Studies on tasers are flawed, cardiologist tells inquiry

[MelBridgeman]

Originally Posted by Phaneuf3

if that's how they were used.... awesome.
they're often being used on people passively resisting, arguing, or not complying fast enough, etc. i certainly hope that a firearm isn't authorized or necessary to deal with someone (non-violently) disagreeing with a cop.

really?

[Kjesse]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NqtxSM-73_E


I'm anti-Taser, because of asshats like this. (And because the cops in Vancouver had no reason to resort to that weapon, but did anyway.)

This video gives the law-and-authority justification, but its all crap.

[MelBridgeman]

Well keep that in mind the next time you all try and rough up some cops

[Dan02]

Yes there are times innocent people get tazered. But I don't feel bad for dumbasses who get zapped. Let this be a lesson, don't be a dumbass.

[metallicat]

Originally Posted by Dan02

Yes there are times innocent people get tazered. But I don't feel bad for dumbasses who get zapped. Let this be a lesson, don't be a dumbass.

Yup, that pretty much applies to life in general. If you aren't a dumbass, dumbass like things likely won't happen to you.

Let's be clear:

1) There is a distinct difference to law enforcement in Canada and law enforcement in the US- use of force models, training, pre-hire screening, etc, etc are completely different in Canada. For the most part, Canadian police are well trained, well educated and well respected. Linking youtube videos of US law enforcement using the taser inappropriately is really misleading.

2) There are 2 ways to fire a taser. Actually firing the probes from a distance (effective range is actually pretty short) and 'drive stunning; pressing the taser into the subjects body and pressing the trigger.

3) Considering point 2, there is a certain threshold in the use of force model that each 'style' can be warranted. Taser use is strictly limited to assaulted subject or ACTIVE resistance. Not passive resistance.

often being used on people passively resisting, arguing, or not complying fast enough

Ridiculous. Doesn't happen in Canada. Too much youtube.

4) A taser is not a substitute in a lethal force encounter- only lethal force is.

5) A knife is lethal force. Closing distance on an assailant is remarkably fast.



Getting back to the original post, very interesting. I wonder what his angle is. I hope someone gets to the bottom of it.

[Winsor_Pilates]

Originally Posted by Bent Wookie

3) Considering point 2, there is a certain threshold in the use of force model that each 'style' can be warranted. Taser use is strictly limited to assaulted subject or ACTIVE resistance. Not passive resistance.

That's the key
If what this guy is saying is true, and most of the studies used to set those thresholds are done by taser companies, then there's a good chance the thresholds aren't accurate.

The more unbiased research that can be done to help law enforcement know the truth about the effects of tasers, the better they can judge when and where to use them and avoid the few incidents where they've been overused.

[Dion]

VANCOUVER — An Ohio court decision ordering a state coroner to remove all reference to Tasers from autopsy results is an "appalling interference," says British Columbia's chief medical officer.

The top medical examiner in the U.S. called the court ruling last week "dangerously close to intimidation."

While the chief coroner of B.C. declined comment, the province's chief medical officer was blunt.

"I think this is appalling interference in transparency, in trying to find out what actually is going on," said Dr. Perry Kendall.

He could not recall similar legal cases involving Taser in Canada, but Kendall said he hoped the Ohio ruling is appealed.

"I doubt that it will stand. At least I hope it wouldn't stand."

http://canadianpress.google.com/arti...Okz5eoxAN8OgKw

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by Azure

Well if the alternative if shooting them....I think a taser is better.

The problem is, they are not being used as the alternative to shooting by many officers. They are still a weapon which can be lethal and need to be treated as such.

It seems the addition of a device which has been incorrectly classified as 'non lethal' has left far to many officers trigger happy.

They are less lethal than guns but by no means not dangerous.

I think officers get the wrong idea because they have seen so many people (in training or like you and I through media) survive a shocking, and many have to undergo it themselves to use them.

But taking a bullet can be non lethal too, and they don't make an officer do that to become part of the force.

Originally Posted by Daradon

The problem is, they are not being used as the alternative to shooting by many officers. They are still a weapon which can be lethal and need to be treated as such.

It seems the addition of a device which has been incorrectly classified as 'non lethal' has left far to many officers trigger happy.

They are less lethal than guns but by no means not dangerous.

I think officers get the wrong idea because they have seen so many people (in training or like you and I through media) survive a shocking, and many have to undergo it themselves to use them.

But taking a bullet can be non lethal too, and they don't make an officer do that to become part of the force.

Tasers aren't being used as an alternative to a gun. If lethal force is required, the ONLy answer is a firearm.

Tasers ARE considered less lethal, not non lethal.

I am pretty sure officers are well aware of the possible outcome of using such a device- including death. Just as they are well aware of possible deaths from any other form of control or restraint. I don't think that makes them trigger happy- quite the opposite actually.

Should they be higher on the use of force model? Can't go much high then assaultive so either get rid of them or realize that like OC spray, batons, and even physical restraint, some people may die.

[Daradon]

I don't think ALL officers are aware of the severity of some of the outcomes. I still think they are being used too often and in situations where they don't need to be. Yes some of this is because of extreme cases that are popularized, but I say the same thing about an officer shooting a person nine times, or pepper spraying a protester at UBC.

The fact that we are seeing SO many cases where the use of a taser is questioned seems to suggest that they are being used incorrectly or too frequently.

I don't think ALL officers are aware of the severity of some of the outcomes. I still think they are being used too often and in situations where they don't need to be. Yes some of this is because of extreme cases that are popularized, but I say the same thing about an officer shooting a person nine times, or pepper spraying a protester at UBC.

I would say it's all because of extreme cases. Not sure what you mean by the examples you gave there of a shooting and a pepper spray incident.

The fact that we are seeing SO many cases where the use of a taser is questioned seems to suggest that they are being used incorrectly or too frequently.

In comparison to how many times the taser is deployed, I would say that there aren't as many cases as you seem to think.

Not sure what basis you form the opinion that it is being used incorrectly or too frequently.

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by Bent Wookie

I would say it's all because of extreme cases. Not sure what you mean by the examples you gave there of a shooting and a pepper spray incident.



In comparison to how many times the taser is deployed, I would say that there aren't as many cases as you seem to think.

Not sure what basis you form the opinion that it is being used incorrectly or too frequently.

I'm saying there are several cases where officers use too much force, not just tasers and I would be saying the same thing in those cases. I think because tasers have been labeled as safer than they really are by the groups that make them and other organizations, it makes the cases of extreme (and unjustified in several cases) force even more dangerous.

And there are studies both here and south of the border that show the incidents involving tasers are rather high, and that the incident of injury or death using them is also case for concern. I can look those up if you like. But in a general or common sense way, I doubt we would be hearing so much about it if it wasn't a cause of concern or they weren't being used improperly.

[Phaneuf3]

Originally Posted by Bent Wookie

3) Considering point 2, there is a certain threshold in the use of force model that each 'style' can be warranted. Taser use is strictly limited to assaulted subject or ACTIVE resistance. Not passive resistance.
Ridiculous. Doesn't happen in Canada.

Not all that ridiculous. It happens. Seems to be that its the exception rather than the rule, but it happens. Sure, its far more common south of the border but it doesn't make it any less wrong. Sticking your head in the sand because it isn't happening in your back yard at the moment is a naive approach.

You are talking about 2 different things. Using a taser as you stated is wrong- I don't debate that. It just simply doesn't happen often enough. I would say it is so infrequent here, that it is not even worth discussing.

I am far from naive my friend.

[Phaneuf3]

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree then. I can understand how you would come to some of the conclusions you did regarding my comments if the scope of the debate on tasers and policing was kept entirely within Canadian borders. I think what's happening in other areas or the world (taser related and otherwise) is relevant and worth discussing... but that's just my $0.02.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by Delgar

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NqtxSM-73_E


I'm anti-Taser, because of asshats like this. (And because the cops in Vancouver had no reason to resort to that weapon, but did anyway.)

This video gives the law-and-authority justification, but its all crap.

Maybe you shouldn't be anti taser because of a bad police officer, but anti bad police officer. A taser is only a tool. By saying you are anti taser because the person that deployed it did it incorrectly means that you are anti firearm for police as well as there are numberous times that a police officer has misused his firearm.

And I agree, who ever made that video has no clue when a taser should be used.

[Dion]

"I think the assertion that's been made that Tasers cannot possibly cause any direct action on the heart is incorrect. Tasers can affect the heart in particular circumstances," one of the study's authors, Dr. Paul Dorian, told CTV's Canada AM on Friday.

"The consequence of a Taser discharge in certain circumstances, not in all circumstances, is that the rapid discharge causes the heart to beat very, very quickly and when the Taser's turned off the heart returns back to its normal heart beat," Dorian said.

"The concern is that when the heart beats very quickly, it doesn't pump blood effectively and, in rare cases, after the electricity is turned off it keeps beating very quickly, and that can potentially have very dangerous consequences."

The report points out that in one study, the pigs' blood pressure was suddenly lost after they were Tasered, while two pigs died in another study after being Tasered and developing a rapid heart rate.

While Dorian cautioned against applying the data directly to humans, he noted a great deal of heart research has been conducted on pigs.

"We are quite confident that pig hearts are comparable to human hearts at least with respect to the effects of electrical circuits on the heart muscle," Dorian said.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNew...hub=TopStories

Originally Posted by Dion

"I think the assertion that's been made that Tasers cannot possibly cause any direct action on the heart is incorrect. Tasers can affect the heart in particular circumstances," one of the study's authors, Dr. Paul Dorian, told CTV's Canada AM on Friday.

"The consequence of a Taser discharge in certain circumstances, not in all circumstances, is that the rapid discharge causes the heart to beat very, very quickly and when the Taser's turned off the heart returns back to its normal heart beat," Dorian said.

"The concern is that when the heart beats very quickly, it doesn't pump blood effectively and, in rare cases, after the electricity is turned off it keeps beating very quickly, and that can potentially have very dangerous consequences."

The report points out that in one study, the pigs' blood pressure was suddenly lost after they were Tasered, while two pigs died in another study after being Tasered and developing a rapid heart rate.

While Dorian cautioned against applying the data directly to humans, he noted a great deal of heart research has been conducted on pigs.

"We are quite confident that pig hearts are comparable to human hearts at least with respect to the effects of electrical circuits on the heart muscle," Dorian said.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNew...hub=TopStories

What the heck. This is no different than OC spray or baton strikes. 'In certain circumstances....'... ofcourse. No one here is debating that it can cause death or at least be a contributing factor- thus it is not deemed a non-lethal device.

Originally Posted by Delgar

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NqtxSM-73_E


I'm anti-Taser, because of asshats like this. (And because the cops in Vancouver had no reason to resort to that weapon, but did anyway.)

This video gives the law-and-authority justification, but its all crap.

Are you referring to the RCMP's tasering @ the Vancouver airport? Why do you feel it wasn't justified? Take a closer look at the video- he is clearly holding something in his hand just before he is tasered.