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.
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.
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.
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/
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.'"
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.