Camera records unexpected violence

[patric]

No. Officers started using mag lights instead of their billy clubs.  It's not a good practice.

Is it a billy club or a MagLite they are using to break this prisoner's ribs?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F6ZU2jP0ZWc

[custosnox]

Is it a billy club or a MagLite they are using to break this prisoner's ribs?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F6ZU2jP0ZWc

That looks like he is using th butt of his gun. 

[patric]

A nationwide study examining the safety of Tasers® used by law enforcement agencies suggests the devices are safe, causing a low occurrence of serious injuries.

That was 2007.
In 2008, we saw:

http://www.charlydmiller.com/LIB11/2008Jun19TaserLetters.pdf

[MH2010]

Can you find one death that was the sole result of a taser deployment?

Tasers are safe but I like the pepperball rounds myself.  Those things are outstanding and effective!

[Hoss]

Can you find one death that was the sole result of a taser deployment?

Tasers are safe but I like the pepperball rounds myself.  Those things are outstanding and effective!

Maybe, maybe not.

http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/0730taser30.html

Although admittedly methamphetamines were found in this person's system.  There have other cited Taser death causes.   The 'excited delirium' excuse for deaths after tasers were applied are becoming more and more suspect.

[MH2010]

Maybe, maybe not.

http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/0730taser30.html

Although admittedly methamphetamines were found in this person's system.  There have other cited Taser death causes.   The 'excited delirium' excuse for deaths after tasers were applied are becoming more and more suspect.

Maybe because "excited delirium" is the cause and not an "excuse".

[patric]

Maybe because "excited delirium" is the cause and not an "excuse".

No legitimate medical organization recognizes "Excited Delirium"
It's something made up by a police coroner's association to excuse deaths of people while in police custody.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Excited_delirium
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=7608386
http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/02/27/deaths-in-custody-excited-delirium-or-excessive-force/

[MH2010]

No legitimate medical organization recognizes "Excited Delirium"
It's something made up by a police coroner's association to excuse deaths of people while in police custody.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Excited_delirium
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=7608386
http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/02/27/deaths-in-custody-excited-delirium-or-excessive-force/

I love your articles! Did you even read these before you posted them?  Here are some quotes from them about excited delirium....

The coroner found that Jones did not die from excessive police force but from a number of causes — such as heart failure, obesity, drug use and asphyxiation. He later told reporters that Jones' death could have been the result of something called excited delirium.

"Someone who's disproportionately large, extremely agitated, threatening violence, talking incoherently, tearing off clothes, and it takes four or five officers to get the attention of that individual and bring him out of harm's way — that's excited delirium."

Mash says the phenomenon came to light in the 1980s, when cocaine burst onto the scene. Most victims have cocaine or drugs in their systems. Jones had smoked cocaine and PCP. Mash says victims become irrational, their body temperatures rise so fast their organs fail, and then they suddenly die.


"It's definitely real," Mash says. "And while we don't know precisely what causes this, we do know it is the result of a neural chemical imbalance in the brain."

Di Maio says it is often the very act of resisting that sends people prone to excited delirium over the edge. If they were in a field, alone, running around hysterical, Di Maio says they might still have died. But he says fighting makes death all but certain. And because most people are in public places, not in fields, that means they're usually fighting with the police. Di Maio says civil liberties groups then wrongly blame the officers for the death.

and my favorite....

"They buy into this mode that if somebody dies, somebody's got to be responsible," DiMaio says. "Of course, it can't be the person high on coke or meth."

Oh yeah, Excited Delirium was first diagnosed in 1849 by Dr. Luther Bell. It was called Bell's Mania, agitated delirium, excited delirium and acute exhaustive mania.

[Hoss]

I love your articles! Did you even read these before you posted them?  Here are some quotes from them about excited delirium....

The coroner found that Jones did not die from excessive police force but from a number of causes — such as heart failure, obesity, drug use and asphyxiation. He later told reporters that Jones' death could have been the result of something called excited delirium.

"Someone who's disproportionately large, extremely agitated, threatening violence, talking incoherently, tearing off clothes, and it takes four or five officers to get the attention of that individual and bring him out of harm's way — that's excited delirium."

Mash says the phenomenon came to light in the 1980s, when cocaine burst onto the scene. Most victims have cocaine or drugs in their systems. Jones had smoked cocaine and PCP. Mash says victims become irrational, their body temperatures rise so fast their organs fail, and then they suddenly die.


"It's definitely real," Mash says. "And while we don't know precisely what causes this, we do know it is the result of a neural chemical imbalance in the brain."

Di Maio says it is often the very act of resisting that sends people prone to excited delirium over the edge. If they were in a field, alone, running around hysterical, Di Maio says they might still have died. But he says fighting makes death all but certain. And because most people are in public places, not in fields, that means they're usually fighting with the police. Di Maio says civil liberties groups then wrongly blame the officers for the death.

and my favorite....

"They buy into this mode that if somebody dies, somebody's got to be responsible," DiMaio says. "Of course, it can't be the person high on coke or meth."

Oh yeah, Excited Delirium was first diagnosed in 1849 by Dr. Luther Bell. It was called Bell's Mania, agitated delirium, excited delirium and acute exhaustive mania.

Did you?

Effective Cherry Picking there:

But even with an extensive autopsy, there is no definitive way to prove someone died of excited delirium.

"But if you're talking about police abuse — beating him to death, or hog-tying — the answer is yeah, you can tell the difference," Di Maio says.

Either way, it doesn't matter, says Dawn Edwards of the Ella Baker Center, a police watchdog group in Oakland, Calif. If police take a person into custody, Edwards argues, they need to make sure the person stays alive — whatever the condition of the person's brain or body temperature or their agitated state.

See?  I can do it too!

But we know you're in the law enforcement profession, so obviously you'll be a law enforcement apologist.   

[MH2010]

DiMaio also said "What these people are dying of is an overdose of adrenaline."

Not to quote any more of his articles but excited delirium was a descriptive phrase coined by medical researchers to describe the extreme end of a continuum of drug abuse effects.

Don't let the truth get in the way of your opinions. Everyone knows that "police watchdog groups" and the ACLU are not biased.

Hoss, don't worry, when you get scared and call the police, we'll still show up even if you think we just beat people.

[custosnox]

Just a few articles I pulled up

http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/health&id=6620623

http://www.aclu.org/police/abuse/19977prs20051006.html

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-04-01-taser-report_x.htm

http://www.ajconline.org/article/S0002-9149(08)02113-9/abstract

I only scanned these articles, but every one of them seem to support that tasers are at least partially to blame for an increase in-custody deaths.  Even without the articles or studies, common sense tells you that electrocuting someone, even with the amperage used in  tasers, carries a risk.  Anyone who thinks otherwise is lieing to themselves.

[MH2010]

Just a few articles I pulled up

http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/health&id=6620623

http://www.aclu.org/police/abuse/19977prs20051006.html

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-04-01-taser-report_x.htm

http://www.ajconline.org/article/S0002-9149(08)02113-9/abstract

I only scanned these articles, but every one of them seem to support that tasers are at least partially to blame for an increase in-custody deaths.  Even without the articles or studies, common sense tells you that electrocuting someone, even with the amperage used in  tasers, carries a risk.  Anyone who thinks otherwise is lieing to themselves.

Of course their is a risk but No one has successfully proven that the taser cased their death.  Since you didn't read your articles let me tell you about them, The first one talks about a study from the American Journal of Cardiology Association. The article then states that their observational study has limitations because several California cities and all of the largest U.S. cities surveyed were unwilling to release information. The fourth article is the same study.

The second study is an ACLU study. I bet anyone can guess it's results. The third study is an Amnesty International study that predates the 2007 study that was cited above. Of course it is Amnesty International so you can again guess it's results.

[patric]

every one of them seem to support that tasers are at least partially to blame for an increase in-custody deaths.  Even without the articles or studies, common sense tells you that electrocuting someone, even with the amperage used in  tasers, carries a risk.  Anyone who thinks otherwise is lieing to themselves.

Of course the articles contained some dissenting quotes, and im sure the author intended to balance his reporting with such, but I wasnt particularly worried because of the strength of the argument warning against being dismissive about taser deaths.

Politics aside, the Taser's effectiveness hinges around it's ability to disrupt the brain's ability to control all muscles in the body, except magically the heart, which it somehow knows how to avoid.  It's a gray science backed up more by corporate lawyers than by physicians.     

I remember a few years back when deaths at the hands of police were all being attributed to "suicide" but since "Excited Delirium" was dreamed up it has proven to be a much more publicly acceptable shade of whitewash.

[custosnox]

No one has successfully proven that.  Since you didn't read your articles let me tell you about them, The first one talks about a study from the American Journal of Cardiology Association. The article then states that their observational study has limitations because several California cities and all of the largest U.S. cities surveyed were unwilling to release information. The fourth article is the same study.

The second study is an ACLU study. I bet anyone can guess it's results. The third study is an Amnesty International study that predates the 2007 study that was cited above. Of course it is Amnesty International so you can again guess it's results.

So let me get this right, because you don't agree with what the studies say, you can just ignore anything in them.  And I went back and reread them after I posted as I had time.  So far every study and/or article that has been linked on this thread has shown data giving strength to the dangers of tasers.  In fact, when I did the search for these articles I linked the ones on the first page that were on sites that I knew (like usa today).  I liked all of them on the first page, and even went a few more pages in looking at results.  Nothing I could find states any studies showing that there is no risk in using tasers.  The fact that you are the one in this conversation that is at risk of loosing a weapon because of it's missuse, and are so blindly fighting that it's safe is scary in itself. 

And this one I came on, and it's not even a US station that this report comes from.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/interactives/map-tasers-canada/

[MH2010]

"So let me get this right, because you don't agree with what the studies say, you can just ignore anything in them.  And I went back and reread them after I posted as I had time.  So far every study and/or article that has been linked on this thread has shown data giving strength to the dangers of tasers.  In fact, when I did the search for these articles I linked the ones on the first page that were on sites that I knew (like usa today).  I liked all of them on the first page, and even went a few more pages in looking at results.  Nothing I could find states any studies showing that there is no risk in using tasers.  The fact that you are the one in this conversation that is at risk of loosing a weapon because of it's missuse, and are so blindly fighting that it's safe is scary in itself. 

And this one I came on, and it's not even a US station that this report comes from.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/interactives/map-tasers-canada/"

I guess you conveniently missed the study I cited earlier or you are ignoring it because you don't agree with it.

I'm confused about your earlier statement, Are you arguing about the dangers of the taser or it's missuse?

Oh FYI, I don't use a Taser.