One more, and I'll quite multiple posting, I swear.
This whole thing begs the question: Which is the safer route, hand-to-hand subject control or tazing?
This question is much more complex then it seems.
However, companies like Tazer Intl. want you to believe that tazing is the safest, most humane was of handling a subject in every case. They will claim that this is a very black and white issue. They have sponsered many studies to support their claims.
Groups like Amnesty intl. have also sponsered studies. They claim with their evidence the opposite; and they would completely ban the use of tazers if they could.
I think both sides of the arguement, each with their sponsered studies, are completely biased and often extremist in their view. There isn't much 3rd party evidence available on this issue.
Amnesty and others of similar ilk would rather that every officer handle the subject without the use of tools, and that no one gets hurt. Their view on subject control and law enforcement is completely unrealistic at best. At worst, they seem often in favor of putting our operators in excess danger to protect the criminals. This is not a fair view.
Tazer Intl. and their ilk, however, has a clear agenda; which is to make their stock go up, and to sell their product. This makes their opinion a bit unbalanced. Police also have a clear agenda as well; albeit a much more noble one which is to make their job easier and safer so they can go home to their familes at the end of the day rather then the hospital or morgue. Yet, this agenda can also skew an objective viewpoint.
The reality is, the jury is still out on the effects, both short term and long term, of tazer use. This is contrary to what many will claim as this being a completely safe, "nonlethal" alternative. We know from studies that a short burst of electricity in the case of a restisting subject is relatively safe. We don't know what the effects are of repeated use (like tazing 3, 4, and times), and long or multiple bursts (more then a second or so). We also haven't taken into consideration all the different body types, or physical influences that might alter the results of tazer effects.
We do know that at lower voltages then what tazers provide, many ill effects of electricy can be seen on the body. Electric shock can cause protien coagullation, tissue necrosis (death), ventricullar fibrillation (disordered heart rhythm that can be fatal), irregular blood clotting (decrease or increase), seizures, and so on. Respitary failure, perminant nervous system damage, and perminent organ damage can occur at high voltages or for longer durations. People have dies from voltages around 32 under certain conditions. A tazer delivers around 50,000 volts.
The fact is, electricity can be very damaging. How damaging in regards to tazers? We don't have a lot of information or studies regarding the long term effects of tazer use, or the effects after repeated, long duration shocks.
We do know the effects of a subject beating down an officer, or vice versa, or the range of effects that could occur to the officer or the perp if a fight occurs. These effects could also range from perminent injury to death.
So I am willing to support tazers, with the risks involved, on a fighting, unrestrained subject, as it seems proven to be more effective and less injurous to both parties (but especially the officer who should be protected the most here) in that case. But, I am not willing to regard tazer use as being with no ill after effects, or as "perfectly safe." The evidence just isn't available to support that claim.
So, I would maintain that the question isn't exactly black and white. But, I think that until it is, we should consider erring on the side of caution in regards to tazer use, and should avoid them in cases of a non-combative or restrained individual.
Paul
