Smith & Wesson: Avoid murderous or other misuse

You may have heard that Taser has introduced a female-friendly version of their lethal weapon that comes in red, pink, and leopard prints, and includes an MP3 player.  Yes, really.  Because you don't want to have to, you know, listen to the screams of your victims while you're putting them down.

I was curious to see what the Taser folks would have to say about their hand-held heart attack machine, so I went to their site to read their legal warnings (pdf).  And there's good news: if you were ever concerned that Tasers might be used for torture you've got nothing to fear, because the product warnings specifically instruct the user to "Avoid Torturous or Other Misuse", adding darkly that "Misuse can result in criminal prosecution and/or civil litigation."  Phew!

Of course, if you believe that Tasers themselves are potentially lethal—based on the 140 or more deaths that have occurred after people were shot with a Taser, and several legal rulings that the Taser was a cause of death—this document will correct those misconceptions as well.  Here's what it has to say on the topic of human mortality:

• "...the very nature of use of force and physical incapacitation involves a degree of risk that someone will get hurt or may even be killed due to physical exertion, unforeseen circumstances, and individual susceptibilities. "
• "If a subject is exhibiting signs or behaviors that are associated with Sudden In-Custody Death Syndrome,  consider need for medical assistance."  (The footnotes describe some of these signs: "extreme agitation, bizarre behavior, inappropriate nudity, imperviousness to pain, paranoia, exhaustive exertion, “superhuman” strength, hallucinations, sweating profusely, etc").
• "Unrelated to TASER exposure, conditions such as excited delirium, severe exhaustion, drug intoxication or chronic drug abuse, and/or over-exertion from physical struggle may result in serious injury or death."
• "TASER-induced strong muscle contractions usually render a subject temporarily unable to control his or her psychomotor movements. This may result in secondary injuries such as those due to falls. This loss of control, or inability to catch oneself, can in special circumstances increase the risk(s) of serious injury or death."

So if you think someone is about to hit you with a Taser, just take off your clothes, pick up a car, and position yourself over a mattress, and you've got nothing to fear.

Comments

[Save the Oocytes]

I hadn't heard of "Sudden In-Custody Death Syndrome" before, which I imagine is medically distinguished by the lack of any identifiable cause of death. These people just keep dying in our custody, they say, and we can't for the life of us figure out why! I for one would not doubt their good faith, and besides, it's a catchy diagnosis. The CIA must run into it a lot.

[SteveB]

Well, "Sudden In-Custody Death Syndrome" is a relatively new medical discovery, along with "Sudden Got-in the-way-of-a-Blackwater-convoy Death Syndrome", and "Sudden House-interrupted-the-fall-of-a-laser-guided-bomb Death Syndrome."

But what I'd really like to know is what would happen if you gave cocaine to a pig, and then shot it with a Taser? Hmmm... I wonder if anyone's done a study on that?

[John] Webster [professor emeritus of biomedical engineering at UW-Madison] wants to test his hypothesis that Taser-related deaths were the result of heart failure fueled by drug use and other medical factors, not electrocution by the devices.

Of three groups of pigs in the study, one will be given cocaine, one will be shocked with the devices, and one will be given both cocaine and electric blasts. Some will be subjected to Webster's "SuperTaser," up to 30 times as powerful as the model police use. All pigs will be on anesthesia so they won't feel pain.

Animal rights activists say the study, funded by a $500,000 U.S. Department of Justice grant, is cruel and unnecessary.

[SteveB]

Oh, one more update on Tasered pigs:

The safety of Tasers, the electric pistols that are widely used by police officers in the United States, is under new scrutiny after a study by a scientist in Wisconsin showed that shocks from the guns cause the hearts of healthy pigs to stop beating.

The finding contradicts previous studies that showed that Taser shocks did not cause heart disturbances in pigs, whose hearts are similar to those of humans.

John Webster, a professor emeritus of biomedical engineering at the University of Wisconsin, who conducted the new study, said the earlier studies contained serious errors because they did not account for the fact that pigs have a thick layer of muscle insulating their hearts from their skin. Humans do not.

So, to sum up: The Department of Justice gives a scientist $500,000 to prove that death due to Taser is really the victims own fault for being "hopped up" on "Wacky dust", and instead gets the result that Tasers are actually more lethal than we previously thought.

Oh, why does science hate America?

[Save the Oocytes]

And why does science hate animals?

[SteveB]

And why does science hate animals?

You obviously haven't been talking to the pigs in the cocaine-only control group.

[John Caruso]

What these "scientists" don't seem to understand is that the pigs they were testing were just about to die of heart attacks anyway, and so it's entirely coincidental that it happened after they were shot with the Taser.

[SteveB]

One last thought on pigs, Tasers and cocaine:

The people in power have lots of, well, power. But, to advance their agenda they also need the cooperation of people . And people are unpredictable, and sometimes fail to cooperate with the powerful for reasons that have nothing to do with oppostion to the agenda of the powerful.

Thus Prof. Webster is happy to take the DOJ's money, give cocaine to pigs, and shoot them with a Taser, but because he considers himself a scientist he makes an observation (pigs have a protective layer of muscle covering their hearts that humans don't have) that results in exactly the opposite of the result the DOJ was hoping for.

It's like the "military tribunals" set up by the Bush administration to try the Guantanamo prisoners. Tribunals require attorneys, and attorneys, being attorneys, tend to take their jobs seriously. So some of them actually put up a vigorous defense for their clients, even going so far as to sue the government, challenging the tribunal system.

This isn't to suggest that we should place a naive faith in scientists or lawyers. There are lots of scientists and lawyers who are happily advancing the agenda of the powerful without a hitch. But I think it shows that it's harder to control people and exercise power that we often assume, because people, by their nature, tend to have their own agendas ("I want to be a good scientist" or "I want to be a good lawyer") that sometimes conflict with the agenda of the powerful.

[Save the Oocytes]

Call me a crazy vegan, but I still don't think doping up and Tasering pigs is compatible with good science. It's not clear how testing on pigs indicates anything on humans anyway... kind of like ramming monkeys in the head in mock crash tests.

[John Caruso]

Steve: Agreed. A number of times I've pointed out judges who did the right thing, despite the fact that they were appointed by Reagan or either Bush. Many people actually do have professional ethics and integrity, and they'll stick to them. Though we shouldn't forget all of the scientists and attorneys who whore themselves out to corporations, of course.

StO: The line in the one article was "researchers have no other alternative than to use pigs, whose hearts are more like humans than any other species." Babe is one of my favorite movies, but still, there aren't many good fates for a pig these days. The ones who end up in a slaughterhouse will meet a much more painful end than the ones in this study (who were anesthetized during the tests) did, at the least...and if studies like this will put a stop to Taser-happy cops and security guards killing innocent people, I'm all for it.

[SteveB]

Call me a crazy vegan, but I still don't think doping up and Tasering pigs is compatible with good science.

Yes, "good scientist" probably isn't the proper term for Prof. Webster, since good scientists (in both senses of the word "good") think more deeply about the moral implications of their work.

"Competent technician" is a better term. Still, his technical competence requires removing the protective layer of muscle over the pig's heart before shocking it, thus producing the opposite result from what his paymasters wanted.