Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

getting taser'ed

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • bigshotceo
    replied
    Originally posted by Black Caesar
    just like you can't refuse firearms training and expect them to let you carry a gun.
    I, for one, would not carry a firearm if it meant I had to be shot during training.

    Leave a comment:


  • Mr. Security
    replied
    Originally posted by Black Caesar
    If you don't take the hit, you shouldn't be able to carry a "less lethal" weapon (Taser or OC) in my opinion. If you don't carry, you Shouldn't have to be forced to do anything.

    And why should any employer (public of private) expose themselves to crazy levels of liability because someone dosen't want to follow established practices for no reason? I can understand if you have some kind of medical condition or something, but otherwise you should not be able t refuse, just like you can't refuse firearms training and expect them to let you carry a gun.

    Without mandatory testing (including exposure the the effects of less lethal weaponry ie "taking the hit"), public and private agencies (which are already under threat in our sue crazy society) would simpy stop allowing the use of the weapons, which WILL get more police and security officials as well as citizens hurt.
    You state the above as if it's a fact. Can you site any specific litigation where an employer has been accused of negligence simply because they didn't require their officers to be tased as part of the training process?

    Leave a comment:


  • Black Caesar
    replied
    Originally posted by Mr. Security
    Please don't misunderstand my position. Are tasers necessary? Absolutely yes!!. What I'm against is mandatory tasing of security or police for training. Volunteers can do as they please.
    If you don't take the hit, you shouldn't be able to carry a "less lethal" weapon (Taser or OC) in my opinion. If you don't carry, you Shouldn't have to be forced to do anything.

    And why should any employer (public of private) expose themselves to crazy levels of liability because someone dosen't want to follow established practices for no reason? I can understand if you have some kind of medical condition or something, but otherwise you should not be able t refuse, just like you can't refuse firearms training and expect them to let you carry a gun.

    Without mandatory testing (including exposure the the effects of less lethal weaponry ie "taking the hit"), public and private agencies (which are already under threat in our sue crazy society) would simpy stop allowing the use of the weapons, which WILL get more police and security officials as well as citizens hurt.

    Leave a comment:


  • Mr. Security
    replied
    Originally posted by Black Caesar
    Even if that ruling had stood "as is", it would have proved nothing more than Fighting the police + Taser + Meth can = Death lol. Tasers just don't kill by themselves, period. Even when there are other factors (drugs, health, mental condition), a Death by Taser is rare in the extreme. But they can happen, which is why they are called "less lethal" weapons, not "non-leathal" like they used to.

    Tasers save lives (without it, you may eventually be fored uto use a higher level of force) and prevent injuries to not only the User of the Taser (by preventing you from having to get physical with the subject), but also for the Tased themselves. Tasers are better than pepper spray, because even after sprayed, the subject still fights, both of you can get hurt that way.
    Please don't misunderstand my position. Are tasers necessary? Absolutely yes!!. What I'm against is mandatory tasing of security or police for training. Volunteers can do as they please.

    Leave a comment:


  • Mr. Security
    replied
    Originally posted by N. A. Corbier
    Mr. Security: If I remember correctly, that was the preliminary inquest I was talking about. The Cook County Medical Examiner's final ruling was that the Taser was not the cause of death. An AME did the preliminary ruling, possibly for political reasons. The final ruling was from the CCME himself.
    You could be right, based on the date of the article. I was unable to find a final ruling, but that doesn't mean it's not out there somewhere on the net.

    Leave a comment:


  • Black Caesar
    replied
    Originally posted by N. A. Corbier
    Mr. Security: If I remember correctly, that was the preliminary inquest I was talking about. The Cook County Medical Examiner's final ruling was that the Taser was not the cause of death. An AME did the preliminary ruling, possibly for political reasons. The final ruling was from the CCME himself.
    Even if that ruling had stood "as is", it would have proved nothing more than Fighting the police + Taser + Meth can = Death lol. Tasers just don't kill by themselves, period. Even when there are other factors (drugs, health, mental condition), a Death by Taser is rare in the extreme. But they can happen, which is why they are called "less lethal" weapons, not "non-leathal" like they used to.

    Tasers save lives (without it, you may eventually be fored uto use a higher level of force) and prevent injuries to not only the User of the Taser (by preventing you from having to get physical with the subject), but also for the Tased themselves. Tasers are better than pepper spray, because even after sprayed, the subject still fights, both of you can get hurt that way.

    Leave a comment:


  • N. A. Corbier
    replied
    Mr. Security: If I remember correctly, that was the preliminary inquest I was talking about. The Cook County Medical Examiner's final ruling was that the Taser was not the cause of death. An AME did the preliminary ruling, possibly for political reasons. The final ruling was from the CCME himself.

    Leave a comment:


  • Black Caesar
    replied
    Originally posted by N. A. Corbier
    If you look at posts on Officer.com, OC being a lethal force situation for an armed professional is a regional thing. Several northern and California officers stated that, "That's murder." Because they were not trained in the fashion that "After being sprayed, you can be disarmed and killed with your weapon."
    Believe me, I know. One of the hard things is training someone from another state. Some states have a "duty to retreat", meaning that before you use certain levels of force you have to atleast attempt to get out of danger by other means. In Texas, there is no duty to retreat. Your ground is your ground and if someone comes at you causing you to be in fear of your life (or fear for a 3rd person), you're authorized to use Deadly Force.

    But, for me, even in a state that had a different way, well, if I'm by myself at night against someone with a weapon that can incapacitate me......

    Let me put it this way: I'd rather be Judged by 12 than carried by 6 .

    Leave a comment:


  • Mr. Security
    replied
    Smoking doesn't cause cancer either. Remember when they said that?

    Leave a comment:


  • Mr. Security
    replied
    Originally posted by N. A. Corbier
    That's require proving that the death was caused by the taser. Nobody's been able to list a taser as a primary cause of death. Some have put it on the preliminary findings, but those were usually assistant medical examiners trying to get into the media. They were slapped down hard by the real ME's final findings.

    Taser shocks ruled cause of death
    Company disputes first such finding

    Robert Anglen
    The Arizona Republic
    Jul. 30, 2005 12:00 AM

    A Chicago medical examiner has ruled that shocks from a Taser were responsible for the death of a man in February, marking the first time that the electronic stun gun has been named as the primary cause of death.

    This is the latest challenge to Scottsdale-based Taser International's claim that its stun guns have never caused a death or serious injury and comes a week after an Illinois police department filed a class-action lawsuit claiming Taser misled law enforcement agencies about the safety of its weapon.

    The death is the 18th case in which a coroner has cited Taser as a factor in someone's death and the fourth case where Taser has been named as a cause of death. But in all of those, Taser was secondary to other factors such as drugs, heart conditions or mental illness. advertisement




    An autopsy report from the Cook County's Medical Examiner's Office attributed the death of Ronald Hasse, 54, to electrocution from two Taser jolts delivered by a Chicago police officer. The autopsy said methamphetamines contributed to Hasse's death.

    Taser strongly criticized the Medical Examiner's Office in a statement Friday and said it will challenge the autopsy.

    "We believe that the scientific and medical community will publicly challenge this conclusion based upon the lack of credible evidence," Taser spokesman Steve Tuttle wrote in an e-mail on Friday. "Taser International will seek a judicial review of the report and the basis for which those statements were made."

    This is not the first time Taser has challenged a medical examiner. For years, Taser officials publicly said the stun gun was never cited in an autopsy report. But an Arizona Republic investigation last year revealed that Tasers have been cited repeatedly by medical examiners in death cases and that Taser did not start collecting autopsy reports until last April.

    Taser officials later maintained that the medical examiners in those cases were wrong and did not have the credentials or expertise necessary to examine deaths involving stun guns. They now maintain that Tasers have never been cited by a medical examiner as "the sole cause of death."

    The Republic has identified 140 cases of death in the United States and Canada following a police Taser shock since 1999. Of those, coroners said, Taser was a cause of death in four cases and a contributing factor in 10 cases. In four other cases, medical examiners said Taser could not be ruled out as a cause of death.

    In his e-mail on Friday, Tuttle said Hasse's death should likely have been blamed on the methamphetamines.

    "We sincerely hope that a groundless opinion will not overshadow the medical and scientific community's conclusions as to the lethal levels of methamphetamine use," he said in the statement. "Overlooking this as a primary cause of death contradicts the very nature and purpose of these known lethal values."

    Cook County Deputy Medical Examiner Scott Denton said that drugs alone would not have caused Hasse's death. A five-second shock followed by a 57-second shock pushed Hasse "over the edge," Denton told the Chicago Sun-Times.

    "That's extraordinary," Denton said. "He became unresponsive and died after this."

    Hasse, a former securities trader who was supposed to go on trial in June in the burial of a body on an Indiana farm, confronted officers in a Chicago high-rise.

    Police said they used the Taser on Hasse when he tried to kick and bite officers during a struggle. He also threatened to infect paramedics with HIV.

    After Hasse's death, Chicago police halted plans for a Taser expansion. Denton told the Sun-Times that police should stop using Tasers on people who are acting psychotic or appear to be under the influence of drugs.

    Denton, who grew up in Scottsdale, did not return The Republic's calls for an interview on Friday. According to a Web site for the Illinois Coroners and Medical Examiners Association, Denton has worked at the Office of the Medical Examiner of Cook County for nine years. He is also an assistant professor in the pathology department at Rush University Medical Center. He got his medical degree from the University of Arizona.

    Denton told the Sun-Times that he reviewed thousands of pages of information provided by Taser. But he said his conclusion was also based on the findings of James Ruggieri, an electrical engineer who in February made a presentation to the American Academy of Forensic Sciences in which he said Taser shocks could cause cardiac arrest.

    Ruggieri, who is a forensic engineer and has consulted with police departments and the military on electrical accidents, said shocks from Taser could cause delayed ventricular fibrillation, the irregular heartbeat characteristic of a heart attack. He also said that multiple shocks from a Taser could cause someone to stop breathing and go into cardiac arrest. He said that many deaths involving Tasers have likely been wrongly dismissed as simple heart attacks or drug overdoses.

    Taser has challenged Ruggieri's credentials and said its own medical and electrical experts dispute his findings. Taser maintains that its guns have undergone dozens of tests through universities and the Department of Defense, which support its claim of safety.

    Tuttle said Friday that Denton should not have relied on "an unsubstantiated theoretical position of electrical safety as presented by James Ruggieri."

    Ruggieri said that he doesn't know Denton. He said the doctor contacted him once in February to get a copy of his academy presentation. But Ruggieri said Friday that he is not surprised by the medical examiner's conclusion.

    "It was only a matter of time," he said. "All of the impartial people - doctors, scientists, pathologists - took heed of this. They now have had facts to look at when presented with death cases involving Taser."

    Taser, in a June 28 training bulletin, advised police that "repeated, prolonged and/or continuous exposures to the Taser may cause strong muscle contractions that may impair breathing and respiration, particularly when the probes are placed across the chest or diaphragm."

    In training classes and instruction manuals, Taser has previously told police to use repeated shocks to control a suspect.

    The stun guns have been sold to more than 7,000 law enforcement agencies in the country and are credited with reducing injuries and deaths to suspects and officers and lowering the number of police shootings. But several law enforcement agencies, including the department in Birmingham, Ala., and the Lucas County (Ohio) Sheriff's Office, have pulled the guns from the street.

    Last week, Dolton, Ill., filed a class-action lawsuit against Taser, becoming the first police department to take legal action over what it described as Taser's exaggerated claims of safety. The city said it paid $8,572 for stun guns that are too dangerous to use on the street.

    Taser stock, which soared last year, dropped by a third this year after the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and the Arizona Attorney General's Office announced separate inquiries into the company's claims of safety.

    The price of Taser stock was down about 26 cents on Friday, to $9.72 per share.

    Leave a comment:


  • N. A. Corbier
    replied
    Originally posted by Black Caesar
    Ok, that one left me scratching my head. You trying to make a joke or something?

    (And) If you don't use a Taser or carry a firearm you don't have to worry about it. But I wouldn't let anyone who carries either a firearm or a Taser (or OC spray) carry a Taser at all unless they have taken the "hit". I refused to sign off on one guys OC spray training 2 years ago when I was his FTO because he never took the hit (he'd been a cop in Alabama, was new to Texas). I couldn't let him carry because it would have exposed my to Vicarious Liability as his Training Officer. If he used it wrong, I'd be liable. If he shot someone trying to use it against him with proof that he would have been in great danger if someone OC'd him, I'd be in a world of hurt.

    Thats how it was explained to me in the Police Academy, and again at FTO school. Heck, they even mentioned it when I took level 4 security training.
    If you look at posts on Officer.com, OC being a lethal force situation for an armed professional is a regional thing. Several northern and California officers stated that, "That's murder." Because they were not trained in the fashion that "After being sprayed, you can be disarmed and killed with your weapon."

    Leave a comment:


  • Black Caesar
    replied
    Originally posted by Mr. Security
    Excellent suggestion Black Caesar. The video tape will certainly convince a jury at a wrongful death trial that yes, the officer should be awarded whatever monetary damages the estate is asking for.
    Ok, that one left me scratching my head. You trying to make a joke or something?

    (And) If you don't use a Taser or carry a firearm you don't have to worry about it. But I wouldn't let anyone who carries either a firearm or a Taser (or OC spray) carry a Taser at all unless they have taken the "hit". I refused to sign off on one guys OC spray training 2 years ago when I was his FTO because he never took the hit (he'd been a cop in Alabama, was new to Texas). I couldn't let him carry because it would have exposed my to Vicarious Liability as his Training Officer. If he used it wrong, I'd be liable. If he shot someone trying to use it against him with proof that he would have been in great danger if someone OC'd him, I'd be in a world of hurt.

    Thats how it was explained to me in the Police Academy, and again at FTO school. Heck, they even mentioned it when I took level 4 security training.

    Leave a comment:


  • N. A. Corbier
    replied
    That's require proving that the death was caused by the taser. Nobody's been able to list a taser as a primary cause of death. Some have put it on the preliminary findings, but those were usually assistant medical examiners trying to get into the media. They were slapped down hard by the real ME's final findings.

    Leave a comment:


  • Mr. Security
    replied
    Originally posted by Black Caesar
    Not only should people who use Tasers be tased, but EVERY person (police security or whatever) who carrys a firearm should have to be Tased. And it should be video taped..........
    Excellent suggestion Black Caesar. The video tape will certainly convince a jury at a wrongful death trial that yes, the officer should be awarded whatever monetary damages the estate is asking for.

    Leave a comment:


  • SecureTN
    replied
    "sigh" that sucks...

    Leave a comment:

Leaderboard

Collapse
Working...
X