Taser Article.
- Thread starter arnisador
- Start date
P
PeachMonkey
Guest
I think Amnesty's saying something like "stop using tasers until their safety parameters are better understood". I think you're actually right; no matter how safe they are, those guards shouldn't have been tasering that dude.Tgace said:
I just posted in the other thread (I know you couldn't have seen this when you wrote the post I quoted above) that I'm probably more in agreement with you than with Amnesty; rather than taking tasers out of use entirely, I hope that this controversy gets every LE org that uses them to study them, form a policy, and seriously train in their use, and that the independent, peer-reviewed studies that AI calls for are done.
As AI points out in their article that you cannot eliminate risk or the need for the use of force.
T
TonyM.
Guest
Ablolutely true about the need for force, ie. if anyone I know ever gets tasered I will hunt down and cripple the person that did it .
Tasers are tools. How do the statistics of Taser related (while being used procedurally properly) compare to firearms/baton/empty hand related injury/deaths?PeachMonkey said:
I think if you were to compare the stats within the same time window (instead of the longer period of firearm/baton to the shorter period of tazer), then the Tazer comes out the clear winner.
It is not the tool that is the 'evil' but the applier. In the case of tasing someone to death or misusing ANY tool....that is where legal/professional standards and practices come into play.
Now if there were a number of cases where properly used Tazer situations were leading to death and perm. injury...procedures need to be changed and reevaluated.
dearnis.com
Master Black Belt
No, my suggestion is that individuals are responsible for their actions. The allegedly taser-induced deaths are part of a broader phenomenon known as "excited delerium" which has been blamed for numerous in-custody deaths, usually following apprehension. This is also the reason why choke-holds/LVNR, hobbles, and other techniques are now increasingly prohibited. The mechanism is pretty much the same in all cases; the suspect panics, fights, then panics more when subdued and restrained. At some point the heart over-revs, redlines, and stops. The common factor in these cases appears to be cocaine intoxication, or a combination of cocaine and other intoxicants.
So what is the reason these suspects are dying? I am suggesting, albeit in a flippant way, that it is due to their choice of recreational drug, their choice of action brining them into conflict with society, and an expectation that the responding officer "do something."
May I ask what you would suggest?
Also, on the nonsense line about jailers using tasers to torture prisoners, you do understand that there is chip that records the usage data, and that paper markers fire every time the unit is discharged?
Tgace
Grandmaster
I would think that would depend on the policy of the dept. in question. Sometimes people in cuffs can still run, kick, bite, resist (kick out squad car windows), slam their heads into walls/dividers. Depending on how crazy they get some use of force could be necessary to restrain them even further.Tulisan said:
dearnis.com
Master Black Belt
Right on. Handcuffs are not a cure all, they merely diminish the threat. Movies aside, think about what, in your martial careers, you have seen really skilled people do with their feet, knees, etc.
Cruentus
Grandmaster
Tgace said:
Absolutely. People can do a lot of damage to themselves and others while restrained. I just wondering if it was against policy to use the tazer on a restrained person or not. I have heard that it's generally not allowed, but that could be wrong. Besides, as you say, I guess that would depend on the State and the department...
Because Tazers aren't used in MI, I am not really up on a lot of this stuff...
Paul
P
PeachMonkey
Guest
Given that it is not clear whether or not a taser may exacerbate the cardiac condition you describe above, I would suggest that perhaps, as Amnesty suggests in their report, that tasering might also be a use of force that should be re-evaluated when people are restrained and freaking out.dearnis.com said:
And that perhaps not every death of a perp in police custody happens simply because that person made a "bad choice". Sometimes even someone who does cocaine and acts up, thus getting, into police custody may not end up dying if they're not abused by law enforcement. Most likely very, very rare, but possible.
Perhaps it seems like a "nonsense line" to you, but jailers in my town killed someone. With tasers. Perhaps those markers and chips are part of the evidence that led to the indictments in question.dearnis.com said:
dearnis.com
Master Black Belt
So being taken into custody is the same as being abused? Shall we just let them run amok if they won't come along when you say "pretty please?"
As an aside, have you ever been asaulted by someone strung out on crack, meth, or PCP? Just curious....
Which is why they are there (the markers that is).
Another aside; do they make supressors for Tasers?
P
PeachMonkey
Guest
Can you find a post where I said that being taken into custody equates abuse? Thanks.dearnis.com said:
In fact, I just said that abuse in custody is:
PeachMonkey said:
Nope, but my father, who was a cop and a chief of police, has. He was a policeman in the days when the common response to someone on PCP was "MagLite-time". Even the worst-case scenario with the taser is lightyears above those dark days.dearnis.com said:
What kind of supressor are you talking about? Since a taser's not a gun, neither a flash nor a noise supressor from a firearm would be applicable -- unless you know something I don't, as an LEO. Are you talking about suppressing the noise of firing the prongs?dearnis.com said:
P
PeachMonkey
Guest
Right on... thanks for clearing that up.Tgace said:
dearnis.com
Master Black Belt
Fair answers...and yes, the last was in no way directed to you or to the thread topic.
