Taser International Wins Lawsuit to Change Cause of Death

I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property writes "Taser International recently started a legal campaign against medical examiners who claimed tasers contributed to the cause of death for several people. On Friday, an Ohio judge ruled in favor of the stun gun manufacturer (free registration may be required). While they do have a number of scientific studies on which they establish their claims, it's interesting that the alternate cause of death they champion — excited delirium — appears only in police reports on the deaths of difficult or drug-addled inmates, not in medical textbooks. Of course, that may change soon — Taser is funding and promoting research on the subject. Coroner reports such as the ones in this case contributed to the UN's opinion that taser use is torture."

Excited delirium

Sounds like one of those 18th century list of causes of death, where they didn't actually know the reason so they threw in some medical buzzwords of the day such as hysteria.

hysterical

Yes but there is a common cause to these deaths, police intervention with taser. Calling it something else is a lie.

At the same time, it's nice of you to bring up previous quack explanations like hysteria [wikipedia.org], especially female hysteria [wikipedia.org] which was cured by rape.

Re:hysterical

You know, I like to watch the real police shows, like on Tru TV and you know, 90% of the taser use I see there is just uncalled for. But what can you expect when you give people a badge when in reality they could not hold a burger flipper job? The education of police officers here in the US is just ridiculous. Where I come from, it takes 3 years of education after equivalent to high school in order to become a police officer. In US I think it takes 10 weeks or so.

Re:hysterical

Try being a confused Polish immigrant in an airport whose murder by gung-ho cops with a taser was cut on video.

These things are being abused, and they should be taken away from the cops until they can demonstrate that they can use them wisely.

Re:hysterical

There are no national standards for police forces as far as education or intelligence. In fact I read one article a few years ago about a fellow who was denied a job with the police department becuase his IQ was too high and he would "get bored".

An informal search on google for "police qualifications" reveals the following as a typical requirements for being a police officer:

Be 21 years of age or older, have a High School Diploma or its equivalent GED certificate, a valid Driver's License, the physical strength and agility sufficient to perform law enforcement work.

They also have to get a C on a test (lower if they served in the armed forces and learned how to kill people effectively)

So not much more than a burger flipper (except for the trained killer bonus). Would you arm McDonald cooks with torture devices and give them the right to zap anyone they wanted?

I for one don't want to arm high school quarterbacks who somehow managed graduate from the American public school system with torture devices and set them loose on the public.

The job of policing in this country is thankless and underpaid. This forces police departments to hire the people who's main attraction to the job is that they get to carry a gun and drive a car with shiny lights on top.

There are countless examples of police using Tasers inappropriately and killing or injuring people. Tasers should be banned until we either start hiring officers who have good judgment and some measure of compassion or there are strict guidelines for use and jail sentences for every officer who uses them inappropriately.

One thing cops and others always say in defense of officers is that they "risk their lives everyday" to protect us. Fine, if they recognize that risk then they should be able to do that job without torture devices. If they are unwilling to do the job without Tasers then they should go get a job flipping burgers and leave the job to the real men.

I for one would never take such a job. It seems boring, dangerous, and underpaid. Zapping people with tasers doesn't hold enough of an attraction for me to make it worth my time.

Re:hysterical

Whether or not the policeman was justified in using a taser isn't the issue. The cause of the death is what is in question here.

If the policeman used his gun and killed the suspect then we would say the cause of death was a gunshot wound. We would not change the cause of death to "excited delirium" simply because the action was justified.

In the case of a highway barrier, I imagine we would say that the cause of death was the car's impact with the barrier, regardless of who is at fault.

Re:hysterical

In line with this, the UN's position isn't that taser use is necessarily torture, it's that it CAN be torture.

Much like using a baton in the restraining on somebody resisting arrest isn't torture, but using on somebody who's restrained is.

I think that the honest answer would be to leave the cause of death alone unless the taser company manages to provide substantial proof otherwise. I can't say how good their proof is in this case.

All the deaths that I'm aware of involved numerous shocks, and people who are perhaps more vulnerable. The correct solution, in my belief is to emphasize the taser's less lethal nature.

The alternative methods officers have to subdue a resisting/fighting subject are nearly always more damaging. Arm bars, blows, sometimes baton or truncheon assisted, having numerous officers pile on top of the suspect, etc... In some cases the alternative might even be to shoot the suspect.

The taser is safer. We shouldn't necessarily condemn the taser, instead concentrating on proper use of it. There are ROE's for the use of the firearm, maybe the ROE for taser use needs to be tightened up in some districts.

Re:hysterical

A taser should only be used when a cop would normally use a gun, and the exact same procedure should used every time a cop discharges a taser as would be used if a cop discharges a gun.

Actually, I support the usage of a taser where the taser replaces more lethal/dangerous means, not just the gun.

For example, people can be killed, have limbs broken, and concussions as a result of the usage of a baton or truncheon. A taser is, properly used, safer for both police officers and suspect than the previous methods.

What needs to be emphasized is proper use.

One specific case I can think of involved a very old woman - the point I'd like to make is that it's very easy for that very old woman to injure herself. Much less a physically fit officer. Just think of a scenario like this - officer has hold of a arm. Grandma simply drops, placing her entire weight on fragile decalcified bones. Snap - there goes a elbow, wrist, or forearm.

A taser, while still dangerous, is probably less dangerous in such a scenario. But it gets on the newspaper as 'Officer tases 80 year old granny!'.

Re:hysterical

The point of the taser was to replace the gun. ... A taser should only be used when a cop would normally use a gun, and the exact same procedure should used every time a cop discharges a taser as would be used if a cop discharges a gun.

Umm... hell no. You're completely and utterly wrong. The point of the taser is to offer a non-lethal alternative to the gun in cases where it is safe for the officer to use it instead. That fact that it turned out not to be entirely non-lethal is the concern here. You'll not find any police departments even remotely considering having their officers carry tasers instead of guns because that would be ridiculously unsafe for them.

That said, there definitely should be more controls in place to ensure that the police show some restraint in the use of tasers, especially now that we've seen that they can cause death. We need more research into the effects of tasers too, in order to determine how dangerous they actually are and in what ways.

u.s. police lack basic takedown training

is the barrier's intervention "the cause of death"?

Nice.. so peace officers are now equivalent to mindless, monolithic slabs of steel and concrete? Highway dividers do not think, they just obey the laws of physics, and react according to their design and construction.

Police officers, on the other hand, are thinking human beings capable of making a variety of decisions, all of which can change the outcome of encounters with "unruly individuals."

But it seems that North American cops are somehow incapable of basic self-defense, unless it involves hardware with a button or a handle on it. In many other parts of the world, "unruly individuals" are subdued using basic grappling and/or martial art skills. Something American police departments seem to have little interest in.

Check out this cop trying to arrest an unruly individual [youtube.com], drunk or on drugs. This officer obviously has no idea how to take control of a suspect, drunk or sober.

This cop can't even control a 90lb 15-year old girl [youtube.com]! Then he pepper-sprays her just to show who the boss is. Unbelievable!

Compare and contrast with some [youtube.com] of the [youtube.com] many [youtube.com] grappling [youtube.com] techniques [youtube.com] available [youtube.com] for police officers to learn.

When properly trained in subduing unruly individuals, police officers can change the nature of the confrontation, into a situation they control. The cops in the two sample vids exhibit all the traits of loss of control of the situation: pleading, bullying, ineffective physical control, fear of becoming a victim, and reacting to that with weapons to regain control of what in other hands would be easily controlled individuals. Both lost the element of surprise when they physically engaged the subjects without an apparent goal or outcome in mind, and they both appear to lack basic takedown skills.

But hey, if they can make their jobs easier at the push of a button, why not? That's the American way!

Time for...

Time to manufacture conductive underwear then. Just short the tazer and avoid the trouble.

Glorified Cattle Prod

Just fire up the sidearm electrocution device.

It's torture my any means.

It's unlawful restraint.

We don't do this (legally) to animals in public, although some do in private, but they'll be dealt with accordingly. So, given that one simple fact, then why should humans be subjected to it?

Don't tase me, bro.

Re:Glorified Cattle Prod

A Taser is actually far more violent than a cattle prod. A cattle prod feels like a hard slap. A Taser drops you to the ground in pain.

Re:Glorified Cattle Prod

If we have trouble with an animal, we shoot it -- either lethally, or with tranquilizer darts. Now you might say let's just use tranqs on humans! ... but that wouldn't work. The only tranq I know of that would be safe to use on humans would be ketamine, and it's not exactly fast-acting. So then we're still left with the question of what to do when somebody violently resists police or police need to stop somebody from acting violently towards others. Do you just shoot them? Beat the shit out of them until they stop? Those both are much more lethal than a taser could ever be. Try and talk them out of it? Oh, but if you do that now you're valuing the life of the criminal above the life of innocents and the police. There are most certainly cases where tasers are over-used and abused, but I think that just means the police need to be held more accountable for their use -- not that tasers are an icky nasty evil thing that should be bannzt. Oh, and it's not unlawful restraint. Where the hell did you even pull that from.

Re:Glorified Cattle Prod

Beat the shit out of them until they stop? Those both are much more lethal than a taser could ever be.

You know, back in the old days.. maybe say a whopping twenty years ago, cops were actually trained and were able to apply techniques like swarming to take somebody down. Nowadays we have stupid, lazy, out of shape (tho round is a shape) cops who would rather push a button and BBQ somebody than to put on a set of graphite loaded leather police gloves and do their fucking jobs via jointlock, strategic hit with a baton, etc. I live in southern Ohio, and it seems like about fifteen percent of our cops are actually willing to do their job and have the ability both mentally and physically to do so. Most of the rest of these people couldn't pass a U.S. Army P.T. test, which is incredible since many patrol officers are making 50-70k in a low cost of living area. Standards, anyone?

And before anybody goes there with "what if they've got a knife?".. then the .40 cal comes out and you blow them away. Full stop. If the perp escalates it to that point then so be it.

Tasers are far too antiseptic and easy to use. Woman doesn't get out of the car at a traffic stop? Tase her. Guy mouths off to you? Tase him too. Twelve year old school kid doesn't want to go to detention? Fry her! It's just so easy.. if they displease you and disrespect your authority, well light em up! Hell, it's just the push of a button away and there are few consequences!

Re:Glorified Cattle Prod

The correct solution is to toss the lazy fuckers out of the police force. Start properly psychologically profiling potential recruits to get rid of the power freeks. The police, at the end of the day, are public servants, and that should be reinforced. If they want to be some sort of god-like figures, they shouldn't be allowed anywhere near a taser.

Re:Glorified Cattle Prod

Do you just shoot them? Beat the shit out of them until they stop? Those both are much more lethal than a taser could ever be.

You assume Tasers and similar devices are used instead of guns. They're not. They're used when you could not get away with using a gun (or even with beating the suspect senseless). Which is why we see them used against children, people who are already restrained and annoying questioners at political rallies. In situations where the taser wielder would certainly not have considered shooting or hitting the subject an appropriate action.

I think that just means the police need to be held more accountable for their use

If shooting someone with a taser was regarded as equal to shooting them with a gun, I'd happily see them deployed all over. Then it would actually be a question of using a taser _instead_ of a gun.

Re:Glorified Cattle Prod

Beating people leaves marks. Shooting people leaves marks. Tasers don't.

If said people are actually criminals, restraining them by necessary means is of course justified. But every cop thinks twice before shooting someone, which is not the case with tasers.

(As a sidenote, there are no criminals before a court says so, only "suspects").

Re:Glorified Cattle Prod

Well, in most cases, I'd think that pointing a gun at someone is a good way to get them to stop. I don't mean FIRING the gun at them, but I mean simply pointing it.

BZZT. One of the very first things you learn in gun safety courses is that you don't point the gun at some(one/thing) unless you plan on shooting that person / thing.

Once you point the gun at someone you have immediately escalated into deadly force. If the perp doesn't back down - you have to shoot him. That's the entire idea behind a taser - non lethal force. This isn't like TV where people hold guns at each other and talk rationally, defuse the situation and move on to a commercial.

Re:Glorified Cattle Prod

BZZT.

I agree with you, but you probably shouldn't have tazed him.

Re:Glorified Cattle Prod

Personally, I'd say the taser is not in itself the problem, it's that the taser is regarded as 'nothing' by police (as instructed by Taser International).

If the taser was billed instead as an extreme and possibly fatal means to subdue a subject or a 'less lethal' form of gun we might see more appropriate use.

Furthermore, use of a taser or other electrical stun device in an already restrained individual IS torture pure and simple. It's no more acceptable than handcuffung and then beating the subject.

I recently saw a training program where officers are themselves tazed briefly in a controled situation so they will understand exactly the effects of the force they might use on a subject. That seems like a good idea to me and is very likely to lead to more appropriate uses.

IMHO, Taser International is so anxious to advertise their product as perfect and a panacea that they CAUSE it to be mis-used through disinformation. It does the officers no favors either. They use the device in an honest belief that it is less brutal than throwing the subject to the ground and pinning them with a knee only to find themselves facing a wrongful death proceeding.

As for pointing a gun, absolutely NOT. A good rule to follow is to never point a gun at anything you don't want dead. Another way to put it is if you pull out a gun you BETTER be ready to use it. Pointing a gun you don't intend to use will get you killed as soon as the other person figures out that you don't intend to fire. The death rate from accidental firing would probably exceed the death rate from taser misuse.

Re:Glorified Cattle Prod

Change the textbooks then. People must not be mammals [wikipedia.org] then either.

I take it you've never dealt with a human toddler in the 2-3.5 earth year category.
It's said the the mental capacity of most non human mammals fall in intelligence category of a human 'animal' toddler; you can't reason with them, they react on instinct, and the fact that they can't communicate their thoughts exactly makes it extremely difficult to have a meaningful dialog with them.

Re:Glorified Cattle Prod

I am sick and tired of this stupid argument. People are NOT animals. We have control over our actions, and MOST of us have control over our actions and thoughts. We are less willing to induce control and "restraint" on children because they are not as capable of controlling themselves. As such, its a simple thought proccess. The more control you have over yourself, and the greater the ability to understand your actions and there reactions, the more willing we are to restrain someone. Take for example the argument that we should not execute the mentally challenged. Why? They are incapable of understanding several key things. Same with children, animals, "vegetables", ETC. Those groups of subjects are given special consideration as far as restraint and discpline.

Your argument is only relevant when talking about punishment, which is given to someone who has already been restrained, and should be decided about by a court of law rather than officer Tenpenny. Tasers, however, are not tools of punishment, they're tools of restrainment. When restraining a suspect, the only acceptable standard is to use the minimum neccessary force; altought, obviously, one must make allowances for the fact that the one doing the restraining doesn't have the benefit of hindsight or, neccessarily, a chance to calmy consider his options, so he might err in his estimation of "minimum force".

What I'm getting at is that it doesn't matter whether the one you're restraining is a retard or a genius. Either way you either use the minimum force neccessary, or you belong behind the bars yourself.

So no, the fact that more can be expected from humans than animals doesn't mean that you can go taser-happy on humans. If anything, it means that people who hold power over others - embodied in devices like tasers, for example - have no excuse whatsoever if they abuse it. And using that power beyond what is neccessary, for example tasering someone unneccessarily, is abuse.

Re:Glorified Cattle Prod

Tazers are not used instead of firearms, they are used instead of physical restraint. A cop would never use a tazer in a life threatening situation when he already has a firearm, they are only used in situations where physical restraint is required and are no different to a baton in that regard. What we see here is the abuse of the baton to the point where it is torturous and deadly. This does not mean ban the baton, instead we must remove the arbitrary and indiscriminate use of such force and restrain the excesses of brutality they have caused.

Re:Glorified Cattle Prod

What's worse? Tasering someone, which only lasts a few seconds and can quick calm down a situation, or just straight out shooting them?

Tazering someone. Full stop.

A cop has to consider his actions before he pulls the trigger, and on (admittedly rare) occasions, if he acts inappropriately he can be held accountable. If a cop shoots someone inappropriately, the family will know his name, and can sue in civil court.

If a cop tazers someone inappropriately, and the victim dies, then what are the chances that cop will be held to any standard?

If we hold that power corrupts, shouldn't we be encouraging consequences for abuse of that power?

At any rate, as has been mentioned before, the tazers are not being replacing guns, the tazers are being used in cases where talking to someone would do. A tazer, deployed, does not de-escalate a confrontation, it is escalating the confrontation - and it is the cop who is escalating it.

Keep in mind, I think that the tazer issue is merely a way for people to rally around the real issue, which is America's under-trained, over-violent, out-of-control police forces, without saying that they're "anti-cop." There needs to be a vast cultural shift in police forces before a weapon like a tazer is introduced, but there need to be a vast cultural shift in police forces regardless.

As for myself, I'd rather be shot than tazed, but that's just me.

Still torture

Whether something is torture is not (or rather, should not be) decided from whether or not it will actually kill you.

Undoubtedly, pulling someone's teeth out is torture, yet it's not going to kill you. The relevant part is the wanton quantities of pain involved.

Re:Still torture

Its not the device its how its used in both the case of the tazer and the gun. If have a gun and shoot you in the kneecap while I am asking you questions because you give me an answer I don't like that is torture. If I shoot you in the gut because you're attacking me or my family that is not torture. My intent was to protect myself by incapacitationg, and I had the need to do that; it was not that I specifically meant to case you agony.

If cop uses a tazer once to subdue an unruly suspect long enough to get handcuffs on him/her that is not torture. Once again the intent would to incapacitate you long enough to get control of a dangerous situation. If that Officer continues to use the tazer on you after you are already handcuffed laying face down in the dirt I would say that is torture. There is no more need in that case to be inflicting agony on you. The intent is now just cause you pain and that is well wrong.

It doesn't work that way

Yes, the theory is that the taser is used instead of a gun, in the situations where otherwise they'd have to shoot. Too bad it doesn't seem to work that way. It seems to work more like: when they would have used a gun, they'll still use a gun, but now have the taser for the rest of the time.

Off the top of my head, I remember such gems as:

- guy with a medical emergency calls 911, cops show up first and tase him in his bed. Apparently they thought he lunged at them. While lying on a bed across the room.

- student doesn't have his library card at the library, and is already leaving (so wtf of a danger did he pose?), campus security guards tase him repeatedly.

- some idiot decides to streak naked, gets tased. I can think of at least two of these.

- schoolkid threatens to cut himself with a piece of broken glass, gets tased.

- 12 year old schoolgirl is found skipping school, gets tased.

- 75 year old grandma insists too much to visit an old friend in another nursing home, a cop gets called and tases her.

- guy gets agitated after being kept IIRC for 12 hours without access to food, water or his medicine in an airport, cops tase him to death. Literally: tased repeatedly, until he dies of heart attack.

Etc, etc, etc.

Here's my question for all the "well, it's better than being shot" gang: exactly which of those would have warranted a bullet instead? No, seriously, I'm curious.

AFAIK not even in Stalin's USSR or Mao's China would they shoot a sick guy for just calling an ambulance. And no country in the world takes school _that_ seriously as to shoot a 12 year old for skipping school.

No, it's already used in _addition_ to the gun, not instead of.

And here's a funnier thought: we already have plenty of evidence that it's used repeatedly. Some even on camera. In some cases it seems to be police stupidity: they see a guy spasming after the jolt, and they think it's some kind of resisting arest, so they do it again. In some cases it seems genuine torture. They've been given free hand to use the taser, so they'll cause you some more pain just because they don't like you.

Ah, wishful thinking. How cute

Well, since this one is a total lie, it kinda casts doubt on the rest of your scenarios too. I pretty much stopped reading there.

Heh. Dude, just because you don't know about it, doesn't make it a lie, ya know? I hate to break the illusion that the world revolves around you, and that truth or falsehood get judged by your whims or wishes. Sorry. Want a link?

- UCLA cops taser ID-less student [theregister.co.uk]
- UCLA Taser victim sues university [theregister.co.uk]

Have more links. Off The Register alone, since I can't be arsed to do even more searching for you:

- Texas cops taser diabetic seizure man [theregister.co.uk]

- School tasers naked, oil-smeared student [theregister.co.uk]

- Taser-happy cops floor suicidal six-year-old [theregister.co.uk] (It also mentions the 12 year old girl.)

- US cops taser battling granny [theregister.co.uk]

Etc.

So basically, just because you're uninformed, doesn't make it a lie. The fact that you wrote the above idiocy without even bothering to google first, though... now _that_ speaks volumes. Heh.

But I assume again you won't have the literacy skills to make it this far, so never mind ;)

Re:Still torture

While I strongly oppose to subduing anyone, the best would be to use tranquilizer darts. Works like a charm on animals (appropriate irony). Fast acting and relatively pain free.

People die every day from anesthesia administered by highly trained, licensed, expert anesthesiologists with access to the best in modern drugs and equipment. I really hope you don't think that a cop can just shoot a magical one-size-fits-all tranq dart at a 250lb thug on PCP and a 95lb teenager and safely send either or both to magical sleepy land. That only happens in the movies. A taser is probably significantly safer.

Re:Still torture

Maybe someone weighing 100 pounds should consider a different line of work.

The same thing is true when the cop shoots you

Failure to maintain adequate breathing, or something like that.

In America...

In America, lawyers get to determine how the human body works.

Not sure this is a step up from the Catholic Church getting to decide, but I hear your President has God whisper advice directly into his ear, so...

still

Yeah, those things probably can kill occasionally. But so can kicking, punching, shooting, even restraining. I'd rather get tasered than kicked, punched, or shot, and if they didn't have a taser, those would be the alternatives.

On the other hand, I think if police use a taser or other electrical device, it should be treated just like kicking or punching by the legal system and needs to be justified accordingly. And I think it's wrong for the company to try to suppress these incidents. They are most likely real, we just need to debate whether they are acceptable.

Re:still

On the other hand, I think if police use a taser or other electrical device, it should be treated just like kicking or punching by the legal system and needs to be justified accordingly.

No, it should be treated just like a handgun. In every police department in the US that I'm familiar with (my dad was a SWAT team leader, chief of police, and various other positions in many departments in several states), even unholstering your firearm requires some pretty extensive paperwork to be filled out, detailing the circumstances and the justification for it.

Locally, the police pretty much do things that way. The policy here is basically "If you'd shoot someone, shoot them. If you'd pull your gun as a threat, but aren't threatened enough to shoot yet, tase them." It's a small town, and with some of the old guard retiring recently, they've done a pretty good job of weeding out the corrupt cops (unfortunately, the worst of them have moved on to be cops in another city, usually getting a promotion along the way), so that policy has worked pretty well here.

Of course, with stories of elementary school students getting tasered, people being beaten when they "don't comply with a lawful order" because they're essentially seizing from multiple shocks, and all of the other abuses, who knows. The biggest problem is really the code of silence that runs along the thin blue line.

Re:still

Now here's my biggest complaint. After years and years of field use, where are the statistical numbers that show a decrease in "adverse effects" - before and after taser use began? Yes yes you have to adjust for lots of different factors because crime waxes and wanes and so does the number of incidents with a given level of resistence from people being detained. BUT - if ANYONE in the world is equipped to collect good statistics, it should be police departments whose officers spend 50% of their time on paperwork.

Why the ******* are we all hanging in the wind GUESSING whether or not Taser use causes X% more deaths on the left, and not N% more bruises and M% more deaths due to savage beatings and justified and unjustified shootings on the other hand? Where are the ****ing hard numbers from all the YYY jurisdictions using tasers?!

Also the mumbo jumbo bull**** language about the "cause of death". The *only* thing that matters is whether or not the person would have died if the Taser had not been used. Are they actually claiming that they know for certain that the indviduals would have died had Tasers had not been used? **Exactly** what likelyhood do they place on the individual having died from a seizure or heart-attack if a Taser had not been used? If it's not zero percent, then the Taser's use IS contributory to the cause of death.

It doesn't matter if the person had a congenital heart defect!! Would the person have lived a longer life if a different form of force had been used!?

Now ... balance that against the people that would have died (yes, probably completely different people, this is one of those damned if you do damned if you don't) if Tasers were not available. ..then we can choose how and where to allow the use of Tasers. So far I see no evidence that a systematic rational method of doing this is being done. Individual police departments are pulling guidelines out of their ass, for all I know. (They probably are not, but how come *that* is never mentioned? The only reason people get angry is because they don't know just how much effort is going into doing something right - and so they must presume that nothing is being done right - lack of evidence in such cases IS used against you by the public.)

WONDERFUL!

Now we have a weapons manufacturer dictating medical procedure and reporting.

*Sniff* *Sniff* I smell bullshit....

Re:WONDERFUL!

Sorry, that was me :/ Having 50kV running through my body gives me issues with bowel control

In Local News...

A power company lineman died today from excited delirium when he accidentally came in contact with a live power line.

Co-workers are reported as saying he didn't appear to be excited or delirious prior to his unfortunate accident, although witnesses do report that his body appeared to become quite excited at the moment of contact with the fatal current.

Full story at 11.

Ummm...yeah...

Strat

Cops carry guns too

DON'T TASE ME, BRO'!!

Wait a sec ... is that a Glock?!!

DON'T SHOOT ME, BRO'!! TASE ME, TASE ME, BRO'!!

FUD on both sides

Disclaimer: I am a police officer in Florida. I use the Taser. I do not own stock in Taser International.

To say that a Taser didn't *contribute* to the deaths is probably wrong. To say that a Taser *caused* the deaths is almost certainly wrong.

The amperage on a Taser is too low by a few orders of magnitude to cause death by electrocution. It will cause central nervous system disruption, which is very uncomfortable, and causes some unusual side effects.

I've been shot with a Taser. Not a stun-gun, a full-fledged Taser with the barbed prongs and ranged shot. I took a five second burst of 50,000 volts. It isn't fun, but I'd prefer it to pepper spray (which I've also been hit with). At least it's over in five seconds, instead of three hours.

During the shot, the Taser causes you to literally scream out all the air in your body in about two seconds. You spend three seconds trying to force out air that isn't there. In someone full of drugs or with pre-existing medical problems, this can definitely pose a risk.

As a police officer, I've had six situations where using the Taser has saved me from serious bodily injury. In all but one case, the defendant was immediately back on his feet after I helped him up, and quickly back in good spirits. In two cases, they spent the ride to jail joking with me. In one case, the defendant had to go to the hospital due to a cocaine overdose. He lived due to timely medical intervention, but we expected him to be in bad shape and had an ambulance standing by to assist the minute we had him secure.

As for calling the Taser torture, let me put it this way: I would willingly be shot with a Taser again in a training exercise. I've willingly subjected other people to it after feeling its effects. I would *not* willingly be shot with pepper spray/mace again. I have not and will not willingly subject other people to it after feeling its effects. The Taser is a valuable, but dangerous weapon that must be treated with caution and only used appropriately. Pepper spray is torture.