A Tour of Taser HQ 334
Soychemist writes "Walk into the Taser headquarters in Scottsdale, Arizona and it may seem like you are on an episode of Get Smart. The foyer is like a fortress, with giant steel doors and biometric identification systems. Inside, factory workers meticulously assemble the less-lethal weapons by hand and then put them through a battery of safety tests. In addition to making pistol-shaped devices, the company also produces the electronic equivalent of a claymore mine, which hurls dozens of electrified needles at the push of a button and electronic shotgun cartridges that deliver a powerful jolt."
Re:Less Lethal... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Wired (Score:3, Insightful)
Seriously, don't taze me. (Score:4, Insightful)
The term electronic police state describes a state in which the government aggressively uses electronic technologies to record, organize, search and taze its citizens.
If you treat me like an animal don't be surprised when i bite you in the face.
Re:Less Lethal... (Score:5, Insightful)
What exactly is the intended non-lethal purpose of such a thing?
I'm gonna take a totally wild guess here: to make profits for Taser Inc.?
and all I can think (Score:5, Insightful)
The foyer is like a fortress, with giant steel doors and biometric identification systems...
Security like that for a business like theirs is just for show. It's there for all the "foreign dignitaries" with their big pocket books. Which makes me think of other elements of their corporate identity. These people market "non-lethal" weapons and then cover up the research that says that blasting tens of thousand of volts through the human nervous system might just have some negative effects. Not that there isn't a ton of historical evidence saying that when you science and law enforcement meet, a conspiracy usually results. Taser's products are not "non-lethal", they are "less lethal"... But the police and people who buy their equipment love to watch people scream and fall over because they smarted off to them, and for this, Taser Corporation delivers. And although their products could easily be designed to be more humanitarian, curiously these changes never make it to market.
Taser Use (Score:5, Insightful)
A taser should only ever be used as an alternative to shooting somebody. If you wouldn't shoot them in the same situation, you shouldn't taser them.
Resisting arrest alone should not mean tasering is on the table, even with a difficult struggle. Law enforcement is getting way to used to tasering simply to avoid any kind of physical confrontation.
If tasers didn't have the lethality question hanging over them I would think differently, but according to Amnesty International [www.cbc.ca], at least, 334 people died after taser shocks between 2001 and 2008.
Re:Less Lethal... (Score:5, Insightful)
There is no intended non-lethal purpose, because it is non non-lethal.
Yes, non-lethal, except for the 100's of times it has killed people. Tasers are nothing but a torture device used like a cattle prod when people don't "comply" with police orders.
They were originally intended to be used in cases where a gun would have been used. These devices would never be used against people in the manner they now are in a truly free society.
Re:Less Lethal... (Score:3, Insightful)
Just like a club is less lethal than a sword... but it still does 1d6.
Personally, most taser incidents where the perp is not threatening the officer's safety should be replaced with a rap on the calf or elsewhere with a smaller billy-club. Still hurts, without resorting to electric shocks. Less likely to die from 'mysterious circumstances' from a sharp rap on a muscle than from electrical pulses (and less of an uproar, probably, when they do).
Re:Less Lethal... (Score:1, Insightful)
These guys are just grown up kids who liked to make toy guns when they were little. The security doors and all of this hi-tech warhgarble is testament to it too. They have no reason to need this kind of security at the front doors. It is a a front for games that they play in their minds. They are constantly at war with the unseen enemy and must constantly be on guard to protect themselves from this invisible juggernaut. So really, the 'electronic equivalent of a claymore mine' is to protect themselves from their imaginary enemies, nothing more. Sad thing is that people will use these things against innocent people, maybe some who aren't so innocent it will be used correctly, but occasionally used just because people like to impose their power upon others. Then all of their actions were justified, for here is a real enemy and our contraption did exactly what it was supposed to do! At least these guys don't try to make lethal devices, as once their power tripping is over there is at least someone who is alive in the end.
Claymore mine (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Less Lethal... (Score:3, Insightful)
Security Theater (Score:4, Insightful)
This foyer may look like the entrance to the Control headquarters from an episode of Get Smart, but this is the front door of the Taser plant. The corporation has plenty of reasons for high security. It recently launched an online warehouse for digital evidence, so keeping trespassers out is a top priority.
Looking at the image [wired.com], my impression is that this is more about appearances than real security. It's all about looking high-tech and security oriented.
Re:The Most Deadly Non-Lethal (Score:5, Insightful)
Because it's the exception.
People die in car crashes daily and regularly (one cite I saw said 115), but at best they're mentioned on traffic reports. "Fatal car accident on I-5, traffic backed up for miles..." You'll never hear about those outside of the local area unless someone famous is involved.
But a plane crash that results in fatailites gets reported nationwide for a good week.
The more statistically improbable a fatal incident is, the more probable it will be reported on.
Re:Less Lethal... (Score:5, Insightful)
Using Tasers instead of guns is a good thing, but they are constantly being used in situations which would not warrent the use of a firearm, and Taser International's own training and marketing material is a least partly to blame.
Re:Less Lethal... (Score:3, Insightful)
Right, but that should be reserved for times when otherwise an officer would use a firearm to subdue the perp. Tasers have expanded their role to include instances where the officer would have just hit the perp and been rough with them.
There are some times when a taser can fit between these two places (some massive dude high on PCP is threatening to pummel a cop with his fists, I'm not going to require the cop to subdue him physically if he has access to a stun gun), but in general, I think that most of your taser stories ('don't tase me bro' guy or the naked wizard) would be better handled by just cuffing them roughly. Of course, when you have a dude covered in kerosene charging you with a lighter, a taser seems like a better alternative than an officer dying or needing to shoot the guy in the kneecaps.
Re:Less Lethal... (Score:1, Insightful)
The same can be said for airbags and seatbelts. Therefore, these things must all be banned, right?
Re:and all I can think (Score:3, Insightful)
Fists can be lethal, too. Fists might just have some negative effects.
Captain Obvious laughs at you. Strict rules are followed when using physical force, and officers only employ it when necessary, due to risk of "police brutality charges". Electrocuting someone for several minutes, however, escapes that kind of regulation.
I'm curious. What do you suggest police use? Here is your criteria:
No, you're not curious. You're a troll, and you made that list up.
So, what exists for a police to use that is capable of immobilizing a suspect (let's assume he's dangerous and he's running around a crowd of people and they need to immobilize him *now* to prevent harm to innocent bystanders). Guns work well, but that's significantly more lethal than a taser.
Guns have lots of policies governing their use, and most officers go their entire career without ever discharging their firearm in the line of duty. And it (rightly) scares the crap out of them when they have to. But thanks to a lot of training and an understanding that "hey, this could kill someone" -- a combination of morality and training prevents adrenaline from compromising their judgement at the critical time. And most people who are shot survive (little known fact). a 9mm doesn't have a lot of stopping power. Tasers, on the other hand -- officers are trained to pull them out at the first sign of resistance. People get Tasered for merely asking questions, which on the police report is listed as "Did not follow police orders". It's an abuse of power, plain and simple -- weapons are used for the safety of both the officer and the citizentry. They should never be employed because a person is verbally abusive or confrontational unless there's the clear and present threat of physical violence or immediate escalation to. But that line of thinking never makes it into policy guides because Taser tells them "Hey, no lasting effects, instant compliance guaranteed."
Tasers appear to work quite well, but there is a chance of killing the person (less of a chance with a gun though).
And in your entire diatribe, this is the point you miss: Tasers can kill, but the policies governing their use do not take this into account. This is due to the marketing and intentional manipulation of evidence by the Taser Corporation -- and it's only been very recently that they've started to change their tune ever so subtlety from "non-lethal" to "less-lethal", but they're not about to advocate policy changes that would reduce the use of their product -- even when they know their product can kill. Another kind of corporation did this once -- Cigarette manufacturers. And it took more than forty years before people were able to bust them on it. Taser might never have to face the music if private citizens and special interest groups don't continually hound them.
Taser admit to torture (Score:4, Insightful)
"Pain compliance"? In other words, torture.
Re:Less Lethal... (Score:4, Insightful)
But I do agree with you they are over used. Personally I think that the officer should draw their gun when they would normally be allowed to tase the perp. If that doesn't work and its save to switch from a gun to a taser they should then do so.
Thank You Letters (Score:1, Insightful)
Plus they can show off all their thank you letters from the governments of Burma, Iran, North Korea, China...
Re:Tasers are lethal (Score:3, Insightful)
It's not the size of the dog in the fight.
It's the size of the fight in the dog.
Trust me on this.
I knew two female police officers, neither of which I would challenge, despite outweighing them. being significantly taller, more reach, and stronger by every objective measure. EVEN^H^H^H^HEspecially without their gun being handy. They do not need anything but their hands.
And one of them died when a drunk driver ran her over and then went back and beat her to death.
Tasers are no doubt used inappropriately, and police officers exercise bad judgement occasionally, possible even more often. But you never know what is going to happen as a police officer.
When I get pulled over, I put my hands on the dash, ask the officer what they want me to do, tell them what I am reaching for, where, and what it will look like. I want the officer to be confident they know what is happening. No surprises, nothing unexpected. I don't want to become a victim of bad judgement, knowing it will probably be my own mistake that sets off that series of events.
And yet, we should expect our officers to improve their practices and avoid killing us unecessarily.
Re:Taser Use (Score:3, Insightful)
at least, 334 people died after taser shocks between 2001 and 2008.
Let's see other stats, too. How many of those people were armed? How many people died from police guns? How many times was the taser used? A random stat from an opponent of tasers is not going to help anything, probably, more than a random stat from an advocate of tasers...
Re:Less Lethal... (Score:5, Insightful)
Tasers have expanded their role to include instances where the officer would have just hit the perp and been rough with them.
Actually, they've expanded their role to include instances where the officer just wants to punish someone when they don't do as they're told, like when they can't move because they're lying on the ground with a broken back. [alternet.org]
Re:Less Lethal... (Score:2, Insightful)
(IAaPO) not that it matters.
Re:Taser Use (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, we fucking do.
Re:Taser Use (Score:3, Insightful)
Excuse me? As an American, I absolutely have the right to my freedom, even in the presence of a law enforcement officer, until such time that he can lawfully impinge upon those rights.
I may do any manner of things that he doesn't like. I may speculate about his parentage. I may suggest that he engage in behaviors of questionable anatomical feasibly. I may certainly take photographs, and give him flippant answers.
Those things may not be advisable, but police are public servants, answerable to the law and the people. They are not vested by law with the power to capriciously direct citizen's behavior.
I have a dear friend who is a police officer. I do understand the risk that they assume, and the sacrifices they make to serve the public. They are truly American heroes. But they can not and must not protect the American people by denying us our freedom.
-Peter
Re:Less Lethal... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Less Lethal... (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah it definitely would not be a good tool for LE or riot control. The un-aimed barbs would have serious eye-injury potential.
Re:Less Lethal... (Score:4, Insightful)
Right, but that should be reserved for times when otherwise an officer would use a firearm to subdue the perp
Firearms are not used to subdue perps. Firearms are used to end a threat to the life of the officer or another innocent person. The only occasion I'm aware of where firearms are allowed to be used to "subdue" people is in the case of a prison guard shooting a prison escapee. Your regular beat cop is not allowed to use his firearm to "subdue" someone. He's only allowed to use it to save his own life or the life of another.
Tasers have expanded their role to include instances where the officer would have just hit the perp and been rough with them.
That's exactly what they are intended for. Situations where non-deadly force would have been used. Their role hasn't been expanded at all. What's been expanded is the willingness of officers to use force during inappropriate times. Tasing someone in handcuffs just because he said something nasty to the Judge is no more appropriate than hitting him would have been.
but in general, I think that most of your taser stories ('don't tase me bro' guy or the naked wizard) would be better handled by just cuffing them roughly.
Why? So you run the risk of injuring two people (the officer and the perp) instead of one? How is that better? Have you ever been trained in restraint techniques? I have been -- as part of my employment at a mental health facility. It's not that easy to take someone down without injuring them or yourself. How is injuring the perp while subduing him with your hands any better than injuring him while subduing him with a Taser?
Of course, when you have a dude covered in kerosene charging you with a lighter, a taser seems like a better alternative than an officer dying or needing to shoot the guy in the kneecaps.
You wouldn't shoot for the kneecaps in such a situation. You'd shoot center of mass. Shooting someone's legs/kneecaps/hand-holding-the-knife is a Hollywood myth. It's just too hard to pull off in the real world. If you shoot a 2" group with a handgun at the range with paper targets you are going to shoot a 10" group when being charged by some nutjob intent on ending your life. That's what happens when you get an adrenaline dump and your fine motor skills go to hell. That's why police officers are trained to shoot center of mass.
Re:Why the focus on "Lethality"? What about "pain" (Score:3, Insightful)
Unfortunately, criminals have evolved.
In 1930s USA we had "beat cops" that would walk through neighborhoods in cities. Their very presence deterred crime. Should someone be as unwise as to steal an apple from a box outside a market, they would often be chased down and caught by the beat cop. At least that was the idea.
The beat cop did indeed have a tough life being on their feet for their entire shift and being only lightly armed, generally a club and a small revolver. Criminals of the day would often have more substantial weapons, but the Firearms act of 1934 attempted to change that making it a Federal offense to have an unlicensed machine gun. Things pretty much went back to the same level they had been at since the late 1800s or so.
Since that time, criminals have virtually cornered the market on firepower in the cities. Your average cop has a 9mm Berreta with a 15-round clip. The folks they are going up against have at a minimum guns like the Tec DC-9 with a 30 round clip and often operates in full automatic. The end result is of course that the police have no idea what they are going up against.
And you wonder why they might like to stay back from criminals?
Re:Taser Use (Score:4, Insightful)
If verifiable, it certainly reveals claims of non-lethality to be false. Then we can look at more detailed figures. A more interesting one would be how many of those deaths were in cases where use of a gun wouldn't have been sanctioned.
Re:Seriously, don't taze me. (Score:1, Insightful)
Would you rather be shot?
You imply that tazering someone is alike to shooting them.
Your innocent blind belief in the PR stunts did give me a giggle thou.
A cop would not think of pulling his real gun on you unless his life was in danger (or he believed it was)
Cops however will taze children for not putting the word 'sir' at the end of their answers however.
If suddenly police policy was changed so all crimes are solved with the tazer or gun, then actually I would prefer to 'get shot', since I believe so firmly that the death penalty is not deserved for jay walking for example, and so would be shooting at them first and thus wouldn't care what they were shooting me with.
Re:Less Lethal... (Score:5, Insightful)
"They" ... Why do you just through all Police under the same buss with some idiot who needs to be charged with assault and battery?
Just because some one dose something like this means all police think they can and should do it?
Well, obviously not a single cop or anyone working in any position in law enforcement there did ONE DAMN THING about that illegal immoral injustice.
So yes, every last single cop in that police department is morally bankrupt and clearly has NO objections to assault and battery of a 19 year old kid with a broken back, else they would have, I don't know, objected instead of providing excuses.
I mean, if you have proof otherwise, then please put it forward.
My proof however is their very actions, during and after what happened to the kid.
Re:Tasers are lethal (Score:4, Insightful)
wow. just...WOW.
Re:Seriously, don't taze me. (Score:3, Insightful)
Be a man and not an animal: buy a gun, plan an ambush, and them shoot them in the face.
Re:Tasers are lethal (Score:3, Insightful)
Yep.
That there is a man who has fully accepted that it is the people's job to make the lives of the police easier rather than the police's job to make the lives of the people easier.