# I had an arrest tonight...



## Hockey (Dec 8, 2010)

I had an arrest tonight...and then he decided to take off running when the cops and us showed up.

He got defib with 50k volts though.  Is that a save? :lol:


----------



## medic417 (Dec 8, 2010)

Did they stack the shocks?  If not no we will not allow a fib.


----------



## firetender (Dec 8, 2010)

Hockey said:


> I had an arrest tonight...and then he decided to take off running when the cops and us showed up.
> 
> He got defib with 50k volts though.  Is that a save? :lol:



I always thought 50,000 volts was murder.


----------



## fortsmithman (Dec 8, 2010)

Hockey said:


> I had an arrest tonight...and then he decided to take off running when the cops and us showed up.
> 
> He got defib with 50k volts though.  Is that a save? :lol:



Was it from your AED or the LEOs TASER.


----------



## Hockey (Dec 9, 2010)

Taser!


----------



## Hockey (Dec 9, 2010)

medic417 said:


> Did they stack the shocks?  If not no we will not allow a fib.


double tap from the taser...it never gets old!


----------



## DrParasite (Dec 9, 2010)

So 3 years ago, I was in dispatch, and received a request for ALS from a neighboring town for a cardiac arrest, CPR in progress.

about 7 minutes later, PD called to cancel us.  

the cops down there, did one round of CPR, then the patient got up and walked away.

apparently CPR does indeed save lives


----------



## Shishkabob (Dec 10, 2010)

Tasers are a wonderful invention that get a bad rap from the uneducated public and cocaine abusing people.


----------



## jrm818 (Dec 10, 2010)

Are you trying to deny the constant pattern of tase --> arrest?

punny eh?


----------



## firemedic07 (Dec 10, 2010)

Linuss said:


> Tasers are a wonderful invention that get a bad rap from the uneducated public and cocaine abusing people.



thats the funniest thing ive heard all day lol


----------



## HotelCo (Dec 11, 2010)

Linuss said:


> Tasers are a wonderful invention *that get a bad rap from the uneducated public and cocaine abusing people.*



And officers who don't know when to keep it in the holster...


----------



## Shishkabob (Dec 11, 2010)

HotelCo said:


> And officers who don't know when to keep it in the holster...





Why should they keep them in the holster?  They are a fantastic non-lethal tool that far exceeds all other non-lethal tools that they have at their disposal when it comes to controlling someone that needs to be controlled without collateral effects.



Like I said, they get a bad rap because of people like Amnesty International going "OMG they are electrocuting people and it's torture!!!"... when it's not.


----------



## Melclin (Dec 11, 2010)

Bugger me running, tonight I got punched in face by a 17 year old girl, had two people vomit on the stretcher and I don't even get paid as a volly event first aider. And somehow, I've come home with a grin on my face. I just love this ambulance stuff...hahaha. 



Linuss said:


> Tasers are a wonderful invention that get a bad rap from the uneducated public and cocaine abusing people.



Yeah they are. But there are some coppers that aren't too quick between the wickets, and they don't quite realise that tasers should be considered "less than lethal", not "non-lethal". Its a pretty big difference in mindset. One says, "Its _completely_ harmless, go nuts", the other says, "It sometimes has some pretty serious consequences, so just be a little careful". Its the difference between tasing a bloke who's had a few more beers than he should have and is being a little difficult, and tasing someone who would otherwise have been shot. 

Its not a tool to make the average Friday night drunk pickup a bit more fun, nor a tool to _repeatedly punish_ difficult frequent fliers. If you could get that through to the few hundred bad apples in a nation's worth of coppers, you'd have no drama whatsoever.

I'm as annoyed with the bloody weenies-who-whine-about-the-torture-of-tasers as the next reasonable bloke, but they aren't toys, and I don't think that message has been made unmistakably clear to some of the state's finest.


----------



## Shishkabob (Dec 11, 2010)

Melclin said:


> Yeah they are. But there are some coppers that aren't too quick between the wickets, and they don't quite realise that tasers should be considered "less than lethal", not "non-lethal". Its a pretty big difference in mindset. One says, "Its _completely_ harmless, go nuts", the other says, "It sometimes has some pretty serious consequences, so just be a little careful". Its the difference between tasing a bloke who's had a few more beers than he should have and is being a little difficult, and tasing someone who would otherwise have been shot.





I hate this whole "It's not non-lethal" movement for a couple of things.

First, the Taser has never been a proven cause of death in anyone in the United States.  There have been a few MEs that have ruled it was the cause, but never actually proved it and instead used the "Well, it wasn't this or this or this, so it had to have been the Taser", which is why some courts have told MEs they can't do that.  Which is funny since the same MEs will say "Excited Delirium doesn't exist" yet state the cause of death was something they can't 100% prove...

And hell, in studies, the VAST majority of people (as in 99.7%) have had NO serious things happen.  The other 0.3%?  Rarities with conditions that happened... maybe the Taser precipitated events, but never deemed the cause.  But hey, 99.&% is a pretty damn good number in my book... how many other things have that good of a "Bad things wont happen" percentage?  You don't even have that just by driving down your residential street...




Second, the very definition of "Non-lethal" by way of the US DoDs definition, which is the one that matters, is something that is not intended to kill, not something that can't kill.


----------



## Shishkabob (Dec 11, 2010)

Disregard this post


----------



## Shishkabob (Dec 11, 2010)

OSHA says it takes 0.75 amps to cause Vfib.


The Taser emits 0.0036 amps.  Heck, a Christmas tree light bulb does a full amp.




The problem that is derived from Tasers is the metabolic acidosis from the rapid contracting of skeletal muscles, and not the shock itself.  However, I have never seen a single healthy person that wasn't fighting police die after a Taser was used.  Every single death I've ever seen have been from people actively fighting the police (already increasing the lactate in their body).  As we know, lactate isn't that good in huge numbers.  But alas, it's unavoidable except for the person to not fight police.


----------



## Melclin (Dec 11, 2010)

Linuss said:


> I hate this whole "It's not non-lethal" movement for a couple of things.
> 
> First, the Taser has never been a proven cause of death in anyone.  There have been a few MEs that have ruled it was the cause, but never actually proved it and instead used the "Well, it wasn't this or this or this, so it had to have been the Taser", which is why some courts have told MEs they can't do that.
> 
> ...



Since when is 0.3% not something worth considering? How about morphine? What's its fatality rate? It's still worth taking seriously right? 

Some significant illnesses have those rates. Many are contraindications or considerations for drugs. They are still very important. 

The road death toll is the perfect example. What fraction of people die on roads? Bugger all, percentage wise. Yet buckets of people devote their time to reducing the road toll. The deaths on roads make the news just about every night. Safe driving is worthy of some consideration because of the potential risk of driving a ton of metal at 70mi/hr. In the same vein, we should show the same respect for the device the passes 50,000 volts through you body.

Their adverse affects may not be exceptionally well proven but the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence. Aside from that, their dangers make sense from a physiological and intuitive point of view, and that, at the very least, justifies considerable caution. Can you not admit that, based on the minor prevalence of congenital problems and some concern for the rare physiological affects, it is enough to simply encourage their responsible use? I'm really not at all against them, I just think they should be offered the respect they deserve. They are not shortcuts with people who could be talked down in 2 minutes and they are not instruments of punishment. This is only unclear to 0.3% of coppers, but its still a number worthy of consideration. I'm weary of a lack of responsibility on the part of some coppers regarding its use. Basically, I'm really just talking about the wording of a police college manual and an SOP collection, not the banning of tasers, hamburgers and liberty, so you can cool your jets.


----------



## Shishkabob (Dec 11, 2010)

Out of 25 years, hundreds of thousands, if not more, of Taserings, and only 240 deaths "linked" to Tasers yet no actual concrete proof.  Yet the amount of lives saved cannot be counted, as every Tasering kept the officers from either going hands on or using actual lethal force.




Hell, how many thousands of civlians have used Tasers?  How many civilians have been Tased?  Yet not a single death.  Look at all the officers that have been tased for training.  Hell, I've been Tased.  Not a single non-criminal death from a Taser.  Ever.


The deaths "from" Tasers are truly blown way out of proportion, especially since each and every single one was a person fighting police.


----------



## firemedic07 (Dec 11, 2010)

Linuss said:


> Hell, how many thousands of civlians have used Tasers?  How many civilians have been Tased?  Yet not a single death.  Look at all the officers that have been tased for training.  Hell, I've been Tased.  Not a single non-criminal death from a Taser.  Ever.



ive been tased too and im still kickin. made 20 bucks out of the deal


----------



## medic417 (Dec 11, 2010)

firemedic07 said:


> ive been tased too and im still kickin. made 20 bucks out of the deal



Yes you did but I made more selling the video of it.


----------



## firemedic07 (Dec 11, 2010)

medic417 said:


> Yes you did but I made more selling the video of it.



lol well that means im entitled to a lil bit of the proffit eh?


----------



## medic417 (Dec 11, 2010)

firemedic07 said:


> lol well that means im entitled to a lil bit of the proffit eh?



Nope you sold all rights for the $20.


----------



## MagicTyler (Dec 11, 2010)

I've been tased (took a probe in the armpit), and peper sprayed... I'd rather take 20 rides on the taser than taste peper spray again. I hate the BS that comes up when LEO tase someone smaller than them. IMO LEO should never have to go hands on with someone, no matter if the persons size. It not a cop's job to use their strength to get someone into cuffs (even if they can easily).


----------



## jjesusfreak01 (Dec 11, 2010)

MagicTyler said:


> I've been tased (took a probe in the armpit), and peper sprayed... I'd rather take 20 rides on the taser than taste peper spray again. I hate the BS that comes up when LEO tase someone smaller than them. IMO LEO should never have to go hands on with someone, no matter if the persons size. It not a cop's job to use their strength to get someone into cuffs (even if they can easily).



I disagree. Tasers create electrical shocks that can have unplanned harmful effects to the offender. If a person has no weapon and can be reasonably subdued by the officers on scene by overwhelming force, that's the best bet. No tasers because some angry woman doesn't want to get out of her car, or some kid is being obnoxious. If someone attacks the officers, tase away, if someone has a weapon, tase away, if someone's running, tase away. Cops are trained in numerous takedown techniques that are used effectively everyday, without need for tasers. You can call tasers a "less than lethal" weapon, but they are occasionally lethal. They are a great tool for cops no doubt, but any cop who treats it like a no consequence pass to easy submission needs to be removed from the force.

It IS a cop's job to use their strength to get someone into cuffs. That's exactly what they signed on for. Maybe there will be a future police force where cops never expect to have to touch criminals when arresting them, but that's not what we have now.


----------



## Frozennoodle (Dec 11, 2010)

jjesusfreak01 said:


> I disagree. Tasers create electrical shocks that can have unplanned harmful effects to the offender. If a person has no weapon and can be reasonably subdued by the officers on scene by overwhelming force, that's the best bet. No tasers because some angry woman doesn't want to get out of her car, or some kid is being obnoxious. If someone attacks the officers, tase away, if someone has a weapon, tase away, if someone's running, tase away. Cops are trained in numerous takedown techniques that are used effectively everyday, without need for tasers. You can call tasers a "less than lethal" weapon, but they are occasionally lethal. They are a great tool for cops no doubt, but any cop who treats it like a no consequence pass to easy submission needs to be removed from the force.
> 
> It IS a cop's job to use their strength to get someone into cuffs. That's exactly what they signed on for. Maybe there will be a future police force where cops never expect to have to touch criminals when arresting them, but that's not what we have now.




How about don't resist arrest? Seems pretty simple to me.  No reason someones father or son or daughter has to go wrestle a suspect to the ground exposing their gun and risking serious injury when you can bring them down easily with a taser.  Cops shouldn't have to fight fair.


----------



## Shishkabob (Dec 11, 2010)

jjesusfreak01 said:


> It IS a cop's job to use their strength to get someone into cuffs. That's exactly what they signed on for. Maybe there will be a future police force where cops never expect to have to touch criminals when arresting them, but that's not what we have now.





*Sigh*  This is what many people not in LE don't get. 

Just as it isn't our job as medics and EMTs to put themselves in danger with combative patients, it is also not a cops job.  


Sorry, but this whole "fighting fair" stuff is crap.  You don't fight fair, you fight to win, period.  That is why cops have Tasers, Asp/ batons, OC spray and guns.  That's why medics have Versed, Ativan, Valium, Haldol, Benadryl and Rorcunomium and the like.  




Do what ever has to be done to get the job done as safely for the officer and / or provider as possible.  If someone doesn't want to be Tased, maybe they should comply with the lawful order the first time.


----------



## firemedic07 (Dec 12, 2010)

medic417 said:


> Nope you sold all rights for the $20.



damn, thats what i was scared of hearing lol so i guess i need to return my escalade now then huh lol


----------



## slb862 (Dec 12, 2010)

LMAO, now that there is funny!


----------



## MrBrown (Dec 12, 2010)

Whatever happened to the good old days of four to six cops beating the crap out of people with long wooden batons? 

Have we learned nothing from the Queensland Police?


----------



## HotelCo (Dec 12, 2010)

Linuss said:


> If someone doesn't want to be Tased, maybe they should comply with the lawful order the first time.



And when its not a lawful order, you have the right to resist the unlawful arrest. Up to, and including taking the officer's life (when the situation merits deadly force).

Runyan v Illinois
John Bad Elk v United States

(plenty more case law on it, but I see no reason to take up space on here citing each one.)

Anyway, the point is that some cops have been known to jump the gun in deploying the taser.



.


----------



## Frozennoodle (Dec 12, 2010)

HotelCo said:


> And when its not a lawful order, you have the right to resist the unlawful arrest. Up to, and including taking the officer's life (when the situation merits deadly force).
> 
> Runyan v Illinois
> John Bad Elk v United States
> ...



It's not murder, but according to the opinion of the court written by Mr. Justice Peckham in John Bad Elk v United States, it is manslaughter and that the plaintiff in that appeal had no right to kill the officer. 



> Instead of saying that plaintiff in error had the right to use such force as was absolutely necessary to resist an attempted illegal arrest, the jury were informed that the policemen had the right to use all necessary force to arrest him, and that he had no right to resist. He, of course, had no right to unnecessarily injure, much less to kill, his assailant; but where the officer is killed in the course of the disorder which naturally accompanies an attempted arrest that is resisted, the law looks with very different eyes upon the transaction when the officer had the right to make the arrest from what it does if the officer had no such right.



Can you link Runyan v Illinois?  The only thing I can find is Runyan v Commonwealth which is a second amendment case from 2008 in which the courts decision was that Washington D.C.'s gun laws violated the 2nd amendment and didn't cover resisting unlawful arrest.

You have people out there who abuse their powers, maybe escalate situations instead of being reasonable and talking them down, but you can't go around killing people because they want to arrest you for something they might believe is unlawful but really isn't.  That is why we have courts.


----------



## HotelCo (Dec 12, 2010)

Frozennoodle said:


> It's not murder, but according to the opinion of the court written by Mr. Justice Peckham in John Bad Elk v United States, it is manslaughter and that the plaintiff in that appeal had no right to kill the officer.



The Justice goes on to say:

"Where the officer is killed in the course of the disorder which naturally accompanies an attempted arrest that is resisted, the law looks with very different eyes upon the transaction, when the officer had the right to make the arrest, from what it does if the officer had no right. What may be murder in the first case might be nothing more than manslaughter in the other, *or the facts might show that no offense had been committed.*”



> Can you link Runyan v Illinois?  The only thing I can find is Runyan v Commonwealth which is a second amendment case from 2008 in which the courts decision was that Washington D.C.'s gun laws violated the 2nd amendment and didn't cover resisting unlawful arrest.



My apologies, it wasn't Runyan v Illinois. It was Runyan v Indiana, which is written as Runyan v State. If  you google "Runyan v. State 57 Ind. 80" it will pop up. Sorry about that. lol



> You have people out there who abuse their powers, maybe escalate situations instead of being reasonable and talking them down, but you can't go around killing people because they want to arrest you for something they might believe is unlawful but really isn't.  That is why we have courts.



No, you can't go around killing people because they want to arrest you. When the officer attempts to use deadly force, when they shouldn't have.. (The courts have termed deadly force as "The ultimate arrest.") You have the right to defend yourself. Obviously you can't go around killing a police officer just because he wants to arrest you. You can resist an UNLAWFUL arrest using reasonable means for the situation, which could include the use of deadly force, if it were to get that high up the force continuum.


----------

