# Tasers



## SimeaseDream (Oct 10, 2008)

Can anyone give me an idea as to what to look for when buying a taser? Are they all the same? What are the rules and guidelines to buying one?


----------



## Fn/Form (Nov 6, 2008)

Only one company makes the "Taser", and it is Taser International. There are basically two handheld models available.

The commercial Law Enforcement model is the X26. A 5-second burst is automatic unless you shut it off before the 5sec is up. To deploy for more than 5 sec you have to keep trigger depressed OR press it again after each 5 sec cycle. They run about $850 new. You can sometimes find them for sale to the public. No license needed. I have experience with only the X26, not the C2...

The Taser C2 is intended for the general public. Last I heard, it activates for 30 seconds with varying pulses for varying times. It is intended to be deployed into the individual and left at the scene with the perp while you run the other direction. I believe all models have an LED light, and there is an option to include a laser device. I've never used or seen one deployed.

Cartridge sales are recorded. The ID of the purchaser is recorded. Each cartridge disperses serial-numbered confetti when deployed, and the serial numbers can be traced at least back to who they were originally sold to.

IIRC, only 15' cartridges are sold with the C2. Shorter and longer range cartridges are sold for the X26, but I don't think they're interchangeable.

Battery modules are proprietary. You don't use AAs or anything like that. Taser has Star Trek terminology for their parts and accessories... it's amusing... why can't they just call it a Taser Battery rather than a Digital Power Module or whatever they call it now...

You must be careful in actual use. The probes are exactly like fish hooks, deployed with enough force to penetrate skin, and they will seriously injure an eye or other orifice. I'm sure the Taser will come with adequate warnings.


----------



## Canadian (Dec 14, 2008)

The CBC did a test and determined that some X-25 tasers can deliver a lethal level of force.


----------



## Fn/Form (Nov 6, 2008)

A device performing out of spec is indeed cause for concern.

Taser training states the Taser X26 should be discharged for a 5-second test once a week, and 1-second tests daily the rest of the week. It does make me wonder if this is being done by the departments submitting their samples.

I have seen the article. It stated about 10% of the 41 X26s submitted for the test put out up to 50% more than the specified power (normal is 26Watts, hence "X26"). 

Who said the increase in power was "lethal"?


----------



## Canadian (Dec 14, 2008)

The police in Vancouver killed a guy at the airport with a taser. It was all over the Canadian news. They did a scientific test at a university lab using the police tasers and the levels came lethal on several of the units.


----------



## Fn/Form (Nov 6, 2008)

We must be considerate when using the term "Lethal", especially in something as subjective as what it takes for an individual to succumb to electricity. I would be surprised if a controlled study used the actual term "lethal" in respect to even 50% higher output. Just about any weapon can become "lethal" if misapplied. Do you have a link to the study?

The Taser is certainly NOT the most powerful shock device, but it IS the most studied, well-documented, and most-widely used and reported (every police use being reported/available for scrutiny). There have been over 100,000 tests of the Taser in a controlled environment and around 70,000 actual law-enforcement deployments. You could probably easily double those numbers when considering how many officers have been tased during Taser certification. Stun gun studies have been going on for at least 30 years, and there is NO conclusive evidence that Taser-like devices singularly cause death. 

In the incidents where a Taser is involved, there are almost always intervening factors such as drug use, psychosis, excited delirium, etc. In those grueling incidents where a person fights to exhaustion or reasonably believe they will have to, face an adversary of superior numbers, strength, training, size, etc., or face a lethal threat, a shock device is a welcome option compared the only other option--lethal force or the possible loss of the life of a good person protecting their self or otherwise lawfully discharging their duties.

The Taser has reduced officer AND suspect injuries by up to 90% in some departments. Again, there is no conclusive evidence the Taser is "lethal" after MANY real-world experiences and minutely dissected incidents. That said, I would not risk any person's life with a roulette-style weapon that is not intended to be lethal if properly used. I would wish to be informed if the Taser is such a device. I anticipate the results of Canadian LE's findings on their own Tasers. 

Really, the bottom line is for all citizens, police or otherwise, is to use the Taser wisely... and for people not to do things that would justify a Tasing.


----------



## Canadian (Dec 14, 2008)

They referred to the level of electricity as "lethal" simply because when they tased the guy at the airport he died. If it kills you it's safe to say it's lethal. The taser was the cause of death. It's not like a tumor killed him seconds before the taser hit. They should have just talked him down - or taken him down and cuffed him.

The fear is that since the taser is viewed as being "non lethal" people are pretty casual about using it. When it comes to civil liability cases the police have to be way more careful and know that it can be lethal. All those wrongful death lawsuits cost the taxpayers a lot of money. 

If you watch the video of the guy being tased it's pretty clear they had other options. He was unarmed and heavily outnumbered. He was already confined to a space where he couldn't harm anyone. They didn't even attempt to talk to him. They could not be bothered to get a translator to talk to him and calm him down. The whole thing could have been avoided. The government will get sued and will lose and we'll all have to pay for it.


----------



## Fn/Form (Nov 6, 2008)

I tried to do some research on the Vancouver incident, but there is little real information out there. I did watch the bystander video, and it is compelling.

The suspect was out of control. He had gone well beyond any simple attention-getting measures. He...
- had already thrown chairs and other items against a plate window wall
- had formed a barricade with chairs in the doorway
- was continuing to wield a chair as if to throw it
- was breathing heavily, his breath audible and his chest visibly heaving
- did not appear to want to communicate with the lady who was evidently and unmistakably trying to communicate with him
- was hostile to the calm approach of uniformed police
- became only more agitated at their calm attempts to have a presence and engage him

Given the back story, I can understand why the man would be agitated. However, I do not understand his wanton displays of physical aggression, damage of property and possible endangerment of others. The police had to step in and engage him.

Fights are chaotic and prone to serious injury or death on both sides. Those dangers are only amplified when you add agitation, drugs or mental instability. I say this from experience, and until you add the continual reality of fighting agitated people to your résumé and legal training, you probably cannot fully understand what is involved. You can get an idea, though, if you are willing to spend some time trying to understand. There is a reason police officers are given and rely on tools such as the Taser, and very good reasons why they choose to deploy them in situations such as the Vancouver incident.

I am very glad the amateur cameraman was there and filmed several minutes before the arrival of the police. In the U.S., the police use of force would be justified without a doubt. It would be scrutinized extremely closely, as any death in custody is.

The suspect's mind and body are decidedly in an abnormal state (do a search on "excited delirium" and custody-relate deaths). There is no description of or conclusion regarding the obvious psycho/physiological factors at play in this Vancouver incident. It is irresponsible to draw any conclusions, let alone singularly attribute the death to the Taser.

Below is an interactive and informative link describing Taser inclusion in incidents where other factors are involved. Click on the incidents to read more about them.
CBC News Interactive: Canada - Tasers


----------



## Canadian (Dec 14, 2008)

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. I think it's pretty clear that if they didn't shoot him with the taser he's be alive today. It really is a tragedy. I really don't think anyone expects or deserves to die for throwing some chairs around in and empty room at the airport. I feel bad for his family. People should be more careful with the taser.


----------



## skip (Dec 13, 2008)

We had a case here a few months ago where a teenager, who was not drunk or high fell off an overpass. No on knows why he fell, as there were no witnesses and he doesn't remember. The Police tasered him 15 times iirc, while he was laying on the ground with a broken back and ankle. The excuse given was that he said something that sounded like kill cops. Witnesses said he did not try to get up. The taser delayed treatment to stabilize his back several days.


----------



## Fn/Form (Nov 6, 2008)

Canadian said:


> I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. I think it's pretty clear that if they didn't shoot him with the taser he's be alive today. It really is a tragedy. I really don't think anyone expects or deserves to die for throwing some chairs around in and empty room at the airport. I feel bad for his family. People should be more careful with the taser.


I do not believe, for one second, the Polish guy deserved to die. However, he placed himself in the above-described situation... violence and danger to others, including experienced officers.

Put your own self in the officers' shoes for a moment. You have a responsibility to apprehend this conduct of this person, and you have only a few fellow officers on scene. Your career (or life?) can be ended by a "simple" fight. Fellow officers have had their knees blown out, knees slammed into cement curbs... back injuries... bitten to the point of breaking skin, cut and scratched and bled on by persons with communicable diseases (staph, Hepatitis C, AIDS, etc.)... and on and on and on. This is not a one-time risk, this is the ump-teenth time you've absolutely HAD to fight an obviously violent person in your career, and there's only three of you. What do you do? (Have you ever seen the show "Inside American Jail"? Their fights are a prime example of how many people are needed to restrain a violent person.)

The Taser is not magic. For most people it creates the same intense physical reaction they would have in an all-out physical fight. Some people's physical condition cannot handle that, even though they might unknowingly put themselves in that situation. It doesn't matter if they fight all-out or are Tased... the effect is the same.

I can understand why it is difficult to comprehend how such a tool could be used when you personally consider it to be a lethal factor every time it is used. I also understand how valuable such a tool can be if properly used--a tool that very often is the only thing that can bridge the huge gap between other LESS-LETHAL tools and LETHAL tools.

Maybe the Taser issue will eventually be decided by public opinion. I only hope the public will seek to be fully informed.


----------



## Canadian (Dec 14, 2008)

I've been in lots of fights and I've never had a taser, gun, body armor, baton, and a half dozen fully trained officers to back me up. Fighting comes with the job and that's part of why they chose the job. 

Like I said before they didn't even bother to get a translator to talk the guy down. Talking should always be the first option. They went straight to the last resort. That's why they'll lose in court. The officers used bad judgement. If I was in their shoes I would have used all other options first before resorting to force. I'm smart enough to want to avoid getting sued and losing my job.


----------



## Fn/Form (Nov 6, 2008)

I doubt you felt limited to approved methods/liability unless you were in mortal fear, were continuously conscious of and evaluating the minimum force necessary to make the apprehension, and knew you may well have to deal the illegitimate-but-ever-present legal proceedings from hurting them. I also doubt the person knew they were absolutely going to jail if they fought with you.

The officers at the Vancouver airport were not dealing with a person seeking help at that moment. They had an aggressor who continued his aggression when they arrived, and he was nothing less than an aggressor. They had to act accordingly.


----------



## Canadian (Dec 14, 2008)

Acting accordingly in that situation means not killing someone.


----------



## Fn/Form (Nov 6, 2008)

Well, we've come full circle ;-) . Instead of repeating myself, I'll just give my regards and carry on. Best wishes, see you around the site!


----------



## Canadian (Dec 14, 2008)

Loop dee loop. Peace! Always enjoy a good discussion.


----------



## Lester_7 (Oct 3, 2008)

Well, I'll say that it is all too often that we are finding the police using deadly force when in my opinion, it's not needed. I just don't understand why they have to resort to the gun right away. The gun is supposed to be the last resort. Cops should know that their job is dangerous and they are going to deal with voilent people. There are other ways to go about it rather than drawing a gun right away such as talking and accessing the situation, pepper spray, tasers, bean bag guns...


----------



## Lester_7 (Oct 3, 2008)

Oh and also, I wanted to say that Canadian, you seem to be a great person with a kind heart. It's so very important to think about others and their feelings. It's refreshing to see someone like you out there!


----------



## crosscanadian (Nov 25, 2008)

Why would you leave the taser behind for the suspect or someone else to get it and turn around and shoot you with it?


----------



## Canadian (Dec 14, 2008)

Nobody left a taser behind at the Vancouver airport. You must be thinking of something else.


----------

