Idea - Over/Under Pistol Taser Combo?

[Zipp0 1]

How about a pistol with a teser underneath and 2 triggers? (one for taser, one for bullet). The rule can then be, you only pull this weapon when you may need to shoot someone. Then, once it's out, the taser in an option, should the situation warrant.

This might cut down on cops pulling a teser an a student in a library, etc. Also, it will eliminate the situation where a cop pulls taser and crook pulls firearm.

Thoughts?

--------------------------
Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down.

[normiss 897]

lovely...then they would simply start shooting people!

[kelpdiver 2]

yeah, within the first month you'll have a dead suspect because the cop mishandled.

Think of how often students (and non students) pull the wrong handle, despite a lot of training and practice.

K.I.S.S. for any life threatening situations.

[DJL 235]

"There's one. Set for stun."

"I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher

[skycop 0]

Not a really good idea. It would only be a matter of time until someone pulled the wrong trigger.

"Just 'cause I'm simple, don't mean I'm stewpid!"

[Zipp0 1]

Quote

Not a really good idea. It would only be a matter of time until someone pulled the wrong trigger.

OK.... How about a dial that was always set to "kill" with a bullet. The cop would have to dial it down to activate the taser.

--------------------------
Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

The rule can then be, you only pull this weapon when you may need to shoot someone.

The problem that you are seeking to address is based on what seems to be mounting anecdotal evidence that the TASER is not a "less than deadly weapon." In other words, you are considering the TASER to be deadly force.

If I am correct in that assumption, then what is the point of the TASER? The TASER has been used in situations where the use of a firearm is not warranted. Well, choosing between a TASER and a handgun in deadly force situations is like choosing between a knife and gun in deadly force situations. The TASER will be phased out because it is pretty useless.

So, instead of the "Don't TASER me, dude" guy being shot, he actually came out of it just fine.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[normiss 897]

That might work if the dial were made to look like a doughnut...

[Zipp0 1]

Quote

Quote

The rule can then be, you only pull this weapon when you may need to shoot someone.

The problem that you are seeking to address is based on what seems to be mounting anecdotal evidence that the TASER is not a "less than deadly weapon." In other words, you are considering the TASER to be deadly force.

If I am correct in that assumption, then what is the point of the TASER? The TASER has been used in situations where the use of a firearm is not warranted. Well, choosing between a TASER and a handgun in deadly force situations is like choosing between a knife and gun in deadly force situations. The TASER will be phased out because it is pretty useless.

So, instead of the "Don't TASER me, dude" guy being shot, he actually came out of it just fine.

Huh? You are saying that without the taser they would have SHOT him? Holy shit dude! Couldn't they have just dragged his ass out, like the good ole days?

He WAS yelling questions at a politician....so I guess that warrants shooting him.

--------------------------
Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Huh? You are saying that without the taser they would have SHOT him?

No. I am saying they had a less than lethal option to get the guy, which they used.

What do they do without a taser? Gang tackle him? Go Rodney King on his ass? Hit him with pepper spray, thus forcing evacuation of the auditorium?

No, the taser is a less-than-lethal force, not to be confused with lethal force.

The taser/pistol argument results in less-than-lethal force being deployed when lethal is called for. And dont' give a guy a taser in a lethal situation - only the gun.

That's what I'm saying. Not that the guy would get shot. Taser is the simplest way we have for now.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Zipp0 1]

Quote

Quote

Huh? You are saying that without the taser they would have SHOT him?

No. I am saying they had a less than lethal option to get the guy, which they used.

What do they do without a taser? Gang tackle him? Go Rodney King on his ass? Hit him with pepper spray, thus forcing evacuation of the auditorium?

No, the taser is a less-than-lethal force, not to be confused with lethal force.

The taser/pistol argument results in less-than-lethal force being deployed when lethal is called for. And dont' give a guy a taser in a lethal situation - only the gun.

That's what I'm saying. Not that the guy would get shot. Taser is the simplest way we have for now.

They could have just shoved the dude out the door. I wouldn't have needed a taser to remove him, but cops do? Pussies. (at least THESE cops were)

We will never agree on this, and yes I know that tasers save lives. In this case, they didn't though.

--------------------------
Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

I wouldn't have needed a taser to remove him, but cops do? Pussies.

Much depends on departmental policy. Cops, liek anybody, hate paying workers comp. If a cop can neutralize a perceived threat without prior to moving in, I don't mind that. And if the department policy says they should use a taser before direct physical confrontation, then those cops are wise to do so, lest they be sued for police bruatlity.

I understand your viewpoint, too. But my example with the guy was not about saving lives. It was about using only lethal force for lethal situations.

My wife is hotter than your wife.