Tasing a ten year old... Wow!

Remove all ads!

I have taken very similar risks during emergency situations -- and I would not hesitate to do it again.

 

It's a KID, under age... They do not think rationally yet... they are too young to make rational decisions. That is why you aren't allowed to vote till you are 18. That is why if you commit murder while under the age of 18 you don't get life in prison. They are too young to make good decisions, especially during irrational states of mind, so you can't hold that against them because they are too young and just DON'T KNOW how to act yet.

Anyone talking about tazing their children for punishment should be tazed and hauled off to jail. Why don't you just taze a new-born while you are at it.

 

I do belive you need 4 liters of spit, to get infected by it with HIV. Unless the person biting you draws blood, and also has a bleeding wound in her\his mouth. It might be less than 4 liters, but thats the number I remember when chatting to a friend of mine, that is a doctor, about it recently. Its been awhile though, so i might be remembering it wrong.

 

ever been bitten rawgrim?

T2, when you have a prescription drug for your children do you use it believing that the information published on the fact sheet is correct?

 

I'm hoping that's sarcasm rusty....

Shoshino, the drugs have been tested for children. There is no applicable analogy to this topic.

 

and the taser has been tested "safe for use on anyone weighing 60 pounds (27 kg) or more" and thats a barbed taser, once again, this was a drive stun taser which does not cause physical harm, put it on par with spanking if you will, pain compliance, may leave a red mark which goes away after a few minutes.

the drugs are not tested on children any more then the taser has been tested on children, they are both tested under labratory conditions, and it is perfectly applicable, you believe the information given to you by the pharmacutical companies, the officer believes taser international.

 

This, to me, is pure idiocy, and I'm sorry to say that about you, Blades. Your position to date has been defined by unwarranted assumptions and a vast underestimation of the threat a child can pose, as well as the risks of physically subduing said child. I can understand this given the obvious emotional weight it has on you.

Now, however, you verge into the flat out illogical. You object to the use of a taser because it may be painful and 'traumatizing'. Let me just say, I can guarantee you any attempt to physically restrain an out-of-control child will be both painful and traumatizing to the child. T2 has already talked about this when justifying the child kicking the cop in the balls. Given that, the taser seems to produce the same effect without any evidence of risk of injury to the child. It seems to be the taser would be preferable from that analysis.

Here's the thing, the primary debate isn't about the use of violence, but rather about the use of tasers. It's apparently perfectly fine to bum-rush a child, pin them to the ground, strap their arms behind their backs and bang their heads against the car as you're putting them in, but God forbid anyone should expose them to electricity.

Specifically, I lean to that from the fact that the only scientific research into tasers has been outright dismissed by their opposition, without any real contradicting evidence.

Basically, what I mean is that no evidence we couldd possibly present will be considered reliable by the opposition, thus it is their onus to convince us.

First off, the fact that others support his position does prove it's not self evident to others. Secondly, the very objection we have is that you're thinking on an emotional level, rather than a rational one.

Actually, I can defend it just fine, without any moral qualms, because what you have marked as the "Moral ground" looks an aweful lot like quicksand to me.

Specifically, to that end, I present the sum total of all scientific and statistical data we have on tasers which, while not directly dealing with children in most cases, does show that the taser is more safe than physical force for both the subject and the officers involved. While, like you, I would like to see some real scientific evidence addressing this particular case, all the evidence we do have leans toward an assumption of safety, not one of danger.

Look at all the other cases linked where children were tased. The parents in those cases didn't suggest the use of tasers, thus aren't even at risk of being demonized for it, yet they all support the officers' use of tasers.

Personally, I'm not even objecting to your moral standing, but rather the rational standing that informs it. Morality needs a good reason to particularly single out a specific form of an action, such as the taser (a specific form of pain/compliance). If you deem it to be too painful, then that's understandable. I don't agree, but I understand. If you deem it too risky, then that needs defense, but is still understandable. If adaquately defended, then I would even agree with that position. Specifically, right now, I'm asking you: Why do you object to using a Taser to subdue a violent child but not the use of physical force? Beyond the moral, there has to be a logical reason.

I think you're defendable on the second point, and I even agree with you. For the first and third, I think you're stretching a long way. As I've said before, all evidence suggests tasers are safe. To assume they're dangerous without evidence is illogical and unreasonable. Furthermore, while we don't have any reports from the family shrink, I feel the father's testimony that the child has 'emotional problems' is reliable. Lastly, we actually know there are reports of previous responses to the house. I don't know anything about what those reports contain, and presumably there are no tasings, but there are reports.

Actually, it sounds to me like an example of rational fear.

And I'm sure the other alternatives in those cases involved the use of firearms, nukes, and/or letting the person do whatever they wanted. Specifically, if you had a choice between using a taser on a 10-year-old or being bitten by said 10-year-old, knowing them to be infected with HIV, which would you choose?

...
That's great, except no one's talking about punishment. We're talking about restraint. You're right, kids don't think rationally, and sometimes that means they choose to do things with a high risk of injuring themselves and/or others. At such times, one uses restraint on them, forcible restraint if necessary.

First off, any such number would be an issue of probability, not necessity. Secondly, what if the child had just bitten (and drawn blood from) another child who had HIV, just having HIV-infected blood in her mouth? No need for the child herself to have HIV (yet), just pose a risk of it to others.

Actually, the big controversy a little while ago was that they haven't and new research shows that they should be.

 

For me NOG, that answer is an easy one. We don't have any research showing that tasing a child IS a 100 % safe method physically, let alone mentally, emotionally or psychologically for the child. So we should just assume it is ok? Wrong. For the safety of children, we should assume otherwise until it is proven.

 

That's an absolutely ridiculous statement. You're taking your argument to the absurd.

The AIDs argument is an irrational fear as it is obvious neither you nor mordea understand how HIV is transmitted. You seem intent on carrying this argument to absurd levels as well and finding the one case in a billion where someone would finally agree with you. Fine ... if the child has been infected with HIV, small pox, anthrax, bubonic plague, syphillus, the tyrant virus and Captain Trips; I might considers using more agressive means to stop the child.

One item that I assumed everyone knew (as it was basic principles I was taught in both emergency responder classes and electronics courses I had -- hell, even first aid in the Boy Scouts) is the skin of a child has less resistance than the skin of an adult. This is such a common issue that makers of AED's have either a selectable switch or high resistance pad for use in pediatric emergencies. Children are far more susceptible to dangers from electrical shock because, given the same wattage and voltage, levels of current are much higher going through a child. Obviously a bad assumption on my part.

 

I agree with the broader point T2B is making - you should not have to resort to an absurd hypothetical to justify an action.

The point that T2, Blades, Drew, myself, and others have been trying to make is that in the vast majority of cases we think options other than a taser can be safely employed when attempting to subdue a child. Moreover, we feel that other methods actually are safer than employing a taser, largely do to the much smaller pool of evidence we have of effects of tasers on children compared to adults.

As it pertains to this case specifically, we do not feel that the girl in question posed a serious risk to the officer. Yes, she got a nut-shot in on him, but I imagine every guy has taken a nut-shot or two in their day, the effects of which are only temporarily debilitating.

And of course NOG, Shosino, mordea and others can disagree with our position. But it is unlikely that this will change anyone's mind. I feel it is appropriate to point out that T2, Blades, Drew, and myself all have children, so we all have first-hand experience in subduing a child throwing a fit, and we all have employed methods other than a taser that have resulted in no serious injuries to our children... In fact, I would guess that using a taser has never been factored in as a potential option...

 

not as absurd as you would think, in law enforcement they take these things very seriously, same as security.
Is someone has a blood injury I have to wear gloves before I can approach them, if I get blood on my shirt I have to change immediately.
If someone spits, its face down on the floor until enough of us are available to safely restrain and carry that offender while keeping their head clost to the floor (basically 5 of us, one on each arm, one on each leg and one person holding their head down.)

It was a drive stun taser, there is no risk in its use. If theyre so dangerous how come school patrols in several US states have been deploying tasers since 2000? because they have been tested safe for use on anyone weighing more then 60lbs.

its not about the risk, its about her behaviour and the simple fact that she struck him, an officer regardless of whether or not they are at risk has to maintain control of his situation, if they lose it they have to regain it which he did quite sucessfully with his trusty 100% safe drive stun taser.

oh here we go, the age old "we've got kids we know better"

yeah, your children, what about someone elses? who will not obey you, who will resist and strike out at you, who will bite you or use anything else at their disposal to harm you because they cant get their own way. can you say the same thing then? lets bear in mind that you are in a situation where you have to do something and cant simply walk away.

also.... do your children have emotional problems?

 

Same with paramedics. But a child is far less likely than an adult to have an infection such as HIV, hepatitis, etc. In the specific situation in question, the mother was present, and probably would have informed the officer if there was something he should be particularly concerned about regarding the girl.

We may not know any better than you, but I imagine we have more experience getting an out of control child under control than you.

Sometimes your own children will not obey you, they will resist and strike out at you, they will bite and use anything else at their disposal to harm you because they can't get their own way. This is exactly what I'm talking about of why people who have kids will have experiences you will not. So yes, I can say the same thing for other children. And it goes without saying that you have to do something and simply walking away is not an option for your own children.

I don't think so, but you don't have to have emotional problems to throw a temper tantrum. You just have to be a child.

 

I would point out that the effects may be only temporarily debilitating. They may also cause serious permanent injury, if, let's say, a testicle is crushed. If the girl was capable of crushing the police officer's testicle(s), then she would pose a potential serious risk to him. I would think that crushing or not crushing would simply amount to being lucky or unlucky with where the impact occurred, as the force of a 10 year old kicking his or her leg would (I think, though I haven't done any testing ) be sufficient to crush a testicle if the kick connected properly. I know the impact is significant when they kick you in the shins, and it can hurt like hell .

 

When dealing with doctors, child psychologists, teachers and other professionals who specialized in child care I understand their experience is quite relevant. Which category do you belong in? Because if you don't have training in dealing with children then we absolutely do know better and you're just throwing out a straw man.

...and you know this based on what research? The only thing I've read is the taser is safe when used on an adult over 60 pounds.

This sounds like your saying the taser shock was a punishment -- in which case the officer was wrong to use it. He was in control until he decided to get involved in a dispute that was arguably outside reasonable law enforcement matters. That he used a taser of extracate himself from the mess just compounds the issue.

 

My point is that we don't need proof that it's 100% safe. In fact, I guarantee you it isn't. All we need is a reasonable belief that it is more safe than physical force.

Yeah, but it was fun to write.

I'm just trying to show that children can be a threat, and that the Taser is not the Devil.

Actually, given how Tasers work, this would seem to work in their favor. You see, the taser doesn't actually deliver a set voltage. It's voltage is determined by the resistance it meets. The rated voltage is only the maximum voltage it may see if, for example, it needs to jump over an air gap to get to the skin. Anyway, danger posed from electrical exposure is typically either burns (here higher resistance is the danger) or from amperage interfering with the heart beat.

The point we're trying to make, though, is that this is an assumption. The evidence doesn't point either way, and it is possible for a child to pose a real threat.

To side with either side (the cop or the father) requires making an assumption. Siding with the cop requires assuming the child presented a reasonable threat. This is far from impossible. Siding with the father requires assuming the cop was vicious, vindictive, and/or incompetent. Again, far from impossible. Both, however, are assumptions.

 

It actually does deliver a set voltage when pressed against the skin. It also has a set power rating. Resistance of the body depends on many factors including the thickness of the skin, dampness, electrolyte levels, etc..

I = V/R

I = SQRT(W/R)

For a specific power level or voltage level, a reduction in resistance will result in an increase in current (amperage). Current causes the damage so the lower resistance in children makes them more susceptable to damage. That Taser claims the product is safe for adults over 60 pounds it's clear they know there are issues.

 

I would say the only assumption you make when siding with the father is that the girl did not pose a serious threat. The cop didn't necessarily have to be vicious, vindictive, and/or incompetent - if the girl wasn't a threat, he didn't need to tase her. While I will concede that it's an assumption either way, and neither are impossible, I'd say that it isn't particularly likely that a 10-year old girl posed a serious risk to a trained police officer. So yeah, it's an assumption, but it's hardly like we're talking about a 50-50 chance here.

 

You know, teachers have dealt with violent, physically abusive kids for decades -- centuries, even -- and they have managed just fine without using tasers on them. They don't have the physical combat / restraining technique training that a cop has.

The assertion that the taser is a better solution than the alternatives is one that I believe needs to be proven. The onus is on that side of the equation. If it is proved I believe that all teachers should be issued tasers. You all know that isn't gonna happen.

And this kid didn't have AIDS. She didn't have a lead pipe, or a gun, or a knife or any of that crap. She got in a lucky shot on a cop who underestimated her, but there is still no evidence that she posed a serious threat to life or limb. I guarantee that 99% of the parents out there would say that the tasing was uncalled for. I'd sue the pants off the police force that employed a cop who tased my 10 year old daughter (she's still 10 -- couple more weeks and she''l be 11 -- and if a cop tased her, I'd still sue!)Obviously, the mother in this case is from the other 1%.

A no brainer: A 10 year old should be treated differently than an adult. Heck, a 10 year old should be treated differently than a 16 year old. One of those differences in treatment should be that we don't use electric shock to force compliance. It's inappropriate, and I don't care if a guy in a white lab jacket tells me it's safe to do so.

 

No taser specifically claim that the taser is safe on anyone over 60lbs

It is actually under a heading "Use in schools and on children"

no, you cling to emotional and moral issues as a result of having children lots of parents do, and its a serious issue because so few parents know hoe to deal with and discipline their children, your moral attitudes are becoming more common and children are becoming more out of control. I was in my local on friday and one of those annoying starving kids adverts came on TV, I just stood there looking at it where as one of the regulars started welling up, he said "these things never effected him until he had kids, but it upsets him so much now because he can imagine it happening to his own".

Is that the situation were looking at here? your not actually looking at the situation at hand and instead thinking about someone using a taser on your own kids?

nope. Im saying it was the correct means to the peaceful resolution of the issue, my father used to use a wooden spoon, he didnt use it to punish us. but when we were fighting the wooden spoon would settle the situation very quickly.

the fact that there are no reports of death or injury from drive stun, as Ive said before the only harm it can cause is a slight burn.

cant take that chance, odds are that in the spur of the moment the parent wouldnt mention anything.

young kids yes, but Ive probably dealt with more teenagers then you.

I know 3 teachers who disagree, infact one is planning on leaving the job because she cant stand other people's kids, and I remember how enthusiastic she was about becoming a teacher.

Im still going with "this is no mere temper tantrum"

yeah... back when they could use the cane, or slap them, they cant anymore kids control the classes, some schools have taser armed patrols searching kids on their way in for knives... but yep, its just like it was decades ago. you say this and yet the news is constnat with reports about teachers leaving the trade and sever lack of teachers because kids are out of control and noone wants to do this. In the UK they keep reporting that GCSE pass rates are going up every year and theyre saying thats about teacher excellence until a report was leaked telling WJEC and other education boards to dumb down the GCSE papers because kids cant pass them and without those GCSE's they are unemployable.

and LKD has clearly proved my point from earlier in this post, he thinks of his own children instead of the potentially volitile situation at hand.

 

I have yet to see any information that indicates that this child was so drastically different from my kids that she merited tasing. My kids have pitched fits. They may not be as far gone as this kid, but no data exists to tell me that she posed a threat greater than any other 10 year old.

God knows, I've WANTED to tase some 10 year olds in my life. But I never would.