TexasCHLforum.com

Odin wrote:

NcongruNt wrote:

Odin wrote:

Says who?

Says the company who designed it. At least that's how it was promoted and sold to LE agencies.

I can't find any evidence of that on their website or in any of the LE publications that I read. All of their advertising calls the device a less lethal device used to safely control subjects. You don't use deadly force to control, you use deadly force to stop. I don't have any of the original "Air Taser" advertisements from the early 90's available to me and I don't remember the specifics of the ads back then, so maybe they did initially advertise it as an alternative to deadly force, but they certainly have not made that claim in recent years. Their advetising, and the traning officers receive in the use of the Taser, is geared towards control of subjects that would be more dangerous for the officer to go hands on with.

A Taser has never been the cause of death of any person and should not be considered deadly force.

The Air Force considers it an alternative to deadly force. http://www.keesler.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123094432" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I don't have the time for further research right now, but I'll see what I can find later.

Odin wrote:

NcongruNt wrote:Also, most people forget (or never knew) that a Taser is designed to be an alternative to deadly force, for deadly force scenarios where it may not be safe/preferred to use deadly force. Unfortunately, they have largely become perceived as compliance tools (which they were not intended to be), hence all of the public stories and outcry about many incidents where they are used as just that.

Says who?

Says the company who designed it. At least that's how it was promoted and sold to LE agencies.

Piney wrote:all of this-- armed robber-- SB shotgun swinging around-- and all that went off were tazers ??

Glad to hear our town's officers weren't seriously injured !!

Well, there are a lot of things to consider that we don't know about. Depending on proximity of bystanders/etc. a firearm may not be an option. A criminal wrangling with multiple LEOs is not a good situation to be using a firearm. The story specifically notes that one LEO had a thumb in the ejection port of the SBS that the criminal was trying to operate - that sounds too close to use a sidearm. Another alternative would be a baton to the head, but again we don't know the orientation of everyone in the fray, so it my not have been an option. Personally, were I an LEO, I'd prefer not to shoot someone if I could help it, and it seems these guys did just that, with only relatively minor injuries.

Also, most people forget (or never knew) that a Taser is designed to be an alternative to deadly force, for deadly force scenarios where it may not be safe/preferred to use deadly force. Unfortunately, they have largely become perceived as compliance tools (which they were not intended to be), hence all of the public stories and outcry about many incidents where they are used as just that.