British Cops Can Now Use Taser Guns On Children. Now Checking Use On Pregnant Women

[DeSwiss]

Now police are told they can use Taser guns on children

The Daily Mail
By JASON LEWIS
2nd September 2007


Stun gun: Tasers give off a 50,000 volt blast

Police have been given the go-ahead to use Taser stun guns against children. The relaxing of restrictions on the use of the weapons comes despite warnings that they could trigger a heart attack in youngsters. Until now, Tasers - which emit a 50,000-volt electric shock - have been used only by specialist officers as a "non lethal" alternative to firearms.

However, they can now be used against all potentially violent offenders even if they are unarmed. It is the decision not to ban their use against minors that is likely to raise serious concerns. Home Office Police Minister Tony McNulty said medical assessments had confirmed the risk of death or serious injury from Tasers was "low". But he failed to mention Government advisers had also warned of a potential risk to children.

The Defence Scientific Advisory Council medical committee told the Home Office that not enough was known about the health risks of using the weapons against children. Tasers work by firing metal barbs into the skin which then discharge an electrical charge which is designed to disable someone long enough to allow police to detain them safely.

The committee, which is made up of independent scientists and doctors, said that limited research suggested there was a risk children could suffer "a serious cardiac event". It recommended that officers should be "particularly vigilant" for any Taser-induced adverse response and said guidance should be amended to "identify children and adults of small stature" as being at potentially greater risk from the cardiac effects of Tasers. The Government scientists were also asked to test whether the weapons could cause a miscarriage if used on a pregnant woman.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=479341&in_page_id=1770

*** - Taser children? Test to see if its okay to taser pregnant women next? When did Bush get elected Prime Minister of Great Britain???

[WindRavenX]

1. sweet fucking zombie jesus, can this world get any MORE batshit insane??

I'm sorry, this is just *madness*.

[DeSwiss]

3. And these are the guys whom many thought....

...would be better than Tony Blair.

[hlthe2b]

2. Only until they devise the cellular -level tactical nuclear weapon

:mad:

[DeSwiss]

4. I'm sure they're working on it....

...our tax dollars "at work."

[jody]

5. UK authorities disagree with Amnesty International claims Tasers have been responsible for 220 death

in America since 2001.

Perhaps Amnesty International exaggerated its claim.

[WindRavenX]

7. ok, even if it is exaggerated, I'm willing to bet that tasering PREGNANT WOMEN is still stupid

NT

[jody]

15. I agree "tasering PREGNANT WOMEN is still stupid". n/t

[DeSwiss]

9. I don't know if they exaggerated the numbers or not....

...its still barbaric.

[jody]

14. IMO tasers are less barbaric than firearms when LEOs are trying to subdue violent criminals. n/t

[DeSwiss]

17. It may be less....

...but its still barbaric.

[jody]

22. What arms can a LEO carry that are not barbaric? n/t

[DeSwiss]

29. As Max Frisch once said....

"Technology is a way of organizing the universe so that man doesn't have to experience it."

We now have sonic and heat-discharging weapons. Before them rifles, guns and knives. These arms replaced clubs and stones -- fists and claws. All are barbaric because even the most modern of them harken back to a more primeval time. Of course I'm an idealist in most matters and I was not attempting to say that in the world as it has evolved, that arms have no place in it. I simply would prefer that they didn't.

But from another perspective, these "violent criminals" you mentioned, are often people with metal illnesses who were once cared for (albeit rather poorly). Now they are spun out into the world amongst us where we must fend for ourselves while they fight their own personal demons, and where we often get in the way. As Frisch said, by developing technologies (in this case arms), we avoid those deeper issues and simply pull the trigger on the problems. Because a Taser is cheaper than mental health care.

To me, we seem more concerned in society, with addressing our attention toward the symptoms and outcomes of problems, rather than dealing with the sources and causes of those problems more directly. Our failures to resolve age-old problems in the past, may influence our decisions not to worry so much about them now. But if that were the attitude of scientists, then much of the technology we now enjoy, would never have been invented. Including Tasers.

Peace.

Progress, far from consisting in change, depends on retentiveness. When change is absolute there remains no being to improve and no direction is set for possible improvement: and when experience is not retained, as among savages, infancy is perpetual. Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it. In the first stage of life the mind is frivolous and easily distracted, it misses progress by failing in consecutiveness and persistence. This is the condition of children and barbarians, in which instinct has learned nothing from experience. ~ George Santayana, The Life of Reason, Volume 1, 1905

DeSwiss

[jody]

32. Again I ask, what arms can a LEO carry that are not barbaric? n/t

[DeSwiss]

33. Apparently I wasn't clear enough before....

So I'll repeat:

I'm an idealist in most matters and I was not attempting to say that in the world as it has evolved, that arms have no place in it. I simply would prefer that they didn't.

So obviously the answer is NONE. Although dart guns and rifles are used with sedatives to fell wild animals. But I suppose that technology's development was limited to all the other beasts though. But maybe it's a start?

Death by Taser: The Killer Alternative to Guns
This article is especially relevant given the recent unwarranted and brutal taser attack on a UCLA student. The video to the right is the taped recording of the attack this week.

By Silja J.A. Talvi, In These Times.
Posted November 18, 2006.

Long touted as a safer alternative to handguns for law enforcement, tasers are potentially deadly weapons that have a growing history of abuse by police and security guards. Taser International Inc. maintains that its stun-guns are "changing the world and saving lives everyday." There is no question that they changed Jack Wilson's life. On Aug. 4, in Lafayette, Colo., policemen on a stakeout approached Jack's son Ryan as he entered a field of a dozen young marijuana plants. When Ryan took off running, officer John Harris pursued the 22-year-old for a half-mile and then shot him once with an X-26 Taser. Ryan fell to the ground and began to convulse. The officer attempted cardiopulmonary resuscitation, but Ryan died.

According to his family and friends, Ryan was in very good physical shape. The county coroner found no evidence of alcohol or drugs in his system and ruled that Ryan's death could be attributed to the Taser shock, physical exertion from the chase and the fact that one of his heart arteries was unusually small. In October, an internal investigation cleared Officer Harris of any wrongdoing and concluded that he had used appropriate force.

Wilson says that while his son had had brushes with the law as a juvenile and struggled financially, he was a gentle and sensitive young man who always looked out for his disabled younger brother's welfare, and was trying to better his job prospects by becoming a plumber's apprentice. "Ryan was not a defiant kid," says his father. "I don't understand why the cop would chase him for a half-mile, and then 'Tase' him while he had an elevated heart rate. If hadn't done that, we know that he would still be alive today."

Ryan is one of nearly 200 people who have died in the last five years after being shot by a Taser stun gun. In June, the U.S. Department of Justice announced that it would review these deaths.

Read more: http://www.alternet.org/story/44455/

[jody]

34. OK but given the violent nature of some criminals and the obvious fact that unarmed LEOs are useless

then the logical conclusion is you want to submit to criminals.

That's understandable for some but most people believe that such acts of submission lead to growth of crime and tyranny.

On another front, our congress bound by oath to protect We the People has submitted to a rogue president and allowed him to curtail many freedoms enumerated in our Bill of Rights.

In a Utopian world where evil doers do not exist, defense and offense are not needed.

Sadly we are not there yet.

[mogster]

23. Violent children and pregnant women?

Yup, the tasers may be less barbaric than putting a bullet thru their heads, but that's not what this is about, is it?

[jody]

28. I said "IMO tasers are less barbaric than firearms when LEOs are trying to subdue violent criminals"

What part of that don't you understand?

[Mojorabbit]

6. In my 51 years

I have never thought to see a headline like that. Who would ok the use of weapons against children?

[DeSwiss]

11. Who would ok the use of weapons against children?

A KKKarl Rove wannabe?

[TheUniverse]

8. Why would a grown man need a Tazer against a child?

Something is seriously wrong here. Talk about over kill. When you combine this with the talking cameras in London, UK is quickly becoming a police state.

[DeSwiss]

12. I would have to agree. n/t

[BlooInBloo]

10. As usual, they're behind America.

[DeSwiss]

13. Yes, this is true....

...but then, they don't have a King!

[qdemn7]

16. Link provided by policypunk.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=149093&mesg_id=149102

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/02/15/nkids15.xml

Unicef placed the UK last among 21 industrialised nations for the well-being of its children, including the quality of family life, the number living in relative poverty, vaccination rates and the time spent talking, or eating daily, with parents. It also has high rates of obesity, drunkenness, bullying, early sexual intercourse, cannabis-taking and teenage pregnancy. Britain was scored better for education, but languished in the final third for each of the other measures, giving it an overall place at the bottom, along with the US.

EDIT: Oh yes, read my sig.

[DeSwiss]

18. When you consider that the "normal"....

...amount of current used in executions by states that used to use the electric chair is around 2,000 volts for 15 seconds, even if delivered in milliseconds, I don't think anyone can predict what the different outcomes will be upon a person whose been hit with 50,000 volts.

There was no independent research and analysis of these things that I know of, preceding the hawking of them to law enforcement agencies when they were first beginning to be used. And so far there have been many, many deaths and serious injuries caused by their misuse.

In one case last year, it was the clear stupidity of the officer involved that was evident, when he chose this method to subdue a man who had poured gasoline over himself previously. He knew the man was covered in gas, because he stood there and watched him do it. When the man caught afire, the police officer was stunned. He had no idea that could happen he said at the time. That doesn't say much for their understanding of how lethal a weapon they've got.

If it is to be used at all, then it should be a weapon of last resort, not an alternative to a gun, since they've demonstrated they can kill too. Cops should see it as a possible lessening the chance of death -- but its not a guarantee. To me, its like they've got this new toy and its no good if they don't get a chnace to use it. And it should be understood that they may end up killing a person instead. But Taser doesn't want to market it that way. Because that would be too much truth.

In another incident last year at UCLA, the rent-a-cops not only blasted away with this thing on an innocent student who had forgotten his ID (he was Arabic too as I recall), but they shocked him several times as was recorded by the cellphone cameras used by other students who were trying to get them to stop.

This is why I say that the cop's don't have a clue what the hell they're doing in my book. And they need a moratorium on these damned things until they do. Or ban the damn things altogether. IMHO

DeSwiss

[TheMightyFavog]

19. Yeah, but IIRC...

It's not the volts that kill you, it's the amps.

[DeSwiss]

21. Volts, amps....

..whatever, all I know is they've got dead bodies from using these things. I don't know which killed them, the volts or the amps, but they're still dead.

[AspenRose]

20. This is very disturbing.

:scared:

[stop the bleeding]

24. And your point is?!?!?!?

:sarcasm:

edit for punctuation

[mogster]

25. Good grief

Child raising the 'crowd control' way coming right up.

[LostInAnomie]

26. What exactly are we considering "children"?

It's kind of a loaded term.

If we are going by the story, they are still considering 14 (a freshman in high school) a child. I, personally, don't find the idea of police tasering a violent 14 year old that is a threat to himself or others that disturbing.

[DeSwiss]

30. So you're okay with 50,000 volts being used on a 14 year-old?

How about a pregnant woman who is violent? That's what they're checking into now.

I must say that I've certainly learned something today about the breadth of opinion of the "progressives" here at DU.

I see these things as instruments of torture. Wielded by people who are ignorant of how lethal they can be. But if Tasers are as benign as we're being told, then maybe the cops should shock each other with them first before they are allowed to use them. At least then they'll know what they're doing to these "violent people" they wish to subdue.

Hey, its harmless, right?

[LostInAnomie]

35. Yeah, pretty much.

A cranked-up 14 year old with a knife or club is just as dangerous as a 25 year old. The probability of an officer dying in a confrontation with an armer suspect is FAR greater than the probability of a 14 year old dying because of a taser shock. Why should officer be forced to put themselves at a greater risk of death or serious bodily injury because of the age of the suspect?

In fact, in many depts. around the country, officers that wish to carry tasers around on duty are shocked with them for the purpose you stated. The same is true for pepper spray. Police officers aren't out there looking to taser everyone they come in contact with. There are strict guidelines or protocol that must be met before they are even allowed to pull them from their holster. If someone were to die from being improperly tasered the officer goes to jail.

[Forkboy]

27. Hey,that might not be a fetus she's packing!

For all we know it's RPG launcher under that so called "maternity wear".

Best to be safe....

[DemGa]

31. They can't do that here yet?

I know it's been done, many times. I'm sure it wouldn't cause too big of a fuss if it were made legal in the U.S.