Tasing a ten year old... Wow!

Remove all ads!

Skin contact with an electrical source can be very dangerous. Also, further down in your post you admit that this could cause increased blood pressure. That could potentially be dangerous, or so my doctor keeps telling me
The mixture of extreme pain, muscle contraction, and an almost certainly already elevated heart rate could feasibly cause a fatal heart attack.

That in no way means they're not hiding behind it as a convenient excuse not to admit their weapons could potentially be life threatening. Given that it doesn't officially exist to many official bodies, they could fairly easily pass the cause of death onto it if it even remotely fits the symptoms.

I'll agree with you, the verdict is still out on if the deaths have been caused by tasers, but doesn't that mean they shouldn't be used until conclusive evidence has been shown? If a supposedly non-lethal weapon is killing people, the officers using it should be fully briefed on that.

I did some rummaging on this, and came across another article documenting the same event. Important point in it:

Therefore, it seems that the event can be detected after, maybe through some sort of residual wierdness in heartbeat.

The police aren't going to take a medical on someone before they tase them. Anybody could have a weakness in the blood vessels, and could suffer the same fate as this poor chap. Maybe Taser should start branding them as "Non-lethal... usually".

See first point.



Edit: 7 quotes!? Oh lord, what's happening to me..

 

IFF the path of least resistance leads to grounding through the body. This isn't the case for a drive-stun taser, as the current is dissipated on the other prong, which is about an inch away.

Yes, similar to being surprised. If your doctor tells you to avoid birthday parties or horror movies, I'd avoid being drive-stunned as well. Beyond that, though, unless you want to call a birthday surprise (of the benign variety) a lethal weapon, you're grasping at straws.

Except drive-stun tasers don't cause muscle contractions. That's the big difference. The pain is there (and would likely be present to some degree for physical restraint as well), and the heart-rate is probably there just by the officer's arrival, if not prior.

It also doesn't change the fact that, if the coroner can't support a conclusion with medical evidence, they should put "indeterminate" down.

Unfortunately, the only people that have been willing to present any real evidence of any kind are Taser, Inc themselves. Now, obviously, their research is potentially biassed, but unless someone contradicts them, it's all we have. If someone else were willing to conduct and publish a study, then that'd be helpful, but you shouldn't punish Taser because no one else want's to prove their allegations against Taser.

I still don't see how that's possible. Unless I see evidence that my understanding of the process of fibrillation is grossly wrong (and my research, limited though it is, doesn't), I can't see how it could happen.

Thus more research should be done to determine exactly how much being tased raises blood pressure (on average, it will vary), and how common a weakness is. As I said, I firmly believe Taser is blowing smoke in claiming it's impossible that it could cause harm, but the product should only be pulled if someone is actually planning on doing testing on it. You can't damn a product because someone fears it may cause harm. You need proof.

Likewise.

Good. Use your aggressive feelings, boy. Let the hate flow through you.
MWAHAHAHAHA!!

 

We're still talking extreme pain and i'm pretty sure burns can occur if it's held there too long (Though i'm not 100% on this). Given that he was willing to use it on a child, you can't assume he did it in a rational or proportional manner either.

I've never been tasered, but I know this much: The shock and pain of it is enough to incapacitate a person, that's the point of them. I've never found myself totally incapacitated by a birthday party. Maybe by the morning after..

You can burn to death, you're comparing that to standing in the sun. The shock you'd get from being tasered would outweigh someone yellling "SUPRIIISE!"

Even without the muscle contractions, the sudden (and if people are to be believed) excruciating pain could feasibly, when combined with the already elevated heart rate, cause some kind of respiratory trouble in an already ill person - Which he had no idea she wasn't. I'm starting to wonder if this is less about tasers, and more about cops.

No, but they also shouldn't be forced to rule out the taser entirely, as the company is pushing for.

It does seem that Taser have a bit of a habit of suing anyone that releases research negative to their product. Unfortunately I can't seem to get to their research - It asks me for a username and password, but googling about it does suggest that most of it is theoretical rather than real world. I understand that you can't taser someone with a heart condition to see if they die, but more independant research has to be done before they'll be accepted as safe. It's also worth keeping in mind, they've lost a safety lawsuit now, denting their 100% record. They failed to inform police that "prolonged exposure to electric shock from the device could cause a risk of cardiac arrest." If that doesn't say "Tasers can kill", I don't know what does.

I'm no expert on the subject either, but you'd think someone would have called them on this by now. They're unlikely to just throw a dart at a medical book and go with the diagnosis it hits.

Many products have been recalled over "fears of safety" rather than "many cases of death". Just yesterday I saw a sign in a shop window saying a dress was being recalled because it had been alledged one of the dyes was poisonous. There was no concrete proof, but the [roduct may have been a danger, and that's enough.

Still, I agree that they need a LOT more research.

Something something something Dangerous Angles...


One other thing I found out today - The officer that tased the girl is now under investigation by the FBI. It seems they're not sure he was entirely justified in his actions.

 

I don't know if you guys have used TENS machines before, they're electrical pads that simply sit on the skin.

They also come with a lot of warning information on where you can't put them (Some areas I found out the hard way )

They can also cause muscular damage, nerve damage, they can damage the veins and capilleries they rest over as well.

I know the first rebuttal is going to be "only from overexposure" which isn't necessarily true. They also only have an affect on certain people and there seems to be no rhyme or reason to who they do and don't affect, who gets negative effects and where.

Now this is something health professionals will supply, tasers are much stronger than that - even if just placed on the skin. I cannot simply dismiss they don't cause damage across the board. There is too much to consider.

 

Nor can you assume he didn't. The issue here is whether using it on a child is indication of loss of control or not. If it's proper use of the tool, then it's not, and there's no reason to suspect he had lost control.

Actually, no. The point of barbed tasers is to incapacitate through muscle contractions. The person literally looses control of their body and, once the charge is gone, there's still residual loss of control in the muscles. Drive-stun tasers, on the other hand, don't incapacitate. They're classified as a pain-compliance method, meaning they're supposed to make resistance hurt enough to not be worth it, and make the person surrender.

I think you'd be surprised how much a good surprise can spike blood pressure. Remember, that's what we're talking about in this comparison, not the shock itself. Situational surprise seems to be much better at triggering the fight-or-flight response than pain is.

And so could the restricted movement, the pain, and the physical pressure and force used in physically restraining a person. Police work is inherrantly dangerous, and any subject could have any number of medical conditions that could put their life at risk in the normal course of an officer's duty. The question is whether a taser puts them at unusual risk.

... Wait, wait, wait. Police had to be told that prolonged shocking of a person could lead to a heart-attack? Please tell me the officers in question are under arrest for torture?
...
*reads article*
...
Nope. I see two possibilities here. One, the officers were being sadistic b****rds or, two, the subject was being so combative that, without tasers, the only option would be to draw weapons and threaten his life directly. Either way, I don't think Taser shoule be held responsible for the man's death, just for an improper safety warning (at best). Still, it should be a dent in their litigation record, and proof that prolongued exposure to multiple stun guns can kill you. Sheesh!

That's a good point. I'd expect Taser to have sued if the conclusion was unsupportable.

Generally, voluntarily by the manufacturer. Given the taser's intended use (serious, risky, life-and-death situations), I don't think a recall is needed without significant evidence that the tool is more unsafe than alternatives. And, honestly, even then I'd recommend altered training and rules for deployment rather than a recall. At the worst, it's less lethal than a bullet, so it can still serve as an alternative to firearms.

As you can see, my young apprentice, your friends have failed.
Drat, I couldn't work in the "fully ARMED and OPERATIONAL battle station!" part.

What's the FBI's jurisdiction in this? I mean, if they find him unjustified, can they do anything more than wag a finger, or is there a federal statute they accuse him of breaking?

8People:
I looked up TENS machines really quickly. All the warnings I saw governed the placement of the electrodes so that parts of the body were between them (ex. one on each temple, across the uterus, etc). That's again an issue of the path of least resistance passing through the main body, as opposed to just across the skin. Are any of your "hard way" danger zones different?

 

8people has a small p!

You also can't place pads on the neck, across the heart line (which is a surprisingly large area included as well) there are several pressure points along arms and legs as well which can cause muscle spasms which don't always subside with the removal of the pads. Placing them directly over where veins can be seen clearly can end interestingly as well.

 

*cringes*
I grovel at your feat for mercy, my Mistress!


Most of those sound like "body is between the electrodes" things. I am a little curious about how a drive-stun taser would work with a vein, though. Not curious enough to try it, mind you!

 

I don't know why some people are complaining about the incident. Tasing builds character. Hell, I've been tased many times throughout my life, which is why I am now royalty.

 

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/01/court-dials-back-taser-use-cops-cant-zap-to-force-behavior/

 

How on earth are the cops meant to force compliance without a bit of good ole' fashioned brutality? "Please put your hands on top of the vehicle. Please? Pretty please? With sugar and a cherry on top?"

 

That's a facinating article, Aik. The two things I particularly found interesting are that:
1.) Without a better understanding of "strong government interest that compels", I can only say that the girl in question in this thread was violent.
2.) A study done at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia found, statistically, Taser use reduced the risk of injury to both the officer and the suspect.

 

1. Your opinion. My opinion is she could have been left alone to throw her tantrum and there would have been no issue. The mother was incompetant and the cop was incompetant.

2. There was no data given as to the age of the suspects in the incidents. I would agree with you for the average arrest, but when an officer tases an elderly person I don't think there is enough data to support any conclusion.

 

Didn't she kick the officer in the groin? If she did, then that's violence. Fact, not opinion.

 

1. That's fine, but I don't think it's relevant at all.
2. It is interesting and worth noting, but all the same, I'm strongly opposed to tasing people into compliance because ... hmm, it's actually less easy to word that than I thought it would be. Saying they're 'torture devices' is possibly taking it too far, but along those lines.

And while there's less danger of causing injury than the standard arrest, the statistics given don't have anything to say about deaths caused by tasers.

But yes, it isn't shocking that a device that causes intense pain also is effective at forcing compliance immediately and without the person struggling and possibly injuring themselves/others (or being beaten over the head - obviously I don't think batons are a great solution either ) - but I don't think that immediately makes it right.

(you know, the last thing I wanted in posting that was to add fuel to this thread, so let's not charge back into hardcore debate )

 

1.) I'll agree that, barring some horrible history of violence and murder, the cop should never have been called to the scene at all. Once the child kicked him in the groin, however, everything changed.

2.) No information is given on age, but I would hesitate to use any kind of force against an elderly person or one with a known heart condition. I imagine the Taser statistics still reflect a relatively higher level of safety, it's just that the relative level is now substantially less safe.

As for Aik's opinion, I would much rather be brought down by the use of extreme pain that leaves no lasting damage than be brought down by something that lands me in the hospital. Also, remember that the lower chance of injury was for both parties. Forgive me if I expect the average cop to be more concerned with his own safety than with the comfort of the suspect.

All in all, I think Aik is not so much objecting to the use of tasers as to the use of excessive force. It sounds to me like, if a madman were wielding a katana in the street, Aik wouldn't have a problem with the use of tasers to protect police, civilians, and even the madman himself. What it sounds like it comes down to for you, Aik, is when it is appropriate to use force at all.

 

Mordea and NOG, she was 10 years old. The fact that someone was hurting her and restraining her made her defensive. The rationale of a 10 year old is far different from an adult. The cop was obviously clueless to that fact -- once he tried to restrain her he overstepped his bounds.

 

I think there is a bit of comedy in such a inept and weak cop who gets himself kicked in the balls by a ten year old and then lashes out in vengeance with a taser so he could feel like a big man again. Haha! I defeated the mighty ten year old girl and all I needed was my trusty taser! Didn't even reach for my gun!

 

While an elderly person is easy to identify (white hair, wrinkled skin and a lot of pink peppermint candy), someone with a weak heart is pretty much unidentifiable unless you know the person. It's one of the reasons Tasers get so much opposition : There is always a chance when a suspect (and in a lot of cases, it's a suspicion of guilt by the officer) gets tased, it could affect his heart. That's my two cents for today..

 

Joacqin, that's probably the best assessment of the deal I've seen so far. Getting kicked in the balls (by a 10 year old kid) is something that should be avoidable by a fully trained cop.

 

You need to be a fully trained cop to not be kicked in the balls by a 10 year old kid?