Of course, the companies own website states that there's an increased risk of death with 'application' on people suffering from excited delirium (in itself not a recognised condition).... and yet the Canadian police apparently advise use of Tasers to calm down said people.

Well the company rep would say that. God help his company if Taser guns were outlawed. The company would go bust overnight.

Oh and dropping dead immediately from electric shock. I don't think so. The electric chair can prove that theory wrong and that uses massive amounts of energy.

Excited delirium.....what about people with Restless Leg Syndrome??

Are THEY safe?

Remember that often when a police officer has to use one of these things, its in place of the use of a firearm, which i would have thought FAR more likely to cause death. Yes there may be an increased risk of death to the person on the receiving end, but when used in juistifiable circumstances, its a far better alternative to being shot.

If someone is taking off from the police, especially in America, then they are activly making the decision to allow themselves to be tasered should the local police forces be carrying them. If he really didnt want to get shot, then he should just stay where he is and do as he is told. Stop making the police the 'bad guy' when they are out putting their lives at risk to protect you!

The use of a taser for torture however, is outside of what i would call a justifiable use, torture by any means should not be allowed, it gets you answers, but possibally ones which cannot be substanciated (IRAQ WMD's anyone?!)

Why do people insist on resisting Police force when they are under official scrutiny ? Running away from the cops has always been a very clear "I'm guilty" signal, and I would think, given the recent history of killings, that being pulled over by an officer is a time to stick your hands in view and not move a muscle for fear of being shot in the head a dozen times.

If you are guilty, I would also suspect that spending some time in jail - where there is, after all, a rather good chance of survival - is better than trying to resist or legging it, options which now have a fair chance of getting you a heart attack or a dozen slugs to the upper body regions.

If I ever go back to the US (or the UK for that matter) and some cop starts yelling at me, I'll be splayed on the floor faster than you can blink and I'll just start praying that he isn't too highly agitated to take his gun out and shoot me anyway.

So tasers are causing more deaths as their usage increases.

Big surprise? I think not.

Any device when deployed on enough people will cause a few of them to die. You can die by being hit with one of those cool extendible batons (and people probably have)

I think the lesson to be learned is, "if a policeman tells you to do something, you bloody well do it. And don't mouth off at him either."

And if you look at all taser cases worldwide and ask yourself "what if the policeman had no taser but had a handgun instead", would the number of deaths be greater?

I think they would.

Tasers will undoubtedly be banned in the foreseeable future. Taser is now using the tired old Tobacco industry excuses.

If a member of the public built and used such a device on another it would result in a long stay at Her Majesty's guest house.

The important thing is to work out if these recent deaths have also been drink/drugs related. Until recently I remember it being stated that you could only die from a Taser if you were on a cocktail of drugs! Is that no longer seen as true?

I just think they are been misused. Also, in the cases where the police were later lying about what happened there should be a charge, but doubt there will.

"Cardiac arrest caused by electrical current is immediate."

I don't think so.

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/410681_3

This is a long article, many of the paragraphs detail delayed injury from electrical shock.

It seems to me that unless the above website is lying, death from electric shock can arise at some time after the initial shock due to damage caused by the shock.

Now who should we believe, a company with a vested interest that makes tools for damaging and killing people or independent professionals?

I wonder who is on the board of Taser International and what connections there maybe to the Whitehouse that allow the continued use of this "non-lethal" yet somewhat fatal weapon?

Will anyone bring them to task for blatantly lying when they claim "Cardiac arrest caused by electrical current is immediate." When this just is not so?

..the Tazer has replaced adequate training of law enforcement officers. The police seem to go straight for the Taser rather than trying to access the situation and respond appropriately. There also does not seem to be any form of warning before the Taser is deployed; the BIG difference between Tazer use and use of a firearm in the same circumstances.

...and please don't taser me if you don't agree!

"The company would go bust overnight." I disagree. They just got a wringing endorsement as a device of torture from the UN. You can't buy that type of quality marketing! Folks who work in dank little cells all over the world will be scrambling to get their latex-gloved hands on one (perhaps smashing the recent iPhone sales figures; oh, new idea; the iTaser).

"if a policeman tells you to do something, you bloody well do it. And don't mouth off at him either." I agree that innocent, sane, calm, folks should do exactly that. It's the course that is most likely to get one out of a speeding ticket, after-all. However, there are circumstances such thtat innocent, almost sane, not at all calm folks, do exactly the opposite.

In my very humble opinion, there are two contentious issues/questions. When should these weapons be deployed (a judgment call, under stress, which can be guided by solid training), and how should these weapons be used (ooops, there's that 'training' thing again).

I think that a good start on answering the question of 'should I fry this person?' is 'what will happen if I don't fry this person?'. I think that the answer to that in the case of the Vancouver airport incident is along the lines of 'not much, other than that we'll have to stand here and keep an eye on this guy until someone who can talk to him is found, or we somehow get through to him'. Or perhaps it was 'Oh my, he's gonna hurt that stapler! Let him have it, laddies!'. After hitting a person once, the process should be repeated. As-in, 'okay, he's writhing on the floor... he looks like a funny fish doing the chicken dance, and I don't wanna jump on his neck just yet, so I'll let him flop for a little bit and exhaust himself.' Contrast that with 'hmmm, on the ground; check! Are we able to cuff him yet; nope. Do I have a 2 o'clock at the manicurist; check! Decision; Let him have it again, laddies, these nails are not fit for public consumption!'

In pretty well every reported case where a taser has been used, it HAS been used as an instrument of torture and NOT as an instrument of defence.

Which is precisely why each taser should be able to fire a bullet only once and adminster only ONE charge to the innocent victim -- until the taser is returned to the depot for the operator to be severely admonished before re-arming it.

It is no alternative to shooting, an officer may only shoot if life is endangered, crooks running away do not get shot in the back etc, and the RCMP example the taser was used as an easy alternative to talking to the guy.

Tasers are bing used far beyond the simple non-lethal alternative to a firearm they were sold and accepted as being.

People die from shock all the time, it's a serious condition. I'm pretty sure repeated jolts of high voltage electricity when applied liberally due to it's "safety" will cause a number of people to go into shock, the signs of which will easily be missed by people stupid enough to misuse the TASER in the first place.

People say it's better than the alternative, but I wonder how many people which are TASERed each day would have been shot in it's place. Batons would most likely be used in it's place, and when you hit someone too hard with that atleast they'd be rushed to a hospital.

When something seems safe people will misuse it. People don't very often unicycle on the edge of a cliff, but they're quite happy to change their stereo while going at 80mph. The unicycling sounds more dangerous but I wonder how many people each year regret changing their stereo.

[Hidden Moral: If it seems dangerous people won't do it unless they have to, but it seems safe people will over do it, and innocent people will die as a result.]

Seems to me, the pro TASER people commenting on articles on the Reg see three different options..

1) Taser them

2) Let them go

3) Shoot them

They are obviously missing two other options:

4) Night Stick

5) Pepper Spray

If your using a "less than lethal" way of subduing someone, I would say the most important criteria would be not to kill the subject. Therefore the taser should be instantly disqualified.

Just the same as you cant use a "stinger" to stop a 3 wheel car (In UK) unless your allowed to use lethal force to stop a target. Then you shouldn't be able to TASER someone unless your allowed to use lethal force.

I'm not a medic, and it's been a while since I was a biologist, but I'm pretty certain that getting tasered could cause a nice event termed "vagal inhibition" - basically your body gets shocked, the sympathetic nervous system starts your heart racing, adrenaline pumping, and the so you don't over do things, an inhibitory signal is sent down the vagus nerve to slow things down, and it goes a tad too far, and stops the heart.

This is not an instant process by any means.

Lets line up all the execs at Taser inc, and repeatedly taser them, to test the theory.

I think that Ethel Rosenberg, (and others) could attest that electrocution does not cause instant cardiac arrest - I think it took 6 shocks, and smoke was curling from her hair, before she died.

They are a replacement for the nightsticks - I'll spare calling them what they're colloquially called here in the Southern US - and other weapons designed to physically subdue you through sheer force and pain.

I'm not about to say I'd rather be brow-beat with a giant god damn stick made of whatever hard ass material. That sucks. I've been hit with one numerous times. My fault. We were drunk and made a game out of pain tolerance.

I've also been electrocuted. Electricians bend at the knees and lean for a reason. It's no fun. My encounter was with an MXR 10-band EQ that my friends thought would be funny to plug in while open on my work bench. I didn't notice. I thought it be time to get new friends when I jabbed a screwdriver right into the guts and fell off my bench because of the jolt.

I would rather get the piss beat out of my ass with a giant fucking rod of pain than be shot with a power-plant in a box. Both of them can be lethal when wielded by improperly trained thickos (which most policemen are, and tarnish the rep of good officers, the few) as evidenced by a case in 2006 (I believe) where a 350lb black man on PCP died of a heart attack after having six cops drag him to the ground while beating him black and blue with nightsticks after he punched his hand straight through (!) a car's (!) front (!) windshield (!!!). He'd be dead whether it was tasers or nightsticks, I'm afraid.

But for situations where a rational, complacent human being gets stupid or where a rational, complacent human being gets scared a simple nightstick will do. When a Texas State Trooper reaches for his stick and says "I don't think so, son" you listen if you know what's good for you. If you don't he'll have that thing across your jaw before you take a step away. For situations where a rational, complacent human being gets real stupid or where a rational, complacent human being gets real scared and for some reason immense physical pain won't incapacitate them (how I don't know) then tase them once. I've no idea where this "multiple-electrocutions must work with no ill side-effects!" mentality comes from but surely some of these idiotic cops must have a brother or friend that makes their living as an electrician that can explain why numerous high-voltage low-amperage (I believe that's what a taser is) shocks across the heart is a bad thing regardless of the perceived safety of the device. If electro-shock torture with car battery and a barrel of water is considered illegal then so should a taser be too.

I am waiting for the first instance where someone shoots a cop that is wielding a taser and enters a defense of self-defense due to these deaths and reports. A nightstick isn't lethal unless you're being beat to within an inch of your life - literally. Curl up and you pretty much guarantee your head is well-protected and most cops simply aim for your ribs - at least that's what my cop uncle told me years ago. More effective when your victim's support structure is bruised and beaten and their lungs are beat up and it's hard to breath. I don't think such a plea will go very far - at least not in most states, maybe in Texas where we've now more (as of September) legislation guaranteeing us the right to shoot fuckers who show even the slightest hint of physical threat - but probably not even then.

What I do welcome from these deaths and all this negative press is perhaps a bit more pressure to put personal liability on these officers for their actions. As of now it is nearly impossible for anything to ever come of any lawsuit or internal investigation against any officer - ever. The boys in blue are solid. Untouchable. I don't welcome a return to western vigilantism but I wouldn't mind if the police thought for a second before "acting a fool" because "oh, shit, like most people in the world I can be held accountable if I kill this jerk."

Unfortunately, I doubt this will ever happen. The police look out for their own. Ask any defense attorney or prosecutor what their view of police integrity is and you won't get a very pleasing answer. It's for a reason.

Tasers are only a tool which make it easier for the police to show their true colors. Any monkey can push a button; it's quick, it's easy, it's thoughtless. There is also a very large gray area as to where its proper application belongs. Taser deaths aren't the same as when a cop accidentally shoots an unarmed guy or a kid with a toy gun or some moron carrying a hammer; nor are they the same as when some idiot on speed dies of a heart attack when he's had the living daylights beat out of him with a nightstick. Often times tasers are used against unarmed people that are under control or well on their way to being under control or could easily be controlled with minimal risk to the officers involved. Tasers, in those situations, simply represent a seemingly infallible solution with few - if any - perceived side-effects to either the officer or the victim, and therein is the problem. If not even the makers know what the tasers intended purpose is then how is a degree-less flat foot?

I don't know what I'd do when approached by an officer with a taser. I'd suppose that depends on whether or not he appears to be a seasoned veteran that is trying to prevent a situation from escalating or if he's some Joe Cool rookie looking to get his proverbial dick wet. I'd say that if a rookie misses tasering me then he better get his gun out faster than I do but I doubt there's any jury in the world that would find me innocent by way of self defense. After all, police power is a fallacy; the only real power is the power we give them and, at least here in America, the 50s housewife mentality of the hard-working ever-vigilant incorruptible police officer seems to have pervaded the collective psyche.

I'm not sure how. I thought at least ten people saw Serpico.

well said Tawakalna. 10 points for that!

as pointed out, it's clear that tasers won't be used just as an alternative to guns. because of their 'less-than-lethal' (sic) nature, it's far more likley to be used for just about any situation that might be deemed 'risky' for enforcement officials. besides, they know that they will get off scott-free if a fatality does occur.

even with 4 (or more) police officers faced with one single unarmed person, they will use a taser, instead of overpowering the 'perp' because:

a. they won't risk getting any bruises

b. it's easier

c. it's fun. i'm Sure anyone who shoots another with a taser gets enjoyment from the other person's sufferring, and their own 'god-like' ability to totally control another with a flick of a finger.

d. guilty or not, carges or no, the suspect will pay in pain. just for being a suspect (or in the wrong place at the wrong time).

e. regardless of outcome, the taser shooter will not be held accountable. ever.

as for myself, being a law abiding citizen who will never give any law enforcemet any reason to taser me (damn, i'd be 'complying' on the ground in a flash), still stand the risk of being tasered (we all do). maybe i just don't hear a cop shouting or something...

anyhow, if i were tasered without just cause i would SUE like heck:

i would sue the forces on the grounds for being tortured (per UN rules).

ok, if i really asked for it then i would just shutup and accept it, assuming i survive the experience..

And similar, the problem is that tasers are not being used as the alternative to shooting with a regular bullet (which is what tasers were SUPPOSED to be used for).

They are being used instead of nightsticks, which hurt a lot but leave marks, so you know when they've been applied inappropriately.

Not only this, but they are being used INSTEAD of verbal methods of calming or physical restraint (see the acse of the teen student being tazered by one of four (five?) officers, each of which are bigger, stronger and better trained than the student).

A headlock is VERY unlikely to cause death. Stern words never have.

well done that man.

"I grew up in Belgium and the Police there carried Uzi's. I don't remember anyone EVER giving the Gendarmes any backchat when they were pulled for ID checks or whatever. Here in the UK it seems to be normal for idiots to start mouthing off at the Police when confronted and I've seen it in the USA too."

But the police should be held to a much higher standard of probity than citizens if they are to be obeyed blindly. This would mean that abuse of power (hassling people) would see them fined or fired. Lying (I've had officers claim laws that do not exist to justify their actions) should see them fired if they do it often. Shooting without need should see them do time for murder and so on.

However, this doesn't happen. In those cases "we are only human. when YOU don't make mistakes, then you can complain" is the response. Well, I don't get to walk around with a lethal weapon with virtual immunity. I can't kidnap people and I can't fine them. So when I have the same power as a policeman, THEN you can be considered only human.

That's what police forces need. It is perfectly possible for someone to control another with very little strength. My 50-kg martial artist wife can have me (75 kg) in knots in seconds, because she did Ju-Jitsu and I didn't. Imagine what a properly trained, fit 90 kg copper could do! As long as they have the "easy" option of the Taser though, they'll use that. Just think for a sec: for the baton and/or pepper spray to be effective, you need to be 1-2 metres away tops (more like 30 cm for the spray). With a Taser you take down anyone with attitude from 5 metres, which one do you choose if you don't want bruises on your pretty face?

I think the Taser should be used ONLY if the target is visibly armed (baseball bat, knife) or in a group (no martial art will save you from 10 drunk chavs, electrocute the wankers), and has been warned (like for firearms). In any other situation, use of a Taser should be considered as torture and the plod jailed for that.

Taser Int are fulfilling a gap in the market. That is what a business does; that is its place in the natural order of things.

The people to blame are the law enforcement officials who cream their uniforms over stuff like this and the governments who are either too craven to resist their demands or actively prefer a police force that has more arbitrary power. They create the demand; if there is demand, someone will inevitably fill it. If Taser Int didn't, then ElectroProd Global would. If the government didn't demand Tasers, then Taser Int would be making ice creams or something else. The government are solely responsible for any death or torture caused by Tasers, just as smokers are responsible for their lung cancer, not the tobacco company.

It's easy to say that profiting from torture and expansion of police power is evil, but the invisible hand has no sense of morality; it is incapable of good or evil.

"Remember that often when a police officer has to use one of these things, its in place of the use of a firearm, which i would have thought FAR more likely to cause death."

Ding ding, we have a winner!

In Britain, where El Reg is based, Tasers are *not* going to be used in place of firearms, because our cops don't regularly carry them, because we don't shoot each other as much over here. They're just going to be *used*, not in place of anything. Got to keep all those nasty protesto-...er, I mean terrorists in line.

I guess we should just go back to shooting them. This will assure their deaths and is not considered torture.

The UN is a classic example of why people that don't have any experience in real life should not make or comment on public policy.

Typical spin. A 50000v 3mA burst from a taser is technically low energy (check conversions on the web, or do them yourself. Around 1-2 joules) when compared from the tens of joules from blunt impact, or hundreds of joules from high velocity firearms.

What they DON'T tell you is that pacemaker systems, designed to mimic the function of the sinoatrial node and atrioventricular node in your heart, work on average currents of approx. 100nA (NANO amperes). There is a lot of resistance in the human body, but i'm willing to bet that these particular parts of your nervous system are PARTICULARLY fussy about the exposure to electricy you get.

This was 10 mins on google; i'm not a doctor. Tell me if i'm talking junk.

If you take away the tazers then they will only have the gun left. Tazers are an option rather than the gun. There are those that have died and will die but it is still much safer than shooting them.

As a 25 year Paramedic I prefer to see a tazed person than one that has been shot.

And for those that think that there are other options you live in a fantasy world. Try dealing with a meth head that hasn't slept for 4 days and is extremely violent and not rational.

The goal is to not get yourself hurt and a tazer is a way to reach out and touch someone without putting yourself in harms way.

Sure, some people have died but that is part of the risk when people put themselves in a situation where police have to deal with it. If you don't run up against the law your chances of being tazed are ZERO.

Funny, when I "reach out and touch someone" I usually don't send them 50000volts from 5 metres. Although that would be a cool superpower.

Point taken about the meth head, but then I have VERY little sympathy with druggies since one threw used syringes and needles at my wife, Tase them!

About not breaking any laws though: if I remember well, the very publicised student that got Tased at a John Kerry talk did NOT break any. He was being a dick, granted, but that's not breaking the law is it? See the points made above: if it's easy and there are no consequences (to them, of course), they'll use it. Even on you.

I'm just curious... As all police officers (in the US at least) have to be tasered before being able to use the weapon, how many of them have died in that procedure? If that statistic is 0, does that not help lend credibility to the "excited delirium" theory? Obviously that's for correct use of the weapon, not including cases of misuse of the weapon or excessive use (operator caused deaths).