"A Taser stun gun was used by officers arresting Omar"

[Donegeal]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Only a blind man (either willfully or not) could argue otherwise, given the body of evidence.

Show me.

[Donegeal]

Originally posted by BeBro
What about using those paintball thingies and crying "you're dead, man!"

Pepper balls, pepper spray, OC spray and all the other chemical detterents are effictive in hurting and annoying the target. Unfortunately, it is very easy to fight through being sprayed with pepper spray. A TAZER on the other hand, incompasitates. It is not possible for the target to do any resisting. ou do good to even talk while being tazed (and I mean just one word sentences).

[Ramo]

As Police Use of Tasers Rises, Questions Over Safety Increase

By Alex Berenson



New York Times: NAZARETH, Pa. — July 18, 2004 - As the sun set on June 24, something snapped in Kris J. Lieberman, an unemployed landscaper who lived a few miles from this quiet town. For 45 minutes, he crawled deliriously around a pasture here, moaning and pounding his head against the weedy ground.

Eventually the police arrived, carrying a Taser M26, an electric gun increasingly popular with law enforcement officers nationwide. The gun fires electrified barbs up to 21 feet, hitting suspects with a disabling charge.

The officers told Mr. Lieberman, 32, to calm down. He lunged at them instead. They fired their Taser twice. He fought briefly, collapsed and died.

Mr. Lieberman joined a growing number of people, now at least 50, including 6 in June alone, who have died since 2001 after being shocked. Taser International, which makes several versions of the guns, says its weapons are not lethal, even for people with heart conditions or pacemakers. The deaths resulted from drug overdoses or other factors and would have occurred anyway, the company says.

But Taser has scant evidence for that claim. The company's primary safety studies on the M26, which is far more powerful than other stun guns, consist of tests on a single pig in 1996 and on five dogs in 1999. Company-paid researchers, not independent scientists, conducted the studies, which were never published in a peer-reviewed journal. Taser has no full-time medical director and has never created computer models to simulate the effect of its shocks, which are difficult to test in human clinical trials for ethical reasons.

What is more, aside from a continuing Defense Department study, the results of which have not been released, no federal or state agencies have studied the safety, or effectiveness, of Tasers, which fall between two federal agencies and are essentially unregulated. Nor has any federal agency studied the deaths to determine what caused them. In at least two cases, local medical examiners have said Tasers were partly responsible. In many cases, autopsies are continuing or reports are unavailable.

The few independent studies that have examined the Taser have found that the weapon's safety is unproven at best. The most comprehensive report, by the British government in 2002, concluded "the high-power Tasers cannot be classed, in the vernacular, as `safe.' " Britain has not approved Tasers for general police use.

A 1989 Canadian study found that stun guns induced heart attacks in pigs with pacemakers. A 1999 study by the Department of Justice on an electrical weapon much weaker than the Taser found that it might cause cardiac arrest in people with heart conditions. In reviewing other electrical devices, the Food and Drug Administration has found that a charge half as large as that of the M26 can be dangerous to the heart.

While Taser says that the M26 is not dangerous, it now devotes most of its marketing efforts to the X26, a less powerful weapon it introduced last year. Both weapons are selling briskly. About 100,000 officers nationally now have Tasers, 20 times the number in 2000, and most carry the M26. Taser, whose guns are legal for civilian use in most states, hopes to expand its potential market with a new consumer version of the X26 later this summer.

For Taser, which owns the weapon's trademark and is the only company now making the guns, the growth has been a bonanza. Its stock has soared. Its executives and directors, including a former New York police commissioner, Bernard B. Kerik, have taken advantage, selling $60 million in shares since November.

Patrick Smith, Taser's chief executive, said the guns are safe. "We tell people that this has never caused a death, and in my heart and soul I believe that's true," Mr. Smith said.

Taser did not need to disclose the British results to American police departments, he said. "The Brits are extremely conservative," he said. "To me, this is sort of boilerplate, the fine print." In addition to Taser's animal trials, thousands of police volunteers have received shocks without harm, Mr. Smith said.

[Ramo]

And it might seem to people that police are TAZER happy, but try to think from their point of view (or at least mine).

I'm not arguing that tasers are never useful, but that 23% is an extremely excessive rate. And it is, much higher than other cities.

[Donegeal]

Two things Ramo:

1) I have already stated that I was unsure about the heart condidtion part.

2) That article is nothing but speculation. No evidence was given. Just possibilities. I'm looking for PROOF.

Now if we take the actual number of times the TAZER has been deployed and compare it to even the number of "possible" fatalities, we are looking at something like .0001 to .00001% fatality rate. If we take these same situations and remove the TAZER completely from the Force Option Continuum, the fatality rate would increase dramaticly (it is really impossible to give excate numbers because these are hypothetical situations, but evidence from similar situations resolved without the TAZER can give a relatively accurate answer).

The end result of implementing the TAZER in ALL departments that have done so is a dramatic decline in suspect injuries, suspect fatalities and on duty Officer injuries ( ).

[Ramo]

Did you read what I've bolded? I don't see why the cited studies don't constitute "evidence" or "proof" as to the lethality of tasers. It's certainly not "speculation."

As I said, I didn't argue that tasers are never useful. Just that they are often excessively used, in situations where they clearly aren't warranted. APD has a policy of using tasers before batons.

[Donegeal]

Yes I did. And the closest that those bolded areas came to "proof", and is more like speculation was "In at least two cases, local medical examiners have said Tasers were partly responsible.". "Partly responsible" does not mean "caused".

Anyway, I'd like to see the actual wording of APDs TAZER policy. Could you provide it?

[Ramo]

Partly responsible means being part of the responsible factors. And I specifically referred to the studies, not the ME reports. And calling either the studies or the ME reports "nothing but speculation" is insane.

I can't find the policy wording, but I did find the our local paper, the Austin American Statesman's, report on the matter:

Experts say Austin's rapid increase in Taser use, while not surprising, is alarming because many officers only recently received training. They may be using the stun guns in situations where the disabling electrical shock is an overreaction.

"You have less incidents (of use of force), but there is more force being used in each of the incidents," del Carmen said.

The department's policy gives officers wide discretion to use Tasers whenever a suspect is actively resisting arrest. The new analysis shows that officers routinely use Tasers before resorting to batons or other hard impact weapons.

William Terrill, an assistant professor of criminal justice at Northeastern University, said he would question why Austin police are turning to Tasers so quickly. In other departments, they are used only as an alternative to deadly force, he said.

http://www.statesman.com/specialreports/content/specialreports/useofforce/112804force.html

[Donegeal]

Originally posted by Ramo
Partly responsible means being part of the responsible factors.

And to me, and the law in certian circunstances, you are partly responsible in any accident simply for being in the accident (ie: you were there, thus part of the responsible factors), which is ridiculous and so is "partly responsible" in this case. Anyway....

Now in that article, it states that "..but there is more force being used in each of the incidents,". Here I disagree. The use of a TAZER is much less force than that of a batton. There is no lasting effects with a TAZER. Now if "less" force were applied to stop resistance and they clubbed the guy with a batton, it would have a much greater chance of doing lasting or permenant harm (ie: breaking/crushing/fracturing a bone), plus someone would tape it and give it to some TV station that would only show the part where the officer started swinging (not the part where the guy lunged at them, but this is another arguement entirely that can be carried on in another thread if you like).

What it comes down to is what is less force? Battons, or other Intermediate Weapons that can cause lasting effects, or a TAZER which has none (but is far more effective)?

[Ramo]

I would call death (substantiated by the studies cited) a pretty damn lasting effect. The taser is a potentially deadly weapon, and ought to be treated as such. Police should not have "discretion to use Tasers whenever a suspect is actively resisting arrest."

And to me, and the law in certian circunstances, you are partly responsible in any accident simply for being in the accident (ie: you were there, thus part of the responsible factors), which is ridiculous and so is "partly responsible" in this case. Anyway....

That's just plain intellectually dishonest. We're not talking about some inane legalism, but an ME report citing the causes of death.

[Donegeal]

Originally posted by Ramo
I would call death (substantiated by the studies cited) a pretty damn lasting effect.

Where? I did not see it substantiated in anything that you, or anyone else for that matter, posted.

Police should not have "discretion to use Tasers whenever a suspect is actively resisting arrest."

I agree. That is why I want to see the actual wording of the specific policy, and not some reporters interuptation of it.

That's just plain intellectually dishonest. We're not talking about some inane legalism, but an ME report citing the causes of death.

True, and thus the reason for my "Anyway..." comment.

[Ramo]

Again:

The few independent studies that have examined the Taser have found that the weapon's safety is unproven at best. The most comprehensive report, by the British government in 2002, concluded "the high-power Tasers cannot be classed, in the vernacular, as `safe.' " Britain has not approved Tasers for general police use.

A 1989 Canadian study found that stun guns induced heart attacks in pigs with pacemakers. A 1999 study by the Department of Justice on an electrical weapon much weaker than the Taser found that it might cause cardiac arrest in people with heart conditions. In reviewing other electrical devices, the Food and Drug Administration has found that a charge half as large as that of the M26 can be dangerous to the heart.

[Winston]

Amazing to see how this thread has turned from the announcement that a subway bomber was arrested, involving the use of a stun gun, to an heated debate about how terrible and dangerous stun guns are to people.

Or maybe not. Is it amazing? No, it's the Poly OT at work.

[Donegeal]

Nowhere did it say ANYTHING about death.

And is I'm not going to use "legalese" in this agrument, then please refrain from doing so as well (ie: "the high-power Tasers cannot be classed, in the vernacular, as `safe.' " ).

And once again, I have said that I was unsure about the heart condition aspect.

Lets take those heart condition aspects and remove the TAZER. Someone with a weak heart is in some type of confrontation with police where the police need to detain him. This is a tense situation already. Blood presure is through the roof and the weak ticker is pounding. Prime time for a heart attack already. Now, as we aren't using a TAZER, we go to something else. We'll use a Batton. The cop goes and subdues the guy by striking him with a batton. What are the chances of the ticker going caput in this situation as well?

The TAZER saves lives. Both of the suspect and officers.

[Donegeal]

No one can predict the poly OT Winston. Even that xeno guys thread is still alive despite it being an admitted spam bot.