Don't tase me bro!

[jlee]

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: SarcasticDwarf
Simply put, the Taser is a tool for police officers, but one that has very lethal consequences. If 150 have died from tasering, would 150 have died (officers or suspects) if the tasers were not used? The answer is no. To me, that indicates that something is wrong in the frequency of use by officers.

I disagree. Instead, I think that the voltage output of the tasers needs to be reduced to a point where they are useful, but less deadly. This is what they are looking into I believe. If they manage to tweak the standard issue taser with one which is significantly safer then would you be ok with it?

As a previous poster has mentioned, the standard methods of restraining an individual can be heavily reduced in effectiveness depending on their size and how well they can resist. Tasers, if tweaked to point of safer use, could be a more universal solution to this problem. It will make the jobs of police officers safer.

I can't help but ask...if Tasers are so deadly, why is it that nobody has died during certification? Btw- the OP's link states that a Taser has been listed as a contributing factor in 30 deaths - not 150. IIRC, Tasers output 0.004 amps...that alone isn't going to kill you.

Originally posted by: SarcasticDwarf
If 150 have died from tasering, would 150 have died (officers or suspects) if the tasers were not used? The answer is no.

You seem pretty sure of yourself. What training and experience do you have that gives you any reasonable grounds to make a blanket statement like that?

What about stories such as this and this..? Perhaps they don't merit much interest, because nobody died?

 

[BrunoPuntzJones]

Man late to the party. Had to work. The details on that shooting ran like this from what I can remember:

Car is seen pulling out of a bar parking lot. Officer pulls it over for speeding. Orders driver and passenger out and on the ground. I think the driver may have run off/bolted. Tells the passenger to "get up". Passenger gets up and cop shoots him in the chest with his service pistol (not a taser).

Cop's report states that he meant to tell the passenger NOT to get up.

Passenger was active duty military, had had no alcohol. IIRC the driver wasn't drunk, just freaked out.

I'll see if I can find the video.

 

[BrunoPuntzJones]

I can't listen to this at work, so dunno what the audio is, but here's the shooting.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DF6D45l8vm8

 

[NicePants42]

Originally posted by: IcebergSlimHowever like I said before if tommorow it became law that anything more than 5 mph over the posted speed limit will result in automatic tazing......I will be going 63 mph from then on.

Not you, me, not anyone in their right mind would continue to speed. You know this.

That is BS. I speed every day to and from work along with the other 100% of the population in my area. There is no way that anyone is ever going to taze them all, and there is no way that tazing will stop speeding, ever. Most people around here would pay for a good jolt in the morning.

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim
The taser companies are trying hard to promote it like its no big deal.
One salesman said it was about as harmful as being hit with a water balloon.

[/i]
[tangent]
I would bet money that if police used water balloons instead of tazers, the water balloons would cause much more than 25 deaths per year, and scores of injuries.
[/tangent]

 

[5to1baby1in5]

Originally posted by: ADDAvenger

Originally posted by: SarcasticDwarf

Would I want to? Not really? Would I do it if I was an officer? Hell yes, that is my JOB.


Simply put, the Taser is a tool for police officers, but one that has very lethal consequences. If 150 have died from tasering, would 150 have died (officers or suspects) if the tasers were not used? The answer is no. To me, that indicates that something is wrong in the frequency of use by officers.

We can't expect the cops to do their jobs unarmed simply because it's their job. If we want it to be more than a 50/50 crapshoot we need to have well equipped officers, thus tasers etc are necessary.

Also, 150 over six years, are you kidding me?! That's only 25 people per year, 150x more people will die driving to work in the same time period!

How many people per year died because the cops sat on their chest to subdue them and they suffocated? That used to happen.

 

[Canai]

WTF this thread is still going?

 

[alkemyst]

Originally posted by: Modelworks
One salesman said it was about as harmful as being hit with a water balloon.

This is very true.



The thing the salesdrone left out was the water balloon was frozen and dropped from a 20th floor balcony.

 

[jlee]

Originally posted by: alkemyst

Originally posted by: Modelworks
One salesman said it was about as harmful as being hit with a water balloon.

This is very true.



The thing the salesdrone left out was the water balloon was frozen and dropped from a 20th floor balcony.

That's funny, I don't imagine most people would get up after that. You can after you've been Tased.

 

[Howard]

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim

Originally posted by: Canai

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim

Originally posted by: Canai

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim

Originally posted by: Canai

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim

Originally posted by: Canai
If the cops tased for speeding, would I stop? Fuck no. I'd go buy one of those taser-proof jackets and tell the cops to fuck themselves before shooting them in the face and driving away in their car.

LOLLERSKATES!!!!11111

man that is terrific. I can't have my way so I'm going to start killing cops. BRAVO. I am not the stupidest person in this thread now.

Should I have put SARCASM ALERT at th top of my post, or would you have missed that too? :roll:

Then answer the question for real.

If the police instituted a police state type subdue first stance on basic violations, I would either leave the country or pick up a taser proof jacket and a great radar detector. If it got worse and they just started rounding people up, then I would consider using deadly weapons. We still have some semblance of Constitutional rights, including the right to bear arms. If the police aim to inflict harm first, they must be beaten to the punch, so to say.

I know it sounds dumb, but I would not stand for such gross rights violations.

Think of it this way, you've got some people in car. They have guns. They are speeding and get pulled. If they know they are just going to get tased and arrested, they are going to either run or open fire on the cops. Or what about that shady looking kid over there who threw a napkin on the ground? As soon as he sees a cop walking towards him, he's going to open fire, since he knows that the cops will find his gun if they get close enough to tase him.

If the police change from people to walking pain machines, I would have no problem defending myself with whatever means necessary.

Why are you opting for such extreme measures when it would be much easier and more beneficial for society to simply comply. I mean if your not breaking the law they will not be tazing you. Its pretty basic.

And your example of guns in the car....I don't know how the presence of a tazer makes the situation anymore dire for the perps.

It would be more beneficial for society if the fear and pain sowing cops were removed from the picture. I have nothing against police, mind you, but if the police in the US devolve into pain and death dealing third world soldiers of the peace, I'm pretty sure I'm not the only person who wouldn't stand for it and blindly comply.

Using threats of pain and violence to force compliance from the populace of a nation is a major source of violent rebellion.

A valid point.

Vote from the rooftops...

 

[alkemyst]

Originally posted by: CadetLee

Originally posted by: alkemyst

Originally posted by: Modelworks
One salesman said it was about as harmful as being hit with a water balloon.

This is very true.



The thing the salesdrone left out was the water balloon was frozen and dropped from a 20th floor balcony.

That's funny, I don't imagine most people would get up after that. You can after you've been Tased.

reanalyze this assuming it wasn't a direct hit.

 

[tyler811]

Cops should give people a choice:

1. Be hit over the head repeatedly with a night stick and wind up a veggie sucking for air thru a machine.

2. Have tens of thousands of volts surge thru your body and hope for the best.

 

[Dessert Tears]

CNN.com: Man dies after police jolt him with stun gun
Amnesty International has reported that, since June 2001, more than 150 people have died in the United States after being subdued with a stun gun.... But Amnesty International, noting that coroners have identified Tasers as a contributory factor in more than 30 deaths, said such a link cannot be ruled out.

A clarification: the number of deaths tallied by Amnesty International generally counts incidents where a Taser is deployed followed by the subject's death, regardless of the coroner's findings. 150 is low compared to other articles citing Amnesty International's number - which could be due to filtering the number to relevant cases or an error by CNN.

Originally posted by: SarcasticDwarf
Furthermore, anyone who has any medical condition dealing with electrical signals (anything involving the heart and/or nervous system) is at very high risk of dying.

You've used multiple phrases to describe the risk of death after Taser deployment: "very high", "significant", and "very likely". Would you like to quantify what you mean by those phrases?

Study Suggests Taser Use By US Police Is Safe
The research examined nearly 1,000 cases of Taser use, and found 99.7 per cent of them had either no injuries, or only mild injuries such as "scrapes and bruises". In 0.3 per cent of the cases (3 people) the injuries were serious enough to require hospital admission. Two had head injuries sustained during falls after the Taser was used and the third was hospitalized two days after arrest with a condition "of unclear relationship to the Taser" said the researchers in a prepared statement.

Originally posted by: sandorski
Look at the John Kerry Tazing, Cops would have never used a Gun in that situation.

The University of Florida Taser incident is not relevant, the officer used the Taser's "Drive Stun" mode. A study cited in the Lancet article found that contact stun guns (not Taser) and "Drive Stun" were found to have no effects beyond intense localized pain lasting for the duration of the stun.


P.S. It's just over 1 year since the UCLA Taser incident.

 

[TallBill]

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim

You are not going to convince me that 80 mph is exponentially more lethal than 65.

Actually it is.


Easy Math

Takes an extra 140 feet to stop.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Flatscan

CNN.com: Man dies after police jolt him with stun gun
Amnesty International has reported that, since June 2001, more than 150 people have died in the United States after being subdued with a stun gun.... But Amnesty International, noting that coroners have identified Tasers as a contributory factor in more than 30 deaths, said such a link cannot be ruled out.

A clarification: the number of deaths tallied by Amnesty International generally counts incidents where a Taser is deployed followed by the subject's death, regardless of the coroner's findings. 150 is low compared to other articles citing Amnesty International's number - which could be due to filtering the number to relevant cases or an error by CNN.

Originally posted by: SarcasticDwarf
Furthermore, anyone who has any medical condition dealing with electrical signals (anything involving the heart and/or nervous system) is at very high risk of dying.

You've used multiple phrases to describe the risk of death after Taser deployment: "very high", "significant", and "very likely". Would you like to quantify what you mean by those phrases?

Study Suggests Taser Use By US Police Is Safe
The research examined nearly 1,000 cases of Taser use, and found 99.7 per cent of them had either no injuries, or only mild injuries such as "scrapes and bruises". In 0.3 per cent of the cases (3 people) the injuries were serious enough to require hospital admission. Two had head injuries sustained during falls after the Taser was used and the third was hospitalized two days after arrest with a condition "of unclear relationship to the Taser" said the researchers in a prepared statement.

Originally posted by: sandorski
Look at the John Kerry Tazing, Cops would have never used a Gun in that situation.

The University of Florida Taser incident is not relevant, the officer used the Taser's "Drive Stun" mode. A study cited in the Lancet article found that contact stun guns (not Taser) and "Drive Stun" were found to have no effects beyond intense localized pain lasting for the duration of the stun.


P.S. It's just over 1 year since the UCLA Taser incident.

Huh? It is relevant, they still used the damned thing.

 

[alkemyst]

Part of the problem we have is many are going into law enforcement for the wrong reasons and end up fearing their job once they figure out people don't just comply. Add this to the fact that so many of our law enforcement officers are totally out of shape.

The worst thing you can do is give a fearful person a weapon that cannot defend themselves any other way.

 

[zixxer]

Originally posted by: TallBill

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim

You are not going to convince me that 80 mph is exponentially more lethal than 65.

Actually it is.


Easy Math

Takes an extra 140 feet to stop.

IIRC statistically an 80mph speed limit is safer than a 65 - you are on the road less time, thus less of a chance of an accident happening..

something like the extra speed makes it .05% more dangerous, but the 15 minutes less time on the road makes it .10% less dangerous, for a net of .05% safer.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: SarcasticDwarf

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: SarcasticDwarf
Simply put, the Taser is a tool for police officers, but one that has very lethal consequences. If 150 have died from tasering, would 150 have died (officers or suspects) if the tasers were not used? The answer is no. To me, that indicates that something is wrong in the frequency of use by officers.

I disagree. Instead, I think that the voltage output of the tasers needs to be reduced to a point where they are useful, but less deadly. This is what they are looking into I believe. If they manage to tweak the standard issue taser with one which is significantly safer then would you be ok with it?

As a previous poster has mentioned, the standard methods of restraining an individual can be heavily reduced in effectiveness depending on their size and how well they can resist. Tasers, if tweaked to point of safer use, could be a more universal solution to this problem. It will make the jobs of police officers safer.

That would certainly be far better, but that is not what we are talking about. We are talking about the people dying from what is being used right now.

There are two parts to my post. The first is concerned with people dying. The second is concerned with effective methods to restrain people while preserving the safety of the officers. When discussing this matter, both of those subjects must be considered in order to be productive.

 

[alkemyst]

Originally posted by: zixxer

Originally posted by: TallBill

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim

You are not going to convince me that 80 mph is exponentially more lethal than 65.

Actually it is.


Easy Math

Takes an extra 140 feet to stop.

IIRC statistically an 80mph speed limit is safer than a 65 - you are on the road less time, thus less of a chance of an accident happening..

something like the extra speed makes it .05% more dangerous, but the 15 minutes less time on the road makes it .10% less dangerous, for a net of .05% safer.

I don't think that's the way it works...but we may be talking different things. Going 10mph over the limit usually has a driver more aware and is statistically shown to cause less accidents. Going 10mph less than the limit is really bad. People have a hard time judging slower/stopped vehicles.

 

[Dessert Tears]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Flatscan

Originally posted by: sandorski
Look at the John Kerry Tazing, Cops would have never used a Gun in that situation.

The University of Florida Taser incident is not relevant, the officer used the Taser's "Drive Stun" mode. A study cited in the Lancet article found that contact stun guns (not Taser) and "Drive Stun" were found to have no effects beyond intense localized pain lasting for the duration of the stun.

Huh? It is relevant, they still used the damned thing.

Could you state your objection(s) to Tasers explicitly?

A common objection to the use of Tasers is that there is a risk of death when they are used. Therefore, they should be only used as alternatives to firearms. I assumed that this was your reasoning from your mention of guns. If my assumption was incorrect, please clarify, and I will address your point.

This reasoning ignores that Tasers have 2 discrete modes of operation: projectile and "Drive Stun". As I mention, "Drive Stun" neither disrupts neuromuscular function nor carries any risk of serious injury. Furthermore, accidentally firing the projectiles is impossible once the Taser is prepared for "Drive Stun" by removing the cartridge. Since "Drive Stun" has no risk of death, whether a firearm would have been used is not a valid metric.

 

[DrPizza]

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim
Yeah? where are you going with this. You are not convincing me that the punishments are unfair because 25 ppl die per year. Imagine if you got tazed for any violation right off the bat no questions asked. You are promptly tazed and then when that wears off you are pepper sprayed. Wouldn't people really begin to think twice about doing anything illegal big or small? Why do we have some of the highest crime rates in the world? BECAUSE OUR PUNISHMENTS ARE NOT EFFECTIVE DETERRENTS!

Since when was punishment a decision made by the police? I thought decisions about punishments were the judicial branch's domain, you know, where "justice is served." The very problem with tasers is that they're sometimes being used for punishment rather than for what their actual purpose is.

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim
Ok I had understood that he was shot with a pistol. Not a tazer. However...it is unfortunate...but if it were protocol that everyone in the offending vehicle is tazed would you continue to speed with your friends in the car or drive with friends that chose to speed. not at all your friends would probably pwn you hard if you tried to speed and the reversal you would no longer ride with friends that were putting you at risk. I tell you what I speed 15 mph over the speed limit daily. I would cease immediately if I knew I could be tazed.

Iceburg Slim - make up your mind. You've implied that only people who are guilty of something get tazed. The case where the passenger was shot, he was an accessory. Are you suggesting that 100% of the time, police pull over the correct vehicle for speeding? You're suggesting that the police never make mistakes? You either have to claim that, else admit that innocent people end up getting tazed.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Flatscan

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Flatscan

Originally posted by: sandorski
Look at the John Kerry Tazing, Cops would have never used a Gun in that situation.

The University of Florida Taser incident is not relevant, the officer used the Taser's "Drive Stun" mode. A study cited in the Lancet article found that contact stun guns (not Taser) and "Drive Stun" were found to have no effects beyond intense localized pain lasting for the duration of the stun.

Huh? It is relevant, they still used the damned thing.

Could you state your objection(s) to Tasers explicitly?

A common objection to the use of Tasers is that there is a risk of death when they are used. Therefore, they should be only used as alternatives to firearms. I assumed that this was your reasoning from your mention of guns. If my assumption was incorrect, please clarify, and I will address your point.

This reasoning ignores that Tasers have 2 discrete modes of operation: projectile and "Drive Stun". As I mention, "Drive Stun" neither disrupts neuromuscular function nor carries any risk of serious injury. Furthermore, accidentally firing the projectiles is impossible once the Taser is prepared for "Drive Stun" by removing the cartridge. Since "Drive Stun" has no risk of death, whether a firearm would have been used is not a valid metric.

The Modes are Moot. My objection is that the Police are using Tazers way too often and for circumstances that at one time would have been resolved without Weapons of any kind.

 

[Darwin333]

Originally posted by: compuwiz1
Another man dies

Amnesty International has reported that, since June 2001, more than 150 people have died in the United States after being subdued with a stun gun. The organization has called for police departments to suspend use of the devices pending study of their possible risks.

So, almost half of the nations law enforcement agencies use tasers. IMO, that's too much potential for abuse. I wonder how many of those 150 who were killed actually needed such draconian action?

Although I would never put my self into a position where a cop needed to use force to get me to comply.... IF I did somehow end up in that position I sure hope they use their Tazer versus their other choices.


I really don't understand the position that some cops abuse a tool so the tool should be removed. So instead of using a Tazer they are going to use a baton? Are the bad cops that "abuse" the use of their Tazers somehow not going to "abuse" the use of their other non-lethal (and lethal for that matter) tools?

Also, I would like to see the numbers on how many lives have been saved by Tazers. I know of two cases locally where knife wielding criminals lived because the cops had Tazers. If they didn't have Tazers they would have certainly shot them both unless you are in favor of giving most street level cops other less than lethal long range weapons like bean bag guns. Even then, I would much prefer to be "tazed" then hit with a bean bag shot out of a shotgun.

 

[alkemyst]

Originally posted by: sandorski
The Modes are Moot. My objection is that the Police are using Tazers way too often and for circumstances that at one time would have been resolved without Weapons of any kind.

QFT..anytime you put current through someone's body to incapacitate them you risk problems.

I am one that agrees that cops are now overusing their new little toys. They should be reserved for when they'd have needed to use their baton or gun. Even pepperspray should be used prior to a stun gun.

 

[Dessert Tears]

Originally posted by: sandorski
The Modes are Moot. My objection is that the Police are using Tazers way too often and for circumstances that at one time would have been resolved without Weapons of any kind.

Thank you for following this thread and continuing this discussion.

What do you mean by "way too often"? Do you mean that you believe that the police often try the lower levels of the "Force Continuum" inadequately and jump to using the Taser? Can you give specific examples of incidents 1) where a Taser was used and 2) that could have been resolved without weapons? There are numerous threads returned when one searches for "Taser"; a few may fit your criteria.

Originally posted by: alkemyst

Originally posted by: sandorski
The Modes are Moot. My objection is that the Police are using Tazers way too often and for circumstances that at one time would have been resolved without Weapons of any kind.

QFT..anytime you put current through someone's body to incapacitate them you risk problems.

Your statement glosses over the distinction between the two modes - "Drive Stun" does not incapacitate and has no risks:

Originally posted by: Flatscan here

Originally posted by: alkemyst

Originally posted by: Flatscan

Originally posted by: alkemyst, emphasis added
You don't get your arm broke in what I explained above unless you want your arm broken. A taser can kill you. A broken arm possibly could (fracture cutting an artery, post surgery infection, etc), but the chance is slim to none.

Can you provide any cases where a Taser in "Drive Stun" or a conventional stun gun has been linked to a death?

For what purpose? My points are the cops did not need any taser in this situation.

Feel free to look up that all the deaths did not use "Drive Stun" and get back to us.

There is zero danger of "Drive Stun" causing ventricular fibrillation and sudden death. "Drive Stun" can stimulate neither surface muscles - it is ineffectual in causing electro-muscular disruption (incapacitation, "paralysis") - nor the cardiac muscle.

 

[mchammer187]

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim

Originally posted by: BrunoPuntzJones

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim
I don't care. if you are not a criminal you needn't worry.

ahahahah

What about the guy who was a passenger in a speeding car that got pulled over. The officer ordered the passenger out and on the ground. Then told him to get up. The guy gets up and the officer shoots him in the chest.

The officer later says he meant to say "don't get up"

Wasn't a criminal and did exactly what he was told.

Associating with criminals is just as bad....as a passenger he was an accessory to the crime. Next your going to tell me he was headed to church or to the soup kitchen to volunteer. :roll:

I hope you get tazed at some DUI checkpoint tonight
http://forums.anandtech.com/me...=2121462&enterthread=y