Taser International Wins Lawsuit to Change Cause of Death 577
I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property writes "Taser International recently started a legal campaign against medical examiners who claimed tasers contributed to the cause of death for several people. On Friday, an Ohio judge ruled in favor of the stun gun manufacturer (free registration may be required). While they do have a number of scientific studies on which they establish their claims, it's interesting that the alternate cause of death they champion — excited delirium — appears only in police reports on the deaths of difficult or drug-addled inmates, not in medical textbooks. Of course, that may change soon — Taser is funding and promoting research on the subject. Coroner reports such as the ones in this case contributed to the UN's opinion that taser use is torture."
Excited delirium (Score:5, Insightful)
hysterical (Score:5, Informative)
Yes but there is a common cause to these deaths, police intervention with taser. Calling it something else is a lie.
At the same time, it's nice of you to bring up previous quack explanations like hysteria [wikipedia.org], especially female hysteria [wikipedia.org] which was cured by rape.
Re:hysterical (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:hysterical (Score:4, Informative)
These things are being abused, and they should be taken away from the cops until they can demonstrate that they can use them wisely.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Don't attempt to take the moral high ground when you're not prepared to put more research into your post than the parent.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Don't use it as an excuse to take your frustrations out on people.
Re:hysterical (Score:5, Interesting)
An informal search on google for "police qualifications" reveals the following as a typical requirements for being a police officer:
Be 21 years of age or older, have a High School Diploma or its equivalent GED certificate, a valid Driver's License, the physical strength and agility sufficient to perform law enforcement work.
They also have to get a C on a test (lower if they served in the armed forces and learned how to kill people effectively)
So not much more than a burger flipper (except for the trained killer bonus). Would you arm McDonald cooks with torture devices and give them the right to zap anyone they wanted?
I for one don't want to arm high school quarterbacks who somehow managed graduate from the American public school system with torture devices and set them loose on the public.
The job of policing in this country is thankless and underpaid. This forces police departments to hire the people who's main attraction to the job is that they get to carry a gun and drive a car with shiny lights on top.
There are countless examples of police using Tasers inappropriately and killing or injuring people. Tasers should be banned until we either start hiring officers who have good judgment and some measure of compassion or there are strict guidelines for use and jail sentences for every officer who uses them inappropriately.
One thing cops and others always say in defense of officers is that they "risk their lives everyday" to protect us. Fine, if they recognize that risk then they should be able to do that job without torture devices. If they are unwilling to do the job without Tasers then they should go get a job flipping burgers and leave the job to the real men.
I for one would never take such a job. It seems boring, dangerous, and underpaid. Zapping people with tasers doesn't hold enough of an attraction for me to make it worth my time.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Or maybe you are referring too the time the cops maced an infant here in Portland. Another option would have been to give the baby a bottle. You are assuming every situation should be solve with a taser, gun, baton or pepper spray. That is the exact mentality that makes me think they shouldn'
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If you would like to provide one I will gladly apply common sense to it.
Your saying that I need to decide whether force is needed is situations where it is "implied that force is needed"? Well then, of course force is needed. That one is easy.
Now define that and we'll be all set. Any officer who violates it can then be put in jail.
It's not my job to write guidelines for
Re:hysterical (Score:5, Insightful)
If the policeman used his gun and killed the suspect then we would say the cause of death was a gunshot wound. We would not change the cause of death to "excited delirium" simply because the action was justified.
In the case of a highway barrier, I imagine we would say that the cause of death was the car's impact with the barrier, regardless of who is at fault.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The debate is whether or not the resulting death is caused by the taser or by the excited delirium.
Or by some combination of excited dilirium, police intervention, and Taser use.
Have there been cases of people just dropping dead of excited delirium without any police intervention?
If excited delirium is a legitimate condition, then the reality is likely that death is caused by the actions of the police, usually (but not necessarily) using a Taser, on an individual experiencing excited delirium. Excited delirium alone should not be listed as cause of death.
Re:hysterical (Score:4, Interesting)
Much like using a baton in the restraining on somebody resisting arrest isn't torture, but using on somebody who's restrained is.
I think that the honest answer would be to leave the cause of death alone unless the taser company manages to provide substantial proof otherwise. I can't say how good their proof is in this case.
All the deaths that I'm aware of involved numerous shocks, and people who are perhaps more vulnerable. The correct solution, in my belief is to emphasize the taser's less lethal nature.
The alternative methods officers have to subdue a resisting/fighting subject are nearly always more damaging. Arm bars, blows, sometimes baton or truncheon assisted, having numerous officers pile on top of the suspect, etc... In some cases the alternative might even be to shoot the suspect.
The taser is safer. We shouldn't necessarily condemn the taser, instead concentrating on proper use of it. There are ROE's for the use of the firearm, maybe the ROE for taser use needs to be tightened up in some districts.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:hysterical (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, I support the usage of a taser where the taser replaces more lethal/dangerous means, not just the gun.
For example, people can be killed, have limbs broken, and concussions as a result of the usage of a baton or truncheon. A taser is, properly used, safer for both police officers and suspect than the previous methods.
What needs to be emphasized is proper use.
One specific case I can think of involved a very old woman - the point I'd like to make is that it's very easy for that very old woman to injure herself. Much less a physically fit officer. Just think of a scenario like this - officer has hold of a arm. Grandma simply drops, placing her entire weight on fragile decalcified bones. Snap - there goes a elbow, wrist, or forearm.
A taser, while still dangerous, is probably less dangerous in such a scenario. But it gets on the newspaper as 'Officer tases 80 year old granny!'.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:hysterical (Score:4, Insightful)
Then again, they didn't shock her a huge number of times.
You break a bone on somebody that old - infection could set in, a clot could break loose and cause a stroke.
That's what I mean by it's safer than the alternatives. Worst case, slap a IED on their chest for a while and monitor their heart. Take them to the hospital.
People get tasered every day and it only kills a couple a year in the whole nation, assuming you take worst case scenarios. Most of those involved dozens or even hundreds of shocks. Thus my statement of develop a ROE for the taser, don't use it as a compliance tool(torture), use it as a tool to temporarily disable the subject so you can disarm & cuff them.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Tasering an 80-year-old, and having him or her collapse suddenly to the ground, is as like or more likely to break a bone (perhaps a hip, much worse than an arm to repair) as a result of falling, as they are to suffer infection/clotting leading to a stroke from a broken arm. A stroke from a clot from a broken arm is extremely unlikely. Ask a doctor sometime.
Your reasoning on this doesn't stack up. Forcing an elderly lady to collapse uncontrolled to the ground is more dangerous (what about he
Re:hysterical (Score:5, Insightful)
That said, there definitely should be more controls in place to ensure that the police show some restraint in the use of tasers, especially now that we've seen that they can cause death. We need more research into the effects of tasers too, in order to determine how dangerous they actually are and in what ways.
Re:hysterical (Score:4, Insightful)
It doesn't.
Police need to be supervised far more closely, and need to have real consequences for abuse. In essence, if they want respect, they need to be respectable.
And yes, there are good cops out there. The other 99% of cops are giving them a bad name.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Most of us have met that guy at least once, or know somebody who has.
u.s. police lack basic takedown training (Score:5, Informative)
Nice.. so peace officers are now equivalent to mindless, monolithic slabs of steel and concrete? Highway dividers do not think, they just obey the laws of physics, and react according to their design and construction.
Police officers, on the other hand, are thinking human beings capable of making a variety of decisions, all of which can change the outcome of encounters with "unruly individuals."
But it seems that North American cops are somehow incapable of basic self-defense, unless it involves hardware with a button or a handle on it. In many other parts of the world, "unruly individuals" are subdued using basic grappling and/or martial art skills. Something American police departments seem to have little interest in.
Check out this cop trying to arrest an unruly individual [youtube.com], drunk or on drugs. This officer obviously has no idea how to take control of a suspect, drunk or sober.
This cop can't even control a 90lb 15-year old girl [youtube.com]! Then he pepper-sprays her just to show who the boss is. Unbelievable!
Compare and contrast with some [youtube.com] of the [youtube.com] many [youtube.com] grappling [youtube.com] techniques [youtube.com] available [youtube.com] for police officers to learn.
When properly trained in subduing unruly individuals, police officers can change the nature of the confrontation, into a situation they control. The cops in the two sample vids exhibit all the traits of loss of control of the situation: pleading, bullying, ineffective physical control, fear of becoming a victim, and reacting to that with weapons to regain control of what in other hands would be easily controlled individuals. Both lost the element of surprise when they physically engaged the subjects without an apparent goal or outcome in mind, and they both appear to lack basic takedown skills.
But hey, if they can make their jobs easier at the push of a button, why not? That's the American way!
Re:u.s. police lack basic takedown training (Score:4, Insightful)
Big man, you reveal how helpless you are.
Go back to the video. He's armlocked her on one side, leaving her other arm to flail, then he's dragging her along, flailing He used the one one and only technique taught to regular U.S. cops, an armlock, which leaves suspects' legs and other arm free to kick and escape.
What we see in the video with the 15-y.o. girl is a cop who isn't interested in just making the arrest - he's screaming for compliance from a stupid, possibly drugged-up kid, and when he doesn't get it, he gets angrier.
That's when he lost - instead of dispassionately going about his business, making the arrest, subduing the suspect if necessary, instead he gets emotionally involved. His job is to transport that girl to a facility where ultimately the justice system deals with her. Instead, he's up for a little punitive action himself.
Time for... (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
This hypothetical faraday long underwear would need Kevlar fibers to make it puncture-resistant.
Glorified Cattle Prod (Score:5, Interesting)
It's torture my any means.
It's unlawful restraint.
We don't do this (legally) to animals in public, although some do in private, but they'll be dealt with accordingly. So, given that one simple fact, then why should humans be subjected to it?
Don't tase me, bro.
Re:Glorified Cattle Prod (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Glorified Cattle Prod (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Glorified Cattle Prod (Score:5, Interesting)
You know, back in the old days.. maybe say a whopping twenty years ago, cops were actually trained and were able to apply techniques like swarming to take somebody down. Nowadays we have stupid, lazy, out of shape (tho round is a shape) cops who would rather push a button and BBQ somebody than to put on a set of graphite loaded leather police gloves and do their fucking jobs via jointlock, strategic hit with a baton, etc. I live in southern Ohio, and it seems like about fifteen percent of our cops are actually willing to do their job and have the ability both mentally and physically to do so. Most of the rest of these people couldn't pass a U.S. Army P.T. test, which is incredible since many patrol officers are making 50-70k in a low cost of living area. Standards, anyone?
And before anybody goes there with "what if they've got a knife?".. then the
Tasers are far too antiseptic and easy to use. Woman doesn't get out of the car at a traffic stop? Tase her. Guy mouths off to you? Tase him too. Twelve year old school kid doesn't want to go to detention? Fry her! It's just so easy.. if they displease you and disrespect your authority, well light em up! Hell, it's just the push of a button away and there are few consequences!
Re:Glorified Cattle Prod (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Glorified Cattle Prod (Score:5, Insightful)
You assume Tasers and similar devices are used instead of guns. They're not. They're used when you could not get away with using a gun (or even with beating the suspect senseless). Which is why we see them used against children, people who are already restrained and annoying questioners at political rallies. In situations where the taser wielder would certainly not have considered shooting or hitting the subject an appropriate action.
I think that just means the police need to be held more accountable for their use
If shooting someone with a taser was regarded as equal to shooting them with a gun, I'd happily see them deployed all over. Then it would actually be a question of using a taser _instead_ of a gun.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Taser is a consumer product and if it's kil
Re:Glorified Cattle Prod (Score:5, Insightful)
If said people are actually criminals, restraining them by necessary means is of course justified. But every cop thinks twice before shooting someone, which is not the case with tasers.
(As a sidenote, there are no criminals before a court says so, only "suspects").
Re:Glorified Cattle Prod (Score:5, Insightful)
BZZT. One of the very first things you learn in gun safety courses is that you don't point the gun at some(one/thing) unless you plan on shooting that person / thing.
Once you point the gun at someone you have immediately escalated into deadly force. If the perp doesn't back down - you have to shoot him. That's the entire idea behind a taser - non lethal force. This isn't like TV where people hold guns at each other and talk rationally, defuse the situation and move on to a commercial.
Re:Glorified Cattle Prod (Score:5, Funny)
I agree with you, but you probably shouldn't have tazed him.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The general public isn't lashing back at cops simply because they have a new power over the rest of us and it has killed a few of us. The public is lashing ba
Re:Glorified Cattle Prod (Score:5, Insightful)
Personally, I'd say the taser is not in itself the problem, it's that the taser is regarded as 'nothing' by police (as instructed by Taser International).
If the taser was billed instead as an extreme and possibly fatal means to subdue a subject or a 'less lethal' form of gun we might see more appropriate use.
Furthermore, use of a taser or other electrical stun device in an already restrained individual IS torture pure and simple. It's no more acceptable than handcuffung and then beating the subject.
I recently saw a training program where officers are themselves tazed briefly in a controled situation so they will understand exactly the effects of the force they might use on a subject. That seems like a good idea to me and is very likely to lead to more appropriate uses.
IMHO, Taser International is so anxious to advertise their product as perfect and a panacea that they CAUSE it to be mis-used through disinformation. It does the officers no favors either. They use the device in an honest belief that it is less brutal than throwing the subject to the ground and pinning them with a knee only to find themselves facing a wrongful death proceeding.
As for pointing a gun, absolutely NOT. A good rule to follow is to never point a gun at anything you don't want dead. Another way to put it is if you pull out a gun you BETTER be ready to use it. Pointing a gun you don't intend to use will get you killed as soon as the other person figures out that you don't intend to fire. The death rate from accidental firing would probably exceed the death rate from taser misuse.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Also, I think you'd be hard pressed to find a case where the officer doesn't first say, "Settle down or you are going to be tased." Often this warning is issued repeatedly before action is taken.
Like the time a cop didn't like a guy sitting on a bicycle asking questions [wcco.com]?
Also, even if they issue a warning, is it still justified to tase a suspect if they literally sit unmoving after the warning? (Such as the multiple instances of tasering people who were in comas [bbc.co.uk] or in shock [wcbstv.com] at the time?)
What if you had four officers on top of a person who had already been overpowered by just one of the officers alone [wikipedia.org]?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The Redmond case is especially outrageous. There is solid medical evidence that she was not capable of performing any action to warrant tazing her at the time. It takes a serious rageaholic to attack someone in diabetic shock for being unresponsive! People like that shouldn't be allowed to carry a gun as a matter of public safety.
MOST people would have enough situational awareness and compassion to become concerned for her well being after breaking the window out and she just sits there. It sounds like th
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That's not true. If the subject is bound hand and foot, and gagged, perhaps. Otherwise, if only handcuffs have been used, they can still be kicking officers, biting, drawing blood, etc. If they don't settle down, a taser is perfectly reasonable.
Are you high? "If only handcuffs have been used and a suspect is trying to kick an officer, what oh what are they do do except electrocute someone?" ... Show me an able-bodied trained professional who can't deal with a handcuffed person. There's not one out there. Repeat after me: the Taser is a weapon used to control a situation that is potentially dangerous to the officer or to civilians. The Taser is not a device of convenience. Let's go back to the handcuffed suspect (keep in mind that just being
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Granted, I know this won't work in every situation, and sometimes you need help with a non-lethal close-encounter take-down, but tasers have had a rather bad track record of doing their job well. And quite frankly, they are far too painful to be considered anything other than torture. And I'm aware no "non-lethal" device will ever be without its faults or the bad cops who will abuse it, but we really need a better alternative. Granted, I don't know of any better at the moment, so I will simply say that I wish to see better accountability and better judgment when using them.
The taser IS the less lethal alternative. Note that I said less lethal, not non-lethal. That's the problem with this entire anti-taser argument - they are not, I repeat NOT "non lethal" weaponry. They are designed to be less lethal than a bullet. They are in the same category as beanbag bullets, rubber bullets, mace / pepper spray, teargas grenades, water canons, etc. These are deterrents to be used to diffuse a situation with a dangerous criminal or rioter.
As for accountability, tasers have ID tags tha
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Glorified Cattle Prod (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This isn't strictly true. Think of a police officer facing a perp armed with a knife. In the old days, the cop would have immediately gone for his gun. Today, he has the option of using his taser instead (althou
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Cops don't tase people armed with knives. They shoot them full of holes with guns. If they do things properly they might actually give a warning first and only shoot if necessary.
It's pretty obvious that tasers are only used when cops don't think they are in significant danger, otherwise it's gun them down time. There are cases where cops blow away people trying to show them ID or are just carrying something they just bought.
As for avoiding conflict. It'll help
Re:Glorified Cattle Prod (Score:4, Insightful)
A cop has to consider his actions before he pulls the trigger, and on (admittedly rare) occasions, if he acts inappropriately he can be held accountable. If a cop shoots someone inappropriately, the family will know his name, and can sue in civil court.
If a cop tazers someone inappropriately, and the victim dies, then what are the chances that cop will be held to any standard?
If we hold that power corrupts, shouldn't we be encouraging consequences for abuse of that power?
At any rate, as has been mentioned before, the tazers are not being replacing guns, the tazers are being used in cases where talking to someone would do. A tazer, deployed, does not de-escalate a confrontation, it is escalating the confrontation - and it is the cop who is escalating it.
Keep in mind, I think that the tazer issue is merely a way for people to rally around the real issue, which is America's under-trained, over-violent, out-of-control police forces, without saying that they're "anti-cop." There needs to be a vast cultural shift in police forces before a weapon like a tazer is introduced, but there need to be a vast cultural shift in police forces regardless.
As for myself, I'd rather be shot than tazed, but that's just me.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Striking them with batons or Maglites can fracture skulls and requires getting up close (not smart if the perp has a weapon). This was a recognized problem even in the ancient days of the Kel-Lite.
Shooting them has obvious negatives if you want them to survive.
Capsicum has variable effectiveness. It work f
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, given that most of us here are NOT mentally handicap, at least I should hope, then we should be able to reason that things that are not as intelligent as we are still deserving of respect and our moral consideration.
When a child misbehaves, you reprimand him verba
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Glorified Cattle Prod (Score:4, Insightful)
I take it you've never dealt with a human toddler in the 2-3.5 earth year category.
It's said the the mental capacity of most non human mammals fall in intelligence category of a human 'animal' toddler; you can't reason with them, they react on instinct, and the fact that they can't communicate their thoughts exactly makes it extremely difficult to have a meaningful dialog with them.
Re:Glorified Cattle Prod (Score:5, Insightful)
Your argument is only relevant when talking about punishment, which is given to someone who has already been restrained, and should be decided about by a court of law rather than officer Tenpenny. Tasers, however, are not tools of punishment, they're tools of restrainment. When restraining a suspect, the only acceptable standard is to use the minimum neccessary force; altought, obviously, one must make allowances for the fact that the one doing the restraining doesn't have the benefit of hindsight or, neccessarily, a chance to calmy consider his options, so he might err in his estimation of "minimum force".
What I'm getting at is that it doesn't matter whether the one you're restraining is a retard or a genius. Either way you either use the minimum force neccessary, or you belong behind the bars yourself.
So no, the fact that more can be expected from humans than animals doesn't mean that you can go taser-happy on humans. If anything, it means that people who hold power over others - embodied in devices like tasers, for example - have no excuse whatsoever if they abuse it. And using that power beyond what is neccessary, for example tasering someone unneccessarily, is abuse.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Be careful how you create your titles, soulskill.. (Score:3, Informative)
A taser has darts or clips with wires which are remotely launched.
A stun gun has two electrodes and requires the attacker to press the electrodes to the victim's skin.
VERY few use actual tasers, and even fewer know what a taser really is.
Still torture (Score:5, Insightful)
Undoubtedly, pulling someone's teeth out is torture, yet it's not going to kill you. The relevant part is the wanton quantities of pain involved.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I would *certainly* rather be handcuffed and pushed outside rather then risk death by taser for spending too long on my question at a political speech.
Anyway, the GP was trying to say that if a device can cause death is irrelevant to if it is torture... so yes, if you use a bullet and gun to try to inflict pain, it can be torture. For exam
Re:Still torture (Score:5, Insightful)
If cop uses a tazer once to subdue an unruly suspect long enough to get handcuffs on him/her that is not torture. Once again the intent would to incapacitate you long enough to get control of a dangerous situation. If that Officer continues to use the tazer on you after you are already handcuffed laying face down in the dirt I would say that is torture. There is no more need in that case to be inflicting agony on you. The intent is now just cause you pain and that is well wrong.
It doesn't work that way (Score:5, Insightful)
Off the top of my head, I remember such gems as:
- guy with a medical emergency calls 911, cops show up first and tase him in his bed. Apparently they thought he lunged at them. While lying on a bed across the room.
- student doesn't have his library card at the library, and is already leaving (so wtf of a danger did he pose?), campus security guards tase him repeatedly.
- some idiot decides to streak naked, gets tased. I can think of at least two of these.
- schoolkid threatens to cut himself with a piece of broken glass, gets tased.
- 12 year old schoolgirl is found skipping school, gets tased.
- 75 year old grandma insists too much to visit an old friend in another nursing home, a cop gets called and tases her.
- guy gets agitated after being kept IIRC for 12 hours without access to food, water or his medicine in an airport, cops tase him to death. Literally: tased repeatedly, until he dies of heart attack.
Etc, etc, etc.
Here's my question for all the "well, it's better than being shot" gang: exactly which of those would have warranted a bullet instead? No, seriously, I'm curious.
AFAIK not even in Stalin's USSR or Mao's China would they shoot a sick guy for just calling an ambulance. And no country in the world takes school _that_ seriously as to shoot a 12 year old for skipping school.
No, it's already used in _addition_ to the gun, not instead of.
And here's a funnier thought: we already have plenty of evidence that it's used repeatedly. Some even on camera. In some cases it seems to be police stupidity: they see a guy spasming after the jolt, and they think it's some kind of resisting arest, so they do it again. In some cases it seems genuine torture. They've been given free hand to use the taser, so they'll cause you some more pain just because they don't like you.
Ah, wishful thinking. How cute (Score:4, Informative)
Heh. Dude, just because you don't know about it, doesn't make it a lie, ya know? I hate to break the illusion that the world revolves around you, and that truth or falsehood get judged by your whims or wishes. Sorry. Want a link?
- UCLA cops taser ID-less student [theregister.co.uk]
- UCLA Taser victim sues university [theregister.co.uk]
Have more links. Off The Register alone, since I can't be arsed to do even more searching for you:
- Texas cops taser diabetic seizure man [theregister.co.uk]
- School tasers naked, oil-smeared student [theregister.co.uk]
- Taser-happy cops floor suicidal six-year-old [theregister.co.uk] (It also mentions the 12 year old girl.)
- US cops taser battling granny [theregister.co.uk]
Etc.
So basically, just because you're uninformed, doesn't make it a lie. The fact that you wrote the above idiocy without even bothering to google first, though... now _that_ speaks volumes. Heh.
But I assume again you won't have the literacy skills to make it this far, so never mind
Re:It doesn't work that way (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't know... it seems to me like it lowered the bar even in that aspect.
I mean, think about the small sample of cases I've listed. I can't think of many of them which would have warranted even the use of the baton. I mean, just replace "tased" with "beaten with a nightstick" in any of them, and in most cases you'd probably be outraged.
E.g., "Cops beat up a sick guy who had called an ambulance." Nope, doesn't sound justifiable. "Cop hits 12 year old schoolgirl with the baton for skipping school." Egads, he'd have the children rights groups all over him like a sack of bricks. And most of the rest of us would want to at _least_ see him out of that job, permanently. "Cop beats up 75 year old grandma for insisting to see her old friend in another nursing home." Erk. Doesn't sound palatable either. "Guy is kept for 12 hours in an airport without food or water or his medication, cops beat him to death when he gets agitated as a result. 'Cause they didn't understand what he was saying, so a sound beating sounded like a reasonable alternative." I'm betting they wouldn't get as easily out of beating someone to death as out of tasing him to death. Etc.
So, sad to say, it looks to me like it lowered the bar even in that aspect. People get tased in situations where even using the baton would have been considered inappropriate.
1. So, then, it seems to me that the sooner we debunk that lie, the better. Regardless of whether you're pro or against the way the police uses them, let's get that lie out of the way. Then maybe we'll be able to have a rational dialogue with those politicians.
At any rate, that's my biggest problem: that lie.
2. Well, the fact that they need to lie to get things their way, already seems to me like a dangerous road to travel.
That's not how a democracy was supposed to work. The politicians are there to serve the population, not the other way around. _If_ the majority of an informed population is against it, that's it.
Basically I don't believe in enlightened despotism. Someone at the top being so smart that they know what's really good for the population, whether the unwashed masses understand it or not... well, we've tried that before. It didn't work too well.
And again, make no mistake, it's not democracy. Democracy means that if the people want X, they should be able to get X. Even if it's something bloody stupid. (Back in the days of everyone-votes classical democracy, Athens actually voted to go to war with Sparta, and never recovered from _that_ mistake.) The politicians may -- and should -- try to make their case as to why X is a good or a bad idea, but ultimately it should be up to the citizens to look at the facts and decide if they want X or not.
Now I'm not idealistic enough to believe that lies aren't already 90% of politics. I know that. But I do believe that they're a perversion of the whole process, and a thing to be fought off, not shrugged off.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I mean, think about the small sample of cases I've listed. I can't think of many of them which would have warranted even the use of the baton. I mean, just replace "tased" with "beaten with a nightstick" in any of them, and in most cases you'd probably be outraged.
Absolutely. I'm not at all suggesting that the cases you mentioned are in any way justified. I just wanted to try to eliminate the justification that police, politicians, and many of the posters in this forum use to defend the Taser.
This justification is particularly disturbing in light of the cases you mentioned. In the many years prior to the introduction of the Taser, cases similar to the ones you described did occur involving either batons or pepper spray or just good old fashioned fists. Police brut
Re:Still torture (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Still torture (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
However, my complaint is mostly with the frequency that it is used in. A suspect struggling is not necessarily a cause for using it. Again, in this situation, you should likely have multiple cops on a single suspect. However, if you can't do that, and/or the suspect is thrashing ab
Missing something... (Score:3, Insightful)
The same thing is true when the cop shoots you (Score:5, Funny)
In America... (Score:4, Insightful)
Not sure this is a step up from the Catholic Church getting to decide, but I hear your President has God whisper advice directly into his ear, so...
still (Score:5, Interesting)
On the other hand, I think if police use a taser or other electrical device, it should be treated just like kicking or punching by the legal system and needs to be justified accordingly. And I think it's wrong for the company to try to suppress these incidents. They are most likely real, we just need to debate whether they are acceptable.
Re:still (Score:5, Interesting)
Locally, the police pretty much do things that way. The policy here is basically "If you'd shoot someone, shoot them. If you'd pull your gun as a threat, but aren't threatened enough to shoot yet, tase them." It's a small town, and with some of the old guard retiring recently, they've done a pretty good job of weeding out the corrupt cops (unfortunately, the worst of them have moved on to be cops in another city, usually getting a promotion along the way), so that policy has worked pretty well here.
Of course, with stories of elementary school students getting tasered, people being beaten when they "don't comply with a lawful order" because they're essentially seizing from multiple shocks, and all of the other abuses, who knows. The biggest problem is really the code of silence that runs along the thin blue line.
Re:still (Score:4, Interesting)
Why the ******* are we all hanging in the wind GUESSING whether or not Taser use causes X% more deaths on the left, and not N% more bruises and M% more deaths due to savage beatings and justified and unjustified shootings on the other hand? Where are the ****ing hard numbers from all the YYY jurisdictions using tasers?!
Also the mumbo jumbo bull**** language about the "cause of death". The *only* thing that matters is whether or not the person would have died if the Taser had not been used. Are they actually claiming that they know for certain that the indviduals would have died had Tasers had not been used? **Exactly** what likelyhood do they place on the individual having died from a seizure or heart-attack if a Taser had not been used? If it's not zero percent, then the Taser's use IS contributory to the cause of death.
It doesn't matter if the person had a congenital heart defect!! Would the person have lived a longer life if a different form of force had been used!?
Now
WONDERFUL! (Score:5, Insightful)
*Sniff* *Sniff* I smell bullshit....
Re:WONDERFUL! (Score:4, Funny)
In Local News... (Score:5, Funny)
Co-workers are reported as saying he didn't appear to be excited or delirious prior to his unfortunate accident, although witnesses do report that his body appeared to become quite excited at the moment of contact with the fatal current.
Full story at 11.
Ummm...yeah...
Strat
Cops carry guns too (Score:5, Funny)
DON'T TASE ME, BRO'!!
Wait a sec ... is that a Glock?!!
DON'T SHOOT ME, BRO'!! TASE ME, TASE ME, BRO'!!
FUD on both sides (Score:5, Insightful)
To say that a Taser didn't *contribute* to the deaths is probably wrong. To say that a Taser *caused* the deaths is almost certainly wrong.
The amperage on a Taser is too low by a few orders of magnitude to cause death by electrocution. It will cause central nervous system disruption, which is very uncomfortable, and causes some unusual side effects.
I've been shot with a Taser. Not a stun-gun, a full-fledged Taser with the barbed prongs and ranged shot. I took a five second burst of 50,000 volts. It isn't fun, but I'd prefer it to pepper spray (which I've also been hit with). At least it's over in five seconds, instead of three hours.
During the shot, the Taser causes you to literally scream out all the air in your body in about two seconds. You spend three seconds trying to force out air that isn't there. In someone full of drugs or with pre-existing medical problems, this can definitely pose a risk.
As a police officer, I've had six situations where using the Taser has saved me from serious bodily injury. In all but one case, the defendant was immediately back on his feet after I helped him up, and quickly back in good spirits. In two cases, they spent the ride to jail joking with me. In one case, the defendant had to go to the hospital due to a cocaine overdose. He lived due to timely medical intervention, but we expected him to be in bad shape and had an ambulance standing by to assist the minute we had him secure.
As for calling the Taser torture, let me put it this way: I would willingly be shot with a Taser again in a training exercise. I've willingly subjected other people to it after feeling its effects. I would *not* willingly be shot with pepper spray/mace again. I have not and will not willingly subject other people to it after feeling its effects. The Taser is a valuable, but dangerous weapon that must be treated with caution and only used appropriately. Pepper spray is torture.
Re:FUD on both sides (Score:5, Interesting)
1. It's clear that some individuals, because they were full of illegal drugs or possibly for other reasons, have died after being shot by tasers. It's also been asserted that at least one police officer has died in a training exercise after being shot by a taser; presumably he or she was not full of illegal drugs. So, knowing this and assuming the above is true, would you willingly be shot by a taser again as part of a training exercise?
2. You stated that the taser must be used appropriately, and made reference to drugs and unnamed medical issues. Could you define more specifically what that means? Having read the TFA, do you think there is a possibilty that the taser is being used inappropriately either by accident or on purpose?
3. As a police officer, you and your coworkers are obviously constantly in situations where you're subjected to serious bodily harm, and let me be the first to say that as a citizen I deeply appreciate it and think the police are not supported as well as they should be from a financial and operational perspective. That being said, do you believe that the mitigation of serious injury is worth the death of a suspect? Put another way, would you forego the use of the taser and accept increased risk of bodily harm if you thought there was a heightened risk of the suspect's death?
4. Per 3) above, I also strongly believe that a civilized society needs to rigorously oversee the use of force to enforce the law. Are you comfortable with the level of oversight that a coroner's inquest provides on the use of both lethal and nonlethal force? If not, why not?
5. It seems clear to me that in seeking the decision referenced in TFA, Taser International is motivated by the desire to avoid liability for the use or misuse of their product, and perhaps less so by the desire to protect officers. Do you agree? If not, why not?
All of the above assuming that you have nothing better to do on a Sunday morning than post to Slashdot. Feel free to ignore.
Thanks for the thoughful commentary.
Re:FUD on both sides (Score:5, Informative)
>for other reasons, have died after being shot by tasers. It's also been asserted that at
>least one police officer has died in a training exercise after being shot by a taser;
>presumably he or she was not full of illegal drugs. So, knowing this and assuming the above
>is true, would you willingly be shot by a taser again as part of a training exercise?
If an officer died after being shot by the Taser, there was probably some condition that was agitated by the Taser, or the Taser malfunctioned and delivered sufficient amperage to cause electrocution. There is also the possibility of legal drugs causing a reaction that led to death. I am not going to be so blind or stupid as to say that the Taser *cannot* be the cause of death, but I would say that considering the thousands of non-lethal uses of the Taser, it is statistically unlikely that it will cause my death or the death of a suspect I need to subdue. I am still willing to be shot with it, because I am not willing to use any potentially questionable subdual methods on the citizens of my city without first having it used on me. I will not have myself held above the people I protect.
>2. You stated that the taser must be used appropriately, and made reference to drugs and
>unnamed medical issues. Could you define more specifically what that means? Having read the
>TFA, do you think there is a possibilty that the taser is being used inappropriately either
>by accident or on purpose?
When I reference drugs, I specifically mean cocaine, methamphetamine, LSD, and "multi-vector intoxication", which is a "cocktail" of multiple drugs both prescription and "street". In my experience, any stimulant is the most agitating factor in death or serious harm when dealing with police vs. suspect use of force, Taser or otherwise. When assessing the situation, we often have seconds to react, but in ideal circumstances we watch for rapid eye movement, heavy and rapid breathing, and someone taking off their clothes for no apparent reason. If these signs are present, I try to find an alternative to the Taser, such as a lot more officers to subdue for medical assistance. This has only happened to me once, and unfortunately even six of us could not subdue the suspect without the Taser. He threw me off of him, and I'm 6'5" tall and built large.
There is always the possibility that the Taser is accidently misused. Careful training and an honest, open assesment of the data will lead to reducing or eliminating these accidents. Deliberate misuse almost certainly happens. I've never seen it in my agency, but not all officers are idealists. There are thugs who wear a badge.
>3. As a police officer, you and your coworkers are obviously constantly in situations where
>you're subjected to serious bodily harm, and let me be the first to say that as a citizen I
>deeply appreciate it and think the police are not supported as well as they should be from
>a financial and operational perspective. That being said, do you believe that the
>mitigation of serious injury is worth the death of a suspect? Put another way, would you
>forego the use of the taser and accept increased risk of bodily harm if you thought there
>was a heightened risk of the suspect's death?
To say that we are *constantly* in dangerous situations would be an exaggeration. While the "supercop" ideal is appealing, the job is really hours of boredom or tedium, punctuated by heart-pounding terror. I'd also like to say that the citizens of Florida reward us very handsomely for our service, maybe 5% to 10% less than the private sector for equivalent experience and education. I'm very grateful to the people of Florida for my salary; I'm not wealthy, but with a sensible budget I can live quite comfortably.
To answer the question, I definitely believe in forgoing the Taser as often as possible. The Taser as designed isn't capa
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And exactly what medical condition is being treated by a Taser? A device causing a medical problem (death or disability) is not the purveyance of the FDA.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Don't tell the UK H&S executive that (Score:5, Insightful)
Years ago I was responsible for designing a safety interlock system on a piece of high voltage test equipment, and I worked with an officer of the UK H&S executive to achieve compliance.
H&SE have evidence of people being killed by shocks of as little as 2.5mA, and have reason to believe that there is no lower limit. The actual cause is heart fibrillation which can be set off by a very small current in the wrong place.
The standard set for equipment like electric fences for cattle is based on this research, but it is statistical - that is to say, the overall likelihood of deaths from this cause is very small bot non-zero. People fit and active enough to walk across fields are unlikely to die as a result of contacting an electric fence, but people with heart conditions need to be very careful.
In the case of the taser, the electric shock is deliberately caused and the victim has no opportunity to avoid it. This is a different situation . The law needs to reflect the scientific evidence that electric shocks can cause death because otherwise a police officer may be tempted to use on in a non-threatening situation. It must be possible to prosecute police who behave recklessly, and legislating that certain technology is not dangerous removes this protection from the citizen. Unless you are one of those judges who believe that all policemen are totally honest and always have the best interests of society at heart, in which case I have a job for you in China.
FUD from your side too (Score:3, Insightful)
The amperage on a Taser is too low by a few orders of magnitude to cause death by electrocution.
Please put your straw man away. Nobody is saying that death by Taser is electrocution.
I've been shot with a Taser. Not a stun-gun, a full-fledged Taser with the barbed prongs and ranged shot.
And unless you did this while you were being arrested, you did this as part of a *training excercise*. Which makes it pretty much irrelevant.
As a police officer, I've had six situations where using the Taser has saved me from serious bodily injury. In all but one case, the defendant was immediately back on his feet after I helped him up, and quickly back in good spirits.
Really? In good spirits?!?!?! You're saying you were being threatened by someone, you hit them with the taser, they went down screaming, then you helped them up, and they said "wow, thanks - I feel much better now!"
Pull the other one.
I would willingly be shot with a Taser again in a training exercise.
This
A single taser shot is okay (Score:3, Insightful)
The problem with Tasers is that it is hard to detect when the bad cops use them like this. But when the cause of death is "excited delirium
It's a new evil - shooting the messenger (Score:3, Interesting)
Meanwhile we find out that drug companies have been using the full weight of statistical analysis and selective reporting to represent ineffective drugs as being effective. The result is that independent organisations like the NIH and, in the UK, the NICE, have to spend to counter the propaganda.
Perhaps we need to take a leaf out of the book of the Byzantine empire - which was around a lot longer than the British Empire was or the US Empire is likely to last - and restrict the maximum size of any corporation to the point at which it cannot dictate to elected governments. But who is the "we" who any longer have the power to do it?
This is a real problem in our society ... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, but you can't separate the two. When rights get trampled in a previously-affluent society, economic failure usually follows. It's rare to see prosperity result from a loss
Tasers and death? (Score:5, Insightful)
I've always been a bit ambivalent on this. I think it's quite silly for the causes of death to be changed, as we all know well enough that getting hit by a pretty healthy jolt of electricity certainly could result in death, especially for those whose health is already compromised by other factors.
On the other hand, it is true that police are able to use nonlethal force in place of lethal force in some scenarios (and Taser use is, in the overwhelming majority of cases, nonlethal). This is a good thing.
I think a good way to treat this would be as we would treat the use of a punch, kick, nightstick, or other form of painful but nonlethal force. If an officer were to punch, kick, or whack someone with a nightstick simply for "mouthing off" or refusing to cooperate without mounting any physical threat, that officer is guilty of a crime and should be punished. On the other hand, if the person is attempting to attack physically, the officer would be well-justified in using necessary force to defend him/herself. Why not develop some reasonable guidelines for the thing, and then, you know, actually hold cops accountable if they don't follow them?
Well, I can dream, can't I? Now back to this video of a cuffed suspect getting tasered repeatedly.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
For me, that's what makes it so abhorrent. They're saying "you know and we know what killed him but let's have the official record list another cause of death. That way it's much easier for you to suspend disbelief and become our co-conspirators; all for th
Torture? (Score:3, Insightful)
Torture? (Score:3, Interesting)
Like anything, even water, a Taser can be used as torture. But that's not its purpose. It was made to subdue people in a (mostly) non-lethal fashion. If you are suspect of a violent crime resisting arrest in a violent manner, then I support the use of a Taser on you. That's because it's much more human than shooting you with a
But Tasers are not perfect. They can kill. They are being overused not because the police are sadistic monsters, but because they have been taught that Tasers are non-lethal, that they do not kill. They have been taught that they are nothing more than cattle prods for humans. Nothing can be further from the truth. If police would treat Tasers as the potentially deadly weapons they are, they would be used far less frequently.
They should NOT be used when the suspect is merely acting goofy, or asking beligerent questions of a Democrat Politician, or wearing earbuds so you don't hear the cops, etc. They should only be used when you pose an immediate danger to the police or public. I suspect half the use of Tasers don't meet this level.
Someone please explain (Score:3, Interesting)
Isn't the way to correct such things is the "usual way" of doing science? But then maybe litigating is the usual way these days.
There's a lot of missing the point (Score:5, Funny)
To get a few things out of the way, YES! being tazered is generally better than being shot. YES! sometimes force is necessary.
The first big problem here is a company with a vested interest abusing the courts to override the official objective opinion of a medical examiner.
If Taser International is concerned that M.E.s don't know enough about Tasers, they should send them a compilation of their medical data. The M.E.s will then consider the source, and consider the data. I seriously doubt that M.E.s have a vendetta against the taser at this point.
Second, a jolt to the heart while at rest or a bit nervous is not the same as a jolt to the heart when extremely agitated with massive amounts of adrenaline in the system. Further, a single jolt can be uite different in effect than multiple jolts in a short time.
Given that some percentage of the population have some sort of undiagnosed electrical heart disorder that may or may not ever trigger a problem, it's hardly surprising if the taser (a device that disrupts biological electrical activity by design) carries a non-zero risk of death. It would be somewhat astonishing if it didn't carry a risk.
None of that means that the taser has no place in law enforcement, after all, physically wrestling people to the ground and pinning them carries a non-zero risk as well. But ignoring a non-zero risk can only encourage excessive use and causee needless deaths.
Distorting the collection of scientific data by applying legal arguments to scientific reports is simply not acceptable. Were I the coroner, I would demand that my name be removed from the report on the grounds that it no longer reflects my considered scientific opinion. Let the judge sign it if he's so sure.
This fscking scares me (Score:4, Informative)
This should scare you, too. There are about 90 million people http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/heart.htm [cdc.gov] in the U.S. alone who have a diagnosed heart conditions that range from mild to severe. Add to that people who have not been diagnosed, yet have a heart problem, one-third to one-half the U.S. population could be susceptible to cardiac arrest if they are tased.
I hope the doctors and scientists find iron-clad evidence so that this issue can be put to bed and tasers will be considered the lethal weapons they are.
Re:Better than being shot (Score:4, Insightful)
Look, I think everyone agrees that cops need to be able to subdue violent people with as little lethal force used as possible. To the extent that tasers, stun guns, etc. contribute to that goal, fine. The point is that Taser International's commercial interests may not necessarily coincide with that goal (i.e. the product can be abused, or should not be used in some circumstances), and Taser International may not be interested in owning up to that fact for marketing reasons.
Coroners, who are obligated to determine cause of death as accurately as possible, should be able to opine that the use of a taser contributed to cause of death when that is in fact the case, end of story. That is, assuming you want cops to be accountable. It was interesting to scroll down the comments in TFA to note the number of people who apparently think cops should just be able to pull people off the street and kill them in custody.
Re:Not voltage (Score:4, Informative)
Extremely suspect site.
According to them, their brand spanking new ULTRA OMEGA SUPER DEATH RAY (Advance Taser) does not in fact rely on "voltage". However according to the site they link you too: http://www.taser.org/m18l.html/ [taser.org]
"50,000 Volts, 18 Watts and 133 MilliAmps of measured power is instantly discharged into the subject. The electrical discharge pulses in a revolutionary new method of advanced EMD power (Electro-Muscular Disruption) that no subject has ever been able to overcome. The EMD power surge instantly disrupts the central nervous system and results in the subject falling to the ground in spasms of involuntary muscular convulsions. "
How does "50,000 volts being instantly discharged into the subject" = "does not rely on voltage"?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Not only that, but speaking as a doctor - if politicians and judges are not allowed to practice medicine, corporations certainly shouldn't be. Now if this judge claims he has discovered a new disease and can determine cause of death based on forensic evidence, I plan to file a complaint about him practicing medicine without a license. Because as far as I know, only a medical pathologist (ie the coroner) can determine a cause of death. And the "state appointed" coroner's word is FINAL, whether the judge like
Re:So ... new warning label for taser? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Me neither! That's why I'm always VERY careful never to:
- be black
- be poor
- have a funny haircut
- ask questions
- take pictures
- say the wrong thing
- vote for the wrong people
- etc.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)