is it really that lethal? How many cases of tasers are there? If 1000 people are tasered, and half of them die, okay, then you have a case.
So tell me, how many people are tasered by the cops each other?
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
500th Taser death in America
- Thread starter lexi
- Start date
- Status
is it really that lethal? How many cases of tasers are there? If 1000 people are tasered, and half of them die, okay, then you have a case.
So tell me, how many people are tasered by the cops each other?
If the guy is riding a bicycle in front of the cop car and is basically deaf, how the fuck is he supposed to know?
What amazes me is people like you that blindly assume authority is always right. That judge a situation on faith before assessing the evidence. Make conclusions first and then seek the evidence later.
Your shitty confirmation bias isn't impressing anyone.
Dude. Way to jump off the deep end.
Are any of those things some common, every day, encouraged or supported nationwide movements? No. You're acting like a kid who got his favorite show canceled. The reality is that cops get shot and killed doing routine traffic stops and handling domestic incidents. When a cop dies, people celebrate. In some areas, there are even bounties put on cops. I'm hardly a defender of them, hell, I spent most of my time on GAF yelling "fuck da police" like everyone else. I think the very first thread I made on GAF was about a cop fucking me over. But even then, I realized the difference between a few shitbags in a high stress environment and "most of them are just fat, lazy fucks with guns that hide behind badges". That's immature as fuck. So is the idea that something should already happen before the use of force becomes okay.
But 500 deaths through decade from tazers is... its better than having to fight every drunk husband that likes to beat his wife and kids when his favorite team loses. Its better than having to shut down a club after a fight breaks out with guns already drawn. Its an option. And it provides the option of much better outcomes than the previous generations of police forces where it was either get in there and fight the guy or pull a gun. Its not 100% safe, but we don't live in a dream world where any type of non-lethal is 100% safe and readily accessible.
Its not that high of a number, as odd as that sounds. Some cities have such ridiculous murder rates... Detroit, Chicago, Philadelphia, Omaha... The numbers from those areas makes you think that the police need even more.
mclaren777
Member
Authority isn't always right, but authority is still authority.
Being obstinate or uncooperative with law enforcement is universally foolish, and given the number of crummy cops in this world, it's best to go along with it and fight them in court if misconduct occurs. Why? Because they also have to answer to authority.
Mercury Fred
Banned
Don't bother arguing with him-- he's blindly loyal to only the most insane of ideas and devoted to a weird church whose cult-leader believes that when men masturbate it's a homosexual act.
Ad hominem like a pro.
Angry Fork
Member
1. The cop should go in because that's his job, gun or not. Teachers have risked their lives trying to disarm or chase down students with guns in schools. A teacher in this recent ohio shooting chased down the gunman but a police officer can't do the same? If it's confirmed that there's a shooting going on, then police with guns should come. If there is no confirmation then there should be no guns. If you get rid of the manufacturing/gun shops it would be harder for civilians to get them.
2. Even cops with guns don't go into the school/bank either. They still often wait for backup whether they have a gun or not, sometimes out of cowardice, sometimes out of common sense. I could see a cop with a gun going into a school if he hears shots, but not a bank heist.
3. No it's not moronic to be against police for drug laws. If cops don't like the drug laws they should stand up to them and refuse to arrest people for it, period. I hate to initiate godwin law but the current drug laws are an injustice against people's freedom and 'just following orders' doesn't cut it. Police have no defense for illegally frisking people for weed. They don't have to if they don't want to. They can all stop it if they refuse to do so but they won't out of cowardice.
4. I'm not a moral test creator. I would have to sit down for days to make up some tests and I'm not going to spend so much time doing that just to prove a point. You shouldn't be borderline psychotic, you shouldn't be a herp derp jughead, you shouldn't be an ego driven douchebag. These things you can see within a 30 minute interview. Tests of this sort should be given to police every 6 months. Anytime a gun/tazer is discharged there should be a full external investigation, not some NYPD - "We're looking into it" bullshit. I'm not convinced internal affairs isn't filled with corruption of it's own, although I don't know enough to suggest it's unreliable. And investigations on police illegal activities every month should go without saying.
I'm okay with it being an option but reality is it's now the go-to weapon of choice for anyone who doesn't feel like breaking a sweat that day. And there's no investigation or questioning as to whether pulling out the tazer is justified. It just -is- because the cop says so. There are only investigations when a person dies as a result in which case he'd get 2 weeks paid vacation while waiting for his buddies to write up statements supporting his moral character, how good of a guy he is etc. and so on even if it isn't true. My real underlying beef with police is the gross lack of justice handed down to them when they do something bad. They get off light every time because 'their job is hard', 'they risk their lives' and so on as if they didn't sign up to that to begin with.
ninja edit - I don't want to seem like I'm a broken record. I'm telling you, please believe me when I say I wish I could believe in police, namely the NYPD. That I could think they have my best interests at heart, I could trust them etc. and so on even to the point of me wanting to join them as well. But I cannot believe that's the case, not with the amount of asshole cops I've run into and the overall oppositional nature they have towards civilians. The entire scandal about them putting drugs on people, ruining their lives to meet quotas really put me over the edge on them. And this wasn't a lone cop, it was a systematic net of many people, high-tier detectives involved in it too. And likely 1 guy will be the scapegoat while the rest escape justice, and the people who served jail or fined are just given a 'whoops sorry about that'.
You'll rarely see me argue against oversight.
At the same time, you're not going to hear about every raging lunatic/drunk/crackhead that gets tased and cuffed without incident. It's a lot more fun to write about the fucked up incidents.
Edit: The NYPD is a joke. Fuck em. Not every police force is run like the NYPD or the LAPD.
LOL!!!! Its been a while since I saw this movie. Good times!
entremet
Member
Tazed or billy club to the back of the head. I think I'll choose being tazed.
But, honestly, don't resist arrest. I don't think someone should die because of that, but if you're resisting arrest, you're putting your life in danger.
And yes, they're asshole cops, who overuse force. I'm not talking about defending those.
But, honestly, don't resist arrest. I don't think someone should die because of that, but if you're resisting arrest, you're putting your life in danger.
And yes, they're asshole cops, who overuse force. I'm not talking about defending those.
millions of people are shot a day in the head and only 100 die and it's considered a lethal weapon!
mclaren777
Member
He wasn't basically deaf he merely had trouble hearing.
"Freeman said her brother had trouble hearing."
He was pursued with lights and siren, gestured at, and spoken to. That man was well aware that the officers wanted to speak to him. Furthermore, I have to think that the car was alongside him, and at some point near the end, in front of him. It's not like the officer tased him from behind while hanging out the window.
Again, I agree with you that the officers probably used excessive force in this circumstance, but had that man been more cooperative, he wouldn't have gotten tased.
Tasers are provided as means to non-lethally immobilize persons who the police can not approach safely at a close range (for instance, someone who has a knife/baseball bat, or even someone who is physically stronger than the policeman, that the policeman does not the physical ability to subdue). Not to be a standard form of restraint or a tool of convenience, but rather a piece of equipment that can help protect the policeman in certain circumstances.
And despite the "let them all suffer" view of most americans when it comes ot any form of criminal, a taser can also help preserve justice. Say a bouncer with anger management issues is in a fit of rage and acting violently (not as in breaking limbs and stabbing someone, but lashing out at them and throwing a few fists madly) and the police need to subdue and arrest them. The police could pump them full of lead and kill them, and the person dies due to anger management issues, or they could tase them, arrest them, and the justice system, should it work properly, would give him some time in jail and send him to rehab, and he would learn stress/anger management techniques, keep his anger under control, and return to being a productive member of society (and a better person, and someone able to enjoy many more years of life) because of it.
I don't think my point is flawed so much as your reaction to it is.
You are assuming that's the reason for a weapon based response. Using a taser is not to harm the suspect but to stop the action. Again, tasers are not used for life or death decisions. They are used to subdue a suspect with the unfortunately side effect that some weaker humans out there can't take the jolt & croak.
What should we expect from them? Standing there ntil the situation is escalated to use something more severe? You somehow think the moral phuilosophy is stringer for the suspect than it would be the victim- which could include the police officer.
As an aside, "Don't be stupid" is not an ideal principle, it is the normal one followed by a majority of people- even criminals. The only ones that don't aren't indeed stupid.
You assume the peace was not already broken. Again, I have major issues with cops walking up and down the street tasing people for the heck of it. I'm not aware of substantial evidence that suggests that's what they do.
The fact that they are cleared of wrongdoing could suggest that the use of them was appropriate. You seem to be putting the cart before the horse- assuming that the tasering was wrong even as you defend their use for ways it would be tough to define with all of their apparent inappropriate uses.
CornBurrito
Member
Expecting people to remain calm and compliant when they are being blamed for something they didn't do lacks sense in my opinion.
If you didn't do anything, then calm the hell down. If you did, then calm down. Escalating things helps neither case.
CornBurrito
Member
Oh come on dude. Go up to a random friend of yours and blame them for something they didn't do.
Most people get angry when accused of something they didn't do. It is a pretty natural reaction, and emotional states like anger aren't really conducive to rational thinking.
No where in the article does it state the man was aware of the cops precense. You're making that assumption.
The evidence in the article is all provided from one side of the story - the cop at the scene.
Which gets back to my earlier point I made about you. The guy very well may have been partially in the wrong, but what you posted neither supported or verifies the assertions you are making. You are blindly trusting authority and in fact making excuses for what on the surface of the provided testimony still suggests a gross misuse of force.
To an extent I agree. To another extent the cop is supposed to be trained in how to handle an unruly suspect. You have numerous cases where cops tazing an already cuffed person for basically annoying them and bouncing around. Whereas in the past you would be leg shackled and put into the back of the patrol car. And probably still would be if the rules governing taser use were more stringent, which they need to be. You have amnesty international reporting that after investigating the autopsies of many taser deaths that a large percentage had multiple tazes. Cases of 10 and up to 20 tazes on a single suspect.
If innocent people or people not psoing an immediate threat to officers or civilians are being killed by this device it proves 1) it is not non-lethal and needs to be reclassified and 2) regulations need to be coordinated and put into place to be more mindful of the dangers of this device and to prevent more deaths.
The casualness that people have over innocent deaths always shocks me. It's like the people that suggest the death penalty is still a great idea even if a bunch of innocent people get killed in the process.
Stuff like
Is why I assume the worst of any police officer in any situation. It's not just the officers who cross the line, it's that everyone backs them up and allows them to get away with it. "They aren't all that bad" doesn't work when their worst get away scott free almost every time.
Is why I assume the worst of any police officer in any situation. It's not just the officers who cross the line, it's that everyone backs them up and allows them to get away with it. "They aren't all that bad" doesn't work when their worst get away scott free almost every time.
Pretty upset that organizations like Amnesty International resort to misleading headlines to make their points. They know most people will only read the headline and accept it as truth. Look at this thread for example. Worse still, they literally bury the truth in the middle of the article. Absolutely pathetic.
Gentleman Jack
Member
This is a pretty important point.
This is not the 500th Taser death. This is the 60 or 70somethingth taser death in ten years. Amnesty and the OP are using Santorum tactics to drive conversations based on emotional responses, not verifiable facts.
Where did you get that from what I stated?
The Incarnation
Member
500 eh! not too shabby.
I'd wager that more have died in Police custody over that period of time.
I'd wager that more have died in Police custody over that period of time.
Gentleman Jack
Member
Quick google shows that this is correct.
I wish the fight was over police brutality and the causes thereof, not over which tools are being used to enact said brutality. Replacing only tasers won't fix the larger issue and in fact may only represent a tiny step.
Pristine_Condition
Member
Why don't you do a traffic stop on a drunk driving suspect at 3:00AM, walking up on a car where you don't know who is in the car and what weapon might be sitting in their lap, and then get back to us about how risk-free daily police life is...
God, you are completely ignorant of what cops have to do, and your "fat and lazy" and "every day failed football players" lines make you sound like a tool.
This is one thing I found odd. If tasers only contributed to 70 deaths, where does the 500 number even come from?
Damn these Santorum tactics.
A person on drugs unless they overdose is not goign to die from the drugs on their own. The Taser may not be the only cause of death but the Taser interaction with the drugs does cause the death.
Put it this way. If the officer had physical subdued the person rather than tased them said person probably would not have died.
Gentleman Jack
Member
Amnesty didn't post their methodology so this is all we have to go on
The numbers are further muddied when it's probably not the easiest thing in the world to say to what degree a taser has contributed to the death of a person. This case, for example, probably falls under the above definition and was counted by Amnesty as a taser death.
Then there's death that results from being stunned in a dangerous situation, like cracking your skull on the pavement or drowning. These probably don't show up as 'taser death' in a medical examiner's form, but is almost certainly a death that would not have happened had a taser not been used.
Again though, what's not really being talked about enough is how to stop cops from acting with such impunity, regardless of the hardware involved?
I was actually searching around for a study that backed these sorts of claims up. Did you find one?
But the article says that tasers were either the cause or a contributing factor in "more than 60 deaths", which makes one think that means tasers weren't a contributing factor in the remaining 440 or so, no?
Brolic Gaoler
formerly Alienshogun
Tasers aren't killing people. Their pre-existing conditions that are exacerbated by the taser are.
These are like the deaths of people running and falling over dead from heart failure.
You have to be shot with one to be able to use one.
I had to be shot in the Army to use one. And I'll have to be shot again when I re-cert for police work.
Stun gun's use pain reflex shock. They don't incapacitate like in the movies.
Tasers use both the pain reflex (direct contact) and a impulse blocking mode/pain reflex combination (in the darts).
The first 5 seconds or so with the darts is a voltage that overrides brain signals that keeps you from moving any of your muscles. The remaining 5 seconds or so is purely pain surge voltage to garner compliance.
Also, the main advantage of a taser is range. They are effective to about 32 feet. Which makes the situation safer for both parties involved, especially the cop.
These are like the deaths of people running and falling over dead from heart failure.
You have to be shot with one to be able to use one.
I had to be shot in the Army to use one. And I'll have to be shot again when I re-cert for police work.
Stun gun's use pain reflex shock. They don't incapacitate like in the movies.
Tasers use both the pain reflex (direct contact) and a impulse blocking mode/pain reflex combination (in the darts).
The first 5 seconds or so with the darts is a voltage that overrides brain signals that keeps you from moving any of your muscles. The remaining 5 seconds or so is purely pain surge voltage to garner compliance.
Also, the main advantage of a taser is range. They are effective to about 32 feet. Which makes the situation safer for both parties involved, especially the cop.
What Taser are you talking about? The X26 (most common one used in LE) uses a 5 second cycle, not 10.
Brolic Gaoler
formerly Alienshogun
I can't remember which one I used in the Army. I was certified back in 2006.
Either way, even if my recollection of seconds are off, the function and order of function are correct.
Ah ok, maybe that was the M26.
Not true. I offered in cases where a taser is used, should the officer wait to use something stronger rather than risk killing them with the taser. See the difference?
Surely you don't believe that the taser is the first thing cops go for.
I just wanted to echo this sentiment. As a cop you never know what is going to happen and when you hear about cops getting shot dead on a routine traffic stop by someone who is wanted or whatever it just makes them that more edgy about this kind of thing.
It's hard to tell whether it's misconduct not unless you know the situation. Yeah, we hear plenty about the times when it's highly debatable, such as the one mentioned earlier in the thread about the hard of hearing guy being tasered. But we don't know whether or not those 60 or so deaths that tasers "caused or contributed" to were because police were misusing them or if they were just unfortunate consequences of the situation.
And yes police know what it feels like to be tasered (and pepper sprayed), as Alienshogun said it's part of training.
Brolic Gaoler
formerly Alienshogun
I know you're new here, but get used to these kinds of threads and reactions. A lot of posters (I would argue the majority in the OT forums) are anti-authority and anti-police. Even though most of their information and opinions are misinformed, anecdotal, and/or straight up ignorant.
That much is obvious just by reading through this thread, heh. I just wanted to agree with the guy.
Gentleman Jack
Member
Out of curiosity, as part of the Taser training, are the police always on soft ground with people catching them/holding them up when they get tasered? That's all I can find on youtube.
Brolic Gaoler
formerly Alienshogun
Soft ground?
Standing on grass versus being on a concrete sidewalk I imagine.
Brolic Gaoler
formerly Alienshogun
I thought that too, but have no idea why it matters.
If that's what you meant "guy who posted that," the type of ground you're on has no bearing on how the taser functions.
Gentleman Jack
Member
So the answer is yes?
Brolic Gaoler
formerly Alienshogun
How did you get yes out of what I just posted?
I don't think he was trying to make a point, just asking out of curiosity. I'm sure every single department makes it as safe as possible for their recruits when they do it. There's no need to also simulate the risk of a freak accident potentially happening like it would on the street.
Brolic Gaoler
formerly Alienshogun
Ah, yeah, that's my mistake I misread his post.
My mistake Jack.
No, it's not always on soft ground, but yes, it's typically controlled so the officer doesn't go down in a heap of shit.
The point is simply to let the officer/user know what it feels like so they know exactly what they are doing to the person they shoot it at.
Mine was done on asphalt with 2 guys catching me.
- Status