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 It's a bit outdated.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.
...in what way are they twisted?
