Guidelines pave way for Taser use in field

Source: Marine Corps Times



Tase me, bro
Weapon has yet to be used by deployed Marines


Guidelines pave way for Taser use in field
By Dan Lamothe - Staff writer
Posted : Sunday Oct 26, 2008 9:25:50 EDT

Nonlethal electroshock weapons such as the Taser could be used by Marines in the field for the first time, following the release of new guidelines that set training requirements for the device.

The weapon, which incapacitates the nervous system with electrical pulses, has been owned in small quantities by the Corps since at least 2004. But it has never been used in the field, in part due to fears over how its use would be perceived in places such as Iraq, a Marine spokesman said.

“We would expect the use of to grow over time, now that we have this long-term policy in place,” said Maj. David Nevers, a Marine spokesman. “There was always the expectation that further guidance would be coming, and it’s natural that units would now be more comfortable procuring and using these devices.”

In the new policy, outlined in Marine administrative message 560/08, officials approve use of the X26E Taser, the most popular law enforcement device sold by Taser International Inc. The weapon fires two probes attached to electrical wires, providing the ability to “tase” someone.

Read more: http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2008/10/marine_taser_102608w/%2e

Most guides call these weapons less lethal, not 'nonlethal'.

Rubber bullets and bean bag loads are less lethal. Tasers are less lethal.

But really, would you rather be tased or hit with a stick...

Imagine if the LAPD would have tased King... what a different world it would be.

I would rather be tased than shot. Most people walk away. A few go into cardiac arrest. It's better then being shot.

I have neurological problems, and would very likely be incapacitated for life if I were to live. Just shoot me and get it over with. :scared:

I'm pretty sure King would be dead. Non-lethality is a matter of degree with a Taser. Some people go into cardiac arrest easily, and some police officers "tase" healthy people until they go into cardiac arrest. I'd rather be hit with a stick. There's less agony involved, and the policeman KNOWS he's abusing his power, not so much with the Taser gun. With the latter, they could kill you and wonder how that happened.

Have you ever been tased?

Rodney King and Drew Pinsky talk `Celebrity Rehab'
By SANDY COHEN – 3 days ago

LOS ANGELES (AP) — Rodney King is swigging a beer as he talks with TV's "Dr. Drew" Pinsky.

"Every day I wake up with a beer is a good day," he says as he drains the bottle.

King, whose 1991 beating by Los Angeles police led to deadly rioting the next year, is among eight famous people set to face their addictions on the second season of VH1's "Celebrity Rehab."

The premiere episode, airing Thursday, shows actors Jeff Conaway, Gary Busey, Amber Smith and Tawny Kitaen hooked on opiate painkillers; King and former "American Idol" finalist Nikki McKibbin dealing with drug and alcohol dependencies; and rockers Sean Stewart and Steven Adler struggling to stay away from street drugs, prescription pills and alcohol.




http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gGM5tUIHcOtwfO6pGn4-VFxFpSiQD94095D00

It's kind of disabling, really, in a social sense. My conversations with the tube-mongers are very stunted, full of non sequitur moments, and vacant stares. Hence, I have no idea what Celebrity Rehab is and why being a part of it is a fate worse than death. My TAS is so bad, that I'm not even able to overcome it long enough to go read the article you offered up - I'm sorry, there is no cure as of yet.

Do Tasers have different settings, too?

The safety of the officers is a consideration, as well.

King would likely have been okay after being tasered, being such a large, young man. In fact, he would've been less harmed, since he could more easily have been controlled by just a couple of officers, rather than a handful of them that was required.

Of course, the best thing is for citizens to comply with an arrest request from a law officer. All of these weapons are only required, when the citizen resists arrest. King was violent and on drugs and wouldn't comply with orders to go to the ground and not move, so they could cuff him.

the problem is, SOME police have been known use Taser guns on old ladies (for being rude and not going back to their beds), small children (1st graders who are having tantrums), people who don't produce their license and registrations quickly enough at traffic stops, and many other people who are not "resisting arrest".

Furthermore, many police officers don't only tase a "criminal" until they are subdued, and they can cuff him/her - they use the tool to make the point that they are much more powerful than the person they are attempting to apprehend. There is a world of difference between how things work in theory and how they get applied in the real world.

I suppose people like King get what they deserve, whether it's a beating or being tased to death (or near death), for not complying (or not complying sufficiently) with the officers on the scene, and I should stop defending the indefensible.

Things, they are a changing.

"Nonlethal electroshock weapons"

That the article describes them this way corroborates an attitude I have seen in law enforcement as well.

It's ok to hot people with tasers because they won't kill you.

Except they can. But because many who use them don't seem to understand that, they seem willing to use them far more often. Whenever they feel threatened, rather then going for minimum required force they whip out that taser a s a cure all. A Taser seems to become a security blanket.

Which is why I have mixed feelings about this.

One the one hand, soldiers are typically under a higher level of threat then police. So anything that allows them to use less lethal force is good.
On the other hand, soldiers are are typically under a higher level of threat then police, which means they could come to rely on tasers even more, using them whenever they feel threatened. And less lethal or not, Tasers should still be used sparingly.

Haven't tasers been used in torturing people as well? Even if that was not the intention, that probably would be the perception of someone shot by one.

Too often we fail to remember that soldiers are human. Humans react in certain ways.

Wouldn't the enemy have the intent to shoot to kill. Or at least injure?

The last I knew the enemy don't fight without lethal weapons.

I didn't know the enemy would allow our troops to get close enough to be tazed.

This rule came out just in time so the tasers can be used against us when Bush declares marshal law

:nuke:

"the field" - hmmm, what field might that be...

Second, the correct word for your intent is martial law.


Hopefully, it won't happen. But if martial law is imposed for the wrong reason I doubt that resisters will comply by being tazed. There should be plenty of gun owners that are capable of going into sniper mode.