Personally I think this is a good move, as there have been many cases in recent years, of our Police (Armed Response Units) shooting dead people who really didnt need to be killed (imho).
In one case, in Liverpool IIRC, a guy with a sword was shot and killed. A taser would have saved his live. I cannot see why they had to shoot to kill anyway, I mean if he’d had a gun, then yeah, but a sword ? If he has a sword and the police have guns and are ‘out of reach’ there should have been another option open to them to disarm the man, than to shoot him.
Another guy was shot as he was carrying ‘what looked like’ a gun in a plastic bag. It was in fact a chair leg. Quite what he was doing with a chair leg, I’m not sure. If he was pretending that it was a gun, then fair do’s to the cops, they had little option, but I’m not sure if he was brandishing it as if it were a gun.
At least now suspects can be disarmed (if within 21 ft) without the need to kill them.
How much does a gun weigh? Is is really prohibitive for officers to carry both? It seems to me that you can get more done with a tazer and a gun then you can do with just one.
Police in the UK still do not routinely carry guns, but the plans are to introduce tasers alongside conventional guns, not instead of conventional guns, and only for armed units. Various reasons have been given for the police here not to be armed routinely, often by the police themselves.
I agree that this is a good idea. The police should have more less-lethal methods to deal with dangerous suspects. Here in the United States some of our larger police departments are reviewing multiple less-lethal weapons for use.
**
None of us has a crystal ball so the most we can say is that it may have saved his life. If I was the officer with the taser I’d want other officers armed with guns to back me up. What if I fire the taser and for whatever reason it fails to subdue the suspect? I’m not going to be left out there with my pants down as this maniac with a sword closes the scant 21 feet between us to make me into sashimi.
**
This seems to be an entirely different topic then lethal and less-lethal weapons.
21 feet is a lot more close then you think when faced with an armed and dangerous individual. As I said I do agree that the police should have more options then using a firearm. I don’t think a taser would have been the best choice in the above situation. The LAPD is experimenting with net guns, air rifles that fire MACE pellets, a glue gun, and several other less-lethal weapons.
Police deathsquads are our speciality! You’re welcome to take some of ours on a lend-lease basis…oh hell we’ll just give 'em to you. Now don’t be bashful, grab a handful!
America and the UK are really different places to be, not just because they are a long way apart. One way in which they are very different is in their approaches to Law Enforcement Officers carrying guns.
Now, lest we turn this into a “Guns Yay! vs Guns Evil!” debate (which it will do anyway, but let’s at least pretend, eh?), I appreciate that there are good arguments from both sides for the rightness or wrongness of Guns and the extent to which they should be allowed into a society. However, as a purely neutral observer, I will point out that the British, as a nation, Do Not Get what is often referred to as the American “obsession” with guns, and as such really don’t want police officers armed all the time.
It might sound silly to some of the Americans over there, you might Just Not Get this and think that we’re all darn tootin’ crazy people. This, also, is an acceptable response.
I’m not saying one is right or wrong, just pointing out that this thread might give rise to some serious cultural crosstalking here. As long as you’re aware of that… carry on.
Yep, I agree. I was simply pointing out that the officers having a taser at the time did not automatically mean the perp would have survived. Remember, I’m all for other means of subduing suspects.
Is anyone else wondering at the inclusion of North Wales on that list? I had not thought it would be an area in dire need of these things. Maybe it is, of course - it just seemed odd.
On the BBC (radio) news, they had a guy from Amnesty International speaking against the idea of employing tasers. His reasoning seemed to be that there was evidence that they could kill in some circumstances and so they should not be used. What seemed to have totally escaped him was that conventional firearms are much more likely to kill!
Hugekebab…maybe you’d like the proxy ‘death squads’ from Northern Ireland over :rolleyes:
