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."
The Funky Chicken (Score:3, Interesting)
Stun guns != tasers, but keep that in mind the next time you mess with authority.
Re:Less Lethal... (Score:5, Interesting)
Just like a club is less lethal than a sword... but it still does 1d6.
I think the key here is that the "less lethal" concept means to many that "you can use it more than a gun and get away with it" which is a problem because in a small subset of its use it does become lethal or causes situations that cause death when normal restraining methods would have sufficed without incident.
Re:Less Lethal... (Score:5, Interesting)
Less Lethal...Just like a club is less lethal than a sword... but it still does 1d6.
Yep - that's why they started calling them "less-lethal" weapons rather than "non-lethal" weapons...though if we're doing dnd references, I'd argue that many of them do subdural damage and something more like a 1d2 with a 5% chance of causing death.
What exactly is the intended non-lethal purpose of such a thing?
What lethal uses did you have in mind, exactly? It doesn't sound very effective at killing people. As a less-lethal weapon, however, it sounds useful for crowd control, remote perimeters where you'd rather capture than kill, ambushs where you'd rather capture than kill...any number of things.
Re:Tasers are lethal (Score:4, Interesting)
Taser are NOT "non-lethal."
...
Thankfully she didn't die, the ticket was dismissed and she is currently in the process of filing a lawsuit. (http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2009/08/mom_in_minivan_tasered_in_traf.html)
The summary says "less lethal". Read The Fine Summary, please.
The real complaint seems to be not that Tasers are anywhere near as lethal as handguns, but that they are more likely to be abused due to the expectation of the users that a Taser won't cause serious injury or death.
Re:Less Lethal... (Score:3, Interesting)
Actually, it's essentially pain. True, it's not exactly same, but neither are burns and cuts. The muscular interference effect is largely unimportant as it tends to be both short lived (i.e. duration of shock) and fairly localized. If someone is high PCP and charging you, zapping them on the arm isn't really going to do much better than a billy club. Unless, of course, you keep the current on until they're dead, but that kinda misses the point, doesn't it?
If the money spent on tazers and tazer training (and defending tazer death suits) was instead spent on billy clubs and (here's the important part:) close combat classes, officers would generally be better off.
Re:and all I can think (Score:2, Interesting)
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.
For show or not, it really is a more-secure-than-average place. Until recently I worked for the company that cleans it and while I don't have (and wouldn't give) details I know I was told the security is closer to a bank than an office building. The president of the company was also told that if he volunteered to be Tazed they would give him a free shirt. He passed.
Sounds like something out of E.M. Unfred (Score:1, Interesting)
From the Weaseljumper series:
I followed Jae and No-man through the silent corridors of the Penitentiary. The cells were all empty and the doors stood open. The autocams pivoted to aim at us as we passed by. Their plasma dart canisters, which I assumed were empty, hung menacingly from them. I knew what those things could do: they were designed for mob suppression, on the really, really good theory that a quick way to command the attention and respect of a band of Penitentiary inmates driven to insane rage by the monotony of four gray walls and constant subliminal suggestions of happy conformity would be to boil off the unlucky ones in the front row, leaving the rest of the group retching on the nauseating vapors. The plasma dart was a favorite weaseler toy. One had only to be careful not to use it on a weasel, for those fumes would corrode your lungs and your chest would cave in and you would have to be disposed of as toxic waste.
Re:Less Lethal... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Less Lethal... (Score:4, Interesting)
They were originally intended to be used in cases where a gun would have been used.
No they weren't. Guns (deadly force) can't be used unless the life of the police officer or an innocent bystander is in imminent risk. No sane police officer whose life is seconds away from ending is going to reach for his TASER. The TASER is useless against multiple opponents, is useless against someone hopped up on drugs or with certain mental illnesses, only gives you one shot and has an limited range compared to handguns. In a scenario where his life or the life of another is in mortal danger the smart police officer is going to draw his firearm and squeeze the trigger as many times as are required to end the threat.
TASERs were intended as a replacement for the police baton. They were not intended as a replacement for deadly force. The use of deadly force (firearm, knife, claymore, etc) has an entirely different set of standards that need to be met than does regular force (fist, taser, mace, pepper spray, etc). Deadly force can only be used under specific circumstances, generally to save the life of the officer or another. Regular force can be used to affect an arrest, halt the commission of non-lethal crimes, halt the escape of a suspect, defend against the use of non-deadly force, etc.
These devices would never be used against people in the manner they now are in a truly free society.
That part I'd give you. It seems that there are quite a few incidents wherein police officers have reached for their TASER rather than reaching for their deescalation skills. I don't think you can blame this on the tool though -- you have to blame it on the operator. These same personalities would probably have wielded the police baton in the same inappropriate manner.
Re:The Funky Chicken (Score:3, Interesting)
Maybe something analogous to body armor for bullets...something you can wear, that will prevent the taser from shocking you. Is such a thing possible?
I'd think there would be some $$ to be made with that one.....
Re:Seriously, don't taze me. (Score:2, Interesting)
For instance, what would happen if they tasered someone wearing one of these>/a>? [no-contact.com]
Re:Less Lethal... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Taser admit to torture (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:and all I can think (Score:4, Interesting)
Yes, most people that get tasered are innocently standing there, hands in the air, asking how the weather is
Actually yes... All people getting tazed are innocent, and are only guilty after that strange thing called a jury decides it. Not all people arrested are guilty. And getting arrested while innocent, or doing something that is not a violent crime, is a pretty shocking moment of your life. You might even try to ask the police officer "what did I do", and when they tell you to shut up, you'll probably continue to ask, and plea, especially when you realize that your going to spend a night in jail. Hell, you might even struggle when the police shove your arms behind your back to "subdue" and cuff you... not because your criminal scum, but for the simple fact that your arms DON'T bend that way. Actually, it hurts, and 99.9% of humans would probably stuggle to get out of a painful situation.
I've been arrested twice, once wrongfully, and once for something incredibly minor (using a bathroom I wasn't supposed to use, ala trespassing). Both times I was not acting in a threatening manner, neither time did I back talk the police or throw insults at them, much less try to act violently towards them. And both times they used a rather uncomfortable amount of force, even though I was completely complying with their commands. In the case where I was actually guilty they decided the slam my head rather brutally into a bathroom wall, while twisting my arms around in very unnatural positions, before putting on cuffs so tight that my hands were purple, and my wrists bloody. Again, no resistance, and lots of "yes sir" on my behalf. In the case where I was wrongfull arrested (and got to spend fun 7-8 hours in jail), they refused to tell me what I was being arrested of the whole time. This obviously was somewhat stressful to me.
Imagine, some day your minding your own business, and have three police officers approach you, throw you on the ground, cuff you, and throw you in a car... but won't tell you why, or where your going. In fact they scream at you for even asking.
The people the police arrest have the exact same amount of rights as the police do. And police are just as big idiotic, mean, law breaking, assholes as the population as a whole. Police are just people too, putting on a badge does not make you some noble God of a man. Getting cuffed doesn't make you a criminal either. Not all police are jerks, but some are, in roughly the same proportion as the population as a whole.
Re:Less Lethal... (Score:3, Interesting)
is a perfectly sensible idea; there are some use cases for firearms where fewer deaths and injuries would result if tasers were used instead (obviously, there are situations where they don't work too). The problem occurs when they get used for situations which would previously have been resolved using force less lethal than a taser, or, in a frighteningly large number of cases, situations which would previously have been quite easily resolved with no force at all.
But you can blame them for encouraging their use in situations not actually requiring violence and for covering up evidence that they are potentially lethal. I'd still agree that the larger problem is police forces passively accepting the advice of a corporation. I'm not from the US and don't understand how local police forces fit together there; at what level are decisions on policies and equipment made? It seems that decisions on taser use are made by police forces who are very small next to Taser International and can't really produce their own manuals or do their own research (contrast with US military weapons purchases, where the manufacturer is at the mercy of the customer).
That is surprising, because there should be multiple instances caused by loading my sig in your web browser and by entering the command.
Tasers are dangerous. (Score:2, Interesting)
In Canada since the results of the royal commission on the death of Robert Dziekanski there is no doubt that these are dangerous weapons and their use should be restricted to a last resort weapon. Mr Dziekanski was tasered five times and the recommended usage is once or twice. As a result Mr Dziekanski died. Even today Taser is trying to dispute the results of the commission. I don't think they are going to get very far though.
Re:Seriously, don't taze me. (Score:3, Interesting)
For instance, what would happen if they tasered someone wearing one of these?
Try thor-shield instead. They try to only sell to cops, but the idea is so obvious (I found them while googling conductive fabric for taser defense) that the cheap chinese knock-off is inevitable.