TASERS are not effective enough for self-defense against an armed opponent

TASERS are not supposed to be considered as self-defense weapons. They are to be used to control an unarmed yet still fighting opponent. Consider them to be a very effective tranquilizer.

Gun control and anti-police activists have made it so some police will attempt to use a TASER against an armed opponent as the first line of self-defense. This will almost always result in tragic consequences for the police officer.

A police officer in Oklahoma just found this out the hard way - he was killed by an armed attacker after trying to use a TASER as the first defense.

Every gun control and anti-police activist has the blood of this police officer on their hands.

go here: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/03/27/oklahoma-officer-dies-after-shootout.html

 

Little big on the hyperbole there. Who said EVERY gun control advocate supports this policy? I certainly don't

 

Hard to say. Sounds like the killer ran up to the cop and shot him. Maybe the cop didn't see he had a gun and din't want to shoot an unarmed man. Or did I miss something?

 

Even guns fail. As I have posted in other conversations, I have witnessed people shot multiple times who have managed to kill the person that shot them.
In training, we generally try to convey, training with contingency strategies and being flexible adapting to various equipment failures or changing threats.
Tasers can be fatal in rare instances, but should be considered a less lethal response (than a gun) in situations where lethal force is not warranted. That doesn't mean situations of equipment failure or escalation might not occur, so we train to transition to other strategies to meet threats. The successful use of Tasers has without doubt resulted in saving lives. The same is true for other less than lethal defensive devices.
For civilians, we train, the use of chemical sprays, tasers, stun devices is an escape strategy.

 

Then why did he deploy the TASER?

 

Police officers don't usually train in escape strategies.
Suspects attempting to escape a police officer should always be considered to be armed until controlled and searched for weapons. A TASER shouldn't be considered a self-defense weapon but a control tool. Until the person is shown to be unarmed a TASER should not be used for self-defense.

 

You are known by those you keep company with. Lie down with dogs and you get fleas.

 

You better get a flea collar then. LOL

 

I know you are, but what am i.
Impressive

 

I don't believe I was talking to you. LOL

 

LOL, I don't care LOL.
It was damn impressive

 

If you read closely, I said that is what is advocated for civilians.

 

If a TASER isn't adequate for self-defense against an attacker of a policeman why would it be adequate for self-defense against an attacker of a civilian?

It might be more *socially* acceptable for the liberal left but that has little to do with actual reality.

 

Tasers don't always work. Not only are some people resistant to them, but the placement of the barbs is very crucial for the effectiveness.

My wife was talking to a guy selling stun guns at a gun show last week. He claimed that his stun guns were way more effective at dropping an attacker. Some idiot walked up and commented that stun guns didn't work on him. He actually shocked himself. To his credit he didn't collapse, but he did poop his pants and had to leave. I don't think my wife was impressed with him, if that was his intention.

 

The article isn’t especially clear on the specifics. It suggests the suspect was trying to run away when the officer tried to use the tazer to stop him. Then the suspect shot at the officer and the officer returned fire with his gun. The article isn’t clear on when the officer became aware the suspect was armed, at what point the suspect shifted from fleeing to presenting a direct threat or whether there were other key elements between the ones mentioned.

 

Anti-cop sentiment and possible loss of job. Cops are under fire if they shoot.

Here a cop went off the rails while off duty in a bar and another cop could not bring him down with a taser so had to shoot him. Clothing can also stop a taser from being effective.

 

You should *always* assume a suspect is armed and dangerous until the suspect has been controlled and searched. Not following this simple rule is how this police officer died.

 

I don't see ANYONE who disagrees with you on this

 

You're still making assumptions with a complete lack of knowledge of what actually happened. You are in no position to make an informed declaration as to why the officer died.

 

Just like we should always assume a burglar or home invader is armed and dangerous until he has been controlled or killed.

 

A TASER should *never* be used as the first option with a suspect that has not been controlled and searched. Violating that simple rule is what got this police officer killed.

Malarky! What happened is obvious on the face of it. The officer used the TASER as the first option for self-defense. The TASER is meant to be used in place of batons or hand-to-hand defensive options. It allows the officer to stay at a distance from physical force being asserted by a belligerent opponent.

From the article: "Terney used a stun gun on the man but it was ineffective, Kidney said. The man then shot at Terney, who returned fire. Both men were wounded and paramedics rushed them to OU Medical Center.

Kidney said Terney, who graduated from police academy last summer, was shot in the "lower extremities." He was hit three times, Fox 25 reported."

What happened is right there in the article!

 

Preferably controlled. But if they continue aggressive actions then the home owner has no option but self-defense. If the perp dies that is regrettable but the purpose of the homeowner is not to kill but to stop the aggressive action.

 

Uhhh, no.
That got me shot during a home invasion.

No thanks.
You need more experience, so as not to pass on poor advice that gets people killed.

It is Courtroom symantics, you shoot centermass with the best ammo available multiple times.

Otherwise you would always limit yourself to non lethal personal defense methods.

You must choose your words wisely in order to avoid sounding like a premeditated murderer.

 

That's (in red) the exact attitude that resulted in the Castle Doctrine and other stand your ground type laws. Too many times, homeowners were arrested, charged, prosecuted and often convicted by cops and state attorneys who "decided" the homeowner's actions went beyond simply stopping the aggressive action. And "stopping the aggressive action" had broad interpretation, ranging from stopping the criminal, to making the criminal leave, or by the victims leaving the area of danger (the house). That's what led to prosecutors claiming that the victim did not need to shoot the invader but could go out the back door, jump out a second story window, etc.

 

Best advice comes from those experience not armchair heros that have only attended Hollywood U.