The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
It is requested that a photograph be
included in this article to
improve its quality.
The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
This article was nominated for deletion on June 23, 2008. The result of the discussion was KEEP. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
Text and/or other creative content from this version of Electroshock weapon was copied or moved into Taser safety issues with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
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)
"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)
See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/University of Florida Taser incident. Badagnani 05:09, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
"... The U.N. Committee Against Torture referred Friday to the use of TaserX26 weapons which Portuguese police has acquired. ... [2]
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)
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)
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)
Study Suggests Taser Use By US Police Is Safe
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Can somebody add this please? I do not know how to do the proper formatting. Thanks!
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
---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)
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)
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:
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)
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.
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.
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)
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:
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
-- Fremte ( talk) 23:29, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
References
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 Carlson Talk 08:11, 1 July 2008 (UTC) —copied from Template talk:Electroshock Flatscan ( talk) 01:48, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
ECD means Electronic Control Device Midnightvisions ( talk) 12:22, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Electrical Conductivity Device (UK Police), or Conducted Electrical Weapon - CEW (Taser Inc) -- 195.137.93.171 ( talk) 02:31, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
"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)
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)
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)
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)
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
So in "many" cases taser contributed, only some directly ! Actual figures, not spin, please !
Says Amnesty evidence to US DoJ inquiry in 2007 was
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)
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).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 14:17, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
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).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 06:07, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
Can someone please enter this incident? Sorry no time. Thanks. 91.125.85.186 ( talk) 18:59, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/ccaps/cew/kiedrowski_report_e.htmWhen 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 07:03, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 22:24, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
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)
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.
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
It is requested that a photograph be
included in this article to
improve its quality.
The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
This article was nominated for deletion on June 23, 2008. The result of the discussion was KEEP. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
Text and/or other creative content from this version of Electroshock weapon was copied or moved into Taser safety issues with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
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)
"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)
See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/University of Florida Taser incident. Badagnani 05:09, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
"... The U.N. Committee Against Torture referred Friday to the use of TaserX26 weapons which Portuguese police has acquired. ... [2]
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)
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)
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)
Study Suggests Taser Use By US Police Is Safe
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Can somebody add this please? I do not know how to do the proper formatting. Thanks!
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
---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)
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)
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:
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)
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.
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.
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)
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:
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
-- Fremte ( talk) 23:29, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
References
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 Carlson Talk 08:11, 1 July 2008 (UTC) —copied from Template talk:Electroshock Flatscan ( talk) 01:48, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
ECD means Electronic Control Device Midnightvisions ( talk) 12:22, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Electrical Conductivity Device (UK Police), or Conducted Electrical Weapon - CEW (Taser Inc) -- 195.137.93.171 ( talk) 02:31, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
"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)
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)
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)
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)
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
So in "many" cases taser contributed, only some directly ! Actual figures, not spin, please !
Says Amnesty evidence to US DoJ inquiry in 2007 was
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)
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).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 14:17, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
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).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 06:07, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
Can someone please enter this incident? Sorry no time. Thanks. 91.125.85.186 ( talk) 18:59, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/ccaps/cew/kiedrowski_report_e.htmWhen 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 07:03, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 22:24, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
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)
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.