Tasing a ten year old... Wow!

Remove all ads!

Dudes. think of the possibilities! An SP fact-finding road trip! For Shoshino, IIRC, it would be an airplane ride across the pond. Beer! Dancing girls! Oh, man, I wish I were rich enough to finance that!

 

Never been to the US, could be a good laugh.

on topic though, Ive come to the conclusion that the officer didnt see the taser as a weapon and more as a tool for doing his job as I said above much like you would use a hammer to bang in a nail, even though plenty of people have been murdered by hammers you dont think of it as a lethal weapon when you pick it up to do a job. Its the force's policies which I think are the real problem, possibly encouraging the use of the taser and not teaching the dangers or repercussions of using the device, there is no doubt in my mind that the taser is openly being used by the force in situations which may not warrant it, but we're only hearing of this because of the situation and the fact that it was a child.

 

That's been pretty much my point from the beginning. While it is conceivable that the girl could have been a serious threat to a police officer, I find it unlikely. It's plausible, but not particularly probable.

I agree that both "child" and "Taser" are emotionally charged words. I futher agree that whenever possible, we should steer clear of emotionally charged words when having a discussion. However, another part of me agrees with LKD in that this is a situation in which there is very little choice. I suppose we could use "minor" instead of "child", and I suppose we can use the military's definition of a taser as a "less lethal" weapon, but I think that's playing an unnecessary semantic game. The terms, emotionally loaded or not, happen to be the most accurate and descriptive.

That is almost certainly true. I cannot imagine that the officer would have used the Taser if he knew the flak he'd receive for it. You could argue that he should have been able to predict it, but it is possible at the time he was only considering the situation at hand. And let's face it, it's not always easy to think clearly when you've received a kick to the nuts.

 

I second that. I mean, we could be like an advertisement for SP! We could wear SP signs *while* drinking beer, seeing dancing women and investigating this taser case. So, anyone want to inform Tal he'll be paying for this trip?

 

well, we need to get to arkansas first, plenty of stop offs on the way

 

The only places I've been to in Arkansas were Little Rock and Pine Bluff. Little Rock wasn't too bad. Pine Blulff was really bad.

 

That reminds me of the line from Forrest Gump:

Lt. Dan: Where you boys from?

Bubba: Alabama, sir

Lt. Dan: Ahh yes, I've been there, Little Rock is a fine town!

 

I was more trying to point out that the reaction is one to the emotionally charged words rather than to find an alternative. I agree that they're the proper words to use, but you have to recognize the emotion inherrant in them in order to avoid it clouding your judgement. Even then, it's not guaranteed, but it does help.

 

He was a full grown man, trained in restraining techniques.

She was a 10 year old girl.

You can't seriously expect me to believe that the taser was the best approach he could find.

 

Why not? Especially in drive-stun mode (the mode used), the risks seem to be practically non-existant. No flailing about, no use of force, just a little pain. It's as if he struck at a pressure-point that caused severe pain for an instant (and yes, such points exist). It's an excellent way to deter someone from further resistance, yet poses no threat to their safety and very little to your own (you do still have to close to melee range, and for a pressure point you need to reach the right spot).

The only issue I see is whether the entire police response was justified or not.

 

Methinks it's mainly those who have no children that are supporting the officer's use of a taser....

 

So if the taser was used just to give pain, would he have gotten away with just punching her?

If the plan was just to give her pain to subdue her, you don't even need a taser for that! Just smack her around, not like that will leave lasting damage either

the cop got attacked by a brat with emotional issues because her mother decided to call the POLICE over an issue of a TANTRUM.

There is no real evidence that the policemen did not respond in anger. He broke protocol, he used what most people see as excessive force, he has his word and the word of the mother who endorsed the excessive force as well. It does not make it the correct course of action when both adults involved would obviously be incredibly frustrated and/or angry.

 

NoG, i'm not a particularly big guy. I'm pretty short. I'm not very strong, or fit, and i'm not trained at all in any sort of unarmed fighting or restraining techniques. I could still stop a 10 year old girl without causing her unnecessary pain, however. What he did was wrong, the effects of tasers are debated constantly - If they were safe, all the hoohah about them would have long since died down. They're tested, obviously, but on ADULTS. Who knows what kind of damage this could have caused? The fact that it didn't on this occasion in no way makes it better.

People say law enforcement attracts a certain type of person... Maybe they're right. I know I sure as hell wouldn't have done that to her.

 

no offence T2 but I find that to be a very naive comment, I find that an ability to withdraw youself mentally from an emotional situation is vital to unbias reasoning.
Nothing has ever bothered me more then when a man puts his hands on a woman, but if I let that get to me I wouldnt be able to do my job, the temptation is always there in that situation to say to the boys "close the doors" if you get what I mean, but Ive got to be able to lift myself above that attitude, emotional thinking is a big problem. Police have to be completely unbias and emotionally withdrawn.

and just to add, when I say emotionally withdrawn I also mean withdrawn from for example taking pleasure in causing pain etc...

8people, I think your post is based solely on assumption

no, because punching a person leaves physical damage, punching a person into submission leaves alot of physical trauma, broken bones, burst veins and bruising to bones and flesh, blunt forced trauma to internal organs possibly internal bleeding and causes shock, vomiting and delirium. taser causes none of this.
just imagining the headline after this topic has blown this so far (8 pages)

"Police officer beats 10 yearold into coma"

yes, but as was stated earlier in this thread, there have been alot of concerns, but no evidence, whereas there are detailed studies in favour of the safety of the taser.

there's alot of conviction behind that statement, do you know that?

I agree, but then I am sitting here from the safety of my chair saying that.

 

The "Do tasers kill?" argument really does depend on who you choose to believe. Amnesty International have been researching the effects of tasers for a few years now, and they cite it as a direct cause of death in over 150 cases.

While I was doing some digging about tasers and their effects, I came across an interesting article that basically shows the manufacturer threatening coroners and judges unless they find another cause of death. Sorry, but i'm still not sold on the safety of these things.

 

You might think that. You might also be wrong.

The effect of a drive-stun taser does not penetrate the skin. Short of a burn, I don't understand what kind of damage it could have caused.

You may want to take a second look at that article. Taser took coroners (no judges) to court because they cited the taser as a cause of death without any evidence of any kind. Given the implications of a cause-of-death finding (including criminal charges), it is improper for a coroner to give an official cause-of-death based on guess-work or gut-feeling.

As for Taser supplying coroners with research on their product, I would only have a problem with that if it conflicted with substantial amounts of peer-reviewed research already out. Since there isn't any such research, at least as far as anyone here has found, it would seem Taser is simply trying to educate professionals who haven't educated themselves.

 

The amnesty international study is also very thin, taser has openly said that a person shouldnt be repeatedly shocked

 

It's an electric shock. Taser themselves have admitted that it can "impair breathing and respiration". Admittedly, they claim this could only happen if the target has an underlying health condition, but anyone could have an undiagnosed heart condition. What if this girl had been one of those people?

Hmm, my bad on not reading carefully enough about the judges & coroners point. Still..

Much of Taser's defence appears to revolve around the condition of "excited delirium", a diagnosis that isn't officially recognised by the American medical Association. Much of the research into the condition has been done by Taser themselves. Given that they've pretty much made it their get-out-of-lawsuits-free card, you have to question the validity of the condition. However, assuming the diagnosis of Excited Delirium is legit, the frequency with which it occurs within 24 hours (often far less) of someone being tasered does ring alarm bells. If the tasers aren't directly killing these people, they do seem to be exascerbating an already potentially deadly underlying condition.

Doing some digging, I stumbled across this:

This to me is more than enough reason for tasers to be banned at the very least until enough independent research is done into their effects on people of varying ages and health conditions, under a variety of stress levels. Taser throwing their blanket "He died of Excited Delirium, the electric shock he suffered prior to his death had nothing to do with it!" is NOT GOOD ENOUGH.

Even police officers have publicly alleged that tasers aren't safe:

Don't get me wrong, if someone is armed and a danger to himself, or anyone around him, then their use is justified, same as regular firearm. However, in the case being discussed in this thread, I just can't agree with it.

And yet police continue to do it. The only way to make sure it doesn't happen is to stop police using them unless ABSOLUTELY necessary, and in this case they clearly were not. Training is given, and unnecessarily long and repeated usage of the weapon still occurs.

 

That's for barb-tasers, which put the electrical charge into deep-tissue, like muscles and organs. Drive-stun tasers don't.

The diagnosis of "excited delirium" pre-dates tasers, and was frequently used by police. Furthermore, when you can't identify the cause of death, you don't make a guess. You say "Indeterminate". Remember, this is an official document. Citing that as cause-of-death could lead to someone being charged with murder, or at least manslaughter. If you aren't sure, you say so.

As I understand it, fibrillation is an ephemeral condition, leaving no evidence in it's wake. You could confirm it with an ECG while it's happening, but unless the ventricular fibrillation (and thus tasing) happened in a hospital, with the equipment right there, and the doctor decided to take the time to run the test instead of immediately using a defribrilator, the claim of evidence seems suspicious to me. That being said, the claim that a barb-taser couldn't possibly cause such is equally suspicious. If the charge hits the heart, it has the potential to mess with the heart's rhythm, possibly fatally.

A stroke is a loss of blood to the brain or, more commonly, a sudden embolism or hemorrhage in the brain. While I suppose there's a tiny chance that a heart interaction could raise blood-pressure enough, there would still have to be a seriously dangerous underlying weakness in the blood vessels in the brain. Now, that may have simply gone unnoticed, but it doesn't show the taser is seriously dangerous. A bump on the head could potentially cause the same, or a sudden surprise.

And again, I agree with you as far as barb-tasers (or air-fired tasers) are concerned. Drive-stun tasers only impact the skin, and so the only impact I can see on the body as a whole is raised blood pressure due to pain.