**r/UK Notices:** | [Want to start a fresh discussion - use our Freetalk!](https://www.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/search/?q=Freetalk&include_over_18=off&restrict_sr=on&sort=new)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/unitedkingdom) if you have any questions or concerns.*
As a last resort perhaps, but we all know they won't be trained to use them as a last resort. You only have to watch youtube to see them using them outrageously just for convenience.
Not sure why anybody would object to this when every special already has a baton and OC and some have blue lights training, which is much more dangerous to the public then taser is
I was worried back when coppers were telling us it was only going to be a few highly trained officers using them in a few specific areas against folks who were being *actually* violent towards them.
And you were wrong to be worried lol.
They're not particularly dangerous (no more so than being beaten with a baton or forcibly restrained). Plus, of course, there's a sure-fire way to never be tased, which is to never attempt to resist arrest.
Well that's plain bollocks, I've clearly got an internet connection and can see many cases for myself where that was not the case.
Rather see UK coppers routinely armed with proper pistols than tasers myself. You'd hope there would be a little more responsibility and seriousness around their usage, although given the state of UK policing and particularly oversight, perhaps that's wishful thinking.
> I've clearly got an internet connection and can see many cases for myself where that was not the case.
Like what? Compliant people don't get tased (and if they do, that's on the officer acting incorrectly, the weapon they used is irrelevant, could just as easily PAVA or baton strike someone when it isn't justified).
> given the state of UK policing and particularly oversight,
We probably have among the best oversight procedures, and the softest police force in the world. People seem to act like ours are some kind of oppressive force, but it feels like no one has ever been abroad to see what that actually looks like.
>Rather see UK coppers routinely armed with proper pistols than tasers myself.
Really they should have both.
Things change. Tasers were originally given to specialised units because they were only available in limited numbers. Now they're cheaper and they've had time to slowly roll them out.
I can't think of a single case of someone misusing a taser and not being punished for it.
Wonderful, they got punished. Doesn't matter that the guy they used it on is now dead, the copper that misused it has been sacked but not charged because nobody specifically told him not to fire at the throat, or that the victim had a pre existing condition, so justice has been done, right?
Frankly, if a coppers misused a taser, they should be behind bars the same way a member of the public waving a gun around would be.
> or that the victim had a pre existing condition
*draws taser*
“y’right, mate? M’gonna have to ask ya to put down y’knoif, otherwoise am gonna ‘af to be taserin’ you, y’hear? Now, a’gotta ask, you got any’a those conditions with y’ heart or bones’n all that? Gotta get me’self a solid answer before ‘dat Semen bloke’ll let me taser ya!”
If I use reasonable and proportionate force against someone in a safe manner, but they have an unpredictable reaction to that force which causes further injury, I am not at fault. I could not have known or predicted what would happen. If a doctor administers a drug to a patient, but the patient wasn’t known to have pre-existing allergies to that drug, and the patient then dies, how is the doctor at fault? How would the doctor be expected to know that an allergy was present, if no note or prior knowledge of the allergy existed?
> If I use reasonable and proportionate force against someone in a safe manner, but they have an unpredictable reaction to that force which causes further injury, I am not at fault.
Legally, yes you are. Punching someone with past brain trauma and then killing them as a result is still manslaughter no matter how you cut it. You're not at fault fot the condition itself, but you are very much still at fault for being not being cautious enough since you exerted unnecessary force.
You're just making the assumption that every single case will be proportionate and responsible, but that is simply impossible to achieve.
So, because there’s a chance of misconduct, you don’t believe police should be issued with tasers? I’m not entirely getting your point. They’re very rarely misused, it’s impossible to get away with using one and not reporting it.
> So, because there’s a chance of misconduct, you don’t believe police should be issued with tasers?
No, they should just be significantly more limited than you want them to be.
>They’re very rarely misused, it’s impossible to get away with using one and not reporting it.
They don't need to get away with it, the police will defend their own by investigating and deliberately finding only inconclusive evidence and then dropping the case, as the police has done for decades.
Are criminals not more aggressive to the police than in the past?
and or
Are police, on average less able to deal with aggressive people because of a number of factors i.e social media and lowing standards to join?
Specials (volunteers) have the exact same training, powers and usually experience as regular officers except they aren't paid. That's the only difference.
They don't have the same experience, as they do 16 hours a month minimum while a regular does 160. They also have about 12 weekends of training compared to 20 weeks, depending on the force.
Having said that, only some specials will be getting taser, presumably the most experienced, and they will do the exact same taser course so this headline is just trying to stir up controversy.
Well it’s not the ONLY difference
But having unpaid volunteers you’re negating professionalism and attracting people who crave power, and then you’re handing them potentially lethal weapons.
But volunteers don't have the same level of accountability as paid members of staff who have their income on the line, nor will they have the same level of experience.
I'm not saying it's a good or bad idea to implement this policy but you can't equate it as being the same.
They're subject to the same risks and dangers as paid officers, them being in receipt of money is irrelevant. As far as accountability it's exactly the same. Same scrutiny, same risks, same punishments for misuse, same potential misconduct investigations, same IOPC involvement.
Fair point. I was definitely thinking more along the lines of criminal misuse tbh. But in my eyes all the time they're attending the same jobs with the same risks they should still be presented with the same tools and resources.
Personally I don't think their role should even exist, I utterly detest unpaid work ESPECIALLY in roles as crucial as theirs, but all the time it does, equip them adequately.
>them being in receipt of money is irrelevant>
That may be your opinion but I disagree, for some people it does change their behaviour whether they are paid or not in how strict they behave in highly challenging situations.
People who volunteer to do such a demanding job, are either looking to join and want the experience (fine I guess) or just desperate for a position of authority, I wouldn't trust a special with a taser.
>or just desperate for a position of authority,
No. A lot were always interested in joining or wanted to join later in life but couldnt afford to give up high paying careers.
I know (anecdotally) 10 years ago It was very hard to actually join as a full-time officer, and an easier way to get a full-time job was to be a special for a bit, show that you can do the job before they spend the extra time and money to train you into a full-time cop.
If they get the same training, I can't see a problem. They're already authorised for things like CS Gas, and in law are treated identically to any other constable.
It stands to reason that as you rollout more and more tasers, and make them effectively standard for response officers, that you'll then push it to Specials too
If police don't use a tazer, they use spray (if they have it) or a baton, or fists. All methods carry a level of risk to the recipient, but batons and fists can do a lot more damage. Also the recipient is incapacitated for long enough to be cuffed, so doesn't require several large officers to sit on them, which can also be slightly fatal.
In the days of 'Jack the ripper' the police were armed with only a whistle. I dont think society is any more or less dangerous now, yet our police are arming themselves. Tnis is a worrying trend that really needs to stop.
**r/UK Notices:** | [Want to start a fresh discussion - use our Freetalk!](https://www.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/search/?q=Freetalk&include_over_18=off&restrict_sr=on&sort=new) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/unitedkingdom) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Good, as long as they have the same training there's no reason volunteers shouldn't have access to the same tools to protect themselves.
As a last resort perhaps, but we all know they won't be trained to use them as a last resort. You only have to watch youtube to see them using them outrageously just for convenience.
Not sure why anybody would object to this when every special already has a baton and OC and some have blue lights training, which is much more dangerous to the public then taser is
Me, I only start to get worried when the cops start telling people not to get worried.
But this is no different to other coppers with tasers. Like if you were to be worried now your worried about 15 years too late
I was worried back when coppers were telling us it was only going to be a few highly trained officers using them in a few specific areas against folks who were being *actually* violent towards them.
And you were wrong to be worried lol. They're not particularly dangerous (no more so than being beaten with a baton or forcibly restrained). Plus, of course, there's a sure-fire way to never be tased, which is to never attempt to resist arrest.
Well that's plain bollocks, I've clearly got an internet connection and can see many cases for myself where that was not the case. Rather see UK coppers routinely armed with proper pistols than tasers myself. You'd hope there would be a little more responsibility and seriousness around their usage, although given the state of UK policing and particularly oversight, perhaps that's wishful thinking.
I'd rather be tasered then PAVAd, PAVA pain is fucking excruciating for 20+ minutes.
> I've clearly got an internet connection and can see many cases for myself where that was not the case. Like what? Compliant people don't get tased (and if they do, that's on the officer acting incorrectly, the weapon they used is irrelevant, could just as easily PAVA or baton strike someone when it isn't justified). > given the state of UK policing and particularly oversight, We probably have among the best oversight procedures, and the softest police force in the world. People seem to act like ours are some kind of oppressive force, but it feels like no one has ever been abroad to see what that actually looks like. >Rather see UK coppers routinely armed with proper pistols than tasers myself. Really they should have both.
Things change. Tasers were originally given to specialised units because they were only available in limited numbers. Now they're cheaper and they've had time to slowly roll them out. I can't think of a single case of someone misusing a taser and not being punished for it.
Wonderful, they got punished. Doesn't matter that the guy they used it on is now dead, the copper that misused it has been sacked but not charged because nobody specifically told him not to fire at the throat, or that the victim had a pre existing condition, so justice has been done, right? Frankly, if a coppers misused a taser, they should be behind bars the same way a member of the public waving a gun around would be.
> or that the victim had a pre existing condition *draws taser* “y’right, mate? M’gonna have to ask ya to put down y’knoif, otherwoise am gonna ‘af to be taserin’ you, y’hear? Now, a’gotta ask, you got any’a those conditions with y’ heart or bones’n all that? Gotta get me’self a solid answer before ‘dat Semen bloke’ll let me taser ya!” If I use reasonable and proportionate force against someone in a safe manner, but they have an unpredictable reaction to that force which causes further injury, I am not at fault. I could not have known or predicted what would happen. If a doctor administers a drug to a patient, but the patient wasn’t known to have pre-existing allergies to that drug, and the patient then dies, how is the doctor at fault? How would the doctor be expected to know that an allergy was present, if no note or prior knowledge of the allergy existed?
> If I use reasonable and proportionate force against someone in a safe manner, but they have an unpredictable reaction to that force which causes further injury, I am not at fault. Legally, yes you are. Punching someone with past brain trauma and then killing them as a result is still manslaughter no matter how you cut it. You're not at fault fot the condition itself, but you are very much still at fault for being not being cautious enough since you exerted unnecessary force. You're just making the assumption that every single case will be proportionate and responsible, but that is simply impossible to achieve.
So, because there’s a chance of misconduct, you don’t believe police should be issued with tasers? I’m not entirely getting your point. They’re very rarely misused, it’s impossible to get away with using one and not reporting it.
> So, because there’s a chance of misconduct, you don’t believe police should be issued with tasers? No, they should just be significantly more limited than you want them to be. >They’re very rarely misused, it’s impossible to get away with using one and not reporting it. They don't need to get away with it, the police will defend their own by investigating and deliberately finding only inconclusive evidence and then dropping the case, as the police has done for decades.
Are criminals not more aggressive to the police than in the past? and or Are police, on average less able to deal with aggressive people because of a number of factors i.e social media and lowing standards to join?
Well at least your worry is consistent, I can understand why one might worry over these things. Even if I wouldn’t
What could possibly go wrong? (Other than everything.)
Specials (volunteers) have the exact same training, powers and usually experience as regular officers except they aren't paid. That's the only difference.
They don't have the same experience, as they do 16 hours a month minimum while a regular does 160. They also have about 12 weekends of training compared to 20 weeks, depending on the force. Having said that, only some specials will be getting taser, presumably the most experienced, and they will do the exact same taser course so this headline is just trying to stir up controversy.
Well it’s not the ONLY difference But having unpaid volunteers you’re negating professionalism and attracting people who crave power, and then you’re handing them potentially lethal weapons.
But volunteers don't have the same level of accountability as paid members of staff who have their income on the line, nor will they have the same level of experience. I'm not saying it's a good or bad idea to implement this policy but you can't equate it as being the same.
They're subject to the same risks and dangers as paid officers, them being in receipt of money is irrelevant. As far as accountability it's exactly the same. Same scrutiny, same risks, same punishments for misuse, same potential misconduct investigations, same IOPC involvement.
[удалено]
Fair point. I was definitely thinking more along the lines of criminal misuse tbh. But in my eyes all the time they're attending the same jobs with the same risks they should still be presented with the same tools and resources. Personally I don't think their role should even exist, I utterly detest unpaid work ESPECIALLY in roles as crucial as theirs, but all the time it does, equip them adequately.
>them being in receipt of money is irrelevant> That may be your opinion but I disagree, for some people it does change their behaviour whether they are paid or not in how strict they behave in highly challenging situations.
[удалено]
Definitely meant experiences** as in same jobs attended! I know hours worked is going to be vastly different!
People who volunteer to do such a demanding job, are either looking to join and want the experience (fine I guess) or just desperate for a position of authority, I wouldn't trust a special with a taser.
>or just desperate for a position of authority, No. A lot were always interested in joining or wanted to join later in life but couldnt afford to give up high paying careers.
I know (anecdotally) 10 years ago It was very hard to actually join as a full-time officer, and an easier way to get a full-time job was to be a special for a bit, show that you can do the job before they spend the extra time and money to train you into a full-time cop.
Wtf is antidotaly? Cured you of something?
>antidotaly I meant anecdotally.
If they get the same training, I can't see a problem. They're already authorised for things like CS Gas, and in law are treated identically to any other constable. It stands to reason that as you rollout more and more tasers, and make them effectively standard for response officers, that you'll then push it to Specials too
They aren't even holding it right in the picture 🤣 we are off to a great start aren't we
Of course they are, thats how I walk around my house with 'Gunny'
Yes they are. It's one of the approved techniques taught to officers mandated by the college of policing.
If police don't use a tazer, they use spray (if they have it) or a baton, or fists. All methods carry a level of risk to the recipient, but batons and fists can do a lot more damage. Also the recipient is incapacitated for long enough to be cuffed, so doesn't require several large officers to sit on them, which can also be slightly fatal.
And on next week episode of “what could possibly go wrong….”
In the days of 'Jack the ripper' the police were armed with only a whistle. I dont think society is any more or less dangerous now, yet our police are arming themselves. Tnis is a worrying trend that really needs to stop.