Should Regular Gardaí be issued with Tazers

Silop08

Just wonder would the regular Garda be interested or not in carrying a Tazer??

meathmannn

cuffs x 2
Notebook
knife
torch
batton
pepperspray
first aid kit

Where do I fit a tazer?? Would need to add about 4 stone to get a belt big enough:D

I'd carry a tazer, although I think the pepper spray will be more effective to deal with groups.

Hooch

I've added a poll to help this along, continue to post your thoughts though!:D

We've just got the pepper spray. Lets see how that works out for now. But maybe DDU could have them or task force.

jetski

meathmannn wrote: »

cuffs x 2
Notebook
knife
torch
batton
pepperspray
first aid kit

Where do I fit a tazer?? Would need to add about 4 stone to get a belt big enough:D

I'd carry a tazer, although I think the pepper spray will be more effective to deal with groups.

Knife?

Silop08

meathmannn wrote: »

cuffs x 2
Notebook
knife
torch
batton
pepperspray
first aid kit

Where do I fit a tazer?? Would need to add about 4 stone to get a belt big enough:D

I'd carry a tazer, although I think the pepper spray will be more effective to deal with groups.

I presume the knife is a leatherman and you're not Croc Dundee walking around. Yeah the pepper spray is a welcome addition. I think there should be a station issue of Tazers at least 1 per patrol car. I do know there were talks about it..

Hooch

Silop08 wrote: »

I presume the knife is a leatherman and you're not Croc Dundee walking around. Yeah the pepper spray is a welcome addition. I think there should be a station issue of Tazers at least 1 per patrol car. I do know there were talks about it..

I disagree, personal issue. That way there is accountability in the even one is used.

I have always been against arming AGS. But I am a big fan of less than lethal weapons, however, tazer gives the perception of AGS being armed.......just a thought for ye.

CharlieCroker

I reckon maybe taskforce but there's no need at the moment for people on the regular.
I've met people who've already been sprayed by Gardai and going by their experience, it seems to do the trick!!!!

deadwood

Yes. An unshaven appearance lends an unprofessional image to the force. A few combs would also be welcome, considering they've started issuing hairspray.

the locust

It would be great if they could afford to give everyone tazer but realistically if it did happen it would be a few people trained up per station etc or one in the car.

Also on a side note - sometimes too much gear can be a hinderance. Once you have too many things on your belt - your thinking too much, when it comes to crunch it slows your reaction time down - i.e. which do i go for my spray, tazer, baton? Part of me is all for less lethal and good kit don't get me wrong. But i think we can over rely on all this gear sometimes rather than good olde fashion policing.

meathmannn

(The knife...obviously is for cutting...seatbelts...ligatures from prisoners trying to strangle themselves etc.)

But back on topic, I think spray is more practical for the moment, especially dealing with more than one aggressor.

FGR

I tend to think a taser would be superior to the spray.

No cross contamination; the intimidation of the taser unit alone is usually enough to put people off confrontation.

The one benefit of the pepper spray is that you can use it multiple times in one given situation. Either way I'm glad we've been issued with something..!

bravestar

Without a doubt YES. As for DDU, task force etc only getting them... it's the regular units who get to the calls first and more often than not regular units screaming for assistance. If anyone should get them its the regular units.

Charliecroker, I dont know if your a member or not but if your saying the regular units dont need them, either A) your not a member or fancy a transfer/swap???

Zambia

In what regards do you see the application of the Tazer being used? I am presuming the objective is to lower the amount of assaults on members of the AGS?

To this aim where do you see the Tazer fit into AGS level of force responses?

As in

If the offender is simply refusing to be cuffed - > Tazer or not
If the offender is running away - > Tazer or not
If the offender pulls a knife - > Tazer or not
If the offender threatens a member with non armed assault and is a lot bigger than the member - > Tazer or not

I personally would see standard issuing of the Tazer to all Gardai as not being that effective. If the overall aim of the exercise is to reduce assaults on members.

Not a huge fan of Tazers.

the locust

If the offender is simply refusing to be cuffed - > Pain compliance/spray

If the offender is running away - > He's likely outran the range of the tazer by the time you draw the tazer - foot chase/patrol car But most 'chasees' surrender on being caught up with as their knackered!If they want to put it up to you go for the spray/baton

If the offender pulls a knife - > i'd say yeah ok Tazer with armed members nearby, shields would also be handy if you can corner the person (PS - on a totally different topic i think shields are a great idea! just throwin it out there!)

If the offender threatens a member with non armed assault and is a lot bigger than the member - > spray/baton and i suppose tazer if needs be.

In my opinion the tazer is a very 'american' weapon. i.e. its all about compliance in a nation of guns/cop killers. If you don't do what your told you're gonna get it! I'm the officer and your a suspect.
If the officer stops someone and they simply don't understand him or disagree or resist for a trivial reason the officer seems to threaten to taze them.

I'm sure the battery magazines would be burnt out in no time if the Tazer was introduced to 'irish culture.' Don't get me wrong i'm all for less lethal and like tazer but i'm not sure if we're ready for personal issue tazer just yet, lets see how people get used to the spray for a while first.

mcguiver

I think Ireland needs to cop on to use of force. Try struggling with a cop in the UK, Europe, Usa. When the police give you a direction anywhere else you comply immediately or else force is used, proportional to the threat.

Every night across Ireland there are Gardai negotiating with drunken thugs, wasting precious time and resorces.

When a garda is assaulted there seemsto be a reluctance to press charges and the courts are equally wishy washy dealing with them.. vicious circle leading to long term injuries, more violence etc.

mcguiver

Heres a well publicised incident.
Guy asked to switch off car engine 3 times, refused to comply.
Later ended up in court and the judge could see no problem, officer asked 3 times, gave warning that force would be used, and it was.
(Seems the suspect has previous publicity for similar stuff, chip on the shoulder about having to pass through border checks)


VANCOUVER — The Canadian Press
Published on Thursday, Mar. 05, 2009 8:18PM EST

A British Columbian man has learned the hard way that you don't ask a U.S. border guard to be polite when he asks you to turn off your vehicle's engine.

Desiderio Fortunato, of Coquitlam, B.C., asked the guard to say please and instead received a face full of pepper spray.

“I just said say please,” Mr. Fortunato explained Thursday. “He said 'get out of the car or I spray you' and ... I thought he was just trying to scare me off or something and I was pepper sprayed from a foot or two away.”

He said it was then that five or six border guards jumped on him, placed him in handcuffs and questioned him for three hours last Monday afternoon.

meathstevie

I think a taser is a brilliant non-lethal option. It has the same effective range as most people's pistol shooting capabilities and can neutralise a lethal threat in a split second and in the overwhelming majority of cases there's no lasting consequences for the person subjected to it.

Personally I think AGS leadership should consider making tasers personal issue before they ever consider issuing pistols to all members if it ever came to that point.

bravestar

bravestar wrote: »

Without a doubt YES. As for DDU, task force etc only getting them... it's the regular units who get to the calls first and more often than not regular units screaming for assistance. If anyone should get them its the regular units.

Charliecroker, I dont know if your a member or not but if your saying the regular units dont need them, either A) your not a member or fancy a transfer/swap???

Charlie is a member all right. Not all regulars need the taser. How many calls justify them? And remember we have the spray now which has proven effective in most cases where it has been used.

eroo

I don't see why TASER's should be issued when pepper spray seems to be doing just fine with Gardai. Pepper spray can incapacitate several aggressors at one time. Yes it's effects will vary, and there is cross contamination.. but in a crowd situation pepper spray being used would have a wider impact. TASER only takes down one aggressor. Also, TASER is no miracle worker either. When the ERU first used it in Limerick, only one of the electrodes/darts made contact with the offender. Thus it did not work.

Also, it would cost so much more than pepper spray.. to purchase, maintain, repair etc.

mcguiver

I agree with eroo on that one. The only advantage of tazer is when dealing with drugged up aggressors who are not feeling the full effect of oc spray.

budda15c

eroo wrote: »

I don't see why TASER's should be issued when pepper spray seems to be doing just fine with Gardai. Pepper spray can incapacitate several aggressors at one time. Yes it's effects will vary, and there is cross contamination.. but in a crowd situation pepper spray being used would have a wider impact. TASER only takes down one aggressor. Also, TASER is no miracle worker either. When the ERU first used it in Limerick, only one of the electrodes/darts made contact with the offender. Thus it did not work.

Also, it would cost so much more than pepper spray.. to purchase, maintain, repair etc.

I voted 'yes' for the poll..

True a TASER may not be the appropriate tool for a situation where you have a group of 4 or 5 aggressors, OC would do the job there. But equally in a situation, where you have a single aggressor wielding a samarai sword/machete/knife, a TASER I imagine would be more effective here, as you could put him down quicker without allowing him to get within a close proximity. The same goes for someone wielding a firearm or an imitation firearm. It would allow them to be neutralised by the initial responder. Also if a TASER was discharged it would resolve the situation without incuring as severe reprocussions as discharging a firearm, i.e. there would be no loss of life and the Garda who discharged it will not have to deal with the fact that he/she had to take a life and it may prevent a 'stand-off' situation, while waiting for back-up or armed support to arrive.

I think they are two very different tools, for different situations. But why not give the Gardaí the range of tools they need to do their job effectively, efficiently and safely.

Just my 2c..

donvito99

I voted Yes, but only to certain specialist units (as long as said units are widespread and numerous).

Obviously I have no background in the ES area so can't make an educated opinion, but I think that with the spray on Garda's belts, Tazers are only a hindrence at the moment, and that the general ethos of the Garda as a whole would be damaged.

bravestar

donvito99 wrote: »

I voted Yes, but only to certain specialist units (as long as said units are widespread and numerous).

Obviously I have no background in the ES area so can't make an educated opinion, but I think that with the spray on Garda's belts, Tazers are only a hindrence at the moment, and that the general ethos of the Garda as a whole would be damaged.

How would it be damaged?

The way I see it is that regardless of suspected offenders size, temperment, level of intoxication, determination etc etc The Garda dealing with them has a very good chance of stopping themselves being assaulted/arresting pal by use of a taser, when other levels of force options have failed/ are not suitable.

A members life, any persons for that matter, is more important than the perception of an organisation.

It is better to have a tool and not need it than to need the tool and not have it.

bravestar

bravestar wrote: »

It is better to have a tool and not need it than to need the tool and not have it.

I'm going to have to pre-empt Deadwood here and say that AGS already has plenty of tools!

Hooch

bravestar wrote: »

A members life, any persons for that matter, is more important than the perception of an organisation.

That may be so, but the perception of AGS is very important to me. And to any good polisman for that matter. We police with the support of the people. The public perception of AGS is very important.

I believe don is thinking in the same lines as myself. An armed police service is much harder to approach than an unarmed one. A tazer appears to be a firearm to the public, and of course if joe criminal sees a Garda coming with what appears to be a firearm.....he wont think twice about discharging hes. I have no interest in being armed. I can do my job just fine with my people skills. I have only once been in a situation where use of lethal force could and should have been used. Thats once in many years in AGS.......

CharlieCroker

bravestar wrote: »

Without a doubt YES. As for DDU, task force etc only getting them... it's the regular units who get to the calls first and more often than not regular units screaming for assistance. If anyone should get them its the regular units.

Charliecroker, I dont know if your a member or not but if your saying the regular units dont need them, either A) your not a member or fancy a transfer/swap???

Yes, I am a member.
Just dont think that tazer is necessary for general issue. I suppose, it depends on the district your working out of too. As already said, i've met 3 people from the same family who were pepper-sprayed following an incident and they reckon that compared to the ASP, the spray is cruel!!!
Personally, at the moment I feel prepared enough with spray, ASP and cuffs for any use of force required.
As NGA already said, I believe my communication skills allow me to handle most situations with out having to give someone an electric shock.

blubloblu

TASERs are only meant to be used In situations where a lethal weapon would have been. Unfortunately, there have been many cases of overuse of the weapon in inappropriate circumstances. I'd say it's best to be only given to whatever Garda units that already have lethal weaponry available.

Zambia

Nice Guy has a very good piont you are inheriting most of the disadvantages of a Firearm and very little of the advantages.

To the untrained eye the Taser may as well be a Gun.

As a defence weapon its a poor second to a firearm. It's designed as a step down weapon prior to shooting someone. I would agree with the sentiment above in regards to it being given as an option to ERU.

Plus it would probably have to be stored in a secure zone in each station and signed for on each issue.... etc etc lot of hassle for very little advantage.

meathstevie

Zambia, I have to disagree with you on the tazer type weapons being a poor second to firearms. I think a tazer's effective range is the same as a pistol's for the average user. Remember that the training range will always be a very different setup compared to the situation in real life where you might have to draw and use to save your life.

A half decent shooter will consistently hit a mansized target at 30 to 40 metres let's say 70% of the time with the likes of Glock or Sig. That's the range.

In a real life or death situation that level of accuracy is going to drop dramatically. I'd dare to argue that the accurate range of most people with a mad chemical cocktail racing through their body in a flight or fight situation is no further than about 15 to 20 metres and it's exactly for that sort of stuff that a tazer is superior to a pistol because of one thing : it doesn't kill. Additionally you don't risk killing an innocent member of the public if your bullet doesn't connect with the threat as can happen with a pistol.

I agree that when dealing with multiple threats a tazer hasn't got the capability of a pistol to engage a number of threats one after the other but if that ever happens wtf were you doing there in first place ?

Victor

meathstevie wrote: »

I think a taser is a brilliant non-lethal option.

Less lethal not non-lethal. People do die or suffer severe injury, whether directly or indirectly from such weapons.

Silop08

Would the general idea out there be that if a station issue of Tazers be available if would be welcomed so long as there are enough to go around or personal issue

donvito99

bravestar wrote: »

How would it be damaged?

The way I see it is that regardless of suspected offenders size, temperment, level of intoxication, determination etc etc The Garda dealing with them has a very good chance of stopping themselves being assaulted/arresting pal by use of a taser, when other levels of force options have failed/ are not suitable.

A members life, any persons for that matter, is more important than the perception of an organisation.

It is better to have a tool and not need it than to need the tool and not have it.

From my experience, approaching an armed Police officer is alot more difficult then approaching an unarmed one.

In Spain, the Guardia Civil (for example) are armed. They make no attempt to hide it. The Glock sits on his/her hip in perfect view of every other member of the public. I would find it extremely difficult to approach that officer, I would feel that, since they have a firearm, they must have an important task, I shouldn't bother him/her!

Gardaí are only armed with batons, and soon the entire force with spray. The baton is completely covered from top to toe. I find it much easier to approach. I know that if I have something to report, I'll be grand. They're there to help us, there community police, they're there for me.

Thats just my opinion though.

However I do think giving Gardai Tazers would vastly improve training in areas such as situation decision making, and first aid etc.

sunnyjim

From my experience, approaching an armed Police officer is alot more difficult then approaching an unarmed one.

Do you yourself not find that that is fairly irrational though?

the locust

On the other hand with respect to donvito99's post, my experience - I grew up in the North and am well used to police with submachine guns, soldiers with belt fed machine guns in the hedge at checkpoints, pointing weapons at our vehicles. Because i grew up around armed authorities i have no issue with it, approachable yes i'd go over to them no hassle. i am well used to it from a child being searched going into shopping centres (i actually felt safer as the threat of 'terrorism' was all too real).

Nowadays I would approach armed police the same i would the guard outside the gpo on o'connell street. My point of view being that i grew up around that culture and it doesn't bother me in the slightest police are the police they are there to serve and help. Likewise i'm sure with armed cops in New York, or the militant cops in Spain.

Sorry to steer off topic for just a moment and i know this has been done to death but-
I think there's a negative stigma around armed police - they are the good guys and they are professionally trained to handle said weapon after all. As for the arguement that it leads to an escalation between the criminal fraternity and police - i think it makes illegal procurement of weapons and criminals easily and more detectable on a small island like ours.

Also if i was a crim with access to firearms i sure as hell wouldn't pull my weapon on a trained firearms officer are ye mad!
I think its time gardai got respect when they walk down the street, nowadays i think unfortunately that will evetually come in the form of a 9mm glock on their hip.

donvito99

sunnyjim wrote: »

Do you yourself not find that that is fairly irrational though?

How d'ya mean?

My position towards Gardaí with either Tazers and firearms is that theres a reason they are there, and I don't want to get in the way, if you know where I'm coming from.

budda15c

donvito99 wrote: »

From my experience, approaching an armed Police officer is alot more difficult then approaching an unarmed one.

In Spain, the Guardia Civil (for example) are armed. They make no attempt to hide it. The Glock sits on his/her hip in perfect view of every other member of the public. I would find it extremely difficult to approach that officer, I would feel that, since they have a firearm, they must have an important task, I shouldn't bother him/her!

Gardaí are only armed with batons, and soon the entire force with spray. The baton is completely covered from top to toe. I find it much easier to approach. I know that if I have something to report, I'll be grand. They're there to help us, there community police, they're there for me.

However I do think giving Gardai Tazers would vastly improve training in areas such as situation decision making, and first aid etc.

I can see where your coming from, but the Guardia Civil have a far more aggressive appearance than other police forces in Spain, such as the Policia Local. Infact they have a more aggressive appearance than many conventional police forces in Europe. They have a military background and dress in military green uniforms. If you even look at what they carry on their belts, most of them carry a sidearm, a spare magazine and maybe a set of cuffs (many GC officers I've seen haven't even been carrying cuffs). Many/most of them don't carry batons, OC spray or TASERS. That alone gives them a far more aggressive appearance than the Policia Local.

Another thing which I think aids this perception is the language barrier. I think the Policia Local would be more comparable to the Gardai, even though they carry firearms and TASERS, I have never thought of them as being unapproachable or intimidating.

Personally, I wouldn't find a Garda any less approachable if he/she was carrying either a firearm or a TASER.

sunnyjim

donvito99 wrote: »

How d'ya mean?

My position towards Gardaí with either Tazers and firearms is that theres a reason they are there, and I don't want to get in the way, if you know where I'm coming from.

I don't follow.

Going back to what you said.

From my experience, approaching an armed Police officer is alot more difficult then approaching an unarmed one.

What exactly is the difference between approaching a police officer with a firearm visable, and one that is obviously unarmed?

bravestar

nice guy always wrote: »

That may be so, but the perception of AGS is very important to me. And to any good polisman for that matter. We police with the support of the people. The public perception of AGS is very important.

I believe don is thinking in the same lines as myself. An armed police service is much harder to approach than an unarmed one. A tazer appears to be a firearm to the public, and of course if joe criminal sees a Garda coming with what appears to be a firearm.....he wont think twice about discharging hes. I have no interest in being armed. I can do my job just fine with my people skills. I have only once been in a situation where use of lethal force could and should have been used. Thats once in many years in AGS.......

I'm not saying perception isn't important, but I believe performance is more important and so is our safety.

Personally, before I joined and was on holiday in the states/france (places with armed police) I had no problem approaching Police offiers. Just because they carry a firearm does not make them uncaring or less empathetic towards you. People who think it does need to cop themselves on.

As for pal taking shots at you if he see's a tazer on your belt... they do that anyway. Since I have been in the job there have been at least three incidents were firearms where discharged at members I serve with.

While people skills and communication will always remain the best tools we have at our disposal, there comes a time when it's just not enough and force needs to be used. Unfortunatly for some members, they did not have enough force options to stop themselves being beaten to a pulp.

DrIndy

I have to say I am uncomfortable if the police are armed. Cops in Australia are armed with tazers and guns and I do find it off putting despite the fact that working in ED means we naturally have a common goal (if someone is assaulted - I will always help as far as patient confidentiality allows me).

I want the muppets who commit crimes off the street more than joe public does because it means less injuries, distress and in the long run - less work which is technically preventable if an offender is stopped from being a repeat offender.

But I grew up in Norway, Scotland and Ireland - so have never lived in a country where police are openly armed all the time (In norway - firearms are kept in the vehicles until needed) - and so i don't like to see ANY firearm about as I know much better than most what havoc they wreak when used.

I wouldn't label a book by the cover though - armed ozzie cops are just as good craic as unarmed gardai are in ireland and just as nice people once you get past the initial brusque "I'm the police - who the hell are you!" initial manner.

Shield

Spare a thought for those of us who hate the damn things (guns), but still have to carry them. Hate it, hate it, hate it. I'm not alone either.

Bang Bang

A point I thought was worth adding to the thread was the fact that PHECC (Pre-Hospital Emergency Care Council) have included in the 3rd edition CPG's (Clinical Practice Guidelines) a new CPG number 5/6.8.5 for Paramedics and Advanced Paramedics for the treatment of a patient who has been "took down" (for want of a better phrase) by a Taser.
The CPG heading is "Conducted Electrical Weapon (Taser)".

So as soon as the 3rd edition is running then all PHECC registered Paramedics and A/Paramedics will be ready and trained to treat anybody who's been hit by a Taser.

A foot note on the CPG reads;
"This CPG was developed in conjunction with the Chief Medical Officer, An Garda Síochána"

There are also references to,
DSAC Sub-committee on the medical implications of less-lethal Weapons 2004, second statement on the medical implications of the use of the M26 Advanced Taser.
United States Government Accountability Office, 2005, The use of Taser by selected law enforcement agencies.
Manitoba Health Emergency Medical Services, 2007 Taser Dart Removal Protocol.

So it appears to be something that's been well thought out by both PHECC and An Garda Síochána in refering to treating person/s hit by a Taser Dart.

donvito99

sunnyjim wrote: »

I don't follow.

I didn't follow the irrational bit,

sunnyjim wrote:

Do you yourself not find that that is fairly irrational though?

What exactly is the difference between approaching a police officer with a firearm visable, and one that is obviously unarmed?

An armed officer has a firearm/tazer for a reason. As a member of the public, I don't know what that reason is. Because they have that firearm/tazer on their hip, I feel that my measly little problem/report/complaint is nothing to do with them, therefore I would find it more difficult to approach him/her, then the ordinary unarmed Garda on the street, who I feel is there to answer and solve my problem/report/complaint etc.

Hope that answers your query, thats just my opinion.

meathstevie

Whether a member of a police force carries a firearm or not should never be a barrier to a member of the public to approach that officer. If you have a reason to look for police assistance or even just want to say hello to be nice don't ever let a firearm be something that stops you from doing so. Unless when that officer is obsiously dealing with something else at the moment of course.:)

You should keep in mind that in a Western democracy the police, openly carrying firearms or not, is there primarily for one reason: to assist law abiding members of the public.

Hooch

meathstevie wrote: »

Whether a member of a police force carries a firearm or not should never be a barrier to a member of the public to approach that officer. If you have a reason to look for police assistance or even just want to say hello to be nice don't ever let a firearm be something that stops you from doing so. Unless when that officer is obsiously dealing with something else at the moment of course.:)

You should keep in mind that in a Western democracy the police, openly carrying firearms or not, is there primarily for one reason: to assist law abiding members of the public.

Thats the problem stevie, a firearms is a barrier. How many times have members here been on armed checkpoints with branch members or RSU and have every member of the public shaking in their cars?? Every second one asking is everything alright....

The Irish public are not ready for an armed police service. To be honest I can think of more polis I wouldnt give a gun to....compaired to the small amount I would give one. AGS is not ready to be armed......nor is it ready for every member to have a tazer. Lets take little steps people. trial the spray first.

Whitewater-AGS

donvito99 wrote: »

An armed officer has a firearm/tazer for a reason. As a member of the public, I don't know what that reason is. Because they have that firearm/tazer on their hip, I feel that my measly little problem/report/complaint is nothing to do with them, therefore I would find it more difficult to approach him/her, then the ordinary unarmed Garda on the street, who I feel is there to answer and solve my problem/report/complaint etc.

Hope that answers your query, thats just my opinion.

I can understand where your coming from here, but if every Garda was armed you wouldn't have to wounder is he/she on a specialist unit or protection post or whatever as he/she would just be an ordinary armed Garda on the street.

donvito99

Whitewater-AGS wrote: »

but if every Garda was armed you wouldn't have to wounder is he/she on a specialist unit

Thats a good point you made there, but the fact remains that some members of the public, including myself, see a firearm as a sign of seriousness and that you wouldn't approach him/her for a chat.

I have never held a firearm, never discharged one, and am extremely cautious around them due to an accident that one of my friends relations had with one.

So thats where I'm coming from really.

Zambia

meathstevie wrote: »

Zambia, I have to disagree with you on the tazer type weapons being a poor second to firearms. I think a tazer's effective range is the same as a pistol's for the average user. Remember that the training range will always be a very different setup compared to the situation in real life where you might have to draw and use to save your life.

A half decent shooter will consistently hit a mansized target at 30 to 40 metres let's say 70% of the time with the likes of Glock or Sig. That's the range.

In a real life or death situation that level of accuracy is going to drop dramatically. I'd dare to argue that the accurate range of most people with a mad chemical cocktail racing through their body in a flight or fight situation is no further than about 15 to 20 metres and it's exactly for that sort of stuff that a tazer is superior to a pistol because of one thing : it doesn't kill. Additionally you don't risk killing an innocent member of the public if your bullet doesn't connect with the threat as can happen with a pistol.

I agree that when dealing with multiple threats a tazer hasn't got the capability of a pistol to engage a number of threats one after the other but if that ever happens wtf were you doing there in first place ?

Sorry chief been on shift the last three days. I think we are going to disagree here mainly in the area of how the Taser is used. Its not really designed as far as I can see, as a defence weapon.

Its primary function is the submisson of a unruly or non compliant subject. I never really see it heralded as a self defence weapon. You could well be right in regards the accuracy but I would never see a need to Taser anyone at 40 Metres. Even the use of a handgun at that range would be very rare.

A taser would have been handy there.

Strapping tasers to the entire force would provide a false sense of security in situations that would/should require firearms. They are an less lethal alternative if firearms are issued IMO and not an alternative to Arming the force.

AGS should be very proud of themselves for maintaining a regular unarmed force.

Hooch

Zambia232 wrote: »

AGS should be very proud of themselves for maintaining a regular unarmed force.

+1

meathstevie

Zambia232 wrote: »

Sorry chief been on shift the last three days. I think we are going to disagree here mainly in the area of how the Taser is used. Its not really designed as far as I can see, as a defence weapon.

Its primary function is the submisson of a unruly or non compliant subject. I never really see it heralded as a self defence weapon. You could well be right in regards the accuracy but I would never see a need to Taser anyone at 40 Metres. Even the use of a handgun at that range would be very rare.

A taser would have been handy there.

Strapping tasers to the entire force would provide a false sense of security in situations that would/should require firearms. They are an less lethal alternative if firearms are issued IMO and not an alternative to Arming the force.

AGS should be very proud of themselves for maintaining a regular unarmed force.

Sorry Zambia, I think you misunderstood my post. I referred to 30 -40 meters as the distance at which an average shooter would be able to hit a target with a pistol in training circumstances. If you'd have to use a pistol in a real situation accuracy levels would drop something dramatic because of what goes on in your body. It would reduce your effective range for an accurate shot not far beyond the effective range of a tazer in my opinion.

Also think of the possibilities of causing serious injuries with a batton. You could be aiming for the thigh but when the strike connects the person you're trying to hit has moved and you end up wrecking someones knee. A tazer doesn't do that. It drops someone like a bag of spuds and in the overwhelming majority of cases the injuries wouldn't amount to much more than small puncture wounds and a couple of bumps and bruises from hitting the deck.

I agree with that tazers have gotten an awful reputation through the likes of youtube etc etc and the way forces accross the pond appear to be using them but you know just as well as I do that a member of AGS or the PSNI would quickly find themselves in very hot water if they used an American use of force approach with any weapon.

Zambia

I carry a Glock 19 and I would not be firing at anything at 40-50 Metres I dont even practice shooting at that distance. A 20 Metre shot at that distance with the handgun is hard enough if you are aiming and intend to hit the just keyhole.

I would agree with you blood being up the chances of hitting a target at 40-50 with any one handed weapon are indeed remote. But operationally I would never see the needed to shoot that distance. The weapon is for my own personnal defence at 40-50 metres the law states I should be running away. Unless someone else is in immediate danger.

In the light of the ASP and the sack of spuds thing. Several people die from just hitting the deck without control of their functions as you described. If you clock someone with the ASP they at least are still in control. In the case where the Baton is used its not hard to hear and see it being deployed. If you are still engaging an officer after it deployed well, a broken kneecap was your decision to risk.