Slashdot Mirror


Tasers Implicated In Far More Deaths Than We Previously Thought (fastcompany.com)

tedlistens writes: Independent studies have showed that when deployed correctly -- according to "guidelines" manufacturer Axon offers to police -- Tasers reduce injuries among both officers and the people they subdue. But amid a lack of official data about their use and effects, a new report by Reuters found 1,005 incidents in the U.S. in which people died after police stunned them with the electrical weapons, most since the early 2000s. The Taser was ruled to be a cause or contributing factor in 153 of those deaths -- far more than the 24 cases the company has counted. Reuters found that 9 in 10 of those who died were unarmed and one in four suffered from mental illness or neurological disorders; In 9 of every 10 incidents reviewed, the deceased was unarmed; More than 100 of the fatal encounters began with a 911 call for help during a medical emergency. Earlier this year, Axon rebranded, dropping the name Taser International to underscore its focus on body cameras and digital evidence, which is meant in part to add new transparency to fatal police encounters.

39 of 191 comments (clear)

  1. Don't Tase Me, Bro! by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 3, Insightful

    In other news, in the hands of Law Enforcement, tasers produced far fewer deaths than firearms!

    On a more serious note, I am a little disturbed by the occasional video that comes out showing cops tasing someone over-and-over-and-over-and-over-and-over-and-over-and-over-and-over-and-over-and-over, and low and behold, it turns out not to be good for the person being tased.

    --
    If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    1. Re: Don't Tase Me, Bro! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Shocking isn't it...

    2. Re:Don't Tase Me, Bro! by meerling · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Also, the availability of tasers has decreased police de-escalating situations and they quickly go to the I don't give a shit just fucking tase them approach.
      Not a good thing.
      They also like to use the, but it's non-lethal excuse.
      Any kind of assault by police should be a last resort instead their current go to attitude.

    3. Re:Don't Tase Me, Bro! by arth1 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      In other news, in the hands of Law Enforcement, tasers produced far fewer deaths than firearms!

      This would be useful information if accompanied by studies showing tasers being used instead of firearms. Unfortunately, police gun use does not see a decline - even despite crime rates having gone down, so tasers appear to be used in addition, making police more deadly than ever.

    4. Re:Don't Tase Me, Bro! by BlueStrat · · Score: 5, Insightful

      With firearms, death is the primary outcome.

      Perhaps more than that, death is the only desired outcome. Nobody pulls out a firearm to simply immobilize someone. Well if you're dead then you're immobilized, I suppose...

      One of the major problems with law enforcement use of TASER technology out in the real world is that it's often misused as a compliance-by-pain-weapon of control/punishment, rather than a defensive immobilization tool of next-to-last resort short of a firearm. This certainly does nothing to improve the public's perceptions of or trust in law enforcement in general.

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    5. Re:Don't Tase Me, Bro! by Smidge204 · · Score: 2

      I feel a case can also be made that, since police have "less than lethal" options available, they are more likely to employ force instead of deescalation and discussion.

      The options have gone from "talk them down vs. kill them" to "talk them down, kill them or just hurt them really bad in a way I won't get in trouble for."

      I feel it's a significant part of why police violence is such a problem.
      =Smidge=

    6. Re:Don't Tase Me, Bro! by BlueStrat · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The previous compliance device was the baton - which resulted in not only pain, but broken bones and deaths, too.

      TASERs are not perfect. But they're still better than every alternative that's been tried.

      You're entirely missing the point.

      It's the use of a weapon meant as a less-lethal next-to-last-resort short of a firearm defensive immobilization tool, as a tool to coerce compliance through pain instead, not like human cattle prods. Using the baton for that purpose was misuse just as using TASER technology for that purpose is misuse. Can you not discern a difference?

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    7. Re: Don't Tase Me, Bro! by BlueStrat · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You of course believe that the police should wait to get shot or knifed before responding.

      Yes, because as everyone knows, reality is always black and white with no shades of gray. Can we have something in-between? As it is, too many people are dying that don't need to and shouldn't die.

      If a cop's highest priority is to save his own life, he's going to be of little use in saving innocent lives that are in harm's way if he's unwilling to put himself at risk. In fact, it puts innocents at risk as the quicker a cop is to escalate to lethal force if he suddenly "feels threatened" (such a nice precise legal definition based on 'feelz' that could never cover for bad actors/actions, eh?) the more people that will die needlessly.

      This entire attitude of "going home tonight" being the top priority among law enforcement has been a large contributing factor to the distrust, hatred, and "retaliatory" executions of police officers by the public, yet law enforcement as a whole will not acknowledge it as a problem, so, sadly, I guess more good men will die needlessly.

      And you blatantly, maliciously lie when you say that death is the desired outcome when shooting.

      I never said that. Perhaps in your rush to knee-jerking a response you mistook another post's comments for mine? Slow down there, Cowboy!

      Shooting a subject is meant to stop a threat as a last resort, and most cops are trained to fire until the threat is neutralized, which means no discernible movement of the subject. Which, in a large percentage of instances if not the overwhelming majority, means the subject is likely dead or is moments away from expiring from multiple gunshot wounds.

      So, although technically true that death is not stated as the desired outcome, the outcome that *is* desired and the procedures/policies behind them usually results in the subject's death.

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    8. Re:Don't Tase Me, Bro! by shilly · · Score: 3, Insightful

      We don't need to make it structurally easy for people to act badly, though.

    9. Re:Don't Tase Me, Bro! by TheRaven64 · · Score: 2

      The problem with that comparison is that people refer to tasers as 'non-lethal' weapons, rather than their official designation of 'less-lethal'. If you pull a gun and shoot someone and they die, you're not surprised. If you pull a taser and shoot someone and they die, then you are. This means that people are a lot more willing to shoot someone with a taser.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    10. Re:Don't Tase Me, Bro! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      How do YOU think a police officer should deal with a non-compliant criminal?

      How about being much less violent? To put things in perspective, the police in the USA is orders of magnitude more likely to kill by any comparison to similar countries. For instance

      • England & Wales - population 56.9 million - 55 fatal police shootings over 24 years
      • USA - population 316.1 million - 59 fatal police shootings in the first 24 days of 2015
      • Australia - population 23.1 million - 54 fatal police shootings between 1992 and 2011
      • USA - population 316.1 million - 59 fatal police shootings in March 2015

      source

      The police in the USA does not need yet another weapon to perform their work. They need to learn to be less violent.
      (I am not saying that violence is never needed, but today's level is overly excessive).

    11. Re:Don't Tase Me, Bro! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Because the maniac that just got tazed surely wouldn't try to hurt someone when they stop getting tased, right?

      Yeah, that totally explains that cop tasing a 7 year old schoolgirl in Dallas. I guess he should have not put himself at such risk and had his partner shoot her while the taser had the little homicidal maniac helpless, as you know what berserker killers 7-year-old schoolgirls can be! She might have taken out half of Dallas PD before she was stopped! Oh, the humanity!

  2. Abuse of force. by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Using a taser on someone who is unarmed? Is that really necessary? I'm certain there are some instances where it's a legitimate option but I feel like it's far more likely that tasers are considered by police to be non-lethal weapons when in fact they are merely less-lethal weapons. The "don't tase me, bro" incident is a perfect example of this abuse of force.

    --
    Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
    1. Re:Abuse of force. by LeftCoastThinker · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Next time you can try to subdue the 230lb gorilla high out of his gourd on Meth then... Let me know how that works out for you. When tasers don't work, you get this: http://www.nydailynews.com/new...

      Tasers are also more often used by female officers. Should we ban female officers because they don't have the physical strength to subdue 50% of the male population? https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...

      --
      If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
    2. Re:Abuse of force. by ArylAkamov · · Score: 2

      The guy he was talking about is white, nice attempt at race baiting though. 4/10.

    3. Re:Abuse of force. by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 5, Informative

      Next time you can try to subdue the 230lb gorilla high out of his gourd on Meth then... Let me know how that works out for you.

      Did you fail the literacy test? I wrote, "I'm certain there are some instances where it's a legitimate option". How did you not see that?

      --
      Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
    4. Re:Abuse of force. by thegarbz · · Score: 2

      Using a taser on someone who is unarmed? Is that really necessary?

      Why not? I mean it's a completely safe weapon to subdue someone. Just because they are unarmed doesn't mean you should meet them on equal footing. What happens if they are good fighters! /police industrial complex thinking

    5. Re:Abuse of force. by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 2

      There are situations where an unarmed person can cause serious injury, if not death, to someone.

      Did you fail the literacy test? I wrote, "I'm certain there are some instances where it's a legitimate option". How did you not see that?

      --
      Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
    6. Re:Abuse of force. by drinkypoo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "Should we ban female officers because they don't have the physical strength to subdue 50% of the male population?" No, but we shouldn't permit a woman incapable of doing the job because she is weak any more than we should permit a man who cannot do the job because he is fat.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    7. Re:Abuse of force. by HiThere · · Score: 4, Informative

      There was a case in (I believe it was) West Virginia where an officer was talking someone out of being a problem, and appearantly being successful. Some other officers showed up and shot the now quiet "perpetrator". They were praised. The officer who talked the guy down was .... here I can't quite believe my memory. So I looked it up. http://ktla.com/2017/05/12/law...

      Well, this doesn't directly address the use of tasers, but it addresses how justified I assume the use of force often is. I know that good people join the police force, but it often seems that either they don't stay around, or they get corrupted.

      FWIW, insurance claims don't substantiate the claim the being a policeman is unreasonably dangerous compared to other professions. It *is* dangerous compared to being a computer programmer, but not compared to being a forester or, I believe, an electric company lineman. (I'd really need to check the list of more dangerous professions again to be certain, but policeman wasn't in the top 10.)

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
  3. Abuse the force, Luke by TiggertheMad · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Using a taser on someone who is unarmed? Is that really necessary?

    Apparently talking and patience are too much to expect of police officers. I find it hard to believe that many people are initiating physical assaults on cops, it seems like these are cases where a cop decides that just talking things out isn't cutting it, and they need to cuff the drunken frat boy staggering around at 2 am RIGHT NOW.

    --

    HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
    1. Re:Abuse the force, Luke by gfxguy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yes, it's obvious you don't get it. Someone doesn't need a weapon to be violent, in a fit of rage, and non-compliant with the officer. I suppose you would just let them go, or resort to putting yourself in harms way to subdue such a person? Or do you really think someone high on something and in a fit of rage can be reasoned with?

      --
      Stupid sexy Flanders.
    2. Re:Abuse the force, Luke by BlueStrat · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I suppose you would just let them go, or resort to putting yourself in harms way to subdue such a person?

      Yes.

      If officers put their own safety over that of the public they're sworn to protect and serve such that they will not put themselves in harm's way to avoid taking a possibly-innocent life, then I want them gone last week. Full stop.

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    3. Re:Abuse the force, Luke by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Do you know of any case where a taser have been used instead of the officer reaching for his gun in a case like that?

      Seems like tasers are mainly used where the situation could have been dealt with verbally.

    4. Re:Abuse the force, Luke by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yes, it's obvious you don't get it. Someone doesn't need a weapon to be violent, in a fit of rage, and non-compliant with the officer. I suppose you would just let them go, or resort to putting yourself in harms way to subdue such a person? Or do you really think someone high on something and in a fit of rage can be reasoned with?

      Non compliance is not the same as violence.

      Police officers are using tasers on people who are not complying with their instructions, instead of using tasers on people who are dangerously violent. That is a problem.

    5. Re:Abuse the force, Luke by chihowa · · Score: 2

      It works by the cop using a strategy of communication and deescalation first, and only turning to some sort of violence when there are no other options. This is pretty advanced thinking, I know.

      --
      If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
    6. Re:Abuse the force, Luke by chihowa · · Score: 2

      Which applies to a small fraction of the times that tasers are actually used. They're usually just used to ensure compliance full-stop, and tend to be one of the first tactics employed.

      --
      If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
  4. Bad Policing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    What this report is essentially saying is that police forces are comprised of poorly trained officers.

    But it should have been obvious already that there is a problem. There have been plenty of incidents where police killed someone unnecessarily. Enough incidents to strongly suggest there is a real problem with police themselves.

    While Americans in general have a total disdain towards the lives of their fellow human beings, police should be held to a higher moral standard.

  5. As someone with a mild heart condition by rsilvergun · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'm a bit concerned about tasers. On the plus side I'm, well, let's just say I'm of a certain ancestry that seldom has to worry about tasers. But I'm guessing if you ran that much electricity through me I wouldn't be getting back up again.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  6. "Cause or contributing factor" by SlaveToTheGrind · · Score: 3, Insightful

    After a splashy headline implying a "mounting toll" of death by taser, they strangely enough don't bother to break out the statistics where the taser was actually ruled the cause of death:

    In 153 of those cases, or more than a fifth, the Taser was cited as a cause or contributing factor in the death, typically as one of several elements triggering the fatality.

    I think we can safely predict the article would have separated out and trumpeted the actual numbers of deaths where the taser was actually ruled the cause had there been very many -- or maybe even any.

  7. Statistics Altered by Litigation by Lucidus · · Score: 5, Informative

    It's important to point out that the company has aggressively challenged any medical examiner who determines that a Taser killed someone or contributed to their death, in many cases suing to have the official cause of death changed. Therefore I am skeptical of the 153 figure.

    1. Re:Statistics Altered by Litigation by Lucidus · · Score: 2

      How tiresome. Citations are appropriate when making outlandish or extraordinary claims, but it is perfectly reasonable to know things without having recently read about them online. In this case, a simple Google search for 'Taser challenges medical examiners' turns up - in addition to the Reuters article mentioned in the original post - dozens of cases, from Canada, the UK, and the US, that support my assertion.

  8. Re:Some additional questions need to be answered by meerling · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Don't forget that the police don't like to document that kind of stuff that makes them look bad, so they usually don't. It's rather hard to get reliable numbers as the verifiable ones are statistically only a percentage of the real numbers.

  9. Re:More statistics with body cameras by mark-t · · Score: 2

    Which is false, because tasers are much more lethal than that.

    Even the very low current of a taser, perhaps no more than 3 or 4 milliamps, can induce fibrillation if enough current from the taser reaches the heart (even just a few microamps is sufficient,). The effects of this are not always immediately self-evident, but if a person who has been tazed is then immediately taken to a hospital to ensure that no heart damage has occurred, only then do the chances of a fatality really drop significantly.

    The chance of a person dying from being tazed and who was not hospitalized depends largely on how long the current was maintained. Anything more than just a second or two is going to be quite likely to require being seen by a doctor in facilities equipped to deal with heart fibrillation where they can be treated, or their heart could fail within the next several days of the incident.

  10. Used for torture by rossz · · Score: 3, Informative

    Tasers should only be used as an alternative to using a gun. That means if the cop did not have justification to kill the person, he did not have justification to use a taser. Every time a cop uses a taser, the same review process for using a firearm should happen. Unfortunately, that isn't happening. Cops use tasers to torture people into compliance, often as a way to force people to follow unlawful orders. Reviews seldom happen unless someone dies. And even then, it's the standard rubber stamping "we investigated ourselves and found we did nothing wrong," bullshit. Lots of police departments have dropped tasers because they were paying out so much money for lawsuits because of too many cops abusing their authority.

    This isn't a taser problem. It's a blue line problem. Every cop who witnesses another cop breaking the law and does not report it is guilty of being an accessory. In every instance where a bad cop finally gets charged, the ten cops who witnessed the act and didn't report it should be charged as well.

    The first damn step to a fix is to take away immunity. Why is a city (thus the taxpayers) paying out millions in lawsuits when the cop clearly violated the law and written procedures? If the city tries to cover it up, yes, they should pay part. But if the city does a proper investigation then disavows a bad cop, the taxpayers should not be on the hook. Take the criminal cop's pension.

    --
    -- Will program for bandwidth
  11. Re:advertised as non lethal by CanadianRealist · · Score: 2, Informative

    So, here's your clue for the day: if the police officer tells you to stop and put your hands up, do it.

    You forgot one very important bit of advice. Be white. If you're black then even while doing everything the police tell you to do you still might get shot.

  12. Re:advertised as non lethal by drinkypoo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    While you are both technically and practically correct, "do as you are told and you might survive" is a message for hostages, not citizens. It seems we are both...

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  13. Then DON'T RESIST by p51d007 · · Score: 2

    When a police officer says HAULT, or, STOP RESISTING...DO THAT and you won't get tased. Better to fight it out IN COURT, than have your head bashed in by multiple police officers, no matter how no guilty you think you are. It's called COMMON SENSE. But, today, everything thinks that you should get your own way, do your own thing, to hell with morals, respect and other values shot to hell thanks to the stupidity of the (un)education system in the USA.

    1. Re:Then DON'T RESIST by skovnymfe · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If you're running from the police, but stop when they tell you to stop, you will get shot.

      If you're resisting the police, but stop when they tell you to stop, you will get shot.

      If you're using common sense against the police, but stop when they tell you to stop, you will get shot.

      The police in America doesn't exist to protect and serve the people, it's to protect the government against the people. It is literally an HR department with tasers and guns.