Important Links

Hock's Blog

Hock's Downloads

CQC-Facebook

Hock's Facebook

Hock's Seminars

Hock's Shopsite

Hock's Web Page


New Products

Combat Kicks VID

Critical Contact VID

Death Grip of Knife VID

Dominant/Counter VID

First Contact VID

Impact Weapons Book

Knife Book

The Other Hand VID


Lauric Enterprises, Inc.
1314 W. McDermott
Ste 106-811
Allen, TX 75013
972-390-1777

 

 

 


W. Hock Hochheim's

           Combat Centric

Talk Forum for Military, Police, Martial Artists and Aware Citizenry



Hock Hochheim's Combat Talk Forum

  • January 23, 2018, 02:03:30 PM
  • Welcome, Guest
Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

Author Topic: Tasers and Tree-sitters  (Read 1053 times)

cgonzales

  • Level 3
  • ****
  • Posts: 148
  • NEMO ME IMPUNE LACESSIT
Tasers and Tree-sitters
« on: June 25, 2006, 07:42:51 PM »

this from the AP


Bremerton, Wash.----A sheriffs deputy who was trying to get a man down from a tree shot and
wounded him after mistakenly pulling a gun instead of a Taser, authorities said.


FORUM REACT!
« Last Edit: June 27, 2006, 09:27:40 AM by HockHoch@aol.com »
Logged
"HE THAT HATH NO SWORD, LET HIM SELL HIS GARMENT AND BUY ONE."
Jesus Christ (Luke 22:36)

Hock

  • Administrator
  • Level 4
  • *****
  • Posts: 6372
    • www.HocksCQC.com
Re: tree-sitter shot with wrong weapon
« Reply #1 on: June 25, 2006, 07:50:16 PM »

Justice Department looks into deaths of people subdued by stun guns
6/13/2006
 
 By Kevin Johnson, USA TODAY
WASHINGTON The U.S. Justice Department is reviewing the deaths of up to 180 people who died after law enforcement officers used stun guns or other electro-shock devices to subdue them.

"These deaths raise a question in our mind that should be examined," said Glenn Schmitt, acting director of the department's National Institute of Justice. He said the review will initially focus on 30 deaths, including one from two decades ago.

Most of the deaths occurred within the past four years, corresponding with the mass deployment of stun guns to police departments throughout the country. A number of departments have re-evaluated their use of the weapons because of the fatal incidents.

More than 80 deaths since 1999 were identified in a recent analysis by The Arizona Republic. Amnesty International has identified more than 150 deaths since 2001.

The devices, marketed as alternatives to lethal force, are designed to incapacitate unruly suspects through electric shock.

Taser International, the nation's largest maker of stun guns, has supplied more than 130,000 devices to about 7,000 of the nation's 16,000 police agencies.

The company has maintained that its products are safe and have saved the lives of police officers and suspects.

"As we know, in-custody deaths are part of policing," Taser spokesman Steve Tuttle said when asked about the Justice Department review. "The more we can study and understand the circumstances that lead to in-custody deaths, the more opportunities there are to develop law enforcement tactics and procedures that will help prevent these unfortunate events in the future."

According to Taser, the company is a named defendant in 49 lawsuits alleging either wrongful death or personal injury. An additional 20 lawsuits have been dismissed.

The Justice Department review, which could take up to two years, was proposed last year after law enforcement authorities expressed concern about the increasing numbers of deaths after stun guns were used to incapacitate suspects, Schmitt said.

Schmitt said the review will enlist the help of the National Association of Medical Examiners, the American College of Pathologists, the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Teams of medical examiners will begin reviewing individual cases this fall.

Amnesty International called the Justice review a "good first step."

"The fact that the government is doing this is an important acknowledgement that there is a serious problem," said Dalia Hashad, director of Amnesty's USA Program. "People are dying needlessly. It's important that the federal government is taking this responsibility."

Last year, the IACP recommended that law enforcement agencies closely monitor use of the devices after noting safety concerns involving stun guns.

Schmitt said investigators are expected to examine a range of issues in each case, including ages, weight, possible physical impairments, evidence of drug use and other factors that could have contributed to the deaths.

In addition, Schmitt said, investigators will explore a phenomenon known as "excited delirium," in which a shutdown of bodily functions occurs after sensory overload.

Schmitt said the department is not urging any immediate change in the deployment of the devices.

"There is no reason to do anything different for now," he said. "We'll let the research answer the questions."
 

Bri Thai

  • Guest
Re: tree-sitter shot with wrong weapon
« Reply #2 on: June 26, 2006, 12:10:02 AM »

A neighbouring Force to my own was "pioneering" a technique for its firearms officers that involved, wait for it, each officer simultaneously drawing their firearm AND their CS Gas.  One in each hand, both pointed at the suspect.

They were then supposed to pull the right trigger, depending on how the circumstances developed.

The technique was dropped for some reason......
Logged

Hock

  • Administrator
  • Level 4
  • *****
  • Posts: 6372
    • www.HocksCQC.com
Re: tree-sitter shot with wrong weapon
« Reply #3 on: June 27, 2006, 09:25:31 AM »

Hands-on versus nonlethal weapons -- Sponsored by Taser
by Greg Meyer


This month's article was inspired by an excellent newspaper article by journalist Mike Saccone in The Daily Sentinel, in Grand Junction (CO), published June 17, 2006.

The article was quite well done (better than most on the subject), documenting several points of view about policy and training issues. It points out the varying use of force statistics from one agency to another around Colorado. The variances seem attributable to varying use of force policies.

But I am troubled by some of the quotes in the article.

One respected research expert wondered if officers, "instead of doing what they should do - wrestle with someone, put their hands on them - are using a Taser."

I question if "hands-on" and "wrestling" are what an officer should do in many situations, because these tactics frequently result in major injuries, even death.

Surely officers should be trained to be proficient in defensive tactics, and goodness knows officers are attacked enough to have to use "hands-on" and "wrestling" tactics. But when there is distance between the officer and suspect, and time to deploy them, nonlethal weapons should be preferred in many cases to going "hands-on" with a resisting suspect.

Although the numbers have improved in recent years, the fact is that nearly one out of ten officers who are murdered in this country are still murdered with their own handguns, taken away from them during the "hands-on" and "wrestling" endeavors.

To say nothing of the major injuries to suspects and to officers that result from playing patty-cake instead of getting the nasty job done from 10-20 feet away with a nonlethal weapon.

As the police profession has evolved, changes in standards have resulted in hiring smaller, kinder, gentler cops who-while more effective at tactical communications than their predecessors--are less apt to be successful with "hands-on" and "wrestling" approaches.

Tactics instructors and physical training instructors all over the country bemoan this reality. It is a reality that we must adapt to, and nonlethal weapons are a big part of the answer.

The courts have been very supportive of officers resorting to nonlethal weapons instead of going to war, rolling around in the dirt with a suspect. Looks neat on TV, but not fun (or safe) in real life.

The 11th Circuit Court in the Draper v. Reynolds case (2004) supported the use of a Taser by an officer, acting alone, when she confronted a traffic violator who was hostile, belligerent, and uncooperative:


"A verbal arrest command accompanied by attempted physical handcuffing, in these particular factual circumstances, may well have, or would likely have, escalated a tense and difficult situation into a serious physical struggle in which either Draper or Reynolds would be seriously hurt."
Devices like the Taser, pepper spray, and other nonlethal weapons that keep time and distance on the officer's side are the Great Equalizers in an environment where drugged-out, oversized nuts are more drugged out and oversized and nuttier than ever before.

More restrictive shooting policies and greater public scrutiny of use of force than in the past require the "brawn gap" to be filled by better, safer tools and tactics than those of our predecessors.

The restrictions on neck restraints in many agencies are another example of policy eliminating the best "hands-on" tactic available. So it should be no surprise that nonlethal weapons are bigger players in our use of force picture.

Officers have come a long way in their ability to use verbalization to defuse many critical incidents, making the arrest without using force. In fact, statistically it is the overwhelming norm to "talk people to jail,' as concluded by studies that show force is used in about one percent of all arrests.

But as I wrote in a previous article, officers continue to "talk people to death" in some incidents that would have a better resolution if appropriate force were used early.

Verbalizing, verbalizing, verbalizing, afraid to use force because of fear of the administrative and legal aftermath, only to end up shooting the suspect to death as the incident goes further and further down the toilet because we FAILED to do our duty to take decisive action to subdue the resisting suspect before the situation degenerated to the fatal moment.

This FAILURE plays out in what I've long estimated to be 1/4 to 1/3 of officer-involved shootings that might have been resolved by early use of nonlethal weapons, aggressively deployed.

A handful of the usual suspects continue to die in custody, regardless of what police tool or tactic was used.

Headlines:
"Man Dies After Being Pepper Sprayed"
"Man Dies After Being Tasered"
"Man Dies After Police Use Chokehold"
"Man Dies After Being Hog-Tied"

The custody death question continues to get sexy media play, but respected medical researchers continue to point to "excited delirium," that is, being flipped out, hyperactive, hyperthermic, and ultra-violent.

Nobody has yet documented any increase in the trend line over many years for sudden in-custody deaths, nor that any particular police tool or tactic is overrepresented in such cases.

Because Tasers have rapidly come into much wider use, they are now associated in 25-30 percent of sudden in-custody deaths, which is to say that they are NOT associated in 65-70 percent of sudden in-custody deaths.

The cause-of-death answer generally continues to be found in excited delirium that occurs in a small percentage of people using cocaine, PCP, or meth, and schizophrenics off their meds. This has been the case for decades. The headlines change, but doctors say the medical causes of these deaths remain the same.

Everywhere nonlethal weapons are implemented, injuries drop, officer-involved shootings drop, many would-be uses of force are averted by the mere display of the weapon, and the world is a happier place.

Agencies that upon implementation had poor policy, training, and review processes that resulted in inappropriate uses of their nonlethal weapons seem to be moving toward the center, as is the history adapting to new stuff. There needs to be continued vigilance to ensure that the devices are used appropriately to reduce deaths and injuries, to officers and suspects.

Agencies need to diligently apply the principles of the Graham v. Connor case from the United States Supreme Court, which ruled that police use of force must be "objectively reasonable" in light of the facts and circumstances confronting them, taking into account such factors as "the severity of the crime at issue, whether the suspect poses an immediate threat to the safety of the officers or others, and whether he is actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight."

So I am baffled when respected experts continue to advocate "conventional tactics," "talking down," "hands-on," and "wrestling" in today's environment. All of these have proven to be more injurious and more deadly than using nonlethal weapons. 
 
Greg Meyer, a retired Captain from the Los Angeles Police Academy, served for 30 years, including eight years as a commanding officer. Greg is a member of the National Advisory Board of the Force Science Research Center, a member of the Police Executive Research Forum (PERF) and the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP).
 
 

Download