Cop tasers man in eye

reply to post by Throbber


So when cops stop rounding up drunks and we start seeing a large rise in alcohol related injuries to innocent people what will be said then? That the police need to be out rounding up drunks would be my guess.

If people did not go out and do stupid things daily life would be oh so grand. But we live in a world where people are stupid and do bad things this includes cops, judges, senators, and your average Joe.

I see this as an accident not intention. The cop might feel terrible about it. If he was drunk because of life it is still his fault, only a fool needs to look some place other than in themselves for an answer to their problems. I for one am sick of people using excuses for drinking or doing drugs. If you want to drink great but no need to use excuses to do it. If the guy was having a hard time why not try talking to someone or sitting down and getting a good look at your life without the additives to your body.

Raist

Originally posted by Twilly
If a cop tells you to stop, you stop. PERIOD. Anything that happens after that is YOUR FAULT for not obeying authorty.

spot on Twilly

police are shot at, stabbed and everything else
in this day and age we all know if a policeman tells you to stop, you stop, unless you have a reason NOT to stop.

why should the police put their lifes on the line for a drug crazed loonie or a simple drunk..

i have no respect for the law, it sucks big time but most of the cops i have had a run in with have been decent (i have seen the nasty ones as well)
but if i decided to run from them then i am old enough to know the conequences of my actions...

saying that.....
the guy must not have been running from the police or they could not have shot him in the eye.........

every time i think about that the hairs stand up on the back of my neck...
and then a load of volts hitting it, damn

reply to post by Raist


Man i stopped doing drugs and i barely drink - i'm lucky if i get a pint a month.

Just cause i'm sticking up for the people oppressed by the social conditioning of the community we are in.

The fact is that some people just won't open up their hearts to others, maybe it's cause they have history, maybe it's because they're so damn riled up inside they want to hit someone.

So say someone came along and fired you from your top-job position as the CEO's chief advisor or something like that, where you really think you might be in with a chance of being CEO, are you saying you wouldn't be pissed?

It's a miracle a guy like that picks bar fights instead of going Postal.

Maybe not everyone in society is as open-minded about life as you, did you ever think of that?


Now i know that it's supposed to be a good thing to be open-minded, but you gotta remember that it doesn't matter how damn wise or spiritual you are, your emotions will still bring you down if you let them.

I'm not condoning violence, but at the end of the day those police are only rounding up drunks because they're a risk to public or private property - they might feel like they're "protecting the innocent"; F they might even believe it.

But the Cops you see out on the street ARE NOT IN CONTROL.

They're the same as You And Me, they're slaves to the system - there'll be quite a few who hate the job because of it.

+ When the Sergeant goes over your head and charges the drunk despite what you say 'To meet the quota', that can tick a guy off - especially if he emphasizes with the guy.

Y'know, it's probably actually drilled into rookie's heads that if they're dealing with a violent miscreant that they HAVE to use the taser-gun, simply because of the fact that they don't have the experience to deal with people in a melee fight.

You tell the rookie to get back and cover your ass with the stun-gun, And that's all he ever does.

Being a Cop is not a career where you're guarenteed not to be hurt.

Do we give firefighters those $10,000 cooling suits to protect them from the flames they fight?

No.

Do we give Paramedics weapons to defend themselves if they happen upon a scene where the assailant has returned?

No.

I agree that we should show pride in our officers on the beat, but i can't be proud of the officers sitting in the offices.

Originally posted by Dr Love
The face sure is a small target to hit with a taser. Maybe the drunk guy bent down as the taser was being fired.

On that same note, I'm surprised more men haven't been tased in the testicles.

Peace

i hope you've had kids Dr Love, otherwise you'd be known as Dr Loveless after a hit to the ghoulies..

peeing on an electric fence gets you a nice crispified weiner, i'd hate to think what taser to the ghoulies would do. (makes a guy cringe and cross his legs just thinkin about it) oohhh painful

those bean bag guns are already in use in USA, aswell as wooden/rubber/foam "knee knockers" (cyliners fired from a 10 gauge shotty at the legs)

my non lethal weapons video, on ATS - shows microwave guns, tasers, knee knockers + more.

[edit on 31/10/07 by Obliv_au]

Without knowing more details about this situation it is not fair to just say that the police were out of line in the use of this taser in making the arrest. That being said I also belive that it needs to be proven that the officers were being attacked and that this man was going to physically harm or kill one or more of the police officers. If he was making a effort to attack the officers that could be a reason why he was shot in the eye. The artical however does not mention anything along those lines.
"After further interaction with this gentleman, the sergeant deployed the Taser." - CBC News
There is a key fact that is being over looked in this tread. There was more than one officer at the scene when the taser was fired. The man was out numbered by trained police and it is possable that there were more than 2 police officers there. I can see 1 officer in a violent confrontation possibly having to use a taser but when a officer has back-up that is a different story. Really IMO the only way they should have fired the taser on this man was if he had a weapon and was attacking the police. "Drive stun" mode is the mode where the taser is put agenst the person and in this situation would have made more sense and saved this guys vision. The best thing would have been to make the arrest without haveing to use ANY weapons. This could possibly be a situation where police were using the taser as a tool to control a person and not as what it was intended to be used for. The original use of a taser was to be a less than lethal weapon to replace deadly force in a deadly force situation. I agree with the study in the link below and think that more research and study is on the use of the taser as a police weapon. This is giving police a tool of torture and assult.

web.amnesty.org...

If the officers were going to suffer physical harm and/or if their lives were in danger then the taser was justified but if not the police need to be punished and charges brought agenst them.

Originally posted by BlueTriangle

Originally posted by WorldShadow

Originally posted by BlueTriangle
Before you condemn the police, you should wait and get the entire story. They may have been justified in using the taser.

My son is a cop. I don't believe they were justified to take the guys eye out. It was careless how the taser was handled and administered.

You seem to assume that the guy was purposefully shot in the eye, which I think is kind of ridiculous. They are trained to aim at the body and try to avoid hitting the head or groin.

No, I do not assume that. I do think the cop should have noticed where the stinger penetrated and not applied voltage. That shock to the eye is ridiculous when you think about it.

reply to post by WorldShadow


Like i said before, i'm surprised he hasn't suffered major brain damage and became a fruit.

I'll take a clubbing over losing something anyday of the year.

I agree with everyone that it is best to wait for the SIU to finish its investigation. I just think of it this way, if i was a cop, had a family, and i just pulled over a car at 3 am, how would i react to something that might seem a little threatening? maybe the driver is trying to step out or something . .. i dunno i guess it's all in the heat of the moment that things happen. yep there are rules and procedures that must be followed, but when your adrenaline is through the roof, and you are terrified for your own life, you don't think clearly you just do the easiest / fastest thing to neutralize the threat.

I dunno if you guys heard of this story, it happened in toronto a few days ago. a female cop pulled over a driver, while talking to him he suddenly accelerated away dragging the cop with him on the highway and while being chased, he crashed into a minivan with children inside. Miraculously everyone survived. But my point is how on earth would that cop ever known this guy is a freak. . . he is dangerous ? for her it was a routine stop.

Link to story


i understand also that not everyone is like that but sometimes cops are just scared, they are human and have emotions to deal with at the same time. things tend to happen in the heat of the moment.

there was a famous episode of third watch, a nice show about NYPd, FDNY. Two officers are chasing a suspect. The one ahead slips on ice and injures his back. An innocent person near by sees him,comes to help. The officer asks for his gun, so the guy grabs it and is about to give it to him. Just then his partner arrived and instantly sees a guy pointing a gun at his partner, he fatally shoots the man. Later on he found out it was an innocent man helping his partner out.

things like that happen. When we are sleeping at home, cops are dealing with maniacs on the street.
But anyways i will wait for the SIU report lol sorry for the long post.

Originally posted by Throbber
reply to post by WorldShadow

 

Like i said before, i'm surprised he hasn't suffered major brain damage and became a fruit.

I'll take a clubbing over losing something anyday of the year.

LOL. You say that now. Have you ever been hit in the head with anything?A fist is bad enough. Brain damage is way worse than one eye. I'm not making light of the dude losing his eye, bcause it is serious but dude an ass kicking with a club can be awful.

Which would you say is worse, a beating with a club or a couple thousand volts fed directly into your brain?

EDIT: I feel like i'm making a mistake over the volts bit, i might be referring to Watts - in which case it is more likely to be kW.

[edit on 1-11-2007 by Throbber]

I've had both. Trust me the beating is much worse. The shock leaves you drained and sore, but the beating takes days or more. A blow to the head can cause extensive permanent damage to the brain. Brain damage bad

Also I would like to say that it does not matter where the probe enters the body. The current carries throughout the entire body instantly with very minimal if any change in the amps. The higher the amps the worse the effect. I believe it takes 1.6 amps to kill a person. The voltage is not really what kills, it is the amperage.

My buddy passe this info on to me...

1 - 8 milliamps (ma) Sensation, tingling, no pain

8 - 15 ma Pain

15 - 20 ma Muscle control lost

20 - 50 ma Difficult breathing, can cause damage to brain tissue and blood vessels which may be fatal

50 - 200 ma Ventricular fibrillation, may be fatal

Greater that 200 ma Severe burns, may be fatal

(Edit to add info)


[edit on 1-11-2007 by Daz3d-n-Confus3d]

Originally posted by Daz3d-n-Confus3d
Also I would like to say that it does not matter where the probe enters the body. The current carries throughout the entire body instantly with very minimal if any change in the amps. The higher the amps the worse the effect. I believe it takes 1.6 amps to kill a person. The voltage is not really what kills, it is the amperage.

Actually it does matter where it enters the body. This case specifically, it hit him in the eye unloaded a heaping of juice and he is now blind because of it. I don't think it gets anymore crystal clear than that.

Originally posted by merryxmas

Originally posted by Daz3d-n-Confus3d
Also I would like to say that it does not matter where the probe enters the body. The current carries throughout the entire body instantly with very minimal if any change in the amps. The higher the amps the worse the effect. I believe it takes 1.6 amps to kill a person. The voltage is not really what kills, it is the amperage.

Actually it does matter where it enters the body. This case specifically, it hit him in the eye unloaded a heaping of juice and he is now blind because of it. I don't think it gets anymore crystal clear than that.

I think you missed my point. I stated that because someone had said it could have caused brain damage by shocking through the eye. I said nothing about it blinding him. My point was that the shot in the toe or in the eye steal produces the same amount of current in the brain. It is just a difference in the distance travelled.

Oh ya I ask once again where does it say he was blinded? I am sure he is but I don't see it. We can guess what happened all day and night, but that goes back to my original statement of why don't we wait until the facts all come out.

[edit on 1-11-2007 by Daz3d-n-Confus3d]

Well, I never said the cop was wrong to use it. I pointed out that using a taser is too easy, and because it is considered non-lethal, an overwhelming majority condone it's routine use.

So in a few years, if California says that to keep officers safe from every chance of violence, they're starting a new policy of just tasering everyone they encounter, some of you will be OK with that? How about if they pull you over, walk up to the window and taser you where you sit?

Yes, it's non-lethal, but it is still violent. We would be outraged if they were shooting people with their sidearm this often, yet doing violence to them with electricity is somehow alright.

And I'm old enough to remember when tasers were the new thing. The buzz then, from the police forces themselves, was that this was a non-lethal weapon to be used in place of a sidearm, so cops wouldn't have to kill a suspect. It wasn't touted as a way to do your job without breaking a sweat.

Cops use this so much because if they shoot someone, there's an investigation, and they have to show why violent force was needed. With the taser, it can all be swept under the rug a lot easier. Easier means turning to it a lot more often.

Originally posted by Daz3d-n-Confus3d
I think you missed my point. I stated that because someone had said it could have caused brain damage by shocking through the eye. I said nothing about it blinding him. My point was that the shot in the toe or in the eye steal produces the same amount of current in the brain. It is just a difference in the distance travelled.

That's not at all correct.

The bulk of the current will travel in the shortest distance between the electrodes. Some fringing current will travel in arcs away from the shortest distance, but progressively less current as the total distance of flow increases.

If you were to map it, it would look a bit like one of those magnetic maps you make with iron filings. But, for instance, if I were to shoot you with a taser such that the two darts were to the left and right of your umbilicus, you wouldn't have ANY current flow through your brain, nor, say, up one arm, back down that arm, across to the other arm etc. Because there's no potential difference there to cause current to flow.

The better conductor you are, the less fringing current you get, to the point that if you were a metallic conductor, there wouldn't be any to speak of. With relatively poor conductors, it can range quite a distance. But you're a pretty good conductor once the Taser's arc gets past the epidermis.

reply to post by Throbber


I have been fired wrongly before and I was upset. Did I go out drinking and trying to think of what to do next? No I left and started looking for a new job. I was only married two months at the time when this happened; I had just signed a loan for a new house two months prior to this. It's not about emotion at this time it's about common sense and intelligence. Drinking or drugs is not going to solve my problem they can only add to it. I know because I have done my fair share of both in the past.

So my point was I do not care if the police are out rounding up drunks that are in public as they risk hurting someone who is innocent. If my neighbor is drunk and roaming around the neighborhood acting in a violent manner it would be safer for me to call the police then to attempt to deal with it myself. The reason for this is he might have a weapon, drunks really don't feel pain as much as a sober person, if I get into a scuffle with him someone else could call the cops and I get hauled off as well. So if cops are rounding up drunks they are doing a great job.

Now I realize there are bad cops but why aim a taser for a person’s head when that is a small target and the barbs might not stick as well as in the chest or back? Nearly every drunk I have ever seen was not very cooperative with anyone wanting to help them or get them to go someplace else. So I going to assume (I know that is a dangerous thing to do) that this drunk was like so many drunks before him.

One more thing to add is not all the cops behind the desks are there completely by choice nor are they all bad cops either. Some of them are close to retirement or have been injured so why not be proud of them if they have been a good cop?

I will tell you flat out that there are bad cops. I'll even say that they may be at around twenty percent of the force (though I’m not sure about that). I know there are those that will follow orders without question. But I doubt this was a planned spot to hit a person.

Without knowing a great deal more about the story I can only speculate about how the drunken guy was acting at the same time I can only speculate about the cop's actions.

All we know is a guy got a taser to the eye. It is highly likely the guy was at fault to begin with.

We should by no means trust every cop or obey every order we are given but we cannot say this cop should be "hung" for this without knowing the whole story.

If we "hung" everyone for a mistake they may have made there would be millions in jail or dead in the U.S. leaving the free population much smaller than it is now.

Raist

Originally posted by Tomis_Nexis

Two thumbs up to TOPD

Seriously I believe the officers intentions were not to shoot the man in the eye, the two probes that are shot out usually spread apart by more or less half a foot.

I don't like tazers but these wires I don't trust. Reduce the voltage and change the design to the tazers that has the two prongs on it. I read that the wire prongs has hooks on them to stay in the skin.

Even 25,000 volts should be enough to bring the suspect down.

reply to post by Tom Bedlam


You are correct about that. Sorry if I explained it incorrectly. I am not a electrician. I know that if you stick a screwdriver in a high voltage outlet the current will burn the closest thing to it. I meant that the current will still travel through the whole conductor, in this case a person. Electricity does look for the shortest path and the higher the voltage the farther it will travel. The higher the amp the more damage it does.
Electricity is a strange creature and it is very unpredictable though. Have you ever seen pictures of someone who cut into a high voltage line. It does not just burn the hand, it blows limbs off of the person. Basically it dehydrates the body as it flows through the person looking for an exit.

its the pulse repetitions and frequency used which causes the muscles to contract.

they "claim" to have reduced the current significantly with the pistol type taser while getting better incapacitation due to the pulse/freq.