TexasCHLforum.com

NcongruNt wrote:

Odin wrote:

NcongruNt wrote:
Says the company who designed it. At least that's how it was promoted and sold to LE agencies.

I can't find any evidence of that on their website or in any of the LE publications that I read. All of their advertising calls the device a less lethal device used to safely control subjects. You don't use deadly force to control, you use deadly force to stop. I don't have any of the original "Air Taser" advertisements from the early 90's available to me and I don't remember the specifics of the ads back then, so maybe they did initially advertise it as an alternative to deadly force, but they certainly have not made that claim in recent years. Their advetising, and the traning officers receive in the use of the Taser, is geared towards control of subjects that would be more dangerous for the officer to go hands on with.

A Taser has never been the cause of death of any person and should not be considered deadly force.

The Air Force considers it an alternative to deadly force. http://www.keesler.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123094432" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I don't have the time for further research right now, but I'll see what I can find later.

Nowhere in that story does it state that the Air Force considers a Taser an "alternative to deadly force". The journalist who wrote the story characterized it that way, but the statements by Air Force officials did not. We should all be aware that journalists create headlines, and even "facts", to suit their story. How many times do I read in the Dallas Morning News that an officer fired his "service revolver" in a shooting, when in fact the officer fired a Sig P226?

The Air Force described a Taser as a "non-lethal way to subdue subjects who act aggressively or continue to resist arrest". Typically, an officer does not use a non-lethal method when lethal force is called for, and never should an officer use lethal force when a non-lethal response was called for.

A Taser is a tool used to control resistant subjects, not a tool used to stop a lethal threat. Anytime an officer feels that his life is in danger and he needs to stop the threat he should use deadly force to stop the threat if the use of non-lethal force would subject the officer to potential death. A Taser is not a replacement for a firearm.

Liberty wrote:

Odin wrote:
A Taser has never been the cause of death of any person and should not be considered deadly force.

I guess it depends on who you choose to believe.

http://www.google.com/search?q=taser+de ... =firefox-a" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The company that makes them still stubbornly claims they haven't killed anyone. Seems like lots of people believe otherwise. Baytown in particular has had a rash of people dying after getting tazed.

Lots of people die after watching movies with Chevy Chase in them also, but that doesn't make Chevy Chase lethal. Can you direct me to an incident where the medical examiner ruled that the cause of death was specifically the Taser? Not excited delirium, cardiac arrest, suffocation, etc...

It's not uncommon for a person with a history of drug abuse to be extremely unhealthy, including having an enlarged or damaged heart from cocaine or PCP abuse. These people sometimes engage in lengthy pursuits with the police and exert themselves physically in a manner that they are not prepared for, then when caught put up a life or death physical fight. It often takes multiple officers to subdue these subjects. If a Taser is used on one of these individuals they have sometimes died at a later time, but never while being shocked with the Taser.

Their cause of death is a result of their extreme physical exertion, excited delirium and their lousy physical condition. If those same people asked a doctor if they should engage in extreme physical activity they would probably be advised not to do so when considering their poor physical condition and drug abuse history.

Also, those same subjects would quite possibly die of the officers used an alternative means to control them such as beating them into submission with batons (ineffective for a subject who feels no pain due to drug use) or gang piling them with multiple officers (more likely to injure subject and officers).

Let's not blame the police or the Taser for the death of criminals who choose to run from and fight the police while abusing drugs and their bodies.

Plenty of police officers have been Tased and none of them has suffered any ill effects. It's a 5 second painful ride in which you are unable to control your muscle function, followed by an immediate recovery. It's much less likely to cause injury to officers or suspects than batons, hand to hand fighting, or OC spray. The Taser has undoubtedly saved many lives of both police and suspects.

NcongruNt wrote:

Odin wrote:

NcongruNt wrote:Also, most people forget (or never knew) that a Taser is designed to be an alternative to deadly force, for deadly force scenarios where it may not be safe/preferred to use deadly force. Unfortunately, they have largely become perceived as compliance tools (which they were not intended to be), hence all of the public stories and outcry about many incidents where they are used as just that.

Says who?

Says the company who designed it. At least that's how it was promoted and sold to LE agencies.

I can't find any evidence of that on their website or in any of the LE publications that I read. All of their advertising calls the device a less lethal device used to safely control subjects. You don't use deadly force to control, you use deadly force to stop. I don't have any of the original "Air Taser" advertisements from the early 90's available to me and I don't remember the specifics of the ads back then, so maybe they did initially advertise it as an alternative to deadly force, but they certainly have not made that claim in recent years. Their advetising, and the traning officers receive in the use of the Taser, is geared towards control of subjects that would be more dangerous for the officer to go hands on with.

A Taser has never been the cause of death of any person and should not be considered deadly force.

NcongruNt wrote:Also, most people forget (or never knew) that a Taser is designed to be an alternative to deadly force, for deadly force scenarios where it may not be safe/preferred to use deadly force. Unfortunately, they have largely become perceived as compliance tools (which they were not intended to be), hence all of the public stories and outcry about many incidents where they are used as just that.

Says who?