 |
| |
|
|
Ramo
|
 |
Austin, Texas, USA
Oct 1999
time: 23:37
|
|
quote:
As Police Use of Tasers Rises, Questions Over Safety Increase
By Alex Berenson
New York Times: NAZARETH, Pa. — July 18, 2004 - As the sun set on June 24, something snapped in Kris J. Lieberman, an unemployed landscaper who lived a few miles from this quiet town. For 45 minutes, he crawled deliriously around a pasture here, moaning and pounding his head against the weedy ground.
Eventually the police arrived, carrying a Taser M26, an electric gun increasingly popular with law enforcement officers nationwide. The gun fires electrified barbs up to 21 feet, hitting suspects with a disabling charge.
The officers told Mr. Lieberman, 32, to calm down. He lunged at them instead. They fired their Taser twice. He fought briefly, collapsed and died.
Mr. Lieberman joined a growing number of people, now at least 50, including 6 in June alone, who have died since 2001 after being shocked. Taser International, which makes several versions of the guns, says its weapons are not lethal, even for people with heart conditions or pacemakers. The deaths resulted from drug overdoses or other factors and would have occurred anyway, the company says.
But Taser has scant evidence for that claim. The company's primary safety studies on the M26, which is far more powerful than other stun guns, consist of tests on a single pig in 1996 and on five dogs in 1999. Company-paid researchers, not independent scientists, conducted the studies, which were never published in a peer-reviewed journal. Taser has no full-time medical director and has never created computer models to simulate the effect of its shocks, which are difficult to test in human clinical trials for ethical reasons.
What is more, aside from a continuing Defense Department study, the results of which have not been released, no federal or state agencies have studied the safety, or effectiveness, of Tasers, which fall between two federal agencies and are essentially unregulated. Nor has any federal agency studied the deaths to determine what caused them. In at least two cases, local medical examiners have said Tasers were partly responsible. In many cases, autopsies are continuing or reports are unavailable.
The few independent studies that have examined the Taser have found that the weapon's safety is unproven at best. The most comprehensive report, by the British government in 2002, concluded "the high-power Tasers cannot be classed, in the vernacular, as `safe.' " Britain has not approved Tasers for general police use.
A 1989 Canadian study found that stun guns induced heart attacks in pigs with pacemakers. A 1999 study by the Department of Justice on an electrical weapon much weaker than the Taser found that it might cause cardiac arrest in people with heart conditions. In reviewing other electrical devices, the Food and Drug Administration has found that a charge half as large as that of the M26 can be dangerous to the heart.
While Taser says that the M26 is not dangerous, it now devotes most of its marketing efforts to the X26, a less powerful weapon it introduced last year. Both weapons are selling briskly. About 100,000 officers nationally now have Tasers, 20 times the number in 2000, and most carry the M26. Taser, whose guns are legal for civilian use in most states, hopes to expand its potential market with a new consumer version of the X26 later this summer.
For Taser, which owns the weapon's trademark and is the only company now making the guns, the growth has been a bonanza. Its stock has soared. Its executives and directors, including a former New York police commissioner, Bernard B. Kerik, have taken advantage, selling $60 million in shares since November.
Patrick Smith, Taser's chief executive, said the guns are safe. "We tell people that this has never caused a death, and in my heart and soul I believe that's true," Mr. Smith said.
Taser did not need to disclose the British results to American police departments, he said. "The Brits are extremely conservative," he said. "To me, this is sort of boilerplate, the fine print." In addition to Taser's animal trials, thousands of police volunteers have received shocks without harm, Mr. Smith said. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ramo
|
|
Austin, Texas, USA
Oct 1999
time: 23:37
|
|
Partly responsible means being part of the responsible factors. And I specifically referred to the studies, not the ME reports. And calling either the studies or the ME reports "nothing but speculation" is insane.
I can't find the policy wording, but I did find the our local paper, the Austin American Statesman's, report on the matter:
quote:
Experts say Austin's rapid increase in Taser use, while not surprising, is alarming because many officers only recently received training. They may be using the stun guns in situations where the disabling electrical shock is an overreaction.
"You have less incidents (of use of force), but there is more force being used in each of the incidents," del Carmen said.
The department's policy gives officers wide discretion to use Tasers whenever a suspect is actively resisting arrest. The new analysis shows that officers routinely use Tasers before resorting to batons or other hard impact weapons.
William Terrill, an assistant professor of criminal justice at Northeastern University, said he would question why Austin police are turning to Tasers so quickly. In other departments, they are used only as an alternative to deadly force, he said. |
http://www.statesman.com/specialrep...12804force.html
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Donegeal
|
 |
Apolyton's Resident Law Enforcement Officer. Founder of the Glory of War, Champions of Apolyton!
Jul 2002
time: 05:37
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ramo
Partly responsible means being part of the responsible factors. |
And to me, and the law in certian circunstances, you are partly responsible in any accident simply for being in the accident (ie: you were there, thus part of the responsible factors), which is ridiculous and so is "partly responsible" in this case. Anyway....
Now in that article, it states that "..but there is more force being used in each of the incidents,". Here I disagree. The use of a TAZER is much less force than that of a batton. There is no lasting effects with a TAZER. Now if "less" force were applied to stop resistance and they clubbed the guy with a batton, it would have a much greater chance of doing lasting or permenant harm (ie: breaking/crushing/fracturing a bone), plus someone would tape it and give it to some TV station that would only show the part where the officer started swinging (not the part where the guy lunged at them, but this is another arguement entirely that can be carried on in another thread if you like).
What it comes down to is what is less force? Battons, or other Intermediate Weapons that can cause lasting effects, or a TAZER which has none (but is far more effective)?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
chegitz guevara
|
 |
Ft. Lauderdale, FL Communist Party of Apolyton
Jun 2000
time: 00:37
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Winston
Amazing to see how this thread has turned from the announcement that a subway bomber was arrested, involving the use of a stun gun, to an heated debate about how terrible and dangerous stun guns are to people. |
Why is this amazing? MarkG wanted to troll Brits by showing how they could have stopped that other guy that was shot in the head, which lead to a discussion of whether or not tasers are actually safe, which leads to a discussion over their usage.
Certainly a taser is less lethal than a bullet, and less dangerous than being whacked by a club. My concern is whether police are more willing to use them because of their supposed non-lethality, thus increasing the possibility that someone who doesn't need to be tasered gets injured or killed.
In many situations, no force needs to be used . . . eventually. You got some drunk or drugged up loser swinging a knife around, talking smack. Without a taser, the police will just clear the area around the guy making sure he can't hurt anyone while they wait for him to calm down, drop the knife, get too stupored to function, etc., then pounce on him. It might take a while, and a lot of police, but no one has to die.
Now, they can just taser him, and he drops. No muss, no fuss, unless some combination of a bad ticker, drugs, alcohol, and the taser kill him.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ramo
|
|
Austin, Texas, USA
Oct 1999
time: 23:37
|
|
quote:
Nowhere did it say ANYTHING about death. |
Where, exactly, do you think severe heart attacks, cardiac arrests, etc. lead?
quote:
And is I'm not going to use "legalese" in this agrument, then please refrain from doing so as well (ie: "the high-power Tasers cannot be classed, in the vernacular, as `safe.' " ). |
First off, I didn't use that terminology, rather the British study did. Secondly, it's not "legalese" that I objected to, rather the imposition of a legalism that blatantly does not apply to an ME report.
quote:
Lets take those heart condition aspects and remove the TAZER. |
Does hitting a person with a baton, with a pace maker generally cause a heart attack?
And the APD policy (assuming that the conservative, but generally reliable Statesman isn't blatantly making something up, as you suggest) applies to anyone "actively resisting arrest," i.e. situations where even a baton may not be needed?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Snotty
|
|
If stun guns kill, then stun guns = a bad form of 'non-lethal' apprehension, m'kay?
I dont buy the subtle 'its the perps fault for being on drugs/ having a heart disorder' thing
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Donegeal
|
|
Apolyton's Resident Law Enforcement Officer. Founder of the Glory of War, Champions of Apolyton!
Jul 2002
time: 05:37
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ramo
Does hitting a person with a baton, with a pace maker generally cause a heart attack? |
Spoken like that, no. But put into the scenerio I described, with hightened tensions, It could very well push a suspect over the edge and cause the heart attack.
quote:
And the APD policy (assuming that the conservative, but generally reliable Statesman isn't blatantly making something up, as you suggest) applies to anyone "actively resisting arrest," i.e. situations where even a baton may not be needed? |
Once again, this is a matter for another thread. All news, conservative/liberal/otherwise, is propoganda that has a side/skew. What that side/skew is depends on your point of view, and my point of view is that a newspaper is in the business of selling newspapers and is thusly looking to put a spin on its articles that will stir up more controversy so it can sell more newspapers. BUt this is getting far and away from the subject at hand.
For those that are following, I do not see this as a "heated argument", but more of a good discussion with an intelligent person who has not resorted to slander but has shown respect.
Ramo has issues with the an appearently alarming rate of useage of the TAZER in his city. So lets try to figure out where it should fit on the Force Option Continuum, and what sort of restrictions it should have (for his city).
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:37.
Apolyton Time is 00:37. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
28-07-2005 20:57
).
|