Taser Intl. Inc demands negative study quashed.

[Magis]

Except that, oops, I didn't quote a figure

I didn't say that you quoted a figure, dumbass, I said that you made an estimation, which you did by saying that the current wasn't miniscule.

Just to remind you of how wrong you're are, a typical discharge starts with a very brief pulse (around 3ms), followed by longer pulses (around 100ms) at a rythm of about 20 pulses per second; actual peak amperage (peak amperage is the relevant measurement because of the pulsed delivery) varies between models, but on one of the most commonly used ones is 3A. If you have access to a good scientific library (or your university offers a suitable proxy for online subscription access to scientific journals, etc.) you too can use Pubmed to check the rathar extensive literature on the subject.

That doesn't make me wrong, you idiot. You should work on your reading comprehension. My point was that the media chooses to quote the voltage rather than the more relevant amperage because it's a bigger, scarier number. The only claim I made about the magnitude of the current was that it was significantly less than the voltage - which it is.

but it's true that the high voltage is what makes it relatively dangerous, because the minimum potentially lethal amperage is extremely low (so low that every pratical application of electricity would be able to kill someone, if it wasn't for low voltage).

That's not true at all. The voltage alone is not a good indicator of the danger because the resulting current is also a function of a) the location of impact of the taser electrodes, b) the degree of penetration into the skin, and c) the characteristics of the voltage supply (i.e., the maximum amount of current that can flow before the voltage source exhibits nonlinearities), among other factors. Ultimately it's the current flow that's most directly responsible for the danger, which makes current numbers much more relevant to the discussion than voltage numbers.

Are you finally having a erection, now?

You're a moron.

[Melchior]

To clarify, then; how do you know that 3mA is the average and not a peak value?

I read the lab tests. For that (very common, apparently) model, average amperage is 2.1 mA and peak is 3A (not mA, A, as I also wrote before).

[Kamakazie Sith]

To clarify, then; how do you know that 3mA is the average and not a peak value?

I read the lab tests. For that (very common, apparently) model, average amperage is 2.1 mA and peak is 3A (not mA, A, as I also wrote before).

That explains why Taser International recommended that police do not aim for the chest.

[Ryan Thunder]

To clarify, then; how do you know that 3mA is the average and not a peak value?

I read the lab tests. For that (very common, apparently) model, average amperage is 2.1 mA and peak is 3A (not mA, A, as I also wrote before).

Well, I'll concede the point, then. That's well in excess of the accepted 'safe' levels.

[Simon_Jester]

To clarify, then; how do you know that 3mA is the average and not a peak value?

I read the lab tests. For that (very common, apparently) model, average amperage is 2.1 mA and peak is 3A (not mA, A, as I also wrote before).

That explains why Taser International recommended that police do not aim for the chest.

Yup. But if Taser International is honest, they should be saying "do not aim for the chest because a three amp millisecond current pulse can kill someone if you do that." I don't know if they do; their demand to suppress this study certainly suggests that they prefer not to admit that their product can be lethal if used in a wrong-but-natural way.

That doesn't make me wrong, you idiot. You should work on your reading comprehension. My point was that the media chooses to quote the voltage rather than the more relevant amperage because it's a bigger, scarier number. The only claim I made about the magnitude of the current was that it was significantly less than the voltage - which it is.

What does that mean, physically?

Comparing a number of volts to a number of amperes and saying one is "more than" the other is misleading, because while one volt is a relatively small (and harmless) voltage, one ampere is a relatively large (and dangerous) electric current.

So if the media wants to use the big scary number in this context, I for one do not mind, because the general public has a better grasp of the fact that high voltage is not to be fucked around lightly with than they do of the fact that even small currents can be dangerous.

That's not true at all. The voltage alone is not a good indicator of the danger because the resulting current is also a function of a) the location of impact of the taser electrodes, b) the degree of penetration into the skin, and c) the characteristics of the voltage supply (i.e., the maximum amount of current that can flow before the voltage source exhibits nonlinearities), among other factors. Ultimately it's the current flow that's most directly responsible for the danger, which makes current numbers much more relevant to the discussion than voltage numbers.

It also makes them far more variable. The voltage of a power supply is far more likely to be stable regardless of the resistance in the circuit than the current is, except for extremely low resistances (at which point, yes, you get nonlinearities). Since the current delivered by a taser varies wildly and the voltage does not, it is not disingenuous to point out that the voltage is rather high.

Now, if the taser is by design current-limited to the point where even at its most energetic it can't kill anyone, that's a horse of a different color. I've dealt with HV hardware that was limited along those lines. Are tasers?

[Bilbo]

Not to ask a stupid question but can anyone tell me the last time a person was actually directly killed by a stun gun? I am all for banning or limiting them if there is solid proof that there is a danger but by now I am sure thousands if not tens of thousands of people in the United States alone have been tasered and I have not heard of a single directly related death.

Just to put in prospect I personally hate the things because I feel that cops turn to them too quickly. Before stun guns cops actually communicated to resolve problems. Now it seems that 5 minutes of disagreement is enough justification to jolt someone.

[Melchior]

I didn't say that you quoted a figure, dumbass, I said that you made an estimation, which you did by saying that the current wasn't miniscule.

Actually I said that even a very small current can kill someone, which is true. You're wrong.

That doesn't make me wrong, you idiot. You should work on your reading comprehension. My point was that the media chooses to quote the voltage rather than the more relevant amperage because it's a bigger, scarier number. The only claim I made about the magnitude of the current was that it was significantly less than the voltage - which it is.

It does, since you said that I didn't know what you're talking about.

That's not true at all. The voltage alone is not a good indicator of the danger because the resulting current is also a function of a) the location of impact of the taser electrodes, b) the degree of penetration into the skin, and c) the characteristics of the voltage supply (i.e., the maximum amount of current that can flow before the voltage source exhibits nonlinearities), among other factors. Ultimately it's the current flow that's most directly responsible for the danger, which makes current numbers much more relevant to the discussion than voltage numbers.

The "resulting current" isn't actually very relevant. Relatively low intensity currents aren't going to cause major tissue damage even with unfortunate electrode placement, the risk is mostly that the discharge can interfere in various ways with the cardiac conduction system (a rather complex affair, with several areas able to control the inherent myocardial contractility). You don't actually know how muscle tissue works, do you?

[SirNitram]

Not to ask a stupid question but can anyone tell me the last time a person was actually directly killed by a stun gun? I am all for banning or limiting them if there is solid proof that there is a danger but by now I am sure thousands if not tens of thousands of people in the United States alone have been tasered and I have not heard of a single directly related death.

Just to put in prospect I personally hate the things because I feel that cops turn to them too quickly. Before stun guns cops actually communicated to resolve problems. Now it seems that 5 minutes of disagreement is enough justification to jolt someone.

May 23rd. Autistic man dies from Taser

Amesty International records 150 deaths since 2001 by tasers. Link

[Magis]

Actually I said that even a very small current can kill someone, which is true. You're wrong.

I never said it can't. I said that your estimation of the current as being 'not miniscule' is not a particularly good one. As far as estimations of physical quantities go, it's about as good as saying that the volume of the moon is "big".

It does, since you said that I didn't know what you're talking about.

No I didn't. I said that your current figures don't make me wrong because I never made any estimation of what the current is.

The "resulting current" isn't actually very relevant. Relatively low intensity currents aren't going to cause major tissue damage even with unfortunate electrode placement, the risk is mostly that the discharge can interfere in various ways with the cardiac conduction system (a rather complex affair, with several areas able to control the inherent myocardial contractility). You don't actually know how muscle tissue works, do you?

Yeah, and none of those things you mentioned are a function of voltage, except in that they are a function of current and current itself is a function of voltage. Thus current is more directly responsible for the dangers of an electric shock than voltage, which is why it makes the most sense to talk in terms of current.

For reference - EM Koscove, The TASER Weapon: A New Emergency Medical Problem, Annals of emergency medicine (1985):

One of the major issues in electrical safety standards concerns fibrillatory current, the current that produces ventricular fibrillation. For externally applied current, the fibrillatory current in human beings is believed to be a function of the duration, frequency, and magnitude of the current, as well as the patient's body weight. The threshold of ventricular fibrillation for men (for an externally applied, 60-Hz current) has been proposed to be 500 mA for shocks of less than 200 ms duration and 50 mA for shocks of more than two seconds.

Do you notice a theme here? I'll spell it out for you: it's the delivered current that is directly responsible for the dangers of an electric shock. Voltage is only a useful measurement in this respect in that it can help you calculate what the current is, but ultimately it's the current that you need to know when assessing the health effects.

[Kamakazie Sith]

May 23rd. Autistic man dies from Taser

Ummm your link goes to an article about a man who was tasered and wants to know why he was tasered. In other words he is not dead...

Amesty International records 150 deaths since 2001 by tasers. Link

Those don't meet his requirements though. Those 150 deaths are people who died after being tasered, but many had other factors such as drug use. Bilbo is asking for an example where a taser has killed someone directly with no aggravating factors such as poor heart health, drugs, etc.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Amesty International records 150 deaths since 2001 by tasers. Link

Those don't meet his requirements though. Those 150 deaths are people who died after being tasered, but many had other factors such as drug use. Bilbo is asking for an example where a taser has killed someone directly with no aggravating factors such as poor heart health, drugs, etc.

In section 1.3 it says that 7 of 150 were ruled as a direct cause. My apologies for not reading it more carefully...

[Ryan Thunder]

Amesty International records 150 deaths since 2001 by tasers. Link

Those don't meet his requirements though. Those 150 deaths are people who died after being tasered, but many had other factors such as drug use. Bilbo is asking for an example where a taser has killed someone directly with no aggravating factors such as poor heart health, drugs, etc.

In section 1.3 it says that 7 of 150 were ruled as a direct cause. My apologies for not reading it more carefully...

Seven deaths in nine years isn't bad.

[Simon_Jester]

Amesty International records 150 deaths since 2001 by tasers. Link

Those don't meet his requirements though. Those 150 deaths are people who died after being tasered, but many had other factors such as drug use. Bilbo is asking for an example where a taser has killed someone directly with no aggravating factors such as poor heart health, drugs, etc.

Did he? I must be missing something.

But assuming he did, then he's asking the wrong question. Police do not and can not stop to ask a subject whether they're in good physical condition before tasering them. The risk that a subject will have a heart condition or be suffering from the effects of drugs goes with the territory. So if tasers kill people with heart conditions, we need to factor that in when calculating the risk of tasers, not discard it because the taser was not the "primary" cause of death.

[Bilbo]

But assuming he did, then he's asking the wrong question. Police do not and can not stop to ask a subject whether they're in good physical condition before tasering them. The risk that a subject will have a heart condition or be suffering from the effects of drugs goes with the territory. So if tasers kill people with heart conditions, we need to factor that in when calculating the risk of tasers, not discard it because the taser was not the "primary" cause of death.

I wasnt specific enough. When listing deaths I could care less if being tasered resulted in someone falling and breaking their neck. That is freak accident that could happen in any situation. I also dont care if an extremely intoxicated or drugged up person has some reaction and die. I do care if it aggravates a heart condition or some other completely unrelated to the altercation item causes death. To me those deaths are relevant and should be figured into the dangers of a taser.

[SirNitram]

May 23rd. Autistic man dies from Taser

Ummm your link goes to an article about a man who was tasered and wants to know why he was tasered. In other words he is not dead...

Amesty International records 150 deaths since 2001 by tasers. Link

Those don't meet his requirements though. Those 150 deaths are people who died after being tasered, but many had other factors such as drug use. Bilbo is asking for an example where a taser has killed someone directly with no aggravating factors such as poor heart health, drugs, etc.

...Ugh. I really should've caught that. Don't know how I made such an idiot mistake.

But, thank you for pointing it out.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Did he? I must be missing something.

But assuming he did, then he's asking the wrong question. Police do not and can not stop to ask a subject whether they're in good physical condition before tasering them. The risk that a subject will have a heart condition or be suffering from the effects of drugs goes with the territory. So if tasers kill people with heart conditions, we need to factor that in when calculating the risk of tasers, not discard it because the taser was not the "primary" cause of death.

I stand corrected.

Anyway, I agree. A taser to me is a tool to gain compliance from dangerous fleeing or resisting persons. However, I don't feel bad for a dangerous person that ends up dying due to the application of reasonable force, and a taser used on a violent person is completely reasonable in my book.

[Kamakazie Sith]

...Ugh. I really should've caught that. Don't know how I made such an idiot mistake.

But, thank you for pointing it out.

No problem. I had to read it like three times to be sure because such a mistake is so out of character for you, but you're human like the rest of us.

Anyway, to reiterate I did miss the part where it stated that tasers have been ruled directly responsible for seven deaths.