GameBanshee Forums

A factual, well researched letter from the Independent on the problems inherent in tasering, and UK Home Secretary Jacqui Smith's zeal to promote Taser International's corporate line about the need for it and its "safety." A couple of choice tidbits that are 100% accurate:

A recent scientific study conducted by biomedical engineers for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation found that nine per cent of the guns give a far larger electric shock than advertised. Some sent a 58 per cent higher voltage through the victim's body. Steve Tuttle, the vice-president of Taser, responded: "Regardless of whether or not the anomaly is accurate, it has no bearing on safety."

***************************

Far from lowering violence, Tasers seem to lower the threshold that by which the police resort to violence – and criminals respond by lowering theirs. In the US, a 16-year-old schoolboy was Tasered by cops in a playground for "using profanity"; a dementia-riddled man in his eighties was shocked for urinating in the park; 50,000 volts were fired at a 17-year-old boy who had fallen off an overpass and broken his back.

Read the whole thing. Worth it.

On this same issue, now there's this, filed today:

Police officers from two Chicago suburbs are being sued after one of them allegedly tasered a man having a diabetic seizure because the diabetic involuntarily hit the officer while being taken to an ambulance. Prospero Lassi, a 40-year-old employee of Southwest Airlines, filed the lawsuit (PDF) with a federal court in Chicago last week, following an April 9, 2009, incident in which Lassi was taken to hospital following a violent diabetic seizure -- and being tasered 11 times while unconscious.

That day, Lassi's roommate found the man on the floor of his apartment having a seizure and foaming at the mouth, according to the statement filed with the court. The roommate called 911 for help, and police officers from the Brookfield and LaGrange Park police departments arrived to help with the situation. As police officers were helping the paramedics move Lassi to an ambulance, Lassi -- still in the midst of the seizure and described as "unresponsive" -- involuntarily smacked one of the officers with his arm.

"Reacting to Mr. Lassi’s involuntary movement, one or more of the [officers] pushed Mr. Lassi to the ground, forcibly restraining him there," the complaint states. "[LaGrange Park Officer Darren] Pedota then withdrew his Taser, an electroshock weapon that uses electrical current to disrupt a person’s control over his muscles, and electrocuted Mr. Lassi eleven times.

"Mr. Lassi remained immobile on the floor and was unable to defend himself during this attack. None of the other LaGrange and Brookfield Defendants attempted to interrupt Defendant Pedota's repeated use of the taser."

The filing says that Lassi spent five days in hospital, and "as a result of this incident, Mr. Lassi has permanent scars on his skin, including a scar on his face. Mr. Lassi has also suffered, and continues to suffer, neurological and musculoskeletal injuries, among other injuries."

According to Courthouse News, Lassi is seeking "punitive damages for battery, excessive force, and failure to intervene."

Once again, this is an instance of the monstrous overkill (tasered 11 times!) being used in a situation where no force was even required, but only restraint to prevent an already handicapped person from injuring anyone including themselves. I'm delighted at least that in this instance the victim is suing the police. I'd like to see them argue back in court that he "struck an officer."

Unfortunately, similar examples of permanent injury and death are being caused now on an almost weekly basis by the use of tasers in the hands of police in Canada and the US--all arms acquired from the same manufacturer, who provides a class on their use, and then blithely gets to duck all responsibility for their use per contract. Meanwhile, idiots in power justify the use of tasers as "humane" because they don't break bones. No; they leave permanent scars, and result in death.

This fairly recent article from the San Francisco Chronicle may be of interest to anyone interested in the subject:

Taser ruling sets standards for police, claims
begelko@sfchronicle.com (Bob Egelko, Chronicle Staff Writer)

Police need reasons to believe a suspect is dangerous before firing a Taser and can't use their stun gun simply because the person is disobeying orders or acting erratically, a federal appeals court in San Francisco ruled Monday.

The decision by the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals sets judicial standards for police and for people who claim they were victims of excessive force after police hit them with a Taser dart.

"The objective facts must indicate that the suspect poses an immediate threat to the officer or a member of the public," Judge Kim Wardlaw said in the 3-0 ruling.

Though stun guns may offer a valuable, nonlethal alternative to deadly force in defusing dangerous situations, Wardlaw said, they inflict a "painful and frightening blow" and must be used only when substantial force is necessary and other options are unavailable.

"It's a significant use of force, not like cuffing someone or using pain compliance or pepper spray," said Eugene Iredale, a lawyer for a San Diego-area man who was Tasered by a police officer who had stopped him for not wearing a seat belt. "It's not to be used promiscuously or lightly."

The ruling allows Iredale's client Carl Bryan to go to trial in his damage suit against Brian McPherson, a policeman in Bryan's hometown of Coronado. McPherson's lawyers were unavailable for comment.

Tasers enjoy wide support among law enforcement officials, including George Gascón, San Francisco's new police chief, who is considering recommending the devices for his officers and has ordered a study of past police shootings to see whether stun guns would have made a difference. On the other hand, Amnesty International says 334 people died in the United States from 2001 to August 2008 after being hit by Tasers.

McPherson stopped Bryan's car on a summer morning in 2005 as the 21-year-old was driving home. Wearing only boxer shorts and tennis shoes, and upset at himself for forgetting to fasten his seat belt, Bryan swore at himself as he stepped out of the car, and was shouting gibberish and banging his thighs as he stood 15 to 25 feet away from the officer, the court said.

McPherson said Bryan then took one step toward him. Bryan denied it, and the court said the evidence indicated that Bryan was facing away from McPherson when the officer fired his Taser. Bryan fell on his face, breaking four front teeth, and needed a hospital visit to remove the electronic dart, the court said. He was charged with misdemeanors of resisting and opposing an officer, but prosecutors dropped the charges after the jury deadlocked.

Upholding a judge's refusal to dismiss Bryan's civil suit, the appeals court said a jury should decide whether the officer had used too much force to subdue someone who was not threatening him.

Bryan was clearly unarmed and did not challenge McPherson verbally or make any menacing gestures, Wardlaw said. She said McPherson's claim that Bryan had ignored an order to stay in the car - an order that Bryan denied hearing - would not justify a Taser shooting, nor would the officer's concern that Bryan might be mentally disturbed.

Other factors that could support a claim of excessive force, Wardlaw said, were the minor nature of the traffic offense, McPherson's failure to warn Bryan that he might be Tasered and the fact that other officers were on the way to the scene.

While I agree that the tasering may seem a bit excessive...we seem to be overlooking one very important point...these people were breaking the law. I personally have never been tasered mostly because I've never given law enforcement a reason to. I would hedge a guess that for the 10 people who were tasered there were hundreds of thousands of people who have ridden the subway with no ill effects. Its pretty simple....don't break the law and you don't have to worry about police brutality. Police do a very important and dangerous job that goes completely unnoticed and unappreciated until something bad happens. No one is ever happy to see a policeman until they need one.

rmemmett84 wrote:While I agree that the tasering may seem a bit excessive...we seem to be overlooking one very important point...these people were breaking the law.

Did you bother reading the last two posted examples? Because in neither one did the person who was tasered break the law. And if we discuss breaking the law, the question isn't obviously, "Should they be stopped?" but "How should they be stopped?" Please explain why the only answer to the latter question is "With a taser."

I personally have never been tasered mostly because I've never given law enforcement a reason to.

So if I'm a law enforcement officer who makes a split second decision that involves not liking your looks, I can taser you, because I consider that sufficient reason. Right?

I would hedge a guess that for the 10 people who were tasered there were hundreds of thousands of people who have ridden the subway with no ill effects.

As I mentioned above, a recent study shows otherwise:

A new study has found that the type of Taser stun gun used most by police officers can fire more electricity than the company says is possible, which the study's authors say raises the risk of cardiac arrest as much as 50 percent in some people.

The study, led by a Montreal biomedical engineer and a U.S. defense contractor at the request of the Canadian Broadcasting Corp., also concluded that even stun guns firing at expected electrical levels carry some risk of inducing a heart attack, depending on the circumstances.

The fact that so many cases have been coming before the courts from the relatives of people who were killed or severely and permanently injured by tasers would seem to contradict you.

Its pretty simple....don't break the law and you don't have to worry about police brutality. Police do a very important and dangerous job that goes completely unnoticed and unappreciated until something bad happens. No one is ever happy to see a policeman until they need one.

Of course police do an important job, and that's irrelevant. And the last sentence isn't even true. So it would seem you're just taking a knee-jerk reaction of denying the facts, because you've concluded with no reason that the police are under attack. When they aren't; and if you'd bothered to read the thread, you would have realized that the culprit here is Taser International, a company that has a virtual monopoly, provides inadequate training, makes ridiculous claims for their product, and pays for discredited reports about its "safety."

Next time, please read a bit more.

The fact that so many cases have been coming before the courts from the relatives of people who were killed or severely and permanently injured by tasers would seem to contradict you.

Problem being that it's [url="http://www.canada.com/saskatoonstarphoenix/story.html?id=7f62c7ad-26b1-4523-8654-ebe8fe1f4127"]still better than batons[/url]. Likewise, it was also found that pepper spray was safer for the people confronting the police, but not necessarily the policemen themselves, who have to come within close range and partially subdue the criminal before using it.

“No use-of-force technique available to police officers can be considered ‘safe.’. . . Every use-of-force encounter between the police and a citizen carries with it the possibility for injury for one or all of the participants, however unexpected that injury might be,” says a synopsis of the report.

It's going to be very hard to convince people to change their mind on such a charged issue when, as I mentioned in my last post here, other weapons can still be used to equal effectiveness but cause more damage. I think galraen's article is one of the best I've read for that very reason -- it takes the direction I think it should go.

Kaer wrote:Problem being that it's [url="http://www.canada.com/saskatoonstarphoenix/story.html?id=7f62c7ad-26b1-4523-8654-ebe8fe1f4127"]still better than batons[/url]. Likewise, it was also found that pepper spray was safer for the people confronting the police, but not necessarily the policemen themselves, who have to come within close range and partially subdue the criminal before using it.

Except that Hall isn't an impartial researcher, but someone who has been zealously fighting in favor of tasering for years. And while it is certainly obvious that any researcher is going to have opinions on a subject, previous statements from Hall have indicated a less than rational bias. She called the Vancouver Sun's request for an inquiry into tasers and the way they are employed "a diatribe," and her study was funded by the Calgary Police--who have a vested interest in keeping the expensive taser system they've purchased. Hall has also denied that many of the people who died as a result of tasering can qualify as this for her study--because to quote her, "they died under circumstances that involved the influence of cocaine or methamphetamines."

In other words, Hall's study is about as useful as Fox News funding a Republican pollster who asks whether Obama is a traitor to his country.

It's going to be very hard to convince people to change their mind on such a charged issue when, as I mentioned in my last post here, other weapons can still be used to equal effectiveness but cause more damage.

It's going to be even harder to get taser opponents to take such a report seriously when the person who compiled it has been making public statements for years claiming tasers are safe, and believes many deaths from tasering are due to drug use, instead. If she'd noted at the very least that tasering was complicit in these deaths instead of ruling them out from the start, her methodology wouldn't be a matter for ridicule.

[url="http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2008/01/30/taser-study.html?ref=rss"]Additional news from CBC[/url].

Hiya, Fable! I actually read that article in which Ian Mulgrew returned her comments, but was unable to find her comments in context. Would you perhaps have a link? I searched the website you mentioned but it seems lacking in pre-2009 article access. I think everyone has, to some extent, more, um, lackadaisical moments.

I've accessed the report itself, and it does contain, for example, an additional medical panel review with several doctors of various fields of specialty, amongst other things.

There was consensus on the issue that sudden and unexpected death proximal to restraint is caused by a variety of factors, not a single precipitating issue. Risk factors identified included significant amounts of acidosis which affect cardiac contractility, respiratory muscle impairment, rhabdomyolysis (the destruction of skeletal muscle tissue (from traumatic injury and/or excessive exertion) that is accompanied by the release of muscle cell contents into the bloodstream) hypoglycaemia, and high levels of adrenaline.

quote her, "they died under circumstances that involved the influence of cocaine or methamphetamines."

You mean, to quote him. That part was not taken verbatim from her, although she does say later that she believes the more substance abuse occurs, the more deaths we will see. It's worth mentioning that this does not mean that it's the only thing she thinks is possible, but is a strong contributing factor to what may increase taser deaths. I think you accidentally mistook the journalists words for the doctor's words, Fable.

In other words, the presence of her words in context there are about as apparent as Michael Ignatieff's political platforms.

It's also worth mentioning that Mulgrew actually published that article several weeks before any toxicology reports could have been completed on the Polish immigrant case -- those tests take time. Unfortunately, unlike in CSI Miami, the Canadian police cannot track down and do the science required to finish the crime in one week while dressed in suits, driving hummers and questioning the perps (generally, because if you do the science, you do none of those things). To put this in aspect, that article, where he stated that she was incorrect because she failed to account for the Vancouver Airport death, was written on October 22nd, a rebuttal to her remark about his original paper, was only 8 days after the death of Robert Dziekański. Even though a thorough workup had not been completed, the journalist you responded with said:

But, like the Polish immigrant killed at Vancouver International Airport last week, too many in my view suffer from nothing that would explain or point to a cause of death aside from the Taser or the restraint procedure.

In other words, even though there had been no official medical information released, Ian had already made his decision on how he thinks things have played out. Indeed, those results would not be available until March, several months after his article, and even then, as is written in the paper and elsewhere (including his article, I believe), there are other causal factors which may be undetectable.

In that article, "Hall thinks the remarkably similar set of symptoms of in-custody deaths -- hyper-agitation, rapid heart rates, sweating ... that's what we should concentrate on." I do agree that I remember the articles about pepper spray, for example, saying the same thing, so I can see where she is going with this line of thought. In another step, I do feel that, even though she is right (and Mulgrew agrees) that you cannot stop and do a medical evaluation of a person in the field, the above symptoms tend to be visible enough to cause concern of using the taser unless there is serious reason to do so. Pepper spray was found to be dangerous for people with certain conditions, and I think blunt force trauma is going to be an issue for anyone when facing a baton.

I do agree that her work is not going to be impartial, nor did I ever contend that it was, but it does reference a number of peer reviewed papers ranging from saying that tasers should be pulled to ones that say they do not need to be pulled. Much like your Independent article, or like like the work of Ian Mulgrew, both journalists without scientific backgrounds, it does provide a well researched point of view.

It's going to be even harder to get taser opponents to take such a report seriously when the person who compiled it has been making public statements for years claiming tasers are safe, and believes many deaths from tasering are due to drug use, instead. If she'd noted at the very least that tasering was complicit in these deaths instead of ruling them out from the start, her methodology wouldn't be a matter for ridicule.

Likewise, Ian Mulgrew has a bit of a reputation for being anti-law enforcement to some degree. Whether this is true or not, I'm not going to argue, because frankly, what matters is that people believe folks like Ian Mulgrew have equally present biases, and tend to take their comments on the way things are going and what they are supporting with similar viewpoints.

I don't understand why you said what you did, because I would think it would be very much clear that those people who are ardently against the current structure of taser use would not be happy with the work which is turned out here. What matters is the undecided folks, and those are the ones I am talking about.

In addition, I'm disturbed by your choice of end phrase, although perhaps I am misreading. It read to me as "if she at least said something which agreed with them, they wouldn't be so antsy about her possible lack of credibility." I'm sorry, are you saying that her methodology wouldn't be an issue if she had written something else as a conclusion, even if everything else was the same? She believes that, while tasers do cause the death, it is through exacerbating present issues. While I do think that reads much better than what you said, I still think you should rephrase that.

With all the studies being bandied about, I think it is important to note that any device in a police officer's toolbox has some risk attached to it's use. I don't condone the abuse of any weapon that is in the hands of an officer of the law, but I am not lining up to take any of those tools away either.


Canada's RCMP have sustained a bruise on the public trust that may never go away, because of poor training and no accountability. The Polish immigrant case in my view was nothing short of murder. Canada's national police force had to be dragged kicking and screaming through the inquiry and they are still fighting it and paying the lawyers for those 4 thugs. A promise to review training has come from it, maybe that will help. I doubt any charges will every be levied against those 4 cops, even though they decided to zap that poor man into submission before they even saw him and then lied about it and cooked up a common story after the fact.

A different example of tazer use happened in my home town only a few years ago.(Sorry no link). A drugged up lunatic smashed a display at a knife store kiosk that also sold those movie novelty swords. "Conan the Idiot" then proceeded to terrorize the mall he was in by running around swinging this thing wildly. Our local cops had 2 choices to protect the public within reason, shoot him, or taze him, they chose the latter, and he is still alive for that reason only.

What am I saying? Yeah, tazers can cause harm if they are abused, just like any other mostly non lethal weapon but that is no reason to stop using them. the approach to their use must change and cops should not be going around as if they will never kill someone using these things.

Without having read anything other than the original post in this thread, let me just say (as someone who lives in Vancouver) that our transit systems are primarily operated on the honor system.

There were too many stories of bus drivers being beaten within an inch of their lives by the cities degenerates and drunks. So they are instructed not to enforce collection of fares. Additionally, our Skytrains are essentially free to use if you want to risk simply getting a fine for not being able to produce proof of fare purchase for one of the rare inspectors who board and audit passengers.

In summary, these systems are magnets for exploitation and are common crime locations. In a news snippet I read a few years back, something like 82% of all violent crimes in Vancouver occurred within 1 square kilometer of a Skytrain station.

Let me also say, that Vancouver, despite the postcard perceptions out there, is a pretty violent city and there is no shortage of news events to make you extremely disgusted with humanity.

I am glad they are tasering the crap out of problem riders, loiterers. I am content knowing that they suffer and could possibly die from it. No one said tasers are safe. Tasers shouldn't be safe. In fact, I wish our transit authorities had guns instead.

If you think this is an extreme position, imagine someone you love. Someone who's loss/absence would leave you in a dark void. Imagine that someone being attacked and stabbed in the neck for their iPod on their ride home from work...just because she ran into some degenerates at the wrong place, at the wrong time. There is no shortage of such stories.

You always have to guard against the corruption of power but trust me, the number of taserings is not disproportionally high compered to the masses of predators who proximate that infrastructure.

Kaer wrote:I've accessed the report itself, and it does contain, for example, an additional medical panel review with several doctors of various fields of specialty, amongst other things.

Only that's never been the point in our discussion of tasers. It's not about the involvement of other factors that could contribute to death in a person who has died after being tasered. Nobody's been denying that. It's that Hall categorically rules out tasers as a contributing factor in any death where other factors were involved. And that's what I was speaking to when you linked directly to that piece on Hall's findings, above.

Now if I state that nobody in the world dies because of hate crimes, you can of course respond with much documented evidence showing hate crimes everywhere. But if I make a point in my methodology of eliminating all physical evidence of any other contributing factor--such as loss of blood, or severe blunt trauma to the brain--because I define hate crime deaths as instances in which hate crimes alone must be the cause of death, then I can prove my case.

This is how Dr. Christine Hall (the her in the report that I quoted, which you seemed to think was a man) arrived at the results that you link to: any separate contributing factor to a death in which tasers were involved automatically rules out tasers as a cause of death. This illustrates the fatal flaws in this methodology: an unwillingness to consider tasers as a potential cause, because other causes might have been involved; and on a higher level, a focus on symptoms, while ignoring causes. Or to use your own quote from her:

In that article, "Hall thinks the remarkably similar set of symptoms of in-custody deaths -- hyper-agitation, rapid heart rates, sweating ... that's what we should concentrate on."

This has been Hall's approach all along: so-called "excited delirium." Dr. Jan Garavaglia, quoted in a 2005 medical review for the Victoria Police, presents a duplicate of Hall's point of view: "These individuals would have died with or without being shot with a taser."

How do Hall or Garavaglia know this? Because as just stated, they've assumed they do. So all those many taser-related deaths can be conveniently ignored in Hall's latest report, since tasers have been ruled out by Hall in advance for any involvement in the deaths.

By the way, you forgot to note that while Hall's report came out in 2008, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police issued a new policy in 2009 that further restricts the use of tasers, after Hall's report and a lack of adequate government response to the deaths were massively criticized.

Likewise, Ian Mulgrew has a bit of a reputation for being anti-law enforcement to some degree...

That's nice, but I don't recall citing him for technical research. Please show me where I did. You've brought up Hall as a definitive expert, her remarks and reports in defense of tasers, and I've responded to that.

You might also note that Hall has gone on the record stating, "Why taser someone who is unarmed? The question implies that being unarmed is the equivalent of being harmless," and "The taser has more built-in accountability than any other weapons system. The challenge is for organizations to utilize that information properly." That's from an extensive medical report she was commissioned to provide. It's a staggering instance of a wildly inaccurate opinion being presented by a scientist as fact in a scientific paper: more accountability than any weapons system? What incredible rot, even on the surface of it. Any reputable scientist would hang their head in shame from having uttered this in a professional capacity.

Whether this is true or not, I'm not going to argue, because frankly, what matters is that people believe folks like Ian Mulgrew have equally present biases, and tend to take their comments on the way things are going and what they are supporting with similar viewpoints.

As I didn't bring up Mulgrew, this is a false equivalency. I'll repeat it again: your use of Hall is compromised both by her methodology and her zealous, emotional defense (as witnessed in the absurdly unscientific and unsupported remarks above; there are many more) of tasers. This isn't a case of establishing some fictional middle ground between two relative opinions. It's important that real, hard research be done by people who, unlike Hall, are capable, serious scientists, and that the results be implemented in Canada as a whole, in the US, and any other country that has simply bought into Taser International's billion dollar-program of assurance, weaponry, and denials of involvement when deaths subsequently occur.

I do agree that her work is not going to be impartial, nor did I ever contend that it was, but it does reference a number of peer reviewed papers ranging from saying that tasers should be pulled to ones that say they do not need to be pulled.

Certainly you contended her work was impartial; otherwise, you wouldn't have referenced and linked to her as factual evidence backing up a statement of yours in your last post but this:

Problem being that it's still better than batons.

...So we'll just file this remark of yours under the "Whom are you going to believe, me, or your lying eyes?" category.

As for referencing peer-reviewed papers, come on! I've worked in university departments before, and dealt with and reviewed plenty of masters-level papers that could sling bull**** as well while referencing other papers, with or without bull****, with ease. Arguing this way doesn't win you any points, nor does it paper over the fact that Hall's reports are inherently useless for the reasons many, including myself, have already outlined.

By the way, I quoted the following, above:

A new study has found that the type of Taser stun gun used most by police officers can fire more electricity than the company says is possible, which the study's authors say raises the risk of cardiac arrest as much as 50 percent in some people.

The study, led by a Montreal biomedical engineer and a U.S. defense contractor at the request of the Canadian Broadcasting Corp., also concluded that even stun guns firing at expected electrical levels carry some risk of inducing a heart attack, depending on the circumstances.

Hall has specifically stated since that such heart-related deaths could not be considered taser-related, since they were caused by stressed cardiac systems that resulted from any number of possible factors. This is the mindset of Taser International and Hall, one of their most celebrated shills. I think you're right to pick her as a celebrated authority and spokesperson for the industry. She certainly embodies their philosophy well.

I don't understand why you said what you did, because I would think it would be very much clear that those people who are ardently against the current structure of taser use would not be happy with the work which is turned out here. What matters is the undecided folks, and those are the ones I am talking about.

No. This isn't a matter of making anybody "happy" on two sides of an issue. What matters are these:

1) Every single one of the people who died, that were tasered.

2) Creating a body of non-governmental inquiry made up of experts, examining the evidence scientifically regarding the use of tasers in daily police enforcement, with the ability to issue a public report.

In addition, I'm disturbed by your choice of end phrase, although perhaps I am misreading. It read to me as "if she at least said something which agreed with them, they wouldn't be so antsy about her possible lack of credibility." I'm sorry, are you saying that her methodology wouldn't be an issue if she had written something else as a conclusion, even if everything else was the same? She believes that, while tasers do cause the death, it is through exacerbating present issues. While I do think that reads much better than what you said, I still think you should rephrase that.

Then I suggest you re-read what I've posted. And Hall, too, as she most definitely does not believe that tasers were involved in all those deaths, and has repeatedly said so. It has been been at the root of her arguments all along, and it has compromised her status as a scientific, impartial observer.

I am glad they are tasering the crap out of problem riders, loiterers. I am content knowing that they suffer and could possibly die from it. No one said tasers are safe. Tasers shouldn't be safe. In fact, I wish our transit authorities had guns instead.

If you think this is an extreme position, imagine someone you love.

I do. I imagine them maybe young, and a bit reckless, and a bit stupid, thinking they can skive a free ride. And I imagine them lying there, dead, after some misguided cop who was taught by Taser International and Dr. Christine Hall that "tasers don't kill, there are always mitigating factors" got them several times with a taser, maybe because they became uncooperative and just twitched violently after the first shock. And I imagine myself looking at a dead body that can't be brought back to life, a life that still had years to go, possibilities ahead of all sorts, ended. No chance to bring them back. No game resurrection. A living human being, capable of love, capable of receiving love. Dead.

Yours takes the cake for the most inconceivably thoughtless post I've read in some time.

fable wrote:Yours takes the cake for the most inconceivably thoughtless post I've read in some time.

"Inconceivably thoughtless" or just something you so strongly disagree with that you feel it appropriate to insult?

It's okay, I'm not offended by your sense of being offended. You've obviously never been the victim of violence.

Tasers are safer than guns. They are not safe. That's some erroneous assumption people made along the way, including the bad guys.

Give the transit authorities guns. That will keep people well behaved.

RPGguy wrote:"Inconceivably thoughtless" or just something you so strongly disagree with that you feel it appropriate to insult?

Inconceivably thoughtless ,and that's not an insult, it's a statement of fact. Whatever you may become in the future, at this point in your life you have made a remark indicating a breathtaking lack of empathy with other human beings--a willingness to objectify them as simply The Other, who can be treated in an inhuman fashion without concern. Hopefully, that will eventually change, and again hopefully, not as a result of some severe loss on your part.

It's okay, I'm not offended by your sense of being offended. You've obviously never been the victim of violence.

I was physically and mentally abused at home, in my childhood, on a regular (sometimes daily) basis for about eight years. I was repeatedly physically abused at school. I several times ended up in the hospital. It happens. Nothing more to be said.

Yet I want to see people of all sorts, no matter whom they may be, given decent protection from bad choices by those armed with weapons, and you--what's been your multiple experiences being a target for violence?--want to see people subjected to tasering and possibly death for...loitering. What an interesting difference of attitude between the person who knows violence very well, lived with it regularly, and the person who talks big about it.

"You've obviously never been the victim..." Right. This last comment of yours has to be the second most thoughtless remark I've read in some time.

Give the transit authorities guns. That will keep people well behaved.

From a commissioned report by a team led by a Montreal medical bioengineer:

Far from lowering violence, Tasers seem to lower the threshold that by which the police resort to violence – and criminals respond by lowering theirs. In the US, a 16-year-old schoolboy was Tasered by cops in a playground for "using profanity"; a dementia-riddled man in his eighties was shocked for urinating in the park; 50,000 volts were fired at a 17-year-old boy who had fallen off an overpass and broken his back.

This is how Dr. Christine Hall (the her in the report that I quoted, which you seemed to think was a man)

I just searched that exact phrase in several of her papers and it is not in there. The reason I said "he" is because those are the words paraphrased in the Mulgrew article you are referring to when you talked about what she said in return.

He was referring to her publicly available 2005 paper, in which those words were not said -- he paraphrased and reduced what were multiple possible issues down to that, the article from the Vancouver Sun where you lifted that phrase from. Hence, he said it, not her. I may have made a mistake here, but I do believe you are mistaking his words, for her words.

For the record, she does not consider tasers to be entirely safe, she believes them to be [url="http://www.caep.ca/CMS/temp/CJEM%20Vol%2011,%20No%201,%20p84.pdf"]safer[/url]. I'm not enthused that I've been forced to "defend" Hall.

By the way, you forgot to note that while Hall's report came out in 2008, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police issued a new policy in 2009 that further restricts the use of tasers, after Hall's report and a lack of adequate government response to the deaths were massively criticized.

It's funny you mention that, because when I read that article, the reasons that they were doing it were actually in line with Hall's report as well, in regarding acutely agitated subjects. I never argued, Fable, that there shouldn't be tougher rules on tasers, as the article says they are doing. I decided not to bring it up here in my last post because I thought it was a foregone conclusion that this was a good thing...

That's nice, but I don't recall citing him for technical research. Please show me where I did. You've brought up Hall as a definitive expert, her remarks and reports in defense of tasers, and I've responded to that.

... with a journalist, so far as I've seen. One with equally questionable biases and motives?

You quoted articles from a news paper with more leadup than I quoted Hall's report, including a short "investigative journalism" piece. I've read her report, and then I read the papers which were referenced which covered the broad spectrum of issues regarding taser use, including several with recommended they discontinue use. I'm sorry if you think that I'm turning her into some glowing beacon of the taser industry, but I did not intend to use her in the fashion it appears you feel I did, nor did I think introducing her work as I did would have sparked such an angry response. I'm sorry, my wording was poor.

In my opinion, this is much like the police reports from before when we previously discussed this.

I cannot comment on the other bits as of yet -- I'm too busy to read up on the [url="http://www.ipicd.com/resources/articles.html"]requisite information[/url]. It's worth noting that in follow up medical articles, including the one by Pierre Savard, ED was also included in the study.

As I didn't bring up Mulgrew, this is a false equivalency. I'll repeat it again: your use of Hall is compromised both by her methodology and her zealous, emotional defense (as witnessed in the absurdly unscientific and unsupported remarks above; there are many more) of tasers.

... because the quotes and references I seem to be finding from the Vancouver Sun, the source you cited, all seem to go back to Mulgrew. I'm sorry if I'm wrong, but that's so far the only link I've been given as to where you are getting these quotes other than by his editorials. =/ Can you link me to where you found the information you otherwise cited? The google and yahoo searches I am doing, all go back to the same name -- Mulgrew. I can't even find her own words in context, or in another journal article.

I will admit that I haven't searched super hard, but I figured five or six runs with exact phrases in google/yahoo/bing and wandering through the Vancouver Sun database would have netted me more results otherwise.

This isn't a case of establishing some fictional middle ground between two relative opinions. It's important that real, hard research be done by people who, unlike Hall, are capable, serious scientists, and that the results be implemented in Canada as a whole, in the US, and any other country that has simply bought into Taser International's billion dollar-program of assurance, weaponry, and denials of involvement when deaths subsequently occur.

... and I agree, although as I mentioned in my last post which you did not reply to, I think you've taken my comments past their meaning. A passing comment that it might be hard for people to take because I posted what is essentially a police paper in response to a journal article on a topic I already agreed to some extent on in regards to what was proposed in galraen's article, should not have raised this degree of ire, imo. =/

I mean, instead of lambasting me for saying Mulgrew was not your source and that I was clearly in the wrong, you responded quite strongly without showing me where you are getting these quotes at all.

...So we'll just file this remark of yours under the "Whom are you going to believe, me, or your lying eyes?" category.

Quite clearly I should sit down and smile and pretend that the articles you list are not possible examples of modern internet publishing, Fable. This is compounded because, even though you listed a paper by a Biomedical Engineer, I have also provided a paper in response by a team of doctors far earlier with conflicting findings. Hence the conflict! :laugh:

It also is worth mentioning that the article you showed was done at the behest and with the funding of the CBC, a politically slanted media outlet on a subject where the Torries and the Liberals are at some conflict in this country due to implications that the Liberals in our senate may try moving forward with Taser relevant documents without consulting the Torries or NDP.

It is even more interesting to note that, even though you quoted that, the article goes on to say something that I do not disagree with. While the cautious response was that "little available research on the effects of the weapon on humans, especially those who have heart disease," they still proceeded to provide their own estimate. It would make me squeamish to say I'm gungho in support of what is said there because the Bozeman report disagrees, although this could just be a case of professional disagreement. However, I do agree with the conclusions in the report otherwise. While other sources of the Biomedical Engineer Pierre Savard state he feels a normally functioning taser is unlikely to [url="http://www.braidwoodinquiry.ca/presentations/pierre_savard.pdf"]produce problems[/url]. The problem presented there is incorrect functionality of older taser models, the risks of using them on patients with heart disease, and other variable issues. It is also concluded that improved police standards (woohoo!) need to be followed.

As for referencing peer-reviewed papers, come on! I've worked in university departments before, and dealt with and reviewed plenty of masters-level papers that could sling bull**** as well while referencing other papers, with or without bull****, with ease. Arguing this way doesn't win you any points, nor does it paper over the fact that Hall's reports are inherently useless for the reasons many, including myself, have already outlined.

Given the last time I provided you a paper resulted in sheep metaphors being tossed my way...

I mean, really, I never did get a response to the paper done by Bozeman et al., and they had a goal of studying the use of CSWs for effects on the cardiac system.

No. This isn't a matter of making anybody "happy" on two sides of an issue. What matters are these:

1) Every single one of the people who died, that were tasered.

2) Creating a body of non-governmental inquiry made up of experts, examining the evidence scientifically regarding the use of tasers in daily police enforcement, with the ability to issue a public report.

I never said that it would make them "happy", and I am tiring of having to restate myself. Take the word "satisfied" instead, and maybe then you will be satisfied with the results.

I never argued with either of the above. I said that there is, essentially, not enough evidence to bring this to the level of a national problem anywhere in which it requires national intervention, and that to get it to that level, the mass of undecided people who don't know about this need to be made aware of it.

In essence, Fable, my response was never intended to be a contradiction -- it was intended to be a "yeah this was in the newspaper and will probably make people think, unfortunately" response, since I had hoped that my own views on Tasers and use had been made clear. I'm sorry, it has been some time since the topic was brought up previous to that and I know I didn't exactly reread the entire topic myself in excruciating detail to see where I shoved that into my own poorly written posts.

My second post was meant to mention that I find Mulgrew questionable, although I didn't know he was your not your main source here -- to be honest, I can't find your main source otherwise. In addition, it had a smattering of "hey wait a minute that doesn't make sense to me" scattered around the edges. I assure you, I am a moron.

Sorry, something like 400 characters words over the limit.

I do think we need to see safer taser controls. And I think we need to see actual comprehensive studies done. This reminds me a lot about a lot of global warming papers out there -- it's a politically charged field, but no one is really willing to remove the crap papers about it and make sure work is comprehensively documented and studied so that we have a definitive set of results we can work from. It is clear that there is inherent issues for people with medical problems -- this cannot be denied. Every article, paper or otherwise has listed the innate possibility of harming someone without direct intention to varying degrees. There's also general agreement that tasers must be monitored, in both if they are degrading in quality and how the police use them.

Just a quick response/opinion

As I read both fable's and rpgguy's arguments, I think I understand where both parties are coming from.

Personally, I think and I agree that tasers are safer than guns and yet tasers are not safe --- the risk is still there.

However, I think the real point is that the police and security personnel should be properly trained when to use and how to use the tasers. There should also be Rules of Engagement when using such gadgets.