Tasers are Safe ? Myth Busted!

[Chaos Descending]

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.

The problem with the Taser vs. the Gun is that since the Taser is assumed to be safe, cops tend to use it a little more indiscriminately. Whereas everyone knows that a gun will kill you, cops tend to be a bit more judicious in their usage.

 

[Hermiod]

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.

Which I already said.

 

[Locutus of Bored]

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.

Now you're arguing something completely different. Nowhere did I say they weren't potentially deadly (in fact I say exactly that in the post you just quoted). Nowhere did I say they can't be and haven't been abused by law enforcement and civilians.

The only issue I took with your analysis was in saying that it should never be used except in deadly force situations, because despite the fact that it can be potentially deadly (just as a nightstick or a fist can be), doesn't mean it's not a safer option than handguns in the vast majority of cases if used properly.

You're preaching to the choir if you want to say that they are frequently over-deployed by police who don't consider the potential repercussions of their actions due to lack of proper training or a poor attitude or lack of judgment. But that's not the same argument that I was disagreeing with.

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.

You keep coming back to the silly leopard skin taser with MP3 situation, which is not representative of the vast majority of tasers in use and has nothing to do with cops. So why don't we just cut the crap and get to the real subject, which is not police, but your feeling that women are wildly using these on men without considering the consequences, right? Now tell me I'm misinterpreting you and overreacting so that I know you still care.

 

[DontFeedPhil]

Regardless of the definition of safe. They are Overused. I had a buddy who had 2-3 traffic tickets. He was supposed to report to jail for not paying the fines and not even showing up in court to hear the cases. They sent Cops to his house and when they caught him in his garage he bolted out the side door. The fat ass cop whipped out his taser and shot it at my buddy as he hopped a fence into another yard. It his the fence missing my friend.
I think that was a case where maybe the fat ass pig should have tried not to eat too many donuts and given chase himself. Not try to shock the guy with 50,000 volts just because he was too lazy to run after him...
Thats the problem with them. The Police LOVE to whip them out to subdue an individual rather than grabbing them and taking them to the ground. Just plain LAZY. And the Cops get a kick out of zapping someone too, the sadistic sons-of-bitches...
Im sure most of us have seen the video of a Lazy-Ass Cop tasering an 80 year old grandma because she wouldnt get on the ground and had no idea why the cop was shouting at her. That son-of-a-Bitch should have gotten it for attempted murder. Poor little old Lady...

 

[Hermiod]

You keep coming back to the silly leopard skin taser with MP3 situation, which is not representative of the vast majority of tasers in use and has nothing to do with cops. So why don't we just cut the crap and get to the real subject, which is not police, but your feeling that women are wildly using these on men without considering the consequences, right? Now tell me I'm misinterpreting you and overreacting so that I know you still care.

Nope, wrong, as usual. My problem with Tasers is this idea that they are "soft" weapons that have no lasting effects. Marketing them towards law enforcement and individuals alike even as a "less deadly" option is not something I agree with. That situation, as the numbers I've given show, leads to them being used in situations that do not warrant it.

Now, if we're cutting the crap, it really doesn't matter what I say here, does it ? You'll still decide for yourself what you think I mean.

 

[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.

Which I already said.

So the whole premise of this threat is moot.

 

[the 4th hanson bro]

Here'ds a novel idea. When the police show up to arrest you because you didn't do what you were supposed to do - don't run from the fucking police!

If I had the choice of subduing someone from outside arm's reach or closing to hand to hand range, damn right I'd take the distance option, safer for me.

 

[Locutus of Bored]

You keep coming back to the silly leopard skin taser with MP3 situation, which is not representative of the vast majority of tasers in use and has nothing to do with cops. So why don't we just cut the crap and get to the real subject, which is not police, but your feeling that women are wildly using these on men without considering the consequences, right? Now tell me I'm misinterpreting you and overreacting so that I know you still care.

Nope, wrong. My problem with Tasers is this idea that they are "soft" weapons that have no lasting effects. Marketing them towards law enforcement and individuals alike even as a "less deadly" option is not something I agree with.

Now, if we're cutting the crap, it really doesn't matter what I say here, does it ? You'll still decide for yourself what you think I mean.

Demonstrate how they're equal to or more deadly than handguns percentage-wise or else your whole point falls kind of flat. The fact is, they are a less deadly option. Not "can't possibly ever be deadly," but less deadly.

You could have picked any kind of taser to use as an example or simply made your point without citing a specific device, but you chose to repeatedly harp on the single most girly example possible. Maybe you wouldn't constantly be "misinterpreted" by people if you didn't frequently resort to such insinuations and then back off from them at the first sign of being challenged, constantly playing the downtrodden victim of historical dislike and misunderstanding.

 

[Hermiod]

Demonstrate how they're equal to or more deadly than handguns percentage-wise or else your whole point falls kind of flat. The fact is, they are a less deadly option. Not "can't possibly ever be deadly," but less deadly.

My whole point is that they are being used in situations that do not warrant it.

You could have picked any kind of taser to use as an example or simply made your point without citing a specific device, but you chose to repeatedly harp on the single most girly example possible. Maybe you wouldn't constantly be "misinterpreted" by people if you didn't frequently resort to such insinuations and then back off from them at the first sign of being challenged, constantly playing the downtrodden victim of historical dislike and misunderstanding.

Do I dislike the marketing of tasers as some sort of magic "personal protection device" ? Yes. I have not and will not "back off" from that.

I have an overall distaste for them, as law enforcement weapons and as consumer products. I do not separate the two things, nor do I see a reason why I should. The marketing of them as a consumer product only serves to soften their image.

You suggest that I've got some issue with women using them against men. Quite the contrary, in fact, I think they put women carrying them in danger. They are single use weapons, once they are fired the only way to use them again is to get closer to the intended target. Taser's own FAQ on the subject even has a "What if I miss ?" question. This will not protect you against a larger individual who can withstand the initial hit and it won't protect you against a group.

 

[Locutus of Bored]

My whole point is that they are being used in situations that do not warrant it.

Your point has been about five different things so far and we haven't even gotten off the first page yet. You even completely changed the premise once the first one didn't work out so well.

Once again, no one has argued that they haven't been used in situations that don't warrant it. You keep right on preaching to the choir on that one, though.

You suggest that I've got some issue with women using them against men. Quite the contrary, in fact, I think they put women carrying them in danger. They are single use weapons, once they are fired the only way to use them again is to get closer to the intended target. Taser's own FAQ on the subject even has a "What if I miss ?" question. This will not protect you against a larger individual who can withstand the initial hit and it won't protect you against a group.

It puts them in more danger than having no option at all? How does that make sense?

Of course they can miss. Of course they can only use it against one subject. But some chance of success is better than nothing, right? Not everyone has the time to become proficient in martial arts, handguns, knives, what have you. And even if they were, the same difficulties apply. You can still miss. You can still be overwhelmed by a group or overpowered by one attacker. You can still be surprised. The fact that it doesn't work in all situations doesn't mean that it's therefore completely useless.

 

[Hermiod]

Your point has been about five different things so far and we haven't even gotten off the first page yet. You even completely changed the premise once the first one didn't work out so well.

Post one was about the reliability of the devices. Five posts later nobody had answered that point and the subject had changed to whether they should be used in place of guns. The second post in this thread:

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.

I replied to the responses with my own views on what others had said. That is not me changing the premise of anything.

It puts them in more danger than having no option at all? How does that make sense?

Of course they can miss. Of course they can only use it against one subject. But some chance of success is better than nothing, right? Not everyone has the time to become proficient in martial arts, handguns, knives, what have you, and even if they were, the same difficulties apply. You can still miss. You can still be overwhelmed by a group or overpowered by one attacker. You can still be surprised. The fact that it doesn't work in all situations doesn't mean that it's therefore completely useless.

Advertising slogans like "I will control my own destiny", "There when I can't be" and so on give the impression that this will create some sort of field of invincibility around the user and their family when the best option is to run away.

If you're surprised, how is a Taser in a handbag going to make any difference ?

 

[John Picard]

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.

Right. You keep thinking that and I want to see you go on a ride-a-long with police officers who have to apprehend an armed suspect. Sometimes, lethal firepower is the only answer.

 

[Locutus of Bored]

Advertising slogans like "I will control my own destiny", "There when I can't be" and so on give the impression that this will create some sort of field of invincibility around the user and their family when the best option is to run away.

Sure, it may give that impression if you're an idiot. There is no weapon the power of stupidity hasn't defeated in battle yet.

How is that any different then marketing for any other type of weapon or defensive device? They don't frequently give a false sense of absolute security as well? How does poor marketing diminish the actual functionality of the device?

If you're surprised, how is a Taser in a handbag going to make any difference ?

It won't, but then again I never said it would. Quite the opposite in fact. I listed that as a deficiency of all weapons, martial arts, and defensive measures.

 

[Hermiod]

Sure, it may give that impression if you're an idiot. There is no weapon the power of stupidity hasn't defeated in battle yet.

All the more reason to ban or at the very least heavily restrict their use.

How is that any different then marketing for any other type of weapon or defensive device? They don't frequently give a false sense of absolute security as well? How does poor marketing diminish the actual functionality of the device?

It's the poor functionality of the device that shows up the equally poor marketing.

As my original post said, 4 of the 41 Tasers tested delivered a charge they should not have been able to and 3 did not fire at all. Sure, those were 2005 models and I hope they've since been recalled but I would be very interested in the results of testing more up to date models.

In this test, 17% failure rate doesn't sound all that bad. However, in the electronics industry a failure rate of a lot less than 17% would cause great concern over potential design flaws.

 

[Philo]

I've been tazed on the arm before. It's kind of kinky.

I was also at a party once where a guy kept tazing his girlfriend in the boobs. She turned around and tazed him in the balls.

The problem with the Taser vs. the Gun is that since the Taser is assumed to be safe, cops tend to use it a little more indiscriminately. Whereas everyone knows that a gun will kill you, cops tend to be a bit more judicious in their usage.

There are also an insane amount of regulations for Police regarding firearms use, which is the way it should be tasers too. Each volt discharged should be accounted for, and require a mountain of paperwork to be filled out. That's the most effective way to deter their indiscriminate use.

 

[Locutus of Bored]

Sure, it may give that impression if you're an idiot. There is no weapon the power of stupidity hasn't defeated in battle yet.

All the more reason to ban or at the very least heavily restrict their use.

No, that's no reason at all. By that justification we should ban everything. People choke themselves on nerf balls for Christ's sake.

 

[Hermiod]

There are also an insane amount of regulations for Police regarding firearms use, which is the way it should be tasers too. Each volt discharged should be accounted for, and require a mountain of paperwork to be filled out. That's the most effective way to deter their indiscriminate use.

Now there's an idea. If there's one thing police officers hate, and this goes back to when my late grandfather was a policeman, it's paperwork.

No, that's no reason at all. By that justification we should ban everything. People choke themselves on nerf balls for Christ's sake.

The difference is that nerf balls are not marketed as a means of personal protection and are not used by law enforcement to subdue criminal suspects, or at least I hope they aren't.

 

[Colonel Green]

Never thought I'd say this, but Hermiod is right.

Tasers are advertised as non-lethal. They are not. They should be advertised as less-lethal.

Tasers are overused by lazy cops. The naked man on a roof is just one of many examples. A guy was killed at the Vancouver airport by multiple unnecessary uses of a taser. The FOUR cops present should have been able to restrain the guy physically, he was unarmed.

Tasers are unreliable. As Hermiod notes, one test indicated a 17% failure rate. Unacceptable.

Until tasers are as reliable as firearms (or at LEAST pepper spray), they should not be used by law enforcement. Concerns over their effectivness leads cops to repeatedly zap people, when one dose is all that is recommended.

Tasers in the hands of LEOs should be subject to the same restictions and oversight as firearms. If you use one you should have to fill out a lengthy report explaining why.

 

[Locutus of Bored]

No, that's no reason at all. By that justification we should ban everything. People choke themselves on nerf balls for Christ's sake.

The difference is that nerf balls are not marketed as a means of personal protection and are not used by law enforcement to subdue criminal suspects, or at least I hope they aren't.

Thank you for deliberately taking the precisely literal interpretation of that statement instead of applying a little thought and seeing that I was that saying anything - including personal protection devices - can be potentially dangerous to the user if they are stupid.

 

[Philo]

Well put, Colonel Green.

There are also an insane amount of regulations for Police regarding firearms use, which is the way it should be tasers too. Each volt discharged should be accounted for, and require a mountain of paperwork to be filled out. That's the most effective way to deter their indiscriminate use.

Now there's an idea. If there's one thing police officers hate, and this goes back to when my late grandfather was a policeman, it's paperwork.

Exactly