Defensive Carry banner

NYPD getting TASERs

3K views 18 replies 14 participants last post by  AgentX 
#1 ·
Here's the buzz: NYPD should outfit cops with TASERS, says Rand Corp.
BY ALISON GENDAR
DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER

Monday, June 9th 2008, 10:39 AM


Bloomberg News

The think-tank was hired by Ray Kelly in the aftermath of the fatal Sean Bell shooting.
The NYPD should outfit rank-and-file cops with TASERS, according to a think-tank that reviewed NYPD' firearms training following the fatal Sean Bell shooting.

Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly hired the high-powered Rand Corp. to review the NYPD weapons training six weeks after five officers fired a combinded 50 rounds at an unarmed man in Jamaica.

"If the NYPD had a broader deployment of more robust less-than-lethal standoff weapons, such as TASER devices, it might not only prevent some incidents from escalating to deadly force, but might also reduce injuries to officers and citizens alike," the study found.

The study recommended the department issue all patrol officers TASERS in a pilot program.

Currently, the department has about 500 TASERS in use by the departments 3,500 patrol sergeants. Last week, the NYPD changed its policy so sergeants on patrol would carry the TASER on their hip, as opposed to in their squad car.

Expanding the use of TASERS was one of a list of recommendations Rand Corp. suggested after a review of the NYPD's firearms training and shooting review process.

Kelly asked Rand to find ways to combat "contagious" shootings, where officers open fire once a fellow officer shoots.

The study, paid for by the Police Foundation, did not probe the Bell shooting itself.

But the review did incorporate information unearthed by the Queens trial of three of teh officers involved in the fatal Nov. 25, 2006 encounter.
 
See less See more
#4 ·
The NYPD should outfit rank-and-file cops with TASERS, according to a think-tank that reviewed NYPD' firearms training following the fatal Sean Bell shooting.
Exactly how would TASERs have helped against a guy in a car trying to run over police officers? I suspect they don't work very well through windshields, nor against moving targets... :scruntiny:
 
#10 ·
if they had the tazer they could have deployed it sooner during that whole scenario

(and I don't look forward to "qualifying" with tazer on Dec 1st)
 
#5 ·
I've got a great idea, Why don't we give them the maximum tools to get their job done instead of the minimum. It is like giving a mechanic a screwdriver, vice grips and a hammer to fix your car. Then we wonder a BG got shot when he was wielding a knife. If the cops had more tasers we could at least try that first.
 
#6 ·
They don't have tasers yet?

I guess I'm not clear why any department wouldn't have them, or at least make them available to officers who want to carry them.

Beyond that, use of force policies can vary depending on the department's assessment of how dangerous they really are.
 
#7 ·
I am all for providing LEOs with all the tools they need to get the job done, but what ever happened to expecting people to stop when a cop yells "STOP, or I'll shoot!"

I guess I am just getting tired of all the law abiding people getting the shaft cause someone dies at the hand of a LEO and everyone gets up in arms (sorry for the pun, it truly wasn't intended) over it. This guy, IIRC, was running down some LEOs and they stopped him.
 
#8 ·
I guess I'm not clear why any department wouldn't have them, or at least make them available to officers who want to carry them.
Most of them around here dont have them.
Its lack of funds.
They are expensive, and the training that goes with them is expensive.

My dept has just now gotten 6 of them,through a government grant. I go to Taaer training in two weeks. One must be certified to carry one and use it.
 
#9 ·
NYPD has always been bass-ackwards. I grew up in NYC, had family who worked for them and a few relatives who worked as officers in the counties on Long Island. I loved listening to them all argue about how the NYPD didn't trust their officers to use good judgement and always sent their officers out with their hands figuratively tied.
 
#12 ·
agree on the political CYA and the media

as for the "contagious shooting" crap....if there are 3 officers on a scene and BG does something to warrant use of deadly force, then the 3 officers would be obligated and should use whatever force is necessary to stop the threat
if officers are forced to let just one officer shoot someone that needs to be stopped, then we'll have more dead officers
 
#17 · (Edited)
That's really funny...I hope... (Jamaica is a neighborhood in Queens, NY if you weren't joking.)

As far as sympathetic fire (AKA 'contagious shooting'), it is real and it can be a problem. When I was training as a LEO, I came from a military background. When a fellow trainee opened fire in a room-clearing exercise, I fired through an object concealing his target from me to help him put down the threat.

Turns out he was firing mistakenly. What I did wasn't wrong for a Marine in a war zone, but would DEFINITELY be wrong for a law enforcement officer. I'm glad I learned a lesson in a shoothouse rather than on the street. One of the drawbacks of being the good guy is having to accept some risk. LEOs (and armed civilians) should NOT be shooting at a target that they cannot positively identify as a lethal force threat.

Whether this was the case in the Bell situation or not is another story, but LEOs are and should be beholden to a high standard in the use of deadly force. Not saying they (we) shouldn't get the benefit of the doubt in situations that warrant split-second decisions in changing, confusing, threatening circumstances...however, firing just because someone else is firing crosses the line. It's a pretty natural human reaction, however, and you need some training to overcome it.

Edit: This is quite different than 10 officers all firing at someone that they can simultaneously identify as a threat. Although that's probably not *tactically* the best idea, there's no more legal or moral concern with it than with a single officer firing legitimately. Sympathetic fire refers to firing automatically/instinctively when a comrade fires, without an independent assessment of the situation and target.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top