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."

Comments

Excited delirium

[sakdoctor]

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.

Glorified Cattle Prod

[Neuropol]

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.

Re:Glorified Cattle Prod

[frieko]

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.

Re:Glorified Cattle Prod

[BakaHoushi]

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.

Re:Glorified Cattle Prod

[traveller.ct]

I am sick and tired of this stupid argument. People are NOT animals. Unfortunately, science seems to disagree.

Re:Glorified Cattle Prod

[Kreigaffe]

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.

Re:Glorified Cattle Prod

[Anonymous Coward]

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!

Re:Glorified Cattle Prod

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Glorified Cattle Prod

[ColdWetDog]

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.

Re:Glorified Cattle Prod

[Ucklak]

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.

Re:Glorified Cattle Prod

[Nazlfrag]

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.

Re:Glorified Cattle Prod

[couchslug]

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

Re:Glorified Cattle Prod

[ultranova]

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.

Re:Glorified Cattle Prod

[c6gunner]

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.

Re:Glorified Cattle Prod

[Znork]

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.

Re:Glorified Cattle Prod

[Slugster]

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".
~

Re:Glorified Cattle Prod

[Jurily]

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").

Re:Glorified Cattle Prod

[sjames]

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.

Re:Glorified Cattle Prod

[sjames]

BZZT.

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

Re:Glorified Cattle Prod

[MightyMartian]

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.

Re:Glorified Cattle Prod

[Blkdeath]

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.

Re:Glorified Cattle Prod

[boyko.at.netqos]

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.

Re:Glorified Cattle Prod

[TheLink]

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.

Re:Glorified Cattle Prod

[jonaskoelker]

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! ;)

Re:Glorified Cattle Prod

[Jaime2]

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".

Re:Glorified Cattle Prod

[Kreigaffe]

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.

Be careful how you create your titles, soulskill..

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Still torture

[Eudial]

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.

Re:Still torture

[PieSquared]

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.

Re:Still torture

[rabidMacBigot()]

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.

Re:Still torture

[DarkOx]

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.

Re:Still torture

[Curien]

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

Re:Still torture

[BakaHoushi]

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.

Missing something...

[Klaus_1250]

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.

The same thing is true when the cop shoots you

[gelfling]

Failure to maintain adequate breathing, or something like that.

Might as well get used to it.....

[darinfp]

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..

In America...

[Anonymous Coward]

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...

still

[nguy]

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.

Re:still

[Palpitations]

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.

Re:still

[Anonymous Coward]

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...

Re:still

[ckedge]

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.)

WONDERFUL!

[Chas]

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

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

Re:WONDERFUL!

[somersault]

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

Excited delerium?

[Reader X]

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.

In Local News...

[BlueStrat]

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

Cops carry guns too

[krygny]

DON'T TASE ME, BRO'!!

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

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

Re:Better than being shot

[Reader X]

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.

FUD on both sides

[Mad-cat]

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.

Re:FUD on both sides

[Reader X]

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.

Re:FUD on both sides

[Mad-cat]

>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

Re:Not voltage

[kaos07]

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"?

It's a new evil - shooting the messenger

[Kupfernigk]

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?

It doesn't work that way

[Moraelin]

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.

Re:It doesn't work that way

[Moraelin]

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.

Re:It doesn't work that way

[Rary]

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".

Re:Not voltage

[somersault]

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)

hysterical

[gnutoo]

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.

Re:hysterical

[mi]

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.

Re:hysterical

[Dputiger]

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.

Re:hysterical

[IdleTime]

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.

Re:hysterical

[MightyMartian]

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.

Re:hysterical

[PhoenixAtlantios]

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.

Re:hysterical

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

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.

Re:hysterical

[pjhenley]

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.

Re:hysterical

[Firethorn]

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.

Re:hysterical

[Belial6]

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.

Re:hysterical

[chrispycreeme]

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.

Re:hysterical

[Firethorn]

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!'.

Re:hysterical

[Danse]

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.

Re:hysterical

[piojo]

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...

Re:hysterical

[Firethorn]

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.

Re:hysterical

[chrispycreeme]

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.

Re:hysterical

[DarkVader]

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.

Re:hysterical

[wazza]

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.

Re:hysterical

[capologist]

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.

Re:hysterical

[pedrop357]

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.

Re:hysterical

[chrispycreeme]

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.

Re:hysterical

[binkx]

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

Re:hysterical

[Swaffs]

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.

Re:hysterical

[Rary]

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.

Don't tell the UK H&S executive that

[Kupfernigk]

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.

I feel so safe

[Puffy Director Pants]

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.

Re:I feel so safe

[Dunbal]

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.

This is a real problem in our society ...

[ScrewMaster]

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.

Re:This is a real problem in our society ...

[ScrewMaster]

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.

FUD from your side too

[schon]

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.

Time for...

[Z00L00K]

Time to manufacture conductive underwear then. Just short the tazer and avoid the trouble.

Re:Time for...

[dr_dank]

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.

A single taser shot is okay

[the_raptor]

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.

Tasers and death?

[laughingcoyote]

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.

Re:Tasers and death?

[easyTree]

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?"

Re:Taser use == MEDICAL PROCEDURE???

[ColdWetDog]

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.

Re:So ... new warning label for taser?

[ScrewMaster]

WARNING: Do not look into Taser with remaining heart.

Re:Taser use == MEDICAL PROCEDURE???

[mikelieman]

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.

Re:The brutal murder of Deacon Frederick Williams.

[Reader X]

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.

Torture?

[BlabberMouth]

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.

Speaking of hysterical...

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Torture?

[Brandybuck]

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.

Someone please explain

[hansraj]

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.

Ah, wishful thinking. How cute

[Moraelin]

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 paramedic's perspective...

[Anonymous Coward]

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

u.s. police lack basic takedown training

[Maxmin]

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!

Re:u.s. police lack basic takedown training

[Maxmin]

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.

Re:It's not torture

[The Rizz]

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?

There's a lot of missing the point

[sjames]

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.

Re:Hmmmmm.....

[The Rizz]

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.

This fscking scares me

[thewiz]

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.

Re:It's not torture

[sjames]

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.

Re:It's not torture

[darkfire5252]

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.