The taser comes to the area

[mvpel]

Cops don't have the same incentives that we do. When they make a mistake and accidentally kill somebody, they don't get tried for manslaughter or anything. Perhaps they loose their badge if they do it too often. But they're largely immune from the consequences of their actions.

That's because, unlike ordinary people in this day and age, they have a legal duty to pursue, confront, subdue, and apprehend criminals, and their immunity, as agents of the state, attaches to their good-faith efforts in that respect.

If I witness a robbery, I can't be held legally accountable if I do nothing at all to intervene, or if I fail to pursue and capture the perpetrator.  A cop, on the other hand, can be.  My moral duty to intervene is legally beside the point.

The Taser is considered a less-than-lethal weapon, and far more compact, effective, and easy to use than a weighted net.  The fact that it's remotely possible that someone might die if they're already whacked out on drugs is beside the point - if you use that standard, then a Monadnock baton is a lethal weapon because it can inflict a deadly blow if used improperly.

[tracysaboe]

Cops don't have the same incentives that we do. When they make a mistake and accidentally kill somebody, they don't get tried for manslaughter or anything. Perhaps they loose their badge if they do it too often. But they're largely immune from the consequences of their actions.

That's because, unlike ordinary people in this day and age, they have a legal duty to pursue, confront, subdue, and apprehend criminals, and their immunity, as agents of the state, attaches to their good-faith efforts in that respect.

If I witness a robbery, I can't be held legally accountable if I do nothing at all to intervene, or if I fail to pursue and capture the perpetrator.  A cop, on the other hand, can be.  My moral duty to intervene is legally beside the point.

Nonsence. They aren't obligated anything. Not even Legally. Go read. "Dial 911 and die" The Supreme court has even said cops can't be held legally responsible for not intervening.  And even IF they could, do you honestly think they'd be able to systematically enforce something like that?  Please.  What planet are you living on.

The Taser is considered a less-than-lethal weapon

I wouldn't know, but apparently other people in this forum think that's debateble.

Their used to be a time, when their was only a Sherrif and perhaps a deputy in this country. At the local level, the only law enforcement in many places was the Mayor. (In New Hampshire, you'd have the three selectmen.) And they'd need to round up a posse in order to enforce anything major. If people didn't believe what was being enforced was just, they wouldn't help. If they did, they did. But this was a natural restraint on police statism.

The same thing is true now-days. If cops didn't have guns, or tazers, they'd need to be more carefull about what they're doing. And they'd need to get volentary help from local citizens to prosecute violent people.  That check -- needing citizens to help them -- is neccessary to ensure that cops don't go around abusing people.

After a cop is off duty and not being paid by the state, let him have his guns, and tazers and what not. But while he's on duty, the incentive structures are such that he's going to be more irresponsible then the average citizen. After all, he gets to steal your money whether he's a brute or not.

Tracy

[GT]

After a cop is off duty and not being paid by the state, let him have his guns, and tazers and what not.

Police are citizens too and they have a Second Amendment right to carry a gun as we should too.

[KBCraig]

One of the precepts of modern policing, as laid out by Sir Robert Peel, is that the populace be armed and the police unarmed. There's no truer version of "consent of the governed" than that set forth by Sir Bobby.

Kevin

[mvpel]

You misunderstood "Dial 911 And Die," evidently.  Police have a legal duty to act to protect society at large, they just don't, in most states, have a duty to protect any particular individual.  The gist of the book is "police aren't bodyguards," not that there's no duty on their part to pursue, confront, and apprehend criminals.

Here's Peel's Nine Principles, there's nothing about unarmed police & armed populace.

1)      To prevent crime and disorder, as an alternative to their repression by military force and by severity of legal punishment.

2) To recognize always that the power of the police to fulfill their functions and duties is dependent on public approval of their existence, actions and behavior, and on their ability to secure and maintain public respect.

3)      To recognize always that to secure and maintain the respect and approval of the public means also the securing of willing cooperation of the public in the task of securing observance of laws.

4)      To recognize always that the extent to which the cooperation of the public can be secured diminishes, proportionately, the necessity of the use of physical force and compulsion for achieving police objectives.

5)      To seek and to preserve public favour, not by pandering to public opinion, but by constantly demonstrating absolutely impartial service to law, in complete independence of policy, and without regard to the justice or injustices of the substance of individual laws; by ready offering of individual service and friendship to all members of the public without regard to their wealth or social standing; by ready exercise of courtesy and friendly good humour; and by ready offering of individual sacrifice in protecting and preserving life.

6)      To use physical force only when the exercise of persuasion, advice and warning is found to be insufficient to obtain public cooperation to an extent necessary to secure observance of law or to restore order; and to use only the minimum degree of physical force which is necessary on any particular occasion for achieving a police objective.

7)      To maintain at all time a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and that the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen, in the interests of community welfare and existence.

8)      To recognize always the need for strict adherence to police-executive functions, and to refrain from even seeming to usurp the powers of the judiciary of avenging individuals or the state, and of authoritatively judging guilt and punishing the guilty.

9)      To recognize always that the test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, and not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with them.
========

Re: number six: a Taser is less physically forceful than a baton.

[Russell Kanning]

In this case...why would a cop think he needed to subdue this person....they hadn't really done anything wrong.
Doesn't tasering hurt? Did this guy really deserve it?

[mvpel]

In this case...why would a cop think he needed to subdue this person....they hadn't really done anything wrong. Doesn't tasering hurt? Did this guy really deserve it?

644:2 Disorderly Conduct. ? A person is guilty of disorderly conduct if:
II. He:
(d) Engages in conduct in a public place which substantially interferes with a criminal investigation, a firefighting operation to which RSA 154:17 is applicable, the provision of emergency medical treatment, or the provision of other emergency services when traffic or pedestrian management is required;
(e) Knowingly refuses to comply with a lawful order of a peace officer to move from any public place;

642:3 Hindering Apprehension or Prosecution. ?
    I. A person is guilty of an offense if, with a purpose to hinder, prevent or delay the discovery, apprehension, prosecution, conviction or punishment of another for the commission of a crime, he:
(e) Obstructs by force, intimidation or deception anyone from performing an act which might aid in the discovery, apprehension, prosecution or conviction of such person;

642:2 Resisting Arrest or Detention. ? A person is guilty of a misdemeanor when the person knowingly or purposely physically interferes with a person recognized to be a law enforcement official, including a probation or parole officer, seeking to effect an arrest or detention of the person or another regardless of whether there is a legal basis for the arrest. Verbal protestations alone shall not constitute resisting arrest or detention.
=====
When the cops decide they're going to cuff you, the place to argue about it is in court, not by flopping to the ground and tucking your hands under your body.

[Lloyd Danforth]

Mike's right, once they are going to arrest you, it is safer to comply, and, fight it in court, if you have a case.
It's probably a good idea to have a friend with a video camera to keep things civil. ( during the arrest, not while you're pissing on someone's bushes)

[Kat Kanning]

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-04-24-tasers-police_x.htm

Police on weapon company payrolls
By Kevin Johnson, USA TODAY
WASHINGTON ? Hundreds of police officers nationwide also are on payrolls of companies that supply weapons, riot gear and other equipment to the officers' departments, creating possible conflicts of interest.
      
By David Grubbs, AP

The arrangements have involved officers who advise their departments on what equipment to buy, according to a survey of at least a half-dozen companies by USA TODAY.

Taser International, the nation's leading maker of stun guns, says it pays at least 270 officers to conduct training seminars for other police. It also sends money to the survivors of police who are killed while on duty. (Related story: Taser contributes to police families)

When contacted by USA TODAY, several other private companies that supply equipment to police ? including Armor Holdings, which makes bullet-resistant clothing; ASP, a police baton manufacturer; and PepperBall Technologies, a maker of pepper-spray repellent ? said they also pay officers to train other police to use the companies' products.

Much of the debate over such arrangements has focused on Arizona-based Taser, which in recent months has defended the safety of its products amid reports by Amnesty International and The Arizona Republic that more than 80 people have died after being shocked with electrical stun guns. About 7,000 of the nation's estimated 16,000 police agencies use the device.

Taser's hiring of police as trainers has come under scrutiny in several communities. Police officers in Arizona and Minnesota were being paid as Taser trainers while they were involved in making stun-gun purchasing recommendations for their departments. Last year, Minneapolis police closed an investigation when the officer took a full-time job with Taser. In a separate inquiry, the city of Chandler, Ariz., found no violations. That officer also went to work full time for Taser.

Such arrangements between equipment providers and police have generated no formal allegations of wrongdoing. Taser International President Tom Smith says police are paid about $600 plus travel expenses to oversee a two-day training session on their days off.

"We bring in officers for their expertise," he says. "You don't have nurses train pilots."

Armor Holdings spokesman Michael Fox says the employment of police is "widely accepted" in a competitive industry.

Law enforcement analysts say the arrangements are troubling.

"You have police officers who are supposed to be looking out for their departments when they have another competing interest" in a private company, says David Harris, a University of Toledo law professor who has studied police conduct.

Hartford, Vt., Police Chief Joseph Estey, president of the International Association of Chiefs of Police, says the arrangements are "a kind of minefield" for police executives. Estey says he "probably would not" allow an officer to work for a supplier.

Equipment suppliers say the police who work for them are not involved in sales. "Police officers learn best from other officers," says Terry Naughton, ASP's director of corporate sales.

One major supplier to police, gunmaker Smith & Wesson, does not employ active-duty officers. "I see it as somewhat of a conflict of interest," spokesman Paul Pluff says. "We don't do it."



Yellowstone County Sheriff, Lt. Mike Schieno, center, screams as he is hit by a Taser during a training session in Billings, Mont.    

[GT]

From Tser.com

In May, 2000 the Sacramento Police Department received approval of a California State Grant to fund the deployment of the ADVANCED TASER M26 on every patrol officer and detective -- over 600 units. The good news is that grants are a great way to fund new equipment purchases such as the ADVANCED TASER M26. The bad news is that the grant process can be complex and frustrating.

Several agencies have already contacted the Sacramento police department to learn how they applied for and received the grant money. In order to help other departments in obtaining grant funds, we interviewed the people at Sacramento regarding the grant application process, and we learned the following:

Start with your state Department of Justice. The best source for information on law enforcement equipment grants is your state department of justice. However, because every state is different, it may take several phone calls just to locate someone who knows anything about grants.


Be Persistent. Any time your dealing with the government, you'll have to dig through many layers of bureaucrats who may or may not know how to apply for grants. Call the DOJ and ask what department would be responsible for law enforcement equipment grants. The first person you talk to probably won't know the answer -- they'll send you on to someone else. But, keep at it. There's a lot of grant money out there for those persistent souls who can find where the money is hidden within the government bureaucracy.


Be Resourceful. Research grants on the Internet, talk to other agencies, the more searching you do, the more likely you'll be successful. Below are a list of grant sites on the Internet which could be helpful:


www.free-grant-money.com
www.federalgovernmentgrant.com
www.nlectc.org/virlib/InfoList.asp?strType=Funding
www.policegrants.com
www.policecenter.com
www.nolg.gov.au
www.ojp.usdoj.gov
www.ojp.usdoj.gov/BJA
www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/crs.htm
www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/funding.htm
www.ojp.usdoj.gov/ovc/fund/welcome.html
www.usdoj.gov/index.html
www.usdoj.gov/cops/gpa/grant_prog/default.htm
www.usdoj.gov/cops
www.ojjdp.ncjrs.org/grants/grants.html
www.vests.ojp.gov
www.cops.usdoj.gov/
www.fdncenter.org (The Foundation Center)
www.tgci.com/resources/federal/ffed.html (The Grantsmanship Center)
www.agmconnect.org (Associated Grantmakers of Massachusetts)
www.philanthropy.com (The Chronicle of Philanthriopy)
www.ittnv.com/itt/Active/OtherPages/grantmain (ITT Industries)
www.policeone.com
www.ojp.usdoj.gov/fundopps.htm
www.ojp.usdoj.gov/odp/grants/equipment.htm
www.dhs.gov/dhspublic/theme_home2.jsp
www.cfda.gov
www.grantwritingusa.com/hsu.html

[Russell Kanning]

do we have a grant writing department at the nhunderground yet?

[Kat Kanning]

You could be granted a major whipping for making a statement like that! 

[GT]

You could be granted a major whipping for making a statement like that!?

Maybe a Taser would be a better choice

[Kat Kanning]

Well, I hear they leave less marks.

[mvpel]

Here's a website with some taser video clips:

http://www.personal-selfdefense-online.com/taser-video_center.htm