Tasers are Safe ? Myth Busted!

[Hermiod]

Some Tasers produce a higher level of electricity than the manufacturer specifies according to tests.

The abnormal X26 model Tasers were manufactured before 2005, prompting some scientists to suggest police should stop using any older versions of the stun guns until they can be tested.

Of the 41 Tasers tested, four delivered significantly more current than Taser International says is possible. In some cases, the current was up to 50 per cent stronger than specified on the devices.

There was an additional issue where three of the test Tasers did not fire at all despite having a charged battery. If this had occured in the field this might have placed officers relying on them in jeopardy.

Personally, I'd love to see the someone put commercially available Tasers through similar testing. I'm not exactly convinced that a leopard skin, MP3 playing fashion accessory is going to be any safer.

 

[Timofnine]

Give them guns instead?

I have nothing against police using these things. Sure, there is risk. But I believe that the benefits outway the risks.

 

[Plecostomus]

Give them guns instead?

I have nothing against police using these things. Sure, there is risk. But I believe that the benefits outway the risks.

Agreed. We only hear about the situations in which something goes wrong, but we never hear about the thousands of times where they work right.

 

[Alidar Jarok]

Yeah, they should use them, but they have to be smart about when to use them. There's that story (over the summer, I think) where there was a crazy naked man on a rooftop. Sure he was naked, but he wasn't hurting anyone. The police decide to taser him and he falls off the roof top to his death. In that case, tasering should have been out of the question, regardless of voltage.

But in situations where safety is needed and there's no other way, yeah, tasering is fine.

 

[Blip]

Definitely agree (although having said that, there are times I think it wouldn't be so bad to give them guns over here - not to mention bringing back the death penalty...)

 

[Hermiod]

Give them guns instead?

I have nothing against police using these things. Sure, there is risk. But I believe that the benefits outway the risks.

Agreed. We only hear about the situations in which something goes wrong, but we never hear about the thousands of times where they work right.

Once is too many times.

They are over used, they are used in situations where if the person was armed with a gun, he or she would not fire because there is this perception that tasers are not even potentially deadly weapons.

Outside of law enforcement, that's made even worse by commercially available tasers dressed up to look like toys.

 

[Rÿcher]

Of course they're not safe. They're a whole lot safer than a lead projectile through the chest at 500 MPH.

Repeated and prolonged tasering can lead to kidney failure, central and peripheral nervous system damage among a host of other nasty side-effects.

 

[Hermiod]

Of course they're not safe. They're a whole lot safer than a lead projectile through the chest at 500 MPH.

Repeated and prolonged tasering can lead to kidney failure, central and peripheral nervous system damage among a host of other nasty side-effects.

Unfortunately, people tend to believe that safer = safe.

 

[Squiggy]

It's designed to cause pain. Only an idiot would think that it's safe.

 

[Rÿcher]

which would you prefer, stun or kill?

 

[Squiggy]

I want to sublimate my enemies.

 

[Hermiod]

It's designed to cause pain. Only an idiot would think that it's safe.

Indeed, yet still they are used in situations that do not warrant the use of deadly force.

 

[Squiggy]

It's designed to cause pain. Only an idiot would think that it's safe.

Indeed, yet still they are used in situations that do not warrant the use of deadly force.

So are fists. Fists can kill.

 

[Hermiod]

^Good thing they aren't marketed as being safe then.

 

[Squiggy]

Who's marketing them as "safe"?

 

[Locutus of Bored]

It's designed to cause pain. Only an idiot would think that it's safe.

Indeed, yet still they are used in situations that do not warrant the use of deadly force.

Just because they aren't safe doesn't mean they aren't significantly safer then the use of handguns. Your restriction of them to purely deadly force situations eliminates an alternative intermediate step that can save lives, whether it be suspects, bystanders, or officers.

Of course they should never be used without proper situational awareness and judgment and the knowledge that they can be potentially fatal, but that doesn't mean they should be taken to the opposite extreme of being regarded as always being equally dangerous to handguns and therefore not used except in deadly force situations.

 

[Hermiod]

Who's marketing them as "safe"?

Correction, I should have said "making the user safe". Like here.

Let innovative design, unparalleled performance, and breakthrough style help you make a statement. Who says safety can't be stylish?

Just because they aren't safe doesn't mean they aren't significantly safer then the use of handguns. Your restriction of them to purely deadly force situations eliminates an alternative intermediate step that can save lives, whether it be suspects, bystanders, or officers.

Of course they should never be used without proper situational awareness and judgment and the knowledge that they can be potentially fatal, but that doesn't mean they should be taken to the opposite extreme of being regarded as always being equally dangerous to handguns and therefore not used except in deadly force situations.

Tasers have been shown to be potentially deadly weapons. The Houston Chronicle, for instance, recorded the first 1,000 uses by police officers in Houston. In 95% of the cases, deadly force would not have been warranted. Over half of the cases came from routine calls - traffic stops, reports of "suspicious" people etc. In 350 of the cases, no arrest was made and no criminal charges filed.

These numbers do not suggest to me that the use of a Taser was warranted or that they are being taken as seriously by those using them as they should be.

 

[Locutus of Bored]

Who's marketing them as "safe"?

Correction, I should have said "making the user safe". Like here.

Guns and knives and cell phones are marketed as making the user safe too. I don't really see where there's a contradiction in terms. It can (sometimes) keep its user safe if used under the proper circumstances.

That doesn't mean anyone who isn't stupid or irresponsible thinks that they are a totally safe device.

 

[Hermiod]

Guns and knives and cell phones are marketed as making the user safe too. I don't really see where there's a contradiction in terms. It can (sometimes) keep its user safe if used under the proper circumstances.

That doesn't mean anyone who isn't stupid or irresponsible thinks that they are a totally safe device.

The sale of Guns and knives (well, at least combat knife kind) are regulated in most countries.

I haven't seen leopard skin guns that play MP3s, either.

 

[Squiggy]

That's the second time in this thread you've mentioned "leopard skin"? Do you have stock in the company?

And a "safe device" vs "safe for the user" are two TOTALLY different things.