>> ^JiggaJonson:
I contend that we need to seriously reconsider the use of tasers by our police force. They should be used under the guidelines that a lethal weapon would; the taser would be a last resort and the lethal weapon would be THE last resort.

I agree with the sentiment of your statement. The service I work for classifies the taser as an intermediate weapon on the same level as OC spray or a baton. These weapons are only justified when someone is displaying active aggression (punching, kicking spitting aggressive behaviour). Many Services in the U.S (I am in Canada) seem to allow their officers to use the taser as a substitute for touching or in some cases just talking to someone. Defies common sense and as has been mentioned... adds fuel to the fire of people not wanting officers to have tasers at all.

The problem comes when you speak about lethal weapon status and 'last resort' type situations. The Taser cannot be counted on to work when it is fired. The probes are far too unreliable. Lethal force can only rationally be justified when death or grievous bodily harm are imminent. The only response you can count on in those situations is a sidearm. The Taser can be used though if other officers have a contained suspect under 'lethal coverage'.

The long and short of it is that the Taser is a great tool for police officers and should be used properly and responsibly for the purpose it was designed for... to save lives. Officers who do not should be held accountable. Services that allow their members to Taser passively defensive subjects should get their asses sued off.

When we train dogs to wear badges and wear sidearms, then maybe some of those guards will realize they've been fighting on the wrong side, because their services will no longer be needed and they'll be working class slobs same as the rest of us.

A dog will work for less money than a man.

Hannity, O'Reilly, Beck, Savage...badges...you all know who butters your bread.

You're establishment muscle, and you fucking know it.

Im surprised no one has applauded the officer for his restraint in not using his tazer or sidearm. I think he did an excellent job of handling the situation.

Oh wait, today isn't opposite day!

That cops has some serious anger issues, and should be kicked from the force and sent to jail. I doubt either one will happen.

yay for America, the fastest growing police state in the world!

Atleast this video is getting a lot of air time on the news. Maybe people will start to wake up.

>> ^EDD:
Well it obviously wasn't an accident, judging by how long the weapon was aimed before the shot fired. My initial guess is that the officer might have been rather intoxicated and somehow mistook his sidearm for a taser. But what the hell do/can we know?
I'll say this though - quite often in cases when so-called "police brutality" is sifted, MG indicates that context and more footage might paint a clearer picture. I don't believe this is the case here and I'd say it'll probably eventually come down to eye-witness accounts in court.


No; No prior footage needed. This cop is fucked and will probably face several years in federal prision, as he should.

Though he most certainly was not cooperating as Trancecoach said.

Well it obviously wasn't an accident, judging by how long the weapon was aimed before the shot fired. My initial guess is that the officer might have been rather intoxicated and somehow mistook his sidearm for a taser. But what the hell do/can we know?

I'll say this though - quite often in cases when so-called "police brutality" is sifted, MG indicates that context and more footage might paint a clearer picture. I don't believe this is the case here and I'd say it'll probably eventually come down to eye-witness accounts in court.

"it did seem odd how casual the cop was about the other guy in the car, though. maybe not a good idea to stop people like that, alone, looking for guns and drugs."

I don't really think so Mink, hindsight is 20/20, right? He was alone on duty, that's not his fault, it's the PD's. And usually LEOs are trained to immediately react strongly once a passenger exits the vehicle, or when any situation brings in a second potential perp. However, in this case, I'm not really sure if the officer could have done much better up to the point where he should have started shooting (or even past that). I mean, he moved up the force continuum as far as was legal or moral - he drew his sidearm, and gave a command for the second perp to get back in the vehicle. As I said earlier, it was a 2-on-1 situation, the odds were stacked against him from the get go. I don't really see what else he could have done to prevent the situation from going down as it did, past a quicker shot on the first man, but that's a physical reaction thing. Just an unlucky man, doing his duty.

Obviously anecdotes aren't evidence, but I train with many LEOs who have used their firearms to save their lives and the lives of others.

In any case, MINK, what would you suggest would be the better alternative? Two criminals attempted to kill an officer with two handguns. What would have stopped them from trying to do so if the officer hadn't been armed? One unarmed police officer, two armed perps...hmmmm....

As for Canada and Britain, it is my understanding that Canadian police carry sidearms as standard, and Britain happens to be the target of much less violent crime, even proportionally, than the US.

Anywho, I don't particularly take issue with the fact that the gun might not function well as a significant deterrent. It might, or it might not, but that's not the primary purpose of a firearm for an LEO. The primary purpose is for use in dealing with and stopping a violent, potentially deadly confrontation with a perp that is already occurring. Because this officer was unlucky enough not to have been able to stop this particular situation does not mean that guns are ineffective as tools to be used by all LEOs (watch the video again to see how the perps were apprehended), it means either that this officer was not well trained enough or, much more likely, he was very very unlucky. Two armed people versus one person, armed or unarmed, puts the odds against the one.

Scary fucking video, by the way. I can't imagine what kind of insanity drove those guys to do what they did.

Well, this is great.

The thing about this whole situation is that every police station should have a sniper on call ready to go at any time. with all the high rise buildings in the area the sniper just has to set up on a first floor, or just get in a good place to shoot. Like Paccino did at the end of that fight, the thing is most people arent trained to shoot anything other than the issued sidearm.

I am going to rent this movie in a bit!

Seriously - I shamelessly linked to my blog and this stupidly amusing (to me) post where I compared calculators/rifles/sidearms (and the occasion where I forgot my 'rifle' and had to use my 'sidearm').

Good times.

The simple fact is that in a unprovoked and unwarned knife attack when the assailant has the intention to kill or seriously harm you then there is no chance of survival, however well trained you are. The Judo champion who got stabbed in the back is a perfect example of this, I have never been trained to deal with a knife attack from behind because that kind of attack is not one that can be defended against.

However, there are several factors that do influence your chances of success in your favour. The first is that if you do have forewarning of the attack then you are very lucky indeed because now you can utillise defense techniques. If you are being mugged for example, then if you really have to, there are several effective blocks and counters that are effective even at short range (guess what: that's what they are designed for!). Most attackers who give you warning will not have any real technique in using a knife which makes it much easier to defend. Skilled knife fighters will never reveal their weapon untill neccessary.

In the video they showed the oficers drawing a pistol against an attacker. There were several things wrong there. In the second example where the female officer had the chance to draw her sidearm and fire 2 shots then she would have survived. Much the same as it is not possible to carry on after sever knife wounds, being shot will drop an opponent instantly. Despite what movies would have you believe, the attacker could not have continues the attack even with the momentum that he had. Second, if I were in charge of training those police I would not advise them to draw their weapon at such short ranges. A baton is much more useful in that situation because it can be used to defend yourself rather that simply attack.

I'm not aquainted with police training methods but as a martial artist I believe that there are ways to defend yourself in any sitaution where you can see the weapon, given sufficient skill and knowledge. Unfortunatly it is the kind of skill that requires years of training to aquire, and the general public (even most military personnel etc) will never have that.