# Taser Article.



## arnisador (Nov 18, 2003)

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/17/technology/17taser.html

It focuses on the business end of things.



> The M26 Taser fires two barbed hooks attached to wires, up to 21 feet, delivering a 5-second jolt of electricity


----------



## pknox (Nov 18, 2003)

So, it's a taser that can be used even when you are not at point blank range?  That is pretty amazing.  I wasn't aware there was such a thing.  I can imagine that people would find that very useful.  I expect that if I was someone about to be raped, I would love the fact that I could deploy the taser before the rapist was on top of me, and had the possibility of subduing me before I got them.


----------



## arnisador (Nov 18, 2003)

I had heard of these before. It sounds like the big change is not firing the darts using gunpowder.


----------



## pknox (Nov 18, 2003)

Ah.  I see.  Either way, it seems like an improvement from having to just about touch your attacker.


----------



## M F (Nov 19, 2003)

I believe Tasers have always been projectile weapons.  I think even the earliest Tasers fired barbed hooks.  I believe you are thinking of stun-guns, which are a different animal.  Yes, Tasers are much more effective than stun-guns.  Taser M-26, which appears in this article, has been updated with the Taser X-26, which is much smaller, but even more effective.


----------



## pknox (Nov 19, 2003)

I believe you are correct - I had them confused with stun guns.  That definitely sounds like an improvement over a stun gun!


----------



## M F (Nov 20, 2003)

www.taser.com

Check it out.  There are some great videos on their site, including one where they hit a Bull with a Taser.  These things work.


----------



## pknox (Nov 20, 2003)

Pretty cool.  I guess if Mas Oyama had approached a bull with a taser, he wouldn't have had to work so hard to cut the horns off.


----------



## theletch1 (Nov 23, 2003)

I checked out the site for the x-26.  Man, that thing is as high tech as it looks.  How long before the electrodes are replaced by lasers?


----------



## Tgace (Nov 24, 2003)

When I was in SWAT school, one dept. gave a m-26 demo. We linked up 11 men arm-in-arm. One electrode was placed in my pocket and the other in the #1 mans. They gave us 2 pulses....let me say that, if properly employed, you cannot fight through the taser(even through 11 guys) while being pulsed. An interesting point is that the taser without the projectile pack on can be used as a contact stun gun, but is only as good as a regular stun gun. It works on "pain compliance". With the darts in, its a whole different animal.


----------



## M F (Nov 24, 2003)

I'm looking forward to a training session with the Taser in the near future.  Our department is getting them for all Deputies as well as all control rooms in the jail.


----------



## Tgace (Feb 8, 2005)

http://www.compfused.com/directlink/532/


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Feb 9, 2005)

I've been a Taser instructor for about 5 years now, and i've been hit numerous times with the taser. I've also had several opportunities to use it in the field. I can assure you that it is an extremely effective weapon, and has saved a lot of lives and reduced injuries, not only among police officers, but among the suspects themselves. 

There's been a lot of disinformation being spread in certain media circles about this wonderful tool, among folks like Amnesty Internation, the ACLU and other groups who have a political agenda. None of the information being spread by these groups is accurate, or even close to reality. 

The statements that the taser has "caused several deaths" is not only inaccurate, it is a complete fabrication and a distortion of reality, by people cynically seeking to pursue a political agenda. As a law enforcement officer, I hope that every citizen takes the time to research the Taser and see just exactly what it does and what it does not do. 

Education of the public will ensure that this tool will remain an effective option in the hands of the law enforcement community. It is only ignorance that will cause the community to believe that this device is anything other than a safe, effective, lifesaving tool that our communities have an interest in utilizing.


----------



## Tgace (Feb 9, 2005)

First OC was causing deaths and had to be taken off the streets, now those same groups are saying that OC should be used instead of Tasers. And if Im not mistaken, OC is still associated with more in-custody fatalities than the Taser ever has....


----------



## dearnis.com (Feb 9, 2005)

The people complaining the loudest about the taser, and every other LE tool, are the ones who a) contribute nothing to society other than job security for some of us or b) those who seem to feel an overwhelming compulsion to support group  a no matter the circumstances.

Concerned about being killed by a taser?  May I suggest not smoking crack, acting up at 3 in the morning, and then fighting the officers who show up to deal with you?


----------



## Tgace (Feb 9, 2005)

Zactly!!!!


----------



## Tgace (Feb 9, 2005)

That officer in that video clip could have been in a world of **** if it werent for that Taser. 

(One reason Im glad Im not a Trooper...Solo arrests with cover many minutes away)


----------



## FearlessFreep (Feb 9, 2005)

Just for  the point of argument and since this is a Martial Arts board, is there any good defense against a taser (other than the same as a pistol when in striking range) ?


----------



## dearnis.com (Feb 9, 2005)

C'mon.  Solo work is, well, um, solo.

FF- best defense- don't provoke someone to deploy one on you?  Seriously, the drive stun (contact) is used more by the guys on my department who have them than the distance shock.


----------



## still learning (Feb 9, 2005)

Hello, Any weapon that can disable a bad guy quickly without killing them is a "good thing".  Tazer will get better and better as time goes on. ....you got my vote .........Aloha


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Feb 10, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> First OC was causing deaths and had to be taken off the streets, now those same groups are saying that OC should be used instead of Tasers. And if Im not mistaken, OC is still associated with more in-custody fatalities than the Taser ever has....


First it was "choke holds"...then it was "positional asphyxia"....then it was "OC Sprays".....then baton strikes....no wait, baton strikes came before.....ok, wait....anyway, now it's Tasers. The common denominator is all these people dying are people who came in to contact with the police because they consumed a lethal dose of cocaine and are acting out in a bizarre and violent manner due to cocaine induced psychosis. The taser, OC, baton strikes, handcuffs, etc, etc, etc didn't kill them...The dose of cocaine large enough to kill a horse killed them. Some people just never get it. 

Anyone remember the large black male in Cincinnati that fought with the police in front of the burger place and died of a heart attack?  Cincinnati has bought tasers after that incident because everyone threw a fit about the baton strikes.  The irony is that the guy probably would have died anyway, and a taser had been present, the ACLU, NAACP and Amnest International would have been blaming the death on the taser.  It's a lose lose.

Amnesty Internation and the ACLU are always willing to produce false issues for political gain and the New York Times is always willing to use that to sell false stories. Nothing new in the world. I know this, i'd rather be Tasered than Shot or Beaten with a baton anyday.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Feb 10, 2005)

FearlessFreep said:
			
		

> Just for the point of argument and since this is a Martial Arts board, is there any good defense against a taser (other than the same as a pistol when in striking range) ?


The short answer is, no.  The taser works on the same principle as a firearm, and actually will incapacitate you faster than some gunshot wounds, even to the heart.  The only faster incapacitation with a firearm is a shot to the central nervous system.

The upside as a weapon, though, is that the taser leaves evidence of it's use.  Every cartridge fired leaves dozens of "AFIDS" or small identification confetti all over the ground.  You can't possible pick all of them up.  Each little AFID has the serial number of the taser catridge that was fired on it, and taser keeps records of every taser catridge sold and who they are sold too.  There's actually considerably more oversight than with a firearm.

Having been a Taser instructor for 5 years, i'm more than willing to answer any other questions about the taser as they pertain to civilian self-defense or technical information.   Of course, being a police officer, I may decide not to answer a specific question about particular police tactics as i'm sure any other police taser instructors that might be in this forum would do as well.


----------



## Cruentus (Feb 10, 2005)

I wish Tasers were legal here in Michigan, as they seem more effective then OC.

OC spray has an effectiveness of 70%. 

What is the percentage of effectiveness for Tazers, out of curiousity?

Thanks,

Paul


----------



## dearnis.com (Feb 10, 2005)

I don't think you will see any great drive towards legalizing the taser for non-LEO use, nor am I convinced that they would make a great tool for every-day defensive carry.  Same heft and displacement as a sidearm, training issues, and if you carry a firearm as well huge issues with making sure you accquire the correct weapon (note that there have been several in-custody deaths where suspects were shot by officers who, one only assumes, thought they were drawing their taser.)  Like many other less lethal technologies they are perhaps best used by those who must play the "catch and release" game.


----------



## Tgace (Feb 10, 2005)

I would have to agree. The Taser isnt so much a "defensive" weapon as an arrest tool.


----------



## Cruentus (Feb 10, 2005)

Sweet guys, but here in Michigan departments do not currently allow use of Tazers or stun guns as an arrest tool, as possession or sales of of stun guns or tazers are illegal. So I am talking about LEO use.

I think that Michigan should rethink the stun gun/Tazer laws, and departments should rethink the use of these tools, because I think that they can be an effective arrest tool; possibly more effective then OC.

That said, any word on that statistic for percentage of effectiveness? I've heard not as much as 80% for tazers as compared to a 70% success rate of OC...

Paul


----------



## Cruentus (Feb 10, 2005)

Also, as to tazer deaths compared to OC...

Groups like Amnesty International and others have a number of stats and reports of tazer related deaths. The reason one would die from Tazer use is because the shock could trigger heart failure on someone who is aggitated, under high stress, has a health problem, or has an artifically elevated heart rate(drug use). The arguement against tazer use is that most likely a resisting perp or criminal will be under high stress or on drugs, and therefore is under risk of death if a tazer is used.

Yet, I would still like to see a percentage of deaths related to Tazer use from a reliable source before I could weigh the significance of that arguement.

As to OC or "Pepper" Spray, Oleoresin Capsicum (OC) is an inflammatory agent comprised of natural oils and several varieties of red pepper. Because OC is an inflammatory, it causes the respitory tract to become inflamed, mucus membranes to be swelled, and vision to be impaired; it reduces breathing to "life support only." This means that it does not rely on "pain compliance" to be effective, as the inflammation will be the natural physical response for most people. This also means that because OC is made from natural oils and peppers that some of us use every day, the lethality of OC is almost nil. This means that OC as an extremely effective tool for stopping or reducing a threat (again, 70% success rate), while minimizing the risk of liability.

I have not heard of ANY deaths from OC, yet some of you LEO here may have heard differently. What I would like to see is some real stats rather then anecdotal evidence to come to an informed conclusion. As it stands so far, it would appear that Tazers have a higher rate of effectiveness, but maybe only by a few percentage points, and that the chances of death are far greater with tazers then OC. So the question I have is does the reward outwiegh the risk? I need hard evidence to determine that.

Side Note: Many of you may know this, but for those of you who don't, OC Spray is different the "Tear Gas" or what people commonly know from this company name as "MACE" who produced spray versions of tear gas. Unlike OC, Tear Gas is an irritant and therefore relies on "pain compliance" to work. It is also artificial, unlike OC which is natural, and can therefore cause death if too much is infected in the lungs. This means that more deaths have occured from tear gas or "Mace" from OC spray, and this also means that "Mace" is less effective then OC due to its reliance on pain compliance. Many people get the two confused, and attribute "Mace" deaths or ineffectiveness to OC, when this is innacurate. 

Paul


----------



## Tgace (Feb 10, 2005)

People hit with OC can still fight......


----------



## Tgace (Feb 10, 2005)

OC in-custody death cases sound almost exactly like Taser in-custody deaths...hard to get any solid proof either way, and death vs. number of successful uses shows that they are safer than almost any other conventional means...


OC in-custody deaths:

http://www.zarc.com/english/other_sprays/reports/journal_forensic_med_oc_death.html

http://www.ncjrs.org/txtfiles1/nij/195739.txt

http://hazard.com/library/topics/Chemical_Safety/Pepper_Mace

Groups who oppose pepper sprays: Including the ACLU (go figure)

http://mediafilter.net/caq/CAQ56pepper.html

http://www.aclu-sc.org/attachments/p/Pepper_Spray_New_Questions.pdf

http://treesit.org/havc/campaigns_videos/fire_in_the_eyes/Pepper_facts.html


----------



## Cruentus (Feb 10, 2005)

Also, any word on the "Stinger" system vs. "Tazer" Intl?

Anyone have experience with "Stinger"? Any word on this? 

I guess "Stinger Systems" claim to have products with better range and to be less lethal then "Tazer Intl' " products. Tazer Intl' says that these claims are false, and I guess filed a law suit against Stinger on Dec. 04' right before the new year.

Paul


----------



## Cruentus (Feb 10, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> OC in-custody death cases sound almost exactly like Taser in-custody deaths...hard to get any solid proof either way, and death vs. number of successful uses shows that they are safer than almost any other conventional means...



Thanks for the links Tom. Yea, that figures too...most of the opposition only having shady anecdotal evidence at best.

And sometimes I think that those jackwads at the ACLU would rather have a criminal beat a cop to death until they tire out and allow the arrest to happend as an acceptable means of force rather then (gasp) actually allow the LEO to use any reasonable means to do their jobs; cause god forbid that those poor unfortunate violent criminals get hurt a little when they are going on their tyraid's and endangering everyone else...


----------



## Tgace (Feb 10, 2005)

From POLICE magazine Feb. 2005 Vol 29, No. 2



> Do Tasers Kill?
> 
> The Taser is now the less-lethal weapon of choice for American cops. Thousands of people have been stunned by them, and approximately 70 have died in police custody.
> 
> ...


----------



## Tgace (Feb 10, 2005)

The Stinger is pretty much the same technology..I dont know how they can make any "less lethality" claims than Taser.

Other than the fact that they havent been on the market as long and havent accrued the same number of uses/deaths...


----------



## Tgace (Feb 10, 2005)

Tulisan said:
			
		

> Thanks for the links Tom. Yea, that figures too...most of the opposition only having shady anecdotal evidence at best.
> 
> And sometimes I think that those jackwads at the ACLU would rather have a criminal beat a cop to death until they tire out and allow the arrest to happend as an acceptable means of force rather then (gasp) actually allow the LEO to use any reasonable means to do their jobs; cause god forbid that those poor unfortunate violent criminals get hurt a little when they are going on their tyraid's and endangering everyone else...


I wonder what exactly the ACLU wants to call "reasonable"? Do they want to go back to the "low tec" 70's and allow us to use saps and sap gloves again?? Not that that dosent have its own appeal at times.  This technology has probably saved more lives on each side than they have taken. There is NO 100% "safe" method of using force on somebody, thats just the way it is....

Just for clarification...I dont carry a Taser. Powers that be appear to be considering it though. Not looking forward to the training...:erg:


----------



## Tgace (Feb 10, 2005)

http://www.taser.com/law/videos.htm

The Taser vs. OC is most interesting. The street use clips show their utility.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Feb 10, 2005)

Tulisan said:
			
		

> I wish Tasers were legal here in Michigan, as they seem more effective then OC.
> 
> OC spray has an effectiveness of 70%.
> 
> ...


Under controlled conditions, 99% plus.  In the real world, more like 95%.  The 5% failure rate isn't people who are immune to the Taser, but environmental and equipment malfunctions such as dead batteries, one dart hits, thick clothing, operator error, low muscle group areas, etc.


----------



## Tgace (Feb 10, 2005)

http://home.earthlink.net/~gregmeyer/injury.html
http://home.earthlink.net/~gregmeyer/articles/update.html


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Feb 10, 2005)

Tulisan said:
			
		

> Also, as to tazer deaths compared to OC...
> 
> Groups like Amnesty International and others have a number of stats and reports of tazer related deaths. The reason one would die from Tazer use is because the shock could trigger heart failure on someone who is aggitated, under high stress, has a health problem, or has an artifically elevated heart rate(drug use). The arguement against tazer use is that most likely a resisting perp or criminal will be under high stress or on drugs, and therefore is under risk of death if a tazer is used.
> 
> ...


In custody death rates from OC exposure is on par with those of the Taser, and other aggressive uses of physical force. The in-custody deaths in all of the above cases have resulted for exhertion on the part of the suspect, not from electrical stimulation. A University of Missouri study revealed that direct current applied to a pigs heart did not adversly alter heart rhythms, even when drugs such as epinepherine were administered that made the heart more susceptible to rhythm changes. 

The numbers that amnesty internation (mis)quotes are actually consistent with the number of over dose deaths. It's not a coincidence that people under the influence of large, potential lethal quantities of cocaine or other hyper-stimulants, might come in contact with police and be required to be tasered, OC'd, or otherwise. 

As for OC death claims, you have to go back to the last 10 or 15 years. Whenever OC was relatively new, Amnesty International was making the same claims for the same reason. Now the Taser is the issue Du Jour, so you won't hear about OC in-custody deaths, because it's not en vogue anymore.

One of the largest arguments against the Taser causing any of these incustody deaths is that those subjects who died, did not die while the Taser current was being administered, they died several minutes later after being taken in to custody. The idea that electricity lingers in the body and kills you at a later date is asinine. If it were to cause death, it would cause it while the current is not being administered, electricity does not linger in the body. Exhertion coupled with use of hyper-simulants caused every single death involving tasers, oc and others.

As for Amnesty Internationals motive, it's very simple. They don't want effective law enforcement. They will never state so, because they know it will expose them for what they are. They hate the taser, not because it is dangerous, but because it is safe and effective. There are members of Amnesty International that have some bizarre dream of some anarchist uprising in the united states, and they don't want this kind of device in the hands of police. Have you ever noticed that protestors seem to try and provoke the police in to violent action. That's so they can paint the police as violent thugs whenever they get themselves beaten with clubs. The taser doesn't cause serious injury, and doesn't look excessive on video. Therefore, the radical left views it as a threat to their use of this kind of publicity. The police can simply zap and arrest violent protestors without injury, and without the film of a "thug cop" beating some poor protestor, then they lose publicity. You might think i'm paranoid, but actually listen to these guys. They like it when some cop has to shoot someone, and they get to rant and rave about racist, violent cops. They hate the taser because, even on video, it doesn't look excessive. 

As for the ACLU, that's clear as well. The ACLU is ran by trial lawyers. Trial lawyers hate the taser because the less clients killed and injured, the less lawsuits against police departments, the less money in their pockets. 

The motives of these two groups are despicable on this issue. They determined to invent an issue where none exists. The Taser is a wonderful, and I can say having been hit several times with it myself, that it's both extremely effective and it causes ZERO long term side effects.  

The best argument for taser use is that in Orange Co. Florida, in one year alone injuries to Deputies dropped 80%, and injuries to suspects themselves dropped 67%.  Where's the down side?  Orange Co. Florida sheriff's department went 14 months without a single use of a firearm, a significant drop directly attributed to the taser.  The taser has saved hundreds of lives, thousands of injuries.  Yet, the ACLU and Amnesty International want to argue over the cocaine intoxication deaths of 60 people who died because of their drug use.  Bizarre.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Feb 10, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> I wonder what exactly the ACLU wants to call "reasonable"? Do they want to go back to the "low tec" 70's and allow us to use saps and sap gloves again?? Not that that dosent have its own appeal at times.  This technology has probably saved more lives on each side than they have taken. There is NO 100% "safe" method of using force on somebody, thats just the way it is....
> 
> Just for clarification...I dont carry a Taser. Powers that be appear to be considering it though. Not looking forward to the training...:erg:


Don't worry about the taser training.  It's really not that bad.  It hurts for about 5 seconds like nothing you've ever felt, but when it's over, it's over.  Unlike OC training, the taser ride ends, you get off and feel fine.  There's no after effect.  We shock each other for fun sometimes (I know, it's a sick, twisted definition of fun).  That's why I laugh at the ACLU and Amnesty Internation talking about the "Dreaded Taser".  I've got alligator clip demonstration cartridges, and sometimes we just shock each other.

As for Stinger systems, i'm a little dubious.  I've been reading their press stuff, and the only thing it seems they've improved on the Taser is their catridges.  The power unit actually seems less powerful than the Taser, though I can't be sure because they don't want to talk about it.  I'll have to get a T&E copy and me and my buddies will shock each other with it to find out how powerful it is.  I'll let you guys know.


----------



## James Patrick (Feb 10, 2005)

This thread is an interesting read. I don't know much about Tasers just because there not used in my state legally.

I don't think anyone could dispute that tasers are more effective then OC, especially not after seeing those videos. I don't think anyone is disputing that. I would like to see some hard stats on the % of failure for tasers and on the actual number of deaths attributed to tasers. It's too bad that so many of the stats on the number of deaths are biased - put out by groups with agenda's.

James


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Feb 10, 2005)

James Patrick said:
			
		

> This thread is an interesting read. I don't know much about Tasers just because there not used in my state legally.
> 
> I don't think anyone could dispute that tasers are more effective then OC, especially not after seeing those videos. I don't think anyone is disputing that. I would like to see some hard stats on the % of failure for tasers and on the actual number of deaths attributed to tasers. It's too bad that so many of the stats on the number of deaths are biased - put out by groups with agenda's.
> 
> James


Your best source for real statistics is to take those deaths claimed by Amnesty International and the ACLU, and then read the real coroners reports on every single incident.  A little critical thinking is all that's required to see the fast one that Amnesty and the ACLU is trying to pull. In every single incident the coroner's have discovered that death was caused by cocaine induced psychosis and exertion resulting in cardiac arrest.  Having experience the Taser myself numerous times and having used it in the field, I am 100% confident of it's safety.  The first time you get shocked two things become apparent.  1) You aren't hurt and 2) It's extremely effective.


----------



## Cruentus (Feb 10, 2005)

Sgt Mac, Tgace, and others,

Thanks for the intel. I feel more informed on the issue now.; because tasers are illegal here and not used in our departments, I have never really looked much into them.

All good points. I didn't actually trust the arguements from amnesty or ACLU; which is why I wanted to see more evidence.

Also, OC does have a 70% effectiveness rating - but it is true that the rate doesn't mean that OC completely disables the criminal. It's still effective, but officers still have to fight for the arrest. They just have a lot less of a fight then without it. By the looks of things, tasers seem to take the fight right out of most people for a long enough time to make the arrest.

I was a believer before, but I am even more so now. 

Let us know if you feel a difference between stinger systems and taser, Sgt. Mac... 

 :ultracool 
Paul


----------



## LARS (Feb 11, 2005)

Check Out These two Links:

http://www.opcc.bc.ca/Reports/TASER Report - photos.pdf


and more importantly !!!!!!


http://www.blackwaterusa.com/btw2004/articles/1220sudden.pdf


Darren Laur


----------



## Cruentus (Feb 11, 2005)

LARS said:
			
		

> Check Out These two Links:
> 
> http://www.opcc.bc.ca/Reports/TASER Report - photos.pdf
> 
> ...



Thanks Mr. Laur.

It would appear that these will be good reads, and I will be happy to look through them at the first opportunity!

Paul


----------



## PeachMonkey (Mar 14, 2005)

dearnis.com said:
			
		

> Concerned about being killed by a taser? May I suggest not smoking crack, acting up at 3 in the morning, and then fighting the officers who show up to deal with you?


 Well, it certainly inspires trust in law enforcement when a police officer suggests that resisting arrest justifies being killed by a taser.  Luckily, most LEOs don't make such flip suggestions.


----------



## PeachMonkey (Mar 14, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> As for Amnesty Internationals motive, it's very simple. They don't want effective law enforcement. They will never state so, because they know it will expose them for what they are. They hate the taser, not because it is dangerous, but because it is safe and effective. There are members of Amnesty International that have some bizarre dream of some anarchist uprising in the united states, and they don't want this kind of device in the hands of police.


 Do you have any evidence for this claim of a tie between Amnesty International and anarchist groups?  Given that Amnesty International dedicates itself to human rights and the freedom of political prisoners, I find this difficult to swallow.



			
				sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> As for the ACLU, that's clear as well. The ACLU is ran by trial lawyers. Trial lawyers hate the taser because the less clients killed and injured, the less lawsuits against police departments, the less money in their pockets.


 Given that the ACLU employs its own lawyers, and that trial lawyers that represent the ACLU do so on a pro-bono basis, this argument also doesn't hold much water.  Or do you have evidence to the contrary?

 I'm perfectly willing to believe that the arguments against taser usage have holes and flaws or are simply wrong (you would know better than I), but please don't paint Amnesty and the ACLU with these broad, incorrect brushes to discredit their arguments.


----------



## Tgace (Mar 14, 2005)

Well...I have head (anecdotal) stories of the ACLU turning down cases that were less then "spectacular" for more high profile cases. The point being that the attorneys in question are more interested in building a dossier of cases during their tenure with the ACLU to take into private practice (and ask for more $$).

As to Amnesty International, I would heed them more if they had a more "realistic" approach. It seems like they want to live in a "rainbow and daisy" world where every form of force will be outlawed. While a nice dream. It isnt in line with reality. They also seem to enjoy painting all of us in the military and LE with the same broad brush as "jackbooted thugs". Instead of holding individual offenders/depts. responsible.


----------



## PeachMonkey (Mar 14, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Well...I have head (anecdotal) stories of the ACLU turning down cases that were less then "spectacular" for more high profile cases.


 I've heard reference to these anecdotal stories before as well, but haven't heard any evidence of them before.  I would be curious to see such evidence.  



			
				Tgace said:
			
		

> The point being that the attorneys in question are more interested in building a dossier of cases during their tenure with the ACLU to take into private practice (and ask for more $$).


 It's not at all inconceivable that some lawyers associate themselves with the ACLU in order to further their ambitions beyond the defense of civil liberties.  This does not mean that the ACLU itself is not dedicated to the causes it claims to be devoted to.

 However, again, the accusations of self-serving behavior are conjecture.  We do know quite a bit about the senior legistlative staff of the ACLU. The ACLU's current legislative director, who is stepping down to focus on her family, has been there for over a decade; the executive director, who joined in 2001, previously served with other civil rights advocacy groups; the legal director has been with the ACLU since 1987, and the New York CLU since 1976.



			
				Tgace said:
			
		

> As to Amnesty International, I would heed them more if they had a more "realistic" approach. It seems like they want to live in a "rainbow and daisy" world where every form of force will be outlawed.


 I don't think Amnesty International wants to outlaw all forms of force; as they state here:

http://web.amnesty.org/pages/aboutai-index-eng

 "AIs vision is of a world in which every person enjoys all of the human rights enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other international human rights standards."

 The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, to which the US is a signatory, can be found, among other places, here:

http://web.amnesty.org/pages/aboutai-udhr-eng



			
				Tgace said:
			
		

> They also seem to enjoy painting all of us in the military and LE with the same broad brush as "jackbooted thugs". Instead of holding individual offenders/depts. responsible.


 I think it's probably frustrating in the military and law enforcement because it always feels as though you're caught in the middle between perps on the one hand and civilians on the other who want you here _right now_ when something's wrong, and find you an annoyance at best when you "pick on them" when they happen to be committing a crime, and don't want to even see you at other times.  (That's how my father, who was an LEO, described the feeling, anyway.)  

 However, I don't think Amnesty paints everyone with the brush -- I think that brush is instead implied by the media, by the immature who like to throw stones at any type of authority, and by the insecure who feel that any type of criticism, justified or not, is a personal assault.


----------



## Tgace (Mar 14, 2005)

PS: I dont believe that there is a case yet where a subject has been deemed killed as a direst result of being Tased. In other words...ZAP...dead. I believe all occurred a fairly significant period of time after.

Anyway. Here are some other LE forums I visit. Instead of rehashing someone elses points Ill let yall read em if ya want.

http://forums.officer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=27984&page=1&pp=25

http://community.policeone.com/fusetalk/messageview.cfm?start=1&catid=93&threadid=7155


----------



## Tgace (Mar 14, 2005)

PeachMonkey said:
			
		

> It's not at all inconceivable that some lawyers associate themselves with the ACLU in order to further their ambitions beyond the defense of civil liberties. This does not mean that the ACLU itself is not dedicated to the causes it claims to be devoted to.....
> 
> However, again, the accusations of self-serving behavior are conjecture. We do know quite a bit about the senior legistlative staff of the ACLU. The ACLU's current legislative director, who is stepping down to focus on her family, has been there for over a decade; the executive director, who joined in 2001, previously served with other civil rights advocacy groups; the legal director has been with the ACLU since 1987, and the New York CLU since 1976.


Im sure..and the same can be said of the police when people like to parade out the "dirty cops" and paint the whole profession as corrupt. Nobody here has come out and stated such, but believe me there are those out there who do.


----------



## PeachMonkey (Mar 14, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Im sure..and the same can be said of the police when people like to parade out the "dirty cops" and paint the whole profession as corrupt. Nobody here has come out and stated such, but believe me there are those out there who do.


 People who claim that all cops are corrupt are ignorant, much like those who claim that everyone working in civil liberties or human rights is self-serving.


----------



## PeachMonkey (Mar 14, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> PS: I dont believe that there is a case yet where a subject has been deemed killed as a direst result of being Tased. In other words...ZAP...dead. I believe all occurred a fairly significant period of time after.


 There seems to be a great deal of dispute about cause of death; certainly none of them appear to be:

 -- person is tased 
 -- person dies immediately

 As for whether the taser itself was the cause of death, there is dispute as to whether the taser was (from case to case) the major cause, a contributing cause, or a cause at all; whether the individual in question would have died simply from exertion due to other factors, or if other measures (in some cases, equally abusive) would have also caused death -- etc.  Each case is different.

 The dispute about the taser being able to kill is also somewhat up in the air, as the major study claiming that the taser itself cannot cause death was funded by the weapon's manufacturer.



			
				Tgace said:
			
		

> Anyway. Here are some other LE forums I visit. Instead of rehashing someone elses points Ill let yall read em if ya want.


 There's an interesting mix of discussion on those threads...

 -- Genuine concern about misuse of the weapon
 -- Understandable frustration about constant second-guessing of law enforcement technique by a public that seems to be never satisfied
 -- A belief that some people deserve to die by simply being perps
 -- The belief that some people truly hate law, order, justice, and the american way and do whatever they can to flout LEO's ability to effectively do their job

 Regardless, I think that the issue is more about the use of force, rather than an inherent weakness of the weapon itself.


----------



## Tgace (Mar 14, 2005)

True...I would like to see a study/report of injury/death resulting from unarmed struggle vs. the percentage of injury/death with the Taser before we push the Taser up the force ladder to just below the gun. Id be willing to wager that many if not most of these deaths would have resulted from an unarmed struggle too. 

Much like what happened in that publicized case last year where that large male was acting odd at a restaurant, when police arrived there was a resisting and he was struck (in legitimate areas) with batons by the police. I believe it was Cincinnati(??) and died shortly thereafter. It was caught on camera.


----------



## PeachMonkey (Mar 14, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> True...I would like to see a study/report of injury/death resulting from unarmed struggle vs. the percentage of injury/death with the Taser before we push the Taser up the force ladder to just below the gun. Id be willing to wager that many if not most of these deaths would have resulted from an unarmed struggle too.


 It's an interesting perspective to take, certainly.  The AI report does discuss increasing statistics of injury/death vs arrest.  I think AI proposes a temporary push of the taser up the force ladder only for those LE's that won't pause in its use while they study its safe use.  I agree with you about the deaths from unarmed struggle -- I'm concerned primarily about abuse.  

 The local taser death was with someone who was restrained -- without tasers, they still could have beat the prisoner with batons, or sprayed him, or kicked him.  The problem wasn't the weapon, it was the jailers -- they shouldn't have been tasering him, period.  Of course, if they felt like it was "safe" to go off on the prisoner because the taser is "safe", then maybe AI's recommendations really would address that problem to some degree.



			
				Tgace said:
			
		

> Much like what happened in that publicized case last year where that large male was acting odd at a restaurant, when police arrived there was a resisting and he was struck (in legitimate areas) with batons by the police. I believe it was Cincinnati(??) and died shortly thereafter. It was caught on camera.


 I'm not sure what this has to do with the taser discussion, but it's an interesting example of how quickly LEOs can be singled out for "abuse" when defending themselves.


----------



## Tgace (Mar 14, 2005)

PeachMonkey said:
			
		

> I'm not sure what this has to do with the taser discussion, but it's an interesting example of how quickly LEOs can be singled out for "abuse" when defending themselves.


Well..its an illustration that other tools can be just as likely to cause death as the Taser. What study has AI shown to prove the Taser has a higher statistical likelihood of killing than unarmed/baton/OC techniques?


----------



## Tgace (Mar 14, 2005)

PeachMonkey said:
			
		

> The local taser death was with someone who was restrained -- without tasers, they still could have beat the prisoner with batons, or sprayed him, or kicked him. The problem wasn't the weapon, it was the jailers -- they shouldn't have been tasering him, period. Of course, if they felt like it was "safe" to go off on the prisoner because the taser is "safe", then maybe AI's recommendations really would address that problem to some degree.


Not to be flip... but so what? We have to wait until its been shown that you can abuse somebody with the Taser without killing him?? See my point? I dont know of any LEO's that are unaware of the possibility of death/injury with any use of force....plenty of prisoners have died from plain old beatings because the "screws" didnt think a few punches would kill anybody.


----------



## PeachMonkey (Mar 14, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Well..its an illustration that other tools can be just as likely to cause death as the Taser. What study has AI shown to prove the Taser has a higher statistical likelihood of killing than unarmed/baton/OC techniques?


 AI's primary concern isn't death alone, but also growing evidence of the use of the taser as a weapon of excessive force.

 For instance, in Orange County, Florida, AI's study shows that use of force against suspects had doubled since tasers were issued, even though fewer suspects were arrested and the use of other kinds of force (including batons, firearms, dogs, and sprays) went down, suggesting that officers might actually be using tasers in situations where they may previously have not been using _any force whatsoever_.

 As for the higher liklihood of killing than other techniques, AI has not done a study; neither has anyone else.  As Amnesty points out, _no one_ has done an independent, peer-reviewed study of the dangers of the modern generation of taser devices.  That's why they want a moratorium on their use until those studies are done.


----------



## Tgace (Mar 14, 2005)

PeachMonkey said:
			
		

> even though fewer suspects were arrested and the use of other kinds of force (including batons, firearms, dogs, and sprays) went down.


Isnt this part a good thing? And if you are using the Taser instead of these more "dangerous" tools isnt the incident of their use going to go up? I dont think you can automatically draw the conclusion that the Taser is being used "needlessly" from that. OC is supposed to be "non-lethal" however I still use it less than my voice and hands....


----------



## PeachMonkey (Mar 14, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Not to be flip... but so what? We have to wait until its been shown that you can abuse somebody with the Taser without killing him?? See my point?


 No, I don't see the "so what" here. If the jailers felt that the taser's "safety" made it a "safe bet" to torture a prisoner, and AI's suggestions reduce the possibility that prisoners will be _tortured to death in American jails_, then I don't think that's a "so what" at all.  Or am I misinterpreting you?

 I'm really not trying to be argumentative or insulting, by the way, I'm just really passionate about the whole tasering-someone-to-death-in-my-local-jail-thing. By the way: Amnesty got the jail wrong in their report... it's Monroe County Indiana, not Georgia.



			
				Tgace said:
			
		

> I dont know of any LEO's that are unaware of the possibility of death/injury with any use of force....plenty of prisoners have died from plain old beatings because the "screws" didnt think a few punches would kill anybody.


 Which makes honest corrections officers and other LEOs look bad.  And groups like Amnesty will always work to try and prevent that sort of thing.


----------



## PeachMonkey (Mar 14, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Isnt this part a good thing?


  Yep, sure is.  They should be applauded for that part.

 But Amnesty's report isn't about declining crime rates in Orange County. It's about taser abuse; and when those rates go down, and taser use goes up, it suggests (to AI, anyway, the possibility) that tasers are being used at times when cops used to not use force at all.


----------



## Tgace (Mar 14, 2005)

It seems youre saying "stop using Tasers until they are proven 100% safe". Which, even if it were, wouldnt have made its use by those guards any less wrong. Thats my point.

Any study is going to find that ANY use of force carries a risk.


----------



## PeachMonkey (Mar 14, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> It seems youre saying "stop using Tasers until they are proven 100% safe". Which, even if it were, wouldnt have made its use by those guards any less wrong. Thats my point.


 I think Amnesty's saying something like "stop using tasers until their safety parameters are better understood".  I think you're actually right; no matter how safe they are, those guards shouldn't have been tasering that dude.

 I just posted in the other thread (I know you couldn't have seen this when you wrote the post I quoted above) that I'm probably more in agreement with you than with Amnesty; rather than taking tasers out of use entirely, I hope that this controversy gets every LE org that uses them to study them, form a policy, and seriously train in their use, and that the independent, peer-reviewed studies that AI calls for are done.

 As AI points out in their article that you cannot eliminate risk or the need for the use of force.


----------



## TonyM. (Mar 14, 2005)

Ablolutely true about the need for force, ie. if anyone I know ever gets tasered I will hunt down and cripple the person that did it .


----------



## loki09789 (Mar 14, 2005)

PeachMonkey said:
			
		

> I think Amnesty's saying something like "stop using tasers until their safety parameters are better understood". I think you're actually right; no matter how safe they are, those guards shouldn't have been tasering that dude.
> 
> I just posted in the other thread (I know you couldn't have seen this when you wrote the post I quoted above) that I'm probably more in agreement with you than with Amnesty; rather than taking tasers out of use entirely, I hope that this controversy gets every LE org that uses them to study them, form a policy, and seriously train in their use, and that the independent, peer-reviewed studies that AI calls for are done.
> 
> As AI points out in their article that you cannot eliminate risk or the need for the use of force.


Tasers are tools.  How do the statistics of Taser related (while being used procedurally properly) compare to firearms/baton/empty hand related injury/deaths?  

I think if you were to compare the stats within the same time window (instead of the longer period of firearm/baton to the shorter period of tazer), then the Tazer comes out the clear winner.

It is not the tool that is the 'evil' but the applier.  In the case of tasing someone to death or misusing ANY tool....that is where legal/professional standards and practices come into play.

Now if there were a number of cases where properly used Tazer situations were leading to death and perm. injury...procedures need to be changed and reevaluated.


----------



## dearnis.com (Mar 14, 2005)

> Well, it certainly inspires trust in law enforcement when a police officer suggests that resisting arrest justifies being killed by a taser. Luckily, most LEOs don't make such flip suggestions.



No, my suggestion is that individuals are responsible for their actions.  The allegedly taser-induced deaths are part of a broader phenomenon known as "excited delerium" which has been blamed for numerous in-custody deaths, usually following apprehension.  This is also the reason why choke-holds/LVNR, hobbles, and other techniques are now increasingly prohibited.  The mechanism is pretty much the same in all cases; the suspect panics, fights, then panics more when subdued and restrained.  At some point the heart over-revs, redlines, and stops.  The common factor in these cases appears to be cocaine intoxication, or a combination of cocaine and other intoxicants.  
So what is the reason these suspects are dying?  I am suggesting, albeit in a flippant way, that it is due to their choice of recreational drug, their choice of action brining them into conflict with society, and an expectation that the responding officer "do something."  
May I ask what you would suggest?

Also, on the nonsense line about jailers using tasers to torture prisoners, you do understand that there is chip that  records the usage data, and that paper markers fire every time the unit is discharged?


----------



## Cruentus (Mar 14, 2005)

dearnis.com said:
			
		

> Also, on the nonsense line about jailers using tasers to torture prisoners, you do understand that there is chip that  records the usage data, and that paper markers fire every time the unit is discharged?



I am not knowledgable on the issue, but I assume that officers wouldn't be allowed to taz someone who is restrained (cuffed). Is that correct?

Paul


----------



## Tgace (Mar 14, 2005)

Tulisan said:
			
		

> I am not knowledgable on the issue, but I assume that officers wouldn't be allowed to taz someone who is restrained (cuffed). Is that correct?
> 
> Paul


I would think that would depend on the policy of the dept. in question. Sometimes people in cuffs can still run, kick, bite, resist (kick out squad car windows), slam their heads into walls/dividers. Depending on how crazy they get some use of force could be necessary to restrain them even further.


----------



## dearnis.com (Mar 14, 2005)

Right on.  Handcuffs are not a cure all, they merely diminish the threat.  Movies aside, think about what, in your martial careers, you have seen really skilled people do with their feet, knees, etc.


----------



## Cruentus (Mar 14, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> I would think that would depend on the policy of the dept. in question. Sometimes people in cuffs can still run, kick, bite, resist (kick out squad car windows), slam their heads into walls/dividers. Depending on how crazy they get some use of force could be necessary to restrain them even further.



Absolutely. People can do a lot of damage to themselves and others while restrained. I just wondering if it was against policy to use the tazer on a restrained person or not. I have heard that it's generally not allowed, but that could be wrong. Besides, as you say, I guess that would depend on the State and the department...

Because Tazers aren't used in MI, I am not really up on a lot of this stuff...

Paul


----------



## Tgace (Mar 14, 2005)

Yeah..Im kind of going on what I know about LEO policy myself as we dont have them either.


----------



## PeachMonkey (Mar 14, 2005)

dearnis.com said:
			
		

> May I ask what you would suggest?


 Given that it is not clear whether or not a taser may exacerbate the cardiac condition you describe above, I would suggest that perhaps, as Amnesty suggests in their report, that tasering might also be a use of force that should be re-evaluated when people are restrained and freaking out.  

 And that perhaps not every death of a perp in police custody happens simply because that person made a "bad choice".  Sometimes even someone who does cocaine and acts up, thus getting, into police custody may not end up dying if they're not abused by law enforcement.  Most likely very, very rare, but possible.



			
				dearnis.com said:
			
		

> Also, on the nonsense line about jailers using tasers to torture prisoners, you do understand that there is chip that records the usage data, and that paper markers fire every time the unit is discharged?


 Perhaps it seems like a "nonsense line" to you, but jailers in my town killed someone.  With tasers.  Perhaps those markers and chips are part of the evidence that led to the indictments in question.


----------



## dearnis.com (Mar 14, 2005)

> Sometimes even someone who does cocaine and acts up, thus getting, into police custody may not end up dying if they're not abused by law enforcement



So being taken into custody is the same as being abused?  Shall we just let them run amok if they won't come along when you say "pretty please?"  

As an aside, have you ever been asaulted by someone strung out on crack, meth, or PCP?  Just curious....



> Perhaps it seems like a "nonsense line" to you, but jailers in my town killed someone. With tasers. Perhaps those markers and chips are part of the evidence that led to the indictments in question.


Which is why they are there (the markers that is).

Another aside; do they make supressors for Tasers?


----------



## Cruentus (Mar 14, 2005)

> Another aside; do they make supressors for Tasers?



Only on the ones that shoot 1500 yards...thank goodness!

:rofl:


----------



## Tgace (Mar 14, 2005)

That wire spool is a ***** to haul around though.


----------



## Cruentus (Mar 14, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> That wire spool is a ***** to haul around though.



Yes...but I haven't had a problem with it; I just duct tape it to my calf next to my ASP Baton when I am working the mall...

:rofl:


----------



## Tgace (Mar 14, 2005)

Man..what would we do without you out there?


----------



## PeachMonkey (Mar 14, 2005)

dearnis.com said:
			
		

> So being taken into custody is the same as being abused?


 Can you find a post where I said that being taken into custody equates abuse?  Thanks.  

 In fact, I just said that abuse in custody is:



			
				PeachMonkey said:
			
		

> ...very, very rare...





			
				dearnis.com said:
			
		

> As an aside, have you ever been asaulted by someone strung out on crack, meth, or PCP? Just curious....


 Nope, but my father, who was a cop and a chief of police, has.  He was a policeman in the days when the common response to someone on PCP was "MagLite-time".  Even the worst-case scenario with the taser is lightyears above those dark days.



			
				dearnis.com said:
			
		

> Another aside; do they make supressors for Tasers?


 What kind of supressor are you talking about?  Since a taser's not a gun, neither a flash nor a noise supressor from a firearm would be applicable -- unless you know something I don't, as an LEO.  Are you talking about suppressing the noise of firing the prongs?


----------



## Tgace (Mar 14, 2005)

Its an "inside" thing PM...not really a question or directed at you.


----------



## PeachMonkey (Mar 14, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Its an "inside" thing PM...not really a question or directed at you.


 Right on... thanks for clearing that up.


----------



## dearnis.com (Mar 14, 2005)

Fair answers...and yes, the last was in no way directed to you or to the thread topic.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Mar 15, 2005)

Tulisan said:
			
		

> I am not knowledgable on the issue, but I assume that officers wouldn't be allowed to taz someone who is restrained (cuffed). Is that correct?
> 
> Paul


Handcuffs are not magic restraint devices that automatically make someone compliant. I can injure you severly with my hands cuffed behind my back. Hans Marrero made a video where in he is handcuffed, and then disarms an officer and shoots him with his own weapon, the whole time being handcuffed behind his back. The point is, being handcuffed does not automatically make you "restrained", a myth it's time to dispell. If you are handcuffed, you can still kick, bite, headbutt, etc. No reasonable policy should automatically state "no handcuffed subject should be tasered". If so, what level of force should be used on a violent handcuffed subject? That statement is not meant as any disrespect, however, as the handcuff belief is common among folks who have never dealt with a violent, resisting, handcuffed subject. I think it comes from watching TV and seeing that on TV, when the handcuffs are on, the fights over. But, as with much in real, violent situations, much of what people believe about it is myth.


As for the earlier statement about Amnesty International and the ACLU, the proof of their real intent is shown in their process of selecting issues to crusade. Increasingly, Amnesty International has been nothing more than a tool for attacking US policy and law enforcement. They no longer champion human rights world wide, so much as make every attempt to handcuff and restrain civilian law enforcement from being able to enforce the law. This mind set is based upon the ideology of many of AI's current leadership, which have a radical left wing agenda. AI works hand in hand with many of the anarchist and neo-marxist groups who manage to cause such havoc anytime a G8 or WTO summit comes to town. The real reason that Amnesty International dislikes Taser and other less lethal technology, is that they feel less lethal technology is a threat to it's radical agenda. Protesters thrive on violent confrontations with the police. They spread their message by forcing the police in to an overreaction that results in bloodshed, thereby showing how "violent" and "repressive" the government is. Any tool that allows police to subdue violent protestors without bloodshed shortcircuits the protestors intent by denying them the sort of violent police response that will guarantee them media coverage and a sympathetic public. This is a concerted effort to deny the use of effective less lethal weaponry in the hands of law enforcement for a political agenda.

I've probably got more experience with the Taser M26 and X26 than anyone so far in this forum. I've been shocked numerous times with the taser, and the controversy over it's medical safety is purely contrived. AI's agenda is to force the Taser in to being a substitute for LETHAL force only. The ultimate goal of AI is to disarm law enforcement from carrying firearms, and force law enforcement to carry the taser in the place of the firearm, with the same restrictions as currently given to the firearm. 

Don't fall for the fact that AI and the ACLU they desire any kind of independent study or any reasonable questions about the Taser to be answered. AI and the ACLU have an agenda, and they will not stop their onslaught until they achieve that agenda, which has nothing to do with the safety of the Taser. Many of the statistics provided by the ACLU and AI are distortions and outright lies. 

The idea that Taser use has increased the incidents of use of force is a wild distortion of reality. The truth is that the Taser has been substituted for other uses of force. Our overall departmental uses of force have actually declined since we instituted the Taser. Further, the Orange Co. study cited a 76% reduction in SUSPECT injury since the Taser was introduced, in addition to the 86% reduction in Officer injury. AI and the ACLU don't cite that, they merely try and cook the numbers to reflect their agenda. If the Taser was not safe, it wouldn't be REDUCING injuries to suspects. 

Ask the suspects what use of force they'd prefer given the choice. I know if I was a suspect, i'd far rather be Tasered, than pepper sprayed, struck with a baton, bean bagged, etc. (I've been hit with all of them.) When the Taser is turned off, it's over. OC Spray makes you suffer long after you've been subdued.

This same controversy occurred from AI and the ACLU 10 years ago over OC Spray. 20 years ago it was the LVNR. The Taser is just the cause du jour. They will distort, lie and manipulate public opinion until they get what they want.

I have an open invitation to anyone who believes that, though they have never worked in any kind of law enforcement capacity, that they know better than law enforcement how and when to use force, and how much force is reasonable. In the past i've volunteered to play "suspect" while these folks test out their "theories" about force. Most folks usually leave with a whole new perspective about force and what a reasonable officer should do in a given situation. The most eye openning are the ones who believe that a handcuffed suspect is restrained. A few kicks to their legs and a few knees to their body takes care of that illusion.

If this topic seems like it is one I take personally, it's because I do. I hear an awful lot of opinions about the Taser that have no basis in reality. There's a huge misunderstanding about the Taser and what it will and won't do. What really irritates me is that much of this misunderstanding is being purposely fostered by some with a political agenda.  I know from intimate, personal experience with the Taser, that much of what is being said isn't true.  Being shocked with the Taser is unpleasant, but it's nothing like what is being claimed.  Anyone who has the experience of having been shocked by the Taser will know what I am talking about.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Mar 17, 2005)

I thought this might add some insight in to the discussion. This is a debate between Taser CEO Rick Smith and Amnesty International USA President William F. Schultz. 
You can see the video here: 
http://www.criticalmention.net/vg/taser
Or download the video here: 
http://www.taser.com/debate_audio.wma
Or simply download the transcript here:
http://www.taser.com/documents/TASER_AIUSA_debate.pdf

In my opinion, Schultz's most honest statement was that he didn't know the truth. The rest was hyperbole and vague generalizations that were meant more for emotional response than any real addition to the dialogue. The grandmother analogy was a hoot, and it worked against Schultz. It doesn't take a genius to know that Amnesty doesn't have much real standing on this issue, as evidenced listening to their spokesman and president here. I don't think Amnesty International wants too many people to hear this (as evidenced as the fact that I couldn't find any obvious link or mention of the debate, by it's president, on it's website). Schultz had an ax to grind, and it came out as arrogance and sarcasm. Rick Smith ate his lunch, and even came off sounding like the nicer guy. Schultz just came off as an intentional distorter of facts and a chicken little scare monger. Listen to him spin when an audience member pins him down and asks him what other options police should use. He didn't sound exactly comfortable giving a straight answer. It also seemed as if he had to strain to be reasonable and admit police had a job that needed to be done.  Specifics is where the rubber hits the road.


----------



## PeachMonkey (Mar 24, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> They no longer champion human rights world wide, so much as make every attempt to handcuff and restrain civilian law enforcement from being able to enforce the law.


 So when AI members write letters to repressive dictatorships around the world asking them to free political prisoners, is this simply trying to handcuff and restrain civilian law enforcement?



			
				sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> AI works hand in hand with many of the anarchist and neo-marxist groups who manage to cause such havoc anytime a G8 or WTO summit comes to town.


 Do you have evidence of AI's ties to radical protest groups?



			
				sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> The real reason that Amnesty International dislikes Taser and other less lethal technology, is that they feel less lethal technology is a threat to it's radical agenda.


 Quite right -- I know that a policeman with a taser is a definite threat to my radical ability to write a letter of protest.



			
				sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> Protesters thrive on violent confrontations with the police.


 ALL protestors, of course, just like ALL police with tasers misuse them?

 You've claimed time and again that AI and ACLU have an agenda and that their statistics are fabricated; I suggest that you prove the existence of this agenda, or I'll simply consider you a troll.


----------



## Tgace (Mar 24, 2005)

While Im not a rabbid "AI basher", this article sums up some of the "issues" with AI many of us have...

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/631062/posts


----------



## Rich Parsons (Mar 24, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> While Im not a rabbid "AI basher", this article sums up some of the "issues" with AI many of us have...
> 
> http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/631062/posts



Tom,

When I read AI, as I jumped to your post as the newest, I thought Artificial Intelignece. Then I remembered a discussion from a Phil/Psych class where the instructor mentioned that some in a class thought AI was Artifical Insemination, then I clicked the link and Amnesty International is what you meant by AI.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Mar 24, 2005)

PeachMonkey said:
			
		

> So when AI members write letters to repressive dictatorships around the world asking them to free political prisoners, is this simply trying to handcuff and restrain civilian law enforcement?
> 
> 
> Do you have evidence of AI's ties to radical protest groups?
> ...


Consider me what you will, but AI's behavior speaks for itself on the domestic front. Tgace posted an article that perfectly outlines my issues with AI.  I suggest you deal with the facts, and not make the subject about me (otherwise known as an ad hominem attack).


----------



## arnisador (Nov 9, 2005)

http://www.cnn.com/2005/EDUCATION/11/08/taser.cam.ap/index.html?section=cnn_latest

A camera to go on your taser to record the altercation.


----------



## Icewater (Nov 12, 2005)

Aside from the political agenda, I've been told by police officers not to let me wife rely on tasers as a good SD weapon.  Other than the obvious reason that getting it out of teh purse in time won't work, I was also told that unless you hit the attacker in the torso, they can still be dangerous.  That true?  Or should I have read pages 3,4,5 of the post?


----------



## arnisador (Nov 13, 2005)

There was a Taser skit on Saturday Night Live this weekend. It's now mainstream!


----------

