Boy, 15, Dies After Police Tasering

[The Straight Story]

Boy, 15, Dies After Police Tasering

BAY CITY, Mich. (AP) -- Police in Michigan said a 15-year-old boy died after being Tasered by officers who were trying to break up a fight.

Police didn't release his name and said state police were investigating.

A Bay City police news release said officers answered a report of an early morning fight on Sunday. The statement says two males were arguing in an apartment, and one of them "attempted to fight the officers."

Police said officers Tasered him, and his reaction led them to immediately call for emergency medical help. He was pronounced dead at Bay Regional Medical Center.

http://www.news10.net/news/national/story.aspx?storyid=56667&catid=5

[Idealism]

1. Don't tase me, bro?

:(

[tomm2thumbs]

114. words to live by

literally

[valerief]

2. When will they outlaw tasers from police departments? Don't they kill enough

people with their cars and guns already?

Okay, okay, I know all--most--police officers aren't assholes. I just don't think the risk of these tasers outweigh the benefits. What did police officers do before tasers? Why don't they just do that?

[LisaL]

3. I suspect before the tasers many people would just be shot

with your old regular gun.

[valerief]

5. I would think they'd use those little baseball bats (what are they called?) FIRST. nt

[atreides1]

7. Batons

They're called batons.

[valerief]

8. Thanks. I don't know copspeak. nt

[MUAD_DIB]

45. or night stick...

[MUAD_DIB]

46. or billy club...

[Cid_B]

62. PR-24

[valerief]

71. That's what I was trying to think of!!!! nt

[backscatter712]

54. Straight out of an old Simpsons episode...

Bart: Wow! Can I see your club?
Cop: It's called a baton, son.
Bart: Oh. What's it for?
Cop: We club people with it

[limit18]

100. Anyone old enough to remember blackjacks?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

9. Those little batons have killed a lot more people than tasers.

[valerief]

11. Tasers haven't been around long enough to make that comparison, despite

wherever you get your data.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

13. They have been around long enough to make the comparison I made.

[valerief]

17. Using your logic, no, they haven't. nt

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

19. All I said was they had killed more people, one can compare the 2 numbers.

Not that it tells you which one is more lethal per incident. But I didn't make that comparison.

David

[valerief]

21. Well, your mom must be very proud of you. nt

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

22. She is, I'm a wonderful son. Thanks.

[BostonMa]

55. Fabulous.

[iamthebandfanman]

103. im glad we all agree. lol n/t

[Gold Metal Flake]

12. Give the Tasers time.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

24. They seem to be catching up.

Of course cops rarely use batons anymore. Tasers allow them to stay a safer distance away.


David

[Gold Metal Flake]

51. Safe being subjective to which side of the trigger one is standing.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

52. It was clear I was speaking about the safety of the officers.

[Gold Metal Flake]

64. It is clear the issue here is the safety of the target.

These devices kill. They are remarkably efficient at doing so.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

69. No they aren't they kill a remarkably small percentage of the people that are tased.

[valerief]

72. But they shouldn't kill ANYONE! nt

[Renew Deal]

87. Right

That's not supposed to be the purpose. I think it's a torture device.

[valerief]

88. I think you've nailed it. nt

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

96. Who said it was the purpose?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

95. I never said they should.

Ebola and Avian Influenza are remarkably effective at killing humans. Tasers are not. My only point was that.

David

[Gold Metal Flake]

75. Tasers kill.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

97. Yes they do, very rarely. They aren't remarkably effective at killing humans.

[Gold Metal Flake]

101. Tasers kill. No excuses.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

102. Who's making excuses? Your statement was factually incorrect, that's all.

[Gold Metal Flake]

104. Tasers kill. Stop making excuses.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

106. I can't help it you were wrong don't take it out on me.

[Gold Metal Flake]

107. Tasers kill. It's the truth.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

108. They aren't remarkably efficient killing machines as you stated, they do kill rarely though.

[Gold Metal Flake]

109. Tasers Kill. Lying will not change that.

"They aren't remarkably efficient killing machines as you stated". I never stated that. Nice try.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

110. Post 64 you wrote, "These devices kill. They are remarkably efficient at doing so."

Plain for everyone to see who is dishonest here.

David

[Gold Metal Flake]

111. Yup, you are correct. Not dishonest, short of memory and too lazy to scroll back.

I apologize. Edit time is still open, but I will not edit my previous remark because that WOULD be dishonest.

Now, back to Tasers Kill/whatever/Tasers Kill/whatever.

Yes. Tasers do kill. They kill indescriminately, and without warning. When a taser is used on someone, that person may die. There is no way to know who will die and who will not. Once dead, they can not be brought back. Some people killed by tasers die having not been charged, tried or convicted of a crime. Tasers are not non-lethal weapons. Clearly, they are not working in practice as designed and as marketed. Tasers kill. There is clearly something wrong with the devices and their use.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

112. I've agreed with you the whole time, Tasers are lethal weapons.

They are rarely lethal, that doesn't change the fact though that they are in fact lethal.

David

[Gold Metal Flake]

113. Clearly I have a big problem with the lethal aspect. I recognize where we agree here.

Anyways, lets move on.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

115. Thanks for the lively discussion, glad for the peaceful resolution.

Take care now.

David

[acmavm]

76. Well, that makes all BETTER, DOESN'T IT???

:sarcasm:

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

98. Never said it did.

Pointing out that they aren't remarkable killing machines isn't me saying that it's okay that anyone dies.

David

[paulsby]

27. you'd be wrong

tasers are (correctly) placed below impact strikes by batons in every use of force continuum i've ever seen

for very good reason.

batons are MUCH more dangerous

fwiw, i've been tased twice, as part of training. i will never volunteer to be struck by a baton

[MagickMuffin]

86. My BIL's favorite "club" was his magna flashlight

You know the kind has holds heavy batteries. He was rather proud of clubbing his victims. He patrolled the black neighborhoods, and he is a racist.

This was before tasers, but I suppose he would have loved using those instead.

[adamuu]

15. the effect for this boy was equivalent. n/t

[paulsby]

29. not necessarily

you are making an assumption not confirmed by evidence.

all we know is he died AFTER being tased.

it does not follow that the taser caused (primary or contributory cause) his death.

it MAY be true, but it has not been established yet

tasers are incredibly frigging safe, and have undeniably saved thousands of lives/serious injuries.

[tekisui]

18. Wrong assumption. Cops use tasers because they are told they

are a non-lethal alternative to the gun. They should be trained to use tasers only as they would use a gun, and recognize that they are NOT non-lethal.

[ManiacJoe]

38. Wrong weapons comparison.

Cops are trained that tasers are a non-lethal alternative to batons.

You are correct in that the proper training should be that tasers are "less-than-lethal" not "non-lethal". However, they are not alternatives to deadly force when deadly force is needed.

[tekisui]

58. That makes sense. nt.

[paulsby]

25. the studies disagree

tasers are incredibly safe. i've been tased twice, fwiw.

tasers have saved THOUSANDS of lives. agencies that adopt tasers have seen

1) officer involved shootings
2) officers causing injuries
3) officers receiving injuries

ALL go down significantly.

*any* type of force CAN contribute to a death. people have died from baton blow to the legs, punches to the nose, etc.

but tasers are very effective and incredibly safe. the stats don't lie

[valerief]

28. So if the 15-year-old boy who died did so from a heart attack and that

heart attack was triggered by the taser, then the taser still didn't kill him?

[paulsby]

40. we don't know WHAT

he died from until the autopsy is done.

medical professionals are well versed in describing causes of death (primary or contributory etc.)

for example, if i pepper spray somebody and he stumbles into traffic (being blinded by the pepper spray) and is hit by a car, would you say pepper spray CAUSED the death?

medically speaking it didn't, but legally (in a sense of chain of events) it did. if i chase somebody and they run into traffic and get hit by a car, my chasing them contributed to their death in one sense, but not medically.

depends if you are talking legally, morally, or medically.

tasering HAS been a contributory factor in a # of deaths. many involved a combination of very high levels of polydrug use (iow tons of stimulants on board) COMBINED with very poor health (often brought on by years of drug abuse such as meth) and a tasering.

what people fail to understand is that these people have died in the past WITHOUT tasering merely from exertion after fighting police. huge adrenaline dump combined with extremely poor health etc. and/or massive amounts of drugs on board not to mention excited delirium etc.

i was once wrestling with a guy for literally about 2 minutes. i finally got him in handcuffs and when i turned him over he had stopped breathing. THAT was merely from the exertion of the fight. fortunately, he started breathing again, but people DO die in circ's like that. always has happened, always will ( which is why i think all police cars should have AED's)

*if* he had been tased as well (and he actually did die) people would blame the taser.

the reality is that many people who are tased, by virtue of often being highly drugged up, seriously unhealthy people are prone to ALL sorts of exertion caused deaths. it's ALWAYS happened.

look at, for instance, how many firefighters die every year from heart failure. due to exertion. and these guys are generally in very GOOD shape and have medical help (Their partners) there almost always.

[valerief]

43. Don't taze me, bro. nt

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

56. Did that guy die of a heart attack?

[valerief]

70. Not that I'm aware of. nt

[Diclotican]

59. paulsby

paulsby

You do not need to die of a teaser accident because you are a long time drug addict.. You can have a hidden damage to your body, in your heart, in your brain, in any parts of the body. Who most doctors never would think about when you se the healthy body of a 15 year boy who are in for some flue shot..

But when the right "tool" trigger the damage, that be in the brain, in the hearth or other parts of the body, the result would be damaging for the people who have it...

You can claim to kingdom come that a teaser piston is an "non-lethal" tool, and that it is not to dangerous to be used. But as the human body goes, it is more than dangerous than it should been.. I believe that in most cases it is NOT the teaser guns fault that they are been used to kill people, not even the police officer in the case. But rather the training of the use of the weapon.. I would say, for the knowledge I have about the issue (who is limited) that the whole concept of training officers to use that weapon should be reconsidered and a whole new concept of teaching been given all police officers.. I know it is many police officers in the US.. But at least in the light of the evidence of the many death, then a inquiry into the issue are at hand..

Diclotican

[paulsby]

60. some points

i never claimed Tasers were a "non-lethal" tool.

the correct term is "less lethal"

no kind of physical force is strictly "non-lethal".

even a wrestling match, or a baton strike to the leg CAN (in rare circ's ) result in death.


another thing is that there is a huge selection bias here. you don't hear about all the people tased (myself included) with exactly ZERO complications.

similarly, you don't hear (nearly as much) about the thousands of incidents yearly where lethal or more serious force was NOT used because the taser resolved the situation

you do not hear about the 10's of thousands of incidents where the mere display of the taser gains VOLUNTARY compliance such that no further force is needed, saving possible injury to both the suspect and the victim.

the #1 beneficiary of tasers are criminal suspects. agencies that adopt tasers see a signficant DECREASE in suspect injuries and deaths.

that's because in many cases it helps officers subdue a suspect who would otherwise require higher levels of force and injury.

[Diclotican]

61. paulsby

paulsby

True, compared to the old gun it is maybe less lethal than everything else...

But it is a but here somewhere. In Norway where I am living, the police have not even a gun in their uniform outfit. They do have a weapon in the car, who is locket up, and where their have to call in and ask permission to use the gun every time they want to use it. That means the police in Norway have to use their knowledge about the human in most cases to diffuse violence before they have to use weapon.. And for the most cases they do that, diffuse the problem before they have to use violence.. Off course they do have to fight criminals, and some times have to ask permission to have the old gun out of the car to stop criminals who are not to happy to be arrested by the police.. But for the most part the police tend to manage fine without the use of weapon...

And I have seen the police in action many times too.. And they manage well without the weapon.. But then maybe the uniform still have something to say in Norway?.. I do not know.. Or is it because for the most part the Police are just good trained here in Norway?. Not that I doubt that police in the US is good trained;):

Off course, every weapon who are been used on a human body can be lethal, even if it never the intention.. But to me on the outside the teaser look like a weapon who are been used to much compared to what can be solved without the weapon.. I understand that many in US are little more prone to violence against police and that it have been a cat and mouse game for many decades between the police and the criminals. Where the criminals tend to use every means possible to get away. Even machine guns and full automatic weapon is in use, against police.. You have a dangerous professional life there, and I do understand with my limited knowledge that in many cases the teaser is the lesser evil of what you have to your disposal... But I have to say, to send maybe 50.000 volt against another body... That means a large risk for injury if you ask me.. And yes, some parties in Norway have also been thinking about the wisdom of Teaser as an uniform outfit in Norway, but it have never been something as I know it.. But police have pepper spray in their outfit.. But they seldom use it I hope..

Diclotican

[paulsby]

77. it is NOT compared to the

", compared to the old gun it is maybe less lethal than everything else... "

this is a fundamental misunderstanding (that i have already addressed) that many laypeople have with tasers

they are not a substitute for deadly force.

they are a less lethal force option, and are placed somewhere (Depending on agency) BELOW baton strikes and above soft empty hand control.

you do NOT compare tasers to firearms. they are VERY different levels of force.

2nd of all, this is not norway. you cannot compare radically different cultures and expect to make a valid comparison. the US is like MANY nations where the police are armed - france, germany, etc.

that's wonderful that norway is a much less violent culture. our culture IS more violent.

"But I have to say, to send maybe 50.000 volt against another body... That means a large risk for injury if you ask me.. "

then you haven't studied the facts. i keep explaining. they are exceptionally safe. i have been tased twice. that's because i KNOW the risk of injury is close to zero. that is NOT true with wrestling somebody into handcuffs, let alone a baton strike or soft empty hand strike.

study the medical data. you have come to a conclusion without doing so or else you would not claim "a large risk for injury"

[Diclotican]

80. paulsby

paulsby

You are absolutely right about one thing, that it is difficult to compare Norway with the US.. Compared to US Norway would be seen as a peacefully little place, who we for the most are too;).. But we have had a rise of violence here to, specially with weapon, even that I doubt that it is so dangerous to be an police officer in Norway as in the US..

But we have not that less weapon in Norway than in the USA then, but the weapon culture is very different from the US I guess.. Here you use the weapon for hunting animal for the most part, not humans.. And we have a strict gun law who's penalty is strict if you broke it.. Therefore it is maybe more easy to have a peacefully nation, if the penalty is high enough.. I think it is something in the culture this use of weapon or not?.. I am not sure, but have never had the need to have a gun in the house...

Many european have weapon in the Police force, as in Germany and France, but that is not the same as the french and germans are using their weapon that often.. Rather the opposite.. But off course on TV you would se police using gun everytime... Specially in movies... The Carribiani in Italy is an military Police outfit with weapons.. But even them are not using weapon that liberal as many american police are doing it. And the Carribiani in Italy have their share of criminality to handle every day, every week, every month and every year..

You are the professional here, I am just a layman who might not have all the fact on the ground. But to me a weapon is still a weapon, even that a teaser is far more safe than the other tools you might have on the job. It still kill people.. And for the record of things, how long have Teaser been part of your outfit?.. 5-10 year?:. Off course compared to weapon, who have been part of your police uniform since good know when, and the teaser have not been around for that much.. In the statical sense off course a Teaser is far more safe than a gun.. But still die when police use a Teaser... So even that it is SAFE, it is not THAT SAFE as some want us to believe.. And it looks like the police are using a teaser rather liberal if you ask me.. Sometimes a strong voice, and the body language of someone who are just standing there and telling a man/woman to stop, is enough.. But off course, it is different in the US I guess...

Diclotican

[paulsby]

81. areas

"You are absolutely right about one thing, that it is difficult to compare Norway with the US.. Compared to US Norway would be seen as a peacefully little place, who we for the most are too .. But we have had a rise of violence here to, specially with weapon, even that I doubt that it is so dangerous to be an police officer in Norway as in the US.. "

there are certainly areas of the US that have lower crime/violent crime than the norway average. but yes, they are very different.

"Many european have weapon in the Police force, as in Germany and France, but that is not the same as the french and germans are using their weapon that often.. Rather the opposite.. But off course on TV you would se police using gun everytime... Specially in movies... The Carribiani in Italy is an military Police outfit with weapons.. But even them are not using weapon that liberal as many american police are doing it. And the Carribiani in Italy have their share of criminality to handle every day, every week, every month and every year.."

in the US,it isn't as often as movies, either.

the average cop in the US fires his handgun line of duty once every 12 yrs.

do you know how frequently an italian cop or german cop does?

"But to me a weapon is still a weapon, even that a teaser is far more safe than the other tools you might have on the job. It still kill people."

again, just because somebody died after being tasered does NOT mean the taser killed them (refer to my other medical post), or that they wouldn;'t have died during a wreslting match with cops who didn't use tasers. MANY people die this way.

people assume when they hear about some guy dying that the taser caused the death. most do not look at the autopsy reports that come out later, that deny that.

again, i volunteered to be tased. that's how safe it is.

[Diclotican]

84. paulsby

paulsby

Off course, even in US some parts would have less criminality as in some parts of Norway. Specially in the City's in Norway the crime rate is higher than in the country side... But if you look at it, we are just 4.6 million, the crime rate is rather good in Norway compared to many other country. Most of us is law bidding and do not do criminality.. But of course, they who do criminality are harming everyone else..

I do not know the static of Italian or German police officer use of weapon, but I would believe them to be similar to what is the case in the US?.. Or maybe it is worse in Italy and Germany than in the US?.. The use of violence is the product of the culture where the police are working you know.. And I know that the Carribiani is not an force to not work with!..

Off course, you can kill a man with your bare hand if you are into it.. The teaser is just one tool, who sometimes is fatal.. Even that I do not have all the facts on the ground here I have to believe you, when you say that Teaser is less lethal than many other weapon and tools you might have..

Off course, everyone can survive a Teaser shot, but I would guess that you have regular check up on your health, and that the doctor haven't given you permission to be teased if the check up had revealed something?.. You can't just assume that everyone have the same "tune up" every year. And even if you did have a "tune up" every year, this is not the same as that some old damage or an illness is showing up every time either.. You can still die in your sleep, on a failed heart, even that you 2 weeks early have had a total health check up, and everything is okay... The same is the case with Teases.. Maybe 500 Will survive an impact of that tool, but the 501 would die because of an illness he might not even have known about... And then you do have the headline in the paper...

Diclotican

[paulsby]

85. the physiological

you touch on the reality that i was discussing.

iow, yes there are people (cops tend to deal with them a lot) who are decidedly unhealthy.

certainly, my dr. never "ok'd" being tased, but i am a healthy individual.

although tons of individuals with serious heart condition, pacemakers, etc. have been tased with no ill effects

but yes - in custody or arrest deaths have always happened with or without tasers partly because of the population base we deal with.

for example, a person hopped up on a potent polydrug combo (coke and meth for example), and/or who has a massive adrenaline dump from fighting with the police (fight or flight response), etc. and.or pre-existing medical conditions, etc. is not uncommon.

my point is that BEFORE the taser was ever introduced, lots of people died during fights with the police because of these reasons.

tasers are remarkably safe, but somebody prone to excited delirium etc. is going to possibly die on rare occasions whether the cops wrestle him into handcuffs or tase him.

like i said, in an earlier post, i once had a guy stop breathing on me after a relatively brief 2 minute wrestling match

IF i had tased him the assumption would be "the taser caused it", which would not be true.

[Diclotican]

99. paulsby

paulsby

True, as an police officer, you tend to deal with people who have illness.. And who are unhealty... Specially the drug addict, who might not be that friendly to police officers... Maybe even aggressive to everything near police..

Off course YOU are an healthy individual, and who managed to survive a teaser, but not everyone is healthy as you, and in a lifetime you do not need to be a drug addict to have a problem with the police. You might be stop speeding to fast.. And if you then are a stupid fellow, you might try to resist your arrest.... Humans tend to be irrational when afraid (some are in fact afraid of police, even that they never have experienced something bad with them.. Remember first time I was stooped, I trembled so much that I almost was not capable of going out of the car - nothing worse than a broken taillight, and was just told to replace it, something hat I did the next day off course. I do notknow WHY but I was scared to the bone ) Today I have a old Police Cruiser, and are not been stopped.. Most police officers tend to belive me to be in the police for some reason.. It have been used as an old undercover police car, so it is maybe therefore?

Drug is a problem anyone who have contact with drug addict have to work with.. And some is worse than others.. And i know police officers have to work with drug addict all the time.. You are for the most doing a very good work and you should be respected for the work you do. Not everyone here would manage to do the same work you do..

Diclotican

[Ignis]

82. "The stats don't lie" -- WHICH stats?

The ones you so conveniently failed to produce? :shrug:

[paulsby]

89. the ones you never asked for. here you go. tasers reduce injuries and save lives

so cut the snark.

if you WANT them, then ask for them. i will assume the above post is a subtle request for same.

although a simple google would have done it for you. here's a hint. there is NO dispute that tasers have saved countless lives and injuries. the stats are voluminous. i find most taser critics are woefully ignorant and argue from emotion, and have not even read the stats.
here ya go
http://www.theppsc.org/forums/showthread.php?p=4436
Law enforcement agencies that have deployed TASERs have experienced substantial benefit in three main areas: avoiding the use of lethal force even when it would be legally authorized, reducing suspect injuries, and decreasing injuries to police officers. Predicting the precise extent to which TASERs would benefit the City of Lawrence in each of these categories is impossible because there is substantial variability in how different departments introduce and use the technology.

Few people dispute that TASERs have the potential to save suspect lives when they are used in circumstances where deadly force is authorized. For example, in a recent study<2> of 2452 uses of TASERs against mentally ill subjects during a 72 month period, the authors found that 45.3% of those uses were in situations where lethal force would have been legally justified or where the subject was an imminent threat to his or her own life. Many cities such as Oklahoma City, Seattle, Charlotte, Phoenix and Dallas experienced major decreases in officer involved shootings or reported a significant number of incidents in which the use of otherwise lawful deadly force was avoided through the TASER. In some situations, such as encounters with hostile individuals armed with firearms and ready to use them, however, it is too dangerous to attempt to use the TASER.

In regards to suspect injuries, many cities have experienced a 40% or greater decrease immediately following the introduction of TASERs. For example, Phoenix experienced a 67% decrease in these injuries. Austin, Texas noted an 82% decrease in serious injuries to suspects. Charlotte – Mecklenburg had suspect injuries decrease 79%. The Cape Coral (FL) Police Department reported a 68% decrease. The Topeka Police Department’s introduction of TASERs likely contributed to the 41% decrease in suspect injuries the following year. Suspect injuries are not of concern solely because the police should avoid injuring members of the public when reasonably possible. They are also important because even when the use of force was justified, a city may incur expenses based upon its obligation to provide its prisoners medical care.

The third area of benefit involves injuries to police officers. Policing is a high risk profession and police officers regularly sustain on-the-job injuries, often from the struggle of taking a combative suspect into custody. Beyond the City’s general desire that its employees not be injured in its service, the reduction of injuries to police officers benefits the City in a pair of ways. It keeps more police officers available to respond to the community’s calls for service and reduces worker’s compensation costs. Listed below are the decreases in officer injuries that several cities have experienced after TASER adoption. Please note that the study period varies depending on jurisdiction, and the jurisdictions deployed different amounts of TASERs as a percentage of their police forces so directly comparing the numbers may be difficult.

Jurisdiction
Percent of Injury Decrease
Orange County, Florida Sheriff’s Dept.
80% (over two years)
Putnam County Florida Sheriff’s Office
86%
South Bend Police Department
66%
Austin Police Department
50%
Charlotte – Mecklenburg Police Dept.
59%
Cape Coral, Florida Police Dept.
93%
Topeka Police Department
46%
Sarasota Police Department
65%
Omaha Police Department
47%
Cincinnati Police Department
56%
Columbus Police Department
23% (six month field trial)

[Ignis]

91. Call me old-fashioned...

But if I were to say "Eating poop is good for you! ALL the stats prove it to be so!" without providing a single set of statistics to support that claim, I'd be setting myself up for ridicule on a grand scale. I mean a really, really grand scale--think Chimpy McFlightSuit here, and you'll be getting close.

(I do love your use of the "Google It Your Own Damn Self" meme as a crucifix to ward away debate, though. Nice support there!)

Here's your original statement:

but tasers are very effective and incredibly safe. the stats don't lie

-- http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x5310337#5310610

Real scientists doing real research appear to disagree. I suggest you use the Magic Google on the following name: Dr. Zian Tseng.

---

The crux of the problem is that pro-taser and anti-taser arguments tend to measure apples vs. oranges. And the pro-taser argument routinely falls into the following camp:

"Sure, we might lose a few hundred civilian lives in the first few years as we get a handle on the problem. But think of all the officer lives saved!"

:eyes:

The single piece of support you offer (from PPSC...nice, no bias at all there!) only addresses the issue of civilian safety from the perspective of LEOs in situations where deadly force was warranted.

Well...no shit!

Here's a clue for you: We "civilians" aren't up in arms over any given LEO choosing to use a taser in deadly force circumstances. It's the millions of unnecessary tasings at political rallies, on school campuses, and at routine traffic stops--MANY OF WHICH HAVE RESULTED IN DEATHS--that cause our blood to boil.

The problem is not with the technology. It's with trying to get LEOs to act like human beings to those they're sworn to protect.

[paulsby]

93. translation. you can't dispute the data

you can't dispute the data, so you obfuscate

i presented data.

either refute it, or admit that it's correct.

and of course you CAN'T refute it.

so, you obfuscate.

and yes, many claim the problem IS with the technology. they are wrong. and the data incorporates both the technology AND how it is used.

i repeat. it is irrefutable that tasers save numerous injuries and lives. i provided data that supports that. i can provide plenty of more studies that say the same thing.

but you have YET to post data here that refutes what i posted

so you obfuscate.

intellectual honesty. give it a try!

[Ignis]

94. Oh, that's ridiculously easy. Here you go:

You posted the following assertion...

but you have YET to post data here that refutes what i posted

...regarding your previous post, which said...

but tasers are very effective and incredibly safe. the stats don't lie

---

So here's data (from a 2009 study, rather than the oft-quoted and Taser-funded 2005 and 2006 studies that LEOS love like a fat kid loves cake) that refutes your assertion that everything's sunshine and rainbows in Taser Land.

The rate of in-custody sudden death increased 6.4-fold (95% confidence interval 3.2-12.8, p = 0.006) and the rate of firearm death increased 2.3-fold (95% confidence interval 1.3–4.0, p = 0.003) in the in the first full year after Taser deployment compared with the average rate in the 5 years before deployment.

-- from "Relation of Taser (Electrical Stun Gun) Deployment to Increase in In-Custody Sudden Deaths" in the 03/15/09 issue of The American Journal of Cardiology (http://www.ajconline.org/home)

I'll even spell it out for the hard-of-reading:

Civilians are SIX TIMES more likely to die while in police custody during the first year after cops get their shiny new electric toys.

---

Back to your words:

it is irrefutable that tasers save numerous injuries and lives.

Intellectual honesty, eh? Pull the other one. :hi:

[paulsby]

118. read the study you cited.

"The rate of in-custody sudden death increased 6.4-fold (95% confidence interval 3.2-12.8, p = 0.006) and the rate of firearm death increased 2.3-fold (95% confidence interval 1.3–4.0, p = 0.003) in the in the first full year after Taser deployment compared with the average rate in the 5 years before deployment. In years 2 to 5 after deployment, rates of the 2 events decreased to predeployment levels. "

the 2nd part. this study actually says that after the first year (for whatever reason ) the rates of the 2 events DECREASED to predeployment levels.

which, you are correct, does differ from the studies i cited.

but you have to cherry pick ONE year to get the results you cited.

whereas years 2 to 5.

a 4 yr period

had the same rates as predeployment

did ya miss that?

or was that your famous intellectual honesty?

it is true that THE SAME RATES is not a DECREASE, which is what my studies showed. but it's also not an increase, which is the period you selectively cited.

emphasis on selectively.

hth

[Ignis]

119. Nice dodge.

How does your argument that the numbers even out over time help those poor souls who died in police custody during that first year?

Oh, that's right! They're only civilians! :eyes:

[paulsby]

121. it's not a dodge

clearly YOUR study conflicts with my studies.

duh

but what you did was selectively quote ONE year and left out the fact that apart from that one year, there was NOT a spike in in custody deaths

hth

[Ignis]

122. So your opinion isn't "irrefutable" after all?

Gosh, I'm surprised. :eyes:

The fact that you consider a SIXFOLD spike in custody deaths during the first year a trivial statistic speaks volumes about your agenda.

What would your response be if Taser use resulted in a SIXFOLD spike in officer deaths during the first year?

:shrug:

[paulsby]

123. are you having problems with reading comprehension

i admitted that your studies CONFLICT with mine.

so, again, you are making stuff up.

this was only an abstract. i would like to see the full study and see how it compares with others.

unlike some people (hint hint) i can change my opinion given evidence.

that's yet another aspect of intellectual honesty.

give it a try

[Ignis]

124. More ad hominems, no analysis. Got it. (nt)

[LostinVA]

4. Why is a TASER needed for breaking up a fight???

:wtf:

Would they use a sidearm for breaking up a fight? Of course not. Then they shouldn't use a Taser. Cops need to start being cops again, and utlizing the tools they were taught to control certain situations.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

10. They were using the tools the were taught to use.

[The Straight Story]

16. They should teach them differently

When I was a deputy and worked in the jail no weapons were allowed. And we had more than one fight break up.

I can see them being used as tools - but they are often using it when it is not appropriate. Cops know what a gun does to a person, they know what a night stick does to them. But tasers affect people differently.

We spent a lot of time in training in hand to hand combat and ways to subdue people.

Training backed up by stringent reviews of their use, both internally and externally, should be in place

These deaths are becoming all too common because the use of the taser is. It is worth examining and investigating.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

20. I agree.

[paulsby]

33. that isa different situation

when you worked in the jail and went "hands on" you could be assured that they could not get YOUR weapon.

the cops in the street do not have the luxury.

besides the fact that using a taser is far less likely to result in broken bones, sprains, injuries, etc. vs. wrestling combative fighting subjects, it also means the officer can maintain a reactive distance and not risk a subject getting HIS firearm, etc.

prior to my agency having tasers, we had an officer killed by a unarmed (naked) man who grabbed on to him, overpowered him, got his gun, and executed him.

you can talk training all you want, but this guy was a former army ranger, and not exactly a wussy.

a cracked up, feel no pain, buffed up (from his stint in prison for which he was just released) is a handful.

i've carried a taser fwiw for several years, and have yet to fire it.

i have deployed and threatened a few people with tasing, which achieved the goal of voluntary compliance.

i am also 215 lbs, and trained martial artist and competitive strength athlete.

but there's always somebody better than you. i never forget that.

[The Straight Story]

42. I do understand the difference

But I also feel it is an over-utilized device.

I have defended police on here before and taser use, it has a place.

It is a judgment call that needs to be made in an instant, and I think more training would help officers in that arena - especially since the results can (as we see here) be deadly.

I would say in this particular case it appears the guy was coming at the officer and in a split second decision if I had a taser I might well have used it myself (however, it states: "attempted to fight the officers." which could mean a lot of things from verbal aggression to physical attack). But there are many cases where this is not the case and there are other ways to diffuse a situation.

One hopes IA could handle these things in an impartial manner and decide if use of force was warranted, but I don't trust IA as far as I can throw them (I was friends with the chief of IA, a few years after I left the force he did time for his own crimes relating to the job and abuse of his powers - one of which was selling badges to drug dealers).

Allow tasers but have a lot more oversight - and since you are in the force, maybe you could educate us on the procedure followed after use of one, is it anything like the use of a gun, etc?

[paulsby]

47. i agree about one thing

especially when officers were first issued (and agencies first adopted) tasers, they were overused and still can be (like any use of force) due to the "gee whiz it's a new toy" syndrome, among other things.

undeniably.

also, imo some agency policies set taser usage too LOW on the UOF continuum.

any time a taser is used, our agency requires a form be filled out (i've never fired my taser, so never had to fill it out), so taser usage can be tracked, statistically and problems recognized, improvements in policy made, etc.

it is definitely true that when tasers first came out, there was overuse. and like ALL uses of force, they can be abused.

responsible officers will use tasers responsibly, and irresponsible officers are given ANOTHER tool to use irresponsibly. in this respect, it's no different than any other force implement

i can say that MEDICALLY speaking they are INCREDIBLY safe and there is incredibly ignorant hysteria concerning their alleged danger.

people who cannot understand the whole "correlation =/= causation" aspect of science immediately assume that every time a guy dies some point after he was tased, it was CAUSED BY THE TASER.

i tried to explain why that's erroneous, in my previous post.

fwiw, i have seen a metric assload of injuries (to both officers and suspects) when people went hands on (iow tried to wrestle an aggressive suspect into cuffs). tasers are generally much safer.

broken wrists, torn muscles/tendons, sprains, boinking of head on pavement, etc etc. when cops try to wrestle guys into cuffs.

the nice thing about tasers is they have COMPLETE and accurate data recording. unlike a baton strike, knee strike, etc. every time a taser is used, the information is recorded on a chip in the taser and can be downloaded, and thus there is 100% accountability for it being used. it keeps officers honest.

[cabluedem]

23. I agree. Prison guards are not allowed guns or tazers on the ground, so obviously even corrections

officers can see the difference since they still use batons. I believe the use of tazers is increasing for the same reasons the killing of suspects are by police. No cop really ever gets punished by the courts and sent to prison.Until that happens there is no reason for the police to worry about using these devices.

[LostinVA]

36. Maybe teh cops were YOU live, not the ones in my family

Nor the one I used to date. Tasers are considered the last resort in most situations, and they were ALL taught (in NJ and NC) to think of a Taser as a sidearm. They have tools to utilize before they use a Taser or gun, but too many cops have gotten lazy about this.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

41. Guns are considered the last resort for cops.

The rules are very different for Tasers and Sidearms.

[paulsby]

30. bad logic

tasers are not, nor should they be at the same level on the OUF continuum as deadly force.

[LostinVA]

35. I have law enforcement officers in my family, and they were ALL taught this

Think of a Taser as a firearm.

[paulsby]

37. but it's incorrect

i am a police officer and a firearms/use of force INSTRUCTOR.

feel free to google "taser" and "use of force continuum"

in most agencies i am aware of tasers are placed in the range of just above soft empty hand control (lowest i have seen) and.or below tertiary impact strikes (tertiary targets are the lowest target - like side of thigh).

i have NEVER seen any agency's UOF continuum that places them at the same level as deadly force.

if there are any agencies that list them there, their policy makers are morans :) and they might as well not carry them.

that's just the facts.

anybody who thinks of a taser like a firearm, or as a replacement for a firearm does not understand either the legal or physiological aspects of use of force.

feel free to invite them here for a discussion.

[MicaelS]

68. Great post, thanks for the information, BUT

IMO, the real problem is Taser are being used as a means of forcing compliance. Not the THREAT of tasing, but the actual tasing itself. It APPEARS from the media that a number of these tasing deaths occurred as a result of no threat of violence, or actual violence being committed by the deceased, rather simply because the deceased refused to obey the officer's commands. I'm sorry but refusal to obey as officer's commands in a non-violent situation is not grounds for possible death. This is why I believe that across the board Taser use is going to have to be into it's own category as just below Lethal Force on the UOF Continuum, and the discharge of a Taser is going to have to start being treated like the discharge of a firearm. Something along the lines of below. While I generally support the police, I refuse to support the indiscriminate use a device which has been shown to kill non-violent citizens who simply refuse to obey an officers instructions. Either law enforcement is going to handle this within it's own ranks, or the public is going to demand action, and I can promise you law enforcement is not going like the latter.

http://dallassouthblog.com/2008/07/30/use-of-force-continuum-needs-revisiting-due-to-lethal-nature-of-taser-guns-day-of-blogging-for-justice/

Level One * Officer Presence
Level Two * Verbal Commands
Level Three * Empty Hand Control
Level Four * Pepper Spray, Baton, Taser
Level Five * Less Lethal
Level Six * Deadly Force

My suggestion would be that law enforcement consider moving the Taser away from level 4 and creating a 7th level. The new continuum might look like this:

1) Officer Presence
2) Verbal Commands
3) Empty Hand Control
4) Pepper Spray/Baton
5) Less Lethal Force
6) Taser
7) Lethal Force

[paulsby]

78. reasonable

" Not the THREAT of tasing, but the actual tasing itself. It APPEARS from the media that a number of these tasing deaths occurred as a result of no threat of violence, or actual violence being committed by the deceased, rather simply because the deceased refused to obey the officer's commands. I'm sorry but refusal to obey as officer's commands in a non-violent situation is not grounds for possible death."

policies vary from agency to agency. most agencies require (and should require) active resistance NOT passive resistance before a taser is fired.

i agree with that.

regardless, ANY form of force could result in "possible death" and that includes simply wrestling a subject into handcuffs.

but i agree that tasers should not be used for passive resistance. ime, i have never seen them used thusly (probably seen 2 dozen taser deployments), but if an agency lists them there, that is a mistake imo

i think your proposed use of force spectrum is misguided, probably because you falsely attribute danger(s) to tasers that don't exist.

placing tasers ABOVE baton is insane imo (not getting into tertiary, secondary and primary strikes).

tasers are far far less likely to cause injury (or death) than a baton strike.

i've volunteered fwiw for taser shots. i would NEVER volunteer to be struck by a baton.

the wonderful benefit of tasers is that they have saved countless injuries (and deaths) as stats from agencies that adopt tasers have proved.

less officer injuries
less suspect injuries
less officer deaths
less citizen deaths

placing tasers above baton would be insane

fwiw, certain forms of baton use (primary targets) ARE deadly force.

tasers are never considered deadly force.

[BlooInBloo]

6. gawd DAMN the state-sponsored domestic terrorists.

[GReedDiamond]

14. I wonder how cops broke up fights...

...between teenagers before the cops were armed with "non-lethal" tasers?

For something that is characterized as non-lethal, there sure are a lot of deaths attributed to their use, many times in situations that a well trained officer should be able to handle without resorting to firing some kind of weapon, whether lethal, or only "sometimes" lethal.

I was beaten by a cop who pistol whipped and smashed my head against a curb because I had a bag of weed which I refused to surrender to him. In retrospect, I figured the pistol whipping was better than a pistol shooting, which he threatened to do as he pointed his service revolver at me, but apparently didn't have the balls for. Maybe he flashed to the headline in the local paper the next day: "Officer slays local teen in struggle over bag of marijuana." Even in 1973, that would not have gone over well with a lot of people in town. (And if anybody wants to say to me, "wouldn't you rather be tasered than shot or beaten," I say, how about none of the above? I was an 18 YO with a bag of weed for christ's sake, not a violent hard core criminal on a rampage.)

In any case, tasers should be banned, IMO, because it is an untruth that they are non-lethal.

[cabluedem]

26. Right on! Legalise it now. K&R. nt

[Cid_B]

63. Less-Lethal...

Words matter...

[Cetacea]

31. I'd rather see the use of rubber pellet guns than death tasers. n/t

[aikoaiko]

32. Anytime you attempt to fight police, you're risking life and limb.

This is not to say the boy deserved to die, but it is risky behavior.

[Raineyb]

48. Then why say it? When you make excuses for police killings you're basically saying that the person

deserved it. Quite the disgusting attitude IMNSHO. You wouldn't excuse a civilian for using a taser to break up a fight why the hell should the cops get a pass. They're supposed to be trained at such things.

Regards

[aikoaiko]

49. Its not perfectly clear what happened, but it sounds like he was tasered when fighting with police

Not the other kid. If the kid attacked the police, then a taser was not out of line.

And yes, a civilian would be entitled to use a taser to stop someone from physically fighting them.

[Raineyb]

65. So says the police. The boy isn't around to tell his side of the story now is he?

And it's not like the police have never lied or planted a gun in order to make their actions look justifiable. A taser ought not be a tool used to break up a fight. The police are turning to their tasers fairly quickly without trying anything else because some jag-off told them it was not lethal. Well it's not "non lethal" people are dying and as per usual instead of doing something about the taser we have people saying "well he shouldn't have fought the cops". Define fight the cops because there are cops out there who will claim you assaulted them if you brush their hand off your shoulder.

And a civilian would not be able to use a taser to break up a fight nor to push off someone fighting them. Where I'm from Tasers are prohibited. Period.

Regards

[aikoaiko]

66. tasers are prohibited? oh, I see, NYC.

Well, in other parts of the country where people are more free to use tools to defend themselves, one could use a taser to stop someone from battering someone.

I agree with you that just because a police officer says something, does not make it true. But presumably the other boy he was fighting was there too and could tell a different story. I'll wait for evidence of wrong doing before assuming there was any.

Tasers are generally non-lethal the same way batons are non-lethal.

[Raineyb]

105. Batons aren't exactly non-lethal either.

But I wouldn't put them in the same category of tasers. The non-lethal line is a complete load of crap. People have been dying due to use of tasers. That they've not made it to gun status yet doesn't make the safe for use. There are far too many cops using it as a first resort without even trying anything else. It's becoming a crutch; meanwhile the body count racks up while the company claims that it's "non-lethal."

How many people are going to die before we see sense.

Regards

[aikoaiko]

116. There surely have been incidents when police were quick to use the taser.

But there are plenty of situations where it is the best tool for the job of subduing someone. Deaths during police apprehension are nothing new. I'm still hoping to see some good analysis of taser use compared to other forms of physical apprehension, but its difficult to compare situations.

[originalpckelly]

34. Portatble electric torture devices, not tasers.

Poor kid.

[L0oniX]

39. G D pigs

[lonestarnot]

44. And someone posted yesterday that DUer's hate cops.

:eyes:

[dickthegrouch]

50. I will never understand why a net won't work

We've all seen people brought down by nets, they make continuing to fight extremely difficult and are just about harmless. Useful against both belligerent and hostile adversaries. Make it from the right material and a knife is no good against it. About its only drawback is that someone with a gun can still shoot through it. However, if they are (still) shooting at the cops after being trapped in the net, they deserve everything they get in my book.

The supposed need to go high-tech all the time is just wrong-headed thinking. Back to basics.

Keep it Simple, Stupid.

[BlooInBloo]

57. Because it doesn't satisfy the Officer Kickass terrorists.

[Ignis]

83. Precisely.

I suspect that painting all of the "non-lethal" weapons bright pink would result in a drop in how often Officer TwitchyFinger whips them out.

[aikoaiko]

67. Nets should be another tool in the toolbox but there aren't nearly as efficient as tasers

http://ajoka.com/Wholesale_Distributor_Manufacturer_China/shooting_net.htm


Tasers have the benefit of actual incapacitating individuals, while with a net you still have a lot of physical work to do.

[valerief]

74. Inefficiency and extra work versus possible death. Hmm. Tough call. nt

[paulsby]

79. rubbish

ANY use of force can (and does) result in "possible death", to include wreslting somebody into handcuffs.

and this has happened, and will always happen. i already explained why.

tasers are much SAFER than uses of force such as baton strikes, empty hand strikes and often wristy twisties (i've seen torn tendons for instance from those).

agencies that adopt tasers see lower rates of citizen injuries, citizen deaths, officer injuries and officer deaths.

[marmar]

117. Sounds like propaganda straight out of a taser manufacturer's promotional brochure.....

n/t

[Ignis]

120. Are you saying that poster has *gasp* an AGENDA?

Perish the thought! I'm sure Taser only pays a small stipend for Internet-based marketing, anyway. ;)

[Ignis]

92. Well, as long as they're only civilian deaths, no problem! (nt)

[valerief]

73. I was thinking the same thing, but I thought I'd be told I was a moron for saying that. nt

[lostnotforgotten]

53. The Plutocrat Class Would Have It No Other Way

eom

[PM Martin]

90. Ban these POS's already!