What does David Morgan think about tasers?

Does anybody know what Morgan thinks about tasers? I haven't heard him say anything bad about them.

You'll find that things disappear off Morgan's website from time to time. Lucky for you I've archived all of it. On his first suggestion box, which was replaced by a second suggestion box, which was recently taken down, David Morgan had this to say about tasers (I will bold the best stuff):

Easy question. Hard answer. I continue to follow the information and test data that is coming in relating to tasers and the use of this weapon. As you are most likely aware, they are not allowed for law enforcement use in almost all other industrialized nations. And information is developing that is indicative that that they (tasers) do (or have) contribute in the deaths of arrestees or inmates.

So, the "easy" answer is that if the studies continue to point to an "unsafe, non-lethal weapon," they will of course be prohibited from use. For two reasons; 1)It would be inhumane to continue their use when the data becomes definitive and 2) It will become a liability issue. The insurance would be cost prohibitive.

However, if the data indicates that the use of taser's is a training and management issue, ie they have only been proven to be "lethal" when inappropriately used, then they will continue to be an issued item, and deployed for law enforcement work.

Why? Officer safety. Which takes precedence. I could not, and will not, place officers in harms way by taking away a needed tool. I would not want to work for a sheriff that did that, and therefore I will not be that type of leader.

Conversely, when it is proven that personnel have abused or misused a taser, they will be disciplined to the full extent of the law. Officers deploying tasers would be handled as an "officer involved shooting." This sends a clear message from management that the taser is not "a compliance weapon," but a weapon to only be deployed in accordance with the use of force matrix just below lethal force.

Dave Morgan
9:05 PM, January 07, 2007

So if you taser someone under a Morgan administration make sure you call your rep and talk to no one. Then you get to go on a paid vacation while they finish their deadly force investigation. He also shows he has no clue where the taser falls in the use of force matrix and what levels of resistance it can be used against according to state law. David Morgan...He's Looking Better Every Day... :roll: :roll: :roll:

Those of us around in the late 50’s and early 60’s, know that a “Blackjack” was the weapon commonly used against unruly prisoners who were violent rather than pumping them full of lead. This was also the era when mostly men of large stature were hired to be cops and very few citizens resisted. The smaller officers made up for size by carrying a 6 oz blackjack at all times. Perps. who were big themselves who tried to resist would suffer a big headache the next day for days after.

Naturally there were some who suffered brain damage by concussion and some even died as a result of the blows receive.

In the cases of death a full investigations was undertaken usually by a coroner’s inquest and at times by a Grand Jury. Most of the time the officer was vindicated in the use based on the violent resistance by the perp.

Still public sentiment often questioned the killing of a human being over what often started as a misdemeanor arrest, family disturbance, common drunk, etc.

In the 70’s the chemical sprays like pepper spray came on the market and most if not all agencies outlawed officers from using blackjacks against arrestees.

The problem was the sprays sometime worked and sometime they didn’t and sometimes they worked on the very officers who were using it, especially when the wind suddenly blew it back in the officer(s) face. I remember one case where two officers were trying to subdue a suspect who was violently resisting having the cuffs put on. One officer had shifted his position behind the suspect and had hold of him from that position while the second was trying to get control from the front. The officer in the front, pulled out his pepper spray, aimed it directly at the face of the perp. and just as he pulled the trigger to release the spray, the suspect suddenly twisted to the side so that the office in the rear took the full blast of the spray. It completely blinded and incapacitated him, leaving the front officer to fend for himself. Fortunately for both of the officers, the suspect had a sense of humor and started laughing so hard that the front officer was able to cuff him without any further resistance.

The sprays sometime also caused deaths if the person had a serious respiratory problem or some other medical condition that made him or her too sensitive to the chemicals used in the spray. This caused the search for another alternative to be used in lieu of using the old standby of pumping someone full of lead to subdue them.

Thanks to ingenuity, some inventor perfected the concept of shocking a suspect into submission and the taser weapon is the result.

Yes, unfortunately there will be some deaths due to their use, but as Optimus Prime mentioned in his post the taser works and it is an effective tool for officers. As long as a person who is being lawfully arrested resists that arrest, that person is risking dying while resisting. The sooner the public learns that they risk death by resisting a lawful arrest, the sooner fewer deaths will be recorded.

Unfortunately the only method to use against those being arrested who have lost all sense of reality and reasoning is to expose them to that risk. The only other alternative is to expose an officer to an un-necessary risk himself by suggesting that he or she has to play by some queens rules of hand to hand combat. They’re not paid enough for that.

My vote is to issue every officer a taser and let the resisting criminal have a choice if he wants to resist, to be shot with a 9MM or take a hit with a taser.

I wish David Morgan would just answer questions the way normal people answer questions. He can never seem to do this and as a result, will never have a large number of the Sheriff's Office employees behind him in his election campaign. A thought comes to mind here, "better the devil you know than the one you don't".

Thank you for asking about David Morgan's stance on taser usage. David Morgan is in favor of appropriate taser deployment, within defined policy, by trained personnel. He considers it to be best placed in the "impact" level of the use of force matrix, just below lethal force. David has indicated that he'll want any taser deployment thoroughly documented and reviewed. Surely there is more protection for the officer in documenting appropriate taser use than in the former policy which I believe amounted to, "tase them if they verbally resist." You are no doubt aware of the large monetary judgments and federal criminal convictions for certain incidents that may have been within the former ECSO policy. Thank you for your interest in the Morgan campaign.

David Morgan said no one speaks for him. (Except when David Craig Speaks for him?) We have David Morgan's answer. It's too late for you to try to spin it.

And why is it that you took down the suggestion box? Lack of interest? 7 posts in seven months? Lemme guess it was generating so much traffic you all couldn't afford the bandwidth...

Why doesn't Morgan answer questions himself?

He answers questions all the time. By phone and at public events and on his campaign videos. He had an hour long phone in show on BLAB. That's an hour more of questions than the current sheriff has answered on TV this year. The sheriff has a PIO. Morgan chooses to use a spokesperson on the blogs. So what? I'd be more concerned about the issues than who is stating the facts of business.

Well then have his spokesperson answer the seven questions asked by the PBA, if he can...

If you watch the videos you'll see that Morgan has answered all the questions already. If you haven't watched them then stop complaining about what he's already done. Morgan will make a great sheriff.

I'm very concerned about who Morgan chooses to state his "facts of business". Had to work around the squirrel. He wears two faces, and this one isn't the one we saw when he liked to talk about "popping caps" on citizens.

Let's see the post where Craig talks about "popping caps on citizens." I've talked with him and he has never shot at anyone. He also made a point of telling me that hopes he never needs to. Morgan will be your next sheriff and Craig is making his videos which are knocking the stuffing out of the current sheriff. When you are getting thoroughly exposed for being totally corrupt is probably not the best time to make more stuff up.

How can RNN "thoroughly expose" anything. Does anyone even watch it? What channel is it on?

RNN is located online at http://www.realitynews.net. It used to have a weekly BLAB show but it was pressured off the air by the ECSO.

it's pretty obvious that morgan doesn't have the support needed to win.

He is not a good canidate anyway, just because he was "military police" doesnt mean he knows ANYTHING about the real world police. Without real world experience, he is nothing more than a secretary. But, keep slinging the mud and maybe that will give one of the real canidates a shot...

David Morgan has only been talking about the record in relation to Ronniemac. No attacks about his personal life, family, etc. that would be mud slinging. Harry McNesby said he was going to run on his record. Looks like his record is running over him.

i agree he has to go, but I don't think morgan is the man for the job..nothing personal to him, but being military doesnt cut it in real world police work. maybe he should go work the street somewhere for 10-15 years and if he still wants to be sheriff people may give him a second look....

You are absolutely right. Ronniemac has worked the streets for 40 years and look what you got. What you are really saying is if "he can't be bought or can't be had - we don't want him." :evil:

No what we are really saying is MORGAN HAS NO CLUE what real police work entails.

Who said anything about Morgan. And you are right. What does a bachelors degree in CJ have to do with Law Enforcement?

Lol. Go to UWF and look at a senior CJ class. Pick out the very few of those who would make good cops. Then out of those few pick one who would make a good sheriff.

If someone had the same education as Morgan and 20 years in local law enforcement would he be qualified to run an Air Force base military police department. Of course not.

It's all moot. Morgan lost once, he will lose again.

"It's all moot. Morgan lost once, he will lose again."

Exactly....

If the primary were held today, Morgan would beat McNesby by a wide margin. The public hates McNesby and they are not getting any happier as the days go by. I heard about a public meeting this week about roads and traffic concerns that rapidly turned into a castigation of the total unresponsiveness of the sheriff. If McNesby is still in office after his criminal trials the margin of dissatisfaction will only grow larger. It's becoming harder to protect yourselves against unwarranted lawsuits under McNesby. Until Morgan starts paying better you can't even count on backup. Ron McNesby is an officer safety hazard.