Those Deadly Tasers again

Still nothing on the safety of tasers on SIX-YEAR OLDS! Come on, Kane0!
Where is your "formidable research skill"? ;-)

Doan

On 3 Apr 2005 wrote:


Mountain_Bill wrote:
"Doan" wrote in message
...

On 30 Mar 2005 wrote:

I just knew this would devolve into something brilliant.

0:-

Kane


Yup! I am still waiting for the research that support
your claim that tasers are safe on SIX-YEAR OLDS!

Doan


I thought he already posted that information. Something about someone
doing
tests on six year old pigs?

A six year old pig is about equivalent to an 80 year old man. Pigs have
rather short lives, generally. The ones used for experiment are not
only specially bred, like all lab animals, with characteristics that
would figure in the testing, but they are virus free born....they are
taken with the womb, placenta, and all, still intact out of the mother
pig, and the entire bundle of piglets are passed from the piggie OR
through a vat of disinfectent that has a passthrough into a sterile
room. There they are removed from the womb

Oh yes. Mother pig makes her next stop at the dog and cat food plant,
since dead pigs coming in the door cannot be slaughtered for human
consumption.

I'm always charmed when self important little ignoramouses pop up an
spout off.

Even the much pampered and well cared for Pot-bellied pet pig has a
lifespan about that of a dog or cat.
"
Life Span:
I feel that the life span of these pigs is not what we assumed in the
beginning. It is closer to the truth that they will have a productive
life that equals the life span of the well cared for dog. This would
make it between ten and fifteen years.
"

So a six year old pig (and the pigs used for experiment are usually
not, unless there is a longevity study underway, bred for long life) of
the kind used is probably very old at that age.

You'd want a 3 to 5 week old to hit the equivalent of a six year old
boy. Typical domestic pigs used (they are bred from the orginal Chester
White stock...and I do not know the current name, though one acronym
once common was PFP, Pneumonrhinitis Free Porcine--that's the special
clean room birthing thing, not the breed.)

It's been a long time since I dealt with livestock and veterinary
medicine.

By the way, the experiments are a waste of money. A great deal of
useful and solid research is done by reviewing records and publications
and prior reports.

There are 100,000 plus recorded incidences of the use of tasers on
willing and unwilling subjects. More than enough for a good statistical
analysis. Cop records of the disposition of perps tends to be reliable.
"After tasing the suspect, and finding him unresponsive we trasported
to hospital via ambulance. I accompanied. Suspect came too in the
ambulance and requied only treatment for mild systemic shock.
Attendants said his circulatory hypo tension was temporary and when we
arrived at the jail he was lucid, responsive, and walked under his own
power to check it."

Or "he was dead as a mackrel and autopsy report follows, see attach
#2."

100,000 recorded uses, Billy et al. That is an impressive group, with
all manner of subjects, age, weight, health, size, substances present
or absence, behaviors, all there. Many a researcher would give his left
nut for such a group to study the reports on.

Exactly, in fact, what showed already that Taser is far safer for all
parties, including the person targetted that other forms of force.

Yah got sucked into a PC nitwit's trap. The world is full of PC
nitwits. Plenty of them running around looking for the next "gee ain't
it awful." This one will calm down shortly, like most. Most cases now
that "gee" are "awful" consist of misuse by police..just like had they
used a gun, or club, or Capsicum, inappropriatedly. One death, they
shot the guy 17 times...obviously using more than one gun. And the
report still hasn't determined if the Taser was the cause of death.

Course you can ad hom babble instead of looking at facts, but that just
shows you to be an ass.

Billy

Here's this guy who is obsessed with ending
any and all forms of spanking of children, but
he's defending the use of TASERS on kids!

Doesn't it make you wonder if he doesn't own
a whole lot of STOCK in the TASER industry?

What else makes Kane so "invested" in the pro-taser crusade?

"Greegor" wrote in message
oups.com...
Here's this guy who is obsessed with ending
any and all forms of spanking of children, but
he's defending the use of TASERS on kids!

Doesn't it make you wonder if he doesn't own
a whole lot of STOCK in the TASER industry?

What else makes Kane so "invested" in the pro-taser crusade?

Do a Google "Kane taser" search.

Interesting!!!

R R R R ....yah caught me.

wrote in message
ups.com...
R R R R ....yah caught me.

It had to happen.

It was the woman in Tangiers.

www.tampatrib.com/FloridaMetro/MGBVOWKN27E.html

Story regarding Jason Yeagley and the taser that kills.

pudgy wrote:
www.tampatrib.com/FloridaMetro/MGBVOWKN27E.html

Story regarding Jason Yeagley and the taser that kills.

Well, the anti taser nitwits have a considerable problem with thinking
error.

Let's take this statement from the story, for instance:
"
``Rick himself has said, `There has never been a single case where
Taser was named the primary cause of death.' But not being the primary
cause of death is a lot different from being a safe, nonlethal
weapon,'' Schulz said.
"

Looks, at first glance to be perfectly reasonable.

Two problems. Current data from 100,000 recorded uses of Taser shows
that the first statement is not only true, but supported by a huge body
of evidence. 100,000 uses, and not directly attributable deaths?
Sheeeaaat, I wish we could say that about the "less than lethal" rubber
bullets, "less than lethal" mace and capsicum, "less than lethal"
batons, and in fact "less than lethal" feet and hands and grappling
and mechanical restraints.

They all, every single one, have many deaths DIRECTLY attributable to
them.

Even if there were a few directly attributable deaths to the use of
Taser it would miles out front of all the other "less than lethal"
weapons available to LEOs, and considered, if not misused, acceptable
force.

The entire arguement, when you cut to the facts, is a massive
boondoggle brought on by vested interests in PC blathering.

Read the article closely, pudgy, if you can, and figure it out for
yourself. Don't take my word for it.

Kane

And where does it say that tasers are safe on SIX-YEAR OLDS???

Doan


On 4 Apr 2005 wrote:


pudgy wrote:
www.tampatrib.com/FloridaMetro/MGBVOWKN27E.html

Story regarding Jason Yeagley and the taser that kills.

Well, the anti taser nitwits have a considerable problem with thinking
error.

Let's take this statement from the story, for instance:
"
``Rick himself has said, `There has never been a single case where
Taser was named the primary cause of death.' But not being the primary
cause of death is a lot different from being a safe, nonlethal
weapon,'' Schulz said.
"

Looks, at first glance to be perfectly reasonable.

Two problems. Current data from 100,000 recorded uses of Taser shows
that the first statement is not only true, but supported by a huge body
of evidence. 100,000 uses, and not directly attributable deaths?
Sheeeaaat, I wish we could say that about the "less than lethal" rubber
bullets, "less than lethal" mace and capsicum, "less than lethal"
batons, and in fact "less than lethal" feet and hands and grappling
and mechanical restraints.

They all, every single one, have many deaths DIRECTLY attributable to
them.

Even if there were a few directly attributable deaths to the use of
Taser it would miles out front of all the other "less than lethal"
weapons available to LEOs, and considered, if not misused, acceptable
force.

The entire arguement, when you cut to the facts, is a massive
boondoggle brought on by vested interests in PC blathering.

Read the article closely, pudgy, if you can, and figure it out for
yourself. Don't take my word for it.

Kane

It doesn't, but for my money, the cops should be able to use real bullets on
anyone who won't stop or runs dangerously close to getting away. And they
should aim at extremities, feet & legs unless it's self defense, so they can
be kept around to punish, I mean, reahabilitate the crappers.


"Doan" wrote in message
...


And where does it say that tasers are safe on SIX-YEAR OLDS???

Doan


On 4 Apr 2005 wrote:


pudgy wrote:
www.tampatrib.com/FloridaMetro/MGBVOWKN27E.html

Story regarding Jason Yeagley and the taser that kills.

Well, the anti taser nitwits have a considerable problem with thinking
error.

Let's take this statement from the story, for instance:
"
``Rick himself has said, `There has never been a single case where
Taser was named the primary cause of death.' But not being the primary
cause of death is a lot different from being a safe, nonlethal
weapon,'' Schulz said.
"

Looks, at first glance to be perfectly reasonable.

Two problems. Current data from 100,000 recorded uses of Taser shows
that the first statement is not only true, but supported by a huge body
of evidence. 100,000 uses, and not directly attributable deaths?
Sheeeaaat, I wish we could say that about the "less than lethal" rubber
bullets, "less than lethal" mace and capsicum, "less than lethal"
batons, and in fact "less than lethal" feet and hands and grappling
and mechanical restraints.

They all, every single one, have many deaths DIRECTLY attributable to
them.

Even if there were a few directly attributable deaths to the use of
Taser it would miles out front of all the other "less than lethal"
weapons available to LEOs, and considered, if not misused, acceptable
force.

The entire arguement, when you cut to the facts, is a massive
boondoggle brought on by vested interests in PC blathering.

Read the article closely, pudgy, if you can, and figure it out for
yourself. Don't take my word for it.

Kane

"Doan" wrote in message
...


And where does it say that tasers are safe on SIX-YEAR OLDS???

Doan

It dosent, nor does it say that they are deadly to SIX-YEAR OLDS.

Police are well trained in the use of their weapons, all of them. They know
when to use them, and when not to. Second guessing an officer who is on the
scene, knows the variables, knows the dangers, and uses his training, is
idiotic, specially by untrained and ignorant civillians such as many of the
individuals participating in this news group.

The ignorance here is sometimes glarring, in this thread and others.

Ron



On 4 Apr 2005 wrote:


pudgy wrote:
www.tampatrib.com/FloridaMetro/MGBVOWKN27E.html

Story regarding Jason Yeagley and the taser that kills.

Well, the anti taser nitwits have a considerable problem with thinking
error.

Let's take this statement from the story, for instance:
"
``Rick himself has said, `There has never been a single case where
Taser was named the primary cause of death.' But not being the primary
cause of death is a lot different from being a safe, nonlethal
weapon,'' Schulz said.
"

Looks, at first glance to be perfectly reasonable.

Two problems. Current data from 100,000 recorded uses of Taser shows
that the first statement is not only true, but supported by a huge body
of evidence. 100,000 uses, and not directly attributable deaths?
Sheeeaaat, I wish we could say that about the "less than lethal" rubber
bullets, "less than lethal" mace and capsicum, "less than lethal"
batons, and in fact "less than lethal" feet and hands and grappling
and mechanical restraints.

They all, every single one, have many deaths DIRECTLY attributable to
them.

Even if there were a few directly attributable deaths to the use of
Taser it would miles out front of all the other "less than lethal"
weapons available to LEOs, and considered, if not misused, acceptable
force.

The entire arguement, when you cut to the facts, is a massive
boondoggle brought on by vested interests in PC blathering.

Read the article closely, pudgy, if you can, and figure it out for
yourself. Don't take my word for it.

Kane