NationStates Jolt Archive

Do you agree with the use of tazers on preteen kids by police?



I think the cops are using them more than they need to, and I don't agree with the use anyway for temper tantrums.

The cops are zapping preteen kids!? That's messed up.

Do you agree with the use of tazers on preteen kids by police?



I think the cops are using them more than they need to, and I don't agree with the use anyway for temper tantrums.
What's your source?

While the act is deplorable, I must admit this is the most hilarious thread title in a long time.

The cops are zapping preteen kids!? That's messed up.


Yeah, mostly in Florida. Kids as young as 6, I believe.

Parents should taze their kids at least twice a week just to keep them on the straight and narrow.

But, hasn't every parent thought about it just once?

guns work better

It must hurt like hell, as everyone on TV cries out in pain when it's done to them...

No. Any self respecting cop should be able to subdue a preteen without painful electroshock.

I think using such a painful weapon unneccesarily amounts to police brutality.

Now if the kid has a weapon (a real weapon, like a gun, or big knife), then maybe there is justification to tazer him and make sure no one gets hurt.

But when that cop tazered that 8 year old I believe it was because he was having a temper tantrum... I would have wanted his badge, because I wouldn't trust him with a gun, tazer, or vehicle for that that matter.

guns work better

yeah... but you don't get the pleasure of seeing them squirm for their lives while they're being repeatedly zapped

It must hurt like hell, as everyone on TV cries out in pain when it's done to them...
i saw an episode of cops were a guy got tazered and said hed been shot before but this hurt worse. but i also saw a bunch of cops tazering each other as a part of a TV demonstration to show that it really was harmless even if it hurts like a bitch.

What's your source?

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/wn_report/story/252535p-216252c.html
http://sf.indymedia.org/news/2005/03/1712828.php

i saw an episode of cops were a guy got tazered and said hed been shot before but this hurt worse. but i also saw a bunch of cops tazering each other as a part of a TV demonstration to show that it really was harmless even if it hurts like a bitch.
That's just reality-TV!

I say zap all the little bastards and teach them a lesson.

kids need to be taught a lesson... if parents cant hit their kids once in a while (and they should...but instead they opt for "time outs") then a cop should have to discipline the kid. At least the cop isnt shooting the kid or busting-a-cap with his nightstick.

I say no, but not for any of the reasons listed. Why do people insist on making polls that try to guess the reason why you agree or disagree and give you no way of disagreeing with their guess?

Anyway, no. The non-lethal nature of tazers has only been proven for adults. The necessary research and testing to establish that it is non-lethal on children has not been done. Therefore the only time I would approve of using a tazer on a minor would be if the other alternative is to use a gun. If its between shooting him with a gun or a tazer because he needs to be disarmed or something, then tazer him, but otherwise it shouldnt be used because we dont really know that it is non-lethal on kids.

I say no, but not for any of the reasons listed. Why do people insist on making polls that try to guess the reason why you agree or disagree and give you no way of disagreeing with their guess?

Anyway, no. The non-lethal nature of tazers has only been proven for adults. The necessary research and testing to establish that it is non-lethal on children has not been done. Therefore the only time I would approve of using a tazer on a minor would be if the other alternative is to use a gun. If its between shooting him with a gun or a tazer because he needs to be disarmed or something, then tazer him, but otherwise it shouldnt be used because we dont really know that it is non-lethal on kids.
What better way to find out if it's really non-lethal than to test it out?

I find it difficult to conceive of any situation in which the use of a tazer gun by a police officer on an 8 year-old qualifies under the rules governing the use of reasonable force.

yeah... but you don't get the pleasure of seeing them squirm for their lives while they're being repeatedly zapped
sold! :D :D :eek: :D

so what is the best place to buy this tazers?

what are the good brands?

how much $$$ are they in your state?

Wow, there are more yes's than I imagined there would be. You do realize that the kids loose all bowl and bladder control while being stunned, right? How'd you like to be the parent that has to clean up that!

Wow, there are more yes's than I imagined there would be. You do realize that the kids loose all bowl and bladder control while being stunned, right? How'd you like to be the parent that has to clean up that!

But I'm not. I'm the guy tazing the little snot. And probably grinning like an idiot. Which is why I'm not a cop. ;)

Use whatever works. If their parents will not control them then fry them with a bit of juice. heh heh. Look at'em twitch!! ;)

Wow, there are more yes's than I imagined there would be. You do realize that the kids loose all bowl and bladder control while being stunned, right? How'd you like to be the parent that has to clean up that!
One more reason to teaze the kids! And to not have kids too!

It's funny how the police can get away with tazering a ten year old yet if the parent does the same thing, it's child abuse, even if it's just a "temper tantrum" being punished.

But I'm not. I'm the guy tazing the little snot. And probably grinning like an idiot. Which is why I'm not a cop. ;)

lol..you and me both, LG.

Frankly, I think that if a child is posing such a serious problem that they have to consider using what people would deem "extreme" measures, that the situation is already out of control and it's very unlikely the child is going to respond to an authority figure and cooperate. Just because you're 8 years old, or whatever their age may be, doesn't excuse extremely bad and potentially threatening behaviour. If they have to taser the kid in order to restrain them from escalating an already uncontrollable situation even further, I say do it, instead of trying to baby the child, and give them more attention.

Tasers on pre-teen kids? Righteous!

I say no, but not for any of the reasons listed. Why do people insist on making polls that try to guess the reason why you agree or disagree and give you no way of disagreeing with their guess?

Anyway, no. The non-lethal nature of tazers has only been proven for adults. The necessary research and testing to establish that it is non-lethal on children has not been done. Therefore the only time I would approve of using a tazer on a minor would be if the other alternative is to use a gun. If its between shooting him with a gun or a tazer because he needs to be disarmed or something, then tazer him, but otherwise it shouldnt be used because we dont really know that it is non-lethal on kids.

Maybe they can create a tazer designed specifically for use against children and adolescents. Tazer Tots. :D

It'll probably be more efficient to give an existing tazer a 'tazer tot' setting though.

What's a tazer?

i think that's awful!!

That'll teach the little shits not to try and leave the coal mine before I say so.

Hey if the Parents wont control them then why not.

What's a tazer?

50,000 volts of party fun. :)

lol..you and me both, LG.

Frankly, I think that if a child is posing such a serious problem that they have to consider using what people would deem "extreme" measures, that the situation is already out of control and it's very unlikely the child is going to respond to an authority figure and cooperate. Just because you're 8 years old, or whatever their age may be, doesn't excuse extremely bad and potentially threatening behaviour. If they have to taser the kid in order to restrain them from escalating an already uncontrollable situation even further, I say do it, instead of trying to baby the child, and give them more attention.
WTF? Especially this
"If they have to taser the kid in order to restrain them from escalating an already uncontrollable situation even further"
They can't get a 8 year old in order without a taser? How an earth do we others manage to control kids without violence. *shakes head*

Honestly, you guys should amputate Florida. What good has it done to the rest of your country in the past decade?

It would be amusing to see how well the state would do as an independent state, divorced from federal support. I'm betting it'll turn to a 3rd world country in 5 years, max. :D

Previously, the only options for police were to wrestle and hit you, or club you with a baton, or shoot you with a pistol, or spray you with pepper spray.

I've been beaten, sprayed, and tasered - and I prefer being tasered.

It goes without saying that I'd rather not be shot.

O_O! That is inhuman! The bloody thing is virtualy a torture weapon! Gosh! Whomever dares to use that on preteens! (or on anyone for that matter)

Alas, but I can throw no stones as I have often wished to zap people (but not KIDS! GODS!)

But if someone did zap a kid remove the badge, put that person in prison!

it depends on there crime if its a crime of passion shock the living beep beep beep out of them if not let the dogs at them

O_O! That is inhuman! The bloody thing is virtualy a torture weapon! Gosh! Whomever dares to use that on preteens! (or on anyone for that matter)

Alas, but I can throw no stones as I have often wished to zap people (but not KIDS! GODS!)

But if someone did zap a kid remove the badge, put that person in prison!

It depends on what the "kid" is doing, now doesn't it?
It also depends on what you want the police to have in the way of less lethal weaponry - if you only give the police a pistol, then a lot of people are going to be shot.

Like I said, the Taser is much more pleasant than being hit with a baton or choked or sprayed with pepper spray.

What kind of wuss-bag, pussycat, lame ass cop can't take control of an 8year old without a weapon. I think that even in a vicious, fight to the death scenario, I could take on probably 20-30 8year olds weaponless. Kids are small and weak. Jesus Christ they're tiny. If you need any weapon to whoop-ass on a kid then you are on Huge Pussy!
Not to say tht I wasn't lmao when I read that post about the Tazer Tot.

What kind of wuss-bag, pussycat, lame ass cop can't take control of an 8year old without a weapon. I think that even in a vicious, fight to the death scenario, I could take on probably 20-30 8year olds weaponless. Kids are small and weak. Jesus Christ they're tiny. If you need any weapon to whoop-ass on a kid then you are on Huge Pussy!
Not to say tht I wasn't lmao when I read that post about the Tazer Tot.
Open a can of whup-ass on an 8-year old -- but do it without leaving a mark or causing physical injury.

It's not a matter of being a pussy - it's a matter of subduing a recalcitrant subject without inflicting major permanent harm.

Maybe they can create a tazer designed specifically for use against children and adolescents. Tazer Tots. :D


HOLY SHIT!! That was freaking funny!!!

That's terrible...

But also morbidly amusing.

I don't know about you, but if they have to forcefully take me down, I'd rather be tazered then shot.

Like I said, the Taser is much more pleasant than being hit with a baton or choked or sprayed with pepper spray.


I've never been tazered, but if its effects stop when it stops, I'll agree.

10% capstun did a # on me. It was the gift that kept on giving too.

I know.....but still, unless this child had a gun of his own I'm certain I could subdue him/her. Even if that little twit had a knife or a bat. My kids are very well behaved and I never have to lay a finger on them. It's really about luck and how they're raised. If you raise them right chances are they'll become good people.
Plus kids are real easy to trick. They so damn gullible. I'd be willing to bet that even if the wee scourge had a gun he/she could be talked out of it with false offerings of ice cream or trips to Disneyland. Once he/she drops the gun it's really a piece of cake.

Honestly, you guys should amputate Florida. What good has it done to the rest of your country in the past decade?

It would be amusing to see how well the state would do as an independent state, divorced from federal support. I'm betting it'll turn to a 3rd world country in 5 years, max. :D

Sadly, I think we keep it due to Disney World and Universal Studios. If those would move, I think we'd find some way to make the state drift off into the ocean and bump into Cuba.

*Thinks that we should start using more Russian tactics in our police force*

*Thinks that we should start using more Russian tactics in our police force*

Kidnap teenage girls and force them to make porn? How would that work?

Kidnap teenage girls and force them to make porn? How would that work?
It will keep them off the street and out of trouble.

It will keep them off the street and out of trouble.


Hahahaha. Good to see someone here can get a joke. :)

im not going to pick one cuz i agree with both sides.
tazer should be used on sum ppl to sedate them but not as a first choice offensive. Some ppl need to be taught a lesson. But if worse comes to worse use it. it wont due permanent damage if hold it on them for a short period of time. Other wise the person could end up like this :) or this :headbang:

DOn't forget your pepper-filled paintballs, microwave pain weapons and adhesive deterrents. YAY! It's practically an amusement park for kids. :)

WTF? Especially this
"If they have to taser the kid in order to restrain them from escalating an already uncontrollable situation even further"
They can't get a 8 year old in order without a taser? How an earth do we others manage to control kids without violence. *shakes head*

You'd be surprised. Have you tried to get a kid who has behaviour problems throwing a temper tantrum in full force to calm down? Have you dealt with them throwing objects in an attempt to harm others, and might accidentally harm themselves? Look, I'm not advocating tasering every single kid that pitches a fit, but when it gets to the point that you have to even consider extreme forces that would ordinarily be reserved for adults, it should be obvious the child is not going to be calming down or responding to any authority figure for any reason, and the situation very likely is going to get worse. The way I see it, it's better to do that, than having to wrestle the kid down, risking bodily injuring in doing so, handcuffing them, and carting them off to another area where they're unable to harm themselves or others.

DOn't forget your pepper-filled paintballs, microwave pain weapons and adhesive deterrents. YAY! It's practically an amusement park for kids. :)

Unfortunately, microwave weapons were banned from the UN, because they were "cruel and inhumane". *sighs* Unless you mean a nonlethal type?

I know.....but still, unless this child had a gun of his own I'm certain I could subdue him/her. Even if that little twit had a knife or a bat. My kids are very well behaved and I never have to lay a finger on them. It's really about luck and how they're raised. If you raise them right chances are they'll become good people.
Plus kids are real easy to trick. They so damn gullible. I'd be willing to bet that even if the wee scourge had a gun he/she could be talked out of it with false offerings of ice cream or trips to Disneyland. Once he/she drops the gun it's really a piece of cake.

If the kid had a knife you'd probably get stabbed. Depending on how much space you have to fight in, it may simply be a matter of where you are stabbed, not if.

I treat kids with weapons on the street the same way I'd treat heavily armed child soldiers on a battlefield.

Unfortunately, microwave weapons were banned from the UN, because they were "cruel and inhumane". *sighs* Unless you mean a nonlethal type?

Yes. They have non-lethal microwave weapons. *nod*

If the kid had a knife you'd probably get stabbed. Depending on how much space you have to fight in, it may simply be a matter of where you are stabbed, not if.

I treat kids with weapons on the street the same way I'd treat heavily armed child soldiers on a battlefield.

Which is exactly my point. A kid with a weapon, or who has displayed very strong violence/violent tendencies is not likely to listen, and force will ultimately have to be used. So if you want minimal damage to the kid, you're going to have to taser them.

Yes. They have non-lethal microwave weapons. *nod*

Well, where's the fun in that? Though US Mil has developed a spiffy directed sound wave that causes intense pain if it hits you..but the nifty thing is, if you step out of its target area "cone", you hear nothing. So the commerical applications are great. You and another person can listen to two different things just by stepping into this small area..step out..and you hear nothing.

Which is exactly my point. A kid with a weapon, or who has displayed very strong violence/violent tendencies is not likely to listen, and force will ultimately have to be used. So if you want minimal damage to the kid, you're going to have to taser them.

I think a tranquilizer dart would be more effective and less painful.

I think a tranquilizer dart would be more effective and less painful.

Yes, but the problem is, you have to know the exact (or close to it) weight of the kid, or else it can knock them out for extending periods of time, or, in extreme and rare circumstances, put them into a coma. Also, they're not exactly standard equipment for cops.

erm.... 8 year olds have been having temper tantrums since there have been 8 year olds. They're children. This is what they do. Tazering them is not going to help except by teaching them that zapping someone with 50k volts is what to do when they're a bit angry. Do you tazer an angry adult? No, unless they're dangerous. Then you don't tazer an angry child just because they're too young to attempt to control their anger.

Yes, but the problem is, you have to know the exact (or close to it) weight of the kid, or else it can knock them out for extending periods of time, or, in extreme and rare circumstances, put them into a coma. Also, they're not exactly standard equipment for cops.

That's why they have the kid's weight on file in the school office. The school calls the police, the police ask the weight, and they choose the dosage before they leave. Easy.

That's why they have the kid's weight on file in the school office. The school calls the police, the police ask the weight, and they choose the dosage before they leave. Easy.

Yes, but where do they procure the tranq from? The hospital? Not sure they have them on hand. A vet's isn't designed for people. And it would take time to get it to the place, anyways..and if the child is armed, they don't have time to waste.

With youth the way it is today the cops are just defendin' themselves from the little bastards.

Yo why you gotta be up in our grill and be messin' wit what we do, jus' let us roll how we roll we dont tell yall how to roll.


-Disturbed conversation between the youth and old men of America.

If the kid had a knife you'd probably get stabbed. Depending on how much space you have to fight in, it may simply be a matter of where you are stabbed, not if.

I treat kids with weapons on the street the same way I'd treat heavily armed child soldiers on a battlefield.


Have you met any 8year olds lately? They're not exactly dynamos ya know. I doubt I'd get stabbed. They have haven't developed their muscles or reflexes at that point in their lives. Have you ever been stabbed? It's not as easy as you might think to plunge a knife into someone.

Heavily armed child soldiers? You've been watching too much late-night television. We're not talking about teens here ya know. These are kids. They cry when you call them names or they miss their favorite program.

Teens imo should be fried though. I hate teens. Smug little bastard vandals.

Do you tazer an angry adult?if he is out of control?...YES I would.

Have you met any 8year olds lately? They're not exactly dynamos ya know. I doubt I'd get stabbed. They have haven't developed their muscles or reflexes at that point in their lives. Have you ever been stabbed? It's not as easy as you might think to plunge a knife into someone.

I don't know, man. You don't want to get between an 8 year old and his PSP. Those little bastards have mean thumbs!

guns work better


good call :sniper:

Have you met any 8year olds lately? They're not exactly dynamos ya know. I doubt I'd get stabbed. They have haven't developed their muscles or reflexes at that point in their lives. Have you ever been stabbed? It's not as easy as you might think to plunge a knife into someone.


I've met 8 year olds. I've been an 8 year old. Dynamos they are. Whe I was 8 and had to go to the hospital it took 5 people to hold my down and draw blood. I was easily able to twist out of the graps of just 1 or 2 and I tended to kick people hard enough to knock some off balance.

Yes, I have been stabbed. More than once. Once by a child who was just goofing around and wasn't trying to hurt anyone because I was as arrogant as you are.

It is easy to plunge a knife into someone. Skin is very soft and yeilding. When you are stabbed you don't even know it enless you see it coming because a sharp blade will slip through painlessly.

Heavily armed child soldiers? You've been watching too much late-night television. We're not talking about teens here ya know. These are kids. They cry when you call them names or they miss their favorite program.


No, I watch too much Oprah. There is places in Africa where 6 year old boys and girls are drafted into service by violent militias. These children do fight and they do kill because they have no other choice. It is a tragidy. However, I would not hesitate to kill if I were to face such a child in combat.

You'd be surprised. Have you tried to get a kid who has behaviour problems throwing a temper tantrum in full force to calm down? Have you dealt with them throwing objects in an attempt to harm others, and might accidentally harm themselves? Look, I'm not advocating tasering every single kid that pitches a fit, but when it gets to the point that you have to even consider extreme forces that would ordinarily be reserved for adults, it should be obvious the child is not going to be calming down or responding to any authority figure for any reason, and the situation very likely is going to get worse. The way I see it, it's better to do that, than having to wrestle the kid down, risking bodily injuring in doing so, handcuffing them, and carting them off to another area where they're unable to harm themselves or others.


Yes, I have. I used to work with 8-12 year old kids with behaviour problems. I could deal with them without any extra objects (hey, why not use whips? They could be handy too...). And tazers do cause bodily harm to kids. Those things can even kill an adult. You're ready to take that risk?

Handcuffing? Gosh you have some strong kids around there.

Yes, I have. I used to work with 8-12 year old kids with behaviour problems. I could deal with them without any extra objects (hey, why not use whips? They could be handy too...). And tazers do cause bodily harm to kids. Those things can even kill an adult. You're ready to take that risk?

Handcuffing? Gosh you have some strong kids around there.

Good on you, and I do mean that. However, what do you do when a child begins attempting to harm people, or themselves, and refuses to stop, and makes themselves unapproachable? Or is brandishing a weapon in a manner that clearly states they understand how to use it, and/or intend to? To me, any person who is willing to harm another in a manner that can result in long lasting/sever damage, and refuses to calm down, and allow authorities to hande the situation is a threat.

As for handcuffing, it's what happened not long ago. *shrugs* It likely had precedents, too. It was in reference to if there arose a situation in which a person attempted to severely harm another, for some reason.

Believe it or not, I'm advocating the use of these, as a way to prevent further violence/damage to the kid. Why not make a taser in which it has multiple settings, for various body sizes? The problem, then, could be that it might "encourage" on some level to use it when not appropriate.

Yes, my views are extreme, but they're not stemming from a want to see the child hurt unduly.

Good on you, and I do mean that. However, what do you do when a child begins attempting to harm people, or themselves, and refuses to stop, and makes themselves unapproachable? Or is brandishing a weapon in a manner that clearly states they understand how to use it, and/or intend to? To me, any person who is willing to harm another in a manner that can result in long lasting/sever damage, and refuses to calm down, and allow authorities to hande the situation is a threat.

As for handcuffing, it's what happened not long ago. *shrugs* It likely had precedents, too. It was in reference to if there arose a situation in which a person attempted to severely harm another, for some reason.

Believe it or not, I'm advocating the use of these, as a way to prevent further violence/damage to the kid. Why not make a taser in which it has multiple settings, for various body sizes? The problem, then, could be that it might "encourage" on some level to use it when not appropriate.

Yes, my views are extreme, but they're not stemming from a want to see the child hurt unduly.
Ok I'm ready to allow the use of some extreme methods to stop a kid who has a gun in his hands, knows how to use it and is going to use it. Fortunately, I've never even heard about this kind of incident. In every other case, it's overreacting and unnecessary. They are kids.

Multiple settings does make some sense. Someone mentioned tranquilizers and it was shot down as police could not know how much the kids weights ->could cause serious damages. But so does tasers. Those are meant for adults (and as I already said, those things can even kill an adult.)

I'm very concerned of the encouragement which you mentioned. It seems to me that police use this device in cases where it's certainly not the only way to calm the situation down. Several reports agree with me. They planned to start using those in Finland too but the reports were so alarming that they changed their mind.

I understand your point and could even agree with it if the reality would be as ideal.

Ok I'm ready to allow the use of some extreme methods to stop a kid who has a gun in his hands, knows how to use it and is going to use it. Fortunately, I've never even heard about this kind of incident. In every other case, it's overreacting and unnecessary. They are kids.

Multiple settings does make some sense. Someone mentioned tranquilizers and it was shot down as police could not know how much the kids weights ->could cause serious damages. But so does tasers. Those are meant for adults (and as I already said, those things can even kill an adult.)

I'm very concerned of the encouragement which you mentioned. It seems to me that police use this device in cases where it's certainly not the only way to calm the situation down. Several reports agree with me. They planned to start using those in Finland too but the reports were so alarming that they changed their mind.

I understand your point and could even agree with it if the reality would be as ideal.

Yes, I agree, that in other situations in which the kid did not pose a threat of
severe/ life threatenin threat, it'd be extreme.

The idea of a variable setting would be that you could at least tone it down a lot further, for someone smaller. While I've yet to hear/read of reports of tasers killing, I do believe it, and it makes sense how it could happen.

As to your concern of encouragement..I know, and the use of extreme force, when not applicable, isn't justifiable, to me, either.

Actually, I mentioned the tranqs. There should be more alternatives to nonlethal force which're less painful.

I'm glad you understand my point, and could even agree, under ideal circumstances.

The probability of a taser being fatal to anyone, adult or child, is so small as to be statistically insignificant. Those who have died after tazer use are anomolies and it is unclear if the tazer was actualy a contributing factor in many of those cases.

In this high profile case the cause of death was "restraint asphyxia" aka choking. The modia simply sensationalized it because of the taser use.

http://www.policeone.com/police-products/less-lethal/taser/articles/92363/

Yes, I agree, that in other situations in which the kid did not pose a threat of
severe/ life threatenin threat, it'd be extreme.

The idea of a variable setting would be that you could at least tone it down a lot further, for someone smaller. While I've yet to hear/read of reports of tasers killing, I do believe it, and it makes sense how it could happen.

As to your concern of encouragement..I know, and the use of extreme force, when not applicable, isn't justifiable, to me, either.

Actually, I mentioned the tranqs. There should be more alternatives to nonlethal force which're less painful.

I'm glad you understand my point, and could even agree, under ideal circumstances.
How nice :D

As far as I know tasers are not very dangerous to healthy adults but can be lethal if the person has some kind of heart disease. And many don't even know that they have a heart condition before it's too late.
http://www.azcentral.com/specials/special43/articles/0806taserdeath06.html
http://www.amnesty.org.uk/news/press/16116.shtml
http://www.yourlawyer.com/practice/news.htm?story_id=8318&topic=Taser%20Stun%20Guns
http://www.mindfully.org/Technology/2004/Taser-Safety-Challenged26nov04.htm
http://www.symtym.com/index.php/sudden_taser_death_syndrome/

It seems that tasers actually have multiple settings. I don't know if they use them or not.

How nice :D

As far as I know tasers are not very dangerous to healthy adults but can be lethal if the person has some kind of heart disease. And many don't even know that they have a heart condition before it's too late.
http://www.azcentral.com/specials/special43/articles/0806taserdeath06.html
http://www.amnesty.org.uk/news/press/16116.shtml
http://www.yourlawyer.com/practice/news.htm?story_id=8318&topic=Taser%20Stun%20Guns
http://www.mindfully.org/Technology/2004/Taser-Safety-Challenged26nov04.htm
http://www.symtym.com/index.php/sudden_taser_death_syndrome/

It seems that tasers actually have multiple settings. I don't know if they use them or not.

Ah..live 'n' learn. Thank you. A woman was recently tasered after becoming very belligent with the cops..and she was pregnant. She tried to sue them (or is, I forget) for endangering her/her life, but what bothers me is that she disregarded the safety of not only herself, but her unborn child, and picked a fight with a cop.

The probability of a taser being fatal to anyone, adult or child, is so small as to be statistically insignificant. Those who have died after tazer use are anomolies and it is unclear if the tazer was actualy a contributing factor in many of those cases.
No it's not. Every single life is so important that it is statistically significant. Even one death is too much.


About two weeks earlier, a first-grader was shot with a Taser at school when he threatened to cut his leg with a piece of broken glass, authorities said. The boy's family said he vomited after the jolt.

"If there's three officers, it's nothing to tell a 6-year-old holding a glass, if you feel threatened, 'Hey, here's a piece of candy, hey, here's a toy. Let the glass go,'" the boy's mother told CNN.

But police insisted using the gun was the only option.
http://www.infowars.com/articles/ps/police_review_tasers.htm

Only option? Really?

How Tasers work"When you first hear about this, you think, 'Holy smoke, is Capt. Kirk going to be blowing people away?' " said Bill Dunn, a longtime St. Paul school administrator and principal of Arlington High School. "But then you realize, these things are used by highly trained professionals who have a great deal of accountability in how they're going to use it."

http://www.parentsunitednetwork.org/4Feb20057.html

yeah right. :rolleyes:

Tasers have been labeled a contributing factor in death only 5 times in the last 5 years, out of 70 deaths and I don't know how many uses.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/10/12/earlyshow/main648859.shtml

Compare that to the number of deaths that have been causes by police firearms and one can conclude that tasers are, by far, the better choice for some potentially dangerous, especially children.

Between tasing an 8-year-old with a knife and shooting a the same 8-year-old 44 times which do you think parents would complain about more?

Tasers have been labeled a contributing factor in death only 5 times in the last 5 years, out of 70 deaths and I don't know how many uses.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/10/12/earlyshow/main648859.shtml

Compare that to the number of deaths that have been causes by police firearms and one can conclude that tasers are, by far, the better choice for some potentially dangerous, especially children.

Between tasing an 8-year-old with a knife and shooting a the same 8-year-old 44 times which do you think parents would complain about more?
Well, my sources disagree with your sources.

The growing use of Tasers is disconcerting because their risks have not been properly studied, biomedical engineers say. More than 70 people have died since 2001 after being shocked with Tasers, mainly from heart or respiratory failure.

Taser International says the deaths resulted from drug overdoses or other factors and would have occurred anyway. But coroners have linked several deaths to the weapons, and independent scientists who are authorities on electricity and the heart say that the company may be significantly underestimating the weapon's risks, especially in people who have used drugs or have heart disease.

Taser has performed only minimal research on the health effects of its weapons. Its primary safety studies on the M26, its most powerful gun, consist of tests on a single pig in 1996 and on five dogs in 1999. The company has resisted calls for more tests, saying that it is comfortable with the research it has conducted.
http://www.mindfully.org/Technology/2004/Taser-Safety-Challenged26nov04.htm (source by NYT)

Using tasers on kids can also cause permanent damage to their underdeveloped heart muscle. So if they didn't get a heart disease earlier, they may now have one.

"used to prevent them to further harm themselves..." Running away (no crime committed) is just so dangerous...


edit: Why on earth they should use either methods on 8 year old? Should they have just shot the 12 year old who was skipping from classes and tried to run away? Yeah, she deserved it right...

No it's not. Every single life is so important that it is statistically significant. Even one death is too much.


I can barely remember when I was that naive. The nostalgia brings a tear to my eye.

Unfortunatly, mortals die. It is what we do. It is the only thing we do with any consistancy. Nothing can be done to prevent it. At best, we can make an effort to reduce the probability of death in any given situation. Tasers do that.

Tasers reduce the probability of oficer death by allowing them to subdue a suspect without resorting to hand-to-hand combat. Tasers significantly reduce the probability of suspect death compared to other weapons because they are less lethal than all alternatives.

Being shot is often fatal to otherwise healthy persons. Being choked can be to healthy persons fatal.
Being sprayed with peper spray can cause a fatal alergic reaction is otherwise healthy persons.
Being hit with a taser can only contribute to death in people with heart damage so severe that they are on the brink of death anyway.

I think a high end paintball gun, one capable of 31 balls per second should be utilized on children because it wont kill you but it has sheer stopping power and yes paintball guns can do 31 bps dun make me bust out with a sound analyzed vid.

I can barely remember when I was that naive. The nostalgia brings a tear to my eye.

I'm sorry to hear that. Some things just are black and white and this is one of them.


Tasers reduce the probability of oficer death by allowing them to subdue a suspect without resorting to hand-to-hand combat. Tasers significantly reduce the probability of suspect death compared to other weapons because they are less lethal than all alternatives.

They have repeatedly used them in cases where NO power was necessary.

They have repeatedly used them in cases where NO power was necessary.

I agree with that. In cases where no force is necessary then the use of tasers is unwarrented. They have been used in cases where it was patently stupid to do so, such as to "subdue" a man who was having a seizure.

However, in cases such as the 6-year-old with the shard of glass the alternatives are pretty black and white. Tase the kid or put a few bullets in his chest.

One of the more important rules of self-defense is that you never, ever, willingly get into hand-to-hand combat with a knife-wielder. Doing so could easily result in your death. If you have a ranged weapon you use it without the slightest bit of hesitation so that he doesnt have to chance to close into knife range. And yes, a broken shard of glass is comparable to a knife. In most cases, a shard of glass is sharper than all but the best steel knives.

Some argue that the kid could be restrained, but children can easily twist out of an adult's graps and since he had a sharp object even a this would allow him to disembowl an officer or cut an officer's artery.

Some argue that he could have been beaten with a club. Potentially deadly to the kid and bringing the officer into knife range at the same time. Stupid.

Some argue poper spray. Again, bringing the officer into knife range and potentially more lethal than a taser.

This leaves the taser and the gun as the only viable options. You can't honestly say the the officers should have used their guns.

I use invisible fencing on my kids. Yeah, it makes them cry a little - but it keeps them in the damn yard and away from the garden.

Have you met any 8year olds lately? They're not exactly dynamos ya know. I doubt I'd get stabbed. They have haven't developed their muscles or reflexes at that point in their lives. Have you ever been stabbed? It's not as easy as you might think to plunge a knife into someone.

Heavily armed child soldiers? You've been watching too much late-night television. We're not talking about teens here ya know. These are kids. They cry when you call them names or they miss their favorite program.

Teens imo should be fried though. I hate teens. Smug little bastard vandals.

but i'm a teen. please don't fry me. i'm not a vandal. i do hate school and society but i don't plan to write 'i woz 'ere' everywhere, or set fire to bins...
as far as i know, none of my teen friends would either. *looks cross.* :mad:

I agree with that. In cases where no force is necessary then the use of tasers is unwarrented. They have been used in cases where it was patently stupid to do so, such as to "subdue" a man who was having a seizure.

However, in cases such as the 6-year-old with the shard of glass the alternatives are pretty black and white. Tase the kid or put a few bullets in his chest.
...

Well I guess we'll never agree on this. I think it's absurd to think that a taser is the only proper alternative in this case. I would have just left the kid alone. In 3 minutes the kid would have come back to others crying and looking for comfort.

A cut from class is less dangerous than possible damage to heart. I can't believe that the kid would be suicidal...And if the kid would attack, just take two steps away from the kid.

There are parents out there who are not raising their children. Those children become every ones problem.

I seem to remember a few cases where young children have killed. There was a boy in new york state a few years ago who shot a girl in his class. they were six years old. He did it on purpose. His parents were drug dealers or some such.

When I was in high school a special ed kid (Greg) attacked another kid (Jack)with a hammer. Jack was left brain damaged. The reason for the attack? Jack called Greg Gregory.

I've personally had to pepper spray a 10 yr old. He was beating on my then 7 yr old son. The 10 yr old gave me a black eye and broke one of my teeth before I sprayed him. My son had two broken teeth, a few cracked ribs and a serious asthma attack because of the pepper spray. The reason for the attack? The little fucker was trying to steal my sons bike.

A tazer would have been handy in any of those cases. Also later I would have liked to have tazered that little fucker's mother who tried to sue me.

What are some better options?

Well I guess we'll never agree on this. I think it's absurd to think that a taser is the only proper alternative in this case. I would have just left the kid alone. In 3 minutes the kid would have come back to others crying and looking for comfort.

A cut from class is less dangerous than possible damage to heart. I can't believe that the kid would be suicidal...And if the kid would attack, just take two steps away from the kid.

The kid was mutilating himself in public which is a cry for help only a step away from suicide. We dn't know how deep the cuts he was making were but if they were deep enough he wouldn't have have to have intended suicide. I don't expect a 6 year old to know enough about anatomy to intentionally avoid an artery. If he did cut an artery he would have certainly bled to death.

As for taking two steps away if he attacks, they were in anoffice. Offices have these things called walls. You can only step back so far before you have nowhere to go.

It seems that most people have this silly notion that children with knives are less dangerous than adults with knives. Me, I know that that isn't true. Armed children are, in fact, more dangerous than armed adults. A painful scar, lessened sensation, and restricted range of motion forever remind me of this.

Maybe they can create a tazer designed specifically for use against children and adolescents. Tazer Tots. :D
.

security set Tazers to squirm and look like girly, Ha ha girl pants, Can't we get a device out to school personnel and security forces that gives them cooties

The kid was mutilating himself in public which is a cry for help only a step away from suicide. We dn't know how deep the cuts he was making were but if they were deep enough he wouldn't have have to have intended suicide. I don't expect a 6 year old to know enough about anatomy to intentionally avoid an artery. If he did cut an artery he would have certainly bled to death.

As for taking two steps away if he attacks, they were in anoffice. Offices have these things called walls. You can only step back so far before you have nowhere to go.

It seems that most people have this silly notion that children with knives are less dangerous than adults with knives. Me, I know that that isn't true. Armed children are, in fact, more dangerous than armed adults. A painful scar, lessened sensation, and restricted range of motion forever remind me of this.
Why there were so many adults yelling at him in the same room? Isn't it custom that in this kind of cases there's only one person in the room because it usually cools things down a bit. Why the staff of psychiatric hospitals are able to restrain unruly patients without the use of guns ot tasers?

Just curious, do you think the officer was right to use taser in this case?
http://www.dailystar.com/dailystar/relatedarticles/23888.php

(Yes, rooms have walls, you can actually change the way your heading...take two steps away from the kid, then take two steps away to another direction.)

for others: taser stun gun news
http://www.yourlawyer.com/practice/news.htm?topic=Taser%20Stun%20Guns

On July 9, 2003, officers used the Taser against Terrence Crawford, who said he was in a diabetic coma at the time. Police stopped him for driving erratically and hitting a parked car on the north side of South Bend. They said Crawford was acting irrationally and was uncooperative before they decided to use the Taser on him.

Crawford filed a lawsuit against the police in federal court but died before the case was settled.
ttp://www.southbendtribune.com/stories/2005/05/24/local.20050524-sbt-LOCL-A1-Taser_critics_cite.sto

brilliant. just brilliant. I do belive that tasers could be reasonable in some cases but as long as the officers just don't know when it's overreaction, those weapons should not be used.

(Yes, rooms have walls, you can actually change the way your heading...take two steps away from the kid, then take two steps away to another direction.)


That doesn't work. Lateral movement does little to increase the actual distance between the two. If they move in a perfect square then the attacker will slowly whittle away the distance. (Pythagorean theorem)

In reality, combatants move around each otehr in a circle. Lateral movement does nothing to change distance. The radius of a circle is the same at all points. Only by moving forward or backward can the distance be changed, and that movement is stopped by walls.

Yes, sometimes officers overuse tasers. But these officers probably would have done a Rodney King style beatdown if not for the tasers.

That doesn't work. Lateral movement does little to increase the actual distance between the two. If they move in a perfect square then the attacker will slowly whittle away the distance. (Pythagorean theorem)

In reality, combatants move around each otehr in a circle. Lateral movement does nothing to change distance. The radius of a circle is the same at all points. Only by moving forward or backward can the distance be changed, and that movement is stopped by walls.

Yes, sometimes officers overuse tasers. But these officers probably would have done a Rodney King style beatdown if not for the tasers.
Nice job. Such a good points that I'll start supporting the use of tasers on preteen kids!

You don't have to increse the distance, just maintain it. Therefore lateral movement is enough. And the walls won't bother you.

Tasers have been labeled a contributing factor in death only 5 times in the last 5 years, out of 70 deaths and I don't know how many uses.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/10/12/earlyshow/main648859.shtml

Compare that to the number of deaths that have been causes by police firearms and one can conclude that tasers are, by far, the better choice for some potentially dangerous, especially children.

Between tasing an 8-year-old with a knife and shooting a the same 8-year-old 44 times which do you think parents would complain about more?

They certainly cause less deaths than hitting people with PR-24 batons, or using the police chokehold. I've experienced being hit with a baton, being sprayed with pepper spray, being punched by police, and being choked out - and being tasered (this was all in sparring demonstrations where they were allowed to go all out to try and subdue me).

I'd much rather be tasered. Really.

that'll zap the pokemon's out of them

They certainly cause less deaths than hitting people with PR-24 batons, or using the police chokehold. I've experienced being hit with a baton, being sprayed with pepper spray, being punched by police, and being choked out - and being tasered (this was all in sparring demonstrations where they were allowed to go all out to try and subdue me).

I'd much rather be tasered. Really.
But do you think that it's alright to use them on preteens? On 9 year old handcuffed girl? That's the question.

Nice job. Such a good points that I'll start supporting the use of tasers on preteen kids!

You don't have to increse the distance, just maintain it. Therefore lateral movement is enough. And the walls won't bother you.

Nope. Lets say there are three setps between us. I take two steps forward and you take two steps to the left. The distance between us is now the square root of five steps. I am closer that I was before. You are not maintaining distance.

However, that would be monumentally stupid of me. In a real fight I would notice your lateral movement and turn to maintain a straight line between us at all times, reducing the gap between us even faster.

There are also things like furniture to take into account. There may not be enough space to even more latterally.

I'm sure that we can all agree that tasing preteens is better than clubbing them or shooting them. Assuming that physical force is the only alternative do you agree that the taser is the best choice out of the police arsenal to deal with violent preteens?

But do you think that it's alright to use them on preteens? On 9 year old handcuffed girl? That's the question.
The question is, is some modicum of force necessary at that point to ensure compliance with a minimum of injury?

Unless you know exactly what the 9 year old was doing, I can't say. Police are empowered to use force to ensure compliance - say, forcing you to get up and get into their car.

Would you rather that the police choke her unconscious, or beat her with their fists, or knock her senseless with a baton?

I'm sure that we can all agree that tasing preteens is better than clubbing them or shooting them. Assuming that physical force is the only alternative do you agree that the taser is the best choice out of the police arsenal to deal with violent preteens?
Not so sure. As I've already said the taser can cause permanent damage on under developed heart. I believe that few bruises or even a broken arm (just holding the kid) is better than possible causing serious health risk for the rest of his life (or in very sad case, kill him instantly) You seem to think that the use of force is the only option when it certainly isn't. And that's the real problem. Do you honestly think that the only other option in that kid's case was to shoot him? Or hit him with a club? I've posted several incidents where the officers have used a taser when it was unnecessary.

It's better than clubbing or shooting of course but your options are too limited.

I ask you again. Why the staff of psychiatric hospitals are able to restrain unruly patients without the use of guns or tasers?

That's horrible. Tazers can fry your brain if they shock too much... Plus tazers are getting easier to buy on the streets... I think they need to be outlawed.

The question is, is some modicum of force necessary at that point to ensure compliance with a minimum of injury?

Unless you know exactly what the 9 year old was doing, I can't say. Police are empowered to use force to ensure compliance - say, forcing you to get up and get into their car.

Would you rather that the police choke her unconscious, or beat her with their fists, or knock her senseless with a baton?
Here's the case
http://www.dailystar.com/dailystar/...icles/23888.php

How on earth did they manage to
a) handcuff the girl
b) get her on the backseat of the car
without using a taser. Why they needed it now, Was she really so threatining? A NINE year old girl.
Yes kids can be strong. However causing her possible heart injuries is not justified.

I'm not completely against tasers. But
1st. I want better studies about how dangerous they are (hey, let's just test on a pig and call it a proper study :rolleyes: ).
2nd I want that the officers use them only when it's absolutely necessary.
3rd I don't think it's ever justified to use it repeatedly. (they have used it up to 12 times in same cases.)

I think the kids just should be thankful it was only a tazer.

Not so sure. As I've already said the taser can cause permanent damage on under developed heart. I believe that few bruises or even a broken arm (just holding the kid) is better than possible causing serious health risk for the rest of his life (or in very sad case, kill him instantly) You seem to think that the use of force is the only option when it certainly isn't. And that's the real problem. Do you honestly think that the only other option in that kid's case was to shoot him? Or hit him with a club? I've posted several incidents where the officers have used a taser when it was unnecessary.

It's better than clubbing or shooting of course but your options are too limited.

I ask you again. Why the staff of psychiatric hospitals are able to restrain unruly patients without the use of guns or tasers?


Because the staff of psychiatric hospitals are almost univerally better trained than police officers are to handle violent patients.

Because they go to great pains to ensure that their violent patients do not have access to deadly weapons or things that can easily be used as deadly weapons such as glass picture frames.

Because they have access to powerful drugs and can keep the more unrully patients chemicaly sedated.

Because they have enough common sense to stand back and let violent patients mutilate themselves when those patients have deadly sharp objects instead of rushing headfirst into a life-threatening situation.

Police are generally incompetent when it comes to applying force. They don't know when. They don't know how much. They don't know who to shoot straight. However, in this case their decision was correct. I'd rather that they shocked the six-year old then killed him or got themselves killed.

Because the staff of psychiatric hospitals are almost univerally better trained than police officers are to handle violent patients.

Because they go to great pains to ensure that their violent patients do not have access to deadly weapons or things that can easily be used as deadly weapons such as glass picture frames.

Because they have access to powerful drugs and can keep the more unrully patients chemicaly sedated.

Because they have enough common sense to stand back and let violent patients mutilate themselves when those patients have deadly sharp objects instead of rushing headfirst into a life-threatening situation.

Police are generally incompetent when it comes to applying force. They don't know when. They don't know how much. They don't know who to shoot straight. However, in this case their decision was correct. I'd rather that they shocked the six-year old then killed him or got themselves killed.

I've seen people seriously injured while being subdued in a psychiatric institution. They DO punch you and they DO leg sweep you and they DO wrestle you down on to a hard floor and they DO choke you out.

It's not that police are incompetent when applying force. There's a little rule - the policeman is not under any obligation to receive any bodily harm while doing their job (some allow it, but that's a personal decision). They are also supposed to do the minimum harm - but they are entitled by law to force your compliance.

If you struggle - if you resist - the policeman is going to select the option that causes them the least harm, enforces compliance more effectively, and causes the least damage as appropriate.

Struggling with you physically causes harm to the officer. They will avoid that if they have to. It is also likely to result in a lawsuit, even if you receive the most temporary of injuries, and can be played back later on tape out of context to look like the officer was abusing you. More and more police want a method that doesn't involve them being harmed at all, enforces immediate compliance no matter who you are, and causes the least amount of permanent physical injury compared to punching, choking, batons, pepper spray, and guns.

Pepper spray is less popular now, because about 10 percent of people aren't affected by it - and if the wind is blowing the wrong way, the policeman harms themselves.