Amnesty International Taser Report

[modarnis]

>>Originally Posted by Tgace
What ugly results could have happened in this situation without the taser?
http://www.compfused.com/directlink/532/>>

Site worked okay today and wasn't interupted by my workplace firewall, so maybe the spyware problem got corrected.

The video clip shows how effective a tool the tazer is, when used by a properly trained officer, in conjunction with loud, clear verbal instructions to the perpetrator. Two of the 6 departments in our jurisdiction are using them, with excellent results and a dramatic decline in use of force complaints.

As Dearnis pointed out on the other thread, if you are concerned about harmful effects of being tazed, don't fight with the police. Actions have consequences

 

[Flatlander]

I also would like to see serious, independent, peer-reviewed studies on the effects of modern tasers, including on people with cardiac defects, people taking various drugs, in various stress positions, etc etc, so their effects are unequivocally known.

I agree, this would be great, but, is it possible to execute such a study?

 

[PeachMonkey]

As Dearnis pointed out on the other thread, if you are concerned about harmful effects of being tazed, don't fight with the police. Actions have consequences

The AI report points out that some LEOs use tasers on people that are incapable of understanding this consequential link, including the mentally ill. The report also lists multiple incidents of tasers being used on individuals who refuse to comply with verbal orders, including a 15-year old schoolgirl. Does refusing to comply with a verbal order mean that you deserve to be shocked with an electrical weapon? Does it equate "fighting with the police"?

Moreover, if the taser does, in fact, have the potential to kill some people with cardiac problems, on certain drugs, and the like, do people who "fight the police" simply deserve to die?

 

[PeachMonkey]

I agree, this would be great, but, is it possible to execute such a study?

The weapon's manufacturers have already completed studies on the effects of earlier generation taser weapons in comparison to other electrical shock instruments such as defibrillators (as the AI report already discussed in detail, along with further study suggestions by British law enforcement and medical authorities), so it would imply that a study protocol could be devised.

 

[Bammx2]

who was hopped on PCP and White Castles

I'm sorry...I just got to that part and strained somethin laughin too hard!!!!

PCP is bad enough,but combine it with rat burgers...you got a fight on yer hands there,boy!

 

[Flatlander]

do people who "fight the police" simply deserve to die?

I would say no, however, they do deserve to suffer the consequences of those actions, be they what they may. If it means an escalated risk of death, then they've made a bad choice....

Now, I understand that room needs to be made for the people who haven't "made that choice", which is to say, hadn't the mental capacity to use discretion. Ultimately, IF these situations are being approached with the public safety in mind, then what more can we ask?

It's impossible to achieve perfection. Should more studies be done on the Tazer? Yes, certainly. I think, though, that it is irresponsible to the public to eliminate this tool altogether, without having an equally or more effective replacement option. There is a gap in the force continuum that this one fills, and to remove it may necessitate more frequent sidearm deployment.

 

[shesulsa]

I agree, this would be great, but, is it possible to execute such a study?

It would be possible if certain volunteers had already signed some of their rights away, such as prison inmates or GIs. (I'm not suggesting the latter)

 

[PeachMonkey]

I'm sorry...I just got to that part and strained somethin laughin too hard!!!!

I'm glad my intended effect came across I know once I've got a few jalapeno sliders in me, you might need hazmat suits to approach...

 

[PeachMonkey]

I would say no, however, they do deserve to suffer the consequences of those actions, be they what they may. If it means an escalated risk of death, then they've made a bad choice....

So if I go to jail and some jailers decide to start torturing me with tasers because they think it's a safe way to cause me excruciating electrical pain without killing me, have I "made a bad choice"?

If I'm protesting against a third-world dictatorship (remember, Amnesty is against taser use in nations other than the US, too) and some riot cop decides to taser me for having the courage to stand up for my beliefs, have I "made a bad choice"?

It's impossible to achieve perfection. Should more studies be done on the Tazer? Yes, certainly. I think, though, that it is irresponsible to the public to eliminate this tool altogether, without having an equally or more effective replacement option. There is a gap in the force continuum that this one fills, and to remove it may necessitate more frequent sidearm deployment.

Luckily, Amnesty International isn't calling for the complete elimination of the taser.

 

[PeachMonkey]

It would be possible if certain volunteers had already signed some of their rights away, such as prison inmates or GIs. (I'm not suggesting the latter)

One need not actually shock people on drugs and with heart problems to calculate these effects. This is not the 1940's and we're not Nazi doctors freezing prisoners in water to examine hypothermia.

Even the suggestion of having prisoners "sign their rights away" and testing the taser on them is appalling.

 

[shesulsa]

I was being facetious, PM.

 

[Flatlander]

So if I go to jail and some jailers decide to start torturing me with tasers because they think it's a safe way to cause me excruciating electrical pain without killing me, have I "made a bad choice"?

If I'm protesting against a third-world dictatorship (remember, Amnesty is against taser use in nations other than the US, too) and some riot cop decides to taser me for having the courage to stand up for my beliefs, have I "made a bad choice"?

Granted, this too is a major part of the difficulty here. In much the same way as you may be against extreme measures of gun control, yet recognize that some people have the ability to carry and use guns responsibly, so too must you see that some nations haven't the humane ability to treat their citizens appropriately, while others do (generally speaking). This is most certainly an issue with the user, not the tool.

I concur completely with the assertion that there are documented circumstances wherein Tasers have been misused in the US, and abroad. I also agree that if it can be shown that these issues are the direct result of an inappropriate regulatory mandate on the use of Tasers, Amnesty International has a responsibility to intervene.

I cannot agree that we can discuss issues happening in an enlightened democracy where the people's rights are protected by a just constitution in comparison with the things that go on in a third world dictatorship. So, let me clarify:

In the US, if somebody puts themselves into a position that warrants the generally accepted use of a Taser, and gets Tased, they ought to bear the responsibility for their own actions. The fact remains that this tool fills a less than lethal niche, and is a necessary (at this time) component which rounds out the available options.

I would go further to say that, in a third world dictatorship, if one chooses to protest and make a stand for their convictions, they ought to realize that they are putting themselves at great risk. Have they made a bad choice? They chose what they felt was right. But they would need to be deluded if they figured they'd pull it off without getting hurt. Is that just? No, of course not. Amnesty International, in that circumstance, should be looking at the human rights violations specifically. The tool used is largely irrelevant in comparison to the action of torture itself.

 

[PeachMonkey]

I was being facetious, PM.

Glad to hear it, shesulsa. Tone is hard to tell online -- sorry if I jumped down your throat.

 

[PeachMonkey]

In the US, if somebody puts themselves into a position that warrants the generally accepted use of a Taser, and gets Tased, they ought to bear the responsibility for their own actions.

I guess I can agree with your statement, with caveats and emphasis.

-- By "generally accepted use", I'd say that the taser is an excellent tool in the way used by the UK (i.e., self-defence in replacement of lethal force); it's also well-used by many American LEOs (for instance, dangerous and belligerent perps) in the defense of citizens and LEOs when other uses of force would be more harmful and less effective. I don't, however, feel that everyone in the US wielding the taser is doing so responsibly or well.

-- Yes, those perps are responsible for their own actions and the consequences. If you force police to use force on you, so be it. However, I still don't buy the implied notion that people who resist the police "deserve what's comin' to 'em". Death and force is tragic for everyone involved.

 

[shesulsa]

Glad to hear it, shesulsa. Tone is hard to tell online -- sorry if I jumped down your throat.

No problem, you climbed back out without the hint of a gag reflex from me. :ultracool My bad, PM.

 

[modarnis]

The AI report points out that some LEOs use tasers on people that are incapable of understanding this consequential link, including the mentally ill. The report also lists multiple incidents of tasers being used on individuals who refuse to comply with verbal orders, including a 15-year old schoolgirl. Does refusing to comply with a verbal order mean that you deserve to be shocked with an electrical weapon? Does it equate "fighting with the police"?

Moreover, if the taser does, in fact, have the potential to kill some people with cardiac problems, on certain drugs, and the like, do people who "fight the police" simply deserve to die?

LEO's are frequently called out to deal with situations where people may not be competent to understand anything for mental illness, diminished mental function, or substance use/abuse. It seems unclear that they would be able to understand any consequence, whether it involve use of force, or simply their car being towed away or whatever.

Most police agencies operate on some use of force continuom, with verbal commands at one end and deadly force at the other. Police use this force to secure a scene for investigation, detain a subject for medical/pschological treatment, or to affect an arrest.

To answer your specific questions:

>>Does refusing to comply with a verbal order mean that you deserve to be shocked with an electrical weapon?>>

First, it depends on the verbal order. Officers responding to a possibly armed subject who refuses to show their hands is different than a person complaining about getting a speeding ticket who the officer is asking to move along.

Next it seems to depend on where department policy puts tazer use on the force scale.

Deserve probably not; necessitate?, often times an escalation of force is necessary to protect the subject, the officers, and other third parties and property for further injury.

>>> if the taser does, in fact, have the potential to kill some people with cardiac problems, on certain drugs, and the like, do people who "fight the police" simply deserve to die?>>

Again, deserve, wrong word in my mind. In my opinion, people often consent to bad things happening to them, deserving it or not is more of a moral judgement of the appropriateness of consequences. You fight with the police , run from the police , or simply run with scissors in your own home, you open the door to potential harmful consequences.

Unfortunately police do not have the luxury of getting detailed medical histories from amped up people who are engaged in unruly behavior. They need to make reasonable, split second decisions based on a particular set of circumstances to gain control of a situation. Having recently been to a funeral for a line of duty death involving a cop I had as a witness in one of my trials before Thanksgiving, I understand how high the stakes are for cops. I also understand that there are plenty of bad cops, who misuse there authority. Deal with the bad apples and their issues, attacking the tools, which are effective when used properly seems silly.

 

[ginshun]

Maybe some more education/research is needed on the actual effects of TAZERS? I could go along with that one.

I think that it is also valuble to look at this issue from the other side. I see the stat of the roughly 70 some people that have been killed by tazers, but how many people have been saved? How many criminals out there that were subdued with a tazer and brought in uninjured would have taken a .38 to the chest had the tazer not been available?

Incidentally, I believe on the Jackass episode that Knoxville got stun gunned, tazered and pepper sprayed, he said that the pepper spray was the worst of the three, as far as discomfort/pain goes anyway.

 

[Tgace]

Been sprayed a few times....believe me it sucks. Even after you are able to keep your eyes open again, the skin can feel like its on fire for hours after. If its in you hair and you take a shower, it can hit you all over again when the water carries it back into your eyes.

 

[Tgace]

The Taser/OC was designed to fill the gap between verbal commands and "hands on" in the force continuum. When you have to "roll" with a suspect, bad things happen. Often times to the suspect because the LEO has to control the situation ASAP and things escalate. And sometimes its the LEO who gets hurt or disarmed and shot with his own weapon. There has to be a tool to use when a person just plain refuses to obey a lawfull command. Sometimes you can talk until you are blue in the face and use all the "verbal de-escalation" techniques in the world and the suspect will just say "F-U". The AI statement about not using tasers on people who are verbally abusive, non-violent etc. is a little misleading. If I Taser somebody its because I am going to take them into some form of custody. They are wording it like we just use it in people who piss us off and thats not the case. If I tell you you are under arrest and you become verbally abusive and refuse to do what I tell you I can either put the leather gloves on and put us in a situation where one or bolth of us can get hurt, or I can use one of these tools that have been shown to be statistically safe and effective. And as its been stated previously, its "you" who have the choice.....

 

[Ray]

Been sprayed a few times....believe me it sucks. Even after you are able to keep your eyes open again, the skin can feel like its on fire for hours after. If its in you hair and you take a shower, it can hit you all over again when the water carries it back into your eyes.

I've been curious if the spray does anything to soft contacts...like melt them or something?