Police use taser on Kent resident, Man tased while his Crain Ave. home burns

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Nothing wrong with a little shock now and then... Gets your attention.

Electrocution can lead to death.

TASER® Freqently Asked Questions - TASER® FAQ
Nah Tasers are definitely non-lethal, even for people with pacemakers..

Press Release
This study shows an increase of energy going to the pacemaker, while the voltage is being delivered, with return to normalcy afterwards, for people tased even when they have pacemakers..



Physician FAQs
FDA standards for these implantable devices require that they can withstand extremely high energy shocks (i.e. up to 360J monophasic and 200J biphasic): Implantable Medical Device requirements 90/385/1EC). The X26 TASER delivers 0.07 joules per pulse to the load. The M26 TASER delivers 0.50 joules per pulse to the load.
Don't worry- they are definitely SAFE and non lethal, and much better than just a gun.

Yes, they're billed as "non-lethal," but some people still seem to die after being electrocuted by them.

They are marketed as non-lethal weapons that allow police to capture suspects or criminals without causing any permanent harm.

Former New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani and businessman Bernard Kerik made millions selling the idea to police departments across the country.

But Tasers have killed more than 400 people in the United States and Canada since 2001, according to a new study commissioned by the Canadian Broadcasting Corp.

The Raw Story | Sold as 'non-lethal,' Tasers killed 400 in US, Canada since 2001

 

[JD_2B]

Electrocution can lead to death.

TASER® Freqently Asked Questions - TASER® FAQ
Nah Tasers are definitely non-lethal, even for people with pacemakers..

Press Release
This study shows an increase of energy going to the pacemaker, while the voltage is being delivered, with return to normalcy afterwards, for people tased even when they have pacemakers..



Physician FAQs
FDA standards for these implantable devices require that they can withstand extremely high energy shocks (i.e. up to 360J monophasic and 200J biphasic): Implantable Medical Device requirements 90/385/1EC). The X26 TASER delivers 0.07 joules per pulse to the load. The M26 TASER delivers 0.50 joules per pulse to the load.
Don't worry- they are definitely SAFE and non lethal, and much better than just a gun.

Yes, they're billed as "non-lethal," but some people still seem to die after being electrocuted by them.

They are marketed as non-lethal weapons that allow police to capture suspects or criminals without causing any permanent harm.

Former New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani and businessman Bernard Kerik made millions selling the idea to police departments across the country.

But Tasers have killed more than 400 people in the United States and Canada since 2001, according to a new study commissioned by the Canadian Broadcasting Corp.

The Raw Story | Sold as 'non-lethal,' Tasers killed 400 in US, Canada since 2001

A person in diabetic shock already, and a man who fell as a result? And are they including the cop who shot himself in the head with a glock, also, as a victim of the deadly tasers?

Also, I wonder how many false reports of someone dying from actually being tased are accurate:

CBC News - British Columbia - Cocaine, not Taser, killed man in custody: report

In all fairness, I think that it IS being used as non lethal force, which is really good, and can help significantly.. on the other hand it has also been called a torture device (see the case of the guy raped by cops with a taser) and also, since it is used on people who are generally using bad judgment, due to being intoxicated or on drugs, then there should either be extremely specific guidelines as to when and where the officer can shoot someone, to keep their non-lethal force, non lethal.

As far as effectiveness, I think tasers are better than mace, but both tools pose their own sets of lethality problems, especially when used on someone on a balcony or fire escape, etc.. because that person will be at a higher risk of falling as a result. So hmmm...

 

[The Rabbi]

Yes, they're billed as "non-lethal," but some people still seem to die after being electrocuted by them.

Amazing what can happen when someone has toxic levels of drugs in his system to begin with and then adds adrenaline dumps as he resists arrest.
Taser needs to get a bounty for every doped up scumbag their product kills, saving taxpayers lots of money.

 

[Modbert]

Amazing what can happen when someone has toxic levels of drugs in his system to begin with and then adds adrenaline dumps as he resists arrest.
Taser needs to get a bounty for every doped up scumbag their product kills, saving taxpayers lots of money.

Because I'm sure this "scumbag" had it coming:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fizo-sOSE6o]YouTube - Police Brutality: 14 yr old girl Tasered in the Head NM[/ame]

 

[The Rabbi]

Except she didn't die.
But nice try asshole.

 

[Modbert]

Except she didn't die.
But nice try asshole.

She could of, fucktard. One of the things hit her fucking brain because of fucking rent a cop over there.

 

[CurveLight]

Police abuse will always rise when timid citizens allow it to happen. A couple of years ago in Boston a young lady was murdered by a rubber bullet from a trigger happy cop. Her crime? Standing in a crowd of thousands cheering a sports game. This is not the first time Kent has had law enforcement abuse problems. The scary part is it just keeps happening with no reaction from Citizens. I'm sure us bitching about it on the 'net will really make a difference.

 

[Immanuel]

Tasers have their uses...but doesn't it seem that police are reaching for them as the solution of FIRST resort more and more these days?

I agree, but I would prefer that they grab the taser than the .45.

Unfortunately, I fear that they are beginning to go more and more with the taser in order to subdue someone who is not compliant with their instructions, yet, still not a physical threat to them or others. It is much easier to subdue the hysterical person who won't listen to them or OBEY them with a taser gun than to talk them down.

I believe that tasers should only be allowed in cases where there is a direct threat against the officers or bystanders.

Immie

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

A new study has found that the type of Taser stun gun used most by police officers can fire more electricity than the company says is possible, which the study's authors say raises the risk of cardiac arrest as much as 50 percent in some people.

The study, led by a Montreal biomedical engineer and a U.S. defense contractor at the request of the Canadian Broadcasting Corp., also concluded that even stun guns firing at expected electrical levels carry some risk of inducing a heart attack, depending on the circumstances.

New study raises concerns on the safety of Taser stun guns

 

[JD_2B]

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iqg1-BWegCw&feature=related"]YouTube - Military police taser training[/ame]

Well, there seems to be good faith enough that the things are not yet deemed to be instruments of fatality, or else the military and cops would not have to be tased by the things themselves..

I do think, however, that there should be more training oriented exercises, such as on balconies and such, using safety equipment, to show the actual possible results of using this kind of force in unique situations. It sure seems that police and military training is extremely controlled, and the officers and MP's immediate safety is deemed paramount to any resulting uncontrolled reaction, like bonking their heads, or falling down, even.. I would be interested in seeing more real-world training done, akin to that of firefighters dragging bodies and hoses up their training towers..

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fl_T7IRBr_Y"]YouTube - BTC Police Academy Taser "Training"[/ame]

 

[Diuretic]

Someone who is "combative and intoxicated" needs to be grappled with, not Tasered. It seems there was more than one cop on scene, so the argument that a lone cop had to do it is sort of lost. My understanding of the place of the Taser in the use of force continuum is that it's an alternative to a firearm and that leads me to think that the Taser should be used against knife-edged weapons. From the stuff I read it seems that it is being use for compliance in the place of physical grappling and I don't think that's what it's meant for.

As for 97% cops being good, 3% being bad Rabbi, I take your point but the truth is a little more complex I'm afraid. A very small minority of cops are bad but they manage to hide it or they rely on the solidarity thing to keep operating. The huge majority of cops are decent people who at times lose it and if they're caught on camera they're labelled as being of the very small minority of bad cops. Just my take on it.

Why do they need to be grappled with? Do they have a weapon hidden? Are they going to stab the officer? Do they have some communicable disease? Are they high on PCP, and have the strength of 3 men?
Uh no. The officer's safety calls for measures like tasering.

Again, I take your points. But I'll have to counter them. Before I do let me put my own views into perspective. I'm looking at this from my own cultural experience. Policing in the US is far more hazardous than policing in Australia. Now that's a severe generalisation but it will have to stand for the moment. I know that there would be places in the US that were not ordinarily hazardous for police and there are places here which are damn hazardous for police but on balance I think it's fair to say that policing in the US is more hazardous than here.

Sometimes you just have to accept that policing (like many other occupations) is physically hazardous at times. Now that's not to argue that cops should put up with crap. But cops are trained and paid to take on hazardous situations, just as are firefighters, miners, high steel workers and so on. No-one forces any of those people to take up their sometimes hazardous occupation.

The workplace should be as safe as possible - for everyone. For cops their workplace is out in the street. It's not possible for cops to control their workplace as it is for, say someone working in a factory. The same goes for underground miners, they can try and make it as safe as possible but they will never make it completely safe, but they get on with the job. Cops need good equipment and good training to help make their workplace safer. I've met and ridden with many cops in various parts of the US from big cities to rural counties and I have never failed to be impressed with their tactical knowledge and skills. Having said that I did meet a chief in a small town in Texas who had a strange view of his job but an except to the rule I think. I've done the same in Canada but only in Toronto.

For cops the workplace consists not so much of inanimate objects (I'm thinking back to my underground miner example) as it is with people. And we know people are sometimes unpredictable and potentially dangerous. I have to say that no one contact between police and citizen is the same as any other contact, there are always variables. That contributes to the hazards faced by police. Assumptions and complacency will get a cop badly injured or killed. But on the other hand over-reaction, misjudgement, tactical errors, will get a citizen killed. This is the problem facing all cops all of the time. Depending on where they are they need to develop a standardised approach to the police-citizen interaction. You've probably seen many videos of the lone police officer out on the highway who has stopped traffic offender and who approaches the vehicle. The traffic stop is always an unknown for police officers in a society where personal firearms ownership is very high. They have no idea who they're dealing with, they must assume that they may encounter an armed (lawfully or unlawfully) citizen. That isn't the case where I am but I am only making that point to clarify my understanding from my own cultural background. Cops here aren't complacent (generally) but they are not in the position of a cop in the States in the same position. I also need to add that that is an observation, not a judgement.

When a cop either initiates a situation with a citizen or is responding to a report of a situation they have to make early judgements about how to handle it. Don't misunderstand that. The available information is quickly assimilated and the cop must decide on their approach within a space of seconds and the “available information” may be very scant indeed, but they can't afford to dither. They must decide between two points, going in hard or going in soft. I emphasise that's a continuum, not an either-or.

Has the person got a concealed weapon? It's an unknown. But in that case the cop has to decide on the proper approach. There are so many variables in a situation that it's impossible for me to go through them. Using an ECD on someone simply because a cop thought that they were carrying a concealed weapon is an interesting example. It may be the case in the US that citizens and legal authorities may accept it due to the more hazardous situations faced by your police on a daily basis. Where I am – and this is all about cultural differences – it would be a career-limiting move for the cop. He or she would have to have reasonable cause and suspicion here isn't “reasonable cause.” Unless and until a weapon is sighted the standard approach here is to go in hands on.

Communicable diseases are indeed a major problem. That's why rubber gloves (not sap gloves) are issued, so that cops can handle people and at least try and keep the chance of infection to the minimum. Spitting is a big problem I know. But again pulling out an ECD and discharging the electricity into someone simply because they may just have a communicable disease doesn't seem to me to be reasonable. Again, precautions have to be taken but the risk can't be avoided by discharging the device against the citizen on those grounds.

I've never dealt with anyone on PCP so I can't comment from personal experience. It's not that common here but I do know for a while dusters were a huge problem in the States. It might well be reasonable for cops facing a duster to use an ECD. I certainly wouldn't advocate grappling with the duster unless the police were very mob handed. If they could call out the defensive linemen from a pro football team that would probably obviate the need for an ECD in that situation.

My understanding of the ECD was that it was an alternative to a firearm, not to physical grappling or OC spray or a good old-fashioned biff with a baton (ASP or PR24). If someone pulls a firearm then the cop pulls his or her firearm, no problem. If someone pulls a knife then it used to be the case that the cop had a choice – baton or spray (both of which would be really dangerous given the fact that both have to be used at close quarters to be effective) or firearm. Here – because we (in my jurisdiction) don't have ECDs on general issue (only the tactical unit has them) – it's out with the handgun and let's take it from there. The ECD gives police a less-then-lethal option but of course sometimes it's just necessary to use a firearm anyway. That's about judgement again, the judgement a cop has to make in seconds in a given situation.

My main point is that the ECD should be used appropriately. It may well be that a lower voltage discharge is appropriate for compliance, I don't know because I don't know how the ECD works because I've never used one. But that's up to the society that employs its police to work out. Police use of force is not controlled by policy from the police department or sheriff's office, it is controlled by the law passed by the legislature and administered by the judiciary. Sometimes there is a lack of understanding of reality by both the legislature and the judiciary but that can be dealt with by an effective police administration or where the administration is lacking then the police union can take over that role. One thing I do know is this, that the accepted principles of use of the ECD (or any other force for that matter) need to be worked out very clearly because leaving cops in the dark on it is undermining them and making the lives of cops and citizens just that much more hazardous when it's patently unnecessary.

 

[Diuretic]

Yes, they're billed as "non-lethal," but some people still seem to die after being electrocuted by them.

Amazing what can happen when someone has toxic levels of drugs in his system to begin with and then adds adrenaline dumps as he resists arrest.
Taser needs to get a bounty for every doped up scumbag their product kills, saving taxpayers lots of money.

Fortunately or sadly as the case may be there is a body of knowledge being developed in this area.

Force Science® Institute, Ltd.

 

[CurveLight]

Yes, they're billed as "non-lethal," but some people still seem to die after being electrocuted by them.

Amazing what can happen when someone has toxic levels of drugs in his system to begin with and then adds adrenaline dumps as he resists arrest.
Taser needs to get a bounty for every doped up scumbag their product kills, saving taxpayers lots of money.

Cheering the death penalty for getting high is pretty sick. But it appears stuff like this gets said to bait a reaction so people take it with a bit grain of salt.

 

[The Rabbi]

Yes, they're billed as "non-lethal," but some people still seem to die after being electrocuted by them.

Amazing what can happen when someone has toxic levels of drugs in his system to begin with and then adds adrenaline dumps as he resists arrest.
Taser needs to get a bounty for every doped up scumbag their product kills, saving taxpayers lots of money.

Cheering the death penalty for getting high is pretty sick. But it appears stuff like this gets said to bait a reaction so people take it with a bit grain of salt.

That's of course a gross distortion of what I actually wrote. No one has gotten tased for "getting high." They get tased for doing stupid unreasonable stuff, usually while high. Big difference.
But re-defining terms to fit your own preconceived notions appears to be your stock in trade.

As for Diuretic's post, you make good points and every department will develop guidelines and every officer will act differently according to his own experience and judgment.
The Taser is a tool. Like any tool it can be abused. Also like any tool it can be used for a constructive purpose. Tasering someone who is out of control and a danger to himself and others is far preferable to shooting him. That is the constructive purpose. Does that get abused sometimes? Sure. So does everything else. But the existence of a tool that is intermediate between the pepper spray and the gun is a good thing for law enforcement.

 

[CurveLight]

Amazing what can happen when someone has toxic levels of drugs in his system to begin with and then adds adrenaline dumps as he resists arrest.
Taser needs to get a bounty for every doped up scumbag their product kills, saving taxpayers lots of money.

Cheering the death penalty for getting high is pretty sick. But it appears stuff like this gets said to bait a reaction so people take it with a bit grain of salt.

That's of course a gross distortion of what I actually wrote. No one has gotten tased for "getting high." They get tased for doing stupid unreasonable stuff, usually while high. Big difference.
But re-defining terms to fit your own preconceived notions appears to be your stock in trade.

As for Diuretic's post, you make good points and every department will develop guidelines and every officer will act differently according to his own experience and judgment.
The Taser is a tool. Like any tool it can be abused. Also like any tool it can be used for a constructive purpose. Tasering someone who is out of control and a danger to himself and others is far preferable to shooting him. That is the constructive purpose. Does that get abused sometimes? Sure. So does everything else. But the existence of a tool that is intermediate between the pepper spray and the gun is a good thing for law enforcement.

You're advocating payment for every time a taser kills someone who is doing something dumb while being high. Trying to put a pretty skirt on that position won't remove the nasty odor.

 

[The Rabbi]

Cheering the death penalty for getting high is pretty sick. But it appears stuff like this gets said to bait a reaction so people take it with a bit grain of salt.

That's of course a gross distortion of what I actually wrote. No one has gotten tased for "getting high." They get tased for doing stupid unreasonable stuff, usually while high. Big difference.
But re-defining terms to fit your own preconceived notions appears to be your stock in trade.

As for Diuretic's post, you make good points and every department will develop guidelines and every officer will act differently according to his own experience and judgment.
The Taser is a tool. Like any tool it can be abused. Also like any tool it can be used for a constructive purpose. Tasering someone who is out of control and a danger to himself and others is far preferable to shooting him. That is the constructive purpose. Does that get abused sometimes? Sure. So does everything else. But the existence of a tool that is intermediate between the pepper spray and the gun is a good thing for law enforcement.

You're advocating payment for every time a taser kills someone who is doing something dumb while being high. Trying to put a pretty skirt on that position won't remove the nasty odor.

That of course is hardly what I wrote. But misreading and redefining to suit your preconceived notions is your trademark on this board.

 

[bodecea]

Yes, they're billed as "non-lethal," but some people still seem to die after being electrocuted by them.

Amazing what can happen when someone has toxic levels of drugs in his system to begin with and then adds adrenaline dumps as he resists arrest.
Taser needs to get a bounty for every doped up scumbag their product kills, saving taxpayers lots of money.

Actually, this is what you wrote....and yes, the pretty skirt isn't helping.

 

[CurveLight]

That's of course a gross distortion of what I actually wrote. No one has gotten tased for "getting high." They get tased for doing stupid unreasonable stuff, usually while high. Big difference.
But re-defining terms to fit your own preconceived notions appears to be your stock in trade.

As for Diuretic's post, you make good points and every department will develop guidelines and every officer will act differently according to his own experience and judgment.
The Taser is a tool. Like any tool it can be abused. Also like any tool it can be used for a constructive purpose. Tasering someone who is out of control and a danger to himself and others is far preferable to shooting him. That is the constructive purpose. Does that get abused sometimes? Sure. So does everything else. But the existence of a tool that is intermediate between the pepper spray and the gun is a good thing for law enforcement.

You're advocating payment for every time a taser kills someone who is doing something dumb while being high. Trying to put a pretty skirt on that position won't remove the nasty odor.

That of course is hardly what I wrote. But misreading and redefining to suit your preconceived notions is your trademark on this board.

You bush lovers are consistent as hell. You have one primary tool in discussion and it is to say whatever you think is necessary to defend your position and even though it sounds goofy as fuck when you say it in your mind you know the more you repeat it the more you will believe it. Anyone who dares to pop your fantasy bubble is usually labeled as an idiot terrorist loving baby shit licking anti-Christ.

 

[The Rabbi]

You're advocating payment for every time a taser kills someone who is doing something dumb while being high. Trying to put a pretty skirt on that position won't remove the nasty odor.

That of course is hardly what I wrote. But misreading and redefining to suit your preconceived notions is your trademark on this board.

You bush lovers are consistent as hell. You have one primary tool in discussion and it is to say whatever you think is necessary to defend your position and even though it sounds goofy as fuck when you say it in your mind you know the more you repeat it the more you will believe it. Anyone who dares to pop your fantasy bubble is usually labeled as an idiot terrorist loving baby shit licking anti-Christ.

Foul-mouthed ignorant bigot, aren't you?

 

[JD_2B]

That of course is hardly what I wrote. But misreading and redefining to suit your preconceived notions is your trademark on this board.

You bush lovers are consistent as hell. You have one primary tool in discussion and it is to say whatever you think is necessary to defend your position and even though it sounds goofy as fuck when you say it in your mind you know the more you repeat it the more you will believe it. Anyone who dares to pop your fantasy bubble is usually labeled as an idiot terrorist loving baby shit licking anti-Christ.

Foul-mouthed ignorant bigot, aren't you?

Allright, now, both of you stop bickering. That's not going to solve anything.

Rabbi wants abuse of power to not ALWAYS be a criminal offense.. but I think he wants it to be criminal, and I don't blame him. I think we can all agree on that.. Nobody wants to get beaten and abused just because the one guy is a cop and the other is, well.. not a cop.. And we don't want our cops to be scared to do their job or stay safe, based on the decisions of someone who is high on crack or whatever.

CurveLight wants the same thing, just harsher penalties than cops tend to get for accidental killings in the scope of their jobs. We can probably all agree on that, I hope??

Am I a good mediator or what...