# Taser Safety



## reaper (Jan 16, 2009)

Since we have talked before on the safety of tasers, here is an article on the first major study done on it.

http://www.emsresponder.com/article/article.jsp?id=8816&siteSection=1



> Report: Serious Injuries From Taser Are Extremely Rare
> 
> 
> 
> Washington, DC-- A three-year review of all Taser uses against criminal suspects at six law enforcement agencies found only three significant injuries out of 1,201 criminal suspects subdued by conducted electrical weapons (CEW), or Tasers, and reports that 99.75% of criminal suspects shocked by a Taser received no injuries or mild injuries only, such as scrapes and bruises. The study is published online today in the Annals of Emergency Medicine ("Safety and Injury Profile of Conducted Electrical Weapons Used By Law Enforcement Officers Against Criminal Suspects").


----------



## Hockey (Jan 16, 2009)

No matter what people say, I will say the use of Tasers have stopped the severe injury to many officers, and suspects.  

From all the cops that have been tased (you know how some depts require you to be shot before you carry it), how many have been killed/died due to the taser?  Yep, an astonishing 0

I've been Tased, but I'm still here?  Unless heaven has internet?


----------



## tydek07 (Jan 16, 2009)

There is always going to be a handful of people that get injured or killed by tazers, but all in all they are good.

During medic school we got to get tazed and pepper sprayed if we wanted. I opted to get tazed, but was not dumb enough to take the spray  One student did get sprayed and I doubt he will ever volly to do that again haha... I would much rather get tazed, then get hit with spray. As tazing, its there and then its done... spray, its there and it stays there for a VERY long time.


----------



## Veneficus (Jan 16, 2009)

my opinions on tazers not withstanding, the idea of having to get tazed to use one is absolutely crazy.

Would you volunteer to get defibrilated before you could carry one of those?
How about get shot before you could carry a gun or beaten before you could carry a night stick?

Would kind of suck to be the one who had a undiagnosed medical problem exposed when you got tazed and coded.

I think this behavior is about as useful as blood pinning.


----------



## JPINFV (Jan 16, 2009)

Veneficus said:


> my opinions on tazers not withstanding, the idea of having to get tazed to use one is absolutely crazy.
> 
> Would you volunteer to get defibrilated before you could carry one of those?
> How about get shot before you could carry a gun or beaten before you could carry a night stick?
> ...


I think that your examples are off. Shooting and defibrilating a person will easily lead to a patient's death. They're also options of last resort (Killing a suspect that is threatening lethal force and defibrilating a pulseless patient/cardioverting an unstable patient respectively). Similarly, beating a person with a night stick is the option of second to last resort. None of those are tasks that should be taken lightly regardless of the profession.

On the other hand, use of OC spray and tasers have a much lower threshold that has to be met before they can be used on resistive suspects. While the use of less than lethal options shouldn't be taken lightly either, they are much more likely to be used and the people employing them should understand the consequences.

Vene, do you think that medical providers learning to start IVs should be able to get out of having their fellow classmates practice on them?


----------



## Veneficus (Jan 16, 2009)

JPINFV said:


> Vene, do you think that medical providers learning to start IVs should be able to get out of having their fellow classmates practice on them?



In my home state that has been eliminated many years ago. I admit at the time I thought it was a bad idea, but with available technology today, I have come to agree with it. 

"less than lethal" options are not always, and while I am not against them, I think they are used far too often because of the lower threshold.


----------



## JPINFV (Jan 16, 2009)

Personally, I'd rather be tased than beat with a night stick or shot. I also don't think it's fair to put cops in a situation where they either need to get close enough to a suspect to beat them (which puts the officer in range to be hit as well) or use deadly force when an alternative exists. Now, sure, when someone invents a haldol dart gun for officers to use, then I'm all for raising the bar for taser use. Until then, it's like telling a paramedic that he has to sit in the back with a patient that has a violent history (i.e. agatated psych patient) and can't restrain, sedate, or call for backup until the patient becomes actively violent. 

Now to be fair, yes, 99% of the time a taser use hits the news, it's an abuse of force. The Florida "Don't Tase Me Bro" incident is a striking example. Saying that police shouldn't have tasers because it is abused from time to time and is widely reported when it is would be like saying paramedics shouldn't intubate patients because every time I hear about intubations on the news it's because some paramedic screwed the pooch.


----------



## daedalus (Jan 16, 2009)

A taser should only be used when lethal force is required. I am sorry, but I am a huge huge opponent of taser use. If an officer wants to use a night stick or taser, they should have the same use criteria as a gun. The officer's life or another's life must be in absolute jeopardy. 

Tasers are used now when a suspect is mouthing off. That is torture. In the past two years numerous police officers have been fired for shooting and killing unarmed and non combatant persons running away or on the ground surrendering. I think they have lost their collective privilege to use force. 

I have a run away liberal mouth.


----------



## daedalus (Jan 16, 2009)

JPINFV said:


> Personally, I'd rather be tased than beat with a night stick or shot. I also don't think it's fair to put cops in a situation where they either need to get close enough to a suspect to beat them (which puts the officer in range to be hit as well) or use deadly force when an alternative exists. Now, sure, when someone invents a haldol dart gun for officers to use, then I'm all for raising the bar for taser use. Until then, it's like telling a paramedic that he has to sit in the back with a patient that has a violent history (i.e. agatated psych patient) and can't restrain, sedate, or call for backup until the patient becomes actively violent.
> 
> Now to be fair, yes, 99% of the time a taser use hits the news, it's an abuse of force. The Florida "Don't Tase Me Bro" incident is a striking example. Saying that police shouldn't have tasers because it is abused from time to time and is widely reported when it is would be like saying paramedics shouldn't intubate patients because every time I hear about intubations on the news it's because some paramedic screwed the pooch.


An intubation is not a deliberate attempt to injure someone, but a heroic measure to save a life.


----------



## JPINFV (Jan 16, 2009)

^
Does the intent matter if the result is the same?


----------



## marineman (Jan 17, 2009)

daedalus said:


> A taser should only be used when lethal force is required. I am sorry, but I am a huge huge opponent of taser use. If an officer wants to use a night stick or taser, they should have the same use criteria as a gun. The officer's life or another's life must be in absolute jeopardy.
> 
> Tasers are used now when a suspect is mouthing off. That is torture. In the past two years numerous police officers have been fired for shooting and killing unarmed and non combatant persons running away or on the ground surrendering. I think they have lost their collective privilege to use force.
> 
> I have a run away liberal mouth.



When lethal force is required, lethal force should be used. A taser is a less than lethal option that is correctly used 99% of the time however as we all know when everything goes right it's not news. Any of the less than lethal options should be used fully to prevent a potentially dangerous incident from escalating. 

If you take away a police officers right to use force I don't want to live anywhere near that area as at that point there is nobody with the ability to exercise control and it becomes dangerous for everyone. I appreciate the fact that they have adequate training in the proper and timely use of their multiple levels of subduing devices and when the fecal matter hits the oscillating device I'm sure glad that they're around. 

On topic, glad to see that the results show that tasers are much safer than any alternative.


----------



## Veneficus (Jan 17, 2009)

marineman said:


> When lethal force is required, lethal force should be used. A taser is a less than lethal option that is correctly used 99% of the time however as we all know when everything goes right it's not news. Any of the less than lethal options should be used fully to prevent a potentially dangerous incident from escalating.
> 
> If you take away a police officers right to use force I don't want to live anywhere near that area as at that point there is nobody with the ability to exercise control and it becomes dangerous for everyone. I appreciate the fact that they have adequate training in the proper and timely use of their multiple levels of subduing devices and when the fecal matter hits the oscillating device I'm sure glad that they're around.
> 
> On topic, glad to see that the results show that tasers are much safer than any alternative.



As I said, I am not against the use of tazers, but the trouble is in my experience (not from tv or print news) that police officers (including many good ones I know) taze people because the option exists. I think it is the same psychology that a person carrying a weapon is more likely to resort to violence than somebody who is not. Police officers sometimes forget that since they have a sociological monopoly on the use of violence, that considerably more responsibility must be exercised in its use. There are situations that require the use of deadly force as well as less lethal options for sure. But “contempt of cop” is not one of those times. If a subject is acting in a nonviolent or non physically threatening manner that suspect should not be tazed, beaten, or any other “control violence” method to get them to “comply with orders.” I do not agree with the idea of “why talk to the suspect for ½ hour when I have things to do and I can just tazer him down?” The same with shooting people with bean bags or any other device. Besides, if a suspect is threatening you with a weapon, I will defend your right to shoot him with a real bullet, shot, or lethal projectile to my last breath. 

Being a police officer is an inherently dangerous job, just like being a firefighter, construction worker, fisherman, etc. Nobody forced a police officer to that job. Some risk must be accepted. If medical persons in a hospital can get enough people to subdue a patient without the use of a tazer, etc, then police should wait for sufficient backup to do the same. Obviously if the person is waving around a weapon, or threatening to use violence, by all means taze him down, but not because you had to tell him 4 or 10 times to do something. I would think if ultimately the person is going to be charged with a misdemeanor, a tazer is most likely not indicated. But it also doesn’t mean trump up minor charges to use the tazer so they can be downgraded or dropped later. Just like a firearm or night stick, a tazer needs to be a last resort, not a first choice because it is not as bad as the others.

I am not a law enforcement officer or legal expert, simply a citizen who believes that law enforcement needs to have rules so we do not see the abuse of power demonstrated by police in other nations. It is certainly not in the job description of police officer to deal out justice.

I very much doubt tazer use is correct 99% of the time. I have not experienced that in my small sampling of the world. I doubt such a source exists to verify that. Logic would dictate if my local police are getting carried away from time to time, then so is everyone else’s.


----------



## Veneficus (Jan 17, 2009)

JPINFV said:


> ^
> Does the intent matter if the result is the same?



For sure. In the palliative care of terminal patients, controlling anxiety by the administration of high dose benzos and narcotics is the normal treatment. I am sure we are all aware of the outcome of that. There is a clear difference in intent of reducing a person's pain and anxiety in death and hastening it along. It is only the intent that seperates that from euthanasia. Outcome is the same.

while Machiavelli may disagree, the end does not always justify the means.


----------



## Outbac1 (Jan 17, 2009)

I've seen tasers used, not as an alternative to lethal force but to get suspects to comply. I think it is a good thing. When they were used the suspect had more than ample opportunity to comply. Usually to put hands behind them for cuffs or to get in the car. Without it, it is hands on and a fight ensues. When that happens someone is getting hurt. It may be the police, the suspect or both.  I would rather pull the barbs out of a suspect and assess them than patch up and transport the police. 

    When the police say to get in the car you're going to jail. They have the choice, peacefully, tased, sprayed or beat up in a fight to get them in. The person is going, one way or the other. Everyone has the right to make stupid decisions. They can suffer the consquences accordingly.

 I believe taser use has saved many police and suspects from many injuries. Those police who abuse it should be punished accordingly.


----------



## triemal04 (Jan 17, 2009)

daedalus said:


> A taser should only be used when lethal force is required. I am sorry, but I am a huge huge opponent of taser use. If an officer wants to use a night stick or taser, they should have the same use criteria as a gun. The officer's life or another's life must be in absolute jeopardy.
> 
> Tasers are used now when a suspect is mouthing off. That is torture. In the past two years numerous police officers have been fired for shooting and killing unarmed and non combatant persons running away or on the ground surrendering. I think they have lost their collective privilege to use force.
> 
> I have a run away liberal mouth.


No, a gun should be used when lethal force is required.  A taser should be used when lethal force is not required, but the subject still needs to be subdued.  

Allowing cops to use tasers has and will (no, I don't have numbers but have heard this from many source and I'd be very surprised if this isn't true) led to a decrease in the number of police shootings.  Think about it without any inbred prejudices:  before a cop could either go hands on with a violent subject (this includes batons and spray, both of which require you to be pretty close) or shoot them.  Now they have a non-lethal alternative that accomplishes the same task with no harm to them and no lasting harm to the subject.  Win win situation.

I've worked with and around enought cops, and the general feeling (which is appropriate far as I'm concerned) is that you do not meet force with equal force; if someone comes at you with a knife, you don't pull a knife of your own, but a gun (or a taser if you have one).  You react with enough appropriate force to mitigate the problem.


----------



## triemal04 (Jan 17, 2009)

Veneficus said:


> If medical persons in a hospital can get enough people to subdue a patient without the use of a tazer, etc, then police should wait for sufficient backup to do the same. Obviously if the person is waving around a weapon, or threatening to use violence, by all means taze him down, but not because you had to tell him 4 or 10 times to do something. I would think if ultimately the person is going to be charged with a misdemeanor, a tazer is most likely not indicated.


The only problem with that is that cops will not always have anyone around.  A sergeant from the state police that I've talked with spent the majority of his career working in an area where his closest cover car was at least 30 minutes away.  Kind of a long wait if you need help, which has a side-effect of making people in that position more aggressive.  Which does make sense when you think about it.

As well, just because someone will be charged with a misdemeanor, say, drunk in public, does not mean that they will not need to be physically subdued.  I'm sure you've seen plenty of belligerent drunks that refused to follow instructions of became combative.

The rest I pretty much agree with.


----------



## DT4EMS (Jan 17, 2009)

daedalus said:


> A taser should only be used when lethal force is required. I am sorry, but I am a huge huge opponent of taser use. If an officer wants to use a night stick or taser, they should have the same use criteria as a gun. The officer's life or another's life must be in absolute jeopardy.
> 
> Tasers are used now when a suspect is mouthing off. That is torture. In the past two years numerous police officers have been fired for shooting and killing unarmed and non combatant persons running away or on the ground surrendering. I think they have lost their collective privilege to use force.
> 
> I have a run away liberal mouth.



OMG.......... I am a little taken back by this statement. Placing a Taser on the same level as a firearm is just plain silly.

I have carried a gun for over 14 years as a police officer......... I have drawn it a few times in the line of duty when I though I was really going to have to use it. Luckily I did not have to take a life to save another.

I have carried a Taser since 2004. I have only had to use it 4 times. In each of those times there were injuries that were reduced because the Taser was available.

Now if you read the story that started this topic you will see how safe of a less lethal tool the Taser is.

Now, I fight for EMS' rights daily when it comes to them being a victim. Especially when stories come out that police say it is EMS' responsibility to handle an EDP/Psych patient ( and EMS has little to no training to handle such)

......... but........... if medics begin to say they want to take away the "tools" that a police officer has to handle EDP, Drunk, Deranged............. and just SHOOT them?

Come on.......................


----------



## daedalus (Jan 17, 2009)

DT4EMS said:


> OMG.......... I am a little taken back by this statement. Placing a Taser on the same level as a firearm is just plain silly.
> 
> I have carried a gun for over 14 years as a police officer......... I have drawn it a few times in the line of duty when I though I was really going to have to use it. Luckily I did not have to take a life to save another.
> 
> ...


Heck no. Anything that can cause death is a lethal force. Taser use is used disportionately on minorities and drug users, and studies have shown cocaine use has a positive correlation with death after taser use. As a medic you know that electricity after myocardial irritability from cocaine is dangerous. 

You may be a responsible user but others may not be. I admit that may opinion may be a little left sided but I am a strong believer in human rights.


----------



## Shishkabob (Jan 17, 2009)

daedalus said:


> A taser should only be used when lethal force is required.



If lethal force is required, lethal force is used.  

Tasers and OC spray are less then lethal, and give an officer another step to use before his handgun.


If someone is shooting at me, you can bet your butt I'm shooting back with a lethal weapons and not a couple of probes that don't always work.




> Heck no. Anything that can cause death is a lethal force.... studies have shown cocaine use has a positive correlation with death after taser use.



2 things that I have to correct because they are oh so wrong.

No, not "anything that can cause death is lethal force", otherwise if you were in a fight, you could be charged with assault with a deadly weapon.  Hey, you fist in someones nose could kill someone.

Yes, it can cause death, but do you really expect a cop to go "Hey, do you use cocaine?  I need to know before I tase you for charging at me."  If you actually believe that, you need to do a few ride alongs with cops so your eyes can be opened properly.


----------



## karaya (Jan 17, 2009)

daedalus said:


> I admit that may opinion may be a little left sided but I am a strong believer in human rights.


 
A _little_ left sided? My friend you are way left sided. Your analogy that taser use is some sort of denial of one's human rights is in my view completely absurd.

DT4EMS just pointed out ( and accurately so) that tasers have in fact saved lives; not only the officer's but the perpetrators as well. I've seen their use first hand on several occasions and since the 70's I remember very well the days of the night stick, kel lights, etc.  And I remember the pastings that were handed out with those.

You don't think some cops over the past 150 years have gone overboard from time to time? It happens and I've seen it. But the difference is someone was maimed or dead as a result.

No, the tasers do save lives and that is the greatest form of human right one can have.


----------



## Veneficus (Jan 17, 2009)

triemal04 said:


> I'm sure you've seen plenty of belligerent drunks that refused to follow instructions of became combative.



My main concern is when all drunks get tasered because they are drunk because they "might" become combative or the psych patient who is singing or praying or whatever and not a threat to anyone.


----------



## Jon (Jan 17, 2009)

daedalus said:


> Heck no. Anything that can cause death is a lethal force. Taser use is used disportionately on minorities and drug users, and studies have shown cocaine use has a positive correlation with death after taser use. As a medic you know that electricity after myocardial irritability from cocaine is dangerous.
> 
> You may be a responsible user but others may not be. I admit that may opinion may be a little left sided but I am a strong believer in human rights.


Tasers are Less Lethal. Not Less than lethal.

Although there is potential for injury, Tasers are relatively safe, and much safer for the LEO's involved.

FYI - In PA, Batons and firearms are both classified as lethal weapons.



As for use of force... I live outside Philadelphia, PA... a city where 5 cops have been killed in the line of duty in about a year's time. The city is at war with the police. They should be able to fight back.


----------



## daedalus (Jan 17, 2009)

karaya said:


> A _little_ left sided? My friend you are way left sided. Your analogy that taser use is some sort of denial of one's human rights is in my view completely absurd.
> 
> DT4EMS just pointed out ( and accurately so) that tasers have in fact saved lives; not only the officer's but the perpetrators as well. I've seen their use first hand on several occasions and since the 70's I remember very well the days of the night stick, kel lights, etc.  And I remember the pastings that were handed out with those.
> 
> ...


Absurd in perhaps many's opinions but still truth to myself. My truth can always be another's blasphemy. 

Taser's have been connected to many deaths and the studies used to show they are safe have been funded by Taser International itself. Taser International has also used lawyers to force the removal of the word "taser" from Medical Examiner's reports. 

There must always be some to question things because than there would be no accountability. Believe what you will, no hard feelings, I do not believe your opinions are absurd.


----------



## Jon (Jan 18, 2009)

daedalus said:


> Absurd in perhaps many's opinions but still truth to myself. My truth can always be another's blasphemy.
> 
> Taser's have been connected to many deaths and the studies used to show they are safe have been funded by Taser International itself. Taser International has also used lawyers to force the removal of the word "taser" from Medical Examiner's reports.
> 
> There must always be some to question things because than there would be no accountability. Believe what you will, no hard feelings, I do not believe your opinions are absurd.




Daedalus,

Do you have any info on these "many deaths"? OTHER than "Amnesty International says Tasers are evil and torture". I'd like to see court cases.

Tasers are still new... and they are still finding their spot in the use-of-force continuum... some departments have them as the first line, and some have them just above firearms... but I'm 100% convinced that the good outweighs the bad, at least at this point.


----------



## daedalus (Jan 18, 2009)

*Jon*

*A specific court case ordering punative damages against Taser for it's product causing death directly by cardiac arrest:*


> In June 2008, a federal jury ordered Taser International to pay the family of Robert Heston, Jr., $6 million in punitive and compensatory damages for the 2005 death of the man who died a day after being shocked repeatedly by officers using Tasers. According to a press report, the jury "said Taser had failed to warn police in Salinas, California, that prolonged exposure to electric shock from the device could cause a risk of cardiac arrest."


-http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&refer=us&sid=aYJitFRQLpZk

*Here is a department replacing tasers because of safety concerns:*
http://orlando.injuryboard.com/defe...fective-and-deadly-taser.aspx?googleid=200360



> Notwithstanding the widespread use of Tasers, serious safety issues including numerous deaths have plagued the company for some time now driving its stock price down nearly 80% this year.- Steven DiJoseph



*Anecdotal account of taser inflicted death:*
http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=157611



> A teenager carrying a Bible and shouting "I want Jesus" was shot twice with a police stun gun and later died at a St. Louis hospital, authorities said


.

The above may be a situation of abuse of the product.

*Taser's may contribute to excited delirium deaths:
*http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=7622314


*Studies may be biased in favor of Taser International in evaluating their risks:*
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-05-11-taser-study_x.htm

*Statement made by Taser International on its website:
*


> References to TASER devices as a contributing factor must be removed from autopsies in 3 in-custody deaths due to errors made by the medical examiner. ...


*11 year old girl shot with taser at school:*


> An Orange County sheriff's deputy on Thursday shocked an 11-year-old girl with a Taser gun at an elementary school after the girl punched her in the face, authorities said.


http://www.clickorlando.com/news/15721677/detail.html

Links to other deaths:
1. http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5iQp9AiPFhnRBQzgeSh2Yn4ZNvJBQ
2. http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20071025/airport_death_071025
3. http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5iQp9AiPFhnRBQzgeSh2Yn4ZNvJBQ


On your side of the fence,

*Study suggests Taser is safe:*
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/84955.php


There is TONS of literature going both ways. Its just too early to determine safety. I have enormous respect for all of you guys here and do not want to start a war over Taser products. I respect your opinions and have formed my own as well.


----------



## JPINFV (Jan 18, 2009)

On the other hand, you have cases like what happened in Huntington Beach, CA. A teenage girl with psychological issues charged at police with a knife. Unfortunately at the time officers were not regularly issued tasers and they were waiting for a taser to arrive when she charged at them. This forced them to respond with their sidearm killing the girl.


----------



## EMTCop86 (Jan 18, 2009)

I think a lot of people get confused about Tasers. Like previously said Tasers are less lethal not less THAN lethal or non lethal. Let's say you have a 50/50 chance with dying with the Taser compared to 95/5 with an officer and his gun. I for one rather take my chances with a Taser then the officer with his gun! 

Also I searched but couldn't find how many deaths there are a year compared to how many times the Taser has been deployed.


----------



## daedalus (Jan 18, 2009)

JPINFV said:


> On the other hand, you have cases like what happened in Huntington Beach, CA. A teenage girl with psychological issues charged at police with a knife. Unfortunately at the time officers were not regularly issued tasers and they were waiting for a taser to arrive when she charged at them. This forced them to respond with their sidearm killing the girl.



An understandable example of beneficial taser use.

The examples I listed above were cases where lethal force was not needed and people ended up dying.


----------



## Shishkabob (Jan 18, 2009)

daedalus said:


> The examples I listed above were cases where lethal force was not needed and people ended up dying.



And if they would have been law abiding citizens, they would have not been tazed.  Blame rest solely on them and their actions, not an innatement object created to help in those situations.


----------



## Veneficus (Jan 18, 2009)

Linuss said:


> And if they would have been law abiding citizens, they would have not been tazed..



Both Nazis and taliban were/are law abiding citizens. are you suggesting that safety and security lies in an unchecked police state?

I think the departments that have tasers listed just before firearms probably have the right idea. Since LE has shown it cannot properly police itself many times, they alone cannot determine what level of force is best.


----------



## EMTCop86 (Jan 18, 2009)

Veneficus said:


> Since LE has shown it cannot properly police itself many times, they alone cannot determine what level of force is best.


 
Whatever level of force is the best is the one that gets them home safely every night.


----------



## Veneficus (Jan 18, 2009)

EMTCop86 said:


> Whatever level of force is the best is the one that gets them home safely every night.



Are you advocating that it doesn't matter how many people are hurt or killed so long as a police officer is safe?

Maybe you should take a look at the reports of Russian police kicking in the teeth of 63 year old women protesting the Kremlin policies. If you think disproportionate use of force is never used in the US you should come to my neighborhood or watch the news.

LE are great people, who have to take a lot of risks on the behalf of society, but they should never be given carte blance on decideding their use of force. It is why we have a constitution and a seperation of powers in the US.


----------



## EMTCop86 (Jan 18, 2009)

Veneficus said:


> Are you advocating that it doesn't matter how many people are hurt or killed so long as a police officer is safe?


 
Yes if those people are trying to hurt or kill the police officer. Same with every day citizens, if someone is trying to hurt or kill you, do what is necessary to save your own life.



> Maybe you should take a look at the reports of Russian police kicking in the teeth of 63 year old women protesting the Kremlin policies. If you think disproportionate use of force is never used in the US you should come to my neighborhood or watch the news.


 
I never said anything about disproportionate use of force never being used. I don't watch the news, it doesn't tell the COMPLETE story and is extremely bias.



> LE are great people, who have to take a lot of risks on the behalf of society, but they should never be given carte blance on decideding their use of force. It is why we have a constitution and a seperation of powers in the US.


 
So who should decide the use of force needed? Do I think the police department should decide solely, no, but they should have the majority vote.


----------



## karaya (Jan 18, 2009)

Veneficus said:


> Both Nazis and taliban were/are law abiding citizens. are you suggesting that safety and security lies in an unchecked police state?
> 
> I think the departments that have tasers listed just before firearms probably have the right idea. Since LE has shown it cannot properly police itself many times, they alone cannot determine what level of force is best.


 
Now we are comparing American police use of a taser against perpetrators with Nazis and Taliban as if they too are law abiding citizens!

They (Nazis and Taliban) were and are not law abiding citizens for you overlook one of the greatest laws of all; crimes against humanity.

Many Nazi generals, judges, etc. were tried for war crimes in Nuremberg after the war. Several stated they were just following the law, but the tribunal deemed it humanitarian crimes and sentenced several defendants to death.

Your political agenda is starting to show, Veneficus, and for a third year med student I thought you would be smarter than to post such a ridiculous comparison.


----------



## daedalus (Jan 18, 2009)

I believe Veneficus is on target here, while it may seem absurd, the idea of unchecked ability for the police to use force is a dark path to follow.

These ideas are not new, just look at the foundations of the United States itself, and how we were born. 

All of us that work with police know a lot of them as personal friends and good people, and all of us that work together in the field know there are some bad people and just plane stupid/mental folks out there. Knowing all of this now, I still believe that Police are to be held to the highest moral and ethical standards in the discharge of their "ability" to use force, and that they should be held personally accountable every time they do. The use and levels of force and their protocols in use should also be under the direction and approval of the public in the area.


----------



## Jon (Jan 18, 2009)

Veneficus said:


> Are you advocating that it doesn't matter how many people are hurt or killed so long as a police officer is safe?
> 
> Maybe you should take a look at the reports of Russian police kicking in the teeth of 63 year old women protesting the Kremlin policies. If you think disproportionate use of force is never used in the US you should come to my neighborhood or watch the news.
> 
> LE are great people, who have to take a lot of risks on the behalf of society, but they should never be given carte blance on decideding their use of force. It is why we have a constitution and a seperation of powers in the US.


In the US, despite what movies like "Training Day" depict... officers hands are pretty well tied.

The Constitution and its interpretation PROTECTS us from events you see in other countries.


----------



## daedalus (Jan 18, 2009)

Linuss said:


> And if they would have been law abiding citizens, they would have not been tazed.  Blame rest solely on them and their actions, not an innatement object created to help in those situations.


Not every crime is punishable by execution. 11 year old girls at school should not be subject to electrocution and possible cardiac arrest if they act out in class (see my post highlighting the case).

You have a valid point, but a mentor's quote rings in my head. The justice system has done it's job finely if it has exonerated a hundred guilty criminals 
and one innocent man. It has failed us if it convicts a thousand criminals and one innocent man. (Gerry Spence, JD).

One person shocked who did not require such a shock is one too many.


----------



## Jon (Jan 18, 2009)

daedalus said:


> Not every crime is punishable by execution. 11 year old girls at school should not be subject to electrocution and possible cardiac arrest if they act out in class (see my post highlighting the case).
> 
> You have a valid point, but a mentor's quote rings in my head. The justice system has done it's job finely if it has exonerated a hundred guilty criminals
> and one innocent man. It has failed us if it convicts a thousand criminals and one innocent man. (Gerry Spence, JD).
> ...


http://www.clickorlando.com/news/15721677/detail.html
Wow. Sounds like she was on her way to church. Kids fight just as fierce as adults.

Tasers and other CEW's (Conducted Energy Weapons) work by depolarizing the nerve endings... kinda like succicholine. The energy dosen't penetrate the muscles. So it isn't a "shock" in the same way a lightning strike or sticking you finger in an electrical outlet is.


----------



## medic417 (Jan 18, 2009)

At least with a tazer odds are you live.  When shot by a gun multiple times odds are you die or have permanent serious problems.  So choose which you would prefer.


----------



## karaya (Jan 18, 2009)

daedalus said:


> Not every crime is punishable by execution. 11 year old girls at school should not be subject to electrocution and possible cardiac arrest if they act out in class (see my post highlighting the case).


 
Daedalus, and I mean the following in a light hearted way, you must be from California! And I'll wager somewhere around the San Francisco area, because this is so far left it has to be hitting somewhere around the Pacific!


----------



## Sasha (Jan 18, 2009)

> Not every crime is punishable by execution. 11 year old girls at school should not be subject to electrocution and possible cardiac arrest if they act out in class (see my post highlighting the case).



Let me start off by saying that I am not a fan of tasers. I think they are very over used, HOWEVER, in regards to that post, Dadelous. We are waaay past the days where kids are innocent little angels. Some children have crossed the line into needing police force to control them. The girl had done more than act out in class. Acting out in class is shouting, refusing to do work, not punching a police officer in the face.


----------



## Veneficus (Jan 18, 2009)

*tried to reply to many responses in 1 post and defend my knowledge*

I am comparing any state in which the police have unchecked authority over the use of violence. I named these 2, there must be 100 others. Taliban and Nazis had laws, by which they follow(d). I think you are confusing morals and laws. It was once the law in the US that slave trading and owning was acceptable. Some, like John Calhoun, even argued the morality of it. 

I would think that you could see through “crimes against humanity.” Such is nothing more than the ability of victors to vanquish those defeated, whether it be execution in the case of Nazis, life imprisonment of Former Yugoslavians or dictators in parts of Africa. Crimes against humanity is ill defined, and usually morally based which is subject to cultural interpretation. It is also dependant largely on the power of the state. When was the last time somebody from China was tried for crimes against humanity? Is it not a crime against humanity to levy harsh punishments like life in prison against those who engage in civil disobedience when they do not agree with the government? How about turning the military on a civilian populous? States do not usually cede their ability or authority to international bodies. Which is why the US does not recognize the international court.

http://www.encyclopediaofarkansas.net/encyclopedia/entry-detail.aspx?entryID=723

was Governor Orval Faubus or any of the people that tried to prevent black children from going to school tried for crimes against humanity? (or for any crime at all?)What is the difference between that and the Taliban deciding females shouldn’t go to school?

My political agenda? I guess if my belief in oversight of executive power by the citizens of a nation is a political agenda different from that of allowing law enforcement to do what they value is appropriate based on the idea that suspects that police interact with must be guilty otherwise they wouldn’t be suspect. Do you think the life of a Police officer or any emergency worker is of greater value than others? That could be considered a caste system.  I figured my view was a common value of a majority Americans. Politically I think I am quite moderate, but that doesn’t stop me from being able to have an academic discussion.

As for a ridiculous comparison, it seems awfully naive to me to not be aware that it is an erosion of values and rights that lead to the loss freedoms and rights as opposed to a sudden change. The comparison is not as farfetched as you might think. As for my intelligence, have you ever noticed that it is usually the lesser educated people that call others stupid the most?
The constitution does not protect you from state violence; it only allows you a legal recourse. If the local SWAT team accidentally kicks down your door thinking it was a different residence and tasers down your family because they were “resisting” while your family is trying to explain in the commotion there is a mistake, your recourse is post incident.

As for hands being tied, I would think we can all manipulate our authority over situations where protections are in place. Look at the physical restraint of patients as an example. (I agree with physical restraint, but I am not foolish enough to think it is never abused.)

The discussion of how and when tasers should be used, seems very relevant to their safety. 

You want to start a real argument we could discuss “excited delirium.” But my intelligence and knowledge of biology, zoology, anthropology, sociology, and medicine might be considered suspect by those who do not understand how that may have any bearing on the topic. 

Sorry for the long post, but if you are going to question how smart I am, I will usually retort.


----------



## Veneficus (Jan 18, 2009)

Jon said:


> Tasers and other CEW's (Conducted Energy Weapons) work by depolarizing the nerve endings... kinda like succicholine. The energy dosen't penetrate the muscles. So it isn't a "shock" in the same way a lightning strike or sticking you finger in an electrical outlet is.



Does it incapacitate people by depolarizing cutaneous nerves if it doesn't penetrate muscle? 

"The target's body is never exposed to the 50 kV. The X26—the model commonly used by police departments—delivers a peak voltage of 1200 V to the body. Once the barbs establish a circuit, the gun generates a series of 100-microsecond pulses at a rate of 19 per second. Each pulse carries 100 microcoulombs of charge, so the average current is 1.9 milliamperes. To force the muscles to contract without risking electrocution, the signal was designed to exploit the difference between heart muscle and skeletal muscle."


----------



## daedalus (Jan 18, 2009)

karaya said:


> Daedalus, and I mean the following in a light hearted way, you must be from California! And I'll wager somewhere around the San Francisco area, because this is so far left it has to be hitting somewhere around the Pacific!



Actually Ray, I am from LA, but am making the move up to the bay area soon!
So you are right!

I come from a conservative family however so I really love everyone.

-ian


----------



## karaya (Jan 18, 2009)

Veneficus said:


> Sorry for the long post, but if you are going to question how smart I am, I will usually retort.


 
I respect your intelligence Veneficus and I don't believe my response to your earlier thread was an indictment that you were somehow obtuse. And if you took it that way, you have my humble apologies.

My intent was (and still is ) that your compassions are in my opinion - shall I say _extreme_ given the basis of the original subject of taser safety. I feel that such heavy handed comparisons are intended to intimidate weaker minds and advance personal agendas. Now again, this is my opinion and not a target of your intelligence.

But let's discuss one factor about taser's in this country. Police departments for the most part are governed by a body of elected officials such as mayors, council members, etc. These folks represent the citizens they serve.

Police usually have to get approval for the purchase of tasers (and other capitol assets) from their elected overseers. It is us, John Q. Citizen, that can change the use of such devices through our elected officials. So, this is in no way a police state that the citizens can't change. Our separation of powers allow for this.


----------



## karaya (Jan 18, 2009)

daedalus said:


> Actually Ray, I am from LA, but am making the move up to the bay area soon!
> So you are right!
> 
> I come from a conservative family however so I really love everyone.
> ...


 

Ah ha! My radar wasn't too far off! Here's the real funny part. I'm moving to California in a few months, but not San Francisco. The San Diego area will be my new home.

Good luck with your upcoming move.


----------



## Veneficus (Jan 18, 2009)

karaya said:


> I respect your intelligence Veneficus and I don't believe my response to your earlier thread was an indictment that you were somehow obtuse. And if you took it that way, you have my humble apologies.
> 
> What my intent was (and still is ) that your compassions are in my opinion - shall I say _extreme_ given the basis of the original subject of taser safety. I feel that such heavy handed comparisons are intended to intimidate weaker minds and advance personal agendas. Now again, this is my opinion and not a target of your intelligence.
> 
> ...




My original point that started this was that it should be J.Q. Pulblic that overees the means police use, not exculsively the police. The US is not a police state and I was not trying to call it one. I was trying to demonstrate what happens when the public has no input.


----------



## triemal04 (Jan 18, 2009)

daedalus said:


> The use and levels of force and their protocols in use should also be under the direction and approval of the public in the area.


Seriously?  You don't honestly think that do you?  Despite what many people want to believe, not everyone is a nice, happy, law-abiding citizen that, if they accidently break the law will immedietly comply with all requests by law enforcement.  Police in the US are armed with the weopens they have for a reason, and allowing the public to direct and approve what they could carry would result (not everywhere, but in many, many places) in them losing those tools.  Which would be a bad thing.  Perfect example is Oakland right now.  If it where put to a vote, it'd probably be easy to have the cops to be forced to give up their guns.  Of course, nobody else would, and all the same jackasses that cause problems would be continuing to cause problems.

The average person does not always have enough knowledge to judge what should or shouldn't be done in a given situation that police may encounter.  Allowing uninformed, untrained, and unqualified people to make decisions for them is ridiculous.  Would you like it if the average Joe Blow went through your protocols and decidied what you could or couldn't do?  There's no difference between that, and what you said above.


----------



## ffemt8978 (Jan 18, 2009)

This is not the forum to discuss LE use of force, less lethal devices, or who should determine what authority LE have.

Thread closed.


----------

