CrunchGear

You are full of shit
TASERS SAVES LIVES EVERYDAY

Lemme make this simple if a cop is shooting you with a taser then technically by force continuum models used in most police forces he probably has the option to shoot you. I don’t know about you but I’d rather be hit with a “Less than Lethal” taser than a 9mm piece of lead anyway. Finally a remember a taser is less than lethal not non lethal as it is so often touted, everything is lethal in the right dose. A taser is simply a weapon designed to give an officer something to use in between beating you over the head with a stick and shooting you.

Let me make this simple, too:

In the cases where both the taser and the gun would work, it’s of course preferrable to use the taser.

But guns are not used that often, because cops know they probably kill. They’ll think twice.

If a cop thinks a taser is harmless, he will use it in much less threatening situations. You can find videos on youtube which show cops using the taser as a compliance tool in nonthreatening situations. And that is the problem. Tasers aren’t less than lethal, the correct term is “less lethal”

It’s very alarming if scientific research is suppressed.

i agree with chrs they wont us the taser unless its an emergencey

While the theory that Tasers could adversely affect the heart seems plausible, the theory that it might affect the brain does not (unless someone is shot in the head) because current basically runs between the two projectile electrodes and doesn’t travel to distant locations in the body. I haven’t seen a Taser manual but I bet they say not to shoot people in the head.

It’s good that cops have other less-lethal options, like the Tasers, but it begs the dangerous question of whether cops are reaching for them too easily in situations they wouldn’t even think about pulling guns in. We’ve all read stories about officers that get excited, get in wrong situations, etc., and get trigger happy as a result.

And the chilling effect on researchers is just frightening in any case. The suppression of facts isn’t helping the public or the police who may think these are safer to use than they really are, therefore, facing expensive, painful lawsuits.

The problem is not the tool, but one of human factor: does the officer employ deadly force or does the officer use “less-than-deadly” force?

Apart from questionable company (lack of) ethics, we need to examine the decision making process. When is it OK to use a gun, a baton, the pepper spray, Taser, harpoon, kung fu, etc to confront a particular situation. In addition to examining the scientific merit of Taser, we need to realize that training of the peace officer needs to improve. Ceteris paribus, I’d rather have someone talk to me to calm me down instead of firing 50000 volts down my spine because it’s “less deadly”.

In a recent Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) in-depth documentary on Tasers which aired nationally on Canadian television, the conclusions of THREE recent independent medical studies on Tasers (two of them performed here in Canada) were revealed which raise some very serious questions about the lethality of Tasers.

The documentary, about 20 minutes in length, is available to watch online at http://www.cbc.ca/video/features/news/ Scroll down and click on “Taser Deaths”.

Highlights of the independent study conclusions:

1. Dr. Stanley Nattel, Cardiologist at the Montreal Heart Institute, Director of the Paul-David Chair in Cardiovascular Electrophysiology and leading cardiology researcher at the University of Montreal, and an associate professor at McGill University, concluded that “A rapid rhythm induced by a Taser, called a Ventricular Tachycardia, may not cause very severe symptoms and particularly if the person is very excited, frightened, etc., they might not even notice it. But that kind of rhythm can eventually what we call “degenerate” to Ventricular Fibrillation, which is an even faster and irregular rhythm that is rapidly lethal.” Dr. Nattel said further that “the way in which the Taser causes death is by provoking a very rapid, irregular heart rhythm, and that doesn’t leave any traces in the body. So basically if you don’t see anything there, you don’t know what the cause is and it could be a lethal dose of drugs or it could be an extreme mental stress or it could be the Taser. I don’t think it’s possible to differentiate those possibilities in most cases.” E-mail address: stanley.nattel@icm-mhi.org

2. Another recent independent study in Canada on the effects of Tasers on pigs was performed at the University of Toronto by Kumaraswamy Nanthakumar, MD; Ian Billingsley, MD, Stephane Masse, MASc, Paul Dorian, MD, Douglas Cameron, MD, Vijay S. Chauhan, MD, Eugene Downar, MD and Elias Sevaptsidis, DEC. This study injected into pigs a substance that mimics the adrenaline rush that would be experienced during a stressful arrest by police or a cocaine high. The pigs were then shocked with Tasers. The study found that, in circumstances of increased adrenalgenic stress, arrythmias (irregular heart rhythms) were caused and, in some cases, were lethal. (See the Journal of the American College of Cardiology: http://content.onlinejacc.org/cgi/content/abstract/j.jacc.2006.02.076v1)

3. In the U.S., Dr. John Webster, Biomedical Engineer, University of Wisconsin tried to duplicate the situation that would occur with humans … and “we got very different results. I don’t think that they’re non-lethal weapons but I think that there’s a probability, albeit small, that the Taser could electrocute a person.”

When asked by the CBC reporter what he would do if a study showed there was a risk, Taser International spokesperson Steve Tuttle answered by saying, “We would have an obligation to disclose that to our customers and to the public. That’s pure and simple.” However, to the best of my knowledge, Taser International has not disclosed the results from these studies to its customers or to the public.

The police will tell you that the people who have died proximal to Taser use have died of a condition they call “excited delirium.” This is not a medically recognized condition, but is only a theory that usually lets police off the hook and shifts the blame from the person exerting the force to the person who dies. I urge you to read the following reports from National Public Radio (NPR), released in late February:

Part 2 of 2 – February 27, 2007

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=7622314

Part 1 of 2 – February 26, 2007

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=7608386

The total number of deaths proximal to taser use is now 244. Since the beginning of 2007, NINE people have died in the United States, as follows:

236. Calvin Thompson, 42, Gastonia, North Carolina
January 5, 2007

237. Douglas Ilten, 45, Fort Pierce, Florida
January 6, 2007

238. Blondel Lassegue, 38, Queens, New York
January 7, 2007

239. Pete Carlos Madrid, 44, Fresno, California
January 9, 2007

240. Keith Kallstrom, 56, Milan, Michigan
January 17, 2007

241. Andrew J. Athetis, 18, Gilbert, Arizona
January 18, 2007

242. Unknown, Unknown, Huntington Park, California
January 29, 2007

243. Steven Krohn, 44, Mesa, Arizona
February 11, 2007

244. Martin Mendoza, 43, Vista, California
February 21, 2007

Are any of you actually law enforcement officers?

Ok, new question: who here has actually been tasered, and knows how it affects your body?

Ugh.

Let me do some statistics for you. I’ll just BS them, but you get the idea.

If a law enforcement officer chooses to draw his standard weapon and shoot you, he’s going to shoot to kill (not to injure or slow down.) Your chances of living are pretty much 0%.

If a law enforcement officer chooses to draw his taser weapon and shoot you, your chances of living are pretty much 99.999999%

Unless of course, you’re high on meth or have pre-existing problems. Then your chances decrease a bit.

But anyway, would you rather the officer use his billy club to beat you into submission? Shoot a beanbag at you? Pepper spray/balls? All have their pros and cons. I’ll take the taser over those any day of the week.

My final thoughts– If a law enforcement officer is crooked, he’s crooked regardless of the tools employed.

Tasers most certainly do have their place on the force spectrum. The problem is a company that seems intent on perpetuating confusion regarding what place that is. I’m confident that I’m safer being hit with a Taser than being shot, but how about a nightstick? Is a Taser safer than that? What about pepper spray? What about other traditional methods of restraint for an uncooperative suspect? Certainly a Taser is safer for the officer than pinning someone to the ground, but how little threat does a suspect need to pose before a Taser response should be regarded as unjustifiably risky to the suspect?

When the company insists that Tasers are absolutely safe, that carries some very strong implications. An absolutely safe weapon could be used to discourage a toddler from running into traffic. An absolutely safe weapon could be considered a preferable resolution to even simple verbal confrontation. The former example is hyperbolic, of course, but the latter is very close to the real abuse of Tasers: an officer believes a suspect is insufficiently deferential and teaches him a lesson with a Taser. It’s “absolutely safe,” so why not use it as a shortcut around any annoyance he might introduce into your day, however minor? Heck, why not Taser people routinely on traffic stops as an additional deterrent? It’s “absolutely safe,” after all.

The bottom line isn’t to say that Tasers are “bad,” but only that suppressing data on the real effects of this weapon prevents departments and officers from making responsible decisions about how to best integrate it into their arsenals and their tactics.

The question everyone has is not whether being shot with a gun or being shot with a taser is preferable, everyone would rather be shot with a taser. It’s a moot point that a taser is is less harmful than a gun *most* of the time. The dilemma is how often people are being shot at all. The psychological effect of having a less lethal weapon can be dramatic. You can escalate a confrontation faster and not have to worry since you have a weapon that you consider safe. You can use it as a compliance tool because you consider it safe. You may also be less inclined to try and subdue a suspect using non physical means.

That being said there are times when a suspect obviously is not going to go willingly, and an officer would prefer to arrest them with the least amount of force necessary and with the least chance for harm to himself and to the suspect.

I think the main point here is that the officer needs to really think and feel in his head that the taser is a deadly weapon. Electricity can be deadly, and this is a high voltage piece of equipment. Electricity doesn’t just flow from one prong to another as a poster above said. This tool causes a voltage to form across your entire body, every muscular neuron in your body will essentially fire when a strong enough potential difference is applied even superficially to your skin. That is where the immediate harm may be caused, since a small group of neurons controls the rhythmic beating of your heart.

wow so the phoenix pd go back in time as well or what?

“We went from 24 officer-related shootings in 2003 to 12 in 2002. But we didn’t stay there. In 2004″

Life’s real simple, dont be a jackazz and get the cops called on you, then you dont get zapped.

You are full of shit. I read the same report you apparently did.
167 cases of taser death. http://www.azcentral.com/specials/special43/articles/1224taserlist24-ON.html

You are totally twisting the facts.
Most of the deaths listed in the report say that is was because the subjects were on insane amounts of cocaine. Quit being sensational.
I’ve been tased 4 times and I’m still here.

Your paragraph quoting Dave Kelly: the years didn’t make any sense. I think you got them out of order - definitely distracts from the point you’re trying to make.

I fully agree with the point you have reiterated multiple times in the comments. Stop missing the point, people. It’s not about whether Tasers are better than guns. It’s about whether the company is out of line in intimidating scientific research and implying its products are completely safe - they are not.

From what you’ve laid out, it sounds like some of the company’s management are on the wrong side of the law, or dangerously close to it.

My problem is with Taser treating all their customers as criminals. You ever research buying one. When you buy a Taser cartridge for your weapon they register the serial number. When it’s fired, it shoots out hundreds of little papers with that number all over them so you can be tracked. I have a huge problem with that idea. Give me a real gun any day.

“safe” is a relative term. Tasers are weapons that are intended to keep the public safe. The alternatives to tasers are either guns, batons, or going hand-to-hand with a perp.
Cops aren’t trained to jump out of nowhere and stun anyone they choose. They’re dealing with serious scum on a daily basis, some of whom are out to kill.
Pepper spray, batons and fists are all potentially lethal too…

Chris, you’re line of logic is absolutely correct:
Chris

March 7th, 2007 at 12:35 pm

Let me make this simple, too:

In the cases where both the taser and the gun would work, it’s of course preferrable to use the taser.

But guns are not used that often, because cops know they probably kill. They’ll think twice.

If a cop thinks a taser is harmless, he will use it in much less threatening situations. You can find videos on youtube which show cops using the taser as a compliance tool in nonthreatening situations. And that is the problem. Tasers aren’t less than lethal, the correct term is “less lethal”

It’s very alarming if scientific research is suppressed.

You hear stories every other day of 67 year old GRANDMOTHERS being tasered, or withered old men being tasered by more than physically capable policeMEN. Disgusting.

What’s more disgusting is the recent report showing shootings taking place, at the hand of UNTRAINED police officers, due to the 90 day allowance given for being on the force, as long as future training takes place.

The POINT of this story, is the suing and deliberate attempt to strongarm SCIENCE in favor of PROFITS, and godd*mn I can’t stand people who can’t think outside of the box, and understand larger contexts. Jeez, authoritarian “do gooders,” huh?

The issue has already been hit on the head.

The fact that Taser is deemed a safe alternative gives the officers who deploy them no concerns about using them. The officers know if they have to utilize their firearm, they better DAMN well be able to justify their actions later on during the resulting investigation. How many times have you seen an officer pull his firearm and shoot someone in the leg because they are refusing to get on the ground ? A leg shot isn’t lethal either unless you whack an artery or major vein. . . .

The problem boils down to any Taser review that goes against the companies projected image is instantly a target for litigation. The dangerous game they’re playing here is the day the general consensus decides the devices aren’t as safe as previously claimed, Taser Inc is going
to find itself on the wrong end of a very, very large lawsuit that will likely destroy the company as we know it. Not to mention the lawsuits that will hit every law enforcement organization who ever used one. . . .

Bottom line is Tasers, like any other device / weapon at the officers disposal, should be used as a last resort. Ya I know there are folks out
there who probably need to be hit with these things ( most of my family is law enforcement ) but far too many folks who don’t usually end up getting zapped because of an impatient officer on the other end of the Taser.

Just my .02

i think we’re all agreed that it’s better to be tasered than shot at. it’s a good thing that cops have an option thats in between the billy club and the service firearm.

an issue that’s coming to light, however, is whether cops (and event private security guards) are beginning to use the taser *too* much. a simple browse through fark.com would show lots of anecdotal evidence of instances where a taser was used unnecessarily. the evidence is only anecdotal, but that may be because the company that makes the taser is very litigious and this may hamper any serious effort in collecting independent, statistical evidence.

Did you know that roughly 300 drown each year in their bathtubs? You didn’t did you?! It’s because the Man doesn’t want you to know, man!!!

Big trouble with little lazers - This time head mounted ones at

http://thymesonline.co.uk

You have to wonder, if they are so safe, why they block scientific research?

If I had a product which some people claimed was harmful, but I was sure was not, I’d want tons of scientific research to be done os that they could prove that my product was safe.

Thus, continuing the logical thread, they don’t want research done because it’s not as safe as they claim.

As for Mustafa “I’m Not Fighting You!” Tabatabainejad, check out my blog entry:

http://www.pdsys.org/blog/2006/11/17/UCPDUCLAPoliceTaserAGuyTheBlogWorldFreaksOut.aspx

What a dumbass.

Isn’t getting shot bad for the ticker also???? so is getting beat by a night stick but noone has a problem with that stuff or well robbers do i guess

As someone who has used pretty much all of the “Less than lethal” devices to include clubs, CN, CS, Pepper spray, saps (yes I am old) the old “hand to hand” methods, I can honestly say that the stun gun has been the most extremely effective and less damaging method I have found. If I didn’t have a taser, pepper spray (Which I Hate to use) or anything else, I might have already had to use deadly force. Is it perfect? NO..Is it better than a club? Of COURSE.. Lets use some common sense here..

First things first, police are trained to in every case attempt to use a pistol in a less lethal fashion - ie to disarm and disabled rather than decease. Now, it is difficult to argue that tasers dont have a use in law enforcement. They do reduce the number of officer and perpertrator deaths each year. The problem lies in the Taser Company’s inability to accept peer reviewed scientific research that does not conform to what they say are the risks of their weapon. Where is the future for research science if company’s can simply block out research that they don’t like? They should use this research to help improve the Taser, rather then act like the problem does not exist.

I have used the Taser, I am a Taser Instructor. I have been Tased a number of times. I like the flexability it gives me as an officer. I have been a Police Officer for 28 years. It is easier for me to Tase an IDIOT, than to beat him with a baton. The baton is more fun but I am older and the Taser makes more sence. Those who do not want the Taser in the world are not looking at the big picture. In that case they may need to be beaten with a baton.

I find it interesting that one common argument seems to go along the line of “tazers are used instead of deadly force via guns; only a fool would rather be shot than tazered” or something to that effect.

On the surface, it makes a kind of common, folksy sense. But, like most similar statements, the “common sense”comes from the conclusion, “which is better?”

The logical error is that the premise is true: that police employ a Tazer in situations where deadly force is the only or even likely option. I can think of few situations where this is likely, let alone the norm.

Tazers are close weapons; guns are not. You do not tazer a fleeing suspect; you shoot them. You do not tazer a suspect that is a short distance away and points a firearm at the officer; you shoot them.

You do not threaten a distant suspect with a tazer any more than you would with a baton; you draw a firearm and allow the suspect to decide his chances, which are poor; the officer has some distance and time to fire on his side; that’s why it’s effective at getting suspects to allow themselves to be arrested.

You do not pull your firearm when wrestling with a suspect; you protect the firearm and subdue the suspect with physical force.

We can dismiss the possibility that an officer might choose not to shoot in those situations where it may be appropriate; certainly if he chooses not to shoot for whatever reasons, it remains that the same factors of sufficient distance and time to fire make the tazer a poor substitute.

No, we employ tazers in situations where close contact with the suspect makes it’s use possible at all; it’s a substitute for physical force, restraint, batons, etc, not deadly force with firearms. Officers are trained to protect and holster firearms in such situtations, lest the suspect acquire control of the firearm employ it upon the officer or others.

The whole “would you rather be shot” premise is bogus. It’s not even appropriate in a “would you rather be pepper sprayed” premise; although it is true that pepper spray can be employed in place of a firearm; it is the true substitute to deadly force.

I can say from personal experience as a police officer that I have sustained 2 on the job injuries from fighting with violent suspects who were high on drugs where leathal force was not justified, and if I had have a taser at that time the injuries would not have happend. When we got tasers, they became a valuble tool for us so we did not have to go hands on as often and officer injuries dropped.

Five more deaths proximal to Tasers during the last week:

245. Muszack Nazaire, 24, Collier County, Florida
March 13, 2007

246. Randy Buckey, 42, Marion County, Ohio
March 15, 2007

247. Ryan Lee Meyers, 40, Middle River, Maryland
March 16, 2007

248. David Brown, 47, Park Forest, Illinois
March 17, 2007

249. Unknown, ??, West Covina, California
March 17, 2007

All of the alleged law enforcement officers who have opinioned-up in favor of “Taser’em early & often” seem to have forgotten the oath they took on “gun & badge day”; that is to serve and protect!

Justifying your own usages by claiming less officer injury or shorter confrontation events or even less overtime is not even close to what the actual end-results have become.

The mentally handicapped, the drug or alcohol intoxicated, the aggressive and the non-compliant, when not armed with a deadly weapon or a dangerous instrument, should not die in a physical altercation with police.

Justifying the use of your Taser on a vehicle operator whose only fault is the slow retrieval of the vehicle registration from the glove box is tantamount to a criminal act.
Police administrators who advance the usage in most if not all patrol level altercations to maximize arrest numbers per work-shift all the while reducing overtime costs due to reduced man-hours per arrest is malfeasance in the highest order.

Taser master instructors suggested in their teaching, that the Taser be deployed at the lower levels of the Use-of-force Continuum because it related to more cartridge sales for the company. This is proven fact, not an innuendo.

Taser’s were promoted for deployment with each and every officer with a department because it amounted to more sales of units per agency. Those who instructed that it should only be deployed where additional (backup) officers were in attendance were unceremoniously terminated and their credentials revoked. This is proven fact, not an innuendo.

At no time during training (sales promotional) of agency personal for certification, were they told to limit the number of times that a subject should be taser’ed. Only when the death toll started to mount, did a factory training bulletin go out addressing the faulting non-instruction.

Police Officers have been sold a false bill of goods by Taser. In the beginning, Taser promoted a $2,000,000 insurance rider that covered each department and its officers. Where is that policy today?

The comment of Mark Kroll is part of why the Taser Co. has lost so much respect. I am a professor of physics and electrical engineering and I have verified the study made by Mr. Ruggieri. Also, an esteemed professor at Duke University at the United States, and a close former student of my at a national laboratory has also confirmed Ruggieri’s testing and results. I looked up Mark Kroll and note that he is employed by Taser. Why did he not reveal that he has a large axe to grind? This company has lost so much respect and affection and we will never use these equipment here in this country.