TED Conversations

Theodore A. Hoppe

TEDCRED 200+

This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »

Are Conductive Electronic Weapons (CEW), or as they are more commonly know, Tasers a "non lethal" weapon?

Stephen Coleman has set his TEDTalk up as a TED-Ed lesson using the term "non-lethal" for tasers. He should know better. Tasers are now being referred to as "Less Lethal" even by it maker.

"Fourth Circuit upholds multi-million dollar award in Taser death:

The jury awarded the mother and father of the young man ten million dollars. While the amount was later reduced to $5.5 million the significance of the case is that it shows that Tasers are deadly weapons when used as the company recommended, and as the evidence showed the officer was trained to use it. "

http://www.beaufortobserver.net/Articles-NEWS-and-COMMENTARY-c-2013-11-24-270015.112112-Fourth-Circuit-uphold-multimillion-dollar-award-in-Taser-death.html

I posed this question in the "guided discussion," at TED-Ed, and not only did no one responded, the question was removed.
Should TED-Ed remove the lesson?

Topics: tasers
0
Share:

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • thumb
    Dec 6 2013: [Quote]
    You have made no contribution to the discussion. Until your willing to "restate your problem so that we all understand it." there is little point in discussing anything with you.

    The fact remains " ..the significance of the case is that it shows that Tasers are deadly weapons when used as the company recommended"
    [endquote]

    Well, if you don't consider pointing out the contradiction in statements to be a contribution, then so be it. I do not know how I can "restate" my problem so that all understand it. I would imagine that pretty much anyone reading my comments do understand what I am saying.

    Let's have others chime in, shall we?

    Here are the two quotes which I find contradictory:

    1. "...Tasers are deadly weapons when used as the company recommended, and as the evidence showed the officer was trained to use it."
    2. “prolonged use of the [taser] was not” in accordance with CMPD procedures"

    The first quote suggests that the taser was used as recommended. However, the second one suggests that it was not used as recommended. Which is it?

    Now, note the warning

    "...Repeated, prolonged, and/or continuous exposure(s) to the TASER electrical discharge may cause strong muscle contractions that may impair breathing and respiration, particularly when the probes are placed across the chest or diaphragm."

    Does this not suggest to avoid such use? It seems to me that if the officer put the taser to the person's chest, it was against the warning of the company which produced the taser.
    • thumb
      Dec 6 2013: Re" Does this not suggest to avoid such use? It seems to me that if the officer put the taser to the person's chest, it was against the warning of the company which produced the taser.

      I find it amusing that you can selectively focus on an irrelevant point.

      Question: According to the news report, and the court ruling, why did the jury rule against Taser International?
      • thumb
        Dec 6 2013: One of your key arguments was that this device was used as directed. How is it an irrelevant point that this device was NOT used as directed?

        "According to the news report, and the court ruling, why did the jury rule against Taser International?"

        Addressing this question would be mere speculation. I was not in the jury room and therefore cannot tell you, nor can you tell me, why the jury made the decision that it did.
      • thumb
        Dec 6 2013: "Thank you for your comments."

        You're welcome, even though it is obvious from this discussion and others that you will accept no comment that disagrees with your own opinion.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.