Suit filed by fired officer who declined Taser shock draws divided reactions

[MMiz]

Indiana lawsuit stimulates debate on Taser training
Suit filed by fired officer who declined shock draws divided reactions

Should a sheriff be able to reassign an officer to a different, less desirable position if the officer refuses to undergo a training exercise?

What if that training exercise required the officer to receive a shock from a Taser?

And what if that officer had a note from his doctor advising against it?

Read more!

 

[medic417]

Having been in LE I have to say the you must get tazed to use tazer, or get gassed to use gas, or get sprayed to use spray is the most stupid rule ever. Why don't they say you have to get shot by your 45 prior to carrying it? Makes no sense.

In EMS it would be like saying here let me shock you at the highest level with the defib before you can use it. Or here lets give you a dose of adenisone then you can use it. Or better yet heres the sucs w/o versed.

I know they claim it is so you will know what they are going to feel so you don't use it to quickly. Some claim its so if the criminal uses it on you you will be able to keep fighting. BS.

 

[mycrofft]

Cojnversely, we had to get teargassed to learn about wearing chem gear.

But I think they had better be prepared to prove in court that it helps prepare an officer, or for the plaintiff to prove he or she was given a punitive assignment.

 

[reaper]

It is part of the job and it is known ahead of time ,that it is required for use. I see nothing wrong. He should still be able to work, just not carry a taser.

Hell, if he wins this, then I am going to sue for having to carry my pt's!

 

[medic417]

It is part of the job and it is known ahead of time ,that it is required for use. I see nothing wrong. He should still be able to work, just not carry a taser.

Hell, if he wins this, then I am going to sue for having to carry my pt's!

There is no benefit to the officer or the public gained by being tazed. In fact you could argue it is part of a hazing more than a training.

Lifting and carrying is part of our job, being tazed is not part of his job despite what his department claims.

Plus in our job remember ABC's (ambulate before carry) and you really will not be carrying very many patients.

 

[reaper]

I have never seen any dept that allows an officer to carry a taser, without being tased? So, it is part of the job and is required. Guarantee he knew that when he joined.

 

[medic417]

I have never seen any dept that allows an officer to carry a taser, without being tased? So, it is part of the job and is required. Guarantee he knew that when he joined.

There is no justification for this. If they require it they need to require you be shot by every firearm you carry. This is just like in EMS something done because thats the way its always been done, not be cause its proved to be of any real benefit.

 

[RMSP05]

Hell, if he wins this, then I am going to sue for having to carry my pt's!

LOL

if he doesn't want to be tased, or thinks it will adversely affect his health, he should have to be, he just shouldn't be allowed to carry one. The point of being tasted, or maced is so u know what happens when u deploy either, it makes u stop and think for a second to realize if its necicasry

 

[medic417]

LOL

if he doesn't want to be tased, or thinks it will adversely affect his health, he should have to be, he just shouldn't be allowed to carry one. The point of being tasted, or maced is so u know what happens when u deploy either, it makes u stop and think for a second to realize if its necicasry

Then he must be shot by all his firearms so he will know what happens and stop and think before he uses one. That is such a flawed argument.

 

[reaper]

Common sense knows a firearm will kill. majority of taser deployments will not kill. I agree with the practice. Or we would have more unneeded taser deployments being done!

It does not matter if there is proof that it makes any difference, it is part of the job and he knows that. We in EMS still do things that we know does not work, but we are required to use them, as part of the job.

We may not like it, but until the masses get it changed, we have no choice.

 

[RMSP05]

Then he must be shot by all his firearms so he will know what happens and stop and think before he uses one. That is such a flawed argument.

I think the difference is that you can't shoot someone in the chest and expect them to be ok. There is a very low chance of being injured while using a taser. It doesn't create a big hole in ur chest, it won't make u bleed profusely.
Also being up here from Maine, its very uncommon for a officer to draw their wepons, let alone shoot anyone. we only get a couple officer involved shootings a year and i can't remember the last time one was not justified. I personally know many police officers and gamewardens that have gone their entire career without having to draw their weapons.
So if we have such a great deal of sucess with our current firearms training, y should we have to get shot or shoot someone to be able to carry a gun, this isn't a movie

 

[MMiz]

The sad truth is that no one knows the long-term effects of the Taser, as the product hasn't been around long enough for such studies. The company uses "Excited delirium" often times to rationalize deaths, but the diagnosis is extraordinarily controversial.

They don't require officers to be beaten with their own nightsticks/batons, or shot with their own guns. I'm also one that believes that there are exceptions to most rules, and this seems to be a great example. The guy has a note from two doctors, one being the department's own doctor, yet they still want to tase him. Amazing.

 

[medic417]

Common sense knows a firearm will kill. majority of taser deployments will not kill. I agree with the practice. Or we would have more unneeded taser deployments being done!

It does not matter if there is proof that it makes any difference, it is part of the job and he knows that. We in EMS still do things that we know does not work, but we are required to use them, as part of the job.

We may not like it, but until the masses get it changed, we have no choice.

Actually you could should them in the fatty part of the arm/leg to feel the pain. This by yours and others reasoning would make for fewer unneeded shootings. :wacko:

Actually it is tradition not part of the job. If no one ever trys to change tradition we make no progress.

 

[Mountain Res-Q]

I am a volunteer for the county SAR Team which is organized under teh Sheriff's Office; so we work with the deputies a lot. recently they were issued tazers for the first time and had to all get tazed to carry them. I told them straight to their fce that they were the stupids morons on earth. Who volunteers for that. Unless this practice is a state law or it is included in the department mandatory training requiremtns (BEFORE YOU JOIN) then I don't see how they can make him or punishe him for refusing. I would think that LE Departments would want officers smart enough to avoid pain. I like the EMS link though: Shold we all get hit by a defibrilator before we are allowed to use one in the field? If that is the case, then all my arrest patients are gonners, 'cause it ain;t happin'!

 

[silver]

yeah this doesn't seem like such a great idea nor would I force anyone...all the videos I see of LEOs getting tased seems like its a right of passage type of thing. If I was a LEO would refuse just to express my disapproval of requiring it.

On the other hand, getting sprayed with mace or tear gassed can be useful specifically if you are training for tactical situations. It is important that you are able to make critical decisions and still be able to do your job. However I would never force anyone to do it just allow them to carry mace.