Tasers used on KIDS??

[Luke T.]

The point is that tazers are nonlethal, or at least much less lethal than firearms.

And yet they are illegal to own in seven states, five cities/counties and the District of Columbia.

 

[shanek]

It ain't the volts, it's the current that kills ya. Around 100 milliamps will do it.

I was thinking it was a much, much smaller figure.

 

[shanek]

Again, this would be a good idea to find out before the thing was distributed to 5,000 police agencies.

Do you know for a fact that this was not done? It's not like we don't know anything about this mysterious "electricity" given to us by the gods. X number of milliamps (Luke says 100) to the heart will cause it to go into fibrillation, therefore killing you in the absence of a trauma team or an AED. There is no danger of this with adults, and since it's the same amount of current that is dangerous in children, why would you think tasers would be dangerous to them, too?

I just looked it up on How Stuff Works. They say it's 3 milliamps, not anywhere near enough. The only danger they mention from them is the ability to use a stun gun as a torture device that leaves no bruises.

So, again, should he have just let her run into traffic?

 

[shanek]

Precisely. I took an electronics class once. Do not ever put your fingers in an old TV set, even though it is unplugged.

Ever.

Unless you discharge the capacitor, because the capacitor in a CRT TV/monitor can store up a charge of over 2,000 amps. As opposed to the 3 milliamps of tasers. Are you REALLY equating the two?

 

[crimresearch]

And yet they are illegal to own in seven states, five cities/counties and the District of Columbia.

Are you seriously suggesting that they are illegal to own because they are lethal?

Again, I'm going to request some references.

 

[shanek]

Found this site in a Google search:

http://tonydude.net/physics180b/Chapters/phys180Bch20.htm

The skinny:

More than 3 ma: * painful shock*
More than 10 ma: * muscle contraction "no-let-go" danger *
More than 30 ma: * lung paralysis- usually temporary *
More than 50 ma: * possible ventricular fob. (heart dysfunction, usually fatal) *
100 ma to 4 amps: * certain ventricular fibrillation, fatal *
Over 4 amps: * heart paralysis; severe burns.

Tasers just barely reach into the "painful shock" range.

 

[Mr. Skinny]

Precisely. I took an electronics class once. Do not ever put your fingers in an old TV set, even though it is unplugged.

Ever.

Don't put your fingers in a new TV set either, Clause. Don't know about the plasma models, etc., but anything with a CRT can deliver you a nasty shock. I guess there are some very stron capacitors in there to serve the tube.

Anyhow, to the point of the OP. I'm not sure about either case, because I wasn't the cop on the scene that (perhaps) had to make some very tough decisions very quickly. Let 'em sue if they wish...that's what the courts are for.

I wish they had had tasers and stun guns when I was on the police force. I can think of several occasions where having one would have made the difference. Suspects would have likely been subdued with less injury (and with fewer police injuries); instead of needing four officers to bring down the suspect, one or two would have sufficed.

 

[Mr. Skinny]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Tasers used on KIDS??

(snip) And whenever there's a car chase, the cops get in trouble for pursuing the criminals, to the extent that the city actually considered ordering cops to let anyone get away if they began fleeing in a car. Yeah, that'll work.

There are some cities that prohibit high speed chases unless the suspect is wanted for a felony.

At least that's the way it is in my town.

Same thing holds true for gun running gun battles. If the suspect is likely to do more harm to the public by chasing them, than by letting them go, it's better to wait. Chances are you'll pick them up on some other crime in the near future.

 

[Luke T.]

Are you seriously suggesting that they are illegal to own because they are lethal?

Nope. I don't understand why they are illegal. Especially since BB guns aren't illegal anywhere, as far as I know, and those are certainly more dangerous, and at a longer range.

Weird, huh?

 

[Luke T.]

Don't put your fingers in a new TV set either, Clause. Don't know about the plasma models, etc., but anything with a CRT can deliver you a nasty shock. I guess there are some very stron capacitors in there to serve the tube.

Actually, it's the coating inside the CRT itself which stores the charge. For up to a week.

 

[Checkmite]

Don't you think it would be prudent to find out before the tasers were fired??

I may be wrong, but it seems to me that you feel as if these cops were simply given tasers and told "use these if you feel you need to", and that the use of the devices had unintended effects that we're all supposed to be surprised to hear about. Reading the article, it seems to me that the devices were 1. used with full knowledge of their effects, and 2. performed exactly the way they were supposed to.

First, it's fairly obvious that the devices were used only in very specific instances - it's not like they're used all the time.

In the case of the 12 year old, I don't see how there is even a controversy. Use of the device in this case seems painfully likely to have saved the girl's life.

In the case of the first grader, it's a bit more complicated, although I find the suggestion that the kid could've been subdued by offering him candy so absurd as to be nearly ridiculous. The opportunity for talking the kid down had passed, as he had already become violent and abusive. Rushing and physically restraining the kid was out of the question, as he was armed and threatening to hurt himself if anyone approached, and let's not even consider firearm as an option. And the police, when aware of a situation like this, are simply not allowed to just walk away. What's left? A baton strike or the taser. Let's see...broken arm, or brief episode of nausea. I won't go as far as saying the choice should be "obvious", but I know which one I would choose.

I highly doubt the officers were not informed about the risks of using the taser. My dad's a Marshal, he works security at the Federal courthouse in Cleveland. When I was in high school, I used to read all the bulletins and stuff he'd bring home from work with him. Occasionally Security would be issued new devices - a new chemical spray, for instance - and each officer would be given a however-many-pages-long manual detailing how and when to use the device, the side effects, and any peripheral issues. In the case of a new chemical, the officers are also required to get shot with it at least once before they're allowed to carry it. I don't think they necessarily get zapped with one, but I'm fairly sure that in order to carry a taser, the police officer would have to go through a briefing and training session first.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

It also depends on what organs the current passes through.

/Start Butthead

Huh uh huh huh huh huh.... You said "organs".... huh hu uh uh uh

/End

 

[crimresearch]

I may be wrong, but it seems to me that you feel as if these cops were simply given tasers and told "use these if you feel you need to", and that the use of the devices had unintended effects that we're all supposed to be surprised to hear about. Reading the article, it seems to me that the devices were 1. used with full knowledge of their effects, and 2. performed exactly the way they were supposed to.

First, it's fairly obvious that the devices were used only in very specific instances - it's not like they're used all the time.

In the case of the 12 year old, I don't see how there is even a controversy. Use of the device in this case seems painfully likely to have saved the girl's life.

In the case of the first grader, it's a bit more complicated, although I find the suggestion that the kid could've been subdued by offering him candy so absurd as to be nearly ridiculous. The opportunity for talking the kid down had passed, as he had already become violent and abusive. Rushing and physically restraining the kid was out of the question, as he was armed and threatening to hurt himself if anyone approached, and let's not even consider firearm as an option. And the police, when aware of a situation like this, are simply not allowed to just walk away. What's left? A baton strike or the taser. Let's see...broken arm, or brief episode of nausea. I won't go as far as saying the choice should be "obvious", but I know which one I would choose.

I highly doubt the officers were not informed about the risks of using the taser. My dad's a Marshal, he works security at the Federal courthouse in Cleveland. When I was in high school, I used to read all the bulletins and stuff he'd bring home from work with him. Occasionally Security would be issued new devices - a new chemical spray, for instance - and each officer would be given a however-many-pages-long manual detailing how and when to use the device, the side effects, and any peripheral issues. In the case of a new chemical, the officers are also required to get shot with it at least once before they're allowed to carry it. I don't think they necessarily get zapped with one, but I'm fairly sure that in order to carry a taser, the police officer would have to go through a briefing and training session first.

That's a pretty safe assumption in a major department like Miami. and training usually comes as part of the sales package with such use of force items.
Taser, ASP, RRB and other major less lethal equipment manufacturers generally don't like for their stuff to be used by the untrained.

Unlike Claus, the training officers in such departments understand what vicarious liability is, and how standardized training works to insulate the agency.

Too many people form their opinions on these matters from TV shows and assumptions about what 'they would do' in the same situation.

Joshua, on the other hand makes a level headed assessment, and presents it logically...good post.

 

[Tmy]

People worship chidlren as if they are false gods. Maybe if we could smack them every once in while they wouldnt get out of control to a point they need tazing.

 

[crimresearch]

How many teachers would be in favor of a radio controlled shock collar...attached to the parents?

Every time the kids acted up, the parents would get a jolt...

 

[Bruce]

I know I read it yesterday, but I can't find a link now. I remember reading that the girl claimed she did nothing wrong and the kids skip school all the time. The mother defended her. Let's re-assess:

Skipping school: Wrong
Getting drunk at 12: Wrong
Running from the police: Very Wrong
Running into traffic: Stupid and Wrong

If I was the parent, I would be thanking the officer for saving my child's life and grounding her for a year. What kind of parent defends these kinds of actions?!

 

[TragicMonkey]

I know I read it yesterday, but I can't find a link now. I remember reading that the girl claimed she did nothing wrong and the kids skip school all the time. The mother defended her. Let's re-assess:

Skipping school: Wrong
Getting drunk at 12: Wrong
Running from the police: Very Wrong
Running into traffic: Stupid and Wrong

If I was the parent, I would be thanking the officer for saving my child's life and grounding her for a year. What kind of parent defends these kinds of actions?!

Don't they usually take children away from parents who let their kids do this kind of stuff?

 

[Tmy]

Don't they usually take children away from parents who let their kids do this kind of stuff?

Yes..........but only if they are poor.

 

[rdtjr]

I may be wrong, but it seems to me that you feel as if these cops were simply given tasers and told "use these if you feel you need to", and that the use of the devices had unintended effects that we're all supposed to be surprised to hear about. Reading the article, it seems to me that the devices were 1. used with full knowledge of their effects, and 2. performed exactly the way they were supposed to.

First, it's fairly obvious that the devices were used only in very specific instances - it's not like they're used all the time.

In the case of the 12 year old, I don't see how there is even a controversy. Use of the device in this case seems painfully likely to have saved the girl's life.

In the case of the first grader, it's a bit more complicated, although I find the suggestion that the kid could've been subdued by offering him candy so absurd as to be nearly ridiculous. The opportunity for talking the kid down had passed, as he had already become violent and abusive. Rushing and physically restraining the kid was out of the question, as he was armed and threatening to hurt himself if anyone approached, and let's not even consider firearm as an option. And the police, when aware of a situation like this, are simply not allowed to just walk away. What's left? A baton strike or the taser. Let's see...broken arm, or brief episode of nausea. I won't go as far as saying the choice should be "obvious", but I know which one I would choose.

I highly doubt the officers were not informed about the risks of using the taser. My dad's a Marshal, he works security at the Federal courthouse in Cleveland. When I was in high school, I used to read all the bulletins and stuff he'd bring home from work with him. Occasionally Security would be issued new devices - a new chemical spray, for instance - and each officer would be given a however-many-pages-long manual detailing how and when to use the device, the side effects, and any peripheral issues. In the case of a new chemical, the officers are also required to get shot with it at least once before they're allowed to carry it. I don't think they necessarily get zapped with one, but I'm fairly sure that in order to carry a taser, the police officer would have to go through a briefing and training session first.

Joshua, the case of the 6 year-old was even more justified. The child was in the conselor's office when he became agitated and broke a glass picture frame. He then threatened others and himself with a shard of the broken glass. Officers did try to get him to drop the weapon and sometime during all of this he inflicted nasty cuts on both his leg and face.

At what point do you let the kid just jam the glass into his neck, I wonder? So they tazered him... Good! Now the kid isn't dead. You would think his family would be grateful. Of course if the police had just waited him out and he eventually fatally injured himself, or if they had attempted to take the weapon from him and he was seriously injured then they would have been even more wrong.

Everyone gets upset when the cops use any kind of force. Then again, when they show too much restraint and a nutter or badguy hurts others the public outcry is that they "shoulda done something to stop him..." Yeah, like what sing him a lullaby. Give me a break.

 

[Tmy]

The concearn over less than lethal weapons is that the police will be trigger happy since they figure no one will get killed.

In Boston after the big Red SOx win the police had to deal with rowdy fans in the street. A women was killed when she was hit in the eye by one of those "usually not leathal" rubber bullets or sumthin. It caused quite a contraversy. Espeically since the cop wasnt trained on how to use the thing. (can you say "lawsuit".)