Every time you use the tazer, once the incident is over and the subject subdued... you get tazed the exact same amount of times your self. In the event more then one cop fires his tazer at the same individual... they all have to vote one cop to take the tazing for them..
kidding of course as I think the tazer can in fact be an effective tool when used properly with proper guidelines..but damn.. sure would make the cops think twice about doing it.
<blockquote><cite>Posted By: Jimmytufish</cite>Personally, I don't trust the cops to use the device properly.</blockquote>And <b>that</b> is the problem. I think if the tazer is <b>properly</b>, I really would have no problem with them. Bad guy doing something criminal, a zap is probably more punishment than he'd get in courts.
However, when cops can zap without recourse, I think it points back to a much greater problem - cops have their own set of rules.
Whatever!! The established fact by a considerable margin is that the Tasers are NOT a completely non-lethal device, never mind what the manufacturing establishment says by it's propaganda.
I do agree that the restrictions for the use of the tasers must be more strictly enforced.
We also need better trained police officers who have activated brain cells in place and functional at the time of the use of the tasers!
I'd also add "won't succumb easily to group think". I think that most probably enter with good intentions, but when you're in a problematic system it's only a matter of time before you become 'one of them'.
Well, the so called "experts" can say whatever they want, when I see the repeat of that fellow out in Vancouver getting hit several times by the taser, it makes me sick to my stomach.
The purpose of the taser is to "interrupt" the breathing process of the intended target so that the police force in question can place handcuffs on the subject's wrists.
HOWEVER, take another look at the video! No less than 2 and probably more officers are KNEELING on this poor victim's chest!
Being struck by 2 tasers within seconds of each other is what caused this person to die, the police kneeling on him simply accelerated the process.
The purpose of the taser is to "interrupt" the breathing process of the intended target so that the police force in question can place handcuffs on the subject's wrists
That isn't the purpose, this is.
An electrical signal is transmitted through the wires to where the probes make contact with the body or clothing, resulting in an immediate loss of the person’s neuromuscular control and the ability to perform coordinated action for the duration of the impulse.
Before you make too many claims, do some research. Visit their website , look up the history of the Taser. Also look into Muscular tetany and why Tasers method works better.
But whatever you do, inform yourself.
For those who buy Taser stock, there is only one thing to look for, sell when the Smith boys sell, they are the best signal.
Nice to see they copied the Stun shield and perhaps are going to copy Stun restraints for court room perp control.
"Mike Webster (a police psychologist) accused the company that makes Tasers of instructing police in Canada that when they encounter a person suffering from a "mythical" condition that Taser calls "excited delirium," police have few options other than jolting the person with the controversial electrical weapon, which delivers a five-second shock that incapacitates a person."
"When you think the only tool you have is a hammer, then the whole world begins looking like a nail," Webster told the inquiry in Vancouver.
Jimmy like realtors taglines, ignore when the Smiths buy ( which is the first time ). These fellas have sucked over 200 million from the market. Not bad for a product they finangled from the inventor. These boys have a stock certificate printing press in the backroom.
Yuo are right, excited delirium is not an accepted term and until recently neither was fibromyalgia. here are a coupld of court cases that used the term. I think the term was used in the mid 80's, I remeber reading something by Dennis Kaufman , before the Smiths, and the term was used. i can see the Smith boys jumping on the term like flys to shit but from what i read, the term can explain what happens when drugged or paranoid and you are restrained.
Nathaniel Jones: his death while in custody of Cincinnati police was first attributed to excited delirium.[9][2] In a lawsuit over the death of Mr. Jones, some facts related to excited delirium were disputed.[11] The defendants in the trial court proceedings asserted that: 1) the decedent was resisting arrest; 2) reasonable force was used in an attempt to restrain him; and 3) excited delirium was the cause of death.[11] The plaintiffs claimed that: 1) the officers used excessive force; 2) the decedent died from compressive asphyxia caused by police officers whose entire weight was on his body; and 3) the decedent was not resisting but rather attempting to reposition his body so he could breathe.[11] The trial court found that the plaintiffs sufficiently stated a claim of excessive force.[11] No taser involvement.
Toney Steele: One of the first high-profile cases involving question of excited delirium, this drug addict died in San Diego after being restrained in the back of a patrol car.[9] No taser involvement.
I will never trust those things, you can't tell me that the tasers, are safe, no way!! All of the testing is done from behind the test subject? Not likely that the police are going to ask their suspects to turn their backs toward them!!
Tasers, used improperly and without very strict guidelines, should be used as ONLY as a second-last resort, and then with great hesitation. Even with all the safety guidelines in place, they are to be used with extreme caution.
BTW Fibromyalgia has been studied since the early 1800s and referred to by a variety of former names, including muscular rheumatism and fibrositis. The term fibromyalgia was coined in 1976 to more accurately describe the symptoms.(Wiki)
Also, back in the 80's, with cocaine, the term was used to describe eratic behaviour. Now it's being used to describe a cause of death, which, imho, is tantamont to saying a person died from blood loss when shot.