3 ms·

Yes. Imagine you have a loaded gun and you've heard someone is committing a crime, so you go to the scene to investigate with no prior knowledge of the person.

Yes. Imagine you have a loaded gun and you've heard someone is committing a crime, so you go to the scene to investigate with no prior knowledge of the person. If they punch you in the face your options are: A) Assume you can probably take them physically, and they are a reasonable person who's just punching you because they've had a bad day, if you're wrong innocents may die. But wrestle and punch them anyway. B) Hit them with a stick, they will probably go down. If they manage to grab your gun while you're doing this, you and many innocents nearby may die. If they rush you, the stick may become ineffective. C) Assume the person who is punching you may be trying to get the gun, draw your gun so they can't grab it first, then if they don't immediately stop, shoot them. Taser is like C. You have a taser, if you try to "punch them back" or "wrestle them down" or even "grab your baton", the person may just grab the gun and kill you and other innocents. No one should ever resist arrest EVER -- just comply, go to the station, argue your case, and hire an attorney. If the police tell you to get in the cuffs, just do it.

someone7x 9y ago
You are of course entitled to your opinion, but to me it's astonishingly bleak. I can only imagine that whoever wrote the 4th amendment is rolling in their grave now.
frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
I think frequently what people are suggesting is that police should de-escalate in these situations, and that lots of situations that end in A, B or C could be de-escalated if police had any incentive to. Instead we'll just give police officers a whole suite of escalation options so that they're never put in a situation where they have to choose between an escalating over-reaction and de-escalation, they can always pick moderate escalation. Take the tasers away, take the military equipment away, take some of the guns away. Police officers are not soldiers and if, as a police officer, you feel you are forced to assume that any physical contact with a civilian will end in your death then you should not be a police officer.
anigbrowl 9y ago
Sorry, you need to fill that gap between 'got to investigate' and 'get punched in the face.' You also need to acknowledge the possibility that the alleged perpetrator of the crime simply wishes to escape, even if you don't weight that possibility highly. To assume that an alleged perpetrator's object is to gain control of a police officer's firearm while excluding other possibilities from consideration makes for a bad-faith argument. No one should ever resist arrest EVER -- just comply, go to the station, argue your case, and hire an attorney. If the police tell you to get in the cuffs, just do it. Nonsense statements like that open the door to police abuse and invite it right in. A police uniform does not alleviate the wearer of moral responsibility. On the contrary, it creates an incentive for crooked police officers to cover up abuse or even kill people who might testify against them. What if you never make it to the station?
semi-extrinsic 9y ago
I have a revolutionary solution to this conundrum: don't have all the police officers carry guns. Then police officer doesn't have to worry about person taking his gun, person doesn't worry about getting shot, and they can de-escalate the situation much more easily and quickly. Seriously, many European countries do this, e.g. the UK. Even in the poorest neighbourhoods in London, which Republicans referred to as "no-go zones" in the last election, regular cops on the beat don't carry.
- krapp 9y ago
  European countries don't have a Constitution with the right to keep and bear arms, or the armed populace that resulted from it. Barring a Constitutional convention to repeal the 2nd Amendment and likely civil war, the only possible result to disarming American police would be that the police would just be easier to shoot.
  - c22 9y ago
    I never understood this argument. A gun is not a shield, so how does it protect you from being shot?
    - dragonwriter 9y ago
      Deterrence is a form of protection, as is the capability to disable a potential attacker.
      - c22 9y ago
        Sure, but people making this argument tend to imply that a gun is the only effective way to deter or disable specifically an attacker with a gun. No one says police should carry guns to deter knife wielders and a Kevlar vest would seem to provide more protection against someone with a gun who's at the end of their rope/too strung out to care. This line of reasoning would make more sense if life was a TV show and every armed interaction was a Mexican standoff, but in reality most criminals with guns are already far from being rational actors.
program_whiz 9y ago
Ok so how do you de-escalate when the perp charges for you? If you are wrong, again, innocent bystanders and/or yourself may be killed. I'm not saying that everyone who runs or says bad words to an officer should be shot, I'm saying if someone physically strikes or attacks an officer, they have to operate with the assumption that the gun is on the table, anything less is incredibly irresponsible. A relevant article: https://hub.jhu.edu/magazine/2013/fall/guns-kill-cops-statistics/ https://hub.jhu.edu/magazine/2013/fall/guns-kill-cops-statis... The results were published this spring in the journal Injury Prevention. The study revealed information that surprised Swedler. First, an overwhelming number of the officers—93 percent—died from gunshots. "We expected guns to be commonly used," Swedler says, "but we thought that homicides would be perpetrated by other means as well. We were really surprised by that 93 percent." In 10 percent of cases, officers were shot with their own guns. In 43 percent of the homicides, the victims were working alone, often responding to domestic disturbance calls. "They would arrive on the scene and they would be ambushed and they weren't prepared," Swedler says.
- thinkharder 9y ago
  "If they punch you in the face your options are:" "Ok so how do you de-escalate when the perp charges for you?" In both the scenarios you present, it is far to late to draw anything. By the time the person is punching or charging you from less than 22 feet away (google the 21 foot rule) you do not have time to draw a weapon, taser or baton. Your only option at that point is direct physical altercation. If you try to draw something it's going to get knocked out of your hand during the altercation and then it's a scramble to see who picks it up. As for getting the weapon taken away from you, while it's in the holster, cops really, really ought to be using and training with level 2 or 3 retention holsters. These make it easy (if you train with it) to draw a weapon from a holster on your hip, but almost impossible to get the weapon out when it's on someone else. If a cop chooses not to use a retention holster, that's their choice, but it's trading safety for convenience. As to the Prevention article, it seems to me that if we want to reduce the number of cops killed with guns, then the low hanging fruit is that we need to stop sending lone officers to domestic disturbance calls. This study makes it clear that DD calls are an extremely risky type of call and police should approach them extremely carefully. " they would be ambushed and they weren't prepared," Swedler says. No less-lethal weaponry is going to solve that problem. The point I and others are trying to is that there are very few scenarios where using a taser actually makes sense. Most of the time when they get deployed it's as an alternative to deescalation, or to punish a perp for not 'complying'. They're not intended as a substitute for a firearm, they're a substitute for a baton or physically taking down a suspect, and I think the evidence at this point is pretty clear that they are not any better at being less-lethal. But to get back to the subject of the article, the issue isn't cops using tasers (although there are issues there), the problem we're having is that Taser the company is inappropriately inserting themselves into the legal process, and using bad 'science' and the threat of lawsuits to prevent the actual real-world safety of their product from being analyzed. This is bad and wrong, I think we can all agree.
int_19h 9y ago
I recall one case where a "perpetrator" was charged with attacking the officers, and damaging police equipment. It was later found out that "attacking" meant that one of the cops hurt their fists while punching him (it nicked the tooth and got scratched, or something like that). And "damaging equipment" was when the guy bled on the cop's shirt and stained it. "Resisting arrest" is that magic charge that shows up every time the police does something wrong, and tries to cover their ass. If it comes with a license to kill... yeah. No. Just no.

someone7x 9y ago

You are of course entitled to your opinion, but to me it's astonishingly bleak. I can only imagine that whoever wrote the 4th amendment is rolling in their grave now.

frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago

I think frequently what people are suggesting is that police should de-escalate in these situations, and that lots of situations that end in A, B or C could be de-escalated if police had any incentive to. Instead we'll just give police officers a whole suite of escalation options so that they're never put in a situation where they have to choose between an escalating over-reaction and de-escalation, they can always pick moderate escalation. Take the tasers away, take the military equipment away, take some of the guns away. Police officers are not soldiers and if, as a police officer, you feel you are forced to assume that any physical contact with a civilian will end in your death then you should not be a police officer.

anigbrowl 9y ago

Sorry, you need to fill that gap between 'got to investigate' and 'get punched in the face.' You also need to acknowledge the possibility that the alleged perpetrator of the crime simply wishes to escape, even if you don't weight that possibility highly. To assume that an alleged perpetrator's object is to gain control of a police officer's firearm while excluding other possibilities from consideration makes for a bad-faith argument. No one should ever resist arrest EVER -- just comply, go to the station, argue your case, and hire an attorney. If the police tell you to get in the cuffs, just do it. Nonsense statements like that open the door to police abuse and invite it right in. A police uniform does not alleviate the wearer of moral responsibility. On the contrary, it creates an incentive for crooked police officers to cover up abuse or even kill people who might testify against them. What if you never make it to the station?

semi-extrinsic 9y ago

I have a revolutionary solution to this conundrum: don't have all the police officers carry guns. Then police officer doesn't have to worry about person taking his gun, person doesn't worry about getting shot, and they can de-escalate the situation much more easily and quickly. Seriously, many European countries do this, e.g. the UK. Even in the poorest neighbourhoods in London, which Republicans referred to as "no-go zones" in the last election, regular cops on the beat don't carry.

krapp 9y ago
European countries don't have a Constitution with the right to keep and bear arms, or the armed populace that resulted from it. Barring a Constitutional convention to repeal the 2nd Amendment and likely civil war, the only possible result to disarming American police would be that the police would just be easier to shoot.
- c22 9y ago
  I never understood this argument. A gun is not a shield, so how does it protect you from being shot?
  - dragonwriter 9y ago
    Deterrence is a form of protection, as is the capability to disable a potential attacker.
    - c22 9y ago
      Sure, but people making this argument tend to imply that a gun is the only effective way to deter or disable specifically an attacker with a gun. No one says police should carry guns to deter knife wielders and a Kevlar vest would seem to provide more protection against someone with a gun who's at the end of their rope/too strung out to care. This line of reasoning would make more sense if life was a TV show and every armed interaction was a Mexican standoff, but in reality most criminals with guns are already far from being rational actors.

program_whiz 9y ago

Ok so how do you de-escalate when the perp charges for you? If you are wrong, again, innocent bystanders and/or yourself may be killed. I'm not saying that everyone who runs or says bad words to an officer should be shot, I'm saying if someone physically strikes or attacks an officer, they have to operate with the assumption that the gun is on the table, anything less is incredibly irresponsible. A relevant article: https://hub.jhu.edu/magazine/2013/fall/guns-kill-cops-statistics/ https://hub.jhu.edu/magazine/2013/fall/guns-kill-cops-statis... The results were published this spring in the journal Injury Prevention. The study revealed information that surprised Swedler. First, an overwhelming number of the officers—93 percent—died from gunshots. "We expected guns to be commonly used," Swedler says, "but we thought that homicides would be perpetrated by other means as well. We were really surprised by that 93 percent." In 10 percent of cases, officers were shot with their own guns. In 43 percent of the homicides, the victims were working alone, often responding to domestic disturbance calls. "They would arrive on the scene and they would be ambushed and they weren't prepared," Swedler says.

thinkharder 9y ago
"If they punch you in the face your options are:" "Ok so how do you de-escalate when the perp charges for you?" In both the scenarios you present, it is far to late to draw anything. By the time the person is punching or charging you from less than 22 feet away (google the 21 foot rule) you do not have time to draw a weapon, taser or baton. Your only option at that point is direct physical altercation. If you try to draw something it's going to get knocked out of your hand during the altercation and then it's a scramble to see who picks it up. As for getting the weapon taken away from you, while it's in the holster, cops really, really ought to be using and training with level 2 or 3 retention holsters. These make it easy (if you train with it) to draw a weapon from a holster on your hip, but almost impossible to get the weapon out when it's on someone else. If a cop chooses not to use a retention holster, that's their choice, but it's trading safety for convenience. As to the Prevention article, it seems to me that if we want to reduce the number of cops killed with guns, then the low hanging fruit is that we need to stop sending lone officers to domestic disturbance calls. This study makes it clear that DD calls are an extremely risky type of call and police should approach them extremely carefully. " they would be ambushed and they weren't prepared," Swedler says. No less-lethal weaponry is going to solve that problem. The point I and others are trying to is that there are very few scenarios where using a taser actually makes sense. Most of the time when they get deployed it's as an alternative to deescalation, or to punish a perp for not 'complying'. They're not intended as a substitute for a firearm, they're a substitute for a baton or physically taking down a suspect, and I think the evidence at this point is pretty clear that they are not any better at being less-lethal. But to get back to the subject of the article, the issue isn't cops using tasers (although there are issues there), the problem we're having is that Taser the company is inappropriately inserting themselves into the legal process, and using bad 'science' and the threat of lawsuits to prevent the actual real-world safety of their product from being analyzed. This is bad and wrong, I think we can all agree.

int_19h 9y ago

I recall one case where a "perpetrator" was charged with attacking the officers, and damaging police equipment. It was later found out that "attacking" meant that one of the cops hurt their fists while punching him (it nicked the tooth and got scratched, or something like that). And "damaging equipment" was when the guy bled on the cop's shirt and stained it. "Resisting arrest" is that magic charge that shows up every time the police does something wrong, and tries to cover their ass. If it comes with a license to kill... yeah. No. Just no.