Taser Article.

[sgtmac_46]

This thread is an interesting read. I don't know much about Tasers just because there not used in my state legally.

I don't think anyone could dispute that tasers are more effective then OC, especially not after seeing those videos. I don't think anyone is disputing that. I would like to see some hard stats on the % of failure for tasers and on the actual number of deaths attributed to tasers. It's too bad that so many of the stats on the number of deaths are biased - put out by groups with agenda's.

James

Your best source for real statistics is to take those deaths claimed by Amnesty International and the ACLU, and then read the real coroners reports on every single incident. A little critical thinking is all that's required to see the fast one that Amnesty and the ACLU is trying to pull. In every single incident the coroner's have discovered that death was caused by cocaine induced psychosis and exertion resulting in cardiac arrest. Having experience the Taser myself numerous times and having used it in the field, I am 100% confident of it's safety. The first time you get shocked two things become apparent. 1) You aren't hurt and 2) It's extremely effective.

 

[Cruentus]

Sgt Mac, Tgace, and others,

Thanks for the intel. I feel more informed on the issue now.; because tasers are illegal here and not used in our departments, I have never really looked much into them.

All good points. I didn't actually trust the arguements from amnesty or ACLU; which is why I wanted to see more evidence.

Also, OC does have a 70% effectiveness rating - but it is true that the rate doesn't mean that OC completely disables the criminal. It's still effective, but officers still have to fight for the arrest. They just have a lot less of a fight then without it. By the looks of things, tasers seem to take the fight right out of most people for a long enough time to make the arrest.

I was a believer before, but I am even more so now.

Let us know if you feel a difference between stinger systems and taser, Sgt. Mac...

:ultracool
Paul

 

[LARS]

Check Out These two Links:

http://www.opcc.bc.ca/Reports/TASER Report - photos.pdf


and more importantly !!!!!!


http://www.blackwaterusa.com/btw2004/articles/1220sudden.pdf


Darren Laur

 

[Cruentus]

Check Out These two Links:

http://www.opcc.bc.ca/Reports/TASER Report - photos.pdf


and more importantly !!!!!!


http://www.blackwaterusa.com/btw2004/articles/1220sudden.pdf


Darren Laur

Thanks Mr. Laur.

It would appear that these will be good reads, and I will be happy to look through them at the first opportunity!

Paul

 

[PeachMonkey]

Concerned about being killed by a taser? May I suggest not smoking crack, acting up at 3 in the morning, and then fighting the officers who show up to deal with you?

Well, it certainly inspires trust in law enforcement when a police officer suggests that resisting arrest justifies being killed by a taser. Luckily, most LEOs don't make such flip suggestions.

 

[PeachMonkey]

As for Amnesty Internationals motive, it's very simple. They don't want effective law enforcement. They will never state so, because they know it will expose them for what they are. They hate the taser, not because it is dangerous, but because it is safe and effective. There are members of Amnesty International that have some bizarre dream of some anarchist uprising in the united states, and they don't want this kind of device in the hands of police.

Do you have any evidence for this claim of a tie between Amnesty International and anarchist groups? Given that Amnesty International dedicates itself to human rights and the freedom of political prisoners, I find this difficult to swallow.

As for the ACLU, that's clear as well. The ACLU is ran by trial lawyers. Trial lawyers hate the taser because the less clients killed and injured, the less lawsuits against police departments, the less money in their pockets.

Given that the ACLU employs its own lawyers, and that trial lawyers that represent the ACLU do so on a pro-bono basis, this argument also doesn't hold much water. Or do you have evidence to the contrary?

I'm perfectly willing to believe that the arguments against taser usage have holes and flaws or are simply wrong (you would know better than I), but please don't paint Amnesty and the ACLU with these broad, incorrect brushes to discredit their arguments.

 

[Tgace]

Well...I have head (anecdotal) stories of the ACLU turning down cases that were less then "spectacular" for more high profile cases. The point being that the attorneys in question are more interested in building a dossier of cases during their tenure with the ACLU to take into private practice (and ask for more $$).

As to Amnesty International, I would heed them more if they had a more "realistic" approach. It seems like they want to live in a "rainbow and daisy" world where every form of force will be outlawed. While a nice dream. It isnt in line with reality. They also seem to enjoy painting all of us in the military and LE with the same broad brush as "jackbooted thugs". Instead of holding individual offenders/depts. responsible.

 

[PeachMonkey]

Well...I have head (anecdotal) stories of the ACLU turning down cases that were less then "spectacular" for more high profile cases.

I've heard reference to these anecdotal stories before as well, but haven't heard any evidence of them before. I would be curious to see such evidence.

The point being that the attorneys in question are more interested in building a dossier of cases during their tenure with the ACLU to take into private practice (and ask for more $$).

It's not at all inconceivable that some lawyers associate themselves with the ACLU in order to further their ambitions beyond the defense of civil liberties. This does not mean that the ACLU itself is not dedicated to the causes it claims to be devoted to.

However, again, the accusations of self-serving behavior are conjecture. We do know quite a bit about the senior legistlative staff of the ACLU. The ACLU's current legislative director, who is stepping down to focus on her family, has been there for over a decade; the executive director, who joined in 2001, previously served with other civil rights advocacy groups; the legal director has been with the ACLU since 1987, and the New York CLU since 1976.

As to Amnesty International, I would heed them more if they had a more "realistic" approach. It seems like they want to live in a "rainbow and daisy" world where every form of force will be outlawed.

I don't think Amnesty International wants to outlaw all forms of force; as they state here:

http://web.amnesty.org/pages/aboutai-index-eng

"AI’s vision is of a world in which every person enjoys all of the human rights enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other international human rights standards."

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, to which the US is a signatory, can be found, among other places, here:

http://web.amnesty.org/pages/aboutai-udhr-eng

They also seem to enjoy painting all of us in the military and LE with the same broad brush as "jackbooted thugs". Instead of holding individual offenders/depts. responsible.

I think it's probably frustrating in the military and law enforcement because it always feels as though you're caught in the middle between perps on the one hand and civilians on the other who want you here right now when something's wrong, and find you an annoyance at best when you "pick on them" when they happen to be committing a crime, and don't want to even see you at other times. (That's how my father, who was an LEO, described the feeling, anyway.)

However, I don't think Amnesty paints everyone with the brush -- I think that brush is instead implied by the media, by the immature who like to throw stones at any type of authority, and by the insecure who feel that any type of criticism, justified or not, is a personal assault.

 

[Tgace]

PS: I dont believe that there is a case yet where a subject has been deemed killed as a direst result of being Tased. In other words...ZAP...dead. I believe all occurred a fairly significant period of time after.

Anyway. Here are some other LE forums I visit. Instead of rehashing someone elses points Ill let yall read em if ya want.

http://forums.officer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=27984&page=1&pp=25

http://community.policeone.com/fusetalk/messageview.cfm?start=1&catid=93&threadid=7155

 

[Tgace]

It's not at all inconceivable that some lawyers associate themselves with the ACLU in order to further their ambitions beyond the defense of civil liberties. This does not mean that the ACLU itself is not dedicated to the causes it claims to be devoted to.....

However, again, the accusations of self-serving behavior are conjecture. We do know quite a bit about the senior legistlative staff of the ACLU. The ACLU's current legislative director, who is stepping down to focus on her family, has been there for over a decade; the executive director, who joined in 2001, previously served with other civil rights advocacy groups; the legal director has been with the ACLU since 1987, and the New York CLU since 1976.

Im sure..and the same can be said of the police when people like to parade out the "dirty cops" and paint the whole profession as corrupt. Nobody here has come out and stated such, but believe me there are those out there who do.

 

[PeachMonkey]

Im sure..and the same can be said of the police when people like to parade out the "dirty cops" and paint the whole profession as corrupt. Nobody here has come out and stated such, but believe me there are those out there who do.

People who claim that all cops are corrupt are ignorant, much like those who claim that everyone working in civil liberties or human rights is self-serving.

 

[PeachMonkey]

PS: I dont believe that there is a case yet where a subject has been deemed killed as a direst result of being Tased. In other words...ZAP...dead. I believe all occurred a fairly significant period of time after.

There seems to be a great deal of dispute about cause of death; certainly none of them appear to be:

-- person is tased
-- person dies immediately

As for whether the taser itself was the cause of death, there is dispute as to whether the taser was (from case to case) the major cause, a contributing cause, or a cause at all; whether the individual in question would have died simply from exertion due to other factors, or if other measures (in some cases, equally abusive) would have also caused death -- etc. Each case is different.

The dispute about the taser being able to kill is also somewhat up in the air, as the major study claiming that the taser itself cannot cause death was funded by the weapon's manufacturer.

Anyway. Here are some other LE forums I visit. Instead of rehashing someone elses points Ill let yall read em if ya want.

There's an interesting mix of discussion on those threads...

-- Genuine concern about misuse of the weapon
-- Understandable frustration about constant second-guessing of law enforcement technique by a public that seems to be never satisfied
-- A belief that some people deserve to die by simply being perps
-- The belief that some people truly hate law, order, justice, and the american way and do whatever they can to flout LEO's ability to effectively do their job

Regardless, I think that the issue is more about the use of force, rather than an inherent weakness of the weapon itself.

 

[Tgace]

True...I would like to see a study/report of injury/death resulting from unarmed struggle vs. the percentage of injury/death with the Taser before we push the Taser up the force ladder to just below the gun. Id be willing to wager that many if not most of these deaths would have resulted from an unarmed struggle too.

Much like what happened in that publicized case last year where that large male was acting odd at a restaurant, when police arrived there was a resisting and he was struck (in legitimate areas) with batons by the police. I believe it was Cincinnati(??) and died shortly thereafter. It was caught on camera.

 

[PeachMonkey]

True...I would like to see a study/report of injury/death resulting from unarmed struggle vs. the percentage of injury/death with the Taser before we push the Taser up the force ladder to just below the gun. Id be willing to wager that many if not most of these deaths would have resulted from an unarmed struggle too.

It's an interesting perspective to take, certainly. The AI report does discuss increasing statistics of injury/death vs arrest. I think AI proposes a temporary push of the taser up the force ladder only for those LE's that won't pause in its use while they study its safe use. I agree with you about the deaths from unarmed struggle -- I'm concerned primarily about abuse.

The local taser death was with someone who was restrained -- without tasers, they still could have beat the prisoner with batons, or sprayed him, or kicked him. The problem wasn't the weapon, it was the jailers -- they shouldn't have been tasering him, period. Of course, if they felt like it was "safe" to go off on the prisoner because the taser is "safe", then maybe AI's recommendations really would address that problem to some degree.

Much like what happened in that publicized case last year where that large male was acting odd at a restaurant, when police arrived there was a resisting and he was struck (in legitimate areas) with batons by the police. I believe it was Cincinnati(??) and died shortly thereafter. It was caught on camera.

I'm not sure what this has to do with the taser discussion, but it's an interesting example of how quickly LEOs can be singled out for "abuse" when defending themselves.

 

[Tgace]

I'm not sure what this has to do with the taser discussion, but it's an interesting example of how quickly LEOs can be singled out for "abuse" when defending themselves.

Well..its an illustration that other tools can be just as likely to cause death as the Taser. What study has AI shown to prove the Taser has a higher statistical likelihood of killing than unarmed/baton/OC techniques?

 

[Tgace]

The local taser death was with someone who was restrained -- without tasers, they still could have beat the prisoner with batons, or sprayed him, or kicked him. The problem wasn't the weapon, it was the jailers -- they shouldn't have been tasering him, period. Of course, if they felt like it was "safe" to go off on the prisoner because the taser is "safe", then maybe AI's recommendations really would address that problem to some degree.

Not to be flip... but so what? We have to wait until its been shown that you can abuse somebody with the Taser without killing him?? See my point? I dont know of any LEO's that are unaware of the possibility of death/injury with any use of force....plenty of prisoners have died from plain old beatings because the "screws" didnt think a few punches would kill anybody.

 

[PeachMonkey]

Well..its an illustration that other tools can be just as likely to cause death as the Taser. What study has AI shown to prove the Taser has a higher statistical likelihood of killing than unarmed/baton/OC techniques?

AI's primary concern isn't death alone, but also growing evidence of the use of the taser as a weapon of excessive force.

For instance, in Orange County, Florida, AI's study shows that use of force against suspects had doubled since tasers were issued, even though fewer suspects were arrested and the use of other kinds of force (including batons, firearms, dogs, and sprays) went down, suggesting that officers might actually be using tasers in situations where they may previously have not been using any force whatsoever.

As for the higher liklihood of killing than other techniques, AI has not done a study; neither has anyone else. As Amnesty points out, no one has done an independent, peer-reviewed study of the dangers of the modern generation of taser devices. That's why they want a moratorium on their use until those studies are done.

 

[Tgace]

even though fewer suspects were arrested and the use of other kinds of force (including batons, firearms, dogs, and sprays) went down.

Isnt this part a good thing? And if you are using the Taser instead of these more "dangerous" tools isnt the incident of their use going to go up? I dont think you can automatically draw the conclusion that the Taser is being used "needlessly" from that. OC is supposed to be "non-lethal" however I still use it less than my voice and hands....

 

[PeachMonkey]

Not to be flip... but so what? We have to wait until its been shown that you can abuse somebody with the Taser without killing him?? See my point?

No, I don't see the "so what" here. If the jailers felt that the taser's "safety" made it a "safe bet" to torture a prisoner, and AI's suggestions reduce the possibility that prisoners will be tortured to death in American jails, then I don't think that's a "so what" at all. Or am I misinterpreting you?

I'm really not trying to be argumentative or insulting, by the way, I'm just really passionate about the whole tasering-someone-to-death-in-my-local-jail-thing. By the way: Amnesty got the jail wrong in their report... it's Monroe County Indiana, not Georgia.

I dont know of any LEO's that are unaware of the possibility of death/injury with any use of force....plenty of prisoners have died from plain old beatings because the "screws" didnt think a few punches would kill anybody.

Which makes honest corrections officers and other LEOs look bad. And groups like Amnesty will always work to try and prevent that sort of thing.

 

[PeachMonkey]

Isnt this part a good thing?

Yep, sure is. They should be applauded for that part.

But Amnesty's report isn't about declining crime rates in Orange County. It's about taser abuse; and when those rates go down, and taser use goes up, it suggests (to AI, anyway, the possibility) that tasers are being used at times when cops used to not use force at all.