Taser use correct? What do you think?

[bojangle]

Well, according to the ACLU link you posted, in 2002 159 departments had TASERS fully deployed to each officer and in 2005 1,735 agencies, including some of the largest, had TASERS fully deployed to each officer. This is what arnoha was suggesting. While this is FAR from scientific and the years don't exactly match up, the data suggests that deaths associated with TASERS tripled in that time period while TASERS deployed increased by well over 10 times.

Here is another question to ponder. Have police custody or use of force deaths overall increased or decreased since TASERS have been widely deployed? Would the suspects who died after TASER use have died anyways if TASERS were not available? My belief is that people on drugs with preexisting conditions over excert themselves, they can die from excited delerium regardless of TASER use.

Just finished reading the whole thread.

Here is my 2c.
But first: This thread is not a court of LAW so to all the people requiring that we be experts in the use and polices of Tazers to express an opinion in this thread.... STHU. I am using conjecture and hearsay to make my point. It's a forum and the last I checked one does need to be a LEO, lawyer or P.O.S.T. expert to express an opinion here.

Ok, just checking!

 

[taranis]

Oh, I fail... LOL

 

[SurfAwave69]

Well, according to the ACLU link you posted, in 2002 159 departments had TASERS fully deployed to each officer and in 2005 1,735 agencies, including some of the largest, had TASERS fully deployed to each officer. This is what arnoha was suggesting. While this is FAR from scientific and the years don't exactly match up, the data suggests that deaths associated with TASERS tripled in that time period while TASERS deployed increased by well over 10 times.

Here is another question to ponder. Have police custody or use of force deaths overall increased or decreased since TASERS have been widely deployed? Would the suspects who died after TASER use have died anyways if TASERS were not available? My belief is that people on drugs with preexisting conditions over excert themselves, they can die from excited delerium regardless of TASER use.

So you're admitting taser use, and the taser itself, is more hazardous to public health than we originally thought? So everyone whom has been killed with a taser had a preexisting condition & was under the influence? Why are taser deaths on the rise?

..those #'s aren't BS, they've been cited.

 

[arnoha]

So you're admitting taser use, and the taser itself, is more hazardous to public health than we originally thought? So everyone whom has been killed with a taser had a preexisting condition & was under the influence? Why are taser deaths on the rise?

..those #'s aren't BS, they've been cited.

No, what he's suggesting is that the rise in taser-related deaths (that is, a death at some point after a taser was fired, not a death where the taser was the cause of death, as that's still in the air) is at a rate far lower than the rise in taser deployment amongst officers. Note that the numbers you provided stop in 2004. 2005 is when there was finally large deployment. So, the years between 2000 and 2004 were ramp up years for taser deployment. What appears to be suggested is that taser safety increased by a factor of three over those years.

So, to take your questions more directly:

First, nobody is measuring "killed by a taser". They're measuring death after taser activation. Correlation is not causation. The taser probably contributed to some, but not all, of those deaths. It is currently undetermined how the taser fits into the deaths, since there are so few of them. Using correlation to suggest causation needs lots and lots of careful statistics. We just don't have it yet.

The last question is the easiest to answer. Taser-correlated deaths are on the rise because taser deployment is on the rise. It says nothing about the safety of the taser. Here's an example that helps demonstrate the fallacy: The number of officer misconduct cases filmed on dashcam are on the rise. That means that dashcams cause officer misconduct? Of course not...they're on the rise because there's more dash cams out there!

EDIT: No one is disputing the numbers. What we're disputing is the conclusion you're drawing from the numbers. That's what at issue.

 

[SurfAwave69]

No, what he's suggesting is that the rise in taser-related deaths (that is, a death at some point after a taser was fired, not a death where the taser was the cause of death, as that's still in the air) is at a rate far lower than the rise in taser deployment amongst officers. Note that the numbers you provided stop in 2004. 2005 is when there was finally large deployment. So, the years between 2000 and 2004 were ramp up years for taser deployment. What appears to be suggested is that taser safety increased by a factor of three over those years.

So, to take your questions more directly:

First, nobody is measuring "killed by a taser". They're measuring death after taser activation. Correlation is not causation. The taser probably contributed to some, but not all, of those deaths. It is currently undetermined how the taser fits into the deaths, since there are so few of them. Using correlation to suggest causation needs lots and lots of careful statistics. We just don't have it yet.

The last question is the easiest to answer. Taser-correlated deaths are on the rise because taser deployment is on the rise. It says nothing about the safety of the taser. Here's an example that helps demonstrate the fallacy: The number of officer misconduct cases filmed on dashcam are on the rise. That means that dashcams cause officer misconduct? Of course not...they're on the rise because there's more dash cams out there!

EDIT: No one is disputing the numbers. What we're disputing is the conclusion you're drawing from the numbers. That's what at issue.

I know...I was talking about the ALCU write-up, not the chart (and I'm not saying the chart is BS, because it's based on facts as well).

Like I said, the original video (topic of this thread) shows an officer using the taser when use of force was not justified. Taser's should be used only if ABSOLUTELY necessary; in this case, it wasn't. If this officer killed this gentlemen, then they're would have been more of a shitstorm (wrongful death lawsuit, etc...). (ie. the family of the SJ man killed is getting 70k).

 

[NorCalBusa]

And how many would have gotten themselves SHOT, perhaps multiple times (and presumably die) had a Taser not been deployed?

Here is another question to ponder. Have police custody or use of force deaths overall increased or decreased since TASERS have been widely deployed? Would the suspects who died after TASER use have died anyways if TASERS were not available? My belief is that people on drugs with preexisting conditions over excert themselves, they can die from excited delerium regardless of TASER use.

 

[Shaggy]

Your facts are indisputable and your knowledge and experience speak for themselves. You win.

 

[SurfAwave69]

Your facts are indisputable and your knowledge and experience speak for themselves. You win.

 

[Cheyenne]

Hey you guys.

Have you looked at it from the other angle?

I'm an actual "mentally unbalanced" person. Most of the time I'm fine, but I do have problems with rage, and deeply rooted suicidal feelings.

It's completely possible that I could end up in a situation where I was cuffed, crying, and decided that I needed to end my life, by getting the officer to kill me. I'm very flexible, and trained for years in a combat oriented martial art. Trained by the person who trains law enforcement in my area, so well versed in the techniques they use. It's a horrible thing to do, but people do it in all kinds of ways, far too often. I hope it never even comes close to happening, but it already has for other people, and the arrestee and the office are both worse off for it.

An officer never knows how dangerous someone is, and must have some guideline to go by. And we do. You are required to follow the officer's instructions. Once you stop doing that, you are resisting arrest.

You can quibble the law all you want, I've not been arrested, but I've been questioned many times, and seen it happen to plenty of others, and there is a clear line between when you are co-operative, and when you are resistant. The cop sure as hell knows it, intrinsically, and if you don't, for whatever reason, you might get tased. And you deserve it.

When you get out of jail, if you were out of your head on drugs, or having a psychotic break, be sure to thank the officer for using restraint, and apologize for being an ass. How the fuck do you expect society to be willing to risk it's highly trained police to your crazy ass by them being too careful not to upset you while you go through the arrest process?

I'm constantly stunned by how people can fail to understand the simple, basic relationship between civilians and police, and also be unclear on when they have transgressed the law while dealing with an officer.

I'm hard on the cops here all the time, I'm clearly suspicious, this stuff is just silly. We're come a long way, but there are still very real issues to deal with. Using force on people resisting arrest should not be the giant distraction that it is. Fuck, at least do it right. My uncle beat up a cop and took his gun, poor rookie motherfucker. Spent half his life locked up...

 

[JPM]

I sorry I have not gone over every post, but some like to post all sorts of stories from different sources. But the most recent one I know of, dated 1-15-09, by medical professionals, seems to support tasers. So whose study should you believe? The ones whose job is to make money in law suits or those that actually work in the medical filed and have medical knowledge and facts.


Tasers not heart risk, study finds
Henry Pierson Curtis | Sentinel Staff Writer
January 15, 2009
Long considered controversial and possibly deadly, police stun guns received a clean bill of health from a medical study released today by the Annals of Emergency Medicine.

The three-year study found no links between the 50,000-volt weapons and fatal heart attacks.

"We finally have a real-world estimate of the risk associated with these weapons . . . and we found that to be low," said Dr. William Bozeman of the Wake Forest University School of Medicine in Winston-Salem, N.C. "That's important because these are violent encounters, and a small scrape or bruise is simply not the same as serious head injury or life-threatening internal injury."

Researchers at five medical schools reviewed 1,201 shock-arrest cases and found just three in which serious injuries could be tied to an electronic-control weapon. Better known as a Taser -- the name of the primary manufacturer -- the weapons are carried by more than two-thirds of U.S. police agencies.

It is the first study of its kind to medically evaluate every suspect who had been stunned and taken into custody. None showed any irregular heart activity attributable to the electrical charge, according to the findings reviewed by the American College of Emergency Physicians.

Controversy over Taser use in Orlando and Orange County stems from the deaths of seven suspects since the weapons were adopted for deputies use in 2001. More than 70 in-custody deaths across the U.S. have been blamed largely on combinations of the suspects' drug abuse, medical conditions and struggles with police.

Taser international, an Arizona-based company, could not be reached Wednesday evening.


Popular with women, too

Nonexistent a decade ago, Tasers are now sold to police agencies worldwide, while civilian models are sold at Tupperware-style parties for women. Police models use compressed nitrogen to fire twin darts linked by metal fiber up to 35 feet and come with laser sights and options for video and voice recorders.

In half of the study's cases, the suspects had been drinking or taking drugs, which may have contributed to their willingness to resist arrest. The study covered six police agencies in six states. The Marion County Sheriff's Office was the only Florida agency studied.

The study covered the Chandler Police Department in Arizona, the Fairfax county Police Department in Virginia, the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, the Shreveport Police Department in Louisiana and the Northern Illinois Police Alarm System, which includes about 80 police jurisdictions in the Chicago area.

Of the 1,201 cases studied, two people died. Those deaths were attributed to a combination of prolonged struggles, drug abuse and pre-existing medical conditions. One man had taken a deadly amount of an anti-psychotic medicine. The other man was overweight with a pre-existing heart condition and was using cocaine.

The three serious injuries tied to stun guns included two men who hit their heads when they fell after being stunned. The third suffered muscle and kidney damage. All recovered, according to the study.

The most common minor injuries were 408 skin punctures cause by the Taser's metal darts fired at a suspect's body to discharge electricity. The darts can penetrate 1 inch of clothing.

"It's a confirmation of what we've already known: Like every other weapon, these weapons can produce serious injuries," Bozeman said of the need for emergency-room staffs to be remain vigilant for Taser-related injuries. "Even though they appear to be uncommon, we can't make the mental mistake of assuming that they never occur because clearly they do occur.

Bozeman and his colleagues in the American College of Emergency Physicians noted previous research found injuries to suspects and police dropped as much as 90 percent and police use of firearms dropped at least 50 percent after Tasers became widely used.

When suspects resist, law-enforcement officers have options ranging from takedown tactics to nightsticks, pepper spray, Tasers and the use of deadly force, depending on the levels of resistance.


Dozens of Taser reviews

The study is the latest in a series of more than 30 reviews of Tasers.

Most recently in Central Florida, the U.S. Justice Department urged the Orange County Sheriff's Department to tighten its rules for using Tasers. That followed a yearlong review by the federal agency's Civil Rights Division of excessive-force complaints against deputies.

Yet, a previous, independent study found deputies and Orlando police officers used less force than warranted. Both agencies generally have had declining uses of Tasers in recent years.

Orlando police records show Tasers were used 337 times in 2005, 315 times in 2006, 313 times in 2007 and 278 times in 2008.

Orange County sheriff's records shows Tasers were used 229 times in 2001, 549 times in 2002, 510 times in 2003, 466 times in 2004, 403 times in 2005, 368 times in 2006, 307 times in 2007 and 349 times in 2008.

Former Orange County Sheriff Keary became one of Tasers' most vocal supporters after buying weapons for a pilot program in 2001. Since then, the agency has spent more than $800,000 on Taser products and conducted its own yearlong review of their safety and standards for use.

Agency spokesman Capt. Angelo Nieves said issuing Tasers to deputies has saved lives of suspects by preventing confrontations from reaching a point where deadly force would have been necessary.

"We've found them a very effective tool and a very safe tool," Nieves said. "And we've reduced the numbers of officers' injuries and reduced the number of suspects' injuries."

 

[MellowYellow]

I sorry I have not gone over every post, but some like to post all sorts of stories from different sources. But the most recent one I know of, dated 1-15-09, by medical professionals, seems to support tasers. So whose study should you believe? The ones whose job is to make money in law suits or those that actually work in the medical filed and have medical knowledge and facts. ....

I never believe just 1 source. Everyone brings a bias to a discussion like this. And you need to look at it from all points of view and make your own decision on the matter (yah with your bias also)

 

[SurfAwave69]

JPM, you should read ACLU's 'Stun Gun Fallacy'.... It will help you put some bias aside....

Here's a taste....

Playing “Russian Roulette” With The Heart...

As the deaths have increased, several medical experts have attempted to provide explanations for how Tasers may contribute to deaths. The Taser works by delivering 50,000 volts of energy—albeit at a very low amperage—to the body, causing a disruption of its electrical energy pulses and locking up the muscles. While the shock alone does not cause injury or death in most cases, it may be fatal if it hits the subject during the vulnerable period of the heart beat cycle, is used on particularly susceptible populations, or is used multiple times and for an extended time period. According to Dr. Zian Tseng, cardiologist at the University of California at San Francisco, if the Taser sends its energy to the heart at the wrong time, the electricity may cause ventricular fibrillation, a state in which the heart muscles spasm uncontrollably, disrupting the hearts pumping function and causing death.

Dr. Kathy Glatter of the University of California Davis Medical School agrees: “If I hit the heart or create electricity in the wrong time of the (beat) cycle, it could send the whole heart into an electrical tailspin.” Further, certain populations may be more susceptible to ventricular fibrillation as a result of a Taser shock. Children, for example, being smaller than adults, may be at greater risk from a taser shock. According to Roger Barr, professor of Bioengineering at Duke University, the size of the individual is important “because the same amount of current is injected by the device, whatever the size of the person. So when the person is a small person, whether they be a child or a small adult or whatever, current intensity, the amount that’s fl owing in any one space, is greater. And any sort of damage that occurs will be greater because the current intensity is greater”.

Drug users may also be more vulnerable because of the effects that drugs have on the heart. Again, Dr. Tseng: “I’ve seen the Taser folks say, ‘Oh, the guy had cocaine in his system, that’s the reason for his death.’ Well, someone with cocaine in their system is also much more prone to a Taser-induced cardiac arrest. They cannot say that it’s safe in my opinion.” The same is also true for certain medications that are used to treat psychiatric
problems.

According to Dr. Tseng, “I think they are dangerous... you are shocking someone repeatedly, it becomes a bit like Russian Roulette. At some point, you may hit that vulnerable period.” Second, research on pigs by Dr. James Jauchem indicates that multiple shocks can lead to an increase in blood acid levels and the enzyme Troponin T. While Dr. Jauchem indicated that the levels he found in his research would only require additional monitoring, other medical experts took his findings to be more significant. According to

Dr. Charles Rackley, cardiologist at the Georgetown University Hospital, if a patient came to see him with similar symptoms to those Dr. Jauchem found in his experiments, his “initial impression would be that meant some heart muscle damage, or heart attack.The combination of the acidosis as well as the heart muscle damage would put this patient at high risk of developing ventricular fibrillation or sudden cardiac death.”

A Dearth of Independent Studies While several medical experts have indicated that Tasers—in certain situations—can be lethal, there has been very little independent study on the medical eff ects of Tasers. And, what few independent studies there are have been largely limited to surveying the existing medical literature, analyzing Taser International’s database, and conducting studies on the effects of Tasers on healthy people, studies that do not address the vulnerable populations discussed above.

....there's more, you should read it.

 

[arnoha]

JPM, you should read ACLU's 'Stun Gun Fallacy'.... It will help you put some bias aside....

Here's a taste....






....there's more, you should read it.

I finally did read it. It's a bit outdated. Here's a synopsis of it's points:

• The danger of tasers is not yet well studied.
• Anectodal evidence suggests they may not be fully safe.
• We should be more conservative until we know.
• Training should reflect this.

The paper is written in an emotional style that I particularly dislike...it's an appeal to the heart, not the brain. An appeal to the heart is appropriate at times...just not when it comes to policy. However, that's an ad hominem attack on the paper itself. And, for the same reason, I'm ignoring the sections in the paper about Taser, International, as that, too, would be ad hominem. (The ACLU is correct in using this sort of a construction for questioning Taser International's training. It is not relevant to the safety of the weapon.)

It is better studied now. JPM linked the latest. The "clearance" it gets from the actual study isn't quite as squeaky clean as the article suggests. Clearly, those writing the article have a different bias than those in the ACLU! The study confirmed that the taser has never been the primary cause of death in cases where it could be well studied. It did not say with certainty that it cannot contribute to death, but it did indicate that even if it does, it's very rare.

That does not mean that we're always using it as we should. It's still a painful tool to gain compliance. It still produces injuries. (Always tiny ones from the barbs, but also cuts, scrapes, bruises, mostly from falling, and strains and fractures in more severe cases from the muscle contractions.) So, there's still room for debate on what situations this tool is appropriate for.

In the case of this man and of tragic case of the man on the ledge, the consensus has been that it's not appropriate. The ledge-man's consensus was very clear from everyone...there just wasn't much to discuss once all the relevant points came out. This contributed to locking the thread: not only would it have been distasteful to continue, it would have been pointless. This one is less clear. Nearly everyone has indicated that the three shocks were over the line, including the LEO's. There's been debate about whether the first one was also over the line. Surprisingly, there's been little debate about the actual issue being decided by the court: was the action potentially criminal. The consensus seems to be that, no, it wasn't.

 

[Razel]

Lots of supposition in that...

Playing “Russian Roulette” With The Heart...

As the deaths have increased, several medical experts have attempted to provide explanations for how Tasers may contribute to deaths. The Taser works by delivering 50,000 volts of energy—albeit at a very low amperage—to the body, causing a disruption of its electrical energy pulses and locking up the muscles. While the shock alone does not cause injury or death in most cases, it may be fatal if it hits the subject during the vulnerable period of the heart beat cycle, is used on particularly susceptible populations, or is used multiple times and for an extended time period. According to Dr. Zian Tseng, cardiologist at the University of California at San Francisco, if the Taser sends its energy to the heart at the wrong time, the electricity may cause ventricular fibrillation, a state in which the heart muscles spasm uncontrollably, disrupting the hearts pumping function and causing death.

In theory, the shock potentially could be a problem. That's it...

Dr. Kathy Glatter of the University of California Davis Medical School agrees: “If I hit the heart or create electricity in the wrong time of the (beat) cycle, it could send the whole heart into an electrical tailspin.” Further, certain populations may be more susceptible to ventricular fibrillation as a result of a Taser shock. Children, for example, being smaller than adults, may be at greater risk from a taser shock.

How many cases are there where children have been tased?

According to Roger Barr, professor of Bioengineering at Duke University, the size of the individual is important “because the same amount of current is injected by the device, whatever the size of the person. So when the person is a small person, whether they be a child or a small adult or whatever, current intensity, the amount that’s fl owing in any one space, is greater. And any sort of damage that occurs will be greater because the current intensity is greater”.

No mention of how much current, so we don't know if the taser is an issue since they don't quatify how much can cause a problem and how much a taser delivers.

According to Dr. Tseng, “I think they are dangerous... you are shocking someone repeatedly, it becomes a bit like Russian Roulette. At some point, you may hit that vulnerable period.”

That is one doctors opinion. One...there are a few others that disagree.

Second, research on pigs by Dr. James Jauchem indicates that multiple shocks can lead to an increase in blood acid levels and the enzyme Troponin T. While Dr. Jauchem indicated that the levels he found in his research would only require additional monitoring, other medical experts took his findings to be more significant. According to Dr. Charles Rackley, cardiologist at the Georgetown University Hospital, if a patient came to see him with similar symptoms to those Dr. Jauchem found in his experiments, his “initial impression would be that meant some heart muscle damage, or heart attack.The combination of the acidosis as well as the heart muscle damage would put this patient at high risk of developing ventricular fibrillation or sudden cardiac death.”

A stretch, 'cause it's highly unlikely someone that's been tased is going to be walking into a clinic with "symptoms" that indicate heart problems. They're more likely to be heading for a cell, and if a doctor is involved shortly after their incarceration, I'll be willing to bet the doctor will know that the "patient" has been tased.

A Dearth of Independent Studies While several medical experts have indicated that Tasers—in certain situations—can be lethal, there has been very little independent study on the medical effects of Tasers. And, what few independent studies there are have been largely limited to surveying the existing medical literature, analyzing Taser International’s database, and conducting studies on the effects of Tasers on healthy people, studies that do not address the vulnerable populations discussed above.

So, when was this piece written? If it was 5 years ago, I'm sure there's a lot more data collected by now.

 

[SurfAwave69]

Lots of supposition in that...
In theory, the shock potentially could be a problem. That's it...
How many cases are there where children have been tased? No mention of how much current, so we don't know if the taser is an issue since they don't quatify how much can cause a problem and how much a taser delivers.
That is one doctors opinion. One...there are a few others that disagree.A stretch, 'cause it's highly unlikely someone that's been tased is going to be walking into a clinic with "symptoms" that indicate heart problems. They're more likely to be heading for a cell, and if a doctor is involved shortly after their incarceration, I'll be willing to bet the doctor will know that the "patient" has been tased.

So, when was this piece written? If it was 5 years ago, I'm sure there's a lot more data collected by now.

Read the whole thing....I just posted this snip-it to encourage those who haven't read it.

 

[Razel]

Read the whole thing....I just posted this snip-it to encourage those who haven't read it.

Ok, but understand that there wasn't too much encouragement after reading the snip-it's (on my part...)


Dayum...16 pages. :|

 

[masterbates]

if the point of a tazer is to immobilize someone and the officer is trying to get him to stand up why would you taze him? it just puts him on the ground longer.

 

[arnoha]

if the point of a tazer is to immobilize someone and the officer is trying to get him to stand up why would you taze him? it just puts him on the ground longer.

No, in this case the point is to use a different aspect of the taser: it hurts. It's a pain compliance technique. Basically, it's telling the arrestee, do what I ask or there will be painful consequences. No one expected him to stand during the five second jolt. Instead the idea is to get him to stand on his own after to avoid another ride.

In fact, the technique actually starts before the first jolt. The officer tells the suspect that he's going to be tased. Do what I say, or it'll hurt. You don't tell the guy charging at you that he's gonna get tased. You just do it! Different use of the tool.

As best as I can tell, no one in this thread is arguing that the taser is not useful or shouldn't be used for threat reduction. Instead, the argument is about the use of the taser for obtaining compliance.

 

[SurfAwave69]

No, in this case the point is to use a different aspect of the taser: it hurts. It's a pain compliance technique. Basically, it's telling the arrestee, do what I ask or there will be painful consequences. No one expected him to stand during the five second jolt. Instead the idea is to get him to stand on his own after to avoid another ride.

In fact, the technique actually starts before the first jolt. The officer tells the suspect that he's going to be tased. Do what I say, or it'll hurt. You don't tell the guy charging at you that he's gonna get tased. You just do it! Different use of the tool.

As best as I can tell, no one in this thread is arguing that the taser is not useful or shouldn't be used for threat reduction. Instead, the argument is about the use of the taser for obtaining compliance.

...I hope the supreme court ruling is in favor of the poor sap who was tased so that this tactic doesn't become the norm.

 

[Blind_Io]

It occurred in Florida

I think I see the problem.