Slashdot Mirror


A Tour of Taser HQ

Soychemist writes "Walk into the Taser headquarters in Scottsdale, Arizona and it may seem like you are on an episode of Get Smart. The foyer is like a fortress, with giant steel doors and biometric identification systems. Inside, factory workers meticulously assemble the less-lethal weapons by hand and then put them through a battery of safety tests. In addition to making pistol-shaped devices, the company also produces the electronic equivalent of a claymore mine, which hurls dozens of electrified needles at the push of a button and electronic shotgun cartridges that deliver a powerful jolt."

22 of 334 comments (clear)

  1. revolting humor by jdgeorge · · Score: 4, Funny

    Tasers going through "a battery of test"... Props for stunning punning.

    1. Re:revolting humor by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 4, Funny

      The law enforcement officers can now properly charge the suspects with battery. What a hair-raising idea!

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
  2. Security theater by Animats · · Score: 5, Funny

    The front entrance is very impressive. But it's security theater. Google StreetView shows the entrance to the loading dock, where the gate has been left open.

    1. Re:Security theater by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      What you don't see is the carefully placed taser claymore around the corner and a team of giddy scientists waiting for their next test subject.

  3. Re:Less Lethal... by oldspewey · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What exactly is the intended non-lethal purpose of such a thing?

    I'm gonna take a totally wild guess here: to make profits for Taser Inc.?

    --
    If libertarians are so opposed to effective government, why don't they all move to Somalia?
  4. and all I can think by girlintraining · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The foyer is like a fortress, with giant steel doors and biometric identification systems...

    Security like that for a business like theirs is just for show. It's there for all the "foreign dignitaries" with their big pocket books. Which makes me think of other elements of their corporate identity. These people market "non-lethal" weapons and then cover up the research that says that blasting tens of thousand of volts through the human nervous system might just have some negative effects. Not that there isn't a ton of historical evidence saying that when you science and law enforcement meet, a conspiracy usually results. Taser's products are not "non-lethal", they are "less lethal"... But the police and people who buy their equipment love to watch people scream and fall over because they smarted off to them, and for this, Taser Corporation delivers. And although their products could easily be designed to be more humanitarian, curiously these changes never make it to market.

    --
    #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    1. Re:and all I can think by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 5, Informative

      Based on the following excerpt, from page 19 of the X26C operator's manual, I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that "more humanitarian" would be seen as a defect. The last three lines are particularly... Suggestive.

      "Page 19
      TASER® X26C Operating Manual

      DRIVE-STUN BACKUP
      Drive-stun capability is available with or without a TASER Cartridge installed. The drive-
      stun mode will not cause NMI and generally becomes primarily a pain compliance option.
      Probe deployment is usually considered more desirable, even at close range. Some of the
      advantages include:
      Drive-stun is only effective while the device is in contact with the subject or the
      subject's clothing. As soon as the device is moved away, the energy efiect stops.
      Deploying the probes allows the user to create distance between the user and the
      subject while maintaining control.
      Due to automatic reflex actions, most subjects will struggle to separate from the
      TASER device. When the TASER device is used in the drive-stun mode and the subject
      struggles to get away it may be difficult to maintain contact between the device and
      the subject.
      If the probes are deployed, even at very close range, the user may be able to use
      drive-stun to another portion of the body that is farther away from the probes,
      thereby resulting in enhanced NMI effect.
      If the drive-stun is not effective, evaluate the location of the drive-stun and consider an
      additional cycle to a different pressure point.
      When using the drive-stun, push (drive) the front of the TASER X26C firmly against the body
      of the subject. Simply "touching" the X26C against the subject is not sufficient. The subject
      is likely to recoil and try to get away from the stun electrodes. It is necessary to aggressively
      drive the front of the X26C into the subject for maximum efiect.
      The drive-stun works more effectively when aggressively applied to pressure points on nerve
      bundles. This includes the brachial area, common peronial, mastoid, and pelvic triangle. The
      TASER X26C must be actively depressed or aggressively driven into the nerve bundles in a
      "drive-stun" manner to be effective in the drive-stun mode.
      RECOMMENDED DRIVE-STUN AREAS FOR MAXIMUM EFFECT
      Drive the X26C into the following areas for maximum effectiveness.
      Carotid (sides of neck) (see warning below).
      Brachial plexus tie-in (upper chest).
      Radial (forearm).
      Pelvic triangle (see warning below).
      Common peronial (Outside of thigh).
      Tibial (calf muscle).
      WARNING: Use care when applying a drive-stun to the neck or pelvic triangle. These areas
      are sensitive to mechanical injury (such as crushing to the trachea or testicles if applied
      forcefully). However, these areas have proven highly effective targets."

  5. Re:Less Lethal... by vertinox · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Just like a club is less lethal than a sword... but it still does 1d6.

    I think the key here is that the "less lethal" concept means to many that "you can use it more than a gun and get away with it" which is a problem because in a small subset of its use it does become lethal or causes situations that cause death when normal restraining methods would have sufficed without incident.

    --
    "I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
    -Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
  6. Taser Use by Petersko · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I know this is offtopic (somewhat) so I won't mind if it's moderated out of usefulness, but I'll get on my soapbox at this point.

    A taser should only ever be used as an alternative to shooting somebody. If you wouldn't shoot them in the same situation, you shouldn't taser them.

    Resisting arrest alone should not mean tasering is on the table, even with a difficult struggle. Law enforcement is getting way to used to tasering simply to avoid any kind of physical confrontation.

    If tasers didn't have the lethality question hanging over them I would think differently, but according to Amnesty International, at least, 334 people died after taser shocks between 2001 and 2008.

    1. Re:Taser Use by bcmm · · Score: 4, Informative
      You make a number of point, but no attempt to link them to each other.

      Before tasers, an officer wasn't allowed to just knock a suspect out with a nightstick if he was worried he'd try and run. How is using a Taser different? Both are incapacitating, and both carry a risk of fatal injury.

      You have a beef with a ticket? Being arrested? Have your day in court. Sue afterward for unlawful prosecution. Knock yourself out.

      No where in the constitution does it give you the right impede the police officers duty. If he is wrong, it will be found out in a court of law.

      I don't understand the relevance of this point, unless you're trying to imply that people who dislike indiscriminate use of tasers are dislike it because it makes it harder for them to kill cops at traffic stops.

      Any time a suspect does not comply with the officers direction, it is a life or death situation. Period.

      Saying "Period." after a sentence seems to be some sort of shorthand for "please don't question that bit; it's a little shaky". If an unarmed shoplifter is running from police, and is asked to stop, and doesn't, why is it life or death situation? Should he be tasered (which, after all, carries the risk of fatal complications)? If this had happened before the use of tasers, should he have been shot?

      --
      # cat /dev/mem | strings | grep -i llama
      Damn, my RAM is full of llamas.
    2. Re:Taser Use by russotto · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You seemed to have missed my point about us not having the right to argue and debate with a police officer. We don't have that right.

      Yes, we fucking do.

    3. Re:Taser Use by MartinSchou · · Score: 4, Funny

      I may speculate about his parentage. I may suggest that he engage in behaviors of questionable anatomical feasibly

      I would love to see that used literally:

      Officer: "Do you know why I pulled you over?"
      Driver: "I suspect you engage in behaviours of questionable anatomical feasibility and want my help?"
      Officer: "What did you say?"
      Driver: "I speculated about your parentage."

  7. Re:Less Lethal... by megamerican · · Score: 5, Insightful

    There is no intended non-lethal purpose, because it is non non-lethal.

    Yes, non-lethal, except for the 100's of times it has killed people. Tasers are nothing but a torture device used like a cattle prod when people don't "comply" with police orders.

    They were originally intended to be used in cases where a gun would have been used. These devices would never be used against people in the manner they now are in a truly free society.

    --
    If you have something that you dont want anyone to know, maybe you shouldnt be doing it in the first place -Eric Schmidt
  8. Re:Less Lethal... by MightyMartian · · Score: 4, Funny

    "And here we have the Legal Department, which pursues county coroners who suggest that our device could possibly interfere with heart rhythms. That's Doug over there, yes, the one with the horns and the tail. He came to us after a stint with Adolf Hitler. He's responsible for, ah, marketing."

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  9. Re:Less Lethal... by Duradin · · Score: 5, Informative

    You don't want to rely on pain for compliance. It just doesn't work on all people. The electric shock of a taser screws with the target's muscles, it's not just pain.

    Grab on to a non-pulse electric fence sometime near the fencing unit. Try to let go.

  10. Re:Less Lethal... by Bobb9000 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Less Lethal...Just like a club is less lethal than a sword... but it still does 1d6.

    Yep - that's why they started calling them "less-lethal" weapons rather than "non-lethal" weapons...though if we're doing dnd references, I'd argue that many of them do subdural damage and something more like a 1d2 with a 5% chance of causing death.

    What exactly is the intended non-lethal purpose of such a thing?

    What lethal uses did you have in mind, exactly? It doesn't sound very effective at killing people. As a less-lethal weapon, however, it sounds useful for crowd control, remote perimeters where you'd rather capture than kill, ambushs where you'd rather capture than kill...any number of things.

    --
    Bobb9000 - raised by the wolves,
    Oxford education as phrased by the wolves.
  11. Oh, the humanity. by catbertscousin · · Score: 4, Funny

    How dare they manufacture a product that could harm people! They should change their company and make harmless, useful equipment like baseball bats, kitchen knives, and tire irons.

    --
    No good deed goes unpunished. - Avon, Blake's 7
  12. Re:The Most Deadly Non-Lethal by Volante3192 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Because it's the exception.

    People die in car crashes daily and regularly (one cite I saw said 115), but at best they're mentioned on traffic reports. "Fatal car accident on I-5, traffic backed up for miles..." You'll never hear about those outside of the local area unless someone famous is involved.

    But a plane crash that results in fatailites gets reported nationwide for a good week.

    The more statistically improbable a fatal incident is, the more probable it will be reported on.

  13. Re:Less Lethal... by bcmm · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Yeah, because when they used guns exclusively it was commonplace to shoot someone in cuffs for struggling against being put in a police car, or shoot someone, yell "get up" at them, then shoot them again cause they can't.

    Using Tasers instead of guns is a good thing, but they are constantly being used in situations which would not warrent the use of a firearm, and Taser International's own training and marketing material is a least partly to blame.

    --
    # cat /dev/mem | strings | grep -i llama
    Damn, my RAM is full of llamas.
  14. Re:Less Lethal... by schon · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Tasers have expanded their role to include instances where the officer would have just hit the perp and been rough with them.

    Actually, they've expanded their role to include instances where the officer just wants to punish someone when they don't do as they're told, like when they can't move because they're lying on the ground with a broken back.

  15. Re:Less Lethal... by dissy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "They" ... Why do you just through all Police under the same buss with some idiot who needs to be charged with assault and battery?
    Just because some one dose something like this means all police think they can and should do it?

    Well, obviously not a single cop or anyone working in any position in law enforcement there did ONE DAMN THING about that illegal immoral injustice.

    So yes, every last single cop in that police department is morally bankrupt and clearly has NO objections to assault and battery of a 19 year old kid with a broken back, else they would have, I don't know, objected instead of providing excuses.

    I mean, if you have proof otherwise, then please put it forward.
    My proof however is their very actions, during and after what happened to the kid.

  16. Re:Less Lethal... by h4rr4r · · Score: 4, Informative

    The need might be rare, but the use of them sure is not.

    Like when you need to get someone who has a broken back to stand up.
    http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/93135/teen_with_broken_back_tasered_19_times_for_not_standing_up_when_ordered/

    Or when you think a diabetic might be giving you trouble.
    http://www.digtriad.com/news/features/article.aspx?storyid=115481&catid=216

    Or if you have a deaf and disabled man you need to get out of a store:
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/28/antonio-love-ala-police-u_n_246081.html