Should Regular Gardaí be issued with Tazers

Silop08 · 19-10-2009 10:12AM

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 · 19-10-2009 03:28PM

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 · 19-10-2009 04:01PM

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 · 19-10-2009 04:03PM

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 · 19-10-2009 04:31PM

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 · 19-10-2009 06:30PM

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 · 19-10-2009 07:32PM

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 · 19-10-2009 11:53PM

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 · 20-10-2009 01:23AM

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 · 20-10-2009 01:53AM

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 · 20-10-2009 07:56AM

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 · 20-10-2009 03:38PM

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 · 20-10-2009 06:31PM

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 · 20-10-2009 08:09PM

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 · 20-10-2009 08:16PM

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 · 20-10-2009 09:06PM

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 · 20-10-2009 10:20PM

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 · 21-10-2009 12:20AM

Zambia232 wrote: »

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

+1

meathstevie · 21-10-2009 01:05AM

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 · 21-10-2009 07:47AM

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.

Silop08 · 21-10-2009 02:35PM

I am wondering now should I expand the topic to cover the weather more uniform Gardaí should be armed. In other words should there be more RSUs or is the currently resources sufficent.

I am just wondering would the ordinary polis man on the ground feel safer carrying a taser. Judging by the poll it would appear yes

ste88m · 21-10-2009 03:26PM

Personally, I wouldn't want a tazer. In the 21st century, an unarmed police service is a rarity. The fact that AGS is a largely unarmed force is something to be proud of. It should be kept that way.

Not to mention a Tazer on your belt would also limit your approachability. You see a Garda with some type of gun in a holster, would you want to approach them? Most people wouldn't. Good community policing involves getting to know your area, stopping, having a chat with people and getting to know the people there. Even just a simple "good morning" to passers-by while out on the beat can build a bridge between you and the community which you police. Carrying a tazer, or any firearm, in my opinion, could harm this.

We just got OC Spray, we have ASPs. Roll out RSU's nationwide and I'll be happy. Management seem to think they're not needed in Dublin, but, most armed units are not on patrol after about 10/11pm. A level of armed support is needed at all times, but, fortunately, not one where every member of AGS is required to have a taser.

So: no to personal issue tazers, but, yes to more uniformed armed support units..

donvito99 · 21-10-2009 09:25PM

ste88m wrote: »

Personally, I wouldn't want a tazer. In the 21st century, an unarmed police service is a rarity. The fact that AGS is a largely unarmed force is something to be proud of. It should be kept that way.

Not to mention a Tazer on your belt would also limit your approachability. You see a Garda with some type of gun in a holster, would you want to approach them? Most people wouldn't. Good community policing involves getting to know your area, stopping, having a chat with people and getting to know the people there. Even just a simple "good morning" to passers-by while out on the beat can build a bridge between you and the community which you police. Carrying a tazer, or any firearm, in my opinion, could harm this.

We just got OC Spray, we have ASPs. Roll out RSU's nationwide and I'll be happy. Management seem to think they're not needed in Dublin, but, most armed units are not on patrol after about 10/11pm. A level of armed support is needed at all times, but, fortunately, not one where every member of AGS is required to have a taser.

So: no to personal issue tazers, but, yes to more uniformed armed support units..

Here here. And yes, I very much agree that a hi viz armed unit is needed in particular parts of Dublin, an unmarked Detective unit isn't really what I would be in favour of as a member of the public.

Zambia · 21-10-2009 09:29PM

Silop08 wrote: »

I am wondering now should I expand the topic to cover the weather more uniform Gardaí should be armed. In other words should there be more RSUs or is the currently resources sufficent.

I am just wondering would the ordinary polis man on the ground feel safer carrying a taser. Judging by the poll it would appear yes

I think the more weapons and body armour you have the safer you feel. However there is a line between personnal safety and the task you are assigned. I would feel safer in a riot helmet and head to toe body armour and an MP5, but I would not be able to exit my vehicle in less than 5 minutes or have anyone come near me at all.:)

All I do is respond to Alarms hence I do not really need to be approachable or seek the approval of the public. AGS perform a variety of tasks that they may find harder when Armed with anything. For example every time I get involved in a struggle when armed the lose is much bigger. If I lose when unarmed I get a few kicks and thats it hopefully. If I lose when Armed even if it was with a Taser I could end up on the receiving end of my own weapon.

So in Dublin I was very approachable , here while Armed I am not. I even stop people if they approach me if I am in any way unsure of them at all. I also notice a lot of very dirty looks from people I presume its the Glock on my leg they dont like. I always smile and greet everyone but some people will blank you on seeing the weapon. Especially if they are with their kids.

I personally having said all that prefer being armed but I repeat what I said before fair play to AGS for being unarmed because once the genie is out of the bottle...

Trojan911 · 22-10-2009 10:39AM

Something to consider....

wrote:

Taser makers tell police to avoid chest shots
on 22/10/2009 09:58:15

Stun-gun maker Taser International has started telling police agencies to avoid firing the devices at suspects' chests, explaining that there's an "extremely low" risk of ill effects on the heart and that doing so will make defending lawsuits easier.

Amnesty International said more than 350 people in the US died after they were shocked with Tasers, and that in 50 of those cases, medical examiners cited a link between Taser shocks and death.

The Scottsdale, Arizona-based company made the recommendation in an October 12 revised training manual, saying it "has less to do with safety and more to do with effective risk management for law enforcement agencies".

The manual also includes a lengthy explanation about deaths caused by sudden cardiac arrest.

"Should sudden cardiac arrest occur in a scenario involving a Taser discharge to the chest area, it would place the law enforcement agency, the officer, and Taser International in the difficult situation of trying to ascertain what role, if any, (the device) could have played," according to the manual.

The manual includes a graphic displaying the human body and "preferred target areas".

The company recommends firing Tasers anywhere but at the head, neck and chest. The manual says to avoid chest shots "when possible" and "unless legally justified".

Taser critics call the company's new recommendation an admission that the devices can cause heart attacks.

"It's a sea change, a passive acknowledgement that Taser has indeed been overconfident about its claims of safety," said Mark Silverstein, legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Colorado.

"It underscores the question marks that have been adding up along with hundreds of bodies."

Taser officials said the new recommendation is designed only to "avoid any potential controversy on this topic".

"There is no significant shift," Taser spokesman Steve Tuttle said in an e-mail.

"Just a slight change by literally a few inches when intentionally targeting the preferred target zone ... Medical and field studies continue to demonstrate that the Taser carries a lower risk of injury than traditional force options, leading to lower officer injury rates and safer communities."

Source

Should Regular Gardaí be issued with Tazers

Comments