Tasers a form of torture, says UN

From correspondents in Geneva
http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,22814674-5001028,00.html?from=public_rss

TASER electronic stun guns are a form of torture that can kill, a UN committee has declared after several recent deaths in North America.

"The use of these weapons causes acute pain, constituting a form of torture,'' the UN's Committee against Torture said.

"In certain cases, they can even cause death, as has been shown by reliable studies and recent real-life events,'' the committee of 10 experts said.

Three men, all in their early 20s, were reported to have died in the United States this week, days after a Polish man died at Vancouver airport after being Tasered by Canadian police.

Of 291 reported deaths, AI has so far identified only 25 individuals who were reportedly armed with any sort of weapon when they were electro-shocked; such weapons did not include firearms.

http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/engAMR511542007?open&of=eng-USA




USA
Amnesty International’s concerns about Taser®(1) use: Statement to the U.S. Justice Department inquiry into deaths in custody
http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/engamr511512007

junior's penchant for and seeming fascination with torture: what a loverly bunch of swell guys our society is fastly becoming.

are fired into a person and you will find your comparison defunct. Police substitute tasers for cases where billy clubs and brute force are used. For the VAST majority of people not having broken bones and trauma is better than a taser hit.

People fight the police, violently. tasers are the best choice in this scenario until a pause ray is invented.

The taser is clearly a better option than the use of a sidearm OR the use of clubs, fists, or batons.

the global warning will once again be ignored by the U.S.

And pumping bullets into a suspect doesn't cause any grave physical and mental impact?

Most suspects who are tasered don't die. A high percentage of suspects shot with a bullet die.

A police officer authorized to use force is not torturing somebody by subduing them with a taser instead of just blowing his or her head off.

I would prefer that the police use a range of nonlethal methods to subdue suspects when necessary.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

(1) If you have a choice between simply pumping lead in someone, or a method which in most cases is not lethal, I think the police should be required to use non-lethal means. Most police, and I've know a number of them, do not taser people to torture them.

(2) Calling me a sadistic coward, as you implied in your post, is unacceptable. I suggest you edit your post to remove personal insults.

you will feel personally affronted by a lot of posts on DU. If, on the other hand, my derogatory reference to "sadistic cowards" was something that you felt was a reference to you and your kind, well, that is your problem and your choice.

Oh, and you apparent belief that the pigs who taser at the first chance would otherwise have no other option than to murder their victims, well, that says something about a very pathological mindset, whether yours or theirs.

I will contact a moderator and ask their opinion.

in cases where there is no justification is right to do so because the only other option is to murder the victim? OK, don't defend that view. I can see why that would be a hard case to argue.

To you, all police are pigs, anyone that uses a Taser is a fascists. This is virulent bigoted prejudice in the same way that racism, sexism, anti-semitism is prejudice and bigotry. From the way you write, anyone that dons a police uniform is a fascist pig. From your writing, you have never bother to actually get to know the police in your community, learn about their jobs. They are not individuals not a group of robots.

I accept this this type of virulent prejudice and hate exists and is practiced regularly by right, where all of us on the left are communists, traitors, etc. I don't accept bigotry against a group from those on the right and I won't except it from those on the left.

As I said elsewhere. I would like to suggest that you go to your police force and arrange a ride along. Get to know the police in your community. Go to their public affairs office and ask them what their polices are on the use of force, especially tasers and "non-deadly" or "less than deadly force." Get to know people before you simply decide to hate them all as a group.

and then launch into a spasm of wild accusations. Check your meds, turn off the hate radio, and then explain how denouncing those who act as sadists is the same as denouncing all cops.

using distorted and prejudicial illogic.

I am not sure why you are incapable of having an open discussion about the issue of using Tasers and other non-lethal weapons by the police.

You continue to scream sadist and refuse to bring out evidence that every policeman that uses them is acting through a sadistic urge while implying that is all they do. My argument has consistently been that Tasers and other nonlethal weapons are better than relying only on lethal force. Instead, you continue to throw insults when your arguments are empty of intellectual content or merit.

Now bring up the proof that all police are using TAsers as torture devices. Show me where it is better that police only use lethal force and are not required to use less than lethal or non-lethal force in cases where it doesn't merit shooting someone.

If you can't, then I suggest you "Check your meds, turn off the hate radio," (Nice quote that. What do you suppose you are implying? If you make an accusation spit it out in plain language. But you better have proof.) and take a good college course in debate. You can learn in a basic course how to put together a logical argument, how to support your claims with evidence, and how to discuss important matters without resulting to baseless insults.

accusation that I said something like "that every policeman that uses {tasers} is acting through a sadistic urge while implying that is all they do." Of course I said nothing resembling either statement. Not sure what your problem is. Why you have to fabricate such nonsense is a bit of a mystery. Maybe a remedial reading course might help, but I doubt it.

As for your belief that you are proficient in the art of debate, well, making up shit and lying about what your chosen opponent said is a technique I've seen in certain circles, and it may be what you learned in the classes you took, but I don't see it as a useful skill.

as well as resorting to name calling. You have learned well from those people you talk about. You should look for better teachers.

Now, are you actually going to say something substantive in your argument? Post proof? Anything?

You've backed up none of the other baseless accusations you've made against me for the obvious reason that they have all been, need it be said, both baseless and contrary to the facts.

Too bad. Hope you get the help you need, but I don't think idolizing a Goldwater righty like Heinlein, as your sig line suggests, whose books for adolescent males romanticized a militarized and even fascist type society, is a good place to start.

Goodbye.

(edit typo and add a phrase for clarity)

I would think there are also a large number of sexually submissive folks that like the idea of their use being pemitted.

Unfortunately, sometimes, things that disgust a healthy person seem to have the opposite effect on some twisted people. And then there are the sociopaths that don't feel much of anything.

You can go to your local police force and request a ride around as a public service. I would like to suggest you, and everyone here, do so and use it to get to know your police force. I would never send my child to a school where I don't know their teachers. I will not live in a town where I am not personally acquainted with some of the police officers. A public that knows and is aware of their police are a better check on fascism than any other force in the known universe.

Though there are exceptions to any rule, (and those exceptions tend to be monsters) most police are nor fascists, do not inflict pain for pleasure, and it is a hasty and ridiculous generalization to assume they do.

Over the last decade the police have worked to bring in what are called non-lethal weapons into more common use. Bean bags fired from shot guns, Tasers, and other weapons are becoming more common. That is a good thing for the public and especially for those we consider innocent until proven guilty. The dead have no chance to prove their innocence.

In case you haven't noticed, Tasers are LETHAL, just not all the time.

Funny thing, because bullet firing guns aren't always lethal either. Many people get shot and live, but does that make it right to go around shooting people? No. So what's the difference?

:eyes:

false dichotomy.

You assume that there are only two choices: Tase someone or pump him full of bullets. But most of the time Tasers are used in situations where a gun would never be drawn at all. Most of those situations call for the law enforcement officer to de-escalate the situation, but since they have these cool toys to play with, they whip them out for no reason at all under circumstances where they are clearly not warranted. I have been collecting stories for two years.

The 75-year-old woman who was Tased because she was upset when the nursing home wouldn't tell her what had become of the friend she had come to visit. They called security when she refused to leave until they told her. Security tased her.

The diabetic man in a coma, slumped over the wheel of his car: he "refused" to get out when ordered to (because he was in a frickin' coma), so they tased him.

The woman who was stopped for a traffic offense and wouldn't get out of her car because she was scared the cop would rough her up (since she was Black, and cops are known to mistreat Blacks guilty of the crime of DWB--Driving While Black). She was tased, and then tased again because while writhing on the ground in pain, she "refused" a command to get up.

The six-year-old boy who was tased in school.

The 14-year-old girl who was tased for playing hooky.

The 8-year-old handcuffed girl tased in the back of the cop car for kicking the seat in front of her.

The prisoner strapped to the bed who was tased for refusing to give a blood sample.

The man in a wheelchair who was tased because he was wielding a pair of scissors. (I am a 57-year-old overweight woman with a cane, and I guarantee I could disarm a man in a wheelchair wielding a pair of scissors--without tasing him!)

The mentally disturbed woman in a wheelchair, armed, yes, with knives and a hammer, who was tased 10 times. After the first tasing, they could easily have disarmed her, but they kept tasing her until she died! Even if you assume the first tasing was necessary (which I am not convinced of, since she could not have actually caught anyone to use a weapon on them. All they would have had to do is stay out of her reach and talk her down, or wait her out. But waiting and talking take time and energy. Tasing is easy. I don't even consider the fist tasing necessary in this case--but 10 times. Jeebus!

Here's some text from that article:

Officers said they arrived to find Delafield in a wheelchair, armed with two knives and a hammer. Police said the woman was swinging the weapons at family members and police. . . .

Family attorney Rick Alexander said Delafield's death could have been prevented and that there are four things that jump out at him about the case. "One, she's in a wheelchair. Two, she's schizophrenic. Three, they're using a Taser on a person that's in a wheelchair, and then four is that they tasered her 10 times for a period of like two minutes," Alexander said.

According to a police report, one of the officers used her Taser gun nine times for a total of 160 seconds and the other officer discharged his Taser gun once for a total of no more than five seconds.

. . . On her death certificate, the medical examiner ruled Delafield's death a homicide.
http://www.local6.com/news/14147512/detail.html

I have many, many more such examples--quite a few with videos. In almost every single case, the first tasing was clearly unjustified. And in most cases the second and third (or more) were done either because the person who had just been incapacitated by tasing didn't immediately get up when ordered to, or because the cops were pissed and kept tasing repeatedly to show the person who was boss, goddamit!

Do you honestly believe that the cops would have pumped any of those people full of bullets? Not a chance. They tase because they figure they will get away with abusing people by tasing. They don't realize tasing can be lethal, so they figure, hey, great. We can rough the sucker up, without leaving any marks, so no one can prove police brutality.

Can you just see a cop pulling out a gun and shooting a 6-year-old boy who had a piece of glass in his hand, or an 8-year-old girl for kicking the seat, or 75-year-old woman for being upset when her friend disappeared from a nursing home and the jerk at the desk wouldn’t reassure her that the friend had not died overnight?

I don’t think so. A Taser should be used in place of a gun, as a second-to-last resort, if the cop can avoid shooting a suspect without putting himself at risk. It should not be used in place of talking to someone and defusing a nonviolent situation, and it should not be used to show someone who’s boss and how dangerous it is to question a cop or not immediately comply with an order.

That Polish man who died in Vancouver was tased 24 seconds after the cops approached him. He was unarmed, and there were several cops there. They already had him on the ground. They could easily have cuffed him and controlled him without repeatedly tasing him. And if the other traveler had not taped the incident, the cops would be telling a story about how he was armed with a knife or something, or threatening them with a chair (since he had thrown a chair at a wall earlier in frustration).

The false dichotomy you present is the same one everyone who defends the misuse of tasing trots out. It is nonsense. Pure bovine excreta.

those of you who want to reply to the defenders of Taser misuse could just copy my response and keep it on hand to paste into a post whenever it is needed. I would appreciate being given credit if you decide to use it, because I intend to post something similar on one of my websites soon, though with many more examples, since I have been collecting them for so long.

Many thanks, good advice and not just for this issue.

:applause: Bravo!

edit> Brava!

The taser creates a new class of suspects. It's easier to taser than kill so it's easier to arrest innocent people. Do the fucking math.

If the situation really calls for deadly force, enforcement will threaten deadly force -- subject to well-defined regulations.

The taser and its various commercial cousins are promoted as "nonlethal" aids. And the OP clearly indicates that these "nonlethal" devices are killing unarmed people.

Because tasers and similar devices are billed as "nonlethal" and "harmless" conveniences, their use is not subject to meaningful departmental regulation

The whole taser thing has me pissed as can be.

It's bullshit. It's misused. It's the perfect gift for the many little authoritarians in a once free nation that's rapidly circling the drain.

It's government-sanctioned recklessness aiming to shoot the message of fear through every waking moment spent in public. I realize that I'm exaggerating here, but not by much. Wait a few more years and get back to me on that one.

Any device or tactic DESIGNED to bring a combative subject under control is probably going to do so through physical means, whether it be a baton, a chokehold, an arm lock, or a taser.

That's not the problem. The police (and probably others) should have access to less-than-lethal tools to accomplish that goal.

The problem is when that tool or tactic is used unnecessarily. THAT is what we should take issue with; not the fact that pain is used to bring compliance.

If someone was sitting on you on the ground, pounding you senseless, and a cop walked up and told him to stop but he refused, would you have her:

1) Draw her gun and shoot him dead,
2) Ask him to stop again and again, or
3) Use a taser, which incapacitates him and gives her a chance to handcuff him and save your life?

I would call that a perfectly acceptable use of a taser. Tasing someone for walking away without signing a traffic ticket, or for not getting out of a vehicle.... THOSE are the situations we should take issue with.

" Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."

The major word construing "cruel" in my dictionary is "pain". Perhaps it means something else? If the 8th Amendment doesn't protect citizens from police use of tasers specifically, and in a more general sense pain compliance, then why not?

Regarding your example, I understand a taser may shock another person who is touching the first when it is used, so in your example, you would also shock the victim as well? We also don't know enough about why that person is on top of another beating them (I realize it's hypothetical). Maybe the victim had stolen something, had refused to return it, and was attempting a getaway, then fought back when the owner took it back? (escalation). Then who's on top? Even more direct: Perhaps the guy on top was walking down the street minding his own business and the one on the bottom getting bashed had thought they could beat them up, but guessed wrongly? (self-defense) In both of those cases, certainly the latter, the fight may have been justified, yet you would taser one or both of them, including potentially the one who was first attacked?

Seems to me that a couple, maybe more, officers could simply stop the fight physically using minimal force. Just try a couple of loud requests to begin with, realizing that in a moment of adrenaline (not drug use, natural adrenaline from the adrenal gland), the guy or gal on top might not even hear the first few responses, their focus is on something else right then.

Any other constitutional rights you'd like to blow away?

The point I made (and the point that you entirely missed) is that the police should have some method to subdue combative subjects. Whether that method consists of an arm lock, a baton, a choke hold, or a taser, if a criminal is beating on a victim, another cop, or himself, the police need a way to stop him without shooting him.

Where the constitutional protection against cruel and unusual punishment comes into that, I'm not exactly sure. If you've ever been around a drunk or drugged person involved in a fight, you know that a few (or a lot of) shouted commands do NOTHING to slow things down. The police have to get physically involved at that point. If a taser (or an arm lock, or a pressure point) can be used to subdue the person, that is preferable to shooting him.

Has nothing to do with "cruel and unusual punishment," it has to do with stopping a person who is doing harm to himself or others.

It must be nice to live in your police state where the cops travel in groups, but where I live they patrol alone. A tool like a taser is one more level of escalation they can use before they draw the semi-auto.

Since you seem to have fluid ideas of what the constitution says, all, so you say, someone can save a buck or two, I'll repeat my question.

What other constitutional rights would you blow away?



Yeah, and Bush says we don't 'torture'.

That's because somebody or some group has over-parsed the meaning of the words used in real-time. Sure must be nice to rewrite the dictionary as needed.

While I believe they do have some use, that use ought only be when the only alternative courses of action would result in an even-greater threat to human life. Any use of a taser should be thoroughly investigated, and all records related to each investigation should be public. Any officer egregiously misusing a taser--as in the recent spate of reports of horrific abuse--should be immediately taken from active duty. Any improper usage that results in the death of a suspect should be treated as a manslaughter case.

Just my opinion.

regular guns, right now, is that everyone, including dumb fascistic policemen, know that GUNS CAN KILL IF YOU USE THEM.

They seem to be thinking that tasers don't kill and will just cause temporary paralysis or something. Its use is getting out of hand, I've seen one of my friends get tasered during a students protest when the police decided it was time to stop it all and arrest everyone. Her only crime was staying up instead of getting on her knees. They didn't even try to physically arrest her. Tase and ask questions later. Without the taser, they would have pinned her on the ground.

Too many people - and the media is framing the debate that way - is thinking that the taser is replacing regular guns. While it is just "another tool" at their disposal and, for many, a very useful tool if you're feeling lazy and want to arrest someone without having to use "physical" force. One shot and they're down. And, technically, they'll recover quickly and won't be hurt...

Edit: My apologizes for the english mistakes. Not my native language and it's getting pretty late. :D

http://www.saveourcivilliberties.org/en/2005/08/1179.shtml



plus you do seem to see the police in their own videos using tasers to just force compliance with an order.

for example
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=fae_1195587967&p=1

It's faster to tase someone than talk to them.

I guess I'd like to know why they don't have a "low" option

These things are going to apply several tens of kilovolts to the "suspect" regardless of whether they are a 100 lb. pregnant motorist or a meth-crazed 300 pounder. It would be utterly trivial (and yes, I am qualified to speak here) to build these with a variable or two-stage output. And please don't tell me "an officer can't be distracted messing with a switch setting when his/her life may be in danger" - this needs to be no more complicated than a garden hose sprayer; the more you pull in the trigger, the higher the volume.

Of course, that still doesn't address whether these are being seen by some cops as an easy way to get away with punishment just for the sake of it.

And what percentage of the time it is used. My guess is less than 5 percent of the time.

You do not need to torture somebody with 50kV+ to make them behave.

There is no "low switch or setting" so to speak.

I erroneously thought there was when the gator "don't tase me bro" incident occurred because the officer reported using it on low setting.

However, when you use the stun gun as a "drive stun", that is do not shoot the darts into the skin, but rather touch the tips of the darts on the skin, it does not cause neuromuscular incapacitation and it just hurts.

Taser claims a nominal 2.7 milliamps (0.0027 amps), which doesn't sound like much at all, but as little as 10 mA can be lethal if the current takes a path through the chest region.

I wasn't talking about the lethality, though, so much as the pain factor in and of itself. Not every individual or situation should require such excruciating pain to make a person compliant. Certainly not fifty thousand volts. I would bet 500 volts would get the attention of most non-drugged people real quick, without turning them into a writhing mass on the asphalt.

And even if these were one hundred percent safe at any voltage, doesn't the concept of police using any pain-causing technique just to gain control of a nonthreatening person fly in the face of living in a free society? Would cops routinely kicking guys in the nuts under similar situations be acceptable to most Americans? After all, that's also "non-lethal", except for those pesky one percenters who might die of a heart attack or stroke from the pain and surprise.

What a sick, sad society this has become when torture and tasering have become acceptable to some, instead of universally condemned.

I was only half paying attention, but she purposely referred to tasers as 'non-lethal weapons' three separate times, but in the next sentence, she told of three recent incidents where the people who were tazed died, but then stated again that they are non-lethal. Did she even listen to her own words? Probably not. Just read what's in front of you & never question or think about it. :eyes:

:banghead:

...for it might lead to pre-marital sex.

And it seems, have escalated their frequency of use.

What happened to a kinder, gentler America? Oh, wait. Bushler, Evil Dick and his moronic posse of paid-off Pukes.

A Canadian man died Saturday, four days after police used a Taser stun-gun on him because he reportedly was acting erratically in a store, police said. He was the third person to die in recent weeks in Canada after being shocked by the hand-held weapon.

Robert Knipstrom, 36, died in a hospital after two officers used pepper spray, a Taser and their batons to subdue the British Columbia resident. Police earlier said Knipstrom was extremely agitated, aggressive and combative with the two officers who responded. He was conscious and speaking when he was taken to the hospital.

The cause of death has yet to be determined. Although a Taser was used against Knipstrom, it was not immediately clear what role, if any, it played in his death, said Inspector Brendan Fitzpatrick.

Investigations into Knipstrom's death have been launched separately by the British Columbia Coroner's Office and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, police said at a news conference Saturday.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-7101311,00.html

This is a really simple issue. Police have always used escalating force to gain compliance from people.

First it was the fist, blackjack, billy club, or any number of instruments that break bones and cause lasting injury.

Ask an old er doctor or nurse and they will know a billy club break. Forearms, skulls, facial bones and jaws. People fight the police when fucked up, everyone has seen them on cops, now instead of a brawl a better solution exists.

Mace and tasers are less of a threat to suspects than a brawl.

Obvious cases of abuse and cases where young minors are involved are different.

The comparison with the firearm is not correct because it is the final option available. However if tools are taken from police that allow them to stop people before a violent fights start I thing shootings will increase.