Militarization of Police

Albuquerque PD Adopts the Taser Shotgun

|

Dear Albuquerque readers: Hide.

Police in Albuquerque are now packing the TaserX12, which the manufacturer has chipperly dubbed, "a less lethal shotgun by Mossberg." The guns cost $700 each and the rounds, which are accurate up to 100 feet, cost a whopping $150 per electrocuted (possibly dead) citizen. 

According to an interview the APD did with local TV station KRQE last week, the department is "hopeful [the TaserX12] can prevent some officer involved shootings, but it's not going to prevent all of them…We're not going to stop officer involved shootings, it's going to happen still."

As of right now, only SWAT and special investigations teams have access to the nightmare guns. 

Read about more horrible weapons designed to incapacitate unarmed people at AlterNet. 

Advertisement

NEXT: Tea Party Terrorists, Satan Sandwiches, Global Salvation, and the Worst Law In History: A Guide to Debt Debate Hyperbole

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. They are no match for my boxcutter.

    1. BALKOBOTS, MARCH!1!

  2. Why spend the money? Curbs are free.

    1. Ladies and gentlemen, we have a winner!

      1. CURBS!!!111!!!1

    2. Bravo, my friend. Bravo.

      1. DANCE, PUPPETS, DANCE

        1. RELEASE THE WARTYBOTS!

    3. I don’t get it, please explain,”Curbs are free”.
      thanks

      1. I suggest you watch American History X” before you embarrass yourself further.

        1. Tag fail. 🙁

          1. And joke comprehension fail. The most recent police beating involved acquainting the schizo’s face with the curb, according to witnesses.

            1. I know. I was actually reading HnR today. Bad joke on my end I suppose.

    4. Oh, Warty… you’re my hero.

    5. I disagree with this very vehemently. Curbs, although quite sturdy when first constructed, do degrade over time and will eventually need to be repaired or even replaced. The concrete will weaken over the years, and brutally assaulting a curb with a homeless man’s face does nothing to help their durability. I think that other objects such as fire hydrants or bike racks would show greater long term stability than poured concrete curbs when faced with extended Homeless Cranial Onslaught.

      1. Yo! Luther! You gonna have to give this boy somethin- he havin a ball with this car door!

        Luther! Are you angry with me?

  3. LOL “nightmare guns” keerist

    1. Yeah, what could possibly go wrong with cops being able to electrocute someone 100 feet away? “STOP RESISTING!”

      1. If they actually used them only in cases where they would use a shotgun, it would probably be fine. But I doubt that will happen.

      2. “electrocute” = FAIL

        1. Nothing wrong with using that word, given that the electric shocks have killed people in the past.


        2. “electrocute” = FAIL

          Don’t make me take you to school again over this. I’m starting to get embarassed for you.

    2. Calling them “nightmare guns” is a bit over the top.

      1. Calling them “nightmare guns” is a bit over the top.

        Could be, but I’ll wait to see what the cops actually do with them before I make that judgment.

      2. Agreed. Getting shot by a taser shotgun (which might kill you) sure as well beats getting shot by a normal shotgun (which will kill you). I don’t understnad why we care what kind of equipment the police use, especially considering that it is less dangerous than a normal firearm. The issue with the police shouldn’t be what they are carrying, but their conduct. I couldn’t give two shits if an officer walked around with a bazooka if the officer in question was what a cop is suppose to be. I sure as hell would have a problem with a cop who was unarmed but went around throwing his weight around and abusing his authority.

        1. I think we care about the equipment the police use because of their conduct. If Tazers were only used as an alternative to lethal force where lethal force was justified, then that is all well and good. But that’s not the case; they use them for ‘compliance’, contempt of cop, failure to respect authoritah, etc. And now they can do it from 100 feet away. Hard not to be a little concerned.

        2. Actually, the risk of death from a taser shotgun is constant over a certain range, whereas the risk of death from a shotgun, while very high at short range, decreases rapidly as one gets farther away.

          1. Let’s compare those risks. I’m pretty confident that, where distance is constant, (risk of dying from getting tased) < (risk of dying from getting blasted with a shotgun).

            Police tend to carry 00 buckshot in their shotguns, which is plenty lethal at 100 feet.

            1. Well said, BSR.

              If I had to make a choice, I would rather take my chances against a taser than risking a 00 pellet striking something critical.

      3. This is Mike Riggs we’re talking about. He’s Reason’s answer to Rachel Maddow.

        1. Oh, please. Mike is actually fuckable.

          1. Come on. Rachel Maddow isn’t a bad looking guy.

            1. Hey, I’d hit it. Before I would Maddow, anyway.

      4. Guns don’t tase people…

      5. The nightmare isn’t in the gun, it’s in the indiscriminate use of it. Sheesh, what kind of lefty fear monger thought of “nightmare guns”?

        The only nightmare is that private citizens can’t have ’em.

        1. Sheesh, what kind of lefty fear monger thought of “nightmare guns”?

          It’s called “propaganda.” H&R has gone off the deep end.

    3. note that these are weapons to be used against unarmed citizens.

      Because there is a (too-small) chance that actually shooting an unarmed citizen with a bullet will get a cop in trouble.

      And we can’t have police on the streets without weapons to use on unarmed citizens, can we?

      1. Is there something preventing these weapons from being used against armed persons? Maybe I missed that text.

        1. Is there something preventing these weapons from being used against armed persons?

          Yes, the fact that the cops have real guns to use against armed peasants persons.

        2. Nothing at all. But guns are for use against armed persons, even by citizens not blessed with a license to initiate force.

          You don’t need a taser unless (1) you want to use it on unarmed persons or (2) you are willing leave your gun in your holster and take a taser to a gunfight. I doubt you’ll find many cops in category (2).

          1. Arms != guns

            I’m thinking of persons with knives, flails, swords, maces, nunchucks, battle-axes and the like.

            1. Possession of which will result in Officer Friendly blowing you away. Hell, they’ll blow you away if you have a stick.

              1. Or a whittling knife. Or a particularly sharp tongue.

              2. or 3 cans of Steel Reserve.

            2. If those weapons put a cop in reasonable fear, etc., he can and should shoot them down where they stand. Just like any other citizen

              If they don’t, then it sounds to me like the situation hasn’t escalated past the talking stage.

              Either way, I can’t see more than a tiny sliver of opportunity for appropriate use of occasionally-lethal weaponry like tasers by police.

              1. The point of less-lethal weapons is to replace guns in situations where a shooting would be justified but not necessary.

                If someone’s pointing a gun at you or plausibly about to do so, you have to stop them immediately to protect yourself, so a gunshot is probably necessary. If they brandish a knife 5 feet away, the taser should suffice to stop them before they can do you harm. If you didn’t have the taser you’d probably have to shoot the knife-wielder too.

                1. If you didn’t have the taser you’d probably have to shoot the knife-wielder too.

                  I’m OK with that. Its legitimate self-defense, no double-standard.

                  The problem is that police don’t only use occasionally-lethal weaponry as a substitute for justified lethal force.

                  They use it when lethal force isn’t justified at all. Because they have it, and they can, and because fuck you, “civilian”.

                2. If they brandish a knife 5 feet away

                  I hate to break it to you, but if they’re gonna use that knife and you haven’t already drawn, you’re already dead. Taser, gun or whatever.

                  1. I’ll have you know I have the reflexes of a cat and the dexterity of a bush baby.

                    1. I wasn’t aware that the bush clan was known for their dexterity. I guess it makes sense though, junior was a cheerleader.

            3. or Skittles

  4. So now plastic yellow squirt guns will have to be banned so that the cops don’t mistake them for real tasers.

    1. Yellow means caution. All squirt guns will be a federally mandated baby blue in color. Blue is the color of safety.

      1. Which is why government workers who beat up homeless people wear blue uniforms.

      2. “Blue is the color of safety”

        Not anymore

        http://img.poptower.com/pic-56……jpg?d=600

    2. I was just thinking the same thing. How many kids are going to end up dead because someone can’t tell the difference between this and a toy?

  5. How about crossbows, morning stars, and long-swords? They are “less lethal” than shotguns if you don’t aim for the head.

    1. It depends on what number you roll on the dodecahedral die and how many damage points your character already has.

      1. What weapon does 1d12 damage? 2d6, 1d10, sure, but 1d12?

        1. Which edition?

          1. PF. Which makes me think Lucerne Hammer, and Great Axe.

            I’m such a nerd it’s painful.

        2. The greataxe does 1d12 damage when wielded by a Medium-sized creature.

          …don’t judge me.

        3. Call me a geek for know this, a greataxe does 1d12 damage. The good news is the average person has 1d6 HP so on a bad damage roll a cop might not kill you.

          1. Phew, I’m not the only one here…

            1. Tell me about it man.

          2. Ooh, and one of the others is a Pathfinder player as well.

            1. So Earthbreaker – 1d12 also?

              1. You got me on that one, I don’t have an APG handy and no access to the online docs from work. However, if the Earthbreaker is just the PF version of the Ogre Maul then you’re probably right.

        4. I think in 1st or 2nd edition, the Halberd did 1d12, as well. Could be wrong.

  6. Cool, but batons and beatdowns with 4 or 5 other cops are more fun.

    1. But now they can electrocute him from 100 feet away to safely approach for the beatsown.

      1. Good point.

  7. less lethal? is that something like mostly dead?

    1. Hmm less lethal … doesn’t that fall into the same concept category as a little bit pregnant?

      If this thing is less than lethal, maybe gritting my teeth, and with a little more mind stretch I could maybe buy it, but, less lethal still escapes me.

    2. There isn’t a lawyer anywhere that would let you call them non-lethal. So less-lethal implies “usually non-lethal” with a wink.

    3. I think it’s referring to the statistical outcome rather than the outcome of any particular incident. Sometimes you die, sometimes you don’t, but you die less often than with a normal firearm.

  8. electrocuted (possibly dead) citizen.

    If they’re not dead they weren’t electrocuted.

    1. “See, if you’d stick to your 12-point maintinence program, eh, then we wouldn’t have to jump-start you like this. Oh, no, you had to do it your way…you think you know everything, eh.”

      1. YES! My favorite movie.

        1. Doug McKenzie: Chip here does the killin’. I don’t like to kill. I’m the brains, eh? Like, we got over five billion dollars in our hideout, only some of the money’s marked, eh, so we’re not spendin’ it. We’s just waitin’.

          Bald con: Youse guys like a smoke?

          Doug McKenzie: No, eh? We want our lungs to be pink when they fry us. Hey, we told ’em we didn’t want a lawyer. Chip here probably just kill him anyway. Lawyers are for sucks.

          1. I always thought it was Chimp, which makes me sense if he’s a thuggish mute.

            1. I’m pretty sure it was just “Chip”, but your way is better.

              1. Fairly certain it was Chimp.

                1. Watching it tonight WITH THE CAPTIONS ON.

            2. I thought it was Chimp.

              1. The internet is divided:

                “lawyers are for sucks” chimp = 62 hits
                “lawyers are for sucks” chip = 379 hits

                IMDb sides with “Chip.”

  9. officer involved shootings

    Kind of like STEVE SMITH involved hikes.

    1. I’m confused. How could this gun prevent officer involved shootings? Doesn’t it count as an “officer involved shooting” every time an officer fires this thing?

  10. When Oakland BART cops make this mistake, it’s gonna be bad.

    …uh, worse

  11. Looking at the uh, advertisement, they don’t specify what the muzzle velocity on these things is. Too fast and they could kill by simply delivering kinetic energy to a vulnerable body part, too slow and they could be blocked. The whole point of a taser as I understand it is that the target doesn’t have time to react due to the short distance travelled.

    1. Good point. I’m guessing it’s probably comparable to bean bag 12 ga rounds? They run about 250 ft/sec, which is still going to get the round out to the 100ft range before you can react.

  12. “As of right now, only SWAT…….teams have access to the nightmare guns.”

    That’s what has me, and should have the good people of Albuquerque, New Mexico, the most scared.

    1. Right? It’s not like SWAT teams are used sparingly these days.

  13. Florida PD shuttered. It appears they were not only stupid enough to be blatant about their law-breaking, but also dumb enough to pick a fight with the city council.

    1. That’s some Barney Fife police work right there. Planting pot on the mayor’s property, then climbing a ladder to photograph it?

  14. Properly used, this is no “nightmare gun”, despite the fact that Mrs. Riggs’ little boy has wet himself.

  15. Properly used, this is no “nightmare gun”,

    See, also, “begging the question”.

    1. “Who’s being naive, Kay?”

    2. “Nightmare gun” would seem to indicate that this thing is actually more powerful than a gun.

      Unless it’s a weapon that literally causes nightmares from 100 ft away, which would make a pretty awesome Michael Bay movie.

      1. Tulpa, you’re already on thin ice. You bring up his name one more time, and you’re cut from the team.

        1. Michael Bay Michael Bay Michael Bay

          1. Chut up, spoofer.

      2. pretty awesome Michael Bay movie

        The fact that you can string those words together in a sentence means there is something very wrong with your brain, but we already knew that from the Con Air debacle.

  16. Thanks for the nut kick, Balko…er, I mean, Riggs.

  17. Memo from the Albuquerque PD: Stop trying to take away our damn toys! Mike Riggs, I’ve just chambered a “less-less lethal” round with your name on it! Damn lily-livered libertarians won’t let a man have a little fun! Come to our town real soon, so we zap your damn ass Mossberg style!

  18. the department is “hopeful [the TaserX12] can prevent some officer involved shootings, but it’s not going to prevent all of them…We’re not going to stop officer involved shootings, it’s going to happen still.”

    Nice to know there’s hope for the future.

  19. Reason links to AlterNet now?

    1. Shouldn’t you be on the run right now, db?

      1. Didn’t you read the morning links?

    2. Somewhat odd to link to a site that openly wished for the death of the Reason staff. Maybe Riggs is a spy…

  20. Properly used, a giant heavy-duty Maglite will prevent you from falling down or running into things in the dark.

  21. If only the Fullerton Police had access to such machinery.

  22. $150 a round? Expect a property tax increase.

    That’s the reason to oppose the PD having them.

    1. And yet, ironically, they would be almost worthless as currency in the post-apocalyptic Russian underground.

  23. I won’t lie, I kind of want one of these.

    1. It’ll shoot out of any 12-gauge. You just need the ammo. I can think of better uses for my ammo budget.

      1. So it’s just the fancy yellow butt-stock and foregrip that turn a $150.00 Mossberg into a $700 Mossberg?

  24. This might hurt the APD’s “suicide by cop” numbers.

  25. “… per electrocuted (possibly dead) citizen.”

    There’s no possibly about it;

    elec?tro?cute verb \i-?lek-tr?-?ky?t\

    : to kill by electric shock

  26. Fucking sweet! with this i can double my quota of dead dogs (and/or homeless people) per week!

  27. Fucking sweet! with this i can double my quota of dead dogs (and/or homeless people) per week!

  28. I guess the question is whether this replaces the shotgun or the taser.

    If this reduces SWAT fatalities, I’d say it’s a good thing. If a SWAT team gets the wrong house and decides to bust down my door and attack my mini Schnauzer, I’d rather SWAT teams carry these than shotguns.

    However, if the police begin using this as the standard issue taser on schizo bums or for crowd control on rowdy protestors, etc, big trouble and more needless death awaits. I’m sure we’ll see some of both.

  29. Will they install the special “Fullerton edition” reinforced butt. We can’t have the cops risking their lives with Taser shotgun butts that won’t hold up to a prolonged perp beating.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.