Another Taser Death Raises Eyebrows To New Levels

[TexasVet]

... as my Anatomy fails me now...

That happens to me sometimes.

Hmm I don't think we needed to know that

[casingpoint]

The Ninth Circuit has ruled against indiscriminate use of tasers by police to force compliance.
http://www.ethiopianreview.com/news/9719" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2 ... miting.php" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Meanwhile, a case is proceeding in Louisiana in which a suspect died after multiple tasing. The medical examiner has stated is so many words that the suspect died as a result of being tased with a deadly weapon. That's one maybe for the Firth Circuit to rule on eventually, with far reaching implications.
http://www.thetowntalk.com/article/2010 ... ed-to-June" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Dragonfighter]

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.

Except during the isoelectric period, the re-polarization of the ventricles as indicate by the ST segment on an ECG. You can completely depolarize (induce asystole) by a thump on the chest or just about any charge. Some people, due to cation imbalances, nerve blockage, drug use or genetics have a longer isoelectric period than others making them more vulnerable. A shock or a little league baseball to the sternum and presto, dead person. Asystole, unlike in the movies does not typically respond to defibrillation and has to be paced or in some cases a precordial thump (a second, well placed blow).

What would be telling to me is the number of uses versus the number of fatalities. A Taser is using considerable force but I am not sure I'm ready to remove that option from their arsenal. Maybe just move it a notch or two up the escalation meter.

+1 on the one try, 9' versus the 14 tries at a hundred yards though.

[casingpoint]

An excellent report of the decision from across the Pond where the Brits are having their own problems with the taser and excessive force in general:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... /12/tasers" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[srothstein]

What is really interesting in the report from the UK is that they quote the 9th Circuit decision a little differently than we have seen it reported in the states. Note that they say the court ruled it as less-lethal, just more painful than other methods so they think it should have a higher standard. They also note that the injuries the man received were from the fall, not the taser. This has always been well known, falls can cause injuries. As well known is that tasers can cause falls (well, they are almost designed to).

But if the 9th circuit is correct in their ruling, the Taser is still less-lethal. The standards of force have always been lethal requires more justification than non-lethal force. And the higher a possibility of injury requires more justification also.

So, which would you rather be hit with, a steel pipe or the taser? After all, the choices the officer has that are both considered less lethal are the ASP baton (or similar styles from other brands), the OC spray, and the taser. Officers generally do not use OC in a one on one fight since they stand a chance of getting hit by the overspray and they have to clean up the suspect before putting him in the car. And an ASP baton is just a piece of steel pipe than can collapse and be carried easily.

Sorry guys, but my money is still on allowing officers to carry and use tasers as before. The rules on use of force and use of deadly force have not changed and do not need to be. The taser fits right in there where it should. I see no reason for a change at all.

[hirundo82]

I agree that LEOs should continue to be allowed to carry Tasers, as they have obvious utility against unarmed, violent subjects. I think the rules for their use need to be tightened. There are frequent news stories, and I've personally seen examples, of Tasers being used to gain compliance from non-resisting, noncompliant subjects. By all accounts Tasers cause excruciating physical pain, and I don't think that should be used if there is not an imminent physical danger to the officer. There are 8th Amendment challenges to these kinds of cases in the courts presently.

[gigag04]

Our taser POLICY (edited) is more strict than most. However,the media hypes what it wants.

If you look at the number of successful (probes hit target) tazes, the percentage of death or serious bodily injury is miniscule. They have been statistically proven to decrease officer assaults and injuries.

Things can go wrong with any intermediate weapon. You can miss a motor point (thigh) with your baton and hit the hip, causing serious bodily injury. In combat stress (ie fight) you lose your fine motor skills. We train with batons but in the heat of the moment you still have to slow down and focus your strikes.

I don't think a Taser qualifies as a deadly weapon. Either in case law or according to Texas PC.

[Keith B]

I don't think a Taser qualifies as a deadly weapon. Either in case law or according to Texas PC.

Tasers are 'less lethal' or 'compliance' weapons. I have a friend who is a retired LEO and well known expert in this type of defense. While it used to be referred to as 'non-lethal', they have moved to the other terms due to the fact that rubber bullets, bean bags, tasers, etc CAN cause death, depending on various things from the physical condition of the subject, to the way the force was applied (properly or improperly.)

[casingpoint]

The manufacturer of the taser has issued a warning to buyers not to apply the weapon to the chest area. Probably that is related to this:

Since June 2001, more than 351 individuals in the United States have died after being shocked by police Tasers.

http://www.amnestyusa.org/us-human-righ ... id=1021202" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Some day, some cop is going to pull a taser on a suspect, who is going to pull a gun on the cop and a court is going to find the suspect's action was done in self defense. I can't view the video, but this sounds like one of those days:
http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/ ... _traf.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I'm just sayin...

[Dragonfighter]

Oh yeah, he's done.

[Keith B]

Oh yeah, he's done.

Maybe not. He was apparently suspended with no pay for 30 days, then they paid him while on administrative leave through September 09. He had been reporting to work on some type of temporary assignment through mid-December. This is the last article I can find on it, but apparently he still has a job.

The county has tentatively agreed to pay the lady $75,000 in damages in her law suit for being wrongfully tasered. Hmmm, where do I sign up?

http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/ ... ser_c.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[bizarrenormality]

I don't think a Taser qualifies as a deadly weapon. Either in case law or according to Texas PC.

Does that go both ways? If a criminal shoots a cop with a Taser it's not deadly force?

[srothstein]

The manufacturer of the taser has issued a warning to buyers not to apply the weapon to the chest area. Probably that is related to this:

Since June 2001, more than 351 individuals in the United States have died after being shocked by police Tasers.

http://www.amnestyusa.org/us-human-righ ... id=1021202" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Nope, it is in response to finding out what works best. Here is one explanation of the advice (not truly a warning either):
http://www.policemag.com/Channel/Weapon ... eting.aspx" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Some day, some cop is going to pull a taser on a suspect, who is going to pull a gun on the cop and a court is going to find the suspect's action was done in self defense. I can't view the video, but this sounds like one of those days:
http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/ ... _traf.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Well, let's look at that from the other point of view. The officer felt she was breaking the law and stopped her. She demanded evidence and argued with him at the scene, which is not the place for either of those. She got out of the car and refused to obey his instructions until she was told she was under arrest (by her testimony in the video). Then she gets in the car and refuses to exit, fighting with the officer when he tries to place her under arrest. He tases her and it doesn't affect her (she says she felt the shock but it did not bothe rher, so he tases her again and she drops to her knees. Then she tries to get up again while he is trying to handcuff her.

I cannot speak as to the stop itself, but I saw a clear cut case of resisting arrest. In Texas, the arrest was clearly a legal arrest also. Was the arrest the proper thing to do? I can't say because I wasn't there. I probably would have let her get into the car when she did and not gone any further witht he arrest unless she did more, but each officer has his own limit on where he cuts off and lets someone go and where he arrests.

My question to everyone who thinks the officer was wrong is what else would you have him do. Consider this carefully. Do you want officers enforcing the law or not? What limits do you want on their authority? How much does a person get to argue with officers and refuse to obey instructions before it is an arrestable offense? These are critical questions to consider and they are more of what the debate should be than the tool used. We are really discussing the overall use of force and not the tool. Remember when you consider this that Texas makes all traffic offenses criminal offenses. Not every state does, but this means that the offenses in the Penal Code that are also class C misdemeanors are going to be treated the same way.That thief who just stole $49 worth of your poperty from your front porch has just committed the same grade of offense as your failure to obey the stop sign.

[casingpoint]

To keep this in perspective, it is important to remember that TASER devices are designed for deployment in very high-risk situations involving acts of violence and aggression-Dr.Ho

Sounds like a situation for a gun, not electricity. If I was a cop, I would not want to be pulling my taser while a suspect is pulling his gun.

[Lonegun1894]

As a PO, we do have to justify using this tool if we use it. Our training did include being told that these devices have been involved in incidents where the suspect has died, but that it was not due to the use of the Taser, but rather the suspects drug use. Tests have been done with probes being placed on either side of a pacemaker, with no effects on the heart. Now If a pacemaker patient did not have any side-effects, no one else should either due to a medical condition.

My department has had a Taser involved fatality, but investigation later proved that the individual had a long history of excessive drug use, and had at that time been under the influence of a lethal overdose--he would have died even if he had stayed at home and not gotten into the altercation with officers. The increased heart rate due to the fight he started, and the eventual taser deployment may have taken a few minutes off his life, but that is all. He was tased when he reached for something into his pocket, which turned out to be a knife. Officers were cleared.

I cant speak for all departments, but in mine, if you want to carry a taser, you go through the training to do so--which includes getting hit with it. We were given the choice of clips or the darts we use on duty, and a 3 or 5 second burst. I chose the darts and the full 5 seconds, like many in my department. This is just to say I have been on both sides of a Taser, and have used it and seen it used in situations where the firearm would have been justified, but the officers involved chose to take a suspect into custody instead of taking a life. I personally would much rather Tase a person, than shoot them.