Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Testing the Safety of Tasers On Meth-Addled Sheep

samzenpus posted more than 4 years ago | from the thank-you-science dept.

Crime 253

Funded in part by Taser International, a recent study was done to learn the effects of being tasered while on methamphetamines. Since someone would probably complain about researchers going around and tasering meth addicts, they used sheep instead. From the article: "The less-lethal device of choice was the Taser X26, a standard law enforcement tool which can fire at suspects from a distance of 35 feet. Researchers shocked sixteen anesthetized sheep after dosing the animals with an IV drip of methamphetamine hydrochloride. Some of the smaller sheep weighing less than 70.5 pounds suffered exacerbated heart symptoms related to meth use. But neither the smaller nor larger sheep showed signs of the ventricular fibrillation condition, a highly abnormal heart rhythm that can become fatal."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

But people getting tasered aren't usually tranq'ed (4, Insightful)

seifried (12921) | more than 4 years ago | (#31854458)

"But neither the smaller nor larger sheep showed signs of the ventricular fibrillation condition" is all well and good but I have to wonder if the fact that the sheep were sedated might not help out with this.

Re:But people getting tasered aren't usually tranq (2)

mpe (36238) | more than 4 years ago | (#31854516)

"But neither the smaller nor larger sheep showed signs of the ventricular fibrillation condition" is all well and good but I have to wonder if the fact that the sheep were sedated might not help out with this.

Also did they attempt to duplicate the "purity" of black market drugs?

Re:But people getting tasered aren't usually tranq (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31855200)

That is a very valid point.

Not only the purity, but what method was used to 'cook' the meth.

Was it a lepto or a dextro isomer? was it racemic? and what ratios?

All of that makes a huge difference.

*related to your 'purity'*
Since meth is almost universally 'cut' to 50% by the 'cook[1]' before leaving, and frequently 'cut' many times before it hits the streets, well, I guess it depends on what each 'cut' was made with. Purity is a joke, and I assume that was your point. :-)

Making meth is Stupid Simple for anyone with a background in organic chemistry...I should know. ;-)

[1] According to Uncle Fester [wikipedia.org] , which I take his experienced word to heart.

Re:But people getting tasered aren't usually tranq (3, Funny)

Cryacin (657549) | more than 4 years ago | (#31854520)

Don't tase me dude!

Re:But people getting tasered aren't usually tranq (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31854718)

It's bro.... Don't tase me bro....

You ignorant fuckwit....

Re:But people getting tasered aren't usually tranq (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31855036)

It's bro.... Don't tase me bro....

You ignorant fuckwit....

In this case it is don't tase me baaah!

UPVOTE PARENT (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31855068)

classic.

Re:But people getting tasered aren't usually tranq (4, Interesting)

stephanruby (542433) | more than 4 years ago | (#31854732)

"But neither the smaller nor larger sheep showed signs of the ventricular fibrillation condition" is all well and good but I have to wonder if the fact that the sheep were sedated might not help out with this.

Since the study was funded by Taser International, Inc [wikipedia.org] (a for profit corporation), and that company might be about to go the way of the Asbestos companies very very soon [worldsentinel.com] . It was absolutely imperative that no sheep got hurt, or killed, during that test.

Re:But people getting tasered aren't usually tranq (5, Informative)

stephanruby (542433) | more than 4 years ago | (#31855006)

Oh, and I just love that in the article, the most relevant bits of information are listed near the bottom, and quite in the most dismissive fashion as well.

The study that appears in the journal Academic Emergency Medicine openly lists a few caveats. Aside from being partially funded by Taser International, the study authors include two physicians who represent medical consultants and stockholders of the company. One of the two is also the medical director of Taser International.

Medical director of Taser International?? Really? WTF?

Medical director of Taser International (2, Funny)

bdwoolman (561635) | more than 4 years ago | (#31855198)

AKA

Doctor Shock

Re:But people getting tasered aren't usually tranq (1)

Swanktastic (109747) | more than 4 years ago | (#31855292)

No kidding... Physicians aren't qualified to treat sheep.

Re:But people getting tasered aren't usually tranq (5, Funny)

Hognoxious (631665) | more than 4 years ago | (#31855186)

It was absolutely imperative that no sheep got hurt, or killed, during that test.

Right, who was supposed to bring the mint sauce?

Re:But people getting tasered aren't usually tranq (2, Interesting)

ZeroExistenZ (721849) | more than 4 years ago | (#31855298)

Since the study was funded by Taser International, Inc (a for profit corporation), and that company might be about to go the way of the Asbestos companies very very soon

Exactly, those being subjected to the results of a "positive report" are always subjected involuntary as well.

I always found the idea of tasering and advertizing it as "oh, it can't hurt, it's just unpleasant" a bit boundary shifting: before lawenforcement et al had to reason "if I shoot, I have to make certain I'm in a situation where I have no other choice because I can kill this person". With tasering, the bounderies shifted "oh it can't harm, s/he is being annoying, lets buzz them like cattle into complying to the authority I impose."

Re:But people getting tasered aren't usually tranq (3, Insightful)

PolygamousRanchKid (1290638) | more than 4 years ago | (#31855436)

It was absolutely imperative that no sheep got hurt, or killed, during that test.

Sheep might have gotten hurt and killed during another test.

But Taser International certainly isn't going to tell us about that study.

Re:But people getting tasered aren't usually tranq (1)

uglyduckling (103926) | more than 4 years ago | (#31854934)

I doubt it. Presumably the would be doing ECG/EKG monitoring during the experiment, so I don't think they were looking for external symptoms, they would be looking at the heart rhythm. Although, VF is a rhythm that usually doesn't produce useful cardiac output, so the sheep would die, which I guess would be noticed even with sedation.

Re:But people getting tasered aren't usually tranq (5, Insightful)

meerling (1487879) | more than 4 years ago | (#31854938)

There's that, and an extraordinarily small sample size. Not to mention the sheep were supposedly all in good health, unlike possible human victims.
As far as a medical study goes to prove or disprove reports of complications in field conditions with actual humans, it's a worthless piece of shit. (And I'm being nice about it.)
It's obviously propaganda as opposed to credible science.

Not to sound like a tinfoil hat wearer, but do you think funding of the study by the Taser company and it being done by stockholders in the same company might have something to do with it?

Re:But people getting tasered aren't usually tranq (3, Funny)

pinkushun (1467193) | more than 4 years ago | (#31855558)

Not to sound like a tinfoil hat wearer, but do you think funding of the study by the Taser company and it being done by stockholders in the same company might have something to do with it?

Taser safety print: "Safe to use on meth-addled bodies*"

Fine print: "*sheep only"

Someone would complain? (1)

BadAnalogyGuy (945258) | more than 4 years ago | (#31854468)

Holden Caulfield once remarked that winos were the lowest of the low. Then we saw the horrors of heroin/opium addiction (it ruined China!). Now we have some of the most retched human refuse strung out on meth. The downward spiral seems to have no limit.

I thought the bigger danger in this case was explosion, not death. After all, it's just another meth junkie.

Re:Someone would complain? (1)

seifried (12921) | more than 4 years ago | (#31854552)

Just wait until we get some good designer drugs with no major physical downsides (as opposed to people abusing prescription meds...). It can always get worse (sort of like the middle east).

Re:Someone would complain? (2, Funny)

Schemat1c (464768) | more than 4 years ago | (#31854632)

Just wait until we get some good designer drugs with no major physical downsides

Nature has already provided these for us in many forms.

Re:Someone would complain? (1)

fahrbot-bot (874524) | more than 4 years ago | (#31854698)

Holden Caulfield once remarked that winos were the lowest of the low.

Not to be too pedantic, but quoting the remarks of a fictional character [wikipedia.org] to make a serious point, really? Salinger's message is a different story...

Re:Someone would complain? (3, Insightful)

AHuxley (892839) | more than 4 years ago | (#31855086)

This study can be used in the fly over states when grandparents or the young or pregnant woman seek a legal remedy after been subjected to "legal" electrical pain compliance.
Always follow the funding trail of any US "study".
"Court OKs Repeated Tasering of Pregnant Woman" http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/03/pregnant_woman_tasered/ [wired.com]

Re:Someone would complain? (2, Insightful)

mikael_j (106439) | more than 4 years ago | (#31855238)

Actually, if you were to give an alcoholic, a meth addict and an opiate addict free access to their drug of choice as well as food, shelter and other basic necessities chances are that ten years later the opiate addict would be the healthiest of the three, most likely he/she wouldn't just be a little healthier than the other two others either. Basically ethyl alcohol is poison, not in the war on drugs "drugs are bad, mmkay?" sense but actually poisonous. As for methamphetamine, well the lifestyle that comes with the drug doesn't exactly lend itself to leading a long and healthy life. As for opiate addicts, while it's likely they'd often forget about things like basic hygiene and eating and they might suffer from constipation it's not like just being high on opiates does anywhere near the damage to your body that alcohol or methamphetamine does.

Don't meth (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31854472)

with sheep

But what about long time users of meth? (1, Redundant)

Kitkoan (1719118) | more than 4 years ago | (#31854478)

Long time users of meth will have some more health risks when being tasered, unlike a first time user as shown with these sheep.

Not to mention, not all drugs work the same between species, which is why your cat will get high as a kite on catnip but you won't.

Re:But what about long time users of meth? (2, Funny)

dotancohen (1015143) | more than 4 years ago | (#31854566)

..which is why your cat will get high as a kite on catnip but you won't.

You're using it wrong.

Re:But what about long time users of meth? (3, Informative)

Khyber (864651) | more than 4 years ago | (#31854942)

"which is why your cat will get high as a kite on catnip but you won't."

Have you ever had catnip tea before? Smoking it doesn't do shit but ingesting it most certainly does.

Re:But what about long time users of meth? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31855098)

"which is why your cat will get high as a kite on catnip but you won't."

Have you ever had catnip tea before? Smoking it doesn't do shit but ingesting it most certainly does.

It makes you sleepy. Hardly the same effect it has on cats - which, it appears is due to catnip mimicing a female feline sex pheromone.

This just proves (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31854488)

This just proves what people have been saying for years. Less than lethal devices work as advertised. Deaths occur when in police custody because the police use them to torture suspects.

Re:This just proves (4, Insightful)

lxs (131946) | more than 4 years ago | (#31854696)

That the study was conducted at the behest of Taser International on a handful of sheep who were anesthetized (which at the very least meant that stress levels were far lower than those of conscious subjects ) gives me no cause for suspicion at all.

Small Sample Size (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31854518)

Sixteen sheep? This is a terrible study. We're talking about actually electrocuting human beings and their proof that it doesn't hurt humans permanently is a study with only a sample size of 16.

I wonder when was the last time the FDA accepted a drug on the market with a sample size of 16?

Re:Small Sample Size (1)

Khyber (864651) | more than 4 years ago | (#31854952)

Vioxx, anyone?????? :)

Re:Small Sample Size (1)

Fred_A (10934) | more than 4 years ago | (#31855256)

Sixteen sheep? This is a terrible study. We're talking about actually electrocuting human beings and their proof that it doesn't hurt humans permanently is a study with only a sample size of 16.

A better study would have been to tase all the stockholders and management of Taser after dosing a significant percentage of them with off the street drugs. That way they'd get a larger sample. And in their interest I'm sure they would all be happy to participate.

Re:Small Sample Size (1)

jlehtira (655619) | more than 4 years ago | (#31855640)

Sixteen sheep? This is a terrible study.

Not necessarily. If they did animal tests before, with a large number of sheep, then testing sixteen meth-sheep might well be enough to see if meth changes the consequences in sheep.

Hmm (2, Insightful)

Frogbert (589961) | more than 4 years ago | (#31854534)

I wonder if they figured out what would happen if they tazed the sheep 20 or so times in short succession.

Re:Hmm (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31854866)

To make this a realistic situation, some grossly-overweight doughnut-eater with a mental age of fifteen needs to be obstructing a well-behaved sheep going about its business, taunting it until it reacts in a manner which means they can tase it repeatedly without being found guilty of something.

Tasers are more lethal, not less lethal (2, Insightful)

vandan (151516) | more than 4 years ago | (#31854542)

The 'less lethal' argument is complete bullshit. The fact is that police are far more likely to use 'less' lethal weapons, on the assumption that there is much lower burden on them to prove the need for weapons use. There are many more situations completely out of the control of police that turn 'less' lethal weapons into 'completely' lethal weapons.

  - heart conditions, pacemakers etc ( yes, young people can have pacemakers )
  - pregnancy
  - short period of time since last taser assaults ( we've all seen videos of repeated taser assaults )

If police can't subdue people with their bare hands and training, then they shouldn't be police. Giving them so-called 'non' or 'less' lethal weapons only leads to more deaths due to a massive increase in the use of the weapons, combined with a very worrying deathrate ( hundreds of deaths per year according to Amnesty International ). As for police in the US where everyone has a gun ... I have no answer for that. Do whatever the hell you want over there. In sane countries where it's illegal to carry around lethal weapons, I expect the police to also be unarmed.

Re:Tasers are more lethal, not less lethal (4, Insightful)

mjwx (966435) | more than 4 years ago | (#31854626)

The 'less lethal' argument is complete bullshit.

No it isn't. A taser is a lot less lethal then a 9mm pistol.

The assertion is that police are far more likely to use 'less' lethal weapons

First, FTFY, that's an assertion not a fact.

Second, not when a taser discharge is treated the same as other firearm discahrges by police forces. This of course requires an actual procedure in place to ensure weapon discharges are investigated, but with the Australian Police forces they are.

- heart conditions, pacemakers etc ( yes, young people can have pacemakers )
- pregnancy
- short period of time since last taser assaults ( we've all seen videos of repeated taser assaults )

So a 9mm pistol or baton is going to be much better.

The problem is procedural, abuse will occur unless each discharge is investigated. Choice of weapon doesn't matter here.

Re:Tasers are more lethal, not less lethal (1)

Khyber (864651) | more than 4 years ago | (#31854972)

"No it isn't. A taser is a lot less lethal then a 9mm pistol."

Someone has no clue how electricity works, I see.

let me put those probes one to each nipple and let's see how long you live with 50,000V disrupting the bio-electric functions in your heart.

Re:Tasers are more lethal, not less lethal (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31855008)

"No it isn't. A taser is a lot less lethal then a 9mm pistol."

Someone has no clue how electricity works, I see.

let me put those probes one to each nipple and let's see how long you live with 50,000V disrupting the bio-electric functions in your heart.

Deal. I point the handgun at your center mass, you start shocking me with a standard stun gun or TASEr as I fire. We'll see which is more lethal...

Re:Tasers are more lethal, not less lethal (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31855154)

Well, I really do think that the police are too trigger happy with tasers (especially when they use them on already subdued victims).

But I also think that you have a point that the best fix would be to change police procedure in order to force them to justify each use of the device. And, in this regard, I have heard that having citizen panels, NOT fellow officers, who sit there and look at all the police taser use is the way to go.

If you give people too much authority and too little oversight, it's a recipe for disaster. That said, there is a related problem where you hold people to impossibly high standards (this is because once the standards become too high for honest people to meet, only cheaters are able to meet them). In that regard, beware anyone who is too quickly able to adapt to high standards. They might not be doing it in the way you expect them to.

Re:Tasers are more lethal, not less lethal (1)

Gordonjcp (186804) | more than 4 years ago | (#31855488)

But I also think that you have a point that the best fix would be to change police procedure in order to force them to justify each use of the device.

Technical solution - put a counter in the taser to record the number of "shots". Let the police officer use their taser as much as they like, but whatever their counter reads is how many times they get tasered at the end of the shift.

Re:Tasers are more lethal, not less lethal (1)

dkf (304284) | more than 4 years ago | (#31855576)

Technical solution - put a counter in the taser to record the number of "shots". Let the police officer use their taser as much as they like, but whatever their counter reads is how many times they get tasered at the end of the shift.

That can only be a technical support for a procedural solution, i.e., to make sure that every use of a taser is properly accounted for and justified by independent review. (Yes, police discharge of firearms - outside of designated practice - should also be subject to the same review.)

Probably ought to record the time of each discharge though. A pure count is perhaps a little too easy to lie around.

Re:Tasers are more lethal, not less lethal (1, Interesting)

Rakshasa Taisab (244699) | more than 4 years ago | (#31855344)

A 9mm is _LESS LETHAL_ than a taser cause just pointing the 9mm at someone is enough to subdue them, while taser is used immediately.

Re:Tasers are more lethal, not less lethal (2, Interesting)

Mjlner (609829) | more than 4 years ago | (#31855468)

- short period of time since last taser assaults ( we've all seen videos of repeated taser assaults )

So a 9mm pistol or baton is going to be much better..

And there are no other options??? Problem is that tasers are used where no force should be used at all, except for perhaps grabbing the suspect, maybe putting on handcuffs, and transferring the suspect off the premises or into a police car. As the GP said, we've all seen the videos of police and security officers torturing people with tasers as a punishment for disobedience. Apparently, torture is OK when performed with tasers.

If it's true, that tasers are so goddamn safe, yet 70 people died of tasers last year, then doesn't it imply that police officers with tasers are just a bit too trigger-happy? Perhaps the problem IS procedural. But Taser International is certainly responsible for marketing these perhaps less lethal, but still lethal torture devices as a "safe" alternative to grabbing the suspect/disobedient citizen.

Re:Tasers are more lethal, not less lethal (1)

BlackBloq (702158) | more than 4 years ago | (#31855538)

Grow up and quit dreaming! The friggin taser is killing people. It's used on kids and old people. It needs to be replaced. Shut up about comparing it to a 9mm. You may as well say "it's better than a hammer or axe or shotgun". SO? I am not in favor of police risking life and limb so, armed people who will not give up a weapon need to be tased. Use it as an asshole cop who likes to be in control; Like 80% of the cases then we need to think of a new way to deal with behavior modification. And cops need to get fired over this shit!

Re:Tasers are more lethal, not less lethal (1)

feepness (543479) | more than 4 years ago | (#31854784)

If police can't subdue people with their bare hands and training,

Bare hands can still be lethal.

Re:Tasers are more lethal, not less lethal (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31854792)

- heart conditions, pacemakers etc ( yes, young people can have pacemakers )
    - pregnancy
    - short period of time since last taser assaults ( we've all seen videos of repeated taser assaults )

I seriously hope that the first two are not doing things that require tasering to stop.

The third one would just be abuse.

Re:Tasers are more lethal, not less lethal (1)

Mashiki (184564) | more than 4 years ago | (#31854946)

Ignoring the part about amnesty(their bias makes your point useless). And no police aren't more likely to use non-lethal because the BoP is lower. They get used more because people start whining when cops have to fire 18 rounds to drop someone(you know that whole 5-7% hit rate while moving sucks, or 20% standing still). But, I can kill you in 1-2 hits with my bare hands. I can kill you in 1 hit with an asp, and I can cause your death with pepper spray. Remember now. That it was the squishy feely types that wanted less-lethal weapons in the first place. People committing offences are also more often then not on something(drugs or alcohol), firearms have always been the second last line.

Well regardless of what people think, despite that crime has generally been sliding down. But been spiking like crazy the last year or so because of the shitty economy, people being 'violent' has been going up. As a cop you're more likely to have a gun/knife/other weapon pulled on you then in the last 20 years. Even veterans I know have seen the increase in people being violent, and it is related to drug use. And no I'm not talking about the pot-smoking hippies. But your meth/dope/tranq users.

In a sane country, your peace officers are armed. Because they're the last line of defence between the good guy and the bad guy. I suppose I should be happy, the chances of you being in anything law enforcement related are between slim and none, and you've got no idea what actually goes on in the world of policing.

Re:Tasers are more lethal, not less lethal (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31855050)

Intarnet tough guy to the rescue!

Re:Tasers are more lethal, not less lethal (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31855182)

In a sane country, your peace officers are armed.

In a sane country you don't need to arm all your police officers. WTF is a peace officer.

Re:Tasers are more lethal, not less lethal (4, Insightful)

Rollgunner (630808) | more than 4 years ago | (#31855012)

If police can't subdue people with their bare hands and training, then they shouldn't be police.

Subdual is accomplished through pain deterrence; I.E. "I will keep hurting you until you stop resisting."

People on meth have wildly malfunctioning nervous systems, including specifically pain receptors.

Pain may not be a deterrent. Repeated impacts with a nightstick may not be a deterrent, even if such impacts do significant structural damage to the body. That's the 'joy' of chemical enhancement, be it narcotic or adrenal : You can be dead and just not know it yet.

A weapon that *overrides* the nervous system, OTOH, is nearly 100% effective at short term restraint.

If I go to a party and someone slips a narcotic in my drink, I'd rather be tazed by the police (whom I think are big cuddly blue bears that want to hug and dance with me) than to be shot with a bullet or beaten into unconsciousness and/or death because I was mentally incapable of following the officers' commands.

Re:Tasers are more lethal, not less lethal (1)

Anachragnome (1008495) | more than 4 years ago | (#31855220)

Lethal, less lethal, whatever. It is a dangerous tool either way, and should be classified as such.

If a police officer is in a situation that requires severe force, the rules that he must operate under when firing his sidearm should also apply to the Tazer since the results can be the same.

Something from a slighly large sample size... (4, Informative)

Unka Willbur (1771596) | more than 4 years ago | (#31854550)

Try 70, from last year alone [blogspot.com] . And, really, is anyone going to roll out the trope that the police would have actually used a firearm on these people if it wasn't for their electrocution compliance devices?

Humans versus Sheep (1)

concernedadmin (1054160) | more than 4 years ago | (#31854604)

What is gained from trials on sheep? Why not test human volunteer subjects? Here are the cases I see.

Given whatever value of "success" deemed appropriate:
1. Sheep trials a "success" -- proceed to human trials -- also a success, in which case, why not just go with the humans first?
2. Sheep trials not a "success" -- which does not eliminate the chance that sheep are immune to whatever was tested and humans are not, in which case, why not just go with humans first?

I admit, I probably stand more on the side of animal rights than the majority of Slashdot which probably leans towards seeing animals as property. I'm still curious.

Re:Humans versus Sheep (2, Informative)

tehdaemon (753808) | more than 4 years ago | (#31854664)

What about 3) Sheep all die, Human trial isn't tried, no people die.

T

Re:Humans versus Sheep (2, Funny)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 4 years ago | (#31854702)

Stop talking sense! We must think of the poor wittle animals.

Re:Humans versus Sheep (1)

mr_mischief (456295) | more than 4 years ago | (#31855064)

...and tasty barbecue is served!

Re:Humans versus Sheep (1)

AHuxley (892839) | more than 4 years ago | (#31855122)

no people die in open court*
Thats the joy of tombstone like tech, if the cost a sealed court case is less than retooling and retraining per product cycle just keep on paying.
When there are enough tombstones the technology gets fixed and the real studies flow.

Re:Humans versus Sheep (1)

MikeFM (12491) | more than 4 years ago | (#31854802)

It provides quality jobs to people that like to drug and abuse sheep of course! I think this is why we have a prison system though.. people convicted of child molestation, murder, and using Internet Explorer 6 should have to be test subjects for stuff like this.

Re:Humans versus Sheep (0, Offtopic)

rts008 (812749) | more than 4 years ago | (#31855062)

...and using Internet Explorer 6 should have to be test subjects for stuff like this.

You must be one of those 'soft' on criminals type.

D.A.: "Your Honor, the defendent has been documented to be a habitual IE6 user throughout 2009 and EVEN up until his arrest last week!"

      Judge: *gasp!* "Erhum! These is clearly the most heinous crime to be my displeasure to preside over! Bailiff, do your Duty!

      Bailiff: *draws .45 auto and PWNED! HEADSHOT!*

      Judge: "The jury and Court's Officers will line up to left to start Teabagging the Defendent. I WILL have order in MY court!"

Damn Where Are My Mod Points! (0, Offtopic)

BattyMan (21874) | more than 4 years ago | (#31855066)

Mod parent "Insightful"

woow, dude (0, Offtopic)

djupedal (584558) | more than 4 years ago | (#31854640)

Speaking of meth-addled....

I could have sworn it said 'testing the safety of l a s e r s', and I'm like - WTF??? And then I slowed down and focused and noticed it said 't a s e r s' - love being in my own episodes of SP. And no, Terrance & Phillip do NOT exist here, sorry. Just Cap'n Jack 100 :)

iAddled from my iPad :)

Not the complaints, per se (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31854676)

From the summary: Since someone would probably complain about researchers going around and tasering meth addicts, they used sheep instead.

Actually, I would imagine that meth addicts get tasered all the time - with (relatively) few complaints. I would also imagine, however, that anesthetized sheep are easier to perform medical tests on and that they are also less able to sue for informed consent issues. On the other hand, if society generally wanted to know the effects of tasering meth addicts then it should really be doing (non-invasive) medical tests on the tasered meth addicts directly.

Need to test the effects of SPIDERS (1)

myowntrueself (607117) | more than 4 years ago | (#31854736)

What are the effect of spiders on meth addicted sheep???

http://www.theonion.com/articles/meth-addicts-demand-government-address-nations-gro,2137/ [theonion.com]

Its only reasonable to test this, since it would prove once and for all whether spiders really are an invisible threat to the worlds meth addicts!

Just how they want us... (1)

BlackSabbath (118110) | more than 4 years ago | (#31854752)

Anaesthetised and bleating.

"Baaaa."
"Where's my corn syrup?"
"Baaaa."
"Where's my brewski?"
"Baaaa."
"Er..."
"Baaaa."
"Um..."
"Baaaa."
"Excuse me, may I just ...?"
--- ZZZZZZT!!! ---
"Baaaa."

ffs (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31854780)

Sadistic asshats...

Re:ffs (2, Funny)

easyTree (1042254) | more than 4 years ago | (#31854898)

Look, we are the superior species and the best way to demonstrate that is to use our intelligence to torture these defenceless creatures. As a bonus we are able to use this torture as a pretext to sell devices which allow us to profit from enabling fellow superiors to torture same-species victims. It's all good. Win win win. Muhahahahaha etc..

SCIENCE! (1)

calmofthestorm (1344385) | more than 4 years ago | (#31854800)

because we can, bitches.

SCIENCE! (0, Redundant)

calmofthestorm (1344385) | more than 4 years ago | (#31854804)

Because we can, bitches!

Nice headline (1)

Cimexus (1355033) | more than 4 years ago | (#31854806)

Every now and again on Slashdot, a headline catches your eye that just makes you go "wtf?!". This is one of those occasions.

It makes a bit more sense now that I've read the summary/article, but heh, that's one of the weirder headlines I've seen in a while!

Surely better to test on prison inmates? (1)

Rogerborg (306625) | more than 4 years ago | (#31854862)

Better data (some of them are very nearly human), cheaper (they supply their own meth) and fewer repercussions since PETA care far more about sheep than about the inhabitants of Crackhead Penitentiary.

I must be getting old (1)

SmallFurryCreature (593017) | more than 4 years ago | (#31854868)

But I think the solution is simple. Give every drug addict who uses meth a t-shirt where he can write what he wants, taser or a bullet through the neck.

Tasers ain't supposed to be nice, they are supposed to give the police an other option then to shoot bullets.

And no, I don't think the police needs to be gentle and nice with a meth addict. Can't handle a the taser, don't do the drugs.

And no, I don't shout to people to get of my lawn. I bury them in it.

It is amazing really. You got somalians fleeing their country because they want to escape the lawnessless, then they complain in Holland when the police dares to show up unannounced for an arrest forcing them to jump of buildings... Times like that it remains very hard to remain openminded. Really, if you want me to care about people being tasered to quickly, don't bring out the example of meth addicts. I am likely not to give a damn.

You don't see nature organisation using lizards for their motto do you? You use Panda's and cuddly baby seals. Not snakes and cockroaches.

Re:I must be getting old (3, Interesting)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 4 years ago | (#31854908)

Really, if you want me to care about people being tasered to quickly, don't bring out the example of meth addicts. I am likely not to give a damn.

The point is not that people are being tasered too quickly.

The reason we're discussing this at all is because people keep dying after getting tasered and the cause of death keeps getting listed as "excited delirium" instead of "Taser caused or contributed to the individual's death".

Here's an old slashdot article on the matter [slashdot.org] and nothing has really changed since then except that the body count has increased. IMO, "excited delirium" is the new "Cigarettes are safe for you. No really, here's the study we funded that says so."

Re:I must be getting old (2, Insightful)

MartinSchou (1360093) | more than 4 years ago | (#31855252)

It may well be that 'excited delirium' is the cause of death. What I want to know though, is just how many people have been diagnosed with 'excited delirium' outside of a mortuary? And what is the percentage of sufferers of 'excited delirium' who haven't been tasered? Something like this:

In the year 2008, 600 people were diagnosed with excited delirium. 450 died from it, and of those 125 people were tasered. The remaining 325 deaths occurred in police custody. Of the 150 survivors 149 were in the custody of the police at the time of the incident, and the last victim was getting the shit beat out of him by six people in a back alley.

All numbers pulled out of my ass.

But somehow I doubt we'll see any kind of statistics like this.

Also, I'm curious to know what kind of commonalities there are between the sufferers of excited delirium. Obviously it's some kind of disease or illness, so what kind of medications can you take to fight it? Are there any preventative measures, like diet? Or is the trick simply to avoid getting tasered or beaten up by the police?

Re:I must be getting old (1)

Archon-X (264195) | more than 4 years ago | (#31855326)

You got somalians fleeing their country because they want to escape the lawnessless

So you're saying the grass really is on the other side?

Re:I must be getting old (1)

Archon-X (264195) | more than 4 years ago | (#31855414)

You got somalians fleeing their country because they want to escape the lawnessless

So you're saying the grass really is greener on the other side? ..must learn to preview.

WTF is a less-lethal device? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31854902)

It's either lethal or not. Unless they confuse the semi-dead with the undead.

Re:WTF is a less-lethal device? (1)

M8e (1008767) | more than 4 years ago | (#31854998)

"It's wrong to say that a tomato is a vegetable, but it's REALLY wrong to say that it's a suspension bridge."

Re:WTF is a less-lethal device? (1)

mr_mischief (456295) | more than 4 years ago | (#31855088)

Umm... it can kill, but it's not designed to specifically and it is less likely to do so than devices designed to kill.

Although, between two things neither designed to kill a person, I'm supposing a frozen pigeon would be less lethal than a frozen leg of lamb.

Re:WTF is a less-lethal device? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31855404)

Umm... it can kill, but it's not designed to specifically and it is less likely to do so than devices designed to kill.

Guns are designed to kill, but have failed to do so in numerous instances. Most of the knives have not specifically be designed to kill, but still they do.

You can even debate about how un-trained the person has to be to flunk-out and get the opposite effect (as specified by the companies that make them), but thats a whole other matter.

Having several cops blasting their tasers one after the other or even at the same time at someone because its "not lethal" is like claiming that as one stone will not likely kill you, a whole bunch of them won't either.

Yeah, right. Go tell that to the people who have been, in the past and present, been stoned to death.

OMG, the poor bloody sheep!!!! (0, Flamebait)

Nyder (754090) | more than 4 years ago | (#31854916)

I have no problem with them testing taser on meth addicts. In fact, I think it would be good to test whatever they want on repeated offense drug addicts. They are the dredges on society, and they'd rip you off in a heart beat.

Seriously, drug addicts might think twice about keep using if they know that they will get used for research.

Then again, they probably won't care.

I know I don't.

Why sheep? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31854924)

Is this a common choice of test animal for these types of test?

Sheep: the perfect model organism (3, Funny)

codeButcher (223668) | more than 4 years ago | (#31854932)

.... because "People in large masses may as well be sheep. Their collective intelligence drops to that of the weakest-minded member of the group. They bleat, they panic and are easily herded to safety, or to the slaughter." - Alan Gunn

I, for one, welcome our new fascist, taser-bearing overlords. Oh, wait....

Falling over is dangerous (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31854970)

On those rare occasions I have fallen over as an adult it hurts. Fortunately I have avoided serious injury because I was able to protect myself to some extent with my arms, and by bending my body to move my head out of danger.

When you're tasered you will certainly fall down, and you will certainly be unable to protect yourself. Even when the police officers who use the taser have to be tasered themselves as part of their training, the situation is unreal because they are placed on gym mats to soften their fall, and in any case other officers are present to control the fall. To make it more realistic they should be placed on a concrete surface with no colleagues in support. That way, they could enjoy the random head injury experience of the average victim.

I am surprised more taser victims haven't died from head injuries.

Re:Falling over is dangerous (1)

dbIII (701233) | more than 4 years ago | (#31855126)

They shouldn't because we don't want a pile of cops with unnecessary head injuries. We might be better off without the cops feeling what it's like to be tasered at all. It could be an attitude of "it's nothing you'll get over it" simply because the cops have felt what it's like to be tasered under controlled conditions and completely underestimate it's effects. You don't have to hit a cop on the head with a blunt instrument to let them know it hurts, so why have practice where they taser each other?
I doubt that any of the tasering to death incidents were really deliberate - a gun is easier and it's potentially a career ending move. It makes more sense that the perpetrators thought it was a non-lethal way to torture someone and in the end they found it is sometimes lethal.

Re:Falling over is dangerous (1, Interesting)

couchslug (175151) | more than 4 years ago | (#31855458)

The average "victim" should have been instantly compliant and not required more than verbal correction, let alone tasering.

Apparently it is too much to expect self-disciplined behavior from civilians. We need police because our fellow citizens include many bad people who will rob, rape, and kill the rest of us unless restrained by fear.

I've never been arrested, tasered, etc because I don't do stupid shit to provoke those outcomes. I'm fine with Tasers, which are clearly less dangerous than bullets or clubs (great for inducing head injuries).

I think it's..... (1)

Madman (84403) | more than 4 years ago | (#31855034)

a baaaaaad idea.

Sorry, I had to

Wool is a pretty good insulator (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31855076)

The family of a friend in high school raised sheep. The electric fences they used were much higher voltage than that used for cattle because it's so tough to shock a sheep through the wool coat.

Unless the sheep were sheared clean before the study, it's completely worthless as an indicator of effects on any other animal.

Stop electrotorture (1)

dugeen (1224138) | more than 4 years ago | (#31855164)

Oh for the days when you had to go to South America to be electrotortured by the police. Full marks to New Labour for bringing us the opportunity to experience this phenomenon without leaving Britain.

O rly (1)

Hognoxious (631665) | more than 4 years ago | (#31855176)

someone would probably complain about researchers going around and tasering meth addicts

[sound effect: crickets chirping]

Addled sheep? (1)

Hognoxious (631665) | more than 4 years ago | (#31855240)

Addled sheep? How can you tell - they aren't exactly intelligent at the best of times.

Re: All (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31855334)

(Score:5, Knows All)

Voltage / Amperage is within humane limits. You can't take a taser hit, your death prone at any minute. Nothing to see here, move along.

Y"ou fail it? (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31855452)

of Ope8BSD versus Lube is 3iped off

American jobs taken again! (1)

mydnite (531879) | more than 4 years ago | (#31855492)

What will become of the replaced and job less meth user?

BAH! (1)

pinkushun (1467193) | more than 4 years ago | (#31855526)

Outrageous! Everyone knows the closest you can get to a meth addict is a SAP developer. Sheep are those ignorant folk who call the PC tower the 'see-pee-joo'.

Shocking! (1)

f0rk (1328921) | more than 4 years ago | (#31855530)

Shocking!

A Canadian solution (1)

seyyah (986027) | more than 4 years ago | (#31855638)

We just use Polish immigrants [wikipedia.org] .

There's always the Canadian way... (1, Redundant)

seyyah (986027) | more than 4 years ago | (#31855658)

We just use Polish immigrants [wikipedia.org] .

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?