Jump to content

Talk:Taser safety issues

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Drive Stun

[edit]

There should probably be a mention and/or link to the "Drive Stun" section of the taser page.

It's very important to note the difference between shooting someone with a taser (firing the barbs that piece the skin) versus drive stun mode, which does not piece the skin and does not cause a disruption of the nervous system. Many cases where the police are reported to have used a taser were, in fact, cases where they used Drive Stun mode and the health risks associated with using the barbs do not apply.

The linked UCLA case is an example of that. He was tasered only in drive stun mode, so the paralytic effects of firing the barbs never came into play.

(The paralysis comes from bypassing the resistance imparted by the skin, since the barbs pierce the skin and also because the fired barbs tend to land far enough apart to have a serious impact on the nervous system, whereas the prongs used in Drive Stun mode are too close together to cause a wide arcing electrical effect. Police are actually warned about this because hitting someone in Drive Stun mode does not impair their ability to fight, whereas shooting them with the barbs pretty well renders them unable to do anything for a short time.) --TheCynic 01:36, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to the police report, "Drive Stun" was also used in the University of Florida Taser incident. Flatscan 04:20, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
According to the page on the UCLA Taser incident "Of the ten UC campus police departments, six have equipped officers with Tasers, but only UCLA has a flexible policy authorizing Tasers to be used as a pain-compliance tool against suspects who are passively resisting.". Isn't "pain compliance tool" the same as "torture device"? Getting someone to do what you want using the application of pain isn't nice, especially if they're "passively resisting" (or having a "sit down protest" as it is also known) 195.153.45.54 15:37, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Pain compliance" would also be twisting your arm behind your back. Basically the police do pain complaince against people who resist arrest. I wouldn't call arresting someone "torture". If they arrest someone who is being passive (as in NOT resisting) and taser them anyway, you'd have a point. --TheCynic 02:45, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion discussion

[edit]

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/University of Florida Taser incident. Badagnani 05:09, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep or, if absolutely it must go, then it should be added as a section to the Taser article, eliminating any redundancy. --Fremte (talk) 19:00, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adding non-USA deaths

[edit]

Is this just a list of deaths from Tasers in the USA? I realise that the USA is the greatest place on Earth, but unfortunately the deaths from this device also take place outside the USA . As per http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/06/18/2601290.htm . I've not mastered the wikipedia citation thing, so I haven't added this event to the article. Unless the article should be titled Taser safety issues in the USA & the rest of the world can look after itself? Ern Malleyscrub (talk) 14:54, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The complete list of the dead is taken from the website truthnottasers.blogspot.com is dedicated to tracking all taser related deaths worldwide. It is managed by Patti Gillman and lawyer Cameron Ward. The list included information from Arizona Republic reported Robert Anglen, who is credited with uncovering the first deaths from the stun gun maker starting in 1985. Midnightvisions (talk) 12:56, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No Citations

[edit]

All over the article things are stated without citations, needs either a flurry of citations are a massive cleanup. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.132.41.223 (talk) 19:33, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A massive cleanup is probably necessary. The Deaths and injury associated with electroshock weapon use section is particularly bad. I went through its claims a while back (while this article was still part of Electroshock weapon, e.g. this version). I noticed that there was borderline OR (counting which of the 73 cases described where the Taser was/was not a factor). Subsequent edits increased the overall date range and death count, but did not make clear that the details were for a different set of deaths. This is just a sample of the problems, in addition to the many uncited statements. Flatscan 04:02, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Designation as torture device section should be removed

There is only News articles saying the UN talked about this The problem with this statement is there is no supporting documentation at any UN website —Preceding unsigned comment added by JunLee1 (talk • contribs) 09:04, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TASER Intl. has an article in rebuttal to this statement on their own website: [1], so I'd say it's safe to assume that the statement was made. I'd question the context, however, as most articles on the subject seem to indicate that they were discussing specific uses.

"... The U.N. Committee Against Torture referred Friday to the use of TaserX26 weapons which Portuguese police has acquired. ... [2]

I'm not a fan of Taser use at all but I'm not sure this quote was taken in context, and as mentioned above there are no traces of it on the UN's website with which to verify. EyeExplore (talk) 04:54, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]


My uncencored opinion: This article is mostly based on lies and made-up bull*hit by Amnesty International, a well-known political fraud organization. --128.214.11.162 (talk) 10:36, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Amnesty International does not have anybody dedicated to studying taser deaths. They rely on information sent to them. The website TruthnotTasers.blogspot.com owner Patti Gillman is teamed up with lawyer Cameron Ward in Vancouver British Columbia are the only ones dedicated to tracking all taser related deaths world wide. The current death count is 709 in North America as of Feb ruary 16 2012. This information is freely available on their web site. The web site excited-delirium.blogspot.com also tracks all taser related information. This information is verified in the book Conductive Electronic Weapons and their faults.Midnightvisions (talk) 12:33, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Specific incidents in See also only

[edit]

As has been done with the UCLA Taser incident, the University of Florida Taser incident should have a See also link only, with no mention in the text. This prevents forking content. The paragraph here would be appropriate if the article is deleted or if it were relevant to a particular controversy. I intend to wait a while (a few weeks to a month) for things to settle down to see if deleting the paragraph is still appropriate. Flatscan 04:30, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Editing of University of Florida Taser incident has slowed significantly, and it appears to be in no danger of deletion. If there are no objections, I will delete its paragraph here shortly. Flatscan 02:25, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Removed paragraph. Flatscan 20:47, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New Taser study

[edit]

Study Suggests Taser Use By US Police Is Safe

  • Nearly 1000 cases of Taser use reviewed
  • 3 cases requiring hospital admittance (2 for head injuries resulting from falls, 1 "hospitalized two days after arrest with a condition 'of unclear relationship to the Taser'")
  • Amnesty International reviewing study, will have official comment (as reported by ABC News)

These results can be consistent with the "Taser-related" deaths tracked by Amnesty International if the number of Taser deployments is large, say roughly 1000+ deployments for each death.

I found this in a post on the New York Times blog The Lede. If one searches that blog for "taser", there are a number of results, including ones regarding the UCLA Taser incident and the University of Florida Taser incident. Flatscan 04:08, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the section stating two deaths had been reported in the Wake Forest study, simply because the study doesn't claim any deaths. The three who were sent to the hospital were merely admitted to the hospital. Someone making up their own statistics? Zenmastervex (talk) 07:31, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There were two changes to that section made by IP editors (1, 2). I reverted to the longstanding version. I think that I read more about the study a long time ago (I'm not sure if it was another article, the full abstract, or the study itself), and the edits might be correct. In particular, the two people who died might be a subset of the three injured people, rather than 2 + 3 = 5 total. You're right that the text was not supported by its refs. Flatscan (talk) 04:42, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rename

[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The result was move to Taser controversy. To be clear, the discussion did not conclude, but the recreation of Taser and the lack of ongoing discussion seemed to indicate consensus. I did the move yesterday (diff). Flatscan 19:32, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone object to renaming this "Taser controversy?" The reason being that "Taser" is the most commonly known name for this thing, it's what other media call it, and what people are most likely to enter as a search term. Taser is a brand name, but it's one that is used synonymously with the product, like heroin and a host of other brand named products. (See Genericized trademark). bobanny (talk) 15:53, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Has there been a court ruling that says that Taser has become genericised? Have Taser failed to protect their trademark? I ask because otherwise this name change could be misleading.—greenrd (talk) 18:45, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt it, and I didn't mean to imply its legal status by linking to that article. I imagine that the brand and product are colloquially synonymous because Taser International has a monopoly. How do you think changing the article name would mislead? Wikipedia is, after all, a popular/general, not legal, reference source. bobanny (talk) 20:39, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Searching for "Taser controversy" returns all relevant articles that I know of. "Taser" redirects to the relevant section of "Electroshock weapon". Not all of the sections are relevant to Tasers: the Torture section mainly describes conventional stun guns. I could see splitting "Taser" from "Electroshock weapon", but the split should come from there, not the related controversy article. Flatscan (talk) 05:07, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
IMO, the most commonly used name should trump the internal wiki-logic you're using, at least in this case. However, I don't see them as incompatible because the Electroshock weapon article describes a class of weapons of which the taser is only one, whereas I see only one sentence in this article that isn't about the taser. Seems to me that "the controversy" is the use of tasers by law enforcement and that the stun belt/torture issue is out of place, and would be better incorporated into the electroshock weapon article. Torture by whatever means is also controversial, but the context is so different. Also, almost all references in this article are to "taser," so it's inconsistent as it stands. I imagine "taser" will eventually be split off, but in the meantime, this would be - and pretty much is - a split from the taser section in that article, which I don't see as problematic. bobanny (talk) 10:04, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article should definitely be renamed. At present, the nondescript and somewhat misleading "electroshock weapon" title is little more than a WP:WEASEL answer to an article devoted entirely to the Taser gun incidents resulting from its excessive use, with only a brief mention of other means of electrocution. Once renamed, as per User:Bobanny, the article needs to be improved with proper lead section as per WP:MOS --Poeticbent talk 18:44, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Electroshock weapon controversy" was originally a section in Electroshock weapon that was split into a separate article due to its size (Talk section, diff). As I pointed out earlier, searches (both Wikipedia and Google) return this article, and it is well-linked from related articles - it's hardly obscure or hidden. I understand your concerns with the title, but WP:WEASEL is irrelevant. Flatscan (talk) 01:41, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that there are shortcomings in the current article organization of Electroshock weapon, Electroshock weapon controversy. I suggest the following reorganization:

Flatscan (talk) 01:41, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It turns out that Shaliya waya has already started the split. Flatscan (talk) 01:44, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

List of incidents

[edit]

Recent edits added a list of publicized incidents in the Deaths and injury associated with electroshock weapon use section. The list includes the UCLA Taser incident and the University of Florida Taser incident, which both had the Taser used in "Drive Stun", a mode that carries zero risk of serious injury or death. They should be removed from the list, or the list should be moved out of its current section. Flatscan (talk) 17:45, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest changing the heading to "high profile incidents" or something like that, and maybe with a subheading for ones that involved injury or death. The high profile cases fuel the controversy regardless of injury or death, so it seems this is the place to lump them together. bobanny (talk) 18:08, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can somebody add this please? I do not know how to do the proper formatting. Thanks!

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/man-aged-23-dies-after-manchester-police-shoot-him-with-taser-8702251.html

UN statement

[edit]

Article mentioning a UN statement that Taser use can be a form of torture, and listing c. 10 Taser deaths in North America in 1 week. Badagnani (talk) 09:06, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That information has already been added. I partially reverted the initial insertion, due to an objection with how it was integrated into existing test. I then took a different approach and made an edit that included the new information. If my edit comments aren't clear, please ask me to clarify here.
Does anyone have a source that goes into more detail, particularly regarding the "reliable studies" that show that Tasers cause death in certain cases? I've tried to keep up-to-date with electroshock weapon (usually Taser) research, and I'm not aware of any conclusive findings. Flatscan (talk) 05:07, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yesterday: Jesse Saenz, Tasered 23 times and then died. Another Excited Delirium coincidence? Link = http://news.google.com/news?q=Jesse+Saenz

2005: "Coroner Mike Morris has ruled that the Taser caused [Maurice Cunningham's] death." Link = http://www.certops.com/certops/news/Oct060508.html

"Conclusions: Immediately after the discharge, two deaths [of test pigs, not humans] occurred because of ventricular fibrillation.", Acute Effects of TASER X26 Discharges in a Swine Model. Link = http://www.jtrauma.com/pt/re/jtrauma/abstract.00005373-200709000-00014.htm

Dr. Eugene Crystal,Chief of Cardiac Electrophysiology at Sunnybrook Hospital in Toronto, believes a Taser could cause arrhythmia. "The amount of energy Taser uses may cause the heart to contract inappropriately," he says.

See also http://truthnottasers.blogspot.com/ (tons of leads to additional information). They also count 310 deaths related to Taserings.

What many people fail to acknowledge is that: you take your victims as you find them. If you crack someone on the head and they happen to have a thin skull and die - well too bad for you. It is still your fault for cracking them on the head. As another example, if you design a "non-lethal" weapon and assume that everyone in the world is a fit, middle-age, test subject; but it turns out that many victims aren't quite so resistant to electroshocks - well too bad for you. Big mistake assuming that everyone is healthy and has a strong heart. You're still liable for making a dangerous product and not providing accurate and complete guidance.

The public in Canada are (mostly) outraged at the large number of deaths by Taser recently. The RCMP Watchdog issued a stern report (Kennedy Report) after the death of the Polish immigrant at Vancouver.

As with most things in recent years, YouTube is an important vehicle for getting the truth out.

JeffyPooh (talk) 23:41, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Designation as torture device section should be removed

There is only News articles saying the UN talked about this The problem with this statement is there is no supporting documentation at any UN website —Preceding unsigned comment added by JunLee1 (talk • contribs) 09:06, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Content from Taser lead

[edit]
  1. Flatscan moved content from Taser lead to Taser controversy lead.
  2. Swatjester undid the change to Taser controversy.
  3. Poeticbent moved content back to Taser as new Criticism section.

I propose that the new Criticism section in Taser be moved as a section to Taser controversy. Flatscan (talk) 18:49, 9 December 2007 (UTC) I propose that the new Criticism section in Taser be parted out into existing sections in Taser controversy. (As I should have done in the first place.) Flatscan (talk) 19:30, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism section in Taser was long overdue with Taser controversy serving as a separate, supporting article. I agree with both editors though, that the lead of neither of these two articles was the right place for extended info. --Poeticbent talk 19:03, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What do you think about a Controversy section in Taser with a {{main|Taser controversy}} template and a paragraph simply listing the various controversies? I would like to avoid forking content, and the Criticism section is fully represented (disputed lethality, unjustified use) in Taser controversy. Flatscan (talk) 19:30, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's far preferable. Either a paragraph or even no paragraph at all and a "main" template directing here. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 19:33, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't object to it being in this article. It just doesn't belong being in the lede. Also, it's important to remember that we need a neutral point of view, and not to provide undue weight to the anti-taser crowd. Piling on repetitious complaints that tasers can kill people, when we have quite enough sources and reports on that already, without providing counterbalancing points of view showing that tasers prevent other forms of submission i.e. batons and firearms, violates undue weight.
Furthermore, we need to pay strict attention to WHAT we're including here. Taser ≠ all kinds of electroshock devices. Tasers are a specific kind of ranged electroshock device. Stun baton criticisms, and stun belt criticisms, do not belong here. Criticisms of electroshock devices in general belong on the Electroshock device page. Criticisms of Tasers in particular belong here. Lets not lose sight of that.⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 19:32, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments and clarifications. I think you meant WP:LEAD :) . I agree that the content is inappropriate for either article's lead. I thought that Taser controversy's lead was a "less bad" location. For a variety of reasons, Wikipedia often tends toward public opinion. Our reliable sources tend to be news articles, which are often sensationalized. I haven't looked carefully myself, but I've communicated with others who say that finding a positive article on Taser use is difficult.
No actually I meant lede (news) which is the correct term here. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 14:55, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The content regarding electroshock weapons in general is a vestige of its life as Electroshock weapon controversy. I'll try to watch out for new content that should be moved. Flatscan (talk) 20:12, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I believe Taser article, like any article, has to explain both sides of the story for balance, represented with due weight only if there is a mention of both, the intended use, as well as the resulting criticism based in facts. Supplementary material however could be reorganized, for example, the new Criticism section could be expanded with calls for moratorium, which are mentioned briefly in different sections right now. I’d like to look into that. --Poeticbent talk 20:10, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As Rachelskit mentions in Talk:Taser#Suggested merge with Taser controversy, the Taser article should be limited to factual descriptions of the device and its use. If an included point is disputed, it can be countered briefly. For example, Tasers are marketed as less-lethal weapons — one sentence indicating that its lethality is disputed. If a paragraph describing how the Taser disrupts neuromuscular function by design is added as part of a Principles of operation section, a sentence or two regarding how it may stimulate heart tissue can be added, with details going into Taser controversy. Flatscan (talk) 20:33, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

University of Florida Taser incident

[edit]

As you might expect, the above article was written as news of the event occured. Now that some time has passed, it has been proposed that the article be reworked (rewritten) to give it some historical context... to summarize the event itself and slightly shift focus to its "after the event" impact (ie to make the article less "old news" and more "encyclopedic"). This shift of focus fits nicely with this article. I would ask that some of the editors who are involved here join us in rewriting the University of Florida Taser incident article. Blueboar (talk) 01:56, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Worldwide view

[edit]

Seems only to become internationally-orientated towards the very end of the article; the rest is about the United States. --78.151.155.177 (talk) 22:26, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article seems balanced enough to me, with Canadian as well as European references throughout. --Poeticbent talk 19:36, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---Mmn, no. If you included "european references" it would say that several european police corps are banned from using tasers. And they ones who can use it, can do only when confronted by an armed suspect. Not the happy-tasing the american gestapos do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.126.10.233 (talk) 17:37, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Organization of studies

[edit]

I suggest renaming the Recognized risks section to Safety, and adding a Studies subsection.

Example studies:

I think it's unnecessary to have subsubsections for experimental and non-experimental. Flatscan (talk) 18:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I made the changes suggested (rename section, add subsection) and moved a few paragraphs from Taser. Flatscan (talk) 00:25, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Studies' funding

[edit]

While I was reviewing the Lakkireddy study, I noticed that it was funded by a grant from Taser International. Research funded by Taser has been criticized for potential conflicts of interest. The Arizona Republic ran a exposé on Taser that may include criticisms of specific studies (brief discussion at Talk:Taser#Taser studies). I think the COI issues should definitely be mentioned, but I am uncertain about how the individual studies should be marked.

Possibilities:

  1. Place all Taser-funded studies in their own section.
  2. Use footnotes to mark each study with its funding source, either omitting or including "unknown". Can be implemented with separate funding-only named refs or by adding to the existing citations.
  3. Mark only studies that have been the targets of specific COI-related criticism, such as those covered by the Arizona Republic.

My preference is 2, omitting unknowns which would generally be due to no access to the full study. Flatscan (talk) 01:40, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Refs for paragraph in Recognised risks

[edit]
Section: Taser controversy#Recognised risks

I removed refs to a blog, per Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published sources (online and paper), and restored the {{Fact}} tags. The refs were originally added by Poeticbent on November 30, 2007.

Claims Over Tasers’ Safety Challenged, Sudden Taser Death Syndrome

I followed the blog's link to a New York Times article, which is a reliable source, but does not directly support the paragraph as currently worded.

"Claims Over Tasers' Safety Are Challenged", New York Times, November 26, 2004.

It is assumed that tasers as well as all other high voltage stun devices can cause cardiac arrhythmia in susceptible subjects, possibly leading to heart attack or death in minutes by ventricular fibrillation (which leads to cardiac arrest and if not treated immediately to sudden death). People susceptible to this outcome are sometimes healthy and unaware of their susceptibility.

I think the "it is assumed that tasers ... can cause" wording should be made more precise. Scientific studies have shown that Tasers can induce ventricular fibrillation in pigs in specific circumstances. A quotation from a doctor or scientist saying what these studies mean for humans would be appropriate. Flatscan (talk) 18:49, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relative Risks

[edit]

It seems to me that there should be a discussion of (or at least acknowledgement of the existence of) a balance of risks in deploying an non-lethal/less-lethal weapons, and that that discussion should be reflected on this page:

  • Is it riskier for the person it's being used on than the other non-lethal methods (batons, physical restraint)?
  • What about the balance of risks for the users - e.g. police officers are required to risk their health every day when encountering unknown situations; if sometimes they use a taser to reduce that risk, is that justified?
  • To what extent do the public (in the US, or in general) have a right to obstruct or be non-compliant with police instructions? Are the police required to have an infinite amount of patience? Is this realistic?
  • The number of deaths 'attributed to' tasers is a highly political issue. If a drunk or drugged person puts themselves in a position where they end up being tased (whether or not it's a 'justified' tasing), there's a degree of contributory negligence that shouldn't be ignored. As tasing seems to very rarely be the direct cause of death, we're talking about individuals increasing the risk involved in tasing by their own behavior (the risk of death seems to change from very, very small to very small).

I'd be surprised if there are statistics or research for most of these questions - but isn't it important to mention the issues? Otherwise, the whole discussion boils down to 'tasers sometimes kill people and don't seem to reduce the police's use of lethal force, so they should be banned'. It doesn't seem that clear cut to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cerireid (talk • contribs) 21:32, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that I've seen some of these issues discussed in TASER International literature; I'll look into it. As you note, there may be difficulty finding reliable sources. I would hesitate to add unsourced information, especially that which promotes or rationalizes either POV side. Flatscan (talk) 01:47, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The comparison of shooting deaths and taser-related deaths in the "comparison to alternatives" section is misleading and cites inaccurate figures. Firearms in the year 2000 resulted in 52,447 injuries, not deaths. The linked entry lists 8306 deaths from rifles, hand guns and unreported types combined. It's also misleading to compare deaths from these two modes when the number of weapons of each kind in use is so different. It does not prove or disprove that it is more effective at preserving life. If all handguns were replaced with Tasers, one might expect a higher number of Taser-related deaths.

Walter E. Haake Jr.

[edit]

Article used as ref Follow-up article

An April 3 Capital-Journal article elaborates some details, including why the deputies were involved: "An AMR supervisor said Haake was in need of medical attention, Barta said, and asked deputies to intervene by removing Haake from the vehicle."[3] Flatscan (talk) 18:22, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK? I'm not sure what the point of that is. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 18:28, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I included the excerpt in response to comments at the articles that questioned why the deputies were interacting with Haake in the first place. An editor may have similar questions – I wondered why medical personnel hadn't handled the situation. Flatscan (talk) 19:10, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but why here? Why not include the excerpt in the article instead? ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 19:16, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The coroner released a statement based on preliminary findings. The statement did not mention the Taser as a cause of death: "The cause of death is of cardiac nature, with contribution by compression of the torso".[4][5] I've been checking for a final report, but I haven't found any sources. Considering this finding, is this incident notable to this article? Flatscan (talk) 01:24, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Still no final coroner's report, and little news coverage. I will remove this incident from the article if no objections are raised. Flatscan (talk) 16:28, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I removed Haake from the article. The removed text can be extracted from the diff, if necessary. Flatscan (talk) 01:09, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Use of taser by transit police

[edit]

I recently heard (Apr. 15/08) that Vancouver SkyTrain transit police have used the taser on fare dodgers. Here is the link:

Reference article Devrit (talk) 02:30, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is correct. Attorney General of British Columbia Wally Oppal when approving the Taser for use by the RCMP said he warned of usage creep by police. The transit police were never intended to get the Taser. He stated this during the Robert Dziekanski Inquiry.Midnightvisions (talk) 12:40, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pacemaker, implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (Lakkireddy) study

[edit]

On the first paragraph of the "recognized risks": a study based on a single animal has no statistical meaning more than afirming that characteristcs for a single animal can be extrapoled to all the cases, therefore, this study has no place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.125.97.102 (talk) 04:33, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The study focused on the effects of the Taser discharge on the implanted devices. The single test animal (pig) was part of the in vivo testing environment, not a test subject. The study tested 9 pacemakers and 7 implantable cardioverter-defibrillators.

A single animal was used to test all the devices and this may limit the assessment of the effect of biological variations on the reproducibility of our findings. However, the animal used in this study served as a biological 'platform' for the testing. It is unlikely that such variation among animals is of sufficient magnitude to justify the use of multiple animals to assess this potential biologic variability.

I disagree with deleting the study, and I will revert. That a single animal was used as the "swine model" is not mentioned in the study's abstract. I think that mentioning it in the article, especially without explanation, is misleading. Flatscan (talk) 02:59, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Taser manufacturers supress risks with tasers

[edit]

A lawsuit by the makers of Taser stun guns has prompted an Ohio court to order a chief medical examiner to delete any reference to the use of a stun gun as a contributing factor in the deaths of three men, a move rebuked as "dangerously close to intimidation" by the National Association of Medical Examiners. This ref should IMO be intergrated in the text. [6] MaxPont (talk) 05:36, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the current organization, I think it would fit best in TASER International#Criticism. It would probably be best to merge that section into this article, but I haven't given it much thought. Flatscan (talk) 03:44, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That case is in the article starting with "Summit County, Ohio Medical Examiner Lisa J. Kohler." What I'd love to know is, did the ME fight the judge's ruling? was she forced sign her name to a report that she knows to be untrue? Don't Be Evil (talk) 19:19, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also worth noting is that the judge changed the cause of death from homicide to the victim's health, derailing a murder trial. Don't Be Evil (talk) 19:24, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Editors may be interested in commenting at Talk:Taser#RFC:_Criticism on the relationship between this article and the main Taser article. Reggie Perrin (talk) 03:57, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RCMP public complaints section added

[edit]

The report was release 18 June 2008. I have added a section and put in a reference for the story from CBC.ca: [7] . It will need a bit of editting and integration. I think it belongs here, but may also belong in other Taser articles. I just wanted to reference it and have no worries about what other edittors decide to do with it. Cheers, Fremte (talk) 23:16, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Two more references:
  • One-third of people shot by Taser need medical attention: probe[[1]]
  • RCMP fire Tasers multiple times despite health hazards: probe[[2]]

--Fremte (talk) 23:29, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/06/17/taser-injuries.html
  2. ^ http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/06/11/taser-rcmp.html

re:Globalise

[edit]

I've added a globalise template to this articlew, since it seems to relate 90% to the US and 10% to Canada, with no mention of any other country. The use of tasers is major controversy in many countries worldwide, including the UK, Australia, and New Zealand among others. Information about the ikssue in these countries and othwers need to be added to the article. Grutness...wha? 07:01, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't find very many international examples of TASER-related controversy, but I think it's because the controversy is the same everywhere, with little difference on the perspective of the negative opinion. Leonard(Bloom) 02:45, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This technology and its use emerges from the USA, so I consider the article's emphasis on the USA is appropriate. However, I hope to see the text globalize as we collect more data from around the world. - Johnlogic (talk) 22:24, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
While we 'globalise', maybe we can also split the list of deaths into countries instead of years. Listing it in years seems to put them 'all over the place' and I think a geographical list is more useful to the reader. It's also easier to list it this way than putting "New York, NY, USA" "Tampa, Florida, USA", "blah blah blah, USA", "Port Elizabeth, EC, South Africa" just for the sake of staying neutral geographically. --BurritoBazooka (talk) 16:11, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Renaming this article?

[edit]

Several people in the AFD suggesting renaming this article. I'm wondering what people think of Taser safety concerns or Taser safety issues? Reggie Perrin (talk) 06:22, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A rename should be discussed. The specific name should be determined in accordance with WP:MOS and agreed upon before any move occurs. I am generally supportive of a rename that includes "safety", which would cover most of the existing content, including wrongful death suits and bans considered on safety concerns. However, the sections Tools of political suppression and Torture would not fit in the renamed article and would need to be moved elsewhere. Flatscan (talk) 19:12, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, those sections would need to be moved elsewhere but that would also help keep this article more focussed and prevent it from being a "catch-all" for any complaints about Taser which is one of my problems with the current article. We can create a digested version of the safety information in Taser and move the more detailed information here (obviously we'll have to figure out what to keep in the main article and what to move) and either move the "torture" and "political suppression" information to the main Taser article or create new sub-articles for them while adding summaries to the main article. The reason I wouldn't want Taser safety a the name of this article is that that sounds a bit unclear (it sounds to me like "Fire safety" eg advice on how to use a Taser safely rather than an exposition of concerns about the safety of the device, so I think Taser safety concerns or Taser safety issues would be more specific. To my ear "issues" sounds more neutral than "concerns" but others might feel differently. Reggie Perrin (talk) 19:44, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I do think a renaming is appropriate, and I do think "safety" is a good word to fit in there because that is indeed the source of the controversy--are they safe? I like Taser safety concerns of what's been mentioned. The appropriateness of police using them is in the news often enough that that seems like the primary issue--are Tasers responsible (in whatever sense) for the deaths of those tasered during arrest? JJL (talk) 02:39, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Before this continues, can someone outline why the current title is bad? I personally see no outright problem with it, and would love to know how we are grading this title before we move on to suggestions of others. Leonard(Bloom) 02:37, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, speaking for myself, I find 'controversy' a bit vague...a bit more specificity is useful, both for finding the article and with regards to what future things may be edited in. JJL (talk) 02:41, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But isn't that what it is, a controversy? Leonard(Bloom) 02:49, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes...but I think a more specific description of the nature of the controversy is useful here. The controversy isn't over the price, for example. If the article is to be about safety concerns, it should be so named. JJL (talk) 03:34, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From the sources I've seen, the TASER's effects are not the problem, it is the regulations and guidelines on how and where to use them; the appropriateness of their usage is in question, it's not that we don't know how they affect the body (which is the vibe I get by the word "safety"). What about "Controversial usage of TASERs" or "Inappropriate usage of electroshock weaponry"? Though long winded, those seem to convey the point more effectivly.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Leonard^Bloom (talk • contribs)

One problem with Controversy is that it's a catch-all word. If you look at the current article, while most of it is on safety issues there are also several items like political usage that have nothing to do with the rest of the article. "Inappropriate usage" is judgmental and POV, "controversial usage" isn't specific enough. Also, I disagree with the above claim that how they affect the body isn't at issue - it is - the company insists that Tasers are "safe" and do no permanent harm while others say that Tasers can and have killed. Reggie Perrin (talk) 04:23, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you wish to rename Taser controversy to Taser safety issues, I don't think that is objectionable. Regards, Artene50 (talk) 05:52, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be okay with "Taser safety issues". Leonard(Bloom) 14:59, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That would work for me as I share concerns that the word "controversy" is POV. "Issues" comes close to the line, too. I'd almost be in favor of the article simply being titled "Taser safety" as the fact there are issues is self-evident. 23skidoo (talk) 15:39, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The reason I'm suggesting issues rather than just Taser safety is that sounds too much to me like "Fire safety" - I'd almost expect it to feature the Taser equivalent of Smokey the Bear coming out and giving advice ie it suggests an article about tips for using a Taser safely rather than one about safety issues relating to the weapon. I think "issues" is a fairly neutral term as the word is usually used to suggest more than one side to a question. Reggie Perrin (talk) 16:46, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that "controversy" is too general, but "Inappropriate use" or "controversial use" implies there is an appropriate/uncontroversial use, which is exactly the matter of dispute. "Taser safety" also implies it's just a matter of using them correctly. Perhaps Taser incidents in the US, which is the current contents of the article; if it expands in scope "Taser incidents". DGG (talk) 20:29, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Although a list of incidents has a prominent place in the current article, there is a lot of content that would be excluded. I doubt that an incidents article would stand on its own, and I worry that it would encourage adding all Taser incidents indiscriminately. How about Taser safety controversy or Taser controversy (safety)? Flatscan (talk) 03:36, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In Wikipedia you generally only put things in brackets for purposes of disambiguation so Taser controversy (safety) would only be a viable title if you're disambiguating from other Taser controversy articles. In any case, it's also inelegant. Taser safety controversy is an improvement over the status quo and I wouldn't oppose that as a name but I'd prefer to get away from the word "controversy" altogether if a better word can be agreed to. Reggie Perrin (talk) 05:08, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

why the current title is bad? If something bad happens, and Tasers are somehow involved, which article does it go into -- "Tasers" or "Taser controversy"? At first glance, "Taser controversy" sounds to me a lot like names discouraged in WP:POVFORK and WP:Words to avoid#Article structures that can imply a point of view. There is more discussion at Talk:Taser#RFC:_Criticism and Talk:Taser#Merger. If we rename this article to some other synonym of "controversy", I think we'll still have the same potential for unbalanced POV.

I suggest renaming this "Taser controversy" article to "Taser history". Using Googlefight, I think the phrase "Taser history" is more notable (and therefore more suitable as a Wikipedia article name) than the phrase "Taser controversy". --68.0.124.33 (talk) 13:50, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Taser history requires a significant change in the organization of the articles, while content covering Taser safety issues is already the bulk of the current article. Flatscan (talk) 04:06, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like there is wide support for a rename to Taser safety issues. I prefer Taser safety slightly, but I do see the Fire safety point. My feeling is that the minor distinction in name does not affect the underlying scope – if consensus changes re: the exact name, we can easily move it without changing any content. Flatscan (talk) 04:06, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:CRakovsky performed the article move and moved the non-safety sections to Taser. Flatscan (talk) 00:46, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Inviting editors from AfD

[edit]

Reggie Perrin and I have agreed that it would be helpful to solicit further input from participants in this article's recent AfD. Being mindful of Wikipedia:Canvassing#Votestacking, we plan to send notification to all editors who commented. Once the notifications have been sent, I will hide this section in a collapse box. Flatscan (talk) 01:35, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To all the editors who commented here: thanks! Flatscan (talk) 18:11, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Extended content

Neutral message

[edit]

Thank you for your input on the recent AFD on Taser controversy. The editors involved with that article would like to continue the discussion on how to proceed and invite you to join the discussion at Talk:Taser controversy. The latest discussions include Talk:Taser controversy#re:Globalise and Talk:Taser controversy#Renaming this article?.

List of editors, notifications

[edit]

Editors who commented at the AfD (ordered by first comment):

TfD nomination of Template:Electroshock

[edit]

Template:Electroshock has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Steve CarlsonTalk 08:11, 1 July 2008 (UTC) —copied from Template talk:Electroshock Flatscan (talk) 01:48, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moving content from Taser

[edit]

I have created a section at Talk:Taser#Moving content to Taser safety issues. General discussion on moving the content should go there, but topics related to this article, such as integrating the moved text, should be covered here. Flatscan (talk) 01:23, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I copied most of the proposed content. Feel free to help with integration, especially getting rid of the redundant Safety header. Flatscan (talk) 20:39, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Quilem Registre Taser incident

[edit]

A related article, Quilem Registre Taser incident, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quilem Registre Taser incident. Flatscan (talk) 04:26, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ECD?

[edit]

The article refers twice to "ECD" but nowhere is this acronym explained. I was guessing "electric charge device" but I'm basically clueless. --Vaughan Pratt (talk) 07:59, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ECD means Electronic Control DeviceMidnightvisions (talk) 12:22, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Electrical Conductivity Device (UK Police), or Conducted Electrical Weapon - CEW (Taser Inc) --195.137.93.171 (talk) 02:31, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OSHA Sharps vandalism

[edit]

Recently there has been an attempt to add multiple leading sections to the article, on trivial details related to proper procedure for dealing with taser darts and the possibility of blood contamination; these sections include extensive quotes from OSHA on what a "sharp" is, etc. Absent any verified transmission of disease by this means, much less permanent injury or death, such an extensive discussion of irrelevancies, that obscure more substantive issues, amounts to vandalism, or at minimum, an NPOV violation. I would suggest that further discussion of this "contribution" occur on the talk page, before this is done again. --Kiwanda (talk) 03:37, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]


I posted the information you are talking about above. I am confused by what you mean by irrelevancies. I believe this is a very serious issue that is verifiable. A taser dart is a "Sharp". OSHA has released written documentation that confirms this. It would make sense that Taser darts be removed and disposed of correctly, which in this case means following OSHA's guidelines. Are you saying that taser darts are not a sharp? Are you saying that proper removal is not a safety issue?

I would say that proper removal is a safety issue. There are two risks to not removing the darts correctly, the first is that the police or the remover may poke him/herself and contract a bloodborne disease. The second is that if unclean devices are used to remove the taser dart, there is a risk that the person having the dart removed could be infected with a bloodborne disease. I am not against taser in anyway. I believe that proper removal will only help those using tasers. I also don't work for taser or anyone against taser.

This is not an attempt of vandalism. These issues I posted are just as valid as the other issues that are listed under "Taser Safety Issues"...For example, "Medical Issues" also brings this issue to light in the following paragraph:

Taser darts penetrate the skin, and therefore may pose a hazard for transmitting diseases via blood. OSHA requirements and the Bloodborne Pathogen Protocols should be followed when removing a TASER® probe. [96] The removal process may also be addressed in an Exposure Control Plan (ECP) in order to increase TASER® probe removal safety.[96]

Please help me understand what I can do to get my edits posted. I do not have malicious intent, however I have spent a great deal of time researching this subject which I believe is worthwhile. I am new to Wikipedia as an editor so any advice is greatly appreciated. Thank you for taking the time to help. Sevensmanagement May 23,2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sevensmanagement (talk • contribs) 18:33, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"OSHA Sharps vandalism" Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. Examples of typical vandalism are adding irrelevant obscenities and crude humor to a page, illegitimately blanking pages, and inserting obvious nonsense into a page The issues raised and points made in the sections removed from "Taser safety issues" (section), are of value and should be shared with the Law Enforcement and first responder community. Safety is the first consideration and sharing accurate informtion is part of this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Law007 (talk • contribs) 21:14, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is at minimum an Undue Weight violation to lead this article with eight paragraphs confirming obvious points about Taser darts, including lengthy quotes from OSHA regarding why "sharps" are dangerous, what "sharps" are, what OSHA would call the event of injury to someone removing a "sharp", and how "sharps" should be disposed of, and how sharps containers should be handled, and with lengthy quotes from the DOJ on how a Taser is a conducted energy device, and how Taser darts should be removed.

Your extensive article-leading discussion weights the article toward the viewpoint that such a hazard is comparable in importance to death due to impaired breathing or cardiac arrest, injury due to falling or spasming while being Tasered, injuries to mother and child when pregnant women are Tasered, and other reports and concerns. That is, this absurd viewpoint would be given Undue Weight, a violation of Wikipedia standards. The extreme length and absurd detail of your quotes pushes this Undue Weight to be a kind of vandalism.

Of course, the quote in "Other medical issues", that you cite as confirmation of the importance of removing Taser darts carefully, was inserted by me, as an attempt to mention the hazard of Taser darts as sharps, and give it the weight that it merits. Actually, this is more than the weight that the topic merits, since the extensive discussion you inserted failed to mention anyone, anywhere, who had actually been injured, to say nothing of killed or put in a permanent coma, as has been reported associated with Taser use. The article's lists of deaths and injuries covers each death with a few sentences; what then is the proportionate length for a discussion of the appropriate care needed for sharps? Kiwanda (talk) 19:39, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I understand what you are saying. My efforts to be complete and verifiable seem to be taken the wrong way. I have re-written the entire entry and placed it under "legal issues". Please keep in mind that proper removal is an issue that is discussed in most police policies and procedures. Due to the nature of contracting a disease and then possibly dieing at a later date, the number of those people contracting bloodborne pathogen diseases and then passing away is not as easy to determine as the number of people who die when they are Tased or shortly after. Just because an issue does not grab big headlines, does not mean that it is not valid. I believe the risks of smoking was not a big issue for a long time...but people were dieing as a result of it. (I am not saying this is exactly the same as smoking). The term "sharp" is a very meaningful word in the medical field. I feel that a complete description of the safety issues at hand is needed for this subject, so that everyone knows their rights and is protected. Please see my efforts to reduce the size of the post and relocate it. Please also respect my view that safety issues need to be covered in full. Preventing an incident is worth reading a few extra lines of text. thank you. --Sevensmanagement (talk) 21:42, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]


"common sense"

[edit]

The article contains the phrase "This is contrary to common sense ..." with regard to a counter-argument. This doesn't feel like a "neutral" point of view. Mdnahas (talk) 10:29, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not now --195.137.93.171 (talk) 02:33, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Death 'toll' could use an update

[edit]

Many websites cite Amnesty as claiming 300 deaths. Most totals here seem to be from 2007 or 2008. Can we get something definitive that is only a couple of years old ? Is Amnesty a 'Reliable Source' in Wiki terms ?

Note that everyone dies eventually, so '300 people died after being Tased' is not surprising ! (Everyone that is Tased will die after being Tased - it does not confer immortality.) To mean anything, we need either '300 died within a week of being tased' or '30% more people died within a month of being tased, compared to people sprayed with irritants' or something.

Nothing is safe : it's all relative. The nuclear industry used to say 'No-one was killed, but some people will have experienced a degree of life-shortening'. Motoring only counts violent deaths as roadkill - the health effects of pollution are probably at least as bad.

Amnesty actually say

"Since 2001 Amnesty International has found that more than 300 people have died after being shot with Tasers in the US. In many of these cases, the coroner listed the use of the Taser as a contributory factor or indeed a direct link to the death"

So in "many" cases taser contributed, only some directly ! Actual figures, not spin, please !

Says Amnesty evidence to US DoJ inquiry in 2007 was

contributory in >20 cases out of >290

The link in the article

In December 2008 Amnesty say >50 out of 334 post-taser deaths have taser contribution.

In February 2012 they headline "deaths following police Taser use reach 500" but in the fine print taser is a "contributing factor in more than 60 deaths".

This seems consistently dishonest, counting deaths where taser is not a contributory factor. Will Wikipedia do better ? I bet it will be reverted if I update it ... Wikipedia prefers popular citable myths over reliable fact in many places.

For context, Taser.com has a '113,000' lives saved counter, but shows nearly 2,000,000 if you click 'Lean more' then 'See the numbers yourself' - maybe the latter is the number made ? No, the 2 million counter clicks every 2 minutes. The front page counter clicks every 15 minutes+ . Hmmm ...

I suppose official figures may be near zero, but exploring why would be useful. These are from a UK BBC list:

Doubtless, some will ask whether the IPCC is a reliable source.

Yes, I know, "No Original Research". Is there anything out there we could cite ? --195.137.93.171 (talk) 02:44, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Taser safety issues. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:17, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 5 external links on Taser safety issues. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:07, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

New taser death in UK

[edit]

Can someone please enter this incident? Sorry no time. Thanks. 91.125.85.186 (talk) 18:59, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Taser safety issues. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:03, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Taser safety issues. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:24, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Very Poor Article

[edit]

If this article is to remain, it needs an extensive rewrite. There are a number of medical statements that are not sourced, including the opening paragraph. Some of the statements are demonstrably false. In 2019, there are plenty of scholarly sources of actual research with this product. There is no need to cite tabloids and special interest groups. Most of the news articles fail to establish a causal relationship of the product to the death, but only that a TASER was involved in an overall incident in which a person died. That is shoddy as a source. Any thoughts?--BobiusPrime (talk) 23:17, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

JAMA Network Open, 2021

[edit]

This is the most recent review article on Pubmed as of my 30 January 2023 search. There doesn't seem to be much good, scientific, rigorous information on the question of Taser deaths as they are used in the general population.

JAMA Netw Open

2021 Feb 1;4(2):e2037209.  doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.37209.

Human Health Risks of Conducted Electrical Weapon Exposure: A Systematic Review

Christos Baliatsas, Jenny Gerbecks, Michel L A Dückers, C Joris Yzermans

Findings: ... Most of the studies were performed on healthy, physically fit individuals (eg, police officers) in a controlled setting, with short exposure duration (5 seconds). Half of the studies, mainly those with a higher risk of bias, were at least partly funded by the manufacturer.

Conclusions and relevance: Based on the findings of the reviewed studies, the risk for adverse health outcomes due to CEW exposure can be currently estimated as low. However, most of the reviewed studies had methodologic limitations. Considering that recruited participants were not representative of the population that usually encounters a CEW deployment, it is not possible to draw conclusions regarding exposure outcomes in potentially vulnerable populations or high-risk groups, such as those under the influence of substances.

Nbauman (talk) 17:14, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Taser_safety_issues&oldid=1251363344"