Testing the Safety of Tasers On Meth-Addled Sheep

Funded in part by Taser International, a recent study was done to learn the effects of being tasered while on methamphetamines. Since someone would probably complain about researchers going around and tasering meth addicts, they used sheep instead. From the article: "The less-lethal device of choice was the Taser X26, a standard law enforcement tool which can fire at suspects from a distance of 35 feet. Researchers shocked sixteen anesthetized sheep after dosing the animals with an IV drip of methamphetamine hydrochloride. Some of the smaller sheep weighing less than 70.5 pounds suffered exacerbated heart symptoms related to meth use. But neither the smaller nor larger sheep showed signs of the ventricular fibrillation condition, a highly abnormal heart rhythm that can become fatal."

Comments

Small Sample Size

[Anonymous Coward]

Sixteen sheep? This is a terrible study. We're talking about actually electrocuting human beings and their proof that it doesn't hurt humans permanently is a study with only a sample size of 16.

I wonder when was the last time the FDA accepted a drug on the market with a sample size of 16?

Re:But people getting tasered aren't usually tranq

[stephanruby]

"But neither the smaller nor larger sheep showed signs of the ventricular fibrillation condition" is all well and good but I have to wonder if the fact that the sheep were sedated might not help out with this.

Since the study was funded by Taser International, Inc (a for profit corporation), and that company might be about to go the way of the Asbestos companies very very soon. It was absolutely imperative that no sheep got hurt, or killed, during that test.

Re:I must be getting old

[TubeSteak]

Really, if you want me to care about people being tasered to quickly, don't bring out the example of meth addicts. I am likely not to give a damn.

The point is not that people are being tasered too quickly.

The reason we're discussing this at all is because people keep dying after getting tasered and the cause of death keeps getting listed as "excited delirium" instead of "Taser caused or contributed to the individual's death".

Here's an old slashdot article on the matter and nothing has really changed since then except that the body count has increased. IMO, "excited delirium" is the new "Cigarettes are safe for you. No really, here's the study we funded that says so."

Re:Tasers are more lethal, not less lethal

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, I really do think that the police are too trigger happy with tasers (especially when they use them on already subdued victims).

But I also think that you have a point that the best fix would be to change police procedure in order to force them to justify each use of the device. And, in this regard, I have heard that having citizen panels, NOT fellow officers, who sit there and look at all the police taser use is the way to go.

If you give people too much authority and too little oversight, it's a recipe for disaster. That said, there is a related problem where you hold people to impossibly high standards (this is because once the standards become too high for honest people to meet, only cheaters are able to meet them). In that regard, beware anyone who is too quickly able to adapt to high standards. They might not be doing it in the way you expect them to.

Re:But people getting tasered aren't usually tranq

[ZeroExistenZ]

Since the study was funded by Taser International, Inc (a for profit corporation), and that company might be about to go the way of the Asbestos companies very very soon

Exactly, those being subjected to the results of a "positive report" are always subjected involuntary as well.

I always found the idea of tasering and advertizing it as "oh, it can't hurt, it's just unpleasant" a bit boundary shifting: before lawenforcement et al had to reason "if I shoot, I have to make certain I'm in a situation where I have no other choice because I can kill this person". With tasering, the bounderies shifted "oh it can't harm, s/he is being annoying, lets buzz them like cattle into complying to the authority I impose."

Re:Tasers are more lethal, not less lethal

[Rakshasa Taisab]

A 9mm is _LESS LETHAL_ than a taser cause just pointing the 9mm at someone is enough to subdue them, while taser is used immediately.

Re:Falling over is dangerous

[couchslug]

The average "victim" should have been instantly compliant and not required more than verbal correction, let alone tasering.

Apparently it is too much to expect self-disciplined behavior from civilians. We need police because our fellow citizens include many bad people who will rob, rape, and kill the rest of us unless restrained by fear.

I've never been arrested, tasered, etc because I don't do stupid shit to provoke those outcomes. I'm fine with Tasers, which are clearly less dangerous than bullets or clubs (great for inducing head injuries).

Re:Tasers are more lethal, not less lethal

[Mjlner]

- short period of time since last taser assaults ( we've all seen videos of repeated taser assaults )

So a 9mm pistol or baton is going to be much better..

And there are no other options??? Problem is that tasers are used where no force should be used at all, except for perhaps grabbing the suspect, maybe putting on handcuffs, and transferring the suspect off the premises or into a police car. As the GP said, we've all seen the videos of police and security officers torturing people with tasers as a punishment for disobedience. Apparently, torture is OK when performed with tasers.

If it's true, that tasers are so goddamn safe, yet 70 people died of tasers last year, then doesn't it imply that police officers with tasers are just a bit too trigger-happy? Perhaps the problem IS procedural. But Taser International is certainly responsible for marketing these perhaps less lethal, but still lethal torture devices as a "safe" alternative to grabbing the suspect/disobedient citizen.

Re:But people getting tasered aren't usually tranq

[danking]

Ya seriously, I totally agree. This is not real world, it is junk science. Tasers have killed people. I think that is clear enough to say that they should be categorized as potentially lethal force. It doesn't matter if you are on meth, cocaine, have previous heart conditions or they just taze you 10 times.

Re:Falling over is dangerous

[tokul]

When you're tasered you will certainly fall down, and you will certainly be unable to protect yourself. Even when the police officers who use the taser have to be tasered themselves as part of their training, the situation is unreal because they are placed on gym mats to soften their fall, and in any case other officers are present to control the fall. To make it more realistic they should be placed on a concrete surface with no colleagues in support. That way, they could enjoy the random head injury experience of the average victim.

Or officers themselves should be tasered for every time they use their tasers against somebody.

1.5 joules / pulse, 15 pulses per sec, for 10 secs

[GuyFawkes]

So 1.5 x 15 x 10 = 225 Joules delivered "per shot"

Now a cattle "electric fence", similar voltage, 3 joule unit will give a pulse every couple of seconds.
A 3 joule "energizer" will power many kilometres of electric fence.

Defibrillator will give up to around 360 joules per pulse, which is ballpark enough to make a corpse sit up.

10 to 50 joules is regarded as dangerous.

Electric fence + human is invariably hand / arm contact, not across the chest like a taser, even so, you won't like a 3 joule pulse every second, not actual real pain, but most unpleasant.

Taser delivers HV energy at a rate 75 times higher than a cattle fence energizer.

Which is a bit like saying that a 44 magnum (1,000 ft/lb) delivers energy at a rate 75 times higher than a 12 ft/lb air gun.