home

Taser Developing Product to Stun Multiple Suspects for Crowd Control

Antoine di Zazzo, a Taser representative in France boasts he's been stunned more than 50 times and it didn't cause "real pain." He's also tasered France's far-right politician Jean-Marie Le Pen and convinced French President Nicolas Sarkozy of the stun gun's benefit. Sarkozy promised to buy one for all 300,000 French policemen and gendarmes.

But the more frightening news is this:

Di Zazzo's French company is also developing a mini-flying saucer like drone which could also fire Taser stun rounds on criminal suspects or rioting crowds. He expects it to be launched next year and to be sold internationally by Taser.

While Taser continues to insist the stun gun doesn't cause death,

There have been at least three other deaths this week in the United States after police use of the Taser.

< How Dare Brown People Participate In Politics? | Colorado's DeGette Endorses Clinton, Will Co-Chair Health Care Task Force >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    "Rioting Crowds" (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by scarshapedstar on Mon Nov 26, 2007 at 12:56:50 PM EST
    Yeah, right.

    Diabetic, terrorist, it's all the same (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by joejoejoe on Mon Nov 26, 2007 at 12:58:39 PM EST
    Great moments in Taser history (via BBC):
    A man who had gone into a diabetic coma on a bus in Leeds was shot twice with a Taser gun by police who feared he may have been a security threat.

    Nicholas Gaubert has described how the incident happened in July 2005, just a week before the fatal shooting of Brazilian man Jean Charles de Menezes. [...]

    Mr Gaubert said he was on his way to meet friends when he suffered a fit on the bus and slipped into a coma which left him slumped on his seat clutching his rucksack.

    Armed police were called to the bus depot in Headingley and when he failed to respond to their challenges he was shot with the Taser.

    He said as this was happening, another officer was pointing a real gun at his head.

    He was restrained and eventually came round in the police van.

    He said it was only then that the officers realised it was a medical emergency, despite him wearing a medical tag round his neck to warn of his condition, and took him to hospital.

    Mr Gaubert said he was told the police believed he looked "Egyptian".

    Tasers are like a "free shot" for police who enjoy using force to subdue somebody. It's legitimized the abusive punch in the gut, not replaced deadly force.

    Too bad.... (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by kdog on Mon Nov 26, 2007 at 02:10:41 PM EST
    they couldn't come up with a nitrous oxide gun of some sort for riot control/people herding...nobody would mind getting shot with a gun like that, though the storm troopers probably wouldn't get the same kick out of using it.

    lol (none / 0) (#5)
    by squeaky on Mon Nov 26, 2007 at 02:27:02 PM EST
    "... though the storm troopers (none / 0) (#12)
    by scribe on Mon Nov 26, 2007 at 04:04:49 PM EST
     probably wouldn't get the same kick out of using it."

    Unless they were downwind of it, that is....


    Parent

    Thank God (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by DA in LA on Mon Nov 26, 2007 at 02:46:01 PM EST
    Finally we have flying taser delivery systems.

    I was getting worried there, with all of the out of control mobs running about.

    Good one.... (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by kdog on Mon Nov 26, 2007 at 02:52:10 PM EST
    But seriously, there are out of control mobs to worry about, and now they will have flying group tasers added to their arsenal.

    Parent
    The U.N. being "level one" (1.00 / 0) (#18)
    by diogenes on Mon Nov 26, 2007 at 09:44:18 PM EST
    The U.N. could not stop Cambodia, Rwanda, Darfur, Biafra, Kosovo (NATO ignored the UN, and some think that unilaterally bombing Milosevic "violated international law"), or Burma from happening.  All it does is point out specks in the eyes of Western countries (i.e. rare tasers in the US) while ignoring logs in the eyes of the above countries, China, Iran (I daresay a lot more gays have been killed in Iran than die of tasers in the US) or other nonwestern countries.

    OOOH GOODIE (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by Jen M on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 10:13:44 AM EST
    So our cops can misbehave as much as they want. Beat you up for nothing, take your car, enter your house and seize whatever they want.

    They don't have to follow any rules whatsoever, until the level of misbehavior equals that of china, or until terrorists start behaving.

    Parent

    How dare you (1.00 / 0) (#20)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Nov 26, 2007 at 11:57:57 PM EST
    want our enemies held to standards.

    Don't you know it is our duty to do as they want us to??

    Parent

    The cattle prod of the 21st Century (none / 0) (#3)
    by MacLane on Mon Nov 26, 2007 at 01:29:38 PM EST
    The need to treat humans as if they were cattle has become increasingly urgent, as the the availability of alternative news sources, such as this one, have increased the public's awareness of its relative lack of political power and influence in civic affairs. An instrument of torture has to be deployed to neutralize the potentially galvanizing effect of common knowledge (facilitated by interactive media) of political injustice.

    As Talkleft is concerned with the politics of crime, it could  write about  the concerted legal efforts of Taser international to intimidate medical examiners incautious enough to list the Taser as the cause of death on a Taser victim's death certificate.

    Which is the worst?? (none / 0) (#7)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Nov 26, 2007 at 02:51:03 PM EST
    Being tasered (bro!) or plugged with a .38 bullet?? Beat up with a billy club?? Killed with a choke hold??

    I mean I have no doubt that the taser has caused the deaths of some individuals, and I have no doubt that some sadistic police have used it for torture.

    But I have seen no evidence that, on the whole, the use of a taser has not reduced the number of deaths overall as well as protecting the police.

    The truth remains that we have no 100% safe way to take an unwilling person into custody. And unless you have actually tried to do that you have no idea as how difficult it really is!

    That's the point (5.00 / 0) (#22)
    by LarryE on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 10:27:30 AM EST
    Sorry for the late reply, but I've been down for the count for a few days.

    Being tasered or plugged with a .38

    Tasers were promoted as being an alternative to deadly force - as an alternative, that is, to "plugging" someone. From the very beginning, however, there have been those who warned that tasers would become a weapon not of necessity but of convenience, not to save lives but to "secure compliance."

    That is exactly what they have become. In too many instances, they have not been used in lieu of deadly force but in lieu of any force, indeed in lieu of patience and persuasion.

    If the incidents to which people refer had involved a choice between a taser and a bullet, I very strongly doubt the response would have been the same. But the blunt fact is, they didn't. Instead they involved police needlessly (and often repeatedly) inflicting extreme pain for no reason beyond someone not doing exactly what they were told, meekly, without protest, and instantly. That is, they were not used to save lives but to save effort and fired simply as the result of ego-bruising frustration at being unable to dominate any other way.

    Their convenience and their supposed (but mythical) safety is precisely what makes them dangerous. They should be banned.

    Parent

    Sorry you left out some things. (1.00 / 1) (#23)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 08:18:23 PM EST
    They were also touted as an alternative to hitting someone with a billy club, blackjack or choke hold, all of which were previously used to "control" suspects.

    All of the above, BTW, have been used as lethal force by out of control police as well as by police following guidelines. It isn't the device, it is the improper use.

    And yes, Taser use is safer than a gun, billy club, blackjack or choke hold.

    You also forget that the police have a right to not be put into harm's way when making an arrest or stopping illegal activities. This is especially true in today's world with AIDS, Hepatitis, TB, etc.

    So cool your jets and push for proper use rather than banning.

    Parent

    Go for it (5.00 / 0) (#24)
    by LarryE on Wed Nov 28, 2007 at 08:40:33 AM EST
    They were also touted as an alternative

    Prove it. Cite it. Source it.

    You're wrong. Originally they were presented as an alternative to lethal force; the business about so-called "impact weapons" such as billy clubs came later - I suspect because there were not enough cases of the former to justify expanded sales.

    The Taser Company itself has gotten really mealy-mouthed, saying that

    TASER devices use proprietary technology to incapacitate dangerous, combative, or high-risk subjects who pose a risk to law enforcement officers, innocent citizens, or themselves,
    a definition so broad (arguing with a cop has been called "combative," upset people have been labeled "threats to themselves") as to be meaningless, one that can be - and has been - used to justify taser use, as I already said, not just in lieu of deadly force but it lieu of no force.

    If tasers were used only in those rare cases where they are the safest alternative, then your "push for proper use" could make sense. But experience has already shown that we cannot trust that to be the case. "Proper use" is not an option. Only banning is.

    PS: Something I expect will get me grief from a lot of quarters but still needs to be said:

    police have a right to not be put into harm's way

    No, they don't. Being in harm's way at some times is part of the job - it comes with the territory. That's why we give cops weapons in the first place. That's why we tend to look the other way or even approve when they use levels of force that would land the rest of us in prison even if we had acted in self-defense: We accept it as a necessary consequence of the risks cops sometimes face.

    Now, of course that does not mean they can take no steps for self-protection; don't be so silly as to even try to suggest I said any such thing. It does mean that they do not have a right to be free of risk.

    Parent

    Tell this to the (none / 0) (#25)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Nov 28, 2007 at 10:58:24 AM EST
    police who tried to arrest Rodney King. He kept getting up after being ordered to stay down. Another man was told to stay down, did so and was not injured.

    No, they don't. Being in harm's way at some times is part of the job - it comes with the territory. That's why we give cops weapons in the first place. That's why we tend to look the other way or even approve when they use levels of force that would land the rest of us in prison even if we had acted in self-defense: We accept it as a necessary consequence of the risks cops sometimes face.

    Police have the same right as any other person to reduce the risk they are exposed to in doing their job. From  AI

    as a routine force option to subdue non-compliant or disturbed individuals who do not pose a serious danger to themselves or others.

    The operative phrase is: "who do not pose a serious..." While it is often possible to determine that a person is NOT a threat using 20-20 hindsight, it is often very difficult to do so in the heat of the moment.

    Obviously the tasering of suspect who has already been restrained is improper and I doubt that any police organization would consider it proper. Just as beating, choking, etc., would not be considered proper.

    Beyond that the question becomes, did the officer consider their lives threatened? An out of control individual who has not been searched offers a significant personal threat to the officer. Concealed weapons are not unknown, and their use on officers trying to take a suspect into custody is an undisputed fact. At what point should the officer decide to use a taser as a substitute for deadly force??

    And that question answers your point:

    Originally they were presented as an alternative to lethal force

    The taser removes the need for a "life and death" decision in the vast majority of cases. That's its value.

    Again. The improper use of a Taser, just as a gun, billy stick, black jack or choke hold, is a failure in judgment and training of the individual. In that some individuals may do so knowingly is a failure of the process, not the weapons.

    Parent

    Last on this (none / 0) (#26)
    by LarryE on Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 04:07:48 PM EST
    You said tasers were presented as an alternative to force other than lethal force. I challenged you to back it up. Typically when so challenged, you did not do so, indeed you did not even mention it again.

    (And no, your reference to "remov[ing] the need for a 'life and death' decision" is neither a citation nor a response, since again, tasers were orginally promoted as something to be used in cases where potentially lethal force - i.e., guns - otherwise would have been used, not as something to bring someone down before that point.)

    Police have the same right as any other person to reduce the risk

    Yes, they do, but that's not what you said. You said they have the right to be free from risk. And while that might be true of many of us, being free from risk is not an option available to cops, not if they want to do their jobs.

    As for the rest, your argument is the old "well, you never know, it might have been" line regularly used to justify police misconduct. I still remember overhearing three cops with an antiwar protester they had just arrested, "joking" among themselves in front of this obviously frightened woman with lines like "Oops, I thought she had a gun." It comes down to the claim that anyone who is not passively and obsequiously compliant in the face of police demands becomes a legitimate target for tasering. That is not an overstatement, it is a description of numerous incidents.

    Finally, note well: The "proper use" of a baton or blackjack, according to my cop relatives and in-laws, is on the limbs and does not typically involve "the billy club to the gut" as someone else put it and does not involve a threat of long-term injury. The "proper use" of a choke hold, if it is done right, again does not involve a threat of long-term injury.

    On the other hand, the "proper use" of a taser involves the infliction of extreme and disabling pain and the very real, even if relatively small, risk of death. Not its improper use, its proper use. That clearly distinguishes it from billy clubs and choke holds. Despite that, its use has too often become routine, a weapon of convenience, not of protection.

    They should be banned.

    Parent

    Huh?? (none / 0) (#27)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Nov 30, 2007 at 06:49:42 PM EST
    You said tasers were presented as an alternative to force other than lethal force.

    And the answer was:

    And that question answers your point:

    "Originally they were presented as an alternative to lethal force."

    The taser removes the need for a "life and death" decision in the vast majority of cases. That's its value.

    You obviously can't understand anything except yes/no arguments. Life isn't like that. Try the following.

    Introduced as an alternative to the use of lethal force, the taser removed the need for a police officer to decide if lethal force should be used, or if the officer should try and engage the suspect physically. The taser allows them to NOT have to engage physically and to also NOT use lethal force.

    Finally, I doubt that you have ever actually try to take someone into custody who violently does not want to be taken.

    Trying to hit someone on the "limbs" is like "shooting them on the hand." Sounds pretty but really doesn't work well. Unless you break a bone the pain won't stop them, and probably not even if you do. What can easily happen is the suspect grabs the club and takes it away. At that point, hopefully, the officer can get his pistol drawn and shoot before he is seriously wounded.

    As for non-lethal choke holds..... really

    The New York City Police Department has issued an order banning the use of choke holds, the restraining maneuvers that cut off the flow of blood and oxygen to the brain and have been blamed in the deaths of suspects here and around the nation.

    I find it astonishing that anyone in law enforcement is unaware of this... see NYT Link.

    The taser isn't perfect. But it is the best thing we have.

    Parent

    sigh (none / 0) (#28)
    by LarryE on Fri Nov 30, 2007 at 10:59:24 PM EST
    I know I that the previous time would be my last on this but I'm going to go just one more round in the hope - one that I know going in is a vain one - that you can understand simple logical sentences.

    I said tasers were presented as an alternative to lethal force - that is, to guns. They were supposed to be used, we were assured, in cases where otherwise guns would have been.

    You said that wasn't true, they were also presented as an alternative to billy clubs and choke holds.

    I said you were wrong and called on you to cite evidence in support of your claim.

    You offered none.

    Instead, you pushed a line of "argument," if I can abuse the word that far, that amounted to "well, if you taser somebody early on, you won't have the possibility of a more serious situation later," by which logic cops should be tasering anyone they stop for any reason, even just speeding or a broken tail light, because hey, who knows, that might escalate into something worse. You could be saving a life!

    That is, you have not answered the question: What is your proof that tasers were presented as weapons to be used in non-lethal situations, that is, situations other than those in which firearms would be used if the taser was not available? Answer that question directly or admit you can't and no, repeating your previous evasions and dodges does not constitute an answer.

    As for billy clubs, your equation of hitting someone on the arms and/or legs with "shooting them in the hand" is utterly nonsensical, as is your contention that using them in that way, even to the point of breaking bones, would have no effect. That is so far beyond absurd as to deserve no further comment.

    As for choke holds, I was careful to use the phrase "proper use" and said "if it is done right." (Emphasis added, of course.) The reason the choke hold has been banned in a good number of places is because it is difficult to do it right, i.e., it is easy to do it wrong and so cause injury or even death.

    The point was and remains that even if done right, even if done exactly according to best practices, the taser involves extreme pain and a real possibility of death. That clearly differentiates it from both billy clubs and yes, even choke holds.

    I agree with the bans on the choke hold because, again, it is dangerously easy to do it wrong. I call for a ban on tasers because they are dangerous - and too easy to use - even if done right.

    And with that, I am, yes, done with this thread, once and for all.

    Parent

    Personally.... (none / 0) (#10)
    by kdog on Mon Nov 26, 2007 at 02:54:10 PM EST
    I'd prefer the old-fashioned billy club to the gut...it hurts, but not as much as a taser surely does, and no risk of a heart attack.

    Parent
    Sounds good (1.00 / 0) (#14)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Nov 26, 2007 at 06:46:28 PM EST
    until it ruptures your stomach...

    The other thing you ignore is protection of the policman/woman.... You miss with he billy club and your are likely to have it taken away and inserted in places best left unsaid.

    Parent

    Flying taser saucers versus the unwilling arrestee (none / 0) (#11)
    by MacLane on Mon Nov 26, 2007 at 03:19:44 PM EST
    There is a difference between using a Taser during an arrest according to police protocol  and deploying a hovering, neuronic whip-like flying Taser saucer into a crowd, and then anonymously and remotely firing probes into the eyeballs, mucous membranes and genitalia of random persons who happen to be in the vicinity.

    The UN's Committee against Torture has called the use of Tasers a form of torture. It is unlikely they would condone a Taser hovercraft--something out of an Asimov science fiction novel.

    Though I grant you that Sarkozy's embrace of the technology could mean that we can stop calling French fries freedom fries.

    Who am I kidding? I can't wait for 1984. We need these hovercraft patrolling every public place, and in every corporate office. And we need to internalize the development of flying cattle prods as a necessary social good, which we will do.

    Parent

    Taser=Torture (none / 0) (#8)
    by squeaky on Mon Nov 26, 2007 at 02:51:57 PM EST
    [reposted from open thread[
    TASER electronic stun guns are a form of torture that can kill, a UN committee has declared after several recent deaths in North America.
    "The use of these weapons causes acute pain, constituting a form of torture,'' the UN's Committee against Torture said.

    "In certain cases, they can even cause death, as has been shown by reliable studies and recent real-life events,'' the committee of 10 experts said.

    Three men, all in their early 20s, were reported to have died in the United States this week, days after a Polish man died at Vancouver airport after being Tasered by Canadian police.

    link via digg

    hehe (1.00 / 1) (#15)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Nov 26, 2007 at 06:48:44 PM EST
    The use of these weapons causes acute pain, constituting a form of torture,'' the UN's Committee against Torture said.

    Well that settles the issue for me. I'm sure glad that we don't have to think, weight the benefits vs the downside.

    Yes, thank goodness we have the UN drones around.

    Parent

    Where is Carl Sagan when you need him? (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by MacLane on Mon Nov 26, 2007 at 08:41:25 PM EST
    The widespread dismissal of the UN is evidence that human race will never develop a type 1 planetary civilization.

    Parent
    Carl (1.00 / 0) (#19)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Nov 26, 2007 at 11:55:53 PM EST
    is out there wondering around in those billions and billions and billions....

    And if you are shopping around for a house, or a planet size government, don't buy the first thing that is shoved at you.

    Parent

    They haven't developed (none / 0) (#17)
    by Edger on Mon Nov 26, 2007 at 08:59:26 PM EST
    portable holster sized waterboards yet...