amm5061
NES Member
I don't quite get what you mean by deadly force. Bro got tased. That's far from deadly force, though it hurts like a sonofabitch. I suppose they could've chased him and given him the traditional baton treatment.
-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
MA SJC rules stun gun ban violates the 2A
- Thread starter terraformer
- Start date
I don't quite get what you mean by deadly force. Bro got tased. That's far from deadly force, though it hurts like a sonofabitch. I suppose they could've chased him and given him the traditional baton treatment.
Ma. is trying to justify requiring an LTC for stun guns by classifying them as deadly weapons
It does set up an interesting conundrum for LE usage.
They are talking themselves into a bad situation.
Know when to put the shovel down.
Horrible
NES Member
They don't. But they use pretzel logic to twist the law and everything else into whatever the desired result is.
The decision in the latest court case challenging the AWB is a great example. The 'Maura's dictate is ok b/c she hasn't prosecuted anyone yet' BS is laughable on its face. Any judge that made that decision outside of MA would be laughed off the bench.
Garys
NES Member
Classifying a stun gun as a "deadly weapon" makes them useless for law enforcement. It totally screws up the whole "Continuum of Force" concept.
(from memory, without looking it up)
Command Presence
Command Voice
Open handed techniques
Chemical weapons
Baton
Electrical weapons
Firearms
Now there are two "deadly weapons", which is silly. An officer might as well use a firearm as a stun gun if both are going to be considered the same level of force.
I'm sure that the geniuses on Beacon Hill will come up some convoluted logic. Maybe they can get Whoopi Goldberg to say that it's not "Deadly. Deadly".
(from memory, without looking it up)
Command Presence
Command Voice
Open handed techniques
Chemical weapons
Baton
Electrical weapons
Firearms
Now there are two "deadly weapons", which is silly. An officer might as well use a firearm as a stun gun if both are going to be considered the same level of force.
I'm sure that the geniuses on Beacon Hill will come up some convoluted logic. Maybe they can get Whoopi Goldberg to say that it's not "Deadly. Deadly".
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 47,505
- Likes
- 33,508
There is a reason the term used is "less lethal" rather than "less than lethal".
Studies seem to suggest that Tasers are most dangerous when someone is zapped repeatedly, rather than just once as is done in police training. The lack of incidents in police training (zapped once, fit and healthy subjects) is often used as proof that TAsers can't kill.
Studies seem to suggest that Tasers are most dangerous when someone is zapped repeatedly, rather than just once as is done in police training. The lack of incidents in police training (zapped once, fit and healthy subjects) is often used as proof that TAsers can't kill.
Mesatchornug
NES Member
I think he's saying we have a false sense of security on the less-than-lethal characteristics of tasers because the people who we test them on are fit, young targets who take a single hit. Then in the field it might be used on any subject as many times as it takes to make them "stop resisting"
Garys
NES Member
I believe that training for police officers includes being Tased, just as OC training for police officers involves getting sprayed. I know that way back when I did CONTOMS training in the mid 1990s, our tear gas training involved, yes, going into the tear gas hut and getting gassed.
None of which is practical for civilians.
There have been some deaths from police use of Tasers, but my recollection is that they involved cases of Excited Delirium or suspects with pre existing conditions of which the police were unaware. Most of the "controversy" was hyped up by plaintiffs lawyers, just as the "OC spray deaths" were hyped up by plaintiffs lawyers.
MA has an EMS protocol for dealing with "Electronic Control Weapons" patients. Part of that says,
None of which is practical for civilians.
There have been some deaths from police use of Tasers, but my recollection is that they involved cases of Excited Delirium or suspects with pre existing conditions of which the police were unaware. Most of the "controversy" was hyped up by plaintiffs lawyers, just as the "OC spray deaths" were hyped up by plaintiffs lawyers.
MA has an EMS protocol for dealing with "Electronic Control Weapons" patients. Part of that says,
"impractical" is not the same as "impossible".
If those are the rules for cops, shouldn't civilians be able to follow the same rules?
If only cops are trained enough to do XXX, shouldn't non-cops be able to get the same training to *also* do XXX? If not, why not?
Edit: Damnit... I forgot the "not" (italicized above) Changes the meaning entirely.
Last edited:
Another big one I see is that when you zap someone in training, they fall on mats or some other padded surface, or there are people there to catch someone falling, etc. The number of taser injuries on the street from people falling and hitting the pavement, bashing their head off a rock, etc, or falling off a set of stairs or other elevated surface, etc, are not statistically insignificant.
-Mike
-Mike
Massachusetts Constitution
"Article XVII.
The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence. And as, in time of peace, armies are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be maintained without the consent of the legislature; and the military power shall always be held in an exact subordination to the civil authority, and be governed by it."
Totally true, and I’m not really disagreeing, but I think it’s rational to say that if you resort to a taser as a defense mechanism we can say that the attacker is unlikely to die under normal circumstances. You run a similar risk in knocking someone down in an empty handed encounter.
Garys
NES Member
Sure, I can totally see someone say, 70, who doesn't want to carry a firearm, but wants to have something for self defense being Tased. Of course, his hypertension, COPD, pacemaker, and history of two previous MIs puts him physically in the same condition as a 24 year old who just came out of the police academy after four years in the USMC.
You are obviously without a clue.
You are obviously without a clue.
Screw you. You didn't read what I wrote.
I didn't say it was a *good* requirement. I didn't say it was desirable.
I said if that training is enough for cops so they're not subject to any of the stupid-ass rules they want to impose on the rest of us, then the same training and freedoms should be available to all of us.
I'd use the same argument for any magical piece of equipment the state thinks we're too stupid to use, but for some reason cops need them.
We can't have guns in schools but cops can "because training", fine, let me take the training. We can't have full capacity magazines or post '86 machineguns but cops can because cops are magical supermen with James Bond / Captain America skilzz and training? OK, let me take that training.
Garys
NES Member
That's even more umbday.
You can't have guns in school, because you have no duty to respond. Police do. Do I agree with that? No, but it's the way it is. Many, if not most, civilian gun owners spend far more time training than most police officers. So, that's not the issue.
You can't have guns in school, because you have no duty to respond. Police do. Do I agree with that? No, but it's the way it is. Many, if not most, civilian gun owners spend far more time training than most police officers. So, that's not the issue.
amm5061
NES Member
Huge difference between respond and protect. Just ask the Coward County Sheriff's office.
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 47,505
- Likes
- 33,508
I am saying they are "less lethal", not "less than lethal". The two terms have very different meanings.
I'm pretty sure the courts have found they don't have that duty.
Warren v. DC
The fact that civilian (ugh, how 'bout "non law enforcement", they're civilians too) have more training than cops and yet we *still* are rightless peons just makes it worse.
namedpipes
NES Member
Limo tint is forbidden to the masses but required for LE vehicles.
They have no problem with two standards.
namedpipes
NES Member
I stated "Limo" tint because I neither recall nor care what the permissible light transmission is.
I stated "required" as hyperbole. They say it enhances officer safety when it's on a cruiser and it decreases it when it's on a "civilian" car.
And yes, I know they're civilians too. More hyperbole.
