Tazer

[Gulf Po Po]

Just got certified with the X-26 Tazer today. Worst 5 seconds of my life. I would take another 5 second ride though, instead of getting sprayed with Freeze +P again.

[Irishluck31]

That sounds like fun. Do they spell it with a Z now, I have been out of the loop for a year now.

The best part is the first time you use it, mostly because you probably didnt have to.

[canadiancop]

its TASER.

Believe me, getting shot with that thing and taking 5 seconds...I won't forget the name.

Gulf Po Po---do you have a video? I had mine taped, its hillarious.

[patroldog]

I think its ridiculous that LEO's have to get shocked with that thing to be certified to carry and use it, what is the point ? If a LEO is hit with the taser, is it not going to have the same affect it has on a perp ? Is there anything you can do to stop the affect or to fight through it ? I don't think so. I can see the point of being subjected to pepper spray, but not the taser. LEO's carry pistols, do they have to be shot with those too ? NO Someone please explain the point of being tased (other than to provide entertainment for others) to me. Thanks

[JSD73]

Well how can you see the point for pepper spray but not a taser?? There are many people that aren't affected by pepper spray and even a few who aren't affected by tasers. The point is, most officers have to go thru the 'torture' to be certified to carry the equipment.

[C.I.HOG]

let me tell you I though I was tough. I laughed at those that came before me and I dropped after 2.1 seconds. Yes the drinks were on me.

[j706]

They told us that by "taking the ride" It could help with a jury opition. We had some judges and prosecutors "take a ride"

[signal1]

I think its ridiculous that LEO's have to get shocked with that thing to be certified to carry and use it, what is the point ? If a LEO is hit with the taser, is it not going to have the same affect it has on a perp ? Is there anything you can do to stop the affect or to fight through it ? I don't think so. I can see the point of being subjected to pepper spray, but not the taser. LEO's carry pistols, do they have to be shot with those too ? NO Someone please explain the point of being tased (other than to provide entertainment for others) to me. Thanks

As an OC instructor, it is not about fighting through it or knowing how it affects you, it is about giving you the justification to use deadly force on the subject because you know that it could temporarily immobilize you. The same goes for the taser. If you use deadly force and it comes down to the trial, whether it be civil or criminal, it is going to be hard to say you used deadly force against the perp because he threatened you with your taser that he was able to get from you during the struggle if you have never been tased before. If you can testify that you have been tased during a controlled environment and that you know it will stun you for 5 seconds and then leaves you half paralyzed for a few seconds after that, which would have allowed the perp time enough to get your duty weapon and use it against you, there is not a jury in the world that would not side with you.

[pulicords]

As an OC instructor, it is not about fighting through it or knowing how it affects you, it is about giving you the justification to use deadly force on the subject because you know that it could temporarily immobilize you. The same goes for the taser. If you use deadly force and it comes down to the trial, whether it be civil or criminal, it is going to be hard to say you used deadly force against the perp because he threatened you with your taser that he was able to get from you during the struggle if you have never been tased before. If you can testify that you have been tased during a controlled environment and that you know it will stun you for 5 seconds and then leaves you half paralyzed for a few seconds after that, which would have allowed the perp time enough to get your duty weapon and use it against you, there is not a jury in the world that would not side with you.

I think the "Justification" (personal effects) training is a crock! I was also certified as an OC instructor and listened to the same BS with that as is now used in some Taser training. You don't need to get bashed in the head with a 2x4 to know that it's going to hurt/disable/lead to worse things. The "training" that one receives by experiencing the effects of OC, Taser, or whatever else comes down the line, is that the product causes something to happen (ie: pain) when used against a combative/resistant suspect. Unfortunately, these results are amplified when used on a non-intoxicated, non-mentally impaired, subject (the officer) who not only isn't under the influence of a analgesic type substance but is anticipating a significant reaction. The anticipation is increased in effect due to the videos, lecture and having viewed other officers who have just been dosed. More than anything else, I believe this "Justification" exercise (experiment) is little more than a marketing tool. It causes officers to promote the product to other officers, departments, and citizens prior to having actually used the product under field conditions. I also believe the officer has a much stronger (almost religious) belief in the product's usefulness, leading to a desire to use it as soon as possible. This (IMO) causes three extremely significant issues:
1) Too much reliance on one particular product's effectiveness (the "golden bullet") without anticipation of the need for "Plan B" if it doesn't work.
2) Too much desire to practice the same experiment on the first available willing or unwilling subject (often w/o sufficient justification).
3) Failure to recognize the hazards to the subject's health, prior to the product's use. ("It's totally safe, since they used it on me! Right?")

Listen to officers discussing their latest training and see how many are, "just dying to try it out!" I've seen this with new impact weapons, aerosol teargas products and now with tasers. It is a dangerous result of too much emphasis on how well the product works and too little emphasis on when or how (tactics) to use it. The myth of "Justification" is unsupported by any case law I'm aware of. Lawful or unlawful use of any force is determined by the total reasonableness of the individual situation and the officer's ability to articulate why that force was necessary. Removing the personal experience (of product's effects) part of the training does little (or nothing) to diminish the reasonableness of the officer's actions.
Example:
Attorney: "Officer, why did you shoot my client in the back after he sprayed you with Mace and ran away?"
Defendant: "It disabled me and he could have come back with a deadly weapon."

OC, Tasers, impact weapons, hand to hand defensive tactics, deadly force all have there place in our work. We need to know how they affect people (including us), but subjecting officers to a given product's effects is (IMO) counterproductive. l've experienced a wide variety of defensive products use personally because I volunteered to do so out of personal curiosity, but I never expect the same results when applied in the field to suspects who are in a different state of mental and physical condition. I will not force, intimidate, coerce or goad another person (officer or otherwise) to be subjected to a use of force without plenty of justification. Being a police officer doesn't mean you give up all rights (ie: Not to be the "willing" subject of an assault.")

[flash4]

I have your answer.

Taser International doesn't require you be hit with it to carry their product.

If it's department policy you be hit with it to carry it and it's policy you carry it...then guess what...if you're not carrying it...you're out of policy....and subject to disciplinary action.

If it's an option to be hit with it or not carry it....make you're choice.

Personally, I've been hit twice. I had a lead placed on my neck and my ankle on the first cycle with the X26. Because I changed agencies who uses the M26, I had to take the probes to the back. That's better training because you actually get to remove the probes but you also know it's not painful to have the probes removed.

I'll say this, the taser has kept me from going to deadly force many times and I consider it a more useful tool than the baton and OC.

[pulicords]

I have your answer.

Taser International doesn't require you be hit with it to carry their product.

If it's department policy you be hit with it to carry it and it's policy you carry it...then guess what...if you're not carrying it...you're out of policy....and subject to disciplinary action.

If it's an option to be hit with it or not carry it....make you're choice.

Personally, I've been hit twice. I had a lead placed on my neck and my ankle on the first cycle with the X26. Because I changed agencies who uses the M26, I had to take the probes to the back. That's better training because you actually get to remove the probes but you also know it's not painful to have the probes removed.

I'll say this, the taser has kept me from going to deadly force many times and I consider it a more useful tool than the baton and OC.

1) Any department that requires tenured officers to submit to being tased (assaulted) in lieu of discipline doesn't have a legal leg to stand on.
2) Any police officers' association that permits the above is failing to meet it's obligation to it's membership.
3) Any department that refuses to allow officers who don't get tased to carry the device is increasing their own (organizational) liability.
4) Although tasers can be used in situations allowing deadly force, they're not designed to replace use of deadly force. Our organization places the use of taser in the same general category as a baton and at a higher level of force than OC. If you've used these devices "many times" instead of going to deadly force, I'd have seriously question your UOF policy or your perceptions in the incidents you related to.

[signal1]

1) Any department that requires tenured officers to submit to being tased (assaulted) in lieu of discipline doesn't have a legal leg to stand on.
2) Any police officers' association that permits the above is failing to meet it's obligation to it's membership.
3) Any department that refuses to allow officers who don't get tased to carry the device is increasing their own (organizational) liability.
4) Although tasers can be used in situations allowing deadly force, they're not designed to replace use of deadly force. Our organization places the use of taser in the same general category as a baton and at a higher level of force than OC. If you've used these devices "many times" instead of going to deadly force, I'd have seriously question your UOF policy or your perceptions in the incidents you related to.

Dang pulicords...you having a couple bad days? Is the heat getting to you down there? We are discussing why it happens, not what we should be doing to go against our department policies.

[Bigg Dogg]

i will just say that when I got my Taser it sucked!!!!!We only had to go until we dropped.I think I went down in about .56 seconds.I decided not to fight it,he gave me a total of 3 seconds.Longest 3 seconds of my life.I still have not got to use it so far!!!!!

[pulicords]

Dang pulicords...you having a couple bad days? Is the heat getting to you down there? We are discussing why it happens, not what we should be doing to go against our department policies.

No bad days at all! It's just that I've got this thing about blind obedience to departmental policies that place officers in harm's way, in the belief that they "protect" the organization. I was very much involved in the process that led to the approval of OC products for use in our state. During that process, I observed the politics involved in the marketing of those products by the companies that sell them, the agencies that purchased them and officers who used them. I was (and am) a big supporter of OC, taser and other tools which help us do our jobs safer and with less exposure to civil liability. The problem arises when training/application issues run up against marketing and profit concerns. Although OC, taser and other safety equipment marketers provide things of use to us, profit is the driving factor. Many of the claims by sales "associates" (ex-LEOs) are without factual basis, the training programs they promote lack emphasis on tactical realities and are slanted towards more sales of the product. I strongly believe that departments need to examine the product and associated training with a critical eye if they're really interested in protecting the officers and the organization. I also believe that officers must be skeptical about these issues as individuals. Ultimately, we're responsible for our own safety and civil liability.

[ArkansasFan24]

Just got certified with the X-26 Tazer today. Worst 5 seconds of my life. I would take another 5 second ride though, instead of getting sprayed with Freeze +P again.

I only did the two second experience, however, I'd gladly do the five second once a month to avoid ever being pepper sprayed again. I really didn't think the Taser was that bad. Granted, there was some pain. The "weirdness" factor was the worst part of it. It just felt so strange.