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

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."