Now here’s something that puzzles me: the most current post on this blog (“The TASER Worked!”) contains the claim that the effect of a taser jolt lasts five seconds or so, yet *every* YouTube TTPC victim pleads with the “brave” cop not to send a follow-up shock, because none of them seem to be able to comply with what they’ve been told to do. This TTPC was, of course, no exception; nor was the goon’s threat that the victim “put your hands behind your back or I’ll tase you again!”.

Lovely friends and customers your company has, folks.

I did not agree with any of your statements. I was asking a question to clarify your argument.

Your agenda is clear and your arguments lack substance with me and probably many others because they are not rational but emotional.

I think that TASER is one of the better tools for law enforcement and the military to perform their functions. It can be abused just like any other tool. In those instances the operator should be held responsible.

Your arguments and examples are invalid Jason. The “misuse” of a taser is an extension of its original purpose, not a completely different purpose.

How is it invalid? If he’d shot the woman, would we have blamed Smith and Wesson or Glock or H&K for the shooting? I wouldn’t have. A firearm is meant to be used as a weapon, and cops are supposed to use them only when necessary for the public good. Shooting an old lady is as much an “extension of its original purpose” with a gun as the tasing is in this case. Both are wrong. In neither case is the manufacturer responsible.

If you want to invalidate my arguments, I’m willing to listen, but you’ve provided here no evidence to invalidate them. Any weapon, lethal or non, can be misused. Why is this so different than my original examples, or the example of the gun manufacturer, and what makes my arguments so invalid?

“Of course, the question of what defines “misuse” is totally subjective – it all depends on what kind of society you want to live in/create. And this is where the issue of moral/social responsibility comes in.”

I never said anything different. I believe this *is* misuse. The officer’s social responsibility is to *not* tase old ladies. Ours is to condemn him for doing so.

“Another invalid argument. Here you assume that man-handling and “pain-compliance” were the only alternative to the use of a taser, yet in your previous paragraph you state that this woman was neither violent nor dangerous.”

1) This was, as I stated quite specifically, only a *side* point, not an attempt to say he did the right thing (which I’ve said several time he did not). Saying something is “somewhat possible” hardly constitutes a central point of my position.

2) I’m not actually saying that they were the only alternatives, only that, from what I’ve seen of police training, that’s how they tend to put resisting people in cars. That’s it. Just because she’s not able to hurt him doesn’t mean that putting a thrashing adult individual in his back seat is going to be easy.

Look, I’m personally in agreement with Kevin, who said he can’t believe how police are misapplying the taser. In this case, they are. And this officer’s department should have condemned it also, but they didn’t take the high road. But blaming the manufacturer takes blame away from the real guilty individual here, who is the officer himself.

Firstly, gun manufacturers are not responsible for people killing others are.

Secondly, Beer and Alcohol manufacturers are not responsible for drunk driving or alcoholism.

Thirdly, the state is not responsible for creating gambling addicts with lotteries, slot machine, casinos, sports betting.

Fourthly and more, Taser is not responsible if someone misuses the device and hurts someone.

We must take responsibility for our own actions!!!

We must be our own CONTROL BOARDS if we are over 21 years of age!!!

By Johnathan Vrozos JV

Your arguments and examples are invalid Jason. The “misuse” of a taser is an extension of its original purpose, not a completely different purpose.

Of course, the question of what defines “misuse” is totally subjective – it all depends on what kind of society you want to live in/create. And this is where the issue of moral/social responsibility comes in.

“As a side note, it’s somewhat possible that, in spite of his being clearly too aggressive, his use of a taser actually posed less threat to her physically. Manhandling her into his cruiser with pain-compliance holds and the like might have been more likely to cause injuries that a brief shock–though I haven’t the medical expertise to say for sure.”

Another invalid argument. Here you assume that man-handling and “pain-compliance” were the only alternative to the use of a taser, yet in your previous paragraph you state that this woman was neither violent nor dangerous.

Let me put it another way: to accept that argument, you have to accept the argument that kitchen knife manufacturers are responsible for the t3ens of thousands of kitchen knife assaults every year, beer manufacturers are responsible for people hit by their bottles during bar fights, gasoline makers are responsible for that homeless man in the US a year or two ago being doused with gasoline and lit on fire, video camera makers are responsible for someone who shoots underage porn films on their equipment–the list is never-ending. Unless you want everyone to stop manufacturing everything, then yuor argument just doesn’t hold water.

#t506 asks what the company considers appropriate use of a taser. But he quotes the marketing material in the same post in which that question is answered: on violent or dangerous suspects and offenders. Okay. This woman was not violent or dangerous, so the officer clearly went outside of the company’s definition of appropriate use (though not his own police department’s, apparently). So that means *he* is to blame for the misuse, not the corporation. And as far as I’m concerned, he *did* cross the line in his physical aggressiveness with her up to and including the use of his taser. And so he should be sanctioned.

As a side note, it’s somewhat possible that, in spite of his being clearly too aggressive, his use of a taser actually posed less threat to her physically. Manhandling her into his cruiser with pain-compliance holds and the like might have been more likely to cause injuries that a brief shock–though I haven’t the medical expertise to say for sure.

As #t506 describes it, a human cattle-prod for humans.

In Queensland, Australia a man died on Friday 12 June after being tasered three times. In Nottingham, England a man who, whatever he may have done beforehand to attract police attention, was on the ground and posing no realistic threat to anyone, was tasered twice:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s5S4R6sHx9c

It is good to hear that you are in agreement that this was a misuse of the taser.

However, your argument would only have relevance if Henry Ford had in fact designed his cars to gently knock people over, whereas in fact people were deliberately using them to kill people.