TexasCHLforum.com

The pressing question that must now be addressed fully: Is a taser deadly force and it's use in police work restricted to the same standard as firearms?

Police say officers only use the Taser when a suspect fails to comply with orders and the officer fears bodily harm. Unlike the use of a gun, which requires an officer fear for his life, the standards for Tasers are lower because Tasers are not considered deadly force.

The incident:
http://www.myfoxdc.com/dpp/news/local/s ... ies-011810" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The big use for tasers seems to be to effect compliance by suspects. Cops used to do that with the old billy club and the slap. They, too, could be deadly weapons if abused, but an officer could usually tailor his blows to prevent severe injury and death. Specific non-lethal parts of the human body were the primary targets.

I reckon a taser might be adjusted to administer light charges, but the difference is an electrical charge is going to traverse a suspect's entire body, finding any susceptibility present.

An LEO can't control where the taser goes, only where it hits. If tasers are indeed capable of causing death by their mere application, this fundamental lack of control excludes their use under existing state statutes, if an officer is not in fear of his life or great bodily harm.

This is why I don't use or carry a taser, since they are a 'less-lethal' but sometimes lethal weapon, I consider them to be deadly force. If I'm in a situation where I need to use deadly force, I'd rather have 0-100yd range and 14 trys, rather than 15 feet and one shot that might not work at all

It only takes a hundreth of an amp passing through someone's heart to stop it. (That's not much). Don't tasers puncture the skin? It's not unreasonable to expect people to enter cardiac arrest occasionally, especially if the leads end up on opposite sides of the heart. Anything capable of electrocuting the body is potentially deadly.

it takes about 60mA, but you have to get that shock across a specific set of nerves in the heart or neck. I cant remember the names, as my Anatomy fails me now.

anything above 200mA muscle contractions can be so strng that the heart can't do anything at all.

The Taser is designed to be 5,000v@ 3mA, so under most circumstances it should not stop the heart.

Now I'm not a doctor, I'm just a guy who at one time was a trained EMT, so I'm sure there's more information than what I just gave.

nitrogen wrote:it takes about 60mA, but you have to get that shock across a specific set of nerves in the heart or neck. I cant remember the names, as my Anatomy fails me now.

anything above 200mA muscle contractions can be so strng that the heart can't do anything at all.

The Taser is designed to be 5,000v@ 3mA, so under most circumstances it should not stop the heart.

Now I'm not a doctor, I'm just a guy who at one time was a trained EMT, so I'm sure there's more information than what I just gave.

Is it 60? I was thinking 10 for some reason.

Drewthetexan wrote:

nitrogen wrote:it takes about 60mA, but you have to get that shock across a specific set of nerves in the heart or neck. I cant remember the names, as my Anatomy fails me now.

anything above 200mA muscle contractions can be so strng that the heart can't do anything at all.

The Taser is designed to be 5,000v@ 3mA, so under most circumstances it should not stop the heart.

Now I'm not a doctor, I'm just a guy who at one time was a trained EMT, so I'm sure there's more information than what I just gave.

Is it 60? I was thinking 10 for some reason.

It can be as low as 1mA if you have direct contact to the heart, from what I remember.
Again, I was trained about 10 years ago, the numbers they teach now might be different. I'd like to hear from someone who'se current, or is a real doctor :)

nitrogen wrote:... as my Anatomy fails me now...

That happens to me sometimes.

Another case, headed for trial. Or settlement beforehand. As in before the problem spins out of control and implodes on the manufacturer:
http://www.aboutlawsuits.com/taser-wron ... ctor-7569/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I say they are deadly force based off of this reasoning.
The definition of deadly force according to th TX PC 38.01 C is:
"Deadly force" means force that is intended or known by the actor to cause, or in the manner of its use or intended use is capable of causing, death or serious bodily injury.

Tasers have proven that they are capable of causing death. And while I have never used one or seen one in real life, I would assume that since your muscles are basically rendered useless you could fall and hit your head on the curb or something similar that would cause "serious bodily injury"

Based off of that definition in the TX PC I say, yes, they are considered deadly force.

RiveraRa wrote:I say they are deadly force based off of this reasoning.
The definition of deadly force according to th TX PC 38.01 C is:
"Deadly force" means force that is intended or known by the actor to cause, or in the manner of its use or intended use is capable of causing, death or serious bodily injury.

Tasers have proven that they are capable of causing death. And while I have never used one or seen one in real life, I would assume that since your muscles are basically rendered useless you could fall and hit your head on the curb or something similar that would cause "serious bodily injury"

Based off of that definition in the TX PC I say, yes, they are considered deadly force.

Actually, I am not sure. You need to read the lines in front of what you put in red. I think the statement 'intended or known by the actor to cause, or in the manner of its use or intended use' is the out. This removes the taser from the deadly force as it is not intended, or the manner of use, or intended use was to cause death or serious bodily injury, just incapacitate them. Unless they can prove that the actor knew the taser could/would cause death (listed above) then they are gonna be cleared of using deadly force.

JMO, and IANAL.

We should all remember that in the UK beer steins have been declared to be deadly weapons and thus subject to restrictions for exactly the reasons you have stated above. Lots of things are deadly weapons. A baseball bat comes to mind. Unlike a firearm, intention has a lot to do with it's usage.

This whole issue of tasers is absurd as what is probably the real issue has never been (to my knowledge) stated publicly. We all know the astonishingly high rates of drug usage in the US - especially crack cocaine. Cocaine and other drugs that cause "highs" cause enormous stress on the heart. Heart muscle does not regenerate itself - once damaged, it is permanent. So if someone who has used drugs for some time is tasered, and their heart has been damaged by the drug usage, the application of the charge from the taser acts exactly like cardioversion. Cardioversion means the heart is induced to stop by external electric charge. The intention, medically, is to halt potentially deadly heart rythms and cause the heart to restart in a normal rythm. However, the threshold for stopping a damaged heart is, I believe, significantly lower than a healthy one.

I think most of you can see how a taser, applied to a person who has used drugs, is a potential recipe for disaster. And no, I am not a physician. Former paramedic, but my wife is an RN who has worked the ER for nearly 20 years now.

So, take the Taser out of the situation. What would the options be for the Officer? If there is no Taser option, that leaves them with their Firearm.

If I were a criminal, I think I would choose a Taser with minimal chance of death, over a Firearm with a minimal chance of survival.

Continuum of force. Verbal, gentle touch, more forceful touch, OC spray, nightstick Taser, forearm. These are pretty much the options available to the officer during a confrontation. Compliance is up to the person the officer is interacting with. Does the use of Tasers get abused? Yes they do, but have you ever noticed when the officer uses deadly force on someone the family will often ask, "Couldn't the officer have done something else?" or "Why did he use a Taser?"

If one does not get into a fight with an officer then one does not normally get tased, or OC, or hit with a nightstick or shot. Seem to be a pretty simple concept to me.

dover338 wrote:So, take the Taser out of the situation. What would the options be for the Officer? If there is no Taser option, that leaves them with their Firearm.

It also leaves them with the option of re-thinking just how vital it is that the citizen obey that order. It might get them out of the mindset that everything an officer says is going to be backed with force.

Im not saying that Officers should not be able to use tasers. And yes, I myself would rather get the taser than a bullet but I think their use needs to be considered deadly force. And because of that, treated as such. By both criminal and officer.

Keith B wrote:Unless they can prove that the actor knew the taser could/would cause death (listed above) then they are gonna be cleared of using deadly force.

That could be resolved when they go through training. You tell every officer that goes through training that a taser can kill a man and now it is "known by the actor to cause"