Ambulance Driver is trying to dispel the misinformation about firearms and GSWs. I figured it was a good time to vent a few things that have been bugging me about TASER coverage in the media. It seems to be an area rife with misinformation.
On the The Diane Rehm Show of 12/05/07 on NPR the topic was the TASER, which stands for "Tom A. Swift's Electric Rifle." The guests on the show were:
The show began with a discussion of a recent death that was proximate to use of a TASER. Diane Rehm stated that recently:
Here is the main objection that seems to be leveled at TASERs - they can be misused.
Jeepers! Is there anything that cannot be misused?
What about water (wet stuff, makes up most of the human body, without it we would die)?
Water cannot be misused!
So, the obvious response must have been to prohibit the use of water by military personnel.
No, they adjusted their training to include better education about proper hydration.
They seem to be capable of learning from their mistakes.
But what about oxygen (20 - 21% of the air at sea level, without it we die)?
Oxygen cannot be misused!
In one study, with high concentrations of oxygen the activity of the patient:
So, oxygen is not completely safe, either.
I think that I am beginning to understand - nothing can be made completely safe.
OK, but we still need to avoid creating dangerous situations; giving the jack-booted thugs these TASERs is clearly asking for trouble.
Regardless of foot wear, the police have a good record of protecting the public. Giving them one more tool to avoid using lethal force is helping to protect the public.
One famous case from New York City in 1984 is a perfect example of where a person died because the police did not have TASERs.
This is from a civil rights group that is critical of treatment of minorities, so the reporting is not biased toward the police point of view.
A little background. At the time the police would use nets and shields to corner and restrain violent people considered crazy. When EMS calls for help we expect the police to show up; when the police call for help they expect ESU (Emergency Services Unit) to show up. ESU was called for by the housing police. ESU are the most experienced at dealing with violence.
The right people?
Yes.
As an EMS provider, if she is violent and armed she is not receiving medical care from me until she is restrained.
If someone is close enough to stab me with a knife - the 10" knife she had, or a little paring knife - please shoot her to keep her from stabbing me. If I am close enough to get stabbed it is probably my fault, but that doesn't mean she shouldn't get shot and I should get stabbed.
One way to avoid this problem is to use the TASER or similar devices like.
If I am experiencing agitated delirium and am perceived as a threat to those around me -
Please, TASE me, Bro!
Do not shoot me with a gun.
In my experience being shot by bullets is not preferable to being shocked with a TASER or any similar device.
What part of this is hard to understand?
If you attack the police with a knife, you should expect to be shot.
The entertaining part of the Diane Rehm Show came when Dalia Hashad stated that the proof that TASERs are misused is
* (Danger - stupidity's going to sneak up on you warning) *
WTF?
If someone is pointing a gun at a civilian, or at the police, the police should shoot the person with the gun.
In the movies people point guns at each other, but don't shoot. If you do this without a script do not expect to be talking about it afterward.
Someone has a gun in his hand.
You run a bunch of electricity through the person.
The muscles contract.
If the person with the gun has a finger on the trigger and the muscles contract . . . .
Have we done a good thing?
Another of Dalia Hashad's foolish statement was that a police officer used a TASER on someone who was in a swamp. The statement was:
Is the water going to increase the voltage? The TASER is designed to deliver a lot of electricity into the person. My only concern - no it isn't that the current will disable me if, I am in the water - is that the person may fall with their airway under the water, but that should be relatively easy to manage.
The person standing in the water is probably less affected by the electricity, since it may disperse more than planned for optimal use.
Again Dalia Hashad:
If the problem is psychiatric, should they be convicted of a crime?
If the problem is psychiatric, does that mean the person is harmless and TASER use is wrong?
Many of the problems are from use on people who are passively resisting the police - just sitting there, not getting up to walk with the police to the police car or away from the scene.
Everyone seemed to agree that this is not appropriate use.
So, the biggest problem, other than the deaths in custody, is due to misunderstanding of appropriate use, poor training, or willful misuse.
Pretty much the same as any other tool that can be misused (e.g. all of them).
Rules of use should be based on when it is likely to make a difference by improving the outcome, training should be improved, and willful misuse should be punished; the same as with anything else.
And one study that would be conclusive, if any IRB were to approve it:
TASER responded to the UN torture statement with their own statement.
Popular Mechanics published their own story on the hub-bub.
These arguments are similar to the ones that are made to avoid having EMS chemically sedate combative patient or to avoid managing pain appropriately - too much emphasis on the side effects and an illogical refusal to consider the benefits.
I also wrote about this here:
TASER or Glock, addendum
.
On the The Diane Rehm Show of 12/05/07 on NPR the topic was the TASER, which stands for "Tom A. Swift's Electric Rifle." The guests on the show were:
Thomas P. Smith, chairman of the board and co-founder, Taser International
Dalia Hashad, director of Amnesty International USA's domestic human rights program
Lorie Fridell, associate professor of criminology, University of South Florida
The show began with a discussion of a recent death that was proximate to use of a TASER. Diane Rehm stated that recently:
the United Nations Committee on Torture expressed concern that TASERs cause extreme pain, constitute a form of torture, and could cause death.
Here is the main objection that seems to be leveled at TASERs - they can be misused.
Jeepers! Is there anything that cannot be misused?
What about water (wet stuff, makes up most of the human body, without it we would die)?
Water cannot be misused!
With recent emphasis on increased water intake during exercise for the prevention of dehydration and exertional heat illness, there has been an increase in cases of hyponatremia related to excessive water intake. This article reviews several recent military cases and three deaths that have occurred as a result of overhydration, with resultant hyponatremia and cerebral edema.
Death by water intoxication; John W Gardner. Military Medicine. Bethesda: May 2002. Vol. 167, Iss. 5; pg. 432, 3 pgs
So, the obvious response must have been to prohibit the use of water by military personnel.
No, they adjusted their training to include better education about proper hydration.
They seem to be capable of learning from their mistakes.
But what about oxygen (20 - 21% of the air at sea level, without it we die)?
Oxygen cannot be misused!
In one study, with high concentrations of oxygen the activity of the patient:
closely resemble those of grand mal epilepsy, and show similar electroencephalogram (EEG) patterns. If the excess PO2 exposure is not quickly ended, severe convulsions can lead to death.Bingham, E.; Cohrssen, B.; Powell, C.H.; Patty's Toxicology Volumes 1-9 5th ed. John Wiley & Sons. New York, N.Y. (2001)., p. 3:672
So, oxygen is not completely safe, either.
I think that I am beginning to understand - nothing can be made completely safe.
OK, but we still need to avoid creating dangerous situations; giving the jack-booted thugs these TASERs is clearly asking for trouble.
Regardless of foot wear, the police have a good record of protecting the public. Giving them one more tool to avoid using lethal force is helping to protect the public.
One famous case from New York City in 1984 is a perfect example of where a person died because the police did not have TASERs.
Eleanor Bumpurs was an African American 300-pound woman in her late sixties. She was 5’8 and she was suffering from arthritis and diabetes.
Eleanor was assumed to be mentally ill by the housing commission and the police. On the day of the incident, she was found naked and hysterical in a room the size of a closet. On the morning of October 29th, an article in the New York Times on October 30th, 1984, stated that first Emergency service officers were alerted to the scene by the housing police. They approached her and saw that she had a 10-inch butchers knife. She lunged at one of the police officers (John Elter) but his partner, Stephen Sullivan, shot her in the chest with a shotgun.
This is from a civil rights group that is critical of treatment of minorities, so the reporting is not biased toward the police point of view.
A little background. At the time the police would use nets and shields to corner and restrain violent people considered crazy. When EMS calls for help we expect the police to show up; when the police call for help they expect ESU (Emergency Services Unit) to show up. ESU was called for by the housing police. ESU are the most experienced at dealing with violence.
The right people?
Yes.
As an EMS provider, if she is violent and armed she is not receiving medical care from me until she is restrained.
If someone is close enough to stab me with a knife - the 10" knife she had, or a little paring knife - please shoot her to keep her from stabbing me. If I am close enough to get stabbed it is probably my fault, but that doesn't mean she shouldn't get shot and I should get stabbed.
One way to avoid this problem is to use the TASER or similar devices like.
If I am experiencing agitated delirium and am perceived as a threat to those around me -
Please, TASE me, Bro!
Do not shoot me with a gun.
In my experience being shot by bullets is not preferable to being shocked with a TASER or any similar device.
What part of this is hard to understand?
If you attack the police with a knife, you should expect to be shot.
The entertaining part of the Diane Rehm Show came when Dalia Hashad stated that the proof that TASERs are misused is
* (Danger - stupidity's going to sneak up on you warning) *
of all the cases we have seen of people who have died after being shot with the TASER, none of them had a firearm.
WTF?
If someone is pointing a gun at a civilian, or at the police, the police should shoot the person with the gun.
In the movies people point guns at each other, but don't shoot. If you do this without a script do not expect to be talking about it afterward.
Someone has a gun in his hand.
You run a bunch of electricity through the person.
The muscles contract.
If the person with the gun has a finger on the trigger and the muscles contract . . . .
Have we done a good thing?
Another of Dalia Hashad's foolish statement was that a police officer used a TASER on someone who was in a swamp. The statement was:
"That's not a good thing to do, to shoot 50,000 volts of electricity into an individual who is in water."
Is the water going to increase the voltage? The TASER is designed to deliver a lot of electricity into the person. My only concern - no it isn't that the current will disable me if, I am in the water - is that the person may fall with their airway under the water, but that should be relatively easy to manage.
The person standing in the water is probably less affected by the electricity, since it may disperse more than planned for optimal use.
Again Dalia Hashad:
I think what we need to concentrate on is where TASER is used inappropriately - and that is the vast majority of cases.
In Houston, the study that went on that reviewed the first thousand cases of the TASER being deployed out in the field; out of that, the first 900 people, on whom TASERs were used, were never convicted of any crime. Now, that's really serious.
If the problem is psychiatric, should they be convicted of a crime?
If the problem is psychiatric, does that mean the person is harmless and TASER use is wrong?
Many of the problems are from use on people who are passively resisting the police - just sitting there, not getting up to walk with the police to the police car or away from the scene.
Everyone seemed to agree that this is not appropriate use.
So, the biggest problem, other than the deaths in custody, is due to misunderstanding of appropriate use, poor training, or willful misuse.
Pretty much the same as any other tool that can be misused (e.g. all of them).
Rules of use should be based on when it is likely to make a difference by improving the outcome, training should be improved, and willful misuse should be punished; the same as with anything else.
And one study that would be conclusive, if any IRB were to approve it:
Medic, R., Peel, D.
An observational study of the effects of TASER vs Glock.
The subjects in the TASER group stated that they were grateful that they were not in the Glock group. The subjects in the Glock group did not respond, representatives of the estates of the Glock subjects expressed some displeasure with the methodology employed and the results.
Journal of Lambasted Leather, 5150, pp. 10-13.
TASER responded to the UN torture statement with their own statement.
Popular Mechanics published their own story on the hub-bub.
These arguments are similar to the ones that are made to avoid having EMS chemically sedate combative patient or to avoid managing pain appropriately - too much emphasis on the side effects and an illogical refusal to consider the benefits.
I also wrote about this here:
TASER or Glock, addendum
.
7 Comments:
If I had to choose a Taser or a Glock.I personally opt for the Taser.I can get over being shot by the Taser.But the likely hood of recovery from the Glock shot,are not so good.I found you through A.D.
RM, In light of your recent post there are swirling rumors that the committee of OLMC Physicians is considering an emergency revision to protocol banning the very dangerous oxygen.
There are some things that are better than others. In breathing, oxygen is better than water. In circulation, blood is better than air. In subduing EDP patients, tasers are better than glocks as you point out.
Of course those of a different opinion are usually looking at the EDPs from behind a glass window like in a zoo. I say remove the critics from the comfy environments, drop them into the PJs for a minute, and let's see just how long they maintain that opinion.
I give them 45 seconds.
NYC Watchdog,
That is part of the message I try to communicate in The Joy of Naloxone (Narcan).
I have been shot by a taser.
I did not like it.
I will ABSOLUTELY do it again.
The effects are gone immediately after the taser has finished its cycle or is turned off.
I have shot two dogs with tasers. I would utterly have been in the right to have shot them with my pistol. Instead, I tazed them. Doing so did more than save the lives of the dogs-- it kept me from sending bullets downrange while standing in a residential neighborhood. We have to think of the vicarious liability, as well.
Oh, and here's a question: why are NONE of the deaths proximal to all of the police officers that are voluntarily tazed every year? That's a huge sample of uses, many of which are on video, yet NO training deaths have occured from Tasers, to the best of my knowledge?
If it were so dangerous on its own basis, wouldn't we be seeing the odd cop keel over dead?
One reason given for the lack of proximal LEO deaths is that they are expected to be healthier than the average person.
Many of the proximal deaths are in people who have drugs on board.
It is probably not the best plan to consume enough cocaine that you act in a crazed fashion if you are about to be TASED.
What is an expected LEO response to being told you are to be shocked with a TASER as a part of the job?
Go out and get high?
Not with your typical police officer.
The police are not often shocked with the TASER except when it is a part of training and in a controlled environment.
Used on less healthy people, under less controlled circumstances, and with a variety of pharmaceuticals on board (legal or not or both) should produce results that are not as positive for the recipient of the shock.
This is no reason to avoid using the TASER.
There are many people who die in custody. If similar numbers of LEOs were subjected to the same custody conditions, it would be expected that there would NOT be deaths in the LEO group.
Should police be prevented from taking people into custody because some die while in custody?
Should the police only be permitted to take those able to pass the police physical into custody?
How far do we go to prevent people from taking responsibility for their own behavior?
Does this do anything other than endanger responsible people?
Post a Comment