Still need to get tased to become a police ?

[Andyyu916]

I live in Florida and an officer told me he thinks that it isn't a requirement to get tased anymore but it's voluntary. Is it true ?
Do you have to get tased for corrections

[slamdunc]

Taser International does not require it as part of the training, there is an opportunity for 'Voluntary Exposure'. The individual agency may still want staff to take the hit and that will be up to them.

[big mak attack]

Its not really worth worring over its not that bad

[Iowa #1603]

Taser International does not require it as part of the training, there is an opportunity for 'Voluntary Exposure'. The individual agency may still want staff to take the hit and that will be up to them.

True, Taser International does not require it. My instructor did not require it............my agency does not require it.

But everyone does it

[jdthor]

Here corrections dont carry them,To many kids working it that would be tasing each other. Patrol if you carry you get zapped .I think each agency will be self dependent on policy like every thing else.

[Iowa #1603]

.I think each agency will be self dependent on policy like every thing else.

Here is what we are going through right now

http://www.kcrg.com/subject/news/iow...-says-20141020

ES MOINES — Researchers who looked at law enforcement policies in Iowa dealing with the use of stun guns to subdue unruly people are recommending new uniformity standards and safety benchmarks to address what they called a “troubling” lack of consistency when employing the devices.

In fact, not one of the 90 counties who responded to the American Civil Liberties Union of Iowa’s request for information possessed what ACLU officials would describe as an adequate stun gun use policy.

“No one is doing a stellar job,” said Veronica Fowler, communications director for ACLU of Iowa.

However, one county sheriff said his department has since updated their stun gun policy to include guidelines more in line with what ACLU is advocating for.

A two-year study conducted by the ACLU of Iowa and the University of Iowa College of Law Clinic issued Monday found that “Iowa law enforcement policies on these potentially fatal devices are woefully inadequate in providing clear, dependable instruction to officers in the field who must act quickly in often tense and sometimes dangerous situations,” according to results issued Monday. The data included responses from 90 of Iowa’s 99 county sheriffs’ offices. Six departments reported not carrying stun guns and three others did not provide the ACLU with their policies.

The responses represented a wide range of policies dealing with the circumstances during which stun guns are deployed, said Nathan Miller, an assistant director of the UI Center for Human Rights and professor in the UI College of Law legal clinic.

“We expected a certain level of variation before we started, but not how much we found,” Miller said. “There’s no one county that really sets that bar as high as we might like for the use of (stun guns).”

The 66-page report noted more than 265 Iowa law enforcement agencies currently are using stun guns — commonly referred to by the trade-name Taser — as an alternative to lethal force, and the number of agencies employing the electroshock weapon as a way to momentarily disable or incapacitate a person by delivering an electric shock to a remote target is rising. In Iowa, at least two people have died immediately after stun guns were used on them; nationally, the number of people who have died from the use of stun guns topped 500 since 2001, the report noted.

“The risks inherent in (stun gun) use demand careful and uniform regulation in Iowa. However, no law in our state requires comprehensive uniform policies or governs the content of (stun gun) training and reporting,” said Miller.

Basing their findings on open records requests sent to all 99 Iowa counties and key municipalities, the ACLU and UI researchers said they found a lack of uniformity or consensus about placement of a stun gun on the use-of-force spectrum, which law enforcement agencies use to specify how much physical force may be reasonably used to subdue a person. They also concluded that current policies do not effectively protect the public from the potential for abuse.

Five policies in Iowa prohibit the use of stun guns on sensitive body parts, such as the head, face, eyes, genitals and female breasts, according to the report. The use of stun guns on sensitive body parts was allowed with some restriction by 35 policies, while 29 policies make no mention of these most sensitive body parts — providing no information, guidance, or rules for officers, researchers said.

Of the counties in Iowa that reported having stun gun policies, eight prohibited the use of a stun gun on a woman known to be pregnant — a level that represented less than 10 percent of the total, according to the report.

Other findings indicated that one county had a policy prohibiting the “tasing” of an elderly Iowan, 2 percent prohibited the use of stun guns on young children, and seven policies prohibited using a stun gun on a person who already was restrained.

“(Stun gun) policies in Iowa show profound variation and lack of consistency in regulating officer behavior,” said Rita Bettis, legal director for the ACLU of Iowa, in a news release. “Some are far better than others, but no single policy in the state is adequate.”

Linn County Sheriff Brian Gardner said when he submitted his stun gun policy to the ACLU in August 2012, it was only a half page long. In November 2013, he sent an instructor to the Iowa Law Enforcement Academy to become certified on stun gun use. When the instructor returned, the sheriff’s office updated its policy, Gardner said.

“Our new policy is about four pages in length,” he said.

The sheriff’s new policy does allow for stun gun use “with restrictions” for those the ACLU and legal clinic have identified as more vulnerable, such as women who may be pregnant, young children and the elderly. The policy specifically forbids use of a stun gun near flammables.

Miller said an ideal stun gun policy would address two components, protections for those vulnerable parties and proper placement on a use of force continuum, which police use to identify the proper use of force based on the level of resistance presented.

“What subject behavior warrants the use of (stun guns)?” Miller said. “Is that more toward presenting an actual, physical threat ... or is it more toward all the way down to passively resisting or already being restrained? Ideally, I think you put the needle more toward physical threat.”

Also, policies should stress that a stun gun should “not be used frivolously or instead of verbal de-escalation methods,” and law officers should only consider limited stun gun use in situations involving violent resistors, the report recommends. They also should clearly explain the steps to be taken for the provision of medical care after a stun gun discharge, the researchers said in their recommendations.

During the 2014 legislative session, lawmakers considered a bill that would have required Iowa law enforcement officers and jailers to receive standardized training at the Iowa Law Enforcement Academy for using stun guns, but Senate File 2187 failed to make it to the governor’s desk.

While Fowler and Miller both said they would be in favor of a legislative action that would standardize stun gun policies, Gardner said that while he’s in favor of the ACLU’s guidelines, he thinks those matters are best left in the hands of law enforcement.

“If you look at the ACLU’s chart ... I think (those issues) should be addressed,” Gardner said. “But, whether they’re allowed, not allowed or allowed with restrictions; I think that’s up to the individual agency, not the legislature.”

For his part, Miller said he’s also hopeful the report starts a conversation about stun gun usage.

“I hope people take a look at this and we end up with a greater degree of uniformity in the state and a greater degree of protection for Iowans,” he said.

The legislation was in response to lawsuits and settlements resulting from allegations of excessive or unnecessary force by officers employing stun guns in recent years.

[wheels295]

Just take the ride and quit being a sissy.

[allen_gamble]

My dept did not "require" it. It was "voluntary."

[J2H]

The Air Force stated it was voluntary, so I didn't ride the lightning... I did carry a Tazer though.

[JLee]

Just do it. It's better than OC, anyway.

[J2H]

I have to get sprayed too to carry OC with my Company

[tj05]

My dept did not "require" it. It was "voluntary."

Same.

[Shush]

When questioning whether or not you should do it, consider how you would answer this question:

Attorney: " Officer XXXXXXX, can you tell me if you are trained and certified in the proper use of the equipment that you used against my client?"

[Madcap_Magician]

When questioning whether or not you should do it, consider how you would answer this question:

Attorney: " Officer XXXXXXX, can you tell me if you are trained and certified in the proper use of the equipment that you used against my client?"

Well, you can be certified for TASER use without actually doing it.

That being said... just do it.

[CCCSD]

Do you have to be shot to carry a firearm?
Getting zapped has ZERO to do with the proper deployment of a weapon. Documented training and following dept. Policy is the only thing you have to worry about in court.