RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Print

Excerpt: "Taser death is a form of police violence that is claiming lives in the United States despite being called non-lethal."

Taser poses real risk to people's lives and at least 49 died from it in 2018. (photo: Jim Slosiarek/The Gazette/Canadian Press)
Taser poses real risk to people's lives and at least 49 died from it in 2018. (photo: Jim Slosiarek/The Gazette/Canadian Press)


Tasers Claimed 49 Lives in 2018 Through Police Violence

By teleSUR

04 February 19


There have been a total of at least 1,081 deaths after the use of Tasers since the weapon began coming into widespread use in the early 2000s.

aser death is a form of police violence that is claiming lives in the United States despite being called non-lethal, a recent Reuters report revealed.

Warren Ragudo died after two Taser shocks by police intervening in a family altercation. Ramzi Saad died after a Taser shock by police during a dispute between Saad and his mother. Chinedu Okobi died after police used a Taser to subdue him in a confrontation they blamed on his refusal to stop walking in traffic.

All three were unarmed. All three had histories of mental illness. And all three died last year in a single northern California county, San Mateo.

They were among at least 49 people who died in 2018 after being shocked by police with a Taser, a similar number as in the previous two years, according to a Reuters review of police records, news reports, and court documents.

The deaths typically draw little public scrutiny � no government agency tracks how often Tasers are used or how many of those deployments prove fatal, and coroners and medical examiners use varying standards to assess a Taser's role in the death. But some communities now are considering more restrictive Taser policies following allegations that the weapons were used excessively or deployed against people with physical or mental conditions that put them at higher risk of death or injury.

Among 14 police departments, five are reviewing their Taser policies; three had conducted reviews and made no changes, and five declined to comment because investigations into the incidents were still ongoing.

A total of at least 1,081 U.S. deaths following the use of Tasers, almost all since the weapons began coming into widespread use in the early 2000s have been documented. In many of those cases, the Taser, which fires a pair of barbed darts that deliver a paralyzing electrical charge, was combined with other force, such as hand strikes or restraint holds.

The California county board of supervisors and the district attorney launched ongoing reviews of the use and safety of Tasers, which were touted by police and the weapon�s manufacturer as a near-perfect, �non-lethal� weapon when they began coming into widespread use more than a decade ago.

There is a need to reevaluate �the proper role for Tasers and how and when they are engaged,� Dave Pine, a member of the Board of Supervisors said. Until then, �I personally think it would be appropriate to have a moratorium on their use.�

Most independent researchers who have studied Tasers say deaths are rare when they are used properly, but in a series of reports in 2017, it was found that many police officers are not trained properly on the risks and weapons are often misused.

Axon Enterprise Inc., the Taser�s manufacturer argues that most cause-of-death rulings implicating its weapons are misinformed and said that Tasers, while "not risk-free," are "the most safe and effective less-lethal use of force tool available to law enforcement.�

Many cases involved high-risk subjects, such as people agitated by drugs or mental illness, people with heart problems, people who are very young or very old or very frail.

At least half those who died after Taser shocks last year fell into one or more of those categories. As in previous years, about 90 percent were unarmed and nearly a quarter had a history of mental illness.

As police departments have become more aware of Tasers� risks and limitations, a growing number have restricted their use, said Chuck Wexler, executive director of the Police Executive Research Forum (PERF) think tank. Still, many officers remain unaware of the hazards when they encounter those vulnerable to a Taser's shock, Wexler warns.

Email This Page

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
Email This Page

 

Comments  

We are concerned about a recent drift towards vitriol in the RSN Reader comments section. There is a fine line between moderation and censorship. No one likes a harsh or confrontational forum atmosphere. At the same time everyone wants to be able to express themselves freely. We'll start by encouraging good judgment. If that doesn't work we'll have to ramp up the moderation.

General guidelines: Avoid personal attacks on other forum members; Avoid remarks that are ethnically derogatory; Do not advocate violence, or any illegal activity.

Remember that making the world better begins with responsible action.

- The RSN Team

 
+3 # RICHARDKANEpa 2012-08-14 18:45
This needs to be linked to a previous article,
http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/266-32/12778-in-hiroshimas-shadow
 
 
+18 # cordleycoit 2012-08-14 21:17
The fear machine is running out of stuff to frighten us into submission. I remember duck and cover. I knew the Russians were going to fry us kids. I also knew that Yugoslav gorillas all hairy, were coming to tommy gun us kids as well. Now they are Iranian coming after my grand-kids. Why do they whip out the atomic honeydripper and expose our children to another burst of fear? Its time for the Republican party and their media to grow up or wise up. Stop peddling fear.
 
 
+16 # MidwestTom 2012-08-14 21:46
A friend of mine suggested that Russia should simply loan Iran a nuclear bomb, then Israel would not attack. Iran could stop trying to build their own, and 1,000's of American troops would not have to die in a war that that nobody outside of the beltway wants.
 
 
+8 # Dave_s Not Here 2012-08-15 01:40
Quoting MidwestTom:
A friend of mine suggested that Russia should simply loan Iran a nuclear bomb, then Israel would not attack. Iran could stop trying to build their own, and 1,000's of American troops would not have to die in a war that that nobody outside of the beltway wants.


Brilliant! But I think they'd stand a better chance of getting one from the Pakistanis, who are fellow Muslims. A Halal bomb, if you will.
 
 
-2 # tahoevalleylines 2012-08-15 11:29
Fear is engendered when one person or a group or a nation makes threats againt another. Written or verbal threat as uttered by Hitler in "Mein Kampf" and by generations of Mullahs quoting passages from unabridged (arabic) Qur'an...

How the Islamic bomb saga plays out is a question discussed in strategic think tanks around the world. Anyone with some initiative can gain insights to the Muslim Mullah mission by reading George Grant's "The Blood Of The Moon".

Lacking nukes; because high school biology & chemistry enables WMD proliferation, getting off oil ASAP is best US course to step back from foreign conflicts, at a minimum. Chem/bio smuggled in containers and used in an attack shall seal commerce across US borders & spell end of the globalization Ponzi scheme.

This plays out with a disastrous war in the Middle East, and a "Fortress America" era while the rest of the world ebbs and flows until the residual conflicts play out. America's ability to maintain societal cohesion on 1/2 current oil consumption depends on how quickly US pre-1950's railway capacity & reach is put back together.

No coincidence Mein Kampf and Qur'anic threats center on Jews. Because the world does not defang Iran/Pakistan/N orth Korea, we all share inevitable consequences. Happy motoring!
 
 
-1 # Johnny 2012-08-30 11:34
So you think all black people look alike? Muslims are not all the same, any more than Christians are all the same. The government of Pakistan persecutes Shia Muslims, and especially the pacifist Ismaili Muslims. Besides, the U.S. controls the Pakistani military, which is why the U.S. is able to slaughter Pakistani men, women, and children with its drones. Pakistan is not going to help Iran.
 
 
+7 # PABLO DIABLO 2012-08-14 21:53
Remember Hiroshima? Remember Nagasaki? Remember Dr Strangelove?
 
 
-1 # brux 2012-08-14 22:35
Democrats ought to just concentrate on one issue, the economy or social justice, the rights of Americans being trampled, the unfairness of the tax code and the government representatives representing money instead of people.

I'm concerned about nuclear issues, and I am more concerned about Iraq than I am about the US, but it is not THE major issue of the day.

We need to get all the information out, as well as the solutions, and stop flitting from one minor issue to another, what's important is the future of this nation. The future of social security, medicare, medicaid, education, health care, housing, etc.
 
 
+3 # robniel 2012-08-15 13:56
The government most certainly must be involved in all nuclear issues. Only the media (and their audience) "flit" from one issue to another. So ... why would we need a new plutonium refining facility? Our current inventory is many times more than foreseeable need plus we are gathering "loose" nukes from around the world for "safekeeping"; many of these very likely contain already-refined (i.e. metallic) plutonium. Reason: Someone is looking for government $$$.
 
 
+6 # tomtom 2012-08-15 01:21
The one and only way each nation can no longer justify having nukes is to know that every other nation doesn't have them and that means everyone gets to monitor everyone else's arsenals. I'll show you mine if you show me yours. We sure as hell can't trust each other.
 
 
+4 # rpherold 2012-08-15 02:47
Since the 1970's the Ground Zero Center for Non Violence adjacent to the Bangor Washington Trident Submarine Base has inspired hundreds to be arrested in an attempt to foster peace non-violently. On April 10, 2010 I videoed of an action at the main gate and featuring a powerful song by Joe Crookston based on his Grandfather's experience as a Seabee on Tinian Island during WWII constructing the four runways: Able, Baker, Charlie, and Dog. You can view the video at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vXw-YXWCi2Q
 
 
+6 # radbrad1 2012-08-15 03:22
Ronnie we first talked about this in 1960. Really not much progress since. For people to get more altitude so they can have a more inclusive perspective they need to be more grounded. In order to have height we need depth. The lack of grounding in reality for almost everyone in politics and in the body politic, is clear to anyone who is grounded in their experience, related to gravity and able to see and hear and acquire more information before being blocked off by belief. Our entire cultural context works contrary to that, so belief in belief rules supreme--and manifesting belief itself becoming the point of it all. I am happy you are still in this world. love, brad blanton
 
 
-1 # Johnny 2012-08-30 11:38
I haven't heard from Ronnie in many years. I am glad to know he is still sharp and still writing for what's right.
 
 
+4 # handmjones 2012-08-15 05:15
Only one nation was mad enough to take a huge amount of mustard gas into the war zone during WWII and now the U.S. is endangering us all with H bombs.
 
 
-9 # James Smith 2012-08-15 05:18
Keep in mind, the USA has reduced its nuclear armament for 25,000 weapons to about 5,000, all of which are not currently active. No other country has made reductions of that level.

Yes, it's true that even the 2,500 or so currently deployed are enough to decimate the planet, but what is being recommended here is unilateral disarmament. If you think that will work, ask your local terrorist cell what they think.
 
 
-1 # Johnny 2012-08-30 11:39
The U.S. IS your local terrorist cell.
 
 
+16 # Peace Anonymous 2012-08-15 05:55
Fear is such a profitable tool. We have a $900 Billion defense budget. Who would get all of that money if it were not for defense contractors. Ex-CIA task force commander John Stockwell so accuarately stated in 1987 that if the Russians no longer became a threat the USA would find an enemy which would keep the game alive. Would we have invaded Iraq for oil or Afghanistan for opium had there not been the fear in post 9/11? We will pay anything to feel safe. So follow the money. Where did it go? This is a shell game folks. The only enemies we have are the ones we create. And for them we need nuclear weapons??? Why? Follow the money.
 
 
+7 # tedrey 2012-08-15 06:57
I spoke with Robert Oppenheimer shortly before his death, a haggard and guilt-ridden man. He told me there was no hope; if we hadn't gotten rid of those weapons in 20 years, it meant that we never would -- they would remain, they would proliferate, they would be used, civilization would end. It was inevitable.
There is an obvious contradiction built into our official rationalization for these weapons. If nuclear weapons deter war, why do we insist on preventing some nations from obtaining them? Obviously because WE do not wish to be deterred.
Right now, war is highly likely in the Near East exactly because Israel has the bomb and Iran does not. If Iran did have it, then the two nations could revert to Cold War status, satisfied with incursions, assassinations, economic warfare, and such standard stuff.
Getting rid of them all would be far preferable. But if Oppenheimer and Garwin are right, we (or our leaders) are not sane enough to do that.
 
 
+2 # mrbadexample 2012-08-15 07:29
The last time I checked, the US still has some 1,700+ strategic nuclear weapons ready to launch on warning, plus as many as 5,000 tactical weapons for battlefield use. Since (per a World court decision in 1996) there is no LEGAL use of such weapons, why are we keeping them? Why wouldn't 50 be enough?
 
 
+1 # Kootenay Coyote 2012-08-15 08:29
 
 
+3 # Buddha 2012-08-15 09:16
I actually am going to disagree here, but for 2 very specific reasons. First, it is a dream that the genie will ever be put back into the bottle. Second, we rationalize our huge $1T/yr Pentagon spending and maintenance of a Global Empire as what is "keeping us safe and free". That is just pure hooey, and the reason is our nuclear arsenal, particularly the tactical warheads that could be used to decimate any invasion by an enemy through Alaska, Central America, or by ocean. So really, why do we need to spend $1T/yr again on War and Empire? Pull our troops back home, focus on rapid response and tactical Special Operations which is more the nature of our conflicts against "terrorist groups" today anyways, and use our nuclear arsenal as the ultimate guarantee of "keeping us safe". Then use the $750B or so per year in savings to rebuild our infrastructure, our schools, putting people back to work, heck, even paying off our debt.
 
 
-1 # sandywow 2012-08-15 13:40
Are nuclear weapons obsolete? Given that
just about everything these days can be
hacked by computers perhaps such weapons could be rendered inoperable by a computer hacker.

Who knows maybe that has already happened.
 
 
0 # ericlipps 2012-08-15 13:57
Neither "nero zero" or outright nuclear abolition is coming anytime soon.

Why? Because no country could ever be sure that somne other country had really gotten rid of its stockpile. And in any case, even a "near zero" regime would leave countries with the capacity to kill millions instantly.
 
 
+1 # Roger Kotila 2012-08-15 15:31
There is a way to eliminate all nuclear weapons but activists must accept a hard psychological fact: The nations must federate in a world union. THERE IS NO A SHORT CUT. Openness breeds trust; secrecy and closed sovereign systems breed paranoia. See Earth Federation Movement under the Earth Constitution. www.earthfederation.info R Kotila, Ph.D.
 
 
-1 # RobertMStahl 2012-08-18 07:12
Context is everything. Totalitarianism maintains the status quo of education (Norman Dodd). If anyone read enough of GUT-CP to get the slightest grip on what energy existed in the universe, there would be three types with nuclear at the far end, inside the Sun mainly, ever so little at this end of the spectrum on earth (despite the fact that the last natural nuclear fission reactor on the planet remaining from when the solar system arrived the same time as the Sun, went extinct only 13 million years ago), where fossil fuels are predominant. The corona of the Sun is different, still. There is a third spectrum in the chemistry of the universe (a universe which, by the way, over time decays into pure energy until it contracts toward the 'big bang' once again). Read GUT-CP about dark matter, and the context of the universe we do occupy.
 

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN