Topic: The Use Of Tasers.

Hypothetical Situation: 4 police officers one is a woman all are older stronger and heavier than target. 4 have subject target sarrounded. Officer in front moves to grab targets arm. In a hostile way target attempts to flee (out of pure distrust and fear) the three males (including the one that grabbed target throw target to ground and pounce on them from behind to hlod them down. Target resists but weighs less than 90lbs. Skinny, unarmed and ONLY trying to get away. Female officer attampts to shoot target gets a single barb in but the second sticks in clothing instead so she comes in ans dry stings target. Target is so muscle locked they cant move or put their hands behind their back...or entente relax. Female officer threatens repeatedly she will do it again unless target relaxes which they cant....
Can a weapon like that have lasting effects on the mnemonic and body.
Was that exmccessive use of force.?

Tasers are electroshock torture devices. Their even outlawed in places...

They need to make a kneebagger round for the, .45

Hit enter too fast.

Like a gun that's a 3rd option.

Like this in priority of use:

• Takedown Pistol - a weapon that fires small rounds of various purely nonleathel ammo. Blisters filled with skunk oil, chilli pepper powder, solid plasticity or rubber blister bullets, gloo, glow(for marking troublemakers in a riot), foam entrapment blister or shell. Tranquil bilistr or shell. Go even forthright and make it load Tran darts.

Then we have breaker rounds shotgun shapped shell rounds that fire a rod that splays open in flight in a + shape. Designed to knock the target on their ass, can break bones so use wisely.
Heavy bean bag pistol, similer to beanbag gun just smaller, could cross breed, chilling leper. + beanbag

• gazer - can kill, damages central nervous system
• service pistol - leathal

There are generally no lasting downsides to tasers, as long as they aren't too powerful or used wrong you'll only feel a bit sore for a couple days because the endings of your nerves will be stressed.
Otherwise, as long as the person shot is neither one with a pacemaker nor other irregularities of the heart they'll be fine, and all cops are trained in first aid so even that extreme case will likely be survivable.
Oh, you can get the taser in the eyes, which would result in you going blind but the same can happen with non-lethal ammunition anyway.

Always legal and socially acceptable to use a taser. If I could, I'd have one on my person at all time.

I wish Australia had capital punishment again.

damn it

Well slightly before I dissapered 6 month ago I got taserd. She stung mu like three times. After I relize I cant remember things I should be able. Memory's, skills, ect... and they had a few scares at the hospital too since my hear has several weak spots as well as weak arteries around my one of my lung. Recently the heart mummurs have been painful and worse to the point where I wonder if its the precursor to a heart attack

Patchi said:
Always legal and socially acceptable to use a taser. If I could, I'd have one on my person at all time.

I wish Australia had capital punishment again.

damn it

are you the police? Cuz this thread is about police and the harmful effects of tasers

Esme_Belles said:
are you the police? Cuz this thread is about police and the harmful effects of tasers

You asked if its legal and socially acceptable to use a taser. I answered it.

As for harmful effects well. It depends on the person getting tasered. Our bodies will react differently to things.

Esme_Belles said:
Well slightly before I dissapered 6 month ago I got taserd. She stung mu like three times. After I relize I cant remember things I should be able. Memory's, skills, ect... and they had a few scares at the hospital too since my hear has several weak spots as well as weak arteries around my one of my lung. Recently the heart mummurs have been painful and worse to the point where I wonder if its the precursor to a heart attack

The damage done by tazers is negligible and non-permanent, it is more likely to be side effects of your medication.
Also, all weapons you listed can kill people, tranq-darts more so than the others, the problem is you want to hold someone against their will, the only option is to use force and all force exerted will end up in either bruises or other damage.
As long as you can't levitate people with the force you'll simply not be able to not harm them.

I'm only 5'4, and 102 pounds, airgoe I could have serious reactions to it by being so small, but by complete accident my dad shot me in the arm and I bled, and screamed in pain, and cried a little... ok lot! but tasers at my tiny size could stop my heart bottom line if it was for an offense like public display of intoxication (only an example) and I got tased and died how do you think that would look if they killed a college student who only partyed a little to hard?

Y'know what's always worse than a taser? A gun. I'd much rather cops be shooting tasers than guns.

There's a reason we call it "Less lethal" instead of "Non-lethal" now, you know.
But less lethal is still always safer than "lethal but trying not to hit something vital."

I'm always for the use of less-lethal, regardless.

I might even prefer being tasered to receiving a solid hit with a baton or something.

All I can describe the sensation is with this visulisation.
take a round flooer to cieling mirrow. Have hulk punch it in the center. The mirrors your consciousness.....and now its in a hundred fragments. Its....definitl painful as fuck. Never expected to but I screamed....thing is I'm such a light build the guy holding my arm yelped and groweld "dam Felt that one though her arm" which makes me think she juiced me and not stung.

Case in point

" April 8, 2012, Los Angeles, California, Marlan A. Anderson (39 years old), was Tased twice in "Drive Stun" mode by Los Angeles Police Department during a struggle, went into cardiac arrest for at least 10 minutes, then slipped into a coma. He was taken off life support 5 days later and died. ''

In someplaces it seems to be a law that allows them to just walk up to you and sap you without warning, on simply a hunch.. Its called preemptive tasering.... I can see it now.

"HES BLACK! ZAP HIM ZAP HIM! "

Peekaboo said:
5 days? That seems highly unlikely, I don't think you ever take someone off of life support less than a week after it is initially started.

But about tasers in general, it beats the alternatives. If the police have to get physical, it would lead to far more potential damage, both to the officers and the person they're arresting. All in all the taser is a great alternative to more deadly and damaging weapons.

Got it straight from wikipedia

It would take too long to link all the gun related deaths from cops accidentally missing their shot.
Tasers > Guns. anyday

Someone asked for my thoughts on a tasing incident a few weeks ago. Part of me was worried about a general lack of education and awareness, and perhaps even a sufficient body of research, but I'm mostly ignorant on the topic and not one to talk lol, just an example myself. Even so, I'm not especially worried about prolonged or otherwise serious health side-effects from tasing in the vast majority of cases. I do, however, clearly remember the first tasing death caused by law enforcement (in my country) that was covered on our news outlets for a while a few years ago. It's sobering to know that, yes, tasers can and do cause death.

Anyways, a greater part of me is worried about how quickly law enforcement, perhaps people in general, are to tase aggressors rather than try verbal conflict resolution. I don't really want to label the behavior as "trigger happy" either because then consequences are likely to get written off on "poor snap decisions," directing the blame squarely on the individual (the user) and on their brief, poor judgement. It's more comforting to dump our concerns onto someone else's passing moment of so-called weakness, something that we can't reconcile and doesn't involve us, than it is to consider pervasive human flaws that calm society is susceptible to at large. Or so I propose.

It's such an easy calculation. And cold, and distant, and inhuman. Fear of an unknown, potentially harmful outcome; no time to think before the situation might deteriorate; and such little exertion and involvement. Is this aggressor unstable and a danger to everyone including themself or just incorrigible and a waste of effort? Doesn't matter. There isn't enough time to evaluate the situation and determine a better resolution. And who can concentrate with all that distraction, frustration, stress, and fear? It's so much easier to just tase this lunatic now. They won't harm anyone that way, and they should recover. Right? Shoot first and let God sort out the rest. It's far more efficient.

I have a bleak, cynical outlook. Though, I do acknowledge mitigating factors like containing a volatile situation and preventing unpredictable harm (e.g., pulling a knife). While the path of least resistance is as alluring as ever, tasing is still a violent solution. It's just disconcerting that tasers are become preferable to verbal resolution, physical restraints, or simple patience. I would be more contented if I knew law enforcement would, at minimum, properly communicate an ultimatum like, "This is your final warning before I tase you. Stop and calm down." But anecdotal evidence always seems to suggest otherwise.

I've been tazed twice. No long term effects, I'd rather that than being shot any day. Never heard of the other options. If something works the same or more efficiently with a lower death rate I'd love that to replace tazers.

NotMeNotYou said:
The damage done by tazers is negligible and non-permanent, it is more likely to be side effects of your medication.
Also, all weapons you listed can kill people, tranq-darts more so than the others, the problem is you want to hold someone against their will, the only option is to use force and all force exerted will end up in either bruises or other damage.
As long as you can't levitate people with the force you'll simply not be able to not harm them.

Hitting someone who has a heart murmur with a taser can, and frequently does end up killing them.
The UN has designated them a form of torture.
The US refuses to collect and maintain information related to injuries and deaths caused by tasers.

And last but not least, tasers can spread blood born illnesses.
So if you get taser, you might end up with HIV or Hepatitis etc. simply because the police officer didn't care enough to clean the darts of their taser properly.
And many don't.

As someone in the law enforcement field I have to say that tasers are a great thing, because they offer a less than lethal alternative to shooting someone and have no long term effects. To say that a taser poses a health risk to people with pacemakers and other heart conditions is no different than saying a strong magnet or roller coaster ride poses a risk to people with pacemakers or heart conditions. However, this study shows that in most cases tasers do no affect internal medical devices.

Tasers cause massive and debilitating amounts of pain, which is ideal for subduing suspects rather than using lethal or brutal physical force and the affects of a taser are not long term. There are other alternatives such as rubber balls/bullets shot from actual firearms, tear gas that can cause blindness and has no way of stopping immediately once deployed, the rarely used tranquilizer dart, physical force and lastly lethal force. There really is no "non-lethal" round fired from a gun, as rubber bullets can easily break bones and if one hits the head or heart, can stop the heart or crack the skull. Tranquilizer darts can take a while to go into effect are not not ideal for situations that require immediate correction; they also have a risk of hitting and severely damaging tissue. Taser cartridges also have a small packet of confetti like paper that have the serial number of the taser on them and stick to everything when deployed, making it indeed possible to track the use of the taser and cartridges. Tear gas/chemical debilitators are really not ideal as they affect everyone in the situation and can not be called back once used.

The taser is a much safer alternative to all of these and only shocks for five seconds, and can be stopped at any time. That's not to say it's ideal, but if someone is wielding a taser it can be assumed that the situation is not ideal either and that it is absolutely necessary. If the taser is abused by the officer or civilian for that matter, then the fault lies on the user, like any tool or weapon. If you are on the receiving end of a taser, it can be assumed that you are either in deservence of it or at the short end of abuse. Abuse is not the fault of the product but at the fault of the user, and abuse from a taser is much less sever than abuse from a gun or any other of the alternatives.

As someone who also manufactured taser parts, they do not carry any significant risk of spreading blood born pathogens as the cartridge is disposable and not reused, mainly though because it has a compressed nitrogen charge that expels the probes that has to be replaced and the probes are cut away and discarded. The battery is housed in a rechargeable magazine, but that's unrelated to the cartridge. Once the probes are fired and the cartridge removed, it can have another cartridge inserted to be fired again or the cartridge can be left out and the exposed electrodes used as a stun device at close range. Also I really have to say that it's practically impossible to tase someone holding the subject you are tasing. Skin is not a good conductor of these smaller amounts of shock and even if you had someone's hands around your neck and tased them in the wrist, you would not feel that in the slightest. Case in point, when they tase officers in the academy, they have two officers holding him/her by the arms in case they fall too quickly.

In regards to when officers use tasers. From training they are taught that it is a last resort if verbal warnings and gestures have failed and the situation is likely to deteriorate. I obviously can't speak for every officer but I can say that officers are tased themselves in academy to understand regard and compassion when having to use one. It is never the first solution and is only used when there is no alternative. That's what the books and training say, and if the officer doesn't adhere to that then that is a problem that lies with the officer.

So is it legal and socially acceptable? Yes, absolutely, but only when the circumstances permit it. You can not just go up and tase someone on a hunch and racial profiling is not allowed in law enforcement. An officer needs articulable belief that the suspect has committed the crime or is an aggressor in some way. In this case I have to say that it all could have been avoided by not attempting to flee. Officers have no need or interest to harm you if you go willingly and if they need to arrest you, I can bet there is a very good reason to. Most people don't want to get caught, but most criminals don't want to get caught either; how are they to know if you are or are not a criminal? Their job is just to incarcerate you until they can figure that out. As for demanding the suspect relax or be tased more while the subject is already being tased? Unlikely as at that point they would just sinch your arms up to handcuff you as they know you no longer have motor control and have proven at this point that you are not going to go without the use of force (main reason not to run or struggle in the first place) "Out of pure desire to escape" yeah that's pretty much every criminal ever, not saying that non-criminals don't struggle but that you should trust your officers to do their job and arrest you and uphold the rights you still have

I write all of this from personal experience and mean no disrespect and no argument to ensue. Results for everyone can and will vary and this should not be taken as a final say or anything, just my experience since I have made them and worked with them. I think this topic might not be suited best here and at some point might need a lock put on it, but as always if it stays civil it can stay open.

Law enforcement has never been a popular job. In any era or nation, police are often met with scrutiny, and frequently not without just cause.
It can attract people who are in it for the power play, or it can simply push people to extremes because of their experience with one bad situation after another. Idealistically, police shouldn't have to resort to force at any time, but that's of course a fantasy.

Sometimes getting rough is completely necessary and if it *does* have to go down that way, I'd definitely choose a taser over anything else. The point at which it becomes 'socially acceptable' is when there are no other alternatives. However, it's up to police to decide when that line is crossed, and a great deal of training is devoted to that very subject.
The case you described sounds like excessive force to me, but neither of us were there. The telling of these stories tends to get mixed up quite a bit before it reaches public ears.
However, even if that was exactly how it went down and there was police brutality used, that doesn't mean the system is broken, nor does it mean it was just those cops acting on their own incentive. It could be one, the other or a combination of both.

The cops where I'm at are trained to use tasers and where they should aim at, etc. I've been tased, I didn't like it but I'd rather have that than getting shot or get beat by a baton (which I've experienced both.....I'm invincible)

Rainbow_Dash said:
As someone who also manufactured taser parts, they do not carry any significant risk of spreading blood born pathogens as the cartridge is disposable and not reused, mainly though because it has a compressed nitrogen charge that expels the probes that has to be replaced and the probes are cut away and discarded. The battery is housed in a rechargeable magazine, but that's unrelated to the cartridge. Once the probes are fired and the cartridge removed, it can have another cartridge inserted to be fired again or the cartridge can be left out and the exposed electrodes used as a stun device at close range. Also I really have to say that it's practically impossible to tase someone holding the subject you are tasing. Skin is not a good conductor of these smaller amounts of shock and even if you had someone's hands around your neck and tased them in the wrist, you would not feel that in the slightest. Case in point, when they tase officers in the academy, they have two officers holding him/her by the arms in case they fall too quickly.

That seems to depend on the taser in question, German Police used contact tasers, meaning they have to manually stab the other with the taser, while there are also a couple spring loaded tasers around who should be cleaned before being reloaded.
Alas, no idea what the US people use but likely the nitrogen propelled ones with the disposable heads.

Also, the current always goes the way of least resistance, normally that will either be the in the ground in the device or the real ground, but can also be another person making skincontact, on the ground that at least one of them is sweating like fuck.

Seven_Twenty said:
I've been tazed twice.

TheHuskyK9 said:
I've been tased...

This intrigues me. How does one even 'get tased'?

I feel storytime is in order.

Peekaboo said:
I'm guessing it happened the way most people get tased, too much fun, too much booze.

Or, you know... A botched attempt at a bank robbery.

I do illegal stuff, including drunken carousing & funtimes, regularly.

Maybe the police here are just nice and nothing is as interesting as it seems.

I've gotten shot twice before, so yeah tasers are a lot better. My friend got an arrow through his abdomen when he was 13 so I really don't have much to complain, fucking arrows man, and this archery shit is fun for little kids at camp man...

You know, if the police were out to kill intentionally, they'd probably have been equipped with something more effective than a taser.

Then again, I've always been one behind issuing squad cars those .50 Beowulf AR-15s. Less likely to break the law if you know an officer's liable to shoot your engine block out.

I digress - I'd prefer my officers not have to get up close to people to subdue them, given they're liable to be forced with zappythings, and other people are not. Those notzappythings are things like knives, pocket pistols, bottles (whole or broken), clubs - you know. A lot of fatal things.

On that aspect of "fatal," I'd prefer the police to not be forced to carry a sidearm as their only means of protection, since that puts a lot of weight on them; they're just people, and people can make bad, bad mistakes.

Tangent said:
This intrigues me. How does one even 'get tased'?

I feel storytime is in order.

Alrighty kids, let me tell you a bedtime story. Once upon a time, two guys met up and became friends. One of the two is a officer for the neighboring city. One day, the friend ask his cop friend "What does it feel like to be tased"? The cop smiled, pulled out his taser, and shocked the friend. The friend's muscles tensed up and he fell on the ground with a shriek. The friend stayed on the ground for a couple minutes and said to the cop friend: "F-fuck...you man".

The end

And here I am thinking ill of your morals. Thanks for obliging me.

Tangent said:
And here I am thinking ill of your morals. Thanks for obliging me.

I'm a good husky

TheHuskyK9 said:
Alrighty kids, let me tell you a bedtime story. Once upon a time, two guys met up and became friends. One of the two is a officer for the neighboring city. One day, the friend ask his cop friend "What does it feel like to be tased"? The cop smiled, pulled out his taser, and shocked the friend. The friend's muscles tensed up and he fell on the ground with a shriek. The friend stayed on the ground for a couple minutes and said to the cop friend: "F-fuck...you man".

The end

...I chuckled.

:(

Patchi said:
Always legal and socially acceptable to use a taser.

Rainbow_Dash said:
As someone in the law enforcement field I have to say that tasers are a great thing, because they offer a less than lethal alternative to shooting someone and have no long term effects. To say that a taser poses a health risk to people with pacemakers and other heart conditions is no different than saying a strong magnet or roller coaster ride poses a risk to people with pacemakers or heart conditions. However, this study shows that in most cases tasers do no affect internal medical devices.

Tasers cause massive and debilitating amounts of pain, which is ideal for subduing suspects rather than using lethal or brutal physical force and the affects of a taser are not long term. There are other alternatives such as rubber balls/bullets shot from actual firearms, tear gas that can cause blindness and has no way of stopping immediately once deployed, the rarely used tranquilizer dart, physical force and lastly lethal force. There really is no "non-lethal" round fired from a gun, as rubber bullets can easily break bones and if one hits the head or heart, can stop the heart or crack the skull. Tranquilizer darts can take a while to go into effect are not not ideal for situations that require immediate correction; they also have a risk of hitting and severely damaging tissue. Taser cartridges also have a small packet of confetti like paper that have the serial number of the taser on them and stick to everything when deployed, making it indeed possible to track the use of the taser and cartridges. Tear gas/chemical debilitators are really not ideal as they affect everyone in the situation and can not be called back once used.

The taser is a much safer alternative to all of these and only shocks for five seconds, and can be stopped at any time. That's not to say it's ideal, but if someone is wielding a taser it can be assumed that the situation is not ideal either and that it is absolutely necessary. If the taser is abused by the officer or civilian for that matter, then the fault lies on the user, like any tool or weapon. If you are on the receiving end of a taser, it can be assumed that you are either in deservence of it or at the short end of abuse. Abuse is not the fault of the product but at the fault of the user, and abuse from a taser is much less sever than abuse from a gun or any other of the alternatives.

As someone who also manufactured taser parts, they do not carry any significant risk of spreading blood born pathogens as the cartridge is disposable and not reused, mainly though because it has a compressed nitrogen charge that expels the probes that has to be replaced and the probes are cut away and discarded. The battery is housed in a rechargeable magazine, but that's unrelated to the cartridge. Once the probes are fired and the cartridge removed, it can have another cartridge inserted to be fired again or the cartridge can be left out and the exposed electrodes used as a stun device at close range. Also I really have to say that it's practically impossible to tase someone holding the subject you are tasing. Skin is not a good conductor of these smaller amounts of shock and even if you had someone's hands around your neck and tased them in the wrist, you would not feel that in the slightest. Case in point, when they tase officers in the academy, they have two officers holding him/her by the arms in case they fall too quickly.

In regards to when officers use tasers. From training they are taught that it is a last resort if verbal warnings and gestures have failed and the situation is likely to deteriorate. I obviously can't speak for every officer but I can say that officers are tased themselves in academy to understand regard and compassion when having to use one. It is never the first solution and is only used when there is no alternative. That's what the books and training say, and if the officer doesn't adhere to that then that is a problem that lies with the officer.

So is it legal and socially acceptable? Yes, absolutely, but only when the circumstances permit it. You can not just go up and tase someone on a hunch and racial profiling is not allowed in law enforcement. An officer needs articulable belief that the suspect has committed the crime or is an aggressor in some way. In this case I have to say that it all could have been avoided by not attempting to flee. Officers have no need or interest to harm you if you go willingly and if they need to arrest you, I can bet there is a very good reason to. Most people don't want to get caught, but most criminals don't want to get caught either; how are they to know if you are or are not a criminal? Their job is just to incarcerate you until they can figure that out. As for demanding the suspect relax or be tased more while the subject is already being tased? Unlikely as at that point they would just sinch your arms up to handcuff you as they know you no longer have motor control and have proven at this point that you are not going to go without the use of force (main reason not to run or struggle in the first place) "Out of pure desire to escape" yeah that's pretty much every criminal ever, not saying that non-criminals don't struggle but that you should trust your officers to do their job and arrest you and uphold the rights you still have

I write all of this from personal experience and mean no disrespect and no argument to ensue. Results for everyone can and will vary and this should not be taken as a final say or anything, just my experience since I have made them and worked with them. I think this topic might not be suited best here and at some point might need a lock put on it, but as always if it stays civil it can stay open.

If you tase someone with excited delirium, you could stop their breathing and kill them.

ALWAYS use tasers with discretion. Someone running through the streets like a maniac could just be suffering from ED, and a taser could cause them to halt their movement (which is burning up excess lactic acid) and cause them to go into respiratory arrest. Often when police encounter someone with ED, they're agitated, combative, and out of control. However, they should be detained through PHYSICAL means and escorted to a medical facility.

NOTE: ED is often attributed to PCP. However, ED can occur when no drugs have been ingested.

Tunguska said:
There's a reason we call it "Less lethal" instead of "Non-lethal" now, you know.
But less lethal is still always safer than "lethal but trying not to hit something vital."

I'm always for the use of less-lethal, regardless.

I'm in agreement up to the point that the first response is, "Fuck, taser him!" instead of talking the target down, or otherwise employing non-lethal force. Tasers should only be used in cases where the cops themselves would be endangered, not at the first sign of a man acting non-violently weird because his meds ran out and he can't comprehend basic speech.

123easy said:
I'm in agreement up to the point that the first response is, "Fuck, taser him!" instead of talking the target down, or otherwise employing non-lethal force. Tasers should only be used in cases where the cops themselves would be endangered, not at the first sign of a man acting non-violently weird because his meds ran out and he can't comprehend basic speech.

Agreed, the standard should be that if using a gun would be excessive force, then so is a taser.
Anything less and you get the taser happy cops that are around now (not all cops, but they're out there).

Are Americans so fucked in the head that there are more people not taking their prescribed happy pills than there are people using illegal narcotics? If so, tase them, maybe they will learn being tased is far less pleasant than being properly medicated and will take their medicine like they are supposed to.
If drug addicts are still more common, how is a cop supposed readily distinguish the two groups? They are cops, not doctors, not psychologists, cops.
I admit, I've never met anyone strung out on crack, or meth, or bath salts, etc., or off their prescribed meds, but it seems likely that those two groups can behave very much alike. I have known many drunks, and getting them to listen is more work than push starting a stalled dump truck.

edidaf said:
Are Americans so fucked in the head that there are more people not taking their prescribed happy pills than there are people using illegal narcotics? If so, tase them, maybe they will learn being tased is far less pleasant than being properly medicated and will take their medicine like they are supposed to.
If drug addicts are still more common, how is a cop supposed readily distinguish the two groups? They are cops, not doctors, not psychologists, cops.
I admit, I've never met anyone strung out on crack, or meth, or bath salts, etc., or off their prescribed meds, but it seems likely that those two groups can behave very much alike. I have known many drunks, and getting them to listen is more work than push starting a stalled dump truck.

While that is a valid point and I respect your opinion, you could have left out the "are Americans so fucked in the head" part and had a strong case

Honestly thank this should just get locked and over with. I made the post to ask because the fact that tasers are considered torture devices and other things that made me wonder about the whole thing. It could even be considered cerulean and unusual punishment.

Look I weight 92 pounds, I'm skinny, and I dont do enhancer drugs. I was pinned by three burly fully grown men....no way I was going anywhere, I was dealing with a breakdown, instead of trying to calm me down they dog pile me and then zap me. (And yes. He cop said he felt the charge pass from me to him). After I had problems with breathing and memory, and this was months before they added my medications.

Since thisnthread has turned into a heyday. I'd prefer it gets locked before someone else gets introuble.

Esme_Belles said:
Honestly thank this should just get locked and over with. I made the post to ask because the fact that tasers are considered torture devices and other things that made me wonder about the whole thing. It could even be considered cerulean and unusual punishment.

Look I weight 92 pounds, I'm skinny, and I dont do enhancer drugs. I was pinned by three burly fully grown men....no way I was going anywhere, I was dealing with a breakdown, instead of trying to calm me down they dog pile me and then zap me. (And yes. He cop said he felt the charge pass from me to him). After I had problems with breathing and memory, and this was months before they added my medications.

Since thisnthread has turned into a heyday. I'd prefer it gets locked before someone else gets introuble.

You made the forum based on a controversial subject, so it was likely going to head that way. Some topics are probably best left off of our forum or people will rage on them.

I think what most people have determined about tasers is that they are not as lethal as guns, and therefor are preferred over being shot

I've used a contact taser but not shot the cartridge

Rainbow_Dash said:
While that is a valid point and I respect your opinion, you could have left out the "are Americans so fucked in the head" part and had a strong case

Yeah, I was out of line with that, It's just that I'm losing faith in fellow Americans. Not because of anyone here, I don't know anyone here well enough to say one way or the other, but the people I encounter randomly out in public.

@Esme Belles: I didn't intend for any of that to be directed towards you. I had forgotten about your original post. I'm sorry, I was rather thoughtless about how you might feel.

edidaf said:
Yeah, I was out of line with that, It's just that I'm losing faith in fellow Americans. Not because of anyone here, I don't know anyone here well enough to say one way or the other, but the people I encounter randomly out in public.

@Esme Belles: I didn't intend for any of that to be directed towards you. I had forgotten about your original post. I'm sorry, I was rather thoughtless about how you might feel.

I figured you were just steamed and it happens to the best of us, which is why I just left a comment and left it at that. I appreciate you taking some time to cool off now and come back clear headed <3

Peekaboo said:
Since we have quite a few people here who have been tased, is there anyone here who have actually tased someone else?

My boyfriend has... October 2011 me and him were in Dallas for a cowboys game and we decided to tailgate in his Little 95 GMC Sonoma some guy who was totally samashed tryed to bend me over a grill that was lit so nearly burning my body and my boyfriend tazed him right in the center of his back and while it was scary and I was super scared as well I still felt bad and so did hemI mean thats like 1,500 volts or somewhere near there he still feels a little guilty despite it being justified he prefers to fight with his fists but he says he did it cause it was a worst case senario you know about to be raped by a drunken redneck and all...

thatoneclarinetist said:
My boyfriend has... October 2011 me and him were in Dallas for a cowboys game and we decided to tailgate in his Little 95 GMC Sonoma some guy who was totally samashed tryed to bend me over a grill that was lit so nearly burning my body and my boyfriend tazed him right in the center of his back and while it was scary and I was super scared as well I still felt bad and so did hemI mean thats like 1,500 volts or somewhere near there he still feels a little guilty despite it being justified he prefers to fight with his fists but he says he did it cause it was a worst case senario you know about to be raped by a drunken redneck and all...

Its not the volts that kill you (well mainly), it's the current bro...
http://www.physics.ohio-state.edu/~p616/safety/fatal_current.html

Also Esme, of course you are going to think that tasers are bad because you've been shot by one, just like you start hating mexican food after your butt gets angry at you from eating that multi-layer bean burrito.

Moon_Moon said:
Also Esme, of course you are going to think that tasers are bad because you've been shot by one, just like you start hating mexican food after your butt gets angry at you from eating that multi-layer bean burrito.

Burritos don't have layers... :I

Edit: Wasn't this topic locked?

Xch3l said:
Burritos don't have layers... :I

Edit: Wasn't this topic locked?

I had locked it but it got unlocked because it was still mostly civil

Xch3l said:
Burritos don't have layers... :I

Edit: Wasn't this topic locked?

http://www.tacobell.com/food/menuitem/7+Layer+Burrito

Get shot your going to the hospital. get hit with a taser and you are going home for a change of clothes and bed rest. Honestly, I think the only reason police are still allowed to carry fire arms is because it's more accurate and ranged than any taser (I mean its not like an armed robber is going to stick up a convenience store with a kitchen knife).

Hiatuss said:
(I mean its not like an armed robber is going to stick up a convenience store with a kitchen knife).

You'd be surprised

Halite said:
http://www.tacobell.com/food/menuitem/7+Layer+Burrito

That's a prefabricated burrito... a traditional one doesn't have any layer at all (all ingredients are mixed, even if you try carefully to not mix them, they'll manage to)

Xch3l said:
That's a prefabricated burrito... a traditional one doesn't have any layer at all (all ingredients are mixed, even if you try carefully to not mix them, they'll manage to)

they still call it a 7 layer burrito.

Halite said:
they still call it a 7 layer burrito.

Because of this thread, I went and bought layered dip at Costco a few minute ago.

Thanks guys.

EDFDarkAngel1 said:
Because of this thread, I went and bought layered dip at Costco a few minute ago.

Thanks guys.

Your welcome :) wait Costco? where do you live?

EDFDarkAngel1 said:
Because of this thread, I went and bought layered dip at Costco a few minute ago.

Thanks guys.

Costco's pizza is awesome

TheHuskyK9 said:
You'd be surprised

That video smacks of limes. I'd bet it'd be easier to get a gun in Canada than in the UK, and only more difficult in, I think, Japan?

I didn't even think proper bobbies carried firearms.

EDFDarkAngel1 said:
Because of this thread, I went and bought layered dip at Costco a few minute ago.

Thanks guys.

A nice layered dip is a wonderful thing.
I have to say though, most people are too fond of including Guacamole, which isn't a good layer choice imo.
It also hurts the shelf life of the dip since it spoils much faster than pretty much any other layer choices, if you include Guac, you can't even make it the night before a party or it'll go bad.

I must say this thread has derailed so hard and that is perfectly fine

Is it legal?

Of course it's legal or else they wouldn't be using them.

Sounds like they used excessive force on you. Elle. Id pursue legal council if the story you describe is legit. Where as were not too far off in build theres no reason why three male cops couldnt restrain a female like you or i so long as we did not utilize any training tactics inflicting injury to said policeman resulting in the need for tazer subduing.by a fourth officer. I wasnt there and dont know the circumstances first hand but my advice is to seek legal council.

I didn't read the whole thread, so i don't know if someone already said that, but:

Esme_Belles said:

• Takedown Pistol - a weapon that fires small rounds of various purely nonlethal ammo: [...] solid plasticity or rubber blister bullet

WHAT???? nonlethal?

I don't think these guys would agree with that: pic1 pic2 pic3

Rubber ammo guns are as dangerous than real gun. I think that being shot with a taser is a lot better.

Zenti said:
I didn't read the whole thread, so i don't know if someone already said that, but:

WHAT???? nonlethal?

I don't think these guys would agree with that: pic1 pic2 pic3

Rubber ammo guns are as dangerous than real gun. I think that being shot with a taser is a lot better.

While I wholeheartedly agree taser > "non-lethal" rounds, talking down or non-violent suppressive force > either.

Zenti said:
I didn't read the whole thread, so i don't know if someone already said that, but:

WHAT???? nonlethal?

I don't think these guys would agree with that: pic1 pic2 pic3

Rubber ammo guns are as dangerous than real gun. I think that being shot with a taser is a lot better.

As stated, the term is "less-lethal" now.

Peekaboo said:
I'd rather get tasered than shot or beat up. But then again, the behavior of Swedish cops is generally really fucking nice and easygoing so it's probably hard to compare them to 'murican cops.

American cops are brutal. I watched a video on the Trayvon Martin justice riots, and an entire line of riot police opened up on some black guy that threw a rock at them. About ten guys shooting one guy with around 30-50 rubber bullets.

How many volts are tasers? 10,000? I saw a guy get tased, and the officer tased him more than once. About three times. He couldn't move and was screaming very loudly.

AmericanExistence said:
American cops are brutal. I watched a video on the Trayvon Martin justice riots, and an entire line of riot police opened up on some black guy that threw a rock at them. About ten guys shooting one guy with around 30-50 rubber bullets.

How many volts are tasers? 10,000? I saw a guy get tased, and the officer tased him more than once. About three times. He couldn't move and was screaming very loudly.

Not all American cops, not even most.
Sadly, there are definitely some ass holes that become cops because they like to abuse power over others.

Halite said:
Not all American cops, not even most.
Sadly, there are definitely some ass holes that become cops because they like to abuse power over others.

Relevant to many places, not just the police force. Aggressive assertiveness is a quick way to gain a reputation for driven success. Without experience, however, those types of people tend to not deliver on their goals.

I have to say that if it took three of them to subdue you, and you attempted to flee, a taser is probably what I would have done, as physical force has failed at that point and the next step up is less than lethal force. The way I see it, they followed the book as to how best handle the situation, and I really have to assume that they did indeed verbally try to talk you down, as I can't see police just doing it for no reason or little cause.

Rainbow_Dash said:
...I can't see police just doing it for no reason or little cause.

I'm curious as to what prompted four policemen to surround an individual as well; there had to be a reason for it. Context is quite important to situations like this.

123easy said:
I'm curious as to what prompted four policemen to surround an individual as well; there had to be a reason for it. Context is quite important to situations like this.

Yeah, I mean what did you do to make them think they'd need so much force

Rainbow_Dash said:
Yeah, I mean what did you do to make them think they'd need so much force

Ehhh, that's not even the right way to think of it, i'd say. That's assuming blame already. I'd rather phrase it something like, "what did they think you had done that made them surround you like that? Was it something illegal, or were they approaching you for another reason? You stated you used violent force to try to push through them, because of fear and distrust- What cause did you have for that fear and distrust? Was it because they were cops in general, or was there some other underlying concern regarding these specific people? If it was not for an illegal concern, did you attempt to tell them to leave you alone and, if so, how did they respond?"