Taser acknowledges their product may cause cardiac arrest
I’ve been critical of Tasers in the past. Now, one more reason is that the company is advising it not be aimed center mass:
Taser International is advising police agencies across the nation not to shoot its stun guns at a suspect’s chest.
The Arizona-based company says such action poses a risk albeit extremely low of an “adverse cardiac event.”
October 22nd, 2009 at 9:46 am
I believe that “adverse cardiac reaction” has been called “excited delerium” or “a previously unknown pre-existing condition” by more than a few coroners.
October 22nd, 2009 at 11:08 am
“Excited delerium” was apparently a made up term for
CYA in case our product causes a Heart Attact”. These
tasers have caused 350 deaths in the US in the last 6
yrs. If it were anything else there would be a national outcry to do something about it!
October 22nd, 2009 at 1:20 pm
So now cops under stress are supposed to aim for moving limbs??
Sounds like these things just became next to useless. I sure as hell wouldn’t trust my life to something I wasn’t supposed to use on the easiest to hit target point.
October 22nd, 2009 at 4:47 pm
Obviously they need to be banned. If it saves just one life, amirite?
October 22nd, 2009 at 6:27 pm
The problem with tasers isn’t their risks; it’s their doctrine for use.
I’ve been a law enforcement trainer myself, and I’ve been through various less-lethal force training courses, including tasers. I’ve been tased several times, and had several other electro-compliance devices demonstrated on me.
Officers are trained to view tasers as, and to use them as, a less harmful compliance option than direct contact; with less risk to both the officer, and the restrainee. The taser is viewed as a less risky, and less harmful option in the continuum of force.
While the less risk to the officer part is true, the risk of great harm to the restrainee is very high. Much higher than that of chemical compliance methodolgies, and as high as PROPERLY EXECUTED physical restraint and compliance techniques.
This improper perception of risk has created an environment; especially in smaller law enforcement organizations, with lower training budgets and more premissive attitudes towards the continuum of force; where taser use is not considered serious.
In general, many officers would prefer to use the taser than other means of enforcing physical compliance; because it presents the least risk to them, and the most compliant restrainee.
Combined this false perception of low risk, with a more permissive attitude, and the undoubted advantages to the officer; and it is understandable why in many jurisdictions it seems that taser usage is out of control, and suspects are being tased almost casually.
The use of the taser should be understood to be (and officers should be trained to this effect) 1/2 step below the use of a firearm in the continuum of force. Officers should be trained in a more realistic assessment of the risks and dangers of the taser (and other electrocompliance devices).
Additionally, taser use in the line of duty, should be reviewed with the same dilligence as the discharge of a firearm.
I don’t want to take the taser away from officers, as it is a useful and excellent tool that in gneneral DOES increase the safety of both the officer, and the restrainee.
What I want, is for officers, and organizations, to understand, and take the risks and impact of taser usage more seriously.
October 22nd, 2009 at 6:29 pm
Chris, I’ve been saying that for years.
October 22nd, 2009 at 6:29 pm
I don’t like them. Or rather, I don’t like the way that they are employed. I believe their status as “non-lethal” increases the temptation to use them. I’ve seen plenty of instances where they have in my opinion been used unneccessarily.
October 23rd, 2009 at 1:06 am
May I opine?
-June 15th, 2009. …I must remain skeptical on taser use upon citizenry until that use is proven ethically correct and effective.
-June 4th, 2009. “Tazers are only a pain compliance tool to speed up compliance because the suspect must be totally non-combative and docile for the taser to be effective. Next time you see a taser video, you will see that the target is totally under control of the officers, be it if they are just standing there or on their faces with a knee in their back. Tasers are not effective if the the target has any sort of weapon, is physically combating the officer, is running away, or able to quickly access a weapon. Basically tasers cannot be used when an officer is in danger of bodily injury.
Tasers are a torture device. Good thing the only ones and other gestapo wanna-bes have them to use on the defenseless.”
They should be renamed Portable Electro-Shock Torture Devices, PEST Devices, the “only-ones” use on us. BTW, whatever insane company provides the products-liability insurance from this company is in for some multi-million dollar claims.
Taser is done-zo.
Next steps: 1) this admission might lead them to immediately halt sales, if there is a claim it could be denied coverage due to ‘prior knowledge by the company of potentially defective product.’
2) this opens up municipalities to liabilities they might have been able to tender to Taser, so they might want to quickly re-evaluate their deployment.
Chris, you have the perfect ‘only one’ mentality, that somehow we can apply a risk control approach to the insane actions of police. The problem here is over-criminalization, i.e. tyranny, not that oh we just need to take another look at how we make the immoral use of VIOLENCE upon NON-VIOLENT, unarmed human beings ‘safer for everyone involved.’
The solution is to stop. Stop the ‘only one’ blue line bullshit. Stop thinking you aren’t public servants. Stop treating people like subject, inmates, perps. Stop believing you are justified in aggressive violence, or any violence in that matter other than to actually DEFEND your self. Stop the war on drugs, the war on guns, the war on terror, the war on poverty, the war on christmas, the war against freedom. Stop pushing the line.
October 23rd, 2009 at 1:12 am
Found this stort next to google finance TASR:
http://www.myfoxhouston.com/dpp/news/local/091022_pct_6_stun_gun_policy
Taser’s advice to aim for area other than the chest is just as retarded as anti-defense zealots telling gun owners to ‘aim for the legs.’