Slashdot Mirror
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."
"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.
Holden Caulfield once remarked that winos were the lowest of the low. Then we saw the horrors of heroin/opium addiction (it ruined China!). Now we have some of the most retched human refuse strung out on meth. The downward spiral seems to have no limit.
I thought the bigger danger in this case was explosion, not death. After all, it's just another meth junkie.
with sheep
Long time users of meth will have some more health risks when being tasered, unlike a first time user as shown with these sheep.
Not to mention, not all drugs work the same between species, which is why your cat will get high as a kite on catnip but you won't.
Attention... all grammer nazi"s! Is they're anything; wrong with: my post,
"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.
Also did they attempt to duplicate the "purity" of black market drugs?
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?
Don't tase me dude!
Science advances one funeral at a time- Max Planck
I wonder if they figured out what would happen if they tazed the sheep 20 or so times in short succession.
The 'less lethal' argument is complete bullshit. The fact is that police are far more likely to use 'less' lethal weapons, on the assumption that there is much lower burden on them to prove the need for weapons use. There are many more situations completely out of the control of police that turn 'less' lethal weapons into 'completely' lethal weapons.
- heart conditions, pacemakers etc ( yes, young people can have pacemakers )
- pregnancy
- short period of time since last taser assaults ( we've all seen videos of repeated taser assaults )
If police can't subdue people with their bare hands and training, then they shouldn't be police. Giving them so-called 'non' or 'less' lethal weapons only leads to more deaths due to a massive increase in the use of the weapons, combined with a very worrying deathrate ( hundreds of deaths per year according to Amnesty International ). As for police in the US where everyone has a gun ... I have no answer for that. Do whatever the hell you want over there. In sane countries where it's illegal to carry around lethal weapons, I expect the police to also be unarmed.
Try 70, from last year alone. And, really, is anyone going to roll out the trope that the police would have actually used a firearm on these people if it wasn't for their electrocution compliance devices?
"Remember when I said I would never lie? Well, that was the first time."
What is gained from trials on sheep? Why not test human volunteer subjects? Here are the cases I see.
Given whatever value of "success" deemed appropriate:
1. Sheep trials a "success" -- proceed to human trials -- also a success, in which case, why not just go with the humans first?
2. Sheep trials not a "success" -- which does not eliminate the chance that sheep are immune to whatever was tested and humans are not, in which case, why not just go with humans first?
I admit, I probably stand more on the side of animal rights than the majority of Slashdot which probably leans towards seeing animals as property. I'm still curious.
That the study was conducted at the behest of Taser International on a handful of sheep who were anesthetized (which at the very least meant that stress levels were far lower than those of conscious subjects ) gives me no cause for suspicion at all.
"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.
What are the effect of spiders on meth addicted sheep???
http://www.theonion.com/articles/meth-addicts-demand-government-address-nations-gro,2137/
Its only reasonable to test this, since it would prove once and for all whether spiders really are an invisible threat to the worlds meth addicts!
In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
Anaesthetised and bleating.
"Baaaa." ...?"
"Where's my corn syrup?"
"Baaaa."
"Where's my brewski?"
"Baaaa."
"Er..."
"Baaaa."
"Um..."
"Baaaa."
"Excuse me, may I just
--- ZZZZZZT!!! ---
"Baaaa."
because we can, bitches.
93rd rule of Slashdot: No matter how obvious my sarcasm is, my comment will be taken seriously by someone.
Every now and again on Slashdot, a headline catches your eye that just makes you go "wtf?!". This is one of those occasions.
It makes a bit more sense now that I've read the summary/article, but heh, that's one of the weirder headlines I've seen in a while!
Better data (some of them are very nearly human), cheaper (they supply their own meth) and fewer repercussions since PETA care far more about sheep than about the inhabitants of Crackhead Penitentiary.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
But I think the solution is simple. Give every drug addict who uses meth a t-shirt where he can write what he wants, taser or a bullet through the neck.
Tasers ain't supposed to be nice, they are supposed to give the police an other option then to shoot bullets.
And no, I don't think the police needs to be gentle and nice with a meth addict. Can't handle a the taser, don't do the drugs.
And no, I don't shout to people to get of my lawn. I bury them in it.
It is amazing really. You got somalians fleeing their country because they want to escape the lawnessless, then they complain in Holland when the police dares to show up unannounced for an arrest forcing them to jump of buildings... Times like that it remains very hard to remain openminded. 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.
You don't see nature organisation using lizards for their motto do you? You use Panda's and cuddly baby seals. Not snakes and cockroaches.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Look, we are the superior species and the best way to demonstrate that is to use our intelligence to torture these defenceless creatures. As a bonus we are able to use this torture as a pretext to sell devices which allow us to profit from enabling fellow superiors to torture same-species victims. It's all good. Win win win. Muhahahahaha etc..
Requiem for the American Dream
.... because "People in large masses may as well be sheep. Their collective intelligence drops to that of the weakest-minded member of the group. They bleat, they panic and are easily herded to safety, or to the slaughter." - Alan Gunn
I, for one, welcome our new fascist, taser-bearing overlords. Oh, wait....
Free, as in your money being freed from the confines of your account.
I doubt it. Presumably the would be doing ECG/EKG monitoring during the experiment, so I don't think they were looking for external symptoms, they would be looking at the heart rhythm. Although, VF is a rhythm that usually doesn't produce useful cardiac output, so the sheep would die, which I guess would be noticed even with sedation.
There's that, and an extraordinarily small sample size. Not to mention the sheep were supposedly all in good health, unlike possible human victims.
As far as a medical study goes to prove or disprove reports of complications in field conditions with actual humans, it's a worthless piece of shit. (And I'm being nice about it.)
It's obviously propaganda as opposed to credible science.
Not to sound like a tinfoil hat wearer, but do you think funding of the study by the Taser company and it being done by stockholders in the same company might have something to do with it?
On those rare occasions I have fallen over as an adult it hurts. Fortunately I have avoided serious injury because I was able to protect myself to some extent with my arms, and by bending my body to move my head out of danger.
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.
I am surprised more taser victims haven't died from head injuries.
"It's wrong to say that a tomato is a vegetable, but it's REALLY wrong to say that it's a suspension bridge."
The study that appears in the journal Academic Emergency Medicine openly lists a few caveats. Aside from being partially funded by Taser International, the study authors include two physicians who represent medical consultants and stockholders of the company. One of the two is also the medical director of Taser International.
Medical director of Taser International?? Really? WTF?
a baaaaaad idea.
Sorry, I had to
It's bro.... Don't tase me bro....
You ignorant fuckwit....
In this case it is don't tase me baaah!
Umm... it can kill, but it's not designed to specifically and it is less likely to do so than devices designed to kill.
Although, between two things neither designed to kill a person, I'm supposing a frozen pigeon would be less lethal than a frozen leg of lamb.
Oh for the days when you had to go to South America to be electrotortured by the police. Full marks to New Labour for bringing us the opportunity to experience this phenomenon without leaving Britain.
[sound effect: crickets chirping]
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Right, who was supposed to bring the mint sauce?
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
AKA
Doctor Shock
"No fear. No envy. No meanness." Liam Clancy
That is a very valid point.
Not only the purity, but what method was used to 'cook' the meth.
Was it a lepto or a dextro isomer? was it racemic? and what ratios?
All of that makes a huge difference.
*related to your 'purity'* :-)
Since meth is almost universally 'cut' to 50% by the 'cook[1]' before leaving, and frequently 'cut' many times before it hits the streets, well, I guess it depends on what each 'cut' was made with. Purity is a joke, and I assume that was your point.
Making meth is Stupid Simple for anyone with a background in organic chemistry...I should know. ;-)
[1] According to Uncle Fester, which I take his experienced word to heart.
Addled sheep? How can you tell - they aren't exactly intelligent at the best of times.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
No kidding... Physicians aren't qualified to treat sheep.
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."
I think we can keep recursing like this until someone returns 1
It was absolutely imperative that no sheep got hurt, or killed, during that test.
Sheep might have gotten hurt and killed during another test.
But Taser International certainly isn't going to tell us about that study.
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
What will become of the replaced and job less meth user?
Outrageous! Everyone knows the closest you can get to a meth addict is a SAP developer. Sheep are those ignorant folk who call the PC tower the 'see-pee-joo'.
Shocking!
Not to sound like a tinfoil hat wearer, but do you think funding of the study by the Taser company and it being done by stockholders in the same company might have something to do with it?
Taser safety print: "Safe to use on meth-addled bodies*"
Fine print: "*sheep only"
We just use Polish immigrants.
We just use Polish immigrants.
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.
Didn't read much of the article, but have to say that sheep looks hilarious! Is it an Australian breed?
Don't taste me bro!
I tend to agree with you, same as the effects of sleep or dazyness can have on people inside car accidents, the only one that did not get hurt was the one totally relaxed and sleeping, I wonder how much of the actual damage comes from stressing the limbs into not moving instead of letting it move with the flow...
Same as getting tasered, you might not react as much because your body is more relaxed, hence less involvement with the sedated sheep.
I still stand by my first claim though, I think we should stop testing on animals all together and just humans from now on...why should other species suffer for our cause....I think we should sedate humans or find some already in that state, and then taser them and see how they react, in fact I think i'll go out and buy a taser right now, and see how people react when I taser them.... XD
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.
Any serious agency has already classified or reclassified them as "less-lethal" rather than LTL ("less-than-lethal") in recent years. This is to indicate that it's less lethal than using a firearm. The problem isn't with Taser devices, the problem is with ignorant cops and bad policy. The Taser was, and is, meant to be used when previously you _would have shot_ the assailant. Not when they are noisy, not when they resist, not when they are inconvenient.
There are many situations like this:
Consider a traffic stop. The subject exits his car and presents a knife, and exhibits signs of meth intoxication. You have 10 feet between you. At this time you have two choices: shoot (and almost certainly kill) the subject, or risk being killed. Now law enforcement is _supposed_ to be able to choose hidden option C: shoot them, but hopefully in a less-lethal way, while still preserving your own life.
It's unfortunate that Taser is taking a beating in public opinion because we have cowboy deputies and local cops running amok with "lightning guns."
Oh, and this study is garbage (and kinda hilarious.)
Do want post-industrial punk sheep!
We're through being cool! Eliminate the ninnies and the twits! -Devo
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."
That's exactly why less lethal options like Tasers are attractive. It gives the police an option that falls somewhere between billy clubs and bullets. It means that even if someone is out of arms reach, they still have an option to take them down without killing them. And it drastically reduces the number of lethal force encounters.
Your point though about shifting boundaries is spot on. All less lethal options need to come with proper training and accountability for those that abuse them.
There is no question that conducted energy weapons are much safer than the weapon alternatives available to police. Gun-fired bean bags or even batons are much more likely to cause injury or even death than electric shock guns. The fine line here is that police are somehow mixing up the concept of "safer than a baton" with "no risk at all." Being struck by an energy weapon is not pleasant. If I were to go jolting random passers-by in the street, I would be charged with assault. Even that simple fact should be enough to cause police to think twice about using them. The fact that the RCMP had clearly decided to use their energy weapon before even seeing Robert Dziekanski, as Paul Pritchard's video makes plain [In the video, the sequence of conversation by the arriving RCMP is: "Are we going to user Tasers?" "Yes." "Where is he?"], tells us something unpleasant about their attitude towards the use of these things: they act as if there is absolutely no risk at all. But there is risk. People die from being shocked by these weapons.
Taser International aggressively defends their weapon's safety record, influencing investigations [Taser v. Kohler, Ohio, 2006.11.7421] and conducting PR campaigns to promote their image as safe. They have a reason to defend their use. Fully 25% of Taser International's revenue comes from cartridges for their weapons. [Taser International 2007 annual report] Taser International has a strong incentive to see not only that their weapons are issued to law enforcement organizations, but also that those weapons are then used as often as possible. A quarter of their income comes from the cartridge that is used each time one of their weapons is fired at someone. The vendor will do what it can to encourage the use of the weapons and defend the safety and reliability record that justifies this use.
Electric shock weapon proponents have gone so far as to invent a new hypothetical medical condition named "excited delirium" that is said to be the actual cause of death in cases where an electric shock weapon was used. The so called "thin skull" legal doctrine applies here though. This doctrine says that if a victim has an unusually susceptibility, such as a thin skull, this in no way diverts the blame from a blow to the head that causes injury. The fact that the injury might have been greater to the thin-skulled victim than to a "normal" person does not lessen the degree of fault with the blow -- or the electric shock.
Suppose one in a thousand people were severely allergic to pepper spray, such that upon being sprayed those people would lapse into anaphylactic shock, and possibly die. Even though safe for the vast majority, this small risk of severe reaction and possible death would have to be taken into account by the police when using the stuff. We have this situation with electric shock weapons. Out of 1,000 normal looking folks walking the street, 3 of them will drop dead if you give them a jolt from one of these things. You may call it "excited delirium" if you want -- or call it thin skull. But if someone's alive before getting shocked and dead afterward, it is clear where the blame belongs.
There is a small degree of danger in using these weapons, probably about the same level of danger as feeding a peanut butter sandwich to an elementary school kid. It's not enough to ban the use of the things by any stretch. But it should be enough to make the law enforcement forces much less cavalier about using them than they seem to be. There is a real risk in using these weapons and the police have to take that seriously.
interestingly there have been a number of studies which show that within close range, an assailant armed with a knife will almost always come out on top of someone with a gun, even if that gun is drawn and readied for use. I agree with your other points though.
can fire at suspects from a distance of 35 feet.
That's right. Here in America you are guilty until proven innocent. (Fuck you grammar Nazi's, I know what it means. You'll mod me down anyways.)
Loading...
Win. Total Win.
Old truckers never die, they just get a new peterbilt
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."
You are right about the boundary shifting, but you are wrong to make the comparison to firearms. Tasers are displacing the billy club, the use of which was more likely to lead to serious physical injury and/or death but which still represented a less than lethal step on the use of force continuum.
Firearms represent deadly force, the use of which is typically reserved for situations where the life of an officer or third party is at risk. If you slug a police officer he can't (justifiably) shoot you. If you hit him over the head with a baseball bat and he's about to pass out he probably can. In scenario A his life isn't in danger. In scenario B it is.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
I, for one, welcome our new Tazer wielding overlords.
Oh wait, nevermind...
Those sheep are lucky and should be thankful they were anesthetized or else they might have died of heart attacks from being jacked up on meth then subjected to the terrifying experience of being sadistically tazered. We should all be grateful to those at the company for having such considerations for their test animal subjects, not wanting them to writhe around in terror and agony and possibly die. Such responsibilities in the manufacturer are comforting when these devices are in the hands of so many cops who must use them on the likes of rampaging grandmothers, or just not putting themselves at risk of exertion from using the outdated methods of physical restraint.
Take the Red Pill.
The Taser was, and is, meant to be used when previously you _would have shot_ the assailant.
That's not the case. The taser is meant to displace the police baton and/or pepper spray. It is not meant to be used in situations where deadly force is justifiable. Police officers who follow the law do not use their firearms except in situations where their life or the life of another is in danger. In such a situation you would not use a taser.
Consider a traffic stop. The subject exits his car and presents a knife, and exhibits signs of meth intoxication. You have 10 feet between you. At this time you have two choices: shoot (and almost certainly kill) the subject, or risk being killed. Now law enforcement is _supposed_ to be able to choose hidden option C: shoot them, but hopefully in a less-lethal way, while still preserving your own life.
That's completely false. No law enforcement agency that I've ever heard of trains it's officers to shoot in a "less-lethal" way. Police officers are trained to shoot center of mass and to keep shooting until the suspect is incapacitated. There are two primary reasons for this:
If the situation is such that a deadly force is called for then it has progressed beyond the point of trying to wound the suspect. The officers choice is to stop the suspect immediately or to become a victim himself/see a third party become a victim.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
If some large goon is charging at a cop, frothing at the mouth, the cop is within his rights to zap the fool. The problem is when the cop zaps someone because he mouthed off, or maybe just didn't move fast enough to suit the cop. The taser is a legitimate alternative to the billy club. It is NOT a legitimate alternative to trying to talk down a mildly agitated person.
Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
Basically he's the fuckwit who goes to court when someone sues Taser or Taser sues someone to shut them up. He testifies "I am a doctor, and I say it's all good." He then goes and collects a nice fat payday for his couple minutes on the stand.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
Since when is meth sedation, i would think it would have the opposite effect. That's what I hear
I'll bet you could taze them for a hit - a little more ethical than bestiality (I've heard stories of what crack heads will do with dogs for a fix).
Army recruits are good for testing too!
Spun out like a research monkey!
Why not pigs. In general pigs are often used because their structure is much more like a human. Also they know stress much more like humans and can even die from that same stress. Oh, then perhaps people might not die from the tazering itself, but by the stress caused by repeated tazering.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
You lost all credibility with me on this point when you tried to sound smart, but typed "lepto" instead of "levo." l-methamphetamine is commonly sold over the counter as a decongestant. I highly doubt you have a background in organic chemistry if you don't even know the proper names for stereoisomers.
Not to mention the already almost-failing heart of a long time addict?
Keep the sheep on meth for a year or so, then taser them and let's see how they fare.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
First, I specifically stated that tasers can kill.
Second, a gun firing a bullet into someone failing to kill usually means it's not properly aimed.
Third, the fact that a gun can fail to kill and a taser can fail to be non-lethal does not make a taser as deadly on average as a gun and bullet.
Fourth, having several strikes with any weapon is more likely to cause injury or death than a single strike. This is true whether it's a gun, a taser, a knife, a stone, or a frozen pigeon.
Fifth, this is Slashdot, and we're not supposed to be talking to the dead as most people here believe there is no consciousness after death.
Sixth, woosh... I mean, frozen pigeon and frozen leg of lamb? You're actually debating a post with that kind of example in it?
I, OTOH, do. I'd much rather be beaten up then tazed. I'm probably not getting up from the tazing, ever again.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
The problem with the taser replacing the club is that when you hit somebody with a club, everybody knows if you hit hard enough, you can kill somebody, it also leaves bruises. The problem with the taser is that everybody knows 'the company that makes them says they are not lethal at all under any circumstance' and you can't see whether somebody's been hit with a taser. In the beginning of the taser-era, officers would call an ambulance before or after tasering somebody. These days it seems they don't even bother anymore (depending on the type of tasers they use).
The taser has not been tested in any viable study I know off against either human targets or human replica's. As MythBusters and many electrical engineers will tell you, a shock across the heart of just 1mA can kill you, 100mA is lethal. As every geek knows I = V/R and tasers bolt out about 50-100kV which means your skin-to-heart resistance needs to put up a resistance of 500k (if my calculations are correct). Your body resistances ranges anywhere from 300ohms-6Mohms. When your skin is moist (sweating, ...) as is common with drug-addicts and people running from the law your body's resistance will drop. If a taser hits you near the heart in those conditions, they can be theoretically very lethal.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
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.
http://slashdot.org/~GuyFawkes/journal
In the beginning of the taser-era, officers would call an ambulance before or after tasering somebody. These days it seems they don't even bother anymore (depending on the type of tasers they use).
I can't speak for every police agency, but it's SOP in my hometown for tased suspects to go to the hospital once they are in custody.
If a taser hits you near the heart in those conditions, they can be theoretically very lethal.
I'm sure they can. But the police baton is also theoretically lethal. So is pepper spray. So are fisticuffs for that matter. The question should be, which method of subduing a resisting suspect is appropriate for the situation? The proper way to address this is with training of our law enforcement personnel. None of the non-lethal methods I've described are appropriate for all situations. One suspect might be subdued with a simple poke to a pressure point. Another suspect might be tased and continue to resist. Deescalation skills are also important -- if the officer can resolve a situation without resorting to any physical force, so much the better.
One's right to life, liberty, property, speech, press, freedom of worship and assembly may not be submitted to vote
Off-topic, but why don't you have the right to keep and bear arms in your list?
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
It's my job to write, review, and use protocols that involve in vitro and in vivo testing. In vivo covers animal and human testing. By no means an expert, but at least very familiar with testing for safety and efficacy.
A sample size of 16 is not extraordinarily small. It's actually very common. Because it depends on they type of study, the type of statistics, and the confidence you're aiming for. Large animal studies are expensive. Sometimes more so than human studies. Not to mention there is a strong push to limit the number of animals used to the absolute minimum for ethical reasons (which results in the interesting phenomena of using one animal for two unrelated tests. For example, these same sheep might have had bullet proof vests strapped to them next and shot. Two different tests, but only 1 set of animals. But that a whole different story).
For a lot of tests, 1 to 5 animals is pretty common. They are often screening tests, looking for any evidence of a problem. Going up to 10 animals gives you some useful data for statistical analysis. 16 is not an unreasonable number. At some point, your statistical error drops below the error of using an animal model (i.e. 1 actual meth head might tell you more than 100 sheep).
The massive studies you are thinking of are when you are comparing two treatments. Trying to prove the superiority of one treatment over another takes a huge amount of data. Those are the ones you hear about on the news, which might be where your confusion comes from.
Also, most studies are funded by companies. They are the ones most interested in knowing and showing the results. I have yet to see bad results hidden. The reasoning there is if you are selling bad product, best to find out first and fix it or stop selling it. Bad results don't stay hidden, so it's stupid to try. When publishing good results, you fully disclose the methodology and any conflicts. It's science, so if the study is done right, conflicts don't matter. It can be replicated.
The world is made by those who show up for the job.
No, but there is a good chance they'd have some alcohol in them as well.
How many cops would use a billy club on a 6-year old? Far fewer than would use a taser.
of these electric sheep? Ewe never know. Or did someone pull the wool over their eyes in a baaaaaaad way. Well, this was quite a yarn, but I'm feeling sheepish enough to lay down with a lion and a wolf in sheep's clothing.
Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
Are you implying that there is never going to be a scenario where it's appropriate to tase someone who is underage? It seems to me that the merits or lack thereof of using a taser are going to vary from situation to situation.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
The less-lethal device of choice was the Taser X26.
As in: After its usage, you are “only” half (brain)dead? Or as in: “Only” half of the people die from it?
Sorry, but I prefer being shot in a leg with a normal hand gun, to being tasered and having twitches, phantom pain, and a weird character change for the rest of my life. TYVM.
(Actually, I prefer to not give insane people (cops/criminals) weapons in the first place.
Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
Hmmmm, lamb marinated with meth.That's one spicy snack.Something you wouldn't want to eat more than, say . . . once a week
Why save your soul when you can sell it for a profit?
I'm sure I could come up with a scenario where it's appropriate to nuke someone who is underage. What's your point?
My point is that the merits (or lack thereof) of a use of force incident need to be based on the particulars of that incident, rather than knee-jerk "OMG, the cops tased [fill in the bank]!" headlines.
The only use of a taser on a six year old that I could find related to a suicidal kid that was threatening to cut herself with some broken glass. On the surface that seems like it could have been justifiable, though without being there in person it's impossible to say with any certainity. Thankfully the kid went home without injury, so it had a happy ending.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
The sheep were sedated? Interesting. It tells me, that in their own view, tasering conscious sheep would be considered animal curelty. When techniques of animal cruelty are applied to humans, it's called torture or worse.
Why is this modded Flamebait, I am right there with him on this one. A good sheep is much more valuable to society than a loser meth head.
my old sig is obsolete, and I haven't come up with a stupid enough new one yet
1. The people profiting from their sales
2. The people making engineering decisions
3. The people employing them in their daily routine ( cops, security etc.)
4. And their loved ones (friends, lovers, children, pets), in the presence of the parties described above.
Then we'll have truly humane technology
"That's not the case. The taser is meant to displace the police baton and/or pepper spray. It is not meant to be used in situations where deadly force is justifiable."
That's odd. Because the taser was sold as an alternative to a firearm not the baton or pepper spray. I doubt you will find many police agencies admit otherwise. Or at least you won't find them advertising the fact. Because it would probably upset alot of people.
I certainly agree that it has replaced the baton and pepper spray. There might be a case for the former. There is no good reason for the latter.
Well, I guess it depends on where you live then. Everything is technically lethal. However just because somebody can't see that you used a certain weapon does not mean that you should use it more frequently, however, sadly that is what happens - cops (threaten to) taser you when you argue with them in your car when they want to give you a ticket. Ever heard of a cop clubbing somebody because they didn't want to sign their ticket? Or pepper-spray them?
And off-topic, not my quote, it's a shortened SCOTUS-case quote and in that case pertained to the first amendment, not the others (although you could argue that the other amendments should also not be submitted to vote):
"The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections." -- Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
However just because somebody can't see that you used a certain weapon does not mean that you should use it more frequently, however, sadly that is what happens - cops (threaten to) taser you when you argue with them in your car when they want to give you a ticket.
I don't know why the fact that a taser doesn't leave a mark is relevant. Has there been cases of people being tased and the cops denying it? The police usually seem to be quite willing to own up to the fact that they used these weapons. In the scenario of the traffic stop it would also be recorded on the dashboard cam.
Ever heard of a cop clubbing somebody because they didn't want to sign their ticket? Or pepper-spray them?
Yes. And the police officer was terminated. As should be a police officer who uses his taser/fists/firearm inappropriately. The issue isn't with the weapon, it's with the human being using it.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Yes, and finer print "only tested indoors, on first-time meth user sheep, in perfect health, who were sedated". :-)
Lot of qualifiers there.
In some jurisdictions, a condition of being able to carry one is to have been shot by one once.
It's most definitely a requirement for most SWAT officers and certain military personnel.
Nice, but a tomato is both a fruit and a vegetable. See Nix v. Hedden
interestingly there have been a number of studies which show that within close range, an assailant armed with a knife will almost always come out on top of someone with a gun, even if that gun is drawn and readied for use. I agree with your other points though.
Yes, they call this the "twenty-one-foot rule" in lw enforcement circles. It's entirely accurate. That's why I didn't include an option of "running for cover" or similar.
But you're right - I should have mentioned, though, that [unfortunately] in that situation there is a good chance the law enforcement individual won't be able to prevent a determined assailant from reaching him. He won't be able to draw a gun (or Taser), fire, and take advantage of any stopping power quickly enough.
In theory, however, the stopping power of a Taser could be more reliable since there have been many reports of attackers charging through multiple center mass hits whereas the Taser debilitates most subjects.
I was going to post responses to the different parts of your post, but all of it is accurate. You just misunderstood my post.
Of note, I did not say that the subject was moving towards the officer. I was suggesting that this prevents the sort of standoff where the officer draws his gun and doesn't shoot _until_ the suspect is moving towards him - which will likely lead to the officer being wounded or worse.
With a less-lethal _gun_ like the Taser X26, the officer should fire on the suspect as soon as he is not complying with demands to drop a weapon.
This ends up saving one or both lives.
it might be the only way you could actually convince meth addicts to eat!
... wait, what?
Why don't they test .45 ACP on meth'd sheep? It should be a fair and equal test. I'd like to know exact lethality figures and while they are at it lets settle the damned 9mm vs .45acp argument already and test 9mm.
I'd go on a Vegan diet but the delivery time from Vega is too long. --brownkitty
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=trg3GkHXsYY
Ask Me About... The 80's!
Does meth give you the munchies? I see a potential problem if it does.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
There is a for-profit organisation involved. What is being reported is a series of experiments on sheep ; that doesn't mean that experiments weren't carried out on pigs, it simply means that any such experiments aren't being reported here.
Call me cynical, but as pigs are the normal first-call as human-analogues then I suspect that either the pigs were tried and gave results that Taser Corporation didn't like, or the medical director deliberately chose a sub-optimal analogy so that any adverse results could be discarded. I'm not a lawyer, but I can think down to their level when necessary.
Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
Tasers leave VERY visible traces. Most of the time it's the metal probes sticking out of you and the burn marks around them... It really easy to see that someone's been hit with a taser. It's been over a year for me and I still have the marks from when I became certified in taser use.
Not all life is cyber. Extra Income
People will find any excuse to torture animals.