Taser Tots: Kankakee Police Officer Tasers Children in Demonstration

A police officer in Kankakee has a curious method of applied learning for children. While visiting the Kankakee Junior High School, he called for volunteers and tasered students in a demonstration. One of the parents rushed her son to the hospital because he has a pre-existing heart murmur.

The parents say that the officer went into a class and promptly announced “Who wants a Taser?”

Fortunately, Alta Young’s son with the heart condition turned out fine.

This is not the first officer to have fun with high voltage, here and here and here and here.

For the full story, click here.

45 thoughts on “Taser Tots: Kankakee Police Officer Tasers Children in Demonstration

  1. And ladies and germs the Darwin Awards goes to the Kankakee Police Department.

    Can we go to a drug store and get samples daddy?

  2. jonathanturley

    Blouise:

    You have insulted blithering idiots everywhere.
    =================================================================

    Point taken … okay … my apologies to all ordinary, everyday, run of the mill, blithering idiots … excluding Dick Cheney, Jonathon Yoo, and the person who erased the CIA torture tapes … and any police officer who tasers a child … oh, and whomever started the fad phrase “no problem” as a substitute for “you’re welcome”.

  3. In the words of Hubert Farnsworth, “Wha?”

    Good thing he wasn’t demonstrating his firearm.

    Is “dumbass” acceptable usage in this instance?

    I sure wouldn’t want to insult them either.

  4. This is not a one-off incident. Remember the ‘Take Your Children To Work” day at two Florida prisons? Also, it was reported that Taser International was handing out taser hits at the recent CES. They treat it like fun and games.

    This incident simply makes obvious that the “tasers-R-safe” and “tasers-R-fun” deceptive marketing approach used by the manufacturer is overpowering and countermanding even the best Taser Use Policies. This situation (in general) is unacceptable and demands corrective action (aimed squarely at the root cause: the marketing approach).

    “Good thing he wasn’t demonstrating his firearm.”

    No. This sort of issue is essentially unique to the taser. It stems from the marketing approach. It happens repeatedly with tasers, but rarely (not ever?) with any other police weapon.

    Have you read the Maryland AG’s report? One important conclusion was that Taser International has “significantly” understated the risks of taser use. And, as with most such taser reviews, makes many (60) recommendations to tighten up taser use.

    By the way, two $10M lawsuits have reportedly been launched over this incident.

  5. What in hell did this man think he was demonstrating that would be of use to HS children? Don’t do crime, or you might be shocked? This was his idea of a public service presentation? As much as I am appalled by this story, I would also be fascinated to know this blithering idiot’s thought process. I suspect that were that known he would be forcefully encouraged to seek another line of work, one that hopefully limited his contact with the public.

  6. Unless things have changed in recent years, every officer that undergoes taser training submits to being tased. I have never heard of any one of those officers suffering any injury from doing so.

    I don’t think it is a good idea to shock children/tweens with a taser or stun gun. Though a one second shock is probably harmless, it’s just not worth taking that chance. It’s also not a fair question to ask of a teenager who is looking for acceptance from his peers. Of course most of them will volunteer.

    It’s not the single shock from the taser that has ended poorly. It is the repeated shocks that have become deadly. The officer knows this, and probably didn’t consider this to be a risk to the children, because it has not been demonstrated to be. Give the officer a couple of days off. Establish better policy and put him back on the streets. He made a minor mistake that I hope he learns from.

  7. Well of course it would have been all male students that volunteered to be tasered, what else can you expect out of boys? They probably thought it’d make them look tough or cool.

    Maybe the students misunderstood the question when the officer asked “Who wants a taser?” By asking that way, he was implying that he was going to give out tasers. He should have asked “Who wants to be tasered?” That would have been the correct way to ask the students.

    What a dumb officer!

  8. Deputy Dawg wrote: “… I have never heard of any one of those officers suffering any injury from [being tasered during taser training]…”

    That statement reveals that you’re not following the subject closely enough. In fact, injuries to taser trainees has been reported. Some injuries have been career-ending. Taser International has been sued repeatedly and has settled repeatedly. Then they had the nerve to describe such settlements as “dismissals” to maintain the false and intentionally-misleading illusion of an unbroken series of legal victories. Some have compared their approach with bald faced lies.

    Also, Google your way to Pamela Schreiner and read her sworn statement about what she says happened to the injury reports arising from taser training.

    And I shouldn’t have to point out that the taser training hits are most often two seconds into the back and the subject supported by his friends. And the training darts are about half the length of the real darts. There’s little comparison to the real world, where real life incidents have endlessly repeated taser hits lasting for 31 seconds or 2m49s, often in the chest, and the subjects being, some will logically claim, directly killed.

  9. Reported an extract from the Affidavit of Pamela Schreiner: “While creating the spreadsheet, I became aware that there were hundreds, if not thousands, of injuries noted on the volunteer exposure reports. When Doug Klint and Rick Smith learned of the volume of injuries they became visible concerned and upset At that time, the SEC and the Department of Justice were investigating the company concerning the safety of the device…”

    Look up the entire document.

  10. Excited-Delirium.com,

    Accusations made by Pamela Schreiner are just that; accusations. Does she have an axe to grind?

    The longer length of the dart permits better penetration on the street. On the street it must penetrate varying thicknesses of clothing. The longer dart is not necessary for training purposes, and has no bearing on the shock received.

    The officer at the school has stated that the tasing of the volunteers last about a second. That is less than what takes place during training. The injuries from tasers are do to repeated tasing, and long durations. IF you want to claim that you have evidence of injury sustained by a 1-2 second tasing, I’m waiting for a link to the verifyable source.

    As I stated before, I don’t think it is appropriate to taze children for the purposes of demonstration, but I also don’t think the officer deserves more than a slap upside the head, and a change in policy to prevent it from happening again.

  11. Excited,

    Where are the reports from an officer being injured during training? I don’t want a hearsay report of injury. I want to face my accuser.

    The SEC was investigating the safety of the device? The SEC?

  12. Deputy Dawg; ” I want to face my accuser.”

    Ah, sorry to have to remind you of this. This is the Internet.

    The fact is that you stated that you had never heard of any officer injuries, and yet such injuries are a well known issue with tasers. They obviously don’t occur at a high rate due to the precautions taken during training, but it would be a falsehood to claim the rate is zero.

    My blog has nearly 1600 posts on the subject of tasers, all linked to sources to permit fact checking. But you have to do the fact checking yourself; *we don’t deliver*.

    If you have differing opinions, then grab a blank blog and start writing rebuttals. You’ll have some serious catching up to do. But you’d better know your facts cold. If you rely on information you think you got from Taser International, then your arguments have already been shredded six ways from Sunday.

    I’m not going to repeat the entire multiyear blog here. Just the last six months is a 300 page book.

  13. Excited,

    I’m on your side. I agree that prolonged and repeated tasering is likely to cause injury. I agree that children should not be tasered for demonstration purposes.

    You’re making a claim that officers have been injured during taser training. If that is true, I will do what I can to address the issue. I need some verifiable proof. Tell me where such injury took place, the extent of the injury, and the specifics of the event. Just because somebody on the internet says something does not make it true. An injury to an officer must have been reported. Is it too much to ask you to provide a link to that report?

  14. Excited,

    I appreciate your effort, but I am not inclined to perfrom an exhaustive Google search to find what you claim to be fact.

    I’m looking for injuries that took place during training, that can be directly attributable to the taser itself. I’m looking for something significant (more than a puncture wound, minor burn at the puncture wound, and minor soft tissue damage), and could not be prevented by following better safety guidelines.

    Have you ever been tased? I have. Twice. The last time I did it to myself. On purpose. We had information (including pictures from a doctors report) that caused us to suspect that a father, accused of molesting a child, had used a taser on the child. We had two red marks that were suspected to have been caused by a short taser attack. I purchased an 80,000 volt taser that had prongs of approximately the same dimensions of those in our picture. I sat down on my bed and gave myself a zap. Unfortunately, my skin had displayed too many of the effects of aging. We could not tell. Doing it to yourself once, not so bad. Trying to do it to yourself a second time, no way.

  15. You’re only about two or three simple mouse clicks from several documented examples that directly address your initial assertion that you’d never heard of such a thing. And with just a few more clicks (some trivial effort on your part) you could be reviewing actual court records. Assuming that you’re honest (I’m willing to make that assumption for now), you can no longer make that same claim.

    Deputy Dawg wrote: “… I have never heard of any one of those officers suffering any injury from [being tasered during taser training]…”

    At this point, you should acknowledge that your initial claim speaks more to your lack of research effort and resultant (excuse me, but it’s the correct word) ignorance, than to the documented facts about officers being injured, sometimes seriously, during taser training.

    Also, Google your way to the Taser Volunteer Exposure Waiver. Everything listed as a risk has happened, otherwise their policy of strenuous denial would prevent them even mentioning it.

    I’m not going to continue this one-on-one debate. Anyone reviewing this exchange will see that your initial implication that tasers are safe has been shredded.

    If you’re too lazy to follow links when they’re provided, that’s something I can’t fix from here. It’s a reflection on you. Not me.

  16. Excited,

    Thanks for stopping by. When you are willing to post a hyperlink to a reliable source, I’ll be happy to look at the information. The tinyurl link was just to a Google search result. I’ve got better things to do than play scratch-off.

    I didn’t say that my research didn’t turn up any results. I only said that I had not heard of any injuries reported that could be directly attributed to tasers.

  17. Deputy Dawg,

    Please define what you consider “directly attributed?” Then once the ground work of your choosing is established then I will fill in the blank for you.

    Think in these terms: Alcohol is ok to drink in acceptable places, is this correct? It is even ok and acceptable to drive? Now if you drink and drive then some actions are acceptable so long as you are under the legal definition of intoxication, would you not agree?

    Some bad things do happen to people who make the choice to drink and drive that are below the legal definition of intoxication, would you not agree?

    How ever, the unintended consequences are directly attributed to alcohol are they not?

  18. AY,

    I’m a firm believer in 8 hours between bottle and throttle, although I have been known to have A (meaning one) glass of wine when out for dinner. A glass of wine per day is supposed to be good for you. The legal limit as it relates to driving is a compromise between safety and the night club/alcohol industry. Acceptable and legal are two different rationals.

    When I look for injuries that are directly attributable to taser training (a single discharge lasting no longer than 5 seconds), I look for those that are not preventable.

    Many people just want taser use to be discontinued. I think they perform a great benefit with little risk when properly used. By properly used, I mean to subdue a suspect that is a threat to themself or others. I find very few circumstances when a secondary discharge would be acceptable, and at no time is a duration of greater than 5 seconds acceptable. They used to call them stun guns. They work well to stun. This gives the officer a chance to subdue the suspect with little resistance. When they are used repeatedly to render a suspect unable to provide even the slightest resistance, they are being abused.

    I like a taser in lieu of a nightstick for most circumstances.

  19. Deputy Dawg:

    AY is right, there appears to be a large number of Taser abuse. A Taser is not a play toy and can do damage to a human body. Isn’t there some other sort of non-lethal force that can be used? The safety of the Officer is paramount but you must levin that with the rights of citizens.

    What I have seen makes me think I would rather have a been bag to the diaphragm than be tased.

    It is hard being in law enforcement and a big responsibility. You must understand that you are the first line of protection from an out of control government as well as from criminals. It is a hard line to walk I am sure.

    Stupid cops are a bigger threat to our liberty than the guy that mugs you. You can fight the mugger, it is much harder to fight the state.

  20. AY,

    I’ve seen lots of videos indicating taser abuse. I’ve also seen lots of videos, and read lots of stories, where cries of taser abuse have been sounded, but I found the use to be justified. I’d rather address the ones involving long duration and repeated shocks. Too many of the others are a judgment call.

    One of the things that cause police officers to over-react is fear. Tasers have been pretty effective at lowering the cases of suspects being beaten into submission.

    With proper restrictions, I think the taser can be a very beneficial tool. Until those restrictions are fully implimented, we will continue to see abuse.

    Byron,

    A bean bag can be very effective in certain situations. The problem is that it needs to be fired from a shotgun. That makes it hard to put in a holster.

  21. I guess Texas is the exception in Taser abuses. Why would an Officer need to take an old lady, albeit a Bitch for lack of a better word down for not signing a traffic ticket?

    What about when a person will not get out of the vehicle and the officer tases them. Is this the correct thing to do?

    If the above are acceptable then I think the use should be ceased.

    Under neither of the circumstances was the officers life at stake. This seems to be over reacting or over reaching. Granted if the officers had had tasers when Rodney King was beaten would it have made a difference as he was hopped up on something?

  22. Taser International has a webpage called Cardiac Safety. Their bought-and-paid-for shrill, “Dr.” (not a medical doctor) Mark Kroll, has written this page and one of his claims is that repeated taserings are exactly as safe as one taser deployment. He literally compares being repeatedly tasered to being repeatedly hit with a ping-pong ball.

    This waste of meat sits on Taser International’s Board of Directors, and their “Medical” Advisory Board. He also normally sits on a thick stack of TASR stock options (although I don’t track this continuously).

    So if you believe that tasers are dangerous if used repeatedly, something confirmed by Prof Savard who studied the real-world data and found a linear relationship between the duration of exposure and the actual risk of death, and yet these corporate miscreants are denying that there is any connection, then what are we to do?

    There’s even a procurement law issue here. The manufacturer clearly states that tasers are safe, almost implies that tasers are fun.

    Some departments actually divorce themselves from these false claims, and actually set what might be reasonable policy. But the false message from the manufacturer makes an end-run around the police leadership’s explicit direction, and you end with weak-minded police officers offering to taser school children for fun.

    It’s a basic element of procurement that there should be a common understanding of what is being procured. If the buyer thinks that tasers are fully capable of killing given circumstances or bad luck, while the vender claims that they’re essentially perfectly safe with respect to inherent internal risk factors such as cardiac effects (for example), then the procurement should not be permitted to proceed. The reason is that bad things will continue to happen. On my blog I gave an imaginary example about “skid-proof” tires.

    Taking the position that tasers are good, but can kill if deployed repeatedly, given the marketing assurances to the contrary, is a bit like an athiest attending church for the free wine.

  23. AY,

    At first glance, I would say that a taser was not called for. I’d need more information to be sure.

    What if the officer tried to arrest granny (the next thing to do), and she decides to resist? Was there a good chance that she was about to head into traffic? If she tried to resist, what is the acceptable injury to the officer while trying to stop her? Should we just expect the officer to endure the assault? I think you’d be surprised at how hard these grannies can hit. These are always tough calls. In most circumstances, it would be better to just wait them out.

    If the well-being of the officer is in question, force is used.

    A taser is not the proper weapon if the officer considers their life to be in jeopardy. Deadly force is authorized if the officer is in fear for their life. In all cases, the least amount of force necessary should be used.

    Rodney King is a good example of when proper use of a taser could have been of real benefit.

  24. “I guess Texas is the exception in Taser abuses.”

    Does more taser abuse occur in Texas?

    “Why would an Officer need to take an old lady, albeit a Bitch for lack of a better word down for not signing a traffic ticket?”

    I can’t think of a good reason.

    “What about when a person will not get out of the vehicle and the officer tases them. Is this the correct thing to do?”

    That’s not an easy call to make. Do you have more details?

    “Under neither of the circumstances was the officers life at stake. This seems to be over reacting or over reaching. Granted if the officers had had tasers when Rodney King was beaten would it have made a difference as he was hopped up on something?”

    I agree. The situations, as you described them do not indicate that the officer’s life was at stake. The use of a taser in those circumstances was probably not warranted. I don’t know what would have happened with Rodney King. If all of those officers had taser, we may have had worse problems. King may have been killed.

  25. I remember a case I had a few years back. I believe 18 officers returned fire with 112 bullets fired. Only 2 hit the suspect as he was hidden in some bushes. It turns out that the person was of Mexican descent at a rather bad place to stay. He was armed with a BB Gun.

    There was some very unhappy officers after that shooting.

    DD,

    If you will look at the taser videos here on this site you will see more than just what I have described.

  26. “So if you believe that tasers are dangerous if used repeatedly, something confirmed by Prof Savard who studied the real-world data and found a linear relationship between the duration of exposure and the actual risk of death, and yet these corporate miscreants are denying that there is any connection, then what are we to do?”

    You do exactly what you have done here. You spread the word about the dangers of taser abuse. That’s the real problem. Crying everytime a taser is used dillutes your message. Limit the outrage to only those time where the case is clearly abuse, and not just use, and more people will listen and do something about it.

    “There’s even a procurement law issue here. The manufacturer clearly states that tasers are safe, almost implies that tasers are fun.”

    A 9mm is pretty safe too, when used properly, and for the right purpose. Do we have a lot of problems with people being unknowingly injured by using a taser that they thought was safe? The accompanying documentation, I thought, was pretty good at identifying the potential risk of proper use. I’ll admit that it has been a few years since I read the included book.

    “Taking the position that tasers are good, but can kill if deployed repeatedly, given the marketing assurances to the contrary, is a bit like an athiest attending church for the free wine.”

    I think you’ll find that more and more officers are becoming aware of the risk associated with repeated tasing.

  27. Duh: “A taser is not the proper weapon if the officer considers their life to be in jeopardy.”

    It is more and more becoming the weapon of choice when possible. It doesn’t ricochet, and a taser that misses doesn’t hit an innocent bystander across the street. I’ll take tasers drawn over guns drawn every day of the week.

    AY,

    “I remember a case I had a few years back. I believe 18 officers returned fire with 112 bullets fired. Only 2 hit the suspect as he was hidden in some bushes. It turns out that the person was of Mexican descent at a rather bad place to stay. He was armed with a BB Gun.”

    That’s why they started putting flourescent red tips on the end of non-lethal weapons. Look at it on the bright side, if you get pulled over today, and something goes wrong, you’re more likely to be tased than shot. (So we’ve got that going for us. Which is nice.)

    Thanks. I’ll try to look at those videos tomorrow.

  28. Deputy Dawg, “…taser abuse. That’s the real problem. Crying everytime a taser is used dillutes your message. Limit the outrage to only those time where the case is clearly abuse, and not just use, …”

    The phrase that I (and others) have settled on is “overuse, misuse and abuse” of tasers. Our scale runs from use, to overuse, to misuse, and finally abuse.

    Complaining ONLY about the worst cases of outrageous taser abuse is about as morally courageous as taking a stand against (for example) canibalism.

    It would also play into the hands of the stungun salesmen. They’d be perfectly happy to see the end of the worst examples of taser abuse, provided that taser overuse, such as tasering mouthy grannies, can continue. No downside for them.

    When discussing moral and ethical issues, defining the far ends of the spectrum is not informative. The real debate, for those that are keeping up (ahem), is where to draw the line closer to the muddled middle.

    Refering to taser “abuse” (obviously the extreme), and distinguishing it from arguably-justifiable taser use, is exactly that sort of distracting, polarizing, uninformative, non-starter.

    The recent 9th Circuit Court decision was vastly more useful in that it directly addressed the overuse of tasers. By providing guidance on the dividing line between use and overuse, it provided good useful and relatively clear cut direction.

    By addressing the overuse, the misuse and abuse are obviously incorporated. And it makes turning a blind eye to taser abuse, already clearly illegal, less likely.

    If and when tasers are actually used to replace lethal force, perhaps that’s a good thing. Problem is, they’re actually used ABOUT a hundred times more often. So the claim that tasers are “less lethal” (than guns) is only applicable ABOUT 1% of the time. The other 99% of the time tasers are “more lethal” (than other options).

    At this point taser fan boys drag out “studies” that indicate that tasers “are safer”. Since many fan boys are too lazy to actually read the reports (ahem), they fail to notice that these reports exclude any taser associated deaths (because the deaths due to “excited delirium”, circular logic at the highest level), and they also inexplicably exclude any taser injuries (they don’t count because such injuries, puncture wounds, burns, are considered to be mere byproducts). By such “logic”, typically applied by researchers that have accepted money from Taser International, they conclude that tasers “are safer”.

    It takes quite a bit of digging to put the whole picture together. After a while you start to see example after example where Taser International uses arguments to win individual battles, but the various arguments they use contradict each other when viewed together.

  29. “If and when tasers are actually used to replace lethal force, perhaps that’s a good thing. Problem is, they’re actually used ABOUT a hundred times more often. So the claim that tasers are “less lethal” (than guns) is only applicable ABOUT 1% of the time. The other 99% of the time tasers are “more lethal” (than other options).”

    Sometimes a taser can be used to replace lethal force, and sometimes it cannot. I remember when shooting an assailant wielding a knife was standard procedure. Today, a taser is more likely to be used. Do you want to go back? I don’t.

    I think the problem of abuse can be pretty easily addressed. However, the problem of over-use is much more difficult. It’s usually a judgment call, and someone will always claim that it could have or should have been handled differently. Those claims are usually made by those who have never been in a position that required them to protect others, as well as themselves. Too many people don’t take the officer’s well-being into consideration, at all.

    The taser is a great tool to take “the fight” out of the encounter. During fights, both officers and suspects end up being hurt. This usually escalates when back-up arrives.

    The taser is also turning out to be a pretty good deterrent. Most people will surrender rather than be tased.

    The taser will probably replace the nightstick. The nightstick can be used to prod, or it can be used to crack a skull wide-open. I think you would have to agree that being tased is not as bad as being hit upside the head with a nightstick. In the early 80’s, I had a large man come straight at me. He was saying “I’m going to kill you”. He was big enough to do it to. I was in fear for my life. I could have justified shooting him. Instead I hit him with my stick. He went down like a ton of bricks. He suffered permanent damage. I wish I would have had a taser.

  30. Deputy Dawg,

    Are you aware that your arguments are stale, and that they’re miles away from where the taser debate is actually occurring these days? Man-oh-man, you have some serious catching-up to do.

    The recent 9th Circuit Court decision, have you read it?

    The recent Maryland ECW Report: have you read it?

    The Canadian Braidwood Inquiry report on tasers: have you read it? It’s thick.

    These are rhetorical question because it is obvious that you haven’t.

    New topic: I’m going to have to write up an analysis for my blog, and I mean an analysis in the sense of psychiatric analysis, about why so many police officers are so frightened that someone is going to “take their tasers away”.

    It’s something that I just clearly noticed today.

    It would be funny except that the resultant irrationality spills over into the debate.

    FOR EXAMPLE – Someone dares to suggest that perhaps school children shouldn’t be tasered, and suddenly the debate is populated by law enforcement personnel preaching the benefits of tasers.

    It makes me very suspicious…

  31. “The recent 9th Circuit Court decision, have you read it?”
    Yes. I’ve read it, and I concur with it.

    “The recent Maryland ECW Report: have you read it?”
    No. I have not read it.

    “The Canadian Braidwood Inquiry report on tasers: have you read it? It’s thick.”
    No. I have not read it.

    “Someone dares to suggest that perhaps school children shouldn’t be tasered, and suddenly the debate is populated by law enforcement personnel preaching the benefits of tasers.”

    Those bastards! Next thing you know they will show that the use of tasers has led to a decrease in the number of injuries to officers and arrestees. You must stop them!

  32. ETSPOON:

    You asked why the cop’s name wasn’t in the story.

    Excellent question.

    Cops are becoming the criminals, that is why.

  33. Deputy Dawg: “…use of tasers has led to a decrease in the number of injuries to officers and arrestees.”

    That’s one of the despicable debating tricks used by Taser International. They try to turn the debate to “injuries” when we haven’t even finished the debate on taser-caused and taser-contributed deaths. Morally and ethically, injuries are not even on the same page as death. It’s disgusting that anyone would try to paper over the deaths with reports about injuries.

    For example: SFPD Chief Gascon just issued a cute little study that concludes that if tasers were introduced into SFPD, they’d save perhaps two lives every five years. But they’d probably be deployed roughly every single day. And thus cause or contribute to several deaths during a five year period. A wash with no net benefit, and the only effect is redistributing the risk of death from the most violent to the least violent.

    You watch, Chief Gascon’s telephone will ring with a call from Scottsdale, and by next week he will attempt to turn the debate towards rates of injuries.

    The other thing you have to realize about these so-called studies on rates of taser injury.

    1) Dart penetration injuries are typically not counted.
    2) Any taser-caused burns are typically not counted.
    3) Any taser-induced injuries are sometimes counted.
    4) Any taser associated deaths are assigned to “excited delirium” and are not counted.

    One major study (Wake Forest) seemed to be independent, but then the recent Maryland Attorney General’s report included a footnote that mentioned that Wake Forest’s Dr. Bozeman has received money from Taser International. Oops! Up to that point, that study was considered to be independent by most observers. Now, not so much. That’s how it goes.

    If tasers only ever caused injuries, I wouldn’t have even bothered.

  34. “Morally and ethically, injuries are not even on the same page as death.”

    What about the injuries to police officers? Do you consider that to be “part of the job”? You’re looking from one perspective, and completely ignoring all other perspectives.

    “They try to turn the debate to “injuries” when we haven’t even finished the debate on taser-caused and taser-contributed deaths.”

    The only thing that would make you happy, would be the elimination of tasers. You see no benefit. Steps to prevent abuse aren’t going to satisfy you, and every situation you see is considered to be over-use.

    “A wash with no net benefit”
    What does that study say about decreased injuries to police officers?

    Why are you trying to act as though Chief Gascon didn’t find the benefit to outweigh the risk? From your earlier post we can all see that you will flat out lie to push your agenda. You like to stir the pot with deception and then want respect. When you stoop that low you are deserving of neither.

  35. Deception, moi? You’re the one that started this with your (choose one) bald faced lie, or shocking display of ignorance:

    “…every officer that undergoes taser training submits to being tased. I have never heard of any one of those officers suffering any injury from doing so.”

    Your statement (quoted above) is demonstrably incorrect. Not just once either. I provided you with a explicit link that shows you how to find the facts, even court records with a few clicks.

    But you’re simply not interested in the cold hard facts that (for example) tasers actually do cause injuries to police trainees, Taser International has been accused of covering it up, they’ve settled with a few injured trainees and then called the associated lawsuits “dismissed”. Some police forces have even banned training hits (revealing the first part of your quote to also be false).

    Chief Gascon’s cute little study (assuming you read and actually comprehend it) indicates that there may be five “opportunities” to use tasers in the SFPD to save lives in a five year period. That’s once a year. But only two lives would actually be saved by tasers during the same five-year period, about 0.35 per year. Not taking into account who-knows-how-many would be killed by tasers during the same period (could easily be more than two).

    That’s why the ACTUAL taser death rate (it’s not zero as claimed) is so critical. The death rate can still be so low that “it could be rounded to zero” (0.49% for example) and tasers would kill more than they’d save.

    Google: Gascon’s Golden Gate Tasergate. Follow the links to the complete explanation.

    The primary issue with tasers is the false claim that they are incapable of causing death and only indirectly injuries. Your first post to this thread made a statement (quoted above) that essentially repeated those false claims of safety. From this huge lie about taser safety stems most of the overuse, and much of the misuse and abuse. These are major problems.

    You’re either part of the solution, or part of the problem.

Comments are closed.