3 ms·

First off, I am not a doctor and I didn't sleep in a Holiday Inn Express last night. But as someone that was an EMT and who worked around law enforcement for nu

First off, I am not a doctor and I didn't sleep in a Holiday Inn Express last night. But as someone that was an EMT and who worked around law enforcement for numerous years in other capacities, I have seen this all too often. "like how dangerous tasers are." Taser stats can be a bit deceiving. In the vast majority of cases where a taser is deployed the individual is in a drug-induced state with increased heart activity. Combine that with the escalating situation and the individual's heart rate is often higher than if they were just in the drug-induced state. These individuals are often highly combative at the time the taser is deployed. Given normal circumstances a taser deployment on these individuals most likely would not result in any harm. However, combine that deployment with the increased heart activity and adrenaline going through the individuals system and it becomes a recipe for disaster. To generalize and say that tasers are dangerous does not take into account the entire picture of events or situation at hand. It's not the taser itself that is dangerous it is the situation the individual has placed themselves in that causes the danger.

cauthon 11y ago
> To generalize and say that tasers are dangerous does not take into account the entire picture of events or situation at hand. It's not the taser itself that is dangerous it is the situation the individual has placed themselves in that causes the danger. That's misleading. If a taser is dangerous in the "vast majority of cases" in which it is used, then its use is dangerous. Doesn't matter if it's safe in situations where it isn't used.
- jeffmould 11y ago
  I only said that the "vast majority of cases" where the result is deadly has outside factors (i.e. drugs). I did NOT say that the "vast majority of cases" where tasers are deployed. Enormous difference. Tasers are used hundreds of thousands of times annually with no issue. Unfortunately the ones where there is a death, or significant injury, typically involve the use of drugs or other have other outside factors not related to the use of the taser. EDIT: I did say in the vast majority of cases where tasers are deployed. That was an error on my part I did mean that to add that in a vast majority of cases where tasers are deployed and there is a death or significant injury.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
maus42 11y ago
"Taser stats are a bit deceiving (the death toll is surprisingly large), it's lethal only to drug addicts"? If Taser is dangerous to people high on drugs, it is a dangerous weapon, and we should care about that. Do you mean it's individual's fault that police uses a weapon that is lethally dangerous to "individuals in a drug-induced state" to apprehend individuals in a drug-induced state?
- Mithaldu 11y ago
  > Do you mean it's individual's fault He actually did state exactly that: > it is the situation the individual has placed themselves in that causes the danger. Very sad to see even a medical professional take the tack that "serve and protect" is not the police's task anymore.
- jeffmould 11y ago
  That theory makes no sense. By that logic I should be innocent if I go out drinking, get behind the wheel and drive, and kill someone in the process. I am not here to argue morals, ethics, or whether the use of force in situations is warranted or not. All I can say is that it is easy to arm chair quarterback a situation until you are placed in that situation and asked to make a split second decision that in end you know someone will always be second guessed. My point was simply that taser statistics are deceiving to some extent. Sadly the statistics only show incidents where someone was killed by the use of a taser. If you compare that to the number of times tasers are actually deployed around the globe, you will find that tasers are in fact not as deadly as you think. In the vast majority of cases where a death does occur you will often find that there is an outside factor such as drugs that resulted in said death, not the taser. The comment about police "serve and protect". Unfortunately to "serve and protect" does not simply refer to the individual the police are questioning and/or arresting. To serve and protect, first and foremost, refers to the officer's own safety. Second it refers to the safety of the community as a whole. Finally it refers to the individual at hand. At every call for service an officer must make determine exactly how to "serve and protect" to the best of his or her ability all three of these groups. This decision often has to be made in less than a second with the officer knowing the wrong decision can end up being grave to one of the three groups. The best decision is no harm to any of the groups. The second best option is that the officer and community are safe. Regrettably, to reach that second option usually results in the injury or death of a party. But if that injury or death served and protected the larger community than in most scenarios it is considered justified.

cauthon 11y ago

> To generalize and say that tasers are dangerous does not take into account the entire picture of events or situation at hand. It's not the taser itself that is dangerous it is the situation the individual has placed themselves in that causes the danger. That's misleading. If a taser is dangerous in the "vast majority of cases" in which it is used, then its use is dangerous. Doesn't matter if it's safe in situations where it isn't used.

jeffmould 11y ago
I only said that the "vast majority of cases" where the result is deadly has outside factors (i.e. drugs). I did NOT say that the "vast majority of cases" where tasers are deployed. Enormous difference. Tasers are used hundreds of thousands of times annually with no issue. Unfortunately the ones where there is a death, or significant injury, typically involve the use of drugs or other have other outside factors not related to the use of the taser. EDIT: I did say in the vast majority of cases where tasers are deployed. That was an error on my part I did mean that to add that in a vast majority of cases where tasers are deployed and there is a death or significant injury.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

maus42 11y ago

"Taser stats are a bit deceiving (the death toll is surprisingly large), it's lethal only to drug addicts"? If Taser is dangerous to people high on drugs, it is a dangerous weapon, and we should care about that. Do you mean it's individual's fault that police uses a weapon that is lethally dangerous to "individuals in a drug-induced state" to apprehend individuals in a drug-induced state?

Mithaldu 11y ago
> Do you mean it's individual's fault He actually did state exactly that: > it is the situation the individual has placed themselves in that causes the danger. Very sad to see even a medical professional take the tack that "serve and protect" is not the police's task anymore.
jeffmould 11y ago
That theory makes no sense. By that logic I should be innocent if I go out drinking, get behind the wheel and drive, and kill someone in the process. I am not here to argue morals, ethics, or whether the use of force in situations is warranted or not. All I can say is that it is easy to arm chair quarterback a situation until you are placed in that situation and asked to make a split second decision that in end you know someone will always be second guessed. My point was simply that taser statistics are deceiving to some extent. Sadly the statistics only show incidents where someone was killed by the use of a taser. If you compare that to the number of times tasers are actually deployed around the globe, you will find that tasers are in fact not as deadly as you think. In the vast majority of cases where a death does occur you will often find that there is an outside factor such as drugs that resulted in said death, not the taser. The comment about police "serve and protect". Unfortunately to "serve and protect" does not simply refer to the individual the police are questioning and/or arresting. To serve and protect, first and foremost, refers to the officer's own safety. Second it refers to the safety of the community as a whole. Finally it refers to the individual at hand. At every call for service an officer must make determine exactly how to "serve and protect" to the best of his or her ability all three of these groups. This decision often has to be made in less than a second with the officer knowing the wrong decision can end up being grave to one of the three groups. The best decision is no harm to any of the groups. The second best option is that the officer and community are safe. Regrettably, to reach that second option usually results in the injury or death of a party. But if that injury or death served and protected the larger community than in most scenarios it is considered justified.