Maybe tranquilizer guns should replace tasers

[Generic Other]

When animal control units respond to bears in urban areas, they use darts that temporarily stun animals without harming them. They do not taser them repeatedly. It would be considered abuse of animals if they did. No animal rights groups would stand for such treatment of wildlife.

Yet we allow the police in this country to use these weapons against citizens. Even when it is obvious they are being abused. Even when we have the scientific evidence that giving anyone this kind of power is likely to lead to abuse. One need only look at the numerous psychology experiments where test subjects given the ability to administer electric shocks to people could not resist using their power.

Day after day, we read on DU stories of out of control cops using tasers. Why haven't lawmakers addressed this issue? At the very least one would think cops should be told that the taser is not to be used in any situation except one where it is used in place of a gun. If a cop would not shoot you with a bullet, then they should not shoot you with a taser.

I would rather see cops use a tranquilizer dart to subdue a disturbed out of control suspect than a taser. In many cases, the individuals are emotionally distraught individuals not criminals anyway.

Hard to believe I would be advocating that humans be treated at leqast as humanely as we treat animals, but that's my argument.

Any thoughts?

And how do we convince lawmakers to outlaw police use of tasers?

[sinkingfeeling]

1. I would agree, but the counter will be that tranquilizers take time to work while tasers can

'disable' a person instantly.

[MedicalAdmin]

50. Really bad idea.

Here's why - tasers, as bad as they are, have a lethal effect on only a small portion of the population.

Tranquilizers inject drugs into the body and given that the police do deal with a significant number of drug users (and given that this is America, one can safely assume that most people a cop would stop would be on some prescription or another. The main problem I can think of is the synergy effect in drugs which would make every use of a tranq gun a potentially lethal event.

More info on drug interactions including synergistic effects (sec. 2.2) here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adverse_drug_reaction#Synergistic_effects

Between a tranq gun and a taser I would take the taser. And yes, I've been tasered.

[GreenPartyVoter]

52. What did it feel like to be tasered? Is it like grabbing on to a live wire? (Been there done that)

[RKP5637]

2. Maybe some police should be on tranqullizers... n/t

[Generic Other]

7. LOL

You might have a point there.

[Ian David]

3. People addicted to the tranquilizer darts would deliberately provoke the cops. n/t

[Generic Other]

9. When they shoot bears, they just fall sleep

I guess I didn't think they got high!

Addicted to tranquillizer darts!! OK. How about nitrous? LOL.

[rustydog]

16. They fall asleep after they run for half a mile or more....

what happens if your nere-do-well gets behind the wheel of a car after being tranqued?

[Ian David]

22. Tranq darts used for bears and other animals are made with Ketamine.

Ketamine
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ketamine is a drug used in human and veterinary medicine developed by Parke-Davis (today a part of Pfizer) in 1962. Its hydrochloride salt is sold as Ketanest, Ketaset, and Ketalar. Pharmacologically, ketamine is classified as an NMDA receptor antagonist.<2> At high, fully anesthetic level doses, ketamine has also been found to bind to opioid μ receptors and sigma receptors.<3><4> Like other drugs of this class such as tiletamine and phencyclidine (PCP), it induces a state referred to as "dissociative anesthesia"<5> and is used as a recreational drug.

Ketamine has a wide range of effects in humans, including analgesia, anesthesia, hallucinations, elevated blood pressure, and bronchodilation.<6> Ketamine is primarily used for the induction and maintenance of general anesthesia, usually in combination with some sedative drug. Other uses include sedation in intensive care, analgesia (particularly in emergency medicine), and treatment of bronchospasm. It is also a popular anesthetic in veterinary medicine.

<snip>

Ketamine sold illicitly comes from diverted legitimate supplies and semi-legitimate suppliers, theft from legitimate suppliers, and is imported in varying amounts from countries in which it is less strictly regulated.

In 2003, the US Drug Enforcement Agency conducted Operation TKO, a probe into the quality of ketamine being imported from Mexico.<68> As a result of operation TKO, US and Mexican authorities shut down the Mexico City company Laboratorios Ttokkyo, which was the biggest producer of ketamine in Mexico. According to the DEA, over 80% of ketamine seized in the US is of Mexican origin.<68> The World Health Organization Expert Committee on Drug Dependence, in its thirty-third report (2003),<69> recommended research into its recreational use/misuse due to growing concerns about its rising popularity in Europe, Asia and North America. This is due in part to its prevention of depression.<70>

In E for Ecstasy<71> (a book examining the uses of the street drug Ecstasy in the UK) the writer, activist and Ecstasy advocate Nicholas Saunders highlighted test results showing that certain consignments of the drug also contained ketamine. Consignments of Ecstasy known as "Strawberry" contained what Saunders described as a "potentially dangerous combination of ketamine, ephedrine and selegiline", as did a consignment of "Sitting Duck" Ecstasy tablets.<72>

The former chairman of the British Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, David Nutt, suggested that Ketamine should be upgraded from a class C drug due to the harm it

More:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ketamine

[Generic Other]

26. So making people feel better is a bad idea

but hurting them is good. That sounds backwards. I guess cops need a happy nitrous taser. Immobilize them by making them laugh.

I just don't approve of the cruelty involved in shooting people repeatedly (more than once is abuse in my opinion) with them.

[Ian David]

27. How about something that gives them an orgasm? n/t

[Generic Other]

28. Do you put the cuffs on before or after?

I am imagining a big vibrating gun!!! You are giving me a fit of the giggles today.

:pals:

[AngryAmish]

4. Hard to know where to begin

So I won't. But imagine the effect (or lack thereof) on a junkie.

[Raineyb]

5. You're suggesting a cop with no medical training shoot drugs into someone

with no regard to what medications that person may be on and what potential bad interactions can come from it?

Bad idea.

No need keep that from taking tasers from the police though. They can't be trusted with them.

[Generic Other]

10. I would rather be shot with a tranquilizer gun than a taser

I hadn't thought about the potential interaction with meds a person might be taking. Bears are usually not on other meds.

And yes, I was just trying to think of a way to get the tasers out of police hands.

[Raineyb]

41. I'm not interested in being hit with either and considering the police have a habit of abusing

their authority I'm not at all inclined to let them be able to drug anyone.

Interaction with people's meds is a serious issue not to mention the potential for harm because they hit someone with a tranquilizer who should not be dosed with tranquilizer.

But I see no reason to NOT take tasers away from the police just because there's no replacement for them. I say take the tasers from them and don't replace them. Period.

[Lance_Boyle]

6. Fuck yeah! Free buzz just for pissing off a cop!

The waking up in jail part would suck, but c'mon now - how different is that from the average non-cop-induced spectacular tranq buzz?

[Generic Other]

11. OK that is a little like 1984 to wake up in a jail cell with no idea how you got there...

Free buzz. LOL. Son, you have bad attitude! I assumed they would not shoot you with elephant tranquilizers!!

[Lance_Boyle]

12. Trust me - it's the BEST way to wake up in jail. n/t

[AngryAmish]

23. That's funny - in 1984 I did wake up in a jail cell with no idea how I got there

good times, good times...

[Generic Other]

29. You were in a tree in someone's backyard growling!

[Warpy]

8. Animals don't drink, use recreational drugs, or use prescription drugs

Unfortunately, the tranquilizer dart would take longer to work, a time that would put people in danger, and have potentially fatal interactions with drugs and alcohol. BAD idea.

Tasers are about the best option for now, but police departments are desperately in need of training in how to use them properly, since they're also potentially lethal, just less so than shooting somebody with drugs.

Making discharging a taser the same as discharging a gun would be a good first step, follow it by a couple of days off while an IA investigation is done over whether it was justified.

[Generic Other]

13. So much for my kinder gentler idea!

Your suggestions sound like better ones especially the last one.

Is there no accountability for their use now? No investigation done by departments to determine whether the use is justified?

I am just amazed at how this technology is being abused. I certainly would like to know some stats about taser use. For one, is it being used in higher percentages on people of color? What about gender and age groups? I am shocked to know it is used on people when they have requested EMT's to come to their aid.

It's mindboggling. Guess there needs to be high profile lawsuits with multimillion dollar settlements against law enforcement agencies for them to re-evaluate their indiscriminate use.

[anigbrowl]

73. Obviously you've never grown catnip

In general, animals like to get high just as much as people do.

[immoderate]

14. What happens when you tase a bear?

There must be some reason that's not done a lot.


--imm

[rustydog]

17. Do you want to be within 25 feet to tase your grizzly?

31 feet? Use the X-rep maybe it will work...maybe not.

[immoderate]

19. Tranquilize him first.

How about out of eye shot and down wind? :yoiks:

--imm

[immoderate]

21. Tranquilize him first.

How about out of eye shot and down wind? :yoiks:

--imm

[Ignis]

65. This:

[Statistical]

33. Taser likely would be completely ineffective on a bear.

1) Bears have very thick fur, hide, fat. Tazer needles are only about 2inches long. It would be like trying to taze someone wearing a suba suit, sweater, thick jacket, and then leather jacket on top of that.

2) Tazer is designed to disrupt human electrical impulses.

3) The wrong range issue. If you shoot a bear with tranquelizer from 50ft away you can likely get 2-3 more shots before bear closes and rips your face off. Tazer is one shot option. Reloaded is relatively slow. So miss and it will be bad.

[MedicalAdmin]

51. The reason: tasers only make them hungry.

Like this. <http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-illustration-3620577-man-eating-bear.php>

[immoderate]

53. You da winna!

--imm :)

[rustydog]

15. The issue is the individual officer who cannot follow the use of force

continuum. The issue can also be a police officer who is a bully, coward or sheer sadist.

the ECD (Electronic Control Device) commonly referred to as the registered trade mark "Taser", is a less than lethal weapon option for law enforcement and private individuals.
If deployed correctly, the ECD has a very low possibility of causing serious injury or death.

In Departmental use of force policies, the ECD is not intended to be a punishment tool, "Taser" training explicitly recommends against using the "Taser" if the offender (KEY word is offender or suspect) is on an elevated platform, is holding a firearm, or behind the wheel of a vehicle. "Taser" also strongly recommend against ECD use against elderly disabled, children or pregnant individuals.

The weapon will do what it is designed to do. it is the idiot punks who chose to use them as a tool of abuse or torture.. Police officers who do this and there are several, they need to be removed from the force and prosecuted.

Using a tranquilizer dart makes for an entertaining argument although the criminal suspect would still be able to run or drive away before the drug could take effect...

The ECD argument needs to be argued intelligently focusing on the individual officer's actions. it is not the ECD, it is the force chosen by the officer in circumstances that do not warrant even threatening to use one.

[Generic Other]

25. So just like the gun argument

Tasers don't hurt people...bad cops with tasers hurt people.

"...strongly recommend against ECD use against elderly disabled, children or pregnant individuals." That rule seems as if it is being broken all over the country.

[USArmyParatrooper]

32. So perhaps police officers shouldn't have guns?

Tasers incapacitate, guns kill. Guns are far worse. So take those away too? Why or why not?

[MedicalAdmin]

54. Don't they teach logic in paratrooper school?

The issue is not the capacity of various weapons, but rather the appropriate use of them.

As for why not, it is because the force continuum is in place for officers to respond correctly to situations and some situations call for the response to be deadly force. However each incidence should be investigated and that goes for tasers too.

[USArmyParatrooper]

59. No, in airborne school they teach you how to jump out of airplanes

Which actually defies logic. But getting back to the subject after you tried to personalize it....

Some situations call for deadly force. Others call for the ability to incapacitate a subject using non-lethal force. Alas, TASERS.

[rustydog]

43. BOY Howdy! by individual officers who should not be cops

The ECD is a useful use of force tool IF PROPERLY deployed!
Tasing a suspect standing on a cliff is completely retarded.
Tasing a non-violent non-compliant person who won't stand up is completely uncalled for.

You have poorly trained officers using the ECD improperly. Charge them, jail them, kick them off of the force.

[USArmyParatrooper]

31. Bingo. nt

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

18. That would be far more dangerous than tasers.

Animals often die because they're given an incorrect dose of tranquilizer, it takes many minutes for an animal to become tranquilized after injection, and tranquilization requires expertise in judging the animal's weight and calculating and administering the correct dosage.

Christ.

[Generic Other]

24. All the bears I see just fall out of trees into someone's back yard

They never die around here when they get shot with tranquillizers.

BTW, why do you need Christ to help you make your point? I was just making a suggestion. No need to invoke your diety as if you were talking to someone so beneath your intelligence that it requires the patience of a saint to deal with me.

:shrug:

[Dogtown]

34. HFPS wasn't praying.

He was blaspheming, to show his impatience.

You're absolutely wrong about the effects of tranking animals. They do die often as a result of the darts.

If you're talking about news reports, they seldom show what happens to the animal next, these stories are often given a fun-story, whimsical spin. If you've personally witnessed numerous animals dropping from trees, I'd be very surprised. Tranks are not used unless it's necessary for the safety of surrounding humans because of the dangers to the animals.

Ketamine, except in very large doses, can take up to 3 minutes to take effect. At a standard strength of 40 mg/ml, it would probably take 4 to 6 milligrams to immobilize a black bear with rapidity. That would also be enough to endanger respiration. A threshold dose for humans would be .5 millies.


CAVEAT: I claim no experience in tranquilizing bears nor in sharing disassociative recreational drugs with them.

[Generic Other]

60. I live in bear country...they get on the news a lot

And you are right. They never do say if they die afterwards. Usually they report the bears as being released back into the wild with no ill effects. Cougars too.

[Cleobulus]

78. I've heard that on average, about 1 in 10 animals die from being tranked...

it could be as low as 1 in 20, but the lethality is a hell of a lot higher than tasers, not that I advocate their use either.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

81. "Derp, I was just making a suggestion."

You were being ridiculous. Did you put any thought into your "suggestion" before you posted it?

Christ again.

[chrisa]

45. +1

[MedicalAdmin]

55. I find myself in the highly unlikely postion of agreeing with HFPS.

But right is right.

[Posteritatis]

20. I can see this looping around until they get back to the true humanitarian solution of grapeshot. nt

[USArmyParatrooper]

30. How long until the tranquilizer dart takes affect?

Tasers instantaneously incapacitates the recipient, which makes them a useful tool.

[Dogtown]

35. They're also an effective "punishment" tool

inflicting torture without leaving much sensational evidence; hence, the frequent abuse of the weapon.

If there were to be a board hearing for every use of the Taser, like there are for firearms use, cops wouldn't like them nearly as much.

[USArmyParatrooper]

36. I have no problem with steps curbing bad cops

I do have a problem with people who want to broad brush them or take away their protection. People who would never in a million years want to DO the job of a police officer telling them they have to disarm.

[Dogtown]

38. Nobody here has said anything like that.

We want there to be some sanctions for unnecessary use of a questionable weapon.

We want *rigorous* investigations on the use of force, especially force aided with the use of weapons.

[USArmyParatrooper]

40. We're almost on the same page

I have no problem with fair investigations of the use of force. I have no problem with reasonable steps taken to curb police officers using excessive force. Or better yet, an open discussion about what constitutes "excessive"

Here's what I disagree with.

"Nobody here has said anything like that"

I can point to many, many posts on DU broad brushing police officers. Case in point, in this very thread someone suggested if cops had tranquilizer guns they would be tranquilizing women and raping them. I can also point to many posts on DU calling on the police to disarm to various degrees.

And what's questionable about having a non-lethal tool that immediately incapacitates a person? What alternative are you offering up?

[Dogtown]

42. I'm not convinced that they are effective

in as many situations as they are most often used.

I'm not even sure that they justify the spot they take up on the belt, to be honest.

I'm pretty damn sure they are abused more often than they are actually needed, but I'll admit that's only an opinion.



My "solution" is adequate screening and training. We need smarter police officers, with college level training in negotiation, psychology, and human dynamics rather than Associate Degrees in "Criminal Justice", which is about the average level for cops.

My solution isn't acceptable because it would increase costs. Better salaries, much more extensive training. Until then we'll get a smattering of officers who'd like to be better but can't, and a hard core of thugs that enjoy the power.

[USArmyParatrooper]

44. Your solution isn't a solution

Unless you're saying keep the tasers but give better training. I asked what alternative to tasers do you offer that instantly incapacitates a subject.

[Dogtown]

46. Loaded question.

I'm not blaming the tool. I *am* unconvinced that the tool is as useful or as harmless as their champions claim.

My "solution" is only a solution if it's implemented. Better trained officers/fewer thugs would lessen my concern about abuses, but it's the users that are a problem, not the tool.

I do believe that, with a better, more responsible cadre many would decide that tasers are unnecessary dead weight.

[USArmyParatrooper]

47. The question is perfectly relevant

The ability to use non-lethal force that instantly incapacitates a subject is very useful for a police officer. Do you disagree? A taser does exactly that. So what alternative are you suggesting?

You think there should be better training and I don't have an issue with that.

The question is whether or not you think police officers should not be allowed to carry tasers. You seem to be dancing around that question. Take them away, yes or no?

[Dogtown]

48. Oh, I get it.

You think I'm a "grabber".

Let me clarify: until such time as a valid investigation proves that the advantages outweigh the disadvantages (as amply evidenced by the clear cases of abuse) and until some procedure is put into place to adequately limit the potential for abuse (such as rigorous, independent investigations into every use of the weapon) I think they need to be shelved.

I really didn't think we were talking about disarming cops. I thought we were discussing valid ways to curb obvious brutality and abuse. Tasers, themselves, are not "evil", but they are very easy to abuse without sanction by evil men.

[USArmyParatrooper]

49. I have no idea what a "grabber" is.

Also, there will NEVER be a time when there are no cases of police brutality. There are 800,000 law enforcement officers in the US, each one having many daily interactions with the public. I don't think the police should be disarmed of their tasers simply because I read anti-police anecdotes online. With millions of daily interactions with the public the laws of probability dictate there are going to be many, many examples of police officers doing bad things.

If, for example, a man who's alleged to have committed multiple murders is running from a police officer, what would you have him do? I guess shooting the guy with a 9mm Beretta is an option, but something tells me you wouldn't be having it.

[Dogtown]

57. Not running away, no.

Lethal force is proscribed for stopping a fleeing felon.

Lets enhance your scenario: a police officer attempting to catch a fleeing murderer, with sure knowledge that he's armed and is an imminent threat to the public. I'm cool with popping a 9 millie in his spine.

"Grabber" = "gun-grabber". I like my Sig and my 12 Ga Saiga. I have no problems with police carrying and properly using guns.

The problems with tasers are they have an extremely high potential for abuse, and there is not any effective oversight. As such, I prefer to err on the side of caution. I prefer public safety to officer safety, every time. Fine when they can co-exist, but there's no evidence to support the premise that taser use has effectively reduced danger to police officers. Quite the opposite, in fact.

As to the prevalence of police brutality, I agree that it is lamentably inherent to the profession. Still, if Sgt Friday clobbers an unksub with a nightstick, he has to account for bruises, broken bones, and the like. If he suffocates a perp with Capsaicin, there are chemical burns. A tazer leaves only a tiny welt in the wake of it's discharge, but can stop a human heart whilst leaving next to no traces.

I know my arguments probably won't change your mind, and it's probably just as well that neither of us is sole Arbiter.
I have to leave you with the field, this time around. Domestic duties summon me....

[USArmyParatrooper]

58. OK then...

You have a suspected murderer believed to have killed multiple people.

Enough evidence has been gathered for the DA to take the case. In some cases the evidence is overwhelming, for example, video footage of the suspect killing the cashier.

If in fact the man is guilty he IS a danger to society and letting him get away can mean more murders are committed.

Now, *could* he be innocent? In some cases that's plausible, so we don't want to kill him (even though fleeing from police is a bad sign). This actually makes the case for tasers.

You said: "but there's no evidence to support the premise that taser use has effectively reduced danger to police officers. Quite the opposite, in fact."

What evidence do you have that tasers increase the danger to police officers? RE: "quite the opposite"

[MedicalAdmin]

56. Criminal justice degrees are a waste of paper.

I know several officers including some tough old sgts. and louies. And to a person they tell me that the criminal justice degree is a waste of paper. But they like it when an officer candidate shows up with a college degree in something else like prelaw or english or anything with some level of intelligence required to pass.

[Obamanaut]

82. It's a pretty good resume filler for someone applying for a job as

mall cop or security guard for a big box type store.

But not for real LEO work.

[bobbolink]

37. So the cops can be free to rape an unconscious woman?

I think not.

[proteus_lives]

39. Wow.

[MicaelS]

61. We won't be able to outlaw them...

The solution, at each PD level, is to treat the discharge of a Taser just like the discharge of a firearm. You do not discharge you sidearm without good reason, the same thing should apply to Tasers.

[Generic Other]

62. This does sound like the most reasonable solution

So how do we ever get them to agree with such a policy?

[MicaelS]

63. It would have to be forced upon them by politicians

Through whatever process exists. At the local level certainly. At the state level, probably.

If this is of serious concern to you as in issue, then I would start by doing some serious research on the use and misuse of Taser. Then contact your local City Coucilperson, or equivalent in your community. Does you city have a citizens review committee for the police, if so contact them.

[Corey_Baker08]

64. As An Officer & A Student Majoring In Criminal Justice I Respectfully DisAgree...

As other posters have already mentioned it would be twice as deadly to shoot an individual with a tranquilizer dart than to temporarily disable a suspects movement while remaining conscious after Tasing him/her. To start with most individuals who are tased are tased because they are non-compliant with officers request or being combative with the officer which in most cases is because the suspect is under the influence of drugs or alcohol or both. I couldn't imagine actually advocating that shooting a downer drug into someone to make them comply than to tase them where when done properly should be used for no longer than 8 seconds.

I truly believe that yes I agree alot of instances have been shown where Police Officers are caught mis-using a taser gun such as the incident with the elderly school teacher who called 911 to report a breaking and entering and the officer, after not complying with his request tased the lady unneccisarily and for 4 seconds longer than you are trained to.

I would just like everyone to see the video tapes of the times where officers are suddenly attacked by hardcore criminals whose intent is to kill that officer and the officer reaches for and shoots the taser at the man which successfully put the guy down and made him comply until after getting him cuffed and searched. Now My point is respectfully that if Police Officers were not issued taser guns more specifically, if this Police Officer fighting with this man did not have a taser gun, while being attacked instead of reaching for that taser gun he wouldn't have, he would have no choice and absolutely every right to reach for his real gun and shoot the individual in which while the taser disables his movement for 8 seconds the real gun he would have shot him with would have cost him his life...

Think About In the Case I listed above a fatality was prevented because of the taser gun. Sure there are a select few Officers who intentionally misuse their taser gun and they should have their asses kicked and fired and sued in most cases.

[MicaelS]

66. "Non-compliant with officers request "

That is the problem. Tasers are being used as a tool of forcing compliance. As events have proven worldwide, Taser are NOT a "non-lethal" tool.

[USArmyParatrooper]

69. NOT non-lethal?

In that case a punch to the face is NOT a "non-lethal" tool.

The vast majority of the time tasers are non-lethal. Hell, military police get tased as a part of their training. By no legal standard would a taser be considered deadly force. And here's a novel idea. If you don't want to get tased don't resist arrest, fight a police officer or try to flea from one.

[MicaelS]

72. "By no legal standard would a taser be considered deadly force."

When people are dying through the use of a Taser, that makes it deadly force, IMO. If no legal standard exist, then the laws need to be changed to reflect that.

[Corey_Baker08]

70. In Rare Cases Tasers are Lethal But Their Pro's Outweigh Their Con's in My Opinion

What I mean by non compliant with an officer's request is when I tell an individual that is a physical threat to me to keep his hands on the hood of his car and stay put and instead he comes at me with his chest pumped up in a fighting stance hell no he is not replying with my request and if he still doesn't reply even after warning him of my taser, then if he actually hits me I'm either going to reach for my A)Taser Gun or
B)Fully Loaded Glock 40 Mil.

In that set of circumstances there is no doubt in my mind the Taser is the less Lethal. Respectfully I ask everyone to remember that we are just doing our jobs too. We have a family to go home to and we don't want to go home to that family beat up and bloodied and bruised because some guy beat the shit out of me because the OC spray had no effect on him and because of a few bad apples we don't have tasers anymore. Remember in a struggle we as Officers are faced with two choices lethal, and non lethal force is being attacked. If the tasers are taken away as many on DU are advocating, then guess what, before I let that guy that much bigger than me beat me to death Im gonna pull out my gun and put a bullet in him, because after all my main goal is to go home to my family at the end of the night.

[MicaelS]

71. Under no circumstances do I advocate Tasers being taken away.

I plainly state that discharge of Taser should be treated exactly like discharge of a firearm. All Taser in use should all have a chip that records the exact time of discharge, number of discharges, length of each discharge, etc. This information can only be accessed by Internal Affairs, or very senior command personnel.

[Corey_Baker08]

74. Well Then We Both Agree...I Also Like The Ideas You Have Suggested!!!

We all know that tasers when used appropriately are a good tool and I have seen several instances where the Taser Gun is equipped with Audio And Video Cameras Each Time They are turned on Which means that the will record the events prior to the tasering as well as during and after the tasering, this camera and audio idea should be universial because it would show events preceeding the tasering, the length of the tasering and the events proceeding the tasering.

:hi:

[MicaelS]

75. I was unaware of the audio / video feature

This sounds even better than my idea. That type of thing would certainly help to eliminate Taser abuse.

[Corey_Baker08]

76. Yep I've Seen The Video From One On My Local News...Heres The Link to A Camera/Audio Taser Add On

http://www.taser.com/products/military/Pages/TASERCAM.aspx


While it would be expensive to equip all tasers with these i think from now on Taser companies should have audio/video on all tasers produced.

[MicaelS]

77. Quite expensive

Looking at $1,500 list for the Taser / Cam together. But if this will help produce accountability, I'm all for it.

[Corey_Baker08]

80. Yep! Just As Dash Cams Should Be Required In Police Cars; Video/Audio Should be Required On Tasers!!

From production of 2010 effective immediantly all tasers Manufeactured should be required on all Tasers Without Passing on a Significantly outrageous Price to Police Departments.

If we only could quit wasting billions on this phony war on drugs ecspecially targetting Marijuana users and producers who use it for medicinal or recreational purposes with regulations on driving motor vehicles for instant how much if any can you smoke before legally being under the influence while operating a motor vehicle

As A Cop I for one would not charge someone with possession of marijuana if they had on them what I would consider a 'usable amount' probably no more than a half to 1 ounce on your person.

Of Thats How The Law Should Be Alreday!!!

[cynatnite]

67. That is no safer than tasers...

Some people are allergic to narcotics, some people have health issues and the drug could kill them, and that is just off the top of my head.

For some people tranquilizers take time to work. A guy could kill himself or his hostage while people wait for the drug to take effect.

Tasers are definitely bad, but this could be worse.

[JNelson6563]

68. I'd get shot on purpose.

Shitty day? Antagonize a cop and get yourself a shot o' valium. Good plan, I like it!

Julie

[NuttyFluffers]

79. I wish tranquilizer guns replaced blow ticklers at New Year's Eve...

and cops had to use ether frolics to subdue perps. Mmm, aerosolized ether as a restraining device... scented, of course.