Taser Safety

[reaper]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[marineman]

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]

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]

^
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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.......................

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]

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]

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.