Slashdot Mirror
UN Says Tasers Are a Form of Torture
The use of Tasers "causes acute pain, constituting a form of torture," the UN's Committee Against Torture said. "In certain cases, they can even cause death, as has been shown by reliable studies and recent real-life events." Three men — all in their early 20s — died from after tasering in the United States this week, days after a Polish man died at Vancouver airport after being tasered by Canadian police. There have been 17 deaths in Canada following the use of Tasers since they were approved for use, and 275 deaths in the US. "According to Amnesty International, coroners have listed the Taser jolt as a contributing factor in more than 30 of those deaths."
It's lethal rounds or nothing, peacekeepers!
End of lesson. You may press the button.
don't torture me, bro!
...handguns are not a form of torture. Seriously, that's the choice in many situations - crazy meth'd-up homeless guy charges cop with knife...cop tases or cop shoots. Which do you prefer?
JTF: In your heart, you know we're right.
Wtf is Excited Delirium? The Taser company and police department seem to be always quick to blame any deaths associated with tasers on this supposed condition, while APA nor any other medical body recognizes this as any type of medical condition.
Originally, tasers as used in law enforcement were conceived as an alternative to lethal force--why shoot someone when you can use nonlethal weaponry?
Yet it has been proven over and over throughout history that whenever you give someone a nonlethal weapon, they're more likely to use them than a lethal weapon, even though its supposed to be a replacement for the lethal weapon.
And not surprisingly, this has happened with tasers, too; police are using them in absurd circumstances, even in some cases when the subject did nothing beyond verbal defiance, and worse, in cases where someone was "acting suspicious", such as in a recent case where an Egyptian man was tasered on a bus without any provocation--yet these were supposed to be used as replacements for guns, not as general-purpose weapons to put down anyone who looks suspicious!
Acute pain? We can't have that! After all, I guess an impact from a nightstick never hurt or injured on the scale that tasers do.
That's a form of torture too and the kind of "non-lethal force" the police used to turn to. The only difference between beating someone with a baton and tasering them is that the officer using a taser doesn't have to be physically stronger than the victim (err, suspect), and suspects don't think they can fight back like they do against police using batons.
How we know is more important than what we know.
A hat is not enough; I'm going for full body coverage.
Good now maybe it will affect police department policy reguarding them. Remember back when tasers were first issued they were praised as being a non lethal way to stop a dangerous person. Instead of having to shoot a rake wielding drunk you could tase them instead. Now look at it's use today, if you even look at a cop wrong his hand travels towards it. So far removed from its initial purpose I hope this helps bring it back toward it's proper applications.
Tasers are torture--time for cops to go back to the old methods of non-lethal deterrence: bludgeoning, beating, and chemical mace.
It seems that police use it as a extra form or untraceable corporal punishment. It's meant to be used as a next to lethal last resort but increasingly it's just replaced "couple punches to the face with a phone book in between". Stories vary but often after a person has put up a fight the police subdue him and then taser them. or use the taser to subdue him but then give a couple of extra shock to show whose boss etc... I find the people to gravitate to or are allowed to be policemen in my city aren't much different then the thugs that watch the exit at bars nor the bullies on the play ground. Anecdotally, a athletic friend of mine who had a black belt was turned down for enrollment into the police academy because he "lack life experience" while an acquaintance who spent a year as a bouncer at a strip club got accepted.
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
Uhhh I don't think anyone is defending taser use against seriously dangerous people. What we're tired of is seeing someone argue with a cop and get tased 5 times. Do you really think if a person is being uncooperative they deserve to be shot? The use and misuse of this weapon is the real issue. If it kills 1 out 100 people that would have been shot instead I'd say thats pretty awesome considering the alternative.
You get death penalty for being a suspect. It makes killing people as simple as pointing and screaming "It was that guy!"
It's not "a form of torture", Tasers are a way for law enforcement to avoid physical contact with an unruly subject without having to use deadly force. The use of this technology also encourages non-contact to subdue a subject whereas in the past up-front physical violence was needed.
Personally, I'd prefer talk/reasoning, then muscle, then the gun. No Tasers.
The takedown (and resulting death) in Vancouver is a good example of overuse of technology. 4 fit RCMP officers couldn't handle one guy?
The issue is over cops who tase people they wouldn't have otherwise shot.
ok, tasers kill some people, and they hurt
except that, you need to give cops SOMETHING to control people. that cops will use these tools outside of the proper scenarios is a given: cops will always use lethal and nonlethal tools in ways they shouldn't. yes, you can make the case that because it is supposed to be nonlethal, they will use them when otherwise a few well chosen words would suffice instead
and still, given all of that, tasers should still be used
simply because there are plenty of scenarios where lethal force shouldn't be the only option available to a cop. i am making the case that the number of lives using a taser instead of a gun has saved outweighs the situations where someone died who didn't need any force at all
in other words, tasers are not perfect. but NO weapons of force are perfect, AND not having a range of weapons of force in police force is a nonstarter (cue the wackjobs who think we don't need a police force). welcome to the real world: there is no silver bullet (no pun intended), there is always a downside between two competing concepts you MUST satisfy
this is actually how propaganda works: you look at the negatives of a technology: say nuclear power, or stem cell research, without looking at the positives, and without the realization that there isn't a better option out there
in life, you are never given the choice between a golden wonderful choice, and a terrible horrible one. in life, most of the time on complex questions like the proper tool for police work, or who to vote for in an election, or how to confront violent fundamentalists in the middle east, there are propagandists (or downright naive or ignorant people) who glom onto the negatives of one particular attitude, and hurl invectives at it, without ANY ocnsideraiton of how much worse the other choices before you are
some naive, ignorant, and propagandized people need to recognize that EVERY choice before us is full of negatives, and it is your job, as it is often in life, to attempt to choose from varying shades of gray, choices that are ALL negative, but one less negative than another
this is called "context"
and simpletons, propaganda, and the naive haven't mastered the concept
in such a way, we complain about tasers, without realizing they are an improvement on nothing but guns and pepper spray for police work. but because tasers still have negatives, people will go in to blinders mode, and whine about that. as if whining about the negatives of one choice wihtout balancing them against the negatives of other choices is supposed to have any value in this life on the complex questions that confront us
"context" people. learn the concept, use it. stop being naive, ignorant, or propagandized
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Tasers are a form of torture. Guns are too by the same rules. Now the two weapons are considered on a similar same level. Does it change your preference whether the guy should be shot or tasered? ... It doesn't for me. Some decisions were made, something was made official. It doesn't support getting rid of tasers.
And don't raise your voice around an undercover police officer.
And don't protest against anything.
And don't "act suspiciously" on a bus.
As long as you remain a complete sheep and don't do anything that might resemble, you know, being a free person, you'll be OK.
Bullshit. Because tasers are supposed to be nonlethal they are often abused and used on people who have broken no laws at all. See the recent case of the man who went into a diabetic coma and was subsequently tasered while lying helpless. See the case of the 87 year old woman who was tasered at her rest home for yelling at a police officer from her wheelchair. Neither broke the law, but both were put in danger.
I fail to see how something that is painful and has a non-zero chance of death is automatically torture and should be outlawed. By that measure we should outlaw the average daily commute.Have you ever been tasered? I volunteered to try it. It really hurts, a lot more than a punch to the face even. Have you ever seen the TV show Cops, where they'll hit a guy multiple times while they're laying on the floor. Tasers make muscles contract, and you fall down. That's great, since then they can subdue and cuff a violent offender. Hitting someone more than once, however, is simply torturing someone into compliance. That is torture, unlike a daily commute. Don't believe me, go to a store that sells them and ask for a test shot, a regular 500K stun gun is pretty similar, if tasers are not available to civilians in your state.
http://news.guelphmercury.com/News/article/263994
According to the Canadian Press (news agency), Taser sues anyone who claims their device causes death. It must be admitted that they have done a masterful job of managing public opinion; or at least cops' opinions. Now all the cops believe that all crazy people have superhuman strength and all need to be treated with nearly lethal force because they might be able to kill several armed cops with their bare hands. (slimy stupid cowards)
After the guy in BC died, the first stories were all about excited delerium. Then we started to hear from real (not company owned) mental health professionals calling BS. One guy who runs a loony bin clearly said that they almost never had to rely on force to control the nut cases therein. Confronting these people with force is the worst way to handle them. They can almost always be calmed. Here's an example: http://careerfocus.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/333/7563/64?etoc
I find it very interesting that Taser International claims that the 150+ deaths that have occurred immediately after the person is shot with the Taser are not caused by the Taser. At the same time their website has pages (see below) of warnings about all the medical risks associated with being shot by a Taser (such as an increased risk of heart attack).
http://www.taser.com/SiteCollectionDocuments/Controlled%20Documents/Warnings/LG-INST-CTZWARN-001%20REV%20E%20Citizen%20Warnings.pdf
As other posters have already commented, it is not the Taser itself that is the problem, it is the use of it. If these were being used only in cases where a firearm would normally be used it is one thing. In that situation a small risk of death by Taser is acceptable when compared to the near certainty after being shot multiple times. But that is not what we are seeing. People are dying in situations where without the Taser they would not be seriously harmed....and that is what I have a problem with.
I think the main problem is that tasers are not being used only as an alternative to a gun. If police were to think "I will only use the taser in the circumstance that otherwise I would be firing my gun," then your point is valid. However, it seems that in many situations, police are using tasers as a way to simply make their job of arresting someone easier.
The videotape of the guy in Vancouver shows pretty clearly that he was not in the process of attacking the police when they tased him. I seriously doubt that the police would have shot him had they arrived without a taser in that circumstance. Without a taser, they probably would have tried to slowly convey to him their intent to arrest him (he didn't speak English), and if unsuccessful they would have had to tackle him and struggle to restrain him. Both processes would be lengthy, difficult, and stressful for the police. Instead, it appears that they took an easy shortcut and just tased him so they could get the cuffs on him quickly. The man paid for this with his life. Without a taser, I submit he would likely be alive today.
So you're right: a taser used as a substitute for a gun (when the use of a gun is warranted) is fine. Using a taser when use of a gun is not warranted is the problem!
Look at the tomato! Isn't it sad? He can't dance! Poor tomato!
Things are going downhill with the UN calling tasering "torture". Because we don't torture, therefore, we don't taser. So let's call it something cooler, hipper, like "waterboarding". I'm waiting for suggestions.
You just got troll'd!
The school's internal investigation determined that appropriate force had been used.
Translated now: The school determined that the use of torture on a student was appropriate.
We'll see how that plays out.
Torture: a method of causing excruciating pain to subdue/coerce a person with non-lethal intent
Weapon: a device used to knowingly kill or severely injure another person
Tell me, which would you classify a claymore mine as?
"I think an etch-a-sketch with an ethernet port would beat IE7 in web standards compliance."
Coupled with the insane amount of terrorist fear built up beyond all reason by government FUD worldwide being used to trash the rights of everyone in the name of 'security' this has resulted in cases like the diabetic who had a fit on a buss and fell incapable of moving, he was reported as strange by the driver, and the cops decided to taser an immobile man for not responding.
:o(
Oh it gets 'better' when he carried on unresponsive, but had collapsed on the floor with his arm under his body, even more concerned they decided to tase him again!
Not that spasaming from an electric shock would ever cause someone to clench their detonator trigger or anything if they were a terrorist (after an empty buss)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/west_yorkshire/7096456.stm
Sadly this wasn't even the US, American gung ho stupidity spreading worldwide
I cant seem to find any confirmation of the 275 killed statistic mentioned in the summary, nor the date from which tasers were approved for use in the US (I assume it will have been state by state..) but if its accurate, and the introduction is with the last 3-5 years then that is a fairly damning figure for a non-lethal weapon (its about the same as three years worth of police related deaths of any kind in the UK and that includes shootings of any type, suicide / other deaths in custody, car accidents etc..).
I suppose though that as a percentage of the number of people tasered in total that its a small number and as such maybe its not the taser that is the issue but the frequency of its use... Saying that I'd rather be tasered than shot, which I assume is the alternative in the US.
As an aside, has anyone else noticed how UK police are starting to look more and more aggressive? It seems that utility belts with military style pouches, stab vests, steel toe capped boots etc.. if worn in a suitably paramilitary fashion (with a high vis of course) really can cause an escalation in tension all on their own. I saw a policeman yesterday (in Tesco's getting himself a sandwich and a salad....) in what I remember from not too many years back as a policeman's uniform, i.e. black trousers, white shit, blue jumper (With 'Police' and loops for a radio on it), hat, shiny shoes etc. I realized that he didn't look even remotely aggressive, quite friendly and approachable. Maybe there would be some benefit in making our police look less tooled up and distant, I mean they can still carry their truncheons and pepper spray, maybe they could also get some slightly covert stab vests, basically anything to make them look less like they are looking for a fight, maybe that would be one way of starting to win back the trust and respect they claim to have lost (they could also start walking their beats rather than driving them, that way they might see a thing or two too.).
Thats all fine and dandy, IF you could actually live your life without breaking a law.
Studies show gunshots and batons cause acute pain.
Also, apparently handcuffs can be quite uncomfortable and inconvenient, so we should ban those too.
I'm a perfectionist but I'm trying to cut back.
They WERE being pushed as an ALTERNATIVE to lethal force ("guns").
They WERE being pushed as "cop is in a dangerous situation, he can shoot or he can use a taser".
Now the tasers are the FIRST option. If the person is not IMMEDIATELY respectful and obedient, it's taser (defined: "torture") time!
So does O.C. spray (speaking from experience). Torture? Sure, both COULD be say if someone were to strap me down and use either in an attempt to obtain information or to procure a false confession from me, etc. If, on the other hand I am tasered or sprayed because I am threatening someone and as such the action is an alternative to being my shot, then please...tase away. "Ouch, that hurts" alone does not constitute torture.
How do they figure 275 people being killed by tasers, when only 30 have been reported as such by the coroners? Where does this figure come from?
If you shoot or beat the shit out of a guy without a Damn Good Reason(tm), you're likely as not to be brought up on charges, be sued, and probably be out of a job as well. If you taser someone, it's much more difficult for them to prove unless serious injury results. Thus, a cop may be more likely to use a Taser as a form of torture or abuse than previous methods.
-b.
I would say any device could be used to a form of Torture.
And when it comes to the law enforcement you'll always have cops torturing people. Always. And often they won't get in trouble for doing that. Power corrupts people, and the only solution is to watch these people.
You just got troll'd!
Just as John Gilmore says, "How many of you have broken no laws this month?"
Tasers don't kill people, People kill people, Tasers defend people from smaller tasers.
Hrm. Your two definitions overlap.
You say an item is a weapon if it can severely injure a person. Yet, it wouldn't be a weapon, but rather torture if it had non-lethal intent.
A claymore can injure a person, but it has non-lethal intent. The purpose of a claymore is to take out people's legs, so they can't fight in battle. Furthermore, even more troops must now carry out the wounded troops, even further removing troops from battle. Many praise how many lives the claymore saves, by causing rather nasty, often permanent wounds. That isn't torture, but something that causes pain as a means to avoid shooting someone is?
Again, tasers are an alternative to shooting someone, and beating them with a baton. People die from gun shot wounds as well, not to mention from beatings. I think tasers are obviously too strong if people are dying from them with any real frequency, and surely there are other non-lethal ways to take someone down. But I certainly wouldn't call a taser torture.
At the root of this debate, is whether or not is wrong to cause a person pain, when you are trying to take them down. I'm sure the bleeding-heart crowd would rather that we not cause any pain what-so-ever, when a meth-addict charges a cop with a knife. In a very calm tone (as to not torture them with stress) we should politely ask them to put down the knife, and if they stab the cop, well, what can you do?
http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
You don't really get to ask questions to body parts, so claymore mines aren't a form of torture.
You might as well have stated "Nukes/boms/missiles aren't considered torture."
At which point your fallacy would have been more obvious.
If you can read this, I forgot to post anonymously.
Less than 150 incompetent drivers died when a tire blew out and Firestone [the tires not the stores] became history. But everything is OK in the name of the "War on Terror". Front page paper today had a article the fire and ambulance people are being trained to "sniff out suspected terrorist and activities" -- http://www.caller.com/ Sad.....very sad.....but at my age I probably will not see The Big End(R) after 2016. [eat, drink, and be merry....for tomorrow you will die in a dungeon somewhere]
I've always viewed the U.N as a corrupt orginization and an enemy of the US. I'm sure many agree.
Actually, the UN is pretty mild in what it does, mostly because the US set it up that way. If the UN actually were a democratic organization, the US and Europe would fare far worse. That's not "corruption", it's reality.
The best thing the US can do is listen to what the UN has to say, because sooner or later those impoverished and powerless people that make up the majority of the world's population are going to be not so impoverished and powerless anymore.
If tasers were only used in situations where the only alternative was to shoot, I'd be fine with that. But they seem to be used in situations where the previous method would have been to talk to the suspect/victim and attempt to calm him down.
-b.
I think, whenever someone resists arrest, the police should be all like, "well, I guess we have to let him go -- wouldn't want to do anything that could cause acute pain (for anyone's definition of 'acute') or has the possibility of resulting in death". Geez, what if the guy has blood clots in his leg and tackling him might cause an aneurysm? Best not take the chance.
And guns send a projectile at high speeds hurtling through someone's body...
Death != Torture
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
A Taser Shot used where before a Gun was used is not torture or used in replace of getting close and beating the guy down.
Using a Taser for Torture would be zapping the guy to get information from him, or for micromanaging what he needs to do. Tasers and other forms of punishment are needed for the Extreme STOP IT NOW because you are threatening myself or others. vs. You are not an immediate threat to my or other health and safety. But the UN makes it Illegal I guess it is back to the good old Night Stick where you just beat the guy to near death and at risk of hurting yourself. It is labeled torture because even though it was marketed to you as a non-lethal alternative to guns, it is in fact being use to force you to RESPECT MAH AUTHORITAY! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IMaMYL_shxc
You can't take the sky from me...
Tasers are supposed to be a replacement for guns. Instead is has become a replacement for "Stop!". I have seen videos of people been tased several times for not being able to show a drivers license. The US has become a weapon-loving country. Both the public and the police love guns. Here in Norway police don't even carry guns unless there is a case where the suspect has a gun or other equally dangerous weapon. We can keep it like this because most people don't have access to guns, and if they do it is mostly shotguns or rifles for hunting. We also have the lowest crime rate in the world here. Now don't come complaining about how we are a smaller country, because it doesn't matter (you could enforce it at a state level in the US). The biggest problem in the US now is that people are so used to having weapons, and of course that it is in the constitution (though people seem to have given up that anyway). Back on topic: Tasers would be okay if they are only used in dangerous situations (where people can get killed or seriously injured). But since they are not, it should be regulated if not banned.
Nukes/bombs/missles (bombs have a second "b" by the way) aren't non-lethal means to stop people.
Tasers and claymore mines are both non-lethal means to stop people.
I'm sorry that the analogy was like the joke about the ceiling. It was over your head.
http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
I rarely respond to AC's, but what the hell, I'm feeling masochistic tonight.
Your definition (which defers the poster above you, despite both of you assuming the definition is commonly accepted) is based on motive, not method. Fine. In your world, it is torture if the motive is to interrogate or punish.
How are tasers meant to interrogate? And in causing pain as punishment is torture on the whole, then remove all weapons from police officers. Hell, all weapons punish someone with pain. Remove all weapons.
This just in! All weapons are torture! Who knew?
http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
And you damn well make sure your country signed the Ottawa convention before you start bitching about the UN and land mines.
You can't take the sky from me...
While I think that using tasers can be a better idea than guns or nightsticks, you've only got to watch youtube videos and TV shows like Cops to see how much American police abuse their use.
They seem far too quick to reach for the taser, and often use it as an immediate punishment for verbal non-compliance rather than to disable someone who is actually a physical threat.
So much for free speech.
They also regularly seem to shock the target continuously or multiple times sometimes rather than just administer enough to disable them.
I think the US cops could learn a lot by working with the UK cops who often don't even carry weapons. They know how to deal with the same problems the US cops deal with, but by talking and using their heads instead of escalating the violence by attacking first.
We've seen another weapon exactly like this before: It's called a bullwhip. Not the cool toy that Indiana Jones uses in the movies, but the brutal and vicious tool used by slavemasters to punish, abuse and control people since before written history. The only real difference between the taser and the bullwhip is that the taser is easier to use.
Here's a question: How would YOU feel if the police in your country were issued bullwhips to use on citizens? Would you still think of your country as a stable and mature liberal democracy with a history of respect for freedom and with a respected and authoritative "Charter of Rights and Freedoms"?
As a Canadian citizen, I'm appalled with what I saw in the video of the RCMP officers tasering the Polish immigrant in the video that was posted on the Internet: What the hell is wrong with a system that lets that happen?
I call for an immediate and complete ban on all tasers in Canada outside of the military. NO tasers should be in the hands of any citizen, police officer. Any civilian, security guard or police officer found with a taser should be subject to the same penalty as anyone possessing an illegal handgun.
Sometimes the "writing on the wall" is blood spatter...
Your point?
Death != torture
I'm talking claymores and tasers. Neither are designed to kill. Where did death enter the analogy?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claymore_mine
Please know what you are talking about before you respond next time.
http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
So, let me get this straight. Incurring a sudden electrical shock in the human body, a system that is a delicate balance of electric current, can harm the body. Got it.
Bearded Dragon
I'm electrified by this story.
I don't care a whit for the temporal safety of police officers. They knew they were risking their lives when they signed up. What I do care about is citizens being free to go about their business without having to explain themselves or get searched because they look a little odd. The police will take things from your person without your consent, beat you, search your car, then lie on the report, just because they're paying child support to their two ex-wives and are angry at the world. That tape from the hood of the car? There's no reason it can't get lost. The judge will always rule in their cops' favour because they had a reasonable suspicion, and if you spend a few thousand dollars to go to appellate court, you MIGHT get some recourse. Hope you have a witness, and try not to ever jaywalk again.
My opinion is that there should be no protected class of people in whose presence your hands must be visible at all times, and whom it is a great offense to even touch. I take great exception to the idea that anyone should be allowed to stop me on the street at night and demand my wallet and weapons, as to let the peasants have weapons would create a threat to the social order. I have known cops to give law-abiding people a hard time because they had long hair, because they were skateboarding, because they were carrying a bag, and, yes, because they were black. Some of the cops who get away with this stuff are my personal friends. Many Americans have perfectly legitimate reasons to hate cops, and while my experiences have not led me to conclude that there should be no law enforcement, current police authority is overreaching. Those with power will always be insensitive to the humanity of those "below" them, but we shouldn't have this powerful, completely corrupt system backing them up.
I wasn't aware that a claymore mine was considered nonlethal. I'll have to read up on that.
If you can read this, I forgot to post anonymously.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claymore_mine
"...the US forces may legally use the claymore in victim initiated detonation as long as provisions of the protocol are met."
I did study this stuff in the Marine Corps.
http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
The taser is a "non-lethal" ALTERNATIVE to deadly force.
That means that the situation MUST be evaluated to see if the cop would be just as justified in shooting the person.
If three cops are holding down a guy and a 4th cop puts a bullet in the guy, would that be "justified"? Not for most people.
And that is the problem. The situations are "evaluated" to see if a taser was "justified" when they SHOULD be evaluated to see if shooting the guy was justified.
Odd, the Claymore entry on Wikipedia doesn't directly mention that, but the anti-personnel entry does state that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-personnel_mine
"This type of land mine is normally designed to injure--as opposed to killing--as many enemies as possible in order to increase the logistical (mostly medical) support required by such an enemy force. Some types of anti-personnel mines can also damage the tracks on armoured vehicles or the tires of wheeled vehicles."
The claymore is often "aimed" low intentionally to only take out legs. It isn't a traditional explosive, which will kill people, but rather it is designed to send shrapnel to injure you. If you can't walk, you can't fight in combat.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-personnel_mine
http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
It doesn't matter if it's on YouTube or LiveLeak or wherever. The citations that can be made for improper use of tasers are many. They've become an unfortunate and easy and deadly choice.
I understand that police officers are confronted with hell and tough choices, but they have to make the proper ones, and tasers ought to be a very last resort, not one that simply allows a cheap way out of a potentially hostile situation. I feel for peace officers, but tasers remove the peace from the officer at the increasing cost of lives that shouldn't have been taken under the circumstances. That poor Polish immigrant in Vancouver-- he didn't deserve to die. It granted judge-jury-executioner status to the mounties at Vancouver Airport. They are none of those. It's abhorrent.
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
...use rattan. A good old rattan cane, backed up by a solid baton. I've once seen somebody who's been caned for multiple extremely stupid traffic offenses, and believe me - after strike 1 - you ARE out of commission. And the pain is disabling, IMHO everything you need.
Tasers should be the replacement for using a handgun on the suspect's legs.
If that doesn't work - get a well-trained dog that will grab the suspect by his family jewels without biting them off - instant compliance, across every cultural circle.
Let's see who some of the members of this committee are who are telling the world about what's torture:
Egypt
Senegal
China
Cyprus
I guess these countries don't engage in any torture
Which is funny because the wikipedia article on the Claymore mine itself states that the explosive charge on the device was measured specifically to maximize the range at which the explosive charge contains lethal force.
I'd call that a lethal weapon myself. I would also not list a chainsaw, broadsword, or katana as a nonlethal weapon if it were intended to be used to hack off limbs so that the target would bleed to death - exactly what those claymore mines do.
If you can read this, I forgot to post anonymously.
any less of a form of torture than tasers?
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
Is time worth a life? Can you wait a minute, potentially diffuse a situation, and save someone from dying?
Or is it: fuck it. Taser the sucker. I don't care if he/she croaks.
I know what kind of peace officer I'm willing to pay for: a little patience in the face of hostility. Tough to do. Might take a little patience and/or courage.
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
The fun part in all this is that violence will only escalate.
If the "less lethal" weapons are abused like this, the resistance will continue to grow ever more lethal as well. If we live in a society where cops are a threat, the result will be more dead cops because normal non-violent people suddenly need to be armed for self-defense.
A man (or woman) needs no weapon to be deadly, even the weakest little person can kill with the proper technique. I think we need to take these bad toys away from today's infantile police force and go back to teaching them how to survive on the street: intimidation and hand-to-hand combat. Guns are great if you're a thug (or trying to solve the thug problem), but for everything else they're useless and more dangerous than the situation itself.
-Billco, Fnarg.com
"This government does not torture people."
What?
Why don't we just ask criminals nicely to surrender and stop their attempt to run away. We could use mean looks and stare at them angrily. If they don't comply we can repeat our request for them surrender and add the words "or else". Ever see the movie "Demolition Man"? We could even shine flash lights in their face. That'll stop them! I don't support cops tasing grandmothers in wheelchairs. However, I'm amazed at the liberal compassion for hard criminals. There's a reason why it's called law enforcement. They must be armed in a manner which will enable them to neutralize their aggressors, or they will be of no use. That might actually cause pain to the law breaker. But we can't let the man who just raped an 11 year old girl experience any pain while we try to stop him from running away, no, that would be torture.
---- "Excuse me. Where's the children's gun section?"
a former deputy sheriff. Don't point a gun at something you don't mean to kill. In this case, a Taser is a GUN. The lack of regulation and procedures regarding their use is troubling. If the paperwork involved was half of what was needed after pulling a gun then the incidents of their use would go down.
I believe a Taser is a safer and effective weapon, but should be respected just as much as a firearm when its drawn.
Part of that enforcement means the police need to have the ability to arrest people, and to force the issue if people resist.
That's perfectly fine, but we're talking about the situations when officers cross the line beyond necessary force to subdue. You can arm a law enforcement officer with a non-lethal weapon to use to subdue suspects, without condoning or allowing the same weapon to be used as an implement of torture.
25% Funny, 25% Insightful, 25% Informative, 25% Troll
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
Is not taser in relation to firearm, but taser in relation to other submission mechanisms, in particular the more class is submission holds, batons, etc. That's really what it comes down to: You are going to have situations where suspects will not cooperate. They aren't a situation where lethal force is called for, but nor is it an option to just let the person go. So what needs to be evaluated is how dangerous are tasers as opposed ot simply using physical violence, because that's the other option.
Don't think for a minute that it isn't a risk, either. People can be permanently injured or killed when it is physical restraining methods use, both the suspect and the officer are at risk. So that's the real question: Is a taser safer than the alternative of using non-lethal force? Doesn't matter if it isn't 100% safe, if it is safer than the alternative, then it is the way to go.
As someone who used to work in law enforcement (San Diego 1993-1997) I think I may be able to shed a little light on the subject. You see, in the academy you're taught a concept called "escalation of force" (some instructors may also call it "the force ladder"). What this means is that there exists different levels of force, starting with Vocal (basically shouting "Police! Stop what you are doing, NOW!") and ending with deadly force (your firearm). Between those extremes you have varying and increasing levels of force (baton/PR-24/Asp; pepper spay or mace; etc). Usually you want to step into a situation using a level of force sufficient enough to stop whatever situation you're facing, and in many (but not all) cases this usually means going one level above the force being used against you or the person you're protecting (I know what some of you are going to say about that but remember - it's not the officer's job to have a fair fight, it's his job to STOP the fight in its tracks). One of the issues is that not all agencies arm their officers with all the less-than-lethal options available to them. This can be a real problem because, for example, you can easily have an encounter where you come in using the lowest level of force but the situation escalates (thereby requiring the officer to also increase the level of force he's using). You can already see where this is headed - the fewer less-than-lethal alternatives an officer has at his disposal, the more quickly he ends up pointing a gun at someone. If anything, someone should tell the UN that actually BANNING tasers would be inhumane. Also, as some other posters have already pointed out, it's not that tasers themselves are that bad; the real problem is that now we have officers badly misusing tasers. I believe if academies did more to emphasize APPROPIATE usage of tasers (much like they do with firearms) then their usage wouldn't be so controversial.
This space for rent!
touchy feely progressive that can make press releases is the real torture.
It's easy to criticize tasers without proposing an alternative that doesn't include nightsticks, physical beating or guns.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
The definition of peace has been perverted to mean maintenance of subservience. You will obey or you will be put down. Circumstances be damned. Kneel or die.
Everyone speaks about the risks our policemen endure, but no one talks about why they're enduring them in the first place. People are extremely fearful of police, and if you've had contact with the American variety then you know why. The reality is police manufacture incidents. What I mean by that is upon confronting you, they interpret your every reaction as guilt. In fact, there's generally a predetermination of guilt. You're placed in a position of proving your innocence. People respond to this in several ways; nervousness, fear, confusion, irritation, and a desire to flee.
So why are people fearful? Because police often misinterpret minuscule movements and black objects as instant threats. There is no reasoning, no respectful requests; there is only your submission. If you're unfortunate in that you're misinterpreted as a threat, police will unload their clips on you. You will die. Knowing this, the natural instinct for citizens is to flee, which causes police to initiate maneuvers to contain and bind you. The taser is their tool for speeding up this process.
It does not matter what the situation is or your age or your location. They could be questioning you simply to harass you, because you're suspicious, or because you're engaging in a crime. All are considered equivalent scenarios requiring your 100% submission.
So what do we have then? We have a tool--the taser--that operates as a population control device, which is sad in my opinion because freedom of movement as well as freedom from overbearing government officials that dictate your innocence or guilt on the spot is exactly what the forefathers had escaped from. Of course it's really our fault. Enacting a law for everything only empowers them and disarms us because at any given moment we're all likely to be violating at least one of those laws, thus giving police vindication and morale grounds for your interrogation.
Camping on quad since 1996.
But the UN makes it Illegal I guess it is back to the good old Night Stick where you just beat the guy to near death and at risk of hurting yourself.
The UN is not really a government, and cannot make things legal or illegal. It has all the legal authority of a debating society.
-- Support a free market in the field of government
Exactly,but why even bother with tasers? Just shoot the bastards. Or better yet, bomb the building. How's that for expediency?
sigfault. core dumped.
I'm not sure what you're trying to imply, but the US doesn't have a good track record on the issue of land mines.
The UN, in fact, has tried to ban land mines. The fact that some mine types aren't included in the Ottawa treaty is a political compromise to get at least the worst kind of mines banned. But the US didn't even sign that compromise and continues to manufacture mines.
But, no, land mines aren't "torture", they are something even worse: they are designed to permanently disable and kill.
Since Tasers are torture I guess the police have to go back to using clubs and guns as their only weapons.
If someone is passing you on the right, you are an asshole for driving in the wrong lane.
If tasers are outlawed...
only outlaws will have tasers.
Maybe the problem with batons is that they can cause permanent damage. You are trying to subdue someone and hit them, but crack their skull and cause permanent brain damage. Maybe the good police want tasers because it gives a less lethal, means of subduing someone
That's absolutely true, tasers are devices with a very valid purpose. Don't assume people criticizing how they're used are anarchist tree-huggers. Too many people and organizations do seem to forget what less lethal means -- it means they're still dangerous devices that should only be used when absolutely necessary. Firing a taser should be treated like firing a gun in terms of procedure -- in many places it would immediately remove the officer from the street while a civilian review board looks at the case. We've seen cases here in Texas where it was clear that the officers basically used the tasers as a form of entertainment because they were annoyed by someone talking back to them. A taser isn't meant to make up for a small penis.
That said, I think you underestimate how many police and military organizations outside the first world genuinely do seek means to actively assault people without leaving evidence. It's not an accident that our friends in Central and South America switched to using electrical torture and other evidence-less means of persuasion in the 80s, when we wanted to support them but found images of mangled dissidents or dead relatives politically troublesome on the evening news. I suspect the UN is a little more concerned about how tasers and similar devices are used in those places than they are about how they're used in Akron, Ohio.
Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
Basically what it comes down to is how they are used. If you can't subdue someone any other way then it obviously isn't torture. If you believe it's the only way to subdue someone without causing serious harm to an officer, bystandards or themselves, then it doesn't constitute as torture. If someone is caught j-walking and the police immediately pull out a taser and zaps him, following it up with a few more zaps as he asks "what the hell was that for?" then you could consider that torture. But trying to say that all taser incidents are obvious forms of torture is crazy since they cause no significant/life-threatening/terminal harm to someone who is in good physical shape and if used in the correct instances. Just because something isn't a magical way of fixing a problem you have doesn't mean it isn't a better way to handle it. If used correctly tasers are some of the most useful tools at the disposal of law enforcement. Anything can be used incorrectly, and in a way that would constitute it as torture, for example; beating the shit out of someone with a nightstick when they had started to follow your orders after the first hit. Tasers are no more inherently a device of torture then anything else.
If i had one dollar for every brain you dont have, i would have $1.
What you are describing is a "force multiplier". One cop + one taser = 2 cops (effectively).
When you start to see a taser as a way to effectively simulate more cops on the scene is where the problem starts. At that point it becomes easy to justify any usage of the taser.
The standard should be whether the cop would be justified using a gun instead of a taser. And the cops should be held accountable for using a taser as he would for using a gun.
Otherwise, the cops will be justified for using a taser on any person for any reason. Just as we are seeing now.
Not exactly. If a cop would be justified in shooting the person, then the cop should shoot the person for the cop's own safety.
Tasers are for cases when, for example, you have a small (e.g. female) cop who needs to take down a guy who is unarmed but huge (and the guy is drunk and won't come peacefully, etc.). Another example would be when a guy is waving a knife around, threatening to kill himself, and the cop reasonably thinks he'll really do it. In both cases, the cop wouldn't really be justified in shooting the person, but would put himself in danger of physical harm to tackle the person.
Every use of a taser should require the officer to file a use-of-force report, and these reports should be scrutinized. From what I understand, this is already done in some jurisdictions in Canada.
http://outcampaign.org/
If the meth addict charges a cop with a knife, the cop should skip the taser and go straight for the gun.
Can you be Even More Awesome?!
...then they'll be really pissed off about my 40 S&W, 10mm, 38 Special, 357, 20-gauge shotshells, and the shit-load of "underpowered" 22LRs that I have squirreled away. I'd like a taser, but as a one-shot defensive weapon, the odds of using one to stop an attack of some psychopath are pretty low. Give me a concealed handgun with a couple of 16-round magazines to balance the odds against the psychotic animal attacking my family.
As long as that sovereign nation is the United States, of course.
... that's not the choice in many cases where tasers are actually used. Countless YouTube videos prove it, and those were just the incidents caught on film.
consequences like death?
Wrestling down a suspect may be easy, but wrestling a suspect and not letting them grab the gun/tazer etc. from your belt might not be as easy.
Saying Java is nice because it works on all OS's is like saying that anal sex is nice because it works on all genders.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/11/14/children.tasers/
This is very close to a no-win situation. You try to prevent killing people by providing tasers as an alternative to guns. In my opinion, that's perfectly valid and how it should be. Then cops overuse and abuse their power since the taser won't actually kill their target. I think we're all in agreement that sucks. So which is worse? Only offering cops the option of lethal force which they'll be more hesitant to use but will cause near-certain death when it is used or offering cops an option that they'll abuse and will harm a lot more people but (theoretically) kill or maim none? Obviously the ideal situation is that cops get more and better training and take using the taser more seriously. That said you're never going to prevent 100% of abuse of a situation like that, and it's going to get significantly worse as long as cops are underpaid and tend to attract the type of people who shouldn't be cops in the first place (policemen, firemen, and military are the three most likely professions for an abusive husband/boyfriend). In an ideal situation police officers and teachers should be some of the highest paying professions so that they attract the best candidates, instead of being some of the lowest paying professions. But then again if the world was ideal what would people on Slashdot have to complain about?
That rogue cop seems retarded (the way he talks etc.) ... One can still hope that the sorry state of the US will be fixed some day, at least the fact that such incidents have to be recorded is a silver lining on the horizon.
"I love my job, but I hate talking to people like you" (Freddie Mercury)
Exactly.
If the person dies, they wouldn't have been conscious of the consequences, right?
Look, in that case it might be murder or manslaughter, but I would be hard pressed to suggest one can torture to death someone who is in a coma.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
The problem is, a lot of cops don't know when it's appropriate to use either.
A lot of cops don't know when it's appropriate to use either. If you want to be a LAW *ENFORCEMENT* Officer, you should be physically strong, mentally awake and morally straight (you know, like a boy scout!) The standards for police officers should be raised and their pay should be raised with it. The bad cops should be fired and there's a hell of a lot of them around the media lately.
If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
In part this may come from a change in the attitude of the police from one of "serve and protect," to one of "control and contain" the population. Things like the Taser make it easier for them to keep away from any sort of "social" or intellectual contact with the people; they can just quickly end any sort of situation without thought - they just blindly use their "training" for each and every situation and thus maintain the us-vs-them attitude. Of course, maybe kids have changed, and perhaps Tasers and intimidation are the only way to deal with them these days. Whatever the reason, it seems like a not so good situation for our country to get itself into.
They are tasering 12 year olds. If a person cannot handle a pre-teen child's tantrum without a Taser, they should not be in the police force. While I'm at it, just why CAN'T SIX (count them, SIX) policemen handle a single "Don't tase me, bro." college student without a Taser or other tool beyond handcuffs?
But of course, this is neoAmerica, and torture of non-citizens has been approved at the highest levels of our government; it is only a short matter of time before torture is approved for citizens as well.
There are more than a handful of videos and reports about officers using Tasers in situations that are not potentially dangerous. However, it is important to realize that individual departments decide when Taser use is appropriate, and the officers are held to this. The majority of police departments place the Taser at the same level as OC spray (Pepper spray) or above, which is logical because using OC spray is close quarters to other people means that everyone gets it, not just the suspect. Some departments state that it can only be used at the level where danger is imminent- a suspect is actively fighting an officer. This is the placement on the force continuum that I believe is the most proper. Finally, there are a handful of departments that have policies that place the Taser at the same level as using any sort of contact. This is where you get cases of people being Tased for non-compliance. Although I have not looked at the policies of the departments that these incidents come from, it is logical to believe that it is mostly from these departments. If any officer uses force contrary to department policy, serious reprimands follow, as they should.
The problem is that police and security guards perceive tasers as harmless, and feel free to abuse the crap out of them. They show little hesitation in using them even on people who are not resisting arrest.
I think that tasers are a good tool, but most police forces just don't seem to know how to use them properly.
There's also the well known problem that police work attracts some people who just want to be in a position of authority in order to bully people. I like to think that this is the minority, but everyone knows that these guys cause big problems for everyone and generate a lot of hostility between the police force and the general public. I wish departments would do some psychological screening and background checks on candidates and reject those with abusive personalities. I think if you got those guys out of the picture, you'd run into a lot fewer of these "accidental" killings.
Tazers as a means to take someone down without putting bullets into them are a good thing. However, like any tool, once it is proven useful for one thing, its not long until you start looking for other uses. And that is the danger. If a Tazer is a safe way to take down a drunken and violent man easily, what about someone who is resisting, but not violently?
If you see an armed man about to harm someone, you shoot him. But what if he is not armed? You wont use a gun because you probably do not want to kill someone. So maybe a baton / club is justified, so you thump his skull a bit. But what about a retreating shoplifter? Beating a thief might be a bit of a stretch. But what if you do not want to cause injury like a broken arm or a concussion? Ok, go for the Tazer. How about some guy who is causing a public disturbance? Umm, why not use the tazer there too? Unruly protester? Tazer. A protester engaged in civil disobedience? Tazer again. Someone just being generally uncooperative? Tazer.
A tazer is essentially a means to apply force with what amounts to mimimal or no consequences. In 99.9% of the time it resolves the situation in the favor of the police with minimal effort and no harm to anyone. Once in a while, you get the guy with the bad heart, which sucks, but as they say, 'shit happens'. Tragedies of that sort aren't what you should worry about. What you should worry about are those cops who are just a bit too eager to resort to force. A thug cop who would not dream of pulling his gun in a given situation will be all to happy to get you to shut up and do as your told by zapping the crap out of you a whole bunch of times.
The use of Force is most likely to be abused when the consequences for it are minimal.
END COMMUNICATION
Handcuffs and batons are torture, too. Tasers don't torture people, police do.
If the US and Western Europe aren't making the rules, somebody else is.
I didn't say that the US or Western Europe shouldn't make the rules. I'm simply pointing out that nobody in the US or Europe should live under the illusion that the rest of the world likes us a whole lot. You should realize that the UN criticism, rather than being "corrupt", is likely rather weak in comparison to what the world population as a whole actually thinks. Despite our noble self image, to most of the rest of the world, we are likely spoiled, arrogant, and imperialistic (which is not at odds either with people wanting to come to the US or Europe in droves).
not all governments derive their power by the consent of their people
Sure, but so what? Do you seriously believe that if you ask the citizens of North Korea or Iran, they are going to be any happier with US government policies than their repressive governments? In fact, we support repressive governments in Saudi Arabia and other parts of the world because we know that the citizens of those nations would be even less friendly towards us than their current repressive governments if given the chance for self-determination. We have, at times, quite democratically decided that our governments should screw other people, and they often aren't happy about that, and why shouldn't they be?
Yes, we can make the rules. I also think we could do a better job making the rules.
The UN is not a single room of the worlds leaders debating every topic. Most people know this in theory, but don't think about it much. It's a huge bureaucracy with hundreds of "committees" such as the "UN's Committee Against Torture".
Some things coming out of this beast are more much more important and meaningful than others. This particular note is, IMHO, pretty low on the tree. It certainly isn't coming from the Security Council.
Can a Taser be used for torture? Yep. So can just about everything else in the room I'm in. Electricity, water, ceramics, keys, phone book, pens, electrical cords... I'm sure if Jack Bauer were around, he'd find some way to use the fern in the corner to extract the secret location of the nuke from the bad guys this season.
So is this an argument for not carrying those weapons, or that those weapons should be the first line of defense to prevent them from falling into the wrong hands?
Clones are people two.
You want to argue that tasers are being used when they shouldn't be. Sure, many times they probably are. What about the times tasers are used instead of a gun, resulting in fewer deaths? 300 taser deaths vs how many non-deaths from the ability to subdue a suspect without using a gun? Where are the statistics for that? Certainly any method of subduing a person is going to have risks for all involved parties, but with proper oversight and training, tasers seem to be the best option available for the police.
but with proper oversight and training,
And that, ultimately, is the crux of the matter. They aren't getting either, and that is resulting in unnecessary deaths. That's the reality of it. Consequently, questioning the continued of Tasers by law enforcement is entirely legitimate. If they don't know how to handle a dangerous device such as a Taser, they shouldn't be allowed to use them. We don't let just anyone carry a badge and a gun, and since the manufacturer's claim of non-lethality for Tasers is demonstrably false we shouldn't let just anybody carry one of those either.
The presumption seems to have been that since the police are trained in the use of firearms they are automatically qualified to be issued Tasers. The further assumption was that Tasers can't hurt their targets. Both assumptions have proven to be way off base, and until we have standards in place to keep the number of abuses and corresponding deaths to a minimum, Tasers should be out of the hands of cops.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
Okay... Tasers good OR bad one thing no one here should be able to dispute is the physics behind the damn things... two prongs either pushed out by a compressed gas or held against a persons skin... two points of contact which an electrical charge is put through. Most people who say they are safe and get tasered to prove it are usually ONLY in a very mildly agitated state (they are bracing a little for the effect, its not a fun time) now a person in that state has a great deal of electrical resistance (in Ohms, not political resistance) which means at 50,000 volts, its not going to be a huge amount of current (or Amps) going through that person, and they will only experience Tetanus (the state of the muscles being forced to contract due to the electrical being passed through the body) and while painful and not a fun time, its relatively harmless. Now protestor, really freaking amped up on Adrenaline probably sweating like the dickens, seeing a whole whack of police officers coming towards him, maybe theres a scuffle, police pull out the taser, the amount of electrical resistance this person has is a great deal lower, so 50,000 volts, and a great deal LESS electrical resistance according to Ohms law says... more current, aka more amps... while I haven't actually seen/experienced it, most sources I have come across say that about 1amp can kill you, the less electrical resistance the more chance a taser can kill you. Its simple physics... and being Nerds we should know that you really can't get around them.
Paperwork is the cure for all abuse. At least when you talk to any government dweeb.
HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
I don't advocate the censure of Canada; but the issue seemed to have been Canada's treatment of natives and immigrants.... That such a motion 'nearly passed' says more about the decline of the status of Canada than about the UN.
As an immigrant to Canada I can definitely say that it is an extremely welcoming country in both its government and its people. Look at the outcry here that has resulted from the tasering incident in Vancouver. This was clearly not government instigated and it has shocked the Canadian public. To accuse Canada of human rights abuse because of this incident is simply insane.
It certainly does not show that Canada is in decline - it was simply a stunt by Iran to distract from its real human rights and nuclear issues! All it shows that the UN has a bureaucracy that allows stupid things to happen from time to time, like every other government in existence....but just because something can be abused does not mean that we'd be better off without it.
Yeah, they needed to wipe out that nasty Pole. I mean, he threw a computer on the ground. Clearly a dangerous individual. Besides, he couldn't speak English.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Hmm. Fair enough. Please pass that message onto the government of the United States of America also. Much appreciated.
"Thanks for all the money you paid to us. We've used it to buy off ISO among other things" -Microsoft
As always, force should be a last resort, but honestly being tased is very unlikely to do any permanent damage, and gets the point across amazingly effectively. I'd rather police carry them, as it would probably reduce the number of total injuries or deaths caused by the police, assuming they are properly educated in proper use and dangers inherent in their use. Torture implies causing pain for pain's sake. No particular method of force can be called inherently torturous unless there is no obvious way that it could be used as a legitimate means of force. Tasering isn't inherently torturous (though it can, of course, be used to torture in the wrong hands). We have enough trouble with actual, real torture by our government. Let's try to avoid making it up where it doesn't exist.
--The universe will not be altered by forum threads, even those which are very wry. --Tycho Brahe (Penny Arcade)
Violent? Yes. Torture? Hardly. Law enforcement personnel use these weapons as a means of subduing potentially dangerous criminals. They're not strapping people down and prodding them. It is unfortunate that some people die as a result, but they really shouldn't be breaking the law in the first place. According to this Wikipedia article, 245 people died between June 2001 and June 2007 as a result of these weapons. Compare that with the 423 gun-related homicides in my home state of Michigan alone in 2005. Here is the thing that really pisses me off about the laws surrounding these weapons: I live in the Detroit, MI area. Tasers and stun guns (electroshock weaponry in general) are illegal for anyone to buy or own here (except for police). Of course, we can still all buy handguns at our leisure. I don't own a gun or an electroshock weapon. I do, however, know several individuals who own handguns. Many of these are people who live and/or work in dangerous areas, so I really don't blame them. Wouldn't it make sense to legalize these non-lethal (most of the time anyways) weapons? Isn't it safer and less likely to result in death if you taser someone trying to harm you instead of shoot them with a handgun? This has never made sense to me and I doub it ever will.
One partial solution would be to incorporate video and audio recording technology into the TASER. An ambient light sensor turns recording on when TASER is withdrawn from holster. When a TASER is fired, the last 30 seconds of activity are recorded. Though there are limits to the effectiveness of this approach (quality of camera, light, lens covered, etc.), it provides documented evidence of appropriate use or abuse.
Watch this video if you want to see what the real issue is... http://youtube.com/watch?v=IMaMYL_shxc Enough said.
Also tear gas, rubber bullets, flash bangs, and other forms of crowd control. Riot cops are the real terrorists and menace to our way of life. Please....
I wrote a blog post that asked the question: Can Tasers Kill People? From that point on, scientific literature did the talking for me. http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2007/11/scientists-tase.html Shortly after that Taser International sent sixty demand letters to different news agencies that had run stories slamming their product. Luckily, we did not get one. http://www.edmontonsun.com/News/Canada/2007/11/21/4674977.html They appear to be more litigious than the Church of Scientology. Xenu be praised.
No, torture means "Hurting someone physically or mentally until they will do anything to make the torture stop." So, Mr. Tough Guy, how long could YOU stand being tied up with loudspeakers blasting a neverending variety of sound at you at just under the pain threshold? How many times could I rub a q-tip with concentrated hydrofluoric acid over YOUR toe until you broke? How long could I lock YOU up in a sensory deprivation chamber until you begged to tell me everything if you could just see light again?
Of course, this is all moot; After the evil enemy had tortured you for weeks and weeks on end (lol), you'd break down in tears and tell them whatever you thought they wanted to hear regardless of truth which is why torture does not help to learn the truth and is therefore useless as a tool for gaining intel. Or do you think that all those people the Spanish Inquisition killed for confessing to witchcraft were actually witches?
A taser is less-deadly than a gun, but it's not a safe weapon and cops need to be trained on the use of "non-lethal" weapons just as they're trained to use their clubs, cars, and radios. It's a tool and one obviously capable of taking a life.
Anyone who whines about being modded down should be.
One of the people they came across was someone who had fallen asleep. When they woke him up and told him to leave the beach, he was a bit groggy, and slow to gather his stuff, get dressed and leave. ... so they tasered him.
Now, I don't think that a groggy (nearly) naked guy is the kind of situation where use of a baton would be considered reasonable force. I don't even think it would be considered reasonable to use a half-nelson on the guy. Hell, the only thing that they could do for him being too late on the beach was to give him a ticket.
| But he was tasered.
My only explanation is that they intended the tasering exactly as torture -- and an exemplary action to other beach users that you quickly comply with orders to get off the beach at the stroke of sunset or else!
Sometimes boldness is in fashion. Sometimes only the brave will be bold.
Neither. If it were a simple problem to solve we wouldn't be talking about it. You can't not arm the police (well not all of them) because they would be out-gunned, and you can't ask armed policemen with 20lbs of gear to go hand to hand 1 on 1 with every idiot that is resisting arrest. There are no cut and dry policies to resolve the situation. There are policies in place now dealing with use of "non lethal" force, but the police are not following them. When someone is pinned down under 6 police officers but is still trying to wiggle around, it does not warrant the use of a tazer.
Saying Java is nice because it works on all OS's is like saying that anal sex is nice because it works on all genders.
Man -- I hope you aren't a cop because with attitudes like that, you'd be a danger to your brothers. See, if everyone starts to think that cops are macho egomaniac shoot first types, well, real criminals will take the same attitude and get a bit pre-emptive.
What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
I don't know if you have any siblings but lets imagine that you have sister who you're babysitting. As per mothers orders you tell her to go to bed at eight o clock but she refuses. How would your mother react if your sister complained that you punched her in the stomach to get her to comply? This might seem like a strong simile but both you and the police are put in place to protect someone who are weaker than you, needs to follow instructions, might not no the reason to why it is important to follow these instructions and to punch/tazer them might or might not lead to permanent damages.
I belive that there are few at
"This message was brought to you by Sarcasm and Troll Feeders United (or STFU, for you un-hip people)."
Ages ago I tempted for a cleaning company, except I didn't do windows, we cleared out houses where people had died and other disgusting stuff like that. It was intresting work, although pretty shocking the first time when you realize that this kinda job is not a one off but that you are actually facing overtime to deal with all the incidents.
We usually worked on the order of the local health department or the police although we also did things like cleaning out meatlockers that had broken down during a holiday (you think the myth busters had it bad with the pig?) so basically disgusting work that didn't pay that well but you had a lot of freedom. The boss wasn't likely to show up until it was cleared. And the health workers and cops didn't really care if you took long breaks, if you didn't do the job, they had too.
One of the jobs was clearing out houses of people who were still alive, mental/drug cases who were going to be taken to a mental ward. These weren't evictions, just forced cleanings so that their neighbours didn't have to life next to a rubbish dump while the owner was away.
Occasionally we also helped out with other jobs like clearing the staircases in apartment blocks.
The point is that we were doing a dirty job for not that much pay and sometimes we encountered people that didn't want to cooperate. We had methods for that. We often needed tools, like brooms and shovels and sometimes a crowbar. On a new job, were we knew we had a live occupant, we carried the crowbars in first. You never know if a person is coming out swinging. We were just the cleaners so 99% of the time there was either a health care worker, a cop, or fireman or something similar there to do the talking, but our clear orders were to be visibly there to provide backup. These jobs NEVER went wrong oddly enough, everyone was PREPARED and READY so we knew what to do. We were just there as backup, in sight but not in a threathening way.
The entire trick was that NONE of us was willing to take a risk. IF a person was to attack, hit them, hit hard and don't stop until you are certain they are down. If that means beating them across the head with a crowbar, well, we will understand. Because YOU will NOT want to die for a salary.
A lot of people who never have to deal with anything more dangerous then a papercut will say,"well that is what you are payed for", no it isn't. My salary, a cops salary is/was NOT nearly enough to risk my life for thank you very much and some of these nutters don't care if they loose their lifes, they will do stuff that is insane because they are insane.
People loose it and until you have had to deal with such a thing you are in no position to critize. It only went wrong once, we were asked to clear an apartment but found some stuff in the hallway and didn't know who it belonged too. So we asked the neighbours and at one doorbell it went wrong. A woman opened the door and we heard someone started cussing and screaming and all of sudden a young male rushed out and started attacking us. I and another guy were on the landing, the other guy was extremly large and I am reasonably build and this guy was skinny, the rest (three more) were busy in the apartment. It was all we could do to restrain him. In a normal fight between two agressors ANYONE of us could have beaten this kid senseless BUT we weren't there for that. We just wanted to do our job (it is illegal to keep stuff in apartment hallways, fire regulations) but were nice enough not just to junk the crap and we get attacked for it? It took all five of us to restrain him. What if he had attacked with a knife or had some muscle? I am not going to walk even the slightest risk. You attack me, you die. I am no hero. If we had a taser on us, he would have had so much juice pumped into him they could hook him up to the grid.
As it was I just delivered a few very hard punches to his stomach until he stopped struggling and we could turn him over to the police. He was puking on the ground but if he had tried to get up he
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
That is one of the problems, there is only so much space on a cops belt, even a US cop. Those net guns (I know them from a girlfriend who works for an animal shelter) are not exactly small or that cheap. To big to carry around and to expensive to put in every squad car.
As for getting a pair. Okay, lets. You and me, YOU have to follow the rules, I don't and can carry a knife and if you happen to die... well though, but if I get the slightest bruise, you loose your current career.
Tell me, what is your current job. Have you EVER been in such a situation? Or is the biggest problem you got to deal with that deadly risk of a papercut when you sort out the printer?
Grow a pair, become a cop. I posted my own experiences somewhere else and frankly those who claims cops should just fight the criminal one on one are full of it.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Have you noticed how the officers often shout like this:
"CALM DOWN!! CALM DOWN **IMMEDIATELY** OR YOU WILL BE TASED!!!"
That instead of something in the sense of:
"Please calm down, Sir. Just relaaax.... take it eeeeaaassyyyyy...."
The first alternative will clearly trigger a high stress response, such as people shouting back. They are then tased, using the aggressive behaviour as a justification. In the cases of resisting arrest charges, this seems like entrapment to me.
And I firmly support coming down like a ton of bricks on any officers that abuse their authority, especially when it comes to causing harm. However that's not what this is about. People want tasers banned outright. They think they are bad, because they have bad uses. This is pretty stupid if you asked me. I personally think a lot of it comes from this misguided mentality that police are evil and the only people they go after are innocent. While there certainly are bad cops and innocent people get hurt by them, by and large the people the police are arresting are guilty. Also by and large those that have a taser or something like that used on them do so because they are resisting arrest.
In our society we have decided it isn't ok to resist arrest. This is the case in almost any society, free or oppressive. It doesn't work to have rule of law if you are allowed to resist the law and get away with it. So when someone does resist arrest, the police need the authority and the tools to bring them in to compliance.
I have very little sympathy for people who get tased when they are struggling with police. That creates a danger to you and them, they are perfectly justified in making you stop. If you feel the arrest is illegitimate that's great, doesn't give you the right to fight back. You still need to go with them, then fight it in court. Similar thing to if you get fired and feel it was on illegal grounds. That doesn't give you the right to deck your boss, you need to go settle it in court.
The problem of police crossing the line isn't related to a specific tool and you don't solve anything by taking the tool away. The cop who's taser happy will just become baton or choke hold happy if you restrict them to using physical force. The answer is holding bad cops accountable for their actions. The only way the taser should be banned is if it is more dangerous than the alternatives. The less lethal means used to subdue people should be the ones that we can find that are the least harmful. That means causing the least deaths and serious injuries. If the taser is worse than batons and submission holds, then ok let's go back to that, but if it isn't then we should stick with it.
I am from holland and we got the SAME crime rate as the US when you stop and think. You got to look at the crimes that are crimes in BOTH countries, murder rate, same. Petty crimes, same. No we don't have the same number of drug cases or prostitution cases as the US. Our crime rate has shot up. The idea that Holland is some kinda safe haven is based on stats from the seventies and everyone in goverment is very carefull in launching any real probes into how a low crime country has things like Holleerder.
This country has really gone downhill. Ask yourselve, if this country is such a nice place, why were two people killed for speaking their mind and just who fired those grenades at the bunker in Osdorp?
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Do you know what the word ALMOST means? Tasers are ALMOST never deadly. The police ALMOST never uses tasers. The police ALMOST never acts wrong.
So what is all the fuss about, about something that ALMOST never happens.
Really, ALMOST is a weasel word.
I want to hear numbers and I think that you will find that you then find that your definition of ALMOST is very different from that guy who runs the local loony bin. I would also very much like to see how many times it goes deadly wrong or how many patients he has released that were not cured at all.
In holland we have something called TBS (Ter beschikking stelling) which is a sentence given to people who are insane and basically forced them to undergo mental treatment. The problem? Well, for reasons of idiocy the mental wards have been made private so that now they get payed according to the number of cures, cue endless stories about people released who commit the same crimes or even being let out on leave (with a guard who is not allowed to use force or restraints) and commit crimes and go right back in. Oh and in holland, escaping is not a crime.
Frankly a lot of these crazies the police have to deal with are the result of incompetent doctors. If the shrinks did their job better the police wouldn't have to deal with that many crazed out idiots.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Well here's the ting: The cases of cops using tasers for minor things are the exception, not the rule. They are all you hear about because that is all that is news. You won't very well see a news story that goes "A suspect got violent with police today when they tried to arrest him, police tased him and he was arrested without further incident." However it is news (and should be) when a bad cop shocks someone with no good reason.
What it comes down to is that saying no to being arrested isn't a legitimate answer, and in any society that wishes to have a rule of law, it can't be. The You can't hold people accountable to the law if you can't force them to submit to it, the first step being arrest. Certianly you first tell them they are under arrest and attempt to peacefully restrain them. However if they start fighting the police have to fight back. It can be a physical confrontation, trying to put the suspect in submission holds, hitting them with batons, fists, whatever, using chemical spray, using a taser, etc. Point is that is isn't an option to just say "Ok well they are fighting so let them go." Also it isn't as though just getting in a scuffle is safe. The suspect and be hurt, and so can the officer, especially if the suspect is larger and high on drugs (a number of drugs provide a near immunity to pain as well as a great deal of adrenaline).
Just because someone isn't holding a deadly weapon doesn't mean they aren't a danger. In fact, in your axe scenario, the cop will have their gun out. It's past a taser at that point.
A good number of cases where people are mad about taser usage, they really aren't thinking. The most recent example is the "Don't taze me bro," guy. That was an appropriate case to use a taser, or other means to help restrain the suspect. He had been told to leave, they attempted to escort him out, he then started attempting to run to the stage, they grabbed him and he started fighting. This is safe to no one. What happens if he manages to grab one of their guns? What happens if they decide to try and wrestle him down and end up choking him? Hence the use of a taser.
A person is still a threat until they've been cuffed. Once their hands are under control, there's little of real danger they can do (and their legs can be cuffed if they start kicking). Trying to drag someone along who's flailing and struggling is asking for trouble. As such, they had good cause to tase the guy and get him subdued.
A more apt analogy with the family would be if I told my sister to go to bed, she repeatedly refused, so I tried to escort her to her room, she fought back and started trying to hit me. Mom probably wouldn't have a problem if she got socked in that case.
Even then there's no direct analogue since as I said: In a society with rule of law, the ability to hold people accountable to that law must exist. That must include arrest powers, and those powers need to be something you aren't able to refuse. If you don't have this, you cannot have a real rule of law since those who are willing and able to resist arrest will just operate outside the law. Force should never be the first option, but it must be an allowable one.
This is wrong. The sad fact of the matter is torture works, and it works well. That's why it's still used. The belief that it doesn't work allows you to square the intellectual circle, I suppose, allowing you to claim torture is wrong even in the "ticking bomb" scenario. But you're wrong.
I totally agree with you, the cases we hear about the bad apples are not the norm just as the "what if a methed out drugger attacked you" cases not are the norm.
;)
I never said anything about letting someone go but I believe that you can make a situation worse by acting in a way above the need in the specific case. If not at that instance then maybe the next time something happens. There is a chance that you are reinforcing peoples fight instinct by giving the impression that they are getting hurt what ever they do. It doesn't matter what the actual norm for when a tazer is used is. The important thing is what people _feel_ will happen. Maybe we do need more reportings on when the police did use a tazer in good situations. If it's not good news then we need to find a way to minimize the events of bad usage and make sure that there are consequences of using it wrong. Or as you did in your post now explain why a seemingly bad usage might actually have been reasonable.
I would think that a tazer would be good against someone with an ax. Guess it depends on the range the perpetrator appears but if he "appears" at an effective range of the tazer then it would be as good as gun. At longer ranges a gun may be more appropriate.
I agree, the police needs to be able to do their jobs but it must also be possible to hold them responsible for their own actions.
I think what we're disagreeing on is where the line for when force is acceptable should be drawned.
Oh and I think your mom would be displeased with the both of you
"This message was brought to you by Sarcasm and Troll Feeders United (or STFU, for you un-hip people)."
Need to keep their noses out of sovereign individuals' businesses. This history of illiberal governance is really scary, and offensive.
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
Don't tase me bro!
You may be sure, but apart from your claim, there is nothing to support this strawman. Maybe rather than invent absurd oponents you could actually respond to things which have been said?
"When someone is pinned down under 6 police officers but is still trying to wiggle around, it does not warrant the use of a tazer."
Then this is precisely what they should be doing in the first place. Patrol in groups and you won't ever have to go 1 on 1 with anyone. One fool with a knife is no match for six cops. If the criminals have greater numbers, call for backup -- the answer can always be superior numbers, up to the point when the bad guys start shooting and you call in the SWAT team to shoot back. Actual murderers are by far the exception rather than the rule and passing out lethal weapons like candy "just in case" rather than treating the special circumstances as such generate, as demonstrated, a series of fatal accidents waiting to happen.
Don't be so fucking stupid. If she were to repeatedly cause you pain (e.g., pinch you), so as to compel a behavourial change in you, then yes, this is torture. If she were to do so as an agent of the State, then hell yes, it is torture.
And as for throwing away the rights of law-abiding citizens, that is the whole idea of limiting State use of force against people: you never know when you are going to be the one on the receiving end of the force being used. Remember: as long as your guilt is not proven in a court of law, you are to be assumed a law-abiding citizen. Now here's a little thought experiment: do cops get to taser you before or after you have been in court?
Mart"I know I will be modded down for this": where's the option '-1, Asking for it'?
If you don't do anything to provoke the officer(s) to use the taser, then you won't be tasered. If you do get tasered and are innocent, then I guess you'll be getting an apology and probably some money. But if you're resisting arrest, or breaking some other law and not cooperating, you deserve to be tasered, billy clubed, shot, etc. Police should err on the side of public safety and they need the proper tools for enforcement. When you scale statistics to country populations, 1 in 1,000,000 odds start appearing more, especially with today's media. The UN is good for a number of functions, but policing and enforcement has never been a strong suit.
Now that jackass in Utah probably didn't deserve to be tasered for speeding, but he brought it on himself by getting out of his truck, challenging an officer, waving his arms, and having an attitude. Dude, it was a construction zone and you got busted. You're 28; I'm sure you've driven through one construction zone and seen the signs since you got your drivers license. Pay the ticket.
"The quality of life is determined by its activites."--Aristotle
I don't know of a single person with six feet tall legs.
- Those that believe ANY sort of coercive interrogation is torture
- Those who believe that the ends justify the means
Why don't people who exist in between ever speak up?!
If I am living my life further for 30 years longer with a heartproblem or it ends now because I got in touch with a Taser;
...
I'd say the cause is the Taser which has for sure shortened my lifetime
--- I am known for the ones who want to find me on the net. Is that a privacy risk or a privilege? One might wonder..
Tasers have their proper use and proper place. Calling them torture is alarmist and absurd. They don't really hurt. I've been shot by my own Taser (in training), and while I would call it very unpleasant, I would not call it painful. It's like being sat on by a very heavy person and having all the air forcefully expelled out of your lungs. The itching afterwards is also very unpleasant.
First, a Taser is not a non-lethal weapon. It's a less-lethal weapon, and should be treated as such. It cannot kill a normal person under normal circumstances, but people under the extreme influence of drugs (a state of excited delerium) can have their status exacerbated into one known as "aggravated delerium", which is almost 100% fatal.
Using Tasers for "acting suspicious" is also absurd. They are designed and should be used as a weapon to stop imminent violence or flight. I have used mine three times in the line of duty.
The first was a fighting suspect who had jabbed another officer in the stomach, and only had one handcuff on and was about to break loose. In this case, the wires broke and I had to chase him four blocks.
The second was a 6'4" tall, very well built person, who had already broken my hold when I tried a non-violent handcuffing technique and took a swing at me. He promptly surrendered afterwards.
The third bit me, kicked another officer, and broke the nose of my sergeant, a 24-year-veteran who has seen more street fights in real life than I've seen in movies. We tried everything before the use of the Taser, because of fears that the Taser could react with the drugs in his system. The only reason I used the Taser in this case is because if I had not, I would have had to shoot him. He successfully fought of six officers at once and was *attacking*, not trying to escape.
If misused, the Taser can be torture. Properly used, it is a life-saver.
Pepper spray, on the other hand, *is* torture. I flatly refuse to use it for any reason. It hurts like hell for hours, continues to burn for days, and lacks the stopping power of a less-lethal weapons like punching, using a baton weapon, or using a Taser.
The Naked Man Story (from my friend's blog).
The citations that can be made for improper use of tasers are many.
Then your task is simple. Cite them from more than one fringe website.
Is someone actually caring what the UN says? Really? That is sad.
I would be a hypocrite if i agreed with you.
The UN should exist as a non binding arbitrary between nations ( we don't all agree all the time ), and to facilitate 'group' projects sponsored by member nations. Nothing more.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
IF we got the same crime rate (in areas you can compare) as other countries, that have different legal systems, does it actually MATTER what legal system you have or does crime ALWAYS fill up to a certain point regardless of the consequences.
This argument goes both ways, if a criminal is NOT less likely to commit a crime when faced with a harsh sentence, BUT if a criminal is ALSO NOT less likely to commit a crime with a lenient sentence and lots of rehab, then what system do you pick?
The system that at least meets out a lot of punishement OR the system that gives criminals a second, third, fourth etc etc change. Both try to claim that they reduce crime but this just doesn't seem to be the case, so then you got to ask yourselve what kind of society you want.
And this isn't as clear cut as you might think, a society with lenient punishment is NOT nicer, it might be that they just don't consider the victim that important. What is different after all between the dutch slap on the wrist for rape and countries where rapist get a slap on the wrist because women just have no rights?
I still like Terry Pratchets answer on the death penalty, when questioned on its use to prevent crime an executioner answers, "well I never get them up here twice".
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
This is equally as bad as medical people trying to sound like they are lawyers... for example, I never write 'alleged assault' on a medical record. I write 'Patient states: I was just standing there and these three dudes came up to me and started whaling on me!' I don't have anything more than a layman's understanding of 'alleged' so I don't use it - with good reason. It would be nice if lawers and cops stopped doing the same with medical terms.
In EVERY case I've seen, the person getting tased could have prevented the tasing by just doing what the cop tells them. The newest one of the guy in Utah is typical of the anti-tasing crowd's fervor. Of course, the Utah guy goes around to all the TV shows displaying his video and "outrage" of being tased for no reason. Well, the news here played the video, but this time, YOU COULD HEAR THE AUDIO. The video goes from, "holy shit, that cop just tased a guy for no reason" to, "moooohahahahaha, that guy is resisting arrest so the cop tased his stupid ass." It's amazing what a little video out of context will do for your case.
Incidentally, I hope they go after the cop and ruin his life. What a freakin' prick.
A guy _in a coma_ on a bus got tasered. How, exactly, can the bar _get_ any lower?
When the amount of paperwork a copy must fill out after using his Taser equals the amount of paperwork required after firing his handgun, Taser usage will plummet to acceptable levels.
I come here for the love
Correlation does not equal causation.
Claymores (and most mines) are designed to kill. The fact that they often injure instead is besides the point.
And besides that, claymores aren't designed to be used against prisoners, and you don't use 'torture' to protect your lives against armed opposition forces. The two couldn't be more different. The analogy is idiotic.
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
The UN states that Tasering is a form of torture. Well and good. Does this mean that tasers cannot be used? I think not. Practically any weapon can be used as a form of torture, down to a billy-club. The problem is the people who wield the weapons, not the weapons themselves. This is the same issue encountered in gun-control. Some blame the guns and the gun-makers, but the problem is the humans wielding the guns. If guns didn't exist, if we lived in the Stone Age, it would be flint spears and wooden clubs. The problem is the sinful nature of Man, he will always find a way to inflict pain.
You're right; let's not charge them with assault and battery. Let's charge them with attempted murder and give them the rest of their lives by themselves to think about what they have done.
-b.
VANCOUVER-A B.C. man who was stunned with a Taser, doused with pepper spray and hit by batons during an altercation with RCMP officers has died, police said yesterday.
Robert Knipstrom, 36, died early yesterday in hospital, four days after two officers called for backup saying the pepper spray, Taser and batons did not subdue the Chilliwack man, whom they said was acting agitated, aggressive and combative in a local rental store.
The case is being treated as an "in-custody" death and B.C.'s Coroner's Office has launched an investigation along with the RCMP.
The Mounties are being aided by investigators from the Integrated Homicide Investigative Team, Abbotsford Police, and the Vancouver Island Integrated Major Crime Unit, police said at a news conference yesterday.
The death comes as the Mounties face intense criticism over the death of Robert Dziekanski, the Polish immigrant who died at Vancouver airport last month after officers used a Taser.
Police said last week that, when finally taken into custody, Knipstrom was conscious and still vocal en route to hospital.
The investigation into his death will focus on the officers' use of force and whether or not their actions were in line with both RCMP policy and the Criminal Code, police said.
The death follows on the heels of an incident in Halifax on Thursday. Howard Hyde, who was diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia, died in jail about 30 hours after he was shocked with a Taser.
The Mounties released a statement from Knipstrom's father, Robert Thurston Knipstrom, asking reporters to respect the family's privacy and apologizing to staff at the rental shop for any distress caused by the incident.
Meanwhile, the B.C. man who shot the video of Dziekanski being jolted with a Taser got a hero's welcome yesterday at a memorial rally in Vancouver.
A crowd of more than 1,000 people chanted "Thank you, Paul," as Paul Pritchard spoke about how he missed a connecting flight from San Francisco before ending up at Vancouver International Airport on the evening of Oct. 13.
Pritchard told the crowd that, despite any statements by the Mounties, he saw Dziekanski being jolted with a Taser and heard his blood-curdling screams in the early-morning hours of Oct. 14.
He said the scenes that he recorded on a video that has been seen around the world are forever burned in his brain.
Pritchard said he met Dziekanski's mother, Zofia Cisowski, before arriving at the rally and that there were few words and many tears.
Speakers at the rally called for the suspension of police Taser use until investigations into Dziekanski's death have been concluded.
You can't handle the truth.
Not tasers, it's the fucking police who kill people.
You can't handle the truth.
It's not my task.
But since you insist: http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/americas/11/25/canada.taser.ap/index.html
from this very afternoon.
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
When someone is pinned down under 6 police officers but is still trying to wiggle around, it does not warrant the use of a tazer.
You'd rather the suspect asphyxiate? Figure 150 pounds per officer, that's 900 pounds on top. Actually, 150 pounds is light, I could see 1200 pounds easy. Of course, they won't all be on the chest area, but I think you might get the point.
I've seen videos of people resisting. I'm not sure that a taser wouldn't be the lesser injuring option.
A single quick shock - and while the suspect has lost the control of his limbs, grab them and finish putting the cuffs on.
From the deaths I've heard about, they all involved multiple shocks.
I don't read AC A human right
The problem is fear. I can guarantee you, the big guys will have a higher rate of tasering, and less chance of compliance than say a 90 lb 70 year old lady who calls the cops every name under the book.. and really they should have the same chance.
waiting for ad.doubleclick.net
No. It *is* assault and battery. Unless there is an attempt to cause death, it is not attempted murder. It is also a cruel and unnecessary trampling on human dignity. However, neither the battery itself, nor the trampling on dignity is sufficient to warrant calling it torture in the absence of inflicted pain or a sense of danger of which the individual can be aware.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
I don't think you actually did, because your post is utterly full of shit. You're a douchebag. I guess before tasers, they would have just shot him in the head. Asshole.
-Clio
Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
One fool with a knife, about to attack somebody, is exactly when the taser should be used. Tasers should have the exact same rules of engagement as handguns. They were supposed to provide an alternative to handguns, not an alternative to a lazy fat cop not wanting to do work. I encourage anybody who was tased when they weren't presenting an imminent, life-ending threat to sue their respective police agencies for as much as they can. Hopefully the agencies will get a fucking clue and start using them right.
Slow Down, Cowboy! It's been 60 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment.
John Titor, where are you now? :)
"Before humanity, the stars shone throughout the heavens. After humanity [has gone], the stars will continue to shine"
A Taser runs off a small battery. Let's assume that the battery is smaller than a car battery...
.02A. And that is assuming something a little smaller than a car battery.
W = V * A and in this case W is going to be constant. This means that if you can get 100A out of the battery at 10 volts (1000 Watts) you are only going to get 10A at 100 volts. At 50,000 volts you are going to get
In reality, a ordinary 9V battery is capable of delivering 1A (or a little less). This is 9 watts. Assuming absolutely zero loss and 100% efficency of the conversion, 9 watts at 50,000 volts is 0.0002A. In reality, there are going to be severe losses and you aren't even going to get that much amperage. The function of a Taser isn't to deliver lots of amps to kill but lots of volts to immobilize.
"one fool with a knife" (especially one who turns out to be on meth) may eventually be subdued by six officers. However, one of those police officers may not go home to their family that night (or, perhaps ever again). Knife wounds can be very lethal and can be inflicted in the initial stage of combat before the suspect is under control. Being a police officer is a job (and, not a great paying one at that). A police officer has no obligation to put themselves at substantial risk of dying just to make life more comfortable for a "fool with a knife". A police officer who stays "on the street" in a high crime area in the United States for 25 years can't take much risk on each encounter or the odds are that they will die "on the job" since they may encounter a situation where, without a tazer, they would need to engage in physical combat with "fools with knives" a few times each year (esp. as the bad guys figured out that the risk of being tazered or shot if they threatened officers with knives was minimal). Deciding to be a police officer should not be a "death sentence". We spend a lot of effort to protect workers in other hazardous jobs, police officers deserve the same.
As well, even if six officers attempt to subdue a suspect with a knife instead of tazering them, some percentage of those suspects will be injured or killed by accident also (ranging from broken bones, paralysis, or death by various means - esp. if the suspect has a medical weakness of some sort).
The notion that police can travel in "packs" of six in case it's necessary to detain a belligernet individual is absurd. Note that when someone is pulled over for a traffic stop and pulls out a knife, the officer in the car doesn't have time to call for backup - (s)he's got to deal with the knife now if the suspect is coming closer to them because backup is minutes away, the suspect is one or two seconds away at most. The notion that, for example, the California Highway Patrol can/should stop having one-person cars and instead have (perhaps?) minivans full of six officers is not cost effective and will result in a reduced ability to respond to situations such as a report of a drunk driver OR about six times the cost of labor.
It seems fairly rare that someone gets tazered when they are following an officer's instructions. Also, I suspect it's rare that being belligerent or threatening an officer actually makes one less likely to be arrested or detained. Hence, it's just stupid to be belligerent or threatening to an officer. There are obviously excesses here and there, but in the vast majority of the tazer cases I've heard of, the recipient worked pretty hard to get tazered.
Note that I'm not defending all uses of tazers (it's hard to imagine, for example, why a handcuffed suspect should be tazered) and policies, training, and disciplinary action should control the use of tazers a bit more than they are now.
Why is there an "insightful" mod and why isn't it "-1"? If I wanted insight, I wouldn't be reading
If the situation calls for a gun, then no other tool will fit the bill. If you can solve the situation without a gun, then you didn't need the gun in the first place. By definition, taser's will ALWAYS have loose ROE compared to guns.
T Money
World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
Torture is still used because it works, and it works because it's still used? That's some nice circular logic there, Lou.
The only reason it's still used because some people are sociopaths who enjoy hurting others (or they are in search of "revenge"). This is why it's generally associated with Soviet Russia, Nazi Germany, and North Korea. It's a verifiable fact
that
torture
does
not
work
for
the
reasons
I
explained
previously.
There Are Four Lights!
Why not go with genocide right out of the gate? That should teach 'em!
I agree 100%. We should go back to cops having no options to deal with non-compliance except beating people with sticks or shooting them with real firearms. That was way better.
Tasers dont kill people. Cops with tasers kill people.
Bright lights + white walls + a cell size of a small closet, where you cannot lie down, + night interrogations for 8 hours and after a few months strong people would sign confessions, which would be used to imprison their families and friends along with their own death warrants. That was widely practiced under Stalin.
Sleep deprivation is often more effective then pulling your fingernails because it breaks your will to fight.
My roommie was just watching VH1's "top ## most outrageous reality TV moment"...and there was this celebrity lady who got taser-ed and was seemingly enjoying it while her friends(?) look amuzed...Sorry, I don't know how any of those "celebrities" are.
The only possible interpretation of any research whatever in the 'social sciences' is: some do, some don't
As it happens I am 6'5" and built like an (out-of-condition) wrestler. Most cops, in ones, twos, and threes, would prefer not to grapple with me. During my 8 years studying ju jitsu I met and trained with many LEOs, and they shared with me that when they saw someone my size their favorite martial art instantly became ching-ching-pow, also known as glock-fu.
I made a policy decision that if I was ever in a situation where a cop might perceive me as a threat I would without delay and without any quick moves put my hands on my head and sit down. I know with what intensity they intend to go home at the end of their shift.
I for one am happy to hear that zap-fu is now more available.
--
phunctor
If the situation calls for a gun, then no other tool will fit the bill.
Your argument is wrong from the very first situation. If a situation calls for immediately stopping somebody who presents an imminent threat, a gun and a taser will do equally well. Except the taser will probably stop the suspect sooner and has less of a chance of killing him.
Slow Down, Cowboy! It's been 60 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment.
And don't question an officers actions, as seen on cops.
And don't get angry/frustrated when you're being mistreated by an officer, as seen on a few episodes of cops.
And don't run from the police, like the 'donttasemebro' kid tried.
My favorite is the threats (empty or not) of sending a K9 unit to attack a 'hiding' but visible suspect. "He'll tear you up, don't make me let him after you."
All of which further the goal of making sure you don't resist physically or mentally.
Remember kids, if you're ever detained or arrested (code for held without arrest) Don't say anything, don't gesture, don't look at anything. Just say the peace officers favorite words: "I want to speak with an attorney."
This causes the peace officer to make assumptions based on the provided evidence only and if (as is often the case with 99.99% of citizens) there isn't anything in front of them they have to let you go.
Detaining someone and depriving him of his freedom is also a form of torture... so I guess the solution is to just stop enforcing any laws.
The truth in the Vancouver case is even worse - FOUR burly cops against a middle-aged man armed with a small table. They tased him approximately 30 seconds after they entered the room. They didn't even make an attempt to negotiate with him (though, given that he didn't speak English, that probably wouldn't have worked).
There's now an official police inquiry; my bet is it will be a complete whitewash.
What was once true, is no longer so
Um, have you actually read the details of the Vancouver case? Four policemen, one middle-aged man armed not with a knife, but a small table. He was hit with the taser less than 30 seconds after they entered the room. He must have worked really hard to get it.
And I call shenanigans on your statement that police officers are likely to "die on the job". Only 60 police officers were shot in the US last year, out of more than 700,000 state and local police (I'm not including federal police.) That's a rate of 0.1%. Meanwhile, there were more than 500 work related deaths in the 800,000+ agricultural workers. You're more than 8 times as likely to "die on the job" as a farmer than you are as a police officer. And I say that with all due respect for the police officers who give their lives to protect us, and with all sympathy for their families.
What was once true, is no longer so
As to limiting the State use of power against criminals, are you saying that limiting the State's use of power against criminals is more important than law-abiding citizens using power against criminals?
"And as for throwing away the rights of law-abiding citizens, that is the whole idea of limiting State use of force against people: you never know when you are going to be the one on the receiving end of the force being used."
-----So the whole idea of limiting State use of power is to take rights away from law-abiding citizens? You *DO* know when you will be the one on the receiving end of the force being used: Be compliant with the law, compliant with officers if you break the law, and do not threaten or pose a danger to other citizens or officers. If an investigation is unlawful, then raise the issue in court. Therefore, they have no lawful reason to use force against me, you, or anyone.
How does taking away power from citizens to use against criminals limit the State's use of power against criminals? (What are you smoking??)
As for your "Thought experiment": You get tasered BEFORE you go to court, ONLY if you A) Assualt an officer during an investigation, B) Refuse to comply with lawful commands issued by an officer (stop, put your hands up, get on the ground) during a lawful investigation, C) Resist a lawful arrest, D) Become combative during lawful detention during a lawful investigation, or E) Threaten the safety of another citizen or officer.
Avoiding getting tasered isn't rocket science: Comply with the law. If you fail that, then comply with the officers. Do not assault/rob/beat/mug/rape/threaten people.
Knowing Google's lust for data collection, the Soviet Union is still alive and well inside the psyche of Sergey Brin....
...Ever hear of the Afghan commander who was confined to a 4'x4' cell with only Windows ME and a keyboard missing the Ctrl, Alt and Del keys??
My hair stands on end thinking about the poor man's ordeal. Last I heard he was being treated for massive depression...
Cripes.. didn't Orwell say something like this over 50 years ago? I don't have a copy of Nineteeneightyfour available, but I'm pretty sure O'Brien says something like the purpose of laws are to make all people criminals, so they'll be scared and cowed by the state. Sounds to me exactly what's happening in Canada, the US, and Britain.
What was once true, is no longer so
I was responding more generally to the notion that tazers are inappropriate because officers should respond in teams (apparently in teams of six) and wrestle knife wielding "fools" to the ground instead of using a tazer.
As I noted, there are tazer abuses and, perhaps, the Vancouver case is an example of this. I would not presume to have an opinion on this specific case without seeing at least a detailed impartial analysis and the evidence (and maybe even then I would conclude that there was insufficient reliable information to form a firm opinion). Certainly, however, I could not form an opinion based solely on the fact that (1) the weapon was a table and (2) the tazer was used less then 30 seconds after the initial threat. For example, if the middle aged man was in good shape (or appeared to be anything but feeble - police actually don't have a chance to administer strength tests and EKGs to a suspect before responding to a physical threat by the suspect), the attack was in a narrow hallway where only one officer could access the suspect, and the suspect was swinging the table vigorously while approaching the officer rapidly, the use of a tazer might be completely appropriate.
I never claimed that police officers are "likely to die" on the job. I asserted that police should be able to pursue a lifelong career "on the street" with an expectation that they will have a very small chance of dying on the job and that expecting police to engage in hand-to-hand combat with a knife wielding "fool" instead of using a tazer (or, I suppose, just killing the person since if a tazer is unavailable, that's the realistic option) is inconsistent with that expectation. And, yes, I would believe that swinging a table at police in an threatening manner in an enclosed area at close range is working pretty hard to evoke a response from the police that is sufficient to stop that behavior without putting a police officer at substantial risk of personal injury.
Why is there an "insightful" mod and why isn't it "-1"? If I wanted insight, I wouldn't be reading
There's already the Ottowa Treaty, signed by most countries of the world - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottawa_Treaty. (Prominent non-signatories are India, Russia, China and the US. I'm shocked, shocked I say.)
"It doesn't cost enough, and it makes too much sense."
You must be projecting. Where did I say the second half of that statement?
Gee, you managed to find a list of biased articles quoting people who claim to 1) know that torture doesn't work, and 2) never have engaged in it themselves. So either they're lying, or they don't have firsthand knowledge. Which is it? Your "verifiable fact" looks a lot more like working backwards from the "right" answer.
Of course people will say anything to make the torture stop. But that in itself is no obstacle to gathering information. When you put the thumbscrews to someone you make sure you have a way to check out the story, and you make sure the subject knows falsehood will bring back the pain. Verification can be done by obtaining corroborating physical evidence, but if you have a group of people, especially if they were taken unawares and separated immediately, you can keep at it until the stories agree. If you have one guy and no way to verify the story then, yeah, torture doesn't work in that case.
Oh, and one other thing... I don't have to rely on speculation to know it works. Khalid Sheik Mohamed was waterboarded for two and a half minutes before he sang like a canary. And everything he said was verified through physical evidence or financial records.
Whether or not it's always unethical to engage in torture is a pretty tricky question - there's no getting around the "ticking time bomb" scenario. But don't pretend your wishful thinking regarding the efficacy of torture allows us as a society to avoid asking the question.
For me, if someone has information that will save the lives of my friends and family, he better give it up.
...why not rename them to phasers? and since they can also 'deactivate' a person, we can name the deactivation action 'stunning'...you know, the stun setting... :-)
The U.N. also thinks genocide (when they actually get around to recognizing it) is a form of population control too.
It was only September 18th when the U of A student tasering incident article http://politics.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/09/18/1239237 went up and I recall how the posts supported the use of tasers and even at that particularly unwarranted situation. I remember it vividly as it prompted me to post http://politics.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=301041&threshold=1&commentsort=0&mode=thread&cid=20656011 not only about the topic but my fellow Slashdotters belligerent responses. Now I'm seeing some dramatic changes from you folks with respect to the usage of tasers so I'm wondering what happened. Interesting which posts just 2 months ago were modded up there versus now in this thread.
Seriously, though, I've never seen such a reversal here in such a short period of time without good reason so I'm stumped!
That's just my POV... no more, no less.
But how often are tazers used only once? Even Andrew Myers was given multiple shocks and he was already in police custody at the time.
We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
"Alternative" and "replacement" mean two different things. You use the terms interchangably and that is improper. The idea of the taser is to allow a police officer the ability to control a situation without having to draw their firearm which, if used properly and within all applicable laws and regulations, is still going to kill someone.
Yes, I agree there are some seemingly absurd circumstances where they should not have been used. However, if strapping a Taser to each LEO out there allows one less person to get his head blown off by a trigger happy rookie or one less innocent bystander to be hurt by a suspect because the cops don't want to pull their sidearm, I think they are worth it. The middleground between inaction and lethal force is where this thing lives and breathes.
Seriously, just ask yourself: After a night of heavy drinking would you rather wake up in a detention cell with a couple of shockburns and a headache or, say, in the morgue with a Y shaped incision running from your clavicles to your pelvic bone listening to the morticians crack jokes about "nice groping?" Police are people too, and therefore subject to the same lapses in judgement you and I are. If an error is made by me or by a police officer that results in me getting shot, I'll take the voltage and not the lead.
In fact, the device is under quite a bit of sceptical scrutiny because it is marketed as a personal defence accessory. Oddly enough, though not for being too heavy handed for civilian use. Quite the opposite actually. Many critics are concerned the device is not as effective as it needs to be to provide security. If even personal security is questionable with this device why-oh-why the hell would you "replace" police firearms with this thing?
When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
If the taser will do the job better and faster then the gun is not required for the situation. The first rule of gun usage is that if you draw your gun, it's because whatever you are drawing on needs to die. If you don't intend to kill, you shouldn't draw a gun. Like I said, by definition, a taser will always have a lower level of force usage than a gun.
T Money
World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
Quote me where I advocated that, and then we may have a civilised discussion. If you're going to persist in strawmen, sod off back under your rock.
Mart"I know I will be modded down for this": where's the option '-1, Asking for it'?
About a week ago, a taser apologist was on the CBC, iterating all of the cases where a police officer was unexpectedly killed on duty where pre-emptively tasering the subject might have saved his life. The list of such examples included a couple of cases where the cop was gunned down on what appeared to be a standard traffic stop.
In other words, if he gets his way, the next time you get pulled over for speeding, prepare to be 'preventively tasered' before the cop asks you for your license and registration.
Sometimes boldness is in fashion. Sometimes only the brave will be bold.
You know, I'd like to see a study on that. I do know that all the fatalities I've heard about were with multiple/long shocks. I also know that there have been fatalities from more 'traditional' arrest methods - to include asphyxiation.
I'm pretty sure we only hear about the problems and abuses - making them seem more common than they actually are.
I don't read AC A human right
I built homemade claymores in the field. And a grenade has an injure radius of 45 feet, but that doesn't mean it kills within 45 feet. Claymores are deployed low to the ground, and shoot directly outward. With any explosion, the blast will go up and down a bit, but the brunt of the blast is low to the ground.
Standard land mines however just pretty much kill.
http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
And why are you holding up a sample of one out of the hundreds (most likely thousands) of people held in total at Gitmo, "extraordinary rendition" sites, and those formerly held in abu Gharib as an example of how torture works? If anything, he was a unique case. Khalid isn't/wasn't the stereotypical jihadist or suicide bomber (a young man with raging hormones who can't get laid (a fact for many men in polyandrous societies) and was told he'd get all the sex he wanted if he'd blow himself up for God), he's smart enough to be upper management in a major organization. As such, he posessed both facts (being upper management) and the smarts to know when the game was over. He'd have talked to the "nice guy" who brought food and chatted with him for a while every day too.
At any rate, this all boils down to who is willing to commit evil in the name of expediency.
"Further injuring a man in a diabetic coma (who would look ill to any sane person) qualifies as attempted murder."
Murder usually requires an intent to kill. Genocide requires multiple (many, many multiples) people, and an intent to wipe out a population. None of these factors are likely to be present in the case you mention.