Tasing a ten year old... Wow!

Remove all ads!

What we appear to be talking about is the idea of risk assessment and probability evaluation. When the police tase a fully grown adult, there is a possibility, a slim one, that it will kill him. But when they weigh several factors, applying the policy of their organization, they often conclude that the taser represents a lesser threat of serious harm to the suspect (or themselves!) than a gun, baton, or even hand to hand techniques. Cops make that assessment in the blink of an eye. But we expect them to be well trained and to follow that training. When dealing with an agitated adult who poses a credible threat to others, I am loathe to second guess the cop who is putting his life on the line for society.

However, I cannot imagine that in any training manual or course it ever says that the taser is designed for use on developing children. I also cannot imagine that a fully trained cop did not have other, less aggressive options open to him for dealing with the little brat. I understand not judging his decisions, but there are boundaries whose violation cannot realistically be justified.

But on adults, particularily drug addicted, violent, obnoxious, criminal, anti-social, rude, stupid, and unemployed* pieces of crap, the taser is a great option, and those tased should just be grateful that a shotgun wasn't used on their sorry non-contributing asses instead.

*note that a person must fill at least 2 of these criteria before being tased, IMHO, and that when I say unemployed I refer in this case to those who choose not to work a straight job and rather gain their income from begging, selling illegal substances, or mooching off overly generous family and friends -- not the hardworking joe who just got laid off by some rich corporation.

 

Aldeth, agreed. I was merely trying to show that it is a substantially non-zero risk. What I mean by that is, if only 245 people had died of such infections, even on a yearly basis, that's still likely to be a tiny fraction of 1% of the total people exposed. 90K, however, is much more substantial. That's 4.5% of those afflicted (2 million). As you pointed out, I don't know how many people go to the hospital every year, but considering the total US population is only 300M, that's 0.66% of everyone in the US that are afflicted. So, we at least have some vague idea what kind of a risk going to the hospital is.

Unfortunately, as you also said, I don't know the likelyhood that a police officer's actions while restraining a combative individual will end up sending that individual to the hospital. We also don't know how many people were tased, total, between 2001 and 2006, so the 245 deaths are similarly vague, but here extrapolation gets us nothing. While the number of people that go to the hospital every year is likely to be a noticable percentage of the total population, the number of people who are tased every year is not.

Still, with the recognition that both actions present a very slim chance of death, I think my point stands. While there may be some minor difference in those chances, they're unlikely to be anything statistically meaningful. I do think the odds of minor injury are quite likely to be statistically significant, with physical force posing the greater risk.


LKD, without substantial evidence to the contrary, I doubt that an electrical charge has any significantly different effect on a child compared to an adult. The only thing I can think of is that the child will be less likely to suffer serious or permanent damage simply because their organs (specifically the heart) are more resiliant. 12-year-olds aren't known for having heart attacks, after all, while 40-year-olds may be.

Your second point, that "I also cannot imagine that a fully trained cop did not have other, less aggressive options open to him for dealing with the little brat" presumes a certain level of "violence" for the taser that I don't think is supportable. One of the points I've been trying to make is that, in my opinion, the taser is less violent than even physical restraint.

Lastly, I cannot help but see your "boundaries whose violation cannot be realistically justified" as arbitrary, especially where it concerns this situation. Most significantly, you seem to take offense to this taser being used on a child, yet all my knowledge of electricity and biology (far from complete, but not insubstantial, either) tells me there's no significant difference between tasing a child and tasing an adult. While physical force being applied may have very different effects, due to a child's smaller bones and overall smaller body mass, the electrical jolt of a taser won't. The effect of an electrical charge is, as far as I know, completely independant of the mass of the body being shocked. Add to that the fact that the only direct risk of a taser's shock that we know of is heart arythmia, resulting in a heart attack, and I really can't see any difference in the risks. If you're ok with an officer tasing an uncooperative, agressive 23-year-old college girl, then why not a similarly uncooperative, agressive child?

 

I would think that is inarguable. In a situation like that, a taser is most likely to be the most effective means of controlling him without causing harm to the officer or the other person, given the alternatives. Especially if the other person is 6'2" and weighs 250 pounds with a muscular physique. Tasing him might be the nicest thing you can do.

 

NOG, because she is a child. It's that simple, to me. While I think children should be held accountable for their actions, it ia also true that they are still developing in all sorts of ways. I don't have any studies, but I would imagine that putting electricity through a small body has more effect on that body than putting it through a larger one. Perhaps I'm wrong.

But Aldeth had a point about the 250 pound guy -- he poses a serious risk and is fully responsible for his actions. A ten year old? Not so much. I cannot be convinced that a 10 year old poses a risk comarable to that of a 250 pound man.

I look at it this way. Let's make a hypothetical poll: At what age should a Taser become a potentially valid option for dealing with an unruly human being?

1 no
2 no
3 no . . .

and so on. I'm pretty sure that the majority of people would not stop saying "no" until around 14 or so, which is where you'd start seeing some variations. I think that the majority of people would be saying "yes" by around 18 or so. More specifically, I think that the vast majority of people would be saying "no" at 10 years old.

That may not be scientific in terms of the physical sciences, but in terms of the position held by the majority of society, it is telling.

One thing that I haven't brought up is the pain involved in the taser -- I know some of the people here have been tased, and I admit that I never have, but it is my understanding that it is extemely painful. Should we be using such a painful technique on a child? I say no.

In any event, it looks like we won't see as many tasings in my hometown from now on -- the insurance companies have spoken!

 

While I dont believe that a taser would have any more lethal properties to a child then an adult (lets also be reminded that this was a drive stun taser with no effect on the nervous system - a pain stick basically) I wouldnt believe that a police officer needed one to subdue a little girl, the chief says that the taser wasnt used to discipline the child, I believe it was, quite simply to hurt her with no other purpose.

 

Size/potential threat level might be the better consideration. A 100 pound 1 year old who is weilding a knife - yes. A 30 pound 1 year old who is not yet able to walk and whose threat level is non-existent, no. A ridiculous example, yes, but it serves to show where the variances might lie. 10 year olds come in a wide variety of shapes and sizes and therefore varying abilities to do harm.

Not so much extremely painful as extremely debilitating. It makes you want to just quit resisting right now, because it feels like you've been unplugged like they used to do to the robot all the time on Lost In Space.

 

A few things:
1.) Drive stun mode is apparently considered a pain compiance method, not an incapacitation technique, so is likely much more painful than the barbs.
2.) Drive stun mode does not affect the central nervous system, or, it would seem, even the muscles away from the point of contact, and thus should be safer than the barbs.
3.) Neither age nor body mass are that significant factors in determining the threat level of an individual. At ten, I knew exactly how to kill a man with only 8 lbs of force. You can thank Three Ninjas (the movies) for that, as well as a curiosity about mechanics, anatomy, and pressure points. I was also well under 100 lbs.
4.) The impact of a taser, whether in drive-stun mode or barbed mode, is heavily dependant on the resistance it faces. The human body, in general, doesn't offer a whole lot of resistance to electricity, and that resistance shouldn't change much at all as we age. We've still got the same amount of water, and the same proportions of electrolytes, and such.

Lastly, LKD, I for one feel that science should determine police policy, not public opinion.

 

I think that Gaear brings up a good point that threat potential may be a better measure than actual age. Someone who is 16, but is a football player, may pose a credible risk even though he is still a minor. In the case of someone who is 10, unless puberty came really early, I have a hard time envisioning that such a chilid would be developed enough to pose a credible threat, if they didn't have a weapon on them.

 

NOG, public opinion is where we determine the morality of an act. Science cannot determine that. As for the threat level of an individual, 3 Ninjas and Sidekicks notwithstanding, I seriously do not think that an unarmed 10 year old girl could ever pose a threat to a healthy, active duty cop serious enough to warrant "pain compliance" as delivered by a Taser. It takes a lot of stretching to imagine that. My read of Occam's Razor tells me that if a Taser is used on a 10 year old girl, it is FAR more likely that the situation is one of abuse than one of a serious threat being posed by the child.

As for the press releases by the companies that make the Tasers, well, I'm sure they are good people at heart, but their claims that the Taser is never lethal are . . . biased, to say the least. I also wonder if they say the Taser is safe for use on people of any age. I highly doubt it.

 

quite right, it seems that religion determined most of that, whats good whats bad.... whats a sin - how does morality really apply to the world of today? morality vs practicality and logic (somethign religion is very uncomforatble with) do not agree very well
was the dropping of the atom bomb moral? hell no, was it practical? of course.
morality cannot be applied to law, law is logical and practical.... well, supposed to be.

noticing some assumptions being made here, healthy, active cop? what article has described his physical wellbeing? also, fear and pain are the best methods of compliance.

my read of occam's razor is that this thread completely ignores the rule, Occam's razor that any explanation should take as few assumptions as possible, this entire debate has thrived on assumption even your explanation

is an assumption which is based on no evidence, your assuming that this is a harmless little girl, your assuming that the officer was in control, your assuming that the officer was fit and healthy - we dont have any of this information.

in this instance Occam's razor actually disagrees with you and all evidence (girl with emotional problems, single officer at scene, mother has called cops before, officer assulted in a dangerous way, girl violent and agressive) tells us that the taser was necessary.

 

On the contrary, Occams Razor (as I understand it) says that the simplest explanation for a situation is usually the correct one. So when an adult (no assumptions on physical ability if you don't want them) uses an electric shock device on a 10 year old child (also no assumptions) what is more probable?

A: She posed a threat to him that required the use of a stun gun

or

B: He overreacted and used excessive force on the child

I would hazard that most people would go with B -- the highest probability lies there.

The fact that more people don't stun their kids should tell you something about how society as a whole feels about using electric shock as a method of disciplining children. This has nothing to do with religion, it has to do with public consensus.

Your comment on practicality was interesting -- if a society's sole measure of an act is its practicality, you'd have people taking actions that we find abhorrent. I'm a big fan of practicality in seriously drastic situations, but if you carry that line of thinking too far, you have infanticide for the severely disabled. You have capital punishment for minor crimes (hmm!), you have forced sterilizations of the poor . . . you get my point. Practicality is an important factor, but it cannot be the end all and be all.

Going back to assumptions, I assume that if the cop is on duty, he is capable of performing his job. Not seeing any evidence to the contrary, I think that's a reasonable assumption. I also assume that even if the girl is quite big, muscular and tough, she still does not likely pose a threat to a trained cop. None of these are unreasonable assumptions -- as others have said, using reasonable assumptions, if a cop cannot handle a 10 year old child without recourse to his Taser, he should not be in that position.

Put another way, I am assuming averages, whereas the pro-taser side assumes an extraordinary situation.

 

Morality should be informed by understanding, though. Which do you think is more moral: to apply pain with little to no chance of injury or death in an attempt to force someone to comply, or to apply restraint that has a high chance of injury or death, but no pain. In my mind, and I think in the minds of most people, a moment of pain is more moral than a lifetime of disability. Now, that's an extreme example, but it shows that an understanding of the situation goes beyond emotionally charged words like "Taser" and "Child".

One good blow to his throat below the Adam's Apple could crush his trachea. It doesn't take much force to do this. A 10-year-old girl could easily deliver that much damage.

You omit too much information from that analysis for it to be worthwhile. I'd also point out that it's notoriously unreliable where people are concerned. Occam's Razor works best in systems governed by relatively simple rules, where the only complex options are likely to be extremely unusual ones. Human interactions really don't fit that description too well. And anyway, Occam's Razor is a quick-and-dirty rule-of-thumb analysis, not anything I'd want used judging me.

You're understanding is correct, but your application is off. We already know that that the girl posed a threat to him. How much is unsure, but it's certain that there was some. You also ignore the facts that the officer had training in both calm thinking in a crisis and the use of a taser, that the girl and her mother had some kind of history with the police, and a great many other facts we already know. As I said above, Occam's Razor is already a poor choice in judging someone, even moreso if you don't use everything you know in the analysis.

This is a load of pure and you know it. Parents don't shock their kids because:
1.) most people don't own tasers or other stun equipment, thus it isn't an option.
2.) most people will never see a situation where the level of restraint evidenced by either handcuffs or tasers is even a consideration, thus it isn't an issue.

If anything, the ongoing debate over the use of spanking only shows that a large portion of America sees the use of pain in disciplining a child as acceptable. I think that's about as far as you can go with public opinion on the matter.

I agree with you here. I do, however, think the morality of the situation and the practicality of the situation coincide.

I think your "other way" is a better wording of it. You're right that we're both making assumptions. You assume an average because it's the most common situation, but we already know the situation isn't average. We assume extreme because it's the easiest way to explain the results, but there's no evidence (yet) that any of the situation was extreme. Of course, what that means is that we shouldn't pass judgement until we know enough to rule out one set of assumptions.

I do disagree with your threat assessment, your second assumption, though. As I said, at that age I could have posed a serious threat to a full-grown man if I got a lucky hit in, and the odds of me getting such a hit in raise when you consider the full-grown man is trying to take me alive with minimal injuries. The girl had already gotten him in the groin once, a very sensitive area that certainly counts as a lucky hit. A bad blow to the knee, the right spot in the abdomen, the throat, the nose, or a few other critical points, and she could do some serious damage, potentially life-threatening damage, to him.

 

I would also like to point out that Occam's Razor came about in the 14th centuary and is not considered to be irrefuted logic or a scientific result.

 

the point is here that just because the cop had a Taser, it shouldn't have been considered an option. It should not have been an issue because it's absurd that a cop would need a Taser to deal with a 10 year old girl. The reason that this made news is that 10 year olds are so rarely Tased. You can make an argument that this was an exceptionally dangerous 10 year old. Or you can make the argument that this is an exceptionally bad decision on the part of the cop and mother. I think the more likely argument is the second.

And how is "Taser" emotionally loaded? Or "Child"? That's what she is, and not a child on the cusp of adulthood (17) either -- for heaven's sake she's not even a teen! I'd say using words like that to put the situation in perspective is vital. People can talk all they want about the "threat" she allegedly posed, but I cannot, in any realistic sense, find a scenario that merits what this guy did.

I'm also unsure that the use of physical submission techniques posed more of a threat to the girl than the Taser -- no proof of that has been displayed either.

My bottom line is that the Taser is a response that is one step below use of a firearm. Am I really supposed to believe that she was close to meriting sidearm use? Science be buggered, that's ludicrous.

 

I still think this is all coming back to the concerns about the taser, some people believe that is is relatively harmless whereas others see it as lethal, this officer may have simply seen it as a tool to make his job easier, disruptive kid + taser = problem sorted.
like a hammer for example, could you knock in a nail without a hammer? sure, would it be as easy? nope, does the hammer pose a risk? possibly, if you miss you could damage your wall.

 

Not that I don't agree with you Soshino, but 'easy' isn't the biggest factor here, I don't think.

Shouldn't a man in uniform contemplate the method that will result with the least amount of pain on both sides? I understand pain compliance is important for subduing dangerous, out of control men and women; but I highly doubt anyone would be backing this cop up if he said "It was just easier to tase her." Pretty soon you'll have cops who say "I could have cuffed him, but it was just easier to knock him unconscious."

 

You're assuming :

1) she knew how to successfully do the move

2) that the cop would leave the opening (because it sure is easy to do in a action comedy where the bad guys are just waiting to be hit)

And about the second point, she did land a hit on him. She hit him in the balls. But I'll make an assumption myself : If you knew how to crush his Adam's Apple and was calm enough to do the move successfully, wouldn't it have been her first hit? I mean why take the chance the guy will get back to his feet. Take him out of the picture on your first try.

And however significant it is, let's not forget the mother was there and was on the cop's side. If I would have been her (and in her lack of responsibility) and I would have seen my daughter kick the police officer I'd just call in the balls, I would have jumped on her in a second... but that's me...

 

all Im doing is trying to understand why the cop used the taser

I wonder if he was aware of the repercussions?

 

I understand and agree with you Shoshino. Only, I, and a lot of the others, don't see what reasons would warrant an active cop to use a taser on a 10 year old girl...

I say we end this discussion by making a pilgrimage to the place it happened and ask the people involved.. It would save some time and spamming...

 

First off, "child" is almost always an emotionally loaded word. In just about any setting, it carries with it powerful emotions. "Taser", in the modern setting, has become similarly loaded, though with different emotions. Secondly, it doesn't matter if they're the correct terms or not, they're still emotionally loaded. The two are not mutually exclusive.

From my understanding of the operation of a drive-stun mechanism, there is no risk associated with it short of those associated with all pain (increased heart rate and blood pressure, etc). Supression techniques, on the other hand, do carry risks with them, both to the subject and the officer.

And again, this appears to be an emotional response strictly to the word "Taser", as scientific evidence doesn't support it. I'd put barb tasers as aproxomately at, maybe a little below, baton level, and drive stun tasers at below any physical force of any kind.

I think the issue is less "ease" and more "safety". Yes, pain should be minimized, but safety has to come first. Always.

No, not really. That's why I talked about a lucky hit. You don't have to know the weakness is there in order to hit it, especially when flailing about.

Well, she already got him in the groin once...

Nothing about the situation indicates to me that she was at all calm or clear-headed but, as I stated above, those are not pre-requisites to causing harm. On top of that, when attacked, you strike at what weaknesses are available when they're available. If the groin is the only opening, you take it instead of waiting for the hope that a more valuable opening with occur.

I think if the mother was in any position (or willingness) to "jump on" her child, she would have done that before calling the cops... but that's me...

Triactus:
I'd love to join you, but only if you pay for the trip.