ForumGarden

Is it time to look into taser abuse?



Death by Taser, the ‘non–lethal’ weapon



Is Jacqui Smith among the tens of thousands of people who have watched an online video of the death of Robert Dziekanski moments after being shot with a Taser by Canadian police? Judging by the Home Secretary's suggestion this month that it would be a "sensible policy" to supply the weapons to all British police officers, one must assume not.

The grim footage shows the 40-year-old Pole growing increasingly distressed in Vancouver airport. The builder, who had never flown before and spoke only Polish, spent ten hours lost in the airport, searching for his mother who he failed to meet due to a mix-up. When he started moving chairs and muttering to himself, he caught the eye of a fellow traveller, who idly captured his antics on camera.

Sweating and wide-eyed, Dziekanski grows increasingly

distressed and throws a small table and a computer to the floor. Then four Mounties rush in. Dziekanski appears to have his arms up when one of the officers shoots him with a Taser. Dziekanski (left) falls to the floor screaming and thrashing. A voice can be heard shouting: "Hit him again! Hit him again!" The officers stun Dziekanski at least once more, then all four physically restrain him. Moments later, Dziekanski is dead.

Inquiries into the death continue, but calls are growing for a moratorium on Taser use in Canada. Amnesty International estimates that 290 people have died after being Tasered by police in North America since 2001. Coroners have attributed most of those deaths to other causes, but inquests found the stun-gun to have been a cause or possible contributory factor in more than 30 of the deaths.



The Taser causes incapacitating muscle spasms by delivering a 50,000-volt shock at a range of up to 10 metres. Yet manufacturers Taser International continue to describe the weapon as "non-lethal", and claim it has saved lives by offering police an alternative to conventional guns.

Story and video: http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/index.php?storyID=9754

There were two taser-related deaths here in Baltimore last year. It is very controversial, and there has been many hearings about these cases.

Scrat;758641 wrote: I'm willing to bet that guy had been drinking.


Along with most of the other travellers in the airport.

Scrat;758638 wrote: I am developing a problem with them, I think hand held tasers are in most circumstances non lethal but caution should be used when employing them. And common sense. You don't have to taser old people.

I just read about a larger taser for crowd control being developed in Germany. It is aerosol based. They spray out the aerosol on a crowd and since this aerosol will conduct electricity they can taser a whole crowd at a time. That's asking for trouble in more ways than I can think of. Electricity follows the path of least resistance, if there is one person in a crowd of 1000 that happens to be standing say on a manhole it is possible that the current will go through him directly, the whole charge. Of course it all depends on the conditions ect and how the machine is built what voltage it uses amps ect.

It's fast becoming apparent that technology is giving an edge to our masters. If we ever had reason to throw the bums out not only do they have the army to protect them from the pissed off people, it's all these new toys.


Mass aerosol tasers?! That's a bad, bad idea!

How do you know that the person you're tasing doesn't have a pacemaker or a bad heart or some other condition that can't handle the physical stress of being electrocuted? I'm thinking cops are getting lazy and are using those tasers as an easy option rather than applying regular old fashioned force in taking someone down. I don't like it.

Scrat;759013 wrote: That's just the tip of it, what about the power of the authorities over the people? Americans are sheepish enough as it is.


AGREED!!

Hi everybody,

Tasers, and their use and more-frequent misuse, can be a moderately complicated topic. You cannot rationally discuss it as a back-and-forth in little comment boxes. For that reason, I started a website where there's space to fully examine the issues, explore the arguments, and draw some quite firm conclusions.

Please have a look. If you like it, please pass it on.

edit: Apparently I'm not allowed to post a link yet, so I'll have to spell it out. Others can review and post the link down the thread if they think it is worthwhile.

It is simply: Excited-Delirium dot com.

Sorry the website/blog is so big. But the subject does not compress well.

Regards.

Excited-Delirium.com;759213 wrote: Tasers, and their use and more-frequent misuse, can be a moderately complicated topic. You cannot rationally discuss it as a back-and-forth in little comment boxes.Perhaps you'd like to go into a little detail on why we can't?

We can - and do - start threads on news items relating to Tasers.

We can - and do - post our opinion on the reduction of deaths that result from their deployment, alongside the empowerment of law enforcement on the streets. We also discuss whether we like the idea of law enforcement personnel being empowered.

The news articles we post are informative. The opinion we post leads to tension which we resolve by argument, finding what common ground exists and drawing lines in the sand. The upshot is a better understanding of what we each find important. Why's that not rationally discussion?

Anyone wishing to discuss why people should not have sex in public, please log on to PheasantPluckers.com :D:D

ThePheasant;759299 wrote: Anyone wishing to discuss why people should not have sex in public, please log on to PheasantPluckers.com :D:D


Damn. I'd just posted that mindswap suggestion and then I read this.

spot;759304 wrote: Damn. I'd just posted that mindswap suggestion and then I read this.


It was only a brief mind swap - damn Spot - I couldn't stay in there long ..... I went to shock, what you been up to man :wah::wah:

spot;759298 wrote: ...go into a little detail on why we can't?


Perhaps I've overstated it. Apologies.

In general (perhaps less so here?), the back-and-forth style of short posts becomes a circle that endlessly repeats. A website allows the space to take arguments proposed by Taser and their unthinking fanboys apart. The goal of the website is to expose the mistakes, destroy their arguments, and leave them nothing.

And look at how many blog-feet it required!!! Just for what is basically a first pass. If I'd known how much writing it would require, I might not have bothered.

Hey, any news from the Toronto dog-and-pony show being staged by Taser Chairman Smith and his close friends at T.O. Police Headquarters right now?

But where is the discussion/debate? All I see is entries posted by Anonymous, with no comments. Whats the point? :-2

ThePheasant;759407 wrote: But where is the discussion/debate? All I see is entries posted by Anonymous, with no comments. What's the point? :-2


I guess you missed the many important points in your perhaps-too-quick scan of the blog.

Here's your homework assignment:

Q1) Lawful 'force': noun or verb?

Q2) Why?

Q3) Explain the societal impacts if Lawful 'force' is ever permitted to be a verb.

Q4) Why might the X26 taser be significantly more dangerous than the M26 (based on Taser arguments)?

Q5) Provide three instances where Taser's estimate of safety appears to be questionable.

Q6) Explain why the common demos of tasers do not reflect actual street use.

Q7) Provide a clear explanation of the Thin Skull doctrine.



I'll provide some background music while you work...

:guitarist:guitarist:guitarist:guitarist

Excited-Delirium.com;759419 wrote: I guess you missed the many important points in your perhaps-too-quick scan of the blog.

Here's your homework assignment:

Q1) Lawful 'force': noun or verb?

Q2) Why?

Q3) Explain the societal impacts if Lawful 'force' is ever permitted to be a verb.

Q4) Why might the X26 taser be significantly more dangerous than the M26 (based on Taser arguments)?

Q5) Provide three instances where Taser's estimate of safety appears to be questionable.

Q6) Explain why the common demos of tasers do not reflect actual street use.

Q7) Provide a clear explanation of the Thin Skull doctrine.



I'll provide some background music while you work...

:guitarist:guitarist:guitarist:guitarist


And you are quick with your assumptions Grasshopper :wah:

I don't like the music....can't work with that music! Do you own a whip

ED, let's take advantage of your expertise. Have Tasers ever been employed where a police gun would otherwise have been fired?

Some enforcement agency employees are bastard abusers of their positions and just enjoy hurting people whether they use Tasers, nightsticks or ammunition. I take it we can exclude those people as a separate topic. We might also exclude jurisdictions where the police by default don't carry guns as a separate topic too. That simplifies matters.

As far as killing goes I have it in mind that in the US, law enforcement kills people at a ratio of 7 dead citizens for every officer deliberately killed on duty (which is around 50 a year across the whole USA). You'd think they'd consider it a matter of professional pride to reduce that ratio, maybe they'll try some day but the use of Tasers doesn't come into that at all. The Taser isn't a replacement for their handgun, it's an additional form of persuasion to their nightstick.

Taser deaths are just under 200 at the moment, mostly in the US, mostly through multiple shocks, and that's cumulative since Tasers first went into use. They're the cattle prods of the 21st century. Presumably they kill slightly more people than nightsticks used to but the death count is swamped by the numbers dead from police gunfire.

If we could find instances where a Taser was used in a situation where a police gun would have otherwise been fired then that would be a step forward, it would indicate that Tasers might potentially be saving lives. I know of no such instance. My own opinion is that each death from Taser use is additional to the continuing death count already established from gun use.

Excited-Delirium.com;759213 wrote: Hi everybody,

Tasers, and their use and more-frequent misuse, can be a moderately complicated topic. Are you sure "more-frequent" can be substantiated?

Hey spot. You're correct. CBC News found that tasers do NOT reduce police shootings.

My weblog covers the statistics in some detail. The results are like an 800lb gorilla.

In summary:

Canada: RCMP 3000 taser deployments in six years, or 500 per year. Other local police forces would be in addition to this. The Ottawa Police spokes-idiot mentioned 10 times per day. Compare these numbers against what you would think would be an appropriate rate for police being forced to shoot someone with their gun (usually ending in death). In Canada that would be a relatively low number per year, possibly single digits. Even the overall murder rate in Canada is only around 500 a year. If you're good with numbers you will detect a subtle discrepancy in the numbers, of about TWO ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE (~100:1).

USA: Taser proudly claims 620 deployments per day, or 226,300 per year. These would perhaps be worldwide, but the vast majority are in the USA. Take a moment to contemplate the number 226,300. After a decade without tasers, the census office would be asking, 'Where'd everybody go? We're two million short."

Obviously, tasers are being used for pain-compliance roughly 99% of the time. Some places may be better, others might be worse.

The claim that every taser-shot saves a life is nothing but whimsical propaganda spewing from Scottsdale.

They're not even good liars.

And this is just ONE of the many issues...