Taser use correct? What do you think?

[SurfAwave69]

Uh...no.
"In some ways, it's similar to a pacemaker"
That's what I was afraid of...

I'd suggest taking a first responder class and if there's one available, read the instructions from an AED kit. Then, learn how to use one.

A defibrillator is very much like a pacemaker. If a hearts rythym fibrillates (purpose of a pacemaker) or goes into arrest(prupose of a defib), it shocks them right back into regular rhythm. It uses the same method as a defib, excpet the electical impulse is not as intense. I've used one as a lifeguard.....as far as JPM's comment (the person who brought up the defib in the first place), being an officer, I thought they were all trained on how to use one and how they operate......his comment suggested otherwise.

Why would there be so much controversy about a 'non-lethal' weapon? Why would various organizations look into the taser and it's hackneyed use in recent years? There is a problem, so why leave it on the back burner? Why the denial? It is a useful tool, but is sought after too often to diffuse situations where it's not acceptable to use, creating controversy. A constructive, sensible debate is what I'm striving for, and if that won't happen becuase of denial, then close the thread.

...as far as acceptable use (a taser), Razel, will you elaborate on that?

 

[mookiera]

Mookiera,

I'm 100% sure that the Taser would not have affected the heart.

It has been shown in medical study after medical study, both by Taser International and by numerous other independent medical facilities that the Taser's .002 AMP's (yes, 1500 volts at .002 amp when it strikes a suspect) is complete incapable of capturing the heart on a person any larger than 35lbs.

There is simply not enough amperage to travel through the tissues to the heart.

Question it all you want, but that's been proven and I'm sorry if you don't believe me -- I'm not going to go through the two 1000 page books I have on the subject, scan the pages and show you, just to have you disagree with it anyway.

A light bulb, for instance, is at least 1amp. And remember, amp's are what kill people, not voltage.

So, you are saying that it wouldn't possibly shock the heart to help correct arrhythmia. I won't argue that point either way. But, do you think that the hard spasms caused by the all the major muscle groups contracting at once due to being tazered will be benign to a person already suffering a 'cardiac event'. Are you willing to test that hypothesis on an elderly grandfather with a pacemaker?
I don't think anyone here is suggesting that tazers are electrocuting people.
I think you have misread my previous post and my position on tazers, that whole damned if you do, damned if you don't line.
I'm not arguing that tazers kill more of less than other methods. Maybe tazers are overused, maybe not. No doubt they help to deescalate many dangerous situations and also reduce the duration of said situations, no doubt with a net savings of life in the sum total of those situations.

 

[arnoha]

Equally absurd? Did you actually read post number 171????

The facts are all there, most of you just don't want to believe them. You back up your arguments with 'Oh, you can't believe that ACLU crap'. It's proven that a taser can disrupt a normal heart rhythm in some cases, causing complications in some suspects. JPM and his statement show that he doesn't know what a defibrillator does or when a heart is in cardiac arrest.

As far as when it's acceptable to use the taser, I already gave my perspective on that; read the previous posts. A taser should be used if the officer has a physical or lethal threat, as you would use a baton. Having the ability to use your taser with impunity is a scary thought, not to mention a slippery slope.

I never once said "I don't believe this ACLU crap." If you read more carefully, you'd find that I spent an entire post defending the ACLU. I backed each of my claims with studies. I even backed my claims with the studies you provided! The data says what the data says: tasers appear to have zero impact on police custody fatalities. I'm actually a little shocked by this, as I expected it to decrease with the introduction of tasers, but I have to accept the fact, as do you, that on the whole there doesn't appear to be any connection between tasers and police custody fatalities. Not one study seems to point to this as a long-term problem.

Slippery slope is the name of a logical fallacy. I find it curious that you use it as a defense. Not a single person in this thread suggested that tasers should be used with impunity. Again with the straw man. Back your claims or back out gracefully. Currently, you're just making a fool of yourself.

 

[SurfAwave69]

I never once said "I don't believe this ACLU crap." If you read more carefully, you'd find that I spent an entire post defending the ACLU. I backed each of my claims with studies. I even backed my claims with the studies you provided! The data says what the data says: tasers appear to have zero impact on police custody fatalities. I'm actually a little shocked by this, as I expected it to decrease with the introduction of tasers, but I have to accept the fact, as do you, that on the whole there doesn't appear to be any connection between tasers and police custody fatalities. Not one study seems to point to this as a long-term problem.

Slippery slope is the name of a logical fallacy. I find it curious that you use it as a defense. Not a single person in this thread suggested that tasers should be used with impunity. Again with the straw man. Back your claims or back out gracefully. Currently, you're just making a fool of yourself.

...I wasn't speaking to you in terms of invalidating the ACLU report. There are those on here calling it a 'turd'.

Not many (especially those who may use them daily) have come forth to denounce using it (a taser) with impunity and the current hackeneyed use. I have backed my claims with the ACLU report, scenarios where taser use was appropriate and inappropriate, etc... There's no straw man argument going on....Calling me a fool is also just an easy way for you to disagree, not backing up your claims of appropriate use.

 

[nedro]

words are not strong enough for that MF peice of SHIT cop...

 

[LongGoneJohn]

Are you willing to test that hypothesis on an elderly grandfather with a pacemaker?

Yes. I am.

A pacemaker looks for a very specific electrical signal from the heart to determine whether or not it will discharge to fix the heart.

A Taser will not, repeat, will not mimic that electrical signal and cause the pacemaker to discharge and affect the person in any way, shape or form.

As I said... I'm more or less done with this conversation. I have the documentation to back it up, in the form of two 1000+ page books from both Taser International and the University of Florida which conducted an independent medical test on the Taser's medical affects. You're welcome to come over to my house and read them if you wish.

It simply cannot, and does not, have enough amperage to "capture" the heart. It does not affect pacemakers in any negative way nor does it cause them to act improperly and that's been proven.

 

[mookiera]

Yes. I am.

A pacemaker looks for a very specific electrical signal from the heart to determine whether or not it will discharge to fix the heart.

A Taser will not, repeat, will not mimic that electrical signal and cause the pacemaker to discharge and affect the person in any way, shape or form.

As I said... I'm more or less done with this conversation. I have the documentation to back it up, in the form of two 1000+ page books from both Taser International and the University of Florida which conducted an independent medical test on the Taser's medical affects. You're welcome to come over to my house and read them if you wish.

It simply cannot, and does not, have enough amperage to "capture" the heart. It does not affect pacemakers in any negative way nor does it cause them to act improperly and that's been proven.

And an old man with a heart condition thrashing around wildly on the ground for 5 seconds is completely safe and in no risk of having a heart attack.
Why do you keep on with the argument that the electrical current itself will not kill? The targets reaction to being tasered can be fatal.
I'll come over to your house and scan those 2 books if you promise you won't mention to me that the amps from a taser is not sufficient to kill a human adult. Also, I'd like you to reread my previous posts and point out where I have asserted that the amperage of a taser shock can be fatal.
I'd also like to be invited to your house to witness and capture the event when you taser that elderly gentleman with a heart condition.

 

[Shaggy]

And an old man with a heart condition thrashing around wildly on the ground for 5 seconds is completely safe and in no risk of having a heart attack.

This is not how Tasers work. Tasers work by causing Neuromuscular Incapacitation. It basically tenses up muscles in the affected area. It doesn't mimic a seizure by any stretch of the imagination.

Why do you keep on with the argument that the electrical current itself will not kill? The targets reaction to being tasered can be fatal.

Again. The Taser locks up affected muscles. The worst result of this would be seen in the NYC example. Also why you are trained not to deploy a Taser in situations where a person incapable of moving/bracing themselves is a risk. An example of this would be using it near a pool where the person could go into NMI and drown.

Go to Youtube and check out videos of folks being Tasered. Don't worry about whether the action was justified. Just watch the body's reaction.

I'll come over to your house and scan those 2 books if you promise you won't mention to me that the amps from a taser is not sufficient to kill a human adult. Also, I'd like you to reread my previous posts and point out where I have asserted that the amperage of a taser shock can be fatal.
I'd also like to be invited to your house to witness and capture the event when you taser that elderly gentleman with a heart condition.

 

[Slow600rr]

Something tells me nothing else is going to come out of this thread.

 

[Razel]

Ok. In a nutshell.
A defibrillator actually is supposed to stop the heart, allowing the normal sinus rythmn to make it beat in a normal pattern.

A pacemaker monitors the sinus and produces a substitute signal when the normal signal from the brain is missing or too weak to cause the heart to beat on its own.

Two totally different ways to approach a heart in an erratic rythmn. They are not the same.

As for the "turd", 33% of the references used were media reports. That in itself is suspect, as the media also likes to be sure they're being read more than providing all the facts. Spot checking five or six of them and there were unsubstantiated allegations in the reports. Credibility, or just the ALCU's taser agenda? I think the ACLU failed on this one...my opinion, yes.

 

[masameet]

Something tells me nothing else is going to come out of this thread.

... the media also likes to be sure they're being read more than providing all the facts ...

Au contraire. And straight from the Santa Rosa PD via the Press Democrat ...

When the taser fails to do its job, send in ... Ta-da! Utz, the police dog.

In short:

Yesterday (Sunday) a 35-year-old Santa Rosa resident, who was drunk, belligerent and wanted on an arrest warrant, taunted SRPD officers that he would shoot them, threw objects at them, challenged them to shoot him, and simulated a weapon by pointing a long metal object at them. An officer tasered him but it was ineffective in subduing him. So Utz was sent after him, bit him, and then he surrendered.

Source

 

[JPM]

Equally absurd? Did you actually read post number 171????

The facts are all there, most of you just don't want to believe them. You back up your arguments with 'Oh, you can't believe that ACLU crap'. It's proven that a taser can disrupt a normal heart rhythm in some cases, causing complications in some suspects. JPM and his statement show that he doesn't know what a defibrillator does or when a heart is in cardiac arrest.

As far as when it's acceptable to use the taser, I already gave my perspective on that; read the previous posts. A taser should be used if the officer has a physical or lethal threat, as you would use a baton. Having the ability to use your taser with impunity is a scary thought, not to mention a slippery slope.

So now you are saying a taser or baton should be used when an officer is faced with a LETHAL THREAT?

 

[mookiera]

This is not how Tasers work. Tasers work by causing Neuromuscular Incapacitation. It basically tenses up muscles in the affected area. It doesn't mimic a seizure by any stretch of the imagination.



Again. The Taser locks up affected muscles. The worst result of this would be seen in the NYC example. Also why you are trained not to deploy a Taser in situations where a person incapable of moving/bracing themselves is a risk. An example of this would be using it near a pool where the person could go into NMI and drown.

Go to Youtube and check out videos of folks being Tasered. Don't worry about whether the action was justified. Just watch the body's reaction.

Don't taze me bro...at least not until you have fully read and can comprehend my previous statements. And don't taze the elderly gentleman with the heart condition! Do you really know what might happen to his heart when that Taser locks up all those affected muscles?

 

[SurfAwave69]

So now you are saying a taser or baton should be used when an officer is faced with a LETHAL THREAT?

A physical threat, yes. JPM, what's with these 'one-liners'? Why are you avoiding the real question here?

Razel, yes, that's true. I said it starts the heart back up to it's regular rhythm.

...and yes, nothing will come out of this thread because most whom are posting here won't admit (denial) there have been numerous accounts of unacceptable taser use which is becoming a problem. Glance through newspapers, turn on your nightly news, scour youtube and you'll see it
( example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmByfTKKUV4 ).

mookiera, this is related to what your talking about, in terms of tasing the elderly: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yKzSHtYqQvo

One last thing to remember: Everytime a lawsuit is generated from unlawful taser use, it's YOUR tax dollars.

I hope that no one reading will ever get tased for any reason (staying out of trouble is a good idea), but, if you do and you feel it was unlawful, you have rights.

/thread

 

[Slow600rr]

There have also been numerous incidents involving the misuse of firearms, impact weapons, and OC. Does that mean we should not use those as well?

 

[Razel]

Razel, yes, that's true. I said it starts the heart back up to it's regular rhythm.

Damn...you're good.
And, you've restored my mistrust of the media. Thank you for that.

 

[Shaggy]

Don't taze me bro...at least not until you have fully read and can comprehend my previous statements. And don't taze the elderly gentleman with the heart condition! Do you really know what might happen to his heart when that Taser locks up all those affected muscles?

Which is why the approved Taser training suggests that you not use the device on the extremely young or extremely old. How many of these in-custody deaths where Tasers were used are on the elderly? My guess is, not that many.

There have also been numerous incidents involving the misuse of firearms, impact weapons, and OC. Does that mean we should not use those as well?

Thank you!

 

[SurfAwave69]

Damn...you're good.
And, you've restored my mistrust of the media. Thank you for that.

Um, okay.....

Predictable...

Your ambition to prove me wrong is pretty amusing. Seems as though you've gotten sidetracked by this defib conversation which has very little bearing on the subject at hand.

There have also been numerous incidents involving the misuse of firearms, impact weapons, and OC. Does that mean we should not use those as well?

Who said 'not use'. I don't think anyone said 'not use'. This is a continuance to ignore the truth. This statement shows your avoidance of an intelligent answer to the question at hand (a.k.a. denial).

 

[bojangle]

The data says what the data says: tasers appear to have zero impact on police custody fatalities. I'm actually a little shocked by this, as I expected it to decrease with the introduction of tasers, but I have to accept the fact, as do you, that on the whole there doesn't appear to be any connection between tasers and police custody fatalities. Not one study seems to point to this as a long-term problem.

You're a little "shocked", no pun intended? Anyways, it is important to point out that were are talking about no impact on non-firearms related police custody fatalities. TASERS have surely saved numerous lives 1) when they are actually occasionally used sucessfully in deadly force situations where the officer would have been justified in shooting and, 2) when they have quickly de-escalated a situation that would have escalated to a shooting had the TASER not been available.

The second circumstance, particularly, is really hard to quantify, since it is really hard for anyone to know which situations could have escalated to a police shooting, but did not due to the TASER.

This does not even get into how many thousands of suspects and LEOs that have avoided serious injuries due to the TASER being sucessfully deployed.

Why do you keep on with the argument that the electrical current itself will not kill? The targets reaction to being tasered can be fatal.
Also, I'd like you to reread my previous posts and point out where I have asserted that the amperage of a taser shock can be fatal.

Ok, good, we are both in agreement that the TASER's amperage is not fatal. We also agree that the suspect's reaction to being TASERED can be fatal.....I would add in a very small percentage of situations. Edit It is also those same reactions that account for other in custody fatalities. TASERs only account for 2% of all non-firearm police custody fatalities.

It is the "person's reactions" that I have been arguing. Just the same as their reaction to most, if not all, other non-firearm police custody fatalities. It is called excited delirium. Cases of excited delirium have been around a LOT longer than TASERS and have been blamed on use of the hobble leg restraint and termed "positional asphyxia". Positional asphyxia has been recanted as descibed by the link below from The American Journal of Forensic Medicine and Pathology. Read the conclusion and it describes "excited delirium". I have also included the Wikipedia definition of excited delirium, however, I believe they make it sound more controversial than it is.

Edit: forgot to add the links. Here they are. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Excited_delirium http://www.charlydmiller.com/LIB/1998chan.html

A quote from the Journal: "Yet, no clear data support many of the conclusions drawn in the case report literature regarding positional asphyxia and the hogtie restraint position. Many have argued that factors unrelated to the restraint position may play a greater role in causing these deaths. Most reported cases involve young men in an "excited" state or one of "agitated delirium" as a result of psychiatric illness or intoxication from illegal drugs. These individuals were combative, violent, and often struggled or suffered traumatic injuries as a result of confrontation with law enforcement before their placement in the restraint position." - sounds like the same conditions in which the police are often forced to deploy the TASER, no?

Damn...you're good.
And, you've restored my mistrust of the media. Thank you for that.

Spin doctor at work?

 

[JPM]

Equally absurd? Did you actually read post number 171????

The facts are all there, most of you just don't want to believe them. You back up your arguments with 'Oh, you can't believe that ACLU crap'. It's proven that a taser can disrupt a normal heart rhythm in some cases, causing complications in some suspects. JPM and his statement show that he doesn't know what a defibrillator does or when a heart is in cardiac arrest.

As far as when it's acceptable to use the taser, I already gave my perspective on that; read the previous posts. A taser should be used if the officer has a physical or lethal threat, as you would use a baton. Having the ability to use your taser with impunity is a scary thought, not to mention a slippery slope.

A physical threat, yes. JPM, what's with these 'one-liners'? Why are you avoiding the real question here?

Razel, yes, that's true. I said it starts the heart back up to it's regular rhythm.

...and yes, nothing will come out of this thread because most whom are posting here won't admit (denial) there have been numerous accounts of unacceptable taser use which is becoming a problem. Glance through newspapers, turn on your nightly news, scour youtube and you'll see it
( example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmByfTKKUV4 ).

mookiera, this is related to what your talking about, in terms of tasing the elderly: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yKzSHtYqQvo

One last thing to remember: Everytime a lawsuit is generated from unlawful taser use, it's YOUR tax dollars.

I hope that no one reading will ever get tased for any reason (staying out of trouble is a good idea), but, if you do and you feel it was unlawful, you have rights.

/thread

Not a one liner, taken directly from your statement from your post.

And your statement that taser’s are used without impunity are just untrue. In California you have to be trained and have POST certification to carry and use a taser. While you may believe certain taser use is excessive, neither you nor I make those guidelines. They are made by trained and medical professionals and case law.