Tasers - An Electronics Tech's Opinion

[Primus]

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

Thats it? I figured you'd drop a line about using a taser on him lol

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

 

[WalkingWolf]

Thats it? I figured you'd drop a line about using a taser on him lol

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

You can taze someone over the internet?

 

[Grapeshot]

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.
--snipped--
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.

Design purpose and function has everything to do with it. It is so delineated in the OP.

I never mentioned, stated or implied that your target of "excessive" force had anything to do with the design of tasers. They were designed to provide an alternate, effective less lethal means of control - not a response to claimed excessive force deaths.

There is a place in the use of force continuumfor tasers that is not dependent on reducing your alleged excessive force, but rather intended to preclude the need for more lethal means.

 

[WalkingWolf]

Design purpose and function has everything to do with it. It is so delineated in the OP.

I never mentioned, stated or implied that your target of "excessive" force had anything to do with the design of tasers. They were designed to provide an alternate, effective less lethal means of control - not a response to claimed excessive force deaths.

There is a place in the use of force continuumfor tasers that is not dependent on reducing your alleged excessive force, but rather intended to preclude the need for more lethal means.

I am going to guess that when used properly tasers have saved lives and prevented injuries. There is always a risk someone will die from a interaction. A simple "sir you are under arrest" could result in a fatal event. People like me, who are less than optimum health a taser might be fatal, but I have been either lucky or smart enough to not have violent encounters with police.

It is not the tool, it is the user of the tool. Except for their expense and low strike capability they would be an exceptional carry for those who do not want to carry a sidearm. But as I understand it you only have two shots at short range.

 

[Citizen]

Design purpose and function has everything to do with it. It is so delineated in the OP.

I never mentioned, stated or implied that your target of "excessive" force had anything to do with the design of tasers. They were designed to provide an alternate, effective less lethal means of control - not a response to claimed excessive force deaths.

There is a place in the use of force continuumfor tasers that is not dependent on reducing your alleged excessive force, but rather intended to preclude the need for more lethal means.

You're still arguing within the same fallacious parameter's nonetheless.

Why would a less-lethal means of control be needed if police were not previously applying lethal force in situations where lethal force wasn't justified? I'm not here saying it was or they were. I'm saying your arguments absurdly contain that contradiction.

Further, and bleeding over into a related point that is not directly on point between you and I, lets not forget tasers were for a long time promoted as--and referred to--as non-lethal. The change in terminology was a concession to their proved lethality.

 

[Grapeshot]

You're still arguing within the same fallacious parameter's nonetheless.

Why would a less-lethal means of control be needed if police were not previously applying lethal force in situations where lethal force wasn't justified? I'm not here saying it was or they were. I'm saying your arguments absurdly contain that contradiction.

Further, and bleeding over into a related point that is not directly on point between you and I, lets not forget tasers were for a long time promoted as--and referred to--as non-lethal. The change in terminology was a concession to their proved lethality.

No - you are attempting to change the point of the thread to fit your design(s).

ALL less lethal means were at one time defined as non-lethal, which negates your ill informed argument.

 

[Citizen]

No - you are attempting to change the point of the thread to fit your design(s).

ALL less lethal means were at one time defined as non-lethal, which negates your ill informed argument.

No, you're attempting to shift attention away from Primus' absurdity that tasers reduce deaths.

It was a whole different thread where I argued against calling tasers "less-lethal". You're confusing threads.

Why don't you try sticking the actual arguments I make in this thread, rather than "seeing" an argument I made in a previous thread on a related-but-different aspect the same subect.

 

[solus]

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

first you used the argument about seat belts so...

second, i guess the distinction is the interpretation of a legal request is in the eyes of the beholder isn't it coupled with how it is presented?

ipse

 

[Grapeshot]

No, you're attempting to shift attention away from Primus' absurdity that tasers reduce deaths.

It was a whole different thread where I argued against calling tasers "less-lethal". You're confusing threads.

Why don't you try sticking the actual arguments I make in this thread, rather than "seeing" an argument I made in a previous thread on a related-but-different aspect the same subect.

Not "shifting attention" but returning the thread to the OP. I'll accept that tasers reduce deaths by virtue of their being less lethal than guns - as bean bags and rubber pellets are likewise.

You refer in this thread to the less-lethal/non-lethal distinctions regarding tasers and include in summation that taser development was in response to excessive use of force. IMO your argument distinctly indicates lack of knowledge and familiarity with the subject and is misdirection.

Staying on-topic which is tasers can cause death....but seldom do. Why - because they are designed and function as less lethal tools than those that would be classified as lethal. If you cannot or will not grasp that truth, the problem is not mine.

 

[eye95]

I don't see where Citizen is straying from the topic at all.

Yes, cops were forced to use guns or nothing when dealing with intermediate threats that were not close enough for hands or sticks. Tasers were introduced so that more lethal force could be avoided. They have now been found to have other utility than just defense.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

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

Would you consider a punch in the face lethal? Why no people have died from it. How about cars? Are they lethal objects? Why not people have died? I hope you get the point.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

Now don't change the parameters of your argument, a fist isn't a lethal weapon being clenched and moving quickly toward my face I would consider it one and I would respond by using what ever force necessary to end it.

How about flash bangs I bet you love them too?

 

[Grapeshot]

I don't see where Citizen is straying from the topic at all.

Yes, cops were forced to use guns or nothing when dealing with intermediate threats that were not close enough for hands or sticks. Tasers were introduced so that more lethal force could be avoided. They have now been found to have other utility than just defense.

Precisely.

 

[Primus]

Now don't change the parameters of your argument, a fist isn't a lethal weapon being clenched and moving quickly toward my face I would consider it one and I would respond by using what ever force necessary to end it.

How about flash bangs I bet you love them too?

Svg you may be focusing on my slekking mistake. It should be why NOT.... people have dies from fists. I was listing things that kill people but aren't considered "lethal"

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

 

[Primus]

Svg you may be focusing on my slekking mistake. It should be why NOT.... people have dies from fists. I was listing things that kill people but aren't considered "lethal"

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

Lol see spelling mistake. Phone doesn't like fat fingers mashing it

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

 

[sudden valley gunner]

Happens to me all the time. Why I will never attempt to be a spelling/grammar nazi.

I was referring to your direct question on whether or not someone would consider a punch to the face lethal. I view it potentially lethal and would respond in kind.

 

[Primus]

Happens to me all the time. Why I will never attempt to be a spelling/grammar nazi.

I was referring to your direct question on whether or not someone would consider a punch to the face lethal. I view it potentially lethal and would respond in kind.

Svg while I agree that a punch can be lethal its only a simple misdemeanor and if you shot someone because they punched you you'd probably go to jail. If I **** you because you punched me in the face is go to jail even on duty. I would have to tell some crazy tails (wouldn't) that I feared I would be knocked out and you would take my gun and kill others. So maybe you could use that as a defense? I sincerely doubt it though.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

 

[WalkingWolf]

Svg while I agree that a punch can be lethal its only a simple misdemeanor and if you shot someone because they punched you you'd probably go to jail. If I **** you because you punched me in the face is go to jail even on duty. I would have to tell some crazy tails (wouldn't) that I feared I would be knocked out and you would take my gun and kill others. So maybe you could use that as a defense? I sincerely doubt it though.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

Like you don't already?:lol:

 

[Primus]

Like you don't already?:lol:

You got me ww. You sly wolf you (get it? Lol). Youre a clever fox. You figured me right out. I roll over and give up. Please don't call me out on anything else. I can't take being proven wrong by you anymore...



Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

 

[sudden valley gunner]

Svg while I agree that a punch can be lethal its only a simple misdemeanor and if you shot someone because they punched you you'd probably go to jail. If I **** you because you punched me in the face is go to jail even on duty. I would have to tell some crazy tails (wouldn't) that I feared I would be knocked out and you would take my gun and kill others. So maybe you could use that as a defense? I sincerely doubt it though.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

I won't let myself be assaulted. I am comfortable fighting, lived in tough neighborhoods growing up, I just won't do it anymore. If you come after me with clenched fists, I am going to warn you and then respond in kind.

 

[45 Fan]

Ok, how I see the purpose and design of a taser.

To be used instead of a sidearm or other lethal force option to subdue a suspect without having to inflict serious bodily harm or death.

If a taser, used under the previous guideline, causes the suspect to die, how is that any different then if they had just shot and killed him? At the very least, they attempted to subdue him with less then lethal force.


For those who claim tasers kill people

Handguns have unintended casualties, we do not blame the guns. Gun companies pay hush money to simply get rid of bad publicity. If you cant blame firearms for the deaths that are caused by there use, why blame a taser? We dont blame baseball bats when used inappropriately