Taser/Lethal force question


PDA






Boulder
June 7, 2009, 01:36 PM
Recently in my neck of the woods, a person was shot by police (in the lower abdomen) for grabbing an officer's taser and pointing it at them.

Two questions I would like to get everyone's opinion:

1) Was the police justified in using deadly force (the person shot didn't die)?

2) As a CCW holder--would I be justified in using deadly force when confronted with a perp with a taser?

My primary concern would be losing control of my firearms if I were tasered--but, would I be justified in escalating to lethal force when presented with a "non-lethal" weapon?

If you enjoyed reading about "Taser/Lethal force question" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Hungry Seagull
June 7, 2009, 03:12 PM
For the record, wife and I own a C2 Model Taser from www.taser.com

Very simply put.

Point Taser at a LEO = YOU will be killed. As fast as possible, without second thought and asap. In fact, to even try to point one at a LEO will cause that person to jerk into a reflex draw to kill YOU with his handgun before that LEO really understands what is happening.

They fry each other all the time with tasers for fun. But out in public? No one fries a LEO.

Let me put it another way, would I want to pull a TASER on a possible CCW'er armed with a GUN? If I was to play the role of a perp?

Suppose I pull taser on a aggressor and he pulls out gun?

No. Taser stays with wife in the safe room. The taser does ride in our car from time to time and we have not yet had any... issues with it.

If Im carrying concealed and aggressor pulls out taser on me? Im already late to the draw and need to get the gun out and into action as fast as possible while taking my time. (Does that make sense?)

The best ending I can hope for is that the perp with taser sees my HANDGUN and squeal like little girl and flee. stopping the threat without any shoot.

It is a crime to deploy or point taser with intent to use against someone who does not have any intent to harm, hurt, assault or do anything to you.

I think there was one case in Florida where a Husband was going through a divorce and was physically assaulted by soon to be EX wife. He had a taser on him and fried her. He was not charged because he sustained injuries in attack during the DOMESTIC and stopped the assault without hitting back physically. He fled the property and contacted LEO's

The only other thought is that tasers are generally PAPERWEIGHTS when sold in a store until you contact the factory by phone with a credit card and succeed in THIER criminal background check before you recieve the activation code. And that code is good for that INDIVIDUAL TASER. NO others.

docfubar
June 7, 2009, 05:37 PM
You point a taser at a cop and he might figure he is gonna disable me and then kill me with my gun or disable me and then take my gun. I would shoot you to.

kingpin008
June 7, 2009, 05:44 PM
Yeah, I'd think the cop was completely justified - at least I wouldn't convict him. If the suspect managed a hit on the cop with the taser, that would mean that the suspect now has a good chance at the officer's pistol, as Docfubar mentioned. Not worth risking - the suspect needs a little lead thrown his way.

mgkdrgn
June 7, 2009, 06:02 PM
would I be justified in escalating to lethal force when presented with a "non-lethal" weapon?

A taser is not a "non-lethal" weapon, it's a less-lethal one. PLENTY of people have died as a direct result of being tasered.

I also think it would be fair to assume that the BG de-jour isn't going to taser you for your own good.

Dokkalfar
June 7, 2009, 06:20 PM
Well as mgkdrgn just said, a taser is not a non-lethal weapon, just less lethal. and it is ranged, which means the BGs effective area is alot larger than with a knife or club. here in TX, if he pulled a taser on you you'd be perfectly justified in self-defense. I personally dont know CO's laws as regarding SD, or if Boulder has anything on it.

So I would check your local laws on this, as they vary widely from state to state.

With the police scenario, what I see there is assault on the cop. I dont see how he could argue good intentions, so I would say yea, the police were justified in that.
Unless, of course, the guy was just a nice citizen, who picked up the taser the cop dropped, was trying to hand it back to him, and then accidentally tripped and almost shot the cop with it. Cause why would anyone do that on purpose?

Hungry Seagull
June 7, 2009, 07:31 PM
I aint touching :cuss: that belongs to a LEO. They have plenty of back up.

Heck, it's HIS or HER TASER... not ours. They can pick it up if they went oops and dropped it.

In our area, try to fry a LEO and they will fire on you and face no repercussions or charges.

I concede that tasers can be lethal and that is why they are treated as such.

You should see the ball of blue fire emitted by the unit during a montly spark test. And yes reload batteries and cartridges are availible. We have the unit in the stun gun mode against stray dog packs when outside working the land. (In addition to the handgun)

As a stun gun, the taser is the most dangerous I have encountered and we used to have some good cracklers in our time long ago.

MGD 45
June 7, 2009, 07:36 PM
This is the reason why we are required to take a hit with a Taser before we can carry it. Mainly for two reasons:

1) So we will know what it feels like, and won't abuse it......but more importantly...

2) We will understand how the Taser affects us, so then we quickly learn that a Taser will incapacitate us & our gun can be taken away & used against us.

So enlight of this........point a Taser at me, & I'm justified to use deadly force against you.


PS: The same applies to Pepper Spray......

TexasRifleman
June 7, 2009, 07:46 PM
2) As a CCW holder--would I be justified in using deadly force when confronted with a perp with a taser?

As to the OP's question my opinion would be yes, you would be justified in using deadly force in my state. That's the thing though, it's going to be a state by state issue depending on the self defense laws.

Texas law:

Sec. 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON. (a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another:

(1) if the actor would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.31; and

(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:

(A) to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or

(B) to prevent the other's imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.

I would argue that a "reasonable person" would believe those crimes listed were imminent if a taser was employed by a bad guy. First you will be tasered, then a victim of : aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.

Why else would a criminal tase someone if not to commit one of those crimes? I would think a reasonable person would believe those crimes imminent after a tasing.

Hungry Seagull
June 7, 2009, 07:54 PM
If I Pepper Spray a LEO in Arkansas it's a Misdemeanor. But I will be treated very badly because it's a no no.

If Im confronted with a perp who has taser and is advancing I must draw. Firing? That depends on Perp's actions because in addition to drawing I will be attempting to stay out of 15 feet range of the thing. That is one reason I like to shoot at 7 and 10 yard human police targets center mass. I know I can hit anything closer. But the further out ones are harder to do.

If bad guy is smart he will stop and go away. If not? I guess you all will be reading about us in the news the following morning.

I dont mind a taser hit, but knowing one specific medical condition in the heart I must consider it lethal threat and can back my position in court. The perp with the taser may not know about it.


Upon further reflection, I find it very rare that a crime is committed with a taser, perhaps further digging will be needed.

wyocarp
June 7, 2009, 08:10 PM
My answer is "yes" to both.

TAB
June 7, 2009, 08:30 PM
1 yes
2 depends on state law, in CA it would be yes.

SHvar
June 7, 2009, 11:09 PM
If you point a non-lethal weapon made and proven to completely disable a human, at a policeman, you are escalating the level of force required to contain the situation to deadly force, there wouldnt be a court in the country to say otherwise. The policies of every law enforcement agency in the country agree with this. These policies are written by high priced lawyers who discuss these policies in court and approve them with judges.
Any attempt to use a weapon, non-lethal or lethal on a LEO on duty automatically fall under the policy that says you are "attempting to cause physical injury that might reasonably lead to anothers death", self defence shooting on their part.
The act alone of taking a taser or pepper sray from a LEO who is carrying a firearm, is justification for them to use deadly force on you.
No opinion about it, its a common policy taught to all LEOs, that policy has been upheld in court thousands of times.

taprackbang
June 8, 2009, 12:22 AM
"...try to fry a LEO and they will fire on you and face no repercussions or charges."

That is kind of a disturbing thought. The fact that LEOs appear to be 'above the law' these days, you cannot fight back against a rogue cop. These types do exist, contrary to what you hear.
Police are not infallible...
But I would never advise taking anything off of a LEO's person. That would even ring true of a civilian.

usmarine0352_2005
June 8, 2009, 04:09 AM
.
A taser is not a "non-lethal" weapon, it's a less-lethal one. PLENTY of people have died as a direct result of being tasered.

I also think it would be fair to assume that the BG de-jour isn't going to taser you for your own good.



First part is partially correct.


Yes, if you take an officers Taser at them, most are justified by their policy to shoot you.

Some people who have died after being Tasered. None have actually died from the Tasering itself.

Taser has been sued roughly 80 times and never lost one wrongful death lawsuit. People who have died after being Tasered have been found to have excited delirium, high on drugs or pre-existing medical conditions.

.

usmarine0352_2005
June 8, 2009, 04:19 AM
That is kind of a disturbing thought. The fact that LEOs appear to be 'above the law' these days, you cannot fight back against a rogue cop. These types do exist, contrary to what you hear.
Police are not infallible...
But I would never advise taking anything off of a LEO's person. That would even ring true of a civilian.



What???????



You attempt to kill a police officer, he defends himself and kills you instead and he's the one who's "above the law"?


I'd think that most people on this site believe in self defense, no matter who you are.


This post disturbs me.

.

Riss
June 8, 2009, 05:35 AM
Not sure if tap rack read the other post clearly. IF someone is going to attack a police officer, and INCAPACITATE him there is no reason to believe that he would not also take the officers gun and kill him. A police officer shooting someone coming at him with a taser is absolutely justified. And I would have no problem doing it myself.

SHvar
June 8, 2009, 11:40 AM
Yes, there has never been a case against the use of a taser where the operator lost. There have been very few deaths after the use of a taser, the instances were as mentioned from those on seriously dangerous levels of illegal drugs, etc.
A taser or stun gun effect the neuro-muscular system in that immediate area, they do not effect the heart or even a pacemaker.
You are in far more not using am AED (advanced emergency defibulator), or having one used on you, than by being stunned by a taser. AEDs can seriously burn body parts with metal piercings, Ive heard of those with nipple piercings no longer having something to pierce afterwards.
Attempting to use a weapon, lethal, less than lethal, non-lethal, incapacitating, etc makes you a threat to the LEOs life, it is reasonably believed that you may inflict death or serious bodily harm to them in the process or afterwards, why else would you try it?
Even if you dont, you face a much longer sentence in prison for threatening that officers life.

mgkdrgn
June 8, 2009, 11:54 AM
.
Some people who have died after being Tasered. None have actually died from the Tasering itself.
.


So, it was just "their time"? If they hadn't been taserd they would have spontaneously dropped dead anyway?

Unlawful death lawsuits were not my concern. My concern is the nearly universal thought that a taser is a "non-letal" weapon and the use of it can not result in a death. That is simply not true.

Hungry Seagull
June 8, 2009, 11:58 AM
I believe that sometimes when in time of great stress or action, the human body fails as a machine to support the life of the actor. Whatever outside force or power is imposed upon that actor's body is going to determine the outcome.

Death isnt a expected outcome, but it IS a possible outcome.

I have seen strong men do great things in time of crisis only to drop dead shortly after because they never knew of a heart problem, brain bleed or some thing that is only discovered post-autotopsy.

But to stand there and let a person taser you without doing anything about it while carrying a handgun or weapon, most certianly it MIGHT really, really result in death, injury etc. TO YOU.

Only gamblers roll the dice. The rest call thier shots as they see it.

The one weakness of the C2 taser model is once you shoot your probes, that's it. You have either stun mode or dump, reload fresh probe cartidge into the taser. I think the X26 has a 4 shot magazine and those carried by LEO's offer features more useful for close tatical arrest situations such as shorter frying time etc.

Hospital Defibs and other devices that impose a strong shock onto a person are those used by doctors for specific purposes. You might get hit... twice or three times. Usually that's it.

There is one thing that really angers me as a person. I once read a book about how concentration camp victims were hung against a wet concrete wall that is constantly kept wet. Electric current is introduced into the victims swinging against that concrete wall.

There was a picture showing hand prints impressed into the concrete itself, by the hundreds or thousands who have swung and fried against it trying to push away but only making better contact with thier hands.

Electric power can be used for good or bad. Which way are you gonna use it?

DeepSouth
June 8, 2009, 12:05 PM
If I have a gun and an attacker has a taser, then as far as I'm concerned he has a gun. If he tases me, he will have my gun.

So for me Taser = Gun.

I don't know the legality of the matter, and in that situation, I wouldn't care, time to preserve my life, then repeat "I need a lawyer present" after every question asked.

docfubar
June 8, 2009, 01:20 PM
A lot of people say tasers are a non lethal form, they are a LESS Lethal. LESS. It still has lethal in the name, it is just saying that they are LESS deadlier than say a gun. Less lethal still means there is a chance of you dying.
OC is less lethal. The documented cases of death are not as high as a taser but I bet there are some.

Deus Machina
June 8, 2009, 03:23 PM
You're entitled to use deadly force if you are victim of an attempt to kill you or cause severe bodily harm. I consider debilitating convulsions severe harm, don't you? Not to mention the taser-er could do anything they want to you in the next few minutes.

As for the OC spray, yes, there are a few cases. Asthma, allergic reactions, or simple over-inflammation, that the user had no way of knowing about before.

usmarine0352_2005
June 8, 2009, 06:10 PM
.
So, it was just "their time"? If they hadn't been taserd they would have spontaneously dropped dead anyway?

Unlawful death lawsuits were not my concern. My concern is the nearly universal thought that a taser is a "non-letal" weapon and the use of it can not result in a death. That is simply not true.
mgkdrgn is offline



Tasers are not non-lethal. There less then lethal.

When it comes to other less-then-lethal tools have actually killed others. People have taken shotgun beanbag rounds to the head or at close range and died (which is why your not supposed to aim for the head or to close in proximity), people have been killed by baton strikes.



Remember what I said about the people who have died after being tased?

People who have died after being Tasered have been found to have excited delirium, high on drugs or pre-existing medical conditions.



HCMC in Minneapolis, MN has one of the highest rates of survival if you get taken there in an emergency.

They had 12 cases of Excited Delirium last year. (No Taser used). Each person was taken to the hospital alive. Each one died.

It was basically taught to us that if you find someone who has excited delirium that within 24 hours of the onset of it they will die.

.

usmarine0352_2005
June 8, 2009, 06:20 PM
.
So, it was just "their time"? If they hadn't been taserd they would have spontaneously dropped dead anyway?

Unlawful death lawsuits were not my concern. My concern is the nearly universal thought that a taser is a "non-letal" weapon and the use of it can not result in a death. That is simply not true.
mgkdrgn is offline



Tasers are not non-lethal. There less then lethal.

When it comes to other less-then-lethal tools have actually killed others. People have taken shotgun beanbag rounds to the head or at close range and died (which is why your not supposed to aim for the head or to close in proximity), people have been killed by baton strikes.



Remember what I said about the people who have died after being tased?

People who have died after being Tasered have been found to have excited delirium, high on drugs or pre-existing medical conditions.



HCMC in Minneapolis, MN has one of the highest rates of survival if you get taken there in an emergency.

They had 12 cases of Excited Delirium last year. (No Taser used). Each person was taken to the hospital alive. Each one died.

It was basically taught to us that if you find someone who has excited delirium that within 24 hours of the onset of it they will die.

.

SHvar
June 8, 2009, 11:35 PM
In fact, proven by medical professionals, there has never been a single death caused by an electronic body imobilizer or taser that is approved for LEO use.
A proven fact, many times when the excited perp is restrained, still high, still excited, angry, etc regardless of his actual physical condition, something as simple as sitting in a confined space (back seat of a cop car, or restrained in a chair, etc can cause positional asphyxia (not positive if spelled right, lol). The body relaxes after a traumatic experience and the bodys own weight and mass causes the victim to stop being able to breath and die. This is what kills when someone is crucified.
In fact the most common way a perp dies after a struggle with LEO and are restrained is this.
Nothing to do with the taser itself which only leaves temporary chemical reaction marks that disappear in hours.
When you are gaining qualification to use an EBID on someone else you must have it used on you, that way you know what it actually does to a human.
A taser has never killed anyone, period. This is why after a struggle the perp must be taken to the hospital or have medical observation for a period of time, sometimes 24 hours.

Grey_Mana
June 9, 2009, 06:45 PM
If I were on a jury, I would convict such a cop of manslaughter if the person had died. Presuming that the cop was grossly negligent in letting the person get control of the taser, then the cop contributed materially to the death of that BG.

Shooting somebody about to taser you? Good shoot.
Somebody dying because they got ahold of your taser/gun/car? Your fault.

30mag
June 9, 2009, 07:10 PM
Aren't baseball bats non-lethal weapons?

shdwfx
June 9, 2009, 07:30 PM
If I were on a jury, I would convict such a cop of manslaughter [...] Presuming that the cop was grossly negligent in letting the person get control of the taser, then the cop contributed materially to the death of that BG.
[...]
Somebody dying because they got ahold of your taser/gun/car? Your fault.

That's an incredible statement - shocking really.

Officers are not super heroes. They don't posses the hulk's strength or have jedi reflexes, yet you expect to fault them if a perp over-powers and disarms them?

Officers are killed every year with their own weapons.
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/killed/2007/index.html

To generally fault the officers is obtuse.
Your statement, sir, is in error.

Hungry Seagull
June 9, 2009, 07:35 PM
Oh great. Lead pipes and baseball bats. Sure. Let's deploy it over here.

Taser man stands here. He fries the bat and pipe crew and then beats them to a pulp.

No, a bat can kill you if you let it. Someone rushes you with a bat or pipe, that is agg battery with intent and you are going to need martial art or something fast to counter such a strike.

If you had a gun or taser, you can end it right there. If all you had are fists and feet... eh, dont go down like a good victim.

Believe me YOU dont WANT to take a blunt hit from a pipe, bat or whatever. I used to haul coil and pipe was our favorite fighting weapons, 6 feet long, one inch bore with a thick material of strong metal. We use them to bind down breakers on chain for the coils.

If I attacked you with a pipe that big you will need a taser or gun to end it, unless you are trained in a hand to hand fighting of some sort and have the mental and physical skills to disarm me without need for a weapon.

The worst hit I took was from a horse. I took a shoe off a hoof on my torso and breathing was... difficult in that field for a few minutes. It was possible I may not live to walk off that farm at the end of the workday or any day.

No Bats and pipe are weapons. Especially if you attack someone who appears to be unarmed.

I remember my Sensei regarding bats. He said they make big circle to step into to get inside the user of the bat. Easy solve the problem once inside. For him maybe. Not for jabba the forum reader like me.

30mag
June 9, 2009, 08:31 PM
My point being that an alleged 'non-lethal' weapon (bat was a bad example.. how about a baton?) is still a weapon.
i.e. if someone was running at you with the intent to use a nonlethal weapon (baton, taser) I would think that would be a justifiable homicide.

HIcarry
June 9, 2009, 08:51 PM
...A taser or stun gun effect the neuro-muscular system in that immediate area, they do not effect the heart or even a pacemaker.
You are in far more not using am AED (advanced emergency defibulator), or having one used on you, than by being stunned by a taser. AEDs can seriously burn body parts with metal piercings, Ive heard of those with nipple piercings no longer having something to pierce afterwards...

Not sure what you're trying to say, but used correctly AEDs (and that's "Automated External Defibrilator") do not cause the type of burn (actually caused by electrical arching when, in the instance you mention, the pads are placed on conductive articles) but rather usually mild reddening where the patches were placed. That being said, I think most would rather have those minor burns than be dead....just a guess though.

usmarine0352_2005 has it correct. There are instances of this excited delerium (a debatable diagnosis in medical circles BTW) resulting in death with and without a TASER involved.

Rellian
June 9, 2009, 08:58 PM
In fact, proven by medical professionals, there has never been a single death caused by an electronic body imobilizer or taser that is approved for LEO use.

I am curious as to your source. That is an extremely broad and yet absolute statement. Where did you come across this piece of very telling information?

WC145
June 9, 2009, 09:29 PM
I've had the opportunity to "ride the lightning" (never heard it called being fried) and I can tell you that cops don't "fry each other all the time for fun". It hurts like hell and it isn't any fun, plus there's rules against that kind of crap. Playing games like that is a great way to get canned.
However, as with OC spray, we get to experience the effect in training so that we can better understand how the tool works and how we respond to it personally. I know that if I am sprayed with OC or shot with a taser, the effect is debilitating enough that I may be unable to defend myself or protect my firearm(s). The supposition is that if someone attempts to "taze" me or spray me with OC then their intent is to disarm me and use my firearm(s) against me and others. That's where I get my justification for using deadly force.

ChaoSS
June 9, 2009, 09:35 PM
http://politics.healthdiaries.com/list-of-taser-deaths-over-the-past-two-months.html

May not always be direct deaths.

HIcarry
June 9, 2009, 09:52 PM
http://politics.healthdiaries.com/li...wo-months.html

May not always be direct deaths.

Correlation and causation are two different things....

SHvar
June 9, 2009, 11:38 PM
Using a baseball/softball bat for its intended purpose it is not a weapon, but if you wield it as a weapon or for the purpose of harming and or intimidating others, it is a deadly weapon. If someone wields a bat as a weapon a cop will shoot them, no questions asked.
Not one judge or jury in this country would question the real intentions of the individual with the bat.
Many objects can be use das weapons, in fact most people are murdered with screwdrivers, knives, and blunt household objects, etc, but they are not weapons when used properly.
In law enforcement your weapon is to protect yourself or others, the options of less than lethal, non lethal force are to protect the perp and others if the situation allows for it.
If the perp tries to take and or use any weapon from you he/she is automatically raising the level of force required to control the perp. If the individual is using a weapon they intend to either escape, harm themselves, the LEO, or others, no other reason. If they try to use a weapon of any kind they force the LEO to legally use deadly force in that situation, but if the situation allows for no lethal force to be used, it can be an option.
There is no what ifs, or "well I wouldnt agree", its about life an death.

ChaoSS
June 10, 2009, 12:30 AM
Correlation and causation are two different things.... They absolutely are, and often times the taser did not kill someone alone, but there were already circumstances that put the person in danger, and the tazer pushed them over the edge and death resulted. Maybe the tazer didn't technically kill the person, but if the tazer wasn't used, the person would still be alive.

Tazers should be lethal force alternatives only. If I am charging a cop with a knife, a tazer is a perfectly acceptable tool to stop me. If I am not threatening someone, however, but simply am refusing to cooperate with the police, a situation where lethal force would not be acceptable, a tazer should not be either. It's use could lead to my death, and as we said, lethal force is unacceptable. In a situation where the cop is simply impatient to force me to comply, he can not know if there are any other circumstances that would contribute to the tazer killing me.

WC145
June 10, 2009, 09:34 AM
Tazers should be lethal force alternatives only. If I am charging a cop with a knife, a tazer is a perfectly acceptable tool to stop me. If I am not threatening someone, however, but simply am refusing to cooperate with the police, a situation where lethal force would not be acceptable, a tazer should not be either. It's use could lead to my death, and as we said, lethal force is unacceptable. In a situation where the cop is simply impatient to force me to comply, he can not know if there are any other circumstances that would contribute to the tazer killing me.

You charge with a knife, you will be shot. The taser isn't there to replace the gun where the gun is the appropriate tool.

The taser is another step in the force continuum, an option like other "less lethal" choices. I don't know how long you think I should wait for you to comply but, frankly, I'm not out there to play games and have a stand off with every joker that doesn't feel like going to jail. At the same time, I'm not going to go hands on if I don't have to. My job is not to wrestle with people, I am paid to enforce the law and that often entails taking people into custody which necessarily carries a certain amount of risk, HOWEVER, I am not paid to take unnecessary risks. Like OC spray, the taser option is there to help me gain compliance and control quickly with minimal risk to me and my "customer".

If you choose not to comply you open the door to a number of possible methods to force you into compliance. Generally, the choice is yours, if you choose to peacefully submit to arrest it's easy for all concerned. On the other hand, if you choose some other avenue and escalate the situation steps will be taken to assure your compliance, although, if there is time, you will be warned, usually numerous times before being "tased" or sprayed, giving you one last chance to change your mind. You always choose how it's going to go.
Fight your fight in the court, not on the street, on the street you will lose every time.

Rellian
June 10, 2009, 12:14 PM
a situation where lethal force would not be acceptable, a tazer should not be either. It's use could lead to my death, and as we said, lethal force is unacceptable. In a situation where the cop is simply impatient to force me to comply, he can not know if there are any other circumstances that would contribute to the tazer killing me.

I was told (I studied EE in College) that 33 volts at 1/10 of an amp (basically .3 watts) can be lethal if applied to the right area in the body.... namely the heart. That is enough to stop it cold. There are numerous factors both technical and physiological that make the tasers usable on humans without too much worry of permanent damage (a person of reasonable health and body weight really does not have much to fear). But the truth is where most tasers operate in the six watt range average power, (peak can get up into the 100,000 watt range), you are talking more than enough power to kill (if the right conditions happen to fall into place). Hence while they are not likely to be lethal, the possibility does exist.

Rellian
June 10, 2009, 12:16 PM
I mean this is part of the safety warnings on most taser guns:

TASER® Electronic Control Devices (ECDs) for citizens are weapons designed for lawful selfdefense or defense of others by incapacitating a person from a reasonably safe distance while reducing the likelihood of serious injuries or death. Though they have been found to be a safer and more effective alternative when used as directed to other traditional selfdefense use-of-force tools and techniques, it is important to remember that the very nature of self-defense, use of force and physical confrontation or incapacitation involves a degree of risk that someone will get hurt or may even be killed due to physical exertion, unforeseen circumstances and/or individual susceptibilities.

Green Dragoon
June 10, 2009, 04:08 PM
If you hit a LEO with a Taser he is out of the fight and you can get his weapon and use it on him. By the very nature of your actions you are a threat to the LEO life.

HIcarry
June 10, 2009, 04:16 PM
Tazers should be lethal force alternatives only. If I am charging a cop with a knife, a tazer is a perfectly acceptable tool to stop me. If I am not threatening someone, however, but simply am refusing to cooperate with the police, a situation where lethal force would not be acceptable, a tazer should not be either. It's use could lead to my death, and as we said, lethal force is unacceptable. In a situation where the cop is simply impatient to force me to comply, he can not know if there are any other circumstances that would contribute to the tazer killing me.

I disagree. As WC145 mentioned, they are, and rightfully should be, a part of the force-escalation below the use of deadly force.
If you have a medical condition, such as asthma of COPD, the use of MACE or pepper spray MAY be lethal to you; if you have atherosclerosis of the carotid artery, a choke hold MAY be lethal to you; if the bean-bag round hits you in the head, it MAY be lethal; if you inadvertently get struck in the head with a baton, it MAY be lethal; and if you have cardiomyopathy, a hands-on physical confrontation MAY be lethal as well. Yet all of these (with the possible exception of the choke hold for some agencies) are apparently OK with you? So, using your logic, because some intervention below lethal force MAY cause death in some individuals those options should be removed for use by LEOs? So, now we have the situation where these less-than-lethal options are removed and the officer is forced to move much more quickly up the force continuum to lethal force. Yeah, that'll save a lot more lives....

30mag
June 10, 2009, 06:22 PM
A TASER is a less-lethal defense.
I agree with HIcarry.
If a situation calls for lethal force, I'm reaching for a weapon that will handle the situation appropriately.

(My friend's dad always say, "Bring enough gun." My friend now owns a .338 win mag.)

Hungry Seagull
June 10, 2009, 08:22 PM
I watched a vid the other night where a raving maniac of a homeowner was really, really, really pushing, provoking the LEO's surrounding his home past the point of no return and really thought he's going to get blasted and killed.

A officer broke from the pack and advanced on the man with a 870 I figured Im about to watch this man die. SWAT was on the other side just bristling with all kinds of lethal guns and on the verge of storming the mad man.

The Officer with the pump shotgun fired at close range and the man falls down, it turned out to be bean bags and they hauled the maniac into custody the hard way. Trussed like a hunted animal.

If the Maniac had seen the one officer with his pump instead of being focused on keeping SWAT at bay.... I dont know what would have happened.

It's kind of hard to be one maniac against a whole police force of a town for hours. You get tired after a while.

Rellian
June 10, 2009, 09:07 PM
So, using your logic, because some intervention below lethal force MAY cause death in some individuals those options should be removed for use by LEOs? So, now we have the situation where these less-than-lethal options are removed and the officer is forced to move much more quickly up the force continuum to lethal force

A very valid point, but the Taser should not be looked upon as a replacement for the more lethal gun either.

There have been several posts in this thread that imply Tasers have never contributed to the death of someone. One post even came right out and said it was proven without siting the source ( :scrutiny: )
I think they are a valuable tool in the spectrum. But they are not as panaceic as some would say. They (like anything else) can be dangerous. The thing that I took from ChaoSS statement was this should not be a quick fix for lazy cops to subdue anyone and everyone. (Unfortunately some LEOs will treat it as such) I think it places the need for a modicum of restraint on cops.
That being said I also think that if you are acting in a belligerent and threatening manner then by all means you need to be dealt with by whatever force is needed to subdue your flagrant @$$. (Unfortunately some will see the actual perp as the victim) I can't change that.
It's the misconceptions I have a problem with. Tasers are less-lethal than guns (possibly less-lethal than batons) and therefore can be employed at a lower threat level, yet...... they do, and have, contributed to deaths by their usage. Just something that should be kept in mind.

SHvar
June 11, 2009, 12:01 AM
First of all the wattage does not kill a human or animal, the amperage kills. Its takes a very small amount of amperage to kill you, but the taser or a EBID only have around .0001 amps, nowhere near enough to harm you. The only people who the taser or an EBID have a health warning for are those with a specific neuromuscular disorder, multiple sclerosis. The reason is for uncontroled tremors produced in that specific area.

"I am curious as to your source. That is an extremely broad and yet absolute statement."
What Im saying is exactly how I worded it, NO HUMAN HAS EVER DIED FROM THE DIRECT EFFECTS OR USE OF A TASER OR EBID. These devices cannot effect your breathing, circulation, your heartbeat, or your brain, they purely effect your neuromuscular system immediately in that area.
Ive had these things used on me, Id rather have them used on me than OC (pepper spray), but then again I have allergies and asthma (inherited).
The classes we have to take in order to stay current on training, and to use EBID/tasers you get the most up to date information.
"Not sure what you're trying to say"
Among the many classes we have to take to as a part of our job we have a class on the AED, the first warning given by experienced medical professionals about the use of AEDs, if the victim has any piercings that you know of remove them, or the area of skin with the metal piercing will be burnt, and possibly gone. So think about the amount of piercings individuals get in all manner of places. Im sorry but saving your life is more important than worrying about you losing a nipple or worse yet, genitals if you have them pierced. The unfortunate side effect of burnt piercing locations was found out by hospitals and paramedics over time.
If you try to take a taser, or pepper spray or use them on any LEO, you deserve what you get, natural selection will prevail, you will be dead or wish that you were.
By the way the force continuom starts with the LEO presence, it moves to control techniques, next to EBID/taser and OC (pepper spray), next for those with the option is chemical weapons (CS gas), next to physical strikes (punch, kick, elbow, etc), next to the use of a baton, and last to deadly force. Keep in mind most LEOs only have certain options, and are not there for perps to beat on or to see how much they can be pushed. The idea is to control the situation, and get things back to normal fast, also for the LEO to make it home to their family unhurt, and alive, not to allow you to fight with them.
All deaths caused by the use of force or restraints in the history of modern law enforcement are the result of positional asphyxia, this is where you get worked up and your body comes down eventually, you die from your body weight and mass relaxing on your diaphram, this is not the result of the force used on you. In fact people die every day falling asleep sitting up from the same reason, usually you would wake up if you stop breathing though. Most of these deaths are from the individual who was just erratic and fighting, juiced up, now is restrained to prevent harm to himself or others, the position of the body if not laying down can result in positional asphyxia.
OC and tasers do not kill, they are not lethal to mumans. In fact 500,000 volts in a specialty stungun is not dangerous. LEO approved taser and or EBID are only 50,000 volts. Heck my wifes stungun is 100,000 volts.
Regardless of how much you question or argue this, the taser has never killed anyone, and noone who has been tasered or an EBID used on them has ever died from the device or its electric shock.

Spreadfire Arms
June 11, 2009, 01:31 AM
in Austin, TX, a few years ago, Austin PD Officer Julie Schroeder was involved in a physical struggle against an 18 year old suspect, Daniel Rocha.

during the struggle, Schroeder's taser fell off of her holster. she believed Rocha had taken it from her and was about to use it on her partner officer.

Schroeder shot and killed Rocha. turned out Rocha never had the taser, it had fallen off her belt and onto the ground.

Schroeder was fired by APD, but no-billed by the Travis County Grand Jury. so in Travis County, case law has already been set forth that if an officer reasonably thinks you took their taser they can use deadly force.

remember, the Grand Jury only takes into consideration what a reasonable officer would believe. they believed that she actually thought Rocha had her taser and was about to use it against a 3rd person. Rocha in fact never picked it up, and was shot and killed.

food for thought.

ChaoSS
June 11, 2009, 05:08 AM
WC145, your post makes you sound like the type of cop who uses his tazer and excessive force so you don't have to do your job properly.

I'm sorry if this is offensive, but there was a time when cops were real men. These days some of the cops I see out there are real nancy boys who are going to have no choice but to use a possibly lethal tazer in any physical confrontation. They should never be allowed to call themselves cops.

If the cop is the arm of the law, he should be able to perform that duty without using what often amounts to dangerous force, he (or often she) should not be given the job.

If I standing off against two cops, and shot one of them with a tazer, they would consider it sufficient provocation that the second cop would feel justified in shooting (with a real gun). They need to be consistent and consider the tazer what it is, a dangerous tool that should be used to end a dangerous situation, not a tool for lazy cops to use to torture people into submission.

SHvar
June 11, 2009, 12:26 PM
For anyone who questions the choice of any LEO to use force (lethal, or less than lethal) in order to make sure that they get home alive, and healthy, you need to place yourself in their shoes. LEOs get sued all of the time, 99% of these suits are frivilous, and many times dont even involve the correct LEO, the correct day, the correct time, location, and sometimes the correct state, but this is normal for the "tough guy" perp who takes advantage of our legal system and our taxes (which many of them never paid a cent).
It is better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6. These days the "Nancy boy" criminals roaming the streets carry and use guns, knives, all manner of weapons, and are infected with dangerous diseases that can infect and cripple or kill you (some with very little contact or indirect contact).
If the criminals act in a way that causes LEOs to have to change how they do their job and to use higher levels of force, then society needs to wake up and fix the problem where it starts, not wait until the problem becomes an adult felon.
By the way strikes (elbow, fist, kicks, headbutts, knee strikes, etc) are far more dangerous to a human than and EBID/taser, or OC are, this is why strikes against the individual are placed higher on the continuom, STRIKES CAN AND DO CAUSE DEATHS TO PEOPLE ON A DAILY BASIS, it doesnt take much, ask a paramedic or doctor.
The fact is that the LEO was justified in using deadly force when the criminal (notice I said criminal, yes, criminal acts make you a criminal) attempted to incapacitate the officer which could lead to that criminal inflicting death or serious bodily harm to another person.
Before you give an opinion against the use of tasers, or defending against them by LEOs, put yourself in their shoes, in that situation, until then, put up or shut up.

WC145
June 11, 2009, 03:17 PM
Posted by ChaoSS-
WC145, your post makes you sound like the type of cop who uses his tazer and excessive force so you don't have to do your job properly.

I'm sorry if this is offensive, but there was a time when cops were real men. These days some of the cops I see out there are real nancy boys who are going to have no choice but to use a possibly lethal tazer in any physical confrontation. They should never be allowed to call themselves cops.

If the cop is the arm of the law, he should be able to perform that duty without using what often amounts to dangerous force, he (or often she) should not be given the job.

If I standing off against two cops, and shot one of them with a tazer, they would consider it sufficient provocation that the second cop would feel justified in shooting (with a real gun). They need to be consistent and consider the tazer what it is, a dangerous tool that should be used to end a dangerous situation, not a tool for lazy cops to use to torture people into submission.

ChaoSS,

Sorry it has taken me so long to get back to you, I've been busy zapping old women and pepper spraying little kids waiting at school bus stops. Tough job but someone has to do it.

Obviously, you have no idea as to the meaning of a force continuum. When I'm faced with someone that does not want to comply I don't meet resistance with equal resistance. I respond with the amount of force necessary to overcome the resistance. That means that I don't waste my time exchanging words or blows. There are times when going hands on is appropriate, or using a baton, or OC, or a taser. What I do is up to my discretion and I make that decision based on my training and experience plus a miriad of other factors - location, traffic, number of suspects, the crime or violation, etc, etc.

Now, so you know, any force is "dangerous force" (as you put it). Any time I have to go hands on with someone there's a risk of injury or death to both of us. That's the reason for the development of tools like OC spray, Mace, and the taser. They allow me options to overcome your resistance while minimizing the possiblity of serious injury.

Since we're referencing the taser in this thread, I'm going to tell you a secret. Getting shocked with a taser sucks, it hurts like a SOB, trust me, I know, like I said earlier, I've tried it. Here's the secret - it sucks for exactly 5 seconds. That's how long the shock lasts and when it is over, it is over, no residual pain or spasms, it's just like turning off a light - no more juice running through the bulb. Of course, if you decide to start resisting again I'll give another 5 second ride and I'll do that as many times as it takes to get you to cooperate but each time it's over, it's over. This is one of the things that makes the taser such a useful tool, and a very humane way to gain compliance, much more so than beating someone into submission or spraying them so that they choke and puke and burn and are blinded until I decide to decontaminate them. And often when you spray someone they keep fighting so you still end up wrstling them to the ground and pepper spray gets all over both of you.

Also, my taser discussion only applies to police tasers, you'll probably be surprised to know that the civilian tasers have a 30 second shock time and can "rezap" up to 50 times on a charge. That's 25 minutes of near continuous electricity if you keep pushing the button. Hmm, I wonder which one has more potential for torture and abuse.... 5 secs.... 30 secs.... I'm sure you an figure it out. Plus it comes in pink for non-LEO Nancy Boys.

Two more things-

1. If you're stupid enough to get into a stand off with two cops and you shoot one with a taser you deserve to be shot. Also, if you shot him with his police issue taser I'd shoot you because it has two sets of probes. If we were both incapacitated what would keep you from further disarming us and murdering us with our own weapons.

2. I do not carry a taser. I have tried it out in training so that I would understand how debilitating it is and now I understand that if faced with someone wielding a taser I will not underestimate the gravity of the situation. My concern is not being "tased" (I know it's not going to kill me) but what may happen while I am incapacitated.

I suggest that, so you may better understand what you're talking about, you go find someone that will let you experience the effect of a taser for yourself. Then perhaps next time a subject comes up that you don't know anything about you might think before you start typing.

Sincerely,
WC145
Your friendly neighborhood, 250lb, kempo instructor, former kickboxer, nancy boy cop.

ChaoSS
June 11, 2009, 05:48 PM
I understand the concept just fine. I have no problem with the idea. In fact, I think that police officers should be permitted to use the same force that a civilian can (after all, you volunteered for the job, if I'm in a situation where I'm being threatened, I didn't have a choice in the matter). Thus, you should be able to use whatever force is reasonably necessary to defend yourself (or others in the area)

Some drunk guy is standing in his yard, waving a knife around. There's no one close enough for him to injure. (I'm assuming a yard like my own, fenced in, just to make things simple) He's yelling about how the "mother ******* who took my job" are going to pay for it. Most cops that I've met would probably taze the guy, or use some other form of "less lethal" force to bring him down. The question is, is that really necessary? Is it really reasonable to use force that could kill the guy (if you hit him with a tazer or knock him over with a bean bag round, he could fall on his knife) when he really isn't an immediate threat to anyone? It seems many police are all too ready to use force that is unnecessarily dangerous because they don't feel like waiting for a peaceful resolution to the problem.

It's the same principle as cops who execute a SWAT style raid on a house where drugs are being sold, when it would often be more prudent to wait for the guy to come out and arrest him outside the house. Instead, they execute a dangerous raid that sometimes leads to people being killed.

Let me demonstrate why I don't like your attitude toward police work:
1. If you're stupid enough to get into a stand off with two cops and you shoot one with a taser you deserve to be shot. Also, if you shot him with his police issue taser I'd shoot you because it has two sets of probes. If we were both incapacitated what would keep you from further disarming us and murdering us with our own weapons. Lethal force may or may not be appropriate here, it depends on the situation, so I'm not arguing that. What I am saying, is that police officers consider it enough of a threat that they would respond with lethal force, thus, they should treat their own tazer usage with the same respect.

It's interesting to note, however, that you say that anyone that stupid deserves to be shot. That kind of judge dredd attitude needs to go.

2. I do not carry a taser. I have tried it out in training so that I would understand how debilitating it is and now I understand that if faced with someone wielding a taser I will not underestimate the gravity of the situation. My concern is not being "tased" (I know it's not going to kill me) but what may happen while I am incapacitated.

Why not? I even acknowledge it has a place, and you have been hailing it as a highly useful tool. What if there's a drunk out in his yard with a gun? Someone that irresponsible probably deserves some jail time, probably shouldn't be allowed guns, but does he deserve to die for that act of indiscretion? Probably not. So what are you going to do, gun him down? Or maybe you'll just kempo him into submission.:cool:

WC145
June 11, 2009, 06:09 PM
You know what, you're right. We shouldn't do anything but stand by until whatever is driving these people runs it's course. The guy in the yard with a knife- he's bound to fall asleep eventually, no chance of him injuring himself or turning on others, never mind how much distance he can cover and how much damage he can do in a matter of seconds (familiar with the Tueller Drill?). Drug dealers should be left alone when at home, we'll just pick them up on their way out to the store so that the shoot out can take place in the front yard where there's more chance for collateral damage. And when you decide to get into a stand off with a couple of cops we'll just let you shoot us with the taser so that while we're incapacitated you can kick the crap out of us, take our guns and murder us, and then go on whatever other spree you have planned with your new found armament. After all, that's what we're being paid for.

By the way, I didn't say that ANYONE stupid deserves to be shot, I said that if you're stupid enough to get into a stand off with two cops and shoot one with a taser you deserve to be shot. Big difference, that's not randomly shooting stupid people, that's Darwin's theory at work.

Anyway, when you decide you to put on a badge and show the rest of us how it's done you come back and tell me how I should be doing my job. Until then you should stick to whatever it is that you do and stop commenting on things you don't know anything about.

ChaoSS
June 11, 2009, 06:21 PM
I hope you are smarter than this in real life. Cops with severely limited reading and comprehension skills are the reason so many raids get carried out on the wrong houses.

There's no reason why you can't stand by and wait until wait until they guy is no longer a threat. (Hell, maybe his friend, or his wife will show up, and knows how to deal with him when he's drunk)

Most people leave their house at some point, and could easily be dealt with say, when they are leaving the store and coming back to their car. I'm sure you could find a time when he's not carrying a gun, and if approached properly, probably won't be stupid enough to draw a gun if he has one. On the other hand, kick in someone's door and you are just asking them to shoot back at you. I know, I know, it's more fun to go put on the ninja wear and use those big fancy guns.

And I never suggested that you should just let someone shoot you with a tazer. I'm just suggesting that you should apply the same standards to yourselves.

And again, your choice of words reveals your attitude. Is it necessary to shoot someone and kill them sometimes? Yes. But the attitude that they just deserve to die is where you go wrong. That's not your decision, that is the decision of the courts. If you have to kill someone to save your life, then I don't hold it against you. You just have the wrong attitude going into it.

30mag
June 11, 2009, 06:39 PM
I hope you are smarter than this in real life. Cops with severely limited reading and comprehension skills are the reason so many raids get carried out on the wrong houses.
If you are of such superior intelligence, why do you misspell:
they should treat their own tazer usage with the same respect.
TASER.

Second:
There's no reason why you can't stand by and wait until wait until they guy is no longer a threat. (Hell, maybe his friend, or his wife will show up, and knows how to deal with him when he's drunk)
Some drunk guy is standing in his yard, waving a knife around...he really isn't an immediate threat to anyone
What if there's a drunk out in his yard with a gun? Someone that irresponsible probably deserves some jail time, probably shouldn't be allowed guns

Your choice of words reveals your intelligence.
Are you a cop?

WC145
June 11, 2009, 07:47 PM
You've got me beat ChaoSS. I can't compete with that kind of "living in Mom's basement and leading a fantasy life online" kind of logic.
Good luck out in the real world, I hope it isn't too much of a shock. Of course, that's assuming you ever get there.

bigger hammer
June 11, 2009, 10:20 PM
Tazers should be lethal force alternatives only.

No jury that's heard a case agrees with this assessment.

If I am charging a cop with a knife, a tazer is a perfectly acceptable tool to stop me.

I disagree. One does not use less–lethal force against someone who's using deadly force.

It's use could lead to my death

So could wresting you to the ground. So far no jury has ruled that any death has been due to the taser.


In a situation where the cop is simply impatient to force me to comply, he can not know if there are any other circumstances that would contribute to the tazer killing me.

Impatient? LOL. The longer it takes to get you into custody, the more chance there is that someone, you included, can be injured. Don't like it? Don't put yourself into situations where you resist arrest or detention. If you do, expect that the officer will take you into custody as efficiently as possible. That means, among other things, without injury to himself.

bigger hammer
June 11, 2009, 10:21 PM
Some drunk guy is standing in his yard, waving a knife around. There's no one close enough for him to injure. (I'm assuming a yard like my own, fenced in, just to make things simple) He's yelling about how the "mother ******* who took my job" are going to pay for it. Most cops that I've met would probably taze the guy, or use some other form of "less lethal" force to bring him down. The question is, is that really necessary?

How long are you going to stand around waiting for him to voluntarily drop the knife? At some point it become obvious that he's not going to. Next he'll start walking towards one of the neighbor's homes. You can't evacuate the entire city and so at some point, since he won't volunteer to put down the knife, you have to make him.

Is it really reasonable to use force that could kill the guy (if you hit him with a tazer or knock him over with a bean bag round, he could fall on his knife) when he really isn't an immediate threat to anyone? It seems many police are all too ready to use force that is unnecessarily dangerous because they don't feel like waiting for a peaceful resolution to the problem.

How long is it reasonable to wait. You're going to tie up several officers with such a call, and the longer it goes on, the longer the rest of the city does not have police service. On a big city this won't make much difference. On a small city you could have the entire shift dealing with this.

It's the same principle as cops who execute a SWAT style raid on a house where drugs are being sold, when it would often be more prudent to wait for the guy to come out and arrest him outside the house. Instead, they execute a dangerous raid that sometimes leads to people being killed.

Except for the fact that often it's not just one guy selling the drugs. So waiting for him to come out just means that others have plenty of time to dispose of the evidence.

Lethal force may or may not be appropriate here, it depends on the situation, so I'm not arguing that. What I am saying, is that police officers consider it enough of a threat that they would respond with lethal force, thus, they should treat their own tazer usage with the same respect.

Here's where your argument falls apart. Police regard the situation as one where it's reasonable to believe that the person tasing them will take their firearm and kill them. That's NOT the case with the police officer tasing the suspect.

Why not? I even acknowledge it has a place, and you have been hailing it as a highly useful tool. What if there's a drunk out in his yard with a gun? Someone that irresponsible probably deserves some jail time, probably shouldn't be allowed guns, but does he deserve to die for that act of indiscretion? Probably not. So what are you going to do, gun him down? Or maybe you'll just kempo him into submission.

One does not use "less lethal" force against a threat that is exhibiting deadly force. A Taser is not the appropriate tool for this job.

bigger hammer
June 11, 2009, 10:22 PM
I hope you are smarter than this in real life. Cops with severely limited reading and comprehension skills are the reason so many raids get carried out on the wrong houses.

And the rudeness and insults just keep a–coming. The "reason so many raids [actually the number is VERY small] get carried out on the wrong houses" is that police departments keep making the same mistake, hiring human beings. I doubt that there are many other industries that have as low an error rate.

There's no reason why you can't stand by and wait until wait until they guy is no longer a threat. (Hell, maybe his friend, or his wife will show up, and knows how to deal with him when he's drunk)

How long is reasonable to wait? And what should we do when he decides to take the act on the road and starts walking down the street?

ChaoSS
June 12, 2009, 04:58 AM
You've got me beat ChaoSS. I can't compete with that kind of "living in Mom's basement and leading a fantasy life online" kind of logic.
Good luck out in the real world, I hope it isn't too much of a shock. Of course, that's assuming you ever get there. Sarcasm and insults. Good to know Maine's finest has such a good defense for his actions defending our way of life.

No jury that's heard a case agrees with this assessment. No jury has ever convicted OJ of killing a woman either. Doesn't mean it didn't happen.

I disagree. One does not use less–lethal force against someone who's using deadly force. One uses the necessary force. Granted, in certain circumstances, a gun may be appropriate. If a cop is surprised by someone who jumps at them with a knife, it may be a faster reflex to draw with their gun than with the taser (tazer is just as good a spelling) that is strapped to their weak side. This is why I changed my example, start with the drunk ranting and raving in his front yard.

You asked a couple of times how long it is reasonable to wait. Honestly, you wait however long is needed, but it won't be long. Situations do not tend one way for long, unless it's the sort of professional hostage situation that you really only see in the movies. In my example, the guy is going to go one of two ways. Either the fresh air is gonna sober him up enough that he realizes what he's doing, and he defuses the situation himself. Otherwise, he escalates the situation, and becomes a threat to others. For example, he starts walking toward the people outside the fence, still brandishing the knife. This is where it becomes a real threat, and the police taze him.
Impatient? LOL. The longer it takes to get you into custody, the more chance there is that someone, you included, can be injured. Don't like it? Don't put yourself into situations where you resist arrest or detention. If you do, expect that the officer will take you into custody as efficiently as possible. That means, among other things, without injury to himself. That depends. Are we talking about an active struggle? Because that is a situation where someone is being threatened. But that's not always the case. I've seen cases where a cop told someone to get down on the ground, and the person refused, so the cop gave him the juice. He wasn't threatening anyone, he just wasn't quite ready to accept the fact that he was going to jail. That kind of acceptance can take a minute.

Let me give you a personal example. I was once arrested by a cop when I had done nothing wrong. (I know, I know, everyone says that, but the DA threw my case out the case, and the cop had been harassing me, I could have sued them if I'd had any sort of recorder running during my various encounters with him.) So here I am, being arrested, and feeling that I have done nothing to deserve this, a thought echoed by many people, regardless of real guilt or innocence. I know I don't have the money to post bail, and I know full well that if I miss much work, I'm going to lose my job, and there's no way I can get anything nearly as good as it. Obviously, it's not logical to resist arrest, and I didn't. But I can tell you, there is an overwhelming urge to do so, and the way that most cops go about it escalates the situation to where most people will want to resist. Cops should be trying to de-escalate the situation, not escalate it themselves.

Except for the fact that often it's not just one guy selling the drugs. So waiting for him to come out just means that others have plenty of time to dispose of the evidence.
Do it my way, and no one will even think to flush the evidence. Arrest one guy away from home, tell him it's for his burnt out headlight, whatever. He calls someone to arrange bail, and suddenly you have at least one more out of the house with no struggle.

One does not use "less lethal" force against a threat that is exhibiting deadly force. A Taser is not the appropriate tool for this job. Actually, a taser might be a more effective weapon, if it is possible to use it then. Someone who is sufficiently impaired might be able to get a round or two off after being shot with conventional weapons, whereas someone hit with a taser should not be able to do anything.

And the rudeness and insults just keep a–coming. The "reason so many raids [actually the number is VERY small] get carried out on the wrong houses" is that police departments keep making the same mistake, hiring human beings. I doubt that there are many other industries that have as low an error rate. Yeah, but there's a difference. When I make a mistake at work, I don't go kicking someone's door in and point a gun at them. My boss yells at me, and I fix it. The fact is that cops are human, and they do make mistakes. They do shoot people who are doing nothing wrong because they think they were reaching for a gun. They break into the wrong houses sometimes and kill completely innocent people. They make mistakes just like I do, but their mistakes can have much more significant consequences, which is why they should work to de-escalate a situation rather than to escalate it.

bigger hammer
June 12, 2009, 08:16 AM
Earlier I wrote, (referring to the statement that Tasers have killed) No jury that's heard a case agrees with this assessment.

No jury has ever convicted OJ of killing a woman either. Doesn't mean it didn't happen.

The civil jury that heard the OJ case found that he killed a woman AND a man.

AND there have been scores of wrongful death suits alleging that the Taser killed people, not just two as with the OJ case. That puts OJ at 50% and the Taser at 0.00%.

Earlier I wrote, I disagree. One does not use less–lethal force against someone who's using deadly force.

One uses the necessary force.

LOL. yes, I know. and less lethal is inappropriate against deadly force. The fact that a few have done so does not change this.

Granted, in certain circumstances, a gun may be appropriate. If a cop is surprised by someone who jumps at them with a knife, it may be a faster reflex to draw with their gun than with the taser (tazer is just as good a spelling)

Actually it's not. "Taser" is the copyrighted name of a product. It should be capitalized and spelled as they do, just like with someone's name.

that is strapped to their weak side. This is why I changed my example, start with the drunk ranting and raving in his front yard.

A gun is "appropriate" when deadly force is justified. This is the case with a person holding a knife if the officer reasonably thinks the person will try to stab him and the distance is close enough that it's reasonably possible.

You asked a couple of times how long it is reasonable to wait. Honestly, you wait however long is needed, but it won't be long.

Pretty vague especially since time is relative. Ten minutes is an eternity if someone is trying to hold their breath. That's why I asked for a specific time rather than the fuzzy "however long is needed." Let's be more specific. Is one hour reasonable? Five? Ten? Keep in mind that for a small city this might tie up the entire shift.

Situations do not tend one way for long, unless it's the sort of professional hostage situation that you really only see in the movies.

Again, pretty vague.

In my example, the guy is going to go one of two ways. Either the fresh air is gonna sober him up enough that he realizes what he's doing, and he defuses the situation himself. Otherwise, he escalates the situation, and becomes a threat to others. For example, he starts walking toward the people outside the fence, still brandishing the knife. This is where it becomes a real threat, and the police taze him.

The Taser is still not the appropriate tool for the situation you describe. Hopefully the police will have evacuated the people surrounding the scene but as I also said, you can't evac the entire city. A police Taser has a range of about 26 feet. That's very close to the distance that a person can cross and become a deadly threat to the officer. The bottom line is still the same. A Taser is not an appropriate tool against any kind of deadly force.

Earlier I wrote, Impatient? LOL. The longer it takes to get you into custody, the more chance there is that someone, you included, can be injured. Don't like it? Don't put yourself into situations where you resist arrest or detention. If you do, expect that the officer will take you into custody as efficiently as possible. That means, among other things, without injury to himself.

That depends. Are we talking about an active struggle? Because that is a situation where someone is being threatened. But that's not always the case. I've seen cases where a cop told someone to get down on the ground, and the person refused, so the cop gave him the juice. He wasn't threatening anyone, he just wasn't quite ready to accept the fact that he was going to jail. That kind of acceptance can take a minute.

I have seen many instances where people were given commands repeatedly and refused. THEN they were told one last time. When they refused to comply, they were Tased. Looking at the dozens of dashcam videos out there NEVER have I seen one where a person was immediately Tased after being given a command once. Can you show us one?

Earlier I wrote, Except for the fact that often it's not just one guy selling the drugs. So waiting for him to come out just means that others have plenty of time to dispose of the evidence.

Do it my way, and no one will even think to flush the evidence. Arrest one guy away from home, tell him it's for his burnt out headlight, whatever. He calls someone to arrange bail, and suddenly you have at least one more out of the house with no struggle.

The law (here at lest) requires that an arrested person be told the reason for their arrest. Lying to them about this is a violation, especially if it's at the "call a bondsman" stage. But even if it's OK in your jurisdiction, removing one more person from the house doesn't empty the place out.

Earlier I wrote, One does not use "less lethal" force against a threat that is exhibiting deadly force. A Taser is not the appropriate tool for this job.

Actually, a taser might be a more effective weapon, if it is possible to use it then. Someone who is sufficiently impaired might be able to get a round or two off after being shot with conventional weapons, whereas someone hit with a taser should not be able to do anything.

Shooting someone with a Taser does not guarantee instant incapacitation. Sometimes one probe misses. They're not nearly as accurate as firearms and we know that police often miss with them. Even if both probes stick, sometimes they don't work. AND perhaps most importantly, the distance for reliable use for a Taser is far less than for firearms. Merely approaching someone close enough to use the Taser puts the user at risk.

Earlier I wrote, And the rudeness and insults just keep a–coming. The "reason so many raids [actually the number is VERY small] get carried out on the wrong houses" is that police departments keep making the same mistake, hiring human beings. I doubt that there are many other industries that have as low an error rate.

Yeah, but there's a difference. When I make a mistake at work, I don't go kicking someone's door in and point a gun at them. My boss yells at me, and I fix it. The fact is that cops are human, and they do make mistakes. They do shoot people who are doing nothing wrong because they think they were reaching for a gun.

The mistake was made by the person reaching for something. The police officer did the right thing in these cases.

They break into the wrong houses sometimes and kill completely innocent people. They make mistakes just like I do, but their mistakes can have much more significant consequences, which is why they should work to de-escalate a situation rather than to escalate it.

Making a mistake (as we're discussing here – hitting the wrong house) has nothing to do with escalation or de–escalation. You're mixing two situations.

SHvar
June 12, 2009, 11:38 AM
Wow, school is definitely out.
Im not going to bother until this kind of BS is done.
Chaos, you said.
"you say that anyone that stupid deserves to be shot"
But what he said was nowhere near the same.
"If you're stupid enough to get into a stand off with two cops and you shoot one with a taser you deserve to be shot".
This converstaion has eroded to stupidity, at least on the side of the criminals defense.

DHJenkins
June 12, 2009, 12:18 PM
I'd just like to point out, as someone who has been tased, that a hornet or scorpion sting not only hurts more but lasts longer.

It's not a guillotine, for god's sake. You get shocked, you drop, you're in a squad car, it's over. No bruising, No bleeding, No broken bones, No dislocated shoulders, no stinging eyes for hours - what could be more 'kid gloves' than a taser?

I mean, the last time I checked, the police aren't being issued pillow cannons.

usmarine0352_2005
June 12, 2009, 02:30 PM
.
See ChaoSS posts?


Please don't feed the troll.

.

ChaoSS
June 12, 2009, 04:06 PM
Bigger Hammer, a taser can absolutely be the appropriate level of force against lethal force, especially against a knife. Cops should be allowed to do what they must to stay alive, yes, but at the same time, they are police, not judge dredd.

If a taser were only effective as a means of forcing compliance, they would not be sold to civilians.

As to the "wait it out" policy, I know I am being ambiguous. What is the appropriate amount of time to wait in a hostage situation? There is no set amount of time.

Fortunately, this sort of situation is different. These things happen when someone is highly emotional or impaired, and those states have a tendency to escalate or de-escalate quickly. I'd love to give you statistics on it, but the police don't like to wait, they prefer to escalate the situation as quickly as possible. To me, it seems better to tie up two officers for a longer period of time than to possibly kill a guy when you taser him and he falls on his own knife. After all, it may be a volatile situation, but he really hasn't committed any crime (other than possibly some bs disturbance citation.

The point is that police are far to ready to use their tasers to torture people into submission (As evidenced by the police who used their tasers to extract a DNA sample) and they are far too ready to escalate a situation that does not need to be escalated.

DHJenkins
June 12, 2009, 04:17 PM
Tasers don't escalate a situation. They end them.

ChaoSS
June 12, 2009, 05:03 PM
Tasers don't escalate a situation. They end them. Yeah, sometimes permanently.

bigger hammer
June 12, 2009, 06:08 PM
Bigger Hammer, a taser can absolutely be the appropriate level of force against lethal force, especially against a knife.

I'm sorry but you're wrong. Police officers have the right and the obligation to use enough force to overcome that used by the suspect. That means MORE force than he's using. A Taser has never been classified as deadly force by anyone except Amnesty International and a few other nutballs. A knife, clearly is deadly force.

An officer may make a personal decision to use a Taser against someone who's armed with a knife but unless he has armed backup immediately present, he's a fool. OR he's one of those who isn't capable of taking a life and doesn't belong on the job.

Cops should be allowed to do what they must to stay alive, yes

They are.

but at the same time, they are police, not judge dredd.

I think you've made this "Judge Dredd" comment several times now. I must tell you, it's a bit silly. The classic line from this movie is "I am the law." No right thinking police officer thinks that "he is the law." But he has every right AND an obligation to other officers present, to the public and his family, to use deadly force when it's used against him. .

If a taser were only effective as a means of forcing compliance, they would not be sold to civilians.

Tasers are sold to citizens because there's a demand for them and so the company made them available. USUALLY it has nothing to do with "forcing compliance, USUALLY they're sold to people who want to defend themselves against crooks but are afraid of guns or their jurisdiction won't allow them to carry one. They're a poor second choice for self-defense if one has the ability to carry a gun.

As to the "wait it out" policy, I know I am being ambiguous. What is the appropriate amount of time to wait in a hostage situation? There is no set amount of time.

Thanks for making my point.

Fortunately, this sort of situation is different. These things happen when someone is highly emotional or impaired, and those states have a tendency to escalate or de-escalate quickly.

Either you're inexperienced in these matters, you're just guessing or you're playing Devil's advocate. The accurate statement is that "SOMETIMES these situations have a tendency to escalate or de–escalate quickly." It's best if the police have a plan to fit both situations. Yours only covers the short term.

I'd love to give you statistics on it, but the police don't like to wait, they prefer to escalate the situation as quickly as possible.

Again the first sentence in my last paragraph applies. One more option, as another poster has said, you're just a troll who's here to be a nuisance, but I've given you the benefit of the doubt, and I have the spare time. LOL. Quite simply you're wrong. I'd guess you've been watching too much TV if this is what you think.

To me, it seems better to tie up two officers for a longer period of time than to possibly kill a guy when you taser him and he falls on his own knife.

Oh boy, you really like to go for the least possible situation just to make it fit your argument don't you? Let's try it this way. There have been hundreds of thousands of people Tased since police have been using Tasers. Thousands of them have been holding knives. I've never heard of one even sustaining a slight cut, much less falling on the knife and dying. Since you seem to be in love with this scenario, I'll ask you show us even one instance of it happening.

After all, it may be a volatile situation, but he really hasn't committed any crime (other than possibly some bs disturbance citation.

He's brandished the knife in the presence of police officers. In most jurisdictions, that's a felony and he could be shot for it.

The point is that police are far to ready to use their tasers to torture people into submission (As evidenced by the police who used their tasers to extract a DNA sample)

I’m not familiar with this incident. Got a link? But even if you do, you've managed to generalize one incident and have applied it to all police. That's just inane.

and they are far too ready to escalate a situation that does not need to be escalated.

Another generalization.

bigger hammer
June 12, 2009, 06:09 PM
Tasers don't escalate a situation. They end them.

Yeah, sometimes permanently.

There have been at least 80 lawsuits for wrongful death against Taser and not one jury has agreed with you. They've heard the facts from both sides of the discussion. You have not. I'll place more weight on their judgment than yours.

Repeating something that's been shown to be wrong over and over again just diminishes your credibility.

DHJenkins
June 12, 2009, 06:25 PM
Yeah, sometimes permanently.

And 'sometimes' I can hit a strike bowling backwards through my legs.:rolleyes:

I think instead of "sometimes" you should be using the words "vary rarely".

I'd rather be tased than hit with the 8% OC I carry in my truck for uppity homeless people.

I'd rather be tased than hit with the 5-cell maglite I keep in my truck.

I'd rather be tased than hit with the aluminum baton that's under my couch.

I'd rather be tased than hit with the ASP I'm probably not supposed to have.

In short, I would rather have been tased than involved in a physical altercation with the 5 officers from 3 jurisdictions it took to put me on the ground using all of the above.

I was a 'bad guy' once because I was stupid kid with something to prove, and through personal improvement and the help of my wife, I have become what's considered an 'upstanding citizen'. I haven't had so much as a ticket in a decade.

I believe I deserved everything that happened to me, including being hog-tied and carried into the 'tank like a suitcase.

Had I been tased, everything would have ended much earlier, I would have had less physical damage, and my legal bill would have been less than $8k.

My advice to you is to grow up. Your arguments are based not on experience or logic, but ignorant idealism. Spend some time in the real world, then maybe you can offer an informed opinion instead of your unrealistic, ideological drivel.

30mag
June 12, 2009, 08:17 PM
TAZER is NOT a word.

TASER is an acronym.

You obviously don't know what you're talking about Chaos.

Bigger Hammer, a taser can absolutely be the appropriate level of force against lethal force, especially against a knife. Cops should be allowed to do what they must to stay alive, yes, but at the same time, they are police, not judge dredd.


Anyone acting in self-defense CAN be judge, jury and executioner under US law. So, they may not be 'Judge Dredd', but they sure as heck can be in certain situations.

Sarcasm and insults. Good to know Maine's finest has such a good defense for his actions defending our way of life.

Hey, why are you complimenting him? Oh, you were using sarcasm (or sarcazm as I like to spell it sometimes) to insult him.. but weren't you just saying that.. oooh.

Actually, a taser might be a more effective weapon, if it is possible to use it then. Someone who is sufficiently impaired might be able to get a round or two off after being shot with conventional weapons, whereas someone hit with a taser should not be able to do anything.

Or a more retarded weapon.. ammo capacity:
9mm: 10-18
.45: 7-13
12 gauge:4-8
.357:5-6

TASER: 1-2

I don't know how long it takes to reload a TASER, but if you miss.. well... good luck.


If a taser were only effective as a means of forcing compliance, they would not be sold to civilians.
Elaborate? Umm.. I think we call this a non sequitur..?
What the heck else is a TASER useful for?

ChaoSS
June 12, 2009, 09:17 PM
I'm sorry but you're wrong. Police officers have the right and the obligation to use enough force to overcome that used by the suspect. Correct.That means MORE force than he's using.Incorrect. If I attack a cop with, say, a flame thrower, or a missile launcher, that doesn't mean that they have to come in with a missile of their own, when a sniper will do just fine. Force that is sufficient to put someone down is sufficient to defuse any amount of force, whether it is a knife or nuclear weapon. The reason I don't encourage the use of tasers against someone attacking police with a gun is because of the taser's inferior range and capacity. If tasers could be developed to where their range, accuracy, rate of fire, and capacity matched that of a firearm, I would advocate taking guns away from the police. (For those who don't like that, I would point out wrongful shootings. Even one is enough to justify my point of view. A Taser has never been classified as deadly force by anyone except Amnesty International and a few other nutballs. A knife, clearly is deadly force. Again, it's deadly force, but when you pit a taser against a knife, the taser wins because of it's superior range.

I think you've made this "Judge Dredd" comment several times now. I must tell you, it's a bit silly. The classic line from this movie is "I am the law." No right thinking police officer thinks that "he is the law." But he has every right AND an obligation to other officers present, to the public and his family, to use deadly force when it's used against him. . The Judge Dredd comment is not so much a reference to "I am the law" so much as it is to the way cops like to kill people when it's not really necessary. The law may say that it is acceptable, but it is often not necessary. I truly believe that many deaths could be avoided if police were to change their tactics.

Look at the recent case of the guy who killed two cops, they chased him to his house (or his girlfriend's house, i don't remember) and he killed two more before they got him. I don't think they used excessive force there, or did anything wrong. (Although they may have been careless, I don't know) The point, however, is that this sort of entry, which is used for drug dealers and other petty criminals, is dangerous both to the police and to nearby innocents. The police are going into somewhere where they are at a disadvantage, they are going into someone's home. To compensate, they use overwhelming force. This can often mean that someone's reflexive reaction, which may not be anything dangerous at all, can get them killed.

It would be much safer for everyone involved if the police were to use different tactics. The militarized "us vs them" mindset is simply wrong, whether it's legal or not.

Either you're inexperienced in these matters, you're just guessing or you're playing Devil's advocate. The accurate statement is that "SOMETIMES these situations have a tendency to escalate or de–escalate quickly." It's best if the police have a plan to fit both situations. Yours only covers the short term.Ok, so have another plan. But the way things work now, hit em hard and hit em fast, even if no one is really being threatened, simply leads to more injuries and deaths.

Oh boy, you really like to go for the least possible situation just to make it fit your argument don't you? Let's try it this way. There have been hundreds of thousands of people Tased since police have been using Tasers. Thousands of them have been holding knives. I've never heard of one even sustaining a slight cut, much less falling on the knife and dying. Since you seem to be in love with this scenario, I'll ask you show us even one instance of it happening.
The fact is that it's a possibility, a risk that should not be taken when it's not needed.
He's brandished the knife in the presence of police officers. In most jurisdictions, that's a felony and he could be shot for it. The law is not always in the right. If he has not threatened anyone, there is no excuse for allowing the execution of the person.
I’m not familiar with this incident. Got a link? But even if you do, you've managed to generalize one incident and have applied it to all police. That's just inane. Happy to oblige. The cops screwed up the first DNA sample, and so got another warrant for it. The suspect refused to give the sample, and so the officers, instead of having the suspect held in contempt of court for as long as needed (a perfectly viable alternative) they used the taser to force him to comply. We don't even treat prisoners of war like that.
http://www.buffalonews.com/home/story/692141.html

Another generalization. Yes, it is a generalization, but I'm really only trying to generalize a group of cops that fits the generalization. (which is far too many)

I've met cops who were genuinely good people, cops who don't deal with BS, but they don't give it to you either. I've met cops that came at you with the attitude that makes you want to work with them, and I've met cops that give you the overwhelming urge to beat them to a pulp. Many of these cops do it intentionally, I've seen it in their eyes. I've had cops harass me, try to find a reason to arrest me (one cop was so good as to inform us that she was holding us until she could find a reason to arrest us, 5 hours later she let us go when she couldn't find a reason), and when they can't find a reason to take you down, they do their best to intimidate you into giving them a reason. These are the cops that need to be kept on a short leash. The good cops, most of them use their tasers when it is appropriate, not when they feel like inflicting pain on someone or are too lazy to do their job.

ChaoSS
June 12, 2009, 09:23 PM
DH Jenkins, I'm not trying to get rid of tasers completely. If you were fighting with the cops, if you were a danger to them, it's different. I'm tired of cops using tasers on people who simply refuse to lay down, but aren't a threat, people who are cuffed but still pushing around (but no longer a threat) etc.

WC145
June 12, 2009, 10:21 PM
Bigger Hammer, SHvar, DHjenkins, 30mag -
You guys are all doing an admirable job of trying to talk sense into ChaoSS but it's a waste of time, like trying to describe colors to a blind person (no offense to any blind people out there:)). I suggest you just give up. Besides, it's late and he'll have to go to bed soon. If you guys have the energy, I'm sure he'll be posting before school tomorrow morning.

ChaoSS
June 12, 2009, 11:04 PM
Oh look, WC145 made another funny. Good to see your comic skills aren't as bad as your debate.

I know you, as a cop, think that you guys are always right. But the fact is that police overuse of power is on the rise in a dramatic way. The police are abusing their authority way too much now, and it needs to end.

bigger hammer
June 13, 2009, 09:36 AM
Earlier I wrote, That means MORE force than he's using.

If I attack a cop with, say, a flame thrower, or a missile launcher, that doesn't mean that they have to come in with a missile of their own, when a sniper will do just fine.

You're confusing "level of force" with how that force is delivered. The two have no connection. The highest level of force available to a police officer is deadly force. It makes absolutely no difference how it's delivered.

The reason I don't encourage the use of tasers against someone attacking police with a gun is because of the taser's inferior range and capacity. If tasers could be developed to where their range, accuracy, rate of fire, and capacity matched that of a firearm, I would advocate taking guns away from the police. (For those who don't like that, I would point out wrongful shootings. Even one is enough to justify my point of view.

If there was something that guaranteed stopping ability and gave the same or better range and accuracy than a gun, I'd advocate dumping guns too. I WISH we had Star Trek Phasers that could be "set to stun." Some day the technology will be there. Right now it isn't.

Earlier I wrote, A Taser has never been classified as deadly force by anyone except Amnesty International and a few other nutballs. A knife, clearly is deadly force.

Again, it's deadly force, but when you pit a taser against a knife, the taser wins because of it's superior range.

Never been faced by anyone with a knife I’m betting. Someone armed with one who is determined to do you harm will do so if you get within Taser range.

Earlier I wrote, I think you've made this "Judge Dredd" comment several times now. I must tell you, it's a bit silly. The classic line from this movie is "I am the law." No right thinking police officer thinks that "he is the law." But he has every right AND an obligation to other officers present, to the public and his family, to use deadly force when it's used against him.

The Judge Dredd comment is not so much a reference to "I am the law" so much as it is to the way cops like to kill people when it's not really necessary.

The bounds of good taste and the fact that this is the High Road forum prevent me from responding appropriately. But I will say that this is one of the stupidest things I've ever heard here.

The law may say that it is acceptable, but it is often not necessary. I truly believe that many deaths could be avoided if police were to change their tactics.

Ah, a tactical expert. Please, pray tell where you come by this expertise?

Look at the recent case of the guy who killed two cops, they chased him to his house (or his girlfriend's house, i don't remember) and he killed two more before they got him. I don't think they used excessive force there, or did anything wrong. (Although they may have been careless, I don't know)

I'd guess that you're talking about the recent incident in Oakland. It's interesting that you know all the details of this incident when (I'd bet some pretty good money) you weren't there and you DON'T know all the facts. Instead, you've ASSUMED many and then JUMPED to many conclusions.

The point, however, is that this sort of entry, which is used for drug dealers and other petty criminals [Emphasis added]

You think that a drug dealer is a "petty criminal?" In every state "dealing drugs" is a felony. I think this shows us quite a bit about how you think.

is dangerous both to the police and to nearby innocents.

Police work is sometimes dangerous. There are necessary risks involved. How is this dangerous "to nearby innocents?" Or is this another of your "it could happen" scenarios?

The police are going into somewhere where they are at a disadvantage, they are going into someone's home. To compensate, they use overwhelming force. This can often mean that someone's reflexive reaction, which may not be anything dangerous at all, can get them killed.

Yep sometimes we have to go into dangerous places; homes, businesses, dark alleys, overflowing rivers, buildings that burglars have broken into, banks that are being robbed. It's part of the job. "Overwhelming force" is a good thing. It's a good way to ensure success and minimizes danger to both the officers and the civilians involved. Do you think just one officer should stroll in casually?

It would be much safer for everyone involved if the police were to use different tactics. The militarized "us vs them" mindset is simply wrong, whether it's legal or not.

And here we have the absurd, "militarization of the police" argument again. ROFLMAO.

Earlier I wrote, Either you're inexperienced in these matters, you're just guessing or you're playing Devil's advocate. The accurate statement is that "SOMETIMES these situations have a tendency to escalate or de–escalate quickly." It's best if the police have a plan to fit both situations. Yours only covers the short term.

Ok, so have another plan. But the way things work now, hit em hard and hit em fast, even if no one is really being threatened, simply leads to more injuries and deaths.

Far better to let the poor felons go home to their mommies because it's too dangerous to take them into custody. Maybe we should put sedatives into their low fat yogurt and wait for them to fall asleep!?

Earlier I wrote, Oh boy, you really like to go for the least possible situation just to make it fit your argument don't you? Let's try it this way. There have been hundreds of thousands of people Tased since police have been using Tasers. Thousands of them have been holding knives. I've never heard of one even sustaining a slight cut, much less falling on the knife and dying. Since you seem to be in love with this scenario, I'll ask you show us even one instance of it happening.

The fact is that it's a possibility, a risk that should not be taken when it's not needed.

"It's a fact that it's a possibility" that a meteoroid could fall from the sky and hit you in the head.

Back to reality – I noticed that you COULD NOT show such an event occurring. I'll dare to say that it never has. But we know of many incidents where police officers and civilians (used here to mean non–police officers) HAVE been stabbed by people with knives.

Earlier I wrote, He's brandished the knife in the presence of police officers. In most jurisdictions, that's a felony and he could be shot for it.

The law is not always in the right. If he has not threatened anyone, there is no excuse for allowing the execution of the person.

LOL. In this case the law IS in the right. Brandishing a knife in the presence of a police officer means that the person will have an even greater likelihood that he'll do it in the presence of civilians. Therefore the law here makes it a felony. Doing so with a knife, a potentially lethal weapon, means that the police officer can use deadly force to stop this person from approaching him or anyone else. It's not called an execution except by the same nutballs who think that a Taser is deadly force.

Earlier you wrote, The point is that police are far to ready to use their tasers to torture people into submission (As evidenced by the police who used their tasers to extract a DNA sample)

And I responded I’m not familiar with this incident. Got a link? But even if you do, you've managed to generalize one incident and have applied it to all police. That's just inane.

Happy to oblige. The cops screwed up the first DNA sample, and so got another warrant for it. The suspect refused to give the sample, and so the officers, instead of having the suspect held in contempt of court for as long as needed (a perfectly viable alternative) they used the taser to force him to comply. We don't even treat prisoners of war like that.

Yasee there is no right for someone in some cases (and this is obviously one of them or the court would not have granted the order) to refuse, no matter what the circumstances) to give a DNA sample. Officer have the right to use force if the suspect resists. In this case if such force had been used, he'd have been injured, perhaps seriously. You characterization of the use of the Taser to subdue him as "torture" is just another "Amnesty International" nonsense statement. ONLY his lawyer, and you, call it that. but then lawyers like to throw the term around, it makes them money.

As far as "waiting him out …" That might take years. He knows that he's guilty of the crime and that the DNA will show it beyond all doubt so this is just a game. Meanwhile witnesses are dying, moving away, forgetting key facts, etc. There's an old saying that "Justice delayed is justice denied." This is an prime example of it.

but I'm really only trying to generalize a group of cops that fits the generalization. (which is far too many)

One is far too many. But the incidence of such people is hardly limited to police. There are FAR MORE lawyers, judges, plumbers, doctors, taxi drivers and just about any other classification that you'd care to name, than police officers, in jail. None of those others go through the background check, physical qual test, psychological testing and the rest, that police officers do.

I've met cops who were genuinely good people, cops who don't deal with BS, but they don't give it to you either. I've met cops that came at you with the attitude that makes you want to work with them, and I've met cops that give you the overwhelming urge to beat them to a pulp.

Give it a try and see how that works for you. It's great that you've met people that you like and get along with. But it's not a requirement of the job that people like police officers.

Many of these cops do it intentionally,

Some do. I'll be the first admit that just like any profession, there are bad apples. But the number is extremely small. And the number of contacts like this is virtually statistically insignificant. They're newsworthy particularly BECAUSE they are so rare. It's the old "Man bites dog" phenomenon.

I've seen it in their eyes. I've had cops harass me, try to find a reason to arrest me

Perhaps you've missed a memo. Trying to find reasons to arrest people is what police officers do.

(one cop was so good as to inform us that she was holding us until she could find a reason to arrest us, 5 hours later she let us go when she couldn't find a reason), and when they can't find a reason to take you down, they do their best to intimidate you into giving them a reason. These are the cops that need to be kept on a short leash.

I notice that you DID NOT include a description of how this officer used her Taser on you. Did you forget to include it?

It's a fact that now you are merely lumping all incidents of police misuse of force into this discussion that was supposed to be about the Taser.

The good cops, most of them use their tasers when it is appropriate, not when they feel like inflicting pain on someone or are too lazy to do their job.

When you come across a police officer who's used his Taser when it was for the purpose of "inflicting pain on someone or [because they] are too lazy to do their job" be sure and make a personnel complaint. I'd suggest that you also report it to the FBI, the DOJ, the DA's officer and the Attorney General.

bigger hammer
June 13, 2009, 09:38 AM
DH Jenkins, I'm not trying to get rid of tasers completely. If you were fighting with the cops, if you were a danger to them, it's different. [b]I'm tired of cops using tasers on people who simply refuse to lay down, but aren't a threat, people who are cuffed but still pushing around (but no longer a threat) etc.

Here's some news for you, people who are about to be arrested or are being detained for an investigation of a crime and are ordered to lay down ARE A THREAT. Police have people lie down to contain and control them so that they are not injured by them and they don't have to be injured by the police. If they refuse you want to think, probably because you've seen it on TV, that just gently pushing them down makes them comply. The truth is that there's far more chance of them being injured by using physical force to gain compliance than if they get Tased.

Ditto for people who are in cuffs but are still fighting. Many people, usually those with little experience think that someone who has been handcuffed is completely under control. It speaks volumes about what they really know on this subject. Handcuffed persons have killed police officers by grabbing their guns. They've kicked officers, knocking them into the hospital and out of their careers. Merely because the cuffs are on hardly means that they're helpless. AGAIN using physical force to control someone who is actively fighting, even though he's been cuffed can easily result in serious injury to them. Far less chance of that occurring if they're Tased.

Such comments usually come from those who have been in few fights in their lives. Many times I've demonstrated to people who think like you just how difficult it is to handcuff someone who doesn't want to be controlled if you are trying NOT to injure them. NO ONE has ever been able to handcuff me in such demos. If you don't give a darn, it's easy to just beat the cr*p out of them. But if you're trying to prevent injury to them it's very difficult.

bigger hammer
June 13, 2009, 09:39 AM
But the fact is that police overuse of power is on the rise in a dramatic way. The police are abusing their authority way too much now, and it needs to end.

Is it a fact? Please provide support for this statement.

30mag
June 13, 2009, 09:53 AM
It would be much safer for everyone involved if the police were to use different tactics. The militarized "us vs them" mindset is simply wrong, whether it's legal or not.
Is that the mindset you are promoting?
Yes, I think so.
I would advocate taking guns away from the police
And then all citizens right?
Police have training... I imagine the murder rate is probably higher among regular citizens. So, if we're just saving lives here.. oh wait, that doesn't work.. something about the north hollywood shootout as a reference about undergunned police.

BUT, if that is the price we have to pay.. I don't want to pay it!

The police are abusing their authority way too much now, and it needs to end.
Citation needed...
A point isn't true just because you say it is, and THAT is an opinion.

Again, it's deadly force, but when you pit a taser against a knife, the taser wins because of it's superior range.
Or not... because you don't have to reload a knife.
Tueller drill

From the article:
“They have now given the Niagara Falls police discretion to Taser anybody anytime they think it’s reasonable”
Oh, we don't need people being reasonable now...

Even one is enough to justify my point of view.
No, it's not. Because of diminishing returns, marginal utility, and opportunity cost.. anyways, you start doing things like taking guns away from cops, and crime is going to go up. The cost of saving one person's innocent life may be worth five others.

30mag
June 13, 2009, 09:59 AM
Originally Posted by ChaoSS
The law may say that it is acceptable, but it is often not necessary. I truly believe that many deaths could be avoided if police were to change their tactics.
Ah, a tactical expert. Please, pray tell where you come by this expertise?

Yes, please.

The good cops, most of them use their tasers when it is appropriate, not when they feel like inflicting pain on someone or are too lazy to do their job.
Apparently the only time it is appropriate is when someone is running at you with a knife.

Are you done yet?

Neverwinter
June 13, 2009, 10:37 AM
I'd rather be tased than hit with the 8% OC I carry in my truck for uppity homeless people.

I'd rather be tased than hit with the 5-cell maglite I keep in my truck.

I'd rather be tased than hit with the aluminum baton that's under my couch.

I'd rather be tased than hit with the ASP I'm probably not supposed to have.
Let's give you a pre-existing medical condition and see if you feel the same way.

SHvar
June 13, 2009, 11:21 AM
This subject has been beat to death, dead horse, the facts are posted by those who actually know them.
"Let's give you a pre-existing medical condition and see if you feel the same way"
What preexisting medical condition would you have that would make any of the objects listed before less dangerous than a taser. The taser is a lower level of force than striking with any object, and is safer than OC (pepper spray). The only medical condition that could adversly effect you with a taser is MS, its not that its dangerous to you, but can cause unwanted pain/and or suffering.
Strikes of any kind with any object fall under deadly force, or just below deadly force.
Lets look at the facts a baton is deadly force, an asp is deadly force, and a 4 or 5 cell maglite is deadly force when use to strike.

bigger hammer
June 13, 2009, 11:26 AM
I'd rather be tased than hit with the 8% OC …


Let's give you a pre-existing medical condition and see if you feel the same way.

Looks like we have another player who thinks that some "pre-existing medical condition" makes the Taser more dangerous than OC, being hit with a flashlight, baton, or ASP. Please show us some documentation to support this opinion.

30mag
June 13, 2009, 11:47 AM
Let's give you a pre-existing medical condition and see if you feel the same way.

Opinion word: feel
Opinion = not fact
We are not talking about how we feel about TASERs.

TASERs run a charge through the human body between two points. because a TASER is fired from one point, it usually hits one side of a person. Since the TASER does not run a charge through the vital organs, there is no reason that a TASER would kill someone.
The fall is far more dangerous than the shock.

Hungry Seagull
June 13, 2009, 01:06 PM
There are several networks inside the human body. These networks may control muscles that you can issue commands to such as your hand and type.

You can have another network that controls body systems not under your direct control. And finally a sort of combination of the two where you can hold breath for a few moments but you will be overridden and breathing restored after you pass out and fall provided that there is no injury.

A taser is able to deliver a load that will "Jam" anything between two probes. One is where you put it at the dot on the opponet, and the other will be about 7 degrees off center with increasing distance away from probe one up to 15 feet.

Should probes fail, the cartridge can be discarded and you now expose 4 contact points that will deliberately apply pain to the opponet. But you have to close the distance in attack and apply it.

Everything else is emotional, medical, opinion and possibly doctrine when confronted with LEO's or those with guns in various situations.

mgkdrgn
June 13, 2009, 04:04 PM
But the fact is that police overuse of power is on the rise in a dramatic way. The police are abusing their authority way too much now, and it needs to end.

Is it a fact? Please provide support for this statement.


Feel free to ask the Mayor of Aldelphi Maryland. I'm sure he'd be happy to give you all the support you are looking for.

If you can't get him on the phone (probably busy out burying the 2 labs the cops shot) you can use this site for reference:

http://www.cato.org/raidmap/

WC145
June 13, 2009, 06:56 PM
Let's give you a pre-existing medical condition and see if you feel the same way.

I have Wolff-Parkinson-White syndrome, corrected with an EPS and ablation. Also, high blood pressure and asthma. The Taser didn't kill me, I didn't like it, but it didn't kill or even injure me. And, I'd pick being "Tasered" over being sprayed or beaten any day.

ChaoSS
June 13, 2009, 10:55 PM
bigger hammer, I'm done arguing with you. You don't seem to be stupid, so I will assume that you can read my posts and comprehend them, and choose to simply lie about what I said.

I make it quite clear that I don't know everything about a situation, I come out and say I don't know some of what happened, and then you attack me for thinking I know everything about the situation.

You apparently can't comprehend the difference between different types of lethal force. The end result is the same, but the delivery system certainly does affect how you respond to it.

You ask about my expertise in tactics? I'm sorry, I didn't think I needed to give a source for tactical knowledge that has been common knowledge since tactical theoreticians have started writing their theories down. If you can choose the field of battle, you are stupid to fight it on the enemies turf.

Furthermore, you need to pay more attention to the news. It seems every week we hear about the police beating someone when they shouldn't have, or killing someone because they screwed up or just because they responded to a situation wrongly. If you can't be arsed to pay attention to current events, I can't help you, and I won't debate you.

Keep drinking the koolaid, and have fun in the coming police state.

Neverwinter
June 13, 2009, 11:25 PM
I have Wolff-Parkinson-White syndrome, corrected with an EPS and ablation. Also, high blood pressure and asthma. The Taser didn't kill me, I didn't like it, but it didn't kill or even injure me. And, I'd pick being "Tasered" over being sprayed or beaten any day.
One anecdote isn't a good basis for evidence.

I retract any allusion to Tasers being more lethal than being beaten with a nightstick. I didn't find any research articles showing that Taser use is fatal. But I did find this informative article about experiments showing how it is a safe device..
http://spectrum.ieee.org/consumer-electronics/gadgets/how-a-taser-works/3
Another study carried out at our clinic more recently showed that implantable defibrillators and pacemakers function normally after a typical 5-second electric shock from a Taser. It remains to be seen, however, how well such medical devices stand up to repeated or longer shocks.

It is a challenge to relate experiments conducted under controlled laboratory conditions to the vagaries of real life. For one thing, we obtained our results from anaesthetized pigs with ostensibly normal hearts. It's possible that an abnormal or diseased heart--or even a heart under stress or one affected by amphetamines--might be more vulnerable. No one has yet studied the effects of Taser shocks on such hearts, information that is sorely needed to understand what might prove to be the greatest danger from Tasers.

Even so, we were comforted to learn that stun guns do not normally pose any cardiac risk. The full length of the Taser dart tip would have to embed itself into the skin and chest-wall muscle of a relatively small, thin person to get within the range of distances where we found the heart to be most vulnerable. Furthermore, the most sensitive region for the induction of fibrillation covers just a small area. And it is unlikely that two darts would land there.

bigger hammer
June 14, 2009, 01:15 AM
Originally Posted by Originally Posted by ChaoSS
But the fact is that police overuse of power is on the rise in a dramatic way. The police are abusing their authority way too much now, and it needs to end.

And I responded Is it a fact? Please provide support for this statement.

Feel free to ask the Mayor of Aldelphi Maryland. I'm sure he'd be happy to give you all the support you are looking for.

If you can't get him on the phone (probably busy out burying the 2 labs the cops shot) you can use this site for reference:

http://www.cato.org/raidmap/

ROFL. I should have said, please provide "factual" support. The website you provided and statements from the "Mayor of Aldelphi Maryland" is just more opinion. Opinion doesn’t prove anything.

bigger hammer
June 14, 2009, 01:33 AM
zzz

bigger hammer, I'm done arguing with you. You don't seem to be stupid, so I will assume that you can read my posts and comprehend them, and choose to simply lie about what I said.

Calling me a liar is taking "The High Road?" ROFL. I can always tell I've won an argument when my opponent starts name calling. You've run out of logic and reason and this is your last refuge.

I make it quite clear that I don't know everything about a situation, I come out and say I don't know some of what happened, and then you attack me for thinking I know everything about the situation.

I've never attacked you. I've simply asked some questions designed to show you where you've gone wrong and to point out the flaws in your argument. I notice that you failed to answer those questions. You've fallen into the trap that G.B. Shaw was talking about when he wrote, "Let me never fall into the vulgar mistake of dreaming that I am persecuted whenever I am contradicted."

You apparently can't comprehend the difference between different types of lethal force. The end result is the same

The "end result" of a use of deadly force IS NOT always the same. Sometimes people die and sometimes they don't.

but the delivery system certainly does affect how you respond to it.

We're talking about the "Continuum of Force" as used by police administrators to help guide police officers as to how to respond to perceived threats. Various tools are placed on that continuum so that police officers can use whatever is appropriate and at hand. Deadly force is deadly force no matter what "the delivery system"

You ask about my expertise in tactics? I'm sorry, I didn't think I needed to give a source for tactical knowledge that has been common knowledge since tactical theoreticians have started writing their theories down. [quote]

Nice evasion of my very simple and very direct question. After you wrote your opinion that police should "change their tactics," I asked [quote] Ah, a tactical expert. Please, pray tell where you come by this expertise?

And now you avoid answering. I think that makes it a safe bet that you have no training, education or experience in this specialized area. Of course that doesn't stop you from thinking that you know all about it. More than likely your sources include TV and the movies. That and a vivid imagination of what happens in conflicts up to and including deadly ones. I'd think that if you had some training along these lines that we'd have heard about it.

If you can choose the field of battle, you are stupid to fight it on the enemies turf.

Police officers don't get to "choose the field of battle." We have no choice but to "fight on the enemies turf." It's not "stupid" as you so rudely say, it's how police work is done. We go into people's homes because that's where the calls are. We are in the street because that's where cars are driven and that's where we stop them. We serve search warrants at the drug lab because that 's where the evidence is.

Furthermore, you need to pay more attention to the news. It seems every week we hear about the police beating someone when they shouldn't have, or killing someone because they screwed up or just because they responded to a situation wrongly. If you can't be arsed to pay attention to current events, I can't help you, and I won't debate you.

Yep and what we don't hear about is the MILLIONS of contacts where no one is beaten up, even though they deserve it. Or the situations where people could have been killed but because of restraint (including use of a Taser) they weren't. Or where the police responded to a situation properly.

INSTEAD you choose to focus on the very small minority of situations where things go wrong, where mistakes are made and where police, sometimes thorugh error and sometimes purposefully, do the wrong thing. You're a "glass half empty kind of guy" I feel sorry for you. That's a sad way to live.

AGAIN you've missed the point because you didn't answer another question. Instead you chose to answer a question that you wished I'd asked. You had written this, [quote= ChaoSS] But the fact is that police overuse of power is on the rise in a dramatic way. … [Emphasis added]

Clearly you were talking about THE RATE that these incidents occurred and you said that THE RATE was increasing. I merely asked you to support that statement with facts. You've failed to do so.

Keep drinking the koolaid, and have fun in the coming police state.

There is Kool-Aid being consumed in large quantities here. One of us has taken an extremely small percentage of mistakes and wrong–doing and has allowed it to consume them, to the point that they can no longer engage in polite and courteous conversation. Instead they stoop to name calling and think they're being persecuted and assaulted.

Predictions of "police states" in the US have been coming for decades. We have yet to see it. But it makes for nice Internet folly and paranoia.

WC145
June 14, 2009, 06:57 AM
Neverwinter-
Let's give you a pre-existing medical condition and see if you feel the same way.

My response-
I have Wolff-Parkinson-White syndrome, corrected with an EPS and ablation. Also, high blood pressure and asthma. The Taser didn't kill me, I didn't like it, but it didn't kill or even injure me. And, I'd pick being "Tasered" over being sprayed or beaten any day.

Neverwinter-
One anecdote isn't a good basis for evidence.

What do you want? You said pre-existing medical condition and I have three but that's not good enough for you? ***? Evidence is only valid when it supports your side of the argument?

Neverwinter-
I didn't find any research articles showing that Taser use is fatal.

Just as some of us here have been saying all along. It's amazing how facts can undermine an emotional stand. Believing something that is a lie will not make it the truth, no matter how hard you argue it or how passionate your belief.


Here's an offer, it goes out to ChaoSS, Neverwinter, mgkdrgn, and anyone else that believes the Taser is inhumane, kills people, and is simply a torture device. I will be happy to spray you with OC, beat you with a baton, and shoot you with a Taser. When we're all done you can tell me which is the more humane, and which one, if you had to do one over again, you would choose. Then, when this argument comes up again, you can speak from first hand knowledge, instead of spouting reconstituted interweb drivel as though it is fact.

Neverwinter
June 14, 2009, 11:39 AM
What do you want? You said pre-existing medical condition and I have three but that's not good enough for you? ***? Evidence is only valid when it supports your side of the argument?
You're one person. It's unreasonable to generalize one case to an entire group. If I pick up a paper and see Mike Castle sponsoring an anti-gun bill, does it make sense to conclude that all Republicans are anti-gun?

ROFL. I should have said, please provide "factual" support. The website you provided and statements from the "Mayor of Aldelphi Maryland" is just more opinion. Opinion doesn’t prove anything.
There are many alternative reasons for the disparity between the earlier decades and now that aren't caused by militarization of police. If .1% of all police activity results in raiding or death of an innocent, a doubling of police calls could easily explain the following

These 116 results represent
The state of: All
For the years: 2008, 2007, 2006, 2005, 2004, 2003, 2002, 2001 and 2000
And the following types of incidents: Death of an innocent and Raid on an innocent suspect

These 50 results represent
The state of: All
For the years: 1993, 1992, 1991, 1990, 1989, 1988, 1987, 1986 and 1985
And the following types of incidents: Death of an innocent and Raid on an innocent suspect

bigger hammer
June 14, 2009, 02:54 PM
Earlier WC145 wrote, What do you want? You said pre-existing medical condition and I have three but that's not good enough for you? ***? Evidence is only valid when it supports your side of the argument?

You're one person. It's unreasonable to generalize one case to an entire group.

But it's reasonable for you to take the very small percentage of raids gone wrong and apply those errors to purposeful wrongdoing on the part of the police?

After WC145 wrote that he'd prefer to be Tased than hit with a flashlight, baton or ASP you wrote this Let's give you a pre-existing medical condition and see if you feel the same way.

He said that he had three and yet that's STILL NOT GOOD ENOUGH FOR YOU, even though it's exactly what you asked for! Please make up your mind.

Earlier I wrote, ROFL. I should have said, please provide "factual" support. The website you provided and statements from the "Mayor of Aldelphi Maryland" is just more opinion. Opinion doesn’t prove anything.

There are many alternative reasons for the disparity between the earlier decades and now that aren't caused by militarization of police. [Emphasis added]

There is no consensus here or anywhere else that this is occurring.

If .1% of all police activity results in raiding or death of an innocent, a doubling of police calls could easily explain the following

You've made another assumption here. That is that "0.1% of all police activity" (and BTW we're not talking about "police activity" that would include lunch, training evolutions, briefing, and the like. We're talking about raids, and in this thread specifically the use of the Taser.) " results in raiding or death of an innocent …"

I'll say that unless you have FACTS that support this number, that it's too high, placing the rest of your number in doubt.

These 116 results represent

It looks as if you're quoting from something and you've not cited a source. WHAT "116 results?"

These 50 results represent


WHAT "50 results?"

Neverwinter
June 15, 2009, 02:01 AM
But it's reasonable for you to take the very small percentage of raids gone wrong and apply those errors to purposeful wrongdoing on the part of the police?
I've never said anything attributing wrongdoing to police.

After WC145 wrote that he'd prefer to be Tased than hit with a flashlight, baton or ASP you wrote this
Quote:
Let's give you a pre-existing medical condition and see if you feel the same way.
He said that he had three and yet that's STILL NOT GOOD ENOUGH FOR YOU, even though it's exactly what you asked for! Please make up your mind.
It's good enough for him. He's got medical conditions, and is confident enough based on his own experience despite having them. So I was wrong.

You've made another assumption here. That is that "0.1% of all police activity" (and BTW we're not talking about "police activity" that would include lunch, training evolutions, briefing, and the like. We're talking about raids, and in this thread specifically the use of the Taser.) " results in raiding or death of an innocent …" I'll say that unless you have FACTS that support this number, that it's too high, placing the rest of your number in doubt.
I specifically stated police calls. Maybe I should have explained clearer how a constant failure rate can cause a doubling of raiding and death of innocents due to causes outside of the police.

0.001*4000 calls in past years = 4 incidents
0.001*8000 calls in recent years = 8 incidents

It works out the same even if that number is 0.0000000000000000000001

It looks as if you're quoting from something and you've not cited a source. WHAT "116 results?"

WHAT "50 results?"
From that website that I quoted you as having read.

Action_Can_Do
June 15, 2009, 02:09 AM
Police abuse with a piece of equipment will eventually happen. It doesn't matter if it's a taser or a feather pillow. Like every other group in existence there are a small percentage that make the rest look bad. That said, I believe the taser was a huge jump forward. People who before might have been shot are instead temporarily incapacitated. Next best thing to a phaser set on stun. In some instances a taser hit might actually be a better manstopper than a badly placed gunshot.

WC145
June 15, 2009, 08:33 AM
Police abuse with a piece of equipment will eventually happen. It doesn't matter if it's a taser or a feather pillow. Like every other group in existence there are a small percentage that make the rest look bad. That said, I believe the taser was a huge jump forward. People who before might have been shot are instead temporarily incapacitated. Next best thing to a phaser set on stun. In some instances a taser hit might actually be a better manstopper than a badly placed gunshot.

Excellent point. Because a few abuse their power doesn't mean everyone does, and improper use of a tool does not make the tool inherently bad. ChaoSS and others in this thread are for taking Tasers away or reclassifying them without regard for the lives saved and incidents where the Taser kept a situation from escalating into something worse. Are they also for gun bans, confiscations, registration, and other methods of further regulating gun ownership by law abiding citizens because a few individuals shoot up a college or a mall? It's the same mentality.

ilbob
June 15, 2009, 09:14 AM
Taser/Lethal force question
Recently in my neck of the woods, a person was shot by police (in the lower abdomen) for grabbing an officer's taser and pointing it at them.

Two questions I would like to get everyone's opinion:

1) Was the police justified in using deadly force (the person shot didn't die)?
The police get to decide whether the force used by their officer was justified or not.

2) As a CCW holder--would I be justified in using deadly force when confronted with a perp with a taser?

My primary concern would be losing control of my firearms if I were tasered--but, would I be justified in escalating to lethal force when presented with a "non-lethal" weapon?A lot depends on where you live. Basically the police get to make that decision, too.

bigger hammer
June 15, 2009, 09:38 AM
I've never said anything attributing wrongdoing to police.

Apologies, I wrongfully attributed comments that others have made in this discussion to you.

Earlier I wrote, You've made another assumption here. That is that "0.1% of all police activity" (and BTW we're not talking about "police activity" that would include lunch, training evolutions, briefing, and the like. We're talking about raids, and in this thread specifically the use of the Taser.) " results in raiding or death of an innocent …" I'll say that unless you have FACTS that support this number, that it's too high, placing the rest of your number in doubt.


Maybe I should have explained clearer how a constant failure rate can cause a doubling of raiding and death of innocents due to causes outside of the police.

0.001*4000 calls in past years = 4 incidents
0.001*8000 calls in recent years = 8 incidents

Previous statements made by some said that the rate was increasing. They never provided evidence for that statement.

Earlier I wrote, It looks as if you're quoting from something and you've not cited a source. WHAT "116 results?"

WHAT "50 results?"

From that website that I quoted you as having read.

Please provide the specific link to the web page. I have no interested in trolling through dozens of pages to see your references.

bigger hammer
June 15, 2009, 09:39 AM
I've hit scores of people with my baton when I was working. Almost every one of them, after being taken into custody required medical treatment; sometimes for broken bones and sometimes for abrasions and contusions they sustained. Often they had to be booked at the county jail medical ward for continued medical treatment after arrest.

People who get Tased require medical treatment (often they refuse) to remove the barbs from the Taser. Any other medical treatment is extremely rare, no matter what pre-existing medical condition they have.

bigger hammer
June 15, 2009, 09:40 AM
Recently in my neck of the woods, a person was shot by police (in the lower abdomen) for grabbing an officer's taser and pointing it at them.

Two questions I would like to get everyone's opinion:

1) Was the police justified in using deadly force (the person shot didn't die)?

The police get to decide whether the force used by their officer was justified or not.

The court gets the final decision on that, NOT the police.

2) As a CCW holder--would I be justified in using deadly force when confronted with a perp with a taser?

My primary concern would be losing control of my firearms if I were tasered--but, would I be justified in escalating to lethal force when presented with a "non-lethal" weapon?

A lot depends on where you live. Basically the police get to make that decision, too.

AGAIN, the final decision on that would be with the court.

Art Eatman
June 15, 2009, 10:28 AM
"My primary concern would be losing control of my firearms if I were tasered--but, would I be justified in escalating to lethal force when presented with a "non-lethal" weapon?"

If I am minding my own business and some Bad Guy gratuitously threatens me with a taser, my only conclusion is that he wishes to render me helpless. I further conclude that during this condition of helplessness he will do Something Harmful.

I am a reasonable and prudent person, and I will avail myself of the existing provisions of Texas law in my own self-defense. Probably defend myself when outside of Texas, as well.

As far as I'm concerned, the Bad Guy would have lived longer had he left the taser at home.

The downside in the real world, of course, is that by the time you realize you're about to be tasered, you've been tasered.

SHvar
June 15, 2009, 11:57 AM
The problem with uninformed opinions is that those who have not been in the situation have no basis to bring any truth to the discussion.
If you have not had an EBID device used on you, theres no way you can know what it does or how it does what it does.
Ive had them used on me for training purposes, many times. Unless you have MS you have no reason to think that an EBID device can cause undo pain (MS causes pain that feels like being tasered).
No excuse in the world makes a taser deadly or dangerous aside from you not being in control of the situation, they cant kill you.

Rellian
June 15, 2009, 02:44 PM
NO HUMAN HAS EVER DIED FROM THE DIRECT EFFECTS OR USE OF A TASER OR EBID

You still do not cite your source. Hence I must assume you know everyone on the planet or you're just regurgitating.
I'll illustrate, a fellow died as a result of a taser here in my home town just last week. It was proven to be the taser by the by. The only question being asked is if the cop was in the right to use it. NO ONE, not even the coroner is disputing the taser as cause of death. As anecdotal evidence seems to be enough for you, Your statement is now disproven.

the wattage does not kill a human or animal, the amperage kills. Its takes a very small amount of amperage to kill you, but the taser or a EBID only have around .0001 amps, nowhere near enough to harm you.

Amperage is a component of wattage. The average operational amperage is between five and twenty (given the manufacturer.) the average amperage is around 150 mA RMS.... meaning the peaks voltages will be more than 2/10s of a watt or possibly greater. This is according to manufacturers specs. 2/10s at 50,000 volts RMS..... again manufacturer's specs is within the lethality range. Tasers can and have killed. They are less likely to kill than a firearm absolutely. Anyone of average health is likely to survive yes. They even have the officers subjected to them for a variety of reasons. All true. This however does not mean they are not lethal.

Tasers are NOT non-lethal. they are less-lethal.

All deaths caused by the use of force or restraints in the history of modern law enforcement are the result of positional asphyxia,

Again you do not site your absolute statements, but expect us to just accept them because you know you are right? Hence the Irony:

The problem with uninformed opinions is that those who have not been in the situation have no basis to bring any truth to the discussion.

bigger hammer
June 15, 2009, 09:42 PM
NO HUMAN HAS EVER DIED FROM THE DIRECT EFFECTS OR USE OF A TASER OR EBID

You still do not cite your source. Hence I must assume you know everyone on the planet or you're just regurgitating.

According to Taser they've never lost a wrongful death lawsuit.

But you have this shoe on the wrong foot. Those who maintain that a Taser can kill have the burden of proving it. NOT the other way round. It's the logical fallacy of asking us to prove a negative. It's impossible to show that no one has been killed directly by the Taser but if even one death has occurred as a direct result, it's easy to prove. Yet neither you, nor anyone else in this discussion has done so.

I'll illustrate, a fellow died as a result of a taser here in my home town just last week. It was proven to be the taser by the by.

Let's see the news story.

The only question being asked is if the cop was in the right to use it. NO ONE, not even the coroner is disputing the taser as cause of death.

Coroners often make mistakes.

Tasers can and have killed.

Still waiting for the source for this.

Tasers are NOT non-lethal. they are less-lethal.

Yes, we know.

Rellian
June 15, 2009, 10:50 PM
The point was an illustration. You can say Taser has never lost a wrongful death suit. Good for them. I wouldn't argue that at all.It still does not prove the device has never killed someone. Only that taser has never lost a suit. The burden goes both ways. You make an absolute statement like NO ONE EVER. You better have a source. The fact you are waiting for a source from me only proves my point. I can make up anecdotes too. Anecdotal is not fact.

Neverwinter
June 15, 2009, 11:01 PM
Please provide the specific link to the web page. I have no interested in trolling through dozens of pages to see your references.
http://www.cato.org/raidmap/
Go to that page

Select the following from the boxes:
The state of: All
For the years: 2008, 2007, 2006, 2005, 2004, 2003, 2002, 2001 and 2000
And the following types of incidents: Death of an innocent and Raid on an innocent suspect

It should show you the 116 results, containing descriptions and citations. Repeat for my second paste.

SHvar
June 15, 2009, 11:25 PM
We state that a taser has never directly killed a human period, because according to medical professionals, coroners, etc there has never been a human die from the direct effects of a taser or EBID.
If you insist otherwise then prove it, and inform the entire rest of the law enforcement community, medical community, etc. Until a death is caused by an EBID it has never occurred.
It does not matter what your opinion is, EBID devices have never killed a human directly. But on a regular basis perps die from positional asphyxia from the after effects of the struggle and being restrained, then relaxing in a position that allows for their diaphragm to stop being able to allow them to breath. This occurs from the excitement of the actual struggle and the sudden calming afterwards. This is how humans who were crucified died. This is why those who have been restrained as a danger to themselves, involved with a struggle, etc are restrained in a laying down position, gotten up every 2 hours, exercised, and checked directly evry 15 minutes by trained professionals for 12-24 hours.
As mentioned, you are the one who insists on whats known to be false, so you have the burden of proof to convince others.

bigger hammer
June 16, 2009, 12:19 AM
The point was an illustration. You can say Taser has never lost a wrongful death suit. Good for them. I wouldn't argue that at all.It still does not prove the device has never killed someone. Only that taser has never lost a suit. The burden goes both ways.

Nope sorry it does not. For example at trial if you claim that a Taser has caused death to a family member it's not up to Taser to prove that it has not. Rather THE BURDEN IS YOURS to prove that the cause of death was the Taser. Like many you've fallen into the logical fallacy that because two things happened to occur, a Tasing and a death; that one caused the other.

It's also amusing that you fail to grasp the impossibility of proving a negative.

You make an absolute statement like NO ONE EVER.

I don't think I've made such a statement. Can you show me?

bigger hammer
June 16, 2009, 12:20 AM
http://www.cato.org/raidmap/
Go to that page

Select the following from the boxes:
The state of: All
For the years: 2008, 2007, 2006, 2005, 2004, 2003, 2002, 2001 and 2000
And the following types of incidents: Death of an innocent and Raid on an innocent suspect

It should show you the 116 results, containing descriptions and citations. Repeat for my second paste.

I did all those things. I still see nothing that supports the statement that THE RATE of these occurrences is increasing as was said.

SHvar
June 16, 2009, 11:44 AM
If your so intelligent, and so educated Rellian you should have no problem proving one case that backs up your point, if not then drop it.
To this day (I just had the training, and took the test 2 months ago) there has never been a single case of death caused by the device or its electrical stimulation, period.

RustyShackelford
June 16, 2009, 07:44 PM
If a sworn LEO or armed security officer is attacked and the subject gets ahold of the officer's taser/impact weapon/chemical agent/etc I'd say the use of deadly force or the sidearm is prudent. The subject could injury or kill someone with these weapons or use them to obtain a firearm.

Now to use a firearm when attacked with chemical agent or tasers may be different. Overall, I doubt you would face criminal charges as a private citizen if you shot a criminal who had these weapons. As a LEO, I highly doubt it. Cops know dangerous criminals can kill them with many of their tools(handcuffs, flashlights, etc). They train to prevent it, ;).

RS

rrruuunnn
June 16, 2009, 08:00 PM
I can't remember the %. A significant % of police officers killed by gunfire is by their own gun.

rbernie
June 16, 2009, 08:09 PM
To try and address the second question in the OP, amid all the thread drift:
As a CCW holder--would I be justified in using deadly force when confronted with a perp with a taser?
The Taser is, by definition, a tool used to gain submission. If someone intends to induce me into a position of submission via the use of force, then I am in fear of my life or serious bodily injury...

That's at least the way I see it.

Action_Can_Do
June 16, 2009, 09:14 PM
I would look on someone trying to use a taser on me as being the same as someone trying to use a knife or axe. I can't speak to the legality of it however.

Neverwinter
June 16, 2009, 10:40 PM
If your so intelligent, and so educated Rellian you should have no problem proving one case that backs up your point, if not then drop it.
To this day (I just had the training, and took the test 2 months ago) there has never been a single case of death caused by the device or its electrical stimulation, period.
Does it have to be a primary cause, or just a contributory cause?

rrruuunnn
June 16, 2009, 10:56 PM
Although, relatively rare people have died by tasers. I can't remember the number. But I do remember that a Polish visitor died in Vancouver airport after taser.

In theory, since one can not breath during taser. An untrained civilian with a police type taser could suffocate a man to death.

SHvar
June 16, 2009, 11:20 PM
The point is that a taser or EBID CAN NOT KILL A HUMAN. I have explained the cause of death enough, research and learn for yourself, do not blame the EBID device. They can not possibly kill a human.
A punch, kick, elbow strike to the face, temple, throat, armpit, center of chest, and crotch can kill a human. A strike from a maglite in these places can kill a human, or a baton.
These examples are deadly force because the strike itself can kill you, a taser or EBID on the other hand cannot kill you, but the action involved in a struggle, restraining a human, the after effect and sudden calm down with an incorrect body position can kill a human.
It does not matter if it is a contributory part of the death, so were the struggle (far deadlier), the restraining, and position of the body, the phone call to the police, the actions of the perp bringing the police, and what the perp did to his victim. The actions the individual did bringing the police into a struggle have more to do with his own death as the taser can ever, think about it.
Tasers dont kill.

rrruuunnn
June 16, 2009, 11:42 PM
Civilian tasers have short moments of rest built in so that the BG can breathe in between shocks. A police taser could strangle a man to death. Correct me if I'm wrong.

bigger hammer
June 17, 2009, 12:20 AM
Civilian tasers have short moments of rest built in so that the BG can breathe in between shocks. A police taser could strangle a man to death. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Civilian Tasers have a 30 second duration. Police Tasers usually have several cycles, each five seconds long. The first one is "automatic," it's part of the firing cycle. The others can be triggered manually. Neither the civilian nor the police model lasts long enough to cause suffocation. Strangulation might occur of the wires were wrapped tightly around a victim's throat and kept that way. It never has happened.

Police Tasers are designed to assist an officer in taking someone into custody. Civilian Tasers are designed to incapacitate an attacker long enough to allow the victim to escape.

rrruuunnn
June 17, 2009, 12:57 AM
I have a C2 taser. From what I've gathered watching the demo video, civilian versions do have seconds of rest built into the programming. But police models can keep pressing the trigger for constant tasering.

SHvar
June 17, 2009, 12:06 PM
Police models only fire for a 5 second burst, then require resetting the device, you cannot keep tasing the person non stop.
Civilian modela are far more dangerous than approved police models which are limited in voltage, and function.
There are civilian "stun guns" that produce 500,000 volts, but these cannot kill you, an approved police model taser with 50,000 do far less.

divemedic
June 17, 2009, 01:36 PM
I have been through several Taser classes through work- given by the manufacturer, and by medical specialists. I have seen HUNDREDS of Tazings. A few facts:

1 A defibrillator, designed to stop a fibrillating heart, delivers from 50 to 360 joules of electric power to an adult. (Children get less). A Taser delivers 3 joules.

2 Yes, there have been cases where a person who has been Tazed has died in custody. In every case of which I am aware, the person who died had cocaine or another similar drug on board at the time. The deaths usually occurred 30 minutes or even hours after Taser deployment. This would indicate that whatever mechanism caused the death was NOT suffocation by Taser.

3 "Hog tying" patients has been proven to cause suffocation death, which is why this method of restraining people has fallen out of favor.

4 People died while in custody before Tasers were used or even invented. The only way to attribute this to Taser usage in my mind would be to compare the rate of in custody death before Tasers to the rate of in custody deaths after Taser introduction.

rrruuunnn
June 17, 2009, 06:26 PM
As long as the trigger is held down, the Police Taser will continuously fire.

The civilian will not do this. The civilian model uses the same voltage. The difference is that the civilian version is a controlled programming. It has intermittent breaks. But since either taser can turn into a stun gun. The stun gun option could be used continously while the officer is down.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electroshock_weapon
http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/11338

I'm not trying to rid of tasers from law enforcement. I thought we were trying to decide whether the policeman was in trouble. And regardless if the BG had a civilian version or police version, he was in trouble.

Did you see the vancouver story:http://www.youtube.com/results?search_type=&search_query=taser+death&aq=f

Look up taser death and you will see people have stop breathing within a minute or few.

bigger hammer
June 17, 2009, 07:01 PM
Did you see the vancouver story:http://www.youtube.com/results?searc...ser+death&aq=f

Look up taser death and you will see people have stop breathing within a minute or few.

It would appear that that some have difficulty in differentiating between a cause–effect relationship and two things that happen to occur at about the same time. If I have cereal for breakfast and later that day get struck by lightning the breakfast did not cause the lightning strike. Similarly, just because someone is Tased does not mean that one caused the other. Links need to be established. So far no one has successfully established one.

rrruuunnn
June 17, 2009, 07:04 PM
The man stopped breathing in under a minute. Maybe, the guy had cocaine before coming to the US or heart problems.

bigger hammer
June 17, 2009, 07:50 PM
The man stopped breathing in under a minute. Maybe, the guy had cocaine before coming to the US or heart problems.

He had been working himself up for a loooong time. THEN he fought with the police and THEN he was Tased. I'm sure that, as in other cases that end like this, the cause of death will found to be due to something OTHER than the Taser, if that's not already the case.

Neverwinter
June 17, 2009, 10:32 PM
He had been working himself up for a loooong time. THEN he fought with the police and THEN he was Tased. I'm sure that, as in other cases that end like this, the cause of death will found to be due to something OTHER than the Taser, if that's not already the case.
Lots of people have died not from the taser but from restraint during excited delirium.

http://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/201/300/cdn_medical_association/cmaj/vol-158/issue-12/1603.htm
http://www.charlydmiller.com/LIB04/2001stratton.pdf

SHvar
June 17, 2009, 11:51 PM
Police approved tasers in the US are 50,000 volts only, no higher, as I said civilian tasers for self defence go way way higher and do not have the 5 second burst time programmed into them.
Ive had multiple 50,000 volt LEO approved EBIDs tried on me, and a range of civilian self defence models starting with 100,000 volts, 300,000 volts, and so far never the 500,000 volt model. The civilian models that are made for self defence in most cases will shock until the circuit heats up, then shut down for a few seconds (this can be 30 seconds or more). Some at 100,000 or lower, will hold that shock until the battery is too weak to continue.
You cannot possibly do that with a police approved taser or EBID device.

If a guy standing on a street corner bites into a hotdog, enjoying the flavor so much takes a step back onto the curb edge where 2 teens racing their cars at 75 MPH are driving in a 25 mph speed limit zone, one hits him while swerving and the guy dies, the hotdog was not the cause of his death.

rrruuunnn
June 18, 2009, 12:14 AM
I will rewatch my video manual that came with my C2. Maybe, my memory is not correct. The taser goes through cycles preprogrammed in order to keep the BG alive. Also the civilian C2 is 50,000 volts.

rrruuunnn
June 18, 2009, 01:02 AM
I just rewatched the taser manual again:

Civilian C2:
It is rated at 50,000 volts. The lithium battery can operate the "Taser for over 25 minutes of continuous firing or over 50 firings of the full 30 second discharge cycle." During the 30 second cycle, the initial burst is the strongest. Cycle: 17 pulse/second for 5 seconds, then 10 pulse/second for 10 seconds, then pauses, a brief 17 pulse/second, 8 pulse/second for the remainder seconds.

The Taser is really a great option. Even my CHL instructor was excited about these. But I'm worried of the worst case scenario since I carry cash. Such as a planned ambush by 2 or more gunmen.

Rellian
June 18, 2009, 08:07 PM
If your so intelligent, and so educated Rellian you should have no problem proving one case that backs up your point

I'm sorry if it bothers you that I trust my (albeit undergrad) studies in Physics, EE, and Biology to your repeated factoids. I know what I trust and I know my sources.
BTW, I have to ask
Are you an employee of Taser? because you certainly do sound like one.

bigger hammer
June 18, 2009, 08:41 PM
If your so intelligent, and so educated Rellian you should have no problem proving one case that backs up your point

I'm sorry if it bothers you that I trust my (albeit undergrad) studies in Physics, EE, and Biology to your repeated factoids. I know what I trust and I know my sources.

Translation: I don't have even a single case to back up my point but if I show everyone how learned I am, perhaps they won't notice.

BTW, I have to ask Are you an employee of Taser? because you certainly do sound like one.

Translation: I still don't have any facts to support my argument but perhaps no one will notice if I make the discussion about you instead of about the Taser.

Clever evasions of the questions, but evasions, nonetheless.

Neverwinter
June 19, 2009, 12:30 AM
If a guy standing on a street corner bites into a hotdog, enjoying the flavor so much takes a step back onto the curb edge where 2 teens racing their cars at 75 MPH are driving in a 25 mph speed limit zone, one hits him while swerving and the guy dies, the hotdog was not the cause of his death.
If the driver consequently hits a telephone pole while not wearing his seatbelt, the lack of seatbelt use would also not be a cause of death.
I'm sorry if it bothers you that I trust my (albeit undergrad) studies in Physics, EE, and Biology to your repeated factoids. I know what I trust and I know my sources.
Taser International has taken medical professionals to court over inclusion of the Taser in their findings. Your undergrad degree won't stand a chance.

rrruuunnn
June 19, 2009, 09:32 PM
No one is saying, at least me, that tasers are dangerous. But I'd like to know if police tasers require special training to be safe? The civilian versions are controlled programming.

The original topic is whether the cop felt in danger. It doesn't matter tasers are lethal to answer that question.

usmarine0352_2005
June 20, 2009, 04:47 AM
No one is saying, at least me, that tasers are dangerous. But I'd like to know if police tasers require special training to be safe? The civilian versions are controlled programming.

The original topic is whether the cop felt in danger. It doesn't matter tasers are lethal to answer that question.



Not that I know if. There pretty simple, point, pull trigger.

.

Rellian
June 20, 2009, 11:47 PM
Translation: I don't have even a single case to back up my point but if I show everyone how learned I am, perhaps they won't notice.

You missed my original point.. If you cannot be bothered to read earlier posts then that is your problem, I will not reiterate for you. My original question to SHvar and has still not yet been answered. You on the other hand have been pretty belligerent throughout. I do not need to prove squat to you. All you can say is blah blah court case, court case, court case. You have provided nothing else. Go troll someone else.

Translation: I still don't have any facts to support my argument but perhaps no one will notice if I make the discussion about you instead of about the Taser.

Me thinks you too are an employee

Taser International has taken medical professionals to court over inclusion of the Taser in their findings. Your undergrad degree won't stand a chance.

The courts upheld Jim Crow Laws for years. Does this mean those were correct?
Courts are not about fact they are about what can be proven...... which is not necessarily fact. And yes Undergrad text are accepted in courts of law.

bigger hammer
June 21, 2009, 12:39 AM
Earlier I wrote (after Rellian regaled us with his education resume) , Translation: I don't have even a single case to back up my point but if I show everyone how learned I am, perhaps they won't notice.

Remember that Rellian was asked for a case that backed up his point. Instead of providing one he told us of his education.

You missed my original point..

No, I got it. What you missed what that you were asked for "… one case that back[ed] up your point." Instead you described your education.

You on the other hand have been pretty belligerent throughout.

Have I? Asking for incidents to support your position is "pretty belligerent?" I guess we have vastly different definitions of "belligerent."

I do not need to prove squat to you.

Of course you don't. Unless you want to have some credibility. LOL.

All you can say is blah blah court case, court case, court case. You have provided nothing else. Go troll someone else.

You are one who has taken the position that Tasers can be fatal. You described an incident in your "home town" where someone died as a result of being Tased. You even told us that the coroner agreed with this cause of death. Yet, when asked for news stories of this incident you provided nothing.

You've also supplied nothing to support your statement that Tasers can be fatal except opinion. You've been asked numerous questions and instead of answering them, have evaded and avoided them. When you supply something concrete and tangible, when you answer those questions, you might have some credibility. Until then …………

Me thinks you too are an employee

This is just SOMETHING ELSE that you're wrong about.

Taser International has taken medical professionals to court over inclusion of the Taser in their findings. Your undergrad degree won't stand a chance.

The courts upheld Jim Crow Laws for years. Does this mean those were correct?
Courts are not about fact they are about what can be proven...... which is not necessarily fact. And yes Undergrad text are accepted in courts of law.

Great. Now can you show us a single case where a Taser was found to be the cause of death?

Neverwinter
June 21, 2009, 03:10 PM
An autopsy report from the Cook County's Medical Examiner's Office attributed the death of Ronald Hasse, 54, to electrocution from two Taser jolts delivered by a Chicago police officer. The autopsy said methamphetamines contributed to Hasse's death.

Taser strongly criticized the Medical Examiner's Office in a statement Friday and said it will challenge the autopsy.

"We believe that the scientific and medical community will publicly challenge this conclusion based upon the lack of credible evidence," Taser spokesman Steve Tuttle wrote in an e-mail on Friday. "Taser International will seek a judicial review of the report and the basis for which those statements were made."

This is not the first time Taser has challenged a medical examiner. For years, Taser officials publicly said the stun gun was never cited in an autopsy report. But an Arizona Republic investigation last year revealed that Tasers have been cited repeatedly by medical examiners in death cases and that Taser did not start collecting autopsy reports until last April.

Taser officials later maintained that the medical examiners in those cases were wrong and did not have the credentials or expertise necessary to examine deaths involving stun guns. They now maintain that Tasers have never been cited by a medical examiner as "the sole cause of death."
http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/0730taser30.html

Neverwinter
June 21, 2009, 03:23 PM
Originally Posted by divemedic
4 People died while in custody before Tasers were used or even invented. The only way to attribute this to Taser usage in my mind would be to compare the rate of in custody death before Tasers to the rate of in custody deaths after Taser introduction.
The rate of in-custody sudden death increased 6.4-fold (95% confidence interval 3.2-12.8, p = 0.006) and the rate of firearm death increased 2.3-fold (95% confidence interval 1.3–4.0, p = 0.003) in the in the first full year after Taser deployment compared with the average rate in the 5 years before deployment.no significant change in the rate of serious OIs(Officer Injuries) after Taser deployment
From a study published in the American Journal of Cardiology.
http://www.ajconline.org/article/S0002-9149(08)02113-9/abstract

There is a good side to the results. The article mentions that in the two years following the year of taser introduction, the deaths decreased from their 6 fold increase back to pre-taser deployment rates.

divemedic
June 21, 2009, 04:07 PM
Interesting. So, do we look at this as a statistical anomaly? Was there some other factor involved? After all, if the Tasers were the cause of the ICDs, then it seems to me that the death rate from Taser deployment would not have dropped in years 2-5.

Very interesting that OI did not fall as a result of Taser use. It has been my experience that the police I work with were much quicker to resort to the Taser when it was a new toy then they are now. I wonder if the study took that into account by expressing the rate as ICD per deployment, or if the ICD rate was computed as deaths per arrest. That could account for the increase, and would explain the disparity.

bigger hammer
June 21, 2009, 04:38 PM
Neverwinter posted info from THIS (http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/0730taser30.html) link.

Here's some of that info. An autopsy report from the Cook County's Medical Examiner's Office attributed the death of Ronald Hasse, 54, to electrocution from two Taser jolts delivered by a Chicago police officer. The autopsy said methamphetamines contributed to Hasse's death.

Taser strongly criticized the Medical Examiner's Office in a statement Friday and said it will challenge the autopsy. [Emphasis added]

Sorry but a report from a "medical Examiner's office" is not the final say in these matters. MANY times they've been proven wrong by experts from Taser. Get back to us after that challenge is done and THEN and only then you might have a point.

The article quotes Taser We believe that the scientific and medical community will publicly challenge this conclusion based upon the lack of credible evidence

So far not one such finding has withstood such a challenge.

bigger hammer
June 21, 2009, 04:40 PM
Neverwinter also posted a link to AN ABSTRACT from THIS (http://www.ajconline.org/article/S0002-9149(08)02113-9/abstract) scientific study.

An abstract is worthless. Without knowing how the information was gathered and the potential bias of the folks doing the study, we don't know whether the abstract is accurate or not. Often they contain conclusions of the people doing the study that ARE NOT supported by the study.

Neverwinter
June 22, 2009, 11:20 PM
An abstract is worthless. Without knowing how the information was gathered and the potential bias of the folks doing the study, we don't know whether the abstract is accurate or not. Often they contain conclusions of the people doing the study that ARE NOT supported by the study.MANY times they've been proven wrong by experts from Taser.
Oh the delicious irony.

It has been my experience that the police I work with were much quicker to resort to the Taser when it was a new toy then they are now.
The eagerness to use the new and less familiar tool could have exaggerated the incidences of death. There was no mention of any change in the policies for the use of the tasers. Behavior such as refraining from multiple successive shocks on a restrained person, not using it on someone in danger of falling death, etc. Many of these are already included in the departmental policy of agencies deploying the taser.

bigger hammer
June 22, 2009, 11:43 PM
The eagerness to use the new and less familiar tool could have exaggerated the incidences of death. There was no mention of any change in the policies for the use of the tasers. Behavior such as refraining from multiple successive shocks on a restrained person, not using it on someone in danger of falling death, etc. Many of these are already included in the departmental policy of agencies deploying the taser.

And STILL we don't have a single case where a court or jury has found that the Taser was a cause of death. You seem to keep missing this very simple fact.

144 posts and NO ONE has been able to provide such information! Hmm talk about irony. ROFLMAO.

DHJenkins
June 23, 2009, 10:12 AM
I have a question - how many people have been tased while complying with an officer's instructions?

divemedic
June 23, 2009, 10:37 AM
I have a question - how many people have been tased while complying with an officer's instructions?

I know of a few that I was personally there for. Those are anecdotes, however.


But is that what an officer's weapons are for? To produce compliance? And here I was thinking that force was only lawfully used to protect life, stop felonies, and the like. I didn't know it was like a remote control attitude adjuster.

ETA: I just checked Florida law. Not a word in there about using force to make someone comply with an officer's instructions.

776.05 Law enforcement officers; use of force in making an arrest.--A law enforcement officer, or any person whom the officer has summoned or directed to assist him or her, need not retreat or desist from efforts to make a lawful arrest because of resistance or threatened resistance to the arrest. The officer is justified in the use of any force:

(1) Which he or she reasonably believes to be necessary to defend himself or herself or another from bodily harm while making the arrest;

(2) When necessarily committed in retaking felons who have escaped; or

(3) When necessarily committed in arresting felons fleeing from justice. However, this subsection shall not constitute a defense in any civil action for damages brought for the wrongful use of deadly force unless the use of deadly force was necessary to prevent the arrest from being defeated by such flight and, when feasible, some warning had been given, and:

(a) The officer reasonably believes that the fleeing felon poses a threat of death or serious physical harm to the officer or others; or

(b) The officer reasonably believes that the fleeing felon has committed a crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm to another person.

DHJenkins
June 23, 2009, 11:51 AM
Alright, let me rephrase - how many people have been tased and not subsequently arrested?

Art Eatman
June 23, 2009, 12:10 PM
This has all gone way away from the opening post. And as usual with multi-page threads, the personal stuff starts coming in.

If you enjoyed reading about "Taser/Lethal force question" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!