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.
...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!
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.
More like:
"I say, old chap, don't taser me."
[Zzzzt]
"I say, that was rather rude.
[Zzzzt]
"Bloody hell, please stop tasering me.
[Zzzzt]
"Sod off, you wanker!"
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
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."
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?
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.
How to exhibit good form:
http://www.basicinstructions.net/2007/02/how-to-exhibit-good-form.html
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.
Thats all fine and dandy, IF you could actually live your life without breaking a law.
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!
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
In some places we're already there. The problem is, some cops honestly and truly want to help people, but they have a hard time because of the other cops. From the cops I know, they are already in the minority. The thing is, rules restricting cops from using tasers when no one is being threatened don't interfere with a normal cops duties at all and don't make their job any harder.
Have you ever asked yourself what it would take to make a Cop's job better?Better funding and better pay would be a start. Also, better rules so that the corrupt cops who just want to hurt people and control them are caught and fired so people begin to trust them again. Why would any cop who is honestly trying to help people object to being restricted from using a taser on a person who is no threat?
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
I don't sort out the printer, my hands are far too delicate for that ;)
Nobody is going to complain about a cop using a taser to defend themselves against someone wielding a knife. The problem is that the use of the taser often seems unnecessary.
You can't make the argument that you need tasers to defend yourselves against knives, for instance, and then have your buddies go and tase people for being hysterical, or to "calm them down", or even, in my opinion, for attempting to flee unless you would otherwise have used deadly force to stop them.
If you want to claim that you need the taser to defend yourself against deadly assault that's fine. In return, we will expect you to use the taser mainly in this circumstance and consider other uses abuse and/or torture.
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 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.
"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
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.