Ouch....
RideOnTime
Posts: 4,712
0
Comments
-
A great idea in these dangerous times; give every officer a taser - a less lethal option but one that may nevertheless save their life and the lives of members of the public.Outside the rat race and proud of it0
-
ROAD < Scott Foil HMX Di2, Volagi Liscio Di2, Jamis Renegade Elite Di2, Cube Reaction Race > ROUGH0
-
That bloke from Wheeler Dealer has put on a bit of weight
He could get Ed to make a turbo taser.my isetta is a 300cc bike0 -
Tazers are at least some form of protection but only good in close combat scenarios.
Eventually there is only one option and until that happens we will simply spend millions on debates over the subject although the end result is inevitable.
The problem we have is that the americans are born into guns and learn from an early age whereas we don't but at the same time, police need to be respected and indeed armed.Living MY dream.0 -
Saying something is inevitable doesn't make it true. The police themselves don't want to be routinely armed, even though their lives are sometimes put in jeopardy. We should be proud of them, and of the British concept of policing by consent.0
-
Our local police commissioner or chief constable, someone at the top of the local police pyramid was complaining that the general public didn't interact with the police.
They are dressed like stormtroopers!
Kind of puts you off a bit. Not sure if it has happened yet, but they could be filming you with their personal cameras and now carrying tasers.
I am no spring chicken, and have no reason(ie no criminal record or suchlike) not to approach a policeman.
But blood and sand they do look scary!!!!
On top of that I am not sure they want to interact with the general public. It is that stoney stare into the middle distance.0 -
The police here look scary? They wear hi-vis, what's scary about that?SoloSuperia wrote:Our local police commissioner or chief constable, someone at the top of the local police pyramid was complaining that the general public didn't interact with the police.
They are dressed like stormtroopers!
Kind of puts you off a bit. Not sure if it has happened yet, but they could be filming you with their personal cameras and now carrying tasers.
I am no spring chicken, and have no reason(ie no criminal record or suchlike) not to approach a policeman.
But blood and sand they do look scary!!!!
On top of that I am not sure they want to interact with the general public. It is that stoney stare into the middle distance.0 -
I'm of an age where i remember policemen wearing nothing but a fabric top and a truncheon in my youth. I see them now about town and they all look like they are dressed in riot gear (anti-stab vests with enough knobbly kit stuck to it that they look like the aforementioned stormtroopers). Doesn't make them look approachable.0
-
Not directed at anyone particularly on here but in general.
Many people look back at a more genteel age where policemen patrolled a community with a whistle and truncheon. Well, the world has moved on apace. The world is a much more violent and unpredictable place and police has moved on to reflect this.
Witness any fly on the wall police documentary to see the type of people the police have to deal with and how quickly alcohol or drug fuelled incidents escalate.
When things kick off, police have to assess the situation and select the correct tactical option for that moment, constantly reassessing and escalating or de-escalating as appropriate. People will surely agree that a piece of wood in their pocket no longer suffices.
They have a range of options from running away, doing nothing, communication, restraint, PAVA/CS, taser, baton and lethal force to name some.
I would suggest that a taser has lesser risk of causing long term physical damage that a metal baton, as well as maintaining a reasonable distance between the police and assailant. Yet no-one is arguing that the police should not carry batons.
Given the choice, taser every time, proving that it is a viable option.
Edit Of course that should read providing and not proving :oops:0 -
Ballysmate wrote:Not directed at anyone particularly on here but in general.
Many people look back at a more genteel age where policemen patrolled a community with a whistle and truncheon. Well, the world has moved on apace. The world is a much more violent and unpredictable place and police has moved on to reflect this.
Witness any fly on the wall police documentary to see the type of people the police have to deal with and how quickly alcohol or drug fuelled incidents escalate.
When things kick off, police have to assess the situation and select the correct tactical option for that moment, constantly reassessing and escalating or de-escalating as appropriate. People will surely agree that a piece of wood in their pocket no longer suffices.
They have a range of options from running away, doing nothing, communication, restraint, PAVA/CS, taser, baton and lethal force to name some.
I would suggest that a taser has lesser risk of causing long term physical damage that a metal baton, as well as maintaining a reasonable distance between the police and assailant. Yet no-one is arguing that the police should not carry batons.
Given the choice, taser every time, proving that it is a viable option.
Edit Of course that should read providing and not proving :oops:
Does for a lot of things...0 -
RideOnTime wrote:Ballysmate wrote:Not directed at anyone particularly on here but in general.
Many people look back at a more genteel age where policemen patrolled a community with a whistle and truncheon. Well, the world has moved on apace. The world is a much more violent and unpredictable place and police has moved on to reflect this.
Witness any fly on the wall police documentary to see the type of people the police have to deal with and how quickly alcohol or drug fuelled incidents escalate.
When things kick off, police have to assess the situation and select the correct tactical option for that moment, constantly reassessing and escalating or de-escalating as appropriate. People will surely agree that a piece of wood in their pocket no longer suffices.
They have a range of options from running away, doing nothing, communication, restraint, PAVA/CS, taser, baton and lethal force to name some.
I would suggest that a taser has lesser risk of causing long term physical damage that a metal baton, as well as maintaining a reasonable distance between the police and assailant. Yet no-one is arguing that the police should not carry batons.
Given the choice, taser every time, proving that it is a viable option.
Edit Of course that should read providing and not proving :oops:
Does for a lot of things...
But people will be disappointed when they see the wood. A taser is much more impressive unless you accidentally fire it too quickly.0 -
Not if the piece of wood looked like this...
(cattle prod)0 -
I'm all in favour of arming the police, although the main offence for which I think people should be shot out of hand is dropping litter.Specialized Roubaix Elite 2015
XM-057 rigid 29er0 -
0
-
southdownswolf wrote:RideOnTime wrote:Ballysmate wrote:Not directed at anyone particularly on here but in general.
Many people look back at a more genteel age where policemen patrolled a community with a whistle and truncheon. Well, the world has moved on apace. The world is a much more violent and unpredictable place and police has moved on to reflect this.
Witness any fly on the wall police documentary to see the type of people the police have to deal with and how quickly alcohol or drug fuelled incidents escalate.
When things kick off, police have to assess the situation and select the correct tactical option for that moment, constantly reassessing and escalating or de-escalating as appropriate. People will surely agree that a piece of wood in their pocket no longer suffices.
They have a range of options from running away, doing nothing, communication, restraint, PAVA/CS, taser, baton and lethal force to name some.
I would suggest that a taser has lesser risk of causing long term physical damage that a metal baton, as well as maintaining a reasonable distance between the police and assailant. Yet no-one is arguing that the police should not carry batons.
Given the choice, taser every time, proving that it is a viable option.
Edit Of course that should read providing and not proving :oops:
Does for a lot of things...
But people will be disappointed when they see the wood. A taser is much more impressive unless you accidentally fire it too quickly.
Do you get wood and fire too quickly?
0 -
Ballysmate wrote:southdownswolf wrote:RideOnTime wrote:Ballysmate wrote:Not directed at anyone particularly on here but in general.
Many people look back at a more genteel age where policemen patrolled a community with a whistle and truncheon. Well, the world has moved on apace. The world is a much more violent and unpredictable place and police has moved on to reflect this.
Witness any fly on the wall police documentary to see the type of people the police have to deal with and how quickly alcohol or drug fuelled incidents escalate.
When things kick off, police have to assess the situation and select the correct tactical option for that moment, constantly reassessing and escalating or de-escalating as appropriate. People will surely agree that a piece of wood in their pocket no longer suffices.
They have a range of options from running away, doing nothing, communication, restraint, PAVA/CS, taser, baton and lethal force to name some.
I would suggest that a taser has lesser risk of causing long term physical damage that a metal baton, as well as maintaining a reasonable distance between the police and assailant. Yet no-one is arguing that the police should not carry batons.
Given the choice, taser every time, proving that it is a viable option.
Edit Of course that should read providing and not proving :oops:
Does for a lot of things...
But people will be disappointed when they see the wood. A taser is much more impressive unless you accidentally fire it too quickly.
Do you get wood and fire too quickly?
Depends how often I look at "The 'big' girls thread... " :shock:0 -
southdownswolf wrote:Ballysmate wrote:southdownswolf wrote:RideOnTime wrote:Ballysmate wrote:Not directed at anyone particularly on here but in general.
Many people look back at a more genteel age where policemen patrolled a community with a whistle and truncheon. Well, the world has moved on apace. The world is a much more violent and unpredictable place and police has moved on to reflect this.
Witness any fly on the wall police documentary to see the type of people the police have to deal with and how quickly alcohol or drug fuelled incidents escalate.
When things kick off, police have to assess the situation and select the correct tactical option for that moment, constantly reassessing and escalating or de-escalating as appropriate. People will surely agree that a piece of wood in their pocket no longer suffices.
They have a range of options from running away, doing nothing, communication, restraint, PAVA/CS, taser, baton and lethal force to name some.
I would suggest that a taser has lesser risk of causing long term physical damage that a metal baton, as well as maintaining a reasonable distance between the police and assailant. Yet no-one is arguing that the police should not carry batons.
Given the choice, taser every time, proving that it is a viable option.
Edit Of course that should read providing and not proving :oops:
Does for a lot of things...
But people will be disappointed when they see the wood. A taser is much more impressive unless you accidentally fire it too quickly.
Do you get wood and fire too quickly?
Depends how often I look at "The 'big' girls thread... " :shock:
I think having all this wood in their pockets will impede running...0 -
I think that if a police officer wants to have a taser they should be offered one after appropriate training.
My father in law was offered a role on the firearms team and turned it down because he didn't want to be carrying a gun. That is a personal choice, and I think that many officers will feel that a tazer is beyond their requirements. But those that work in areas where it could be of use I don't see why they shouldn't be allowed to use carry them.
On the other hand at times were they are more likely to be used (11pm Friday night in Croydon) the fact that most police officers don't have tazers might be a reason for them being willing to take the time to police by consent. A tazer could be seen as an easy way out of many situations.Specialized Allez Sport 20130 -
Lancew wrote:I think that if a police officer wants to have a taser they should be offered one after appropriate training.
My father in law was offered a role on the firearms team and turned it down because he didn't want to be carrying a gun. That is a personal choice, and I think that many officers will feel that a tazer is beyond their requirements. But those that work in areas where it could be of use I don't see why they shouldn't be allowed to use carry them.
On the other hand at times were they are more likely to be used (11pm Friday night in Croydon) the fact that most police officers don't have tazers might be a reason for them being willing to take the time to police by consent. A tazer could be seen as an easy way out of many situations.
I insist there are more police in the firearms division who won't carry a gun...0 -
RDW wrote:Saying something is inevitable doesn't make it true. The police themselves don't want to be routinely armed, even though their lives are sometimes put in jeopardy. We should be proud of them, and of the British concept of policing by consent.
+1.
Have you seen the US recently? Estimates range from 400 to over 1000 shootings by police officers - that large numbers are probably going unreported does not exactly inspire confidence as to their justifiability.
We need to go down that road like we need literal holes in the head.0
