TASERs are Less Lethal, not Non-Lethal

I actually support the equipping and use of TASERs by police forces. Giving officers facing sticky situations the option to use a tool that allows for an option between "hit with a baton" and "shoot to kill" seems like a no-brainer to me.

But I'm not an apologist for TAZER International. I think that some of their promotional campaigns are deceptive, to say the least. A TASER is not a harmless and 100% safe means to incapacitate someone. Anymore than a beanbag round for a riot gun, or tear/vomit gas is. A TASER is a less lethal device that is generally safe for people in good health.

Oddly enough, however, the police don't have the option of doing a full medical work-up on someone before they use these devices on them. For that matter, four or five simultaneous or near simultaneous shocks are going to be a different manner of beast, too. The cops need to admit that what they're using is a device that can kill, and recognize that the procedural controls for using the devices need to be codified in a similar manner to how there are procedures for the use of firearms.

When I read a story like this one, where a delusional 87 year old woman is tazed, and dies as a result of that, I get all stabby when the story mentions that the shooter involved is going to be the subject of an investigation, "Although the incident did not involve the use of lethal force..."

Odd, if the woman is dead as a direct result of the TAZER, I'd say that was lethal force. Wouldn't you?














To be clear: assuming the incident went down as it's described in this story, I have no great complaint of the use of the TASER. ISTM to have been a pretty clear case where the suspect was behaving in a manner that was credibly threatening, and the use of firearms would have been justified, not simply the use of a TASER. It's the attitude the story reveals towards the TASER that pisses me off.

Loki I suspect this thread is not getting responses as there is nothing to disagree with.

I will add a minor observation though, I think the public is complacent about Taser's as I believe many believe these are nice safe high-tech sci-fi weapons almost like the stun setting of the Star Trek phasers. Few people actually encounter stun guns in their lives.

Thank God they banned them here although there is a blanket exception for law enforcement. So far there have been only small-scale trials for police use.

I wouldn't have a problem with them if they were actually used as an alternative to firearms. It just seems that you can't rely on that and I am not comfortable with increased use of force out of convenience.

Quote:

---

Giving officers facing sticky situations the option to use a tool that allows for an option between "hit with a baton" and "shoot to kill" seems like a no-brainer to me.

---

That reminds me of something. Several times people on the SDMB dismissed "shoot to wound" as pure Hollywood nonsense. Police officers here do it regularly and it seems to work ok.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Feirefiz

That reminds me of something. Several times people on the SDMB dismissed "shoot to wound" as pure Hollywood nonsense. Police officers here do it regularly and it seems to work ok.

---

Well, one of the reasons I have dismissed it in the past on the SDMB was that I can't imagine how you shoot to wound without leaving the target still able to get off shots of her/his own.

I am not a shooter, nor have I had much training in using firearms for law enforcement. I got a little training while I was in the military, and have read some other manuals since then.

For me, at least, shoot to wound means that you're targeting limbs. If you're going to for a center-of-mass shot, you're shooting to kill, IMNSHO. The problem I have with shooting at limbs is that they're harder targets while simultaneously leaving the target, even if hit, potentially able to return fire.

Do you happen to have an online cite for a deliberate policy of shoot-to-wound? It really doesn't make sense from any of the things I've read or seen about firearms use.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by OtakuLoki

Well, one of the reasons I have dismissed it in the past on the SDMB was that I can't imagine how you shoot to wound without leaving the target still able to get off shots of her/his own.

---

Yes, if your opponent is armed with a gun, but there are also other situations that call for a drastic response. For example this is one case that heard about in real life by coincidence. A female police officer was called to a domestic dispute. Then the guy attacked her with a baseball bat. She shot him in the leg and stopped him very successfully. His x-ray looked spectacular but he lived.

Quote:

---

Do you happen to have an online cite for a deliberate policy of shoot-to-wound? It really doesn't make sense from any of the things I've read or seen about firearms use.

---

I'll see if I can find something good.

It is suprisingly hard to find a good direct cite of the policy, but I found a supreme court decision that deals with the matter, but unfortunately only in German (link).

Basically, a police officer shot a suspected rapist fleeing from the crime scene. He shot him once into his wallet 'at hip height' once into the back and twice into the head, killing him. According to the officer this was unintentional.

A lower court convicted the officer of manslaughter arguing that use of firearms to stop a fleeing strong suspect of a felony can be permissible, but only as far as it doesn't go beyond stopping. If that justification doesn't apply there is no excuse for the killing.

Eventually the supreme court overturned the conviction and concluded several things.

• Yes, state police law explicitly allows the use of firearms against fleeing suspects under conditions that apply here.
• It is true that this only covers shooting-to-stop, definitely not shooting-to-kill.
• However, even if the defendant ended up causing disproportionate harm the lower court did not consider (the lack of) deliberate intent sufficiently.

The case was returned to a lower court. I don't know what the eventual verdict was.

There are also many reports of other specific cases and less-than-authoritative mentions of the policy.

Thanks for the reference, and the summary.