I have opinions on a great variety of issues.

Don't like 'em?

Tell Cal.

Well, if you've got research that proves that "more tools = less danger", by all means lets give our officers utility belts and batmobiles and let them all indulge their inner Batman.

From what I've read, though, tazers are seldom used as a substitute for lethal force. I believe the only time tazer use is justified is when someone is physically struggling with an officer. I don't believe it should be used as a coercive threat, i.e. "move along or I will taze you".

I still want to see the PD's policy on tazer deployment.

and I got your research right here...I would have given my left test.. well you know.. to have had a taser when I was working the streets.. I may have been able to keep from making the hard decision, but I did not have it sooo... Every Police Officer I know would love to have a choice not to use lethal force..
You obviously do not know what you are talking about on this one sniff.. so like usual you just crap all over it.. so typical of you..

I will not lower my standards.. So UP YOURS..

GUN CONTROL Link

I would think that a tazers primary use would be to prevent a person from " physically struggling with an officer", as you put it. Would you have a cop wait until an aggressive person puts their hands on a police officer before they are allowed to pull a tazer? What about a 240 lb wacked out meth head or drunk tring to beat the crap out of a cop and take their weapon...should the officer, especially females, wait until the perp is close enough to overpower them and possibly kill them before they reach for the tazer? The tazer should be used to prevent exactly the type of confrontation you seem to want to set as a tipping point. Personnaly, I think anyone physically struggling with an officer should be shot!

I would hope that a police officer has enough wits about them to recognize a dangerous situation and react accordingly. As I said earlier, I have no problem with that.

What I DO have a problem with is the growing trend of police officers around the nation to dispense "summary justice" via tazing.

Case 1: a woman didn't get out of her car fast enough at a traffic stop and got tazed (and was threatened again as she lie flopping on the ground) LINK

Case 2: A woman using a valid credit card at BestBuy was tazed and arrested by a skittish police officer LINK

Case 3: 6 Georgia cops taze a handcuffed non-resisting suspect LINK

Case 4: Another non-resistant woman on the ground being tazered LINK

Case 5: Cops tazer "dangerous" blind woman LINK

Case 6: Cops tazer restrained man 11 times in jail LINK

Case 7: Cops tazer kid who fell off of bridge, broke back and couldn't move. LINK

I WANT to believe that our police force would exercise care and restraint prior to deploying a tazer, but I don't have much trust in a department led by senior officers (most notably Pye and Dupree) with a history of poor judgement calls.

that these officers had used their tazers.

-------------------------------------------
Caution - The Surgeon General has determined that constant blogging is an addiction that can cause a sedentary life style.

The bad guy had a gun. I'm assuming the police officers had guns as well. What is your point here? What difference would a tazer have made in this situation? Hmmm?

you seemed to want to sensationalize the issue with some Youtube clips to prove a point that the police aren't responsible and or have a low mentality as you put it "move along". Well my clip showed a far different view, one that reveals that they actual put themselves in harms way to protect us and when hurt they bleed and have emotions and sorrow.

See sniffles, police aren't prefect and yes sometimes they do make the wrong decision which can be settled in a courtroom. However, when they deal with the "real world" which has its misfits they need the tools to do their jobs without getting harmed themselves. Tell you what, spend some time with them and then tell us your opinion.
-------------------------------------------
Caution - The Surgeon General has determined that constant blogging is an addiction that can cause a sedentary life style.

I posted a few links to show how poorly trained officers misuse tazers and you came back with an absolutely irrelevant video about police officers dying in the line of duty. Who is sensationalizing here? (Hint: not me). I'll ask you directly once again: would those police officers be alive today if they had been issued tazers?

You do raise one valid point which I am absolutely in agreement on: sometimes police officers make wrong decisions. How best to minimize these poor decisions? I suspect here is where you and I are of divergent opinions: I want written procedures and more training. You seem to want it "settled in a courtroom". If I'm reading you wrong, please let me know, it's not my intention to put words in your mouth (I'm not a libertarian ).

I think it's beneath you to imply that I somehow don't support police officers because I'm asking for clarification on procedures. I support the fact that officers are required to have periodic shoot/no shoot qualification with their weapons.

Let me give you a less-than-perfect analogy, Cy: Every Tuesday morning I put my life in someone I don't know's hands when I step on an airplane. I trust the pilot as a competent professional to do his job and keep both himself and me safe (and get me to my destination with no more than a 3 hr delay). If he fails in his job, there's a good likelihood I won't live to see tomorrow. I don't need to "spend time with them" to respect their position.

Having said that, though, I'd be hesitant to get on a propeller plane with a pilot who has flown, say, 747s all of his career. It doesn't matter if he spent an entire afternoon familiarizing himself with the controls, he lacks the real-world experience to handle equipment he's not qualified to fly. I realize that he needs to fly the plane in order to get experience, but I damn sure want someone looking over his shoulder VERY closely while he gets his experience.

I don't think it's too much to ask for police officers to expect the same degree of close scrutiny with their new weapons, at least in the early stages. I don't want procedures to be made up as they go, i.e. "oh gee we tazed that infant twice and she died...guess we better not do THAT anymore..." There's enough body of knowledge in other departments regarding tazer use and misuse that we shouldn't have to re-invent the "procedures" wheel.

Yet I haven't heard Chief Halifax Clark mention one word about acceptable tazer procedures so I have a sinking feeling there are none. If in fact there are no procedures than Chief Clark is doing this city a disservice by introducing a weapon without a usage policy.

Bottom line: show me the procedures and I'll support the Chief's decision to deploy this weapon. Until then, I'm of the opinion he is making a ☠ mistake.

As always, feel free to disagree. I'm just giving you my 2 cents and I have got a pocketful of change.

I suspect here is where you and I are of divergent opinions: I want written procedures and more training.

Nope, I do agree that that SOP's are important.

Every Tuesday morning I put my life in someone I don't know's hands when I step on an airplane. I trust the pilot as a competent professional to do his job and keep both himself and me safe (and get me to my destination with no more than a 3 hr delay).

Not just the pilot but everyone else has the training and the recentcy requirements and instructions to perform their tasks. Oh, and yes tasks are documented. The only thing is, you'll have to take my word for it. (Sorry about the delay)

Bottom line: show me the procedures and I'll support the Chief's decision to deploy this weapon.

Have you ever seen PTC SOP's outlining the use of their guns, mace and batons? If you have, do you approve of them? Is the training adequate? (I'll have to take your word on it.)

BTW, I'm still supporting you for the school board even though you're under a "liberal" spell.

-------------------------------------------
Caution - The Surgeon General has determined that constant blogging is an addiction that can cause a sedentary life style.

to do. Then he would not be able to sit in his perfect world that he has created.. A world where all thoughts are as one and there is no dissent and all is good and light.. Unfortunately the real world is not so easy to work with.. Police are human and have to make life or death decisions sometimes under the worse of stressful conditions knowing that arm chair lawyers like snif will be second guessing their every move.. yelling brutallity if they were to get into a "struggle" with a perp.. ACLU, NAACP and Trial Lawyers all just waiting for one slip.. People like Snif will always look down on people like me and others because we chose to serve our fellow man for little reward.. at least until a thug has him by the throat and he sees a black and white rolling in on the scene.. then usually people like him are pretty happy about us being there then.. but only until we pull his crack out of a bind then it's back to sneering at us when we roll past.. Oh well.. some things never change..

I will not lower my standards.. So UP YOURS..

GUN CONTROL Link

I see your point. The police don't need tools to do their job. Hey maybe we don't need police. If we just ask criminals nicely enough they'll stop and we won't have any crime.

I'm not saying that we don't hold the officers accountable for the way they use the tazers, but I do think that another tool in the hands of a good officer (which is most of them) could only be a good thing. Yes we will someday hear of the 1 incident that went bad. We'll never hear of the 1,000 where the tazers were used properly.

Don, I have no doubt whatsoever that our police for is now trained in HOW to use tazers (I saw their photo op over in Cal's competition), my question is whether or not they'll know WHEN to use these new weapons...and more importantly, when NOT to use them.

Time will tell, I suppose.

Police would not have to use guns, batons, tazers or any other "tool" if the low life's that "work" daily to take away our money, property and our lives were not so protected by our screwed up liberal juris system. You don't want our police using these tools, stop breaking the law; any other arguement is moot!

If you are approached by ANY police officer for ANY reason and given a command to obey and you make the decision to NOT obey, you just made a costly judgment and it's time for "school" to commence. The criminal started these problems so let our Police end it.

That is a generic question that would also apply to using physical force, shooting, etc., be it police officers or citizens exercising home defense.

It is really a question of the character and judgment of the officer, not the tazer itself.

It is a tool I would rather see officers possess and never use rather than risk personal injury by trying to subdue someone physically.

We have a police Chief and Staff that will not tolerate misconduct. Of that I am sure.

Does that mean nothing wrong can every happen, tazer or not? Of course not. But it means it won't be something you see often, if ever.

Focusing on what abuse may occur, by a minority of officers or citizens at home, fails to see the good to the majority by possessing such things.

Don Haddix
PTC Councilman
Post 1
donhaddix.com