Talk:Taser safety issues

message: There should probably be a mention and/or link to the "Drive Stun" section of the taser page.
It's very important to note the difference between shooting someone with a taser (firing the barbs that piece the skin) versus drive stun mode, which does not piece the skin and does not cause a disruption of the nervous system.  Many cases where the police are reported to have used a taser were, in fact, cases where they used Drive Stun mode and the health risks associated with using the barbs do not apply.
The linked UCLA case is an example of that.  He was tasered only in drive stun mode, so the paralytic effects of firing the barbs never came into play.
(The paralysis comes from bypassing the resistance imparted by the skin, since the barbs pierce the skin and also because the fired barbs tend to land far enough apart to have a serious impact on the nervous system, whereas the prongs used in Drive Stun mode are too close together to cause a wide arcing electrical effect.  Police are actually warned about this because hitting someone in Drive Stun mode does not impair their ability to fight, whereas shooting them with the barbs pretty well renders them unable to do anything for a short time.)  --TheCynic 01:36, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: According to the police report, "Drive Stun" was also used in the University of Florida Taser incident. Flatscan 04:20, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

text: According to the page on the UCLA Taser incident "Of the ten UC campus police departments, six have equipped officers with Tasers, but only UCLA has a flexible policy authorizing Tasers to be used as a pain-compliance tool against suspects who are passively resisting.". Isn't "pain compliance tool" the same as "torture device"? Getting someone to do what you want using the application of pain isn't nice, especially if they're "passively resisting" (or having a "sit down protest" as it is also known) 195.153.45.54 15:37, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Drive Stun 

message: See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/University of Florida Taser incident. Badagnani 05:09, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: keep  or, if  absolutely it must go, then it should be added as a section to the Taser article, eliminating any redundancy. --Fremte (talk) 19:00, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Deletion discussion

message: Is this just a list of deaths from Tasers in the USA? I realise that the USA is the greatest place on Earth, but unfortunately the deaths from this device also take place outside the USA . As per http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/06/18/2601290.htm . I've not mastered the wikipedia citation thing, so I haven't added this event to the article. Unless the article should be titled Taser safety issues in the USA & the rest of the world can look after itself? Ern Malleyscrub (talk) 14:54, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Adding non-USA deaths

message: As has been done with the UCLA Taser incident, the University of Florida Taser incident should have a See also link only, with no mention in the text. This prevents forking content. The paragraph here would be appropriate if the article is deleted or if it were relevant to a particular controversy. I intend to wait a while (a few weeks to a month) for things to settle down to see if deleting the paragraph is still appropriate. Flatscan 04:30, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Editing of University of Florida Taser incident has slowed significantly, and it appears to be in no danger of deletion. If there are no objections, I will delete its paragraph here shortly. Flatscan 02:25, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Removed paragraph. Flatscan 20:47, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Specific incidents in ''See also'' only 

message: Study Suggests Taser Use By US Police Is Safe
*Nearly 1000 cases of Taser use reviewed
*3 cases requiring hospital admittance (2 for head injuries resulting from falls, 1 "hospitalized two days after arrest with a condition 'of unclear relationship to the Taser'")
*Amnesty International reviewing study, will have official comment (as reported by ABC News)
These results can be consistent with the "Taser-related" deaths tracked by Amnesty International if the number of Taser deployments is large, say roughly 1000+ deployments for each death.
I found this in a post on the New York Times blog The Lede. If one searches that blog for "taser", there are a number of results, including ones regarding the UCLA Taser incident and the University of Florida Taser incident. Flatscan 04:08, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the section stating two deaths had been reported in the Wake Forest study, simply because the study doesn't claim any deaths. The three who were sent to the hospital were merely admitted to the hospital. Someone making up their own statistics? Zenmastervex (talk) 07:31, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  There were two changes to that section made by IP editors (, ). I  to the longstanding version. I think that I read more about the study a long time ago (I'm not sure if it was another article, the full abstract, or the study itself), and the edits might be correct. In particular, the two people who died might be a subset of the three injured people, rather than 2 + 3 = 5 total. You're right that the text was not supported by its refs. Flatscan (talk) 04:42, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Taser study 

message: The result was move to Taser controversy. To be clear, the discussion did not conclude, but the recreation of Taser and the lack of ongoing discussion seemed to indicate consensus. I did the move yesterday (diff). Flatscan 19:32, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Has there been a court ruling that says that Taser has become genericised? Have Taser failed to protect their trademark? I ask because otherwise this name change could be misleading.—greenrd (talk) 18:45, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I doubt it, and I didn't mean to imply its legal status by linking to that article. I imagine that the brand and product are colloquially synonymous because Taser International has a monopoly. How do you think changing the article name would mislead? Wikipedia is, after all, a popular/general, not legal, reference source. bobanny (talk) 20:39, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Searching for "Taser controversy" returns all relevant articles that I know of. "Taser" redirects to the relevant section of "Electroshock weapon". Not all of the sections are relevant to Tasers: the Torture section mainly describes conventional stun guns. I could see splitting "Taser" from "Electroshock weapon", but the split should come from there, not the related controversy article. Flatscan (talk) 05:07, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: IMO, the most commonly used name should trump the internal wiki-logic you're using, at least in this case. However, I don't see them as incompatible because the Electroshock weapon article describes a class of weapons of which the taser is only one, whereas I see only one sentence in this article that isn't about the taser. Seems to me that "the controversy" is the use of tasers by law enforcement and that the stun belt/torture issue is out of place, and would be better incorporated into the electroshock weapon article. Torture by whatever means is also controversial, but the context is so different. Also, almost all references in this article are to "taser," so it's inconsistent as it stands. I imagine "taser" will eventually be split off, but in the meantime, this would be - and pretty much is - a split from the taser section in that article, which I don't see as problematic. bobanny (talk) 10:04, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

text: The article should definitely be renamed. At present, the nondescript and somewhat misleading "electroshock weapon" title is little more than a WP:WEASEL answer to an article devoted entirely to the Taser gun incidents resulting from its excessive use, with only a brief mention of other means of electrocution. Once renamed, as per User:Bobanny, the article needs to be improved with proper lead section as per WP:MOS --Poeticbent talk 18:44, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Electroshock weapon controversy" was originally a section in Electroshock weapon that was split into a separate article due to its size (Talk section, diff). As I pointed out earlier, searches (both Wikipedia and Google) return this article, and it is well-linked from related articles - it's hardly obscure or hidden. I understand your concerns with the title, but WP:WEASEL is irrelevant. Flatscan (talk) 01:41, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

text: It turns out that Shaliya waya has already started the split. Flatscan (talk) 01:44, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Rename

message: Recent edits added a list of publicized incidents in the Deaths and injury associated with electroshock weapon use section. The list includes the UCLA Taser incident and the University of Florida Taser incident, which both had the Taser used in "Drive Stun", a mode that carries zero risk of serious injury or death. They should be removed from the list, or the list should be moved out of its current section. Flatscan (talk) 17:45, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest changing the heading to "high profile incidents" or something like that, and maybe with a subheading for ones that involved injury or death. The high profile cases fuel the controversy regardless of injury or death, so it seems this is the place to lump them together. bobanny (talk) 18:08, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of incidents 

message: As you might expect, the above article was written as news of the event occured. Now that some time has passed, it has been proposed that the article be reworked (rewritten) to give it some historical context... to summarize the event itself and  slightly shift focus to its "after the event" impact (ie to make the article less "old news" and more "encyclopedic").  This shift of focus fits nicely with this article.  I would ask that some of the editors who are involved here join us in rewriting the University of Florida Taser incident article. Blueboar (talk) 01:56, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[University of Florida Taser incident]] 

message: Seems only to become internationally-orientated towards the very end of the article; the rest is about the United States. --78.151.155.177 (talk) 22:26, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The article seems balanced enough to me, with Canadian as well as European references throughout. --Poeticbent talk 19:36, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Worldwide view 

message: I suggest renaming the Recognized risks section to Safety, and adding a Studies subsection.
Example studies:
*Experimental studies, typically on pigs
**Lakkireddy study, in article Taser controversy#Recognised risks
**"Acute Effects of TASER X26 Discharges in a Swine Model" linked in #UN statement
**Nanthakumar study, mentioned by Lakkireddy study
*Non-experimental (The two examples survey coroner reports, I'm not sure if "survey" is the correct term.)
**Studies by Amnesty International, in article Taser controversy#Notable taser deaths
**Bozeman study described at #New Taser study, Taser#Criticism
I think it's unnecessary to have subsubsections for experimental and non-experimental. Flatscan (talk) 18:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I made the changes suggested (rename section, add subsection) and moved a few paragraphs from Taser. Flatscan (talk) 00:25, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Organization of studies 

message: While I was reviewing the Lakkireddy study, I noticed that it was funded by a grant from Taser International. Research funded by Taser has been criticized for potential conflicts of interest. The Arizona Republic ran a exposé on Taser that may include criticisms of specific studies (brief discussion at Talk:Taser#Taser studies). I think the COI issues should definitely be mentioned, but I am uncertain about how the individual studies should be marked.
Possibilities:
# Place all Taser-funded studies in their own section.
# Use footnotes to mark each study with its funding source, either omitting or including "unknown". Can be implemented with separate funding-only named refs or by adding to the existing citations.
# Mark only studies that have been the targets of specific COI-related criticism, such as those covered by the Arizona Republic.
My preference is 2, omitting unknowns which would generally be due to no access to the full study. Flatscan (talk) 01:40, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Studies' funding 

message: :Section: Taser controversy#Recognised risks
I removed refs to a blog, per Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published sources (online and paper), and restored the  tags. The refs were originally added by Poeticbent on November 30, 2007.
:Claims Over Tasers’ Safety Challenged, Sudden Taser Death Syndrome
I followed the blog's link to a New York Times article, which is a reliable source, but does not directly support the paragraph as currently worded.
:"Claims Over Tasers' Safety Are Challenged", New York Times, November 26, 2004.
It is assumed that tasers as well as all other high voltage stun devices can cause cardiac arrhythmia in susceptible subjects, possibly leading to heart attack or death in minutes by ventricular fibrillation (which leads to cardiac arrest and if not treated immediately to sudden death). People susceptible to this outcome are sometimes healthy and unaware of their susceptibility.
I think the "it is assumed that tasers ... can cause" wording should be made more precise. Scientific studies have shown that Tasers can induce ventricular fibrillation in pigs in specific circumstances. A quotation from a doctor or scientist saying what these studies mean for humans would be appropriate. Flatscan (talk) 18:49, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Refs for paragraph in ''Recognised risks'' 

message: It seems to me that there should be a discussion of (or at least acknowledgement of the existence of) a balance of risks in deploying an non-lethal/less-lethal weapons, and that that discussion should be reflected on this page:
*Is it riskier for the person it's being used on than the other non-lethal methods (batons, physical restraint)?
*What about the balance of risks for the users - e.g. police officers are required to risk their health every day when encountering unknown situations; if sometimes they use a taser to reduce that risk, is that justified?
*To what extent do the public (in the US, or in general) have a right to obstruct or be non-compliant with police instructions? Are the police required to have an infinite amount of patience? Is this realistic?
*The number of deaths 'attributed to' tasers is a highly political issue. If a drunk or drugged person puts themselves in a position where they end up being tased (whether or not it's a 'justified' tasing), there's a degree of contributory negligence that shouldn't be ignored. As tasing seems to very rarely be the direct cause of death, we're talking about individuals increasing the risk involved in tasing by their own behavior (the risk of death seems to change from very, very small to very small).
I'd be surprised if there are statistics or research for most of these questions - but isn't it important to mention the issues? Otherwise, the whole discussion boils
down to 'tasers sometimes kill people and don't seem to reduce the police's use of lethal force, so they should be banned'. It doesn't seem that clear cut to me.   —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cerireid (talk • contribs) 21:32, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that I've seen some of these issues discussed in TASER International literature; I'll look into it. As you note, there may be difficulty finding reliable sources. I would hesitate to add unsourced information, especially that which promotes or rationalizes either POV side. Flatscan (talk) 01:47, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relative Risks 

message: Article used as ref Follow-up article 
An April 3 Capital-Journal article elaborates some details, including why the deputies were involved: "An AMR supervisor said Haake was in need of medical attention, Barta said, and asked deputies to intervene by removing Haake from the vehicle." Flatscan (talk) 18:22, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: OK? I'm not sure what the point of that is. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 18:28, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I included the excerpt in response to comments at the articles that questioned why the deputies were interacting with Haake in the first place. An editor may have similar questions – I wondered why medical personnel hadn't handled the situation. Flatscan (talk) 19:10, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but why here? Why not include the excerpt in the article instead? ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 19:16, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Still no final coroner's report, and little news coverage. I will remove this incident from the article if no objections are raised. Flatscan (talk) 16:28, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed Haake from the article. The removed text can be extracted from the diff, if necessary. Flatscan (talk) 01:09, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Walter E. Haake Jr. 

message: I recently heard (Apr. 15/08) that Vancouver SkyTrain transit police have used the taser on fare dodgers. Here is the link:
Reference article Devrit (talk) 02:30, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of taser by transit police 

message: On the first paragraph of the "recognized risks": a study based on a single animal has no statistical meaning more than afirming that characteristcs for a single animal can be extrapoled to all the cases, therefore, this study has no place. Insert formula here  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.125.97.102 (talk) 04:33, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pacemaker, implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (Lakkireddy) study {{Anchor|PM, ICD (Lakkireddy) study}} 

message: A lawsuit by the makers of Taser stun guns has prompted an Ohio court to order a chief medical examiner to delete any reference to the use of a stun gun as a contributing factor in the deaths of three men, a move rebuked as "dangerously close to intimidation" by the National Association of Medical Examiners. This ref should IMO be intergrated in the text. 
 MaxPont (talk) 05:36, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: In the current organization, I think it would fit best in TASER International#Criticism. It would probably be best to merge that section into this article, but I haven't given it much thought. Flatscan (talk) 03:44, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That case is in the article starting with "Summit County, Ohio Medical Examiner Lisa J. Kohler."  What I'd love to know is, did the ME fight the judge's ruling?  was she forced sign her name to a report that she knows to be untrue? Don't Be Evil (talk) 19:19, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

text: Also worth noting is that the judge changed the cause of death from homicide to the victim's health, derailing a murder trial.  Don't Be Evil (talk) 19:24, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Taser manufacturers supress risks with tasers

message: Editors may be interested in commenting at Talk:Taser#RFC:_Criticism on the relationship between this article and the main Taser article. Reggie Perrin (talk) 03:57, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Related discussion at [[Taser]] 

message: The report was release 18 June 2008.  I have added a section and put in a reference for the story from CBC.ca:  . It will need a bit of editting and integration.  I think it belongs here, but may also belong in other Taser articles.  I just wanted to reference it and have no worries about what other edittors decide to do with it.  Cheers, Fremte (talk) 23:16, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Two more references: 
*One-third of people shot by Taser need medical attention: probe
*RCMP fire Tasers multiple times despite health hazards: probe
--Fremte (talk) 23:29, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  RCMP public complaints section added 

message: Several people in the AFD suggesting renaming this article. I'm wondering what people think of Taser safety concerns or Taser safety issues? Reggie Perrin (talk) 06:22, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: A rename should be discussed. The specific name should be determined in accordance with WP:MOS and agreed upon before any move occurs. I am generally supportive of a rename that includes "safety", which would cover most of the existing content, including wrongful death suits and bans considered on safety concerns. However, the sections Tools of political suppression and Torture would not fit in the renamed article and would need to be moved elsewhere. Flatscan (talk) 19:12, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, those sections would need to be moved elsewhere but that would also help keep this article more focussed and prevent it from being a "catch-all" for any complaints about Taser which is one of my problems with the current article. We can create a digested version of the safety information in Taser and move the more detailed information here (obviously we'll have to figure out what to keep in the main article and what to move) and either move the "torture" and "political suppression" information to the main Taser article or create new sub-articles for them while adding summaries to the main article.  The reason I wouldn't want Taser safety a the name of this article is that that sounds a bit unclear (it sounds to me like "Fire safety" eg advice on how to use a Taser safely rather than an exposition of concerns about the safety of the device, so I think Taser safety concerns or Taser safety issues would be more specific. To my ear "issues" sounds more neutral than "concerns" but others might feel differently. Reggie Perrin (talk) 19:44, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

text: I do think a renaming is appropriate, and I do think "safety" is a good word to fit in there because that is indeed the source of the controversy--are they safe? I like Taser safety concerns of what's been mentioned. The appropriateness of police using them is in the news often enough that that seems like the primary issue--are Tasers responsible (in whatever sense) for the deaths of those tasered during arrest? JJL (talk) 02:39, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Before this continues, can someone outline why the current title is bad? I personally see no outright problem with it, and would love to know how we are grading this title before we move on to suggestions of others. Leonard(Bloom) 02:37, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, speaking for myself, I find 'controversy' a bit vague...a bit more specificity is useful, both for finding the article and with regards to what future things may be edited in. JJL (talk) 02:41, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: But isn't that what it is, a controversy? Leonard(Bloom) 02:49, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes...but I think a more specific description of the nature of the controversy is useful here. The controversy isn't over the price, for example. If the article is to be about safety concerns, it should be so named. JJL (talk) 03:34, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

text: One problem with Controversy is that it's a catch-all word. If you look at the current article, while most of it is on safety issues there are also several items like political usage that have nothing to do with the rest of the article. "Inappropriate usage" is judgmental and POV, "controversial usage" isn't specific enough. Also, I disagree with the above claim that how they affect the body isn't at issue - it is  - the company insists that Tasers are "safe" and do no permanent harm while others say that Tasers can and have killed. Reggie Perrin (talk) 04:23, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

text: If you wish to rename Taser controversy to Taser safety issues, I don't think that is objectionable. Regards, Artene50 (talk) 05:52, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd be okay with "Taser safety issues". Leonard(Bloom) 14:59, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That would work for me as I share concerns that the word "controversy" is POV. "Issues" comes close to the line, too. I'd almost be in favor of the article simply being titled "Taser safety" as the fact there are issues is self-evident. 23skidoo (talk) 15:39, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

text: The reason I'm suggesting issues rather than just Taser safety is that sounds too much to me like "Fire safety" - I'd almost expect it to feature the Taser equivalent of Smokey the Bear coming out and giving advice ie it suggests an article about tips for using a Taser safely rather than one about safety issues relating to the weapon. I think "issues" is a fairly neutral term as the word is usually used to suggest more than one side to a question. Reggie Perrin (talk) 16:46, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that "controversy" is too general, but "Inappropriate use" or "controversial use" implies there is an appropriate/uncontroversial use, which is exactly the matter of dispute. "Taser safety" also implies it's just a matter of using them correctly. Perhaps Taser incidents in the US, which is the current contents of the article; if it expands in scope "Taser incidents". DGG (talk) 20:29, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Although a list of incidents has a prominent place in the current article, there is a lot of content that would be excluded. I doubt that an incidents article would stand on its own, and I worry that it would encourage adding all Taser incidents indiscriminately. How about Taser safety controversy or Taser controversy (safety)? Flatscan (talk) 03:36, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: In Wikipedia you generally only put things in brackets for purposes of disambiguation so Taser controversy (safety) would only be a viable title if you're disambiguating from other Taser controversy articles. In any case, it's also inelegant. Taser safety controversy is an improvement over the status quo and I wouldn't oppose that as a name but I'd prefer to get away from the word "controversy" altogether if a better word can be agreed to. Reggie Perrin (talk) 05:08, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

text: Taser history requires a significant change in the organization of the articles, while content covering Taser safety issues is already the bulk of the current article. Flatscan (talk) 04:06, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

text: User:CRakovsky performed the article move and moved the non-safety sections to Taser. Flatscan (talk) 00:46, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Renaming this article? 

message: Reggie Perrin and I have agreed that it would be helpful to solicit further input from participants in this article's recent AfD. Being mindful of Wikipedia:Canvassing#Votestacking, we plan to send notification to all editors who commented. Once the notifications have been sent, I will hide this section in a collapse box. Flatscan (talk) 01:35, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: To all the editors who commented here: thanks! Flatscan (talk) 18:11, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inviting editors from AfD 

message: Template: has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Steve CarlsonTalk 08:11, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  TfD nomination of [[Template:Electroshock]] 

message: I have created a section at Talk:Taser#Moving content to Taser safety issues. General discussion on moving the content should go there, but topics related to this article, such as integrating the moved text, should be covered here. Flatscan (talk) 01:23, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I copied most of the proposed content. Feel free to help with integration, especially getting rid of the redundant Safety header. Flatscan (talk) 20:39, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moving content from Taser 

message: A related article, Quilem Registre Taser incident, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quilem Registre Taser incident. Flatscan (talk) 04:26, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: AfD nomination of Quilem Registre Taser incident

message: The article refers twice to "ECD" but nowhere is this acronym explained.  I was guessing "electric charge device" but I'm basically clueless.  --Vaughan Pratt (talk) 07:59, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: ECD?

message: Recently there has been an attempt to add multiple leading sections to the article, on trivial details related to proper procedure for dealing with taser darts and the possibility of blood contamination; these sections include extensive quotes from OSHA on what a "sharp" is, etc. Absent any verified transmission of disease by this means, much less permanent injury or death, such an extensive discussion of irrelevancies, that obscure more substantive issues, amounts to vandalism, or at minimum, an NPOV violation. I would suggest that further discussion of this "contribution" occur on the talk page, before this is done again. --Kiwanda (talk) 03:37, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  OSHA Sharps vandalism 

message: The article contains the phrase "This is contrary to common sense ..." with regard to a counter-argument.  This doesn't feel like a "neutral" point of view.  Mdnahas (talk) 10:29, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Not now --195.137.93.171 (talk) 02:33, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  "common sense" 

message: Many websites cite Amnesty as claiming 300 deaths. Most totals here seem to be from 2007 or 2008. Can we get something definitive that is only a couple of years old ? Is Amnesty a 'Reliable Source' in Wiki terms ?
Note that everyone dies eventually, so '300 people died after being Tased' is not surprising ! (Everyone that is Tased will die after being Tased - it does not confer immortality.) To mean anything, we need either '300 died within a week of being tased' or '30% more people died within a month of being tased, compared to people sprayed with irritants' or something. 
Nothing is safe : it's all relative. The nuclear industry used to say 'No-one was killed, but some people will have experienced a degree of life-shortening'. Motoring only counts violent deaths as roadkill - the health effects of pollution are probably at least as bad.
Amnesty actually say
:"Since 2001 Amnesty International has found that more than 300 people have died after being shot with Tasers in the US.  In many of these cases, the coroner listed the use of the Taser as a contributory factor or indeed a direct link to the death"
So in "many" cases taser contributed, only some directly !  Actual figures, not spin, please !
* http://cvpcs.asu.edu/sites/default/files/content/projects/Taser%20Media%20CPP.pdf
Says Amnesty evidence to US DoJ inquiry in 2007 was
:contributory in >20 cases out of >290
The link in the article
*http://www.amnesty.org/en/for-media/press-releases/usa-safety-tasers-questioned-death-toll-hits-334-mark-20081216
In December 2008 Amnesty say >50 out of 334 post-taser deaths have taser contribution.
*http://www.amnesty.org/en/news/usa-stricter-limits-urged-deaths-following-police-taser-use-reach-500-2012-02-15
In February 2012 they headline "deaths following police Taser use reach 500" but in the fine print taser is a "contributing factor in more than 60 deaths".
This seems consistently dishonest, counting deaths where taser is not a contributory factor.
Will Wikipedia do better ? I bet it will be reverted if I update it ...
Wikipedia prefers popular citable myths over reliable fact in many places.
For context, Taser.com has a '113,000' lives saved counter, but shows nearly 2,000,000 if you click 'Lean more' then 'See the numbers yourself' - maybe the latter is the number made ?  No, the 2 million counter clicks every 2 minutes. The front page counter clicks every 15 minutes+ . Hmmm ...
I suppose official figures may be near zero, but exploring why would be useful. 
These are from a UK BBC list:
* Shot himself - John Butler, May 2006 - http://www.ipcc.gov.uk/news/ipcc-concludes-managed-investigation-death-john-butler
* Shot by police - Robert Haines, Oct 2006 - http://www.ipcc.gov.uk/news/ipcc-releases-findings-investigation-fatal-shooting-robert-haines
* Heart (pinhole coronary artery) - Brian Loan, Oct 2006 - http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/1651953.family_attacks_inquest_ruling_on_taser_death/
* Self-Stabbing - Justin Petty, Jan 2008 - http://www.ipcc.gov.uk/news/ipcc-will-not-investigate-bedford-death-death-not-result-taser
* Shot himself - Raoul Moat, July 2010 - http://www.ipcc.gov.uk/news/ipcc-publishes-findings-raoul-moat-investigation
* Drugs mephedrone - Dale Burns, Aug 2011 - http://www.ipcc.gov.uk/news/ipcc-investigation-concludes-cumbria-constabulary-acted-correctly-handling-dale-burns-incident
* Self-Stabbing - Philip Hulme, Aug 2011 - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-14661544
* Self-Stabbing - Ernestas Anikinas, Feb 2012  - http://www.ipcc.gov.uk/news/findings-issued-following-inquest-death-ernestas-anikinas-gatwick-airport-railway-station
* Burns ? (unresolved) - Andrew Pimlott, April 2013 - http://www.thisisplymouth.co.uk/possible-causes-fireball-killed-Plymouth-man/story-18836151-detail/story.html
* Heart ? Stab ? (unresolved) - Jordan Begley, July 2013 - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-23265905
Doubtless, some will ask whether the IPCC is a reliable source.
Yes, I know, "No Original Research". Is there anything out there we could cite ?
--195.137.93.171 (talk) 02:44, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Death 'toll' could use an update 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Taser safety issues. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090221023332/http://www.unog.ch:80/80256EDD006B9C2E/%28httpNewsByYear_en%29/D3DD9DE87B278A87C125739C0054A81C?OpenDocument to http://www.unog.ch/80256EDD006B9C2E/(httpNewsByYear_en)/D3DD9DE87B278A87C125739C0054A81C?OpenDocument
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071019231334/http://web.amnesty.org:80/report2003/usa-summary-eng to http://web.amnesty.org/report2003/usa-summary-eng
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071219233730/http://www.cbc.ca:80/canada/british-columbia/story/2007/11/14/bc-taservideo.html to http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2007/11/14/bc-taservideo.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:17, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Taser safety issues. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070926025503/http://web.amnesty.org/library/pdf/AMR510302006ENGLISH/$File/AMR5103006.pdf to http://web.amnesty.org/library/pdf/AMR510302006ENGLISH/$File/AMR5103006.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071103035413/http://www.cbc.ca:80/news/background/tasers/ to http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/tasers/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080608144326/http://www.taser.com:80/research/Science/Pages/TASERBlameForInjuries.aspx to http://www.taser.com/research/Science/Pages/TASERBlameForInjuries.aspx
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071211210230/http://www.cbc.ca:80/canada/british-columbia/story/2007/10/18/bc-taser.html to http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2007/10/18/bc-taser.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080429195251/http://www.chicagotribune.com:80/news/local/chi-police_taser_death_webapr25,0,7015156.story to http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-police_taser_death_webapr25,0,7015156.story
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:07, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Can someone please enter this incident? Sorry no time. Thanks. 91.125.85.186 (talk) 18:59, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  New taser death in UK 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Taser safety issues. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080528221236/http://www.unog.ch/80256EDD006B9C2E/(httpNewsByYear_en)/D3DD9DE87B278A87C125739C0054A81C?OpenDocument to http://www.unog.ch/80256EDD006B9C2E/(httpNewsByYear_en)/D3DD9DE87B278A87C125739C0054A81C?OpenDocument
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071223132039/http://www.taser.com/research/Science/Pages/TASERBlameForInjuries.aspx to http://www.taser.com/research/Science/Pages/TASERBlameForInjuries.aspx
*Added  tag to http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/ccaps/cew/kiedrowski_report_e.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:03, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Taser safety issues. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071130010402/http://www.amnestyusa.org/document.php?id=ENGAMR510302006 to http://www.amnestyusa.org/document.php?id=ENGAMR510302006
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170325094742/http://laist.com/2011/11/16/san_bernardino_man_dies_after_polic.php to http://laist.com/2011/11/16/san_bernardino_man_dies_after_polic.php
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090530170841/http://www.taser.com/SiteCollectionDocuments/Downloads/MK-INST-X26E-001%20REV%20B%20X26E%20Manual.pdf to http://www.taser.com/SiteCollectionDocuments/Downloads/MK-INST-X26E-001%20REV%20B%20X26E%20Manual.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:24, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: If this article is to remain, it needs an extensive rewrite.  There are a number of medical statements that are not sourced, including the opening paragraph.  Some of the statements are demonstrably false.  In 2019, there are plenty of scholarly sources of actual research with this product.  There is no need to cite tabloids and special interest groups.  Most of the news articles fail to establish a causal relationship of the product to the death, but only that a TASER was involved in an overall incident in which a person died.  That is shoddy as a source.  Any thoughts?--BobiusPrime (talk) 23:17, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Very Poor Article 

message: This is the most recent review article on Pubmed as of my 30 January 2023 search. There doesn't seem to be much good, scientific, rigorous information on the question of Taser deaths as they are used in the general population. 
JAMA Netw Open
2021 Feb 1;4(2):e2037209.  doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.37209.
Human Health Risks of Conducted Electrical Weapon Exposure: A Systematic Review
Christos Baliatsas, Jenny Gerbecks, Michel L A Dückers, C Joris Yzermans
Findings: ... Most of the studies were performed on healthy, physically fit individuals (eg, police officers) in a controlled setting, with short exposure duration (5 seconds). Half of the studies, mainly those with a higher risk of bias, were at least partly funded by the manufacturer.
Conclusions and relevance: Based on the findings of the reviewed studies, the risk for adverse health outcomes due to CEW exposure can be currently estimated as low. However, most of the reviewed studies had methodologic limitations. Considering that recruited participants were not representative of the population that usually encounters a CEW deployment, it is not possible to draw conclusions regarding exposure outcomes in potentially vulnerable populations or high-risk groups, such as those under the influence of substances.
Nbauman (talk) 17:14, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  JAMA Network Open, 2021