Taser unveils multi-shot stun gun

I'm afraid that an easier, safer taser will lead to more police officers tasing first and asking questions later.

Human rights activists have criticized Taser stun guns, challenging manufacturer claims that they are safe and non-lethal.

A December 2008 report from Amnesty International said 334 people had died after being shocked by Tasers between 2001 and August last year.

Do they ever bother to calculate the numbers of lives that were saved by the use of tasers?

Do they ever bother to calculate the numbers of lives that were saved by the use of tasers?

The number of lives saved is hypothetical at best, and can't be calculated--only hypothesized.

The problem isn't the tasers, they're great. It's the level of intelligence of an officer that, for instance, cries out commands to someone who was just tased, and who is basically crying "I can't!!!", and tases them again for not complying, which is something I've seen in youtube. That's what worries me. This video demonstrates clearly that the taser is non-lethal if used properly. A police baton is quite deadly if one chooses it to be. Most anything is.

The problem isn't the tasers, they're great.

Tasers don't tase people. People tase people.

acarrillho, its worse than that. Frequently officers tazer suspects 'just to be on the safe side'. Whereas before they would have approached cautiously with guns drawn, now they just tazer, then approach, long before the arrest stage (if any).

OK. Yes police officers make mistakes. They are human and have their up and downs just like you. Yes, more training of officers on the proper use of these will help. I am all for that.

Although, please remember that every time they approach someone they are taking a life or death risk. Yes, 90% of the time nothing happens but, it only takes one time to die permanently.

So I remembered reading about a deaf, disabled man being tasered, but when I tried to look it up I found this news blurb about a deaf man in Wichita tasered in his own bathroom while wearing nothing but a towel - the cops were there on a false alarm: http://www.kwch.c...=7446220

The original story I was thinking of was this one:
http://news.yahoo..._tasered
In Mobile the police bravely tasered and pepper-sprayed a deaf, mentally-disabled man who refused to leave a store bathroom. They also left a knot on his head by whacking him with the bathroom door. The police claim their actions were justified because he had an umbrella.

The tasers should be built with an integrated digital camera, and a small audio recorder that records for a minute after the taser is used.
That way the person holding the taser knows he can be held to account if the images and sound record do not support his account of the tasing event, and the taser users will be more cautious (ideally, other weapons should be similarly equipped).

Hear Hear

The fact they had to develop a "non-lethal" weapon when firearms can be used in non-lethal ways (leg shots/etc) with a little skill makes you wonder if cops should be allowed to carry weapons at all with thier less than adequate training.

Can't quite see what's so exciting about a 3-shot tazer tbh, a basic glock has a 17-round mag so maybe they should be aiming to beat that! :-P

The fact they had to develop a "non-lethal" weapon when firearms can be used in non-lethal ways (leg shots/etc) with a little skill makes you wonder if cops should be allowed to carry weapons at all with thier less than adequate training.

Rule No. 2 (out of 4) of Basic Firearm Safety:
Never... NEVER... point a firearm at anything you do not intend to destroy.

Firearms have never been meant for non-lethal action. If you are shooting at something, you had better intend to kill it. Egnite that was a very wrong, very dangerous and very ignorant statement. You obviously have never been trained in proper firearm use, please don't talk like you know anything about firearm skill.

4 out of 5 officers are good honest hardworking folks trying to make the world a bit safer for everyone. Its the 1 out of 5 officers who loves the sound as the perps head hits the hood as he slammed down who feels like that dirt bag could use a few licks extra for all the stuff he may have done. The problem is the 4 will cover for the 5th every time. Do you notice that in virtually every case of documented police brutality its a passer by with a camcorder or a cell phone who has the clip?? Virtually every police car these days has a camera running they use it to document issues durring prosecution. Strangelyl enough though in almost all cases of complaints of brutality ooops that tape seems to have allready be processed and erased or simply misplaced

The fact they had to develop a "non-lethal" weapon when firearms can be used in non-lethal ways (leg shots/etc) with a little skill makes you wonder if cops should be allowed to carry weapons at all with thier[sic] less than adequate training.

Wow, that's pretty ignorant.

First, defunctdiety pointed out that basic firearm training contradicts your statement. Firearms are lethal weapons and should always be handled as such.

Second, striking a leg is much more difficult than a torso. And what's behind the leg that you are almost certainly going to miss? Anything downrange is a at risk, especially if you are shooting at a narrow, fast-moving target like a leg.

Finally, less-lethal weapons like tasers are being abused, period. They may be less-lethal than firearms when each are used correctly, but they are still lethal in many cases.

... what's behind the leg that you are almost certainly going to miss? Anything downrange is a at risk...

A perfect example of proper application of Rule No. 4 of Basic Firearm Safety.

acarrillho, its worse than that. Frequently officers tazer suspects 'just to be on the safe side'. Whereas before they would have approached cautiously with guns drawn, now they just tazer, then approach, long before the arrest stage (if any).

Want to put some reference up for that one? I can think of only 2 incidents when a taser was improperly used. I can think of thousands of police shootings where an officer was maimed or killed because he didn't feel comfortable drawing down a functional firearm on a suspect.

@defunctDie-ty
You are extremely right sir. I can see though the first multiply-tased malcreant to die and the relatives who sue. There are taser projectiles which can be fired from a shotgun- fully self-contained.

yeah yeah,tasers are great but upgrading and upgrading! That's just very tiresome!

"Set your tasers to stun". I hope they don't make a colt revolver out of it.

I generally support Taser use and pepper spray though there are a lot of problems with training and usage policies. There are instances of cops misusing guns even without firing them or cuffing people without cause to intimidate them (Professor Gates not included). There are even video's on the net of front desk officers using nothing more than threats and "authority" to intimidate citizens into not registering a complaint about police officers.

On the other hand there are a lot of violent and vicious people out there that cops have to deal with without knowing anything about them; from people on drugs and with psychotic conditions to "protesters" who want to express their political beliefs by breaking shop windows and maybe a cop's bones. I don't want to see cops prevented from taking an action that would make a possible shooting (of himself or the subject) less likely. Between false accusations against cops and real acts of police misconduct it might soon come to the point that every second of an officer's on-duty action will need to be video recorded.

BTW, why do so many people who are beating their wives and attacking people at convenience stores and swearing at cops on those reality TV shows and on the news have their shirts off? Is their something about violent people wanting people to see them shirtless or does taking off one's shirt in public make one violent?

BTW, why do so many people who are beating their wives and attacking people at convenience stores and swearing at cops on those reality TV shows and on the news have their shirts off? Is their something about violent people wanting people to see them shirtless or does taking off one's shirt in public make one violent?

Use of alcohol typically raises the surface body temperature making the user feel extraordinarily warm.

BTW, why do so many people who are beating their wives and attacking people at convenience stores and swearing at cops on those reality TV shows and on the news have their shirts off? Is their something about violent people wanting people to see them shirtless or does taking off one's shirt in public make one violent?

Use of alcohol typically raises the surface body temperature making the user feel extraordinarily warm.

The increased blood flow to the skin actually causes sweating and heat loss. I think it's a "warrior thing", where you remove the "armor illusion" provided by clothing. I suppose this comes naturally sometimes.

Most depressants are vasodialators. So you vent your core temp through blood at the surface.

It's interesting to note that I used to use the excuse to drink and smoke rather than do exercise as it's cardiovascular aerobics.

(of course, this is only meant for humor purposes)