Man dies after being tasered in Vancouver Airport

[Phaneuf3]

Originally Posted by Bent Wookie

Actually, I will debate that. People do NOT drop dead after being tasered thus, the taser did not cause their death. Keep in mind it is a 'less lethal' device.

ok, one more post to come back and stir the pot.

yay hypothetical situations to point out faulty logic:
a man is shot in the stomach. he does not 'drop dead' immediately but instead continues to briefly struggle, hangs on for a while, loses a bunch of blood, slips in and out of consciousness and dies a couple hours later.

he did not drop dead from the gunshot wound and therefore getting shot did not cause his death. you could say instead that he died from blood loss. therefore, guns don't kill people and guns should be considered less than lethal force. fire arms are now acceptable to use on suspects who are not posing a threat but not complying.
QED

[MaxPower]

Originally Posted by Regorium

I felt that the post was not to add to the discussion, but as proof or evidence of police overstepping their bounds. Unneccessary at this point. The last time someone posted a story about police using a taser a couple pages back, there was a lovefest between two posters about how because of that, it's painfully obvious that the police are in the wrong.

I'm quelling that before it is allowed to surface. Perhaps my words were harsh, but I truly feel that it is a general sentiment of some posters.

Did you read the article? I don't know how that could be possibly construed as evidence that the police were overstepping their bounds. Anything but. I don't know who you are referring to with the term "lovefest", but I'm not biased one way or the other. I am capable of being, and have been, objective in the matter.

And it's not really your job to "quell" any discussion here, even if it is unpleasant to you.

[MelBridgeman]

Originally Posted by Phaneuf3

ok, one more post to come back and stir the pot.

yay hypothetical situations to point out faulty logic:
a man is shot in the stomach. he does not 'drop dead' immediately but instead continues to briefly struggle, hangs on for a while, loses a bunch of blood, slips in and out of consciousness and dies a couple hours later.

he did not drop dead from the gunshot wound and therefore getting shot did not cause his death. you could say instead that he died from blood loss. therefore, guns don't kill people and guns should be considered less than lethal force. fire arms are now acceptable to use on suspects who are not posing a threat but not complying.
QED

Dr. Graeme Dowling of Edmonton's medical examiner's office stated that there are actually "no definitive cases where TASERs have actually killed anybody." Dowling also noted that because the electricity from a TASER device flows across the skin surface, as opposed to through internal organs, there is no effect on the heart. "The frustrating thing for us is these deaths occur and the immediate speculation is TASER," says Dowling.

quoted once again..

[Phaneuf3]

Originally Posted by MelBridgeman

quoted once again..

if there's no effect on anything but the skin how does drugs + taser = death then? because its been documented that this is a potentially lethal combo

[Eagle Eye]

nm

[MelBridgeman]

Originally Posted by Phaneuf3

if there's no effect on anything but the skin how does drugs + taser = death then? because its been documented that this is a potentially lethal combo

According to news reports from Alberta's Edmonton Sun in Canada, a local medical examiner has stated that misconceptions and misinformation about police TASER devices are causing misguided speculation in excited delirium deaths. Excited delirium is a condition that causes victims to display extremely aggressive behavior and "superhuman" strength and often requires several people to control the affected individual. Most often excited delirium victims stop breathing and do not respond to resuscitation attempts.

quoted again as well - drugs could also cause symptoms like excited delirium ...

[metallicat]

Good article on excited delirium: http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/ta...-delirium.html

I think the fact that excited delirium rarely causes death, it shows that not everybody who is experiencing it dies when in contact with the police.

[Phaneuf3]

regarding excited delirium:
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/story?i...C-RSSFeeds0312

Excited delirium can't be found in medical textbooks, dictionaries or on lists of standard diagnoses.

"There remain many questions. Excited delirium still doesn't exist as a recognized diagnosis. It can't be found in any medical textbooks, and the AMA still doesn't recognize it as a diagnosis. Medical examiners only picked up the term to explain and whitewash excessive use of force by the police," he said.

neat. so this isn't recognized by the medical community at all.

but essentially its an overdose of adrenaline:

What's really killing these people isn't police brutality but an overdose of adrenaline, said Dr. Assaad Sayah, chief of emergency medicine at Cambridge Health Alliance.

http://www.cbc.ca/cp/Atlantic/071122/t112245A.html

Dr. Zian Tseng, an assistant professor of cardiology at the University of California whose research has focused on the effects of Taser use, said the 30-hour gap between when Hyde was shocked and his death doesn't necessarily mean the two aren't related. "Other than causing an immediate cardiac arrest, the intense pain and adrenaline increase with a Taser application, you could certainly surmise that it could trigger a heart attack or kidney failure, or anything else that is going on would certainly worsen it," Tseng said in an interview from San Francisco.

so wait... tasers could not only cause cardiac arrest but also an adrenaline increase. excited delirium is caused by an adrenaline overdose.



does:

taser causes too much adrenaline causes death
sound similar to the example i used before:
gunshot causes bloodloss causes death?



are you starting to see other possibilities? maybe not convinced yet but this should at least raise some reasonable doubts?

[Sparks]

I don't think we should be talking about so-called "excited delirium" as though it's anything more than a hypothetical condition. From the article oilers_fan posted:

Some psychologists say the cause is a rare condition called "excited delirium" and not the obvious common element — the use of a Taser.

Yet, this condition is the subject of fierce debate in psychiatric circles.

They also mention that it is not listed on the DSM-IV, so it's not really diagnosable. There may well be something that ends up being called "excited delirium" but I think the people doing autopsies and the police are doing us a grave disservice by listing a theoretical condition as the cause of death. It doesn't answer any questions.

[metallicat]

The chief medical examiner in Edmonton believes in it. The CBC article I posted also suggests that it will be recognized in due time. The problem is it's rare, and even rarer for someone to die because of it. It's not just a new condition that has popped up since Tasers have been introduced.

Originally Posted by Phaneuf3

regarding excited delirium:
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/story?i...C-RSSFeeds0312
neat. so this isn't recognized by the medical community at all.

but essentially its an overdose of adrenaline:
http://www.cbc.ca/cp/Atlantic/071122/t112245A.html
so wait... tasers could not only cause cardiac arrest but also an adrenaline increase. excited delirium is caused by an adrenaline overdose.



does:

taser causes too much adrenaline causes death
sound similar to the example i used before:
gunshot causes bloodloss causes death?



are you starting to see other possibilities? maybe not convinced yet but this should at least raise some reasonable doubts?

Possibly, but the key difference between a gun and taser is a gun is lethal force.

Originally Posted by Sparks

I don't think we should be talking about so-called "excited delirium" as though it's anything more than a hypothetical condition. From the article oilers_fan posted:



They also mention that it is not listed on the DSM-IV, so it's not really diagnosable. There may well be something that ends up being called "excited delirium" but I think the people doing autopsies and the police are doing us a grave disservice by listing a theoretical condition as the cause of death. It doesn't answer any questions.

Believe what you want and call it what you want. I have seen it first hand.

The key to the article is that it is clearly understudied and rare.

Fact is, several if not the majority of in custody deaths, those occurring post physical altercation, occur to subjects that all display similar symptoms.

[Phaneuf3]

Originally Posted by Bent Wookie

Possibly, but the key difference between a gun and taser is a gun is lethal force.

if this research is correct that a taser can cause a lethal amount of adrenaline to be released by the body, is it also not possible that it could cause a very large amount to be released so that it simply damages some organs such as the heart, kidneys, etc but not actually kill the victim?

so if its possible that a taser can cause death directly as the one article states, contribute to it via causing an overdose of adrenaline, or cause organ damage through very high levels of adrenaline, do you still feel that tasers are being used and classified correctly?

i'm not saying 'ban tasers' just like i'm also not saying cops shouldn't carry guns; if the situation necessitates it, tase away. but i also don't think that tasers are being given the proper respect and are being relied on too heavily in situations that don't require that kind of force.

Originally Posted by Phaneuf3

if this research is correct that a taser can cause a lethal amount of adrenaline to be released by the body, is it also not possible that it could cause a very large amount to be released so that it simply damages some organs such as the heart, kidneys, etc but not actually kill the victim?

so if its possible that a taser can cause death directly as the one article states, contribute to it via causing an overdose of adrenaline, or cause organ damage through very high levels of adrenaline, do you still feel that tasers are being used and classified correctly?

i'm not saying 'ban tasers' just like i'm also not saying cops shouldn't carry guns; if the situation necessitates it, tase away. but i also don't think that tasers are being given the proper respect and are being relied on too heavily in situations that don't require that kind of force.

Tasers are considered 'less lethal' as is OC spray, pepper ball rounds, bean bag rounds, etc, etc. They are not considered 'non-lethal'. Any one of those things can cause death. But they are designed to subdue an individual by causing pain, inflammation and/or a disruption of the central nervous system. I wouldn't key on this massive adrenaline dump theory as any one of those devises including physical restraint and emotionally charged situations can cause an adrenaline dump.

Not sure you have read this entire thread but in your opinion, when should a taser be used? What kind of force would you consider it?

[Phaneuf3]

Originally Posted by Bent Wookie

Tasers are considered 'less lethal' as is OC spray, pepper ball rounds, bean bag rounds, etc, etc. They are not considered 'non-lethal'. Any one of those things can cause death. But they are designed to subdue an individual by causing pain, inflammation and/or a disruption of the central nervous system. I wouldn't key on this massive adrenaline dump theory as any one of those devises including physical restraint and emotionally charged situations can cause an adrenaline dump.

Not sure you have read this entire thread but in your opinion, when should a taser be used? What kind of force would you consider it?

i'd consider it acceptable when there is a severe, real, obvious and imminent threat to somebody (police officer or otherwise). mostly i think (read: hope) that they are being used for this purpose - but it looks like this isn't always the case.

[metallicat]

Shouldn't that be what a gun is for?

[Phaneuf3]

a guy is standing in the middle of the street with nobody around him with a large knife acting agitated and shouting threats. he hasn't made an attempt to attack someone.

i would say this meets the criteria i outlined but pulling out a gun and shooting him as the first reaction might be a bit of overkill (pardon the pun). this is where i feel a taser would become useful if he can't be talked down.

[metallicat]

Sorry, man with a knife = gun. At least in my opinion, I don't want police messing around with knife wielding idiots. I am not saying shoot him straight out, but that is not a role for a Taser.

[fredr123]

Use at least the same level of force, if not one higher. A knife is deadly force. Response in kind is warranted. You don't mess around when levels of force escalate. End the threat now.

[Phaneuf3]

so if the guy makes no move to attack anyone and is just in an extended argument with police, this is grounds to use lethal force?

of course, it'd be possible for the situation to progress to that point... but at the point in the hypothetical situation we were at - no i don't think guns would be justified but less than lethal weapons like tasers would be.