The Arrest, Caused The Arrest

It is critical to understand that it doesn't matter that the ultimate cause of death was cardiac arrest... because it was the positional asphyxia and the lack of treatment and the 8 minute delay after falling unconscious before receiving any kind of intervention, that were the proximate cause of, and  resulted in, George Floyds death. Had Floyd not been improperly restrained and negligently mishandled while restrained, he would not have suffered cardiac arrest.

Yes... The ultimate cause of death was cardiac arrest. The proximate cause of the cardiac arrest, was the positional asphyxia and lack of appropriate response to it.

The official autopsy findings did not contradict or counterindicate that. They simply noted that the ultimate cause of death was cardiac arrest, and that there was no indication of TRAUMATIC asphyxia... meaning his hyoid bone wast broken, and he didn't have ocular or facial petechiae or distinctive contusions indicative of violent manual or ligature strangulation for example.

Choke holds and other restraints which may occlude or obstruct the airway may or may not produce these signs, depending on technique, body positioning, and whether the subject violently resisted.

Side chokes and "sleeper holds" for example... effectively a large part of what happened to Floyd (the other part being suppression of respiratory function by compression of and heavy weight remaining on, the chest and back)... occlude the blood vessels to the brain, but do not break the hyoid bone, and generally do not produce distinctive bruising or petechiae.

Oh and Kelly by the way, is the number one instructor for EMS services EMTs and paramedics, in the country. He actually literally wrote the book... in fact, several books... on how EMS should respond to cases like Floyds.

Literally everyone's ultimate cause of death is cardiac arrest... the question is what caused it... and in this case it was the arrest that caused the arrest.

Patrol Platform

A friend, reader, and forum reader at the Guncounter forums put forth an idea yesterday that I thought might be interesting to talk about here.

"The Glock has replaced 1911s and other pistols in the hands of the police because a monkey can be trained to operate it and it is reliable even if not properly maintained.

I think the AK might be like the glock of rifles and would serve our police force better than the AR-15s.

In the hands of a trained operator* and when properly maintained the AR is a superior rifle to an AK. The AR is just as reliable, but easier to shoot well, and has a superior control layout. That said, at least 75% of the patrol force out there is incompetent, unmotivated, and downright stupid. Some of them shouldn't be issued anything more than an old 38, and no bullets. They will not undergo the training necessary to achieve proficiency with the operation of an AR, they will not practice with it to benefit from its accuracy, and they will not clean it to ensure its reliability.

The fact of the matter is that our cops are much like the group of people for whom the AK was designed. The reliability is an advantage because they won't maintain them, the lack of accuracy is not an issue since they can't shoot that accurately anyway.

So my argument is that instead of AR-15 rifles, our cops should be issued semi-auto AK-47 pattern rifles. Let the flame-war begin! "

Actually, I almost agree with him here, excepting the (intentionally... this person is a bombthrower by nature) inflammatory description of American patrol officers (there is SOME truth to the concept he's speaking of, but not to the degree he's talking about), and the two major problems that:

1. U.S. Police departments will almost certainly not be politically able to use AK pattern rifles.

I believe this one difficulty is insurmountable. The AK really is through of around the world, and particularly in the media, as a terrorist gun.

The sight of American cops shooting at American citizens (even if they are criminals) with AK pattern rifles, would be entirely politically unacceptable; even if the rifles were U.S. made, and looked nothing like the AK of the middle eastern terrorist etc...

2. An AK pattern rifle is longer, heavier, bulkier, less maneuverable, and more snagprone in vehicles, and tight quarters, than an AR pattern rifle of equivalent barrel length

Though this can be compensated for somewhat, with the right configuration and accessories; it can't be completely mitigated. Being made almost entirely of stamped or milled steel, the AK pattern rifle will always be heavier than the AR pattern rifle; and the receiver of the AK pattern rifle is considerably longer than the AR pattern rifle, and can't really be shortened.

And a few minor issues like:

3. The 7.62x39 round is louder, has more muzzle blast and recoil (though admittedly, not a hell of a lot), and is more likely than 5.56n to overpenetrate through obstacles (as opposed to people... and experience has shown that cops are far more likely to hit things other than people) while retaining wounding potential.

This of course could be compensated for by simply chambering the rifle in 5.56, or 5.45... or for that matter any number of other intermediate chamberings).

4. the AK pattern rifle is generally more difficult to adapt for accessories, adjustable stocks etc...

These accessories are actually very useful to the law enforcement mission and the mission impacting factors, of the patrol carbine. The issue is pretty easily addressed; however, when you do so, the rifle becomes just as expensive as an AR, negating one of the advantages of the AK platform.

Essentially, even excluding the insurmountable political issue; after modifying the AK platform to match the useful aspects of the AR which should be retained for the patrol carbine mission, I don't believe the AK platform presents sufficient advantage... or any advantage really... to warrant adopting the it over the AR.

All that aside... I think this is actually a good opportunity to address a more fundamental issue represented by the entire concept of the law enforcement patrol carbine.

In general, I believe that the U.S. law enforcement mission (at least in urban, and suburban environments, for local law enforcement) is better served by the patrol shotgun, than the patrol carbine.

Though I believe the patrol carbine is a useful tool to have, and we should retain it as an option available to officers; the patrol shotgun is more tactically appropriate and more mission appropriate, in most circumstances; and gives the officer more flexibility in response options, than the patrol carbine.

I have nothing against the patrol carbine. It fills a genuine need, while being familiar to many officers from military service and recreational shooting; as well as being understood and accepted by the general public (now anyway, more than 10 years post 9/11. When it was first becoming common in the early to mid 90s, it was a huge political issue).

...I just don't think the patrol carbine meets the urban and suburban law enforcement mission as well as another option might.

Note: I should say, I'm not exactly an original thinker in this. What I'm saying now has been said by hundreds of law enforcement trainers, and thousands of law enforcement officers, for years... But I have rarely seen this discussion in the gunblogger realm, and it's something I thought my readers might be interested in discussing, and in many cases may be able to contribute their firsthand or relevant knowledge and experience to

The two mission challenges addressed by the patrol carbine (as opposed to the personal sidearm, or patrol shotgun) are:

1. marksmanship and immediate response capabilities at 15-100 yard distances; to be able to rapidly respond to situations in that tactical regime without waiting for a SWAT callout.

2. Effective, immediate, response against lightly barricaded subjects (particularly those barricaded in or behind vehicles), or subjects wearing light to medium body armor; again, to allow an officer to rapidly respond to these situations without waiting for SWAT callout.

A note: I am qualifying myself with "urban and suburban" here, because there are some mission challenges in rural law enforcement, and in highway patrol, that may be better met by rifle caliber weapons. In these environments, an officer may be a very long distance (or long response time) away from backup, support, or enhanced capability response units.

Further, an officer may commonly encounter a need to respond to situations best met by a rifle. Dispatching wildlife, handling longer range engagements (lots of clear space around highways, and in rural areas, for hostile subjects to engage an officer), dealing with subjects that are more heavily barricaded or in deeper cover (or are barricaded at greater distances... particularly in or behind vehicles at greater distance), disabling vehicles; and in extremis, engaging rifle armed subjects (which, because of the time and distance involved, can't wait for a SWAT callout; if the organization even has such resources available).

I would advance the proposition that a better solution to the tactical challenge the patrol carbine addresses, at least for the urban and suburban patrol officer, may in fact be better addressed with a PDW concept weapon which gives armor penetration capability (such as the P90).

In general I would posit that the patrol officer does not need response capabilities for heavily armored, heavily barricaded, or excess of 100 yard situations; in which rifle caliber weapons would provide a decisive advantage over PDW concept weapons. These situations should be handled by SWAT or tactical response; or other heavy armor, and rifle equipped, response units.

The patrol officer is neither trained, nor equipped to handle this mission (nor should he be under normal circumstances), and should only be responding to these situations in extreme circumstances (except in a supporting role. Establishing and maintaining a perimeter, handling the public, etc...).

The PDW concept offers light weight, ease of maneuverability and handling, good ergonomics, rapid fire capability with little recoil, precision marksmanship within its accuracy envelope (100 yards and under), and armor penetration within its high percentage performance envelope (50 yards and under).

I believe these advantages and performance envelope are better matched to the needs of the urban or suburban patrol officer, than the advantages and performance envelope of the rifle caliber weapon.

As of 2012, there are several PDW concept weapons that have been proven effective in operational use (most notably the P90, but there are others).

I believe the PDW concept may not yet be mature enough to consider for wholesale adoption by American law enforcement (and I remain doubtful as to the general military mission for the class of weapon); however, it may present a better solution in general, to the patrol officers mission challenges, than the rifle caliber patrol carbine.

The only thing I will say about the Casey Anthony case

The not guilty verdict was correct based on the case presented. The system, as it is, worked properly.

Oh and by the by, lying to the police should not be a crime (defrauding the police is one thing, but simple lying... 5th amendment issue).

The prosecution failed to even make any serious attempt to conclusively prove that the primary charged crime was even committed (other than lying, obstruction, and evidence tampering of course; but those were not the primary charges).

They failed in this, because they had no real evidence of it. Their only case was to basically say "isn't this awful. It has to be her fault. No-one would do this unless they were a horrible awful person and she should pay for that".

Frankly, the charges never should have even been brought. They knew there was no way they could prove them before they ever filed. They filed based on the political pressure form the aftermath of the "missing child search"; and they were counting on the jury hating the defendant so much they ignored the lack of evidence.

That didn't happen.

Frankly, that is a common prosecution strategy; particularly with black defendants in majority white areas, drug users, accused child molestors, and women they can paint as "sluts" or "bitches". Push the "mommy" and "morality" buttons on the jury and give them enough horrible crap to process that they just want to punish somebody.

But that isn't good for justice. It's a strategy for winning, not for finding the truth, or protecting the innocent. It's a strategy that has put a lot of innocent people in prison.

And it didn't work this time.

Did she kill her child... I don't know. It seems likely, but not certain. There are certainly credible alternative theories; though the most likely is that she did. If she did, did she do it intentionally? I don't know... I can't even say it seems likely. It's possible, but entirely uncertain.

That, by definition, is a not guilty verdict on the charges presented.

The system worked.

"Correcting" the so called "Corrections" system

As of today, it should be clear to everyone in this country, that our system for dealing with criminals (I won't call it a "criminal justice" system since justice has so little to do with it), is utterly broken, beyond any conventional concept of repair.

At this point, again I say, it should be clear we can't just "fix it", we need to start over again, with a different concept.

I have a radical idea.... how about this time we start with an HONEST concept... because right now we are anything but honest about what the real function of the "criminal justice" system is; and that dishonesty is what has made all our efforts to date fail miserably.

Today, although we will never admit this to ourselves publicly, there are three things keeping the "Corrections" system going:

1. It's a jobs program for law enforcement and "corrections" officers, and administrators
   
2. Non-offending people ARE actually safer when offenders are imprisoned (the problem is, what happens when they get out).
   
3. The punitive principle.

We like lots of cops (or at least the IDEA of lots of cops), we want to be "safe", and we feel that people who do bad should be PUNISHED.

That's really what it comes down to though, is punishment.

Punishment isn't SUPPOSED to "help" them. Punishment isn't supposed to "rehabilitate" them.

The very term "department of corrections" is a hypocritical misnomer.

Americans (and to a large extent most other cultures), put people in prison to punish them, not to "fix" them.

"Correctional system", "penitentiary"... All high minded hypocritical myths.

The reason "Sheriff Joe" "Americas Toughest Sherrif" is so popular (despite being the worst sort of self aggrandizing, corrupt, civil rights abusing scum) is because he reassures people that he is "punishing the bad guys"; and THAT is honestly what people want.

Eastern State Penitentiary, the first "modern" penitentiary style prison, was deliberately fashioned to resemble monks cells (which is where we got the name for inmate housing units), in the belief that isolation, contemplation, prayer, and penitence (thus the name), would reform criminals into decent men. It was held up as the new "humane" model. In reality it drove prisoners mad and they killed themselves, and each other, in droves.

So long as we refuse to acknowledge the true purpose behind "custodial sentencing" and pretend it has anything to do with the offender coming out better on the other side, we are stuck with what we've got (And rapidly getting worse).

We have to stop pretending that punishment does anything but feed our base emotions.

We have to stop pretending that the negative prospect of prison is sufficient to deter criminals from committing crimes. Most criminals by nature have a poor appreciation for consequences, poor impulse control, and an inability to make valid risk/reward calculations.

When you put a criminal away, all you are doing is warehousing him where he can't commit that crime anymore. That does serve a valid purpose, but it costs a huge amount of money, and doesn't fix the problem.

The so called "criminal justice" system can no longer serve as a jobs program for law enforcement, lawyers, administrators, and corrections personnel; nor can it simply be warehousing of offenders until we release them to commit their next offense.


So, here it is, really simple; my pie in the sky ideal for how to deal with crime and punishment.

Step 1:  drug addiction, possession, use, and sale, must be decriminalized 

This has to happen for ANYTHING to have any hope of working. That would eliminate something like 80% of the offenses in higher criminal courts, and drastically reduce prison populations (at least 40%, most likely something more like 80%).

Step 2: We must not only stop, but revert the proliferation of felonies

Right now, you can be convicted of a felony in some states, for as little as selling the wrong kind of fish at the wrong time. We have established a ridiculous number of offenses as "high crimes" (what felonies are intended to be); without any real justification or social purpose, except to inflate those whom the state can claim as convictions, claim higher punitive penalties from, or incarcerate for longer periods of time.

Accordingly, all crimes currently classified as felonies must be reclassified as misdemeanors unless they meet one or more of the following conditions:

1. Physical violence sufficient to cause grievous bodily harm, grievous trauma (such as rape and molestation), or substantial risk of loss of life (or more).
   
   
2. Physical or monetary damages equal to or greater than two years income at minimum wage, presuming a 1940 hour work year.
   
   
3. Crimes against basic human rights, including terrorism, tampering with courts, deprivation of rights etc...
   
   
4. Grave harm to the national security of the united states, including espionage and treason.
   
5. Criminal negligence, gross indifference, coercion, conspiracy, or fraud sufficient to cause the above.
   

Step 3: We must completely overhaul our punishment and societal protection model

We must eliminate custodial sentences for non-violent crimes, including felonies, unless those crimes involve:

1. Gross negligence or indifference leading to violent consequences or the loss of life (anything from drunk driving to greater liability issues)
2. Coercion, force or fraud causing damages in excess of five years of minimum wage (because this is effectively slavery for the victim)
3. Special circumstances which are considered "heinous" (more on that later). 

We must restore the element of criminal intent into how crimes are charged and sentenced. If there is no intent, then there can be no intentional crime; only crimes of negligence or indifference, which are generally considered far less severe.

In this regard, any action taken while intoxicated or impaired should be considered qualifying, HOWEVER only if criminal damage or injury to others results.

I believe that people should be allowed to drink, swallow or smoke whatever they want, but if their choices cause impairment which then causes damage or injury to others, they should be punished SEVERELY; and crimes involving impairment should be considered intentional for purposes of determining severity. 

Also for purposes of determining the severity of an offense, coercion or fraud shall be considered equivalent to force (force being defined as violence, or the threat of violence).

All other criminal offenses should be punished by restitution and compensatory and punitive damages to the victim, compensatory and punitive fines to the state, labor for public benefit, public humiliation, and two years of convict status (which can be reduced by order of a judge only after discharge of all obligations).

Further, on discharge of all other obligations, convicts shall be given a term, of "probation" equal to the length of their existing sentence.

The crimes, sentences, and photographs of all those convicted of criminal offenses should be published in all local newspapers, as well as on local and national web sites; and announced on local television.

All convicts should be required to wear a distinctive article (bracelet, necklace, ankle bracelet etc...) which lists their crime and sentence, and which cannot be covered up while in public.

Convicts must wear this article, until such time as their sentence and obligations have been discharged. At any time, the convict should be legally required to disclose their crime and sentence to anyone who asks; unless doing so would cause danger or disruption.

If a convict is able to earn more than a state mandated minimum wage in their private pursuits, they may continue performing them, and pay restitution and fines directly. If not, then they are directed to work for the state, at a competitive wage for such jobs as they perform, while meeting prevailing employment standards for such a position (i.e. if the only job they qualify for is ditch digger, it's the only job they can get; and they still have to compete for it with non-convicts).

If the convict is unable to meet basic standards of work, or is unwilling to work, then they will be reduced to menial forced labor at minimum wage. If they refuse this, they will be incarcerated, as a regular inmate, for the term of their sentence.

Restitution, damages, and fines should of course be directly garnished from the convicts wages; but should be considered pre-tax income deductions for tax purposes. 

All custodial sentences shall have terms of two, five, ten, twenty five years, or life (or death in states that allow it).

Different charged offenses can be combined consecutively to "stack" sentences; but only if those offenses make up separate criminal acts (if one crime involved 8 different chargeable elements with a 2 year sentence for each, then the convict would recieve 8 two year sentences to run concurrently. If he committed the same crime on 8 different occaisons, he could recieve consecutive sentences, for a total of 16 years incarceration)

There is no parole, however sentences can be reduced (more on that later).

Forcible rape, aggravated sexual assault, sexual molestation, aggravated kidnapping, intentional premeditated or depraved homicide (what would be first degree murder in most jurisdictions), felony murder if the homicide is heinous by itself, any intentional negligent or depraved indifference crime resulting in mass death or mass grievous injury (mass being defined as multiple victims who were not individually targeted, or multiple victims who were unknown to the criminal and whom they had no individual an personal motive to harm), any crime involving tampering with a court or an election, any crime involving the intentional deprivation of an individuals basic human and civil rights (as enumerated in the declaration of independence, and the constitution), torture, espionage, treason; or any attempt to commit those crimes, or conspiracy to commit those crimes; shall all be considered "heinous crimes".

Heinous crimes should all carry the maximum length of incarceration, and should be eligible for the death penalty in jurisdictions that allow it.

It is important however, that all state and federal laws about the definitions of these crimes must be clarified and harmonized to meet the highest standard of criminal act, and criminal intent (for example, a potentially but not explicitly sexual element to a simple assault - such as public nudity or forced nudity -, would not make it sexual assault. The intent and act must be sexual in nature, and involve sexual contact or acts, or attempted sexual contact or acts. Forcible rape must be limited to actual acts of physical violence, or coercion by threat of violence, resulting in a sexual act).

Oh and yes, I really do believe that voter fraud and election fraud should be punishable by life in prison. So should criminally preventing someone from voting who has the lawful franchise. Any criminal deprivation of rights should be considered as serious as rape or murder. 

In addition to their custodial sentence, of course, all penalties that apply to non-custodial sentences would also apply. Restitution, damages, fines and fees, as well as all other conditions of convicts.


Sentences can be reduced, by a judge, on review of the case, and circumstances. A review will be automatically initiated at the time the convict discharges their restitution, damages, and fines, should they do so before the term of their incarceration is completed. Criminals convicted of heinous crimes however, would not be eligible for early release except for humanitarian reasons.

While serving a custodial sentence and incarcerated, unless disabled and unable to do so, the convict will be required to perform productive labor for at least 8 hours a day, five days a week; for which they will be paid at minimum, a base sum equal to the cost of their incarceration (for which they will be charged). They will also accumulate sick leave benefit, and paid vacation days, equivalent to a government employee of the same grade as whatever productive labor they perform.

If the convict is disabled and unable to perform any work, they will be given the same disability status as any disabled individual; and will receive the equivalent of all federal and state disability payments and benefits, to offset the cost of their incarceration.

The convict is to be given the opportunity to voluntarily learn useful job skills, and perform at a useful job at market rates, which can earn them money to pay their fines and restitution.

If the convict has useful skills which can be applied to work that can be performed within the terms of their incarceration without undue risk, this is to be allowed. 

The convict is also to be offered the opportunity to work overtime, and earn more money; to be used to pay the cost of their incarceration, their fines and restitution; the balance of which should be the inmates to control as they see fit.

This should not imply the inmate has a right to any job other than basic labor paid at a rate sufficient to cover the cost of their incarceration. Only that the opportunity to seek and perform other employment must be allowed.

If a convict refuses to work, or does not meet minimum standards of work, they are to be restricted to solitary confinement without public exercise, visitation, or communication privileges (excepting legal and spiritual council), and reduced to subsistence ration. Additionally, any work day the convict refuses to work, the cost of their incarceration for that day will be added to their obligations.

Some of this may seem ridiculous (vacation days for convicts?) but it serves an important purpose. The convict should understand, they are performing a job, for pay. They benefit from their own labor, and they have to pay for their own upkeep. If they work harder or more or at a better job, they get ahead; just like everyone else.

This kind of normalization is really the only way to produce people who won't reoffend when they get out. Get them useful job and life skills they can transfer to the outside world; and get them in the habit of meeting standards of behavior; you'll see a huge difference.

Any convict caught committing any felony while incarcerated will be subject to immediate extension of their sentence to life in the case of non-violent felonies, or death in the case of violent felonies. Self defense (against ANY crime or attempted crime against them, not just murder) is considered a valid defense against such charges however.

On their release from custody, convicts will be liable to the same penalties and strictures as those who have received non-custodial sentences.

Any further felony committed by any felony convict, whether incarcerated or not, prior to the discharge of any and all obligations (fines, restitution, service or labor), or in the convicts "probation" period will result in an automatic custodial sentence of at least five years; even for offenses that would not normally carry a custodial penalty.

Any violent felony committed prior to the discharge of any and all obligations shall result in an automatic custodial sentence of life in prison, or death.

On the discharge of their fines and restitution, and completion of any service or labor requirements, and any probation period; all convicts shall have all their civil rights restored, including the right to vote, and the right to keep and bear arms.

Private employers may discriminate against convicts, even after their obligations have been discharged, should they choose to do so. The federal, state, and local governments however may NOT discriminate against convicts whose sentences have been discharged however, except for those convicted of Heinous crimes (who should, in general, not be released anyway) or in the case of employment in law enforcement, criminal justice, corrections, national security, or the military. 

Any repeat offense of the same felony, or any violent felony by a convicted felon who has discharged their sentence, shall cause a convict to be considered an incorrigible offender, and subject to an automatic sentence of 25 years, life, or death at a judges discretion (25 years for any crime that would normally rate a sentence less than 25 years. Life for any crime that would normally rate 25 years. Death for any heinous crime, or crime that would normally rate life). As always, this is subject to review and reduction by a judge after the convict has discharged their obligations (excepting heinous crimes).

I call this the "one chance, don't blow it" rule. I believe it is fully justified, because the nature and scope of felonies is being dramatically reduced; the standards for offense are much higher, and the ability of someone to reintegrate into society without re-offending should be much better under this regime.

That's it. Not exactly simple, but a lot less complicated than our current system... and if anything can work, it ought to be this.

Risk and Compliance

For the first time today, TASER international has acknowledged that the use of their electro-compliance device has a higher risk to the health of the restrainee than they have advertised

Taser: Don't shoot stun gun at chest First time company has suggested there is any risk from its stun guns AP - updated 8:23 a.m. PT, Wed., Oct . 21, 2009 PHOENIX - Taser International is advising police agencies across the nation not to shoot its stun guns at a suspect's chest. The Arizona-based company says such action poses a risk — albeit extremely low — of an "adverse cardiac event." The advisory was issued in an Oct. 12 training bulletin. It marks the first time that Taser has suggested there is any risk of a cardiac arrest related to the use of its 50,000-volt stun guns, The Arizona Republic reported. Story continues below ↓advertisement | your ad here Taser officials said Tuesday the bulletin does not state that Tasers can cause cardiac arrest. They said the advisory means only that law-enforcement agencies can avoid controversy if their officers aim at areas other than the chest. Critics called it a stunning reversal for the company.

We have all of course seen or heard of such incidents as the intransigent elderly woman who was TASED a few months ago in Texas (and many other similar incidents involving the elderly or emotionally disturbed); and most famously of course, of Rodney King, who continued resisting arrest after multiple TASER hits (which is why the officers began beating him. What started as an attempt to physically restrain a violent and intoxicated offender, turned into an emotional free for all).

Less frequently, we hear of someone experiencing cardiac or respiratory arrest, seizures, or nervous system damage from the use of the TASER.

Civil liberties activists have claimed that TASERs have directly caused the death of at least 350 people this decade; and that unjustified use of the TASER device is rampant, with thousands of effective cases of police brutality every year.

I take those claims with a hefty grain of salt.

Unfortunately, it IS clear that there have been a not insignificant number of deaths, either directly or indirectly caused by TASER usage; and that the risks of TASER usage are in fact much higher than law enforcement agencies and individual officers have been trained, or led to believe.

Because of these risks, those same civil liberties activists have called for the TASER device to be banned.

For years, TASER international has utterly denied the possibility of any elevated risk of death or serious injury involved in the use of the TASER.

Today, for the first time, the company acknowledged those risks; but in response suggested something I believe is ridiculous, counterproductive, and may even be harmful. In order to avoid liability, they are advising law enforcement agencies to train their officers to avoid shooting restrainees in the chest...

This is patently ridiculous.

First, the TASER is most effective when shot into the chest (resuming a forward facing subject. The mid back is even more effective). The TASER device works by disrupting neuromuscular co-ordination, and hits outside of center mass are far less effective at causing systemic disruption. Other areas simply do not have the concentrations of nerve and muscle junctions that allow for effective immobilization.

When targeting peripheral areas of the body, effective immobilization may be limited to the localized area of the hit, or to one side of the body. Even hits to the abdomen or pelvis (as Taser international is recommending) are far less effective in immobilization, (especially on larger restrainees) though they are exceptionally painful.

It is entirely possible (though very difficult) to fight through a TASER hit to a peripheral area, whereas it is nearly impossible to do so with a chest hit (unless you are physically huge, wearing heavy clothing that the darts can't get full penetration on, or are very high).

It is also standard tactical doctrine for all projectile weapons training to aim for center mass; and it's damn near impossible to hit a limb in a stressful situation. You don't want to train officers to shoot for other targets under stress, it will just cause more problems.

Even after the department training officers and lawyers dutifully pass on the message from TASER; officers will, RIGHTLY, ignore this warning.

If you're going to restrict TASER usage to targeting peripheral areas of the body, you might as well ban their use entirely.

I believe banning TASERs would be a huge mistake, as would changing the targeting area for the device; but clearly something needs to change.

The problem with TASERs isn't their risks; it's their doctrine for use.

I've been a law enforcement trainer myself, and I've been through various less-lethal force training courses, including TASERs. I've been TASED several times, and have had several other electro-compliance devices demonstrated on me (to great effect).

Officers are trained to view TASERs as, and to use them as, a less harmful compliance option than direct physical contact; with less risk to both the officer, and the restrainee. The TASER is viewed as a less risky, and less harmful option in the continuum of force.

While the less risk to the officer part is true, the risk of great harm to the restrainee is very high. Much higher than that of chemical compliance techniques, and as high as PROPERLY EXECUTED physical restraint and compliance techniques

Improperly executed physical restraint and compliance techniques, unfortunately present nearly as high a risk of fatality as a shooting; and with much greater risk to the officer. Without extensive training, continuing practice, and exceptional strength and physical fitness; it is very difficult for officers to maintain proper physical restraint and compliance techniques. Even with proper technique, the risk to the officer remains much higher than non-contact restraint and compliance techniques.

It is these issues, which in fact prompted much of the development of less-lethal force technologies; including chemical restraints, and electro-compliance devices like the TASER.

So where does this leave us? Where does this leave law enforcement officers; who are simply looking for a way to effectively restrain subjects, with less risk to the officer, and the subject.

This improper perception of risk has created an environment; especially in smaller law enforcement organizations, with lower training budgets and more permissive attitudes towards the continuum of force; where TASER use is not considered serious.

In general, many officers would prefer to use the TASER than other means of enforcing physical compliance; because it presents the least risk to them, and the most compliant restrainee.

Combined this false perception of low risk, with a more permissive attitude, and the undoubted advantages to the officer; and it is understandable why in many jurisdictions it seems that taser usage is out of control, and suspects are being TASEd almost casually.

The use of the TASER should be understood to be (and officers should be trained to this effect) 1/2 step below the use of a firearm in the continuum of force. Officers should be trained in a more realistic assessment of the risks and dangers of the TASER (and other electro-compliance devices).

Additionally, TASER use in the line of duty, should be reviewed with the same diligence as the discharge of a firearm.

I don't want to take the TASER away from officers, as it is a useful and excellent tool that in general DOES increase the safety of both the officer, and the restrainee.

What I want, is for officers, and agencies, to understand, and take the risks and impact of TASER usage more seriously.

HT: Unc