Two subjects died, but autopsy reports indicate that neither death was related to the Taser.

A Taser was used and two subjects ultimately died. Was use of the Taser part of a larger pattern of willful inflictment of pain and suffering on…who, exactly? Suspects? Meth heads? Crack bankers? What are the qualitative associations between police Taser* usage and violent interactions with private citizens? If by a reluctant-to-comply suspect’s attitude he or she set themselves up to be tasered, could they not be tasered (someday) for having the wrong opinion? Do we really want to cede to the state electric powers to rival Zeus (well, Little Man Zeus, anyway)? You can look at all the numbers and still not see the carnage, the implications, the erosion of civility. Groundwork is being laid here, and it smells of burning flesh.

Personal note: I have a good relationship with our area police officers. We have gang issues, a nearby meth house, traffic concerns. I don’t like gang members, and as much as I work to understand the behaviors and have empathy for them vis a vis the conditions that merge to create them, I sometimes just wish they would vanish so I wouldn’t have to wade through their tagging or the shooting victims that (a couple of times in the past four years) line the street. If I were a cop, would I be tempted to use the Taser more quickly on a smart-mouthed punk than I would on the millionaire who mocks me with his lawyers? Is this really a tool that is color-blind/class-blind? I don’t believe it: yeah, I know, most white collar criminals don’t require “extreme measures” to detain them, but maybe that’s partly why they are compliant: they know they will soon be out.

How many lives are “saved” by debasing and zapping human beings when they are at their most prickly? What percentage of citizens (and non-citizens) are difficult/violent/uncontrollable? Do we have a stopwatch to determine when the public’s need for safety and respect is outweighed by the police’s need to “get on with the arrest?” Time is money: Tase ’em, bro!

I am in favor of society taking one giant step backward when it comes to electrifying suspects who are difficult, or are having a psychological breakdown, or are hallucinating, or have PTSD…and on and on. It is one thing for the frog in the proverbial pot to eventually be boiled to death: it is another thing entirely to send thousands of volts into the frog because he tried to hop away.

++++

*Note: the use of “®” after Taser in the above post may be about clarity in identifying the actual product, but its corporate/state implications are too cute by half.

++++

’Tis an argument I’ve used for nigh on 30 years now.

Taser. Tool.
Firearm. Tool.
Brickbat. Tool.
Mayo jar of gasoline and Tide. Tool.

Existence of tool: neutral beyond the fact that, somewhere along the line, it’s already been invented and its use has already been documented.

Purpose of tool: depends on which end of the tool you’re on.

Seriously.

Much like the difference between a hammer and a screwdriver is the difference between a handgun and a taser.

Results of use of tool: depends on which end of the tool you’re on.

We’re all getting our dander up over this argument.

Lambert says it’s a matter of power.

I see it differently. I think that for Kelley B and MJS and lambert, it’s a matter of control — and I think they’re afraid that those methods of control may be abused.

That’s a legitimate fear.

For me, and for, I suspect, bringiton, it’s a matter of an alternative tool being available.

Bear with me a moment.
Go back to that video of the incident in Utah.
Add some sensory information to the video.

Let there be the odor of marijuana burning in the vehicle.
Or the driver have whiskey breath, or an open container of alcohol.

Now it’s not a speeding ticket. Now it’s a DUI *and* speeding. (The guy admits seeing previous speed limit and construction signs, by the way. So the claim that the driver couldn’t see the particular speed zone sign for the cop car may be legit. I don’t know. I wasn’t in the vehicle.)

If it’s a DUI for alcohol, chances are that lump in the guy’s pocket is a cell phone. So maybe he’s going to take pictures or call a lawyer — he can do that; no problem. But the cop in this video doesn’t know if the guy’s going for a cell phone (with or without a camera) or a pistol.
Yeah, it really is that simple. You can’t tell; you only know it’s a lump in the guy’s pocket, and they guy’s behavior up to this point is confrontational. So the guy doesn’t say he wants to call his lawyer; he just goes for the pocket *after* the officer has instructed him to turn around. At this point the belligerent / confrontational behavior becomes a threat. To. The. Officer.

Right around this same time, Ms. Speeder hops out of the van and heads for the cop — and you can’t see what, if anything, she’s holding/carrying from where the cop is, either. So he tells her to get back in the vehicle — and eventually she does, but not without some delay and repetition of the instructions; meanwhile Mr. Speeder is over here being way uncooperative and the tension is ratcheting up and the officer is becoming overextended.

Good CISM technique is for a third party to step out where s/he can see/be seen by EVERYBODY and say, “Okay, everybody, let’s just calm down and sort this out.”

Um. There is no third party. No 2nd officer available. Both adults in the speeding vehicle have exacerbated the officer’s lack of trust in them.

There aren’t gonna be any winners here today, kids. The cop knows that. Ms. Speeder has figured it out — she got back in the vehicle, and stayed inside. Mr. Speeder has not figured it out, and continues to resist / confront.

(Resisting is as simple as saying, “WTH, O?” to a cop, BTW).

Officer Nopatience is now gonna jack Mr. Speeder up, regardless. It has become a personal confrontation.

Did any of the three adults go into this expecting a knock-down drag-out fight? Um … maybe: Mr. Speeder is from the moment of the stop behaving as if he’s spoiling for a fight.

I know Mr. and Ms. Speeder don’t see this, yet; but it’s a good thing the cop had a taser in hand instead of a S&W or a Glock, because Mr. Speeder’s injuries would have been life-threatening, if not fatal, from a similar application of the different tool.

Am I excusing the cop? No, ’cause the guy approaches this like he couldn’t pour pi$$ out of a boot with directions on the heel. But anyone who isn’t aware that this situation could have ended in a dead Mr. Speeder (and might have if the cop had had a gun in hand instead of a taser) needs to re-evaluate his/her situational awareness mucho pronto y muy completamente.

Do I think it’s a good thing that such confrontations are taking place? No. But I do think it’s a good thing nobody wound up dead after this confrontation.

Would I take the taser away from this cop? Damn straight, and the badge, and whatever the Utah equivalent is of the TCLEOSE, ’cause the guy is NOT doing his job — never mind not doing it well; and it’s clearly not the first time this guy’s been down this road. For sure, this guy doesn’t need to be armed anymore than Barney Fife needed the bullet in the gun (and whatever happened to a world where the town’s second-most-important cop *had* to keep his bullets in his shirt pocket, and only carried one?).

or rather - taser tools.

agent bringiton’s world of the future:

French Reveal Plans for Taser Flying Saucer
By Sharon Weinberger November 27, 2007 | 8:59:12 AMCategories: Bizarro, Drones, Lasers and Ray Guns, Less-lethal

A French businessman tells AFP his company is working on putting TASER stun guns on a flying saucer that would zap protesters, evil-doers, and anybody else that authorities there don’t like. Antoine di Zazzo, identified by AFP as “one of the biggest Taser representatives” outside the United States, said his company is “developing a mini-flying saucer like drone which could also fire Taser stun rounds on criminal suspects or rioting crowds. He expects it to be launched next year and to be sold internationally by Taser.”

seriously?

btw: in an earlier (now closed) thread bringiton wrote the following:

Now take your adolescent potty-mouth and go away, Fauxmer, adults are trying to have a serious discussion. Maybe you could go a-Googling for evidence to support your claim that Ron Paul is a Dominionist, an assertion you put out there but were unable to prove up when challenged. It is true, you know – he is one, and I did throw you a hint in my last post on Paul but you didn’t pick it up. Pity that, but perhaps you don’t speak Christianist. Try reading the Bible, starting with Genesis 1:1and working your way through Revelations 22:21, along with the Apocrypha. (Skip the “begats,” they add nothing.) Here’s a link for the King James Version in electronic text. As an accompaniment you should consult both Wesley’s Commentary and the Lutheran Concordance. When that’s done, you’ll have enough foundation to begin to understand how these people talk in code to one another. All the best with that.
http://correntewire.com/because_you_did_…

Do you have any primary citation to support your claim above (that I claimed Ron Paul is a Dominionist etc….)? Well? Are you referring to this thread?:
http://correntewire.com/leave_it_to_the_…

Or were you just hallucinating again? Simply attributing other peoples words to me? And whats with all the Bible thumping?

*

Throw sand in bringiton’s eyes so you can win a fight over the Internet?

And by the way, I’m the UFO buff.

article link: (Wired.com)

http://blog.wired.com/defense/2007/11/fr…

*

This will be in everyone’s stocking at the Christmas party. Electric blue for boys; metallic pink for girls, uh, er, for the “self-reliant woman.” Maybe it has additional uses….

Please stay 10 feet from the punch bowl.

“A small group of thoughtful people could change the world. Indeed, it’s the only thing that ever has.” - Margaret Mead

I can’t find a press release for the rumored release of the “Hello Kitty” taser, and apparently the “HK”-47 is a spoof. Still, a man can dream.

We. Are. Going. To. Die. We must restore hope in the world. We must bring forth a new way of living that can sustain the world. Or else it is not just us who will die but everyone. What have we got to lose? Go forth and Fight!—Xan

Special “Wrath of Khan” edition ….

We can admit that we’re killers … but we’re not going to kill today. That’s all it takes! Knowing that we’re not going to kill today! ~ Captain James T. Kirk, Stardate 3193.0

But not a word about the Wake Forest Study beyond a one sentence snip and some questions this particular study was not designed to answer. One might be tempted to think there’s an aversion in certain quarters to dealing with the content of a primary source document.

MJS: Reasonable questions and valid concerns. I share almost all of them. The purpose of the studies underway is to facilitate a general conversation about just those subjects, and help reach a reasonable conclusion based on fact, not fear or suspicion or misuse of force. Can tasers be misused? Certainly, as can anything else. Are tasers being misused? Surely to some extent, and that needs to stop. As things stand, guidelines for use are all over the map. Technology has outstripped public policy; that happens a lot. What should come from these studies and the ensuing discussion is a uniform set of guidelines defining appropriate use, where risk is outweighed by the benefit, and penalties for misuse.

As to coercive potential, I don’t see how a taser is any more threatening than a gun. If we’re going to arm our police, we’ve already given them more power to control behavior than a taser possibly could. Again, having felt both, I would take a taser to a nightstick any day; shall we take them away too?

“Note: the use of “®” after Taser in the above post….” That’s the way the title is in the original, I just accurately and faithfully copied and pasted. It is in fact what the law requires, a Wake Forest U lawyer decision no doubt, with no particular meaning implied by the authors or WFU – or me :-).

Sarah, very clear and very lucid; a Pearl, you are. The lack of sympathy, empathy really, for men and women in law enforcement who put their lives at risk every day dealing with some of the worst and most dangerous individuals society has to offer, is to me breathtaking. Progressives, in my opinion, need to be working deliberately to form an alliance with law enforcement, not foment inaccurate and offensive stereotypes. Perpetuating the false wedge between law enforcement and progressive ideals of equality under the law, freedom, liberty and the ability to go about one’s business in safety serves only the Plutocrats, who promulgated and perpetuate it. The danger flows from the authoritarians in political power, not from the cop on the beat.

What is Fauxmer trying to do? What he always does, change the subject, prop up a straw man, twist himself in knots attacking what he himself has proposed, and hope no one notices that he has once again failed to engage the substance of a post. This is what authoritarians always do, avoid the truth at all cost and perpetuate domination over the ability of others to speak, no matter how ridiculous they may themselves appear. Nothing matters more to an authoritarian than the suppression of differing opinion, and they become frantic to the point of lunacy when the truth emerges in a way that cannot be swiftly suppressed. Flying saucers; French-made flying saucers; number 2,472,891 on a list of things to be concerned about ever happening and even lower on a list of things worth typing about but hey, over here, Red Herring everybody, watch this, pay no attention to the inconvenient truth.

Ah, the “Paul is a Dominionist” claim. By golly, like a broken clock, Fauxmer, you got one right. I am wrong, it was KB who made the claim so you are excused from Bible Study although the cultural literacy wouldn’t do you any harm. The Bible quotes I put up are all are germane to the topics under discussion. What’s with them is that if you want to speak to someone from another culture, it helps to know their language; if you want to understand them and defeat them, or at the least beat them down and away from the levers of power, it helps to know their foundation mythology. How on earth can one have a conversation about Ron Paul as a Dominionist without bringing the Bible into it? I haven’t lost an argument with a Christianist for a very long time because I know their book better than most of them. Minister at the family church still cringes when he sees me coming, from a conversation 20+ years ago. Very satisfying.

Primary source, gentle people, with data and everything. Have you no comment, criticism or acknowledgement for the study itself?

Ah, the “Paul is a Dominionist” claim. By golly, like a broken clock, Fauxmer, you got one right. I am wrong, it was KB who made the claim so you are excused from Bible Study although the cultural literacy wouldn’t do you any harm.

Uh huh. Well, one more “false accusation” bites the dust. As for the rest of your bringitons pompous little comment holyrolling; no need to respond to such snooty windbaggery.

*

And a taser lovin’ one at that. Or at least his Stormfront fans probably like ’em.

No primary references here. Go back to my original post if yer interested. I don’t want to disappoint ya!

No Hell below us
Above us, only sky

The headline could mislead the casual reader who might think that a primary source is actually being cited, evaluated, or quoted.

In fact, what is cited is a press release about the study. There is no way, from a press release, to do a complete evaluation of the methodology used in the study, although the point on how the data got selected is very interesting. It would be nice to have independent confirmation on the funding sources as well, especially given that we’re dealing with the Bush Justice Department.

We. Are. Going. To. Die. We must restore hope in the world. We must bring forth a new way of living that can sustain the world. Or else it is not just us who will die but everyone. What have we got to lose? Go forth and Fight!—Xan

Amnesty International USA’s executive director, Larry Cox (Raw Story):

Taser International, the manufacturer of the TaserX26, the specific stun gun cited by the UN, denies that its device has ever been directly responsible for a death. Cox said that although there was not yet definitive proof, more study of the incidents was needed.

“Nobody really knows exactly why these people are dying, we only know that people are dying after they are Tasered,” said Cox. “When we started doing our first study, 70 people had died in the United States. Now it’s nearly 300 people who have died in the United States. They’re Tasered and then they die. We’re calling for a study to find out exactly why.”

Although he acknowledges that other circumstances may contribute to Taser deaths, the Tasers themselves were undeniably a contributing factor.

“It may be because they have a heart condition, it may be because they’re on drugs, it may be because of some other factor that we don’t know about,” he added. “The important thing is they are dying after they they are Tasered. That cannot be denied, no matter how you spin the language.”
http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Amnesty_In…

“Note: the use of “®” after Taser in the above post….” That’s the way the title is in the original, I just accurately and faithfully copied and pasted. It is in fact what the law requires, a Wake Forest U lawyer decision no doubt, with no particular meaning implied by the authors or WFU – or me :-).

Penalty for breaking said law: Zzzzttt!!!!

++++

Just sayin.

“A small group of thoughtful people could change the world. Indeed, it’s the only thing that ever has.” - Margaret Mead

Just like Big Pharma selective chooses test subjects.. this study is a sham. They have criteria for admission to the study, probably like suspects that were only shocked one cycle.

Also, how many people tasered to death were included? And yes this happens in the US and Canada, so the only ones possible to be included in this study would be those who were tased and then died a few days later.

It may have only been suspects that visited the hospital or EMS before going to jail. Those who went straight to jail or didn’t have hospital-type injuries probably weren’t included.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007…

The cases in the study were compiled by six law enforcement agencies ranging in size. Each had a defined policy on Taser use and injury reporting, and a doctor who works with officers and anyone who is subdued with the devices.

The doctor was responsible for submitting each case to the research team.

The study was paid for by the National Institute of Justice, the Justice Department’s research and development branch. But the institute had no part in the study’s design or analysis, Bozeman said.

——
In a parallel universe, pro-taser and pro-torture Bozeman had another study that cited Tasers as dangerous (but this was a cop that got hurt… soo….. draw your own conclusions)

“Medical personnel and law enforcement officers should recognize that these weapons are still associated with injuries.” said James E. Winslow, MD, of Wake Forest University School of Medicine in Winston-Salem, North Carolina.

“Thoracic Compression Fractures Secondary to Shock from a Taser Conducted Energy Weapon: A Case Report”
Annals of Emergency Medicine, Vol. 50, Issue 5, pp. 584-586
J. Winslow, W. Bozeman, M. Fortner, R. Alson (pdf)

see the telling Figure. “Saggital view of CT scan, showing T6 and T8 compression fractures.”

From the above “Thoracic Compression” study:

Concerns remain about the relationship between conducted energy weapon use and unexplained deaths of suspects in police custody, as well as possible direct cardiac effects of the electrical shock,[6]
[6] Amnesty International. November 2004. Excessive and lethal force? Amnesty International’s concerns about deaths and ill treatment involving police use of Tasers. April 2007.

The manufacturer of the conducted energy weapon has recognized the possibility of muscular contraction injuries, including vertebral fractures, and placed specific information and disclaimers about this possibility in their product information. Even though this risk is acknowledged in the product information, this is not well known in the medical community. Volunteers who undergo conducted energy weapon exposure during training are required to sign a waiver of liability, which specifically includes these injuries.[15]
[15]Taser International. April 12, 2006. Volunteer warnings, risks, liability, release, and covenant not to sue. April 2007

The usage of the word “taser” is pretty much like saying band-aid. You might need the (TM) [note: not copyright (R)] but only if you were say… selling something or talking about Taser X26 conduction energy weapon. But as in the form “don’t tase me bro” or don’t taser me… It’s pretty much common language, like to google someone.

So according to this seemingly authoritative website…

http://www.hwg.org/resources/faqs/copyrF…
If the trademark is registered with the U.S. Patent Office, use the ® symbol (registered trademark symbol). If the trademark or service mark is not registered, use the TM symbol for a product or the SM symbol for a service.

Still, is there a legal requirement that such a designation be depicted when using a trade-marked or copyrighted word in Blogtopia®(please send a farthing to Skippy)?

If I write about Coca-Cola but don’t mention that it’s a trademarked product…what will happen? I’ll be waterboarded with Tab™? How is television different, in that a product or title can be mentioned without ever stating that such-and-such is protected or copyrighted? What sort of law would compel print (or virtual print) to note copyrights, etc. but not other media? Besides my brain, what am I missing?

++++

So now Wake Forest University is part of the Dark Forces of Evil. Well, why not. Apparently everyone, including a random anonymous commenter, who has opinions slightly different than the consensus view here is evil and an enemy of freedom. Paranoid much?

Primary? Well, all full of quotes from the lead author, published/posted on the web site of the co-ordinating institution. I’ll take Bozeman’s word on what his own study shows as primary until someone has proof he’s lying, but if it makes people feel better I’ll adjust the title - if I can do it without screwing up the rest of the thread.

Back later on intranets’ citations.

Move over, Tupperware!

Four different colors, including metallic pink!

We. Are. Going. To. Die. We must restore hope in the world. We must bring forth a new way of living that can sustain the world. Or else it is not just us who will die but everyone. What have we got to lose? Go forth and Fight!—Xan

via email or PM / IM?

Hilarity ensues at FOX; can’t catch the commenter’s name, alas. He certainly has a nice smile, though!

I think this is insane and very weak mentaling. It’s on par with the Decider ™.

Why I persist on this topic? It is simply because I am certain that I am correct in my position: on balance, the taser properly and judiciously employed will reduce injuries and save lives, both for persons being apprehended and for the police. Taking tasers out of the hands of the police will result in more frequent injury and death, and I am opposed to both.

Just because you firmly believe you are correct regarding electrocuting fellow humans, doesn’t mean you are. Sure, I’m all for tasers when a cop has to shoot a suspect. So let’s say there is a knife or maybe a questionable person reaches for “something”. Sure tase ’em bro. It sure beats the hell out of shooting them.

But we are militarizing our police and lowering the threshold of what they consider appropriate. Just look at any peaceful protest and the police response. Cops are running around shooting beanbags and corks at innocent people because they think it is funny. And it breaks up a crowd pretty quickly. But why are they using “less lethal” weapons. (Sure you can make the argument that a stick or even fists are less lethal, but come on, shootin a projectile at 1000 fps can be pretty lethal, it just happens to not kill most people when hit in the leg or meaty parts of the body)

I knew a girl who got blinded for looking out her window back when campus riots were all the rage. Sure she was on the second floor and the cops were literally shooting cork bullets and CS gas at anything that moved. She sued and won, but the point is that the cops got comfortable with their new “safe” technology and kept uping the ante on use.

That’s why you’ll see videos in the intertubes of cops using multiple rounds of tasing one a single suspect. It’s convenient.

An unarmed suspect should never have their life threatened just because the cop might have to chase them or wrestle them to the ground. You shouldn’t be electrocuted because a cop didn’t spend 20 mins waiting for backup and trying to talk to you.

You life is put at risk every time you get tased. Maybe it is a low percentage, like 0.1% risk of injury, but maybe they should treat it like a handgun and assume it will be like a bullet wound, like aiming for the arm or leg.

A child was tased, a woman with a knife in a wheelchair was tased to death, a man was set on fire with a taser (though crazy and doused in gasoline and maybe an internet hoax).

Taser International realizes that back muscle contractions can likely injury to your spine. They know it. So why can’t you acknowledge it?

There are at least three arguments and they’re separate:

1. One is the medical studies thread; is it safe, is it torture or torment, and so on. This argument tends to rely on the studies, or press releases about the studies, for evidence.

2. The second is the law enforcement procedure argument. This tends to go to cases; was the tased person a “jerk,” were his movements threatening, do tasers save lives by substituting for guns. This argument tends to rely on documented police procedures, and the experiences of law enforcement personnel.

3. The third is whether electroshock is being normalized in the culture as as a routine means for law enforcement personnel to enforce “compliance,” even in cases where guns would not have been used. This argument tends to rely on incident reports, and the people most worried about this tend to see themselves as being tased for their political opinions at some point in the future.

These three arguments are separate, although they are often intermingled, and the parties talk past each other.

If tasers* are medically safe, that doesn’t mean that their use isn’t being normalized for compliance, or that law enforcement is to be trusted with the power; if law enforcement are t be trusted and the procedures are followed, that doesn’t prove that tasers are medically safe; and so on through all the combinations.

Each issue thread needs to be addressed separately. Of all the issues, the normalization issue is the one least addressed; it was the first thing that CD thought of, and I agree with her.

NOTE * That is, this generation of tasers. Even if this generation is safe, that does not mean that the next will be. I don’t know what the product safety standards are for them; I would think it would be same as for a medical device, given the 50,000 volt (?) shock.

We. Are. Going. To. Die. We must restore hope in the world. We must bring forth a new way of living that can sustain the world. Or else it is not just us who will die but everyone. What have we got to lose? Go forth and Fight!—Xan

on this:

An unarmed suspect should never have their life threatened just because the cop might have to chase them or wrestle them to the ground. You shouldn’t be electrocuted because a cop didn’t spend 20 mins waiting for backup and trying to talk to you.

the key word is unarmed — and the real crux of this issue is right there.

Unarmed suspects’ lives threatened for convenience, however else you care to characterize the situation, is what we all agree we can find unacceptable every time.

But there is NO certainty in the Utah traffic stop that the driver is unarmed. The woman with the knife in the wheelchair was not unarmed, and IIRC was threatening not merely to harm herself but anybody who approached her. The guy in the airport in Canada is the one I’d have qualms about, and I need details on the child before I can discuss it — can you provide a link?

We can admit that we’re killers … but we’re not going to kill today. That’s all it takes! Knowing that we’re not going to kill today! ~ Captain James T. Kirk, Stardate 3193.0

Lambert, would you be so kind as to forward my email address, which hope you have at hand, to Sarah? And, also please, to no one else? Thank you.

“They have criteria for admission to the study, probably like suspects that were only shocked one cycle.”
All clinical studies have entry criteria. This one included all taser applications in the particular departments being studied. (see reference below)

”Also, how many people tasered to death were included?
Entry based on death alone is a different study, not this one. This is a study looking at close to a thousand consecutive taser applications and quantifying outcomes.

”And yes this happens in the US and Canada, so the only ones possible to be included in this study would be those who were tased and then died a few days later. Not true. All taser uses were catalogued and examined. I don’t have the followup period but any in custody death during the duration of the study would be noted. (see below for reference)

“It may have only been suspects that visited the hospital or EMS before going to jail. Those who went straight to jail or didn’t have hospital-type injuries probably weren’t included.” Not true. All taser incidents were entered into the study, regardless of the disposition of the subject.

Protocol reference from a Wake Forest U pre-study press release:

A physician at each study site will review each less-lethal weapon use and record the severity of the injuries and the type of non-lethal weapon used in each case based on the use of force report and medical records generated by each use. [Emphasis added.]

“The doctor was responsible for submitting each case to the research team.” The departmental physician served as the clinical study coordinator at each study site. This is perfectly normal. Why do you think this is significant? Who else would you have in this role?

“pro-taser and pro-torture Bozeman” Do you have evidence to support your allegations, or is this just another slander against a stranger whose opinions you don’t like?

““Thoracic Compression Fractures Secondary to Shock from a Taser Conducted Energy Weapon: A Case Report”
Fascinating. Broken bones from electric shock are very rare injuries.

From the study: “In this case report, we describe 2 thoracic compression fractures as a result of a shock from a conducted energy weapon. To our knowledge, this is the first such injury reported in the medical literature.”

And:

“An estimated 560,000 people have been exposed to a shock from a conducted energy weapon in either training or actual law enforcement settings.”

Thus, the risk of vertebral fracture appears to be just under 1:500,000 exposures. Roughly, as I recall, the incidence for allergic reaction to bee stings.

So what then is the relative risk, compared to other technology?

The relative risk of police use-of-force options: Evaluating the potential for deployment of electronic weaponry
Original communication
Journal of Clinical Forensic Medicine, Volume 13, Issue 5, July 2006, Pages 229-241
Emma Jenkinsona, Clare Neesona and Anthony Bleetman
Heart of England NHS Foundation Trust, 32 Rothwell Drive, Solihull B91 1HG, United Kingdom
Received 15 September 2005; accepted 9 November 2005. Available online 25 January 2006.

Abstract
An electronic weapon, the Taser M26, has recently entered the use-of-force continuum for police officers in England and Wales and is currently licensed for use by authorised firearms officers only. The aim of this report was to assess the relative risk of injury to officers and subjects of police use-of-force options and to evaluate whether the current positioning of the M26 in the use-of-force hierarchy is appropriate. We analysed use-of-force data from Northamptonshire Police Force and M26 field use data from TASER International®. We found officer injury rates associated with M26 deployment were lower than those for CS spray and baton use. Subject injury rates were lower in M26 deployment than in deployment of CS spray, batons or police dogs. We suggest that the M26 should be made more widely available to police officers in the UK.

In a follow up interview in New Scientist, Mr. Bleetman had this to say:

Anthony Bleetman of The Heart of England NHS Foundation Trust in the UK agrees. He points to a study by the Potomac Institute for Policy Studies in Arlington, Virginia, which estimated that for every life lost through tasering, roughly 70 lives are saved (Journal of Clinical Forensic Medicine, vol 13, p 229). By contrast, automobile air bags save 50 lives per life lost.

“We now have just over half a million uses [of Taser] on people either in training or in the operational environment,” says Bleetman. “Under 300 people have died. When the taser is used appropriately, it is by far the least lethal technology.”

By far the least lethal technology. A safer lives-saved-to-lives-lost profile than airbags.

intranets: “I think this is insane and very weak mentaling. It’s on par with the Decider ™.”

bringiton: “Why I persist on this topic? It is simply because I am certain that I am correct in my position: on balance, the taser properly and judiciously employed will reduce injuries and save lives, both for persons being apprehended and for the police. Taking tasers out of the hands of the police will result in more frequent injury and death, and I am opposed to both.”

intranets: “Just because you firmly believe you are correct regarding electrocuting fellow humans, doesn’t mean you are.”

The arrogance is breathtaking. Because I have strength in my convictions, convictions that are founded on informed, reasoned consideration, that makes me mentally weak, insane, the equivalent of George Bush? And your convictions, the ones you hold to equally tenaciously, those make you somehow mentally stronger, more sane, better than me?

Certainly, I may be wrong; I am, after all, only human. As, equally, might you be; or are you asserting infallibility? I disagree with you, but I have not called you out for that difference as someone less than, someone lacking in principles, someone evil and dastardly, as you and others here have done to me. How that kind of superiority assertion is consistent with progressive principles completely escapes me.

You want to build a better world? You might start with the way you treat those with whom you disagree.

i’m not intimidated by authoritarianism, either! because i have a Taser gun, too. cost me $600 and if any jackass in starch tries to draw on me i’m gonna pop him right in his button-eyed face with it.
___________________________
.delusions of un mundo mejor.

Excellent:

I’m not going to recommend it, but [cameron] modded his Sony Ericsson k800i to tase people as well as take pictures. Apparently, the k800i has a xenon flash - meaning that it’s got a high voltage potential available to drive the flash. He added a pair of 16uf caps and scored a good 300 volts to share with the unlucky.

We. Are. Going. To. Die. We must restore hope in the world. We must bring forth a new way of living that can sustain the world. Or else it is not just us who will die but everyone. What have we got to lose? Go forth and Fight!—Xan

…but if you do stop someone’s heart with your taser, rest assured the proper primary references all say it was their own fault for not being in good health anyway.

And it won’t be cruel and inhumane, it will only be a tool, like a nightstick in the back of the head after the perp is handcuffed.

No Hell below us
Above us, only sky

“To our knowledge, this is the first such injury reported in the medical literature.”

This does not mean it is the first reported injury in this manner from a Taser. In fact, if you read the journal article, they say the manufacture is so aware of this form of injury from Taser application they have explicitly included it on their release form for volunteers.

You imply that the “first reported in medical literature” is the first medical injury in 560,000 uses, it’s just the first to be written up.

I also am not convinced of the studies protocol and how many “incidents” were not reported to the doctor or included in the study. Seeing who paid for the study, I’m sure they either cherry picked to police depts they reviewed, or excluded some “incidents”.

It just seems to me that cops should not be killing 0.1% of suspects they have to arrest. Right now the murder rate of Tasers is at that order or magnitude. I just feel 0.1% is a lot of people who die from this “safe” technology.

I often respond to the tone of the faceless people on the other side of the forum/ blog. It is the internets after all. To people who brazenly, callously say it’s GREAAAAAT! Let’s tase ’em all bros! I respond with the same affect but with random comparisons and ad hominems.

“How that kind of superiority assertion is consistent with progressive principles completely escapes me.” I was thinking the same thing about the pro-taser comments. By the way, who has progressive principals, not me. I gave them up when the “progressives” voted for FISA II and approved MuchusaZee. Sen. Feinstein and Pelosi are allegedly endowed with progressive principals, so I’ll pass.

Nothing makes it into the medical literature unless someone pays for the study.

That’s not simply page charges in a journal. It’s salaries for the people that do the study. The costs of reagents and computers and printers. It’s the overhead for the building, paying for the lights and heat.

Once upon a time medical studies were largely underwritten by the NIH. Even then, you were (and still are) subjected to rigorous peer review by the NIH and your institution.

Once upon a time.

Nowadays often its the Corps underwriting these things, and even when the NIH is involved, the study section may not be quite so disinterested from corporate interests as they should be.

For something like this, a primary reference that gives a big green light to a lucrative product that helps support the police state?

I believe that like I believe Iran is building a nuke to warm Dear Leader’s heart.

No Hell below us
Above us, only sky

Let’s all get tasers
Electric fun
Not just for me and you
For everyone!

When you factor out
The applications
You will electrocute
The entire nation

I think we’ll all agree
Between our sighs
Some think that tasering
Will save some lives

I think it also works
At saving time
Imagine all those Jews
In straighter lines

++++

Intranets: ““You imply that the “first reported in medical literature” is the first medical injury in 560,000 uses, it’s just the first to be written up.”

Unless you have evidence to the contrary, this is the one and only injury of its type. Speculate as you wish but there are no other reports and this isn’t the sort of injury that can be shrugged off or hidden. Maybe it has happened before, but maybe maybe maybe anything you want. Can’t deal with the undocumented in the context of rational discussion.

Intranets: ” In fact, if you read the journal article, they say the manufacture is so aware of this form of injury from Taser application they have explicitly included it on their release form for volunteers.

From the Taser Inc release form:

Strain Injury Risks. It is possible that the injury types may include, but are not limited to, strain-type injuries such as hernias, ruptures, dislocations, tears, or other injuries to soft tissue, organs, muscles, tendons, ligaments, nerves, and joints. Fractures to bones, including vertebrae, may occur. These injuries may be more likely to occur in people with pre-existing injuries or conditions such as pregnancy, osteoporosis, osteopenia, spinal injuries, diverticulitis, or in persons having previous muscle, disc, ligament, joint, or tendon damage. It is believed that the risk of these injuries is comparable to or less than the risk(s) from vigorous physical exertion, such as weight training, wrestling, or other intense athletic endeavors.

Not as though it was especially highlighted, just one of a lawyerly laundry list of possibilities. One could, I guess, speculate that the mention of vertebrae is evidence that there must have been previous occurrences. Alternatively, it could be specifically mentioned because except for the head, injuries to the vertebrae are far more serious than other bones and might not be immediately suspected. Mind reading, especially the minds of lawyers, is outside my skill set. Your abilities may vary.

Intranets: ” I also am not convinced of the studies protocol and how many “incidents” were not reported to the doctor or included in the study. Seeing who paid for the study, I’m sure they either cherry picked to police depts they reviewed, or excluded some “incidents”.”

If you believe that everyone who disagrees with you is a liar, it must make it very difficult for you to have conversations with them….Oh, wait……

Internets: ” By the way, who has progressive principals, not me. I gave them up when the “progressives” voted for FISA II and approved MuchusaZee. Sen. Feinstein and Pelosi are allegedly endowed with progressive principals, so I’ll pass.”

For the record: Feinstein isn’t considered a progressive by anyone who knows her or her work. The VRWC keeps calling her progressive, but she isn’t; guess you’ve been taken in by their lies. Pelosi didn’t vote for “FISA II”, she voted against it. Pelosi also didn’t vote for “MuchusaZee” since she is in the House and has no vote on presidential appointee. If these are the reasons you’ve abandoned progressivism, you have based your decision on factual errors….Oh, wait….

Intranets: “To people who brazenly, callously say it’s GREAAAAAT! Let’s tase ’em all bros! I respond with the same affect but with random comparisons and ad hominems.

Fine. When you find someone like that, feel free. I did not say anything remotely like that. You accused me of saying it – a lie – and then attacked me personally for something I never did. But that’s OK, hey, it’s the internets where people get to lie and slander with impunity if they feel like it. Your actions, your responsibility, shame on you but no, I don’t have to just let it slide because, you know, it’s the internets.

Kelly B: ” Nothing makes it into the medical literature unless someone pays for the study.

Funding was through a $104,071 grant from the National Institute of Justice, the arm of the Department of Justice that conducts research. This study is one part of a larger, multi-arm study looking at taser use from a number of different viewpoints. At Wake the grant procedure contains multiple protections for the University and the authors; the grantee waives all claim of control over the conduct of the study and the publication of the data. The grantee writes a check and from there the University and the investigators have absolute authority over the conduct of the study, the analysis and interpretation of the data, and the content of all publications. The grantee gets a copy of the data and a report. If you think this source of funding is inappropriate, perhaps you can get with Amnesty International and other critical parties and coordinate one yourself.

MJS, meet Nezua. Careful, she’s a real live wire.

Thank you for the introconduction.

++++

YOU Say:

And it won’t be cruel and inhumane, it will only be a tool, like a nightstick in the back of the head after the perp is handcuffed.

Tasers are worse than firearms as are most of the “nonlethal” weapons, because they give rise to the lie you can inflict violence that really isn’t violence.
And for that matter, firearms should be heavily restricted too.

YOU say:
We’re so beyond lynching. We don’t like the idea we, the height of Western Civilization, would do uncivilized things. So Tasers are safe, because it says so, right there on the label. Primarily.
Without citing more sources than I already have over the last week, let me once again suggest to you that perhaps we all have conditioned responses, and we are indeed all being conditioned. Perhaps this is another emergent property, a meme that’s become a zeitgeist of eternal war. Perhaps you can not agree with this, or will not, or find it irrelevant.
But for your consideration, perhaps your mind is not quite your own when you see the suffering of another human and no longer factor human suffering as something to be avoided in satisfaction of your own needs. Even if your needs involve protecting yourself.

and then YOU defend the statement above, which I have identified as your indictment against anyone ever to use force even for self-defense, this way:

Incorrect!
Submitted by kelley b on Tue, 2007-11-27 19:53.
It’s an indictment of the blind acceptance of violence beyond the needed.
It’s a suggestion that the need for violence is being conditioned into us beyond what is normal. We’re animals. Some violence happens, and sadly enough is normal in life.
I’m no pacifist, nor am I suggesting it’s prudent to be one.
Some of that conditioning is the Law of the Jungle. Some of that conditioning is “Let’s you and him fight”. Much of that conditioning makes a great deal of money for the men who would be our feudal lords.

I’ve reproduced your words faithfully above.
Now I say this:
So you prove that you do in fact believe that the authoritarianism you fear so abjectly overrides all other considerations. You prove in your own words that you don’t think there is anything at all worth risking injury to another person for, including your own injury or death.

You need to think this through very carefully.

Meanwhile, every hardworking police officer in this country and Canada, despite your scorn, is still trying to keep you and your loved ones safe, your home and property under your control.

Just like firefighters, only the cops are there even when you don’t smell smoke.

because of the headline.

Hey, my Mom called the cops when the hose came out of her washing machine. “That’s what you pay taxes for,” they told her.

Using the typology above, this would be the procedural thread, to which Sarah adds a moral dimension.

This is has nothing to do with the normalization thread, which I’m guessing is the source of Kelley’s concern.

We. Are. Going. To. Die. We must restore hope in the world. We must bring forth a new way of living that can sustain the world. Or else it is not just us who will die but everyone. What have we got to lose? Go forth and Fight!—Xan

Cuz’ if you suck it after the savior gets elected they might taze your ass.

++++

p.s. We tell each other to suck eggs now? Another meeting I must have missed. Perhaps I wasn’t invited.

Come to think of it, snakes suck eggs. So do certain riverbank furries.

Okay, I’ll go now. This place is starting to suck.

++++

giving what I get, or what I see pushed off on others hereabouts.

SO … if y’all want to vote me off the island I’m up for it.

We can admit that we’re killers … but we’re not going to kill today. That’s all it takes! Knowing that we’re not going to kill today! ~ Captain James T. Kirk, Stardate 3193.0

A mild call for civility (albeit cloaked in snark) and then it’s “if y’all want to vote me off the island I’m up for it.” ???

You know what’s really frightening? I looked at all the maps (hidden in the day room) and there is no island! Walk for your lives!

++++

Sarah, I think you absolutely misunderstand most of what I say here.

I wish you well, but I also wish you’d get that colossal chip off your shoulder.

People abuse each other. Authority figures elicit disrespect from me, because I’ve been abused by authority figures I’ve known too well. It’s a bad habitual response from me.

When someone tells me I must obey, well, you can bet if they’ve got a taser or a nightstick, I obey. And I spend an obsessive amount of my time finding legal ways of making them obey, too. Perhaps it’s because I grew up in a town where cops ran the drugs, and the prostitutes, and cops were behind most of the other gambling and organized crime, too.

Nobody’s asking you to leave, or sparky either that I’m aware of. We present ideas here. We have disagreements sometimes.

Authority, however, must prove its merit.

The nice shiny badge or the erudite pontifications really don’t impress people who have solid educations and know who owns the Empire.

Once again, I suspect you read my words, but do not hear what I’m saying.

Peace be with you.

No Hell below us
Above us, only sky

+++
Imagine all those Jews
In straighter lines+++

I guess that is why I go off the deep end when good, smart people start using their mental clock cycles to justify how great tasers are and how meaningful this study is. Sure the same authors published another medical journal article a few months earlier about the risks and injuries… but it’s all ok now because the new and improved ™ one (ie. more funding) says it’s a-ok, tase on bro!

Here’s the source docu-facts I’m looking at —- the last half a million bro’s that got tased, 1 in 1000 died.

So, yeah, keep on telling me about this comprehensive study saying how safe it is. Meanwhile, cops are more productive at cattle prodding us all into the detention camps. Every medical study that gives permission to the media, the police, to well intentioned smart people… well that is a thousand more orders for Taser-brand Conduction Energy Weapons, and hundreds of thousands more cops who feel better about tasing people, “cause it is safe”.

I almost didn’t read Sarah’s comment. Why?

Because the headline didn’t match the body of the comment, which reminded us — IMNSHO, correctly — that indeed there is an ethical/moral component to the work that police do.

It’s silly when good points are lost behind bad headlines. Gawd knows the Fellows have gotten enough mail from me on good headlines to understand my concern there.

I’m not strong on Civility requirements in the community, unless we go anti-Semitic, go off with shit that can’t be evidence, or start playing “Let’s you and him fight.” Republicans, of course, are fair game at any time.

Oddly, or not, I seem to becoming cast in the role of policemen here, when all I want to do is be the Janitor in my tiny room under the stairs. I can play that role if the Fellows prefer, but I’d far rather be posting, or leading a real life, and I can guarantee that the results won’t be pretty.

We. Are. Going. To. Die. We must restore hope in the world. We must bring forth a new way of living that can sustain the world. Or else it is not just us who will die but everyone. What have we got to lose? Go forth and Fight!—Xan

You’re the daddy. And the walrus was Paul. Whatever.

I too don’t recall civility requirements on any of the in-house literature, but I appreciate this curuous thing, this civility and all that it implies just the same, even if there is no insistance implied or executed. When we lose the ability to communicate with each other (resorting to schoolyard taunts, etc.) with a modicum of respect we head down a path that is lined with Tasers. Shall we just cuss each other out and stop pretending that we are trying to both understand and be understood (if indeed that’s what we’re doing)?

I do appreciate Lambert’s guarantee that “…the results won’t be pretty.” Kind of like a reverse Beverly Hills cosmetic surgeon.

++++

Disposable camera Tasers®.

NOTE Sheesh, a Daddy? I hope not. Editor, maybe.

We. Are. Going. To. Die. We must restore hope in the world. We must bring forth a new way of living that can sustain the world. Or else it is not just us who will die but everyone. What have we got to lose? Go forth and Fight!—Xan

denies his daddiness! Didn’t you learn anything from The Life of Brian?

++++

the bass are in the lilies. Pass it on.

We. Are. Going. To. Die. We must restore hope in the world. We must bring forth a new way of living that can sustain the world. Or else it is not just us who will die but everyone. What have we got to lose? Go forth and Fight!—Xan

“I am an X in an indeterminate equation. That X is the rock upon which I stand.”

Fools Die
Mario Puzo

With a nod to Dostoyevsky no doubt.

++++

You can’t disprove a negative but you can follow it around all day, tugging at its coat tails, until it finally goes berserk.

++++

Agence France Press:

One of the biggest Taser representatives outside the US base, Di Zazzo also gave a surprise blast of the stun gun to French far-right politician Jean-Marie Le Pen and offered a test dose to Nicolas Sarkozy before he became France’s president.

Sarkozy diplomatically declined, according to di Zazzo, but the president’s no-nonsense law and order tactics are one reason why the engineer businessman is confident of huge demand for the gun, despite controversy over its use in North America and being declared a form of torture by a UN committee.

The French leader vowed before his election in May to buy a Taser — which paralyses targets — for every policeman and gendarme in France which could provide a market for at least 300,000 guns alone.

The Taser France chief said he has endured more than 50 Taser shots during tests and demonstrations of the gun.

“You cannot call it real pain,” said di Zazzo. “I just found that time was infinitely long.” In reality, a shot from the gun, which packs a 50,000 volt punch immobilises suspects for a few seconds.

“If electricity was to kill it would do so straight away,” said di Zazzo. “In most of these cases people have carried on fighting or struggling after they were hit by the Taser and had recovered. In a lot of these cases there is a drug overdose or cerebral delirium involved.”

“In Canada, the man carried on struggling afterwards and was hit by batons and the police knelt on him. You can also die from being hit with a baton or knelt on,” he added.

Taser says its device “saves lives” because it is an effective alternative to a real gun. Each stun round is videod by a camera on the gun for future evidence.

Di Zazzo’s French company is also developing a mini-flying saucer like drone which could also fire Taser stun rounds on criminal suspects or rioting crowds. He expects it to be launched next year and to be sold internationally by Taser.

Interesting.

We. Are. Going. To. Die. We must restore hope in the world. We must bring forth a new way of living that can sustain the world. Or else it is not just us who will die but everyone. What have we got to lose? Go forth and Fight!—Xan