Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Due to the recent issue related to the Rayshad Brooks murder, should cops be barred from using tasers? The officer that shot Brooks said he feared for his life when Brooks got the officer's taser in his (Brooks') hand. Tasers were always looked at "safer" option rather than shooting an alleged suspect with a gun. It can't be both safe and unsafe if an officer fears for his and other's lives with it... It is one or the other.
To me, the reason the officer would worry about his taser being taken, is now he can be incapacitated and have his firearm removed from him. That could lead to bigger problems.
Police officers were meant to "serve and protect" our communities and while some departments may have gotten away from that a bit, we should ask ourselves why...... what conditions have made the cops on the street more vulnerable, leading to them becoming more aggressive with people. How can our citizens and communities, as well as our police, take responsibility for actions that lead to negative interactions.
Just a couple thoughts beyond just "ban" something. Thank you for letting me share my opinion.
Due to the recent issue related to the Rayshad Brooks murder, should cops be barred from using tasers? The officer that shot Brooks said he feared for his life when Brooks got the officer's taser in his (Brooks') hand. Tasers were always looked at "safer" option rather than shooting an alleged suspect with a gun. It can't be both safe and unsafe if an officer fears for his and other's lives with it... It is one or the other.
The current purpose of the police is to enforce laws. The normal tool of this paradigm is a weapon. Police are trained to use this weapon. The Police have a legitimate requirement to restrain/incapacitate people so that they do not harm themselves, the police, or other people. However, when your main weapon is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
When the police are called, it is usually because someone is upset about some aspect of an individual's behavior. When an individual is drunk or unruly, (or it is a domestic issue) the situation can really escalate. The police will kill someone they perceive as a threat. Sometimes, they kill people who are not a threat.
Suppose we have another type of organization to respond to low to mid level calls for help? This way, bums will not be killed for urinating in the bushes, and couples can resolve domestic issues without getting shot. I see a citizens corps (CITVOLS) composed of unarmed volunteers (teachers, doctors, who are paid for their services, or who get property/state tax breaks. They will have a different kind of uniform, and citizens will decide the scope of their duties prior to establishing the group. The important thing is that they are of the community.
The police and state and local organizations need to be part of the national discourse on solving the issue of the role of the police, and part of the solution. A framework to protect and help the people should be the outcome of this effort. A Police Force is still relevant, but it is only one option -part of the solution.
Due to the recent issue related to the Rayshad Brooks murder, should cops be barred from using tasers? The officer that shot Brooks said he feared for his life when Brooks got the officer's taser in his (Brooks') hand. Tasers were always looked at "safer" option rather than shooting an alleged suspect with a gun. It can't be both safe and unsafe if an officer fears for his and other's lives with it... It is one or the other.
No, tasers were never considered as an alternative to a gun/pistol. They were and are a safer alternative to the nightstick or baton that many cops used to carry. In the past, if someone were unruly, a quick blow or two to the ole noggin with the nightstick left the unruly person seeing stars and thereby their unruliness stopped.
The problem is that sometimes there were serious side effects, even an occasional death, from the use of a nightstick on someone's noggin. This lead to the development of the taser which is equally or more effective than a nightstick with much less danger of serious or deadly side effects.
If you take the taser away from the cops and the cop encounters an unruly, drunk, or otherwise obstinate person who is resisting arrest, then you leave the officer with only two choices: let the person escape and continue to be a hazard to other people in the general public, or shoot him with your sidearm. The cop needs a third alternative... one which will subdue an unruly person without knocking him senseless and without taking his life. The taser has been shown to work well (most of the time) for that purpose.
rrm0484: some good ideas to consider..... I would agree that as long as reforms are on as local level as possible (what works in big cities are not what is needed in rural areas. just gives my small town silly ideas about what the police need for equipment and supplies because of what bigger towns/cities are doing)
Thank you for the debate with calm and rational ideas!
Due to the recent issue related to the Rayshad Brooks murder, should cops be barred from using tasers? The officer that shot Brooks said he feared for his life when Brooks got the officer's taser in his (Brooks') hand. Tasers were always looked at "safer" option rather than shooting an alleged suspect with a gun. It can't be both safe and unsafe if an officer fears for his and other's lives with it... It is one or the other.
Its often said, that 'a few bad apples can ruin it for ALL the good people'...well, lets apply that same principle to police!!
If what police v claim is true and all the problems are just a result of the few bad apples among their ranks...surely they would understand if the public didnt want them armed anymore, even with a Tasers!
I dont think this is too much to ask of them, law makers regularly make the public deal with this kind of stuff, laws applied to everyone, that a few bad apples forced their hand...why are police treated any different?
Due to the recent issue related to the Rayshad Brooks murder, should cops be barred from using tasers? The officer that shot Brooks said he feared for his life when Brooks got the officer's taser in his (Brooks') hand. Tasers were always looked at "safer" option rather than shooting an alleged suspect with a gun. It can't be both safe and unsafe if an officer fears for his and other's lives with it... It is one or the other.
In fairness, this isn't a binary choice. A taser is both objectively less lethal than a gun and a potentially dangerous weapon.
My assumption is that, on balance, taser marginally reduce police shootings. But, I would like to see research on the subject. Its possible they lead to escalation by lowering the bar to usage.
I don't think the Rasheed Brooks case really raises an issue of whether police should have taser or not. He fought police, stole a taser from them and then (it appears) fired it at them. Obviously nobody can condone his behavior. The question is whether police were justified in shooting him? https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/16/us/ra...day/index.html
Monday morning quarterbacking from comfort of my keyboard, I tend to think not. But, that is a topic for another thread.
Due to the recent issue related to the Rayshad Brooks murder, should cops be barred from using tasers? The officer that shot Brooks said he feared for his life when Brooks got the officer's taser in his (Brooks') hand. Tasers were always looked at "safer" option rather than shooting an alleged suspect with a gun. It can't be both safe and unsafe if an officer fears for his and other's lives with it... It is one or the other.
I am struggling to find the logic in this post, but there is none. It baffles the mind.
Tasers are used thousands of times a year, safely for everyone concerned. If you were confronted by police, would you prefer to be shot with bullets from his hand-gun or from a Taser? Taser's are a non-lethal tool that is instrumental to police safely controlling suspects who are out of control, especially violent suspects. They are also useful for immobilizing fleeing suspects so officers can take them into custody, again relatively safely. They are not perfect, but nothing is.
The Taser itself had NOTHING whatsoever to do with the issue of safety. The issue was that the officer's hand-gun could be taken by the suspect if he had temporarily immobilized the officer by shooting him with a Taser. It is not as if the Taser itself could permanently harm the officer.
Your post lacks any logic or thought and your implication that Tasers should be banned is non-sensical.
Due to the recent issue related to the Rayshad Brooks murder, should cops be barred from using tasers? The officer that shot Brooks said he feared for his life when Brooks got the officer's taser in his (Brooks') hand. Tasers were always looked at "safer" option rather than shooting an alleged suspect with a gun. It can't be both safe and unsafe if an officer fears for his and other's lives with it... It is one or the other.
The officer feared for his life because if he was stunned his gun could be taken off him and used against him.
Banning taser would just mean that shooting would be even more likely as there would be few non lethal alternatives.
As for non-lethal technology it is improving all the time and new devices are coming on to the market.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
