# Tasers Only?



## Gimble (Aug 14, 2015)

Not really sure how to put this out there, but know that its not an "anti-law enforcement" question from the start.

What would be the issues with switching the government from carrying firearms to carrying tasers only?

The SCOTUS has determined that police are not responsible for actual protection/prevention and rightfully so. With that being said, and from what I know about tasers, they would seem to be an effective tool for getting the job done. 

I'm thinking along the same reasons why LEOs abandon vehicle chases over a certain speed, they would similarly avoid "shoot outs" if they don't already.

This would be in the utopian society where we have the right to keep and bare arms that shall not be infringed as one of our highest laws of the land. This right being used as a backup to our right to life.


----------



## SecretPrepper (Mar 25, 2014)

Nope, I don't want to die from a lack of shooting back. Cops shouldn't either.


----------



## 6811 (Jan 2, 2013)

Tasers work well, most of the time. Also, what do you do if you have multiple assailants?


----------



## Ralph Rotten (Jun 25, 2014)

I still cant believe taser international hasnt put a taser firearm hybrid onthe market. Ideally one that would only fire for the cop. Id buy a gun that did that.

No, cops need both guns n tasers. Although tasers seem magical they have a short range, slow reload, and often fail to penetrate clothing. Pepper is great stuff with no health risks...but its messy. Evertried to ride in a patrol car after a peppery suspect has ridden back there? Thats why you always make he rookie transport the 10-15.


----------



## Gimble (Aug 14, 2015)

I am a firm believer in self defense, but an LEO is not in a self defense position unless he is off duty (at which point he can legally carry like the rest of us). On duty, he is in the employ of the public for public service and not for defense.

So bullets penetrate clothing and tasers do not...ok. What is the _need_ for an LEO to shoot? I don't know, so I pose the question... again, in the same light of not chasing vehicles over xxMPH

As an LEO responding to a call, is it your duty to make an arrest or end the threat? In the same light as the Hippocratic Oath? Say you arrive on the scene of an active burglary. The citizens and staff have all decided to abrogate their responsibility to protect themselves. You walk into the scene with only your taser. Obviously in this case you are not responding alone as that would be ignorant. What is the evolution of this engagement?

My thoughts:

There may or may not be security camera footage, so you can identify the criminal at a later time. Ditto for fingerprints et al. If the criminal does have a gun, you are putting yourself and others at risk by entering into a gun fight. Either the criminal will see "overwhelming force" and change tactics or he will run to be caught in the future. 

In a gun on gun situation, its simply a shoot out and somebody dies. 50/50 chance of who. In a multi-officer guns on gun situation, its simply a shoot out and somebody dies. Ratios are different based on number or responders. Same with "guns on guns". It all ends the same way. Somebody dies.

Killing any criminal on the scene to me is "vigilante" justice as opposed to courtroom justice. Vigilante justice can be dispensed with or without a badge. Vigilante in this situation would be dispatching a possible criminal without a trial. Again, no offense, just exploring a thought.


----------



## 6811 (Jan 2, 2013)

Gimble said:


> I am a firm believer in self defense, but an LEO is not in a self defense position unless he is off duty (at which point he can legally carry like the rest of us). On duty, he is in the employ of the public for public service and not for defense.
> 
> So bullets penetrate clothing and tasers do not...ok. What is the _need_ for an LEO to shoot? I don't know, so I pose the question... again, in the same light of not chasing vehicles over xxMPH
> 
> ...


 Are you serious?


----------



## keith9365 (Apr 23, 2014)

I have been tazered before. It sux. The problem is that when the power switched off I could fight back. Also without a good hit from BOTH probes they don't work so well. Deadly force deserves a quality hollow point.


----------



## Gimble (Aug 14, 2015)

6811 said:


> Are you serious?


Not at all... just posted a well thought out question for my own laughs.

Its an intellectual/philosophical exercise and I'm looking for some enlightenment in either direction... Its not an emotional playground.


----------



## Real Old Man (Aug 17, 2015)

You really have no clue what police officers do do you? You want a cop to respond to an armed robbery call with a TASER with the bad guys armed with bullet launchers. And in a taser - gun scenario the cop dies. So tell me again how this isn't an anti cop thread.


----------



## pheniox17 (Dec 12, 2013)

No!! The thought of this is crap, tazers ate treated as a "non lethal" option when they are "potentially lethal" 

Let them keep their guns, train them to a higher professional level... And focus on education over equipment


----------



## pheniox17 (Dec 12, 2013)

Gimble said:


> I am a firm believer in self defense, but an LEO is not in a self defense position unless he is off duty (at which point he can legally carry like the rest of us). On duty, he is in the employ of the public for public service and not for defense.
> 
> So bullets penetrate clothing and tasers do not...ok. What is the _need_ for an LEO to shoot? I don't know, so I pose the question... again, in the same light of not chasing vehicles over xxMPH
> 
> ...


I really should leave this one alone... But this posts wins a award... And you don't want to know what award that is


----------



## hawgrider (Oct 24, 2014)

Gimble said:


> I am a firm believer in self defense, but an LEO is not in a self defense position unless he is off duty (at which point he can legally carry like the rest of us). On duty, he is in the employ of the public for public service and not for defense.
> 
> So bullets penetrate clothing and tasers do not...ok. What is the _need_ for an LEO to shoot? I don't know, so I pose the question... again, in the same light of not chasing vehicles over xxMPH
> 
> ...


----------



## csi-tech (Apr 13, 2013)

The pendulum has been swinging in this direction for years. I have always said that when I am required to face a lethal threat with a less lethal alternative I am clocking out. That still hold true. When I am facing down someone with a lethal weapon I will have my handgun ready. If there is another Officer there with a taser and it is a viable alternative, great. I, for one, am not interested in dying with pepper spray in my hand. Hire some other chump.


----------



## 6811 (Jan 2, 2013)

Gimble said:


> I am a firm believer in self defense, but an LEO is not in a self defense position unless he is off duty (at which point he can legally carry like the rest of us). On duty, he is in the employ of the public for public service and not for defense.


Is the above statement something you truly believe, or is this just your imagination running wild on you?


----------



## 6811 (Jan 2, 2013)

pheniox17 said:


> I really should leave this one alone... But this posts wins a award... And you don't want to know what award that is


Please tell us which award....


----------



## csi-tech (Apr 13, 2013)

A Police Officer as well as an armed citizen in most states is allowed to use deadly force in defense of himself, another Officer or a third party.


----------



## Sharkbait (Feb 9, 2014)

Never bring a taser to a gunfight.


----------



## midtnfamilyguy (Nov 17, 2012)

Let see, for whatever reason you or your family is caught off guard and is subject to whatever these sick twisted minds came come up with that have taken control of the situation. The local good guys in the white (or blue/brown/whatever your local leo's are wearing) hats show up to save the day and he sees thug(s) threatening your loved ones with deadly harm, which would you rather he be armed with? I plan on showing up to save you with my firearm ( with my brown hat). And if one of those turds threaten me then it also turns into my self-defense as well as defense of you and yours.


----------



## Gimble (Aug 14, 2015)

Real Old Man said:


> You really have no clue what police officers do do you? You want a cop to respond to an armed robbery call with a TASER with the bad guys armed with bullet launchers. And in a taser - gun scenario the cop dies. So tell me again how this isn't an anti cop thread.


I don't actually want the cop to respond to an armed robbery unarmed... Look back at the original post. I'm trying to learn how this would work. I don't have a clue what police officers do. Its a question I have and I'm asking the experts. I'm trying very hard to make this as PC as possible. I'm not trying to put anybody in harms way, I'm not trying to get anybody killed. Its an exploration of where our laws have left us and where they are headed. I might not be getting the question out in a non-inflamatory way, but if you look back, you can see that I've tried to be non-inflamatory.

What happens if a an armed robbery occurs and no cop is around?

What happens if the cop arrives on the scene of an armed robbery and gets killed?

What happens if the cop arrives on the scene of an armed robbery and draws his gun?

Why not take the non-engagement policy for high speed chases and apply that to other scenarios?


----------



## Gimble (Aug 14, 2015)

csi-tech said:


> The pendulum has been swinging in this direction for years. I have always said that when I am required to face a lethal threat with a less lethal alternative I am clocking out. That still hold true. When I am facing down someone with a lethal weapon I will have my handgun ready. If there is another Officer there with a taser and it is a viable alternative, great. I, for one, am not interested in dying with pepper spray in my hand. Hire some other chump.


Thank you. We are headed in this direction or in a direction where LEOs are the tools of tyranny, but the NDAA says it will likely not be LEOs.


----------



## Gimble (Aug 14, 2015)

midtnfamilyguy said:


> Let see, for whatever reason you or your family is caught off guard and is subject to whatever these sick twisted minds came come up with that have taken control of the situation. The local good guys in the white (or blue/brown/whatever your local leo's are wearing) hats show up to save the day and he sees thug(s) threatening your loved ones with deadly harm, which would you rather he be armed with? I plan on showing up to save you with my firearm ( with my brown hat). And if one of those turds threaten me then it also turns into my self-defense as well as defense of you and yours.


SCOTUS has determined that you are not responsible for my life/safety/protection. The Constitution says that I have the right to life and the 2nd Amendment says that I have the right to keep and bare arms... so the natural evolution of all that is that I have the right to defend myself. I can choose to do so or not as I see fit (I choose to defend myself).

If you show up armed, I can see an intensified gun fight where (more) people die.

If you show up unarmed, then you are a fool and your training should have been much better then to have put you in that situation. (note I'm not calling *you* names)

If you don't show up at all, then I'm in the original situation where I should have defended myself but chose not to for whatever reason.

But ultimately, if I and my family are caught off guard, who is calling the cops?


----------



## Gimble (Aug 14, 2015)

6811 said:


> Is the above statement something you truly believe, or is this just your imagination running wild on you?


I went on to say it was a SCOTUS decision.


----------



## midtnfamilyguy (Nov 17, 2012)

ok, I Think I may understand and let me try to answer your questions.

#1 person/place gets robbed and may or may not be shot/killed.

#2 that's the chance we take and knew when we signed up for the job. We train to hopefully keep it from happening

#3 Hopefully the bad will realize the error of his ways when he sees the cavalry (sometimes a cavalry of 1) and surrender without injury to ANYONE.

#4 I previously worked for an agency that had a highly restrictive pursuit policy but still allowed pursuits under certain circumstances.

There are times that the only way to survive is to answer force with force.


----------



## midtnfamilyguy (Nov 17, 2012)

Gimble said:


> SCOTUS has determined that you are not responsible for my life/safety/protection. The Constitution says that I have the right to life and the 2nd Amendment says that I have the right to keep and bare arms... so the natural evolution of all that is that I have the right to defend myself. I can choose to do so or not as I see fit (I choose to defend myself).
> 
> If you show up armed, I can see an intensified gun fight where (more) people die.
> 
> ...


True, I do not have a responsibility to protect the public at large and the key words are public at large. But when we take a call for help we create a duty to the caller when we say we will respond to your call. Anybody could call for help, not just you. In 30 years of doing this I have pulled my weapon numerous times but have only used it once in 1987 where only 1 shot was fired, not much of an intensified firefight and no one died. I would love to not have to carry a weapon to protect myself and others but that would be in an utopian society not the one we live in.


----------



## bigwheel (Sep 22, 2014)

Gimble said:


> Not really sure how to put this out there, but know that its not an "anti-law enforcement" question from the start.
> 
> What would be the issues with switching the government from carrying firearms to carrying tasers only?
> 
> ...


Because as the crusty old Firearms Instructor used to say..."Men always remember..there are some sorry sons of a bitches out there in the world who just need killing."


----------



## Gimble (Aug 14, 2015)

midtnfamilyguy said:


> ok, I Think I may understand and let me try to answer your questions.


Thanks for that.

I don't think we'll ever live in a Utopian society, but I do wish to live in a society where its not everybody else's responsibility but mine to protect me.

So if I call for police help it creates the "duty"? (again, intellectual question) So if on your way to respond you hit a deer and are disabled, are you then responsible for my families death? (personal guilt aside)

In the armed robbery situation... If I was the store owner, I would train my clerks that they are to simply hand over the money. If they want to defend themselves, they can, but at their own choice/training/risk/reward. So I've already taken care of the potential loss of money/property.

If LEOs were not carrying firearms and instead only had tasers; I would assume/hope the training would be such that they do not engage in stopping an armed robbery. Just report after its over and look for the guy as if they had never showed up in the first place. We don't have enough cops to prevent all crimes and we never will.

And I do agree that "you" signed up for the job and harms way is where you report for work everyday... and that is your choice. I sort of fell into my professional without much thought or desire and here I am... unfulfilled ;-). I actually applied for the force a few years ago, but couldn't do my parental duties with the shift rotation. I'm sort of curious if an old timer like me could get on the force now.


----------



## bigwheel (Sep 22, 2014)

Voting for Bernie by any chance?


----------



## 6811 (Jan 2, 2013)

Gimble said:


> I went on to say it was a SCOTUS decision.


So its the SCOTUS decision to say that when cops are on duty, they cannot defend themselves? And only when they are off duty they could defend themselves? Is that what you are saying?


----------



## 8301 (Nov 29, 2014)

Proper use of a pistol eliminates the expense of a trial and long term prison costs. Most people who the Police feel the requirement to shoot would end up in jail for a long time anyway at tax payer expense.

Cops aren't perfect but they're much better than the alternative, we need to support out local police.


----------



## 6811 (Jan 2, 2013)

Gimble said:


> Thanks for that.
> 
> I don't think we'll ever live in a Utopian society, but I do wish to live in a society where its not everybody else's responsibility but mine to protect me.
> 
> ...


Come to Baltimore, where the only age requirement is to be 21 and an American citizen. Pass all the test and if you don't have criminal past and convictions you are in.


----------



## Gimble (Aug 14, 2015)

6811 said:


> Come to Baltimore, where the only age requirement is to be 21 and an American citizen. Pass all the test and if you don't have criminal past and convictions you are in.


I left MD due to ignorant legislation on many fronts. If you're from baltimore, we've probably had a friendly encounter or two over the years. Stay safe out there.

To your other question, the SCOTUS says that LEOs have no duty to protect me. As an example, if a person beats me up in the cafeteria at work, I can't sue the police for not being there to prevent the beating. That was kind of the hinge point of my original question.


----------



## Gimble (Aug 14, 2015)

bigwheel said:


> Voting for Bernie by any chance?


Not a chance in hell. I'm probably more conservative than you are.


----------



## 6811 (Jan 2, 2013)

Gimble said:


> I left MD due to ignorant legislation on many fronts. If you're from baltimore, we've probably had a friendly encounter or two over the years. Stay safe out there.
> 
> To your other question, the SCOTUS says that LEOs have no duty to protect me. As an example, if a person beats me up in the cafeteria at work, I can't sue the police for not being there to prevent the beating. That was kind of the hinge point of my original question.


On yes that is true... " to serve and to protect" is a slogan. As far as stupid legislations, nothing has changed, This is why I don't live in MD.


----------



## Jakthesoldier (Feb 1, 2015)

yep tasers always work


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

Go watch the footage of the LA bank robbery from the late 80s/early 90s (can't remeber off the top of my head).
That should be all the evidence you need to know that an officer should be armed with options for deadly force.


----------



## keith9365 (Apr 23, 2014)

Kauboy said:


> Go watch the footage of the LA bank robbery from the late 80s/early 90s (can't remeber off the top of my head).
> That should be all the evidence you need to know that an officer should be armed with options for deadly force.


North Hollywood bank robbery? It was made into a good movie. I think it's called 46 minutes? Something like that.


----------



## keith9365 (Apr 23, 2014)

Jakthesoldier said:


> yep tasers always work


Like I said earlier. If both probes don't get good contact they don't work well. I squared off with a ....dont laugh......butt naked crazy guy who had been smoking meth for four days straight. Pepper spray and baton didn't work. When he came at me the final time I busted his head wide open with a steel asp baton. Didn't faze him. It took six of us to dog pile him


----------



## pheniox17 (Dec 12, 2013)

keith9365 said:


> Like I said earlier. If both probes don't get good contact they don't work well. I squared off with a ....dont laugh......butt naked crazy guy who had been smoking meth for four days straight. Pepper spray and baton didn't work. When he came at me the final time I busted his head wide open with a steel asp baton. Didn't faze him. It took six of us to dog pile him


And that is the real world...


----------



## A Watchman (Sep 14, 2015)

I looked deeply into Tasers as part of my stores for self defense along with my firearms, knives, hatchets, and mace I currently have for myself and family.

Issues that make them not 100% effective and reliable as a primary first line of defense for anybody, much less an LEO:

Potential legal issues.
Takes both probes making contact to have a chance of being effective. This brings in optimum positioning and angles to the subject as mandatory.
Requires close contact always to provide defense.
Subject's mental state and substances in his system affect the effectiveness. You saw a video posted in this thread as evidence.
Their are maintenance and other criteria as well.......


----------



## gambit (Sep 14, 2015)

even mace don't work 75% of the time
I seen a drunk or high not sure girl she was my brothers ex' was not big at all and taken a tazer and was still able to push 2 policemen over to side like a linebacker , they was not large men but a lot bigger then her
when you get a adrenaline rush you can be a lot stronger and at times wont feel pain even, they story of the lady who was post to life a car back end is true it happen
also focusing, ever try to take a toy from a baby? if so you notice they have some strength , its not because they are that strong its because they are so focus on that object they will hang on like a ghetto rat to welfare check.
so when it comes to tasers hell yea use them but but I would feel more safe if a well trained level headed officer had a firearm then a taser on the bad guy who poses as a threat


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

gambit said:


> even mace don't work 75% of the time
> I seen a drunk or high not sure girl she was my brothers ex' was not big at all and taken a tazer and was still able to push 2 policemen over to side like a linebacker , they was not large men but a lot bigger then her
> when you get a adrenaline rush you can be a lot stronger and at times wont feel pain even, they story of the lady who was post to life a car back end is true it happen
> also focusing, ever try to take a toy from a baby? if so you notice they have some strength , its not because they are that strong its because they are so focus on that object they will hang on like a ghetto rat to welfare check.
> so when it comes to tasers hell yea use them but but I would feel more safe if a well trained level headed officer had a firearm then a taser on the bad guy who poses as a threat


I think I agree with this...


----------



## gambit (Sep 14, 2015)

also mace an back fire and you can end up spraying your own face that's on youtube people being stupid and mistakenly ended up doing themselves
a lot mace have groves and handles ect but it still has a higher chance then a baton or knife if you are not law enforcement


----------



## A Watchman (Sep 14, 2015)

gambit said:


> also mace an back fire and you can end up spraying your own face that's on youtube people being stupid and mistakenly ended up doing themselves
> a lot mace have groves and handles ect but it still has a higher chance then a baton or knife if you are not law enforcement


Proper use of Mace requires more than sticking it in one's purse, bag etc.......... It takes very close proximity, ample user training, familiarity with the button/operational controls to prevent false activation, knowing it can be taken away from you, an awareness of wind conditions to prevent it blowing back on you.

The two major rules of use are:

Spray directly in the eyes.
Run quickly, it is only a temporary deterrent.


----------



## gambit (Sep 14, 2015)

I agree watchman


----------



## Gimble (Aug 14, 2015)

Kauboy said:


> Go watch the footage of the LA bank robbery from the late 80s/early 90s (can't remeber off the top of my head).
> That should be all the evidence you need to know that an officer should be armed with options for deadly force.


I did a little research. From CNN: 'Two suspects were killed, and 15 people were injured, including 10 policemen.' The whole thing took almost an hour and spanned several city blocks. over 1700 rounds were exchanged. What was the damage to area buildings or vehicles?

Back to the original debate, if the police didn't engage with guns, what would the damages have been? -- Again, meaning that the force is properly trained to not engage like they don't engage high speed chases.

There are plenty of cases where police didn't arrive, nobody died and the criminals were later caught.


----------



## Real Old Man (Aug 17, 2015)

you are not being realistic. What you are suggesting is to allow all crimes to occur without the cops responding.

And you don't take into account all the police responses where their guns are drawn and the perp decides he/she wants to live a little while longer. And that includes hostage situations.

More importantly if a perp is holding a razor sharp knife to your throat would you want the cop to not engage the perp and let your S A die or would you want the good guys to cap the perp so he can't hurt you.

And just how many stop and rob store clerks are severely beaten or killed because here wasn't enough dough in the till.

You really have no clue of how violent american streets are do you?

Or are you one of those perps that wants to be able to rob and not worry about someone capping your S A


----------



## just mike (Jun 25, 2014)

I know a motorcycle officer who got the crap beat out of him by a drunk guy he pepper sprayed from about 5ft away. Police Officers should have the same weapons available to them that the general public can buy. I do not think officers need full auto, but AR15's, shotguns, and a good pistol should be the Minimum. You never know what you will meet on the street.


----------



## Moonshinedave (Mar 28, 2013)

Nope, police needs to be armed. Nobody should be asked to do what they are asked to do, and go to the places they go without being able to defend themselves up to, and including lethal force.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

Gimble said:


> I did a little research. From CNN: 'Two suspects were killed, and 15 people were injured, including 10 policemen.' The whole thing took almost an hour and spanned several city blocks. over 1700 rounds were exchanged. What was the damage to area buildings or vehicles?
> 
> Back to the original debate, if the police didn't engage with guns, what would the damages have been? -- Again, meaning that the force is properly trained to not engage like they don't engage high speed chases.
> 
> There are plenty of cases where police didn't arrive, nobody died and the criminals were later caught.


Are you honestly suggesting that they should have been allowed to commit their crime so that we could avoid property damage?
These men had fully automatic rifles and body armor. They were prepared to kill or be killed, and no taser in the world would have stopped them.
If they'd taken a hostage, would you have seen it fit to let them leave?
At what point in this morbid fantasy does the real and immediate threat to human life override the potential damage to PROPERTY???
These men came equipped and ready to kill. The police did not induce that level of force by arriving on scene with guns. They attempted to balance the equation, and were wholly outmatched.

We aren't actually sitting here debating whether or not the inmates should run the asylum, are we?


----------



## Camel923 (Aug 13, 2014)

A tazer is just one tool in the tool box. It was never meant to replace firearms nor should it.


----------



## Gimble (Aug 14, 2015)

Kauboy said:


> We aren't actually sitting here debating whether or not the inmates should run the asylum, are we?


Didn't you just educate us on strawman?

I think you've missed the point and all my attempts to explain it to you.

No, we are not talking about inmates running the asylum... NO, I DO NOT WANT A COP SHOOTING AT ME if a perp has a knife to my throat - this ain't the movies and its too easy to miss. No I do not think personal property is worth more than human life.

As an intellectual exercise, please re-visit my question: We have your scenario where 1700+ rounds are fired over 5 city blocks, 2 deaths, 15 injuries. Ok... that's ONE way to handle the situation.

How would that same situation have gone down if there was ZERO police response and instead we gathered evidence and caught the bad guys through investigative work? (its pretty easy to figure out, we have lots of examples where police arrive after the fact.)

Also, take a look here http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/p...a-constitutional-duty-to-protect-someone.html since you seem to believe the police have a duty to protect you.

We already have more crime than police. You will never stop crime no matter how much police you employ. You have a right to defend yourself. Again, in this futuristic world were police have no responsibility to protect you and I would not send an unarmed officer knowingly into harms way... Given all of that... do cops need guns?

How about answers from cops:

https://www.quora.com/How-often-do-...ts-happening-rather-then-responding-to-a-call


----------



## Gimble (Aug 14, 2015)

apparently even the bank robbery rates are only 59% solved.

You’d think something as high profile as a bank would be solved nearly 100% of the time.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

Gimble said:


> Didn't you just educate us on strawman?


You'll notice, I asked only questions. I didn't fictionalize an argument, and attack it.
I stated the facts, and probed for your responses. There's quite a difference.


Gimble said:


> No, we are not talking about inmates running the asylum...


Letting criminals run rampant with full knowledge that officers will not be coming so long as the assailants are armed, is indeed letting them run the nut house.


Gimble said:


> NO, I DO NOT WANT A COP SHOOTING AT ME if a perp has a knife to my throat - this ain't the movies and its too easy to miss.


No one has made that claim.(straw-man)


Gimble said:


> No I do not think personal property is worth more than human life.


I asked this because of your question, "What was the damage to area buildings or vehicles?"
You seemed quite interested in the monetary cost. I probed to find out how much.


Gimble said:


> As an intellectual exercise, please re-visit my question: We have your scenario where 1700+ rounds are fired over 5 city blocks, 2 deaths, 15 injuries. Ok... that's ONE way to handle the situation.
> How would that same situation have gone down if there was ZERO police response and instead we gathered evidence and caught the bad guys through investigative work? (its pretty easy to figure out, we have lots of examples where police arrive after the fact.)


This is a presumption of outcome using illogical thinking. You cannot *know* that which did not happen. As plausible as it might seem, it is not a point of fact that the incident would have played out with any less damage to life or property. We can only know what DID happen, and what lead up to the events. We know the men were armed. They were not merely pretending to be armed, but were equipped with overwhelming lethal capabilities. We know that they were willing to kill. For these reasons alone, they can be considered armed and dangerous, and a threat to the public. We cannot know what damage they may have caused after leaving that bank, if officers were not present. They could have gone home calmly, or they could have shot up every witness in the bank before leaving, or they could have stripped down and surrendered to the nearest meter maid. We cannot know, and thus it is useless as a point of argument.


Gimble said:


> Also, take a look here http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/p...a-constitutional-duty-to-protect-someone.html since you seem to believe the police have a duty to protect you.


I've made no such claim. (straw-man)


Gimble said:


> We already have more crime than police. You will never stop crime no matter how much police you employ. You have a right to defend yourself. Again, in this futuristic world were police have no responsibility to protect you and I would not send an unarmed officer knowingly into harms way... Given all of that... do cops need guns?


If I understand your point here, you are wanting to do away with most positions of law enforcement that would put an officer in harm's way, and keep or increase those who's role it would be to identify and apprehend the criminals later(detectives)?
Please let me know if that is correct.
If so, I'd have to ask... what would the arresting officers' response be if the identified criminal didn't want to go to jail, and instead pulled a gun? Would the officers be unarmed, and have to back down?
Would this arresting force be different from a patrol officer, and perhaps be allowed to be armed?
Please clarify.


Gimble said:


> How about answers from cops: https://www.quora.com/How-often-do-...ts-happening-rather-then-responding-to-a-call


Please elaborate on the purpose of the answers from cops. They seemed to be oriented around whether or not they showed up in time to stop, and not whether they should be armed when they arrive.


----------



## Arklatex (May 24, 2014)

If cops stop responding to crime and have their guns taken away it will only embolden the criminals. Armed robbery stats would skyrocket. And believe it or not police do in fact use their guns to save good folks from bad folks all the time. 

In my mind if it's ruled that LEOs don't need guns, 5 minutes later it will be ruled that the public shouldn't have them and S will HTF. Cause I ain't giving mine up.


----------



## Gimble (Aug 14, 2015)

But you can infer what would have happened from the "body of work" that exists. Lots of bank robberies occur everyday and nobody gets hurt and the bad guys later get caught. So why send the cops into harms way only to cause the problems they were sent to prevent? An evolution of the heisenberg uncertainty principle. 

Yes, the evolution of cops without guns would be crimes without immediate response (which is a logical fallacy in practice today - thinking that every crime is stopped in progress). So we would be left with detectives. Criminals already commit crimes pretty certain that nobody will come armed to stop them. According to the link I posted, the criminals are right most of the time.

You raise an interesting question about how to apprehend a suspect after it has been determined that they need to go to trial. Now we're getting somewhere within the original post. This is what I'm trying to figure out. 

Perhaps a dedicated team that only works apprehension. At that point there is plenty of time to prepare and reduce the potential for injuring innocent bystanders. Seems much better than turning downtown into a battlefield.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

Gimble said:


> But you can infer what would have happened from the "body of work" that exists. Lots of bank robberies occur everyday and nobody gets hurt and the bad guys later get caught. So why send the cops into harms way only to cause the problems they were sent to prevent? An evolution of the heisenberg uncertainty principle.
> 
> Yes, the evolution of cops without guns would be crimes without immediate response (which is a logical fallacy in practice today - thinking that every crime is stopped in progress). So we would be left with detectives. Criminals already commit crimes pretty certain that nobody will come armed to stop them. According to the link I posted, the criminals are right most of the time.
> 
> ...


According to the answers from the officers, the majority of crimes they don't catch in progress are thefts and sex crimes.
Those are NOT the types of crimes where lethal force is generally needed.
However, one of the answers was clear to point out that assaults are still caught in the act most of the time, because people call 911 to report a fight or "domestic disturbance", and those generally take precedence due to human life being threatened.
Those are the ones that could lead to the need for an armed response.

Also, there are many instances of "planned" apprehensions, by specialized officers, that go horribly wrong.
Incorrect addresses, innocents being shot, babies getting flashbangs thrown in their cribs, etc...
If rare "shootouts" that take place once or twice a year are enough justification to remove firearms from all patrol officers, then no-knock raids that result in rare innocent deaths should be enough to do the same for those "special officers", no?
Where would we end up then?

I have a feeling that the potential for "shootouts" and damage to life or property is blown a bit out of proportion in this discussion. What would crime be like if no response was expected for ANY act? Is it worth finding out?
As far as I'm concerned, no.
When looked at from a macro perspective, the ratio of officers causing damage with firearms to those that don't cause such damage with firearms does NOT justify removing firearms from ALL officers.


----------



## csi-tech (Apr 13, 2013)

There are plenty of fugitive apprehension teams and they are trained in doing the takedown in the safest manner possible. Usually when the suspect is alone in a sparsely populated area. The incidents of rogue Cops are few and far between given the total number of Police on America's streets. I guarantee that there are less cases of Cops murdering people than there are electricians, bus drivers, sanitation workers or mechanics. The press just focuses on Police misconduct more than they do anybody else because Cops, collectively, are held to a higher standard. Taking guns from any law abiding citizen in possession of their faculties, including Police, should never be an option.

Believe me, if my gun were taken away and I face a lethal threat from a suspect and couldn't run away (like you seem to suggest) The headline would read something like this:

"Cop responds to domestic assault and faces husband with handgun. CSI-Tech responded to a domestic disturbance and suddenly found himself in an ambush. Realizing there was no avenue of escape and having been placed in fear of serious bodily injury or death he used the only means at his disposal to neutralize the threat. The service will be closed casket as the suspect was run over and has a taser and a pepper spray can lodged in his skull."

Deadly force is met only with deadly force.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

csi-tech said:


> There are plenty of fugitive apprehension teams and they are trained in doing the takedown in the safest manner possible. Usually when the suspect is alone in a sparsely populated area. The incidents of rogue Cops are few and far between given the total number of Police on America's streets. I guarantee that there are less cases of Cops murdering people than there are electricians, bus drivers, sanitation workers or mechanics. The press just focuses on Police misconduct more than they do anybody else because Cops, collectively, are held to a higher standard. Taking guns from any law abiding citizen in possession of their faculties, including Police, should never be an option.
> 
> Believe me, if my gun were taken away and I face a lethal threat from a suspect and couldn't run away (like you seem to suggest) The headline would read something like this:
> 
> ...


We need a way to add additional likes to a post.


----------



## Real Old Man (Aug 17, 2015)

One thing no one has brought up is the very limited range of a TASER. Even with the long range cartridges you are realistically looking at not more than 25 feet from you to your target and you have to have a clear target area of at least 12 inches to get the needed spread of darts on a muscle part of the body. Trust me I saw more than my fair share of TASER deployments - cause back when we all had to be TASED before we could get our instructor certificate. If the darts impact to close it's the same as a drive stun. Lots of pain, but no - and I mean no total incipatation like you see in some of the videos. Also if one dart misses, the darned thing is useless until you run up and slam the barrel of the TASER into the perps body to complete the connection. 

And for those that have never been thru a defensive tactics course 21 - 30 feet is the range that your average human with an edged weapon can close with an armed person such that the armed person doesn't have enough time to draw, fire and neutralize the threat.

So that's one of the reasons that on many domestic situations where the perp has a knife the cops respond with a drawn gun. And cops tend to see more domestics than bank robberies. A whole lot more. And that's a body of evidence that is very easily documented. And It's definitely a situation where the Victim really and truely wants the cops to respond before they are seriously hurt. And no these aren't speculations or what if scenarios. These are real world events where folsk really and truely do get hurt and murdered every day.


----------



## Jakthesoldier (Feb 1, 2015)

Here is an idea. Let's ALL be armed. Then there won't be an issue as to whether or not cops are armed. Oh, wait, sorry, that would be all constitutional n shit.


----------

