So Much for Tasers Being Non Lethal

[Kamakazie Sith]

Let's post the title of the article, so that we can see how ridiculous your statement is: "Death of a psychiatric patient during physical restraint. Excited delirium--a case report." It's something that only happens when people are physically restrained. Calling it "excited delirium" is nothing more than a whitewash over the actual cause of death, the physical restraint.

Are you even paying attention? I cited that because you incorrectly claimed "It's a condition that only appears when dealing with people who die in police custody, and nowhere else, so yes, it's a fictitious condition.

That's unfortunate and a stain on their record.

Oh, I didn't realize I was speaking to an expert in the field. Do you mind sharing your credentials with everyone and explain to us how you're more qualified to say whether something is valid than N.A.M.E.?

[Kamakazie Sith]

not justifying the police action taken, but why was the kid saying to kill cops? sounds like there is more to that story than we are being told. And the dad is the one saying he was clean, he could be lying.

It's possible that he was saying those things because of a head injury. Also, anyone who fell hard enough to break their back probably had visible injuires so these officers should have been more aware of what they were doing.

Also, allowing the use of tasers on persons who simply refuse to get up is a serious concern. It shows a very loose use of a force policy. Tasers should only be used on person who actively resist.

[Kamakazie Sith]

why was the kid saying to kill cops?

A theory springs to mind actually...with fuckheads like you and them wearing the uniforms, preemptive killing of cops might not be such a bad idea from a personal saftey standpoint...

That's not very appropriate. You need to grow up a bit.

[Kamakazie Sith]

It's a little harder to get away with hitting someone in the face twice... after they stopped twitching from the previous 7 strikes. Or to keep hitting an injured kid in the face as a 'pain compliance technique' because he wouldn't 'follow instructions'. I'm not against tasers in general, but I do think that these examples show current regulation to be insufficient.

Tasers record the number of uses and duration so, it's not like there's no record.

I do agree that the departments with lax restrictions on taser use need to be forced to change them to reflect the idea behind the taser. It was never meant to replace hand to hand force, but it was meant to be used during situations where injury to either the officer or the suspect is likely if physical force is used.

[Lonestar]

A theory springs to mind actually...with fuckheads like you and them wearing the uniforms, preemptive killing of cops might not be such a bad idea from a personal saftey standpoint...

I feel the same way about Journalism "students".


"Why no officer, I have no idea why most cops and uniformed servicemen would have mild contempt for civilians."

[Graeme Dice]

Are you even paying attention? I cited that because you incorrectly claimed "It's a condition that only appears when dealing with people who die in police custody, and nowhere else, so yes, it's a fictitious condition.

You correctly nitpicked the fact that it also rarely appears when dealing with psychiatric patients who have died while restrained. How does this vindicate those police officers who get away with murder by renaming the cause of death?

Oh, I didn't realize I was speaking to an expert in the field. Do you mind sharing your credentials with everyone and explain to us how you're more qualified to say whether something is valid than N.A.M.E.?

You'd notice, if you were debating honestly, that NAME is the only organization that uses the term.

[Kamakazie Sith]

You correctly nitpicked the fact that it also rarely appears when dealing with psychiatric patients who have died while restrained. How does this vindicate those police officers who get away with murder by renaming the cause of death?

I was never arguing that it vindicates those officers who murder someone and get away with it. However, not all people who die in police custody have been murdered by the police.

You'd notice, if you were debating honestly, that NAME is the only organization that uses the term.

I did notice. I just disagree that because currently there is a two vs one that it should be considered a fictional disorder. If it were zero than sure, but all those organizations are credible.

[Death from the Sea]

not justifying the police action taken, but why was the kid saying to kill cops? sounds like there is more to that story than we are being told. And the dad is the one saying he was clean, he could be lying.

It's just the cops that tazered the crap out of him that apparently heard him say these things, they've got a damn fine motive to lie.

was it just them or was it also the witness Messersmith? the article doesn't really say and I am not sure. He may have jumped off of the overpass attempting suicide and been trying to tell the officers to shoot him but he may have been mumbling and it was misheard. We don't really know. And as for motives for lying, suspects and their family members have no reason what so ever to lie either do they?
The fact is that we will never really know the full story there because our source, in this case the media, is not going to print all the facts.

why was the kid saying to kill cops?

A theory springs to mind actually...with fuckheads like you and them wearing the uniforms, preemptive killing of cops might not be such a bad idea from a personal saftey standpoint...

hey, look here comes Keevan with his personal vendetta as always in pretty much every thread where I post anything in reference to policing. Fuck you Keevan.

[Keevan_Colton]

not justifying the police action taken, but why was the kid saying to kill cops? sounds like there is more to that story than we are being told. And the dad is the one saying he was clean, he could be lying.

It's just the cops that tazered the crap out of him that apparently heard him say these things, they've got a damn fine motive to lie.

was it just them or was it also the witness Messersmith? the article doesn't really say and I am not sure. He may have jumped off of the overpass attempting suicide and been trying to tell the officers to shoot him but he may have been mumbling and it was misheard. We don't really know. And as for motives for lying, suspects and their family members have no reason what so ever to lie either do they?
The fact is that we will never really know the full story there because our source, in this case the media, is not going to print all the facts.

why was the kid saying to kill cops?

A theory springs to mind actually...with fuckheads like you and them wearing the uniforms, preemptive killing of cops might not be such a bad idea from a personal saftey standpoint...

hey, look here comes Keevan with his personal vendetta as always in pretty much every thread where I post anything in reference to policing. Fuck you Keevan.

Definite facts however include tazering a kid with a broken back 19 times for non-compliance. Apparently mumbling shit is now cause for tazering people? The kid was physically incapable of compliance much less resisting arrest...there's no particular reason to invoke the spectre of drugs into it, they're a red herring. The fact that you can conceive there is a possible explanation buried somewhere for the actions of the cops is the reason why I suggested you ought to be shot as a matter of saftey for others. If you want it laid out a little clearer I also support putting down rabid dogs, which is a category that someone who gleefully inflicts pain on others falls into quite readily, not to mention someone that gets a hard-on over the idea of shooting people.

Seriously, what the fuck is it possible to SAY that justifies being tazered 19 times? Hell, what is it possible to SAY that justifies it even once? I see a lot of parallels at times between god damn gang bangers and the police over there, from the protective tribalism right on through to seeking vengeance on those that dis' them.

[Death from the Sea]

Definite facts however include tazering a kid with a broken back 19 times for non-compliance. Apparently mumbling shit is now cause for tazering people? The kid was physically incapable of compliance much less resisting arrest...there's no particular reason to invoke the spectre of drugs into it, they're a red herring. The fact that you can conceive there is a possible explanation buried somewhere for the actions of the cops is the reason why I suggested you ought to be shot as a matter of saftey for others. If you want it laid out a little clearer I also support putting down rabid dogs, which is a category that someone who gleefully inflicts pain on others falls into quite readily, not to mention someone that gets a hard-on over the idea of shooting people.

oh, no! I can see that there are always two sides to every story!!! holy shit, that sounds like a great reason for you to say I should be murdered. I am not saying that what they did is right, I have in fact said that they need to show alot of justification for their actions. If the officers are found to have used force with out justification then they should be sanctioned accordingly. But is it really so bad to want to believe that officers did not use force where it was not needed?

I would also like to know where you get that I have ever "gleefully inflicted pain" on anyone? And yeah, I was happy to hear my chief of police tell us to shoot looters on site, not because it was a free pass to shoot people. But because it was a sign that the administration was willing to back you up during the catastrophe at hand(many police administrations have no backbone and do not back up their officers). Do you really think that we were shooting looters? NO. in fact we caught the only looters, which are essentially just burglars, and arrested them with minimal force used.

Seriously, what the fuck is it possible to SAY that justifies being tazered 19 times? Hell, what is it possible to SAY that justifies it even once? I see a lot of parallels at times between god damn gang bangers and the police over there, from the protective tribalism right on through to seeking vengeance on those that dis' them.

anything is possible, we don't know the full story and that is my point. Does 19 times sound excessive to me? yes. is there a chance (no matter how small) that they can justify their actions? yes. but instead of seeing that possibility, you just want to bring up old shit and continue on a personal attack against me by saying that I should be shot.

[Graeme Dice]

anything is possible, we don't know the full story and that is my point. Does 19 times sound excessive to me? yes. is there a chance (no matter how small) that they can justify their actions? yes.

There is absolutely no chance that they can justify their actions given the facts that we have. They used a taser on a person who had absolutely no way of harming them physically. They decided to cattle prod a person who presented no threat whatsoever.

[Keevan_Colton]

Definite facts however include tazering a kid with a broken back 19 times for non-compliance. Apparently mumbling shit is now cause for tazering people? The kid was physically incapable of compliance much less resisting arrest...there's no particular reason to invoke the spectre of drugs into it, they're a red herring. The fact that you can conceive there is a possible explanation buried somewhere for the actions of the cops is the reason why I suggested you ought to be shot as a matter of safety for others. If you want it laid out a little clearer I also support putting down rabid dogs, which is a category that someone who gleefully inflicts pain on others falls into quite readily, not to mention someone that gets a hard-on over the idea of shooting people.

oh, no! I can see that there are always two sides to every story!!!

Well done, you have demonstrated the very definition of the Golden Mean you stupid retard. It was bullshit when Aristotle was peddling it and he was more of a man than you can aspire to be.

holy shit, that sounds like a great reason for you to say I should be murdered.

There is an important technical distinction between murder and execution you know, but my feelings about you and others that revel in abusing their power over others is not really central to this.

I am not saying that what they did is right, I have in fact said that they need to show alot of justification for their actions.

There is NO conceivable justification given the situation though. Someone with a broken back and no weapons is ZERO threat to anyone capable of movement.

If the officers are found to have used force with out justification then they should be sanctioned accordingly. But is it really so bad to want to believe that officers did not use force where it was not needed?

The evidence is plain, unless you feel there is some magical words that justify tazering someone more than a dozen and a half times. Words mind you, not actions given that with a broken back you're not going to be able to beat up someone.

I would also like to know where you get that I have ever "gleefully inflicted pain" on anyone? And yeah, I was happy to hear my chief of police tell us to shoot looters on site, not because it was a free pass to shoot people. But because it was a sign that the administration was willing to back you up during the catastrophe at hand(many police administrations have no backbone and do not back up their officers).

You were happy to have permission to shoot people for property crime on site. That makes me think you are a reprehensible waste of genetic material.

Do you really think that we were shooting looters? NO. in fact we caught the only looters, which are essentially just burglars, and arrested them with minimal force used.

Why the glee at being given permission to shoot them then? After all, they are simply burglars...and often enough in a true emergency it can be a matter of survival. I know of people looting for food and bottle water in NO's itself for example.

anything is possible, we don't know the full story and that is my point. Does 19 times sound excessive to me? yes. is there a chance (no matter how small) that they can justify their actions? yes. but instead of seeing that possibility, you just want to bring up old shit and continue on a personal attack against me by saying that I should be shot.

Bullshit, there is nothing that someone with a broken back could conceivably do that justifies that behaviour on the part of the officers. The fact you cannot accept this is a prime example of the primitive tribalism that both police officers and gang bangers share. They have to have had a good reason or they wouldn't have done it...I ask again, what words uttered can justify a dozen and a half shots with a tazer against someone that was physically incapacitated and unarmed?

You insist there is a possible explanation, why don't you share it?

[Death from the Sea]

anything is possible, we don't know the full story and that is my point. Does 19 times sound excessive to me? yes. is there a chance (no matter how small) that they can justify their actions? yes.

There is absolutely no chance that they can justify their actions given the facts that we have. They used a taser on a person who had absolutely no way of harming them physically. They decided to cattle prod a person who presented no threat whatsoever.

but that is part of what I am getting at, the facts that WE have now. The officers were supposed to know he had a broken back how?

You have to realize that officers have to make decisions on the information presented to them at the time, which of course is not always going to be everything they probably need to know.

After all, civilians get the legal benefit of the doubt with the "innocent until proven guilty", why can't police officers get that same courtesy?

As for you Keevan, learn to read, I have said (multiple times now)that the officers are going to need some very good justification for their actions and that it is unlikely that the officers will be able to provide it.

Well done, you have demonstrated the very definition of the Golden Mean you stupid retard. It was bullshit when Aristotle was peddling it and he was more of a man than you can aspire to be.

hi, welcome to the real world. Where there is more than one story or point of view for the same sequence of events. If you cannot realize that then do everyone a favor and stay out of policing and/or anything to do with settling disputes with more than one person.

There is an important technical distinction between murder and execution you know, but my feelings about you and others that revel in abusing their power over others is not really central to this.

there is indeed a distinction, do you know it? obviously not since you are calling for me to be shot and implying it is execution and not murder.

There is NO conceivable justification given the situation though. Someone with a broken back and no weapons is ZERO threat to anyone capable of movement.

again, that is just it though, you have the luxury of knowing much more information about the guy (such as his health status and what he was doing beforehand) and are able to play armchair police man with no danger to you at all. I will say that I think that they have a snowballs chance in hell of justifying it, but I will give them the chance to tell their side instead of just becoming anti-police like yourself denouncing the police no matter if they were involved or not.

The evidence is plain, unless you feel there is some magical words that justify tazering someone more than a dozen and a half times. Words mind you, not actions given that with a broken back you're not going to be able to beat up someone.

again you are still not getting it.

I would also like to know where you get that I have ever "gleefully inflicted pain" on anyone? And yeah, I was happy to hear my chief of police tell us to shoot looters on site, not because it was a free pass to shoot people. But because it was a sign that the administration was willing to back you up during the catastrophe at hand(many police administrations have no backbone and do not back up their officers).

You were happy to have permission to shoot people for property crime on site. That makes me think you are a reprehensible waste of genetic material.

hey dumbass, did you show where I have ever said I have gleefully inflicted pain? and as for me being happy at my chief's statement, read the quote again and see where it says it was a sign from the admin that they would back us up?

Why the glee at being given permission to shoot them then? After all, they are simply burglars...and often enough in a true emergency it can be a matter of survival. I know of people looting for food and bottle water in NO's itself for example.

read above. And there is a huge difference between someone walking out of a store with food or water and someone walking out of a store with a 60" plasma.

Bullshit, there is nothing that someone with a broken back could conceivably do that justifies that behaviour on the part of the officers. The fact you cannot accept this is a prime example of the primitive tribalism that both police officers and gang bangers share. They have to have had a good reason or they wouldn't have done it...I ask again, what words uttered can justify a dozen and a half shots with a tazer against someone that was physically incapacitated and unarmed?

I can totally believe that they were in the wrong, I just want to give them the benefit of the doubt until (you know innocent until proven guilty and all) they give their justification for their use of force and in the likelihood that does not measure up, then I will be all for them being sanctioned and condemned by the public.

[Keevan_Colton]

All this "How were they to know?" bullshit at best can be used to try and defend a single use of a tazer, and that is giving them a massive benefit of the doubt, what about the other 18?

I still want to hear you concept of a possible explanation. You insist there is one, so enlighten us all with it.

[Darth Wong]

A theory springs to mind actually...with fuckheads like you and them wearing the uniforms, preemptive killing of cops might not be such a bad idea from a personal saftey standpoint...

hey, look here comes Keevan with his personal vendetta as always in pretty much every thread where I post anything in reference to policing. Fuck you Keevan.

Keevan has a tendency to fly off the handle at times, but there's a point buried in there: every time people talk about self-defense inside the home, some jackass inevitably brings up the idea that it's OK to shoot a burglar even if he's not attacking you, maybe even if he's running away. The reasoning is that you can't let him get away, because he might come back and kill you later. In other words, even though there is no clear and present danger, it is OK to use violence to prevent a hypothetical future danger.

The thing is, if we apply this logic to policing situations, if you have a locale where the police have a record of brutality, you could argue that it's a form of self-defense to kill cops.

The problem with Keevan bringing it up here is that he's basically introducing arguments from an unrelated thread, which is a bit of a thread hijack.

[Keevan_Colton]

I'll admit that it is, and I have said it's nothing but a tangent really in my posts above.

[Death from the Sea]

All this "How were they to know?" bullshit at best can be used to try and defend a single use of a tazer, and that is giving them a massive benefit of the doubt, what about the other 18?

I still want to hear you concept of a possible explanation. You insist there is one, so enlighten us all with it.

I never said that I had the explanation, I just said that there is a chance there is one that they might have.

[Keevan_Colton]

All this "How were they to know?" bullshit at best can be used to try and defend a single use of a tazer, and that is giving them a massive benefit of the doubt, what about the other 18?

I still want to hear you concept of a possible explanation. You insist there is one, so enlighten us all with it.

I never said that I had the explanation, I just said that there is a chance there is one that they might have.

And there might be an invisible elephant sodomizing you right now. Hell, aliens could have done it and then framed the cops!

Ever been introduced to parsimony?

It's rather telling that while you insist there is possibly an explanation you cannot even propose a possibility of what it might be. Do you also reject gravity on the grounds that there's a chance, no matter how small that it might spontaneously cease to apply to you due to magical pixies?

[Death from the Sea]

All this "How were they to know?" bullshit at best can be used to try and defend a single use of a tazer, and that is giving them a massive benefit of the doubt, what about the other 18?

I still want to hear you concept of a possible explanation. You insist there is one, so enlighten us all with it.

I never said that I had the explanation, I just said that there is a chance there is one that they might have.

And there might be an invisible elephant sodomizing you right now. Hell, aliens could have done it and then framed the cops!

Ever been introduced to parsimony?

It's rather telling that while you insist there is possibly an explanation you cannot even propose a possibility of what it might be. Do you also reject gravity on the grounds that there's a chance, no matter how small that it might spontaneously cease to apply to you due to magical pixies?

you just want a possible? it is possible they (the police) were told the kid was on PCP armed with a gun or knife and that he was laying on his hands so that the officers could not see them. It is possible that the guy did not fall and break his back, but that his back was broken in the officers attempt to take him into custody. I could easily come up with many possibilities, but they are not as likely.

[Keevan_Colton]

Again that gets you one shot at an extreme benefit of the doubt, maybe even two if as you suggest they broke his back (which however leaves them with a whole other set of questions to answer) but that still leaves you 17 or so shots short of an explanation.


Also interesting to note is that apparently they aren't being made to give a reason since according to the statement from police; the use of the stun gun is not in question...see my earlier statement about tribalism.

Or to use an old aphorism, who watches the watchers?

[Death from the Sea]

Also interesting to note is that apparently they aren't being made to give a reason since according to the statement from police; the use of the stun gun is not in question...see my earlier statement about tribalism.

Or to use an old aphorism, who watches the watchers?

I don't know if they have any type of review board for taser usage, but I definitely think that they should, as should all departments.

[Graeme Dice]

but that is part of what I am getting at, the facts that WE have now. The officers were supposed to know he had a broken back how?

Was he threatening them physically? Nope. Then the taser was not justified. This is really a pathetically simple situation to understand.

[Justforfun000]

Actually I have a hard time imagining any situation that could possibly justify a usage past THREE times. By that point I think more heavy-handed force would be appropriate. If 3 shocks of a taser did not result in the person being compliant, then I could agree with the police switching to batons and extra hands holding them down so they could be handcuffed and restrained.

This is the biggest issue to me with this..I do NOT see repeatedly using a taser as an appropriate "coercion" tool. Why? because once you get past the initial one or two shots which are supposed to be a VERY strong attention getter and also an aid to subduing because of the muscle lockup, it becomes a torture tool. If it's not sufficient to allow apprehension of the subject with proper restraint, then it's only causing pain and from what I've read more times then I like to count, some officers act extremely inappropriately in regards to them.

I've read reports of people having their testicles zapped repeatedly while a fellow officer watched and laughed. laughed!. That's sickening and it's a disservice to the badge. No cop with a decent bone in his body should be getting jollies off shocking people. they should be grudgingly doing it as a means to an end and they should be held to the highest standard of culpability regarding their justification for use. I doesn't matter that they are the law. It matters that it's a very specific ethical situation that demands impartiality and fair judgement.

[Big Phil]

No cop with a decent bone in his body should be getting jollies off shocking people.

I'm not a cop, and I may be an indecent asshole, but I sure as hell enjoyed watching the "don't taze me bro!" guy get what was coming to him. That video should be replayed at least once a month as a reminder of when and how to properly use tazers.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Actually I have a hard time imagining any situation that could possibly justify a usage past THREE times. By that point I think more heavy-handed force would be appropriate. If 3 shocks of a taser did not result in the person being compliant, then I could agree with the police switching to batons and extra hands holding them down so they could be handcuffed and restrained.

I agree for the most part. The only situation where I could see a taser being used more than three times would be if that officer is alone.