The Law Enforcement Officer Thread

Barkey and Aprilla I would like to pick your respective brains about Tasers. Not just use but the hazards and capabilities. For example what is the smallest target you can use a taser on and which is the largest?

I have read there can be some serious issues that result in death in certain conditions when a taser is used.

Also Barkey would your pepper spray for people also work on canines?

Since Barkey works in an actual law enforcement capacity, he likely knows a lot more about this than me, but I know a few key facts based on what I've learned in self-defense.

Tasers have raised some considerable controversy, and along with stun grenades, they've resulted in a revision of the difference between true anti-personnel weapons and weapons designed for less-than-lethal force. Right now, there is a debate going on in the medical and forensic fields regarding the accuracy and legitimacy of excited delirium. Some people say that excited delirium is a real and potential cause of death in situations regarding the deployment of tasers. Other people have suggested, given the lack of sufficiently tested variables in autopsies and incapacitation reports, that the term "excited delirium" is nothing more than a manufactured excuse to downplay the dangers of taser use in law enforcement.

Part of the latter argument stems from the fact that excited delirium is typically only studied as a peripheral subject in forensic science, and since forensic scientists generally work for the benefit of criminal justice, there have been allegations that excited delirium is a cop-out (no pun intended) for negligence or excessive force. I personally have mixed feelings about it, and I would need to see more data and speak with authorities on the subject.

One of the most obvious advantages in using the taser is that it has greater range than a baton or pepper spray. Long-range tasers can reach anywhere between 30 and 40 feet. As less-than-lethal weapons, tasers also have the benefit of inducing neuromuscular disorientation, which basically disrupts the central nervous system's ability to manage and allocate normal electrical signals traveling via the neurotransmitters. It sounds strange at first, but in neurology parlance, this is not an induction of pain per se. That jittery, hyperactive feeling you get when you're being shocked isn't pain in the scientific sense. Rather, it's your body trying to regain motor function after the muscles have had their electrical flow interrupted and scrambled.

The problem with the neuromuscular disruption is that it can sometimes work too well for its own good. Suspects who are intoxicated or mentally ill may experience amplified sensitivity either during or after electrical shock. Remember that certain drugs and alcoholic beverages (which are technically drugs in and of themselves) can cause an overflow of dopamine from the hypothalamus as well as an irregular heart beat that can potentially damage cardiac tissue. Since many suspects are drug users, this is a perplexing problem for cops, and it becomes an issue of how to subdue them without aggravating any physically altered stimuli they may already be experiencing. To make matters worse, some drugs act as super-active pain killers, so a cop might feel the need to respond with additional electrical shocks - shocks that go beyond the recommended amount for the taser in question.

From my experience in self-defense seminars, the taser loses the majority of its effectiveness once the assailant has breached interview distance and entered contact distance. Here's the meat of the problem: electrical current is directional in nature and water is covalently bonded. Since our bodies are mostly made of water, physical contact between the assailant and the defender may result in both people getting electrified if the taser is used.

Also, the involvement of a weapon increases the likelihood of that weapon being used against you, and that includes knives, your car keys, a pistol, or even the textbook you're carrying after a night of class. Your best bet is to not use a taser in a self-defense situation. Other martial artists and police officers disagree with me on this one, but my rule is that if you have a weapon of any sort, always assume that it can be used against you. Thirty-five feet sounds like a good distance for firing a taser at someone, but most assault cases don't become such until, as I said earlier, interview distance has become contact distance. It's truly amazing - and terrifying - to see how quickly a human being can cover a distance of 35-40 feet, so I wouldn't bet my life on a taser. Those Mag Lite flashlights that cops carry along their shoulders are better weapons since they've already entered contact distance to check a person's driver license and registration or to open a door to serve a warrant.

Have you ever seen some officers on episodes of "Cops" lean toward a disgruntled person with one leg back, hips turned sideways, and the other bent and slightly forward? It's because they can use that coiled up potential energy to unwind and strike them. I've heard that some of that is a mixture of the Weaver pistol stance and the front stance used in many martial arts. Eskrima is particularly noteworthy for this, as are the Filipino police force who use the system.

Edit: I'd have to ask someone about the whole perimeter-to-target deal. My civilian educated guess is that the torso and the upper legs would be the best targets, and the hands would be the smallest targets while still being effective ones at that. The hands have some of the more sensitive nerve endings and the quadriceps are the largest muscles in the body. I could be wrong, but that's what I think would make sense.

edited 5th Mar '11 10:25:45 PM by Aprilla

Yeah I think we need barkey for this one. Pretty much hit everything I already knew including possible lethality.

Speaking of which, isn't the military working on a modular hand-held version of the active denial system? It supposedly looks and feels like a hair dryer with a distinct biting and prickling sensation.

I just saw the thread about dogs and police brutality. I didn't realize that was the context. Sorry.

edited 6th Mar '11 12:10:48 AM by Aprilla

You mean the Phas R? That thing that looks like it's coming out of a sci-fi movie? Or the LRAD area denial weapon that they used at the G-something summit?

Security Forces uses the Phas R for trials at places like Kirtland, I've heard lots of complaints about the bulk of it being awkward to carry around.

Never been around an LRAD, but I've looked into lots of the development of it and it seems to be a pretty good weapon, has lots of applications for prison riots.

The smallest thing I'd taze would be a dog, I have a love/hate relationship with dogs. I love dogs as a person, but as a cop I hate any dogs that aren't police K9's as they are a bit of a wildcard threat. No idea if OC works effectively on dogs though, never tried, I would assume that it'd fuck them up, but only enough to make them less effective, I doubt it would make a dog stop attacking.

As far as you know barkey what is the smallest thing you can taser vs the biggest thing.

Something I have read about that is currently far edge tech still are the laser tasers. Instead of a set of barbs the use the laser create a tunnel of ionized air that allows the current to travel to the target. This tech has been used in high end security systems. Where a trip beam/electric shock combo is used to guard sensitive areas. It can be made powerful enough to kill or just enough to render a subject unconscious or stunned.

The next thing is the Pulsed Energy Projectile with a dialable yield/effect. In short a real life phaser weapon. Seen HereCourtesy of Wired.com

Honestly there's nothing too big or too small to taze, if it's a threat, I wouldn't hesitate to zap it. If I felt a chihuahua was a threat, I'd zap it(maybe for fun too..)

I would never find something that small to be a threat though, and even the biggest human is vulnerable to a tazer, so I'd taze that too, nothing is too big.

Hell, if you tazed a bear it'd fuck it up.

I would like to see that test. I really want to see someone taser a large animal just to see if it really works.

Come on man because of one nut job and a bad dog you hate all Chihuahua's? Even if they were friendly?

I figured as much but I needed to hear it from someone who is trained to use them officially.

Hey what do you guys think of the Net Gun which is apparently gaining popularity in Asia.

Is that the electrified net or whatever? like a taze net?

I hate chihuahuas, I hate all really tiny rat dogs, but that breed in particular.

Ex-girlfriend had one that she loved like it was her child. Piece of shit hated me and would just bark all day long whenever my gal was giving me any sort of affection or attention or I her.

Used to shuffle off to use the "bathroom" and put the dog in a laundry basket in the garage whenever I wanted to get laid at her place, because that fucking dog tried to do everything caninely possible to get between me and poontang.

I see poorly trained dog. She created a little dog syndrome type problem. :/

As far as I know they are standard high tensile material nets that shoot out of a flashlight like device. The ends are weighted.

A taser net sounds kinda awesome. I know there is a taser shot gun round that delivers both blunt impact and taser charge.

edited 25th Mar '11 7:21:39 PM by TuefelHundenIV

I concur with the taser net concept. Sounds interesting.

Police Officers Fighting over Turf/Jurisdiction

That sucks. It kind of reminds me of the rivalry between Little Rock and North Little Rock PD, only this situation is definitely much worse.

What could drive them to be this well stupid.

Oh, I didn't know this thread existed. Definitely cooler than the Military thread.

So, the pedestrian stupid question of the week: Is the stuff found in the Watchmen series in Discworld Truth in Television? Are the opinions of Vimes accurate? Are the types presented there a reflection of reality? Same for other shows: petty corruption, criminals joining law enforcement, whether or not to use the Jack Bauer Interrogation Technique, not to mention the Gene Hunt Interrogation Technique, other shady stuff such as Framing the Guilty Party, Lying to the Perp... How real is all that stuff?

Cops are commonly accused of serving a specific sector of society, the upper classes, with priority over everyone else. Like, a rich embezzler will be "escorted" to the commissariat, a pickpocket will be slammed against the car, their arms luxated, and generally roughed up, and that's if they're lucky. So how common is this? Is it accepted practice, or is it disappearing?

I remember once I was at home and I heard some screaming outside. A teenager and an old man. I ignored it for a while, but it went on for like five minutes, and I was starting to get worried, so I peered out the window down the street, with the idea of calling the police on some abusive father or something... only to find out it was actually the police, two dudes, beating up a kid, and screaming "THAT'S FOR RUNNING! THAT'S FOR RUNNING!" at him while viciously clubbing him (I guess they weren't so vicious, since I've heard those poles can break bones and kill quite easily, so they were probably holding back while inflicting "punishment"). I went all pokerfaced for a while, screamed at them to freaking keep it down, or something to that effect, and went back to work. Soon enough, the noises had stopped. Back then I didn't know, but now I have the Fridge Horror of whether they actually killed him in the end... Well, a body isn't something easy to dispose of...

Before that incident, I tended to really look up to cops. But after that one, and a few others in protests... I'm more ambivalent. The Vimes books gave me a perspective most procedurals don't actually give, but before including that in my Real Life worldview, I'd like to have the opinions of actual pros. I have dealt with cops and security agents a couple of times, and I like to make life easier for both them and myself (usually this kind of throws them for a loop, but that's part of the fun).

Your post is kind of...hyperactive, but to point out one thing, the Jack Bauer method really is looked down upon in real life. Interrogation specialists with which I've corresponded have told me that you want to make the suspect as comfortable as possible. Confide in them and find information that is personally important to them with casual dialogue. As the trope page points out, the problem with torture is that it gives the suspect an inclination to say anything to get the pain to stop, regardless of whether or not the information is true.

And if you ever get questioned, don't drink any beverages they give you. Ever.

On another note, I recently received word that I might (use that term lightly) be in a recruitment pool for federal law enforcement. US Customs and the FBI have me under a conditional registry, which is just a fancy way of saying that they're looking at applications while not actually hiring. It could take three or four years of progress checks and criminal record monitoring for them to officially consider me for anything, but it's worth a shot.

Little Rock PD is also looking for multi-lingual recruits with college degrees. I asked a former SWAT/current patrol officer about SWAT candidacy, and he said average recruitment periods are three years of patrol duty with at least two recommendations from a supervisor with no bad write-ups. Military experience is preferred, but not required.

edited 10th Apr '11 10:14:50 PM by Aprilla

These things all happen in real life, but to a much rarer degree than the media likes to make out.

Most of cop life revolves around paperwork, driving around, petty crime and traffic tickets. Just ask any regular cop. Being a detective involves paperwork, phone calls, and tedium.

Corruption generally doesn't spread far from assignments known to be corruption temptations; drugs and vice, mostly. Which is why most P Ds rotate people through those assignments.

The selfish part of me wishes cops' on-duty lives were more interesting, because then they wouldn't be bored enough to pull me over for stupid shit.

Yes, I hear a lot of that is true. One of my friends works as a patrol officer downtown, and it apparently gets pretty mind-numbing until you find teenagers involved in hooliganism. Stopping some kids or college frat boys from peeing in front of an IHOP at 3 AM isn't the first thing that comes to mind when you think of the phrase "protect and serve", but it has to be done.

Check this out. http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/blog/ball_dont_lie/post/Gerald-Wallace-gets-recruited-by-the-FBI?urn=nba-wp1296

I guess I wasted my time getting a degree and learning multiple languages. If the FBI is trying to lighten up their image, recruiting an NBA star/college drop-out is not the way to do it. I'm really hoping I misread that article - that it's just a joke or false rumor.

Quick issue to consider:

Some lesser-financed police departments often allow their SWAT or tactical response units to supply themselves with their firearms. Wealthier municipalities can afford to use the city's budget to collect weapons for SWAT, but the poorer cities sometimes find themselves laying out guidelines for firearm procurement, essentially leaving the officers to their own devices as to what to get.

As analogy, we can think of this as an office manager trying to save money by requiring all workers to buy their own supplies (pens, ink cartridges, paper, etc.).

Do you find it acceptable for police officers to buy their own firearms? In terms of luxury, how far should officers be allowed to go in terms of personalization of weapons and equipment? Most police departments have strict regulations on what can and cannot be carried on the field, especially for tactical response units. However, SWAT teams have a degree of autonomy that other units don't have much in the way military special operations forces receive some leeway on attire, grooming and weapon choice. The downside is that some cops have to rely on second-hand gear to do their work, but in smaller towns with a low crime rate, this is frankly not much of a problem.

Comment if you're interested.

Hell I'd say let SWAT get whatever they can on the black market. Cause a SWAT armed with M249 SA Ws would be a terrifying sight.

It it self there should be nothing wrong with getting your own gun authorized.
If that gun fits the needed guidelines, and are properly maintained.
But there should not be "get a weapon yourself, we do not supply" a police in any department that requires equipment, because it is quite poor. It will lead to a completely different standard across teams, and perhaps even some parts will be undersupplied when it comes to terms of gear.
So in itself nothing is wrong with allowing personal guns to get approved.
But for a swat team? Now it does not make much sense. They are going to be using high quality guns with a rapid rate of fire. No civilian should ever be allowed to posses such a weapon.

: Good to know.

edited 26th May '11 1:07:01 AM by del_diablo

I'm a big supporter of this. If I could use my XD 40 on duty, I'd be much more comfortable in a firefight than with a handgun I don't use much. And to be honest, as long as it's safe, go for it.

^

Law Enforcement Officers in the US are allowed to bypass the state laws on firearms that apply to civilians for the most part. Even in a shitty state like CA which has really tight gun laws, LEO's can go ahead and buy carbines and SMG's. Law Enforcement aren't considered "civilians" and thus can buy those types of weapons, the only issue at hand is if the organization they work for allows them to use a weapon they bought while on duty. They still aren't allowed to carry anything bigger than a handgun concealed or off-duty.

It depends on the town we're talking about when it comes ti adequate weaponry. Some of the smaller towns in Arkansas have ad hoc tactical response teams, or they just call upon the SWAT units of larger cities nearby. One town whose name I can't remember just uses a slightly informal procurement system in which all of the officers on hand agree to select a certain type of rifle or SMG.

For example, you might have a small municipality or residential district where all of the cops use some variation of the Glock pistol series and an AR-15. The AR-15 selection is hypothetically based on a group consensus among peers that itself is constructed from a list of favorable manufacturers (CMMG, Bushmaster, Armalite). A few towns around here use that method, and they don't seem to have any problems. In fact, a few SWAT units just order civilian semi-auto-only carbines because they're cheaper and they never really find themselves using rapid fire during the serving of a high-risk warrant. Some cops push for full-auto military-grade weapons simply because a lot of the meth dealers and other hicks around here are sometimes better armed than standard patrol officers.

On the other hand, Little Rock PD ordered a batch of FN P90 sub-machine guns to replace some of their HK models. Honestly, I think this might have been more for publicity because the P90 is a very futuristic and intimidating firearm. I believe the chief and the mayor suggested it as part of the Counter Narcotics Revision Initiative that has swept through law enforcement agencies throughout the mid-south specifically in response to widespread construction and distribution of methamphetamine. Little Rock even has an entire task force exclusively devoted to capturing and destroying meth labs.

And here I thought NC has meth problems.