Self Defense Security Surveillance Protection

Cell phone cameras help protect children!

2007-04-02T13:23:00.000-04:00

In South Africa we have a major problem with crime, especially against woman and children. According to the government they are doing the best they can, but parents disagree.

In this shifting of responsibility it seems as though children have decided to do the grown up thing and take care of the problem with what they've got, cellphones.

Let's face it; no child in school really needs a cellphone. All the chatting and dating online is only dealing children's attention span another hard blow.

Yet there is one function that a cellphone has that appears to be a child's defence against disbelieving parents and doubting officers, the camera.

A child's word does not carry much weight when compared to that of a teacher, but once again history educates us that seeing is believing. There has been an increasing number of children stepping forward with footage taken from their cellphones that have caught the nation by surprise.

The defending offenders can try their best to prove these accusations as false, but there is just no use in arguing with the evidence.

A tool for your own protection

I really think that we must encourage children to use this tool for their own protection. If they see something happen to one of their fellow learners then they should record it. A lot of children that are being abused do not want to cry out because they think that no one will believe them.

This will help us to root out the unworthy teachers that ignore the law and still continue with physical punishment.

This might be a highly controversial idea that has its drawbacks, but while this county's crime against children is on the rise let us at least provide a method to give our children the confidence to overcome their abusers and speak out.

The nice thing about this whole idea is that once the footage is recorded you don't have to keep it on your cell phone until you get to the authorities. The footage can be sent as an MMS to someone immediately.

As with every tree of fruit bearing potential there is of course the odd rotten fruit. Childhood is our cruellest form in our steady march to old age, and cellphone cameras can incite cruel behaviour.

(There have been some video clips in the media recently of children beating each other and committing animal cruelty.)

But the days of two different scenarios for the same event being argued in court are nearing their end as more and more people are using there cell phones to create unarguable evidence.

Let the cell phone cameras be the new ears and eyes of justice. The more people realise that what ever they do might be recorded will hopefully discourage negative actions. So go on children let the cameras roll!

Capture the news on your cellphone and e-mail the photo/video to photos@news24.com and you could see your name on News24.

This column was submitted to News24 and part of our Craft your Column Competition. Send us your column and you could win a column writing contract worth R6 000.
Click here for more information.

See who has had a say on News24.

Disclaimer: This article was submitted by a News24 user. News24 encourages freedom of speech and the expression of diverse views. The views of users published on News24 are therefore their own and do not necessarily represent the views of News24.

Francois Faber, News24 User

Stun Guns, Pepper Spray, Taser,

2007-04-01T21:42:00.000-04:00

Every day now you will hear of some sort of attack against somebody and you are now trying to find ways of providing self defense and personal protection for you and your family. Below we provide you with information to some different types of personal protection products that you may want to consider, but the main ones that most people now use for self defense purposes include pepper sprays, stun guns, taser’s and personal alarms. You could if you wish also take self defense lessons, but these are often very expensive and can be difficult to arrange and fit in your daily schedule.

1. Stun Guns

These are becoming increasingly popular as a form of self defense personal protection and are effective at immobilizing a would be attacker without actually causing them any real harm. In fact a large number of people have decided to get rid of their hand guns and instead use a stun gun because of its non lethal immobilization capabilities. But if you are considering purchasing a stun gun you will need too find out if there are any restrictions on them in the state where you live as in some states they are actually illegal.

2. Pepper Spray

Pepper spray or as it is more commonly known mace is the most popular of all forms of personal protection products available on the market today. This type of self defense spray contains a chemical compound made from Oleoresin Capsicum (OC) which can be extracted from the pepper plant (hence the name pepper spray). This particular type of personal protection product immobilizes a would be attacker as it contains an inflammatory agent which causes two reactions when it comes into contact with human skin. Firstly the would be attackers eyes will shut hard and even if they are able to open their eyes they can not see as well as the spray dilates the capillaries and so causes them to be temporarily blinded. Secondly, they will immediately start to cough and as their breathing tissues have become inflamed will have difficulty breathing. Although these conditions are only temporary they can still be very debilitating for the person who has been affected by the pepper spray.

3. Taser

These are similar to a stun gun but when fired they will project two needles on wires which stay attached to the machine and attach themselves to the assailant and then produce an electric shock to their bodies in the same way that a stun gun does. However, with this particular type of self defense personal protection product you do not need to be right beside your would be assailant for it to be used you can be as much as 15 feet away from them.

Stun guns are normally an electroshock weapon which are able to temporarily disable a would be assailant or attacker using electric shock. There are some stun guns which when used the user will need to be close their attacker in order for them to be effective and there are others which can be used from a distance. However, when ever using a stun gun a person will need to make sure that it makes contact with the other person’s body.

During the last few years stun guns have become one of the most popular types of self defense weapons that are available for use by the public and which are non lethal to some people. Unfortunately there have been cases where people have died after being shocked with a stun gun but in most cases this is due to the person having some underlying health problem.

Stun guns use a high voltage electric shock in order to stop any attack and just by touching someone with the prongs on it will quickly immobilize them. Yet as they only use a very low amperage in most cases they cause no serious or permanent injury to the person who has been immobilized with one. Generally someone who has been touched with a stun gun when it has been activated will be immobilized for several minutes and are considered to be a reasonable force that a person can use in order to prevent an attack from happening.

When looking to purchase a stun gun you will find that there are many different sizes of stun guns as well as many different voltages that you can choose from. But generally the higher the voltage on it the quicker the full effect of the device will be felt by the would be assailant. Although lower voltage models are just as effective as the higher voltage ones they just take a few seconds longer for them to provide the full effect on the would be assailant. So if you are looking for something that really is effective and will work quickly for you then look at purchasing one which has a higher voltage to it.

Certainly most stun guns will only deliver between 1 and 2 milliamps of power when activated, whereas 1 amp of power would actually kill someone. So as you can see that these use an amperage which is well below that which could do any lasting damage to a person. However, there are plenty of others on the market which provide between 3 and 4 milliamps of power which makes them much more effective.

Finally the best thing with regard to stun guns is their life span. They could be used as many times as they are needed before either the battery needs replacing or recharging.

Defending what's important: Police officers teach self-protection techniques

2007-03-26T22:25:00.000-04:00

WARNER ROBINS - Practicing a few basic self-defense techniques might help a woman escape a life-threatening situation. At least that's the idea behind the Warner Robins Police Department's weekly women's self-defense classes.

For Carol Stanley of Bonaire, being prepared for the unexpected was what brought her to the WRPD training center off Ga. 247.

"I don't want to panic if someone should attack me," she said. "I think I could hurt somebody if I'm afraid I'm going to be hurt."

Stanley attended the hands-on class with Connie Kinsey. The best friends were among almost 20 women attending the month of classes.

WRPD officers Mike Fennell and Chuck Hulon conducted this week's hour-long session, which dealt with hands-on techniques women could use if attacked by a stranger.

The officers focused on pressure points on the body which could be kicked, pinched, jabbed or twisted. In all cases, the idea was to apply enough moves and to react to have enough time to get away and seek help.

One technique included using the hands to push up and under the nose against the infra-orbital nerve, causing an attacker's head to be pushed back. Another included using four fingers to press under the jawbone at the top of the neck. Even a small amount of pressure was enough to make every participant rise to their toes.

"Wherever the head goes, the body will follow," said Fennell, who has practiced martial arts for many years.

Fennell and Hulon agreed it doesn't matter what size or strength an attacker possesses. Many of the moves that were being taught can overcome size or strength if performed correctly.

For example, distraction techniques such as grabbing and pulling a wrist and knowing to step away from an attacker and not toward his body can make a difference.

Moving around is also key.

"You don't fight in a straight line," said Fennell.

"Twist the body the way it's not meant to be twisted," added Hulon.

Picture someone standing in front of you with legs spread a few feet apart and hands down at the side. Then picture a triangle on the ground directly behind the body. If you were to push and direct one of the hands back to the center of the triangle behind that body, the rest of the attacker's body will follow. Moves like these can be done in one or two motions.

"You should take it personally when someone comes up to you and you don't want to be touched," Fennell added. "You have every right to defend yourself."

Conversation also focused on women being aware of their immediate surroundings, especially when out shopping. Many of the women in attendance admitted to leaving their purses unattended, if even for a few seconds, while in a store, or looking straight ahead and not paying attention to others around them.

"Get the big picture. Watch people," said Fennell.

Doing just enough to get away and run is what is most important.

"What we want them to do is just to do something. Don't freeze," he said.

Additional classes will be set up throughout the year for women wishing to learn about self-defense.

Self-defense tips

An assailant will establish ideal hunting grounds with casual surveillance points and will begin sizing up a potential victim. If followed, go into a store and watch. Request assistance. Attackers will look for witnesses before making contact and will look for an ambush point with low visibility to avoid being seen.

To reduce reaction time once you find yourself in a harmful situation: Examine your clothing for escape opportunities. Don't enter an unsafe place. Be alert and stay in crowds. Always be aware of points of escape and always maintain a gap. Have a verbal response ready. Have a plan and know your own physical limitations.

In terms of body language, stand erect and project an image of confrontation. Establish a defiant stance and be verbally confrontational if approached. Look for identifying features.

Security tips at home: Maintain adequate outdoor lighting. Keep bushes trimmed and don't hide keys in obvious places, like under a doormat. Have good window locks and install dead bolts.

Vehicle safety: Keep gas tanks filled and always keep doors locked. Park in well-lit areas and in populated locations. Always have keys ready when leaving a location and carry a cell phone. Also, have emergency equipment in your vehicle.

Jenny Gordon is a community news writer with The Houston Peach. To share an upcoming event or fund-raiser, or to nominate someone for our Peach Basket, please call 923-3109 ext. 240 or email jgordon@macontel.com.

By Jenny Gordon
TELEGRAPH STAFF WRITER

SB-2356 Protect Possession/Guns/Cars/Parking Lots

2007-03-24T00:14:00.000-04:00

ALERT !! ACT NOW -
USF & NRA Members and Friends
Marion P. Hammer,
NRA Past President,
xecutive Director Unified Sportsmen of Florida
SUBJECT: SB-2356 To Protect Possession of Firearms in Vehicles in Parking Lots

SB-2356 protects employees and customers from having their private vehicles searched and protects against punitive action by anti-gun business owners who would deny you your right to have a gun in your car for protection and other lawful purposes.

SB-2356 stops ARROGANT CORPORATIONS that think they can control the personal private property you have in your private vehicle in parking lots.

The Senate Criminal Justice Committee will hold a hearing on

SB-2356 by Sen. Peaden on Tuesday, March 27, 2007.

Please immediately send an email to members of the Senate Criminal Justice Committee and URGE THEM TO SUPPORT SB-2356 by Sen. Peaden

Below is a list of the email addresses of those you need to contact

IN THE SUBJECT LINE OF YOUR EMAIL PUT:

PLEASE SUPPORT SB-2356/Protect Firearms/private vehicles

To send one email to all committee members at the same time, block or highlight the entire list and then copy and paste the block into the address section of the email.)

Senate Criminal Justice Committee
argenziano.nancy.web@flsenate.gov
aronberg.dave.web@flsenate.gov
bennett.mike.web@flsenate.gov
crist.victor.web@flsenate.gov
dawson.mandy.web@flsenate.gov
king.james.web@flsenate.gov
lynn.evelyn.web@flsenate.gov
wilson.frederica.web@flsenate.gov
wise.stephen.web@flsenate.gov

You may also reach these Senators by phone:

Sen. Nancy Argenziano (R) Chair (850) 487-5017

Sen. Dave Aronberg (D) VC (850) 487-5356

Sen. Mike Bennett (R) (850) 487-5078

Sen. Victor Crist (R) (850) 487-5068

Sen. Mandy Dawson (D) (850) 487-5112

Sen. Jim King (R) (850) 487-5030

Sen. Evelyn Lynn (R) (850) 487-5033

Sen. Frederica Wilson (D) (850) 487-5166

Sen. Steve Wise (R) (850) 487-5027

BACKGROUND:

The bill will stop big business entities from searching private vehicles and violating the constitutional rights of customers and employees.

Your Second Amendment rights are at the very heart of this issue. In addition to prohibiting searches of private vehicles in parking lots. The bills also prevents businesses from asking customers or employees to disclose what personal private property is stored in a private vehicle and prevents action against customers and employees who refuse to divulge that private information. Further, it prohibits action against a customer or employee based on information provided by a third party.

Some Florida businesses are trying to ban guns in cars in parking lot used by customers and employees. They are discriminating against people who exercise their constitutional rights – they are violating the constitutional rights of gun owners and Florida law.

Corporate giants have been trampling constitutional rights. Some are even attempting to coerce and intimidate gunowners into giving up constitutional rights as a condition of employment.

Your Rights are in Danger

Carrying firearms in a vehicle for hunting, target shooting or protection of yourself and your family obviously means you may have a need to leave that firearm locked in the vehicle in a parking lot when you go grocery shopping, to the doctor's office, to the theater, to visit a sick friend in the hospital, to rent a movie, to the shoe store or anywhere else normal people travel to conduct business.

Florida law, the U.S. Constitution, and the Florida Constitution clearly and unequivocally permit law-abiding citizens to have firearms in their vehicles for lawful purposes.

How can anyone justify telling a woman who is being stalked that she can't have a firearm for protection? In many cases police tell these women to get a gun for protection because police can't be there to protect her -- and calling 911 is nothing more than government sponsored dial-a-prayer.

A business owner or manager has no more right to say you can't have a firearm in your private vehicle than they have a right to say you can't have a pair of sun glasses, an umbrella, a Bible or a baby seat.

They want your money but they don't respect your rights.

Businesses are not allowed to discriminate against employees and customers because of race, religion, political party, color of eyes, hair or weight. And they certainly can't discriminate because of the exercise of lawful self-defense. Make no mistake, these gun ban policies blatantly discriminate against people who choose to exercise a constitutional right and take responsibility for their own safety.

To find further contact information or help identifying your legislators
please use the "Write Your Representative" feature found at www.NRAILA.org.

www.NRAILA.org

Write Your Representative

Write The Media

Get Involved Locally

Register To Vote

Contribute

Please do not reply to this email as you will not receive a response. This email is a broadcast email generated by an automated system. To contact NRA-ILA call 800-392-8683.
Address: 11250 Waples Mill Road Fairfax, Virginia 22030

If you wish to be removed from this list please copy and paste this link and you will be removed immediately: http://www.ilaalerts.org/UM/U.asp?B1.2.2274.1578191

* Please note: In their efforts to curb SPAM, many ISPs, servers and SPAM filters treat legitimate and legal bulk emails as SPAM. In order to ensure you receive NRA-ILA email alerts in a timely manner, please adjust your SPAM settings to accept bulk emails from the "nraila.org" and "www.ilaalerts.org" domains. Otherwise, there is a possibility that our email alerts will not make it to your inbox.

The Witch Hunt Against Gun Owners

2007-03-22T23:41:00.000-04:00

By Michelle Malkin

"The Second Amendment," Charlton Heston used to say, "is America's first freedom." The Second secures the rest.

It's a message narcissistic journalists need to hear again. A decade ago, Heston chastised the media in a National Press Club speech for its collective ignorance, apathy and open hostility toward gun owners' rights: "Clearly, too many have used freedom of the press as a weapon not only to strangle our free speech, but to erode and ultimately destroy the right to keep and bear arms as well. In doing so you promoted your profession to that of constitutional judge and jury, more powerful even than our Supreme Court, more prejudiced than the Inquisition's tribunals. It is a frightening misuse of constitutional privilege, and I pray that you will come to your senses and see that these abuses are curbed."

Forgings from the first cut of a .44 Magnum handgun are piled in a bin at the Smith & Wesson factory in Springfield, Tuesday, Dec. 19, 2006. The .44 Magnum is the handgun made famous in Clint Eastwood's "Dirty Harry" movie. Mike Golden, Smith & Wesson's CEO for the past two years, has targeted new technologies and sales to the military and police departments to ensure the company's future. Smith & Wesson's earnings have seen double-digit growth since Golden took over. (AP Photo/Charles Krupa) Alas, Heston's prayers have yet to be answered. While courts have recently bolstered Second Amendment rights, endangering gun owners in the name of free speech continues to be the blood sport of the Fourth Estate.

Two weeks ago, the Roanoke (Va.) Times published an online database of registered concealed handgun permit holders in the paper's community under the sanctimonious guise of "Sunshine Week." The database included both the names and street addresses of some 135,000 Virginians with permits to carry concealed weapons. Columnist Christian Trejbal patted himself on the back for making it easy to snoop on the neighbors: "I can hear the shocked indignation of gun-toters already: It's nobody's business but mine if I want to pack heat. Au contraire. Because the government handles the permitting, it is everyone's business."

Trejbal denied that compiling the concealed carry permit holders list was "about being for or against guns." But he exposed his true agenda when he compared law-abiding gun owners to . . . sex offenders: "A state that eagerly puts sex offender data online complete with an interactive map could easily do the same with gun permits, but it does not."

The Roanoke Times showed reckless disregard for the safety of the license holders and reckless disregard for accuracy. In his column, Trejbal admitted that he knew some of the information he had obtained was inaccurate -- but published it anyway: "As a Sunshine Week gift, The Roanoke Times has placed the entire database, mistakes and all [emphasis added], online at www.roanoke.com/gunpermits. You can search to find out if neighbors, carpool partners, elected officials or anyone else has permission to carry a gun."

After an uproar among gun-owners, including domestic violence victims licensed to carry, the Times finally decided to yank the database. Trejbal seems not to feel much remorse: "Did we make it easier [to obtain the information]? Yes. But it's still a public record." Let's review: He published a list he knew contained inaccuracies. His paper admits the decision endangered gun owners. He compiled a convenient shopping list for criminals -- and smacked law-abiding gun owners in the face with his comparison of their choice to exercise their rights with sex offenders.

Public disclosure of concealed carry licenses varies from state to state. Eighteen states protect permit holders' privacy from public view. Virginia is one of 17 states that make licensee records public. If information is public, does it make it right for a newspaper to publish it? The media exercise discretion all the time in withholding the names of minors or rape victims. Why should the privacy of law-abiding concealed handgun permit holders be treated with any less concern?

While the Roanoake Times has retreated, the witch hunt against gun owners continues. In New York City, Mayor Michael Bloomberg launched a "sting" operation targeting gun shops in five states for allegedly selling guns illegally. Alan Gottlieb and Dave Workman of the Second Amendment Foundation report that Bloomberg sent unauthorized private investigators to conduct the operation -- without notifying the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF):

"The odor ripened when Bloomberg filed civil lawsuits against these gun shops, rather than turn over evidence to the proper authorities for criminal prosecution. Bloomberg's office refused to turn over that evidence, and instead the billionaire mayor launched a high-profile media campaign demonizing the targeted gun shop operators."

Bloomberg has, of course, earned the praise of the anti-Second Amendment media for his security-undermining stunt. The unholy alliance between Big Nanny politicians and journalists threatens us all.

Michelle Malkin makes news and waves with a unique combination of investigative journalism and incisive commentary. She is the author of Unhinged: Exposing Liberals Gone Wild .

Be the first to read Michelle Malkin's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com delivered each morning to your inbox

N.J. to ban sex offenders online?

2007-03-15T18:22:00.000-04:00

Released sex offenders would be barred from using the Internet and online dating sites would face new security rules under bills to be considered today by the Senate amid worries about child safety on the computer.

"We're living in some very scary times," said Senate President Richard J. Codey, who is sponsoring the legislative package that has raised constitutional questions and opposition from Internet companies.

Under the plan, released sex offenders caught using the Internet would face up to 18 months in jail and fines of up to $10,000.

Sex offenders caught using the Internet to solicit a child would face a mandatory five years in jail, rather than the three years they face under current law.

A bill also would require online dating sites to notify New Jersey residents whether they do background checks, a proposal opposed by Internet companies such as Yahoo!, AOL, eHarmony and Match.com.

"Criminal background checks provide users of online dating with a false sense of security," said Bill Ashworth, director of state government affairs at Yahoo!

No federal law imposes Internet restrictions on convicted sex offenders, but Florida and Nevada have enacted such measures.

A U.S. Department of Justice survey of youths ages 10 to 17 found that about one in five received a sexual solicitation or approach over the Internet.

Such findings have prompted new laws in some states.

Colorado banned anyone from using a computer to talk to an unrelated child under age 15 without parental permission if the person is at least four years older than the child. Kansas and Oklahoma made electronic solicitation of a child a crime.

Under the New Jersey proposal, which has not yet been considered by the Assembly, convicted sex offenders would have to submit to periodic, unannounced examinations of their computer equipment, install equipment on their computer so its use could be monitored and inform law enforcement if they have access to a computer.

The state public defender's office has said it will look into the constitutional ramifications and expressed concern that barring juvenile sex offenders from the Internet would deny them educational opportunities.
By TOM HESTER Jr.
Associated Press

Pacific Arms Race

2007-03-13T18:36:00.000-04:00

Why Asia Is Where the JSF Matters Most
By Christopher Griffin

ARTICLES
Armed Forces Journal

The conclusion of a second memorandum of understanding on the Joint Strike Fighter in December opened the door for the JSF to progress from being a paper airplane to an aircraft in production. Although the future of the JSF (also known as the F-35 Lighting II) remains clouded while the jet progresses through three separate designs, the aircraft promises to be the mainstay of U.S. and allied force structures in Asia for decades to come. What are the prospects for the JSF in Asia? What will its incorporation into allied air forces mean for the U.S.?

The answers are contingent upon yet-unmade decisions in Washington and in regional capitals, but two major paths are clear. The JSF promises to allow Washington and its allies to develop stronger capabilities for conducting joint operations by developing a common set of technological, doctrinal and logistical experiences. But if the aircraft is thrown too far off course by programmatic problems, or an inability for Washington and its regional security partners to develop common expectations for its employment, the benefits of its employment will be minimized.

New Kid on the Block

The Joint Strike Fighter was developed to be many things to many people: a successor to the conventional takeoff and landing F-16 fighter and A-10 attack aircraft for the U.S. Air Force; a short takeoff, vertical landing (STOVL) plane that could replace the Harrier for the U.S. Marine Corps and U.K. Royal Navy; and a carrier-capable successor to the F-18 for the U.S. Navy. By hinging all of these operational hopes on a single platform, the U.S. Defense Department took a large risk--the simultaneous development of various models of F-35A/B/C would vastly reduce the procurement and logistical costs of a successful program but also means that problems in the JSF would affect all U.S. services, as well as those of key allies.

The driving concept behind the F-35 is that the U.S. and its allies will require an affordable, fifth-generation tactical fighter that can replace the aging F-15 and F-16 air fleets, while delivering significant advances in joint interoperability, battle-space awareness and stealth. The essential features of the F-35 are intended to deliver on all these accounts. A combination of Link 16 and satellite communications ability will allow the aircraft to remain in constant communication with a wide range of friendly assets; a state-of-the-art active electronically scanned array radar and other sensor suites will give the JSF a highly developed view of the battle space; and its low-observable design will give the aircraft high survival rates for air combat and ground attack missions.

Indeed, the JSF is designed to be a "kid brother" to the F-22 Raptor, the advanced fighter that entered service with the U.S. Air Force in December 2005. The JSF incorporates many of the features designed for the F-22, but is a single-engine, single-seat aircraft that is intended to be affordable both for acquisition in larger numbers by the U.S. Air Force (roughly paralleling the current division between F-15 and F-16 inventories) and for export to U.S. allies and security partners. Current price estimates for the JSF run in the ballpark of $40 million to $60 million--a hefty sum, but far less than the $135 million price tag for the F-22, and comparable to the $45 million cost of an F-16 today.

The JSF and the Allies

The corollary role to the JSF's mission as a successor to the fourth-generation fighter aircraft in the U.S. military is that it is expected to be the dominant U.S. fighter export in coming decades and the major fighter in allied air forces as they shift to fifth-generation aircraft.

This global mission has driven the multinational organization of the JSF procurement program, in which partner countries contribute to the system development and demonstration (SDD) phase in order to gain industrial opportunities in the production of the F-35, as well as prioritized purchasing opportunities. Eight countries contributed a total of $4.5 billion to join the SDD phase of the program, ranging in three tiers of partnership (the U.K., with a $2 billion contribution, is the only Tier 1 partner). Israel and Singapore have also joined as noncontributing "security cooperation partners."

The JSF ran into early difficulties, with the SDD phase being extended by two years in response to an excessive weight problem (early modeling overestimated the amount of thrust the engines would generate, a special liability for the STOVL version) and contretemps over the sharing of sensitive technologies necessary for alliance partners to tweak the aircraft's performance. But at the end of 2006, Washington signed a memorandum of understanding (and a series of bilateral side agreements) with its development partners that will permit the JSF program to proceed to the production, sustainment and follow-on development (PSFD) phase of the program.

Current estimates for the PSFD phase of the JSF program are that the aircraft will enter into low-rate initial production this year, with optimized versions of each variant scheduled to take flight between February 2008 and January 2009. As production levels increase toward full steam by 2013, the early models of the F-35 will enter the American services, with large-scale exports to program partners expected to begin in 2012.

As with many U.S. arms-exports programs, the JSF faces an inherent contradiction. The main partners are European, with only one full partner of eight (Australia) and one security cooperation partner (Singapore) in Asia. But Asia is the only theater in which the JSF's capabilities are obviously necessary, as the proliferation of advanced fourth-generation fighters is quickly placing the legacy air forces of the U.S. and its security partners in the region at risk.

Russian exports (as well as licensed production) of the Su-27, Su-30 and MiG-29 have remained strong throughout the post-Cold War period. Meanwhile, China has recently begun producing its J-10 fighter in large numbers, has offered the aircraft for export to Pakistan and is looking at other possible markets. Cumulatively, these developments mean that the mainline fourth-generation U.S. exports are at risk of being outclassed throughout the region--in highly watched (albeit friendly) mock engagements with the Indian Air Force, U.S. F-15 and F-16 fighters suffered disproportionate losses in head-on engagements against Indian pilots flying Russian-built aircraft.

This shifting balance in air power between U.S. and foreign-built fourth-generation fighters strikes at both the heart of U.S. air strategy for the region and the value of a U.S. security guarantee to its partners there. The tyranny of distance dictates that future U.S. military operations in Asia will require a combination of air and naval superiority in order to guarantee access to the region, prevent airstrikes against U.S. bases and friendly assets and maintain open sea lanes for international trade. Without allies and security partners who can hold their own against potential aerial threats, the balance in the region will become precarious and the value of the U.S. as a stabilizer will diminish.

It is in light of these developments and concomitant risks that the value of the F-35 as an exportable aircraft rises. The F-35 will outclass any potential threat in the region for the foreseeable future and, in the service of U.S. friends, will provide a set of technologically and logistically interoperable air forces to work in collaboration with the U.S. as circumstances require.

Sky’s the Limit for Australia

Australia is the keystone JSF partner in Asia, as it has both joined the program as a Tier 3 partner (contributing some $150 million to the SDD phase) and is looking to purchase up to 100 of the aircraft in a complete recapitalization of its air force. In December, Canberra granted "first pass" approval for purchasing the JSF and signed the PSFD memorandum, both milestones in what Australian officials describing as the country's "total commitment" to the JSF.

Australia's participation in the JSF program symbolizes of the revitalization of the U.S.-Australian alliance under the stewardship of Prime Minister John Howard. In recent years, Canberra has shifted its national security focus from the traditional defense-of-Australia mission that focuses on maintaining control over the so-called "air-sea gap" that separates Australia from its continental and maritime Southeast Asian neighbors toward expeditionary operations. Australia's shift toward an expeditionary strategy inherently involves greater cooperation abroad (as well as an expanded security maintenance role in Southeast Asia and Oceania), as reflected in Australia's participation in operations Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom. Indeed, Australian defense officials speak of their relationship with U.S. forces not as "interoperability," but "seamless integration"--reflecting the county's ability to conduct aerial missions on par with its American counterparts.

Corresponding with Australia's strategic shift toward expeditionary operations, Canberra has also sought to transform the composition of its air force. It is moving from a legacy force comprising F-111 and F-18 fighter/bombers, which has provided the country a strong air capability but also shown the limitations to being the sole operators of one system (the F-111) and one of the few air forces to operate a primarily naval aircraft (the F-18). Indeed, logistical and defense industrial concerns are at the center of Australia's plan to move toward an air force structure that is more compatible with those of its primary allies.

The recapitalized Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) will be centered on a combination of F-35 fighters and the 737 Wedgetail airborne early warning and control aircraft (AEW&C), which Australia is developing through a defense-industrial partnership with Boeing. This new air fleet will provide Canberra with air superiority in the region for the foreseeable future, and with the additional purchase of aerial refueling aircraft, extend Australia's strategic reach into Asia and the world. The inclusion of the Wedgetail into the RAAF will complement the country's strong capabilities in signals intelligence, where the Jindalee Over the Horizon Radar Network already gives it the best early warning capabilities in the region.

Canberra has made a big bet on the F-35 as the primary combatant in the evolving RAAF. In addition to its commitment to the SDD phase of the aircraft, Australia has taken the first step to approving funding for the aircraft (the Australian defense procurement process involves long-term funding commitments), the announced purchase of F-18E/F Super Hornets has also been described as a stopgap to fill immediate requirements while waiting for F-35 deliveries.

Australia has also expressed interest in serving as a regional logistical and maintenance hub for the F-35 under the so-called Autonomic Logistics Global Sustainment program, a role that would make it a key partner for air forces throughout the region that eventually fly the JSF. As Australia moves to expand its role as a training and exercises partner for a large number of Asian countries and the U.S., this combination of technological capability, logistical support and security cooperation activism promises to make it a key air power in Asia for decades to come.

Singapore and Korea: Qualified Partners

Singapore is one of the most interesting security actors in Asia. The city-state maintains astoundingly close strategic ties with Washington, purchasing much of its equipment from U.S. suppliers, including its F-16 Falcons, AH-64D Apache attack helicopters and CH-47SD Chinooks, which are all based in the U.S., where it trains in close cooperation with American forces. Simultaneously, Singapore's government appreciates its geographic proximity to China and its other Southeast Asian neighbors and seeks to avoid being seen in the region as the tip of an American spear. The country has thus consistently sought to maintain a relationship with the U.S. that allows it to maximize the benefits of its relationship while minimizing what could be weighty costs.

Singapore has likewise demonstrated its commitment to this strategy when it decided in 2005 to purchase a squadron of F-15 aircraft against France's Rafale fighter, reaffirming the value of close ties with the U.S. Air Force in its acquisition and use of military aircraft. Sustained, strong ties with Canberra and other countries in the region also reinforce Singapore's ability to benefit from growing interoperability among U.S. security partners in Asia, and the city-state bases a portion of its air force in Australia.

This hedged relationship with Washington is reflected in Singapore's tie to the JSF program, in which it is participating as an "international security partner." In that role, Singapore has maintained representation at the JSF program office in the U.S. without having to make any financial commitment through the SDD phase of the program. When the JSF is released for sale through the foreign military sales program, Singapore will enjoy being at the front of the queue for purchases (along with Israel), whereas nonpartner countries will have to line up afterward.

If the degree of Singapore's participation in the JSF demonstrates how it seeks to use its hedged relationship with Washington to maintain as broad a set of strategic options as possible, South Korea presents an opposite trend, where Seoul is reluctant to commit to closer ties to Washington despite being a formal ally. Seoul recently procured a large number of F-15 aircraft from the U.S., but its emphasis on developing more self-reliant defense capabilities conflicts with the possible benefits for working with Washington on a program like the F-35 or even taking a qualified role as a security cooperation partner.

As Seoul considers future defense acquisitions, it also suffers from not having as widely developed a network of security partnerships as does Singapore. Whereas Singapore enjoys opportunities to exercise regularly with Australia and other major regional actors, the frosty relationship between Japan and South Korea has prevented the emergence of a cooperative military-military relationship between them. As a result, many of the advantages for multinational interoperability that may appear obvious to other potential JSF purchasers are not so for Korea.

As Singapore and South Korea watch the JSF program from their respective distances, their future procurement decisions will signal how they view their relationship with the U.S. Singapore appears well placed to enjoy an easily upgradeable relationship with Washington that allows it to maintain a broad range of strategic options. South Korea, meanwhile, is grappling with a relationship that it finds too restrictive at many levels--ready access to the F-35 may not be the greatest of its priorities, but will be an indicator of the future course of the alliance

The Little Japanese Giant

Tokyo's relationship to the Joint Strike Fighter captures the country's ongoing confusion in handling security issues: It seeks greater capabilities than the F-35 promises, but does not have a clear doctrine as to how it will use them; it has one of the most advanced defense industries in Asia, but is unable to participate in the JSF program due to a long-standing ban on arms exports. Tokyo will be grappling with these contradictions for years to come, and the F-35 program will be a useful example to see how it does so.

Japan is at the cusp of being a great air power in Asia. It has the best signals-intelligence capabilities, comprising a strong fleet of P-2C Hawkeye AEW aircraft, 767 AEW&C aircraft and P-3 maritime surveillance aircraft. With its large numbers of F-15 and F-2 fighters, it has the muscle to exercise a leading role in the region but has not determined how it will use its powerful air force, which has long been dedicated to a strictly defense mission for the home island and territorial waters.

The current air-power debate in Tokyo is focused on whether Japan should purchase the F-35 or push for access to the more advanced F-22, which U.S. law restricts from being exported to even Washington's closest allies. Although this debate reflects the Japanese Air Self-Defense Force's preference for playing with the best toys, it also gets to the heart of how Japan sees its military developing in the future--as a bulwark against China's burgeoning air power, as a military ally capable of exerting airstrikes against such threats as North Korea's nuclear program, or as a more capable pacifistic state with a vague strategy for employing its strength.

At the same time that Tokyo has had difficulty deciding whether it will focus on procuring the F-22 or F-35, a set of policy restrictions dating back to 1976 prevented Tokyo from partnering on the JSF program. When Prime Minister Takeo Miki strengthened the country's restrictions on arms exports to be a comprehensive ban on exports to or investment in any country, it was widely viewed as a noble pacifistic gesture. Today, it means that Japan is becoming ever more excluded from trends in the global defense industry, with a highly capable base that can license and produce some of the best platforms in the world but that has not experienced the consolidation and integration that has characterized the rest of the global industry.

The emergence of the F-22 and F-35 has brought to a head the policy conundrum that the Miki arms restrictions introduced. With the emergence of such ever-more-advanced platforms as the F-22, Tokyo can no longer expect wholesale access to the transfer of the best technologies available. Meanwhile, Japan's defense industry risks becoming a backwater if it does not have access to the technologies and techniques that such international programs as JSF permit countries to share. Simply put, Tokyo is running out of time to decide how it will interact with the global defense industry if it is to remain an important actor.

Pending decisions in Tokyo and Washington on the future of the F-22 and F-35 should provide the two countries an opportunity to define how they see Japanese air power evolving in the coming decades, and the two countries will nurture their defense industries in support of the alliance. Failure to do so will leave behind a rare opportunity to rescue Japan from its doctrinal and political muddle on these vital questions.

Whither Air Power in Asia?

The F-35 will be the keystone of allied air power in Asia for at the first half of this century, but the question remains: What will Washington and its allies seek to do with that power? The emergence of the JSF program, the enhanced opportunities that it creates for interoperability and logistical cooperation, and the necessity for industrial partnerships in support of the program all create opportunities to address that question.

One obvious point is that the U.S. can no longer think of its procurement decisions strictly in terms of the requirements of the U.S. Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps. The high costs of aircraft, the necessity that they are produced in sufficient numbers to exploit economies of scale and the need to provision the air forces of allied powers mean that future procurement decisions will increasingly have to take the concerns of security partners into direct account. The degree of Australia's commitment to the JSF program--its largest single procurement project in history--indicates the stakes that U.S. allies have riding on what were once considered parochial decisions.

Likewise, the success (or failure) of the JSF programmatic level as it proceeds from SDD to PSFD phases will be closely watched by out allies when they consider cooperative defense-industrial projects in the future. Although the JSF symbolizes the type of program that can allow the U.S. and its allies to pool resources and mutually support one another, it is also a reminder that when we all take off together, we are landing together, as well.

Christopher Griffin is a research associate at AEI

Guns, taser or pepper spray for security on the road?

2007-03-03T12:02:00.000-05:00

Content from: Texas RV Travel Blog

I was on a RVing forum this weekend and there was a discussion going on about guns and other forms of self protection. Specifically, what women with children camping alone should have for protection. I never carried anything for protection when camping. I always thought guns were for bears and mountain lions and they did not hang out at Lake Travis in Texas.

The only time I even thought about protection is when my son and I went to Arizona and my girlfriend rented a party barge. We cruised around a huge lake and found a great place to camp. Besides for some bad luck with the barge engine, we had a great time. When we took the barge back to the marina, we were watching the TV and saw that a bear had mauled someone on the lake, close to where we were camping. My girlfriend and I looked at each other and said, “Bears? They have bears here?” I felt so stupid.

Well, we decided we would not be camping again until we had some sort of protection. We knew we could not get a gun immediately, so we went looking for alternatives like mace pepper spray. Then I remembered this joke that was going around about bears and pepper spray:

We advise that campers and hunters wear noisy little bells on their clothing so as not to startle bears. We also advise carrying pepper spray. You should also be able to recognize the difference between black bear and grizzly bear scat. Black bear droppings are smaller and contain lots of berries and squirrel fur. Grizzly bear dung has little bells in it and smells like pepper spray. LOL

After we finished laughing, we decided we needed a stun gun. We went looking for a sporting goods store, hoping to find what we needed there. We spent most of the day looking for the right stun gun or taser.

While we were shopping, my son grabbed a taser and said, “I wonder if this hurts?” Before I could stop him, he stunned himself, right there in the middle of the store. We decided that neither a gun nor stun gun was a good idea for us with this crazy adolescent child around.

While considering our options, I was talking to a couple that were in the store. They were looking to buy a stun gun that day because they were leaving for home in their RV and they said it could not be shipped to where they lived in Wisconsin.

I asked the clerk in the sporting goods store if this was true, and he told me that there are several states that allow the purchase and use of fire arms but not stun guns nor tasers. I was surprised to find that Hawaii, Michigan, Massachusetts, New York, Rhode Island and New Jersey will not allow their residents to purchase stun guns.

I do not see the sense in this. If you can shoot and kill someone who is attacking you, why would the government not allow you to stun them? A stun gun or taser does not kill but only incapacitates people. Ask my son, he will tell you. LOL

The purchase of guns is so regulated now that people are buying them on the streets. Now some states are limiting other, non-lethal, choices. How are we to protect ourselves? What do you think about the limits on our personal freedom of choice of weapon?

If you need self-protection and do not live in the above named states, you may want to visit Self Defense Security Surveillance Protection, sponsor of this post. They have all sorts of gadgets for securing your home, family and business.

San Antonio Lawmaker Wants to Regulate Stun Guns

2007-03-02T04:22:00.000-05:00

Stun guns and tasers are not just for police. But one lawmaker here wants the state to regulate these weapons to help keep you safe.

The San Antonio Police Department says there is nothing to protect them from a criminal using a stun gun or a taser. That is why they want to see the laws changed.

A taser can deliver 50,000 volts of electricity.

State Representative Trey Martinez Fischer staged a taser demonstration Thursday with police to make a point. "We have no law today that outlaws or requires any sort of licensing that sets up rules as to how citizens can acquire and obtain tasers."

So Martinez Fischer has filed a bill, that if passed, would have the public treating tasers like concealed handguns. "So in other words, if you are going to have a taser, you have to apply through the Department of Public Safety. You have to undergo training, just like you do for your concealed weapon, and you have to qualify."

Officers say a taser has the potential to do a lot of harm to the public and to police.

That is why Martinez Fischer doesn't want to see stun guns getting into the wrong hands.

Right now this stun gun bill is going through the law enforcement committee.

If passed, anyone caught carrying a taser without a permit could go to jail.

Posted By: Maritza Nunez

Board puts off vote on Taser use in hospital

2007-03-01T21:35:00.000-05:00

Christiana Care would be the first Delaware hospital to outfit its constables with Taser weapons under a plan being considered by the state Board of Examiners of Constables.

The board, which this week delayed a decision on allowing the weapons, will not vote until the Council on Police Training has an opportunity to consider the adoption of uniform statewide standards for Taser use by police officers, said Col. Thomas F. MacLeish, Delaware State Police superintendent and chairman of the examining board. That discussion is scheduled for an April 17 meeting.

Jeff Benyo, Christiana's director of public safety, said the request to arm constables was not due to a recent rash of violence at local hospitals.

"It's just another option or tool that's available out there that's been shown to be effective," he said.

No other hospital in the state has plans to equip its security officers with Tasers or electronic stun guns.

But at the national level, there's been a slight increase in discussions about adding those weapons to hospital security measures, said Tom Smith, president of the International Association for Healthcare Security and Safety, a 1,600-member organization of professionals who direct security and safety programs in health care institutions.

The association has not taken a position on the issue. Smith said less than 5 percent of hospitals have security personnel equipped with Taser weapons.

"If the threat level gets beyond the point where the patient can't be controlled, the rules of engagement are different," Smith said. "It occurs when the patients can't be controlled using the typical patient-restraint techniques [such as physical holds]."

Smith said a hospital needs to consider the response time of its local police agency and whether it experiences a high number of assaults.

The federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services do not consider the use of weapons as a safe, appropriate way to intervene in health care settings. Those weapons include pepper spray, Mace, nightsticks, Tasers and stun guns.

MacLeish has said that Christiana already has general approval from the board for its constables to carry firearms, although none of them currently does. He favors allowing the use of Tasers, with proper training.

Last month, state police were called to Christiana Hospital near Stanton after a contractor allegedly punched his supervisor and attacked him with pepper spray and a knife.

And recently at Wilmington Hospital, a patient who did not want to be discharged grabbed a nurse and struck an officer.

Christiana Care uses about 40 privately paid constables to provide security at both of its hospitals.

Its policy calls for Tasers to be used on people who pose an imminent risk of violence to others.

"Our staff is highly trained already," Benyo said. "This is giving them another option. It's a secondary option."

Rita Marocco, executive director of the National Alliance on Mental Illness in Delaware, said using a 50,000-volt Taser on patients who already have serious health problems could put them more at risk.

"I think it's a bad move," she said. "Police officers are still struggling to figure out how to use them properly and they've had them for years."

She said better training for constables would eliminate the need for Taser weapons.

"You cannot replace good training with objects that are going to cause potential harm," she said. "They need to put that money toward training to deal with an unruly patient."

This article contains information from the Associated Press. Contact Hiran Ratnayake at 324-2547 or hratnayake@delawareonline.com.

christiana Care seeks to equip constables with electronic guns
By HIRAN RATNAYAKE, The News Journal

Texas Bills Would Limit Use of Stun Guns

2007-03-01T21:32:00.001-05:00

Feb. 27--AUSTIN -- State Rep. Lon Burnam is taking his effort to put more oversight to how law enforcement agencies use Tasers or other stun guns back to the drawing board.

Burnam, a Fort Worth Democrat, scrapped his original bill to limit the use of electroshock weapons by police and replaced it Monday with four separate pieces of legislation that would require uniform training standards and reporting procedures for all police agencies in the state. The package would also require officers to obtain medical help for anyone they use a stun gun on and prohibit their use by anyone without proper training.

Another lawmaker, state Rep. Garnet Coleman, D-Houston, filed a bill that would place a one-year moratorium on police use of stun guns so that state officials can evaluate their effectiveness.

Burnam said his legislation would better ensure that the weapons are used safely by both police and civilians.

"It can be a great tool for law enforcement if used correctly, and that's why a statewide training program is so important," Burnam said. "I think both law enforcement and civilians recognize the importance of proper training and monitoring of Taser use."

But Charley Wilkison, a spokesman for the Combined Law Enforcement Associations of Texas, warned that the initiatives by the two Democrats could have unintended and even deadly consequences for officers and suspects.

"You have to ask if these edicts from the top of the mountain would be better than having local law enforcement agencies that are responsive to their local communities setting the policies and guidelines for and standards for the use of these devices," said Wilkinson, whose organization represents about 15,000 Texas officers.

Coleman said his bill to halt the use of stun guns would force Texas police to review policies, which would result in greater public safety.

"At times, Tasers have been used improperly by law enforcement officers to subdue individuals who do not pose a serious danger to themselves or others, including the mentally ill," Coleman said.

IN THE KNOW

What they'd do

Bills filed Monday that would affect the use of Tasers and other stun guns by police and civilians:

House Bill 1933 by Burnam would require every Texas law enforcement agency to develop a policy for stun-gun use.

House Bill 1934 by Burnam would direct the Texas Commission on Law Enforcement Officer Standards and Education to create a statewide training program for the weapons' use by officers.

House Bill 1935 by Burnam would prohibit civilians from carrying a stun gun without a license and training.

House Bill 1936 by Burnam would require police to summon medical help for anyone they use a stun gun on.

House Bill 1304 by Coleman would place a one-year moratorium on police use of the shock weapons.

Texas Bills Would Limit Use of Stun Guns

2007-03-01T21:32:00.000-05:00

Sister of shooting victim works to get guns off Brockton streets

2007-03-01T21:24:00.000-05:00

(Isn't it more like - - - 'shooting victim' is actually 'victim' of someone's violence who used a gun' who could have used a knife or a vehicle - so lets round up all illegal knives and cars and let the criminals back out unto the neighborhoods because of social and political programs - Hello! Wake up people it is NOT guns! It is violent PEOPLE!)

By Mike Underwood, Enterprise special correspondent
BROCKTON — The heartbroken sister of shooting victim Jason Fernandes is urging parents to get behind a campaign to rid the city's streets of illegal guns.

“For me, this campaign is very important. Parents should be more on top of their children and should educate them more about violence and guns,” said 30-year-old Elisa Fernandes.

Texas Bills Would Limit Use of Stun Guns

2007-03-01T21:23:00.000-05:00

Sheriff's deputies now armed with stun guns

2007-02-28T06:13:00.000-05:00

Office spent $35,000 for 43 of the non-lethal weapons

Lake County Sheriff's Office deputies are now packing double heat after the County Board approved a $35,000 purchase for 43 stun guns for the department.

Electro muscular disruption systems -- or Tasers as they are commonly known -- were approved earlier this year for all deputies. While some deputies had been carrying stun guns, County Administrator Barry Burton said the latest purchase will allow every officer to carry the non-lethal weapon.

The Sheriff's Department has acquired 43 new Taser guns for its deputies.

In 2001, about 1,000 of the nation's 18,000 police agencies were using Tasers.
By 2005, more than 7,000 police departments in the United States were using them.

A government study estimates that police have deployed Tasers more than 70,000 times as of 2005.

Amnesty International said it has logged at least 156 deaths across the country in the previous five years related to police stun guns.

Source: The Associated Press
Tasers are stun guns that shoot barbs into the skin which incapacitate muscle functions with 50,000 volts.

The board approved a no-bid contract with Danville-based Ray O'Herron Co. as the "sole authorized police distributor." Because the gun's model is not available from any other source, the purchase was approved by the county's Sole Source Committee, Burton said.

The Sole Source Committee is a committee of non-elected representatives from various county departments, including the State's Attorney's Office and Finance Department, that reviews no-bid purchases to ensure compliance with state purchasing laws governing public bodies.

Tasers have been used by deputies in the past, but have only recently begun being used department-wide, said Deputy Tom Rovetuso, of the Sheriff's Office training division.

The Sheriff' Office considers them to be a safer alternative to using a baton or wrestling with a subject, because it keeps deputies out of harm's way, Rovetuso said.

Taser use is seen as a non-lethal use of force, but there is no concrete regulation in place as to when deputies should use them.

All deputies have been trained to use the weapon when they find it necessary, Rovetuso said. They've each been Tasered as well, to give them a better understanding of what the weapon does to muscles.

No deputy has discharged his or her weapon since they began issuing them in mid-January.

The Sheriff's Office previously used Tasers, but discontinued their use about two years ago after the weapon's manufacture faced legal battles over whether the stun gun was deadly, Rovetuso said.

Although they are not intended to inflict lethal injury, "less-lethal" or "compliance" weapons do sometimes kill people. Amnesty International has documented more than 150 deaths that occurred after the use of electroshock guns.

As different parts of the body differ in vulnerability, and because people vary in weight and fitness, any weapon powerful enough to incapacitate is likely to be capable of killing under certain circumstances.

Harlem police add six TASER guns to arsenal

2007-02-28T06:12:00.001-05:00

HARLEM, Ga.---A local police chief defends his purchase of new TASER guns, saying they're less lethal than any other weapon on the force.

The Harlem Police Department has joined Aiken County in giving each of its officers a TASER gun. The department ordered six of them to use on suspects who don't cooperate.

But both Richmond and Columbia counties aren't convinced they're safe.

Imagine 50,000 volts penetrating your body. It may not be fun, but the Harlem Police chief says it's not as dangerous as some might think.

"We know what this is capable of," Chief Jerry Baldwin told News 12. "You have no control of your muscles whatsoever."

The Harlem Police Department now has six TASER guns.

TASER guns are tools meant to immobilize suspects who don't cooperate with police.

Two wire probes penetrate the skin.

"It does hurt for the five seconds," Chief Baldwin said.

The $600 guns also temporarily disrupt motor skills, causing a person to fall.

Col. Gary Powell of Richmond County says that's risky.

"We just don't want to take that liability until they're proven to be effectively safe," he said.

The Richmond County Sheriff's Office has decisively chosen not to purchase TASER guns due to news reports of TASER-related injuries and even death.

"(We're) just kind of sitting back and waiting for more research and a better outlook for them," Col. Powell said.

But Chief Baldwin is already sold.

"This is probably the best tool that's been introduced into law enforcement," he said.

Up until now, his officers have relied only on batons and OC spray as alternatives to bullets.

Chief Baldwin showed us security measures built into each TASER. There are serial numbers on both the cartridge and confetti released after the shot.

The chief can even track how many times a TASER was pulled from an officer's holster.

"Provided you have a strong policy in place--which we do--and the officers use these TASERs correctly, then there shouldn't be any issues, period," he said.

As part of their training, five Harlem police officers were tased, including the chief. Of those five, only one of them bled and needed a band-aid.

But the chief says that injury is nothing compared to the bruises a baton might leave on somebody.

Amnesty International is criticizing TASER gun manufacturers. The human rights group reports 103 TASER-related deaths in the US and Canada between June 2001 and March 2005.

But TASER International, Inc. claims the guns have saved more than six thousand lives.
Reporter: Kate Tillotson
Email Address: kate.tillotson@wrdw.com
February 23, 2007

Seabrook police officers to sport new Taser guns

2007-02-28T05:36:00.001-05:00

SEABROOK – By next week police in Seabrook will have another tool on their utility belts to help them do their jobs.

At least seven officers will be carrying Tasers, the latest non-lethal weapon developed for law enforcement officers to use to bring to an end potentially dangerous situations.

"We've been watching other departments' use of them for quite some time," said Seabrook police Chief David Currier. He said his biggest concern was that the weapon would be safe for use on the public. Currier said he learned that the Taser is safe to use even on someone with a pacemaker."The Taser shoots high wattage but low amperage charges of electricity into a person, rendering them completely helpless for about five seconds" so police can get them handcuffed without a fight, Currier said.

Many surrounding towns, including Hampton, Portsmouth, Salisbury and Amesbury, Massachusetts carry Tasers. Currier said as of last June more than 60 departments across the state carried Tasers.

Currier said if his department had the Tasers he might not have lost two officers to on-the-job injuries in recent years. One officer has been out for more than a year after he was injured fighting to take a suspect into custody. The second officer was out for several months due to a knee injury he suffered in a separate but similar incident.

Tasers can increase safety of not only officers, but suspects, Currier said. He cited a New Years Day incident in town in which a suicidal person was barricaded in his home and was threatening to harm himself with a knife.

Police tried to talk the man out of harming himself, but did not get too close lest they be forced to use deadly force on the person. Instead they waited until a Hampton officer arrived armed with a Taser, which was used to safely bring the man into custody and get him to the hospital.

In the past, police who had to fight with suspects would resort to using their nightsticks to get an edge on angry suspects. That resulted in numerous injuries to officers and suspects along with opening doors to potential lawsuits, Currier said. Currier said he sent two of his officers to the training school provided to police by the company, Taser International. "As part of the training in the proper use of the guns, they were shot by the guns to see how it affects a person," Currier said.

Currier said much of the funding for the purchase of the $700-plus guns has come from the Seabrook Greyhound Racing Park, owners of which have purchased six. Another person associated with the park picked up the tab for a seventh, all of which Currier believes will be put into the field next week. Since attending the school, two training officers have trained six of the department's 17 patrolmen.

By RICK DUMONT
Union Leader Correspondent

Brunstrom calls for frontline stun-guns

2007-02-28T05:20:00.000-05:00

A CHIEF constable has said he wants controversial stun guns - which have been linked to more than 200 deaths - to be available to "ordinary frontline officers" instead of just a highly trained elite.

North Wales Chief Constable Richard Brunstrom said extending the availability of stun guns or tasers would make a huge difference to policing in rural areas.

But Amnesty International says the guns have been linked to 200 deaths worldwide and the chief constable's plans should be resisted as they represent a move towards an armed police force.

In his blog on the force website Mr Brunstrom writes, "The introduction of taser has been a huge success, but it is still restricted to a handful of specialist officers also armed with real guns.

"We are now considering how to broaden its accessibility to 'ordinary' front line officers so that it can be more quickly deployed when needed urgently.

"This is particularly relevant in rural areas like south Meirionnydd where calling for specialist back-up can take ages, and cause unacceptable risks to members of the public."

An Amnesty spokesperson said presenting tasers as a less lethal option preferable to guns is a "false argument".

"We're extremely concerned about the chief constable's comments. Amnesty is aware that in the US tasers have been related to the deaths of suspects. Also they have not been rigorously tested so a widespread deployment is not sensible."

Mr Brunstrom wants his force to trial a more extended use of the taser in the summer.

Darren Devine, Western Mail