OK, how a tazer can save/work... - Page 3

**Ferris Bueller** · 02-21-2008, 04:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rincewind

Haha, that's meaningless Ferris, and I'm surprised it's you saying it. A lot more people drink water than are tazed. Out of the population of folks who drink water, and the folks who get tazed I bet I can tell you which one has the higher mortality... Rates, not numbers my friend. Of course, I haven't read ahead to see if someone else caught this...

Well, it was meant to have a dual point, which you partially picked up on. Absolutely the statistics are skewed hugely with the reference, but it demonstrates the same principle for people who are complaining about the possible lethality of tasers. My point was to say that there is also risk in drinking tap water if you dont know what you're doing, so should we outlaw that as well? In addition, while it is true that the drinking water numbers will be drastically higher, it doesnt say how many people were actually hit with a taser in that 6 year period. Was it 245 deaths in 246 uses or 246,000 uses or 2.6 million uses? As you pointed out, the numbers are a huge deal, and we were given none. So based on that, I think my point has validity since the basis for comparison wasnt given in the first place.

**Rincewind** · 02-21-2008, 07:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TurkishDelight

Stop trying to make the Taser look like it has a 10% mortality rate or something.

Woah, back off, Champ. Don't read into what I posted other than what I posted.

**Rincewind** · 02-21-2008, 07:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ferris Bueller

I think my point has validity since the basis for comparison wasnt given in the first place.

Keep on thinking that, Mr. Statistics.

But I agree that there are no numbers given on the usage of Tasers. Just the reports on the deaths. It could be low, it could be high. Undeniably, mortality is less than when using a gun, but probably more than when using mace. Not that I'm saying mace works in the situations where you'd use a taser; it's just a basis of comparison.

ScratchMonkey · 02-21-2008, 07:39 PM

The value I see in Tasers is the relative increase in safety to bystanders. Not the target. If the shoot in the OP was justified, then I would not be surprised to see that woman killing or maiming someone else in the future, and killing her now while she was a threat to a cop prevents the future violence. If any force is justified, then death is justified.

And that's the way cops should think about it. My problem with Tasers is that it lets bad cops use them as attitude adjusters.

Take the 300 pound guy glued to his steering wheel. A little patience solves that problem without any violence. Eventually he has to come loose for a donut.

If he resists violently, use deadly force.

This also makes it clear what the meaning of our laws are. They aren't suggestions. They're deadly requirements of our society. Break them and either submit to the prescribed punishment or die.

Oh, wait, you didn't mean that law to carry the weight of death? Then it shouldn't be a law!!!

**TurkishDelight** · 02-22-2008, 04:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rincewind

but probably more than when using mace. Not that I'm saying mace works in the situations where you'd use a taser; it's just a basis of comparison.

Idk, Mace+certain people can cause some wierd allergic reactions. I wouldn't be suprised if some airway problems occured because of it.

Not to mention if the body freaks out, and goes into anaphylactic shock...

People are allergic to some strange things

Anybody have the numbers?

**Tarenth** · 02-24-2008, 12:24 AM

I am sad. In the local area a police officer tasered an escaping suspect and the man went into shock and stopped breathing. He was taken to the local ED as a full code and had to be intubated in order to keep him alive. The newspapers are having a field day with 'dangerous taser usage' and the police are starting the buckle under it so have begun scrutinizing the use of tasers in the field for the local county. Not to mention the police officer is a wreck since he nearly killed someone with a taser.

Oh yeah, the man also swallowed a large bag of Meth which burst when he was running. I'm pretty sure the massive meth overdose is completely unrelated to the symptoms of massive meth overdose. It's the taser that's definately at fault there and that's how it'll be reported.

Fun nursing fact that came up from the nurses in the ED. Tasers will kill people...if they have drugs in their system. The body's response to being tased will speed up the heart rate and blood pressure causing drugs to increase in potency and cause fatal overdoses at much lower quantities than normal. I did not know that fact and I'm edjumakated because of it.

Actually the county went with tasers because of their absolute stopping power and not their nonviolence as a selling point. Apparently a few months back a man hopped up on PCP went on a rampage, broke into a house, then killed 4 children all under the age of 10 with a pitchfork. The 12 year old escaped to the neighbors and when the police arrived it took 46 9mm rounds to put the man down and he kept on charging and taking swings at the police. The department then adopted tasers because if the officers on the scene tased him multiple times his muscles would've locked up and stopped him. Granted, the PCP would've killed him and we'd have another 'taser death' but 46 rounds is a bit excessive anyways.

**TurkishDelight** · 02-24-2008, 02:18 AM

So they are saying that he went into shock because of the Taser?!

I didn't know that they caused widespread inadequate perfusion...

Of course a bag of drugs doesn't do anything to you, it has to be the taser right?

Another case of totally crappy reporting....

**Long Bow** · 02-25-2008, 11:37 AM

I think that incident (meth bag) brings to light the need for better training even more so. Sure the meth is probably the culprit and the taser on its own didn't really cause any issues. But as you pointed out there is an increased risk of side effects if the person getting tazed has drugs in their system.

I think it's fair to say that if the police are tazing people they need to be aware of this type of reaction. No the tazer is not necesarily at fault but the combination of the two could be fatal. I know its a grey area but I think due dilegince needs to be shown by the police to try and do their best to be aware of the side effects in each situation. I'm not trying to say the cops need to administer a urine sample first but if the results of getting it wrong are death a little more caution is needed before taking that route. Not an easy circumstance to be in.

**Tarenth** · 02-25-2008, 05:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Long Bow

I think that incident (meth bag) brings to light the need for better training even more so. Sure the meth is probably the culprit and the taser on its own didn't really cause any issues. But as you pointed out there is an increased risk of side effects if the person getting tazed has drugs in their system.

I think it's fair to say that if the police are tazing people they need to be aware of this type of reaction. No the tazer is not necesarily at fault but the combination of the two could be fatal. I know its a grey area but I think due dilegince needs to be shown by the police to try and do their best to be aware of the side effects in each situation. I'm not trying to say the cops need to administer a urine sample first but if the results of getting it wrong are death a little more caution is needed before taking that route. Not an easy circumstance to be in.

That's actually a baseless platitude. It's easy to say "More training is needed" but you don't explain just what kind of training you want them to go through.

Okay, so they're facing someone on drugs that is dangerous and unreasonable. The options the police have in those situations are:
a) Physical Close Quarters Combat
b) Firearms
c) Mace
d) Taser.

A and C are dangerous to the officer as well. B and C are also dangerous to bystanders. A, B, C, and D are all dangerous to the culprit. So between getting into a wrestling match, shooting them, saturating the area with pepperspray, or tasering the perp their inceased training will...what? Pretty sure the physical combat is the 'least' dangerous and most likely to succeed in that situation. Guess that means to go away from tasers we must train all our law enforcement officers to be masters in martial arts and travel in packs of 5 or more so they have the man power to subdue someone on the rampage.

If someone is so hopped up on drugs like the PCP incident then short of putting the person down on the spot they aren't going to stop. Its just unfortunate that tasers will put them down without killing them and let them die from drug overdose later.

**Ferris Bueller** · 02-25-2008, 06:57 PM

The big issue is that no amount of training is ever going to be able to alert a law enforcement officer of a potential danger residing INSIDE the person's body. What would you like them to do, say "excuse me sir, would you mind cooperating and giving us a urine sample to screen for drugs and a blood sample to test, as well as a complete physical workup to determine any underlying health problems so if we have to use the taser on you we know it wont kill you?"

Get real. The taser is used to stop stupid people from doing stupid things. The key words there are STUPID PEOPLE. If a police officer tells me to stop or hes going to use the taser, you better believe that my narrow butt is going to be frozen in place. If you're dumb enough to push your luck, you deserve what is coming to you. Darwin had a whole theory about this called "natural selection".

JMJ · 02-26-2008, 11:36 AM

My department doesn't use tasers. Everyone in my department would resort to shooting someone with a knife too. Perfect situation for the taser.

**El_Gringo_Grande** · 02-26-2008, 12:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JMJ

My department doesn't use tasers. Everyone in my department would resort to shooting someone with a knife too. Perfect situation for the taser.

So tasers would be used instead of firearms in some of these cases?

This post by Cing http://www.tacticalgamer.com/sandbox...tml#post844623 had me understanding something different. There was another one that I remember that is kinda along these lines. I got the impression that if the person had any kind of weapon a firearm would be used. Tasers would only be used where the person was considered non-dangerous.

I guess it would be determined by area (or precinct/jurisdiction whatever you call it)?

**Tarenth** · 02-26-2008, 09:20 PM

I'd say that all applications of 'force' are ultimately determined by the officer on the scene and the policy of their department. In theory any amount of force can be used to counter any threat, but its what the officer in danger deems the most appropriate level to be used that is used.

Guns kill people. That's their function. As such it is 'deadly force'
Batons beat people into submission.
Mace disables visual and olfactory senses and causes pain.
Tasers lock up the muscles and also causes pain.

If someone comes charging at you with a knife I think the officer would pick the level of force they are most comfortable with to stop the attacker. If they draw their side arm and shoot to kill, side step and swing at them with a baton, dodge and spray mace in their eyes, or taser them and make them fall to to floor is ultimately up to the officer.

JMJ · 02-26-2008, 09:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by El_Gringo_Grande

So tasers would be used instead of firearms in some of these cases?

This post by Cing http://www.tacticalgamer.com/sandbox...tml#post844623 had me understanding something different. There was another one that I remember that is kinda along these lines. I got the impression that if the person had any kind of weapon a firearm would be used. Tasers would only be used where the person was considered non-dangerous.

I guess it would be determined by area (or precinct/jurisdiction whatever you call it)?

It really depends on the situation. I'd have to read the police report to see what really happened. If the person is just standing there holding a knife and not charging (in a very passive position), the taser would be perfect. If they are charging you, you are going to use whatever means necessary to stop the threat.

ScratchMonkey · 02-26-2008, 10:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tarenth

Guns kill people. That's their function. As such it is 'deadly force'

Over in the Hello Kitty AR-15 thread we discuss the purpose of guns:

http://www.tacticalgamer.com/sandbox...tml#post926069

Quote:

If they draw their side arm and shoot to kill

Has any officer ever been trained to "shoot to kill"? When I've talked to self defense trainers, they focus on "shoot to stop". Telling someone you shot to kill will get you locked up real fast.

Every weapon that can stop a serious violent attempt will also kill. Only on TV do weapons have a magic stun setting that will never permanently hurt the target.

02-21-2008, 07:39 PM	#34 (permalink)
ScratchMonkey Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: San Pablo, California Posts: 4,565	Re: OK, how a tazer can save/work... The value I see in Tasers is the relative increase in safety to bystanders. Not the target. If the shoot in the OP was justified, then I would not be surprised to see that woman killing or maiming someone else in the future, and killing her now while she was a threat to a cop prevents the future violence. If any force is justified, then death is justified. And that's the way cops should think about it. My problem with Tasers is that it lets bad cops use them as attitude adjusters. Take the 300 pound guy glued to his steering wheel. A little patience solves that problem without any violence. Eventually he has to come loose for a donut. If he resists violently, use deadly force. This also makes it clear what the meaning of our laws are. They aren't suggestions. They're deadly requirements of our society. Break them and either submit to the prescribed punishment or die. Oh, wait, you didn't mean that law to carry the weight of death? Then it shouldn't be a law!!! __________________

02-24-2008, 12:24 AM	#36 (permalink)
Tarenth Join Date: May 2006 Location: California Posts: 2,199	Re: OK, how a tazer can save/work... I am sad. In the local area a police officer tasered an escaping suspect and the man went into shock and stopped breathing. He was taken to the local ED as a full code and had to be intubated in order to keep him alive. The newspapers are having a field day with 'dangerous taser usage' and the police are starting the buckle under it so have begun scrutinizing the use of tasers in the field for the local county. Not to mention the police officer is a wreck since he nearly killed someone with a taser. Oh yeah, the man also swallowed a large bag of Meth which burst when he was running. I'm pretty sure the massive meth overdose is completely unrelated to the symptoms of massive meth overdose. It's the taser that's definately at fault there and that's how it'll be reported. Fun nursing fact that came up from the nurses in the ED. Tasers will kill people...if they have drugs in their system. The body's response to being tased will speed up the heart rate and blood pressure causing drugs to increase in potency and cause fatal overdoses at much lower quantities than normal. I did not know that fact and I'm edjumakated because of it. Actually the county went with tasers because of their absolute stopping power and not their nonviolence as a selling point. Apparently a few months back a man hopped up on PCP went on a rampage, broke into a house, then killed 4 children all under the age of 10 with a pitchfork. The 12 year old escaped to the neighbors and when the police arrived it took 46 9mm rounds to put the man down and he kept on charging and taking swings at the police. The department then adopted tasers because if the officers on the scene tased him multiple times his muscles would've locked up and stopped him. Granted, the PCP would've killed him and we'd have another 'taser death' but 46 rounds is a bit excessive anyways. __________________ My sanity is not in question... It was a confirmed casualty some time ago. \|TG\|Tarenth Battlefield 2142 Mirra World of Warcraft Light, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to hide the bodies of the people I had to kill because they ticked me off.

02-24-2008, 02:18 AM	#37 (permalink)
TurkishDelight Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 942	Re: OK, how a tazer can save/work... So they are saying that he went into shock because of the Taser?! I didn't know that they caused widespread inadequate perfusion... Of course a bag of drugs doesn't do anything to you, it has to be the taser right? Another case of totally crappy reporting.... __________________ \|TG-X\|Turkish

02-25-2008, 11:37 AM	#38 (permalink)
Long Bow Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Ontario, Canada Age: 30 Posts: 1,434	Re: OK, how a tazer can save/work... I think that incident (meth bag) brings to light the need for better training even more so. Sure the meth is probably the culprit and the taser on its own didn't really cause any issues. But as you pointed out there is an increased risk of side effects if the person getting tazed has drugs in their system. I think it's fair to say that if the police are tazing people they need to be aware of this type of reaction. No the tazer is not necesarily at fault but the combination of the two could be fatal. I know its a grey area but I think due dilegince needs to be shown by the police to try and do their best to be aware of the side effects in each situation. I'm not trying to say the cops need to administer a urine sample first but if the results of getting it wrong are death a little more caution is needed before taking that route. Not an easy circumstance to be in. __________________

02-25-2008, 06:57 PM	#40 (permalink)
Ferris Bueller Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Orlando, FL Age: 26 Posts: 5,160	Re: OK, how a tazer can save/work... The big issue is that no amount of training is ever going to be able to alert a law enforcement officer of a potential danger residing INSIDE the person's body. What would you like them to do, say "excuse me sir, would you mind cooperating and giving us a urine sample to screen for drugs and a blood sample to test, as well as a complete physical workup to determine any underlying health problems so if we have to use the taser on you we know it wont kill you?" Get real. The taser is used to stop stupid people from doing stupid things. The key words there are STUPID PEOPLE. If a police officer tells me to stop or hes going to use the taser, you better believe that my narrow butt is going to be frozen in place. If you're dumb enough to push your luck, you deserve what is coming to you. Darwin had a whole theory about this called "natural selection". __________________ \|TG-6th\|Ferris Bueller Important TG Reading \| Support TG - Become a Supporting Member \| TacticalWiki - Your TG Guide Kicked/Banned? READ THIS FIRST! \| Complete list of TG Admins \| Think Someone Did A Good Job? Nominate Them For a Ribbon! Report Problem Players/Appeal Your Ban \| Learn TG - The TG Mentoring Program __________________ "Never underestimate the power of human stupidity." -Lazarus Long

02-26-2008, 11:36 AM	#41 (permalink)
JMJ Join Date: Jun 2005 Age: 37 Posts: 4,077	Re: OK, how a tazer can save/work... My department doesn't use tasers. Everyone in my department would resort to shooting someone with a knife too. Perfect situation for the taser.

02-26-2008, 09:20 PM	#43 (permalink)
Tarenth Join Date: May 2006 Location: California Posts: 2,199	Re: OK, how a tazer can save/work... I'd say that all applications of 'force' are ultimately determined by the officer on the scene and the policy of their department. In theory any amount of force can be used to counter any threat, but its what the officer in danger deems the most appropriate level to be used that is used. Guns kill people. That's their function. As such it is 'deadly force' Batons beat people into submission. Mace disables visual and olfactory senses and causes pain. Tasers lock up the muscles and also causes pain. If someone comes charging at you with a knife I think the officer would pick the level of force they are most comfortable with to stop the attacker. If they draw their side arm and shoot to kill, side step and swing at them with a baton, dodge and spray mace in their eyes, or taser them and make them fall to to floor is ultimately up to the officer. __________________ My sanity is not in question... It was a confirmed casualty some time ago. \|TG\|Tarenth Battlefield 2142 Mirra World of Warcraft Light, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to hide the bodies of the people I had to kill because they ticked me off.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)

Sponsored links

Sponsored links

Sponsored links

Sponsored links