Quotulatiousness

October 21, 2011

New study shows Tasers often misused by police

Filed under: Law, Liberty — Tags: , , — Nicholas @ 09:36

Robert Farago lists some of the findings from a recent New York Civil Liberties Union study on the use and mis-use of TASERs:

  • Nearly 60 percent of reported Taser incidents did not meet expert-recommended criteria that limit the weapon’s use to situations where officers can document active aggression or a risk of physical injury.
  • Fifteen percent of incident reports indicated clearly inappropriate Taser use, such as officers shocking people who were already handcuffed or restrained.
  • Only 15 percent of documented Taser incidents involved people who were armed or who were thought to be armed, belying the myth that Tasers are most frequently used as an alternative to deadly force.
  • More than one-third of Taser incidents involved multiple or prolonged shocks, which experts link to an increased risk of injury and death.
  • More than a quarter of Taser incidents involved shocks directly to subjects’ chest area, despite explicit warnings by the weapon’s manufacturer that targeting the chest can cause cardiac arrest.
  • In 75 percent of incidents, no verbal warnings were reported, despite expert recommendations that verbal warnings precede Taser firings.
  • 40 percent of the Taser incidents analyzed involved at-risk subjects, such as children, the elderly, the visibly infirm and individuals who are seriously intoxicated or mentally ill.

    May 19, 2011

    Making light: are LED flashlights now “tacticool”?

    Filed under: Randomness, Technology — Tags: , , — Nicholas @ 09:51

    Chris Dumm has a bit of fun reviewing an LED flashlight:

    Remember back when Mag-lite was the last word in aircraft-grade aluminum illumination? Those old incandescent Mag-Lites weren’t any brighter than ordinary flashlights, but their indestructible machined-aluminum bodies made them the choice of police, private security, Elvis and burglars. They were “tacticool” before people had a chance to learn to hate that word. The longer D-cell Mag-lites resembled aluminum billy clubs; they delivered a more devastating blow than any Monadnock PR-24 police baton ever could. Despite their size and weight, however, they still weren’t all that bright.

    Then new technology arrived in the form of noble gas (Xenon bulbs) and heavy metal (Lithium batteries). SureFire and Streamlight built flashlights bright enough to temporarily blind and disorient a target without having to bash his brains in with five D-cell batteries wrapped in an aluminum Little League bat. And they were tough enough to drown, drop and attach to the hardest-kicking riot shotguns in the SWAT unit’s arsenal without fizzling out at the worst possible moment.

    The new flashlights were rugged, dazzlingly bright and incredibly compact. Their only drawbacks: astronomical prices (for lights, bulbs, and batteries) and battery run-times of one hour or less. They quickly became the law enforcement standard, until LED technology took the lead and never looked back.

    December 8, 2010

    Has anyone seen this Taser?

    Filed under: Britain, Humour, Law — Tags: , , , — Nicholas @ 08:32

    John Oates has a bit of fun at the expense of the Metropolitan Police:

    Police appeal for missing Taser
    Shocking loss, but stunning Christmas present

    The Metropolitan Police ia appealing for the return of a Taser and four cartridges that were left on the roof of a police car, which was then driven away…

    A Met firearms officer attended an early morning briefing at Norfolk Row, Lambeth. After the briefing, possibly focussed on coffee and a bacon sandwich, the copper put the Taser on the roof of the marked police car and drove off.

    An hour and a half later it dawned on the unfortunate officer what had happened, by which time the Taser was no longer on the roof.

    September 29, 2010

    Taser shotgun shell

    Filed under: Randomness — Tags: , , , — Nicholas @ 12:15

    In a word, YIKES!

    That is something nobody wants to be hit with, especially fired out of a shotgun.

    The “X12″ Taser shotgun is made by Taser International of Scottsdale, Arizona and fires a battery-packed 12-bore shell with forward-facing barbs that deliver a debilitating electric shock.

    In August last year, New Scientist revealed research that showed an early version of the weapon was both difficult to aim accurately, putting victims’ eyes at risk, and sometimes delivered a shock for more than five minutes, rather than 20 seconds.

    A five minute jolt rather blurs the line between non-lethal and kinda-sorta-lethal, doesn’t it?

    January 19, 2010

    A round-up of current “non-lethal” weaponry

    Filed under: Military, Technology — Tags: , , — Nicholas @ 07:16

    Strategy Page looks at some new developments in the non-lethal weaponry category:

    Israel has developed a new non-lethal weapon; the Thunder Cannon. Light enough to be mounted in a cart, it uses a new Pulse Detonation Technology that combines LPG (liquefied natural gas) with air to create a sonic boom in a cannon type barrel. Each burst moves forward at 2,000 meters per second and lasts 300 milliseconds. The cannon generates 60 to 100 bursts per second. One 27 pound (12kg) canister of LPG can create 5,000 bursts. A PDA size control unit does the mixing and detonation. The cannon is effective, at hitting people with these sonic bursts, at ranges of up to fifty meters (152 feet), and eventually double that. At ten meters or less, the burst can cause injury, or even be fatal. Anyone hit by the sonic bursts feels it, and hears it. It’s disorienting, and most people exposed to it flee the area. The technology was first developed to chase birds away from crops. It has been very effective at that. The military version can be mounted on vehicles, and fitted with a nozzle that can calibrate the shockwaves for special mission requirements. [. . .]

    The problem is that, non-lethal weapons are not one hundred percent non-lethal, and not nearly as effective as proponents would like. But people love to call them non-lethal, because such devices are intended to deal with violent individuals by using less lethal force. A classic example of how this works is the Taser. A gun like device that fires two small barbs into an individual, and then zaps the victim with a non-lethal jolt of electricity, the Taser has been popular with police, who can more easily subdue violent, and often armed, individuals. Before Taser, the cops had a choice between dangerous (for everyone) hand-to-hand combat, or just using their firearms and killing the guy. While the Taser has been a major success for non-lethal weapons, for every thousand or so times you use it, the victim will die (either from a fall, another medical condition, use of drugs or whatever). This has been fodder for the media, and put Taser users, and non-lethal-weapons developers, on the defensive. Naturally, the manufacturers of these devices want zero deaths, and the users want a device that will bring down the target every time, at a price (for the device) they can afford to pay. There’s no way of satisfying all these demands, but it makes great press, insisting that someone should make it so.

    Of course, the media also — rightly — points out cases where police officers use their Tasers like wands of domination . . . Tasering in situation where there’s no need for it or using the Taser like they’re playing paintball with the victim. There’s no need to blame the technology when it’s misused by “professionals”.

    « « Nostalgia’s over-rated| The evolution of music » »

    Powered by WordPress