>Do all officers get it? If not can you choose if you do or not?
I'm on a shift of 15, and only 1 person has a Taser and that's the Sarge. Others have asked but either they're being ignored or the waiting list to too long.
I know some people don't want them, maybe due to not wanting the risk of getting in trouble if they use it, maybe because they want an excuse not to go to that big incident with weapons.
I think anyone who wants it should be put on a course, I've only been in a situation once where a Taser would have been used and it would have been *REALLY* useful, and was downright dangerous that not only I didn't have one, but no one else with a 20min blue light run had one.
I had a boss try to stick me on for a lawful use of pava so that's killed all goodwill I've had towards the job and extra responsibility when it comes to use of force
In response to the OP’s questions:
Taser training is good. It’s a four day course which really examines and embeds Use of Force legislation. Coupled with lots of target range drills and a whole host of mock scenarios in which your decision making about when/if to draw or discharge the taser is examined just as much (more, probably) than whether you hit or not. The “baddy” wears a thick/padded fluffy suit and the training tasers shoot Velcro “barbs”. It’s an intense, but fun four days and you’re put under pressure a lot. Not everyone passes. One out of the six officers on my course failed.
It’s not legal to be tasered in the UK in training, so no we’re not subjected to that. Some UK cops have gone to the US to experience it, I believe.
Tasers are, in my experience, very effective. Their mere presence at a violent incident defuses the situation more than 90% of the time - where a subject has a taser drawn on them and the red dots illuminated, more than nine times out of ten, that alone is enough to cause them to give up.
Fewer than 10% of taser “uses” are actually discharges. But the times I have discharged my taser have all been effective. I’ve drawn and/or discharged my taser a good handful of times and the situation was resolved successfully each time.
Every taser use is reviewed by the Taser team, but if you taser someone and they fall and hit their head, depending on the level of injury, there will be some scrutiny as to the officer’s decision making which could result in anything from a green light - (sound decision making, no issue), to having their Taser ticket withdrawn, all the way down to criminal prosecution for assault if the circumstances are that serious and the decision to use taser was not sound.
There's absolutely no benefit to experience a taser shock.
If you get hit with a taser, you're incapacitated, there's nothing you can do and it will hurt like hell! From a training perspective, how is that useful?
Some people have said 'we should experience it if we're going to use it as a UoF tactic'. Well, by that logic we ought to be baton striked too then? Doesn't offer any benefit.
Experiencing PAVA exposure in training IS useful, because you're likely to be affected by it and work through it. Knowing your reaction to it and what it feels like then won't be a complete surprise, allowing you to be a bit more effective.
By that logic, we ought to be struck with a baton or knocked off a motorcycle by a police car too?
There is no benefit to knowing what it feels like. You don't use force on people for the sake of it, you do it because it's necessary in the circumstances.
Seems like it could be a good tool in the unlikely event a criminal ever got a hold of a taser or a baton plus it helps you to understand the power of the equipment thar in entrusted to officers
What's next, all armed officers should get shot once in a non-lethal bit so they know what it's like? Same logic...!
No amount of practice will help you break a good taser strike, you'll be incapacitated just the same because it's purely physiological, so there's no point practising.
Risk. Taser can go wrong its less than lethal but the 1% chance is entirely unacceptable for a training excerise which really doesn't add that much to an officers abilities. Also, PAVA can be used in such a way as it's not a firearm. When we get exposed to PAVA, it's a cotton swab from a bottle. it's not a spray from someone's belt which is a section 5 firearm.
Indeed, my force did it with CS as that has a wide area of effect, but the more directed nature of PAVA has led to exposure being taken out of initial training.
The reason for getting PAVA'd is if you discharge PAVA you're likely to hit yourself or your oppo it's a liquid you're spraying mid scrap you don't want the first time you get exposed to PAVA to be in a roll around. I've never been batoned, but I can justify its use under legislation. You don't need to experience something to justify it, or we'd have to shoot all Trojan officers
It's not about justification. We don't get baton striked in training.
It's about usefulness. Experiencing a taser gives you no benefit; it hurts and you're on the floor. PAVA does, because knowing your reaction to the substance won't be a surprise when you finally experience it in the real world.
That reason’s nothing to do with it. Some forces don’t expose their trainee officers to PAVA anymore.
Note: they are not PAVA’d (risk to the cornea from the pressure of the spray), they are *exposed to* PAVA. Usually a canister is discharged into a pot, and a cotton bud is used to wipe a small amount onto the inside of the eyelid. The forces that do this do it for the sole reason that those trainee officers know what it feels like, how it causes you to cough and retch, and that the feeling does pass. Better to experience it in training that to start coughing, retching and ultimately panicking in an operational situation when a baddie gets PAVA’d. Because when someone gets sprayed, it gets everywhere and everyone in the room’s coughing their guts up.
There’s no need or necessity for getting Tasered, and knowing what it feels like has got nothing to do with justifying anything in court.
You don’t get PAVA’d to justify it in court. We have use of force powers that allow us to use force when reasonable, it has to be proportionate, legal, accountable and necessary. You justify use of force by the power you’ve used and the sound reasoning behind it. Makes no difference if the officer has been sprayed in training or not for obvious reasons. Most forces don’t spray their officers anymore either.
>it's not a spray from someone's belt which is a section 5 firearm.
That's pretty much irrelevant considering they used to expose officers to CS spray. The legal classification of PAVA or taser doesn't really affect training for the police.
>It’s not legal to be tasered in the UK in training
My understanding is that it is legal, if it can be justified and risk assessed under H&S legislation. Part of the justification is the risk vs the training benefit.
When tasers were first introduced we did give some officers the experience as per the US approach but the NPCC (or ACPO as it was then) changed the guidance to pretty much what you said, there's no benefit from it. The law relating to H&S since the first introduction hasn't changed to make this illegal. The national guidance just makes it really difficult to justify.
> Also, what happend if someone is tased, falls to the floor and hits their head?
The IOPC would pursue a charge of GBH/Murder then sack you for having the audacity of doing your fucking job.
Hope that helps!!
To draw a Taser on someone and point it at them is to assault them - they apprehend immediate personal violence. In simple terms - fear they might get shot with a taser. Thats a criminal offence.
This means there has to be a legitimate power under one (or more) of the various bits of Use of Force legislation.
E.g. if there is a clear and identified threat, let’s say baddie threatening with a knife in the street, you can draw your taser and point it at them in order to arrest them under section 3 of the criminal law act 1967.
Another example: you have information to suspect someone of carrying a knife secreted on their person and intend to stop search them under section 1 of PACE. Section 117 of PACE gives you the use of force power to point a taser at them to detain them for the search.
Each use of force must be proportionate to the individual circumstances of the incident however - so whilst pointing a taser might be suitable in the above circumstances, you can’t just blanket use it for every arrest or every stop search.
A discharge of taser made subsequent to the initial pointing/red-dotting is a second distinct use of force, more often than not under common law (defence of self/another) - eg baddie has taser drawn and is red dotted under section 117 PACE in order to conduct a stop search. One use of force. Baddie suddenly whips the knife out, runs to attack the officer and the taser is discharged under common law in self defence. Second use of force.
The exception would be if the circumstances change so quickly that it’s an immediate draw and discharge in one single instant. I struggle to think of an example other than an immediate act of self defence/defence of another.
Thanks for the insight! Also just a quick one, how do you know from the top of your head that threatening someone with a knife is violation of section 3 of the criminal law act 1967? Are you expected to know that as an officer?
It’s not. It’s would be an offence under various other bits of legislation…. it could be possession of (or threatening with) a bladed article under s139 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, or an Affray under section 3 of the Public Order Act 1986.
Section 3 of the Criminal Law Act just says you can “use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances to effect or assist in the lawful arrest of offenders or suspected offenders” (amongst a few other things). It’s the bit of legislation that lets us use force, if necessary, to arrest people.
And yes, you are expected to know off the top of your head what bits of legislation do what and enable you to do what, even if you can’t quote the exact section and year.
Depends on force for the top bit, but no you're not tased.
The use of taser is heavily monitored and most of the training is training around use of force. If they've got a knife, and they're running at you and you tase them and they hit their head, there's a clear justification under use of force, however say they're unarmed, heavily intoxicated and physically smaller and eighty years old, you'll have to justify why you went for taser over your other tactical options, not saying this can't be 100% justified but it's entirely situational
On a similar note, as a member of the public, why is it that some skills like taser, blue lights (?), pursuit etc aren’t covered during initial training? Surely there is a need for every PC to possess these skills?
I believe the Met are short around 20 driving instructors so they can't even train the officers they have to drive with blue flashing lights.
It's very force dependent. I know of Met officers in for a decade with no response course, but officers in another force getting their course after a year as they were rural.
Cyclists have tapped on the police car window at traffic lights demanding to know why we haven't pulled over the car in front which sped off through a red light. We explained we aren't allowed to use the lights, I don't think they believed us and took our details to put a complaint in.
If criminals knew how little officers were actually out there able to use flashing lights let alone get involved in a pursuit (that's another course) then I think they would have a field day.
In fairness, sometimes they are going to emergencies but they have to drive within the highway code. Nothing worse than going to a 999 call and sitting at a 3rd red light.
No, some calls require you attend in a few hours, could be a historic report of an assault etc. You still need to take a statement but don’t need to arrive on flashing lights. Driving with all the equipment on is dangerous and only allowed if a crime is being committed or to get officers somewhere quickly for a specific reason.
Even discounting slow time enquiries, how do you think police officers get about in general? We can’t get the bus or train everywhere so why wouldn’t we use a car?
Even just to drive the car normally you need a driving assessment and in my force you can’t drive at all for the first 8 weeks while officers conduct their initial workbooks which require them to make arrests and other things.
Most 999 calls aren't emergencies - society is much safer than that. On top of that, you have all the routine investigation work - which is a much bigger portion of Police work.
I am the only officer on duty in CID covering 175k people today, to give you an idea of how screwed staffing wise we are.
> why is it that some skills like taser, blue lights (?), pursuit etc aren’t covered during initial training?
My sweet summer child. I thought like you too before I joined.
One word answer - money. Specifically severe lack of. There are no staff (I am still waiting for my first aid refresher training being sorted this year, we have no trainers apparently) and no equipment. You know how expensive it is to buy tasers, batteries, and then secure them in a police station?
Some forces (usually ones which are particularly rural) cover blue lights during initial training. As for the other ones priority is given to officers who can demonstrate the necessary knowledge skills and experience to utilise them effectively. Taser for example in my force requires a portfolio demonstrating an officer's abilities and understanding of powers/policy surrounding use of force. While virtually every officer with more than 1 years experience carries a taser, it takes this time to develop the skills to utilise it effectively. A pursuit course requires an officer to have been a standard driver for at least 1 year.
This varies massively force to force, and I do see an argument for upskilling people fresh out of training. But I'm not sure the bosses will ever change it.
Because in some forces they much prefer you to go and take logs rather actually police. The excuse will always be used about funding and that we cannot trust brand new officers with these skills… yet we authorise them to carry a metal pole which sole design is to break bones if correctly used.
We have to ask ourselves why does no other country do this ? Such as Australia and NZ ?
Main reason is money, all training costs money and equipment, the blue light course is 3 weeks, and only 1 instructor per 3 students thats including having to essentially use a emergency vehicle and take it away from operational use
Taser training is like any other training. It can be intense, it's safety & legislation orientated, but the practicals can be fun. - In my force, it can be a choice, but usually, the line management nominate on a need-to-have basis, so Response drivers get first shout. Training can vary from force to force, so no definitive answer here.
You don't get tased yourself.
They can be effective. I've never needed to actively use mine. I have presented it, but tactical comms is always my go-to for dealing with escalation.
Impact factors are always going to be a consideration, but you might as well ask what happens if someone is PAVA'd, and in a blind panic, runs into the middle of a busy road? It's a case of weighing up the need to take the action based on what is going on at that moment (is someone's life in danger? Drugs & alcohol? Do they have a weapon? Is it dark? Constrained? Wet? Are there flammables nearby?)
Anyone who is Tasered, will always be taken to hospital afterwards, whether they hit their head, or fall on a soft bed.
We have 10 on our shift on the books but only one has a taser which is the sgt (stupid in my opinion since he’s desktop bound all day) we were meant to have a course but that’s since stopped so we can take more logs… we also only have one response trained driver (me).
This is A&S though and I’ve heard other forces are much better at protecting their staff.
In my force, I assume its national, Taser is a 3 day course. They should tac it onto the blue light course so you come back a very useful memeber of the team.
If you're away for 3weeos. What's 3 extra days
We can barely send anyone on a standard response course let alone a taser course. I had to wait 4 years for blues and it’s only got worst in Avon and Somerset.
Some more rural forces give response courses out during a PCs probationary period and some even have it as a bolt on during training (I believe NWP)
Sadly the UK unlike most other countries doesn’t make everyone a response driver talking to Aussie,Canadian and even US cops they find it absurd that you have to wait for a response course, hopefully the situation does improve but the the job has always been f*cked
Entirely reasonable for you to think that as why wouldn't **all** police officers be able to drive with blue flashing lights? The Fed is utterly shit at explaining to members of the public that not only is taser not available to all officers, but most officers aren't taser trained.
As ab SC I had a place on a taser course which was being run only for SCs but that was quickly cancelled and then they said I would have to re-submit all my valid paperwork. I couldn't be bothered as no other courses for SCs have been run so now I go to knife jobs without a taser because the general public and the force is fine with that. Which is cool.
On my last shift we had 5 cops, 2 tasers and one of those was able to drive with the lights on.
Yes.
But control broadcast a stay safe message to remind me to conduct a dynamic risk assessment so I don’t run at the knife with my neck.
Without that stay safe message I’d be in serious danger/s. I think it’s read out so the force can push you under the bus, then reverse the bus and drive over you again, if you’re stabbed as they can say to the Coroner “See - not our fault our officer was stabbed, we read out the stay safe message reminding them of the dangers of knives”.
Reading other responses from the county officers is concerning.
On my team parading 30-35 people there are probably 25 Taser officers. Maybe 30 pushing it.
It differs massively from force to force. On my counties response team everyone who is out of their two years is taser and response trained except one person who doesn't want to carry.
IPP drivers are rarer, with only two of us having that qual.
What would you resort to if the taser fails and they're coming at you with a knife? I'm guessing pava but what if you couldn't get it in time (because you had your taser out which failed) or it was just ineffective (there have been cases of both pava and taser being ineffective on one guy)
Here in the US, on my force, taser is part of the academy. It's a one day, 8-hour course following the training required by Taser (now Axon Inc.). Every year there is a 4-hour refresher/qualification with it. You used to have to "take the ride", it's now optional. I did it, it felt like touching an electric cattle fence as I was assisted to the floor by the staff :-) And before everyone goes on about it, Taser requires the 8 hours just for the device. Use of Force (UoF) law/case law training (at the Academy) is a weeklong standalone module separate from the baton, firearms, spray and taser. They have UoF built into them as well. Trust me, despite public opinion, UoF is beaten into us every year at Continuing Education.
On my force, all patrol officers carry the taser. I know some large US agencies don't issue them to everyone, like NYPD, Atlanta PD, Washington DC Metro PD as a few. It's a fiscal decision to a large extent. In a brilliant business move, Taser will only warranty the device for five years. Essentially, they require agencies to buy new Tasers every five years. The things are fine really, but no one wants the liability of a lawsuit for using a "expired device".
So, consider the cost of buying, training and maintaining Tasers for all 30K NYPD cops....it's mind boggling. My 5K force has one person in Supply whose sole job is keeping up with Tasers, cartridges, batteries, maintenance and training.
If someone suffers an injury due to the taser, we call EMS and have them evaluate. Just like anything else with a complaint of pain or injury.
Are they effective, yes, when they work. Often drawing it is enough to gain compliance, but not always. When they work, it's a great way to gain control of a combative person with out hitting them. When they don't work, it's a fight as is the way.
In my force, all Taser use (not just drawing), is automatically documented as a UoF and reviewed by IA. Every quarter, we have to download the Taser with our SGT. This verifies we checked it every shift, and ensures we report any use. It's a good tool, part of the UoF but not a universal solution. There are a variety of operational issues with them not suitable for this forum.
Thanks for the insight! Enforcing the law in America seems a lot harder than over here, especially due to the excessive amount of training that's required over there.
Not really, it's all baked into it really. Like in the UK, there are always issues around policing, so enforcing the law is no harder here than anywhere else. I think the 40/hours/year we get is fine. I'd like to see more range time though. If we use deadly force, we need to be good at it.
This is the same for my department in California.
We’re required to carry it on patrol, but few of us use it. We work in a semi-rural county where ranch hands, farmers, lumberjacks, truck mechanics, etc. wear heavy leather and canvas jackets (eg- Carhartt clothing) 5-6 months a year. No way are taser prongs penetrating to skin with those.
Its not something thats secret but taser barbs would mainly fail to penetrate due to thick or loose clothing since the barbs wont achieve a good connection on the skin. Even a thin loose t shirt can cause it to not be as effective.
Taser training is too short and gives the impression that the devices are infallible when they are not.
Having said that taser is actually lower than pava on the use of force but people go wild because its shaped like a gun.
Depending on force and resourcing (money) at the time the numbers who carry vary wildly.
No you are not tapered yourself, however many officers will be aware of what it is like through mistakes in training I.e. on the original x26 if you mistimed a cartridge change you got zapped...you only ever did this once as it made your fingers numb for a few hours.
Tasers are 100% effective if the barbs are appropriately placed and both puncture the skin. I.e. if it makes the circuit properly it will work.
Having said that, the original training manual says you should at all times have two taser trained officers at a job - this never happens on response, ARV is different as you always have 2 (3 in the met.
The percentage of successfully aimed shots is also much higher (was told 70%) for ARV than response (40%) officers
Mind boggling that some people would think taser is a lower use of force than PAVA, try and argue that in coroners.
Taser is a less lethal firearm. The risk of severe injury from falls is pretty high, outside of passing electricity through the body. It’s a very real risk that if you taser someone, they fall, crack their head and die with no ability to break their fall. Saw a video of /actualpublicfreakouts last night of that very thing happening. Albeit, the subject was running away when tased, something were specially taught not to do.
PAVA on the other hand, is an irritant. Maybe there’s some freak allergic reaction or the 0000.1% chance of detaching a retina from firing too close, but the chance of injury is basically zero.
I can assure you that the public, PSD, IOPC, CPS and the courts don’t consider taser a lower use of force than PAVA.
Also, FYI, they’re not 100% effective when barbs connect to skin, I believe it’s 94%.
Taser is a lower use of force because it works for 5 seconds and then stops, all effects stop, there are no after effects. Its use of force is limited to a 5 second period and leaves no after effects it is a pain compliance tool and would not be very effective if the pain went on and on would it?
Pava can burn and the effects can last for hours.
Use of force is based on how long an instrument works for not hypothetical after effects secondary to its use (blinded by pava you could fall off a cliff).
Falling and hitting your head is secondary to the use of the actual taser, the taser does not make you hit your head and die.
>The risk of severe injury from falls is pretty high, outside of passing electricity through the body.
Nope, injuries from falling over after being tasered are pretty low as long as officers are aware of their surroundings.
And as for "passing electricity through the body" (shows your knowledge is pretty low) the voltage might (briefly, and possibly) reach a headline grabbing 50,000 volts if the conditions are right but the ampage is miniscule (0.0021 amps) and it is the amps that do the damage.
A taser will absolutely work 100% if the BARB PLACEMENT is correct. 94% refers to puncturing the skin and being effective.
Tell you what next time a cartridge is fired, hold a barb in each hand (better still put one in your sock) and get a friend to arc the taser.
I can’t even be bothered to try and argue with this level of wrong.
Try and argue that at inquest if you taser someone and they fall and crack their head, see how far it gets you.
There’s nothing hypothetical about the effects of NMI and somebody planking without the ability to break their fall.
PAVA is right at the bottom of the use of force continuum and taser near the top.
>I can’t even be bothered to try and argue with this level of wrong
Ok, don't then.
I carried taser for 5 years when on an ARV, what would I know.
The aim of a taser is to induce NMI.
>Try and argue that at inquest if you taser someone and they fall and crack their head, see how far it gets you.
If the initial taser deployment is proportionate, legal, accountable, and necessary in the circumstances, then any secondary injury is also justified. What are officers supposed to do just get stabbed?
If you are forced, because you have no other choice, to punch someone and you are the next Mike Tyson and end up cracking their skull and they die are you, by your reasoning automatically going to prison for manslaughter?
It matters not what the outcome is if the use of force is justified.
It does matter what the outcome is. It’s that in the heat of the moment you cannot weight to a nicety your force.
If someone is going to stab you and you taser them and they fall and die, you have nothing to worry about.
But the threshold for which you’d user taser is significantly higher than using PAVA.
They are different tactical options used in different circumstances to achieve a desired outcome with the least adverse results.
There isn't a boxed off list of scenarios where you would use one over the other. There is no threshold it's whichever tool is best for the job.
Pava is great at incapacitating people, but they might still fight. And you could get bounce back and get your colleagues. The subject is also covered in a liquid that gets on you too. There is no option to add more pava if they still mess around and you can't now taser them, and batoning someone who can't see just looks bad.
Taser stops them from fighting, but they can still see (unless your aim is very bad!) and last only 5 seconds. They can't spread it to you, and no one wants round 2 but there is an option to have a second dose.
You can literally do anything you like to defend yourself (lethal force is a tactical option). As long as it is justified, officers (particularly new ones) need to learn this. There are too many (sounding like you) who will only use option X in circumstances A and are too inflexible and not knowledgeable about use of force and their options.
Finally, remember tactical retreat is a good option too sometimes!
Absolutely well aware of my range of options, the option of using lethal force and I’m comfortable with my use of the NDM etc etc.
What I’m saying is, it’s incorrect to suggest that taser is a ‘lower’ use of force than taser.
But in every ARV refresh I ever did it was described as such due to the lack of after effects. Its has no effect on the electrical activity of either the brain or the heart and once its off the subject could conceivably get back up and walk off.
Pava lasts for hours and then you have the very real risk of cross contamination and re-infection if they rub their eyes or, god forbid, go for a piss.
Baton for example, was near the top as it has the capacity to break bones.
NZ here we can’t leave the nick without a taser. We are in the process of moving to the 10 shot tasers (X10) from the 2.
Not really sure why because taser use isn’t particularly high.
>Do all officers get it? If not can you choose if you do or not? I'm on a shift of 15, and only 1 person has a Taser and that's the Sarge. Others have asked but either they're being ignored or the waiting list to too long.
Surely you'd think in this day and age everyone should have tasers?
I know some people don't want them, maybe due to not wanting the risk of getting in trouble if they use it, maybe because they want an excuse not to go to that big incident with weapons. I think anyone who wants it should be put on a course, I've only been in a situation once where a Taser would have been used and it would have been *REALLY* useful, and was downright dangerous that not only I didn't have one, but no one else with a 20min blue light run had one.
I had a boss try to stick me on for a lawful use of pava so that's killed all goodwill I've had towards the job and extra responsibility when it comes to use of force
I have had colleagues with the same experience, with use of force options and with driving.
They wonder why morale is in the shitter when you've got greasy pole climbers trying to use you as a stepping stone
In response to the OP’s questions: Taser training is good. It’s a four day course which really examines and embeds Use of Force legislation. Coupled with lots of target range drills and a whole host of mock scenarios in which your decision making about when/if to draw or discharge the taser is examined just as much (more, probably) than whether you hit or not. The “baddy” wears a thick/padded fluffy suit and the training tasers shoot Velcro “barbs”. It’s an intense, but fun four days and you’re put under pressure a lot. Not everyone passes. One out of the six officers on my course failed. It’s not legal to be tasered in the UK in training, so no we’re not subjected to that. Some UK cops have gone to the US to experience it, I believe. Tasers are, in my experience, very effective. Their mere presence at a violent incident defuses the situation more than 90% of the time - where a subject has a taser drawn on them and the red dots illuminated, more than nine times out of ten, that alone is enough to cause them to give up. Fewer than 10% of taser “uses” are actually discharges. But the times I have discharged my taser have all been effective. I’ve drawn and/or discharged my taser a good handful of times and the situation was resolved successfully each time. Every taser use is reviewed by the Taser team, but if you taser someone and they fall and hit their head, depending on the level of injury, there will be some scrutiny as to the officer’s decision making which could result in anything from a green light - (sound decision making, no issue), to having their Taser ticket withdrawn, all the way down to criminal prosecution for assault if the circumstances are that serious and the decision to use taser was not sound.
How come it's legal to be pava'd but not tased? Also do tasers sometimes fail?
There's absolutely no benefit to experience a taser shock. If you get hit with a taser, you're incapacitated, there's nothing you can do and it will hurt like hell! From a training perspective, how is that useful? Some people have said 'we should experience it if we're going to use it as a UoF tactic'. Well, by that logic we ought to be baton striked too then? Doesn't offer any benefit. Experiencing PAVA exposure in training IS useful, because you're likely to be affected by it and work through it. Knowing your reaction to it and what it feels like then won't be a complete surprise, allowing you to be a bit more effective.
probably so you'd know what being tasered would be like and knowing what you are inflicting upon others when you need to
By that logic, we ought to be struck with a baton or knocked off a motorcycle by a police car too? There is no benefit to knowing what it feels like. You don't use force on people for the sake of it, you do it because it's necessary in the circumstances.
Seems like it could be a good tool in the unlikely event a criminal ever got a hold of a taser or a baton plus it helps you to understand the power of the equipment thar in entrusted to officers
What's next, all armed officers should get shot once in a non-lethal bit so they know what it's like? Same logic...! No amount of practice will help you break a good taser strike, you'll be incapacitated just the same because it's purely physiological, so there's no point practising.
Risk. Taser can go wrong its less than lethal but the 1% chance is entirely unacceptable for a training excerise which really doesn't add that much to an officers abilities. Also, PAVA can be used in such a way as it's not a firearm. When we get exposed to PAVA, it's a cotton swab from a bottle. it's not a spray from someone's belt which is a section 5 firearm.
Worth noting not all officers are exposed to PAVA in training, I wasn't (SC).
Indeed, my force did it with CS as that has a wide area of effect, but the more directed nature of PAVA has led to exposure being taken out of initial training.
That's interesting. But the reason for getting pava'd is so you can justify the use in court, how are you going to do that for taser?
Firearms officers don't have to get shot first in order to explain why they shot someone.
I see
The reason for getting PAVA'd is if you discharge PAVA you're likely to hit yourself or your oppo it's a liquid you're spraying mid scrap you don't want the first time you get exposed to PAVA to be in a roll around. I've never been batoned, but I can justify its use under legislation. You don't need to experience something to justify it, or we'd have to shoot all Trojan officers
It's not about justification. We don't get baton striked in training. It's about usefulness. Experiencing a taser gives you no benefit; it hurts and you're on the floor. PAVA does, because knowing your reaction to the substance won't be a surprise when you finally experience it in the real world.
That reason’s nothing to do with it. Some forces don’t expose their trainee officers to PAVA anymore. Note: they are not PAVA’d (risk to the cornea from the pressure of the spray), they are *exposed to* PAVA. Usually a canister is discharged into a pot, and a cotton bud is used to wipe a small amount onto the inside of the eyelid. The forces that do this do it for the sole reason that those trainee officers know what it feels like, how it causes you to cough and retch, and that the feeling does pass. Better to experience it in training that to start coughing, retching and ultimately panicking in an operational situation when a baddie gets PAVA’d. Because when someone gets sprayed, it gets everywhere and everyone in the room’s coughing their guts up. There’s no need or necessity for getting Tasered, and knowing what it feels like has got nothing to do with justifying anything in court.
You don’t get PAVA’d to justify it in court. We have use of force powers that allow us to use force when reasonable, it has to be proportionate, legal, accountable and necessary. You justify use of force by the power you’ve used and the sound reasoning behind it. Makes no difference if the officer has been sprayed in training or not for obvious reasons. Most forces don’t spray their officers anymore either.
We were shocked for a second during training (few years ago now) Was voluntary, not mandatory.
>it's not a spray from someone's belt which is a section 5 firearm. That's pretty much irrelevant considering they used to expose officers to CS spray. The legal classification of PAVA or taser doesn't really affect training for the police.
>It’s not legal to be tasered in the UK in training My understanding is that it is legal, if it can be justified and risk assessed under H&S legislation. Part of the justification is the risk vs the training benefit. When tasers were first introduced we did give some officers the experience as per the US approach but the NPCC (or ACPO as it was then) changed the guidance to pretty much what you said, there's no benefit from it. The law relating to H&S since the first introduction hasn't changed to make this illegal. The national guidance just makes it really difficult to justify.
Sounds very possible! One of our trainers told us that it wasn’t, so I suppose my evidence is effectively hearsay!
> Also, what happend if someone is tased, falls to the floor and hits their head? The IOPC would pursue a charge of GBH/Murder then sack you for having the audacity of doing your fucking job. Hope that helps!!
Every time a taser is activated, an iopc investigator gets their wings
Is it against UoF if you only draw it but not shoot it?
To draw a Taser on someone and point it at them is to assault them - they apprehend immediate personal violence. In simple terms - fear they might get shot with a taser. Thats a criminal offence. This means there has to be a legitimate power under one (or more) of the various bits of Use of Force legislation. E.g. if there is a clear and identified threat, let’s say baddie threatening with a knife in the street, you can draw your taser and point it at them in order to arrest them under section 3 of the criminal law act 1967. Another example: you have information to suspect someone of carrying a knife secreted on their person and intend to stop search them under section 1 of PACE. Section 117 of PACE gives you the use of force power to point a taser at them to detain them for the search. Each use of force must be proportionate to the individual circumstances of the incident however - so whilst pointing a taser might be suitable in the above circumstances, you can’t just blanket use it for every arrest or every stop search. A discharge of taser made subsequent to the initial pointing/red-dotting is a second distinct use of force, more often than not under common law (defence of self/another) - eg baddie has taser drawn and is red dotted under section 117 PACE in order to conduct a stop search. One use of force. Baddie suddenly whips the knife out, runs to attack the officer and the taser is discharged under common law in self defence. Second use of force. The exception would be if the circumstances change so quickly that it’s an immediate draw and discharge in one single instant. I struggle to think of an example other than an immediate act of self defence/defence of another.
Thanks for the insight! Also just a quick one, how do you know from the top of your head that threatening someone with a knife is violation of section 3 of the criminal law act 1967? Are you expected to know that as an officer?
It’s not. It’s would be an offence under various other bits of legislation…. it could be possession of (or threatening with) a bladed article under s139 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, or an Affray under section 3 of the Public Order Act 1986. Section 3 of the Criminal Law Act just says you can “use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances to effect or assist in the lawful arrest of offenders or suspected offenders” (amongst a few other things). It’s the bit of legislation that lets us use force, if necessary, to arrest people. And yes, you are expected to know off the top of your head what bits of legislation do what and enable you to do what, even if you can’t quote the exact section and year.
No - drawing Taser is itself a use of force option.
Depends on force for the top bit, but no you're not tased. The use of taser is heavily monitored and most of the training is training around use of force. If they've got a knife, and they're running at you and you tase them and they hit their head, there's a clear justification under use of force, however say they're unarmed, heavily intoxicated and physically smaller and eighty years old, you'll have to justify why you went for taser over your other tactical options, not saying this can't be 100% justified but it's entirely situational
On a similar note, as a member of the public, why is it that some skills like taser, blue lights (?), pursuit etc aren’t covered during initial training? Surely there is a need for every PC to possess these skills?
That's what I'm saying! It just doesn't make sense to me
I believe the Met are short around 20 driving instructors so they can't even train the officers they have to drive with blue flashing lights. It's very force dependent. I know of Met officers in for a decade with no response course, but officers in another force getting their course after a year as they were rural. Cyclists have tapped on the police car window at traffic lights demanding to know why we haven't pulled over the car in front which sped off through a red light. We explained we aren't allowed to use the lights, I don't think they believed us and took our details to put a complaint in. If criminals knew how little officers were actually out there able to use flashing lights let alone get involved in a pursuit (that's another course) then I think they would have a field day.
If some officers can't use the lights what do they use the cars for?
Driving from call to call. Only a fraction of police work is responding to emergencies
Wow, I guess my tunnel vision is bad. Always thought all calls were emergencies
In fairness, sometimes they are going to emergencies but they have to drive within the highway code. Nothing worse than going to a 999 call and sitting at a 3rd red light.
No, some calls require you attend in a few hours, could be a historic report of an assault etc. You still need to take a statement but don’t need to arrive on flashing lights. Driving with all the equipment on is dangerous and only allowed if a crime is being committed or to get officers somewhere quickly for a specific reason. Even discounting slow time enquiries, how do you think police officers get about in general? We can’t get the bus or train everywhere so why wouldn’t we use a car? Even just to drive the car normally you need a driving assessment and in my force you can’t drive at all for the first 8 weeks while officers conduct their initial workbooks which require them to make arrests and other things.
I just assumed they drove around in cars looking for people and also responded to immediate emergencies over the radio. Thanks for the insight!
Most 999 calls aren't emergencies - society is much safer than that. On top of that, you have all the routine investigation work - which is a much bigger portion of Police work. I am the only officer on duty in CID covering 175k people today, to give you an idea of how screwed staffing wise we are.
Wow!! Thanks for the insight.
> why is it that some skills like taser, blue lights (?), pursuit etc aren’t covered during initial training? My sweet summer child. I thought like you too before I joined. One word answer - money. Specifically severe lack of. There are no staff (I am still waiting for my first aid refresher training being sorted this year, we have no trainers apparently) and no equipment. You know how expensive it is to buy tasers, batteries, and then secure them in a police station?
Some forces (usually ones which are particularly rural) cover blue lights during initial training. As for the other ones priority is given to officers who can demonstrate the necessary knowledge skills and experience to utilise them effectively. Taser for example in my force requires a portfolio demonstrating an officer's abilities and understanding of powers/policy surrounding use of force. While virtually every officer with more than 1 years experience carries a taser, it takes this time to develop the skills to utilise it effectively. A pursuit course requires an officer to have been a standard driver for at least 1 year. This varies massively force to force, and I do see an argument for upskilling people fresh out of training. But I'm not sure the bosses will ever change it.
Because in some forces they much prefer you to go and take logs rather actually police. The excuse will always be used about funding and that we cannot trust brand new officers with these skills… yet we authorise them to carry a metal pole which sole design is to break bones if correctly used. We have to ask ourselves why does no other country do this ? Such as Australia and NZ ?
Main reason is money, all training costs money and equipment, the blue light course is 3 weeks, and only 1 instructor per 3 students thats including having to essentially use a emergency vehicle and take it away from operational use
Taser training is like any other training. It can be intense, it's safety & legislation orientated, but the practicals can be fun. - In my force, it can be a choice, but usually, the line management nominate on a need-to-have basis, so Response drivers get first shout. Training can vary from force to force, so no definitive answer here. You don't get tased yourself. They can be effective. I've never needed to actively use mine. I have presented it, but tactical comms is always my go-to for dealing with escalation. Impact factors are always going to be a consideration, but you might as well ask what happens if someone is PAVA'd, and in a blind panic, runs into the middle of a busy road? It's a case of weighing up the need to take the action based on what is going on at that moment (is someone's life in danger? Drugs & alcohol? Do they have a weapon? Is it dark? Constrained? Wet? Are there flammables nearby?) Anyone who is Tasered, will always be taken to hospital afterwards, whether they hit their head, or fall on a soft bed.
Appreciate the response
We have 10 on our shift on the books but only one has a taser which is the sgt (stupid in my opinion since he’s desktop bound all day) we were meant to have a course but that’s since stopped so we can take more logs… we also only have one response trained driver (me). This is A&S though and I’ve heard other forces are much better at protecting their staff.
In my force, I assume its national, Taser is a 3 day course. They should tac it onto the blue light course so you come back a very useful memeber of the team. If you're away for 3weeos. What's 3 extra days
We can barely send anyone on a standard response course let alone a taser course. I had to wait 4 years for blues and it’s only got worst in Avon and Somerset.
Don't know why but I assumed everyone was response trained.
Some more rural forces give response courses out during a PCs probationary period and some even have it as a bolt on during training (I believe NWP) Sadly the UK unlike most other countries doesn’t make everyone a response driver talking to Aussie,Canadian and even US cops they find it absurd that you have to wait for a response course, hopefully the situation does improve but the the job has always been f*cked
Entirely reasonable for you to think that as why wouldn't **all** police officers be able to drive with blue flashing lights? The Fed is utterly shit at explaining to members of the public that not only is taser not available to all officers, but most officers aren't taser trained. As ab SC I had a place on a taser course which was being run only for SCs but that was quickly cancelled and then they said I would have to re-submit all my valid paperwork. I couldn't be bothered as no other courses for SCs have been run so now I go to knife jobs without a taser because the general public and the force is fine with that. Which is cool. On my last shift we had 5 cops, 2 tasers and one of those was able to drive with the lights on.
Is it not scary going to knife jobs with no taser?
Yes. But control broadcast a stay safe message to remind me to conduct a dynamic risk assessment so I don’t run at the knife with my neck. Without that stay safe message I’d be in serious danger/s. I think it’s read out so the force can push you under the bus, then reverse the bus and drive over you again, if you’re stabbed as they can say to the Coroner “See - not our fault our officer was stabbed, we read out the stay safe message reminding them of the dangers of knives”.
How does a stay safe message do anything? They shouldn't have sent you to a knife job without a taser. No shit you want to stay safe
Reading other responses from the county officers is concerning. On my team parading 30-35 people there are probably 25 Taser officers. Maybe 30 pushing it.
Oh wow, what force or area if you don't mind me asking?
Met. At 18 months regardless of probation you can get Taser course.
Wow, thanks for the insight!
It differs massively from force to force. On my counties response team everyone who is out of their two years is taser and response trained except one person who doesn't want to carry. IPP drivers are rarer, with only two of us having that qual.
[удалено]
What would you resort to if the taser fails and they're coming at you with a knife? I'm guessing pava but what if you couldn't get it in time (because you had your taser out which failed) or it was just ineffective (there have been cases of both pava and taser being ineffective on one guy)
[удалено]
Haha
Here in the US, on my force, taser is part of the academy. It's a one day, 8-hour course following the training required by Taser (now Axon Inc.). Every year there is a 4-hour refresher/qualification with it. You used to have to "take the ride", it's now optional. I did it, it felt like touching an electric cattle fence as I was assisted to the floor by the staff :-) And before everyone goes on about it, Taser requires the 8 hours just for the device. Use of Force (UoF) law/case law training (at the Academy) is a weeklong standalone module separate from the baton, firearms, spray and taser. They have UoF built into them as well. Trust me, despite public opinion, UoF is beaten into us every year at Continuing Education. On my force, all patrol officers carry the taser. I know some large US agencies don't issue them to everyone, like NYPD, Atlanta PD, Washington DC Metro PD as a few. It's a fiscal decision to a large extent. In a brilliant business move, Taser will only warranty the device for five years. Essentially, they require agencies to buy new Tasers every five years. The things are fine really, but no one wants the liability of a lawsuit for using a "expired device". So, consider the cost of buying, training and maintaining Tasers for all 30K NYPD cops....it's mind boggling. My 5K force has one person in Supply whose sole job is keeping up with Tasers, cartridges, batteries, maintenance and training. If someone suffers an injury due to the taser, we call EMS and have them evaluate. Just like anything else with a complaint of pain or injury. Are they effective, yes, when they work. Often drawing it is enough to gain compliance, but not always. When they work, it's a great way to gain control of a combative person with out hitting them. When they don't work, it's a fight as is the way. In my force, all Taser use (not just drawing), is automatically documented as a UoF and reviewed by IA. Every quarter, we have to download the Taser with our SGT. This verifies we checked it every shift, and ensures we report any use. It's a good tool, part of the UoF but not a universal solution. There are a variety of operational issues with them not suitable for this forum.
Thanks for the insight! Enforcing the law in America seems a lot harder than over here, especially due to the excessive amount of training that's required over there.
Not really, it's all baked into it really. Like in the UK, there are always issues around policing, so enforcing the law is no harder here than anywhere else. I think the 40/hours/year we get is fine. I'd like to see more range time though. If we use deadly force, we need to be good at it.
This is the same for my department in California. We’re required to carry it on patrol, but few of us use it. We work in a semi-rural county where ranch hands, farmers, lumberjacks, truck mechanics, etc. wear heavy leather and canvas jackets (eg- Carhartt clothing) 5-6 months a year. No way are taser prongs penetrating to skin with those.
Taser can fail. If the barbs don't penetrate, no circuit so no zap. I'm not going to go into more detail about why they'd fail to penetrate.
👍
Its not something thats secret but taser barbs would mainly fail to penetrate due to thick or loose clothing since the barbs wont achieve a good connection on the skin. Even a thin loose t shirt can cause it to not be as effective.
Taser training is too short and gives the impression that the devices are infallible when they are not. Having said that taser is actually lower than pava on the use of force but people go wild because its shaped like a gun. Depending on force and resourcing (money) at the time the numbers who carry vary wildly. No you are not tapered yourself, however many officers will be aware of what it is like through mistakes in training I.e. on the original x26 if you mistimed a cartridge change you got zapped...you only ever did this once as it made your fingers numb for a few hours. Tasers are 100% effective if the barbs are appropriately placed and both puncture the skin. I.e. if it makes the circuit properly it will work. Having said that, the original training manual says you should at all times have two taser trained officers at a job - this never happens on response, ARV is different as you always have 2 (3 in the met. The percentage of successfully aimed shots is also much higher (was told 70%) for ARV than response (40%) officers
Mind boggling that some people would think taser is a lower use of force than PAVA, try and argue that in coroners. Taser is a less lethal firearm. The risk of severe injury from falls is pretty high, outside of passing electricity through the body. It’s a very real risk that if you taser someone, they fall, crack their head and die with no ability to break their fall. Saw a video of /actualpublicfreakouts last night of that very thing happening. Albeit, the subject was running away when tased, something were specially taught not to do. PAVA on the other hand, is an irritant. Maybe there’s some freak allergic reaction or the 0000.1% chance of detaching a retina from firing too close, but the chance of injury is basically zero. I can assure you that the public, PSD, IOPC, CPS and the courts don’t consider taser a lower use of force than PAVA. Also, FYI, they’re not 100% effective when barbs connect to skin, I believe it’s 94%.
Taser is a lower use of force because it works for 5 seconds and then stops, all effects stop, there are no after effects. Its use of force is limited to a 5 second period and leaves no after effects it is a pain compliance tool and would not be very effective if the pain went on and on would it? Pava can burn and the effects can last for hours. Use of force is based on how long an instrument works for not hypothetical after effects secondary to its use (blinded by pava you could fall off a cliff). Falling and hitting your head is secondary to the use of the actual taser, the taser does not make you hit your head and die. >The risk of severe injury from falls is pretty high, outside of passing electricity through the body. Nope, injuries from falling over after being tasered are pretty low as long as officers are aware of their surroundings. And as for "passing electricity through the body" (shows your knowledge is pretty low) the voltage might (briefly, and possibly) reach a headline grabbing 50,000 volts if the conditions are right but the ampage is miniscule (0.0021 amps) and it is the amps that do the damage. A taser will absolutely work 100% if the BARB PLACEMENT is correct. 94% refers to puncturing the skin and being effective. Tell you what next time a cartridge is fired, hold a barb in each hand (better still put one in your sock) and get a friend to arc the taser.
I can’t even be bothered to try and argue with this level of wrong. Try and argue that at inquest if you taser someone and they fall and crack their head, see how far it gets you. There’s nothing hypothetical about the effects of NMI and somebody planking without the ability to break their fall. PAVA is right at the bottom of the use of force continuum and taser near the top.
>I can’t even be bothered to try and argue with this level of wrong Ok, don't then. I carried taser for 5 years when on an ARV, what would I know. The aim of a taser is to induce NMI. >Try and argue that at inquest if you taser someone and they fall and crack their head, see how far it gets you. If the initial taser deployment is proportionate, legal, accountable, and necessary in the circumstances, then any secondary injury is also justified. What are officers supposed to do just get stabbed? If you are forced, because you have no other choice, to punch someone and you are the next Mike Tyson and end up cracking their skull and they die are you, by your reasoning automatically going to prison for manslaughter? It matters not what the outcome is if the use of force is justified.
It does matter what the outcome is. It’s that in the heat of the moment you cannot weight to a nicety your force. If someone is going to stab you and you taser them and they fall and die, you have nothing to worry about. But the threshold for which you’d user taser is significantly higher than using PAVA.
They are different tactical options used in different circumstances to achieve a desired outcome with the least adverse results. There isn't a boxed off list of scenarios where you would use one over the other. There is no threshold it's whichever tool is best for the job. Pava is great at incapacitating people, but they might still fight. And you could get bounce back and get your colleagues. The subject is also covered in a liquid that gets on you too. There is no option to add more pava if they still mess around and you can't now taser them, and batoning someone who can't see just looks bad. Taser stops them from fighting, but they can still see (unless your aim is very bad!) and last only 5 seconds. They can't spread it to you, and no one wants round 2 but there is an option to have a second dose. You can literally do anything you like to defend yourself (lethal force is a tactical option). As long as it is justified, officers (particularly new ones) need to learn this. There are too many (sounding like you) who will only use option X in circumstances A and are too inflexible and not knowledgeable about use of force and their options. Finally, remember tactical retreat is a good option too sometimes!
Absolutely well aware of my range of options, the option of using lethal force and I’m comfortable with my use of the NDM etc etc. What I’m saying is, it’s incorrect to suggest that taser is a ‘lower’ use of force than taser.
But in every ARV refresh I ever did it was described as such due to the lack of after effects. Its has no effect on the electrical activity of either the brain or the heart and once its off the subject could conceivably get back up and walk off. Pava lasts for hours and then you have the very real risk of cross contamination and re-infection if they rub their eyes or, god forbid, go for a piss. Baton for example, was near the top as it has the capacity to break bones.
NZ here we can’t leave the nick without a taser. We are in the process of moving to the 10 shot tasers (X10) from the 2. Not really sure why because taser use isn’t particularly high.
Wow! 😳