Slashdot Mirror


Taser International Wins Lawsuit to Change Cause of Death

I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property writes "Taser International recently started a legal campaign against medical examiners who claimed tasers contributed to the cause of death for several people. On Friday, an Ohio judge ruled in favor of the stun gun manufacturer (free registration may be required). While they do have a number of scientific studies on which they establish their claims, it's interesting that the alternate cause of death they champion — excited delirium — appears only in police reports on the deaths of difficult or drug-addled inmates, not in medical textbooks. Of course, that may change soon — Taser is funding and promoting research on the subject. Coroner reports such as the ones in this case contributed to the UN's opinion that taser use is torture."

577 comments

  1. Excited delirium by sakdoctor · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Sounds like one of those 18th century list of causes of death, where they didn't actually know the reason so they threw in some medical buzzwords of the day such as hysteria.

    1. Re:Excited delirium by xtracto · · Score: 1

      No.

      Sounds like the studies by the Tobacco industries trying to show that smoking does not kills you.

      Now Taser manufacturers can join the M.O.D squad

      --
      Ubuntu is an African word meaning 'I can't configure Debian'
    2. Re:Excited delirium by Random+BedHead+Ed · · Score: 1

      Don't forget the nineteenth century. (As in, "Personally I think these dangerous rabble-rousers have succumbed to brain fever!")

    3. Re:Excited delirium by pinkstuff · · Score: 1

      Oh to be a doctor in those days. I don't think anyone died from Female Hysteria tho :).

    4. Re:Excited delirium by Swaffs · · Score: 1

      A rose by any other name would smell just as sweet.

      What some today call "excited delirium" has been around as long as drugs have. If you search the net I'm sure you'll find plenty of examples. Most involve people sweating profusely, stripping their clothes off regardless of temperature or the fact they're in public, and display super-human strength, able to withstand having several police officers try to pin them, and having absolutely no response to pain. They almost all die. Regardless of what is done, they almost all die. This has been around since long before tasers. People die of unknown causes all the time. Recently, someone (I don't know who) started drawing a connection between such similar cases (which are still fairly rare) and came up with a term to describe the symptoms of this condition: Excited Delirium. The cause of these symptoms is still unknown, although drugs do seem to be involved in a lot of cases. Given the symptoms, police are inevitably called, and are expected to deal with it. What we do know is that this condition is usually fatal, and anyone in this condition needs emergency medical help. Given that they feel no pain and are extremely strong, most police tactics are ineffective. So the quickest way to control such a person and get them to the medical help that they need is to use a taser, the only tool police have that doesn't rely on pain compliance but actually physiologically incapacitates a person. The only tool that will work on a person in this condition.

      As I've said, they usually die afterwards. And suddenly it becomes very easy to blame the police and blame the taser. Before the taser, and before this term "excited delirium", there was nothing to group these incidents together, it was just another junkie that OD'd and died, nothing more to it than that. Much like a tree falling in a forest with no one around, can someone experience these symptoms unless someone is there to witness it (and invariably calls police)? If not, its just a dead body someone finds one day with a lot of drugs in their system. Another junkie that OD'd and died.

      My point is that you can call it whatever you want, its still just as real. Completely non-sensical guys running around naked in winter after a coke binge is real, whether medical journals care to document it, or name it, or not. Its happening, it has always happened, and we're starting to learn new things about it. Good thing TASER's funding some research into it, because obviously someone needs to. I'd say its completely accurate to say that its like an 18th century cause of death where no one new the cause, because that's exactly what this is. There is so much debate about it because no one knows the cause. But it sure is convenient to blame police and tasers. You'd think they'd blame the drugs as well, but strangely enough that part usually gets forgotten.

      --

      --
      "Karma can only be portioned out by the cosmos." - Homer Simpson [1F10]

  2. Glorified Cattle Prod by Neuropol · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Just fire up the sidearm electrocution device.

    It's torture my any means.

    It's unlawful restraint.

    We don't do this (legally) to animals in public, although some do in private, but they'll be dealt with accordingly. So, given that one simple fact, then why should humans be subjected to it?

    Don't tase me, bro.

    1. Re:Glorified Cattle Prod by frieko · · Score: 3, Informative

      A Taser is actually far more violent than a cattle prod. A cattle prod feels like a hard slap. A Taser drops you to the ground in pain.

    2. Re:Glorified Cattle Prod by BakaHoushi · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Pre-edit: D'OH. I misread your post and thought you were saying we SHOULD execute the mentally handicapped. My brain doesn't always work the best this early, so, uh, since I wrote this out, I'll post it anyway, just, don't take offense, 'kay?

      Well, given that most of us here are NOT mentally handicap, at least I should hope, then we should be able to reason that things that are not as intelligent as we are still deserving of respect and our moral consideration.

      When a child misbehaves, you reprimand him verbally. You don't beat him. I would hope the same would go for animals as well. They may not now (or ever) become fully capable of understanding morality, but that doesn't make it right for those who do understand to be IMMORAL to them.

      A mentally handicapped person is not able to understand the consequences of his actions and, as such, should not be considered entirely responsible for his actions. However, the price for that is the restriction of freedom to make your own decisions. In this case, he needs to be sent someplace where his actions can be monitored and maybe improved over time.

      Of course, this is all coming from someone who is adamantly anti-capital punishment in general.

      And back to the topic of the article, in the cases of these people, even if they are obviously incapable of showing moral consideration for others (assuming the criminals they arrest are ALL guilty, which is another can of worms in and of itself) tazering is torture. I fail to see how anyone having enough electricity shot through them at such a high voltage that they collapse, spasm, and occasionally DIE can be considered anything LESS.

    3. Re:Glorified Cattle Prod by traveller.ct · · Score: 3, Funny

      I am sick and tired of this stupid argument. People are NOT animals. Unfortunately, science seems to disagree.
      --
      For the lack of a better sig.
    4. Re:Glorified Cattle Prod by Kreigaffe · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If we have trouble with an animal, we shoot it -- either lethally, or with tranquilizer darts. Now you might say let's just use tranqs on humans! ... but that wouldn't work. The only tranq I know of that would be safe to use on humans would be ketamine, and it's not exactly fast-acting. So then we're still left with the question of what to do when somebody violently resists police or police need to stop somebody from acting violently towards others. Do you just shoot them? Beat the shit out of them until they stop? Those both are much more lethal than a taser could ever be. Try and talk them out of it? Oh, but if you do that now you're valuing the life of the criminal above the life of innocents and the police. There are most certainly cases where tasers are over-used and abused, but I think that just means the police need to be held more accountable for their use -- not that tasers are an icky nasty evil thing that should be bannzt. Oh, and it's not unlawful restraint. Where the hell did you even pull that from.

      --
      ... still waiting for this free-as-in-beer free beer I keep hearing about. :|
    5. Re:Glorified Cattle Prod by BakaHoushi · · Score: 1

      Well, in most cases, I'd think that pointing a gun at someone is a good way to get them to stop. I don't mean FIRING the gun at them, but I mean simply pointing it.

      Granted, I know this won't work in every situation, and sometimes you need help with a non-lethal close-encounter take-down, but tasers have had a rather bad track record of doing their job well. And quite frankly, they are far too painful to be considered anything other than torture. And I'm aware no "non-lethal" device will ever be without its faults or the bad cops who will abuse it, but we really need a better alternative. Granted, I don't know of any better at the moment, so I will simply say that I wish to see better accountability and better judgment when using them.

    6. Re:Glorified Cattle Prod by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Beat the shit out of them until they stop? Those both are much more lethal than a taser could ever be.


      You know, back in the old days.. maybe say a whopping twenty years ago, cops were actually trained and were able to apply techniques like swarming to take somebody down. Nowadays we have stupid, lazy, out of shape (tho round is a shape) cops who would rather push a button and BBQ somebody than to put on a set of graphite loaded leather police gloves and do their fucking jobs via jointlock, strategic hit with a baton, etc. I live in southern Ohio, and it seems like about fifteen percent of our cops are actually willing to do their job and have the ability both mentally and physically to do so. Most of the rest of these people couldn't pass a U.S. Army P.T. test, which is incredible since many patrol officers are making 50-70k in a low cost of living area. Standards, anyone?

      And before anybody goes there with "what if they've got a knife?".. then the .40 cal comes out and you blow them away. Full stop. If the perp escalates it to that point then so be it.

      Tasers are far too antiseptic and easy to use. Woman doesn't get out of the car at a traffic stop? Tase her. Guy mouths off to you? Tase him too. Twelve year old school kid doesn't want to go to detention? Fry her! It's just so easy.. if they displease you and disrespect your authority, well light em up! Hell, it's just the push of a button away and there are few consequences!
    7. Re:Glorified Cattle Prod by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      What's worse? Tasering someone, which only lasts a few seconds and can quick calm down a situation, or just straight out shooting them? It's true that there have been over-uses of it by cops, however tasers have saved many lives when cops would've been more than justified in using lethal force. And no, I am not a cop myself. The problem is something I learned in the military: One screw up can void a hundred atta-boys. So, when some dumb cop over-uses a taser, everyone forgets all the times that good cops used a taser to prevent lethal force. Of course, cops could go back to using billy clubs to beat the suspects when they're being violent or, even worse, being forced to use lethal force when a taser could've taken care of the situation. People are so quick to judge a situation they are not in and never have been in. People also forget that tasers are used both correctly and incorrectly, but, usually, only the incorrect use shows up on the news. We rarely see results from the correct use. So, it seems worse than it really is.

    8. Re:Glorified Cattle Prod by easyTree · · Score: 1

      It's torture by any means.

      It's not torture if shareholders profit from it happening.
    9. Re:Glorified Cattle Prod by ColdWetDog · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Well, in most cases, I'd think that pointing a gun at someone is a good way to get them to stop. I don't mean FIRING the gun at them, but I mean simply pointing it.

      BZZT. One of the very first things you learn in gun safety courses is that you don't point the gun at some(one/thing) unless you plan on shooting that person / thing.

      Once you point the gun at someone you have immediately escalated into deadly force. If the perp doesn't back down - you have to shoot him. That's the entire idea behind a taser - non lethal force. This isn't like TV where people hold guns at each other and talk rationally, defuse the situation and move on to a commercial.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    10. Re:Glorified Cattle Prod by Ucklak · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Change the textbooks then. People must not be mammals then either.

      I take it you've never dealt with a human toddler in the 2-3.5 earth year category.
      It's said the the mental capacity of most non human mammals fall in intelligence category of a human 'animal' toddler; you can't reason with them, they react on instinct, and the fact that they can't communicate their thoughts exactly makes it extremely difficult to have a meaningful dialog with them.

      --
      if you steal from one source, that is plagiarism, if you steal from many, well, that's just research.
    11. Re:Glorified Cattle Prod by defile39 · · Score: 1

      The obvious problem, addressed in other replies, is that there are few (if any) better solutions for when police need to subdue someone who is acting violently and endangering the lives of others. I'd rather be tased than shot, hands down. However, police have been using tasers where they would never have used guns lawfully. I think that the same degree of restraint that police are required to have with guns should be used with tasers. Tasers should not be used unless there is immediate danger of the violent suspect seriously injuring themselves or another.

    12. Re:Glorified Cattle Prod by Derosian · · Score: 1

      Any news on those body suits that nullify the taser charge?

    13. Re:Glorified Cattle Prod by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Indeed, which is why those that don't show restraint and abuse tazers to the point where there are deaths involved should be held far more accountable than they are currently.

    14. Re:Glorified Cattle Prod by Nazlfrag · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Tazers are not used instead of firearms, they are used instead of physical restraint. A cop would never use a tazer in a life threatening situation when he already has a firearm, they are only used in situations where physical restraint is required and are no different to a baton in that regard. What we see here is the abuse of the baton to the point where it is torturous and deadly. This does not mean ban the baton, instead we must remove the arbitrary and indiscriminate use of such force and restrain the excesses of brutality they have caused.

    15. Re:Glorified Cattle Prod by couchslug · · Score: 2, Informative

      Then in your opinion what SHOULD we use to inflict measured pain/shock on physically resisting people to make them compliant (with a lawful and reasonable arrest, the other sort is another issue entirely)?

      Striking them with batons or Maglites can fracture skulls and requires getting up close (not smart if the perp has a weapon). This was a recognized problem even in the ancient days of the Kel-Lite.

      Shooting them has obvious negatives if you want them to survive.

      Capsicum has variable effectiveness. It work fairly well but doesn't have knockdown power. Is it torture too?

      Physically overpowering perps can cause plenty of damage, and requires swarming larger/stronger/intoxicated/crazy offenders because subduing people one-on-one by holding them without damaging them is very difficult.

      "We don't do this (legally) to animals in public."

      We don't herd cattle (anymore) in the public streets because ranch operations are located where there is more room. Zapping them to get them to move isn't illegal. Nice try though!

      http://www.qcsupply.com/Catalogs/12381.aspx?cm_mmc=Google-_-Livestock+Equipment+%26+Supplies_Livestock+Prods-_-Broad_search_559993155-_-cattle%20prod|-|100000000000000026181

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    16. Re:Glorified Cattle Prod by ultranova · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I am sick and tired of this stupid argument. People are NOT animals. We have control over our actions, and MOST of us have control over our actions and thoughts. We are less willing to induce control and "restraint" on children because they are not as capable of controlling themselves. As such, its a simple thought proccess. The more control you have over yourself, and the greater the ability to understand your actions and there reactions, the more willing we are to restrain someone. Take for example the argument that we should not execute the mentally challenged. Why? They are incapable of understanding several key things. Same with children, animals, "vegetables", ETC. Those groups of subjects are given special consideration as far as restraint and discpline.

      Your argument is only relevant when talking about punishment, which is given to someone who has already been restrained, and should be decided about by a court of law rather than officer Tenpenny. Tasers, however, are not tools of punishment, they're tools of restrainment. When restraining a suspect, the only acceptable standard is to use the minimum neccessary force; altought, obviously, one must make allowances for the fact that the one doing the restraining doesn't have the benefit of hindsight or, neccessarily, a chance to calmy consider his options, so he might err in his estimation of "minimum force".

      What I'm getting at is that it doesn't matter whether the one you're restraining is a retard or a genius. Either way you either use the minimum force neccessary, or you belong behind the bars yourself.

      So no, the fact that more can be expected from humans than animals doesn't mean that you can go taser-happy on humans. If anything, it means that people who hold power over others - embodied in devices like tasers, for example - have no excuse whatsoever if they abuse it. And using that power beyond what is neccessary, for example tasering someone unneccessarily, is abuse.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    17. Re:Glorified Cattle Prod by Sancho · · Score: 1

      But it's probably not the taser which has made the cops lazy. The laziness is probably something which evolved independantly of the taser. So now we have three options:

      1) Have hugely ineffective cops (due to the factors you mention, and without tasers.)

      2) Have a very small number of effective cops.

      3) Pay cops a lot more so that more qualified people will become cops.

      Not great choices.

      Moreover, tasers are a lot more effective at controlling a perp than martial arts. At the very least, they take away almost all of the potential human error. If a martial artist makes a mistake, that can cost his/her life, and in the case of an officer, the lives of others.

      I don't know what the correct solution is. I really don't. I'm just offering some counterpoints.

    18. Re:Glorified Cattle Prod by c6gunner · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Tazers are not used instead of firearms, they are used instead of physical restraint. A cop would never use a tazer in a life threatening situation when he already has a firearm, they are only used in situations where physical restraint is required and are no different to a baton in that regard.
      This isn't strictly true. Think of a police officer facing a perp armed with a knife. In the old days, the cop would have immediately gone for his gun. Today, he has the option of using his taser instead (although he may still chose to use his firearm). But no cop would ever have attempted to use a "baton" in such circumstances. A taser might not be meant to replace the firearm, but it's certainly a lot more versatile than a stick.

      What we see here is the abuse of the baton to the point where it is torturous and deadly. This does not mean ban the baton, instead we must remove the arbitrary and indiscriminate use of such force and restrain the excesses of brutality they have caused.
      Nonsense. There were certainly many cases where perps have died in police custody before the invention of the taser. Any time you have human beings attempting to subdue other human beings, you are going to have cases where someone gets injured or killed. That's the nature of conflict The solution is simple: avoid conflict. Don't break the law and don't screw with the police, and you won't have anything to worry about.
    19. Re:Glorified Cattle Prod by vertinox · · Score: 1

      We have control over our actions, and MOST of us have control over our actions and thoughts.

      I follow you, but why do certain groups use government in such ways they want it both ways?

      They believe that books and movies can control you're behavior and that porn can turn you into an evil person.

      If reading words, listening to sounds, and seeing moving images can control your behavior then that should mean the average human has no control over their actions.

      So which is it? If humans have complete control over themselves then all images, sounds, and text should be legal no matter what an appropriate at all ages.

      You argue that children are unable to understand things? So if that is the case then why are children tried as adults for murder these days?

      What is the difference between an 17 year old a day before their birthday and then the day after they are 18? If 18 is arbitaraly the age in which a person is understanding then why can't they drink legally in the United States? They can smoke, look at porn, and die for the country? So why not drink? Can they not handle it? Or are the simply meat bags programmed to not understand themselves.

      I hope you see what I am getting at, because I personally don't believe its either/or but rather a strange mix that we've gotten ourselves into with a huge amount of contradictions about personal responsibility and understanding.

      I'd argue a fair amount of at least Americans even at the ages of 60+ don't understand reaction or reaction or personal responsibility. Take the mortgage crisis we just had, take the S&L crisis of the late 90s, the stock market crash of the 1920's. My point is that in groups humans will act very stupid regardless of whether or not you shout personal responsibility at them.

      If you take a fox and put him in the chicken coup and tell him not to eat the chickens or you will punish him and then he eats the chickens... No amount of personal responsibility will ever correct the Fox's behavior. He eats chickens. That is what his genetic programming teaches him to do.

      Same thing with humans and whatever they want.

      Humans have had over 300 years of genetic evolution to get them where they are now and if I put the average human in a room with suitcase full of cash on the table and then I tell him not to run away with it or he will be punished for not following personal responsibility and then he does... Who is the bigger fool here. Me or the guy who put the fox in the hen house.

      What I am trying to point out is that you can shout "personal responsibility" all day long at people but it won't change their behavior. If you want something done, (as they say) you have to do it yourself and not put the fox in the hen house or put your money out for people to take.

      We could spend billions of dollars trying to educate people right and wrong's of societal behavior but with the current public education in the gutter as it is, it is doubtful that would work and I haven't even gotten to the topic of sociopaths and genetic inclinations.

      How about issues you can't control... Lets say hunger and sleep. Humans have no control whether they feel hungry or tired. They can choose to not sleep or eat for as long as they can but either they will pass out or die. They have no free will when it comes to choosing.

      Secondly with sex, humans are hardwired to want to have sex. It feels good and they are programmed to fantasize about all day long (at least men) and if you said to them they need to stop feeling like that then the only thing you can do is have them castrated because its not something a human can help.*

      *Albeit a stringent living as an aesthetic... Either Buddhist or Hindu who can learn to meditate to actually rewire their brain so they feel neither hunger, pain, or sexual desires. Seeing most of the people in the US aren't into that, I would hedge my bets on the fact that most of us act like plain old animals and I should keep myself out of these situations and not let the fox in the hen house if I can help it.

      --
      "I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
      -Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
    20. Re:Glorified Cattle Prod by Znork · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Do you just shoot them? Beat the shit out of them until they stop? Those both are much more lethal than a taser could ever be.

      You assume Tasers and similar devices are used instead of guns. They're not. They're used when you could not get away with using a gun (or even with beating the suspect senseless). Which is why we see them used against children, people who are already restrained and annoying questioners at political rallies. In situations where the taser wielder would certainly not have considered shooting or hitting the subject an appropriate action.

      I think that just means the police need to be held more accountable for their use

      If shooting someone with a taser was regarded as equal to shooting them with a gun, I'd happily see them deployed all over. Then it would actually be a question of using a taser _instead_ of a gun.

    21. Re:Glorified Cattle Prod by BakaHoushi · · Score: 1

      Very well. I will concede on this point, as my knowledge of guns and their usage doesn't extend beyond Half-Life 2 (Where people don't mind if you talk to them while you hold a shotgun in their face)

    22. Re:Glorified Cattle Prod by FridayBob · · Score: 1

      We don't do this (legally) to animals in public, ... Well, I seem to remember that Dan Quayle used to have a dog that he had outfitted with a special radio controlled collar. Apparently, the dog had an irritating habit of trying to run away, so the collar was set to subject the unfortunate canine to a mild electric shock whenever it strayed too far from another device, presumably carried by Dan Quayle. I imagine the device was legal, at least at the time.
    23. Re:Glorified Cattle Prod by vertinox · · Score: 1

      Once you point the gun at someone you have immediately escalated into deadly force. If the perp doesn't back down - you have to shoot him. That's the entire idea behind a taser - non lethal force. This isn't like TV where people hold guns at each other and talk rationally, defuse the situation and move on to a commercial.

      I think the real problem here is that because a taser is non lethal, is that it gets used a great deal more in situations that didn't require a gun or beating.

      If there is a gun and/or knife involved it would be better (IMO) to just shoot them as a taser might end up failing and that the police officer involved knows that this is serious and not something trivial.

      --
      "I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
      -Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
    24. Re:Glorified Cattle Prod by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm with c6gunner on this. I have personally witnessed a suspect who was tasered because he refused to drop a knife. The officers involved would have certainly been justified in using a gun, but they managed to use a taser to subdue the suspect (he had been beating his wife and threatening to kill her and refused to drop his knife when police showed up and kept advancing towards them). Tasers are not used "instead of physical restraint." Tasers are used so that a suspect can be put into restraints (i.e. handcuffs).

    25. Re:Glorified Cattle Prod by Slugster · · Score: 2, Interesting

      If people are dying after having a Taser used on them and it cannot be shown that these persons would have probably died anyway, then Taser should be financially responsible. The fact that it causes pain when used is not my objection; it has to do that to serve its functionality--but what it is not supposed to do is kill people. The whole point of these devices was that they were "non-lethal", and then when a few people died they changed it to "less-than-lethal".

      Taser is a consumer product and if it's killing people when they claim it shouldn't, then it is FAULTY and Taser should be changed in court to "less-than-profitable".
      ~

    26. Re:Glorified Cattle Prod by vertinox · · Score: 1

      Do you just shoot them? Beat the shit out of them until they stop?

      If they have a gun or a knife and present a clear and present danger then the should be shot. If they have no gun or knife, then you call for back up and handcuff them. If you can't handcuff them with 4 or more police officers then call for more.

      The problem with the taser is that it is being used by officers on people who were not a threat and could have been handcuffed quite easily.

      --
      "I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
      -Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
    27. Re:Glorified Cattle Prod by Jurily · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Beating people leaves marks. Shooting people leaves marks. Tasers don't.

      If said people are actually criminals, restraining them by necessary means is of course justified. But every cop thinks twice before shooting someone, which is not the case with tasers.

      (As a sidenote, there are no criminals before a court says so, only "suspects").

    28. Re:Glorified Cattle Prod by Spetiam · · Score: 1

      Let's say you have a knife, and you're threatening someone with it. Cops come along to make sure you don't hurt anybody.

      If the cops don't have tasers, guess what they're going to draw out? Yep. Guns. Guns that shoot bullets.

      So getting tased hurts like heck. Funny thing about people like you denouncing tasers is that you don't consider the alternatives. Getting hit with 180 grains of lead at 1200 fps does a ton more damage than getting tased, and the risk of fatality is much higher.

      So why are criminals subjected to a jolt of electricity? Because lead poisoning of the high velocity variety is worse than the usually temporary effects of a taser.

    29. Re:Glorified Cattle Prod by heptapod · · Score: 1

      Actually humans are animals. Has it been discovered that homo sapiens belong to a completely different kingdom than animalia?

    30. Re:Glorified Cattle Prod by Spetiam · · Score: 1

      If there's a gun involved, a taser won't be used, the cops will handle the situation with firearms.

      Usually it's police policy for a taser to be backed up with firearm:

      Cop 1 uses the taser. Cop 2 has a firearm ready to go if the taser fails. Additional cops jump on the tasee and cuff him/her.

      The whole point is to decrease the risk of injury/death to the suspect.

      The point of using a taser in less dangerous situations is to keep the cop from having to come into physical contact with a violent suspect...which greatly increases the risk of injury to the cop. Sure it's great to try and decrease the risk of injury to a violent criminal, but it's more important for a cop to keep himself/herself safe. At least, if I were in a situation where I had to subdue a violent criminal, that's how I'd look at it.

    31. Re:Glorified Cattle Prod by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      Remind me not to go hunting with you (or Dick Cheney) ....

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    32. Re:Glorified Cattle Prod by Spetiam · · Score: 1

      Then in your opinion what SHOULD we use to inflict measured pain/shock on physically resisting people to make them compliant (with a lawful and reasonable arrest, the other sort is another issue entirely)?
      Acutally, tasers aren't designed to subdue suspects by inflicting pain. They're designed to cause muscle spasms so that the suspect can't move and hurt people. The pain is a side effect that happens to be useful in convincing the suspect to voluntarily chill out.
    33. Re:Glorified Cattle Prod by sjames · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Personally, I'd say the taser is not in itself the problem, it's that the taser is regarded as 'nothing' by police (as instructed by Taser International).

      If the taser was billed instead as an extreme and possibly fatal means to subdue a subject or a 'less lethal' form of gun we might see more appropriate use.

      Furthermore, use of a taser or other electrical stun device in an already restrained individual IS torture pure and simple. It's no more acceptable than handcuffung and then beating the subject.

      I recently saw a training program where officers are themselves tazed briefly in a controled situation so they will understand exactly the effects of the force they might use on a subject. That seems like a good idea to me and is very likely to lead to more appropriate uses.

      IMHO, Taser International is so anxious to advertise their product as perfect and a panacea that they CAUSE it to be mis-used through disinformation. It does the officers no favors either. They use the device in an honest belief that it is less brutal than throwing the subject to the ground and pinning them with a knee only to find themselves facing a wrongful death proceeding.

      As for pointing a gun, absolutely NOT. A good rule to follow is to never point a gun at anything you don't want dead. Another way to put it is if you pull out a gun you BETTER be ready to use it. Pointing a gun you don't intend to use will get you killed as soon as the other person figures out that you don't intend to fire. The death rate from accidental firing would probably exceed the death rate from taser misuse.

    34. Re:Glorified Cattle Prod by sjames · · Score: 5, Funny

      BZZT.

      I agree with you, but you probably shouldn't have tazed him.

    35. Re:Glorified Cattle Prod by Fieryphoenix · · Score: 1

      Nothing to worry about unless the police decide to screw with you. Or make a mistake. Or did you think that every cop was a paragon of his profession?

      All in all, I think we need to worry. Solutions do not lie solely on apprehended individuals as you suggest, but rather all persons involved... including cops, policy makers, and those who elect policy makers.

      Currently, my personal opinion is that if a law enforcement officer would not be justified in actually striking with a baton in a particular situation, then use of a taser should also be ruled out. Less injurious usages of batons, such as leverage, are not what I mean here.

      Usage of a taser needs to be a serious matter... not a routine action.

    36. Re:Glorified Cattle Prod by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      You know, back in the old days.. maybe say a whopping twenty years ago, cops were actually trained and were able to apply techniques like swarming to take somebody down.
      My, what short memories we have. Uproar over chokeholds, anyone?

      There are no safe methods for restraining a resistant person. If you want to claim that one method - "swarming" (which doesn't actually have a definition), chokehold, taser, or beating-with-nightstick - is more or less dangerous than others, you'll need to dig up some statistics and crunch some numbers. If all you're relying on is anecdotes, you're going to get nowhere, as all of those have been implicated in deaths (depending on what you call this ill-defined "swarming").

      You think tasers are bad? Fine - show us data that demonstrates something is safer.

      And before anybody goes there with "what if they've got a knife?".. then the .40 cal comes out
      So you're saying officers are supposed to tackle a guy who may or may not have a knife, and then if that guy pulls out a knife they're supposed to get up, get away, pull out their own weapon, and fire?

      What do you expect the "perp" to be doing while this is going on? Your "solution" is laughably naive, and would lead to officers getting killed.
    37. Re:Glorified Cattle Prod by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah beacause that makes perfect sense. "Sir I know you are fighting me but stay here for a few more minutes and don't harm me please. I need to call in some backup to deal with you". What they need to do is treat using a Taser on someone just like if you shoot someone. They need to review it and find out if it was really needed. What I really find interesting tho is that no one mentions anything about normal citizens using these everyone that complains about them is always screaming "Police Brutality". Personally you attack me and I Tase you I'm prolly going to pop you a few extra to make sure you think twice about it. If I actually shoot you I'll only do it once but you might not be alive after it.

    38. Re:Glorified Cattle Prod by MightyMartian · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The correct solution is to toss the lazy fuckers out of the police force. Start properly psychologically profiling potential recruits to get rid of the power freeks. The police, at the end of the day, are public servants, and that should be reinforced. If they want to be some sort of god-like figures, they shouldn't be allowed anywhere near a taser.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    39. Re:Glorified Cattle Prod by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I find myself mentioning this a lot. Unfortunately, the disconnect between people who've grown up around firearms and those who haven't is growing wider. I think most people get their gun safety education from video games and TV now.

      This goes for the other comments I see a lot on the internet too... "Shoot the tires out" and "Shoot them in the leg".

      If you discharge your firearm in someone's direction, you had better be able to explain why you killed someone. Always.

    40. Re:Glorified Cattle Prod by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then I have nothing to worry about. I never give the cops a reason to use any kind of force on me. Even if I were being unjustly (in truth, or only in my eyes) held, I would not resist or give a cop any reason to use any type of force. It's actually pretty simple: obey and comply with cops. Then plead your case to a judge. It's true that sometimes cops overstep their boundaries in relation to the law, etc. But, it's much better to comply with the unjustness and stand before a judge. In the end a DA is the one who decides if charges will be pressed and a judge or jury decides if your guilty, based on evidence. All the cop is doing is arresting a suspect, which is their job. However if, while attempting to arrest a suspect, the suspect resists, then some level of force is necessary. It's pretty easy: 1) Don't break the law (who would've thought it was that simple). 2) If you are being arrested fairly or unfairly, comply with the cop and plead your case to a judge. All non-compliance does is make the situation worse.

      Again, the majority of taser use falls within the designated level of force policies that departments have and have saved many lives (cops, public and suspect). However, most people are focusing on the improper use of the tasers instead of how many times they have been properly used. I can guarantee that they are used properly far more than they are used improperly.

    41. Re:Glorified Cattle Prod by Shatrat · · Score: 1

      This isn't strictly true. Think of a police officer facing a perp armed with a knife. In the old days, the cop would have immediately gone for his gun. Today, he has the option of using his taser instead No, he emphatically doesn't. Within medium to close range, i think 21 feet is the number, a man with a knife has a statistical advantage over a man with a gun.
      My brother is a corrections officer and he says there is rarely a case where a taser is the best solution. If someone is unarmed he can take them down himself, and if they are armed they get shot, full stop.
      I can see them being useful for small or female officers when facing someone so much larger that technique alone isn't guaranteed to subdue them, but that's about it.
      I wouldn't like to see them banned because they aren't any more dangerous than a night stick, and there are still legitimate uses for them even if they are rare.
      --
      09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
    42. Re:Glorified Cattle Prod by Blkdeath · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Granted, I know this won't work in every situation, and sometimes you need help with a non-lethal close-encounter take-down, but tasers have had a rather bad track record of doing their job well. And quite frankly, they are far too painful to be considered anything other than torture. And I'm aware no "non-lethal" device will ever be without its faults or the bad cops who will abuse it, but we really need a better alternative. Granted, I don't know of any better at the moment, so I will simply say that I wish to see better accountability and better judgment when using them.

      The taser IS the less lethal alternative. Note that I said less lethal, not non-lethal. That's the problem with this entire anti-taser argument - they are not, I repeat NOT "non lethal" weaponry. They are designed to be less lethal than a bullet. They are in the same category as beanbag bullets, rubber bullets, mace / pepper spray, teargas grenades, water canons, etc. These are deterrents to be used to diffuse a situation with a dangerous criminal or rioter.

      As for accountability, tasers have ID tags that identify the officer that discharged them and much like the discharge of firearms they must complete reports after every incident and upon injury or death there is a departmental review process that investigates the officers' actions as to how the situation was handled and how it could be better handled in the future. If the officer was found to be negligent or derelect in their duties, disciplinary action will be taken.

      However you have to realize that some situations just require force to dissipate. If a person is high on drugs and/or so belligerent they will not succumb to authority and public or officer safety is at stake make no mistake about it - force will be used.

      Now, as to the popular strawman arguments about people who did not deserve to be tasered - that's a matter for disciplinary review, not a matter for the weapon itself. It's not the taser's fault if an officer decides to zap a homeless man or an innocent bystander.

      People have to understand that when an officer believes his or her life is in danger they will use force to prevent the situation from escalating. Until you've been under threat from an incoherent person waiving a weapon at you and threatening all sorts of nastiness I don't think you're qualified to judge the actions of these officers in these dangerous situations.

      --
      BD Phone Home!

      Shameless plug. Like you weren't expecting it.

    43. Re:Glorified Cattle Prod by Blkdeath · · Score: 1

      If people are dying after having a Taser used on them and it cannot be shown that these persons would have probably died anyway, then Taser should be financially responsible. The fact that it causes pain when used is not my objection; it has to do that to serve its functionality--but what it is not supposed to do is kill people. The whole point of these devices was that they were "non-lethal", and then when a few people died they changed it to "less-than-lethal".

      Anybody who calls a taser a "non lethal" device is either ill-informed or an anti-taser propagandist. Tasers fall in the category of less lethal weaponry. Period, full stop.

      --
      BD Phone Home!

      Shameless plug. Like you weren't expecting it.

    44. Re:Glorified Cattle Prod by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      sounds like you really know how to do it! you should join up! you're in luck because every police force that I know of is recruiting right now! we could really use your expertise in dealing with these situations.

      now, after you go out on patrol a few times, scared shitless that someone is going to shoot you in the back before you can make it home to your wife and kids, lets hear from you again.

      until then, i'd refrain from talking out of your ass. you have no idea the shit that a cop puts up with. and until you're ready to step up and do the job then quit telling them how to do it.

    45. Re:Glorified Cattle Prod by nametaken · · Score: 1

      I shouldn't try to speak for someone else, but I think most people are concerned with the use of a taser in less dangerous scenarios.

      It appears to be more common for police to zap someone for lesser offenses. There are numerous examples of cops using it where it was inappropriate and dangerous. Non-violent, but not-entirely-compliant people.

      Now, too many think that this apparent trend is because the police are using the taser as an excuse to use excessive force. I disagree. I think they've been instructed (directly or otherwise) to use it in any situation where someone isn't perfectly compliant, but you clearly don't want to shoot them. One thing is clear, it's fast becoming the catch-all solution in between. Little potential injury for the officer, and the expectation that the suspect won't be permanently injured.

      I think they're learning to do this because the Taser has a big non-lethal marketing aura around it. It's much easier to defend later if you can say, "I used my non-lethal alternative to subdue the suspect because..." than "I beat him with my baton because..." or "I shot him because...". It takes the decision making out of situations. You don't have to worry about justifying it if they were at all non-compliant, and you won't have to justify pulling your sidearm or breaking bones with a stick.

    46. Re:Glorified Cattle Prod by sigzero · · Score: 0

      It isn't torture and it isn't "unlawful restraint". Please.

    47. Re:Glorified Cattle Prod by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Woman doesn't get out of the car at a traffic stop? Tase her. Guy mouths off to you? Tase him too. Twelve year old school kid doesn't want to go to detention? Fry her! It's just so easy.. if they displease you and disrespect your authority, well light em up! Hell, it's just the push of a button away and there are few consequences! The majority of police departments place TASER's on the same level of the force continuum as they do other means of 'less-than-lethal' techniques. There are actually a very small number of departments that allow officers to use a TASER in response to non-compliance. I do agree that using such a painful technique in response to non-compliance if inappropriate, but you have you realize that these cases are extremely rare. For every non-compliant that a TASER is deployed on, there are thousands of instances where the TASER allowed the officer to subdue a person that was either a serious danger to himself or others. TASER's are painful, but they are also statistically safer than pepper spray, batons, dogs, bean bags, rubber bullets, and even hands-on techniques.

    48. Re:Glorified Cattle Prod by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      No, he emphatically doesn't. Within medium to close range, i think 21 feet is the number, a man with a knife has a statistical advantage over a man with a gun.
      I'm quite aware of that, since I've had extensive close-quarters combat training. However, it has nothing to do with anything. Even if it were a relevant point, Tasers have a range of 35 feet.

      My brother is a corrections officer and he says there is rarely a case where a taser is the best solution.
      Then he's welcome to never use one. For everyone else, tasers continue to be invaluable tools.
    49. Re:Glorified Cattle Prod by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 1
      As for accountability, tasers have ID tags that identify the officer that discharged them and much like the discharge of firearms they should complete reports after every incident and upon injury or death there should be a departmental review process that investigates the officers' actions as to how the situation was handled and how it could be better handled in the future. If the officer was found to be negligent or derelect in their duties, disciplinary action should be taken.

      There, fixed that for you.

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    50. Re:Glorified Cattle Prod by Foobar+of+Borg · · Score: 1

      This goes for the other comments I see a lot on the internet too... "Shoot the tires out" and "Shoot them in the leg". If you discharge your firearm in someone's direction, you had better be able to explain why you killed someone. Always.
      True. Even if you go for the silly "Shoot them in the leg" television nonsense (and assuming you actually shoot them in the leg), there is this little thing called the femoral artery that you might hit. The person you shot there will be long dead before you can really do anything about it.
    51. Re:Glorified Cattle Prod by boyko.at.netqos · · Score: 1

      Here's what many pro-tazer people argue, and I agree that it's a powerful argument: By using tazers in situations where a gun would previously be called for, tazers can save lives. As such, it creates another "level" of "minimum force" between the nightstick and lethality. And if used this way, I would agree that a tazer might be a good idea.

      The problem that I see is that the tazer is being used not instead of using a gun, but being used instead of everything else before the point you pull out the gun. The tazer is being used before talking to people, being used on people who are complying, being used in cases where a gun would NEVER be called for. In other words, when a cop pulls out a tazer, more likely than not it is the cop that is escalating the situation.

      I don't know if this is because cops think that the tazer is "no big deal" and are underestimating exactly how "maximum" a tazer's "minimum force" can be, or - and this is my theory - whether the past eight years in this country has made violent authority a cultural trend.

      There is also the "A tazer is torture and torture is wrong under all circumstances" argument but that argument is so simple and straightforward it needs no nuanced explanation.

      --
      I used to work for NetQoS. I no longer do, but want to keep the excellent karma attached to this account.
    52. Re:Glorified Cattle Prod by boyko.at.netqos · · Score: 1

      If shooting someone with a taser was regarded as equal to shooting them with a gun, I'd happily see them deployed all over. Then it would actually be a question of using a taser _instead_ of a gun. There would need to be a great cultural shift to regard tazers as just as lethal as guns, but I suppose I would support replacing cop's guns with tazers entirely. (In cases where guns are actually called for, bring out SWAT.) In the U.K., N.Z., and other areas of the world generally considered safer than most of the U.S., the cops generally go around armed only with batons and leave the guns to the "Armed Offenders Squad."
      --
      I used to work for NetQoS. I no longer do, but want to keep the excellent karma attached to this account.
    53. Re:Glorified Cattle Prod by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 1

      Well, actually, in Half-Life 2, you reflexively lower your shotgun when you'd rather talk to someone. Without mods, it's impossible to point your weapon at a friendly, let alone hurt them.

      --
      Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
    54. Re:Glorified Cattle Prod by rts008 · · Score: 1

      Yes, keep up man!
      Since the introduction of television, we are now more correctly classed as in between the animal and vegetable classes....slipping closer and closer to the vegetable side.

      --
      Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
    55. Re:Glorified Cattle Prod by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Change the textbooks then. People must not be mammals then either.

      I take it you've never dealt with a human toddler in the 2-3.5 earth year category.
      It's said the the mental capacity of most non human mammals fall in intelligence category of a human 'animal' toddler; you can't reason with them, they react on instinct, and the fact that they can't communicate their thoughts exactly makes it extremely difficult to have a meaningful dialog with them. I know I didn't RTFA but I'd like to think the cops wouldn't tase a toddler.
    56. Re:Glorified Cattle Prod by IndustrialComplex · · Score: 1

      Given the amount of police officers that are dedicated to nothing more than traffic enforcement, I'm not too convinced that we need so many police officers.

      --
      Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
    57. Re:Glorified Cattle Prod by IndustrialComplex · · Score: 1

      You act like everyone shot with a taser had a knife and was threatening people with it.

      --
      Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
    58. Re:Glorified Cattle Prod by boyko.at.netqos · · Score: 3, Insightful

      What's worse? Tasering someone, which only lasts a few seconds and can quick calm down a situation, or just straight out shooting them? Tazering someone. Full stop.

      A cop has to consider his actions before he pulls the trigger, and on (admittedly rare) occasions, if he acts inappropriately he can be held accountable. If a cop shoots someone inappropriately, the family will know his name, and can sue in civil court.

      If a cop tazers someone inappropriately, and the victim dies, then what are the chances that cop will be held to any standard?

      If we hold that power corrupts, shouldn't we be encouraging consequences for abuse of that power?

      At any rate, as has been mentioned before, the tazers are not being replacing guns, the tazers are being used in cases where talking to someone would do. A tazer, deployed, does not de-escalate a confrontation, it is escalating the confrontation - and it is the cop who is escalating it.

      Keep in mind, I think that the tazer issue is merely a way for people to rally around the real issue, which is America's under-trained, over-violent, out-of-control police forces, without saying that they're "anti-cop." There needs to be a vast cultural shift in police forces before a weapon like a tazer is introduced, but there need to be a vast cultural shift in police forces regardless.

      As for myself, I'd rather be shot than tazed, but that's just me.
      --
      I used to work for NetQoS. I no longer do, but want to keep the excellent karma attached to this account.
    59. Re:Glorified Cattle Prod by TheLink · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Never underestimate someone armed with a knife.

      Cops don't tase people armed with knives. They shoot them full of holes with guns. If they do things properly they might actually give a warning first and only shoot if necessary.

      It's pretty obvious that tasers are only used when cops don't think they are in significant danger, otherwise it's gun them down time. There are cases where cops blow away people trying to show them ID or are just carrying something they just bought.

      As for avoiding conflict. It'll help if somebody worked out better "protocols" so that people and cops can interact nonlethally in "charged" situations, and perhaps even avoid escalating things to an arrest.

      Currently many police forces appear to have a very antagonistic relationship with civilians - even noncriminal civilians. Such police forces should seriously keep in mind the "Peelian principles":

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peelian_Principles

      The basic mission for which the police exist is to prevent crime and disorder.
      The ability of the police to perform their duties is dependent upon the public approval of police actions.
      Police must secure the willing co-operation of the public in voluntary observation of the law to be able to secure and maintain the respect of the public.
      The degree of co-operation of the public that can be secured diminishes proportionately to the necessity of the use of physical force.
      Police seek and preserve public favor not by catering to public opinion, but by constantly demonstrating absolute impartial service to the law.
      Police use physical force to the extent necessary to secure observance of the law or to restore order only when the exercise of persuasion, advice, and warning is found to be insufficient.
      Police, at all times, should maintain a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent upon every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.
      Police should always direct their action strictly towards their functions, and never appear to usurp the powers of the judiciary.
      The test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with it.

      --
    60. Re:Glorified Cattle Prod by IndustrialComplex · · Score: 1

      Actually humans are animals. Has it been discovered that homo sapiens belong to a completely different kingdom than animalia?

      I do wonder. We are one of the only species that can induce other species to reproduce asexually (cloning for example). Though, the whole classification of animals/plants/etc is arbitrary and decided by humans in the first place.

      --
      Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
    61. Re:Glorified Cattle Prod by Spetiam · · Score: 1

      No, that's your straw man you're talking about.

      The knife was just a "for example."

    62. Re:Glorified Cattle Prod by krunk7 · · Score: 1

      I would not object to the use of or hold Taser responsible if the tazing *contributed* to the death. As long as it did not cause death in a healthy individual and the force was legitimate.

      For example, say a man has a pace maker and has gone ape shit wielding a knife in a public mall. An officer tases the individual and his pace maker shorts, causing death. There's no way an officer could be held responsible for an unknown health condition. The force was justified.

      We see the same logic applied to other situations. Say the same man had an unknown medical condition such as a blood clot in his leg. The officer takes him down with a baton blow to the back of the knee, bursting the clot which then leads to a heart attach.

      What I do object to is Taser white washing the situation. If tasers can cause death when used on certain individuals (very old, very young, ill, or drugged) then officers should be aware of these limitations and risks.

    63. Re:Glorified Cattle Prod by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Oh, but if you do that now you're valuing the life of the criminal above the life of innocents and the police.

      Criminal? Um....I think suspect is the term. A criminal has faced a jury trial (if he so chooses) and was convicted. Secondarily, we are seeing more usage that is not in regards to criminal behavior (truancy, being annoying @ a political speech, etc.) Or even worse, wasn't there a case where a taser was used to subdue a person photographing police on a rooftop recently?

      Tasers present a LESS LETHAL alternative to the pistol or riot shotgun.

    64. Re:Glorified Cattle Prod by glitch23 · · Score: 1

      Once you point the gun at someone you have immediately escalated into deadly force. If the perp doesn't back down - you have to shoot him. That's the entire idea behind a taser - non lethal force.

      Two words: rubber bullets

      --
      this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom. -- Lincoln, Gettysburg Address
    65. Re:Glorified Cattle Prod by Sir+Holo · · Score: 1

      moogied: I am sick and tired of this stupid argument. People are NOT animals....
      Back in the 19th century people thought we were not animals, that we somehow "special." This attitude may persist in some primitive cultures, but the wealth of results from psychological and animal experiments show that we all have a great deal of similarity in our mental structures and psychology. Humans are at the top, yes, but other animals have language, emotions, use tools, etc.

      Humans are animals. Like other higher animals, we control our actions.
    66. Re:Glorified Cattle Prod by glitch23 · · Score: 1

      I recently saw a training program where officers are themselves tazed briefly in a controled situation so they will understand exactly the effects of the force they might use on a subject. That seems like a good idea to me and is very likely to lead to more appropriate uses.

      That's one way to look at it. It could also be viewed that with people in power and dealing with a criminal, who is considered less of a person than a policeman, the police may use the taser as a tool for going on a power trip and treating the criminals as less than human. Since they know what the taser can do it gives them an idea of what they are inflicting on people and gives them more reason to use it. They may think of the criminal as cattle and the taser as the cattle prod. It's a known psychological fact that people treat people of other races as less than human in power situations so it wouldn't surprise me if people in law enforcement (e.g. police and corrections officers) would treat criminals the same way. I mean, just look at the Australians ;)

      --
      this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom. -- Lincoln, Gettysburg Address
    67. Re:Glorified Cattle Prod by Kreigaffe · · Score: 1

      Let's not quibble legal tidbits. If I witness you in the commission of a crime, you are a criminal. If I think you have committed a crime and have evidence to back it up, you're a suspect. In the former case, I KNOW you've done bad shit and the only way you'd not be convicted is a technicality. In the latter, the evidence against you must be strong. Oh, and if you fight with the cops you're immediately a criminal. Resisting arrest, assaulting an officer... even if the arrest was unjustified, you are not justified in violently resisting it. Which may or may not be completely fucked up, depending on your opinion, but that's a whole different argument. Tasing for truancy? I'm not familiar with that case, and on the surface it sounds excessive -- but I'm not familiar with it and it's entirely possible the kid was acting in a threatening manner towards the officer. What, kids don't think they're fucking badasses? And Don't Tase Me Bro? Fuck that guy. Seriously, fuck him. He caused an unwanted disruption. Your right to free speech does not extend to disrupting the free speech of others. At the point he was tased, he was not cuffed and he was struggling with security -- possible reaching for one of their weapons, the video didn't clearly catch what was going on. Yes, they had him "restrained" on the ground, but he was NOT cuffed and they could NOT transport him away. Besides that, he was doing everything in his power to turn himself into some kind of fucking martyr for some really jacked up reasons that really didn't work. Nobody cares about what the hell he was saying, all anyone remembers is "DON'T TASE ME BRO!" And how about the woman who would not get out of her car? I'll grant the second tasing seemed excessive, but if I recall the cop told her she was under arrest before tasing her the first time. How should he have dealt with that situation? She could have fled in her vehicle at any moment. Does he try to physically extract her from the vehicle? Yes, tasers are NOT nonlethal. They are LESS lethal. They should be used not in place of firearms -- firearms should only be used when there are lives in imminent danger -- but should be used in place of good old fashion beatings. Tasers ARE overused, and their excessive use SHOULD be punished -- possibly more severely than it is now. That is not grounds for their removal, that is grounds for more stringent.. well, pardon the word but more stringent policing of their use.

      --
      ... still waiting for this free-as-in-beer free beer I keep hearing about. :|
    68. Re:Glorified Cattle Prod by sjames · · Score: 1

      I'm sure there are people who shouldn't be allowed anywhere near authority of any sort out there. They should be weeded out as uickly as possible. However, they will abuse any authority or tool of the trade trained or not. If the use of a taser is taken seriously enough by their department, they will be weeded out faster.

    69. Re:Glorified Cattle Prod by Torvaun · · Score: 1

      Yeah, they usually wait until they're at least 6 years old.

      --
      I see your informative link, and raise you a pithy comment.
    70. Re:Glorified Cattle Prod by cffrost · · Score: 1

      This is easy to fix.

      If a copper sincerely believes that inflicting 50kV of oppression upon some person will improve the situation, he should have no qualms about sharing in a reasonable fraction of that trauma in order to get his way without getting blood-matted hair all over his boots.

      Simply outfit the Taser with another pair of electrodes that must form a circuit with the copper in order to enable its operation, and justification and quality judgment will become first nature.

      --
      Thank you, Edward Snowden.

      "Arguments from authority are worthless." —Carl Sagan
    71. Re:Glorified Cattle Prod by tresho · · Score: 1

      "We are less willing to induce control and "restraint" on children because they are not as capable of controlling themselves." Nope, most any adult would be willing, able & justified in grabbing a 30lb child by the collar to "control" and "restrain" his/her jumping off a curb & running into traffic. I have seen that done hundreds of times. If the child outweighed the adult 2:1, it would be a different matter.

    72. Re:Glorified Cattle Prod by tresho · · Score: 1

      "There are no safe methods for restraining a resistant person." This statement is impossible to prove.

    73. Re:Glorified Cattle Prod by c6gunner · · Score: 0, Troll

      Cops don't tase people armed with knives. They shoot them full of holes with guns.
      Google is your friend

      As for avoiding conflict. It'll help if somebody worked out better "protocols" so that people and cops can interact nonlethally in "charged" situations, and perhaps even avoid escalating things to an arrest.
      99% of these incidences are caused by civilians acting like idiots. You can make all the "protocols" you want - it won't change thing.
    74. Re:Glorified Cattle Prod by jonaskoelker · · Score: 2, Funny

      Getting hit with 180 grains of lead at 1200 fps does a ton more damage than getting tased, Last I checked, it was 135 HP per bullet (head shot), vs. 5 HP for one second of tasing. I'm not sure how the framerate enters into it, but damn I want your video card! ;)
    75. Re:Glorified Cattle Prod by coren2000 · · Score: 1

      No we are still animals... Party Animals WOOOHOOO. Tap that keg!

    76. Re:Glorified Cattle Prod by Domo-Sun · · Score: 1

      Ketamine is NOT a safe tranquilizer to use on humans. In clinical trials it was a spectacular failure. So spectacular in fact, it was considered as a tool to study schizophrenia, due to it's impressive ability to induce psychotic states that were indistinguishable. It's pathological performance in human trials lead to it being marketed for animals. I seriously doubt it's safe to use on animals but no one seems to care.

      What needs to be done here is accompany the continued use of tasers with the recognition that jolting people with electricity can be sometimes fatal and heart stopping.

    77. Re:Glorified Cattle Prod by fredklein · · Score: 1

      Why not skip the tasing and jump right to:

      "cops jump on the [suspect] and cuff him/her."

    78. Re:Glorified Cattle Prod by Jaime2 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So, the point of law enforcement is to keep cops safe? You could use that logic to justify the implanting of tazer like devices in every human at birth. Or maybe we should all walk around pre-cuffed with RFID tags so we could be put in jail more easily. Everyone except the cops, of course. I'm sure none of this will ever be used inappropriately.

      The general public isn't lashing back at cops simply because they have a new power over the rest of us and it has killed a few of us. The public is lashing back because of a perceived or real lack of internal control of officers. The public believes that the police are acting as if they are above us. The police are validating that perception by stonewalling every attempt to get any officer in trouble for actions they actually committed. See the original atricle for an example of the law enforcement industry trying to whitewash one of these incidents instead of taking responsibility.

      I remember a newspaper story where I found out that the Buffalo, NY police refused to be required to wear seat belts when on duty. Their argument was, "We are well trained drivers and we deserve to make our own determination of whether a seat belt would endanger or protect our lives." However, if they pull over a race car driver for not wearing a seat belt, they fall back to "Seat belts save lives, we are only giving you this ticket for your own good. It's the law, suck it up." This was also the first written public admission I have ever seen of "laws apply to you, not us".

    79. Re:Glorified Cattle Prod by TheSeer2 · · Score: 1

      If by annoying questions at political rallies you're referring to the don't tase me bro case, then you're uninformed or spreading bullshit. The person in question was restrained, THEN BROKE FREE OF THE RESTRAINT and refused to surrender. Seem like an innocent person to you because it doesn't to me.

    80. Re:Glorified Cattle Prod by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh? This isn't an impossible proving-a-negative scenario. The set of restraint techniques is finite; you can simply list them, and then provide at least one case of death, serious injury, permanent injury, or maiming for each, be it the officer, the target, or a bystander.

    81. Re:Glorified Cattle Prod by Kreigaffe · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The biggest problem with Ketamine, and the primary reason it's rarely used on humans these days, is because it makes you trip balls. That's really about it. LD-50 is 400mg/kg, so if your average person is 80kg that's a LD-50 of 32000mg... that's way, way way, way way way above the dose you'd need to drop someone into a jibbering ball of WTFness. Sure, they're in a k-hole, they're talking to god, they have no idea what's going on and for some people that's uncomfortable... But uh, plenty of people do that stuff for fun. It's SAFE.. it's just UNNERVING. And since society has deemed drug-induced hallucinations to be an awful, terrible, intolerable thing... well, don't expect any fast-acting human tranquilizers to ever be developed, I don't think you could create such a beast that either isn't deadly (ie, causes suppression of circulatory / respiratory systems) or doesn't cause hallucinations.

      --
      ... still waiting for this free-as-in-beer free beer I keep hearing about. :|
    82. Re:Glorified Cattle Prod by Jarik_Tentsu · · Score: 1

      I remember there was some drunk guy at a Casino who was pissed off cause some Greek guy had 'stolen his money' and was busy counting it in front of him and all that. Security guards kicked him out, cops came.

      5 cops took him down - one holding down each arm, one holding down each leg and his back, and one in front of him, trying to tell him to calm down. He managed to break free and they had to catch him again.

      Talk about lack of training when you 5 cops can't keep 1 small drunk guy down! If it was in America, I bet they would've related to tasing him to do it. What's needed is more training!

      ~Jarik

    83. Re:Glorified Cattle Prod by chrispycreeme · · Score: 1

      No we are still animals... Party Animals WOOOHOOO. Tap that keg! Awesome.
    84. Re:Glorified Cattle Prod by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then why did you comment? If you know nothing about the subject, perhaps you should just stay quiet and let the more informed and experienced people talk.

    85. Re:Glorified Cattle Prod by chrispycreeme · · Score: 1

      I would never take a job like that. It seems rather foolish to me. I wouldn't trust the judgement of someone who would take such a job, and I certainly wouldn't trust them with a torture device.

      For alternatives please consider CEO of a large corporation, it pays better and has way less danger of being killed by a crack head.

      Cops put up with shit because they are cops. Quit complaining or don't be a cop.

    86. Re:Glorified Cattle Prod by TheWolfen · · Score: 1

      As for myself, I'd rather be shot than tazed, but that's just me. Ok, then... since you'd rather be shot than tazed, let's try it. Why don't I come over and taze you. You can then tell me how it makes you feel. Then I'll shoot you. Then you can tell me how it makes... wait.. no... you'll be dead!! Only an idiot would rather be shot than tazed. Don't be an idiot. And just in case I'm misunderstood.. this message is not intended as a threat. Just an example. Ok?
    87. Re:Glorified Cattle Prod by Leebert · · Score: 1

      Once you point the gun at someone you have immediately escalated into deadly force. Tell that to the cop who put a 9mm in my back while arresting me when I posed no threat to him, aside from his broken thinking that I was trying to flee.
    88. Re:Glorified Cattle Prod by BakaHoushi · · Score: 1

      Because this is not merely about guns. In fact, it's about tasers, and I suggested an alternative, which it turns out doesn't work as I thought it would, because I'm not knowledgeable of a part I had not considered.

    89. Re:Glorified Cattle Prod by try_anything · · Score: 1

      The taser IS the less lethal alternative. Note that I said less lethal, not non-lethal. Funny how the police insist on calling tasers "less lethal" but will kick and scream (figuratively, of course, or we'ed just tase them) and go to court at public expense to avoid ever admitting that any particular death was caused by tasing.

      "So it's 'less lethal?' Not entirely nonlethal?"

      "Yep."

      "So has it ever killed anyone?"

      "I could conceive of it happening. Scientifically speaking, it could happen. Maybe in some other country, or in an alternative universe, it already has. However, in any jurisdiction where my words could be considered authoritative, or used in court, to my knowledge it has never ever ever killed a single person, or even harmed them or caused any pain. In every case about which I have personal or professional knowledge, tased suspects have reacted with a chuckle and a big peaceful smile, and then died as a result of of previously ingesting the crack that we were trying to plant on... er... the crack that we were trying to stop them from selling to children."
    90. Re:Glorified Cattle Prod by Spetiam · · Score: 1

      Don't tell anyone, but it's one of those monochrome 2048 million color video cards that are banned for possession by civilians. A friend of mine in the US Ministry of Information stole one from a government computer for me...

    91. Re:Glorified Cattle Prod by Spetiam · · Score: 1

      Hi, I'm a straw man. I don't appreciate being attacked. Maybe you could try again and this time go after the post to which you're responding?

    92. Re:Glorified Cattle Prod by TheLink · · Score: 1

      That's in the UK, where the cops don't generally have guns.

      --
    93. Re:Glorified Cattle Prod by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are actually a very small number of departmental policies that allow officers to use a TASER in response to non-compliance. FTFY.
    94. Re:Glorified Cattle Prod by darkmeridian · · Score: 1

      Psssht. Do you think cops beating people up with batons and applying chokeholds would be SAFER than a Taser? Please. Tell that to Rodney King.

      --
      A NYC lawyer blogs. http://www.chuangblog.com/
    95. Re:Glorified Cattle Prod by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Tasers, however, are not tools of punishment,
      > they're tools of restrainment.

      These are not tools of RESTRAINMENT. They're tools of COMPLIANCE.

    96. Re:Glorified Cattle Prod by capologist · · Score: 1

      If people are dying after having a Taser used on them and it cannot be shown that these persons would have probably died anyway, then Taser should be financially responsible. Wait a second, you want to put the burden of proof on Taser to show that their device was not the cause of death?

      Shouldn't that be the other way around? Shouldn't the burden of proof be on the plaintiff claiming that the Taser was the cause of death?
    97. Re:Glorified Cattle Prod by capologist · · Score: 1

      Don't break the law and don't screw with the police, and you won't have anything to worry about. Wait... Did you actually just say that? On /., no less?
    98. Re:Glorified Cattle Prod by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wrongful death proceeding? Show me one case, just one, in which an officer killed someone wrongly USING A REAL GUN and was punished.

    99. Re:Glorified Cattle Prod by sjames · · Score: 1
    100. Re:Glorified Cattle Prod by Swaffs · · Score: 1

      A cop should never go to a taser for someone approaching with a knife. Tasers are just not reliable enough. So I would argue that a taser would never be used instead of a gun. But, in certain situations, with multiple officers present to provide lethal overwatch, a taser might be deployed on someone who had a knife, but was not approaching, as an example, therefore preventing a situation from escalating to the point of where lethal force is needed. Guns don't (shouldn't) get used until the very last second, at which time it better work or you're dead.

      --

      --
      "Karma can only be portioned out by the cosmos." - Homer Simpson [1F10]

    101. Re:Glorified Cattle Prod by Swaffs · · Score: 1

      Well I've been tazed. It hurt like a son-of-a-bitch, for 5 seconds, and then I was find as if it had never happened, save for two small pink marks. I haven't been shot, and I don't think I'd like to be. In fact, to say you'd rather be shot is just being stupid.

      A taser could in some circumstances be an escalating factor, as it does really hurt. However the overwhelming majority of the time, even the toughest of criminals don't want to get it a second time, and will comply. That's if they weren't already handcuffed during their 5 second ride. Its the only tool police have that is temporarily incapacitating. Everything else is based on pain compliance, other than a bullet to the brain stem or spinal column, both of which have nasty side-effects of death and permanent disability that the taser doesn't.

      --

      --
      "Karma can only be portioned out by the cosmos." - Homer Simpson [1F10]

    102. Re:Glorified Cattle Prod by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      That's in the UK, where the cops don't generally have guns.
      Dude. There's 89,000 results. Please, don't be stupid, just scroll down.
    103. Re:Glorified Cattle Prod by Jaime2 · · Score: 1

      I directly attacked the comment that Tasers keep cops safe. That point cannot be debated on its own, because you can only keep cops safe by placing restrictions on the freedom of others. It has to be a balancing act, and therefore, the discussion has to be broadened. I brought up the "code of silence" issue because I do not support giving any more power to cops until they establish some system of responsibility that is palatable to me.

    104. Re:Glorified Cattle Prod by TheLink · · Score: 1

      Yep, you're right there are some results that show cops taking down armed people in the USA.

      So yeah, they now have an option.

      BTW from some of those results it looks like lots of cops are also using tasers instead of just asking people to comply and waiting.

      --
    105. Re:Glorified Cattle Prod by splatter · · Score: 1

      Take it one step further, can you imagine the government developing a strong fast acting (lsd /peyote, mushrooms takes 30 min to an hour to hit) hallucinagin that could be delivered on a dosed dart being released to the wild? It would have to posses the strength of LSD with the speed of salvia or DMT, and would be a nightmare far harder to control by the government then what they would get. The government has gone through many steps to eliminate the creation, or import of the precursors of LSD to try and stop lsd sales which has had moderate success, but never been eliminated. Even if it was acceptable by society and was short acting I have to agree I don't see the government going near that one. http://www.erowid.org/plants/salvia/salvia.shtml http://www.erowid.org/chemicals/dmt/dmt.shtml

      --
      "(I) have this unfortunate condition that causes me not to believe a single thing any politician says when a mic's on.
    106. Re:Glorified Cattle Prod by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 1

      And would giving tasers to the same people who enjoy beating and choking people be any better? The taser is a good tool in the right circumstances, but it shouldn't be used by power-drunk bullies.

      --
      Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
    107. Re:Glorified Cattle Prod by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem with the police training on tasrs is that they only taser themselves with one charge, not the multiple 5 or 6 times that gets reported and opps the suspect died of a heart attack an hour later. Perfectly healthy except for being taser 5 or 6 times. Just a co-incidence that the suspect had a heart attack shortly afterwards........Right?

    108. Re:Glorified Cattle Prod by tinkerghost · · Score: 1

      Why not skip the tasing and jump right to:
      "cops jump on the [suspect] and cuff him/her."
      Because jumping on a struggling suspect is more likely to permanently injure them than tasing them & then cuffing them. Overall, anecdotal evidence suggests that major injuries are down during arrests where cops are using tasers as opposed to wrestle/beat suspects into submission.
    109. Re:Glorified Cattle Prod by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Shouldn't the burden of proof be on the plaintiff claiming that the Taser was the cause of death?

      The person was standing. They were tased. They dropped to the ground dead. I think that is "proof" that the tasing was the cause of death.

    110. Re:Glorified Cattle Prod by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know, back in the old days.. maybe say a whopping twenty years ago, cops were actually trained and were able to apply techniques like swarming to take somebody down. Nowadays we have stupid, lazy, out of shape (tho round is a shape) cops who would rather push a button and BBQ somebody than to put on a set of graphite loaded leather police gloves and do their fucking jobs via jointlock, strategic hit with a baton, etc.


      You sure they are lazy? Perhaps they are too restricted. If they try any fancy jointlocks, they might get sued.
    111. Re:Glorified Cattle Prod by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      WRONG. It's not safe. The people in the clinical trials became radically psychotic and acutely violent, and some of them stayed completely insane and perpetually depersonalized. Many people have acute toxic reactions to hallucinogens. Stop calling them safe, idiot.

    112. Re:Glorified Cattle Prod by Kreigaffe · · Score: 1

      No.. no that does not happen. I don't think even the guvmint propaganda claims that.

      I've spoken to thousands of people who have injested hallucinogenic substances. LSD, psilocybin, ketamine, DXM, salvia... not a single one experienced or has ever known anybody who has experienced any radically psychotic or acutely violent reactions, nor any who have become completely insane and perpetually depersonalized.

      That shit does not happen.

      Reefer Madness was a lie.

      Bad troll is bad.

      --
      ... still waiting for this free-as-in-beer free beer I keep hearing about. :|
  3. Joke by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Having been Tased myself, I find the idea of torture to be a joke. However, the idea of changing death records is just sad propoganda.

  4. Be careful how you create your titles, soulskill.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative
    Even though the company is "Taser International" and these things are improperly referred to as tasers, please do not use the term falsely.
     

    A taser has darts or clips with wires which are remotely launched.

    A stun gun has two electrodes and requires the attacker to press the electrodes to the victim's skin.
     
    VERY few use actual tasers, and even fewer know what a taser really is.

  5. Still torture by Eudial · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Whether something is torture is not (or rather, should not be) decided from whether or not it will actually kill you.

    Undoubtedly, pulling someone's teeth out is torture, yet it's not going to kill you. The relevant part is the wanton quantities of pain involved.

    --
    GAAH! MY PRINTER IS ON FIRE!!! PUT IT OUT! PUT IT OUT!
    1. Re:Still torture by molarmass192 · · Score: 1

      I cannot agree with you here. A bullet and gun will not necessarily kill you, so is that torture as well? If I needed to be subdued for whatever reason, I'd much rather be subdued via something that might leave a burn scar rather than something that will need to be retrieved from my leg using a scalpel and tweezers.

      --

      Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws-Plato
    2. Re:Still torture by Eudial · · Score: 1

      I cannot agree with you here. A bullet and gun will not necessarily kill you, so is that torture as well? If I needed to be subdued for whatever reason, I'd much rather be subdued via something that might leave a burn scar rather than something that will need to be retrieved from my leg using a scalpel and tweezers.


      The lesser of two evils is still evil. You could argue that subduing crowds with guns is justified because flamethrowers is much worse. Or that flamethrowers is justified because nerve gas is much worse.

      While I strongly oppose to subduing anyone, the best would be to use tranquilizer darts. Works like a charm on animals (appropriate irony). Fast acting and relatively pain free.
      --
      GAAH! MY PRINTER IS ON FIRE!!! PUT IT OUT! PUT IT OUT!
    3. Re:Still torture by canUbeleiveIT · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I am no fan of the police, but I wonder how a lone small policeman or policewoman is supposed to deal with a large belligerent person who might assault them or someone else.

    4. Re:Still torture by PieSquared · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Right, that works. As long as you punish people who use a taser when a bullet wouldn't be merited the same as if they had shot the bullet. Which so far nobody is doing.

      I would *certainly* rather be handcuffed and pushed outside rather then risk death by taser for spending too long on my question at a political speech.

      Anyway, the GP was trying to say that if a device can cause death is irrelevant to if it is torture... so yes, if you use a bullet and gun to try to inflict pain, it can be torture. For example, kneecapping.

      --
      Does a line appended to your comment give your post meaning in and of itself, or only in relation to those without?
    5. Re:Still torture by maxume · · Score: 1

      If hundreds of people were getting tranquilized with darts each year, some of the would die due to drug sensitivities or interactions. Also, there are accuracy and rate of fire issues with tranquilizers.

      Plus, the US has embraced a gun culture(let's just not argue about whether that is a good thing), so the police sort of need to be able to respond with equivalent force.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    6. Re:Still torture by rabidMacBigot() · · Score: 3, Informative

      While I strongly oppose to subduing anyone, the best would be to use tranquilizer darts. Works like a charm on animals (appropriate irony). Fast acting and relatively pain free.
      People die every day from anesthesia administered by highly trained, licensed, expert anesthesiologists with access to the best in modern drugs and equipment. I really hope you don't think that a cop can just shoot a magical one-size-fits-all tranq dart at a 250lb thug on PCP and a 95lb teenager and safely send either or both to magical sleepy land. That only happens in the movies. A taser is probably significantly safer.
    7. Re:Still torture by somersault · · Score: 1

      Don't the police get appropriate martial arts training? I know they get aikido based training in Scotland. In that case, the heavier the opponent is, the more you can use their weight against them. If the attacker knows aikido too then they'd be kind of screwed though :p Having said that, in the case where someone is being violent and non compliant with the law, then what's wrong with tasers?

      --
      which is totally what she said
    8. Re:Still torture by somersault · · Score: 1

      I don't think it was the length of the question so much as the nature of the question..

      --
      which is totally what she said
    9. Re:Still torture by DarkOx · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Its not the device its how its used in both the case of the tazer and the gun. If have a gun and shoot you in the kneecap while I am asking you questions because you give me an answer I don't like that is torture. If I shoot you in the gut because you're attacking me or my family that is not torture. My intent was to protect myself by incapacitationg, and I had the need to do that; it was not that I specifically meant to case you agony.

      If cop uses a tazer once to subdue an unruly suspect long enough to get handcuffs on him/her that is not torture. Once again the intent would to incapacitate you long enough to get control of a dangerous situation. If that Officer continues to use the tazer on you after you are already handcuffed laying face down in the dirt I would say that is torture. There is no more need in that case to be inflicting agony on you. The intent is now just cause you pain and that is well wrong.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    10. Re:Still torture by BakaHoushi · · Score: 1

      Well, they DO still have gun guns. You know, the kind that shoot bullets made of metal. You often times don't even have to use it to subdue someone! Just point in their general direction, and most people will stop in place.

      I'm not advocating cops go trigger happy(/happier than they already are in some places) nor am I a fan of guns, but it is effective. I can understand wanting or needing a non-lethal takedown device in some cases being necessary (they have a hostage, the officer is alone, etc.) but this is NOT the vast majority of cases. In general, police should be able to calm just about any perp by using overwhelming numbers and simply HAVING overwhelming firepower.

    11. Re:Still torture by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      Well, they DO still have gun guns. You know, the kind that shoot bullets made of metal. You often times don't even have to use it to subdue someone! Just point in their general direction, and most people will stop in place.

      Well, since it's Sunday morning and my brain isn't functioning well, I will just repeat myself:

      The first thing you learn in gun safety course is that you don't point the gun at anything/anyone that you don't intend to shoot. One the gun goes up, you are in a deadly force situation. If the crack addled / drunk / high / mad perp doesn't do what you want - you have to shoot them. That's the whole rationale behind a Taser - a (usually) non deadly option.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    12. Re:Still torture by gmack · · Score: 1

      Having overwhelming firepower is only effective if the opponent is in a state where they can understand the danger they are in. If someone is sufficiently riled up they may not be able to care or understand that they are likely to be shot. Someone in that state is also likely to get seriously injured (or die) in the process of being physically subdued.

      And of course that's on top of the risk of injury to the police from bitting scratching, needles in pocket etc.

      Tazer is still the best option in many cases. The only down side is that I think the police have gotten too used to thinking of them as "non lethal" and sometimes end up using them where no confrontation was needed at all.

    13. Re:Still torture by wizardforce · · Score: 0

      100 pound officer vs. 250 pound person on meth. I don't think martial arts is quite enough for this one.

      --
      Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
    14. Re:Still torture by Curien · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Maybe someone weighing 100 pounds should consider a different line of work.

      --
      It's always a long day... 86400 doesn't fit into a short.
    15. Re:Still torture by jimicus · · Score: 1

      Unless the nature of the question was "Are you going to shut up or do I have to shoot you?", then the nature of it doesn't enter into the matter.

    16. Re:Still torture by Inda · · Score: 1

      They can use their club... I mean baton. The baton they use for clubbing people.

      --
      This post contains benzene, nitrosamines, formaldehyde and hydrogen cyanide.
    17. Re:Still torture by BakaHoushi · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well, as I said, I should think merely having a gun would calm most people in MOST situations. Obviously a crazed junkie high on $hallucinogenic_drug is not in that category and I do believe a taser is justified in this situation.

      However, my complaint is mostly with the frequency that it is used in. A suspect struggling is not necessarily a cause for using it. Again, in this situation, you should likely have multiple cops on a single suspect. However, if you can't do that, and/or the suspect is thrashing about wildly and likely going to injure someone beyond a few scrapes or cuts, then yes, go for the taser, until we have a better alternative.

      I suppose this all goes along with your last sentence, but I just wanted to note that I understand their necessity at times, but that doesn't make them any less horrible or any less overused. Non-lethal != "I can use this on anyone I need to arrest with no questions asked" which is a sadly wide-spread attitude.

    18. Re:Still torture by c6gunner · · Score: 0, Troll

      Right, that works. As long as you punish people who use a taser when a bullet wouldn't be merited the same as if they had shot the bullet. Which so far nobody is doing.
      Of course they're not. The very idea is ludicrous. Tasers aren't meant to replace guns - they're meant as an intermediate step between manual restraint and firearms. As such, they're MEANT to be used in circumstances where a bullet wouldn't be merited. How can you be so confused about such a basic concept?

      I would *certainly* rather be handcuffed and pushed outside rather then risk death by taser for spending too long on my question at a political speech.
      That's total flame-bait right there, but it's still semi-early and I'm hung over so what the hell. The idiot that got zapped at that speech didn't just "spend too long" on a question, he disrupted the entire event, refused to leave when ordered to do so, and then resisted arrest. Plus he was warned multiple times that he would be tased if he continued to resist. In short, he was begging to get zapped, and his request was fulfilled.
    19. Re:Still torture by justthinkit · · Score: 1

      I know they get aikido based training in Scotland. In that case, the heavier the opponent is, the more you can use their weight against them. If the attacker knows aikido too then they'd be kind of screwed though

      Aikido is a purely defensive martial art (that our whole family studies). Two Aikidoka would do exactly nothing to each other. A student of Aikido acting aggressively is just an attacker, and attackers lose in Aikido. Kinda cool.

      --
      I come here for the love
    20. Re:Still torture by couchslug · · Score: 1

      "Well, as I said, I should think merely having a gun would calm most people in MOST situations."

      MOST people don't get into confrontations with the police in the first place. Those who do are different, and it appears you aren't them.

      As one may see any number of times on popular TV shows, people will knowingly resist in a manner that cannot justify shooting them (they are undeterred by a useless pistol) but does require takedown by other means.

      "A suspect struggling is not necessarily a cause for using it"

      Why should struggling be tolerated?
      It can and often does escalate when "struggling" gains an opportunity to do grab the officers weapon or injure the officer.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    21. Re:Still torture by sjames · · Score: 1

      Torture is very poorly defined. Many things that are NOT torture can become torture when used repeatedly in the right condition.

      For example, waking someone up is not torture. Repeatedly waking someone up until they become disoriented and begin hallucinating IS.

      A good starting point for a definition would be deliberatly inflicting mental or physical distress to gain compliance. The problem is defining distress. I certainly DON'T mean the "distress" of not getting a candy bar, for example.

    22. Re:Still torture by sjames · · Score: 1

      Well, they DO still have gun guns. You know, the kind that shoot bullets made of metal. You often times don't even have to use it to subdue someone! Just point in their general direction, and most people will stop in place.

      If you point a gun at someone having a psychotic reaction to meth (for example) you will either shoot them or they will take your gun and shoot you. If you were pointing the gun expecting compliance rather than to shoot, you'll likely hesitate long enough when they lunge at you that you'll be the one shot.

    23. Re:Still torture by TheLink · · Score: 1

      "The intent is now just cause you pain and that is well wrong"

      I believe it is not legal for cops to mete out extra-judiciary punishments. There has to be due process - e.g. arrest, trial, sentencing then punishment only if found guilty.

      Cops are only human, so it's understandable if they get pissed off and give an extra zap or so "just to make sure". But in those notorious taser videos it sure seems like they're doing a lot more than one or two extra zaps.

      Cops "teaching somebody a lesson" with a taser is clearly illegal.

      --
    24. Re:Still torture by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 1

      More relevantly: Maybe someone still weighing 100 pounds hasn't been hitting the gym much, and should consider a different line of work.

      --
      Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
    25. Re:Still torture by thief_inc · · Score: 1

      and that technically would be discrimination many females are around that weight.

      --
      "To Err is Human To Forgive is Divine neither of which is Marine Corp Policy"-My SNCOIC
    26. Re:Still torture by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      in the case where someone is being violent and non compliant with the law, then what's wrong with tasers?
      If they're being violent, then I have no problem w/ tazing someone. The problem lies in the fact that they are constantly being used in situations where the person is being non-violently uncooperative, unconscious, non-english speakers, or simply inappropriately naked.

      Cops are being lazy, and people are dieing for it.

    27. Re:Still torture by Shuntros · · Score: 1

      That's a good point, but.... anesthesiologist?!??? What kind of unneccessary syllable massacre is that? The correct spelling and pronunciation is anaesthetist. I'm glad I'm not American or I'd want my 2 syllables back!

    28. Re:Still torture by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A bullet and gun will not necessarily kill you, so is that torture as well?

      Torture is an action, not a device. So, yes, you can torture someone with a bullet and a gun. A device can be designed for the purpose of torture. A rack, for example. Guns and bullets are not designed for torture. A taser, arguably, is.

    29. Re:Still torture by antdude · · Score: 1

      I went to PE classes and I never reached near 100 lbs for a 5' guy. My issue was that I couldn't eat well so I have to drink a lot of Ensure and stuff. :( Even today I am slightly over 100 lbs after having a mouth surgery, can eat more (still can't chew), and not even exercising (lazy bum). Exercising has nothing to do with weight.

      --
      Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
    30. Re:Still torture by owlstead · · Score: 1

      That's specieism. They should be made not to wear their honorary axes though.

    31. Re:Still torture by Anonymous+Cowpat · · Score: 1

      I'd be interested to hear your argument about how discriminating against people who aren't physically capable of doing the job is wrong.
      What if you had a job where being small and nible was necessary, so you didn't employ 250lb people? After all, most people who weigh 250lb are men...

      --
      FGD 135
    32. Re:Still torture by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 1

      Fair enough. I'm assuming this isn't something you can just fix -- otherwise, I'd say that it's someone who still weighs 100 pounds, doesn't eat their vegetables and/or doesn't go to the gym.

      But let me put it this way: If you were missing a leg, should you be a cop?

      Same thing with the weight.

      (By the way, the answer might be "yes", but I think essentially arguing that the taser is, in fact, for people who otherwise wouldn't physically be cut out for that kind of work, suggests that people who actually can handle themselves in close combat shouldn't carry tasers, or should almost never fire them.)

      --
      Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
    33. Re:Still torture by antdude · · Score: 1

      "If you were missing a leg, should you be a cop?" Yes if you are able to walk/run like others cops if you get a fake leg or something. But if it is blocking you to be mobile, then no.

      --
      Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
    34. Re:Still torture by thief_inc · · Score: 1

      We allow women both in our military and in our police force, we alter the requirements to accommodate them. I am not making a judgment on whether that is right or wrong, but under our current system denying someone entrance in to these organization would be considered discrimination. There are height and weight requirements in these organizations but usually as long as the person is not unhealthy no action is taken.

      --
      "To Err is Human To Forgive is Divine neither of which is Marine Corp Policy"-My SNCOIC
    35. Re:Still torture by somersault · · Score: 1

      Aye. Unless you're Steven Seagal :p

      --
      which is totally what she said
    36. Re:Still torture by somersault · · Score: 1

      It does if you're a politician. I'm not saying that's how it should be, but that's how they roll. It's all about word play with those pricks.. (mild apologies if you're a politician, but somehow I think not). I mean I like intelligent/humourous word play, but wordplay to try and weasel out of stuff, avoid questions or just to downright lie, is no fun to me.

      --
      which is totally what she said
    37. Re:Still torture by Anonymous+Cowpat · · Score: 1


      We allow women both in our military
      </quote>
      However, we still keep about 3% of the jobs closed from them - the 3% that involve intentional close-quarters combat with the enemy.

      --
      FGD 135
  6. Re:Be careful how you create your titles, soulskil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Taser doesn't make stunguns to my knowledge(with the exception that most taser devices have stungun capabilities as a backup).. The real difference between a stun gun and a taser is not the electrodes but the actual electric pulse itself. The idea behind a stun gun is compliance through pain. A taser is designed for compliance through disruption. The taser interferes with the signals from brain to muscle, thusly making it impossible (for most) to continue resisting.

  7. Missing something... by Klaus_1250 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Taser advocates an alternative cause-of-death scenario called excited delirium. The condition, which is not recognized as a diagnosis in official medical manuals, is used to describe deaths of suspects who become so agitated by drugs, psychosis or poor health that their bodies shut down during struggles with police. How the hell does one get so agitated of his/her own poor health (that during a struggle with the police), you die? I can imagine that people get extremely agitated by 50kV flowing through their bodies. I can even imagine people going psychotic because someone is putting 50kV through them. If they want to use the Excited Delirium scenario, they should also list as being Tasered as one of the probably causes of it.
    --
    It only takes one man to change the Wisdom of the Crowd to Tyranny of the Masses.
    1. Re:Missing something... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How the hell does one get so agitated of his/her own poor health (that during a struggle with the police), you die? ... Come November, watch all the out-of-shape basement-dwelling Slashtards keel over dead from hearing the words "President-elect McCain". :-)
  8. The same thing is true when the cop shoots you by gelfling · · Score: 4, Funny

    Failure to maintain adequate breathing, or something like that.

    1. Re:The same thing is true when the cop shoots you by xtracto · · Score: 1

      No, it is lead over contamination.

      --
      Ubuntu is an African word meaning 'I can't configure Debian'
  9. Might as well get used to it..... by darinfp · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Over here (aus) tasers and MACE sprays are the new thing. Suddenly every police force needs them to handle drug crazed people.

    I'm sure it's got nothing to do with the push for middle aged women and people of random ethnic backrounds to become police officers. Apparently the police force should reflect society. If that means a 45 year old, 5 foot tall woman needs a taser when she confronts a fight at a bar, then that's ok.

    Apparently..

    1. Re:Might as well get used to it..... by amplt1337 · · Score: 1

      I'm sure it's got nothing to do with the push for middle aged women and people of random ethnic backrounds to become police officers. Apparently the police force should reflect society. If that means a 45 year old, 5 foot tall woman needs a taser when she confronts a fight at a bar, then that's ok. You're talking nonsense.
      The point of having the police force reflect society is that communities are much more likely to have cooperative relationships with police officers that look like them. It lowers the total number of confrontations and reduces the crime rate by making the law seem more respectable, because it has friendlier-looking representatives.

      I don't know how they do things in Australia, but in the US, while I have seen 5-foot-tall cops, they're always in groups of three or four. Nobody reasonable expects the police to be Iron Man, busting up riots single-handedly. If NYPD is called to a bar fight, they bring lots of back-up. Cops don't go for fair odds when subduing violent suspects (nor should they).
      --
      Freedom isn't free; its price is the well-being of others.
    2. Re:Might as well get used to it..... by Rasgueado · · Score: 1

      I think you make a good point. Here in on the east coast of Canada, the police force has publically stated that they are only looking for woman and visible minorities to apply (same for the fire department). Although I am not against hiring from different ethnic groups, the minute you exclude any group of people from the selection process, you are by definition, lowering the bar of competence and physical aptitude of the position. I also believe that the increase in taser use is a way to offset a lack of qualified staff.

  10. In America... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    In America, lawyers get to determine how the human body works.

    Not sure this is a step up from the Catholic Church getting to decide, but I hear your President has God whisper advice directly into his ear, so...

    1. Re:In America... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The president thinks he whispers into god's ear.

    2. Re:In America... by dt_aybabtu · · Score: 1

      Are you kidding me....this is +5 Insightful? Mods?

    3. Re:In America... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It sums up the problem and puts it into historical and political context. It's concise and it's funny. Sometimes you don't need to write a Bible to get a point across effectively.

    4. Re:In America... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It has to be pointed out that the problem in the US isn't the Catholic Church, it's Protestant churches.

      Ironically the same churches that scream "God damn America" and claim that God is punishing the US for the crime of "allowing homosexuality" are also listened to and are the reason that the US refuses to accept evolution. I suppose you could argue the whole "abstinence only" and pro-life thing are Catholic, but you'd be giving far more power to the Catholic Church in the US than it actually has.

      It may agree with those positions, but its Protestants who are pushing them in the US. Protestants who "damn America" if the government doesn't agree with them.

    5. Re:In America... by glitch23 · · Score: 1

      Not sure this is a step up from the Catholic Church getting to decide, but I hear your President has God whisper advice directly into his ear, so...

      So you obviously equate religion to insanity. Nice to know you are an ass with a closed mind.

      --
      this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom. -- Lincoln, Gettysburg Address
    6. Re:In America... by JamesP · · Score: 1

      I would suggest reapatedly tasing lawyers, since they are perfectly harmless

      --
      how long until /. fixes commenting on Chrome?
    7. Re:In America... by Hyppy · · Score: 1

      Are you kidding me....this isn't -1 Troll? Mods?

  11. still by nguy · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Yeah, those things probably can kill occasionally. But so can kicking, punching, shooting, even restraining. I'd rather get tasered than kicked, punched, or shot, and if they didn't have a taser, those would be the alternatives.

    On the other hand, I think if police use a taser or other electrical device, it should be treated just like kicking or punching by the legal system and needs to be justified accordingly. And I think it's wrong for the company to try to suppress these incidents. They are most likely real, we just need to debate whether they are acceptable.

    1. Re:still by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually a kick,punch,whatever can never be counted.Each time a Taser is fired the time/duration of the firing is logged in which only Taser can decrypt the data. So accountability for firing a Taser is much higher.

    2. Re:still by Palpitations · · Score: 4, Interesting

      On the other hand, I think if police use a taser or other electrical device, it should be treated just like kicking or punching by the legal system and needs to be justified accordingly. No, it should be treated just like a handgun. In every police department in the US that I'm familiar with (my dad was a SWAT team leader, chief of police, and various other positions in many departments in several states), even unholstering your firearm requires some pretty extensive paperwork to be filled out, detailing the circumstances and the justification for it.

      Locally, the police pretty much do things that way. The policy here is basically "If you'd shoot someone, shoot them. If you'd pull your gun as a threat, but aren't threatened enough to shoot yet, tase them." It's a small town, and with some of the old guard retiring recently, they've done a pretty good job of weeding out the corrupt cops (unfortunately, the worst of them have moved on to be cops in another city, usually getting a promotion along the way), so that policy has worked pretty well here.

      Of course, with stories of elementary school students getting tasered, people being beaten when they "don't comply with a lawful order" because they're essentially seizing from multiple shocks, and all of the other abuses, who knows. The biggest problem is really the code of silence that runs along the thin blue line.
    3. Re:still by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Each time a Taser is fired the time/duration of the firing is logged in which only Taser can decrypt the data. So accountability for firing a Taser is much higher.
      Right... accountability...
    4. Re:still by ckedge · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Now here's my biggest complaint. After years and years of field use, where are the statistical numbers that show a decrease in "adverse effects" - before and after taser use began? Yes yes you have to adjust for lots of different factors because crime waxes and wanes and so does the number of incidents with a given level of resistence from people being detained. BUT - if ANYONE in the world is equipped to collect good statistics, it should be police departments whose officers spend 50% of their time on paperwork.

      Why the ******* are we all hanging in the wind GUESSING whether or not Taser use causes X% more deaths on the left, and not N% more bruises and M% more deaths due to savage beatings and justified and unjustified shootings on the other hand? Where are the ****ing hard numbers from all the YYY jurisdictions using tasers?!

      Also the mumbo jumbo bull**** language about the "cause of death". The *only* thing that matters is whether or not the person would have died if the Taser had not been used. Are they actually claiming that they know for certain that the indviduals would have died had Tasers had not been used? **Exactly** what likelyhood do they place on the individual having died from a seizure or heart-attack if a Taser had not been used? If it's not zero percent, then the Taser's use IS contributory to the cause of death.

      It doesn't matter if the person had a congenital heart defect!! Would the person have lived a longer life if a different form of force had been used!?

      Now ... balance that against the people that would have died (yes, probably completely different people, this is one of those damned if you do damned if you don't) if Tasers were not available. ..then we can choose how and where to allow the use of Tasers. So far I see no evidence that a systematic rational method of doing this is being done. Individual police departments are pulling guidelines out of their ass, for all I know. (They probably are not, but how come *that* is never mentioned? The only reason people get angry is because they don't know just how much effort is going into doing something right - and so they must presume that nothing is being done right - lack of evidence in such cases IS used against you by the public.)

    5. Re:still by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You would rather be tased then punched?

      I've had both, I'd rather be punched, hell I think being shot might be better, tasing hurts everywhere, and it hurts for days, it's like the all over pain after an auto accident when you clench all of your muscles - but for 30 seconds instead of 2.

    6. Re:still by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Really, personally I would rather have NONE of the above.

      Since your preference is being electrocuted, I shall keep that in mind if we ever cross paths.

    7. Re:still by boyko.at.netqos · · Score: 1

      Yeah, those things probably can kill occasionally. But so can kicking, punching, shooting, even restraining. I'd rather get tasered than kicked, punched, or shot, and if they didn't have a taser, those would be the alternatives. This statement greatly implies that you've never been tazered; it also slightly implies that you've never been kicked or punched.
      --
      I used to work for NetQoS. I no longer do, but want to keep the excellent karma attached to this account.
    8. Re:still by nguy · · Score: 1

      No, it should be treated just like a handgun.

      Why? Although there are occasional exceptions, handguns are primarily lethal weapons, while tasers are not.

      I'm not saying that there shouldn't be accountability for the use of tasers, but they are not handguns and shouldn't be treated "just like them".

    9. Re:still by nguy · · Score: 1

      This statement greatly implies that you've never been tazered; it also slightly implies that you've never been kicked or punched.

      This isn't about how it feels, it's about mortality and morbidity. Those are far worse if a 220 pound police officer kicks and punches me than if I get hit with a taser.

    10. Re:still by darkfire5252 · · Score: 1

      I'd rather get tasered than [...] punched You've never been Tased. I don't know of a single person who has been Tased and then stated "That wasn't so bad, better than a punch in the stomach!" The mechanism of a stun gun or taser is to flood your nervous system with enough electricity at a sufficiently high voltage in order to cause extreme pain and muscle spasms. The problem is that people look at someone after they have been Tased, see no mark, and correlate that with "couldn't have been that bad, didn't even leave a mark!" I'd bet that you're taking the recovery period of a punch to the face into consideration, and not the instant of pain itself.
    11. Re:still by Hyppy · · Score: 1

      So, you are expecting the company, which has already been shown to want the abuses covered up, to provide accountability?

      You're taking Hanlon's Razor a bit too far if you don't see the pattern here.

  12. WONDERFUL! by Chas · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Now we have a weapons manufacturer dictating medical procedure and reporting.

    *Sniff* *Sniff* I smell bullshit....

    --


    Chas - The one, the only.
    THANK GOD!!!
    1. Re:WONDERFUL! by somersault · · Score: 3, Funny

      Sorry, that was me :/ Having 50kV running through my body gives me issues with bowel control

      --
      which is totally what she said
    2. Re:WONDERFUL! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That sort of thing seems reasonable once your brain has been turned to tapioca by listening to the right wing propaganda machine. Apparently liberals hate cops and want them to be beaten to death by gangsters and welfare parasite drug dealers - so Taser, Co. is the only one objective enough to make this sort of decision.

    3. Re:WONDERFUL! by Chas · · Score: 1

      As a card-carrying Republican, take offense to that.

      This isn't a "right-wing" or "left-wing" bullshit issue. This is a "unscrupulous fucking company with no moral center" issue.

      Please take the pointless partisanism someplace else.

      --


      Chas - The one, the only.
      THANK GOD!!!
    4. Re:WONDERFUL! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please take the pointless partisanism someplace else.

      So now it offends you to have it pointed out that your party has been hijacked by unscrupulous scumbags who use these tactics and encourage businesses to use them as well. This is entirely a political issue, everything became a political issue after the republicans got into power by means of the culture war. Or is it only okay to bring up the peripheral stuff when it's an election year and you people need to convince the flat earthers to vote republican or the gays will steal their children away?

    5. Re:WONDERFUL! by capologist · · Score: 1

      Now we have a weapons manufacturer dictating medical procedure and reporting. Taser isn't dictating jack. They're trying to get a court to dictate, and if the evidence is on their side, more power to them.
    6. Re:WONDERFUL! by jeffb+(2.718) · · Score: 1

      DON'T RETCON ME, BRO!

    7. Re:WONDERFUL! by Chas · · Score: 1

      Nope. Take offense when some silly git tries to hijack a thread with partisan BS where none is relative.

      --


      Chas - The one, the only.
      THANK GOD!!!
  13. Excited delerium? by Reader+X · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Apparently excited delerium. is a very specialized mortal condition that only occurs when you're in police custody.

    Right.

    You can always find a dumb judge in America.

    1. Re:Excited delerium? by somersault · · Score: 1

      Wow.. the cases in there are sickening. It's funny to read summaries like this, but then when you relate it to actual real life.. that's kind of terrifying, and horrific for the families involved (and any future victims of the police officers that caused the deaths). I think that sometimes, unfortunately someone is going to have a weak heart or whatnot and die from one taser shot. The cases in that Wiki article seemed to involve the use of more than one taser at once. If the first one isn't planted in a good area for disruption, don't use it as well! Personally I'd rather just have my arms grabbed or something if I've gone crazy.

      --
      which is totally what she said
    2. Re:Excited delerium? by gmack · · Score: 1

      Ever seen someone go crazy? Good luck grabbing their arms. And when you do try to pin them down try doing it without putting the wrong pressure on the back , neck or vital organs and at the same time try not to put so much pressure on their rib cage that they can't breathe.

  14. In Local News... by BlueStrat · · Score: 4, Funny

    A power company lineman died today from excited delirium when he accidentally came in contact with a live power line.

    Co-workers are reported as saying he didn't appear to be excited or delirious prior to his unfortunate accident, although witnesses do report that his body appeared to become quite excited at the moment of contact with the fatal current.

    Full story at 11.

    Ummm...yeah...

    Strat

    --
    Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
  15. In other news... by Jafafa+Hots · · Score: 1

    ...chronic depression will be renamed "melancholia," and loss of consciousness due to orthostatic hypotension will from now on be known as "the vapors."

    --
    This space available.
    1. Re:In other news... by JamesP · · Score: 1

      Remins me of a mention in the news of old causes of death

      Amongst them: "died suddenly", "died of old age" and "died with a start"

      --
      how long until /. fixes commenting on Chrome?
  16. Not voltage by icepick72 · · Score: 1
    I found this info interesting because I had always assumed Taser used high voltage on the human body.

    Voltage Facts
    THE VOLTAGE MYTH
    Stun guns rely on voltage to cause pain that will stop an attacker only a percentage of the time. That is why the Air TASER® Weapon has been discontinued. The new Advance Tasers do not rely on voltage. They utilize an advance technolgy that totally interrupts the body's electrical system which is effective 100% of the time.

    The next question is WHAT is the advance technology being used?

    1. Re:Not voltage by BlueStrat · · Score: 1

      I found this info interesting because I had always assumed Taser used high voltage on the human body.

      Voltage Facts
      THE VOLTAGE MYTH
      Stun guns rely on voltage to cause pain that will stop an attacker only a percentage of the time. That is why the Air TASER® Weapon has been discontinued. The new Advance Tasers do not rely on voltage. They utilize an advance technolgy that totally interrupts the body's electrical system which is effective 100% of the time.

      The next question is WHAT is the advance technology being used?


      Firstly, if it was voltage alone, there would be no pain. One can play with a Van De Graaf generator with many times the voltage of a taser with no harm whatsoever because it has a very very tiny current delivery. It's the *current* that causes pain and death. I imagine the "new technology" consists of upping the current-delivering abilities of the high voltage circuit to cause every muscle in the targets' body to go into rictus, thus immobilizing them. Unfortunately, the heart is also a muscle.

      Even for a perfectly healthy average sized adult, there's a very fine line between enough current to incapacitate, and enough to kill.

      Cheers!

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    2. Re:Not voltage by kaos07 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Extremely suspect site.

      According to them, their brand spanking new ULTRA OMEGA SUPER DEATH RAY (Advance Taser) does not in fact rely on "voltage". However according to the site they link you too: http://www.taser.org/m18l.html/

      "50,000 Volts, 18 Watts and 133 MilliAmps of measured power is instantly discharged into the subject. The electrical discharge pulses in a revolutionary new method of advanced EMD power (Electro-Muscular Disruption) that no subject has ever been able to overcome. The EMD power surge instantly disrupts the central nervous system and results in the subject falling to the ground in spasms of involuntary muscular convulsions. "

      How does "50,000 volts being instantly discharged into the subject" = "does not rely on voltage"?

    3. Re:Not voltage by somersault · · Score: 2, Funny

      The next question is WHAT is the advance technology being used? I've heard of this too, it's called the Large Ampere Mind Buffer 2 (Superior Love And Understanding Generator Having True Enlightened Results)
      --
      which is totally what she said
    4. Re:Not voltage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hope those numbers are wrong, because only 50 milliamps would kill most people instantly.

    5. Re:Not voltage by Hal_Porter · · Score: 1
      You could probably generate a waveform at a frequency which messes up the control loops in the human nervous system.

      I guess they use some sort of high voltage generator which is inherently pulsed since most are - typically you use transistors to send pulses into a transformer. So they'd just choose the most disruptive frequency.

      They hint at this in press releases

      http://www.securityprousa.com/stgunandtagu.html

      Its pulsating electrical output impedes the communication between the brain and the muscular system, resulting in loss of body control. The designers probably tested it on themselves, maybe with the output current limited. I think that's the way I'd do it, unless I could dig up some paper on motor nervous system jamming with pulsed high voltage.
      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    6. Re:Not voltage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most likely, they have discovered that alternating current of the appropriate frequency (maybe several frequencies) disrupts the somatic nervous system. It may also be some kind of pulse train, rather than a sine wave.

    7. Re:Not voltage by lonasindi · · Score: 1

      It's about the way the power is delivered. I believe the idea is that the way the charge is pulsed, either at a specific or varying frequency (I don't recall) disrupts the nervous system.

      Just because there's 50kV doesn't mean this relies on voltage. It takes a fairly large potential difference to make much of an impact against skin resistance (typically 1-2MEGAohms, remember v=ir or i = v/r, and that current is important).

    8. Re:Not voltage by mijelh · · Score: 1

      I think that as long as the electric resistance of the human body is more or less constant, talking about current and voltage is quite equivalent in this case

    9. Re:Not voltage by pjt33 · · Score: 1

      On the basis that P=IV, there's a disparity by a factor of more than 350 in those figures. 50kV * 133mA = 6.65kW. Now it's not DC current, and they may be citing peak voltage and current rather than RMS, but I find it hard to account for such a large factor, and it raises additional credibility issues.

    10. Re:Not voltage by glitch23 · · Score: 1

      "50,000 Volts, 18 Watts and 133 MilliAmps of measured power is instantly discharged into the subject. The electrical discharge pulses in a revolutionary new method of advanced EMD power (Electro-Muscular Disruption) that no subject has ever been able to overcome. The EMD power surge instantly disrupts the central nervous system and results in the subject falling to the ground in spasms of involuntary muscular convulsions. "

      Given that less than 100 milliamps can kill a person I wonder how the 133 milliamps in this device are safe. How can they guarantee the current doesn't go through the heart so as to not stop it? I don't know how scientific it is but the 3rd post on this forum indicates 133 milliamps is not safe to say the least.

      How does "50,000 volts being instantly discharged into the subject" = "does not rely on voltage"?

      Maybe the direct method of incapacitating the victim isn't voltage but indirectly, if it is an electronic device, it is going to rely on voltage so I agree with your question. Must be an issue with their marketing department. Of course, everyone knows it is the current that does the damage anyway.

      --
      this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom. -- Lincoln, Gettysburg Address
    11. Re:Not voltage by BlueStrat · · Score: 1

      I think that as long as the electric resistance of the human body is more or less constant, talking about current and voltage is quite equivalent in this case

      I have to disagree. From my experience working in the electrical and electronics fields for over 30 years, you can have 50,000 volts across your body, but if the current flowing is only a couple of microamps, you'll barely feel anything. However, increase the current to 5-10 milliamps or more, and you'll get quite a jolt.

      At 100 miliamps (0.1 amps or one-tenth of an amp) or more, there's a very significant risk of death. The current path across your body also plays a large role in the potential lethality. If the current path is across the heart, there's a much higher chance of death. As little as 20 milliamps (0.02 amps or two one-hundredths of an amp) flowing across the heart even momentarily can cause it to stop.

      In other words, you can have 50,000 volts or more across your body at a couple microamps of current flow and experience very little discomfort (like a static-electrical discharge from walking across a carpet and touching a grounded object on a dry day), but as little as 80-90 volts at a significant fraction of an ampere can be lethal. It's the current flowing that does the damage and inflicts pain.

      Cheers!

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    12. Re:Not voltage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      try 5 seconds at 50% efficiency.

    13. Re:Not voltage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Superior Love and Understanding Generator Having A True Enlightened Result
      SLUG HATER

    14. Re:Not voltage by Ihlosi · · Score: 1
      In other words, you can have 50,000 volts or more across your body at a couple microamps of current flow

      How ? I = U / R, and R of the human body is in the order of a couple of kOhms. Where do you get the several MOhm resistance you need to get microamps out of 50 kV ?

    15. Re:Not voltage by Jaime2 · · Score: 1

      I have to disagree. From my experience working in the electrical and electronics fields for over 30 years, you can have 50,000 volts across your body, but if the current flowing is only a couple of microamps, you'll barely feel anything. However, increase the current to 5-10 milliamps or more, and you'll get quite a jolt. So, you have discovered a device that can change some other factor of a power source so that it is always 50,000 volts, but it sometimes delivers 2 microamps and sometimes delivers 5 millamps over the same load? You should publish your work as the rest of the electronics community is unaware of this capability. You'll be famous.
    16. Re:Not voltage by BlueStrat · · Score: 1

      In other words, you can have 50,000 volts or more across your body at a couple microamps of current flow

      How ? I = U / R, and R of the human body is in the order of a couple of kOhms. Where do you get the several MOhm resistance you need to get microamps out of 50 kV ?


      I was simply postulating a theoretical scenario to provide an example where that much current was flowing through a body based on the current capacity of the power source, not on a power source that was capable of delivering more than what I stated.

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    17. Re:Not voltage by BlueStrat · · Score: 1

      I have to disagree. From my experience working in the electrical and electronics fields for over 30 years, you can have 50,000 volts across your body, but if the current flowing is only a couple of microamps, you'll barely feel anything. However, increase the current to 5-10 milliamps or more, and you'll get quite a jolt.
      So, you have discovered a device that can change some other factor of a power source so that it is always 50,000 volts, but it sometimes delivers 2 microamps and sometimes delivers 5 millamps over the same load? You should publish your work as the rest of the electronics community is unaware of this capability. You'll be famous.


      As I replied to Ihlosi, I was simply postulating a theoretical situation to provide an example for the subject I was discussing.

      However, since you asked, it is possible to alter the current and voltage output of a power supply with current and voltage regulation circuitry. Google provides many examples. How much current and voltage can be regulated depends on the particular design and the components used, and how deep your pockets are.

      Besides, you can see and experience a great example of very high voltages but extremely low current with simple static electrical charges. Very high voltage discharge, but very low current.

      This has little to do with the subject of my post, which was that current flow was the determining factor in how damaging/painful an electrical shock is.

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    18. Re:Not voltage by Jaime2 · · Score: 1
      Static electricity only delivers a small amount of current because the power source is exhausted almost immediately. Technically, it delivers a high-current shock initially, then as the source voltage drop, so does the current. It still maintains V=IR. This has no relationship to how a Taser works as a Taser maintains the same output characteristics (victim twitching and screaming) as long as the button is held down.

      This has little to do with the subject of my post, which was that current flow was the determining factor in how damaging/painful an electrical shock is. But for a fixed purely resistive load, current flow is directly proportional to voltage. So, the terms "source voltage" and "current flow" are interchangable. I realize that the body isn't purely resistive and that no power source is an ideal voltage source as they all have some internal resistance. But, it still isn't possible to externally will an extra three orders of magnitude into the current flow without raising the voltage measured at the output of the Taser.

      Trying to assign the damage of an electrical shock to either voltage or current is like trying to decide if a fall victim was killed by their kenetic energy when they hit the ground or by the excessive height of the fall. They are simply two ways of saying the same thing.
    19. Re:Not voltage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think they're shooting for a technicality...the voltage goes across you. Voltage is like potential energy. The potential for a boatload of *current* to become discharged.
       
      But to answer your question...it's because they're scumbags, as evidenced by their willingness to sue coroners for speaking the truth and (god forbid) hurting the bottom line.

  17. Better than being shot by tjstork · · Score: 0

    Tazer's role is to subdue people resisting arresting without resorting to violence that risks life or injury to the officer, or risks getting shot. Your odds of getting killed by a Tazer are remarkably low, so low, in fact, that people do taze each other in training with it. Yeah, anything might kill you, and tazer isn't perfect, but overall, tazer is better than being shot or having a cop getting his ear bitten off.

    --
    This is my sig.
    1. Re:Better than being shot by m.ducharme · · Score: 1

      Actually, I think Taser stopped requiring cops to tase each other in training when a cop died after being tased.

      --
      Rule of Slashdot #0: You and people like you are not representative of the larger population. - A.C.
    2. Re:Better than being shot by Reader+X · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Uh huh, and that explains why Taser International is threatening to sue coroners who cite it as a contributing factor to cause of death. It's not because the product kills people every now and then and they might not sell as many tasers to cops if that becomes widely known. It's the cops they care about! That thin blue line between civilization and chaos!
       
      Look, I think everyone agrees that cops need to be able to subdue violent people with as little lethal force used as possible. To the extent that tasers, stun guns, etc. contribute to that goal, fine. The point is that Taser International's commercial interests may not necessarily coincide with that goal (i.e. the product can be abused, or should not be used in some circumstances), and Taser International may not be interested in owning up to that fact for marketing reasons.
       
      Coroners, who are obligated to determine cause of death as accurately as possible, should be able to opine that the use of a taser contributed to cause of death when that is in fact the case, end of story. That is, assuming you want cops to be accountable. It was interesting to scroll down the comments in TFA to note the number of people who apparently think cops should just be able to pull people off the street and kill them in custody.

    3. Re:Better than being shot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Thank you for not understanding anything. The main problem is that the threshold for when this potentially fatal method is applied in a loooong row of cases have been shown to be incredibly low. In quite a few cases it has been shown to be the *first* thing the officer does when encountering resistance. If you're equating tasering someone with shooting them, I sincerely do hope shooting people have never been the first reaction to resistance where you live.

      Tasers should be outlawed; they do not do anything you couldn't do before with a gun or a truncheon, other than give the you the opportunity to torture your victim on the spot in order to masturbate your poor ego, without risking any punishment for it.

    4. Re:Better than being shot by Fr0mZer0 · · Score: 1

      Tazer is a For Profit company their role is to market and sell a product that is an alternative to firearms. In order to do that they need to market their products as a better alternative that the use of guns. Their marketing campaign tries to encite fear in law enforcement and political officals of the problems that go along with using more lethal firearms. They state their products are less lethal and safer reducing the paperwork and lawsuits police will be invovled in. Because Tazer training touts the safety fot ehir products and how littl eharm it does to the individual they are trying to restrain, police have been given the impression that if one shot with a Tazer is not enough then they can discharge several of them on the same individual with not additional complications.

    5. Re:Better than being shot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would beg to differ.
      The UK police (who are usually well known for their level-headedness and reasonable approach) now knock people's doors down and, in full riot gear, threaten to taser an unarmed and barely lucid man if he 'does not comply'.
      The taser is a device to subdue already violent persons who do not require the immediate application of lethal violence (i.e. persons pointing a gun at you), it is not a tool to gain compliance through the threat of infliction of pain.

      Using the direct application of physical pain to coerce adults has been mostly wiped out in the western world for over 100 years, now, in one stroke, it's back, and as official policy!

    6. Re:Better than being shot by Blkdeath · · Score: 1

      Actually, I think Taser stopped requiring cops to tase each other in training when a cop died after being tased.

      Cite please.

      --
      BD Phone Home!

      Shameless plug. Like you weren't expecting it.

    7. Re:Better than being shot by tjstork · · Score: 1

      Tazer is a For Profit company their role is to market

      Yeah, and the people who oppose Taser are a bunch of for profit lawyers.... so, how does the profitability of taser mean anything?

      --
      This is my sig.
    8. Re:Better than being shot by Fr0mZer0 · · Score: 1

      When you understand what the true motive of an entity is you can better understand their actions in the future. It should come as no surprise that they would try to support studies that would favor their product and the continued use of it. That is a corruption of the system.

    9. Re:Better than being shot by m.ducharme · · Score: 1

      Ack! Google tells me nothing. I can tell you that I heard the story I believe on CBC radio, and I know the CBC did a big in-depth on tasing and Taser International, but alas I cannot find a link.

      Mea Culpa.

      --
      Rule of Slashdot #0: You and people like you are not representative of the larger population. - A.C.
    10. Re:Better than being shot by tjstork · · Score: 1

      When you understand what the true motive of an entity is you can better understand their actions in the future. It should come as no surprise that they would try to support studies that would favor their product and the continued use of it. That is a corruption of the system.

      So does this mean that we can disregard global warming because the people that advocate addressing it are linked to left wing causes?

      I mean, advertising can only do so much, and at some point, the product ultimately has to sell itself. Taser sells itself. They come out, show a guy getting tasered, giving the cops a few seconds to restrain him without harm to themselves and even to the victim. On the other hand, if you shoot someone, a lot of times, they die. That's a pretty big difference.

      --
      This is my sig.
    11. Re:Better than being shot by Fr0mZer0 · · Score: 1

      I'm not going to get into a debate on the off topic of global warming but you did hit the nail on the head. When a discussion on a scientific data is taken out of context because it supports some other groups agenda they will take it to the most illogical conclusions. You have to be careful where you get your support from. You would be well warned if you started looking for VC funding for a start up or to grow a business, sure they are supporting it and want to see you do well but be careful on the amount of control you give them, otherwise you will not be in charge. The product sells itself in a controlled environment. Taser brings their product out and 'tasers' a few people that should be in fairly good shape. Disregarding the stereotypes of fat donut eating cops, the average police officer is relatively fit compared to the population at hand. Taser does not bring out people who potential may die from a hit with a taser. People who may have a heart arrhythmia, palpitations, or some other nervous tissue damage. I don't fault the Taser product. I fault the company and its practices of aggressive growth and I fault the few police departments and their employees who disregard public safety over their own. If fire fighters were more like some police officers they would wait for the building to burn down to look for survivors.

    12. Re:Better than being shot by tjstork · · Score: 1

      If fire fighters were more like some police officers they would wait for the building to burn down to look for survivors.

      The job of police is not to prevent crime or to rescue people as much as it is to contain it. Cops aren't there to keep one guy from getting murdered. They are there to try and keep a lot of people from getting murdered or to try and prevent civil unrest. In this, they do very well.

      But people have this image of police as rescuers, and they simply aren't. Courts have held time and time again that police officers are not required to risk their lives to prevent someone else from getting killed. That's why you see, for example, situations like Columbine, where the cops surround the building - they contain the situation...

      If you want to defend yourself and your property, that's your responsibility, not police.

      --
      This is my sig.
    13. Re:Better than being shot by Fr0mZer0 · · Score: 1

      I'll remember that the next time the police attempt to force an entry without a warrant, or haven't met their traffic violation quota for the month. I mean why train a police officer if first Aid and CPR then? What purpose does that serve? I think the police over the years have designed a nice little niche for themselves that absolves them of any responsibility for their actions and the ability to wield exacting and selective enforcement of enough complicated laws that they can justify ensnaring any individual in. If we strictly define the police officer's role to containment and enforcement then we could say the same thing about the fire department. Their mission is to contain a fire and keep it from spreading. They don't have to enter a building to save anyone that may or may not be alive. Leave that to the paramedics, right?

    14. Re:Better than being shot by Ihlosi · · Score: 1
      If you want to defend yourself and your property, that's your responsibility, not police.

      So if I'm a tourist, then I'm basically screwed ?

  18. Traditionally, It's called: "Lead Poisoning" by mikelieman · · Score: 1

    Someone needs to tell these courts that companies working with/for/owned by "Loyal Bushies" are literally above-the-law, and shouldn't have to deal with these distractions as they Keep America Safe For Their Business Plan.

    --
    Technology -- No Place For Wimps! Grateful Dead and Jerry Garcia Chatroom -- http://www.wemissjerry.org
    1. Re:Traditionally, It's called: "Lead Poisoning" by Hal_Porter · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but it's like the corporations man! Little Eichmanns working to give the police an option to restrain criminals non lethally. Bastards.

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    2. Re:Traditionally, It's called: "Lead Poisoning" by mikelieman · · Score: 1

      The police have had that for CENTURIES.

      It's called a "Baton"

      And it's a whole lot more controllable and accountable than an UNTESTED MEDICAL DEVICE which should, by rights be regulated by the FDA.

      --
      Technology -- No Place For Wimps! Grateful Dead and Jerry Garcia Chatroom -- http://www.wemissjerry.org
    3. Re:Traditionally, It's called: "Lead Poisoning" by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      The police have had that for CENTURIES. It's called a "Baton"
      Yes, call me back when you've done a comparison study of how many people have died or been seriously injured due to the use of police batons vs. the use of tasers.

      And it's a whole lot more controllable and accountable....
      Using a stick is more accountable than using a taser? How do you figure? Tasers at least have to be recharged, meaning there's a way of confirming whether or not they were discharged during a cop's shift. How exactly do you keep track of whether or not a stick was used?

      UNTESTED MEDICAL DEVICE
      Heh. Actually, the "baton" is just as much an "untested medical device" as the taser is.
    4. Re:Traditionally, It's called: "Lead Poisoning" by Hal_Porter · · Score: 1
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Club_(law_enforcement)

      Batons are widely considered more likely to cause harm than Tasers and OC, and can result in serious injury or death. When Tasers and OC are applied the result is most often physical pain. In the case of OC temporary inflammation of the face, eyes, and respiratory system result.
      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    5. Re:Traditionally, It's called: "Lead Poisoning" by mikelieman · · Score: 1
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Club_(law_enforcement)

      Batons are widely considered more likely to cause harm than Tasers and OC, and can result in serious injury or death.[citation needed] When Tasers and OC are applied the result is most often physical pain. In the case of OC temporary inflammation of the face, eyes, and respiratory system result.


      Fixed that for you..
      --
      Technology -- No Place For Wimps! Grateful Dead and Jerry Garcia Chatroom -- http://www.wemissjerry.org
    6. Re:Traditionally, It's called: "Lead Poisoning" by Hal_Porter · · Score: 1

      I think if I absolutely had to subdue someone with minimal risk of accidentally killing them I'd much rather use a Taser than bash them over the head with a big stick. I think in the sort of situation where I'd need to do it I'd probably hit them as hard as I could, and it's apparently pretty easy to give someone a brain injury if you do that. That's assuming the taser is well designed of course.

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    7. Re:Traditionally, It's called: "Lead Poisoning" by mikelieman · · Score: 1

      Of course, that all implies you are completely UNTRAINED in the proper use of a baton as either a deterrent *or* a tool.

      If you're happy to lower the bar w.r.t. Professional Education and Credentials for your law enforcement officers, than that's your opinion, of course.

      I expect more from people who swear oaths.

      --
      Technology -- No Place For Wimps! Grateful Dead and Jerry Garcia Chatroom -- http://www.wemissjerry.org
    8. Re:Traditionally, It's called: "Lead Poisoning" by Hal_Porter · · Score: 1
      Yeah, because with training if you're in a riot you're obviously going to go think "Well this fucker is clearly trying to kill me but I'll only hit softly with my baton and only thick muscles like I was trained to do rather than bashing on the head or groin which will put him down faster"

      The point about something like a Taser is it doesn't how matter how pissed off the guy holding it is, it always does the same thing. Batons aren't like that and I'd expect the rules of engagement, which are exactly as restrictive as I said BTW, to break down if the policeman was under serious risk of injury.

      In most countries policemen have shot people dead in riots, it's naive to think they won't kill people if you give them clubs. But a well designed electric weapon, unlike a guy with a baton won't panic - it will always deliver the same jolt no matter what risk the guy holding it is under.

      If you're happy to lower the bar w.r.t. Professional Education and Credentials for your law enforcement officers, than that's your opinion, of course.

      I expect more from people who swear oaths. Bullshit, you're one of the people who keep whining about the US=Fascist state and how you'd have to be crazy to trust law enforcement.
      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    9. Re:Traditionally, It's called: "Lead Poisoning" by mikelieman · · Score: 1

      The point about something like a Taser is it doesn't how matter how pissed off the guy holding it is, it always does the same thing. What if what it does, is the WRONG thing? It always does the WRONG thing...

      In most countries policemen have shot people dead in riots In BOSTON, MA, USA policemen have shot an INNOCENT GIRL dead at a World Series celebration WITH A PAINTBALL GUN LOADED WITH TEARGAS BALLS. ( I've heard the murdering cop was supposed to have cried out "HEADSHOT!" when he saw her drop... But that could easily be rumor -- Although credible given the circumstances of the murder. )

      "Less Lethal" is still lethal, and who ever said anything about TRUSTING anyone?
      --
      Technology -- No Place For Wimps! Grateful Dead and Jerry Garcia Chatroom -- http://www.wemissjerry.org
  19. Re:Be careful how you create your titles, soulskil by icepick72 · · Score: 0, Troll

    You say "improperly referred to as tasers" and then use the word "taser" repeatedly to describe them...

  20. Cops carry guns too by krygny · · Score: 4, Funny

    DON'T TASE ME, BRO'!!

    Wait a sec ... is that a Glock?!!

    DON'T SHOOT ME, BRO'!! TASE ME, TASE ME, BRO'!!

    --
    Research shows that 67% of those who use the term "research shows", are just making shit up.
    1. Re:Cops carry guns too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Don't excited delirium me, bro!"

    2. Re:Cops carry guns too by Hyppy · · Score: 1

      Tasing is preferable to shooting.
      Therefore:
      Tasing is acceptable.

      Lets break that down some more:

      A is preferable to B.
      Therefore:
      A is acceptable.

      No, that doesn't work. A and B can both be unacceptable.

      A gulag is preferable to a nazi cocentration camp.
      But:
      A gulag is still unacceptable.

  21. The judges' first words ... by tomhudson · · Score: 0

    When reading the verdict, the judges' first words were "Don't taze me, Bro!"

  22. FUD on both sides by Mad-cat · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Disclaimer: I am a police officer in Florida. I use the Taser. I do not own stock in Taser International.

    To say that a Taser didn't *contribute* to the deaths is probably wrong. To say that a Taser *caused* the deaths is almost certainly wrong.

    The amperage on a Taser is too low by a few orders of magnitude to cause death by electrocution. It will cause central nervous system disruption, which is very uncomfortable, and causes some unusual side effects.

    I've been shot with a Taser. Not a stun-gun, a full-fledged Taser with the barbed prongs and ranged shot. I took a five second burst of 50,000 volts. It isn't fun, but I'd prefer it to pepper spray (which I've also been hit with). At least it's over in five seconds, instead of three hours.

    During the shot, the Taser causes you to literally scream out all the air in your body in about two seconds. You spend three seconds trying to force out air that isn't there. In someone full of drugs or with pre-existing medical problems, this can definitely pose a risk.

    As a police officer, I've had six situations where using the Taser has saved me from serious bodily injury. In all but one case, the defendant was immediately back on his feet after I helped him up, and quickly back in good spirits. In two cases, they spent the ride to jail joking with me. In one case, the defendant had to go to the hospital due to a cocaine overdose. He lived due to timely medical intervention, but we expected him to be in bad shape and had an ambulance standing by to assist the minute we had him secure.

    As for calling the Taser torture, let me put it this way: I would willingly be shot with a Taser again in a training exercise. I've willingly subjected other people to it after feeling its effects. I would *not* willingly be shot with pepper spray/mace again. I have not and will not willingly subject other people to it after feeling its effects. The Taser is a valuable, but dangerous weapon that must be treated with caution and only used appropriately. Pepper spray is torture.

    1. Re:FUD on both sides by sapphire+wyvern · · Score: 1

      Thanks for your interesting post; if I had mod points right now, some would be going your way.

      What paperwork/bureaucracy is involved when you use a Taser? I know that in many jurisdictions, any use of a sidearm requires the officer to fill out forms & reports, etc. Are there similar reporting & tracking requirements for Taser usage?

    2. Re:FUD on both sides by Reader+X · · Score: 5, Interesting

      OK, can I ask you some questions to maybe help de-FUD the debate:

      1. It's clear that some individuals, because they were full of illegal drugs or possibly for other reasons, have died after being shot by tasers. It's also been asserted that at least one police officer has died in a training exercise after being shot by a taser; presumably he or she was not full of illegal drugs. So, knowing this and assuming the above is true, would you willingly be shot by a taser again as part of a training exercise?

      2. You stated that the taser must be used appropriately, and made reference to drugs and unnamed medical issues. Could you define more specifically what that means? Having read the TFA, do you think there is a possibilty that the taser is being used inappropriately either by accident or on purpose?

      3. As a police officer, you and your coworkers are obviously constantly in situations where you're subjected to serious bodily harm, and let me be the first to say that as a citizen I deeply appreciate it and think the police are not supported as well as they should be from a financial and operational perspective. That being said, do you believe that the mitigation of serious injury is worth the death of a suspect? Put another way, would you forego the use of the taser and accept increased risk of bodily harm if you thought there was a heightened risk of the suspect's death?

      4. Per 3) above, I also strongly believe that a civilized society needs to rigorously oversee the use of force to enforce the law. Are you comfortable with the level of oversight that a coroner's inquest provides on the use of both lethal and nonlethal force? If not, why not?

      5. It seems clear to me that in seeking the decision referenced in TFA, Taser International is motivated by the desire to avoid liability for the use or misuse of their product, and perhaps less so by the desire to protect officers. Do you agree? If not, why not?

      All of the above assuming that you have nothing better to do on a Sunday morning than post to Slashdot. Feel free to ignore.

      Thanks for the thoughful commentary.

    3. Re:FUD on both sides by DirtySouthAfrican · · Score: 1

      To say that a Taser didn't *contribute* to the deaths is probably wrong. To say that a Taser *caused* the deaths is almost certainly wrong. then

      During the shot, the Taser causes you to literally scream out all the air in your body in about two seconds. ... In someone full of drugs or with pre-existing medical problems, this can definitely pose a risk. Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer. I think some people might disagree with your apparent definition of "cause". A friend of mine used to quip that death is usually "caused" by the heart ceasing to pump. I think if you knowingly spike someone with a heart condition's beverage with lots of salt and caffeine, precipitating death, there's probably murder, manslaughter, or 'criminal negligence causing death' waiting for you, even though the pre-existing heart condition was the "cause" here. As for the torture thing. What about incidents where the device is used multiple times for no apparent reason (or, apparently, "look, he's still moving. Tase him!")? That smells of torture, or at least cruelty/brutality.
    4. Re:FUD on both sides by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      The Taser is a valuable, but dangerous weapon that must be treated with caution and only used appropriately. See, and that's the problem: tasers *are* dangerous (no matter whether they're less so than other things), they *are* weapons, they *must* be treated with caution, and they must *only* used appropriately.

      The whole "tasers had nothing to do at all whatsoever with the deaths at hand" spiel that the company's perpetrating is dangerous because it downplays the risks involved with tasers. For that matter, the same can be said about your anecdotes; even though you probably didn't really intend them to come across this way, what you say ("immediately back on his feet", "spent the ride to jail joking with me", "I would willingly be shot with a taser again" etc.) also belittles what tasers actually do, and contributes to the idea that it's OK to easily taser people.

      It's not, though.

      Use a taser like you would a firearm - as a last esort, but nothing else. When you taser someone, keep in mind that you might very well kill or seriously injure them, and don't do so unless this is a necessary risk. There's too many cops out there who don't understand this, unfortunately, and who will routinely taser people much more easily than they would shoot them with a firearm.

      (On a side note, I also dispute that you really know what a taser feels like. A training exercise is one thing, but you will not be subject to the same stress and the same adrenaline rush and all that. You'll also know that your "opponents" don't actually want to do anything to you, and you'll also know that qualified medical help is right there should it be necessary, and you'll know that you're healthy and in good shape. None of these are true for someone at the receiving end of your own taser.)
    5. Re:FUD on both sides by dickens · · Score: 1

      I have no doubt whatsoever that the taser is a valuable option to have for an honest peace officer.

      However, as I'm sure you know, no non-lethal weapon exists that has not been used to torture someone. If you weren't honest, you could go over someone with your night stick after they were already subdued. This is not torture in the sense that you are trying to extract a confession. It's extra-judicial punishment, and it's common. Tasing that poor stupid bastard at the John Kerry speech was extra-judicial punishment. You *know* he posed no threat to the half-dozen officers who were sitting on him, and you *know* he would have run like a bastard to get the hell out of there. The officers on the scene tased him because it is painful. They accused him, judged him and punished him on the scene because they thought that he deserved it. They knew he probably wouldn't have been convicted of a crime if he were arrested. Of course that is wrong and according to statute they are all felons and should serve long prison terms. But I don't see that happening.

    6. Re:FUD on both sides by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I guess the problem may lie with officers who don't use a 5 second burst, but use 2 minute 'bursts'. I saw a guy being tasered on a reality police show, first at a distance when he ran, then again by an officer who had two tasers pressed into the suspect's chest when the suspect was on the ground and obviously 'done'. The officer was not counting to five. Until there's some sort of oversight, we're going to have taser-related deaths. They're being abused.

    7. Re:FUD on both sides by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've been shot with a Taser. Not a stun-gun, a full-fledged Taser with the barbed prongs and ranged shot. I took a five second burst of 50,000 volts. It isn't fun, but I'd prefer it to pepper spray (which I've also been hit with). Just out of curiosity, was this training exercise indoors on a soft pad with an officer on either side of you to help ease you to the ground, or were you standing outside by yourself on concrete?
    8. Re:FUD on both sides by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Taser's own documentation shows that an already agitated suspect has a significant chance of entering into a delirium state. There are documented

      Unfortunately this effect is virtually unheard of in use on 'voluntary' use during training.

    9. Re:FUD on both sides by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Disclaimer: I'm a cardiologist. I didn't review any study on Taser but here are my observations:

      1) What's your definition of cause ?

      2) You said the amperage is too low. How's about the voltage ?

      3) If the Taser could cause a 'nervous system disruption' in your term. How's about the cardiac nervous system disruption too ?

      4) When we do a cardioversion ( electroshock ) for arrhythmia treatment, you should synchronize the shock to the patient EKG so the shock would be delivered outside the risk zone of the cardiac conduction. An electro-shock if not synchronize could cause a ventricular fibrillation and death.

      5) When a person had an electroshock, the heart might not stop beating right away, but in the next 24-48 hours, there could be spontaneous arrhythmia. That's why we're always observe a person who have received an electro-shock under cardiac monitoring for 24-48 hours. You might be Tasered but you could die not right away but in the next 24-48 hours.

      6) Trying to dictate an medical evaluation by a judge is completely wrong.

      7) Canadian medical association is calling for an independent evaluation of the Taser.

    10. Re:FUD on both sides by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      I've been hit with a taser in training too and am quite familiar with it's effects, so I'm really surprised that you would classify pepper spray/mace as worse than a taser. I've never experienced the effects of pepper spray, but I HAVE been subject to the effects of CS gas (tear gas), and I always assumed that the two would be roughly equivalent. Do you find this to be the case? If so, I think the effects of these gasses/sprays vary widely from person to person, since I'd much rather get gassed than tasered.

    11. Re:FUD on both sides by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      he officers on the scene tased him because it is painful. They accused him, judged him and punished him on the scene because they thought that he deserved it.
      No, they tased him because he was resisting arrest. I've never used a taser to subdue a suspect, but I HAVE used pressure-point manipulation in order to cause pain and guarantee compliance. It's the same principle - if the guy is hurting, he's not going to be doing much struggling. It's not torture, it's called "doing my job".

      They knew he probably wouldn't have been convicted of a crime if he were arrested. Of course that is wrong and according to statute they are all felons and should serve long prison terms.
      Don't be an idiot. The guy was trespassing ans resisting arrest. How exactly you figure that he wouldn't be convicted is beyond me. You must know of some secret legal code which makes it ok to do whatever the fuck you want as long as you're screaming incoherent bullshit at a political candidate.
    12. Re:FUD on both sides by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      More bullshit from an enemy cop...

      You torture Americans in their own homes, so you're nothing but an egotistical,closet Nazi who needs to be imprisoned and repeatedly butt-slammed for violations against humanity.
      YOU ALL HIDE BEHIND YOUR CORRUPT COURTS TO BAIL YOU OUT EACH TIME INSTEAD OF LOOKING IN THE MIRROR TO SEE WHAT KIND OF MONSTER YOU'VE TURNED INTO.
      Cops are a joke. They want to dress like soldiers but instead of serving the country and defending our freedom such as our only true class of Americans do honorably(Veterans and Active/Reservist/Guard), they take our freedom and piss on them with every unjustifiable tasering, shooting, etc. A cop first violates the first amendment by trying to intimidate you, then the fourth, etc....
      A cop has no right to tase you for mouthing off, if they cannot humble themselves, they need to be booted ASAP. I am so glad we are now a video-based society so we can catch these psycho bastards torturing Americans in the act. Cops are not gods (they may think so, just try talking to one...it can't be done without trying to belittle you) they are insecure moronic closet Nazis who smile at the thought of overpowering an innocent civilian. Sadistic by far, evil be nature. There aren't any honorable cop anymore since they allowed the psychos in their police forces to get away with torture and murder, repeatedly no less.
        Talk about sadistic...and these enemy combatants walk around our homes with badges, guns and a small IQ.

      FIGHT THE SYSTEM, VIDEO EVERY COP ENCOUNTER YOU HAVE. THEY WANT TO SHIT ON US, EXPOSE THEM FOR WHO THEY REALLY ARE, ENEMY OCCUPIERS. COPS AREN'T AMERICANS SINCE THEY ARE ANTI-FREEDOM.

    13. Re:FUD on both sides by Theaetetus · · Score: 1

      To say that a Taser didn't *contribute* to the deaths is probably wrong. To say that a Taser *caused* the deaths is almost certainly wrong. Legally, there's not a huge difference, not in tort law or criminal law - but-for the Taser, the person with a preexisting condition would not have died. Therefore, the Taser is the cause of the death. Further, the Taser is the proximate cause, because it is foreseeable that someone could die from being Tasered, having happened several times now.

      The amperage on a Taser is too low by a few orders of magnitude to cause death by electrocution. It will cause central nervous system disruption, which is very uncomfortable, and causes some unusual side effects. And potentially can cause disruption of the heart "pacemaker" cells that control the heart beat, leading to arrhythmia and death.
    14. Re:FUD on both sides by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've been shot with a Taser. Not a stun-gun, a full-fledged Taser with the barbed prongs and ranged shot. I took a five second burst of 50,000 volts. It isn't fun, but I'd prefer it to pepper spray (which I've also been hit with). At least it's over in five seconds, instead of three hours.

      And were you shot from behind, in the back, or from the front, over the heart? In most officer training they are shot in the back, while most suspects are shot in the front. There is a difference.

      In fact, many officers have suffered serious injury from taser training. Many police departments now prohibit the use of a taser on officers during training.

      Many officers and police departments have sued taser international. Taser always quietly settles a lawsuit from officers & police departments. Taser knows that it's much harder to claim "excited delirium" with a police officer, and it's much harder to defend a lawsuit from a sympathetic plaintiff.

      It's much easier to defend a lawsuit from suspects. Lets face it, many suspects are scummy SOBs. Being a scummy SOB shouldn't be a death sentence.

    15. Re:FUD on both sides by asackett · · Score: 1

      The current produced by a stun gun or taser is more than sufficient to cause death. See Electric Shock.

      Being tased makes you a physician to the same extent that being hit by a bus would make you an automotive engineer.

      --

      Warning: This signature may offend some viewers.

    16. Re:FUD on both sides by celle · · Score: 1

      I've been shot by a taser too. But at home on my own time. Being shot in training when its a part of your job and you're being paid for it is a little different than having your life interfered with on your own dime because someone thought they could.

    17. Re:FUD on both sides by moosesocks · · Score: 1

      In those six situations, would you have resorted to lethal force, had the taser not been available? What were your alternatives?

      I'm by no means second-guessing you, and imagine that you made the right call in all of those situations. I'm sort of probing to see how officers define the hazy grey area between a target that requires the use of lethal force to be subdued, and a less harmful target that still might potentially have the capacity to harm the officer...

      My own personal view is that cops should by all means be allowed to carry tasers, but also be subject to an in-depth investigation whenever one is used.

      --
      -- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose
    18. Re:FUD on both sides by Mad-cat · · Score: 4, Informative

      >1. It's clear that some individuals, because they were full of illegal drugs or possibly
      >for other reasons, have died after being shot by tasers. It's also been asserted that at
      >least one police officer has died in a training exercise after being shot by a taser;
      >presumably he or she was not full of illegal drugs. So, knowing this and assuming the above
      >is true, would you willingly be shot by a taser again as part of a training exercise?

      If an officer died after being shot by the Taser, there was probably some condition that was agitated by the Taser, or the Taser malfunctioned and delivered sufficient amperage to cause electrocution. There is also the possibility of legal drugs causing a reaction that led to death. I am not going to be so blind or stupid as to say that the Taser *cannot* be the cause of death, but I would say that considering the thousands of non-lethal uses of the Taser, it is statistically unlikely that it will cause my death or the death of a suspect I need to subdue. I am still willing to be shot with it, because I am not willing to use any potentially questionable subdual methods on the citizens of my city without first having it used on me. I will not have myself held above the people I protect.

      >2. You stated that the taser must be used appropriately, and made reference to drugs and
      >unnamed medical issues. Could you define more specifically what that means? Having read the
      >TFA, do you think there is a possibilty that the taser is being used inappropriately either
      >by accident or on purpose?

      When I reference drugs, I specifically mean cocaine, methamphetamine, LSD, and "multi-vector intoxication", which is a "cocktail" of multiple drugs both prescription and "street". In my experience, any stimulant is the most agitating factor in death or serious harm when dealing with police vs. suspect use of force, Taser or otherwise. When assessing the situation, we often have seconds to react, but in ideal circumstances we watch for rapid eye movement, heavy and rapid breathing, and someone taking off their clothes for no apparent reason. If these signs are present, I try to find an alternative to the Taser, such as a lot more officers to subdue for medical assistance. This has only happened to me once, and unfortunately even six of us could not subdue the suspect without the Taser. He threw me off of him, and I'm 6'5" tall and built large.

      There is always the possibility that the Taser is accidently misused. Careful training and an honest, open assesment of the data will lead to reducing or eliminating these accidents. Deliberate misuse almost certainly happens. I've never seen it in my agency, but not all officers are idealists. There are thugs who wear a badge.

      >3. As a police officer, you and your coworkers are obviously constantly in situations where
      >you're subjected to serious bodily harm, and let me be the first to say that as a citizen I
      >deeply appreciate it and think the police are not supported as well as they should be from
      >a financial and operational perspective. That being said, do you believe that the
      >mitigation of serious injury is worth the death of a suspect? Put another way, would you
      >forego the use of the taser and accept increased risk of bodily harm if you thought there
      >was a heightened risk of the suspect's death?

      To say that we are *constantly* in dangerous situations would be an exaggeration. While the "supercop" ideal is appealing, the job is really hours of boredom or tedium, punctuated by heart-pounding terror. I'd also like to say that the citizens of Florida reward us very handsomely for our service, maybe 5% to 10% less than the private sector for equivalent experience and education. I'm very grateful to the people of Florida for my salary; I'm not wealthy, but with a sensible budget I can live quite comfortably.

      To answer the question, I definitely believe in forgoing the Taser as often as possible. The Taser as designed isn't capa

    19. Re:FUD on both sides by ckedge · · Score: 1

      Very useful insights. Especially about the pepper spray vs taser comparison.

      Here's my own disclaimer - I'm concerned about taser overuse by the one in twenty or fifty officers who probably shouldn't be officers. On the other hand my brother is an officer, and one of his co-workers was able to de-escallate an escallating situation with a crowd of 30-50 angry youths just by displaying the taser and turning on the targeting laser (rural party, one person had to go to jail and a second just jumped using physical force against an officer to prevent that, and the crowd was getting very very agitated). In rural areas backup is 15-45 minutes away, so I'm very happy he has this option.

      > "As a police officer, I've had six situations where using the Taser has saved me from serious bodily injury."

      Six times, just yourself? How many years have you had it?

      I don't recall my parent's friends (the ones that were officers) being injured all that often. Before tasers were introduced, just how often were officers seriously injured vs nowdays? Or were they simply forced by the circumstances to spend more time talking, more time de-escallating, and more time waiting for backup?

      You know what the real issue probably is? The one in twenty or one in fifty officers who should not be officers, whom other officers KNOW should not be officers - but who for bureaucratic and "union/blue-wall" type reasons - have not been fired yet.

      You guys need to get rid of the damned blue wall and start holding yourselves to higher standards, and be more willing to get rid of the one in twenty who shouldn't be out there. You'll get even more respect from the rest of us citizens.

      And you need to start publishing hard stats showing just how many fewer people are being seriously injured now that tasers are being used! That combined with lots of videos and personal stories of how it has been a positive thing - is the only way to combat the news organizations propensity for "If it bleeds, it leads".

      (Hmmm, I should say I'm really really sorry you have to spend all day dealing with those of us that shouldn't be citizens... :| )

    20. Re:FUD on both sides by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No one said the taser is an electric chair or hotdog machine, Doctor Cop. What they said is that the electric shock kills you. I'd have thought that everyone knows that electric shocks can kill you, typically by stopping the heart. And I don't really care what you'd rather be shot with. The taser kills people. You don't sound nearly qualified to be debating medical issues.

    21. Re:FUD on both sides by Reader+X · · Score: 1

      Mad-cat, that's some mighty fine commenting there. I salute you.

      So let me just ask one last question: given all of the foregoing, how do you feel about Taser International suing coroners, making up a new diagnostic term ('excited delirium'), etc.? Are they right to act as TFA states? Or are they trying to avoid the accountability we both value?

      Thanks and enjoy the rest of the day.

      PS. The interested reader may enjoy parsing Taser International's point of view on liability and riskhere. (Police officers take note: that's *your* liability, not theirs.)

      That's one interesting Web site. I did not know that:
      - There will be a Mock Prison Riot in Moundsburg, WV, on May 11-14;
      - Tasers come in designer colors and have built-in video cameras;
      - There's a Taser Training Academy.

    22. Re:FUD on both sides by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If an officer died after being shot by the Taser, there was probably some condition that was agitated by the Taser, or the Taser malfunctioned and delivered sufficient amperage to cause electrocution. There is also the possibility of legal drugs causing a reaction that led to death.

      I hate when people cry about an underlying condition. It's just a way of blaming the victim. If you zap someone, they're heart can stop. Haven't you ever seen EMTs zap people to get their heart pumping again? And in heart surgery they zap it off, and then back on again the same way. Zapping people can make their heart stop. That's not a condition other than normal. Get a clue and stop being full of crap.

    23. Re:FUD on both sides by trentgamblin · · Score: 1

      I've been pepper sprayed and the pain was alleviated immediately after wiping my face off. I would gladly take the pain of pepper spray again rather then being tased, which can certainly cause death.

    24. Re:FUD on both sides by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You get a clue too. You know why they position the paddles where they do? So that the current flows from one paddle to the next **through** the heart. If the current doesn't flow through the heart there shouldn't be a problem. Note that the guy in the airport that died of a heart attack was tased **Multiple times** even after he was down. It wasn't just one shot and dead. If the officers were in any way competant at their job they should have tased him once; and subdued him once he was down.

    25. Re:FUD on both sides by LanMan04 · · Score: 1

      Thanks for your comments. If I'm ever arrested, I hope the arresting officer puts as much thought into the process as you do.

      --
      With the first link, the chain is forged.
    26. Re:FUD on both sides by binkx · · Score: 1

      I agree with fellow officer Mad-cat on all counts, and also for noting that a Taser isn't "non-lethal" as I said earlier, but less-than-lethal. An important distinction. What no one here seems to be dealing with is what do you do with people who are resisting a lawful order -- either passively or, more often, actively. Running amok in the street; coming at you with bare hands; throwing things etc. How do you stop them? How do you get them to comply with what you want to do (e.g., stop the behavior, get them off the street for their safety and that of the public, which is the whole idea). In 30+ years, I've been issued every gizmo to help achieve that. The Taser is the only one that seems to work consistently when things have gone to heck and the use of lethal force is not an option. I am too old to wrestle with people. As noted earlier, the injury rate for both police AND (!!) suspects has gone down as a result of Taser use. In all of the YouTube stuff people are using to show police brutality, they all show resistance or, to me, a reasonable fear of danger for the officer or public. The law enforcement taser keeps a data log of each use: date, time, duration. Each department should have a person for monthly downloads of that data. As noted, when the cartridge is used, a bunch of small tags are ejected with the serial number of that particular weapon. It's pretty hard to use it inappropriately -- not impossible!, but there are safeguards. Geroge

    27. Re:FUD on both sides by binkx · · Score: 1

      I don't know about mad-cat, but we fill out an incident report. In addition, we have protocols on removal for the darts (cleaning the wound, etc.). We also are retrained every year (I think a 4 hour course -- can't remember) and practice firing it. We don't necessarily take the victim to a hospital unless it's suggested because of other factors (drugs on board, injury as a result of the arrest etc.). In addition, we're required to test it (without the cartridge!) at the beginning of each shift to make sure it's fully charged. g.

    28. Re:FUD on both sides by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      According to wikipedia The Canadian Police were following protocol when they tasered multiple times.

      In August 2007, three months before Robert Dziekanski died shortly after being tasered at Vancouver International Airport, Royal Canadian Mounted Police changed its protocol on Taser use, from discouraging multiple Taser shocks to suggesting that multiple shocks may bring a subject under control more quickly, under certain circumstances. It was suggested that multiple taser jolts may lessen the risks of prolonged and dangerous struggle. --Excited_delerium

      RCMP revised taser policy to allow multiple jolts

      Police say medical evidence shows that, without tasers, prolonged and dangerous struggles occur with people suffering from what they term 'excited delirium'. It prompted the force to release new rules in August allowing officers to use tasers multiple times to more quickly gain control.

      You keep saying that these people all died of flukes or underlying conditions or were on drugs and that this shock isn't torture or strong enough to kill, but I call all of your comments into question.

      Loud music can be considered torture, and I'm sure a taser can be considered torture. A cardiologist (something you're not) already told you that people who are shocked are monitored for a reasonable amount of time to be sure they don't ventricularly fibrilate, something that electrical shocks can trigger, even small electrical shocks. What makes you so Absolutely confident that these shocks aren't reaching the heart. Do you have any clinical testing to prove this? I read of taser tests that showed heart anomalies in animals that were tasered. And aren't you admitting there that tasers are killing people, at least in the case of multiple tases? How many does it take? A cop died in a demonstration, remember.

      Moreover, most Americans have heart disease. That means that you're probably putting more people at risk than you clearly believe based on your belief that all the victims had some defect.

      The electrical shocks from tasers are killing people. Any competent person can clearly see that, yet you beat this horse to death to defend yourself with a bunch of nonsense. You just don't give up.
    29. Re:FUD on both sides by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      officers on the scene tased him because it is painful.

      No, they tased him because he was resisting arrest. I've...used pressure-point manipulation in order to cause pain and guarantee compliance....if the guy is hurting, he's not going to be doing much struggling. It's not torture, it's called "doing my job".
      Okay, so maybe it's called "doing your job" but it's still torture. You're job is to torture people, apparently, and to be a retard about it.
    30. Re:FUD on both sides by dickens · · Score: 1

      You probably haven't seen the video, I'd say.

      He was calling out loudly "Please, Please, ok, I'll leave quietly". They would not permit it.

      What did you want him to do, commit sepuku right there to prove his allegiance to the police state?

      There were enough cops there to grab the guy by the scruff of the neck and give him the fucking bum's rush out the back door, pronto. That response would pass the "reasonable man" test every time.

      You would choose to inflict pain, either by taser or by "pressure-point manipulation". You sound like a sadist. I hope you have a dangerous job, you're sure prepared for it.

      Secret code ? Hmm. Was he convicted? Was he charged? I don't know off hand.

  23. Torture is ok by nten · · Score: 1

    It can be used to retrain minds. We are learning machines with positive and negative feedback. All negative feedback is pain of some sort. I would personally rather be 'fixed' clockwork orange style than be stuck in prison, useless to, and a burden on, society.

    Its not the technology of the taser, or the practice of using pain, that is bad here. Its the mindset of *some* of the people using it. Letting the tech divert us from holding them accountable is a mistake.

    --
    refactor the law, its bloated, confusing and unmaintainable.
  24. Re:Be careful how you create your titles, soulskil by dnwq · · Score: 1
    Uh, no. You can just remove the probe cartridge and it turns into what you call a 'stun gun'. http://www.taser.com/RESEARCH/Pages/PhysicianFAQs.aspx:

    There are two primary ways to expose a subject to a TASER electronic control device ("ECD") device... The second method is a direct contact method known as a âoeDrive-Stun.â The Drive Stun method is where the front of the ECD device makes direct contact with the subjectâ(TM)s clothing or skin.
  25. Re:Be careful how you create your titles, soulskil by icepick72 · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    The credibility of pure anonymous posts here is very low. If your comment is modded down you may want to open an account and respond using it. In the future you can continue to defend taser, promote the technology and educate under your account.

  26. Don't test the teasers bro by Joe+The+Dragon · · Score: 1

    Don't test the teasers bro

  27. Re:Cops carry BATONS too -- for centuries... by mikelieman · · Score: 1

    "Don't Beat Me, Bro!"

    All in all, I'd rather have the force continuum be:

    "batons > pistols"

    Tasers are too much like Extrajudicial Torture for my tastes.

    --
    Technology -- No Place For Wimps! Grateful Dead and Jerry Garcia Chatroom -- http://www.wemissjerry.org
  28. What if we lived in a fascist country and ... by intnsred · · Score: 1

    What if we lived in a fascist country and nobody knew it?

    "Fascism could better be called 'corporatism', for it is merely the merging of state power with corporate power." -- attributed to Benito Mussolini, the Italian dictator who "invented" fascism.

    Fascism is: "A system of government that exercises a dictatorship of the extreme right, typically through the merging of state and business leadership, together with belligerent nationalism." -- The 1983 American Heritage Dictionary.

    "The American fascist would prefer not to use violence. His method is to poison the channels of public information. With a fascist the problem is never how best to present the truth to the public but how best to use the news to deceive the public into giving the fascist and his group more money or more power." -- Vice President Henry Wallace, April 9, 1944.

    We don't control the "justice" system -- it is run, like the entire gov't, primarily for the benefit of corporations and their wealthy owners.

    We shouldn't be surprised at Taser's actions, they're little different than what the RIAA does. The real question is, what are you doing to stop this creeping fascism?

    1. Re:What if we lived in a fascist country and ... by easyTree · · Score: 1

      when you have business interests manipulating perceived reality so that your soldiers will invade a foreign country for profit, it's clear that there's no avoiding american fascism.

  29. It's a new evil - shooting the messenger by Kupfernigk · · Score: 2, Interesting
    This new trend of governments and companies trying to legislate independent experts out of existence is very worrying. In the UK, coroners are identifying the cause of death of soldiers as being due to failures by the MOD - so the MOD wants the law changed to prevent them from doing so. Here we have a company trying to use the law in exactly the same way. The Tesco company (think Wal-Mart only worse) based in the UK is now trying to use criminal libel laws (in Thailand) and ordinary libel laws (in the UK) to prevent investigative journalists reporting on what it gets up to. Macdonalds famously spent a fortune (in the McLibel case) trying to destroy a pair of activists who exposed their practices - they had what is known as a Pyrrhic victory - hundreds of millions of pounds of legal expenses and adverse publicity in exchange for £40000 damages - but still they pursued the case.

    Meanwhile we find out that drug companies have been using the full weight of statistical analysis and selective reporting to represent ineffective drugs as being effective. The result is that independent organisations like the NIH and, in the UK, the NICE, have to spend to counter the propaganda.

    Perhaps we need to take a leaf out of the book of the Byzantine empire - which was around a lot longer than the British Empire was or the US Empire is likely to last - and restrict the maximum size of any corporation to the point at which it cannot dictate to elected governments. But who is the "we" who any longer have the power to do it?

    --
    From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
    1. Re:It's a new evil - shooting the messenger by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Macdonalds famously spent a fortune (in the McLibel case) trying to destroy a pair of activists who exposed their practices - they had what is known as a Pyrrhic victory - hundreds of millions of pounds of legal expenses and adverse publicity in exchange for £40000 damages - but still they pursued the case.

      Destroy a pair of activists? Absolutely not. The activists committed libel, as defined by UK law. McDonalds is entitled to bring a claim of libel against someone who wrongs them, just like any other company or any person. McDonalds sued, and the activists were found to be wrong.

      Now, you might argue that UK libel law ought to be reformed, and I might agree with you, but that doesn't change the fact that these two activists committed libel.

      However, as a business strategy, filing suit against these activists wasn't the best idea, since it brought a great deal of publicity to their cause, and a great deal of negative publicity to McDonalds.

      But that doesn't change the basic facts: the activists committed libel. The activists were wrong and McDonalds was right.

  30. It doesn't work that way by Moraelin · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Yes, the theory is that the taser is used instead of a gun, in the situations where otherwise they'd have to shoot. Too bad it doesn't seem to work that way. It seems to work more like: when they would have used a gun, they'll still use a gun, but now have the taser for the rest of the time.

    Off the top of my head, I remember such gems as:

    - guy with a medical emergency calls 911, cops show up first and tase him in his bed. Apparently they thought he lunged at them. While lying on a bed across the room.

    - student doesn't have his library card at the library, and is already leaving (so wtf of a danger did he pose?), campus security guards tase him repeatedly.

    - some idiot decides to streak naked, gets tased. I can think of at least two of these.

    - schoolkid threatens to cut himself with a piece of broken glass, gets tased.

    - 12 year old schoolgirl is found skipping school, gets tased.

    - 75 year old grandma insists too much to visit an old friend in another nursing home, a cop gets called and tases her.

    - guy gets agitated after being kept IIRC for 12 hours without access to food, water or his medicine in an airport, cops tase him to death. Literally: tased repeatedly, until he dies of heart attack.

    Etc, etc, etc.

    Here's my question for all the "well, it's better than being shot" gang: exactly which of those would have warranted a bullet instead? No, seriously, I'm curious.

    AFAIK not even in Stalin's USSR or Mao's China would they shoot a sick guy for just calling an ambulance. And no country in the world takes school _that_ seriously as to shoot a 12 year old for skipping school.

    No, it's already used in _addition_ to the gun, not instead of.

    And here's a funnier thought: we already have plenty of evidence that it's used repeatedly. Some even on camera. In some cases it seems to be police stupidity: they see a guy spasming after the jolt, and they think it's some kind of resisting arest, so they do it again. In some cases it seems genuine torture. They've been given free hand to use the taser, so they'll cause you some more pain just because they don't like you.

    --
    A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
    1. Re:It doesn't work that way by NotBornYesterday · · Score: 1

      That's a false argument; none of these situations seem to require shooting or tazing (tasing?). Properly used, less-lethal weapons save far more lives than they take, both for the subject and the officers. Proper use is a matter of training and judgement.

      The kid threatening harm to him/herself may have received an unpleasant tasing, but did that prevent more substantial self-inflicted harm?

      In Stalinist USSR, they could and did shoot/torture/imprison people for no damned good reason whatsoever.

      --
      I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
    2. Re:It doesn't work that way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, talk about leaving out so many key details.

      Having personally been tasered (volunteered)... its very painful and very effective. They have great videos showing LEOs and Marines attempting to resist the effects and failing, all with NO negative side effects.

      The fact is, almost every dashboard video shows people refusing to acknowledge reasonable requests by a LEO and rather than engage in physical contact with someone who could be on drugs, etc, they threaten to tase if there is no compliance and then follow through with the threat.

      Cheers

    3. Re:It doesn't work that way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What a joke. What a liberal hand wringer.

      "- student doesn't have his library card at the library, and is already leaving (so wtf of a danger did he pose?), campus security guards tase him repeatedly."

      Oh rly?
      It didn't actually happen like that, did it?
      It was a third world asshole who got tased for REFUSING to show his ID to ANYBODY. The campus security guards are there for a REASON. To PROTECT the legitimate students of the university, which is why they are supposed to show their ID CARDS. The third world asshole behaved like an asshole throughout his tasing, and deserved everything he got.

      Move to Haiti, idiot, since you love third world shitholes so much...

    4. Re:It doesn't work that way by Rary · · Score: 1

      Actually, the Taser is not supposed to be used as an alternative to the gun. Unfortunately, even the police themselves perpetuate this myth.

      The Taser is supposed to be an alternative to the baton and other physical attempts to subdue an individual. This is somewhat evidenced by the fact that the rate of occurrences in which the police use their gun have remained constant with the introduction of the Taser (at least in Canada -- I have no American statistics). Clearly, the Taser is not being used instead of the gun -- as it should not be.

      However, police and politicians repeatedly use the "instead of a gun" argument to justify to the public the need for Tasers. They repeatedly say that there will be less shootings thanks to Tasers, even though they know -- and statistics show -- that this is not the case. Now that Tasers are being linked with a number of deaths, police and politicians are continuing to use this as a defense of Taser use.

      I'm not saying that being Tasered isn't preferable to being beaten with a baton or pepper sprayed. I've never had any of them done to me. But let's at least frame the debate in the correct context. The number of injuries among both the police and the perpetrator resulting from attempts to subdue have decreased since Tasers were introduced.

      From this article:

      "Use of force experts across Canada right now, we're kind of shaking our heads going, 'How did we give the impression to the lay public or the media that Tasers were ever supposed to be a replacement for lethal force?'" said Staff Sergeant Chris Butler.

      "They were another use of force tool in the same regard as the baton, the pepper spray. Just another tool!"
      --

      "You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war." -- Albert Einstein

    5. Re:It doesn't work that way by Moraelin · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The Taser is supposed to be an alternative to the baton and other physical attempts to subdue an individual.


      I don't know... it seems to me like it lowered the bar even in that aspect.

      I mean, think about the small sample of cases I've listed. I can't think of many of them which would have warranted even the use of the baton. I mean, just replace "tased" with "beaten with a nightstick" in any of them, and in most cases you'd probably be outraged.

      E.g., "Cops beat up a sick guy who had called an ambulance." Nope, doesn't sound justifiable. "Cop hits 12 year old schoolgirl with the baton for skipping school." Egads, he'd have the children rights groups all over him like a sack of bricks. And most of the rest of us would want to at _least_ see him out of that job, permanently. "Cop beats up 75 year old grandma for insisting to see her old friend in another nursing home." Erk. Doesn't sound palatable either. "Guy is kept for 12 hours in an airport without food or water or his medication, cops beat him to death when he gets agitated as a result. 'Cause they didn't understand what he was saying, so a sound beating sounded like a reasonable alternative." I'm betting they wouldn't get as easily out of beating someone to death as out of tasing him to death. Etc.

      So, sad to say, it looks to me like it lowered the bar even in that aspect. People get tased in situations where even using the baton would have been considered inappropriate.

      However, police and politicians repeatedly use the "instead of a gun" argument to justify to the public the need for Tasers. They repeatedly say that there will be less shootings thanks to Tasers, even though they know -- and statistics show -- that this is not the case. Now that Tasers are being linked with a number of deaths, police and politicians are continuing to use this as a defense of Taser use.


      1. So, then, it seems to me that the sooner we debunk that lie, the better. Regardless of whether you're pro or against the way the police uses them, let's get that lie out of the way. Then maybe we'll be able to have a rational dialogue with those politicians.

      At any rate, that's my biggest problem: that lie.

      2. Well, the fact that they need to lie to get things their way, already seems to me like a dangerous road to travel.

      That's not how a democracy was supposed to work. The politicians are there to serve the population, not the other way around. _If_ the majority of an informed population is against it, that's it.

      Basically I don't believe in enlightened despotism. Someone at the top being so smart that they know what's really good for the population, whether the unwashed masses understand it or not... well, we've tried that before. It didn't work too well.

      And again, make no mistake, it's not democracy. Democracy means that if the people want X, they should be able to get X. Even if it's something bloody stupid. (Back in the days of everyone-votes classical democracy, Athens actually voted to go to war with Sparta, and never recovered from _that_ mistake.) The politicians may -- and should -- try to make their case as to why X is a good or a bad idea, but ultimately it should be up to the citizens to look at the facts and decide if they want X or not.

      Now I'm not idealistic enough to believe that lies aren't already 90% of politics. I know that. But I do believe that they're a perversion of the whole process, and a thing to be fought off, not shrugged off.
      --
      A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
    6. Re:It doesn't work that way by Rary · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I mean, think about the small sample of cases I've listed. I can't think of many of them which would have warranted even the use of the baton. I mean, just replace "tased" with "beaten with a nightstick" in any of them, and in most cases you'd probably be outraged.

      Absolutely. I'm not at all suggesting that the cases you mentioned are in any way justified. I just wanted to try to eliminate the justification that police, politicians, and many of the posters in this forum use to defend the Taser.

      This justification is particularly disturbing in light of the cases you mentioned. In the many years prior to the introduction of the Taser, cases similar to the ones you described did occur involving either batons or pepper spray or just good old fashioned fists. Police brutality is nothing new. However, in the age of cell phone cameras and the Intarweb, what we have is a situation where police brutality can be hidden behind a simple press of a button, then supported by police and politicians saying "but it's better than using a gun", and justified in just about any case by pointing out that Tasers are "safe".

      --

      "You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war." -- Albert Einstein

    7. Re:It doesn't work that way by Hyppy · · Score: 1

      You foolish Coward.

      Of course a marine or "LEO" (What a cute little acronym you just invented) can handle a taser shock. The Marine at least is quite physically fit, and both the marine and the "LEO" have been screened for any medical conditions that could affect their ability to perform their jobs.

      Now, they perform those screenings for a very good reason. People have MEDICAL CONDITIONS which are not VISIBLY DETECTABLE.

      I could care less how many marines and cops the PR morons want to parade around. Let's see them bring out a random 7-year old, or pull out a woman from a nursing home, and tase the 5-10 times in a row. They won't, because they know their product will kill people who aren't in decent physical condition.

    8. Re:It doesn't work that way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Move to Haiti, idiot, since you love third world shitholes so much...

      No need, he already lives in the USA.

  31. hysterical by gnutoo · · Score: 4, Informative

    Yes but there is a common cause to these deaths, police intervention with taser. Calling it something else is a lie.

    At the same time, it's nice of you to bring up previous quack explanations like hysteria, especially female hysteria which was cured by rape.

    1. Re:hysterical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Relax, Dorothy. We know he's Twitter, we know he trolls a lot, and you really don't need to keep posting about it.

    2. Re:hysterical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Not rape. Vibrators. Prescription vibrators. Some looked real scary too -- steam powered cast-iron ones and everything.

    3. Re:hysterical by mi · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yes but there is a common cause to these deaths, police intervention with taser.

      When somebody loses control of their car and slams into a highway barrier — is the barrier's intervention "the cause of death"? Is the engineer, who designed it, to blame? Are the workers, who built the barrier, liable for all the deaths?

      Just as the barrier is there to keep wayward cars from getting on to the other side of the highway (and killing/injuring a multitude of others), police are there to keep order — which some times includes stopping an unruly individual. When the target (quite possibly upstanding and/or perfectly innocent) dies, it is no less tragic, than when a driver (for example, falling a sleep, after a night of hard work) hits the barrier...

      This approach can certainly be (ab)used to excuse police excesses — but blaming police/taser for all taser-related deaths is highly inaccurate.

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    4. Re:hysterical by Dputiger · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Has anyone considered the possibility that the vast majority of people who get tasered may actually deserve it? A police officer in a violent or imminently violent situation that does not require the use of a firearm is charged with an extremely difficult task. Disabling a person in close combat without significantly harming them is much more difficult than simply fighting them, particularly when the person in question is not operating under the same restriction. Given this, I'm inclined to grant considerable leeway to the officers in question.

      The best way to avoid being tasered is not to do anything (or act in any way) that might give a cop cause to shoot you with a taser. As the article states, only a handful of tasered suspects have died, and only a handful of subjects within that group have died for reasons that might be attributable to the taser itself. How many times, in this even-smaller group, have police been accused of acting inappropriately? I am sure there have been a few, isolated cases of police officers firing these weapons when they weren't needed. If a person ever dies as a direct result of inappropriate and unjustifiable use of a taser, the officer(s) responsible absolutely deserve to be brought up on charges. Thus far, I've yet to see any evidence--including the immigrant in Vancouver--where any inappropriate actions took place.

      If you don't want to get tasered, don't invite the possibility.

    5. Re:hysterical by solitas · · Score: 1

      Yes but there is a common cause to these deaths, police intervention with taser. Calling it something else is a lie.

      Except: electrocution.
      --
      "It's time to take life by the cans." ~ Bender ("Bendin' in the Wind", ep. 3-13)
    6. Re:hysterical by IdleTime · · Score: 4, Interesting

      You know, I like to watch the real police shows, like on Tru TV and you know, 90% of the taser use I see there is just uncalled for. But what can you expect when you give people a badge when in reality they could not hold a burger flipper job? The education of police officers here in the US is just ridiculous. Where I come from, it takes 3 years of education after equivalent to high school in order to become a police officer. In US I think it takes 10 weeks or so.

      --
      If you mod me down, I *will* introduce you to my sister!
    7. Re:hysterical by OMNIpotusCOM · · Score: 1, Troll

      In US I think it takes 10 weeks or so.

      Way to be vague on details, personal experience, and facts. Next time you think up facts, don't hesitate to post them.

      Try a job where you have to wear a bullet-proof vest every day, not because of regulations, but because some crazy bastard may just up and shoot or knife you for no discernable reason. Try a job where you have to stop a husband from beating his wife and you have to come back the next day. Try a job where you are expected to risk your life because other people won't, and then you're lucky if you don't get sued for that act of vigilance. Try that, then come back and spout your ignorance.

    8. Re:hysterical by MightyMartian · · Score: 3, Informative

      Try being a confused Polish immigrant in an airport whose murder by gung-ho cops with a taser was cut on video.

      These things are being abused, and they should be taken away from the cops until they can demonstrate that they can use them wisely.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    9. Re:hysterical by PhoenixAtlantios · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You're no better than him, you know. You pulled out an ad hominem argument instead of providing the facts that he apparently forgot to state.

      Don't attempt to take the moral high ground when you're not prepared to put more research into your post than the parent.

    10. Re:hysterical by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Try that, then come back and spout your ignorance. If you don't like the working conditions, then fucking quit.
      Don't use it as an excuse to take your frustrations out on people.
      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    11. Re:hysterical by dmoynihan · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Try a job where you sit in a car for hours, thinking up paranoid scenarios on the public dime.

      Try a job where the citizenry and tax-payers are, through your fear, the "enemy."

      Try a job where "crimes" are invented to keep you employed...

    12. Re:hysterical by pjhenley · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Whether or not the policeman was justified in using a taser isn't the issue. The cause of the death is what is in question here.

      If the policeman used his gun and killed the suspect then we would say the cause of death was a gunshot wound. We would not change the cause of death to "excited delirium" simply because the action was justified.

      In the case of a highway barrier, I imagine we would say that the cause of death was the car's impact with the barrier, regardless of who is at fault.

    13. Re:hysterical by Firethorn · · Score: 3, Interesting

      In line with this, the UN's position isn't that taser use is necessarily torture, it's that it CAN be torture.

      Much like using a baton in the restraining on somebody resisting arrest isn't torture, but using on somebody who's restrained is.

      I think that the honest answer would be to leave the cause of death alone unless the taser company manages to provide substantial proof otherwise. I can't say how good their proof is in this case.

      All the deaths that I'm aware of involved numerous shocks, and people who are perhaps more vulnerable. The correct solution, in my belief is to emphasize the taser's less lethal nature.

      The alternative methods officers have to subdue a resisting/fighting subject are nearly always more damaging. Arm bars, blows, sometimes baton or truncheon assisted, having numerous officers pile on top of the suspect, etc... In some cases the alternative might even be to shoot the suspect.

      The taser is safer. We shouldn't necessarily condemn the taser, instead concentrating on proper use of it. There are ROE's for the use of the firearm, maybe the ROE for taser use needs to be tightened up in some districts.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    14. Re:hysterical by Belial6 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That is pretty much it. The point of the taser was to replace the gun. The idea being that we want to reduce the damage done to the person being shot. The problem is that the police have decided that because it "isn't fatal" that it is ok to use when it is convenient. A taser should only be used when a cop would normally use a gun, and the exact same procedure should used every time a cop discharges a taser as would be used if a cop discharges a gun.

    15. Re:hysterical by chrispycreeme · · Score: 4, Interesting

      There are no national standards for police forces as far as education or intelligence. In fact I read one article a few years ago about a fellow who was denied a job with the police department becuase his IQ was too high and he would "get bored".

      An informal search on google for "police qualifications" reveals the following as a typical requirements for being a police officer:

      Be 21 years of age or older, have a High School Diploma or its equivalent GED certificate, a valid Driver's License, the physical strength and agility sufficient to perform law enforcement work.

      They also have to get a C on a test (lower if they served in the armed forces and learned how to kill people effectively)

      So not much more than a burger flipper (except for the trained killer bonus). Would you arm McDonald cooks with torture devices and give them the right to zap anyone they wanted?

      I for one don't want to arm high school quarterbacks who somehow managed graduate from the American public school system with torture devices and set them loose on the public.

      The job of policing in this country is thankless and underpaid. This forces police departments to hire the people who's main attraction to the job is that they get to carry a gun and drive a car with shiny lights on top.

      There are countless examples of police using Tasers inappropriately and killing or injuring people. Tasers should be banned until we either start hiring officers who have good judgment and some measure of compassion or there are strict guidelines for use and jail sentences for every officer who uses them inappropriately.

      One thing cops and others always say in defense of officers is that they "risk their lives everyday" to protect us. Fine, if they recognize that risk then they should be able to do that job without torture devices. If they are unwilling to do the job without Tasers then they should go get a job flipping burgers and leave the job to the real men.

      I for one would never take such a job. It seems boring, dangerous, and underpaid. Zapping people with tasers doesn't hold enough of an attraction for me to make it worth my time.

    16. Re:hysterical by shawn(at)fsu · · Score: 1

      Sadly no mod points today. I would have given you some. Most /.'ers doesn't live in the real world. My father almost flipped out when he found out I was majoring in criminology to try to go to the FBI or DEA or some such other agency. His response "Why the hell would you want to have a job where people spit on you just because of who you are. I'm glad he made it till retirement.

      Good post.

      --
      500 dollar reward for tip(s) leading to the arrest of the person(s) who stole my sig.
    17. Re:hysterical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I didn't want to point this out because people tend to misunderstand me quite often. But I think your right, the vast majority of people being tasered are indeed Americans.

    18. Re:hysterical by boyko.at.netqos · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Has anyone considered the possibility that the vast majority of people who get tasered may actually deserve it? Have you considered the idea that tasers are properly classified as torture devices and that, as such, no one deserves it?
      --
      I used to work for NetQoS. I no longer do, but want to keep the excellent karma attached to this account.
    19. Re:hysterical by Original+Replica · · Score: 1

      Just as the barrier is there to keep wayward cars from getting on to the other side of the highway (and killing/injuring a multitude of others), police are there to keep order -- which some times includes stopping an unruly individual. ... This approach can certainly be (ab)used to excuse police excesses -- but blaming police/taser for all taser-related deaths is highly inaccurate.

      No it it very accurate, but that doesn't necessitate that the police where wrong in choosing to use their taser. Let's take your argument and apply it to when the police have to resort to their gun. Let us assume (to prevent side arguments) that the police are completely in the right in their decision to use lethal force. Two well aimed shots hit the criminal in the chest, both penetrating the heart. Would you say that the cause of death was "delusion"? Of course not, the cause of death was the two gunshots to the chest. Now the officer who fire the shots may have some extra paperwork, and very close examination of the choice to use lethal force, but if the officer is found to be in the right, they should be commended for a job well done. The very same applies to Taser use. It is less lethal, not non-lethal. It provides the officer with a possible option, but should still be regarded with the same gravity as a firearm. Non-lethal is waiting for backup and having a large number of strong well trained cops restrain and handcuff an individual, I see the NYPD do it all the time. It is not uncommon for me to see six officers grab a violent drunk or dangerous suspect, the only times I've seen a taser used is by abusive cops.

      --
      We are all just people.
    20. Re:hysterical by Firethorn · · Score: 4, Insightful

      A taser should only be used when a cop would normally use a gun, and the exact same procedure should used every time a cop discharges a taser as would be used if a cop discharges a gun.

      Actually, I support the usage of a taser where the taser replaces more lethal/dangerous means, not just the gun.

      For example, people can be killed, have limbs broken, and concussions as a result of the usage of a baton or truncheon. A taser is, properly used, safer for both police officers and suspect than the previous methods.

      What needs to be emphasized is proper use.

      One specific case I can think of involved a very old woman - the point I'd like to make is that it's very easy for that very old woman to injure herself. Much less a physically fit officer. Just think of a scenario like this - officer has hold of a arm. Grandma simply drops, placing her entire weight on fragile decalcified bones. Snap - there goes a elbow, wrist, or forearm.

      A taser, while still dangerous, is probably less dangerous in such a scenario. But it gets on the newspaper as 'Officer tases 80 year old granny!'.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    21. Re:hysterical by Danse · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The point of the taser was to replace the gun. ... A taser should only be used when a cop would normally use a gun, and the exact same procedure should used every time a cop discharges a taser as would be used if a cop discharges a gun. Umm... hell no. You're completely and utterly wrong. The point of the taser is to offer a non-lethal alternative to the gun in cases where it is safe for the officer to use it instead. That fact that it turned out not to be entirely non-lethal is the concern here. You'll not find any police departments even remotely considering having their officers carry tasers instead of guns because that would be ridiculously unsafe for them.

      That said, there definitely should be more controls in place to ensure that the police show some restraint in the use of tasers, especially now that we've seen that they can cause death. We need more research into the effects of tasers too, in order to determine how dangerous they actually are and in what ways.
      --
      It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
    22. Re:hysterical by cp.tar · · Score: 1

      Except that I really can't see the point of tasering the air first.

      Since tasers are usually not lethal, I see no good reason to prevent their use in subduing fleeing suspects, for instance. You would not normally shoot someone fleeing from the police, but tasering them shouldn't do them any lasting harm (if you have a medical condition which would warrant against taser use on your person, you are also most probably unable to run far in the first place).

      Anyway, since a taser is normally not a lethal weapon, the protocol for its use should not be as restrictive as the protocol for lethal weapons. The taser does enable you to stun them all and sort them out later, unlike lethal weapons, where the sorting out is done by $DIVINITY.

      Finally, for the obligatory SF reference, I would like to point you to Bujold's argument on stunners as weapons of little authority. It seems very applicable in this case.

      --
      Ignore this signature. By order.
    23. Re:hysterical by cp.tar · · Score: 1

      Just because a device can be used for torture does not make it a torture device.
      While I do oppose unwarranted use of tasers as well as any kind of torture (outside a consensual BDSM relationship </tongueincheek>), calling a taser a torture device seems to me the first step on a slippery slope (or is it a slide then?) - you'd be amazed at what can be done with a bottle of water or a Britney Spears CD, yet they are not normally considered torture devices. With your logic, in time they might be.

      Then again, I might back you up on Britney Spears.

      --
      Ignore this signature. By order.
    24. Re:hysterical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please note that in this case while a tazer was used, the actual cause of death was most likly the jackass nealing on his neck causing sufocation.

    25. Re:hysterical by krunk7 · · Score: 1

      Is the job dangerous? Of course. Would I work that job? Not for the pay they give. Do I respect the men and women that have dedicated their lives to getting criminals off the street at extreme risk? Without a doubt.

      However, none of these facts contradict the truth statement that the educational barrier to entry is only slightly more than a burger flipper. High School or equivalent in most cases and GED exams are so dirt simple that a retarded chimp could come close to passing with a little training. And this is definitely a problem.

      I have family members in law enforcement. They're of the rare breed of educated and very experienced. They'll tell you the same thing.

    26. Re:hysterical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow. You're just as polite as a real Police officer.

    27. Re:hysterical by The+Rizz · · Score: 1

      I'd say that tasers should be classified as "less-lethal" devices. If a cop feels that the situation is escalating into one where he would be justified in pulling out a gun, but feels that the gun is not entirely necessary, that's when the taser should be allowed. i.e. those borderline "I'm gonna have to shoot him to stop him, but I don't want to have to kill him" situations. If the officer wouldn't be justified pulling a gun in the situation, he shouldn't be justified pulling a taser, either.

    28. Re:hysterical by ne0n · · Score: 1

      If they tasered (to death) the officers who perpetrate these crimes on those they have been hired to "serve and protect," I'll bet the death-by-taser statistics wouldn't be climbing so fast.

      It sounds like a shockingly painful way to die.

      --
      $ :(){ :|:& };:
    29. Re:hysterical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is the job dangerous? Of course

      No, not especially. More dangerous than carpentry, less dangerous than manual labor.

      Cops get a lot of undeserved mileage out of doing their so-called "dangerous" jobs. Unless you count atherosclerosis from excessive donut consumption, it's not a very dangerous job.

    30. Re:hysterical by piojo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Wouldn't a taser kill a person that old and weak? I don't know the answer, but I would think that a taser could stop her heart...

      --
      A cat can't teach a dog to bark.
    31. Re:hysterical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly the Taser is a great invention and a good weapon for the police to have. But it need to be treated as a weapon. Is it less likely to cause death than a 9mm absolutely. Is it less likely to cause death than a pair of handcuffs god no. If police would treat tasers closer to how they treat their guns we would have a lot less of these problems. After all if someone died from a taser shot while he was attacking police with a knife or something I don't think we would see much outrage.

    32. Re:hysterical by Firethorn · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It didn't kill the one in the article I read.

      Then again, they didn't shock her a huge number of times.

      You break a bone on somebody that old - infection could set in, a clot could break loose and cause a stroke.

      That's what I mean by it's safer than the alternatives. Worst case, slap a IED on their chest for a while and monitor their heart. Take them to the hospital.

      People get tasered every day and it only kills a couple a year in the whole nation, assuming you take worst case scenarios. Most of those involved dozens or even hundreds of shocks. Thus my statement of develop a ROE for the taser, don't use it as a compliance tool(torture), use it as a tool to temporarily disable the subject so you can disarm & cuff them.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    33. Re:hysterical by Kazymyr · · Score: 1

      How would an Improvised Explosive Device help things in this case?

      --
      I hadn't known there were so many idiots in the world until I started using the Internet -Stanislaw Lem
    34. Re:hysterical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      informal search on google for "police qualifications" reveals the following as a typical requirements for being a police officer:

      Be 21 years of age or older, have a High School Diploma or its equivalent GED certificate, a valid Driver's License, the physical strength and agility sufficient to perform law enforcement work.

      Those are the same minimum requirements to be a fireman. However, if you were to apply with the minimum requirement I would bet you probably will not get the job.

      So not much more than a burger flipper (except for the trained killer bonus). Would you arm McDonald cooks with torture devices and give them the right to zap anyone they wanted?

      Quit being silly.

      I for one don't want to arm high school quarterbacks who somehow managed graduate from the American public school system with torture devices and set them loose on the public.

      I did not play quarterback, although, I did play the other football.

      The job of policing in this country is thankless and underpaid. This forces police departments to hire the people who's main attraction to the job is that they get to carry a gun and drive a car with shiny lights on top.

      I think I get paid pretty well. If you are wanting to pay me more than I will accept it.

      There are countless examples of police using Tasers inappropriately and killing or injuring people. Tasers should be banned until we either start hiring officers who have good judgment and some measure of compassion or there are strict guidelines for use and jail sentences for every officer who uses them inappropriately.

      There are countless examples of police using a taser resulting in no major injuries. There are even more examples of the police displaying a taser and no one getting hurt. Of all of those cases what would of happened if the police did not have a taser? I will take my chances getting hit with a taser then getting hit with a bullet from a police officer's gun.

      How do you approach a man holding a knife? You could use the taser, you could shoot them with a gun or may be call the fire department to shoot him with a stream of water. Personally I would rather get shot with the taser and yes I have been hit with a taser. Yes it hurt but when the current stopped flowing I was alright.

      One thing cops and others always say in defense of officers is that they "risk their lives everyday" to protect us. Fine, if they recognize that risk then they should be able to do that job without torture devices. If they are unwilling to do the job without Tasers then they should go get a job flipping burgers and leave the job to the real men.

      Like I said the police have alternative tools and getting hit with a taser is probably the least painful. Remember that police carry a gun and a metal baton. They carry pepper spray too. You can do your own research on that to find out how affect pepper spray is on criminals. I am not taking about you or your grandmother.

      I for one would never take such a job. It seems boring, dangerous, and underpaid. Zapping people with tasers doesn't hold enough of an attraction for me to make it worth my time.

      Are you a high school grad happy flipping your burgers?
      You seem really misinformed about the job, while I cannot speak for all of the police departments. Yes, at times that the job is dangerous but like most jobs it is what you make of it. Try googling police departments in southern california and see what they get paid. LAPD and LA County Sheriff start at about $55,000. Some of the smaller cities pay closer to $70,000. If you add in overtime and a little bit of time on the job you can easily make $100,000. Plus full benefits, retirements, a flexible schedule (8hr, 10hr or 12hr shifts) and almost a month off for vacation every year. Don't want to work the streets the police departments have other positions too. Someone once told me that LAPD had 9,000 officers (give

    35. Re:hysterical by slashqwerty · · Score: 1
      Be 21 years of age or older, have a High School Diploma or its equivalent GED certificate, a valid Driver's License, the physical strength and agility sufficient to perform law enforcement work.

      In Minnesota, police need a license from the state. There are three ways to get a license. Two of them require a college degree (only two years). If the degree is in the wrong field they must also complete a certificate program. To get a license without a degree, officers can move from another jurisdiction where they have five years experience in law enforcement.

      Minnesota police also have to maintain physical standards, pass a psychological evaluation, not have any felony convictions or any of a long list of lesser convictions.

      They must also complete 48 continuing education credits every three years.

      Despite those rules, a suicidal man died today after St. Paul police used a taser on him.

    36. Re:hysterical by chaoticgeek · · Score: 1

      I need that article... I'd like to know what an 80 year old grandma do to get tasered in the first place...

      --
      hello
    37. Re:hysterical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Would you arm McDonald cooks with torture devices and give them the right to zap anyone they wanted?"

      What does your job have to do with you being an idiot or not? Absolutely nothing. Social status racism at it's best here on slashdot. Just because you are a burger flipper does not mean you are stupid, or evil, or anything else.

    38. Re:hysterical by memorycardfull · · Score: 1

      Hysterical!! (Rhetorical question that really posits the thesis opinion that they all deserve it anyway.) Police work is hard and dangerous. Non-lethal weapons like Tasers are a needed tactical substitute for lethal force that can save lives; therefore, we shouldn't question the police. For fear of this weapon, obey the police or else you will deserve it like the rest of them. Few people have died when shot with this weapon, in most of those cases it wasn't even possible to attribute their cause of death to being shot with the weapon. (Rhetorical question that implies that police use of Tasers is almost always appropriate, therefore deserved.) Please allow me to sound reasonable by trotting out tired concessions like "There are a few bad apples" and "Hey, $H!# happens!" If a person were to be killed through police misuse of a Taser, of course the officer should be charged; but this is only a rhetorical possibility and has yet to occur, despite my admission to the contrary in the previous sentence. I also dismiss accusations that such things may happen by limiting the evidence only to that which say I have seen. If you really fear this weapon then fear the police and obey or you will deserve it like the rest of them.

    39. Re:hysterical by Dputiger · · Score: 1

      The immigrant in question wasn't murdered, though it might rise to the level of involuntary manslaughter, at the very most. It was unfortunate, regrettable, and yes, based on the footage in question, it appears the police acted improperly. The question, however, is whether or not the weapon or the improper actions of the officers' in question was the cause of the man's death. There have been cases--many cases--in which police offers responded to a situation with a level of force that, upon later review, was found to be extreme. It can be very difficult to make such calls in the split-second you have to make them, and while the emphasis should always be on responding appropriately, human fallibility doesn't always make this possible.

    40. Re:hysterical by timmarhy · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      the problem is that people today don't respect police officers, so they are forced to use tasers to bring people into line. there is NO alternative if you want to maintain law and order.

      --
      If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
    41. Re:hysterical by timmarhy · · Score: 1
      my car could be a torture device as well, if i used it to crush your legs on purpose.

      how come the UN hasn't classified cars as torture devices? oh that's right because the UN frequently says stupid UN that they don't think through.

      torture is about the applicantion not the object. lets say we took tasers off cops, would you preffer a baton across the back of the legs? the baton will leave huge bruises, where the taser leaves a tiny pin prick. i've been shocked be similar voltage to a taser and while it sucks, it's really not that bad, you get over it quickly there is no lasting effects.

      --
      If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
    42. Re:hysterical by EdIII · · Score: 1

      I agree with most of what you are saying. However, that is not the real problem at hand.

      The real problem is that the Taser might not actually be as non-lethal as law enforcement wants it to be, and that the officers are not made aware of this fact.

      If an officer truly feels that the Taser is 100% non-lethal, he will be more inclined to use it. I think that the Taser should be just before the pistol on an escalating scale of force.

      So although I agree with you that in the vast majority of cases the officers acted appropriately, I still think they are being too liberal with a weapon that is slowly proving to be not as non-lethal as the manufacturers claim.

    43. Re:hysterical by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      I did not mean that the taser was supposed to be used in ALL cases that a gun would be used, but that the taser was designed to be used in a subset of instances where a gun would be used. I would never suggest that the police were, or should consider not carrying guns.

    44. Re:hysterical by ulrikft · · Score: 1

      I can use my fork as a torture device, I can use my didigtal single lens reflex camera as a torture device if I want to. You use your choice of words to define the situation. A few questions should be answered: What other options do law enforcement agents have? Guns? Pepper Spray? Batons?

    45. Re:hysterical by chrispycreeme · · Score: 1

      Who said anything about idiots, race or social status? I think you doth protest too much.

    46. Re:hysterical by servognome · · Score: 1

      Would you arm McDonald cooks with torture devices
      They are armed with torture devices, they're called "McNuggets"
      --
      D6 63 0D 70 89 81 BB 8E 7B 7C 5F 5D 54 EA AB 73
    47. Re:hysterical by chrispycreeme · · Score: 2, Insightful

      In what situation? The one where they killed the man in the canadian airport? How about finding a translator and finding out what his problem is? How about finding out why he is there and trying to help him sort it out?

      Or maybe you are referring too the time the cops maced an infant here in Portland. Another option would have been to give the baby a bottle. You are assuming every situation should be solve with a taser, gun, baton or pepper spray. That is the exact mentality that makes me think they shouldn't have them. Total lack of imagination like this is the problem. Until you can demonstrate that you can think of other options besides tasering or shooting, you should not be allowed to have tasers or guns.

      You can't ask questions like that without context. The point is that officers too often use tasers when they shouldn't and can't seem to make sound judgements.

      Tasers only have one purpose; to inflict immobilizing pain. A camera many other uses with torture probably way way down the list, so it can't really be categorized as a torture device. However, if you would like to replace all police tasers with SLR cameras I would accept that as a reasonable compromise.

    48. Re:hysterical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      then 'law and order' can go hang.

      If the cost is people being arbitrarily zapped because oficers don't feel that they're getting enough respect, then I don't want it.

    49. Re:hysterical by chrispycreeme · · Score: 1

      A cars primary purpose is to transport people and things. The only purpose a taser has is to inflict pain so that a person submits. The UN hasn't classified cars as torture devices becuase they aren't fucking retarded.

      A device that has no other purpose than to cause pain has no other application than torture.

      Again, until people like you can consider options like finding a translator for a confused man in a Candian airport instead of only picking from the options of gun, taser or baton we will continue to have these problems. I would prefer that police had common sense, but sadly common sense is not very common and until it becomes so police should not have torture devices at their disposal.

      Death seems like a lasting effect to me.

    50. Re:hysterical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "cured by rape"? Obviously no sense talking to you, but to clarify for anyone else who might mistakenly think you knew what you were talking about -- the treatments that were found to relieve "female hysteria" were what we would TODAY recognize as obviously sexual -- massage of the pelvic region, including internally. We recognize this today in part because we're far better educated about sex, and in part BECAUSE we no longer have separate categories in our heads for "stimulation of the nether regions intended for medical purposes" and "stimulation of the nether regions intended for personal satisfaction".

      What the parent is TRYING to claim, apparently, is that the doctors of one hundred years ago SECRETLY had the medical knowledge of TODAY and they actually KNEW that the treatments they were applying had no medical effect -- despite the fact that it was alleviating the symptoms it was purported that this treatment would alleviate. That's why the parent claims that it was a malady "cured by rape", because that's what it WOULD be, if the patient definitely did NOT have any idea that the problems that caused her to go to the doctor in the first place were not medical, but the doctor secretly KNEW the true source of these symptoms and took advantage of them.

      You know, I really hope that a hundred years from now, someone looks back at the parent poster's life and calls him a rapist, or a racist, or a quack, or a fool, for not knowing something that's obvious with the hindsight available in 2108.

    51. Re:hysterical by ulrikft · · Score: 1

      First of all, I'm not assuming anything, you are setting up a very simple strawman, please don't do that, it dumbs the debate down and puts you in a bad light. My question is quite simple: what alternative ways of force should the police use in different situations in your view? Implied in this question is (of course) a situation where force is needed. Should the police use a gun? Should they use warning shots? Should they use pepper spray? Should they use the tazer? Should they use rubber bullets? Should they use batons? Should they use shields and long sticks... What kind of force do you think would be appropriate? When? How? Is your real problem the education that american police forces use? Or the weapons they use...?

    52. Re:hysterical by Smallpond · · Score: 1

      You are ignoring many cases where police were summoned to help subdue a mentally ill person and ended up killing them. "obey or you will deserve it" is a stupid suggestion in that case and in many others: drunk, epileptic seizure, diabetic shock. Take a look at the news and you will find evidence of abuse in all those cases.

    53. Re:hysterical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Would you prefer if he was humanely just shot?
      Tasers are a good thing. People can build up a tolerance to capsin in pepper spray, frequent offenders can build up a tolerance, then what? will he get away with raping someone, perhaps your mother? humm... i think justice here is called for. be merciful to potential victems. we could always just shoot the criminals... this tazering seems fairest... but after all... he is a criminal.

    54. Re:hysterical by DarkVader · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Actually, the problem is that people today have too much respect for police officers. The vast majority of cops are people who were the bullies in high school, haven't been to college, have very little knowledge of what the law is, and who think that putting on a badge entitles them to respect.

      It doesn't.

      Police need to be supervised far more closely, and need to have real consequences for abuse. In essence, if they want respect, they need to be respectable.

      And yes, there are good cops out there. The other 99% of cops are giving them a bad name.

    55. Re:hysterical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      go to a judo class sometime, there are plenty of ways to subdue people without harming them significantly, except most cops are too fat/stupid/lazy to even know anything about hand-to-hand combat...i know because when they come to judo class, they are fucking hopeless.

    56. Re:hysterical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      6 weeks. At least, that is all the police officer who pepper sprayed me had.

    57. Re:hysterical by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      Look at the footage and tell me where the difficulty was. The guy was emotional and confused, not able to speak English. Three cops, count 'em, three cops went after him for no reason whatsoever. Not only should they be fired, stripped of their pensions, but if there's real justice, they need to be in a real prison for three or four years, and be forced to pay the victim's mother.

      There was no reason for this, but it's pretty clear that a growing number of police officers are misusing tasers, so I think either we should make sure that each and every time they misuse one they either see jail or pay massive fines. It's time to start treating those blow-hards in uniforms with the same lack of respect they show the citizens, you know, the people that they're supposed to serve, and who pay their fucking bills.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    58. Re:hysterical by try_anything · · Score: 1

      I for one don't want to arm high school quarterbacks who somehow managed graduate from the American public school system with torture devices and set them loose on the public. Don't worry. The quarterback is tall, has good hair, and good "leadership" skills, so he will be your boss and will be torturing you with completely different devices.
    59. Re:hysterical by dshadowwolf · · Score: 1

      Umm... hell no. You're completely and utterly wrong. The point of the taser is to offer a non-lethal alternative to the gun in cases where it is safe for the officer to use it instead. That fact that it turned out not to be entirely non-lethal is the concern here. You'll not find any police departments even remotely considering having their officers carry tasers instead of guns because that would be ridiculously unsafe for them.

      Incorrect. The TASER is not "non-lethal", because anything could be lethal in the proper circumstances. In this case the correct term is "less than lethal" - because when used properly and the target doesn't have a pre-existing condition that can be triggered by it - the TASER will not kill.

      Note that "less than lethal" is also used to describe things like Rubber Bullets and bean-bag rounds. Neither is designed to be lethal, but if you hit someone in the right place and they are at the right range, they will die.

      This applies to the TASER. If you have a heart condition (or just a weak heart) being hit with the voltage from a TASER can cause a heart-attack. But then, an old-fashioned, hand-held stun gun would do the same thing if it was used to hit someone near the heart.

    60. Re:hysterical by memorycardfull · · Score: 1

      You misunderstand. I am not ignoring these things. I am paraphrasing the entire parent comment by Dputiger to make a mockery of it, because I thought it was an empty, indirect, and self-contradictory exhortation to fear and obey. I don't mean to be negative, but I hate that sort of thing for some reason. I completely agree with you that "obey or you will deserve it" is a stupid idea. It is so for eeryone regardless of any special circumstances such as you mention. It is anathema to our basic ideals of freedom.

    61. Re:hysterical by wazza · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Are you serious?

      Tasering an 80-year-old, and having him or her collapse suddenly to the ground, is as like or more likely to break a bone (perhaps a hip, much worse than an arm to repair) as a result of falling, as they are to suffer infection/clotting leading to a stroke from a broken arm. A stroke from a clot from a broken arm is extremely unlikely. Ask a doctor sometime.

      Your reasoning on this doesn't stack up. Forcing an elderly lady to collapse uncontrolled to the ground is more dangerous (what about her head?) than grabbing her on the arm.

      As for monitoring her heart... this raises another question - what if she's already suffering from chronic cardiac failure, AF, or some other heart disease? Tasering her is extremely dangerous in that situation.

      Bottom line - tasering should *only ever* be a direct substitute for use of a firearm. If the situtation isn't so bad that you'd use a gun, then you don't use a taser.

    62. Re:hysterical by rtb61 · · Score: 1
      However, numerous studies have demonstrated that when you empower people and give them a morale escape from normal behavioural standards, some will tend to abuse that escape. In the case of tasers it is currently a safe excuse for taking out their frustrations on the citizenry, an opportunity to demonstrate your power over them, an opportunity to inflict pain, suffering and humiliation for which the police will generally escape all consequences.

      Of course for Taser inc. the single motive is greed and as many people as necessary will just have to die to ensure their bottom line, they do not care whether it is ten, a hundred, a thousand or ten thousand etc. as long as they don't have to pay for the damage their greed has caused or the current rank of sociopath corporate executives can walk away with massive bonuses, free from any legal repercussions for their murderous behaviour.

      At the very least, consider the harm someone suffers when they are knocked to the ground unconscious, broken limbs, fractured skulls etc. and of course consider the release that the police are forced to sign (so that Taser can escape from all the harm that taser can cause) when they foolishly test the taser upon themselves, oh and PS, when then do those tests they do them while standing upon padding not bare concrete to protect them from a dangerous fall.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    63. Re:hysterical by oracle128 · · Score: 1

      Look at the footage and tell me where the difficulty was. The guy was emotional and confused, not able to speak English. Three cops, count 'em, three cops went after him for no reason whatsoever. I think you hit the nail on the head here. The guy was emotional and confused, and in a confronting situation. What happens when you put a gun in the hands of an "emotional and confused" person in a strange environment? Combine that with a country where any idiot can get a gun as long as they haven't been in jail in the past 2 weeks (and that's only if they want to do it the legit way). Now try telling us again about how you should be exempt from the law because you pay part of the enforcers' wages?
    64. Re:hysterical by capologist · · Score: 1

      Tasers should be banned until we either start hiring officers who have good judgment and some measure of compassion or there are strict guidelines for use and jail sentences for every officer who uses them inappropriately. You don't see this as a bit of an overreaction?

      Yes, some cops are a little too trigger happy with the devices.

      Maybe they have contributed to a small number of deaths; that issue is still being debated.

      On balance, I think it's obvious that the good they do far outweighs the evil they do. Banning them would not be in the public's best interests.

      That doesn't mean we shouldn't be looking for ways to improve hiring and training practices, of course.
    65. Re:hysterical by capologist · · Score: 2, Informative

      The vast majority of cops are people who were the bullies in high school, haven't been to college, have very little knowledge of what the law is, and who think that putting on a badge entitles them to respect. "What do you mean I don't know what the law is? I am the law!"

      Most of us have met that guy at least once, or know somebody who has.
    66. Re:hysterical by Danse · · Score: 1

      Note that "less than lethal" is also used to describe things like Rubber Bullets and bean-bag rounds. Neither is designed to be lethal, but if you hit someone in the right place and they are at the right range, they will die. It's an interesting description, although I think that most anything can kill someone given the right circumstances. I'm suddenly quite wary of the spoon sitting next to me...
      --
      It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
    67. Re:hysterical by pedrop357 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The alternative methods officers have to subdue a resisting/fighting subject are nearly always more damaging. Arm bars, blows, sometimes baton or truncheon assisted, having numerous officers pile on top of the suspect, etc... In some cases the alternative might even be to shoot the suspect.

      Yes, the taser has replaced the baton, 4-cell maglight, etc. and with those defensive weapons/tactics went the restraint in their deployment. That's the real problem. The police deploy tasers where they wouldn't have deployed batons, pepper spray, flashlights, etc. Now, they don't have to talk to anyone or even really consider any non-physical means to resolve the situation. Hell, they don't even explain why they're taking the actions they are (citations, arrest, etc.) They just use the taser.

      I remember very clearly, a period where the taser WAS pitched as an alternative to lethal force. If a police officer faced someone with a knife or other non-firearm weapon, he now had an alternative to his firearm-the taser. It was positioned as a way to reduce death in formerly lethal situations.

      I know very clearly that it was NEVER promoted as a tool of compliance or as an alternative to all other methods of subduing someone.

    68. Re:hysterical by darkfire5252 · · Score: 1

      In the case of a highway barrier, I imagine we would say that the cause of death was the car's impact with the barrier, regardless of who is at fault. Pedantically, we'd actually probably say that the cause of death was the secondary impact of the victim's body with the interior of the car.
    69. Re:hysterical by Larryish · · Score: 1

      IED?!

      Color me old-fashioned, but I do not condone placing Improvised Explosive Devices on the chests of old ladies.

    70. Re:hysterical by chrispycreeme · · Score: 2, Insightful

      There is no strawman. You asked what options police have but failed to provide a situation. I simply provided one to remedy your oversight.

      If you would like to provide one I will gladly apply common sense to it.

      Your saying that I need to decide whether force is needed is situations where it is "implied that force is needed"? Well then, of course force is needed. That one is easy.

      Now define that and we'll be all set. Any officer who violates it can then be put in jail.

      It's not my job to write guidelines for police conduct. It is my right as a citizen however to be free from thugs with badges wielding torture devices with impunity.

      I don't care if we send them out there with foam bats and squirt guns. If they can't learn to play nice with their toys then that is what they should have so that no more citizens are tortured at the whim of a cop.

      Remember no one asked them to do this job. They claim they do it becuase they like helping people. Well they can help me without the Tasers thank you very much or they can find another job.

    71. Re:hysterical by dbcad7 · · Score: 1
      If the policeman used his gun and killed the suspect then we would say the cause of death was a gunshot wound.

      Exactly.. You car further break down the cause of death from a gunshot wound.. Loss of blood, Damage to a vital organ etc.. but the gunshot caused the damage leading to death.. that blood just didn't come out on it's own, and people dying from taser shocks would not have had "excited delirium" (whatever that is) on their own either.

      --
      waiting for ad.doubleclick.net
    72. Re:hysterical by binkx · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Hi: I've been a law enforcement officer for over 30 years. In that time, I've seen a number of so-called non-lethal weapons appear (Mace, pepper spray, various types of baton; control holds etc.). In almost every case, there would be "unexplained deaths" that happened when they were used. Or, as often, not used. The problem is when someone is using a lot of drugs and alcohol, their system sometimes crashes. Sometimes they die. The non-lethal weapon or hold or restraint may not have anything to do with it. The research I've read and experience I've had suggests that this is no different for Tasers. A lot more research needs to be done, and it needs to be peer review etc., but I strongly suspect this is the case. Next: the data is very clear on one thing: Taser use has significantly reduced injury to both officers and suspects. Tasers should only be used on someone who is resisting (that is, not doing what you tell them to do). There is a huge danger to the officer, the suspect and the public when that happens. Trying to control someone --especially someone who doesn't feel pain -- is incredibly dangerous. The choices are a bunch of officers piling on the person; using pepper spray (not always effective); or, if they present a deadly threat, using a gun. You never use a Taser instead of a gun, but it may prevent you from getting to the point where you need one. So what are the choices here? How do you control someone who refuses to obey a lawful order? Or, worse, is running amok in the middle of a street or public place? I'm serious. A lot of people here have strong opinions, but no apparent experience or offer ways to do this. There are some really bad or merely darned unpleasant people out there. How do you stop them from being a danger to themselves or others? In my experience, the Taser is the first non-lethal weapon that actually works as advertised most of the time. Also, a side note on training: most officers I know have some college. Many have degrees. Most academies now are 8 months or more with additional time spent in the field with a training officer (usually another 3 months). The number of people who don't make it through is pretty high for most classes. My guess is that most of the ones here saying an officer couldn't make it as a burger flipper wouldn't last a week, either at an academy or certainly on the street. I'll take my answer off the air. George

    73. Re:hysterical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Those are the requirements to APPLY. It does not mean that a person with those requirements will get the job. When I studied Law Enforcement in college (I never went into the field, but I did get the degree), the police jobs in the area where I lived did not require a college degree. But if you did not have one, you had no chance of getting the job. Without a degree, your application would make it past the "glance and separate into two piles" phase. But you wouldn't end up getting the job.

      Of course, I am speaking only about the area where I was studying, and this was 15 years ago. I have no idea what it is like across various areas and times. But then, neither do you. My point stands: "requirements to apply" is different from "will get the job".

    74. Re:hysterical by Swaffs · · Score: 1

      You're completely missing the point. The point is that not everyone (arguably not anyone) who has been tasered and has died afterwards died because of the taser. Everyone who gets shot twice in the heart with a bullet dies. 100,000s of people have been tasered and didn't die. Is it not logical to suggest that for those that did die afterwards that there might be more to it than the taser? There are innumerable ways and causes for human death. Grabbing violent drunks and physically restraining them is dangerous. Its dangerous to the officers and its very dangerous to the suspect. Maybe one in everyone 100,000 applications of the taser results in some kind of injury to the suspect, and arguably many of those aren't the taser's fault, but merely happen coincidentally. I assure that far more than one in every 100,000 people who are taken down by six police officers come out unscathed. In fact I'd argue that more than half are going to at least have some scrapes and bruises, and at least 1 in 10 will required medical treatment.

      --

      --
      "Karma can only be portioned out by the cosmos." - Homer Simpson [1F10]

    75. Re:hysterical by LaskoVortex · · Score: 1

      Don't use it as an excuse to take your frustrations out on people.

      What? And leave the only part of the job they enjoy?

      --
      Just callin' it like I see it.
    76. Re:hysterical by LaskoVortex · · Score: 1

      Try being a confused Polish immigrant in an airport whose murder by gung-ho cops with a taser was cut on video.

      Perhaps this is the argument the airport would use to defend their actions:

      You have to understand, killing the man was necessary. He was tying up valuable resources and had already broke a computer. People with the power to kill needed to be brought in to free the resources and prevent damaging further equipment. You will notice that no one was in danger when the cops in question arrived as the man was in a secure area. But we must not put the life and dignity of a man above our need to use airport facilities in an unabated way. Such killing should be considered highly economical and not vilified as you are doing here.

      --
      Just callin' it like I see it.
    77. Re:hysterical by Swaffs · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Excited delirium has never been caused by the application of a taser on an otherwise healthy individual. Excited delirium has never been caused by the application of the taser, period. Excited delirium is what some people are experiencing that causes police to taser them in an attempt to gain control of the person. The debate is whether or not the resulting death is caused by the taser or by the excited delirium.

      --

      --
      "Karma can only be portioned out by the cosmos." - Homer Simpson [1F10]

    78. Re:hysterical by Swaffs · · Score: 1

      What makes you qualified to debate the cause of several different deaths? Are you a medical examiner?

      Its fair to say that a common factor is police intervention with a taser. But its also fair to say that a common factor is the presence of drugs. Its also fair to say that another common factor is hyperthermia. But somehow these aren't considered?

      100,000s of thousands of healthy, and unhealthy, individuals have been tasered and were completely fine afterwards. Very few have experienced problems and very few have died. I'm not sure that the same can be said for people with high levels of narcotics in their systems, or people suffering from hyperthermia. Yet somehow the taser is the one to blame, not the other factors. Case closed. That's a rather strong conclusion to reach. This set of symptoms still isn't recognized in medical textbooks, and the cause of these symptoms is still anybody's guess. Yet you've managed to deduce the one and only cause of this, as the taser.

      --

      --
      "Karma can only be portioned out by the cosmos." - Homer Simpson [1F10]

    79. Re:hysterical by ulrikft · · Score: 1

      You are avoiding my question. And yes, you did put up a quite childish strawman..

      I'll try once more before giving you up:

      In situations where force is needed, what should officers use? Batons? Guns? Warning shots? Tasers? Pepper Spray? Brute Force? What is the alternative to tasing people that you find more tempting? Since you are particularly attacking this method of force. Try NOT to avoid the question this time please :)

      Most people can agree that unlawfull violence is bad, police officers or not. Most people can agree that unproportional violence is bad. The hard part is actually drawing the line. What IS unproportional violence? What is unlawfull violence? What is undue use of force? When should one NOT use force? And the following, that I already have asked: When necesary, what means of force should be used? I guess we all agree that tasers are better than guns, but what about mace versus tasers? When and where?

      You are grossly oversimplifying, that is the problem, that combined with a heavy strawman-use.

    80. Re:hysterical by PMBjornerud · · Score: 1

      I for one would never take such a job. It seems boring, dangerous, and underpaid. Zapping people with tasers doesn't hold enough of an attraction for me to make it worth my time. As with other jobs, the people applying to be police officers do so because they think the benefits to outweigh the drawbacks.

      Vampire: The Masquerade had a fitting quote on this, but I could not find the exact wording.

      And as the parents says, this is indeed not a problem with the police officers, it is a problem with the system and selection of people that become police officers.
      --
      I lost my sig.
    81. Re:hysterical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, if you read the wikipedia articla on female hysteria it says that it was cured by "pelvic massage" until the women achieved an orgasm. Possibly the bit you're referring to is when they prescribed intercourse. But that was only prescribed to married women.

    82. Re:hysterical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, the problem is that people today have too much respect for police officers. The vast majority of cops are people who were the bullies in high school, haven't been to college, have very little knowledge of what the law is, and who think that putting on a badge entitles them to respect.

      So the male bullies become police officers and female bullies all become teachers. The world makes sense now!

    83. Re:hysterical by maypull · · Score: 1

      And yes, there are good cops out there. The other 99% of cops are giving them a bad name. Got any real stats to back up your "99%"?

      I would say it's probably exactly the opposite, it's just that the bad cops get a disproportionate amount of media attention.

      That said, my only real experience with the police is in the UK -- YMMV I suppose.
    84. Re:hysterical by kalirion · · Score: 1

      I was going to reply with something along the lines of "Now the NRA will sue to have gun related deaths be renamed to 'heavy metal poisoning'", but that cause of death would still be way more accurate than whatever "excited delirium" is supposed to mean.

    85. Re:hysterical by kalirion · · Score: 1

      Before they allow an officer to use the taser they should shock him for 5 minutes straight while ordering him to "get up and put his hands behind his head or be shot". From the stories online this seems the way these "safe gadgets" are often used.

    86. Re:hysterical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know here in the US I've lived in quite a few states and have been a law abiding citizen my whole life. I also seem to be harassed by police officers with a bad attitude on a regular basis. Why? Seems to depend on the day.

      While I don't have any statistics either, I can say from personal and related experience that your "good" cops are far and few between. Very, very far and extremely few. They are appreciated, but they are by no means the majority.

    87. Re:hysterical by coolGuyZak · · Score: 1

      Disposing of the body? (I'm going to hell for saying that)

    88. Re:hysterical by Rary · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The debate is whether or not the resulting death is caused by the taser or by the excited delirium.

      Or by some combination of excited dilirium, police intervention, and Taser use.

      Have there been cases of people just dropping dead of excited delirium without any police intervention?

      If excited delirium is a legitimate condition, then the reality is likely that death is caused by the actions of the police, usually (but not necessarily) using a Taser, on an individual experiencing excited delirium. Excited delirium alone should not be listed as cause of death.

      --

      "You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war." -- Albert Einstein

    89. Re:hysterical by Scrameustache · · Score: 1

      The point of the taser was to replace the gun. But it doesn't: It replaces the whip.
      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

    90. Re:hysterical by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      I have had very cordial conversations with several police officers in private non-official settings. I.e. we were both invited to the same 4th of July party. Two of them I knew before they became police. Every single one of them agreed that they let other officers break the law, and that it would take something really serious for them to even consider arresting another officer. Most of them rationalized this by calling it "professional courtesy". Here in the US, it is semi-openly accepted that the police are criminals. I have yet to meet a person here that does not believe the police are criminals. This includes, as I said, several police officers. What is done is that people explain why they don't count the police officers criminal activity as a crime. Now, there may be 1% of the police that are good cops, but I have a hard time believing it. Why? Because when one cop knows that another one is violating the law, but does not enforce the law with equal vigilance because of "professional courtesy", they are not a good cop. The only way a good cop could survive in a police department is if they were in a town so small that there were only a couple of officers AND they had a higher set of moral standards than most police. I doubt that even comes close to making up 1%.

      We pretty much just have to accept that having criminal police is a lesser evil than not having police at all.

    91. Re:hysterical by plague3106 · · Score: 1

      Well if the barrier decided to jump in front of a car which could not possibly avoid it, then yes. Does that sound silly? So does your analogy. Learn to argue the topic at hand better, if analogies are the best you can do.

    92. Re:hysterical by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      I got the wrong TLA.

      I meant AED - Automatic External Defibrillator.

      Though yes, there might be some interesting uses with an IED.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
  32. Re:Be careful how you create your titles, soulskil by mikesd81 · · Score: 1

    No he doesn't. He explains the difference between them quit well actually.

    --
    That which does not kill me only postpones the inevitable.
  33. The brutal murder of Deacon Frederick Williams... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Please watch this, if you think that Tasers do not kill people, or that law enforcement officers are typically responsible enough to wield such lethal weapons:

    http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=833329c647

    All of them just witnessed this happen, without stopping it. All of them are responsible for this mans death.

    Do you trust the police? Do you trust weapons manufacturers to be truthful when profit is their one and only motivation? Do you trust the courts in a society which has had capitalism overrule humanity?

  34. Don't tell the UK H&S executive that by Kupfernigk · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The amperage on a Taser is too low by a few orders of magnitude to cause death by electrocution. It will cause central nervous system disruption, which is very uncomfortable, and causes some unusual side effects
    Unfortunately this is not true.

    Years ago I was responsible for designing a safety interlock system on a piece of high voltage test equipment, and I worked with an officer of the UK H&S executive to achieve compliance.

    H&SE have evidence of people being killed by shocks of as little as 2.5mA, and have reason to believe that there is no lower limit. The actual cause is heart fibrillation which can be set off by a very small current in the wrong place.

    The standard set for equipment like electric fences for cattle is based on this research, but it is statistical - that is to say, the overall likelihood of deaths from this cause is very small bot non-zero. People fit and active enough to walk across fields are unlikely to die as a result of contacting an electric fence, but people with heart conditions need to be very careful.

    In the case of the taser, the electric shock is deliberately caused and the victim has no opportunity to avoid it. This is a different situation . The law needs to reflect the scientific evidence that electric shocks can cause death because otherwise a police officer may be tempted to use on in a non-threatening situation. It must be possible to prosecute police who behave recklessly, and legislating that certain technology is not dangerous removes this protection from the citizen. Unless you are one of those judges who believe that all policemen are totally honest and always have the best interests of society at heart, in which case I have a job for you in China.

    --
    From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
    1. Re:Don't tell the UK H&S executive that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You have to be kidding me, someone dieing to a current of 2.5mA did not die of eletrocution, they died from a previously existing medical condition set off by an EXTREMELY small current.

      "n the case of the taser, the electric shock is deliberately caused and the victim has no opportunity to avoid it." .... now thats some FUD...

      The officer is trained to give the 'victim' EVERY opportunity to avoid being tased. Cut the crap, man.

    2. Re:Don't tell the UK H&S executive that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Police are trained to protect themselves first. Compare this to firemen. Firemen put people first, often risking their lives to save people. I know there are true hero policemen out there that in a heart beat put themselves in harms way to protect lives... but they are trained to put themselves as número uno. The whole issue with tasers is the use of the marketing buzzword 'non-lethal.' This gives cops with anger issues an excuse to excersise power that they otherwise wouldn't have. If we'd merely change 'non-lethal' to 'less lethal,' such that tasers were used as a less lethal alternative to guns, that is... only used when the officer might otherwise be shooting to kill, then we'd see far fewer taser deaths because the temptation to use a taser to close a 'smart-mouth' would be far less. Also, I think police are permitted to tase up to 4 times in a row... in the cases where I've seen death caused by taser, this is usually the issue... dude tased 4 times siezes, stops breathing, dies. Siezing should not be considered 'resisting.' And these marketing idiots suing medically trained coroners should all receive 4 tases in a row before they scream 'non-lethal.' I bet 4 tases in a row would kill a sizeable measurable non-insignificat portion of any population. 'non-lethal' is bullshit propaganda to sell tasers, not save lives.

    3. Re:Don't tell the UK H&S executive that by EvolutionsPeak · · Score: 1

      In the case of the taser, the electric shock is deliberately caused and the victim has no opportunity to avoid it.

      I think that in the cases where the taser is being used properly, the victim has had ample opportunity to avoid being tased by complying with the officer's commands. It is the case where the taser is being used on already restrained individuals where what you say is true, in which case the problem lies not with the taser but with the officer(s) in question. That said, the idea that many of these people did not die at the very least in part to being tased is absolutely ridiculous.
    4. Re:Don't tell the UK H&S executive that by hkmwbz · · Score: 1

      Hmm, I saw a test on TV the other day. They measured the heart rate while being tasered. The heart rate was not disrupted, but remained normal throughout. What gives?

      --
      Clever signature text goes here.
    5. Re:Don't tell the UK H&S executive that by HalAtWork · · Score: 1

      I guess you might be right but the pre-existing condition did not cause the death by itself without the intervention of the taser. The taser had to be involved. If not using tasers results in less deaths, then we should not use tasers. It's like this story the other day on Slashdot where someone said that you're risking the lives of others with your experiments who would not otherwise be involved in your experiments. In this case you're using something that's killing someone who would not have otherwise died if you had used some other method. If they are trying to kill you then yeah, you may have to be in a position where you harm them, but if there's another safer method where you don't have to then it's always worth exploring that option.

    6. Re:Don't tell the UK H&S executive that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you a cop or a doctor to be making such medical and scientific declarations? And are the cops trained to not taser people to death in addition to all that other training that you apparently think proves anything? Because in most of these cases the people who die were tasered excessively and repeatedly, so if so, then all of that training didn't help. You can cut the crap now, cop.

    7. Re:Don't tell the UK H&S executive that by aXis100 · · Score: 1

      And how many unsuccessful tests did they not show?

      Dont confuse TV for science or evidence.

    8. Re:Don't tell the UK H&S executive that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "In the case of the taser, the electric shock is deliberately caused and the victim has no opportunity to avoid it."

      Oh, it's the VICTIM now, is it? I thought they were CRIMINALS...

      The CRIMINAL can AVOID being tasered by not behaving like an asshole in the first place... but then, that's too much to expect of these scumbags, isn't it, especially with hand-wringing cretins like you around...

    9. Re:Don't tell the UK H&S executive that by hkmwbz · · Score: 1

      The heart rate wasn't the primary test. It was just mentioned in passing because they noticed it.

      --
      Clever signature text goes here.
  35. Consensual Acts ARE torture in other contexts. by mikelieman · · Score: 1, Insightful

    "As for calling the Taser torture, let me put it this way: I would willingly be shot with a Taser again in a training exercise."

    Just because YOU are willing to consent to something doesn't mean it still isn't an act of TORTURE.

    Go over to some of the BDSM websites on the 'net, and you will find people who consent to, and actually enjoy being tied up and hit with a cattle prod.

    That doesn't mean it isn't torture.

    --
    Technology -- No Place For Wimps! Grateful Dead and Jerry Garcia Chatroom -- http://www.wemissjerry.org
  36. I feel so safe by Puffy+Director+Pants · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Because I know the folks at Taser International have my best interests as a citizen at heart, and are not concerned with their own profit and liability. Seriously, I've heard law enforcement officers claim tasers don't kill people. Maybe they don't always, but they can kill and injure people. It's shooting needles into a person and hitting them with electricity. It's not safe. It can kill. It may be less lethal than a bullet. It may be more effective at subduing someone than wrestling with them. But it's still got the potential danger there. Ignore that at....the peril of the citizenry.

    1. Re:I feel so safe by Dunbal · · Score: 2, Interesting


      Not only that, but speaking as a doctor - if politicians and judges are not allowed to practice medicine, corporations certainly shouldn't be. Now if this judge claims he has discovered a new disease and can determine cause of death based on forensic evidence, I plan to file a complaint about him practicing medicine without a license. Because as far as I know, only a medical pathologist (ie the coroner) can determine a cause of death. And the "state appointed" coroner's word is FINAL, whether the judge likes it or not.

      I am not a lawyer (obviously), but this ruling is rubbish and will probably be overturned at the drop of a heat - or at least another dead taser victim.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
  37. Taser use == MEDICAL PROCEDURE??? by mikelieman · · Score: 1

    This raises the important question:

    Should Tasers be regulated by the FDA as a medical device? And exactly what MEDICAL TRAINING is provided to enable the user to make the proper diagnosis before prescribing repeated debilitating electrical shocks?

    --
    Technology -- No Place For Wimps! Grateful Dead and Jerry Garcia Chatroom -- http://www.wemissjerry.org
    1. Re:Taser use == MEDICAL PROCEDURE??? by ColdWetDog · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Should Tasers be regulated by the FDA as a medical device?

      And exactly what medical condition is being treated by a Taser? A device causing a medical problem (death or disability) is not the purveyance of the FDA.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    2. Re:Taser use == MEDICAL PROCEDURE??? by mikelieman · · Score: 2, Funny

      And exactly what medical condition is being treated by a Taser? A device causing a medical problem (death or disability) is not the purveyance of the FDA. Uppityness.
      --
      Technology -- No Place For Wimps! Grateful Dead and Jerry Garcia Chatroom -- http://www.wemissjerry.org
    3. Re:Taser use == MEDICAL PROCEDURE??? by marxmarv · · Score: 1

      Uncontrollable mania?

      The unfortunate fact is that the richies are pouring a ton of money into protecting them against us when TSHTF rather than spending the same money to KTSFHTF. Some sort of regulation has a better chance of happening than a ban.

      --
      /. -- the Free Republic of technology.
  38. This is a real problem in our society ... by ScrewMaster · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I rank Taser International right up there with Diebold, DirecTV and the RIAA as organizations that regularly misuse American law to suppress competition and legitimate discussion of their products and services. This is not a matter of using the legal system to provide redress of grievance ... it's a form of quasi-legal censorship. It needs to be stopped, particularly when it comes to TI's intimidation of medical examiners and other State employees who are performing vital public services. This is wrong any way you look at it.

    --
    The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    1. Re:This is a real problem in our society ... by easyTree · · Score: 1

      is it just me or does every such occurrence push the inevitable (for want of a better word) _revolution_ even closer?

      how much more abuse of power and spin-doctoring of the truth are the world's people going to tolerate?

      there seems to be a problem because what connects us into cohesive groups are the very institutions whose power-bases are being abused daily.

    2. Re:This is a real problem in our society ... by domatic · · Score: 1

      Only in action dramas do people revolt over having their rights trampled. The reality is that as long as our Glorious Leaders can keep us in beer, TV, and junk food then they can do pretty much as they please. It's called bread and circuses and it kept the Roman Empire around hundreds of years past the point of their highest glory.

      Now couple the trampling with people who can neither eat nor get the resulting sicknesses treated and you have something.

    3. Re:This is a real problem in our society ... by Mix+Master+Nixon · · Score: 1

      Now couple the trampling with people who can neither eat nor get the resulting sicknesses treated and you have something.
       
      We're working on it. Sometimes these things take time.

      Yours,
      The United States of America
      --
      Oppressing an entire population is never cheap.
      --Jeckler (/. Beta IS GARBAGE!)
    4. Re:This is a real problem in our society ... by ScrewMaster · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Only in action dramas do people revolt over having their rights trampled. The reality is that as long as our Glorious Leaders can keep us in beer, TV, and junk food then they can do pretty much as they please. It's called bread and circuses and it kept the Roman Empire around hundreds of years past the point of their highest glory.

      Yes, but you can't separate the two. When rights get trampled in a previously-affluent society, economic failure usually follows. It's rare to see prosperity result from a loss of civil liberties. Worse yet, from our perspective, the speed at which modern economies move (and which armed conflicts can begin) means that we will not suffer a Roman-style long slide into oblivion, with the barbarians only storming the gates at the very end. It will happen fast, so fast that most people will be left wondering "what the hell happened?"

      The problem we're having in the United States is that the plebs have discovered that not only will the government provide bread and circuses, but with this being a Republic they can "vote" themselves more bread and circuses! The effect of this no longer uplifts the unfortunate (if it ever did) but serves as a massive transfer of wealth from the middle class to the poor, with gross inefficiencies and corporate handouts along the way. It's also resulting in the destruction of our manufacturing engine. Consequently, having given up the means of creating wealth, it will not be long before we can no longer afford to keep ourselves in beer, TV and junk food, no matter what country actually makes them.

      A major economic collapse will happen unless we start taking steps now: these processes are non-linear. The truth is that it's probably already too late for us, but I see no reason to do nothing, which all I see us doing now. Well, now that's not entirely true ... Congress is doing its level best to accelerate our downward spiral.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    5. Re:This is a real problem in our society ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      transfer of wealth from the middle class to the -p-o-o-r-,-w-i-t-h- rich, by means of gross inefficiencies and corporate handouts

      FTFY
      /Why doesn't /. allow strikethrough?

    6. Re:This is a real problem in our society ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A major economic collapse will happen unless we start taking steps now: these processes are non-linear. The truth is that it's probably already too late for us, but I see no reason to do nothing, which all I see us doing now. Congress is doing its level best to accelerate our downward spiral.

      It's not just Congress. Some of us are on strike. Congress wants our taxes, to hand over to our government-contract-whoring employers? Then our taxes they can have -- and not a goddamn thing more than that. They want our compliance? Then our compliance they shall also have. For all the good it'll do them.

      Who is John Galt?

  39. ErrrrrrrrreeewwwwwWHAT? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah, those things probably can kill occasionally. But so can kicking, punching, shooting, even restraining. I'd rather get tasered than kicked, punched, or shot, and if they didn't have a taser, those would be the alternatives. So you are saying that you would by all means be resisting arrest? You should be tased for saying that!!!

  40. FUD from your side too by schon · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Honestly, did you read what you wrote?

    The amperage on a Taser is too low by a few orders of magnitude to cause death by electrocution. Please put your straw man away. Nobody is saying that death by Taser is electrocution.

    I've been shot with a Taser. Not a stun-gun, a full-fledged Taser with the barbed prongs and ranged shot. And unless you did this while you were being arrested, you did this as part of a *training excercise*. Which makes it pretty much irrelevant.

    As a police officer, I've had six situations where using the Taser has saved me from serious bodily injury. In all but one case, the defendant was immediately back on his feet after I helped him up, and quickly back in good spirits. Really? In good spirits?!?!?! You're saying you were being threatened by someone, you hit them with the taser, they went down screaming, then you helped them up, and they said "wow, thanks - I feel much better now!"

    Pull the other one.

    I would willingly be shot with a Taser again in a training exercise. This is the main thrust. Being tasered in a controlled setting, where the subject is fit, not under the influence of any drugs (legal or illegal), calm, not under stress, and is aware it's going to happen and can prepare for it *is completely different* than when it's used in an adversarial situation, with people who might have medical conditions, or are otherwise not cops in training.
    1. Re:FUD from your side too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Really? In good spirits?!?!?! You're saying you were being threatened by someone, you hit them with the taser, they went down screaming, then you helped them up, and they said "wow, thanks - I feel much better now!"


      I guess you've never gotten in a fight with someone and laughed about it later or had a drink with them? People don't take this stuff as personally as you assume they would. And, yeah, if someone's a little drunk and acts like a jackass, he probably would think about it on the ride back and realize, "wow, I was a jackass and I got zapped. I really had it coming."

      Most cops are actually extremely professional and don't use force indiscriminately and it's not bad at all when you have to deal with them. 99 times out of 100, it's the subject of the arrest who is being a complete douchebag.

      *is completely different*


      How? A taser is an electric shock. You fall down (okay, that could hurt) and scream out all the air, and curl up in the fetal position. It lasts for 5 seconds and then it's completely over, unless you're stupid and they tase you again.

      I know it doesn't make any difference because I've watched people being tased in training and people being tased in actual encounters with the police and they react the exact same way.

      No, one difference: sometimes the idiot being tased won't stop struggling and he gets it again. 10 seconds instead of 5. The horror!
    2. Re:FUD from your side too by NotBornYesterday · · Score: 1

      I find it interesting that you feel your scepticism is more valid than the officer's experience.

      --
      I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
  41. Time for... by Z00L00K · · Score: 3, Funny

    Time to manufacture conductive underwear then. Just short the tazer and avoid the trouble.

    --
    If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
    1. Re:Time for... by boyko.at.netqos · · Score: 1

      Time to manufacture conductive underwear then. Just short the tazer and avoid the trouble. The parent was modded funny - I think it should be modded insightful. I was thinking in the car if it would be possible to create a Faraday cage for the human body that would fit under clothing.
      --
      I used to work for NetQoS. I no longer do, but want to keep the excellent karma attached to this account.
    2. Re:Time for... by tor528 · · Score: 1

      So, tinfoil long johns?

      --
      If I think something is funny, I will probably mod it +1 Insightful. "It's funny because it's true."
    3. Re:Time for... by cp.tar · · Score: 1

      I think it should be doable.

      ThinkGeek offers a stainless steel wallet, and IIRC there was something from NASA once upon a time with teflon-coated clothes.
      Fabric can be spun from metal threads, and I'd bet something could be made that is relatively comfortable to wear, yet makes for acceptable protection against tasers.

      The problem, of course, is that you trip metal detectors, which you probably encounter more often than tasers. And, of course, how often do you expect to get tasered anyway?

      --
      Ignore this signature. By order.
    4. Re:Time for... by davolfman · · Score: 1

      Every other time you go to a protest. You prepare to get pepper-balled to death on the remain ones.

    5. Re:Time for... by cp.tar · · Score: 1

      Every other time you go to a protest. You prepare to get pepper-balled to death on the remain ones.

      If a protest escalates or is violently suppressed, you do not want to engage in the fight anyway. Falling quickly is the safest option.

      Alternately, you may want to wire some explosive and use the electric charge from the taser as trigger. Go with a bang, so to say.

      --
      Ignore this signature. By order.
    6. Re:Time for... by dr_dank · · Score: 2, Informative

      I think the parent is confusing stun guns with Tazers. Stun guns also deliver an electric shock like the Tazer does, but you have to get right up and close to use it. With the Tazer, it shoots out barbed darts that penetrate the skin and deliver the shock. No need to get too close, iirc, you can hit a target from up to 15 feet away.

        This hypothetical faraday long underwear would need Kevlar fibers to make it puncture-resistant.

      --
      Where does the school board find them and why do they keep sending them to ME?
  42. A single taser shot is okay by the_raptor · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The problem with Taser use is not a single Taser shot to stop a potential attacker. It is when out of control police Tase someone repeatedly for "failure to comply with a lawful order" or just as revenge for striking an officer. The problem is when it is used as a coercion method like beating someone over the head with a phone book, or performing a choke hold used to be.

    The problem with Tasers is that it is hard to detect when the bad cops use them like this. But when the cause of death is "excited delirium" (yeah, its not like hospitals wouldn't have noticed this if it really existed) you can be pretty sure that a bad cop used some inappropriate method of coercion or restraint.

    --

    ========
    CINC, 4th Penguin Legion
  43. So ... new warning label for taser? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    WARNING: Use of taser on subjects experiencing "excited delirium" may cause sudden death.

    1. Re:So ... new warning label for taser? by ScrewMaster · · Score: 4, Funny

      WARNING: Do not look into Taser with remaining heart.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
  44. Cart before the horse by satsuke · · Score: 1

    This seems to be more a legal effort to come up with the conclusion that tasers are not related to suspects deaths, than looking for the question on how someone died.

    Probably in the companies best interest, but it does seem to be introducing more weasel words than the world really needs.

  45. Change To Yesterday's News Story by Skeetskeetskeet · · Score: 0

    The story that referenced the individual who was struck by lightning on the back nine of the Pine Woods Country Club line 14 of the article which originally read "As Robert was in his backswing, a stroke of lighting hit his club and killed him instantly", shall now read "As Robert was in his backswing, a stroke of delirium hit his club and killed him instantly".

    --
    Yeah, my karma sucks....but so do the mods.
  46. Tasers and death? by laughingcoyote · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I've always been a bit ambivalent on this. I think it's quite silly for the causes of death to be changed, as we all know well enough that getting hit by a pretty healthy jolt of electricity certainly could result in death, especially for those whose health is already compromised by other factors.

    On the other hand, it is true that police are able to use nonlethal force in place of lethal force in some scenarios (and Taser use is, in the overwhelming majority of cases, nonlethal). This is a good thing.

    I think a good way to treat this would be as we would treat the use of a punch, kick, nightstick, or other form of painful but nonlethal force. If an officer were to punch, kick, or whack someone with a nightstick simply for "mouthing off" or refusing to cooperate without mounting any physical threat, that officer is guilty of a crime and should be punished. On the other hand, if the person is attempting to attack physically, the officer would be well-justified in using necessary force to defend him/herself. Why not develop some reasonable guidelines for the thing, and then, you know, actually hold cops accountable if they don't follow them?

    Well, I can dream, can't I? Now back to this video of a cuffed suspect getting tasered repeatedly.

    --
    To fight the war on terror, stop being afraid.
    1. Re:Tasers and death? by easyTree · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I think it's quite silly for the causes of death to be changed, as we all know well enough that getting hit by a pretty healthy jolt of electricity certainly could result in death, especially for those whose health is already compromised by other factors.

      For me, that's what makes it so abhorrent. They're saying "you know and we know what killed him but let's have the official record list another cause of death. That way it's much easier for you to suspend disbelief and become our co-conspirators; all for the greater good of society. Sure it's unfortunate for a few to die needlessly so that police officers aren't inconvenienced whilst protecting society but hey.. whaddaya gonna do?"
    2. Re:Tasers and death? by celle · · Score: 1
      How about defining who is attacking whom? When a cop sticks his nose in someones else's business, justification is irrelevant, you will defend yourself against the intimidating, self-authorized intrusion. Is it the cop defending himself against an aggressive citizen or a citizen defending himself against a heavily armed, unwanted, pushy-cop? Tasers are just a glorified cattle prod and we're the cattle, the ethics of this is horrifying. How about the cops just waiting the suspect out instead of taking him down in the name of efficiency or what ever control game is going on? I know some situations don't always permit waiting but many more do that aren't acknowledged. Less people would definitely get hurt by waiting for the suspect/situation to cool down than agitating it by attacking/interfering.

      Cops are there to keep us from killing each other, not to pacify the population or dictate how we otherwise interact. They are the constitution's army now if they could just read and understand the intent and meaning of the thing.

      Personally, I think we've already reached Mussolini's fascism in this country anyway. The constitution is little more than dead. And the police/federal forces becoming little more than the modern gestapo, with the rest of their powers on the way. We're corporate controlled, government owned, want an example, I hope you paid your property taxes(rent).

    3. Re:Tasers and death? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If an officer were to punch, kick, or whack someone with a nightstick simply for [...] refusing to cooperate without mounting any physical threat, that officer is guilty of a crime and should be punished

      Unfortunately, the Nixon administration changed the rules on this in 70's (also got the Omnibus Drug bill passed) to put an end to effective, but peaceful protests organized in the 60's. Now all an officer has to do is give you a "lawful" order and if you do not follow it they can hurt you physically without repercussion (in the vast majority of cases). Unfortunately further, a lawful order is anything not explicitly illegal they tell you to do. And that is why protesting the government for redress of grievances is the exceptionally rare and wholly ineffective thing it is today. See for example the demonstration against the Republican National Convention in New York City in 2004 and how they were stopped by use of police force.
    4. Re:Tasers and death? by Ihlosi · · Score: 1
      Unfortunately further, a lawful order is anything not explicitly illegal they tell you to do.



      "Hold your breath for five minutes."


      Physical hurting ensues shortly thereafter.

  47. MODERATORS!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Mod Parent Up

  48. Re:The brutal murder of Deacon Frederick Williams. by easyTree · · Score: 1

    hmm, he sure was more docile once they'd killed him.

    weird that it took them three minutes or so to notice that they'd killed him.

    it appears to me that they are all overweight, dull-minded individuals just following their predetermined routine. most disturbing to think that such people are in positions of power.

  49. Re:Cops carry BATONS too -- for centuries... by Nullav · · Score: 1

    Not to mention that many people (in power) still consider tasers 'safe', meaning that the 'What about my job?' part of the thought process just isn't there. I certainly wouldn't want to be shot in the leg or have a baton jammed into my eye by an overzealous traffic cop, but at least I know it's less likely to happen than being dropped by a taser.

    --
    I just read Slashdot for the articles.
  50. Other countries by xiox · · Score: 1

    I wonder what happens if other countries legally decide that tasers can kill people? How many other countries allow tasers to be used by police etc?

  51. How to deal with large belligerent like Taser. by gnutoo · · Score: 1

    Call for backup. If life is really endangered, deadly force is justified.

    The problem here is that Taser is pretending their stun gun is not an application of deadly force. Honest police officers are being encouraged to use a device that might kill. Dishonest police officers think they have a toy they abuse people with and that they might even get away with murder. The lie is a crime and Taser should be punished for it. It's malicious corporate behavior and those responsible should be stripped of their ill gotten gains. A class action lawsuit will come from this and it should target the company, it's officers and prominent investors. There would be no case if the company was not lying and simply admitted that they made a mistake instead of trying to cover up the evidence of that mistake. A bigger problem is that the harm they have done is not something that can be repaired with money. No amount of money the company has can make up for loss of life and honest policemen won't who have unintentionally killed won't get their sleep back.

  52. Would you rather have by Nicolas+MONNET · · Score: 1

    your left testicle torn off, or your right testicle chopped away?

    Nice false dichotomy there, buddy.

  53. Re:The brutal murder of Deacon Frederick Williams. by couchslug · · Score: 1

    "Do you trust the police?"

    Mostly, yes. There will always be bad apples (which is why the FBI nearly took over the New Orleans PD years ago) but by FAR the problem isn't the po-po, but my wonderful fellow citizens who rob, rape, steal, and do home invasions. Police dealing with me have always been professional. Can't say that for civilians...

    BTW I have a wonderful method for not getting tased/maced/clubbed or shot by the cops. I NEVER start shit with them. I'm of the opinion most people who refuse to behave in a mellow and self-controlled manner and assault cops deserve a good beatdown because they volunteered for it.

    I expect to live in an orderly and secure society and I don't care too much if those who would disturb that get hurt for their efforts. The Thin Blue Line protects me, and is therefore good.

    --
    "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
  54. {citation needed} by Nimey · · Score: 1

    Bullshit unless you can provide examples.

    --
    Hail Eris, full of mischief...

    E pluribus sanguinem
    1. Re:{citation needed} by kchrist · · Score: 1

      I'm not the poster you're responding to but googling "12 year old girl school taser" got me an article about that incident, plus a broken link about the (six year old!) kid with broken glass mentioned above. Coincidentally, both incidents involved Miami police and were only a week apart.

  55. What is a gun? Mace? Pepper spray? Insults? by ayeco · · Score: 1

    Taser torture? What is a gun? Is that not torture? Or mace or pepper spray or tear gas? How about an insult?

    1. Re:What is a gun? Mace? Pepper spray? Insults? by stinerman · · Score: 1

      Your statement implies that you believe torturing someone is a lesser crime than killing them. If you think carefully about it, you might change your mind.

      Would you rather have been put to the rack and burned at the stake during the Spanish Inquisition or shot between the eyes? I know I'd have preferred the latter.

    2. Re:What is a gun? Mace? Pepper spray? Insults? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, since tasering apparently is also a form of torture, I guess you'd rather be shot between the eyes than tasered, right?

    3. Re:What is a gun? Mace? Pepper spray? Insults? by stinerman · · Score: 1

      It would depend on how many times they decided to taser me.

      You can torture people with a baseball bat if you use it incorrectly (correctly?). The same goes with tasers. If used as one would use a gun, they are a useful tool for LEOs. If used as a replacement for standard operating procedure ("I told him to freeze and he didn't, so I'd better give him a jolt"), they are no longer a useful tool.

  56. Re:The brutal murder of Deacon Frederick Williams. by Reader+X · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I NEVER start shit with them.

    Me neither! That's why I'm always VERY careful never to:
    - be black
    - be poor
    - have a funny haircut
    - ask questions
    - take pictures
    - say the wrong thing
    - vote for the wrong people
    - etc.

  57. Torture? by BlabberMouth · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The alternative to the stun gun is a 9mm bullet. If stun guns infrequently cause deaths, bullets quite frequently do. The taser is intended as a non lethal alternative to a pistol. If it is, in actuality, merely a much less lethal alternative, then it still has value in law enforcement and personal protection.

    1. Re:Torture? by stinerman · · Score: 1

      I'll bet the the UN means that the use of a stun gun and/or taser is not torture if used only in the same circumstances as one would use their pistol.

      I believe that the untrained or lazy officer would use a taser instead of attempting to defuse the situation with good police work and practices. Unfortunately many an officer thinks they have carte blanche to use the weapon indiscriminately because it doesn't kill people.

    2. Re:Torture? by Theaetetus · · Score: 1

      The alternative to the stun gun is a 9mm bullet. So if a police officer uses a stun gun in a situation calling for non-lethal force (such as convincing a kid leaving a library to "leave a little faster"), they should be held to the same standard as if they had used the gun, and be tried and convicted for attempted murder? I'm certainly with you on that, and am glad you've come around.
    3. Re:Torture? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The alternative to the stun gun is a 9mm bullet.

      Did they just unblock slashdot at the great firewall of china?

      Or in which country are you, where the alternative to being tasered for saying the wrong things at the wrong time, for forgetting your library card, for shouting a little too loud from your wheelchair that you want to visit a friend, and for being sick is a 9mm bullet?

    4. Re:Torture? by Hyppy · · Score: 1

      That is a false dichotomy. When a person mouthed off to a cop before the taser was invented, was the only available option a bullet? No, there are other means that a law enforcement officer can use.

  58. Speaking of hysterical... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    female hysteria which was cured by rape.

    If you'd used the valid link, you'd have noticed that "female hysteria" was treated via masturbation: '"pelvic massage" â" manual stimulation of the woman's genitals by the doctor to "hysterical paroxysm", which is now recognized as orgasm.'

    Not all masturbation is rape, you know.

    there is a common cause to these deaths, police intervention with taser. Calling it something else is a lie.

    No, saying all "excited delirium" deaths involve a taser is a lie.

    Take, for example, this one - among others - where police used physical force (nightsticks) and the listed cause of death was excited delirium.

    That may or may not make it better - these are still controversial deaths occurring during police encounters - but your beliefs on these matters are substantially more narrow than the actual facts, and I'll thank you for not confusing one with the other.
    1. Re:Speaking of hysterical... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you'd used the valid link [wikipedia.org], you'd have noticed that "female hysteria" was treated via masturbation

      Masturbation is something you do to yourself.

      "Pelvic Massage" is something the doctor does to the patient. It's performed on the patient as a mandatory treatment of an invented illness. The patient has no say in the matter. It is rape.

      Take, for example, this one - among others - where police used physical force (nightsticks) and the listed cause of death was excited delirium.

      So, the real commonality between these cases is that the individual was physically restrained by police using a weapon. The weapon is usually a Taser, but not always.

      No matter how you slice it, the problem is not some inherent condition in the victim, as Taser would like you to believe, but the use of force by police with a weapon.

    2. Re:Speaking of hysterical... by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 1

      Take, for example, this one [npr.org]

      I lived in Cincinnati at that time, and followed the case quite closely. You know why he died? 350lbs, bad heart, PCP and crack.
      In the part of the video that is almost never shown, he was seen attacking the cops, who were backing up. They tried pepper spray, to no avail.
      Eventually they got to wailing in with the nightsticks, and he still wouldn't stop fighting back. Eventually, they got him under control, but by then he was probably well on the way to dying. To much excitement for his system to handle.

      Yes he died. No, he shouldn't have. But if he had run down the street in that condition, he would have also died.

      FTA:
      "Deborah Mash, a professor of neurology at the University of Miami, describes the symptoms of the condition:
      "Someone who's disproportionately large, extremely agitated, threatening violence, talking incoherently, tearing off clothes, and it takes four or five officers to get the attention of that individual and bring him out of harm's way â" that's excited delirium." "

    3. Re:Speaking of hysterical... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Masturbation is something you do to yourself.
      Wrong.

      "Pelvic Massage" is something the doctor does to the patient. It's performed on the patient as a mandatory treatment of an invented illness. The patient has no say in the matter. It is rape.

      This is about the stupidest thing I've read on Slashdot. Every patient is free to refuse any treatment - there is no coercion involved, therefore no rape. That's also assuming that you include all forms of sexual misconduct in the term "rape," which is not the case everywhere.

      Now, if you wanted to make the case that because of a misguided medical theory, these doctors were guilty of malpractice, you might be onto something.

      Probably they just took the space out of "the rapists" and became "therapists"!

    4. Re:Speaking of hysterical... by EdIII · · Score: 1
      LOL!
       

      Not all masturbation is rape, you know.


      You mean there are SOME instances of masturbation that are actually rape? If that is true, I think just about every man in the world is up for 1000+ life sentences.
  59. "UN's opinion that taser use is torture" by Quila · · Score: 1

    UN opinions should be considered torture because they often cause emotional pain to any intelligent people who read them.

    Right, let's forget tasers because they're "torture" and go back to only bashing in skulls with night sticks and blowing holes in people with handguns.

  60. Research shows taser can affect hearts by kbahey · · Score: 1

    Research on pigs has shown that tasers cause erratic heart rhythms when the barbs form a line that crosses the heart. Little surprise, because the heart's rhythm works on electric pulses.

    In Canada we had more than one case of death after tasering, including a polish immigrant.

    1. Re:Research shows taser can affect hearts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Yes, in Canada police do behave like that. Especially if they know (or think...) that you have no friends or family that will check upon your whereabouts.


      A friend of mine was held a couple of months in a Canadian jail without access to a lawyer nor a phone, simply because he stepped on the toes of an influential Rotary Club member.

  61. Surrender to FUD by sharp-bang · · Score: 1

    And I find it interesting that you're criticizing expressed skepticism of an "officer's" "experience" as stated on an anonymous Internet forum. Perhaps you should reconsider your handle?

    --
    #!
    1. Re:Surrender to FUD by NotBornYesterday · · Score: 1

      And I find it interesting that you're criticizing expressed skepticism This is slashdot. You aren't new here. Get used to it.

      of an "officer's" "experience" as stated on an anonymous Internet forum. Actually, his "experience" closely matches the experiences of friends and relatives of mine in LE. That by itself doesn't mean that his post is factual, but it helps it pass the sniff test. In particular, the "good spirits" quote was revealing. From multiple anecdotes from LE I know, there is a range of behavior they encounter from people they've arrested. There are the full-blown hostiles kicking out cruiser windows, trying to spit through the screen/partition, whatever. There are sullen, quiet ones. Not particularly cooperative, but not actively resisting. And believe it or not, there are some who become cooperative and friendly; the "good spirits" end of the spectrum, if you will. We can only guess as to why.

      It could be that they are trying to act in their own best interest by being nice to the police. It could be that in a some way, now that the fight is over and they lost, the anger that kept them fighting in the first place has dissipated. However you explain it, they exist.

      Perhaps you should reconsider your handle? No thanks, I like it just fine as it is. Just because I question your rant doesn't mean I'm gullible. Nice try, though.
      --
      I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
    2. Re:Surrender to FUD by sharp-bang · · Score: 1

      This is slashdot. You aren't new here. Get used to it.

      Exactly. Goose, gander, etc.

      However you explain it, they exist.

      Oh, I agree. And I'm tending to side with mad-cat in this thread. That wasn't my point, though.

      doesn't mean I'm gullible

      Perhaps not, but you seem to think others should be, which WAS my point.

      rant

      Uh, no. Nice try, though.

      --
      #!
  62. Re:Be careful how you create your titles, soulskil by xigxag · · Score: 1

    Misleading. TASER is a brand name for a manufacturer of electroshock weaponry (or more euphemistically "Electronic Control Devices") The company's literature always refers to them as TASER devices, TASER products, TASER ECDs, or TASER [model name] -- in other words, the name is never pluralized/lowercased like "tasers," in the way that you do in your post. However, in common usage you can tase people with tasers, either through propoelled wire electrodes or through direct contact ("drive stun") mode. TASER devices can usually either be used in either mode. They aren't two different devices, they're the same ECD, just with or without the "TASER cartridge" inserted. Of course this is easy to verify.

    --
    There are two kinds of people: 1) those who start arrays with one and 1) those who start them with zero.
  63. Torture? by Brandybuck · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Coroner reports such as the ones in this case contributed to the UN's opinion that taser use is torture.


    Like anything, even water, a Taser can be used as torture. But that's not its purpose. It was made to subdue people in a (mostly) non-lethal fashion. If you are suspect of a violent crime resisting arrest in a violent manner, then I support the use of a Taser on you. That's because it's much more human than shooting you with a .357, Pose an immediate danger to the police or public and expect to get tased.

    But Tasers are not perfect. They can kill. They are being overused not because the police are sadistic monsters, but because they have been taught that Tasers are non-lethal, that they do not kill. They have been taught that they are nothing more than cattle prods for humans. Nothing can be further from the truth. If police would treat Tasers as the potentially deadly weapons they are, they would be used far less frequently.

    They should NOT be used when the suspect is merely acting goofy, or asking beligerent questions of a Democrat Politician, or wearing earbuds so you don't hear the cops, etc. They should only be used when you pose an immediate danger to the police or public. I suspect half the use of Tasers don't meet this level.
    --
    Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
  64. You Fail the Google by Theaetetus · · Score: 1

    Bullshit unless you can provide examples.

    Seriously? You (a) haven't heard of any of the above examples and (b) can't figure out how to use a search engine? Here - first hit for USC Taser I can't be arsed to search for the others, but look on Google. The one with the guy in the airport happened only about two months ago.

    1. Re:You Fail the Google by Nimey · · Score: 1

      I simply can't be bothered. GP made a claim, so he needs to provide examples instead of saying that he remembers things.

      --
      Hail Eris, full of mischief...

      E pluribus sanguinem
    2. Re:You Fail the Google by Theaetetus · · Score: 1

      And since I have provided you with an example, you retract your bullshiat claim?

  65. Re:The brutal murder of Deacon Frederick Williams. by couchslug · · Score: 1

    My method also worked just fine when I was a long-haired, bearded biker before being one was trendy. :)

    --
    "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
  66. Taser = nightstick by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If shooting someone with a taser was regarded as equal to shooting them with a gun, I'd happily see them deployed all over.

    Shooting someone with a taser is not equal to shooting someone with a gun, though.

    When you shoot someone with a gun, you expect and intend the target to be seriously injured or killed. When you shoot them with a taser, you expect and intend the target to suffer pain but no lasting effects...much like when you punch them.

    For that reason, tasers are typically considered equivalent to "hard hand techniques" (which includes whacking with a nightstick) on the use of force spectrum - they probably won't result in lasting injury. That level of force is dangerous, though - people have been known to die from a single punch, including from police, so it's understood that that level of force is dangerous and potentially lethal.

    Yes, tasers are dangerous and potentially lethal in rare cases - that's why they're in the "dangerous and potentially lethal in rare cases" category on the use-of-force spectrum. Is that not the appropriate place for them?
  67. Someone please explain by hansraj · · Score: 2, Interesting

    How is the medical opinion of experts (right or wrong) a judicial matter at all? Isn't it akin to taking me to a court because I published an erroneous theorem?

    Isn't the way to correct such things is the "usual way" of doing science? But then maybe litigating is the usual way these days.

    1. Re:Someone please explain by marxmarv · · Score: 1

      How is the medical opinion of experts (right or wrong) a judicial matter at all? It weighs for liability in a civil suit for wrongful death.

      Isn't it akin to taking me to a court because I published an erroneous theorem? No, it's akin to taking you to court because you published a true account of facts that expose a corporation to liability and shame.

      Isn't the way to correct such things is the "usual way" of doing science? But then maybe litigating is the usual way these days. Too many Americans put faith before science. Litigation has more to do with the former than the latter.
      --
      /. -- the Free Republic of technology.
    2. Re:Someone please explain by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The same way that mathematics is a legal matter.

  68. Taser death. by Lost+Penguin · · Score: 1

    Taser deaths are murder in the 3rd degree at least.
    Taser International is fighting a future criminal case through these civil cases now.

    Three cops tasering someone at once is a murder attempt.

    --
    I am the unwilling control for my Origin.
  69. Wow... by OMNIpotusCOM · · Score: 0, Troll

    ...just... wow... just troll this now, I'm feeling feisty.

    Add that to the list of things you can't say on Slashdot without riling up the citizenry. Whodathunkit?

    Ok, so... cops are bad, RIAA is bad, Microsoft is bad, paying for software or music is bad, Bush is bad, upholding any law is bad, copyrights are bad...

    Conversely... Ron Paul is good, Apple is hip, Linux is infallible, pirating is good, Fair Use is misunderstood, and if it doesn't affect you personally it's not important, unless someone is being treated unfairly, especially criminals...then it's bad.

    Ok... I think I got it. I'm new here.

    Sorry, continue about your cop flaming. Call me the next time someone gets into a high speed chase with them and head-ons a soccer mom, then we can all be angry at the cops for causing the chase in the first place.

    1. Re:Wow... by Danse · · Score: 1

      Add that to the list of things you can't say on Slashdot without riling up the citizenry. Whodathunkit?
      Ok, so... cops are bad, RIAA is bad, Microsoft is bad, paying for software or music is bad, Bush is bad, upholding any law is bad, copyrights are bad... Way to be an asshat there. You think you're special just because you take the side of the police? You didn't provide any facts in your post, right after you bashed the parent poster for not providing facts, and then you expect to get modded up? Come back when you can make an actual argument.

      --
      It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
    2. Re:Wow... by cduffy · · Score: 1

      You do realize that "the citizenry" has more than one opinion, and that you're part of it?

      So -- if you don't agree with what you see as the slashdot groupthink, you're obviously (1) misperceiving that groupthink, and/or (2) offending individuals (like yourself) who don't subscribe. What's more, though, the perception that there is a unified groupthink is mistaken. The Linux geeks and the Apple geeks are still two different camps. The OSS folks want to see copyright laws enforced (with enlightened self interest encouraging adoption of open source terms where appropriate), while the RMS groupies want to see copyright for software fundamentally modified. There are plenty of folks around here who think Ron Paul's a nutjob -- go look at any political article for proof; while the RP contingent is vocal, they're very, very far from alone. Almost everyone will agree that fair use is misunderstood, but some folks will claim that it's really meant to be a get-out-of-jail-free card for noncommercial (but otherwise outright) theft, while others will say that it's misunderstood by those who see it as anything other than a last-ditch legal defense with tightly limited scope. To be sure, there are folks who take any of the positions you caricature as part of the local groupthink -- but individuals taking all of those positions are far more rare.

      Now please stop the ad hominem attacks against a strawman "groupthink" that doesn't even exist.

    3. Re:Wow... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Go back to digg.

    4. Re:Wow... by Spamboi · · Score: 1

      Hey, that's exactly what I was thinking!

  70. When confronted by a police officer: by Digestromath · · Score: 1
    When confronted by a stun gun wielding member of your local constabulary just scream the following: "Don't tase me bro, I'm in a state of excited delirium!"

    Works pretty well, its like screaming "Don't stab me! I'm a hemophiliac!" You would not believe the stabbings I've gotten out of that way.

    In other news, gun manufacturers are arguing to have 'gun violence' reclassified into 'high velocity, projectile related trauma'.

  71. Re:Tasers, cops, and "non-lethal" weapons by Psykechan · · Score: 1

    Let me start out with stating that I support the use of taser devices by police. I believe that having an intermediary between "come peacefully" and "I will have to kill you" is a very good tool to give to officers.

    My problem is that these deaths weren't just exacerbated by tasers, they were caused by them. If the officer had used a firearm instead, it would've been death caused by gun. Why is this any different?

    I am not a police officer and one reason that I'm not is a heart condition that would prevent me from fulfilling my duties as an officer. The same condition that would cause me to die if I was on the receiving end of a taser! Now you may like to say that it would be my heart condition that was the cause of said taser related death but I have to think that a simple restraining would keep me alive. If someone shoots me with a taser, I will die and I damn well want my death certificate to say "death by taser".

    It's high time that people (and that includes police officers who are in fact just people) start referring to tasers as "less lethal" weapons instead of "non-lethal". That's what this lawsuit is about. The manufacturers don't want people thinking that these things can and do kill, they just want people to think that they are preferable to firearms.

    So keep carrying tasers as they do have their use. Just make sure that everyone knows that they are less-lethal weapons. They do kill. Oh and don't tase me bro. I don't want to die.

    P.S. I'm also pro gun but I don't think we should gratuitously shoot people with them either.

  72. Blood Loss Not Gun Death by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes and when you kill a man with a gun, he died of blood loss, not the gun shot/wound. /sarcasm

    I'll be glad if your daughter is tasered to death and the civilian who does so can walk away without any charges. She died of a weak heart you see. Or perhaps by some miracle this might happen to some of the executives and their families. Again, the civilian or policeman who kills them with a taser can walk away without charge.

    1. Re:Blood Loss Not Gun Death by Hyppy · · Score: 1

      I would also love to see that.

  73. Airport case (and there is more than the taser) by Lonewolf666 · · Score: 1

    The tasered man at the airport is on YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_IJqdL40lvU.

    He appears pretty agitated in the video and engages in some vandalism, but he is unarmed.

    After watching the video, I'd agree that restraining him was probably necessary, but there were at least four security guards on the scene. They should have been able to handle him without a taser. Also watch the right guard at around 3:50 into the video. It looks like he hits the guy repeatedly with his club, at a time when he is clearly under control.

    Overall, the security uses a completely unreasonable degree of force. If they did not have a taser, I can easily imagine them beating their victim to death.

    --
    C - the footgun of programming languages
    1. Re:Airport case (and there is more than the taser) by TheLink · · Score: 1

      See the thing is, is the taser effective?

      If it really is effective, then they shouldn't need to tase people so many times to get them under control.

      What I don't understand is how cops expect people not to move if you electrocute them. "Hold still while I zap you".

      --
  74. What's wrong with you? by urbanriot · · Score: 1
    You can't see any evidence that the Vancouver incident was handled inappropriately?!

    For anyone else that needs a refresher - http://www.thestar.com/News/Canada/article/277038 , the incident involving a Polish man who was detained for 10 hours and immediately tased to death when the cops appeared.

    What's inappropriate is that four athletic looking, young police officers didn't attempt to calm or subdue this man, and immediately tased him to death.

    Thus far, I've yet to see any evidence--including the immigrant in Vancouver--where any inappropriate actions took place.
  75. It's not torture by Crazy+Taco · · Score: 1

    Furthermore, use of a taser or other electrical stun device in an already restrained individual IS torture pure and simple. It's no more acceptable than handcuffung and then beating the subject.


    That's not true. If the subject is bound hand and foot, and gagged, perhaps. Otherwise, if only handcuffs have been used, they can still be kicking officers, biting, drawing blood, etc. If they don't settle down, a taser is perfectly reasonable. Also, I think you'd be hard pressed to find a case where the officer doesn't first say, "Settle down or you are going to be tased." Often this warning is issued repeatedly before action is taken. At that point, the use of the taser was clearly the coice of the belligerant individual, and I don't feel bad if they pretty much choose to be tased.

    I recently saw a training program where officers are themselves tazed briefly in a controled situation so they will understand exactly the effects of the force they might use on a subject. That seems like a good idea to me and is very likely to lead to more appropriate uses.


    This is already done in every police academy in the country (if there are any exceptions I'd be very suprised). My brother-in-law is in the academy now, and being tased and shot with pepper spray are required for every officer. Police officers all know what it's like to be tased, and it does lead to more reasonable uses. It is also why taser use isn't torture today. The cops know what they are doing, and I think you see less abuse of the taser than you used to see when beatings were used.

    IMHO, Taser International is so anxious to advertise their product as perfect and a panacea that they CAUSE it to be mis-used through disinformation.


    This is probably true. Taser does seem to get carried away with its advertising. However, every police officer I know does understand that Tasers may, in rare circumstances, kill someone. However, they use them under the assumption that a Taser is less lethal than a gun, and that is probably true. I know some police departments that carry only Tasers now instead of guns. This is especially common on forces dealing primarilly with college campuses, because on those you are likely to have a lot of semi-violent drunks, fighters, people possibly on drugs, and generally youthful people that can run fast and throw a hard punch. However, you don't have too many hardened criminals carrying heavy weaponry. So tasers are a good way to subdue people who are probably stronger and in better shape than the cops without having to use a gun.

    --
    Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it.
    1. Re:It's not torture by The+Rizz · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Also, I think you'd be hard pressed to find a case where the officer doesn't first say, "Settle down or you are going to be tased." Often this warning is issued repeatedly before action is taken. Like the time a cop didn't like a guy sitting on a bicycle asking questions?

      Also, even if they issue a warning, is it still justified to tase a suspect if they literally sit unmoving after the warning? (Such as the multiple instances of tasering people who were in comas or in shock at the time?)

      What if you had four officers on top of a person who had already been overpowered by just one of the officers alone?
    2. Re:It's not torture by sjames · · Score: 1

      If the subject is still in a position to bite or kick effectively then he's not adeuately restrained. If an officer COULD and SHOULD shift his position and pin the subject but uses the taser instead (either because of malice or incompetance), then it's torture. That is, the device is being used as a threat of physical distress to bring about submission rather than to overpower the subject.

      Unfortunately, there are cases where tasers and stun guns have been used in that manner. Some of them ended in fatality.

    3. Re:It's not torture by sjames · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The Redmond case is especially outrageous. There is solid medical evidence that she was not capable of performing any action to warrant tazing her at the time. It takes a serious rageaholic to attack someone in diabetic shock for being unresponsive! People like that shouldn't be allowed to carry a gun as a matter of public safety.

      MOST people would have enough situational awareness and compassion to become concerned for her well being after breaking the window out and she just sits there. It sounds like the cop was already wound up to hurt someone by then.

    4. Re:It's not torture by darkfire5252 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That's not true. If the subject is bound hand and foot, and gagged, perhaps. Otherwise, if only handcuffs have been used, they can still be kicking officers, biting, drawing blood, etc. If they don't settle down, a taser is perfectly reasonable. Are you high? "If only handcuffs have been used and a suspect is trying to kick an officer, what oh what are they do do except electrocute someone?" ... Show me an able-bodied trained professional who can't deal with a handcuffed person. There's not one out there. Repeat after me: the Taser is a weapon used to control a situation that is potentially dangerous to the officer or to civilians. The Taser is not a device of convenience. Let's go back to the handcuffed suspect (keep in mind that just being in handcuffs is only a sign that a person has been accused of a crime, not an indicator of guilt). If an officer is so concerned with getting a one legged kick from a suspect that has handcuffs on, they need to not be on the streets 'protecting' anyone. If a suspect is trying to kick them then they should back up. Get out of range of the suspects legs; the suspect isn't going anywhere and will eventually run out of steam. At all times, act as if a suspect is going to bite you; keep hands away from the mouth. The problem with officers using the Taser is exactly the one that you seem to have; the person who is about to be tased is still a person. Yeah, it's more convenient to fire metal darts into the skin of someone and then pass electrical current through the person, causing muscle spasming and incapacitation. That doesn't mean that it's an acceptable alternative to hard work or common sense.

      Also, I think you'd be hard pressed to find a case where the officer doesn't first say, "Settle down or you are going to be tased." Often this warning is issued repeatedly before action is taken. At that point, the use of the taser was clearly the coice of the belligerant individual, and I don't feel bad if they pretty much choose to be tased. Let's go back to my original question: are you high? Because there's a non-trivial chance that the suspect is. Being drunk and unruly does not equate to choosing to be Tasered by an officer that does not care to break a sweat on the job.
  76. 'Excited Delerium' is irresponsible by Aphoxema · · Score: 1

    I don't see why the company is trying so hard to suppress this. It's not like it's their fault, they could easily just blame their customers for misusing the device.

    If they just (successfully) dropped the blame on the law enforcement and campus cops and civilians for misusing the device, it would actually help them and the people that might some day get hurt.

    By trying to make their device seem somehow less dangerous, they're doing the most irresponsible thing.

    There's also no point to this approach, there's no telling anyone who knows the least about the effects of electricity on the human body that it's not going to ever kill people.

    A 9 volt battery can easily kill a person if the resistance of the skin is defeated, and tens of thousands of volts has no problem overcoming that resistance.

    Maybe it's about time someone designed a full-body faraday shield for those average, every day people who do nothing wrong to run around in all day so they won't have to worry about some asshole cop believing tasers are magical tools that harmlessly make people stop 'resisting arrest'.

    --
    "Most people, I think, don't even know what a rootkit is, so why should they care about it?"
  77. Hmmmmm..... by IHC+Navistar · · Score: 1

    What the hell are we supposed to use to control and defend ourselves from unruly criminals? Strong language?!

    Oh wait..... The UN already determined that to be torture - No joke.

    Let see.....

    Nightsticks: Effective only if you get a good, strong headshot. If you don't incapacitate the criminal, it just makes them madder.
    Guns: Usually kill the criminal. Not always a bad thing, but they leave you open to frivolous lawsuits from people who think that criminals should have rights while they commit a crime.
    Strong Language: Determined to be torture by the UN. Apparently, they claim it's torture to make someone feel bad by insulting them.
    Begging: Usually ineffective.

    So let's see - It's torture to use a Taser to defend yourself from a criminal, but not torture to allow yourself to be subjected to violence from a criminal?

    Screw the U.N. - I'll just shoot the worthless bastard in the nuts. It won't kill him, but he'll wish it had.

    --
    Knowing Google's lust for data collection, the Soviet Union is still alive and well inside the psyche of Sergey Brin....
    1. Re:Hmmmmm..... by The+Rizz · · Score: 2, Informative

      Nightsticks: Effective only if you get a good, strong headshot. If you don't incapacitate the criminal, it just makes them madder. If you think this, then you're absolutely using them wrong. Nightsticks have the shape they have for a reason; they are designed to assist in tripping and trapping/pinning maneuvers.
  78. What's the difference? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Even if this "excited delirium" thing is real, the Taser caused or contributed to that condition, hence it is perfectly within reason for the coroner to state that the Taser contributed to death.

    I mean, this is like saying that a gun can put a hole in a person's head but that the official cause of death was "missing parts of brain syndrome" and therefore the gun did not contribute or cause death.

    So even if a person is predisposed to reacting badly to an electric shock, it doesn't change the fact that the Taser introduced the trauma and therefore contributed to the person's death. Saying otherwise is like, well, that person who died from a killer bee attack didn't die from the stings, he died from his allergic reaction to bee venom. Well, yes, but how did the bee venom get into him?

    Tasers are absolutely accountable for their contributions to these deaths.

  79. Re:Be careful how you create your titles, soulskil by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 1
    Oh, man, reading that page... you just can't make this shit up:

    I WILL CONTROL MY OWN DESTINY

    In todayâ(TM)s world, maintaining self-confidence involves the need for self-protection. For independent, self-reliant women, the TASER® C2 is an effective personal protection device that fits any lifestyle. Ok, that I can go with... but "fits any lifestyle"? Hmm... Next slide:

    THERE WHEN I CAN'T BE

    The commitment to protect the family, is more than something rational. It is innate. What is rational is taking steps to reconcile the instinct to protect, to always be there when needed. This seems to be advocating giving tasers to friends and family. Still not too bad...

    FASHION WITH A BITE

    Let innovative design, unparalleled performance, and breakthrough style help you make a statement. Who says safety can't be stylish? Ok, WTF. What does it say about our society that we have designer fucking tasers?

    TASER MPH HOLSTER
    mixing music with security

    Play your favorite songs while on the go, with this combination TASER® C2 Holster and easy-to-use music player. The 1 GB TASER MPH Holster offers you both security and music while on the go. Yes... we are talking about a combination. Taser. And. MP3. Player.

    Really, we can't be far off from this kind of stuff. (For those who don't know, that was one of their April Fools products.)
    --
    Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
  80. Ah, wishful thinking. How cute by Moraelin · · Score: 3, Informative

    Well, since this one is a total lie, it kinda casts doubt on the rest of your scenarios too. I pretty much stopped reading there.


    Heh. Dude, just because you don't know about it, doesn't make it a lie, ya know? I hate to break the illusion that the world revolves around you, and that truth or falsehood get judged by your whims or wishes. Sorry. Want a link?

    - UCLA cops taser ID-less student
    - UCLA Taser victim sues university

    Have more links. Off The Register alone, since I can't be arsed to do even more searching for you:

    - Texas cops taser diabetic seizure man

    - School tasers naked, oil-smeared student

    - Taser-happy cops floor suicidal six-year-old (It also mentions the 12 year old girl.)

    - US cops taser battling granny

    Etc.

    So basically, just because you're uninformed, doesn't make it a lie. The fact that you wrote the above idiocy without even bothering to google first, though... now _that_ speaks volumes. Heh.

    But I assume again you won't have the literacy skills to make it this far, so never mind ;)
    --
    A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
    1. Re:Ah, wishful thinking. How cute by c6gunner · · Score: 0, Troll

      Heh. Dude, just because you don't know about it, doesn't make it a lie, ya know?
      I'm quite aware of the incident you're referring to, thanks. It's a lie because you lied about the events. The incident had nothing to do with a library card and the suspect was NOT leaving, so that's at least two direct lies in your "summary" of the event. You also lied by omission by failing to state that he was tasered because he was resisting arrest.

      But I assume again you won't have the cognitive skills to understand the above, so never mind ;)
    2. Re:Ah, wishful thinking. How cute by Moraelin · · Score: 1
      Heh. Dude, are you that convinced that you can change reality by just refusing to believe it? Do you think it just takes some more claiming it's all lies, to change reality? Or what?

      According to the campus's own Daily Bruin: "By this time the student had begun to walk toward the door with his backpack when an officer approached him and grabbed his arm, at which point the student told the officer to let him go."

      He was already walking towards the door. How more clear does it have to be before your brain can comprehend it?

      Also, ""It was at this point that the officers shot the student with a Taser for the first time, causing him to fall to the floor and cry out in pain. The student also told the officers he had a medical condition." [...] Shortly thereafter, the cops tasered him a second time for his trouble."

      So let's get this straight: (1) They have a glorified cattle-prod which is known to be potentially lethal to people with heart problems, or if used repeatedly. (2) He tells them he has a medical problem... so (3) They zap him again.

      Well, gee, that's some human empathy in action for ya.

      Also, catch this, from the The Register summary:

      Students who protested at the treatment were themselves threatened to keep their distance or cop a tasering. Laila Gordy, "a fourth-year economics student who was present in the library during the incident", claimed officers threatened to zap her "when she asked an officer for his name and his badge number".


      Exactly how is _that_ justified? It doesn't sound to me like "to serve and protect", to say the least. It sounds like a sociopathic prick who's been given a way to hurt people and a badge to hide behind.
      --
      A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
    3. Re:Ah, wishful thinking. How cute by c6gunner · · Score: 0, Troll

      Dude, are you that convinced that you can change reality by just refusing to believe it?
      No, I'm pretty sure it won't work, but for some reason you keep trying. It's strange - your own sources contradict you, yet you continue to spew bullshit.

      He was already walking towards the door. How more clear does it have to be before your brain can comprehend it?
      Yes, he attempted to walk away when the police questioned him. That's a wee bit different than what you claimed earlier, now isn't it? It's also a really REALLY bad idea. Try driving away from a cop while he's asking for your licence and registration, and see what happens. It's like the retard WANTED to get arrested.

      So let's get this straight: (1) They have a glorified cattle-prod which is known to be potentially lethal to people with heart problems, or if used repeatedly. (2) He tells them he has a medical problem... so (3) They zap him again. Well, gee, that's some human empathy in action for ya.
      Damn right. Should have kept zapping the little asshole. Anyone who's seen the video knows that the prick kept resisting arrest. If he KNOWS that he has a medical condition, then he should have STOPPED STRUGGLING. Unfortunately for him, it turns out that he's just about as bright as you are. It's like someone with an allergy to bee-stings sticking his arm into a bee-hive. That probably sounds like a good idea to you too, huh?

      Exactly how is _that_ justified?
      It's not. It also has nothing to do with your original claim. In fact, the vast majority of your response has nothing to do with your original claim. You're just changing the subject because you've been caught in a lie.
  81. Re:Be careful how you create your titles, soulskil by Khyber · · Score: 1

    They both work in the EXACT SAME MANNER, by depleting your ATP levels via use of an electrical current to overstimulate your muscles and burn energy at insanely fast speeds. They're both 'tasers' or 'stun guns' in the sense they achieve the exact same effect.

    --
    Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
  82. Re:The brutal murder of Deacon Frederick Williams. by celle · · Score: 1

    Remember what Ben Franklin said about security to protect freedom.

  83. Delirium Tremons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nothing to see here. Nobody ever dies from taserings. Not even this guy
    http://cbs2chicago.com/local/man.dies.taser.2.708142.html

  84. A paramedic's perspective... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    I'm a Paramedic. I have had a lot of contact and experience with people who've been shot by Tasers. I'll tell you my experiences, but I'm posting anonymously as I could probably lose my job over this.

    Mainly, I'd like to address a number of commonly-held theories, and I'd like to help either debunk or promote them.

    First off, we need to be clear about what Excited Delirium is. It is not a disease or an illness or a description of an injury. It is a description of a behavioural state with an attempt at describing the underlying organopathology. I've seen first-hand the ED state. People screaming, fighting at invisible dogs biting them, screaming that their father is raping them, yelling that they're going to kill me, etc. These are people who are, without question, completely out of their mind. It is horrible to watch. It is heartbreaking to watch. It is terrifying to know that the police officers that I serve alongside and respect so much would do this to someone.

    Next, let's talk about Tasers hurting people. I've had a number of calls to scenes where someone has been Tased. My role there is to ensure that no officers are injured, insure safety, and then treat the subject. Tasers enter your skin through small barbs, about the diameter of a 14ga IV needle. The barbs tend to cause very little injury in and of themselves; they typically stay in the skin. Taking them out is usually a painless procedure for the patient. If the barb is in bone, above the shoulders, or in the nipples or genitals, I'll leave them in and have them removed at the hospital. I have never once seen anyone who's been injured by a Taser.

    I'll say that again because it's important: I HAVE NEVER SEEN ANYONE WHO'S BEEN INJURED BY BEING TASED.
    I have, however, seen people get critically injured during an excited delirium state directly after being tased.

    If an officer Tases someone, they are pissed and scared. It's like stopping someone after a 15-minute high-speed chase. It won't stop when you're on the ground. Officers tend to continue to spin the wheel of force after Tasing someone.

    During an excited delirium state, I need complete access to my patient. I need to be monitoring them constantly, and I need to get as much info as possible so that they don't crash at the hospital from an O/D that nobody knew about. However, I also need my ambulance to be as safe as possible, and there is no way I'm going to put myself at risk. So, we have an officer come with us; whenever possible, NOT the one who shot the patient.

    Now here's where it gets interesting. Officers love to put patients prone (face-down) on our stretchers. And then love to do choke-holds when the patient gets aggressive (or, again, Excited Delirium). I don't know if you've ever tried it, but it's REALLY DAMN HARD to breathe when you're on your stomach, and you're scared, and angry, and there's a 200lb cop standing on your neck.

    I always always 100% of the time INSIST that my patients are supine (face-up) on the stretcher. I know of a hundred ways of restraining patients to my stretcher without causing further injury. I print ECG tracings and SpO2 tracings for the entire ride, so I can prove if necessary in a court of law that at no time was my patient's cardiac function or oxygen intake threatened.

    The point I'm trying to make is that Tasers themselves do tend to be pretty humane, if you compare it to being shot or having your kneecap busted with a baton. There is incredibly poor education of cops as to what to do AFTER they've Tased, and there are few of us medics who care. Excited Delirium is real, and it must be managed with attention, care, and constant support of respiratory effort.

    So, in summation, people don't die from being Tased. They don't die from Excited Delirium. (That is horseshit, by the way; it's like saying that people die from being depressed; people die from hurting themselves when they're depressed.) People die when there isn't an understanding between the cops and the Medics and the doctors and the nur

  85. Taser is obstructing justice. by gnutoo · · Score: 1

    Here's another opinion you won't care for: Taser's lawsuits are obstruction of justice and Taser's corporate officers should be looking at jail time. Medical examiners believe Tasers can and do kill people. The best way to prove it is to look at police reports for statistics. Other forms of restraint should be just as deadly if hysteria is responsible for death. Alternate theories of heart failure due to electro shock look more promising than hysteria to me but thanks to the current judgement facts and statistics might not be available. That is a crime.

  86. WTF.. by robisbell · · Score: 1

    since when does a judge have a medical degree? I guess that means people that have no training or expertise in the area can know more than the poeple that do. I also think Taser's are lethal weapons, plain and simple, I'd like to see the CEO take a full charge from one, without him knowing it's going to happen, when he is laying there dead as a doornail, then I bet the judge and others will change their story.

  87. u.s. police lack basic takedown training by Maxmin · · Score: 5, Informative

    is the barrier's intervention "the cause of death"?

    Nice.. so peace officers are now equivalent to mindless, monolithic slabs of steel and concrete? Highway dividers do not think, they just obey the laws of physics, and react according to their design and construction.

    Police officers, on the other hand, are thinking human beings capable of making a variety of decisions, all of which can change the outcome of encounters with "unruly individuals."

    But it seems that North American cops are somehow incapable of basic self-defense, unless it involves hardware with a button or a handle on it. In many other parts of the world, "unruly individuals" are subdued using basic grappling and/or martial art skills. Something American police departments seem to have little interest in.

    Check out this cop trying to arrest an unruly individual, drunk or on drugs. This officer obviously has no idea how to take control of a suspect, drunk or sober.

    This cop can't even control a 90lb 15-year old girl! Then he pepper-sprays her just to show who the boss is. Unbelievable!

    Compare and contrast with some of the many grappling techniques available for police officers to learn.

    When properly trained in subduing unruly individuals, police officers can change the nature of the confrontation, into a situation they control. The cops in the two sample vids exhibit all the traits of loss of control of the situation: pleading, bullying, ineffective physical control, fear of becoming a victim, and reacting to that with weapons to regain control of what in other hands would be easily controlled individuals. Both lost the element of surprise when they physically engaged the subjects without an apparent goal or outcome in mind, and they both appear to lack basic takedown skills.

    But hey, if they can make their jobs easier at the push of a button, why not? That's the American way!

    --
    O lord, bless this thy holy hand grenade, that with it thou mayest blow thine enemies to tiny bits, in thy mercy.
    1. Re:u.s. police lack basic takedown training by Maxmin · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'd have punched that little bitch in the face too.

      Big man, you reveal how helpless you are.

      And saying he can't control her, he apparently did.

      Go back to the video. He's armlocked her on one side, leaving her other arm to flail, then he's dragging her along, flailing He used the one one and only technique taught to regular U.S. cops, an armlock, which leaves suspects' legs and other arm free to kick and escape.

      What we see in the video with the 15-y.o. girl is a cop who isn't interested in just making the arrest - he's screaming for compliance from a stupid, possibly drugged-up kid, and when he doesn't get it, he gets angrier.

      That's when he lost - instead of dispassionately going about his business, making the arrest, subduing the suspect if necessary, instead he gets emotionally involved. His job is to transport that girl to a facility where ultimately the justice system deals with her. Instead, he's up for a little punitive action himself.

      --
      O lord, bless this thy holy hand grenade, that with it thou mayest blow thine enemies to tiny bits, in thy mercy.
    2. Re:u.s. police lack basic takedown training by Leebert · · Score: 1

      Check out this cop trying to arrest an unruly individual [youtube.com], drunk or on drugs. This officer obviously has no idea how to take control of a suspect, drunk or sober. Most people who know me are well familiar with the fact that I'm very outspoken about cops going over the line. I was furious watching the UCLA TASER video. The Utah state trooper video. And other similar obviously egregious misuses of police power.

      This video, however, I don't find particularly problematic. The officer pretty clearly in the middle of nowhere, and found himself engaged in a physical altercation initiated by the offender. In order to survive, a cop MUST control the situation at all times. There is a perfectly good chance that man had a weapon. The cop only has to lose once for it to be the end of his life.

      Could he have handled that better? Yeah, I think so. Was he wrong? I remain unconvinced.
    3. Re:u.s. police lack basic takedown training by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tell you what. I'll give you the option of "takedown training" against someone who is violent, likely to have a knife and is willing to kill you, or a taser. Then I'll fire your ass for getting yourself close enough to get killed. Do you really expect my officers to club someone when they can stand back further, make the situation less confrontational, and use the taser instead of beating someone into submission?

    4. Re:u.s. police lack basic takedown training by sn00ker · · Score: 1

      Tell you what. I'll give you the option of "takedown training" against someone who is violent, likely to have a knife and is willing to kill you, or a taser. Then I'll fire your ass for getting yourself close enough to get killed.
      There's your problem. Your society (I'm assuming you're American) is so in the throes of litigation and risk-elimination that cops are left with no option but to use the greatest level of justifiable force as soon as possible. Trying to use escalating force likely results in disciplinary action. In sane countries, police officers are recognised as being engaged in a physically dangerous job and thus expected to take calculated risks.

      Here in New Zealand, we had a case just last year where an offender armed with a hammer got fatally shot after getting within two metres (or one metre depending on which media report you follow) of an armed cop who was ordering him to put down the weapon. He was closer than our police SOPs state is an acceptable distance for engaging an armed suspect, but there is unlikely to be any fallout in that regard for the officer involved. He was there, he made the call, that's his job. Until such time as the US gets over its obsession with suing anyone and everyone for everything that could possibly have been their fault, your cops will continue to resort to excessive force because it's the only way they can ensure they won't be censured for not using enough force. Fucking idiotic!

      --
      "God, root, what is difference?" - Pitr, userfriendly
    5. Re:u.s. police lack basic takedown training by McGuirk · · Score: 0

      I'm siding with AC on this.

      I feel his actions were completely justified, even the punch and the pepper spray. The thing is, she bit him.

      He was very polite and leaving emotions out of it far longer than I think he should have been. He gave her grace because she was young and small. She got more than her fair share of warnings and patience, and she got what she deserved.

      ...

      A more objective way of looking at it, his job is to get her to the courthouse/jail/whatever. The pepper spray seems excessive, but he was giving as much pressure to her arms as he likely could without potentially injuring her. The next step of the ladder is pepper spray. Lucky for the girl, that was enough.

    6. Re:u.s. police lack basic takedown training by Robber+Baron · · Score: 1

      There's your problem. Your society (I'm assuming you're American) is so in the throes of litigation and risk-elimination that cops are left with no option but to use the greatest level of justifiable force as soon as possible. In all this, do you know what I have a REAL problem with? Many of you are so quick to condemn the cops, but NOBODY wants to place any blame where it ought to go in the first place: Squarely on the shoulders of the criminals!
      A criminal is out doing something they shouldn't and when they get stopped by police and that encounter goes bad we blame the police?!? That's bullshit!
      --

      You're using her as bait, Master!

    7. Re:u.s. police lack basic takedown training by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 1

      Tell you what. I'll give you the option of "takedown training" against someone who is violent, likely to have a knife and is willing to kill you, or a taser. Then I'll fire your ass for getting yourself close enough to get killed. Do you really expect my officers to club someone when they can stand back further, make the situation less confrontational, and use the taser instead of beating someone into submission?


      There's a big difference between going against a knife-weilding punk who's trying to kill, and a loudmouth at a political rally. I consider a taser as an alternative to a billy club. Would I use a billy club against some guy who was physically attacking me, or a bystander? Hell yes! Would I use a billy club against a non-violent fool who was causing a disturbance? Not likely.
      --
      Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
    8. Re:u.s. police lack basic takedown training by Ihlosi · · Score: 1
      There's a big difference between going against a knife-weilding punk who's trying to kill, and a loudmouth at a political rally.



      Don't forget that this is the US, were anyone must be considered armed until proven otherwise (i.e. until a full cavity search has been performed).

    9. Re:u.s. police lack basic takedown training by LunaticTippy · · Score: 1

      You are missing an important point. These people aren't criminals. They haven't even been charged with a crime. They are just someone who the cops have decided needs to be restrained. They might be innocent, just in the wrong place at the wrong time. I don't like the idea of cops having lethal force they can use consequence-free.

      Cops can be jerks, or they can be wrong, etc. Why are you so eager to give away your rights and trust law enforcement to use their power responsibly?

      --
      Man, you really need that seminar!
    10. Re:u.s. police lack basic takedown training by Maxmin · · Score: 1

      I hear ya, but... nah. They're not there to have a conversation where they try to convince a suspect to obey. You see, they've already decided that the suspect's going into custody! The very next move is to execute that decision - by restraining and cuffing the individual. The suspects knows that's coming, and either complies or resists. A cop's gotta assume the worst, and most importantly protect themselves from harm (and the suspect too), by quickly restraining 'em...

      Found a very good takedown training video for both these situations... one of but many methods. You can gain instant cooperation through basic physical coercion tactics. I'd much rather see cops trained for that than issuing them pain-compliance weapons.

      I write off the lack of training in the two cops to their apparent locale, one arrest appears to take place in farm country, the other looked suburban. Still, training for all...

      --
      O lord, bless this thy holy hand grenade, that with it thou mayest blow thine enemies to tiny bits, in thy mercy.
    11. Re:u.s. police lack basic takedown training by Maxmin · · Score: 1

      Check this, the perfect pair of videos to demonstrate how cops are adopting pain-compliance weapons rather than physically restraining arrestees:

      - Cop tasers black-bloc protester at a Philly political rally. How brave, the cop.

      Now, it looks to me like she was not playing along with the officer's instructions, but was pain compliance by way of electrocution necessary?

      Youtube video response to the first vid (skip past the kickboxing footage), demonstrating all kinds of takedown techniques that the cop *could have* used, if only he'd known about them.

      Searching for "taser video," I see only a few situations where a taser would be necessary. Here's a near-perfect taser scenario (on the spectrum of what we see in taser videos anyhoo), drunk lady waving a knife at cops! And how do they end the situation? Flying body tackle! Brute-force, whether WWF or NFL influenced who can say, but it did the job! They could've shot her, even, but they did the right thing and ended it quickly. Now, that's bravery.

      I hold out hope that one day PDs around the country will get the idea, and stop enabling cops to be pain dispensers, jesus effing christ. That cops can electrocute citizens for extremely minor misdeeds is a black mark on today's public policy. Needs to end. Tasers can be useful in many situations, but now they're being used as a basic compliance tool by police, that's putting judiciary power into the hands of cops. Train to restrain, not dispense pain.

      --
      O lord, bless this thy holy hand grenade, that with it thou mayest blow thine enemies to tiny bits, in thy mercy.
  88. Was it arrest or kidnap? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If the "arrest" was not legal then you still get done by the police for "resisting arrest". You'll often get people convicted of this when the original "offence" was not persued.

    So how can you "resist arrest" when there was no offence to require arrest?

    Police see their powers as rights and not responsibilities.

    They'll tase you for not respecting them.

    1. Re:Was it arrest or kidnap? by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      If the "arrest" was not legal then you still get done by the police for "resisting arrest". You'll often get people convicted of this when the original "offence" was not persued. So how can you "resist arrest" when there was no offence to require arrest?
      I don't normally reply to AC's, but that's a fair question, and worth answering (even if the remainder of your comment is a bit troll-ish).

      The short answer is that there doesn't have to BE an "offence" in order for you to be placed under arrest. There's no requirement for the police to give you a reason for your arrest, and they generally don't even have to charge you as long as they release you within 24 hours.

      That is why you should NEVER resist arrest, regardless of your guilt or innocence. If you are truly being arrested for no reason, the worst that happens is you spend a night in jail, and then have a damn good case for suing the police. On the other hand, if you resist arrest, not only are you throwing away any possibility of winning such a lawsuit, but you are giving them the right to use force to subdue you, AND you're giving them an offence to charge you with.
    2. Re:Was it arrest or kidnap? by Anonymous+Cowpat · · Score: 1

      so, do you agree that that's a 110% screwed up situation? Because if you don't, you probably shouldn't be allowed to interract with other people without supervision.

      Liberty counts for nothing if people are expected to allow it to be arbitrarilly taken, and then hope for recourse later. Being able to later sucessfully sue for monetary compensation because your freedom was taken away is not, in any sense, the same thing as having had the freedom in the first place.

      --
      FGD 135
    3. Re:Was it arrest or kidnap? by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      so, do you agree that that's a 110% screwed up situation?
      Not at all. Just like cops aren't expected to be judge and executioner, so you also do not get to be your own judge. Otherwise everyone, including murderers caught red-handed at the scene of the crime, could simply claim they were resisting arrest because they thought the police had no right to arrest them. The only even slightly "fair" system is one where you're required to cooperate until your guilt or innocence can be properly established.
    4. Re:Was it arrest or kidnap? by Anonymous+Cowpat · · Score: 1

      therwise everyone, including murderers caught red-handed at the scene of the crime, could simply claim they were resisting arrest because they thought the police had no right to arrest them Yes, they could claim that, but the fact that they were subsequently charged and convicted of the murder would nullify it as a defence.
      I'm not talking about what people think the situation is as being a deciding factor, I'm talking about what the situation ACTUALLY is.

      You say that caps aren't judge and executioner, but you support the idea of any officer being able to issue a 1-day prison sentence on a whim, and requiring whoever they issue it to to be entirely passive about the whole affair if they want it overturned.
      The only slightly fair situation is to look at it after the fact, and judge everyone's actions according to the facts of the situation, rather than nebulous ideas about what people thought the situation was at the time - if you're absolutely certain that the reason you're being arrested for (and yes, officers should be required to give a reason for an arrest at the time) is invalid then you should be able to resist all you like, and when it's actually established that the cops were in the wrong, they can suck it up. If you establish that they didn't do what they were arrested for, but pin something else on them instead, they would still be entitled to have resisted the original arrest because it was false.

      If you're not certain, you come along quietly and sue later. But requiring people who are in the right and know it to come along anyway, with stiff peanlties if they don't is just wrong.

      If you want your 'everyone must come quietly' system, I propose that officers are properly and personally held liable for each and every incorrect arrest that they make - jail time and compensating the arrestee - if you want absolute power, you accept absolute responsibility.
      --
      FGD 135
    5. Re:Was it arrest or kidnap? by dickens · · Score: 1

      Or, if the arresting office feels like it, you are subject to extra-judicial punishment at whim, whether you resist or not. You should know there is never any possibility of suing the police. That comment makes it seem like you're really pretty out of touch with every day reality.

      But that's right, you're not an American.

      Here, the cop will split your skull with his mag-light, stuff your head through a plaster wall so there's something to explain the wound, and then testify that he never removed the flashlight from the car. Anyone who testifies against the cop's word is "not credible", regardless of who they are. Keep pressing and you'll find your house broken into, drugs planted in your car, etc. etc.

  89. Get a grip by m167a1 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Couple of points here folks.

    A taser is preferable to being shot. And its preferable to having the cop put in danger. When in doubt. TASE em' and figure it out later.

    As for torture.. Yes it hurts, so what? All the alternatives to using a taser are worse.

    I also hear the juvenile I love the UN / I hate cops
    BS being trotted out. I bet most of you children call 911 if you have a toothache. As for the UN, why would you even care what it had to say?

    --
    You get more with a .45 and a kind word than you do with just a kind word
  90. Maybe it is Excited Delirium by Sir+Holo · · Score: 1

    Taser advocates an alternative cause-of-death scenario called excited delirium. The condition, which is not recognized as a diagnosis in official medical manuals, is used to describe deaths of suspects who become so agitated by drugs, psychosis or poor health that their bodies shut down during struggles with police.
    There is some validity in principle to the "excited delirium" cause of death. Some people may actually become so agitated by being tased indiscriminately that their bodies shut down in heart attack, etc.

    That is, use of the taser caused the agitated delirium, and therefore, the death.
  91. There's a lot of missing the point by sjames · · Score: 4, Funny

    To get a few things out of the way, YES! being tazered is generally better than being shot. YES! sometimes force is necessary.

    The first big problem here is a company with a vested interest abusing the courts to override the official objective opinion of a medical examiner.

    If Taser International is concerned that M.E.s don't know enough about Tasers, they should send them a compilation of their medical data. The M.E.s will then consider the source, and consider the data. I seriously doubt that M.E.s have a vendetta against the taser at this point.

    Second, a jolt to the heart while at rest or a bit nervous is not the same as a jolt to the heart when extremely agitated with massive amounts of adrenaline in the system. Further, a single jolt can be uite different in effect than multiple jolts in a short time.

    Given that some percentage of the population have some sort of undiagnosed electrical heart disorder that may or may not ever trigger a problem, it's hardly surprising if the taser (a device that disrupts biological electrical activity by design) carries a non-zero risk of death. It would be somewhat astonishing if it didn't carry a risk.

    None of that means that the taser has no place in law enforcement, after all, physically wrestling people to the ground and pinning them carries a non-zero risk as well. But ignoring a non-zero risk can only encourage excessive use and causee needless deaths.

    Distorting the collection of scientific data by applying legal arguments to scientific reports is simply not acceptable. Were I the coroner, I would demand that my name be removed from the report on the grounds that it no longer reflects my considered scientific opinion. Let the judge sign it if he's so sure.

  92. Bring back the billy club by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seriously, I'd rather have a knock on the head than electricity flowing through my nervous system.

  93. Training by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You use your training.

    You use the fact that there are five officers for each criminal to be controlled.

    If you can't handle it, LEAVE.

  94. In A Follow-Up To Our Earlier Story... by BlueStrat · · Score: 1

    "Local News has learned that the widow of the dead lineman will not receive any pension or insurance benefits, as the excited delirium, which was determined to be the official cause of death, was ruled to be a pre-existing condition and therefor the death was not job-related."

    "Local News will attempt to contact the dead linemans' widow and her 4 children for reaction and quotes at the homeless shelter next week. Now for the weather..."

    I started out writing this to be funny, but the more I read it, the more plausible it seems...

    Strat

    --
    Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
  95. Re:Be careful how you create your titles, soulskil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This coming from someone with a UID of 834363.

    Nice.

    I was an AC on Slashdot for the longest time, and got an account for other reasons (which some of the long timers may remember). Personally, I think that Slashdot is largely author-agnostic when it comes to comments, as long as they have a point. Every once in a while, I'd be accused of $topic_fanboy if I took a stance on things I considered important, but then that happened immaterial of whether or not I was anonymous.

    So, yeah. I don't really see the point of your post.

  96. One scary thing with Tasers... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... they don't zap the target just once or twice, but it goes on for 30 seconds as soon as the shooter pulls the trigger.

    One or two short zaps should be enough to stop almost anyone, and have them remain clear enough, to think about the situation and stop resisting the police, or else there will be more zaps.

    However, a person who is zapped for 30 seconds, will most probably not be able to think rationally anymore, and there has been a lot of nasty videos, where they zap the victim for another 30 seconds repeatedly, because they "can't behave properly".

  97. This fscking scares me by thewiz · · Score: 3, Informative

    As someone with a congenital heart defect and damage to the Sinoatrial node http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinus_node of my heart, this scares the piss out of me. Letting a company use the courts to legislate that their product doesn't cause or contribute to the death of people it's used on turns logic on its head. The last thing I want is some idiot with a taser to zap me with it just because I won't bow to his demands.

    This should scare you, too. There are about 90 million people http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/heart.htm in the U.S. alone who have a diagnosed heart conditions that range from mild to severe. Add to that people who have not been diagnosed, yet have a heart problem, one-third to one-half the U.S. population could be susceptible to cardiac arrest if they are tased.

    I hope the doctors and scientists find iron-clad evidence so that this issue can be put to bed and tasers will be considered the lethal weapons they are.

    --
    If "disco" means "I learn" in Latin, does "discothèque" mean "I learn technology"?
    1. Re:This fscking scares me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As someone with a congenital heart defect and damage to the Sinoatrial node of my heart, this scares the piss out of me. Whoa, man, don't go into excited delirium on us!
    2. Re:This fscking scares me by freedom_india · · Score: 1

      Nope. Will not be done.
      Look, how many times i have to tell you: US does not run on Logic & Reason. It runs on emotions and perceptions.
      If Logic and Reason were the bedrock, then we would never have had Taser, and never would have a museums on Creationism.

      That said, you have to wait until the cops Taser a rich white infant to death and the mother sues the hell out of City and the Taser company because her husband had left her an immense fortune to the tune of $25 million.

      At that time, you would see excellent lawyers coming out of woodwork and proving that Taser was to blame.

      Until that happens, just wish every morning that you are lucky today, if you escape Taser.

      --
      "Doing what i can, with what i have." ~ Burt Gummer
  98. Re:Thrashing about by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You mean like the wild thrashing a taser causes? I hear they tase you for that....

  99. Do police have rights? by tjstork · · Score: 1

    In quite a few cases it has been shown to be the *first* thing the officer does when encountering resistance. If you're equating tasering someone with shooting them, I sincerely do hope shooting people have never been the first reaction to resistance where you live.

    Yeah, what happens is that cops get the shit kicked out of them, or, have to hang back and wait for backup, when you have, trailer park dudes drunk and waving a knife.

    Tasers should be outlawed; they do not do anything you couldn't do before with a gun or a truncheon

    Tasers should not be outlawed and I might actually buy one myself. If someone is tazered, 99 times out of 100, they get up and walk away. If someone is shot, at best, you are looking at a visit to the ER, weeks, if not months of healing. There is no comparison. So, before Taser, all you had was the option to either shoot the suspect, or risk your own life. Taser gives police the option to quickly disarm a potential suspect and get him behind bars, without harm to police. I think that's worthwhile.

    --
    This is my sig.
  100. Re:The brutal murder of Deacon Frederick Williams. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He didn't say anything about security and freedom. He said something about "temporary" security and "essential" freedom (liberty).

    Changes the whole meaning of the phrase...

  101. Re:The brutal murder of Deacon Frederick Williams. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Pretty narrow minded. Deacon was having some sort of nervous episode and needed CARE. Police responded, ultimately with force that killed him.

    It can be a little hard to act "mellow" when you are distressed about something.

  102. Lets settle this issue once and for all by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Here is my proposal for establishing the safety of tasers. Randomly select 1000 police persons from around the country. Make them run a mile and then give them a nice shot of epinephrine and 3 shots from a taser. If there are still 1000 cops alive at the end, its safe. If its safe then the police should have nothing to fear. They are willing to put our lives on the line, the should reciprocate.

  103. Re:Cops carry BATONS too -- for centuries... by Anonymous+Cowpat · · Score: 1

    yes, and that if it does happen, you're missing a frickin' eye!

    It's crappy that it boils down to lawsuits, but I think you're going to have a much better chance of convincing a judge and jury that the force used was unjustified if you're mssing an eye, or walk into the court room wearing a plaster cast ("see that? that's trauma!" - Dr. Nick Riviera), than if you walk in, and all you have to present is your testimony that it "really, really hurt".

    The lack of physical damage is a great barrier to convincing people that there even was damage and that you're not just whining when you 'got what you damned-well deserved'. Maybe all jurors on such cases should be tasered before they start deliberating.

    --
    FGD 135
  104. Another Taser Death Today In St. Paul by qimugtua · · Score: 1

    http://www.postbulletin.com/newsmanager/templates/localnews_story.asp?a=340836&z=2 ST. PAUL -- Authorities are investigating the death of a suicidal 21-year-old man who died after St. Paul police shocked him with a Taser. Police say they responded to a call of a suicide in progress involving a controlled substance just after 2:30 a.m. Sunday. Police say the two arriving officers were confronted by a partially clothed man. As they tried to calm and control him for the paramedics, the man attacked both officers. Police say a chemical irritant spray had no effect on the man, and a third officer shocked the man with a Taser after he bit the other two officers. The man kept fighting, but officers were able to restrain him. He then became unresponsive. Paramedics were unable to revive him and he died at the scene. Both officers were treated at Regions Hospital and released.

  105. Re:bashing in skulls and blowing holes in people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Those are still done. Tasers are for when night sticks or guns would get someone in trouble.

  106. Amerikkka... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Home of the best "justice" money can buy.

  107. Failure to COMMUNICATE ... by Rockin'Robert · · Score: 0

    Clearly the CEO, the BOARD and SHAREHOLDERS in Taser International
    must be required to TEST their lovely product line before being allowed
    to market the same.

  108. Unhappy with tasers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe everyone who differs with the judge and aren't a big fan of tasers, should email Taser International and tell them just what you think. http://www.taser.com/company/Pages/executives.aspx

  109. What is it about Medical Coding I don't understand by Footsienabackyard · · Score: 1

    It seems to me, the COD on the Death Cert. should coincide with the International Classification of Diseases 9-Clinical Modification(ICD 9-CM) codes. These codes are not so controversial, as the E-Code section(External Injuries) has codes for Legal Intervention(E970-E978), and the only code(s) which may apply are E976-Injury due to legal intervention by unspecified means, and E977-Latent effects of injuries due to legal intervention.... ...Unless there is an update to the ICD 9-CM which applies.

    --
    Don't you think...? Or don't you?
  110. Dude, how stupid _are_ you? by Moraelin · · Score: 1

    Dude, how stupid _are_ you? Even the police statement said they tased him because he went limp when they were escorting him out, _not_ your made-up "Yes, he attempted to walk away when the police questioned him"

    Capisce? Even the cops _didn't_ say that he was walking away. If you're that fond of shouting "lies", heh, then maybe you should stop lying that much.

    I don't know what little crusade you're on, little cretin, but you're starting to amuse me.

    --
    A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
    1. Re:Dude, how stupid _are_ you? by c6gunner · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Yeah, listen, I can argue with retards like you and not lose interest, but I don't generally argue with liars. When your own sources contradict what you're saying yet you still continue to argue ... well, you're pretty much useless. Goodbye.

  111. overstepping just a tad? by vanillacokehead · · Score: 1

    If I were the medical examiner I would be so tempted to tell the judge to go p*ss up a rope. Or I'd say, "OK, your honor, I don't provide legal opinions so please don't provide medical opinions." Then again, there's that whole contempt of court thing. ;)

  112. In my country, police does not carry guns by PMBjornerud · · Score: 1

    You'll not find any police departments even remotely considering having their officers carry tasers instead of guns because that would be ridiculously unsafe for them. The Norwegian police force is unarmed.

    They can obtain weapons in special cases, but an officer on normal duty will not carry a firearm.
    --
    I lost my sig.
    1. Re:In my country, police does not carry guns by Danse · · Score: 1

      You'll not find any police departments even remotely considering having their officers carry tasers instead of guns because that would be ridiculously unsafe for them. The Norwegian police force is unarmed.

      They can obtain weapons in special cases, but an officer on normal duty will not carry a firearm. Right. I should clarify then. You'll not find any police departments in the U.S. that are considering swapping guns for tasers.
      --
      It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
  113. Torture? by jandersen · · Score: 1

    the UN's opinion that taser use is torture. Getting tasered isn't even as bad as being water boarded, as and you know you can't call that torture. Not unless you have an overpowering urge to visit our base in Cuba.
  114. In the future... by hassanchop · · Score: 1

    You might not want to be such a dick.

    Nothing you said in your post disagrees with him, you're just not good enough at reading to realize you misunderstood his post.

    1. Re:In the future... by Danse · · Score: 1

      Nothing you said in your post disagrees with him, you're just not good enough at reading to realize you misunderstood his post. Maybe I was a tad harsh, but I've read too many posts that have claimed that police should replace their guns with non-lethal weapons. I don't think the problem is with my reading. He specifically says that the purpose of the taser is to replace the gun, and nowhere in his post does he mention it being just another alternative. From his reply, I can accept that that was his meaning, but that's not really what he said.

      --
      It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
  115. On a related subject by mi · · Score: 1

    but tasering them shouldn't do them any lasting harm

    This is the Bush administration's take on waterboarding too.

    if you have a medical condition which would warrant against taser use on your person, you are also most probably unable to run far in the first place

    Exactly...

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
  116. No by hassanchop · · Score: 1

    Heh. Dude, are you that convinced that you can change reality by just refusing to believe it?


    Snarky, but useless.

    I've seen the video (so save the stupid quotes that you hand pick to support your position, they're useless too) and the incident did not occur the way you claim.

    You are lying about the event.

  117. Another violation of the Constitution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Tasering, yet another infringement on our rights by the gov't. Add it to the ever-growing list of violations:
    They violate the 1st Amendment by opening mail, caging demonstrators and banning books like "America Deceived" from Amazon.
    They violate the 2nd Amendment by confiscating guns during Katrina.
    They violate the 4th Amendment by conducting warrant-less wiretaps.
    They violate the 5th and 6th Amendment by suspending habeas corpus.
    They violate the 8th Amendment by torturing.
    They violate the entire Constitution by starting 2 illegal wars based on lies and on behalf of a foriegn gov't.
    Write in Dr. Ron Paul and save this great country.
    Last link (unless Google Books caves to the gov't and drops the title):
    America Deceived (book)

  118. Re:A.C.'s "officers" by conureman · · Score: 1

    Please ask your officers to refrain from assaulting peaceful and compliant citizens. I am getting too old to heal properly from each and every "contact" I have with your hooligans. The finger your steroid-addled psycho broke last year hurts less some days, but the pain is unremitting. I do not hold anyone, particularly myself, above the law. Who do you think you are? A Coward, that we know. Your post also indicates you supervise policemen? You, Sirra, are the one I HOLD RESPONSIBLE. Is your cowardice typical of your kind? How about your moralizing? Bullies do tend toward moral weakness.

    --
    The cost of that cleanup, of course, will be borne by taxpayers, not industry.
  119. Get out of jail free card? by saleenS281 · · Score: 1

    Does this mean I can just tazer someone to death and it's not a murder? After all, they weren't killed by a tazer, they died of excited delirium. Surely I couldn't help that!

  120. Soverign Immunity by Steve+B · · Score: 1

    This is one of those cases where the government should assert its prerogative and tell Taser International to go piss up a rope.

    --
    /. If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.
  121. Re:Be careful how you create your titles, soulskil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A stun gun has two electrodes and requires the attacker to press the electrodes to the victim's skin.


    Don't you mean: ..."and requires the victim to press the electrodes to the attackers skin" ?
  122. You're wrong by hassanchop · · Score: 1

    I don't think the problem is with my reading.


    You'd be wrong.

    He specifically says that the purpose of the taser is to replace the gun, and nowhere in his post does he mention it being just another alternative.


    And so rather than clarify, you jump to conclusions and begin attacking him. You're a dick, I was right.

    but that's not really what he said.


    No, it's exactly what he said, you just assumed you knew what he meant. And were wrong.
    1. Re:You're wrong by Danse · · Score: 1

      I don't think the problem is with my reading.


      You'd be wrong.


      Sorry, but you seem to be confused. What he wrote and what he says he meant are two different things, which is why he had to clarify his meaning. I responded to what he actually wrote, which was that the Taser is a replacement for the gun.

      He specifically says that the purpose of the taser is to replace the gun, and nowhere in his post does he mention it being just another alternative.


      And so rather than clarify, you jump to conclusions and begin attacking him. You're a dick, I was right.


      If he had meant what he wrote, then the harshness of my post was deserved. Since he claims he didn't mean what he wrote, but something else instead, then I am willing to accept that and regret being so harsh.

      but that's not really what he said.

      No, it's exactly what he said, you just assumed you knew what he meant. And were wrong.

      Again. Confused. It's not at all what he said. He specifically said replacement. Go look up the definition. Then come back and apologize for being a dick, and wrong on top of it.

      --
      It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer