Magnum50

We see alot of articles and stories on how the Tazer has killed a subject or whatever... "don't taze me bro"...

so...what do you think of this article?

__________________
Magnum
www.gettacticaldammit.com

Trooper

send in the marines......o wait wrong thread.



Who would he file that wrong full death suit against, the police department?

Icehawk217

Im wondering the same thing.

The ban of tasers was, ironically, probably to avoid lawsuits from people dying of electrocution.

__________________
"Give a man a match and he'll be warm for a minute. Light the man on fire, and he will be warm for the rest of his life"

Atomic Dog

Doesn't change my opinion on tasers one bit.

__________________

Trooper

When people throw stats around they need to include all of it. What caused them to die, heart failure, to much "juice", those types of things. Dont just say 245 people died from 2001 to 2007, of course people died but im sure more died from older models then did the newer ones.

Shurikane

The news only report on when Tasers are used and the guy happens to die.

They never report on when Tasers are used and nothing out of the ordinary happens.

__________________

Hambergler

There is something so undignified about being tazed.

http://www.bakelblog.com/nobodys_bus...omebody_p.html

__________________

TurkishDelight

Most the people that have died "due to evil tasers" infact died by another MOI. Most fell and hit something with their heads, or fell down stairs. I find it hard to believe that someone died directly from the tasers current. Voltage does not kill, amperage does. I have been shocked by 50,000 volts before, so what? It was uncomfortable, but I lived. They engineer the device to operate within safe amperage levels.


I'm thinking fear of the unkown comes into play here.

Oh, and that "don't tase me bro" idiot is a disgusting display of a current generation. What a D-Bag...


My unadulterated $.02

__________________
|TG-Irr|Turkish

Ferris Bueller

The facts are right there and these people freak out. 245 deaths in 6 years. Thats an average of 40.833 per year. Almost that many people a year die from water intoxication (and associated hyponatremia)! Thats right guys, almost as many people die a year by that statistic about tasers as people who drink themselves to death with plain old water. THATS RIDICULOUSLY LOW.

Also, as turkish said, how many of those 245 cases were positively confirmed to have been directly caused by the taser? It doesnt say. It just says 245 died after being shot with a taser. They could have diedd from any number of causes after that. Heres a clue: if you have a medical condition like an arrhythmia, dont screw with the cops!

The proud people of Berkeley have a long standing tradition of being idiots. No offense to anyone who lives there, because not everyone is a moron there, obviously. But I saw it firsthand as a child, and let me tell you, when the stupidity level is such that a 6th grader can recognize the depth of idiocy involved, it's pretty bad.

As the article states, tasers can be very effective if used properly and with proper training. So whats the solution? Train the people who use them to do so properly. DUH!

__________________
|TG-6th|Ferris Bueller

El_Gringo_Grande

What if it was 245 people died from terrorist bombs on US soil? That would be OK? No need to worry about that?

Death is unavoidable. But people do try to at least control the method of death.

Now I made some statement in another thread about using tazers instead of guns when the person is brandishing a deadly weapon. Cing pointed out that this is not the case. That if the person is brandishing a weapon that can cause death they are going to use a gun, not a tazer. Maybe he only meant if the person is believed to have a firearm? Or maybe I misunderstood.

So if a person is rushing you with a knife are you going to use a gun or a tazer to stop them?

__________________
Sen. John McCain (AZ) For President '08
---
I’m not racists, I have republican friends. Radio show host.
- "The essence of tyranny is the denial of complexity". -Jacob Burkhardt
- "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds" - Emerson
- "People should not be afraid of it's government, government should be afraid of it's People." - Line from V for Vendetta
- If software were as unreliable as economic theory, there wouldn't be a plane made of anything other than paper that could get off the ground. Jim Fawcette

Atomic Dog

My problem isn't that 40.something people die a year...my problem happens when I hear of some old unarmed guy getting tased for "non-compliance" and ends up dying. Or when some kid who was drivnig too fast gets pulled out of his car and zapped. There's no justification to use that kind of force on unarmed and innocent civilians.

Is it a tool? Certainly. Does it have it's place? I'm sure it does. But I don't feel police officers are being taught not to use it in any and every situation that arises where someone may be acting a little nervous or confused. I don't have any numbers to give here, but I read not to long ago, that people most succeptible to death by taser are those with heart conditions or those high on narcotics. The latter I can see where the taser may be neccessary, but as there's no real certainty by looking at someone as to whether they have a heart condition...I'd say cops need to learn more discernment before just zapping Joe Blow because he can't keep his mouth shut.

Aren't you guys trained to subdue unarmed people physically?

__________________

SmokingTarpan

I'd say the chances of someone getting injured in a wrestling match are just as good, if not greater, as someone getting hit with a taser and falling to the ground. A good way to break bones and tear muscles is to force someone's limbs to move in a certain way when they're fighting you. Not to mention the increased risk of the officer getting hurt/killed from the close contact.

__________________

[squadl]
"I am the prettiest african-american, vietnamese..cong..person." -SugarNCamo

DudeMan

I actually agree mostly with what you are saying, given the choice I would rather see a police officer using a taser, which has a chance, but a very, very reduced chance of killing the intended recipient, than a gun, which lets face it, if he feels the need to fire, is 50/50 whether he hits the right spot and lights out.

However that being said, there is a general attitude that seems to be circulated about the taser which says it’s safe, and non lethal. Well on the vast majority of cases yes, however, it can and does kill some people, and for that reason must be treated with the same respect as a gun. If mentally an officer assures himself that it is non lethal, and has not had adequate training, he might be more inclined to use this weapon, where if he only had a gun he might not.

and it is very easy to say don’t screw with the police, but it must also be considered, that some police officers are not nice people, an incredibly small minute number, but a number none the less, and where (because of the consequences) they would not have used a gun, they might vindictively use the taser, i stand by my comments in a previous thread on that, with the woman who was repeatedly tased for ridiculous action of not getting off the floor on command.... in my view vindictive, and unnecessary, had she died as a result of this i would certainly have agreed with unlawful killing.

That being said, the logic still speaks for its self on the safety issue. Being shot because you were behaving in a violent and threatening manner towards the police, yourself or a member of the public carry’s a far greater chance of death or serious injury than being tased. Yet the taser is for the most part, very effective at detaining suspects. For that reason, I would favour the use of tasers.

Just my 2 cents...

__________________


The Queen
"Those who perpetrate these brutal acts against innocent people should know that they will not change our way of life,"
Atrocities such as these simply reinforce our sense of community

TheFeniX
"Guns don't kill people: effeminate men in green tunics do"

Atomic Dog

If the suspect is obviously aggressive AND non-compliant...tasing is justified. If the suspect is some old guy who's obviously nervous and confused AND unarmed...just restrain him physically. He probably won't put up much of a fight.

They signed up for that job knowing the risks. The "what if's" don't justify this kind of force against unarmed and non-aggressive suspects.

__________________

SmokingTarpan

Quite likely. Or you can tell him he won't get his OJ tonight if he doesn't stand still :P. Your post was pretty vague though, and came off as asking why police don't just wrestle everyone who isn't waving a weapon.

What about "violently" non-compliant suspects? I don't think many will argue that it's better to tase the guy who's scared and simply won't turn around, but how about some 300-lb guy that wraps himself around his steering wheel and refuses to leave his car? Taser or wrestling, someone's likely to get hurt.

I also think that "I know I could get shot in a firefight while chasing armed suspects" is a world different from "I'm going to put myself needlessly at risk despite having a safer alternative". Police shouldn't be required to always take the most risky approach simply because that is what they "signed up for", or because the alternative isn't attractive to some.

__________________

[squadl]
"I am the prettiest african-american, vietnamese..cong..person." -SugarNCamo