Tarenth

Grr...someone got gagged and its throwing the post count all out of whack. I hate it when there are 3 pages of posts and that 4th page link just sits there and laughs at me. -.-

Most gunshot wounds are grevious injuries that may result in death. Its hoped for that the person shot will be stopped without being killed, but the act of drawing your sidearm already has the potential for death and serious injury to all parties involved. Its why any action with a sidearm or fire arm is considered 'deadly force'.

As to your question: Snipers most probably shoot to kill since shooting to stop or disable isn't really a feasible option when you only have one shot.

Guns don't kill people, people kill people. Well...people pull the trigger which fires the gun which launches the bullet with pierces the body. In theory if bullets didn't make holes then bullets wouldn't kill people either. Stupid holes

__________________
My sanity is not in question...
It was a confirmed casualty some time ago.

ScratchMonkey

Killing the target is a means to an end (stopping his actions), not the end itself. The desire to substitute a Taser is just an attempt to achieve the desired outcome without the high probability of death resulting as a side effect. Death is still in the cards, just at lower probability. (Hence, all laws that may lead to an arrest should be considered as deadly as the tools used to implement the arrest. Don't pass laws that aren't worth killing someone over.)

Of course, some shooters may be closet vigilantes who want to execute the target and avoid a messy court case. But I didn't think that's what we were talking about here.

__________________
Sig

Switch

The tazer criticism is seldom about the capability of the weapon to do harm beyond that of other standard lethal weapons like an officers side arm. The criticisms are that police officers need to make the correct decision on when using a tazer would be appropriate and that it has been demonstrated on several occasions that they are sometimes incapable of doing so:

'don't tase me bro' 4+ officers who should be able to simply carry out an individual use dangerous and excessive pain compliance.

An officer tases a suspect during a traffic stop because suspect wont exit vehicle instead of attempting to de-escalate the situation or waiting for back up.

An officer plays a 'prank' on a civilian, 'mistakenly' tasing him and causing him to bite off his tongue (cover up to follow, as noted in another thread)

A suspect in custody at a police station dies of heart failure after being repeatedly tased into submission despite the fact that he is already in full body restraints and there are 10+ officers on scene (at the station) who can physically subdue him or simply wait for him to tire as he is in restraints.

---

Would a taser have been appropriate for the situation that you quoted above -- it appears so.

Are you attempting to imply some type of argument or counter argument without the willingness to actually say what you mean -- it appears so.

So what are you trying to say exactly? That the valid criticism of tasers should be ignored because this situation would have benefited from having tasers on hand?

To that I repeat myself; tasers aren't criticized because they lack utility -- the problem is in trusting the officers who use them to exercise proper judgment. There have been a large number of acts involving firearms where police officers have failed to provide ample cause to discharge their weapons, resulting in wrongful death, etc etc.... It is easy to understand that officers will likely be less hesitant to use a less than lethal device, putting abuse or misuses of these tools into the public spot light.

Its a shame that the local law enforcement wasn't trusted to be responsible with tasers, as it seems that would be provided the right means of getting this particular situation under control.

__________________
|TG|Switch

Better known as:
That noob who crashed the chopper.
That noob who ran over the mine.
That noob who TK'd me with a sniper rifle.
That noob who hit that APC at 300m with light AT! Our APC...

Long Bow

Ok my comment about the "more training needed" seems to have been misunderstood.

People went on to point out exactly what I was not trying to imply. I fully understand that each situation is going to be unique and that any action taken by an officer is going to have consequences, some of them with an unknown outcome. I fully understand that and was not trying to say that "cops should know when to tazer a guy and when not to, more training FTW". Im not an idiot, please don't treat me like one.

My point was that perhaps there is research or first hand knowledge about tazers and how they interact with certain people when in different states i.e. under the influence of drugs. This information would be extreamly usefull to police officers in making a judgement call. I'm not saying then that a police officer must never tazer a person when drugs are suspected, that would be a poor and unsafe rule to enforce. My point was that officers need to be kept up to date and aware of all the aspects that relate to the equipment they are using so that perhaps in a situation where they feel that the tazer is the easier choice but not the best choice they might think twice. Again all Im trying to state is that if officers are un-informed they can't asses the situation to the fullest and perhaps would choose to do things different had they had more information to base their actions on. Ignorance of the law is not a defence, ignorance of the equipment you use shouldn't be a defence either.

__________________

Tarenth

I don't think it was misunderstood, it was just played off as a sentiment that is easy to say, but difficult to pin down as a solution. It is a platitude with little meaning because ultimately it wouldn't accomplish much.

Okay, so we educate people in the proper use of tasers and research the effects and after affects of their use. We teach people in how it will to do people and what will happen after its use. All that training means just as much to 'safe use' as teaching 'gun safety' will mean to the leathality of a bullet wound. Squat. It isn't ignorance of the equipment that is the problem, it is the circumstances that lead up to it and the after affects.

It is VERY hard to determine if someone has a preexsisting heart condition unless you're some sort of super doctor like Dr. House. So to prevent use of the taser against people with heart complications then we either have to ask them if they have heart complications or get a medical degree and several years of practice and experience.

Fun Fact: If you have a medical degree and practicing licenses you're not going to want to drop such a career for a job at the local PD.

So in that situation of additional education we get the fun 'for use' tidbit of: "Excuse me, I know you're running at me with a pitchfork with the intent to stab me, but before I use my taser I want to know if you have an preexsisting heart condition" *stab*

Okay...so we know that taser use can accelerate the effect of drugs so that lesser quantities in the system can act like a lethal dosage. And that helps cops...how? Someone comes at them aggressively its questionable if they're on drugs or not. How about if they're running away and try to dispose of the evidence by swallowing it? How does any of that knowledge play an active role in the use of the taser? Okay...so they have drugs in their system and are hostile...we should shoot them with guns instead? I double dog dare you to try and wrestle someone hopped up fully on Meth or PCP down by yourself without hurting either of you. Unless you're a professional body builder who pulls busses behind you as a workout or an expert at martial arts you're not going to have much luck.

No one is defending their actions with the taser with "I didn't know it would do that". Mostly the defense is "it was the best option at the time" or "there was no other choice". That plays into circumstance and not into education. Besides, a lot of the "how you react" is great on paper, but meaningless without actual experience to back it. Unless you have a police officer tasing people regularly (which contrary to popular belief they don't since it is a weapon) in odd circumstances they won't have that pool of knowledge and certainty that comes with experienced use to pull from. Its like training a rifleman to shoot on the range but having him lose his nerve at the first sounds of hostile fire or his first kill.



As for Switch's examples. I remember the first two, but the second two escape me. The first two are classic 'misexamples' of taser use since the perspective against it is skewed. "Don't tase me bro" is an idiot acting noncomplient with the wishes of CAMPUS SECURITY and not the police. Private security, again, has more leeway in their use of force depending on their employer. He also falls under the "Extreme Stupidity" clause of humanity and should probably be written off as a useless waste of space and living tissue. The arguement of "How could you say that? What if that was you?" falls apart when I can knowingly acknowledge the fact that it would NEVER be me because I'm just not that retarded. When you're asked to quietly leave by a large security group and you refuse to do so by yelling at the top of your lungs, you have a break down in communications that stems at a basic level that no amount of persuasion short of force will correct.

The second example has a misrepresentation based on the fact that people, once again, mistakenly put themselves in the shoes of an idiot and try to make logical reasons for his actions. That doesn't work very well and makes me get a headache when I have to put myself down to the mentality of a 6 year old. Well...that might insult some 6 year olds. You DO NOT make motions for a possible concealed weapon or an attempt to escape when told to stay put. Its just one of those things you don't do. If the officer feels you are going to escalate the situation by drawing a weapon then they will defuse it. He was asked kindly to stop and turn around but when he kept walking for the driver's door he was put down and rightfully so. The woman screaming threats from the passenger side didn't help his case any since it just adds the threat of attack and retaliation from her as well. Simple math. If you have two potential threats and you can incapacitate one of them then you now have only one potential threat to watch.

Arguements that tasers are dangerous because some police officers are irresponsible is just like saying cars are dangerous because you can hit people with them. There may be cases where it is intentional, there are cases where it is accidental, and there are cases where nothing happens at all. In fact, a lot of the time nothing happens at all and we never hear about it. Saying 255 people died over the past 6 years is a statistic like saying 10 people have a car accident every 5 minutes, you neglect to count the number of times the taser was used safely or that millions of people world wide are driving in those 5 minutes. So people die in car accidents...huh...don't see less cars on the road.

Is responsibility the issue at hand or your mistrust of law enforcement in general? If you're already mistrusting of law enforcement you're going to want to put the worst possible spin on a situation and then blame them. You say wrongful and irresponsible use where others who are more trusting can see the other POV which makes sense to them. I don't know. I give officers of the law the benefit of the doubt because there are a lot of circumstances to both sides we don't know about. I DO know that if you treat them with respect they will mostly treat you with the same and if you treat them with disrespect or suspicion they'll return that tenfold...and make you lay face down on a black hood in summer under the sun. Or maybe that was just my CJ professor who used to work in Texas PD until he got his PhD.


As for why the news spun the story the way they did? Sensationalism probably and that's a whole different topic. "Death by Taser" gets more attention than "Death by Massive Meth Overdose and Rampent Supidity"

__________________
My sanity is not in question...
It was a confirmed casualty some time ago.

Switch

Cars ARE dangerous because you can hit people with them.

People are routinely fined and imprisoned for irresponsible or negligent use of a vehicle.

__________________
|TG|Switch

Better known as:
That noob who crashed the chopper.
That noob who ran over the mine.
That noob who TK'd me with a sniper rifle.
That noob who hit that APC at 300m with light AT! Our APC...

Xen

If they have heart problems or medical problems that no one is aware of, then who's fault is it? The main problem is that Tazers causes muscle spasm's, and the heart is a rather large muscle. The heart is also controlled by it's own impulses, the brain only tells it to speed up or slow down, but the rythym is set in the heart muscle tissue. This is where Tazers can be deadly. If someone has an irregular heartbeat, be it from child defect, of drug use or whatever, the heart won't be able to handle the stress that the jolt can cause on it or be able to handle the Aderinaline that the act of tazering causes. You still give them a heart attack if the actual jolt of the tazer didn't directly cause it. To say that the deaths are from falling or whatever, and not atleast take into account the medical side of what the tazer is actually doing to the body. I'm sure that some did fall to their deaths but, don't rule out natural selection. Some people are just not able to handle any sort of jolt.

__________________
Curiosity is going to kill this Cat.

ScratchMonkey

Educate the public to know that Tasers can kill. They're not "phasers set on stun". Use them under exactly the same rules for guns: Where deadly force is allowed. If deadly force is not called for, don't use a Taser.

__________________
Sig

TurkishDelight

You seem to be making some sense, until I found this...

I don't think you can get a Myocardial Infarction from a Taser so how can it cause them, if it doesn't cause them?

If you know something I don't please explain...

__________________
|TG-Irr|Turkish

Long Bow

[quote=Tarenth;929112]I don't think it was misunderstood, it was just played off as a sentiment that is easy to say, but difficult to pin down as a solution. It is a platitude with little meaning because ultimately it wouldn't accomplish much.


No one is defending their actions with the taser with "I didn't know it would do that". Mostly the defense is "it was the best option at the time" or "there was no other choice". That plays into circumstance and not into education. Besides, a lot of the "how you react" is great on paper, but meaningless without actual experience to back it. Unless you have a police officer tasing people regularly (which contrary to popular belief they don't since it is a weapon) in odd circumstances they won't have that pool of knowledge and certainty that comes with experienced use to pull from. Its like training a rifleman to shoot on the range but having him lose his nerve at the first sounds of hostile fire or his first kill.

[quote]

Tarenth you make some good points and I agree that real world situations are not the same as a class room. Again I'm not trying to say that the education and training is going to eliminate all deaths from tasers. You say that all the education will not accomplish a change in how and when tasers are used because a best tactic approach is needed. So then no training is needed in the more obscure and grey areas of tasers because this knowledge will never be used in making critical discions in the field? I think we can both agree that's a retorical question and know that it's in the best interest of the officers and the public to have the most up to date information on tasers.

Second you state that most officers don't use their tasers often enough to know the effects. If true then why not pool the information together so all officers can learn from the collective knowledge base? Again adding to their skills to better asses each situation with clearer knowledge.

You say that a rifleman who is trained hard on the range and folds under fire is of no use. True. So should we subject them all to real live fire front line action first and see who does well? Then train those who hold up after the fact? Obviously this is an extream and delibrately ignorant example. If you have solid training ahead of the situation your better equiped to stay safe and act as dictated by the situation and training.

I'm definetaly not saying that officers shouldn't be using tasers and that for most situations they are the right choice. I fully understand how idiotic it would be to try and medicaly asses each non-compliant individual in a tense situation. But if an officer knows the side effects of the taser and is up against some one they strongly suspect is on drugs perhaps they will wait one or two minutes longer to see if they can resolve the situation before tasing. Of course if things change in a split second lay the guy/girl out with the taser. I'm not suggesting officers need to sacrifice their own safety. I'm also thinking that as an officer if you tased someone who then died as a result of it you would feel pretty awfull about it? If the officer then finds out information later that would have made them use another course of action I'm sure they would have prefered to have that knowledge earlier.

Basically its niave to not equip officers with tasers. It's also equally as niave to not educate them on what they can do in certain circumstances. I hope this hasn't come across as a rant or anti-police. Or worse "platitude with little meaning"

__________________

Xen

Basicly, the instant increase in Blood Pressure from every muscle tensing could throw a Clot if they were prone to having them. This could cause your heart attack or worse, a stroke. Along with plaque build up, you could also be trying to force more blood through an opening that is constricted already and cause embolisms of the blood vessels. Hopefully that's alittle clearer.

__________________
Curiosity is going to kill this Cat.

TurkishDelight

I can see how that might rip open some plaque then cause a clot, but still, I think it's on the unlikely side of things....

__________________
|TG-Irr|Turkish

Xen

Plaque and Clots are seperate things, Clots are when the platelets in the blood clump together and Plaque is the cholesterol from too many fast food burgers and other sources. Clots can be anything from a surface bruise/scabs(most common form of clots), to deep tissue damage, they can be caused by severe dehydration, or sitting too long in one position. Both cause the blood to thicken and, in the thickening process, starts sticking together. In the sitting too long, we see it mainly in the legs, caused by long flights from coast to coast or flights going oversea's.

As for Plaque build up causing embolisms, take a garden hose turn it on so that it just trickles out the end of the hose, then step on it. Your foot becomes the Plaque and constricts the flow, which is still flowing but, the hose bulges on faucet side. Now, turn the water pressure all the way up, that's the Blood Pressure spiking, caused by aderineline being dumped into the system, and it constricts the blood vessels. When your foot can't stay in it's original position and is forced up so the flow can continue, now we have a ruptured blood vessel. And where does most Plaque latch onto? Around the heart, the brain, and the lungs. All places that can not take much blood loss.

And, to me, this is why it's risky business to take someone out this way, we just don't know what is going on medically with the person to understand how Tazering them will effect them. Now, if it comes down to protecting themselves or bystanders, I think Tazers should have the same RoE's as guns and deadly force. It's an option that can still cause harm or death, but is better then a bullet.

__________________
Curiosity is going to kill this Cat.

TurkishDelight

Umm...Don't you get it? Plaque creates little clumps, when the BP and flow increase, they can rip. Blood then starts to clot on the rip, blocking blood flow, causing necrosis of heart tissue, thus an MI. This is one of the most common,way people ge t heart attacks, period. I know what the difference between clots, plaque, and emoblisms thank you, I don't need to be taught twice

This whole Tazer=HA theory is far fetched already, and giving them the sames ROE's as a gun is silly. What purpose does the taser have then? If someone is shooting at an officer or charging with a knife are they supposed to use a taser?

__________________
|TG-Irr|Turkish

ScratchMonkey

The Tazer's value is that the recipient of the shot might survive it, not that you can indiscriminately use it as an attitude adjuster.

__________________
Sig