The research examined nearly 1,000 cases of Taser use, and found 99.7 per cent of them had either no injuries, or only mild injuries such as "scrapes and bruises". In 0.3 per cent of the cases (3 people) the injuries were serious enough to require hospital admission. Two had head injuries sustained during falls after the Taser was used and the third was hospitalized two days after arrest with a condition "of unclear relationship to the Taser" said the researchers in a prepared statement.
Early results of the study (covering nearly 600 cases of Taser use) were published in a paper last year, in the September issue of the Annals of Emergency Medicine.
I'm just saying, that link seems a little more even handed than the one screaming about "the murderous police torture killings of innocent African American youth" in bolded font.
That's why I mentioned they helpfully link to primary sources. I just didn't want to link 10 different news stories in my post.
I think generally we as a culture are too accepting of violence generally and violence by our government/authorities in particular.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
At least 83 reported deaths in the last 18 months. Helpfully with links to each death!
Do you think there's any possibility that widespread use of Tasers prevented/avoided more than 83 fatal shootings in that same time period?
I regard it as slim, as officers remain armed with actual firearms, so in situations where shooting deaths are likely, they'd be pulling those. And I suspect that the situations tasers are used in are less likely to be situations that without tasers, guns would be pulled. Though that's purely anecdotal and I have no hard proof of it. So there's a chance.
I also suspect there's a larger number than 83. And that's only deaths where the victim was actually tased, as opposed to situations like the one that led to this particular court case.
So the evidence doesn't match up to what you want it to, so you think that its wrong?
At least 83 reported deaths in the last 18 months. Helpfully with links to each death!
Do you think there's any possibility that widespread use of Tasers prevented/avoided more than 83 fatal shootings in that same time period?
I regard it as slim, as officers remain armed with actual firearms, so in situations where shooting deaths are likely, they'd be pulling those. And I suspect that the situations tasers are used in are less likely to be situations that without tasers, guns would be pulled. Though that's purely anecdotal and I have no hard proof of it. So there's a chance.
I also suspect there's a larger number than 83. And that's only deaths where the victim was actually tased, as opposed to situations like the one that led to this particular court case.
It's less for firearm situations and more for situations when you might get into close combat with somebody. Knives, baseball bats, a rock off the street, heck, just plain fists and boots are probably more likely to kill somebody than a taser. I don't find it implausible that their use could have saved more lives than that in such situations.
OremLK on
My zombie survival life simulator They Don't Sleep is out now on Steam if you want to check it out.
The research examined nearly 1,000 cases of Taser use, and found 99.7 per cent of them had either no injuries, or only mild injuries such as "scrapes and bruises". In 0.3 per cent of the cases (3 people) the injuries were serious enough to require hospital admission. Two had head injuries sustained during falls after the Taser was used and the third was hospitalized two days after arrest with a condition "of unclear relationship to the Taser" said the researchers in a prepared statement.
Early results of the study (covering nearly 600 cases of Taser use) were published in a paper last year, in the September issue of the Annals of Emergency Medicine.
I'm just saying, that link seems a little more even handed than the one screaming about "the murderous police torture killings of innocent African American youth" in bolded font.
That's why I mentioned they helpfully link to primary sources. I just didn't want to link 10 different news stories in my post.
I think generally we as a culture are too accepting of violence generally and violence by our government/authorities in particular.
And I, on the other hand, think that we as a culture are way to fast to challenge authority in the name of challenging authority for no other reason than "Because I want to do what I want" and then refuse to accept the consequences of that challenge.
And my link pretty much disproves the notion that tazers are some sort of electronic death tool to torture minorities, as your link seemed to claim.
At least 83 reported deaths in the last 18 months. Helpfully with links to each death!
Do you think there's any possibility that widespread use of Tasers prevented/avoided more than 83 fatal shootings in that same time period?
I regard it as slim, as officers remain armed with actual firearms, so in situations where shooting deaths are likely, they'd be pulling those. And I suspect that the situations tasers are used in are less likely to be situations that without tasers, guns would be pulled. Though that's purely anecdotal and I have no hard proof of it. So there's a chance.
I also suspect there's a larger number than 83. And that's only deaths where the victim was actually tased, as opposed to situations like the one that led to this particular court case.
So the evidence doesn't match up to what you want it to, so you think that its wrong?
That certainly an interesting take on things.
No, I'm saying based on what I know, I don't know, but logic indicates that it is a low percentage. Maybe I've just read too many stories of assholes tasing grannies or moms at traffic stops for daring to not bend to the will of the police officer instantly.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
The electricity isn't lethal (the current may be if it hit the heart, but it's confined to the skin so really it isn't). I'm pretty sure that 99% of Taser deaths (which are a stunningly small percentage of Taser usages, though enough to warrant scrutiny) aren't from the electricity. They're either from aggravating other medical conditions, or somebody dropping to the ground unassisted and breaking their damn head open, or other various causes.
Other than Taser International's aggressive defense in civil lawsuits, I'm interested in the source of your "pretty sure"-ity that 99% of Taser deaths are caused by....well, some other cause, who knows, but sumthin'. Perhaps that "excited delirium" that is not actually a recognized medical condition but sure sounds good coming from the mouth of a TI defense lawyer or PR flak? TI has sued medical examiners who implicated Tasers as a cause of death. TI boasted for many years that they never lost a civil lawsuit, until it because public knowledge that they had settled many of these suits, at which point they insisted that didn't count because as a result of the settlement the lawsuit was dismissed. (Which is, you know, the whole point of the settlement: you don't have to keep suing them once they pay you.)
mythago on
Three lines of plaintext:
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
At least 83 reported deaths in the last 18 months. Helpfully with links to each death!
Do you think there's any possibility that widespread use of Tasers prevented/avoided more than 83 fatal shootings in that same time period?
I regard it as slim, as officers remain armed with actual firearms, so in situations where shooting deaths are likely, they'd be pulling those. And I suspect that the situations tasers are used in are less likely to be situations that without tasers, guns would be pulled. Though that's purely anecdotal and I have no hard proof of it. So there's a chance.
I also suspect there's a larger number than 83. And that's only deaths where the victim was actually tased, as opposed to situations like the one that led to this particular court case.
Right, but the situation that led to this court case is pretty uncommon. Not unheard of (apparently right here in my town a cop mistakenly drew a gun meaning to go for a Taser and killed somebody), but remarkably rare.
And let's say Tasers were deployed tens of thousands of times in that same time period (reasonable, considering 83 fatalities at the 3 per 1000 ratio). So if there are somewhere on the order of 20,000+ tasings (about 1 per day per state, which seems reasonable) you think it's unreasonable to suggest that a couple hundred out of those 20,000+ would have otherwise been resolved with a firearm?
Sure, it's a lot less likely in a Taser use that a gun would have been used anyway. But somewhere on the order of 1% of the time? I have little trouble believing that.
At least 83 reported deaths in the last 18 months. Helpfully with links to each death!
Do you think there's any possibility that widespread use of Tasers prevented/avoided more than 83 fatal shootings in that same time period?
I regard it as slim, as officers remain armed with actual firearms, so in situations where shooting deaths are likely, they'd be pulling those. And I suspect that the situations tasers are used in are less likely to be situations that without tasers, guns would be pulled. Though that's purely anecdotal and I have no hard proof of it. So there's a chance.
I also suspect there's a larger number than 83. And that's only deaths where the victim was actually tased, as opposed to situations like the one that led to this particular court case.
So the evidence doesn't match up to what you want it to, so you think that its wrong?
That certainly an interesting take on things.
No, I'm saying based on what I know, I don't know, but logic indicates that it is a low percentage. Maybe I've just read too many stories of assholes tasing grannies or moms at traffic stops for daring to not bend to the will of the police officer instantly.
So you're basing your opinion off of ancedotal evidence on the internet from a biased source?
At least 83 reported deaths in the last 18 months. Helpfully with links to each death!
Do you think there's any possibility that widespread use of Tasers prevented/avoided more than 83 fatal shootings in that same time period?
I regard it as slim, as officers remain armed with actual firearms, so in situations where shooting deaths are likely, they'd be pulling those. And I suspect that the situations tasers are used in are less likely to be situations that without tasers, guns would be pulled. Though that's purely anecdotal and I have no hard proof of it. So there's a chance.
I also suspect there's a larger number than 83. And that's only deaths where the victim was actually tased, as opposed to situations like the one that led to this particular court case.
So the evidence doesn't match up to what you want it to, so you think that its wrong?
That certainly an interesting take on things.
No, I'm saying based on what I know, I don't know, but logic indicates that it is a low percentage. Maybe I've just read too many stories of assholes tasing grannies or moms at traffic stops for daring to not bend to the will of the police officer instantly.
So you're basing your opinion off of ancedotal evidence on the internet from a biased source?
Hmm.
More links to news reports of the initial incidents and/or lawsuits is where I generally find said stories. That site was just a quick hit on Google where I looked for the statistics for about 20 seconds.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
More accountability would probably be the best thing for all types of scenarios. We have the technology. Why not just make cops wear a wireless camera/bug at all times while on duty? Just keep it running and transmitting to the server back home. Any time a case comes up involving an arrest or whatever, the footage can be pulled and used as evidence in court. I'm talking something small that they pin to their uniforms, something along those lines.
Might still be too expensive for the moment, but it won't be too long before stuff like this becomes feasible. They already equip police vehicles with such things, don't they? Take it a step farther.
Maybe I just like solving problems with technology too much.
OremLK on
My zombie survival life simulator They Don't Sleep is out now on Steam if you want to check it out.
At least 83 reported deaths in the last 18 months. Helpfully with links to each death!
Do you think there's any possibility that widespread use of Tasers prevented/avoided more than 83 fatal shootings in that same time period?
I regard it as slim, as officers remain armed with actual firearms, so in situations where shooting deaths are likely, they'd be pulling those. And I suspect that the situations tasers are used in are less likely to be situations that without tasers, guns would be pulled. Though that's purely anecdotal and I have no hard proof of it. So there's a chance.
I also suspect there's a larger number than 83. And that's only deaths where the victim was actually tased, as opposed to situations like the one that led to this particular court case.
So the evidence doesn't match up to what you want it to, so you think that its wrong?
That certainly an interesting take on things.
No, I'm saying based on what I know, I don't know, but logic indicates that it is a low percentage. Maybe I've just read too many stories of assholes tasing grannies or moms at traffic stops for daring to not bend to the will of the police officer instantly.
So you're basing your opinion off of ancedotal evidence on the internet from a biased source?
Hmm.
More links to news reports of the initial incidents and/or lawsuits is where I generally find said stories. That site was just a quick hit on Google where I looked for the statistics for about 20 seconds.
Mine was the first link under "taser usage statistics".
And yeah, I saw the video of the mom and the forty year old "grandmother" getting tazered. Both were assaultive when the police officer tried to remove them from the car after asking several times for them to step out of the car and they refused. He then stated several times "I'm going to taze you if you don't get out".
There was nothing unreasonable in the requests, just that they wanted to challenge authority to do what they wanted, and then were shocked that there were consequences.
More accountability would probably be the best thing for all types of scenarios. We have the technology. Why not just make cops wear a wireless camera/bug at all times while on duty? Just keep it running and transmitting to the server back home. Any time a case comes up involving an arrest or whatever, the footage can be pulled and used as evidence in court. I'm talking something small that they pin to their uniforms, something along those lines.
Might still be too expensive for the moment, but it won't be too long before stuff like this becomes feasible. They already equip police vehicles with such things, don't they? Take it a step farther.
Maybe I just like solving problems with technology too much.
Its an idea, but then you get into what happens if the bug gets crushed in a scuffle or something? Does the arrest become invalid? And how do you turn it off if its two cops eating lunch?
The electricity isn't lethal (the current may be if it hit the heart, but it's confined to the skin so really it isn't). I'm pretty sure that 99% of Taser deaths (which are a stunningly small percentage of Taser usages, though enough to warrant scrutiny) aren't from the electricity. They're either from aggravating other medical conditions, or somebody dropping to the ground unassisted and breaking their damn head open, or other various causes.
Other than Taser International's aggressive defense in civil lawsuits, I'm interested in the source of your "pretty sure"-ity that 99% of Taser deaths are caused by....well, some other cause, who knows, but sumthin'. Perhaps that "excited delirium" that is not actually a recognized medical condition but sure sounds good coming from the mouth of a TI defense lawyer or PR flak? TI has sued medical examiners who implicated Tasers as a cause of death. TI boasted for many years that they never lost a civil lawsuit, until it because public knowledge that they had settled many of these suits, at which point they insisted that didn't count because as a result of the settlement the lawsuit was dismissed. (Which is, you know, the whole point of the settlement: you don't have to keep suing them once they pay you.)
Because based on the physical manner in which the Taser works, the electricity will mostly be confined to the skin. That doesn't mean it doesn't kill you indirectly...the pain and shock (to the body, not electric) may well be what causes the ol' "excited delirium" that kills you. In which case the Taser killed you but the electricity didn't. I was responding to a very narrow bit of that statement, and meant nothing more by it.
Also we have a study cited right here in this thread suggesting that out of three hospitalizations from Tasers, two of those three were for injuries sustained in the fall.
The poster I replied to referred to Tasers as putting out "a lethal amount of electricity." They put out about 30mA, DC, through the skin which really...well, isn't. That doesn't mean a Taser can't kill you, it just means it's not going to electrocute you.
EDIT: Basically I'm not arguing with the lethality of Tasers...way too many people die from them. I'm taking issue with repeated uses of things like "electrocute" and "lethal doses of electricity," which sound awesome and compelling but are largely bullshit.
Because its pretty silly to punish people for doing their jobs.
Since when is being tased supposed to be punishment? It's a non-lethal device to temporarily incapacitate a subject and enforce compliance. If being tased is actually a form of punishment then police have no business using them on anyone as they are not authorized to punish people. That's the job of our judicial system (and even that is debatable).
More accountability would probably be the best thing for all types of scenarios. We have the technology. Why not just make cops wear a wireless camera/bug at all times while on duty? Just keep it running and transmitting to the server back home. Any time a case comes up involving an arrest or whatever, the footage can be pulled and used as evidence in court. I'm talking something small that they pin to their uniforms, something along those lines.
Might still be too expensive for the moment, but it won't be too long before stuff like this becomes feasible. They already equip police vehicles with such things, don't they? Take it a step farther.
Maybe I just like solving problems with technology too much.
Its an idea, but then you get into what happens if the bug gets crushed in a scuffle or something? Does the arrest become invalid? And how do you turn it off if its two cops eating lunch?
Definitely some kinks to work out. I'm sure it could be armored sufficiently to survive most any damage that would happen.
I don't know about when they go on break. Maybe just "Tough, if you don't like it, you shouldn't have signed up for the job."
OremLK on
My zombie survival life simulator They Don't Sleep is out now on Steam if you want to check it out.
Because its pretty silly to punish people for doing their jobs.
Since when is being tased supposed to be punishment? It's a non-lethal device to temporarily incapacitate a subject and enforce compliance. If being tased is actually a form punishment then police have no business using them on anyone as they are not authorized to punish people. That's the job of our judicial system (and even that is debatable).
Don't be obtuse. You and I both know using a taser to subdue someone and using it as a revenge fantasy are pretty different situations.
OremLK: there are privacy issues there. Both for the cops and for anyone they interact with among members of the public.
I think another thing to think about, both in terms of this case, and police behavior generally, is the affect it has on juries. I just read Jeffrey Toobin's book about the OJ trial, for example. And the reason he got off was entirely because of the historical behavior of the LAPD. That jury did not trust the LAPD, and yeah it was a profoundly amoral bit of lawyering, but the fundamental reason OJ got off was institutionalized bad behavior (racism, in that case) within the LAPD.
legion, we obviously have very different world views about acceptable powers for the state to have. And we won't convince each other on that.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
More accountability would probably be the best thing for all types of scenarios. We have the technology. Why not just make cops wear a wireless camera/bug at all times while on duty? Just keep it running and transmitting to the server back home. Any time a case comes up involving an arrest or whatever, the footage can be pulled and used as evidence in court. I'm talking something small that they pin to their uniforms, something along those lines.
Might still be too expensive for the moment, but it won't be too long before stuff like this becomes feasible. They already equip police vehicles with such things, don't they? Take it a step farther.
Maybe I just like solving problems with technology too much.
Its an idea, but then you get into what happens if the bug gets crushed in a scuffle or something? Does the arrest become invalid? And how do you turn it off if its two cops eating lunch?
Definitely some kinks to work out. I'm sure it could be armored sufficiently to survive most any damage that would happen.
I don't know about when they go on break. Maybe just "Tough, if you don't like it, you shouldn't have signed up for the job."
So basically we get more people who are just there for a paycheck and don't give a shit?
I'm not seeing how this fixes the entire "undertrained police force" issue.
legion, we obviously have very different world views about acceptable powers for the state to have. And we won't convince each other on that.
I will agree with you there. I respect your opinions even as I disagree with you.
OremLK: there are privacy issues there. Both for the cops and for anyone they interact with among members of the public.
Fair points. I don't know then.
Its already bad enough with defense lawyers wanting complete access to police officer's facebook profiles as part of discovery. I don't think we need to compound that issue.
Its already bad enough with defense lawyers wanting complete access to police officer's facebook profiles as part of discovery. I don't think we need to compound that issue.
Sorry, why is this bad? Do you also firmly oppose prosecutors and police officers having complete access to defendants' and parolees' Facebook profiles?
mythago on
Three lines of plaintext:
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
Its already bad enough with defense lawyers wanting complete access to police officer's facebook profiles as part of discovery. I don't think we need to compound that issue.
Sorry, why is this bad? Do you also firmly oppose prosecutors and police officers having complete access to defendants' and parolees' Facebook profiles?
Its already bad enough with defense lawyers wanting complete access to police officer's facebook profiles as part of discovery. I don't think we need to compound that issue.
Sorry, why is this bad? Do you also firmly oppose prosecutors and police officers having complete access to defendants' and parolees' Facebook profiles?
Unless there is a reasonable expectation of relevance, it's fucking retarded to consider a facebook profile of a witness as part of the investigation process.
Its already bad enough with defense lawyers wanting complete access to police officer's facebook profiles as part of discovery. I don't think we need to compound that issue.
Sorry, why is this bad? Do you also firmly oppose prosecutors and police officers having complete access to defendants' and parolees' Facebook profiles?
If its relevant to the case, yes.
Which is why defense attorneys want similar access to police officers' Facebook profiles - for relevant evidence. Why do you believe it's perfectly reasonable for a police officer to look on an accused person's Facebook page for evidence, but not for a defense attorney to look on a police officer's Facebook page for evidence?
mythago on
Three lines of plaintext:
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
He didn't like her attitude, so he tased her. And then he did again (you can hear it), while she was on the ground. That's fucked up.
Would you approve if he beat her?
he did it again on the ground because she couldn't get on her stomach, due to the fact that tasers can temporarily paralyze you. If he had been trained properly, he'd know that. So its even more fucked up
also what happened to tasers being a replacement for gun, instead of its current role of tasing women out of cars because you didn't feel like getting physical?
OremLK: there are privacy issues there. Both for the cops and for anyone they interact with among members of the public.
Fair points. I don't know then.
Its already bad enough with defense lawyers wanting complete access to police officer's facebook profiles as part of discovery. I don't think we need to compound that issue.
I'm not sure requiring them to record their activities while on duty is anywhere close to the same level as that, though.
OremLK on
My zombie survival life simulator They Don't Sleep is out now on Steam if you want to check it out.
Its already bad enough with defense lawyers wanting complete access to police officer's facebook profiles as part of discovery. I don't think we need to compound that issue.
Sorry, why is this bad? Do you also firmly oppose prosecutors and police officers having complete access to defendants' and parolees' Facebook profiles?
Unless there is a reasonable expectation of relevance, it's fucking retarded to consider a facebook profile of a witness as part of the investigation process.
Oh I agree, except when the facebook/myspace is relevant to the crime at hand.
There's a fun bunch of links under "facebook used in court" with google.
Which is why defense attorneys want similar access to police officers' Facebook profiles - for relevant evidence. Why do you believe it's perfectly reasonable for a police officer to look on an accused person's Facebook page for evidence, but not for a defense attorney to look on a police officer's Facebook page for evidence?
Just going to point out here that your average police officer making the arrest isn't going to be googling someone's facebook after they've booked them on Assault 2.
also what happened to tasers being a replacement for gun, instead of its current role of tasing women out of cars because you didn't feel like getting physical?
Police are generally trained not to put themselves inside of a car for obvious reasons, such as her deciding to speed away with him half inside of it, for example.
What exactly are "the different things" one can fucking see here? Unless that woman's phone had a barrel and a trigger.
She becomes assualtive when he goes to pull her out of the car around 2:49.
This is pretty much a text book use of force escalation situation.
She's an unfit woman in a car and she's not cooperating. I do not see a moment of assault.
Tasers were promoted and deployed as at least a partial substitute to guns and marketed as a way to avoid lethal force. It's been said a zillion times, but there goes again, if one as a professional law enforcement agent can not deal with the kind of situation above without use of force, it's time for a fucking career change. What we see in that video is that the officer had a temper too and it got blown pretty damn fast.
He didn't like her attitude, so he tased her. And then he did again (you can hear it), while she was on the ground. That's fucked up.
Would you approve if he beat her?
She becomes assualtive when he goes to pull her out of the car around 2:49.
This is pretty much a text book use of force escalation situation.
I guess she should just get to do what she wants then? No po-lice getting her outta the car, nu uh.
No. She should be calmed down. Which should be fucking easy in such a trivial situation. Fuck, even a well articulate warning of tasing would have been enough if the officer is so gun happy, but there was absolutely no need to even reach in this situation.
What exactly are "the different things" one can fucking see here? Unless that woman's phone had a barrel and a trigger.
She becomes assualtive when he goes to pull her out of the car around 2:49.
This is pretty much a text book use of force escalation situation.
She's an unfit woman in a car and she's not cooperating. I do not see a moment of assault.
Tasers were promoted and deployed as at least a partial substitute to guns and marketed as a way to avoid lethal force. It's been said a zillion times, but there goes again, if one as a professional law enforcement agent can not deal with the kind of situation above without use of force, it's time for a fucking career change. What we see in that video is that the officer had a temper too and it got blown pretty damn fast.
And I saw an officer not putting himself in a situation of disadvantage when dealing with a subject that already proven to be
-uncooperative
-aggressive
-assaultive
who also had a SERIOUS problem with authority.
Again, he didn't have a crystal ball to tell him that she wasn't going to decide to drive off if he reached in there and tried to wrestle her out. This comes back to the entire "objective/situational" thing.
No. She should be calmed down. Which should be fucking easy in such a trivial situation. Fuck, even a well articulate warning of tasing would have been enough if the officer is so gun happy, but there was absolutely no need to even reach in this situation.
Let's role play. Tell me how you would calm her down?
legionofone on
0
Options
KageraImitating the worst people. Since 2004Registered Userregular
edited July 2010
It's okay guys, the cop gets to use the possibly lethal device so he doesn't get his shirt ruffled!
This is a pretty good example of the entire "I get to do what I want" attitude I was speaking of.
Though I imagine here, everyone is going to see different things.
So, here's where I'm coming from. First, what I see in order:
-Lady has an attitude and is combative right off the bat
-Officer is a bit of a dick, but largely seems to just want to get his shit done and go on with his day
-At some point, it's unclear when, the officer finds out her license is suspended
-He then proceeds to tell her to get out of the car, without telling her she is under arrest or why
-When she refuses to get out of the car, he clearly tells her his intent to Tase her, and gives her more than enough time to comply
-After hitting her once, he Tases her again, seemingly without giving her a chance to recuperate
-They proceed to arrest her
My issues:
-First, fuck her attitude; A court is the time to fight a ticket, not at the side of the road
-Second, while he's a dick, I really don't have much of a problem with his attitude prior to asking her to step out of the car, especially since most of it seems to be in response to her bullshit
-Personally, I'm a big believer that they should have to tell you you're under arrest (and why!) before telling you to get out of the car (and certainly before deploying a weapon); a simple "your license is suspended and I'm going to need you to step out of the car" may well have been better at gaining her compliance, followed perhaps by a "you are under arrest, and I'll add resisting arrest to the charge if you don't get out of the car" to drive the point home. Sure, perhaps this would have escalated things...but then, when you're deploying a weapon to get them out of the car I'm not sure how much more escalation can really happen there...and there's no reason you can't do this with the Taser at the ready if your safety is a concern (and it should be)
-Hitting her again that quickly, without really giving her a chance to gather herself, suggests either that he's a sadistic prick or poorly trained...but I could be wrong there
-I didn't see any "swing" happen, and I'd wager he made that shit up. Or, alternately, it was only a semi-voluntary motion brought on by, you know, the pain of being Tased.
Basically, I take serious issue with "I am a cop and you will do what I say or I will Tase you" rather than "you are under arrest now step out of the car or I will Tase you." Aside from that I have a hard time seeing a clear hero or villain in that story, and honestly I'm leaning in favor of the cop.
What exactly are "the different things" one can fucking see here? Unless that woman's phone had a barrel and a trigger.
She becomes assualtive when he goes to pull her out of the car around 2:49.
This is pretty much a text book use of force escalation situation.
She's an unfit woman in a car and she's not cooperating. I do not see a moment of assault.
Tasers were promoted and deployed as at least a partial substitute to guns and marketed as a way to avoid lethal force. It's been said a zillion times, but there goes again, if one as a professional law enforcement agent can not deal with the kind of situation above without use of force, it's time for a fucking career change. What we see in that video is that the officer had a temper too and it got blown pretty damn fast.
And I saw an officer not putting himself in a situation of disadvantage when dealing with a subject that already proven to be
-uncooperative
-aggressive
-assaultive
who also had a SERIOUS problem with authority.
Sweet. Do you believe there was any imminent or even actual danger from the "subject" to the officer, bystanders or anybody? Because if you don't, and you still approve of the use of taser here, we have entirely different view on what law enforcement's role in society is and what is part of their mandate and what isn't.
Again, he didn't have a crystal ball to tell him that she wasn't going to decide to drive off if he reached in there and tried to wrestle her out. This comes back to the entire "objective/situational" thing.
Again, there was no fucking point initiating physical contact at that moment of the video.
No. She should be calmed down. Which should be fucking easy in such a trivial situation. Fuck, even a well articulate warning of tasing would have been enough if the officer is so gun happy, but there was absolutely no need to even reach in this situation.
Let's role play. Tell me how you would calm her down?
Anything I'll say below will be presumption and let's not continue with the role playing, but in the above situation not talking like a fucking prick, but as a professional would be a good start. Explaining why you ask her out of the car. Explaining how the moment you're done she'd be free to continue with her activities(doesn't fucking matter if it's true or false, just do it in a calm manner). Asking with a please up to 100 fucking times if necessary etc. There was zero need to be proactive about getting her out of the car.
edit:
Basically, I take serious issue with "I am a cop and you will do what I say or I will Tase you" rather than "you are under arrest now step out of the car or I will Tase you."
Especially when not communicating on part of the officer is part of the reason for the tasing
Posts
That's why I mentioned they helpfully link to primary sources. I just didn't want to link 10 different news stories in my post.
I think generally we as a culture are too accepting of violence generally and violence by our government/authorities in particular.
So the evidence doesn't match up to what you want it to, so you think that its wrong?
That certainly an interesting take on things.
It's less for firearm situations and more for situations when you might get into close combat with somebody. Knives, baseball bats, a rock off the street, heck, just plain fists and boots are probably more likely to kill somebody than a taser. I don't find it implausible that their use could have saved more lives than that in such situations.
And I, on the other hand, think that we as a culture are way to fast to challenge authority in the name of challenging authority for no other reason than "Because I want to do what I want" and then refuse to accept the consequences of that challenge.
And my link pretty much disproves the notion that tazers are some sort of electronic death tool to torture minorities, as your link seemed to claim.
No, I'm saying based on what I know, I don't know, but logic indicates that it is a low percentage. Maybe I've just read too many stories of assholes tasing grannies or moms at traffic stops for daring to not bend to the will of the police officer instantly.
Other than Taser International's aggressive defense in civil lawsuits, I'm interested in the source of your "pretty sure"-ity that 99% of Taser deaths are caused by....well, some other cause, who knows, but sumthin'. Perhaps that "excited delirium" that is not actually a recognized medical condition but sure sounds good coming from the mouth of a TI defense lawyer or PR flak? TI has sued medical examiners who implicated Tasers as a cause of death. TI boasted for many years that they never lost a civil lawsuit, until it because public knowledge that they had settled many of these suits, at which point they insisted that didn't count because as a result of the settlement the lawsuit was dismissed. (Which is, you know, the whole point of the settlement: you don't have to keep suing them once they pay you.)
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
Right, but the situation that led to this court case is pretty uncommon. Not unheard of (apparently right here in my town a cop mistakenly drew a gun meaning to go for a Taser and killed somebody), but remarkably rare.
And let's say Tasers were deployed tens of thousands of times in that same time period (reasonable, considering 83 fatalities at the 3 per 1000 ratio). So if there are somewhere on the order of 20,000+ tasings (about 1 per day per state, which seems reasonable) you think it's unreasonable to suggest that a couple hundred out of those 20,000+ would have otherwise been resolved with a firearm?
Sure, it's a lot less likely in a Taser use that a gun would have been used anyway. But somewhere on the order of 1% of the time? I have little trouble believing that.
So you're basing your opinion off of ancedotal evidence on the internet from a biased source?
Hmm.
More links to news reports of the initial incidents and/or lawsuits is where I generally find said stories. That site was just a quick hit on Google where I looked for the statistics for about 20 seconds.
Might still be too expensive for the moment, but it won't be too long before stuff like this becomes feasible. They already equip police vehicles with such things, don't they? Take it a step farther.
Maybe I just like solving problems with technology too much.
Mine was the first link under "taser usage statistics".
And yeah, I saw the video of the mom and the forty year old "grandmother" getting tazered. Both were assaultive when the police officer tried to remove them from the car after asking several times for them to step out of the car and they refused. He then stated several times "I'm going to taze you if you don't get out".
There was nothing unreasonable in the requests, just that they wanted to challenge authority to do what they wanted, and then were shocked that there were consequences.
Edit: Pun not intended.
Its an idea, but then you get into what happens if the bug gets crushed in a scuffle or something? Does the arrest become invalid? And how do you turn it off if its two cops eating lunch?
Because based on the physical manner in which the Taser works, the electricity will mostly be confined to the skin. That doesn't mean it doesn't kill you indirectly...the pain and shock (to the body, not electric) may well be what causes the ol' "excited delirium" that kills you. In which case the Taser killed you but the electricity didn't. I was responding to a very narrow bit of that statement, and meant nothing more by it.
Also we have a study cited right here in this thread suggesting that out of three hospitalizations from Tasers, two of those three were for injuries sustained in the fall.
The poster I replied to referred to Tasers as putting out "a lethal amount of electricity." They put out about 30mA, DC, through the skin which really...well, isn't. That doesn't mean a Taser can't kill you, it just means it's not going to electrocute you.
EDIT: Basically I'm not arguing with the lethality of Tasers...way too many people die from them. I'm taking issue with repeated uses of things like "electrocute" and "lethal doses of electricity," which sound awesome and compelling but are largely bullshit.
Since when is being tased supposed to be punishment? It's a non-lethal device to temporarily incapacitate a subject and enforce compliance. If being tased is actually a form of punishment then police have no business using them on anyone as they are not authorized to punish people. That's the job of our judicial system (and even that is debatable).
Definitely some kinks to work out. I'm sure it could be armored sufficiently to survive most any damage that would happen.
I don't know about when they go on break. Maybe just "Tough, if you don't like it, you shouldn't have signed up for the job."
Don't be obtuse. You and I both know using a taser to subdue someone and using it as a revenge fantasy are pretty different situations.
I think another thing to think about, both in terms of this case, and police behavior generally, is the affect it has on juries. I just read Jeffrey Toobin's book about the OJ trial, for example. And the reason he got off was entirely because of the historical behavior of the LAPD. That jury did not trust the LAPD, and yeah it was a profoundly amoral bit of lawyering, but the fundamental reason OJ got off was institutionalized bad behavior (racism, in that case) within the LAPD.
legion, we obviously have very different world views about acceptable powers for the state to have. And we won't convince each other on that.
So basically we get more people who are just there for a paycheck and don't give a shit?
I'm not seeing how this fixes the entire "undertrained police force" issue.
I will agree with you there. I respect your opinions even as I disagree with you.
Fair points. I don't know then.
This is a pretty good example of the entire "I get to do what I want" attitude I was speaking of.
Though I imagine here, everyone is going to see different things.
Its already bad enough with defense lawyers wanting complete access to police officer's facebook profiles as part of discovery. I don't think we need to compound that issue.
Sorry, why is this bad? Do you also firmly oppose prosecutors and police officers having complete access to defendants' and parolees' Facebook profiles?
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
What exactly are "the different things" one can fucking see here? Unless that woman's phone had a barrel and a trigger.
If its relevant to the case, yes.
Would you approve if he beat her?
Unless there is a reasonable expectation of relevance, it's fucking retarded to consider a facebook profile of a witness as part of the investigation process.
She becomes assualtive when he goes to pull her out of the car around 2:49.
This is pretty much a text book use of force escalation situation.
I guess she should just get to do what she wants then? No po-lice getting her outta the car, nu uh.
Which is why defense attorneys want similar access to police officers' Facebook profiles - for relevant evidence. Why do you believe it's perfectly reasonable for a police officer to look on an accused person's Facebook page for evidence, but not for a defense attorney to look on a police officer's Facebook page for evidence?
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
he did it again on the ground because she couldn't get on her stomach, due to the fact that tasers can temporarily paralyze you. If he had been trained properly, he'd know that. So its even more fucked up
also what happened to tasers being a replacement for gun, instead of its current role of tasing women out of cars because you didn't feel like getting physical?
I'm not sure requiring them to record their activities while on duty is anywhere close to the same level as that, though.
Oh I agree, except when the facebook/myspace is relevant to the crime at hand.
There's a fun bunch of links under "facebook used in court" with google.
Just going to point out here that your average police officer making the arrest isn't going to be googling someone's facebook after they've booked them on Assault 2.
Police are generally trained not to put themselves inside of a car for obvious reasons, such as her deciding to speed away with him half inside of it, for example.
She's an unfit woman in a car and she's not cooperating. I do not see a moment of assault.
Tasers were promoted and deployed as at least a partial substitute to guns and marketed as a way to avoid lethal force. It's been said a zillion times, but there goes again, if one as a professional law enforcement agent can not deal with the kind of situation above without use of force, it's time for a fucking career change. What we see in that video is that the officer had a temper too and it got blown pretty damn fast.
No. She should be calmed down. Which should be fucking easy in such a trivial situation. Fuck, even a well articulate warning of tasing would have been enough if the officer is so gun happy, but there was absolutely no need to even reach in this situation.
And I saw an officer not putting himself in a situation of disadvantage when dealing with a subject that already proven to be
-uncooperative
-aggressive
-assaultive
who also had a SERIOUS problem with authority.
Again, he didn't have a crystal ball to tell him that she wasn't going to decide to drive off if he reached in there and tried to wrestle her out. This comes back to the entire "objective/situational" thing.
Let's role play. Tell me how you would calm her down?
Yes that's exactly the same as being dragged in a speeding vehicle. hi5
I'm pretty sure the fit officer would have been able to fight off the grip of the unfit woman and remove himself from the vehicle before it sped away.
I mean, just GUESSING here.
So, here's where I'm coming from. First, what I see in order:
-Lady has an attitude and is combative right off the bat
-Officer is a bit of a dick, but largely seems to just want to get his shit done and go on with his day
-At some point, it's unclear when, the officer finds out her license is suspended
-He then proceeds to tell her to get out of the car, without telling her she is under arrest or why
-When she refuses to get out of the car, he clearly tells her his intent to Tase her, and gives her more than enough time to comply
-After hitting her once, he Tases her again, seemingly without giving her a chance to recuperate
-They proceed to arrest her
My issues:
-First, fuck her attitude; A court is the time to fight a ticket, not at the side of the road
-Second, while he's a dick, I really don't have much of a problem with his attitude prior to asking her to step out of the car, especially since most of it seems to be in response to her bullshit
-Personally, I'm a big believer that they should have to tell you you're under arrest (and why!) before telling you to get out of the car (and certainly before deploying a weapon); a simple "your license is suspended and I'm going to need you to step out of the car" may well have been better at gaining her compliance, followed perhaps by a "you are under arrest, and I'll add resisting arrest to the charge if you don't get out of the car" to drive the point home. Sure, perhaps this would have escalated things...but then, when you're deploying a weapon to get them out of the car I'm not sure how much more escalation can really happen there...and there's no reason you can't do this with the Taser at the ready if your safety is a concern (and it should be)
-Hitting her again that quickly, without really giving her a chance to gather herself, suggests either that he's a sadistic prick or poorly trained...but I could be wrong there
-I didn't see any "swing" happen, and I'd wager he made that shit up. Or, alternately, it was only a semi-voluntary motion brought on by, you know, the pain of being Tased.
Basically, I take serious issue with "I am a cop and you will do what I say or I will Tase you" rather than "you are under arrest now step out of the car or I will Tase you." Aside from that I have a hard time seeing a clear hero or villain in that story, and honestly I'm leaning in favor of the cop.
Sweet. Do you believe there was any imminent or even actual danger from the "subject" to the officer, bystanders or anybody? Because if you don't, and you still approve of the use of taser here, we have entirely different view on what law enforcement's role in society is and what is part of their mandate and what isn't.
Again, there was no fucking point initiating physical contact at that moment of the video.
Anything I'll say below will be presumption and let's not continue with the role playing, but in the above situation not talking like a fucking prick, but as a professional would be a good start. Explaining why you ask her out of the car. Explaining how the moment you're done she'd be free to continue with her activities(doesn't fucking matter if it's true or false, just do it in a calm manner). Asking with a please up to 100 fucking times if necessary etc. There was zero need to be proactive about getting her out of the car.
edit:
Especially when not communicating on part of the officer is part of the reason for the tasing
Cops being dragged by speeding cars is common enough that I don't blame him for not risking it.
Good thing fit people never get hurt, eh.