The study found that “There is no conclusive medical evidence in the current body of research literature that indicates a high risk of serious injury or death to humans from the direct or indirect cardiovascular or metabolic effects of short-term CED exposure in healthy, normal, nonstressed, nonintoxicated persons.” That’s great! So incapacitating most people via shock is a great police tool.
But a quick thought: aren’t a large number of criminals intoxicated, stressed, or mentally ill? This is the exact group that was found to be an exception to the it’s all good study. Which is troubling. Drunk, disturbed, and strung-out people tend to be the ones who need to be tasered the most. And just because they’re drunk, disturbed or strung-out doesn’t mean they should be at an increased chance of dying. I guess the lesson here is that if you see a cop running at you with a taser, gulp some water and try to sober up quickly. [via Security Management, Photo: Shutterstock/Kbiros]
Womp
Saturday, June 4, 2011 at 6:27 PMThe group of people you list do not need to be tasered the most, they need to be subdued. I think you may have meant that those people are the ones most likely to be tasered, not that it is something they need.
CK
Saturday, June 4, 2011 at 7:45 PMThe lesson here is don’t be a criminal.
Tasering “might” kill someone. A firearm will. It should be a no brainer except people with no brains appear to be making the rules.
Stefan
Sunday, June 5, 2011 at 6:18 PMlol a firearm won’t nessicarily kill a person, you cant make statements like that. Its just a higher chance than a taser.
olearymo
Thursday, June 9, 2011 at 1:12 PMIt’s safest, and many police organisations in Australia do, to assume a gun will kill someone. Which is why firing a gun is considered deadly force (in some countries they say it’s only to wound, but that can never be 100% guaranteed).
A potentially deadly weapon should only be drawn and fired in the event of intending to actually kill the opponent.
A Person
Saturday, June 4, 2011 at 7:57 PMI hear Drunk, Disturbed and Strung-out people also have a chance of dying if they are shot with a pistol too. If I had a choice, Id take the Taser…
A better person
Sunday, June 5, 2011 at 4:44 AMIf I had a choice, I wouldn’t put myself in that situation to begin with.
CalamariForThought
Sunday, June 5, 2011 at 10:13 AMProblem with taser is that they are peceived to be “non-lethal” and thus is used more frequently and has lesser restrictions compared to a firearm..
So, if you don’t hold a firearm, you most probably will not be shot, but will most probably be tasered.. thus your chances of dying increases.
Before taser, police had to use batons, which leaves marks if they use excessive force.
Graham
Sunday, June 5, 2011 at 11:27 PMDid that article really say that 0.25 % of taserings will result in risk of death or did I read that incorrectly?
I think if there is a risk of causing death, even if it is small risk then a taser should only be used in situations where an officer might usually need to discharge their pistol. Certainly not in situations where they are trying to subdue a rowdy student for instance.
jon
Sunday, June 5, 2011 at 11:46 PMIf a cop is going for his taser the situation is pretty serious. So drunk, strung out or mentally ill the people on the receiving end are still a hell of a lot better off then if the cop pulls out their hand gun, which is the only alternative when a cops own safely is threatened.
I know which one I’d prefer to take to hit from.
JK
Monday, June 6, 2011 at 1:02 AMThey are not perfect but they are clearly a better option than shooting someone.
dyl
Monday, June 6, 2011 at 1:54 PMGive these heroes tasers… http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ipb_PeXOdT4