OP
- Thread Starter
- #41
kenpotex said:
Yes, I'd take that chance if it would save her from getting tazed.
Is it OK to tase a 9 yr. old?
- Thread starter OULobo
- Start date
- Status
Yes, I'd take that chance if it would save her from getting tazed.
Hmmm...
5 seconds of "**** that hurts" vs. possibility of being stabbed, bloodshed, injury and possible maiming?
I gotta disagree here...Zap me please.
needles can break. or be deflected.
Remember, a key point here is "The girl was not injured and received no medical treatment. " Pepper sprays can cause vison problems, sedatives can cause reactions, needles can cut and cause injury. A miscalculation in the amount of force used to restrain can cause injury, bruises at best. I would guess that this officers thoughts were along the lines of 'how can I safely subdue her without injury to her, me and my car?".
Some additional news reports:
http://mobile.azstarnet.com/sn/pda/23888.html
"A spokesman for the Scottsdale-based manufacturer of the device said Tasers do no more harm to children than adults and often results in less-serious injuries."
http://www.sf.indymedia.org/news/2004/05/1694854.php
Keep in mind, a 1 year old has the strength to poke an eye causing damage, without meaning to. A pre-teen flailing violently has the potential to do more, especially in a confined space.
http://www.tucsoncitizen.com/index.php?page=local&story_id=052804a4_tasing
"The Taser was requested before she was handcuffed, not after as reported Wednesday in the Citizen, South Tucson Police Chief Sixto Molina said."
"There's clearly a pattern showing this girl fights with all of her might every time that police try to assist in bringing her back to the school."
Of course, there is the other side of the argument:
http://anti-state.com/forum/index.php?board=1;action=display;threadid=10125
Please, if my kid is out there, and a cop needs to somehow restrain him, zap him.
Don't cause him damage to his eyes from the spray, don't beat him with a stick, don't sit on him and bruise his ribs, or try to sedate him with a needle so that when he thrashes he slices himself open. Until I can see proof that my local cops are trained in handling children safely, have the medical training needed to apply a sedative, and have the experience to know just how much of their 180-250lb frame to drop on the kid, just zap him. Please.
5 seconds of "**** that hurts" vs. possibility of being stabbed, bloodshed, injury and possible maiming?
I gotta disagree here...Zap me please.
needles can break. or be deflected.
Remember, a key point here is "The girl was not injured and received no medical treatment. " Pepper sprays can cause vison problems, sedatives can cause reactions, needles can cut and cause injury. A miscalculation in the amount of force used to restrain can cause injury, bruises at best. I would guess that this officers thoughts were along the lines of 'how can I safely subdue her without injury to her, me and my car?".
Some additional news reports:
http://mobile.azstarnet.com/sn/pda/23888.html
"A spokesman for the Scottsdale-based manufacturer of the device said Tasers do no more harm to children than adults and often results in less-serious injuries."
http://www.sf.indymedia.org/news/2004/05/1694854.php
Keep in mind, a 1 year old has the strength to poke an eye causing damage, without meaning to. A pre-teen flailing violently has the potential to do more, especially in a confined space.
http://www.tucsoncitizen.com/index.php?page=local&story_id=052804a4_tasing
"The Taser was requested before she was handcuffed, not after as reported Wednesday in the Citizen, South Tucson Police Chief Sixto Molina said."
"There's clearly a pattern showing this girl fights with all of her might every time that police try to assist in bringing her back to the school."
Of course, there is the other side of the argument:
http://anti-state.com/forum/index.php?board=1;action=display;threadid=10125
Please, if my kid is out there, and a cop needs to somehow restrain him, zap him.
Don't cause him damage to his eyes from the spray, don't beat him with a stick, don't sit on him and bruise his ribs, or try to sedate him with a needle so that when he thrashes he slices himself open. Until I can see proof that my local cops are trained in handling children safely, have the medical training needed to apply a sedative, and have the experience to know just how much of their 180-250lb frame to drop on the kid, just zap him. Please.
loki09789
Senior Master
Between the two articles, it sounds like the girl was posing a threat to herself, the LEO/staff (come on if she's kicking the cop trying to restrain her, what is she going to do to someone carrying a needle?) and property (the order of priority was intentional).
Given the options:
1. Tazing for pain compliance (ever grab an electical fence? Hurts about the same)
2. Controlling techniques (risk of injury to both parties)
3. Waiting for back up to strap her down (while she kicks at windows and possibly cuts herself up)
4. Pepper spray (long lasting pain/discomfort, skin irritation, not to mention the residuals getting on all those helpful civil servants trying to keep her from hurting herself any further and help her get better in general)
5. Shooting (not even an option in this case).
Don't know it is the 'best' choice (because I wasn't there to know all the facts) but it does seem to be a better choice than some of the other ones he could have made.
Given the options:
1. Tazing for pain compliance (ever grab an electical fence? Hurts about the same)
2. Controlling techniques (risk of injury to both parties)
3. Waiting for back up to strap her down (while she kicks at windows and possibly cuts herself up)
4. Pepper spray (long lasting pain/discomfort, skin irritation, not to mention the residuals getting on all those helpful civil servants trying to keep her from hurting herself any further and help her get better in general)
5. Shooting (not even an option in this case).
Don't know it is the 'best' choice (because I wasn't there to know all the facts) but it does seem to be a better choice than some of the other ones he could have made.
T
TonyM.
Guest
NO NO NO NO it is never OK to tazer a 9 year old! It shouldn't be OK to tazer adults either as I'm pretty sure they do long term or permanent damage. This story should be a wake up call as to the way people with autism are treated by police and mental health proffesionals in this country.
P.S. Non abusive physical and psycological intervention, NAPPI, has been around for a long time now. From personnal experience as a correctional officer I can tell you it works just fine on fully funtioning adults as well.
P.S. Non abusive physical and psycological intervention, NAPPI, has been around for a long time now. From personnal experience as a correctional officer I can tell you it works just fine on fully funtioning adults as well.
OP
- Thread Starter
- #46
When you see more of them accross the country you will see more and more problems. Right now there doesn't seem to be many problems with tasers because there aren't many, comparably, on the street.
Tgace
Grandmaster
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2003
- Messages
- 7,766
- Reaction score
- 409
Tasers have actually been around since the 70-80's. I would like to see injury stats (when gathered) compared to "hands on injuries". What are the "severe and permanent injuries" that you believe will happen with the Taser?
http://nysdemo1.safetysites.net/airtaserinfo.php
http://www.byrdenterprises.com/yoursafety/taserinfo.htm#eye
http://www.rrivera.com/pages/2003/11/tasertr1103.pdf
http://nysdemo1.safetysites.net/airtaserinfo.php
http://www.byrdenterprises.com/yoursafety/taserinfo.htm#eye
http://www.rrivera.com/pages/2003/11/tasertr1103.pdf
G
Gary5000
Guest
But WHY would you do it!!!!!
(Even though it probably won't kill. I still hate the idea!)
--Gary Crye
(Even though it probably won't kill. I still hate the idea!)
--Gary Crye
Tgace
Grandmaster
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2003
- Messages
- 7,766
- Reaction score
- 409
Dont get me wrong, im not "for" it pre se, kinda playing devils advocate. Which would be worse, physically restraining a child large enough to pose an injury risk to at least themselves or using a "non-lethal" tool? Albeit one that "looks bad" but ultimately results in less chance of harm? Now was this such a situation? I dont know, there still isnt enough data Ive seen to say "yes these guys were right to use it." But from my perspective, two different officers were on the scene (at least) and they still tased...that seems to say something to me. My partner and I could handle any "average" 9 yo kid. This must have been an odd circumstance.Gary5000 said:
In reading this I am begining to think that MAYBE the taser was the least harmful option the officer had. That being said a strong argument can still be made for simply using more physical restraint tactics, even though they might have caused more damage to the girl (bruising, sprains, etc). As a little kid, I sprained my own arm trying to twist and jerk away from a relative who was attempting to keep me from running out of the house.. Had the officer just used more physical force it is probably likely that the girl would have been hurt/injured more than with the taser.
HOWEVER, the officer would have a much easier time explaining bruises (IMHO) than why he electrocuted a 9 year old girl. The people at the institution she was in obviously know how volitile she could get, so they may understand., and if his supervisor/police chief admonishes him for getting physical he could simply say "Hey chief, what else could I have done? shoot her with the taser?" He may have still gotten into some trouble, but the story would never have blown up the way it has now. In the words of Larry Poindexter (Lt. Fuller) and Samuel Jackson (Sgt. Hondo) in the movie S.W.A.T. "Sometimes doing the right thing isn't doing the right thing."
Jon
HOWEVER, the officer would have a much easier time explaining bruises (IMHO) than why he electrocuted a 9 year old girl. The people at the institution she was in obviously know how volitile she could get, so they may understand., and if his supervisor/police chief admonishes him for getting physical he could simply say "Hey chief, what else could I have done? shoot her with the taser?" He may have still gotten into some trouble, but the story would never have blown up the way it has now. In the words of Larry Poindexter (Lt. Fuller) and Samuel Jackson (Sgt. Hondo) in the movie S.W.A.T. "Sometimes doing the right thing isn't doing the right thing."
Jon
psi_radar
Black Belt
kenpotex said:
My high school wrestling story was just an attempt to illustrate that it shouldn't be too hard for two grown men to completely immobilize a thrashing 9-year old girl. A person of equal strength could do it to me. Maybe I could have bitten him, but I doubt it. As for messing up the cruiser, well too bad. In the end, she acted up again, and they did manage to get a needle into her. I stand by my original statements, they could have found another, gentler way. And that's that.
hardheadjarhead
Senior Master
I can not conceive of ANY circumstance where this would be needed. That's just insane.
The pain those things inflict is severe. He should have been able to control her.
Regards,
Steve
The pain those things inflict is severe. He should have been able to control her.
Regards,
Steve
It is done all the time. In fact, professionals who work with psych patients learn these techniques WELL. Come to think of it, my ex was a night probation officer in Juvenile Hall in Orange County, CA and they did have to use a number of people to hold down a psych kid who was thrashing about (much like this...ahem...9 year old) - it took four men to hold the kid down enough for the nurse to administer the sedative.kenpotex said:
See, this is my problem - the employees in psych homes are trained to do this - and they do it all the time.
I understand what you guys are all saying and you all have good points - but this general concensus that this is okay to do given the available training of psych professionals out there is what gives me the chills for these members of society, one of which is my son.
Sigh. I think I am going to respectfully bow out of this conversation from now on.
OP
- Thread Starter
- #54
Tgace said:
http://telluridenews.com/articles/2004/05/06/news/top_stories/news05.txt
"More than 40 people shot with Tasers, however, have died after the shock. No autopsy has conclusively linked the weapon to any of the deaths, and in some cases the fatalities were attributed to drug overdoses.
There was a case this April in Georgia of an inmate who was tased three times and died; the 38-year-old man was being held for failing to pay a $700 fine. Medical examiners could find no obvious cause of death. In another case a pregnant woman gave birth to a stillborn 6-month-old fetus four days after being tased by police who said they were not aware she was pregnant. Amnesty International has called for the suspension of Taser use until they can be tested independently - thus far, the only testing to determine that the guns don't cause heart attacks or other damage was conducted by the company that produced them, Taser International, Incorporated."
loki09789
Senior Master
If you are citing this article and quote to support your idea that Tasers cause complications, the part about no direct link undermines it horribly.OULobo said:
The other factors like: Drug involvement, pre-existing medical conditions, NOT the cleanest/healthiest life styles in some cases, .... all contribute to these cases. Replace these taser with "control/physical techniques" or "OC spray" and the stress induced on these bodies - lest we forget too that they have done something that has made LEO contact necessary as well - could have induced the same results given the other variables...
Tgace
Grandmaster
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2003
- Messages
- 7,766
- Reaction score
- 409
Im not saying that there will never be any fatalities associated with the taser. There are many associated with OC and positional asphyxia. However Id be fairly certain that if you statically compared police confrontations with taser vs. OC, physical controls, beanbags etc. You will find the Taser comparitively safe.
As to amnesty international...they would probably call for the suspension of all use of force options until we can come up with a perfectly safe, infallible, method of control.
As to amnesty international...they would probably call for the suspension of all use of force options until we can come up with a perfectly safe, infallible, method of control.
OP
- Thread Starter
- #57
Sorry for the lapse, I'm having PC problems. Here's another.
http://www.peak.sfu.ca/the-peak/99-2/issue2/taser.html
"But Terence Allen, a specialist in forensic pathology who served as deputy medical examiner for both the Los Angeles and San Francisco coroners' offices, has a more grim view of the "non-lethal" weapon. "The problem is when it starts getting used in less than critical situations," said Allen. "In L.A. they'll shoot you for reaching for your wallet. People need to realize that this isn't 100 per cent safe, and it doesn't have a very good track record. As pathologists, we should warn law-enforcement agencies that the TASER can cause death."
"According to a report on the effects of the TASER in The Journal of Forensic Sciences by Dr. Sara Reddy and Dr. Ronald Kornblum, chief medical examiner in Los Angeles, the TASER has been used several thousand times by the Los Angeles police department in attempts to control violent suspects. During that time the TASER has been an effective immobilizer 80 per cent of the time. There have been 16 deaths associated with its use in L.A. County.
The report, which Laur read when he researched the TASER's potential for use in Victoria, explains that the TASER doesn't rely on damage or destruction of tissues or organs to be effective; instead, it knocks the target to the ground after causing a generalized muscle contraction. Under ordinary circumstances, these effects are temporary and completely reversible. But used on an older individual, somebody with heart trouble, or somebody weakened by excessive drug use, the weapon can be fatal. Included in the report were accounts of volunteer targets that described the experience as painful and who required several minutes to recover from the experience. The electrical current generated by the TASER is not lethal when the weapon is used as directed on an average healthy adult.
But Allen suggested the report may be misleading. In a 1991 letter to the journal he noted that he was one of only two medical examiners in the L.A. office to list the TASER on a death certificate.
"This was because pathologists in L.A. were under pressure from law enforcement agencies to exclude the TASER as a cause of death," wrote Allen. He suggested that the L.A. coroner's office has a strong bias and exonerates the law enforcement agencies of that city. "The L.A. coroner's office is the handmaiden of law enforcement [in that city,]" he said.
Allen says that the TASER could cause heart defibrillation depending on where the two probes strike the targeted subject. He suggests that the use of this weapon could have dire effects on the hearts of weaker or older individuals or those under the influence of drugs or alcohol."
The fact is that whether there is drug-involvment, pre-existing medical conditions or any other instance that may make this supposedly "non-lethal" weapon lethal, they have to be accounted for, just like using it on a emotionally disturbed adolecent girl. Sure smacking a 25yr old football player in the stomache with a baton at half speed will hurt but not kill, that doesn't mean it is a justified application for all the population. Common sense tell me that the same strike to a 90yr old woman suffering from osteoperosis will have a much more damaging effect.
Tgace- "Im not saying that there will be any fatalities associated with the taser. There are many associated with OC and positional asphyxia. However Id be fairly certain that if you statically compared police confrontations with taser vs. OC, physical controls, beanbags etc. You will find the Taser comparitively safe."
I agree, but like those other weapons and methods you listed, the taser must be applied in a situational context with good judgement, and not applied in a general OK for use in all situation against all comers. There are greater risks, both physical and phychological, in applying a taser to a 9yr old with emotional problems than to a healthy adult male.
http://www.usdoj.gov/crs/pubs/pdexcess.htm#43
"Less Than Lethal Force
Providing officers with options for less than lethal force is strongly encouraged. However, the application of any less than lethal force or device should be managed and monitored in the same way as if that force could cause serious injury or even death. There is a need to proceed with caution in establishing the threshold for police use of less than lethal methods or devices when they are introduced into the department. Furthermore, officers should not be allowed to deploy any of these methods until they have been trained in their proper use. "
http://www.peak.sfu.ca/the-peak/99-2/issue2/taser.html
"But Terence Allen, a specialist in forensic pathology who served as deputy medical examiner for both the Los Angeles and San Francisco coroners' offices, has a more grim view of the "non-lethal" weapon. "The problem is when it starts getting used in less than critical situations," said Allen. "In L.A. they'll shoot you for reaching for your wallet. People need to realize that this isn't 100 per cent safe, and it doesn't have a very good track record. As pathologists, we should warn law-enforcement agencies that the TASER can cause death."
"According to a report on the effects of the TASER in The Journal of Forensic Sciences by Dr. Sara Reddy and Dr. Ronald Kornblum, chief medical examiner in Los Angeles, the TASER has been used several thousand times by the Los Angeles police department in attempts to control violent suspects. During that time the TASER has been an effective immobilizer 80 per cent of the time. There have been 16 deaths associated with its use in L.A. County.
The report, which Laur read when he researched the TASER's potential for use in Victoria, explains that the TASER doesn't rely on damage or destruction of tissues or organs to be effective; instead, it knocks the target to the ground after causing a generalized muscle contraction. Under ordinary circumstances, these effects are temporary and completely reversible. But used on an older individual, somebody with heart trouble, or somebody weakened by excessive drug use, the weapon can be fatal. Included in the report were accounts of volunteer targets that described the experience as painful and who required several minutes to recover from the experience. The electrical current generated by the TASER is not lethal when the weapon is used as directed on an average healthy adult.
But Allen suggested the report may be misleading. In a 1991 letter to the journal he noted that he was one of only two medical examiners in the L.A. office to list the TASER on a death certificate.
"This was because pathologists in L.A. were under pressure from law enforcement agencies to exclude the TASER as a cause of death," wrote Allen. He suggested that the L.A. coroner's office has a strong bias and exonerates the law enforcement agencies of that city. "The L.A. coroner's office is the handmaiden of law enforcement [in that city,]" he said.
Allen says that the TASER could cause heart defibrillation depending on where the two probes strike the targeted subject. He suggests that the use of this weapon could have dire effects on the hearts of weaker or older individuals or those under the influence of drugs or alcohol."
The fact is that whether there is drug-involvment, pre-existing medical conditions or any other instance that may make this supposedly "non-lethal" weapon lethal, they have to be accounted for, just like using it on a emotionally disturbed adolecent girl. Sure smacking a 25yr old football player in the stomache with a baton at half speed will hurt but not kill, that doesn't mean it is a justified application for all the population. Common sense tell me that the same strike to a 90yr old woman suffering from osteoperosis will have a much more damaging effect.
Tgace- "Im not saying that there will be any fatalities associated with the taser. There are many associated with OC and positional asphyxia. However Id be fairly certain that if you statically compared police confrontations with taser vs. OC, physical controls, beanbags etc. You will find the Taser comparitively safe."
I agree, but like those other weapons and methods you listed, the taser must be applied in a situational context with good judgement, and not applied in a general OK for use in all situation against all comers. There are greater risks, both physical and phychological, in applying a taser to a 9yr old with emotional problems than to a healthy adult male.
http://www.usdoj.gov/crs/pubs/pdexcess.htm#43
"Less Than Lethal Force
Providing officers with options for less than lethal force is strongly encouraged. However, the application of any less than lethal force or device should be managed and monitored in the same way as if that force could cause serious injury or even death. There is a need to proceed with caution in establishing the threshold for police use of less than lethal methods or devices when they are introduced into the department. Furthermore, officers should not be allowed to deploy any of these methods until they have been trained in their proper use. "
Tgace
Grandmaster
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2003
- Messages
- 7,766
- Reaction score
- 409
Absolutely, I dont want to come off saying "Use the Taser on 9 yo's...thats OK." but when force has to be used it is a good tool. Wrestling a 90 with a heart condition to the ground will probably run the risk of a heart attack too. I remember when it took 3 officers to restrain an 80+ yo WWII vet with alzheimers who ran from a nursing home and refused to return onto a gurney and one cop still got kicked in the head. I dont know if tasering him would have been a good option, but what would have happened to us if he had a heart attack and died??
loki09789
Senior Master
Total agreement on my part. My concern is that people are considering Tasers and OC as 'worse' than physical control/restraint techniques. There is a tendency to demonize the tool instead of looking at the application. A taser is like a hammer in that sense. It is a tool and nothing more. In this situation, I don't know enough to absolutely say he made the best choice possible, or that the medical staff couldn't have jumped in and used their training to help out instead. I do think in the larger scheme of things the taser was a better option than some of the others.OULobo said:
We have all been put into positions where someone after the fact or on the outside can look at and say "Well, why didn't you do this?" and it is so obvious, but in the moment and from the perspective of the Doer, he still made better decision than he could have.
- Status
Similar threads
