have 2 excuses?

PS, 97% is a bull**** percentage and thats a bloody fact! I have arrested a hell of a lot more people than 3% who came from civil, decent crime free families.

Couldnt agree with you more, thats the point i was trying to make

dredre

Fyr.Fytr wrote: »

Im one of those you mention, yet never once been arrested, convitced or suspected of committing an offence, so i must be oe of the 3% so.

No, what this statistic says is that 97% of children who commit crime come from "criminal" families.

This is not the same as saying 97% of children who come from "criminal" families commit crime.

Gavin

inspector71 wrote:

i think the real point is as i said earlier. "Don't be a dick and you won't get tasered" regardless of up-bringing. thanks for comments

That's a dangerous attitude. You assume that people with power never abuse it, that just doesn't happen. There needs to be a balance between trusting people in authority and transparency/accountability.

karlitosway1978 wrote:

So I will just say, a child commitying crime may be mimicing but an adult still posesses the ability to make decisions, get help if needed or commit an illegal act despite knowing they are causing pain to someone and will be punished. Personal and criminal responsibility, they used to exist at some stage in life.

I agree. People who commit crimes need to be punished, but an attempt also need to be made to rehabilitate them. Otherwise, what's the point ? They get out and just re-offend. There are also differences in crime. e.g. A person with a perfectly normal upbringing commits murder. A mentally unstable person commits murder. Should they both get the same sentences, both be treated the same way ? If not, then how do you measure how unstable a person is ?

I was trying to make the point that the 'bleeding heart liberals' or 'Fluffy nunny brigade' etc do often have a valid point to make. Mocking them and their opinion shows a lack of understanding. I also accept that it's abused by criminals, but there needs to be some leeway in the system.

karlitosway1978 wrote:

Oh and I come from a criminal family, my daddy got a speeding ticket and fined in court. In fact. my brother got cautioned for public order (S4) so I should be a one man crime spree by now.

I was also assaulted as a teenager by a security guard.

Can I beat the **** out of some poor guy tomorrow and have 2 excuses?

PS, 97% is a bull**** percentage and thats a bloody fact! I have arrested a hell of a lot more people than 3% who came from civil, decent crime free families.

As dredre points out, the statistic refers to children who have commited a crime as coming from a criminal family. It does not say that 97% of children born into a criminal family will commit crime.

civdef wrote:

97% of all statistics are made up.

Check the reference, I'm not involved in the research but it does appear to be peer reviewed which gives it at least some degree of respectability. Seeing as no one seemed to bother read the document, here is what was said

Personal and family characteristics
Young people in detention in Ireland come from criminalised families. The vast majority of detainees have at least one family member who has a criminal conviction (97%) and a family member who has served time in jail (90%). Young people who are in detention have a history of behavioural problems that manifested themselves in school. Truancy, school suspension and expulsion are characteristics associated with young people residing in detention schools.

The fact is that a large percentage of people who commit crime have issues, mental or social. Making an attempt to understand this and tackle the root issue is just common sense. Spend 20,000 making sure a kid gets educated properly, mental treatment, whatever he needs and don't spend 70,000 a year on his prison cell. He then is less likely to have kids that commit crimes.

Eru

Verb,
I understand the percentage, what Im saying is that agencies performing surveys into the area they work usually have a specific aim and the test and results are usually biased. This is a case in point, you say 97% have family members with a criminal conviction but for gods sake, how far is it going? Second cousins? Uncles though marraige? Go far enough we are all related to someone with a conviction. Public order results in a conviction and as I said, does my brothers one conviction for being a stupid drunk mean my daughter will in some way be influenced into crime? Another case in point is Focus Ireland (a group I have a lot of respect for) according to their statistics something like 30% of the population is homeless but when you look at how those figures are reached you see that they include adult children still living in the family home.

Now, I have no problem with prisoners being treated fairly and decently. I agree that efforts to rehabilitate them should exist and if there is a system that works then I would support it, prevention being the best option however there is also a need for punishment when you commit a wrong. If your advocating systems and initiatives in prison then I will support you in principle but I do not support people being given 8, 9 or ten chances to get themselves sorted out before they get a prison sentence. I know one person with over 100 convictions but has never been sentenced. He proudly laughs in my face everytime we leave court because as he states "They wont lock me up, Im sick, I have epilepsy". The guy has a 2 year suspended sentence hangiong over him but despite being arrested at least ten times it still hasnt been enacted. Now you cant agree with that?

As for the actual thread, a Tazer is a tool to be used when a person is aggressive and violent. the mental reasoning behind the persons actions may well be a factor in how the person is dealt with in court and punishment wise but you cannot allow the attackers mental state to risk the officers physical protection and more importantly, innocent bystanders. By doing so you are placing a greater importance on the attackers well being than the victims and the officers trying to prevent the attack. This is especially unfair when you consider the innocent bystander is not the cause of the incident too begin with.

Now when all is said and done, you only have certain options. Obviously where possible words and reasoning should be employed, if the need to escalate towards physical means exists then we only have limited options. Hand to hand can cause serious injuries and places the officer in more immediate danger. A baton is a striking tool, its designed to sting, hurt and may well cause broken bones. A gun has a high chance of being fatal and at a minimum causes physical damage. Pepper spray will hurt the person and work well but not everyone is effected by it. Tazer put a person down, yes its painful but only for a few seconds and has an excellent (nor perfect I know) safety record concerning anything more than short term damage. In fact the vast majority of uses result in no physical harm or pain beyond a couple of seconds.

Gavin

Karlitosway1978 wrote: »

Verb,
I understand the percentage, what Im saying is that agencies performing surveys into the area they work usually have a specific aim and the test and results are usually biased. This is a case in point, you say 97% have family members with a criminal conviction but for gods sake, how far is it going? Second cousins? Uncles though marraige? Go far enough we are all related to someone with a conviction. Public order results in a conviction and as I said, does my brothers one conviction for being a stupid drunk mean my daughter will in some way be influenced into crime? Another case in point is Focus Ireland (a group I have a lot of respect for) according to their statistics something like 30% of the population is homeless but when you look at how those figures are reached you see that they include adult children still living in the family home.

Yes, I agree with this, without knowing exactly how the statistics were obtained, they can be dubious.

Now, I have no problem with prisoners being treated fairly and decently. I agree that efforts to rehabilitate them should exist and if there is a system that works then I would support it, prevention being the best option however there is also a need for punishment when you commit a wrong. If your advocating systems and initiatives in prison then I will support you in principle but I do not support people being given 8, 9 or ten chances to get themselves sorted out before they get a prison sentence. I know one person with over 100 convictions but has never been sentenced. He proudly laughs in my face everytime we leave court because as he states "They wont lock me up, Im sick, I have epilepsy". The guy has a 2 year suspended sentence hangiong over him but despite being arrested at least ten times it still hasnt been enacted. Now you cant agree with that?

I also agree with this, it's farcical. I think we are pretty much on the same page. Prevention is best, but a hard line is not unreasonable for people who have had their chances. Certainly some people are just lazy, take the easy option and always will be like that. The dismissive comment made earlier about 'fluffy nunny brigade' irked me, I found it unreasonable.

Now when all is said and done, you only have certain options. Obviously where possible words and reasoning should be employed, if the need to escalate towards physical means exists then we only have limited options. Hand to hand can cause serious injuries and places the officer in more immediate danger. A baton is a striking tool, its designed to sting, hurt and may well cause broken bones. A gun has a high chance of being fatal and at a minimum causes physical damage. Pepper spray will hurt the person and work well but not everyone is effected by it. Tazer put a person down, yes its painful but only for a few seconds and has an excellent (nor perfect I know) safety record concerning anything more than short term damage. In fact the vast majority of uses result in no physical harm or pain beyond a couple of seconds.

Ok, so as I said I don't really have a fixed opinion on tazers as I haven't read much about them. My worry about tazers is that they become commonly used in any situation appropriate or not. Drunk guy mouthing off, teach him a lesson with the tazer. Scumbag kid spewing abuse, zap him. Chap refuses to get out of his car, *bzzzz*. Situations where a baton would not have been used because it's clearly excessive, whereas the tazer is so easy to use and doesn't leave long lasting damage.

If there is a set policy on how they can be used. If they have cameras mounted on them for example to monitor usage and this is really enforced, not just lip service, then I'd be a bit more confident.

Eru

Verb wrote: »

Chap refuses to get out of his car, *bzzzz*. Situations where a baton would not have been used because it's clearly excessive, whereas the tazer is so easy to use and doesn't leave long lasting damage.

If there is a set policy on how they can be used. If they have cameras mounted on them for example to monitor usage and this is really enforced, not just lip service, then I'd be a bit more confident.

Actually trying to get someone out of a car is very difficult when they dont want to come so a Tazer may well be the best option. I mean, if someone wont get out of the car what are you supposed to do, you cant just leave them there.

Cameras arent realistic now are they? Besides, there are set instructions and training on using all equipment such as batons and handcuffs already.

Gavin

Karlitosway1978 wrote: »

Actually trying to get someone out of a car is very difficult when they dont want to come so a Tazer may well be the best option. I mean, if someone wont get out of the car what are you supposed to do, you cant just leave them there.

If a Gardai (or anyone for that matter) is in mortal danger then I think just about any force necessary is permissable. If someone is being dangerously aggressive then a taser is ok. But someone refusing to leave their car ? I don't think so. What about protestors sitting on the ground or tree huggers? It's difficult to remove them sure, but I don't think zapping em is reasonable.

Cameras arent realistic now are they? Besides, there are set instructions and training on using all equipment such as batons and handcuffs already.

The TASER CAM™ ! Live (boom boom) footage of electrocution as it happens !
http://www.taser.com/products/law/Pages/TASERCAM.aspx

Eru

Verb wrote: »

If a Gardai (or anyone for that matter) is in mortal danger then I think just about any force necessary is permissable. If someone is being dangerously aggressive then a taser is ok. But someone refusing to leave their car ? I don't think so. What about protestors sitting on the ground or tree huggers? It's difficult to remove them sure, but I don't think zapping em is reasonable.

Why is it unreasonable? Your given a direct instruction, your commiting a crime and resisting arrest. Why shouldnt you be zapped? This is where the hugs and kisses thing comes in, you seem to think that the police should only be allowed use force when we are faced with violence. Not so, the police have the right to use force to effect arrests and deal with breaches of the peace. Think about it, imagine people could simple sit down or walk away and avoid being arrested? That makes no sense.

Verb wrote: »

The TASER CAM™ ! Live (boom boom) footage of electrocution as it happens !
http://www.taser.com/products/law/Pages/TASERCAM.aspx

I stand corrected and would support this wholeheartedly. It would be excellent in evidence.

TheNog

A man threatening suicide on a building ledge fell to his death when police shot him with a Taser stun gun.

Iman Morales, 35, was confronted by officers after he climbed naked on to the building in New York.

In a video posted on the website of the New York Post, he can be seen clambering along a building's fire escape until he reaches a ledge and begins swinging a large fluorescent light tube at officers below.

One of the officers raises a Taser at him and he freezes and topples over landing head first on the pavement 10 feet below.

A police spokesman said the death was under investigation.

Officers are allowed to use Tasers if they believe psychologically distressed people are a danger to themselves or to others.

Thousands of city police sergeants began carrying Tasers on their belts this year. The pistol-shaped weapons fire barbs up to 35 feet and deliver 50,000-volt shocks to immobilise people.

http://www.breakingnews.ie/world/mhqlsnauidcw/

From the sounds of this report it seems common sense was not used

Fyr.Fytr

Think your right nog, tazers make you temporarily paralyzed right? Therefore he wouldnt be able to balance on the ledge as legs etc would go. Seems a very silly move

TheNog

a whole new way of death by cop

deadwood

TheNog wrote: »

a whole new way of death by Lack Of (?) cop

eroo

Karlitosway1978 wrote: »

Why is it unreasonable? Your given a direct instruction, your commiting a crime and resisting arrest. Why shouldnt you be zapped? This is where the hugs and kisses thing comes in, you seem to think that the police should only be allowed use force when we are faced with violence. Not so, the police have the right to use force to effect arrests and deal with breaches of the peace. Think about it, imagine people could simple sit down or walk away and avoid being arrested? That makes no sense.

If you allow Gardai to use force to effect arrests at any given time, you can look forward to more complaints to GSOC, as well as incredibly bad PR. It would cut down on the risk of Gardai being injured in a situation such as a suspect refusing to get out of car, by taking away the need to remove them using physical force.

However, the risk to Gardai/police officers will always be there. An example being that case of that 17 y/o assaulting the 2 Gardai and calling in his 15 mates. Do you think the tazer would have helped there? If they had used it on the 17 y/o, they still would have had to deal with 15 other scuts. EVEN if they managed to reload the tazer and use it on another suspect, what about the rest of them? Then the 2 lads tazered would only be incapacitated for a short time.

Although mace/ OC/ Pepper spray has it's drawbacks, I think it would be better suited. Yes some people may be immune to it, but the tazer isn't necessarily any better. For example the case where the ERU used the tazer, for the first time in Ireland, on a suspect in Limerick.I was told by a Garda that it didn't work because only one of the charge pins stuck in the suspect. He was surprised, but not shocked.:p Nothing to say that couldn't happen at any time.

CLADA

eroo wrote: »

For example the case where the ERU used the tazer, for the first time in Ireland, on a suspect in Limerick. It didn't work because only one of the charge pins stuck in the suspect. He was surprised, but not shocked.:p Nothing to say that couldn't happen at any time.

I've done quite a bit of research into less lethal weaponry and made enquiries after the taser was used for the first time. I can assure you it worked perfectly.

civdef

For example the case where the ERU used the tazer, for the first time in Ireland, on a suspect in Limerick. It didn't work because only one of the charge pins stuck in the suspect. He was surprised, but not shocked. Nothing to say that couldn't happen at any time

I'd appreciate if you can let us know the basis for you making that assertion.

inspector71

eroo wrote: »

However, the risk to Gardai/police officers will always be there. An example being that case of that 17 y/o assaulting the 2 Gardai and calling in his 15 mates. Do you think the tazer would have helped there? If they had used it on the 17 y/o, they still would have had to deal with 15 other scuts. EVEN if they managed to reload the tazer and use it on another suspect, what about the rest of them? Then the 2 lads tazered would only be incapacitated for a short time.

Although mace/ OC/ Pepper spray has it's drawbacks, I think it would be better suited. Yes some people may be immune to it, but the tazer isn't necessarily any better.

Lets say the above incident was to have taken place in the north where police are armed with pistols, do you think it would have been acceptable for them to draw their firearms for their own protection? Never mind tazers?

Eru

eroo wrote: »

If you allow Gardai to use force to effect arrests at any given time, you can look forward to more complaints to GSOC, as well as incredibly bad PR. It would cut down on the risk of Gardai being injured in a situation such as a suspect refusing to get out of car, by taking away the need to remove them using physical force.

Eroo, Im not in Public Relations, Im a police officer. How people percieve me is not really a concern.
The point of using a Tazer I think we agree on. The reality is someone refusing to get out of a car for the purposes of arrest needs to be removed from the car otherwise the criminal justice system becomes redundant. Therefore you have a number of choices, physically remove them, stun/spray/whatever them or let them sit there. My point to Verb was the fact that he seemed to think we should not do anything to them and let them sit there. As for GSOC complaints, part and parcel of being a Garda in all honesty. People always feel aggrieved but as the old saying goes, better judged by 12 than carried by 6.:)

eroo wrote: »

However, the risk to Gardai/police officers will always be there. An example being that case of that 17 y/o assaulting the 2 Gardai and calling in his 15 mates. Do you think the tazer would have helped there? If they had used it on the 17 y/o, they still would have had to deal with 15 other scuts. EVEN if they managed to reload the tazer and use it on another suspect, what about the rest of them? Then the 2 lads tazered would only be incapacitated for a short time.

Although mace/ OC/ Pepper spray has it's drawbacks, I think it would be better suited. Yes some people may be immune to it, but the tazer isn't necessarily any better.

Horses for courses I suppose but IF and I mean IF we get something new it will be one new item not everything on the market. Sometimes Tazer is the best option, sometimes not. I said it before give me a stun baton.


"At 15 in. long the rechargeable stungun flashlight will keep you a safe distance from your attacker while giving you the option to defend yourself by sounding the powerful alarm, hitting the attacker with the baton, or stunning him with 600,000 volts!
For the 300,000 volt stun baton, there are metal strips along the sides that, when touched six inches from the tip, will also deliver a shock. This prevents an assailant from grabbing it and taking it away. Molded handgrip and attached wrist strap ensures a secure hold. Batteries are installed by unscrewing the end cap at the base of the handle." (http://www.tbotech.com/stunbaton.htm)

Covers both bases and could have been introduced instead of the ASP which would probable have made it very cost effective overall.

cushtac

Once again Eroo you spout off about stuff you know absolutely nothing about. You've never been in anything remotely like the situations being described here, nor does being from Limerick qualify you to talk about policing. You know nothing about the Gardai's policies on the use of force and you've no business telling Gardai about it.

TheNog

eroo wrote: »

If you allow Gardai to use force to effect arrests at any given time, you can look forward to more complaints to GSOC, as well as incredibly bad PR. It would cut down on the risk of Gardai being injured in a situation such as a suspect refusing to get out of car, by taking away the need to remove them using physical force.

Have to disagree with ye there bud. I'd say 30-40% of my arrests required the use of force. We are allowed in law to use reasonable force when and only when required and with good reason. Obviously the first course of action would be to talk the person into the handcuffs per se but if that doesn't work then reasonable force is allowed. As you say PR would be affected and some people don't agree with it but it is necessary.

eroo wrote: »

However, the risk to Gardai/police officers will always be there. An example being that case of that 17 y/o assaulting the 2 Gardai and calling in his 15 mates. Do you think the tazer would have helped there? If they had used it on the 17 y/o, they still would have had to deal with 15 other scuts. EVEN if they managed to reload the tazer and use it on another suspect, what about the rest of them? Then the 2 lads tazered would only be incapacitated for a short time.

Good point to make. A simple threat direction the first person to step forward to help will be tazered, sprayed or hit with the ASP. Works in most situations but not all.

deadwood

cushtac wrote: »

Once again Eroo you spout off about stuff you know absolutely nothing about. You've never been in anything remotely like the situations being described here, nor does being from Limerick qualify you to talk about policing. You know nothing about the Gardai's policies on the use of force and you've no business telling Gardai about it.

Easy tiger.
Eroo is a good contributor to this forum. He's entitled to his/her opinions which are well balanced, to my eyes at least.

eroo

cushtac wrote: »

Once again Eroo you spout off about stuff you know absolutely nothing about. You've never been in anything remotely like the situations being described here, nor does being from Limerick qualify you to talk about policing. You know nothing about the Gardai's policies on the use of force and you've no business telling Gardai about it.

Ah, you again.

Now, Karlitos and Nog have not perceived my post as me telling them or other Gardai what to do. Nor did I say I knew anything about Garda policies. I gave my opinions, so stone me to death for doing so!

eroo

civdef wrote: »

I'd appreciate if you can let us know the basis for you making that assertion.

I was told by a Garda working in Limerick City. Doesn't mean I am right, but that's what I was told.

eroo

Karlitosway1978 wrote: »

Eroo, Im not in Public Relations, Im a police officer. How people percieve me is not really a concern.
The point of using a Tazer I think we agree on. The reality is someone refusing to get out of a car for the purposes of arrest needs to be removed from the car otherwise the criminal justice system becomes redundant. Therefore you have a number of choices, physically remove them, stun/spray/whatever them or let them sit there. My point to Verb was the fact that he seemed to think we should not do anything to them and let them sit there. As for GSOC complaints, part and parcel of being a Garda in all honesty. People always feel aggrieved but as the old saying goes, better judged by 12 than carried by 6.:)



Horses for courses I suppose but IF and I mean IF we get something new it will be one new item not everything on the market. Sometimes Tazer is the best option, sometimes not. I said it before give me a stun baton.

I know your not in PR, but public support is the baseline of any police force, otherwise you'd be in trouble!lol

Stun baton I had not thought of. Then again, ASP is cheaper.:rolleyes:

civdef

I was told by a Garda working in Limerick City. Doesn't mean I am right, but that's what I was told.

This is the thing, you were repeating somethiong you were told, but didn't make that clear.

For the avoidance of any future doubt, can people make absolutely clear when they are relying on something they read / were told or whatever, rather than personal experience?

eroo

civdef wrote: »

This is the thing, you were repeating somethiong you were told, but didn't make that clear.

For the avoidance of any future doubt, can people make absolutely clear when they are relying on something they read / were told or whatever, rather than personal experience?

Will do, my apologies if it seemed I was speaking from personal experience.


EDIT: I edited my earlier post, so as to avoid any further confusion.

cushtac

deadwood wrote: »

Easy tiger.
Eroo is a good contributor to this forum. He's entitled to his/her opinions which are well balanced, to my eyes at least.

He's a teenager who's based his opinions on the effectiveness of taser on what he's heard second-hand from a neighbour, how well-balanced is that?

eroo

cushtac wrote: »

He's a teenager who's based his opinions on the effectiveness of taser on what he's heard second-hand from a neighbour, how well-balanced is that?

Neighbor? He was not a neighbor. He was on duty. I don't even know his name.

Also, I never said the tazer was ineffective. That was not my opinion. Get your argument right. I merely highlighted that it didn't work in that incident and maybe it might not always work. However, I take CLADA's word that it did work, as the Garda who told me might have wrong. I take his word because he regularly contributes to the forum, and when he sees a post he dislikes or disagrees with, he doesn't respond with insulting replies. Disagree with me, but don't talk down to me. I don't care what age you are or who you are, you've no right to be disrespectful to me.

deadwood

cushtac wrote: »

He's a teenager who's based his opinions on the effectiveness of taser on what he's heard second-hand from a neighbour, how well-balanced is that?

You're confusing "balance" with what may described as hearsay, chinese whispers, bad info., gossip etc.

Imagine a teenager having an opinion. It's a good thing they can't vote.

I'm a guard and just a tad over my teens (innit, yeah?) but I haven't had my default setting activated which equips me with an encyclopedic knowledge of non-lethal weaponry. (Maybe I missed the "cool stuff everyone else gets but we don't" module in Fantasy Farm.)

Eroo is entitled to express his opinion. They're like a#$eholes. Everyone's got one.

CLADA

deadwood wrote: »

I'm a guard and just a tad over my teens (innit, yeah?)

My God:eek: I was in uniform when you were still in liquid form:D

deadwood

CLADA wrote: »

My God:eek: I was in uniform when you were still in liquid form:D

Wishful thinking on my part.

Eru

eroo wrote: »

Ah, you again.

Now, Karlitos and Nog have not perceived my post as me telling them or other Gardai what to do. Nor did I say I knew anything about Garda policies. I gave my opinions, so stone me to death for doing so!

I did not but in all honesty Eroo I had to read your post a few times and even then I was still left a little uncertain where you were going with it. I can see how someone would have taken your post the wrong way.

As for PR, I think you like many people, underestimate the silent majority. We have the public support to do our jobs and use force. Remember a good chunk of the population in modern Ireland are coming from nations that police a hell of a lot heavier than we do, its natural for them. Same for the older generation, they grew up with clips around the ear from the local Guard if you were acting the maggot and still see nothing wrong with it.

Its only (and I mean no disrespect nor am I pointing a finger) the modern late teens / early twenties that have grand ideas about how everything should work and be done. See someone screaming 'police brutality' at the Gardai or telling us how it should be done and they will be mostly Irish teens or young twenties.

Especially people who are clearly more intelligent and educated than me because they now have 3 weeks of college under their belts and everyone knows the Gardai dont even have a leaving cert between them

metman

Taser guns given go-ahead in North
Thursday, 2 October 2008 15:26

Taser guns were given the go-ahead by the Northern Ireland Policing Board today.

The PSNI had been using the weapon under a pilot scheme but the board's move will allow Chief Constable Sir Hugh Orde to roll the deployment out fully. The pilot scheme was introduced in January and a Taser gun has been used on one occasion since then, in Derry in August. The board's decision follows the recommendations of human rights experts who helped carry out an equality impact assessment on the use of Tasers. Board members voted 12 to three in favour, with the three Sinn Féin representatives opposing the move.

Sinn Féin wanted the decision deferred until a forthcoming judicial review of the weapon's use was heard.
Source
************************

Sinn Fein, well known for its anti-weapons and pro police stance :rolleyes:

eroo

Karlitosway1978 wrote: »

.
Especially people who are clearly more intelligent and educated than me because they now have 3 weeks of college under their belts and everyone knows the Gardai dont even have a leaving cert between them

At least your honest!;):pac: