Tasers - An Electronics Tech's Opinion

[Citizen]

Aaah because maybe tasers are less likely to cause death or serious bodily harm. I believe that is part of the purpose in their use.

Why would they be less likely to cause death or serious bodily injury in any statistically meaningful way if police were not using excessive force with their other weapons between Tenn v Garner and tasers?

Primus is the one who advanced the argument. Either he way overstated things in his self-serving defense of tasers, or he really meant they actually do reduce the number of deaths and injuries significantly. Human nature didn't change in the last forty years. Given the number of police physical abuse cases we're seeing today, I know which of those two options I see as most likely.

Good cops, excepted, this is a little like the old argument that police get lots more training today that reduces rights violations and excessive force. Sounds good and laudable on the surface. Until one asks himself, "Oh? What does that say about police in the last forty years prior to all this "more training"? And, really? Given the amount of excessive force and rights abuses visible in the media--which is at a terrible level--what does that say about police in the last forty years prior to all the "more training"? You're saying it was even worse than the horrible level of excessive force and rights abuses we're seeing today? And, what does it say about the number of cops who need "training" in order to not be excessive or abuse rights (past and present)?"

Stop insulting me with your shallow arguments.

 

[carolina guy]

Again, it's not the tool its how it gets used.

+1

 

[Primus]

Ok listen.. one more time...

If you are being combative I can strike you with a baton. That is NOT excessive NY any force continuum.

Would rather get hit with a pipe and have lasting damage or get stunned by taser and have no lasting damage.

YOU keep putting the taser up at the level with a gun. This is due to lack of knowledge of what your talking about.

The Tenn v garber case was when they shot a young kid running from a house. It was b&e at night time so it was a felony. What does that have to do with a taser?? A taser is not at deadly force level! Please read that again.

Your basically ignoring my responses and arguing against yourself.

A taser reaces batons and OC spray. Read that again. That stops the serious injury. It can stop death when you have MORE THEN ONE OFFICER. Then an officer can CHOOSE to deploy taser on knife wielding instead of just shooting. Its a choice. And extra choice they wouldn't have.
.
Your argument is akin to saying that seatbelts don't save lives because its people speeding and not accidents that kill. So if you didnt speed you wouldn't need belts....

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

 

[eye95]

The results can be deadly, a person can fall on the ground and die, like what happened to a guy in Seattle. If one punch is going to be administered is going to end there? How many more will come and people have died from getting beat to death. So yes maybe poorly expressed but made to counter a silly argument by Primus, one he hasn't responded back to.

Haven't some of the victims of the "knockout game" died from a single blow?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

 

[Citizen]

Ok listen.. one more time...

If you are being combative I can strike you with a baton. That is NOT excessive NY any force continuum.

Would rather get hit with a pipe and have lasting damage or get stunned by taser and have no lasting damage.

YOU keep putting the taser up at the level with a gun. This is due to lack of knowledge of what your talking about.

The Tenn v garber case was when they shot a young kid running from a house. It was b&e at night time so it was a felony. What does that have to do with a taser?? A taser is not at deadly force level! Please read that again.

Your basically ignoring my responses and arguing against yourself.

A taser reaces batons and OC spray. Read that again. That stops the serious injury. It can stop death when you have MORE THEN ONE OFFICER. Then an officer can CHOOSE to deploy taser on knife wielding instead of just shooting. Its a choice. And extra choice they wouldn't have.
.
Your argument is akin to saying that seatbelts don't save lives because its people speeding and not accidents that kill. So if you didnt speed you wouldn't need belts....

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

Hahaha! You're accusing me of ignoring an argument? Really?

I'll be back to discuss this further.


ETA:

I'm back.

Don't raise a strawman to evade answering directly. You're the one saying tasers "reduce deaths and injuries". My point is that you revealed excesses by police with their previous "non-lethal" weapons. I don't buy for one second that there any statistically significant numbers of citizens who give police justification for lethal force but then receive taser-torture instead of bullets. You either overstated the "reduces deaths" bit, or you totally gave away the abuses. You established how important/significant it was--not me--by including it in your argument.

 

[Primus]

Anything "less likely" is the Sorites Paradox of the Heap.

Restated for the present case: 100 percent lethal is a heap of lethality. Remove a percent, a grain of percent-sand, is it still a heap of lethality? Remove two percent lethality, is it still a lethal heap? Proceed inductively to learn that one percent lethal is still a heap of lethality. Truly a paradox.

I agree nightmare.

Please refer to the study I listed earlier in the thread. A HOSPITAL did a study (so no cops or manufacturer) on 1000 people that were struck by tasers. 99.7% either had minor injuries (scrapes from falls) or none. That's a .3% rate of serious injury. Are you saying .3% is likely? That's removing 99% lethality.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

 

[solus]

snip....
Your argument is akin to saying that seatbelts don't save lives because its people speeding and not accidents that kill. So if you didnt speed you wouldn't need belts....

interesting you bring up that myth seatbelts save lives...as shown in the linked charts 2001-2007: we lost 41K +/- souls on our nation's highways each of those years. in 2008 it was, as you can read 37K +/- individuals who lost their lives, then the stats dropped to around 32K each year until 2012 traffic deaths rose 4.35% to 34K. http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811630.pdf & http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motor_vehicle_deaths_in_U.S._by_year

now perhaps i didn't quite understand if deaths by motor vehicles from 2000 have not significantly declined, how are seat belts saving lives again? is it a lack of priority enforcement or can you explain and possibly clarify your statement you so proudly made?

and to address your other premise, my alleged medical condition not withstanding, someone deciding i am not cooperating to their arbitrary whims and wishes coupled with their attempt to manhandle me to persuade me to cooperate and then deciding i pose a threat to their personal safety, and hits me with a tazer get my attention and/or cooperation will have a dead body on their hands and a whole lot of splain'g to do to Lucy!

eye95 those who have succumbed to the knockout attacks (not mob robbery) have hit something on the way down, curbs, pavement extremely hard, etc.

ipse

 

[Primus]

interesting you bring up that myth seatbelts save lives...as shown in the linked charts 2001-2007: we lost 41K +/- souls on our nation's highways each of those years. in 2008 it was, as you can read 37K +/- individuals who lost their lives, then the stats dropped to around 32K each year until 2012 traffic deaths rose 4.35% to 34K. http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811630.pdf & http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motor_vehicle_deaths_in_U.S._by_year

now perhaps i didn't quite understand if deaths by motor vehicles from 2000 have not significantly declined, how are seat belts saving lives again? is it a lack of priority enforcement or can you explain and possibly clarify your statement you so proudly made?

and to address your other premise, my alleged medical condition not withstanding, someone deciding i am not cooperating to their arbitrary whims and wishes coupled with their attempt to manhandle me to persuade me to cooperate and then deciding i pose a threat to their personal safety, and hits me with a tazer get my attention and/or cooperation will have a dead body on their hands and a whole lot of splain'g to do to Lucy!

eye95 those who have succumbed to the knockout attacks (not mob robbery) have hit something on the way down, curbs, pavement extremely hard, etc.

ipse

Slus to not derail the thread I'll keep on topic with the tasers.

Everything you just stated "on a whim for their safety etc. etc." Sounds more like excessive force. Not sure if it was meant to portray a use of force or if you were having a real situation where you would be resisting. If its the former then again its the guy using the taser that's wrong. If its the latter then itd be you or whatever individual that was wrong for not co plying with a legal request or arrest. Please don't convolute the two.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

 

[carolina guy]

Slus to not derail the thread I'll keep on topic with the tasers.

Everything you just stated "on a whim for their safety etc. etc." Sounds more like excessive force. Not sure if it was meant to portray a use of force or if you were having a real situation where you would be resisting. If its the former then again its the guy using the taser that's wrong. If its the latter then itd be you or whatever individual that was wrong for not co plying with a legal request or arrest. Please don't convolute the two.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

Just speaking for myself, I think part of the problem is that our government has decided to allow the police officer tremendous latitude with determining the totality of the circumstances when arrests are made, and how force is used.

When questions arise, it is the same government that created the regulations/laws then "investigates" and determines if the officer is at fault. All the while, the laws are written such that if the LAC (remember, innocent until proven guilty in court is the golden standard) is obligated to comply with all orders (at least in the PR of NC) and is not allowed to resist at all. Any guilt would be determined many months after the offense against the LAC by the same government that levels the charges, presents testimony and determines the application of the law. The ONLY relief valves available to LAC are the ballot box (dubious at best) and jury nullification.

Given this latitude, the vastly increased arsenal of weapons available to the average officer, and the tremendous appearance of a conflict of interest, isn't it reasonable for LAC to be incredibly leery of the choices made against fellow LACs?

 

[Primus]

Just speaking for myself, I think part of the problem is that our government has decided to allow the police officer tremendous latitude with determining the totality of the circumstances when arrests are made, and how force is used.

When questions arise, it is the same government that created the regulations/laws then "investigates" and determines if the officer is at fault. All the while, the laws are written such that if the LAC (remember, innocent until proven guilty in court is the golden standard) is obligated to comply with all orders (at least in the PR of NC) and is not allowed to resist at all. Any guilt would be determined many months after the offense against the LAC by the same government that levels the charges, presents testimony and determines the application of the law. The ONLY relief valves available to LAC are the ballot box (dubious at best) and jury nullification.

Given this latitude, the vastly increased arsenal of weapons available to the average officer, and the tremendous appearance of a conflict of interest, isn't it reasonable for LAC to be incredibly leery of the choices made against fellow LACs?

Well said. I understand what your saying and agree to some extent.

It again loops back to excessive use of force. Take away taser and add any tool that le can use. Its the sane wariness.

Even if you go with an excessive use (I'm not I'm just throwing an idea out there) if you excessively use a taser say activate it for 2 5 second activations when only 1 or even none was "needed" there's no lasting effects (99% of the time according to the data). Now replace taser with baton. Now excessive my use it. Sane standards more strikes then needed.... and youll get more damage.

Again.... tasers are safer then batons and the extreme case where u can use a taser as opposed to gun (been done).

The safest would be if there wasn't ANY excessive use of force. Again that's a different argument. Not what the op was talking about.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

 

[carolina guy]

Well said. I understand what your saying and agree to some extent.

It again loops back to excessive use of force. Take away taser and add any tool that le can use. Its the sane wariness.

Even if you go with an excessive use (I'm not I'm just throwing an idea out there) if you excessively use a taser say activate it for 2 5 second activations when only 1 or even none was "needed" there's no lasting effects (99% of the time according to the data). Now replace taser with baton. Now excessive my use it. Sane standards more strikes then needed.... and youll get more damage.

Again.... tasers are safer then batons and the extreme case where u can use a taser as opposed to gun (been done).

The safest would be if there wasn't ANY excessive use of force. Again that's a different argument. Not what the op was talking about.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

Agreed. The problem is that we have given a tool that is safer than many other alternatives, but still qualifies as a "torture device" by the UN...and was ratified by the US in 1988.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1505073/How-the-law-and-UN-define-torture.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Convention_against_Torture#Definition_of_torture

Any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person, information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.

— Convention Against Torture, Article 1.1

So...simply saying that it doesn't cause permanent physical damage, really avoids the issue that a lot of people have with giving generally unaccountable public officials such a device, especially when it is used for "compliance" or when ANY other alternative is available.

Further, since this was a treaty, it is the Supreme Law of the Land per the US Constitution.

 

[Primus]

Agreed. The problem is that we have given a tool that is safer than many other alternatives, but still qualifies as a "torture device" by the UN...and was ratified by the US in 1988.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1505073/How-the-law-and-UN-define-torture.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Convention_against_Torture#Definition_of_torture



So...simply saying that it doesn't cause permanent physical damage, really avoids the issue that a lot of people have with giving generally unaccountable public officials such a device, especially when it is used for "compliance" or when ANY other alternative is available.

Further, since this was a treaty, it is the Supreme Law of the Land per the US Constitution.

You left out the last part of that....does not apply to lawful.....

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

 

[carolina guy]

You left out the last part of that....does not apply to lawful.....

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

And you left off the last word: "sanctions"

Unfortunately (IMO) the only really relevant definition is #1. This means that the LEO is somehow authorized to "punish" a LAC who has not been convicted of a crime? Brings up thoughts of "judge, jury and executioner"...

Otherwise, #2 basically nullifies the meaning of the treaty is that governments agree to NOT torture people. Eh?

sanc·tion
ˈsaNG(k)SHən/Submit
noun
1.
a threatened penalty for disobeying a law or rule.


2.
official permission or approval for an action.


verb
1.
give official permission or approval for (an action).
"only two treatments have been sanctioned by the Food and Drug Administration"
2.
impose a sanction or penalty on.

 

[Fuller Malarkey]

The results can be deadly, a person can fall on the ground and die, like what happened to a guy in Seattle. If one punch is going to be administered is going to end there? How many more will come and people have died from getting beat to death. So yes maybe poorly expressed but made to counter a silly argument by Primus, one he hasn't responded back to.

Apparently punches are different if cops do it.

http://www.myfoxtwincities.com/stor...arged-with-felony-assault-for-bar-patio-punch

 

[sudden valley gunner]

Haven't some of the victims of the "knockout game" died from a single blow?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

+1 and some potential victims protected themselves using deadly force I feel they were justified. Notice the total avoidance of the subject Primus brought up?

Just speaking for myself, I think part of the problem is that our government has decided to allow the police officer tremendous latitude with determining the totality of the circumstances when arrests are made, and how force is used.

And they have systematically worked to weaken the common law right of defending a false arrest/detention up to the point of taking a life as recognized in Bad Elk vs. United States.

Apparently punches are different if cops do it.

http://www.myfoxtwincities.com/stor...arged-with-felony-assault-for-bar-patio-punch

+1 Good example why use of a firearm against a punch in the face would be justified. But that of course is Another Isolated Incident.

 

[Primus]

+1 and some potential victims protected themselves using deadly force I feel they were justified. Notice the total avoidance of the subject Primus brought up?



And they have systematically worked to weaken the common law right of defending a false arrest/detention up to the point of taking a life as recognized in Bad Elk vs. United States.



+1 Good example why use of a firearm against a punch in the face would be justified. But that of course is Another Isolated Incident.

What argument are you talking about? The fact that a punch can kill you? It CAN and has killed people either directly or indirectly. So does that make your gist a lethal weapon? As in if someone punches you in the face its abdw? Negative ghost rider.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

 

[Grapeshot]

Why would they be less likely to cause death or serious bodily injury in any statistically meaningful way if police were not using excessive force with their other weapons between Tenn v Garner and tasers?

Primus is the one who advanced the argument. Either he way overstated things in his self-serving defense of tasers, or he really meant they actually do reduce the number of deaths and injuries significantly. Human nature didn't change in the last forty years. Given the number of police physical abuse cases we're seeing today, I know which of those two options I see as most likely.

Good cops, excepted, this is a little like the old argument that police get lots more training today that reduces rights violations and excessive force. Sounds good and laudable on the surface. Until one asks himself, "Oh? What does that say about police in the last forty years prior to all this "more training"? And, really? Given the amount of excessive force and rights abuses visible in the media--which is at a terrible level--what does that say about police in the last forty years prior to all the "more training"? You're saying it was even worse than the horrible level of excessive force and rights abuses we're seeing today? And, what does it say about the number of cops who need "training" in order to not be excessive or abuse rights (past and present)?"

Stop insulting me with your shallow arguments.

You speak to the training and abuses - I speak to the design purpose and function.

I gave no insult - the perception is your own and is at best insulting.

Tasers are "less likely to cause death or serious bodily injury in a statistically meaningful way" because statistically a center of mass gun shot wound IS more likely to cause serious bodily harm that a laser hit. Which would you consider has the more deadly potential?

I said no such thing as bolded in the last paragraph.

 

[Citizen]

You speak to the training and abuses - I speak to the design purpose and function.

I gave no insult - the perception is your own and is at best insulting.

Tasers are "less likely to cause death or serious bodily injury in a statistically meaningful way" because statistically a center of mass gun shot wound IS more likely to cause serious bodily harm that a laser hit. Which would you consider has the more deadly potential?

I said no such thing as bolded in the last paragraph.

Oh, for pete's sake.

You're still going off on a tangent. Design purpose and function got little to nothing to do with it.

Who cares if its designed to be "less likely to cause death or grave bodily injury"? Its a goofy argument. Cops aren't supposed to be using deadly force (except in certain situations) anyway. Now, if you or anybody else can come up with some sort of statistical proof that cops instead use tasers in enough situations to be statistically significant where lethal force is justified, I'll shut up. In the meantime, it was Primus who gave significance/weight to the reductions in death and injuries by trying to use it to persuade readers. It wasn't me that gave weight to it. Primus did that all by himself. Don't blame me for his failure to consider the ramifications of his statement.

Alternatively, you would be implying that the manufacturer knew police were using excessive force and designed the taser to reduce those excessive force deaths. Yeah, right. And, I'm supposed to believe that the only reason Taser has fought tooth and nail against accusations of lethality is altruism to prevent excessive force deaths. That argument would make no sense, either.

 

[Primus]

Oh, for pete's sake.

You're still going off on a tangent. Design purpose and function got little to nothing to do with it.

Who cares if its designed to be "less likely to cause death or grave bodily injury"? Its a goofy argument. Cops aren't supposed to be using deadly force (except in certain situations) anyway. Now, if you or anybody else can come up with some sort of statistical proof that cops instead use tasers in enough situations to be statistically significant where lethal force is justified, I'll shut up. In the meantime, it was Primus who gave significance/weight to the reductions in death and injuries by trying to use it to persuade readers. It wasn't me that gave weight to it. Primus did that all by himself. Don't blame me for his failure to consider the ramifications of his statement.

Alternatively, you would be implying that the manufacturer knew police were using excessive force and designed the taser to reduce those excessive force deaths. Yeah, right. And, I'm supposed to believe that the only reason Taser has fought tooth and nail against accusations of lethality is altruism to prevent excessive force deaths. That argument would make no sense, either.

Citizen I've literally have responded at least three times and Gabe examples of how it decreases injuries and possibly deaths. You just glaze over and keep on spouting. So be it. I can lead you to water but can't force you to drink.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

 

[WalkingWolf]

Citizen I've literally have responded at least three times and Gabe examples of how it decreases injuries and possibly deaths. You just glaze over and keep on spouting. So be it. I can lead you to water but can't force you to drink.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

Sure you can, just show him your shiny badge...