PETER ROST: PHARMA MARKETING EXPERT WITNESS. AWP, MEDICAL DEVICE EXPERT.: Shot With a Taser
screen2largeMM

Dr. Rost provides services as a pharmaceutical marketing expert witness. For more info see: Drug Expert Witness. Dr. Peter Rost email. Copyright © 2006-2013 InSync Communication. All rights reserved. Terms of use agreement, privacy policy and the computer fraud and abuse act.
.

PETER ROST: PHARMA MARKETING EXPERT WITNESS. AWP, MEDICAL DEVICE EXPERT.

Peter Rost, M.D., is a former Pfizer Marketing Vice President providing services as a medical device and drug expert witness and pharmaceutical marketing expert. Judge Sanders: "The court agrees with defendants' view that Dr. Rost is a very adept and seasoned expert witness." He is also the author of Emergency Surgery, The Whistleblower and Killer Drug. You can reach him on rostpeter (insert symbol) hotmail.com. Please read the terms of use agreement and privacy policy for this blog carefully.

Shot With a Taser

After my post Non-Lethal Taser Is Pretty Lethal, some readers asked how the Taser works and how effective it is. I think the following video from a real arrest will show exactly how a Taser works and what it can do.





And here's a short video of three cops volunteering for taser treatment. Check out the leg movement . . .





And finally, here's another arrest with a taser, of a lady who just can't stop arguing with the police officer:


30 Comments:

Anonymous Reaniel said...

Well... I guess it's pretty effective, but seriously... I don't think it's neccessary to taser certain people multiple times.

7/19/2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Cops are given the right shoot us, tazer us, beat us and arrest us. We should at least be better informed on how to defend ourselves... but of course the only people that would benefit from that would be US not them... This stuff really gets me mad because cops totally abuse their power. The last video w/ the black lady was really upseting because she could've totally avoided the whole thing if she been better informed, and God knows, she thought she was defending herself. Minorities (black and brown) in particular are so bombarded w/ horror stories about cops abusing their power on us more often, that we panic under pressure. I'm not saying all black and brown people would react like that lady, but our guard automatically goes up, that's for sure.

By an Anonymous Chicana.

7/19/2006  
Anonymous Gary said...

Uh-oh

My comment's been disappeared! Andy, that you?

So wait 'till they implement their next program!


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RBrRiQrdh1A&search=dream%20police

7/19/2006  
Anonymous July17th said...

anonymous:

I agree with your point about profiling and the public need for more education.

Having worked in airport security, I know that people who enforce the law are asked (many times against their better personal feelings) to profile.

In the case of the last video; the state that the officer was working in may REQUIRE him to arrest drivers with suspended licenses.

If that was the case, then, it would not have made any difference who the driver was. The officer had to arrest them.

I do feel, based on my experience, that anyone who is asked to enforce ANY law or rule, can benefit by taking a course in what things should NEVER be said to people in order to avoid inflaming the situation.

But, sometimes, you just can't win. Like when people are drunk!

7/19/2006  
Anonymous Rosethejet said...

Tough call and TASERS are a tough call as well.

Like I said before, I haven't the slightest clue as two what would work better but does anyone know if all cops have to be tasered as part of the training?

I seem to recall that in some police districts the cops are required to be tasered so they know what it is they are about to do to people. Don't need to be shot I guess to have an idea of what that would be like, but tasered? Yep.

7/19/2006  
Blogger Peter Rost said...

Not sure what is going on, keep hearing people can't post and hard to open. May be problem with blogger server . . . I've had hard time doing new posts today.

7/19/2006  
Blogger beeta said...

Doc,
There is definately a problem with the site today....and I got the blogger server error once and the rest of the time...I got this page is not available....on the comment window

7/19/2006  
Blogger beeta said...

I read an article last week about "radioactive sharpnel" being blamed for injuries in Gaza. Apparantly the Doctors in Gaza hospitals are finding injuries that they have never seen before, the paitents that have sharpnel wounds seem to have massive internal injuries that can only be explained by an explosion and massive heat, once the sharpnel comes in contact with flesh. These injuries force Doctors to amputate limbs as oppose to treating a sharpnel wound at best and at worst losing patients all together from massive internal injuries.
And then there are apparently studies being conducted in microwave technology to create weapons that produce unbearable pain. cannonfire.blogspot.com has an article on it and their take is that these new weapons could not only be used in war, but they may be used domestically for crowd control. I think the powers that are, are starting to fear a revolution brewing and are getting ready to put us all in a zombie state.

7/19/2006  
Blogger antichrist said...

Cops make me sick.

7/19/2006  
Blogger antichrist said...

A what point does insulting a cop become illegal. Could I walk into a police station and declare them all to be a bunch of idiots without getting arrested? Would they just taser me instead?

7/19/2006  
Blogger antichrist said...

It is clear to me that the first and last videos should have been used as evidence in convicting these criminal cops for assault. Perhaps they were, but I doubt it. I can't believe as a doctor, you are taking the side of the cops. Your final statement makes that clear.

I guess the lesson here is that when you find yourself near a cop, keep your mouth shut and do as you are told, or you just might find that you have a bullet in your head.

7/19/2006  
Blogger Peter Rost said...

You know, antichrist, I dunno. I think it is very clear that the people are not obeying orders. At that point the cop has the choice between getting into a fist fight or use the taser.

You may claim they shouldn't have been arrested in the first place, but here you have one DUI and one lady with a suspended license, seriously endangering other drivers. Remember, after all, an arrest is not a conviction, the cop makes the decision to take someone into custody, sometimes right sometimes wrong. If he's wrong the person gets out. But you have to cooperate. You can't say he's wrong.

I'm not saying the cop is right or wrong, but as a civilian you have to obey when you get arrested, or there would be chaos.

And while some people are killed by tasers, this may be cleaner than getting hit over the head with a stick.

So, yeah, while the officers got tough, they clearly gave the people every opportunity to cooperate. Of course they knew they were being filmed by their own cameras, so they went by the book.

I just wonder what things look like when no cameras are on . . .

Any other opinions? Am I wrong on this?

7/19/2006  
Blogger beeta said...

Doc,
You are right as a matter of logic that in a civilized society where laws are enacted by a majority vote and with due diligence in protecting everyones rights as much as possible, that in return, citizens ought to obey those laws and the officers that are charged with inforcing those laws. However, as much of our discussions center around abuses of the very system of representative government, and by extention the abuses that are not only tolerated but encouraged by that very system of citizen's rights, logic dictates that the obligation of citizens to obey the rules is if not void but at least under question.
I do not condone the behavior of a drunk or outright lawbreaker, but, mereley point out a flaw in the logic of your arrgument. Trust is the only real, motivation for the public to obey rules. The trust that obeying rules is for the betterment of the society. Recent example is the hoopla over immigration. The illegal immigrants feel no obligation to obey the law or guilt for breaking the law when they see that the American employers that employ them feel no guilt or suffer any consequenses for breaking the law. The problem to me is the lack of trust in our government and the law enforcement agencies.

7/19/2006  
Anonymous Reaniel said...

Doc,
While I do agree you should obey the officials whenever you're asked to do so, but I disagree with some of the instances where multiple taser stuns were used...

I mean yes, the officer should be able to defend themselves and use force when neccessary, but in the one where he's trying to subdue a drunkard? I mean come on! Once or twice maybe, 5 tasers are a bit excessive if you ask me...

-Reaniel

7/19/2006  
Blogger antichrist said...

Any cop who could not cuff either of those two victims without a taser does not deserve to be a cop. From the videos, the cops look to be a bunch of a violent, cynical, fat pigs, looking to cause some trouble.

7/19/2006  
Anonymous Reaniel said...

antichrist,

While your word speaks the truth about the cops in the video being rather incompetent, the wording is a bit too harsh for my taste...

Granted, I still think the 5+ taser on the drunkard is just too much...

-Reaniel

7/19/2006  
Blogger antichrist said...

I use words harshly. The cops use weapons harshly. I think the cops deserve harsh words.

All the taser events were undeserved, and I hesitate to bring up one over the other, but that woman got tasered again because see was incapable of putting her arms behing her back. The man got tasered for trying to stand up. These were sadistic actions.

I would think any good cop would be embarrassed to see one of these cops acting so viciously, without just cause, on people were not capable of posing a real threat to them. They would be ashamed of anyone defending their actions, and would do their best to get them removed from the police force. Does such a cop exist.

7/19/2006  
Anonymous Reaniel said...

Now that you mentioned, yes, it's extremly idiotic to use the taser for those extra hits after the first one because the people "refuses" to comply.

To be honest, I don't think they're able to "comply" even if they wanted, simply because the way taser works.

It's the same way when a person is being electrocuted while holding a wire, they can't let it go. Not because they don't want to let go, but they simply CAN'T! The electric current that's running through your body would disable you from making precise movement or, in some cases, render you unable to move parts of your body at all.

I believe it's lack of training as well as being ignorant on the officer's part to see the taser being used multiple times in a simple encounter.

-Reaniel

7/19/2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Another tool our Masters use to keep us Slaves in check... They gave cops tazers because those lawsuits from gunshot wounds and killings were getting too expensive. You think they tazer those assholes in Beverly Hills when they get caught drinking and driving by the cops? Riiiiight.

Sorry, but there's no topic that I can't turn into a slave/master relationship.

7/20/2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Beeta,

apparently we have bigger things to worry about.

cannonfire.blogspot.com

Thanks dude, I really needed that.

7/20/2006  
Anonymous Gary said...

Peter

Yeah, you are wrong in some respects.

"I think it is very clear that the people are not obeying orders. At that point the cop has the choice between getting into a fist fight or use the taser."

The first sentence is absolutely correct. They were not obeying orders and they needed to be arrested.

The second sentence is what we call a false choice. Certainly with the obnoxious woman, this does not appear to be a dangerous or life-threatening situation. Another five minutes and she very likely could have been talked down. Instead, the first officier, who was being VERY reasonable before his partner showed up, turned aggressive. I imagine this was a macho thing between the boys. He wasn't going to let no black woman talk sh*t to him in front of his buddy.

So, the third choice here was to continue to talk to her, give her another minute or two on the cell phone and solve this one without abuse.

The DUI guy was a bit different. How do you reason with someone who, by definition, has impaired judgement?

That police officiers loud, aggressive manner wasn't helping the situation. I would be nice if he could have remained just a bit calmer.

The big thing I came away with is that there seems to be some impairment of motor skills such that those tasered can not comply with certain requests in a timely fashion. Don't these morons know that? Or is this moron jumping to the wrong conclusion?

7/20/2006  
Anonymous Gary said...

Now, a seperate opinion on police offiers in general. All I have to go on is life experiences.

First, I went to school with two future officiers. Not the best and brightest. In fact, I would say they were of below-average intelligence. At least one of them was in it for the 'rush'.

Second, by son got pulled over in MD two years ago. He was exceeding the speed limit, no question. He took over a mile to pull over because in was crossing a network of bridges. I instilled in him the necessity of waiting until you can find a SAFE place to pull over before doing so. This search for a place to pull over was conducted at or below the posted speed limit.

When he did pull over, he was verbally abused with foul language, threatened physically and threatened with resisting arrest, fleeing arrest, etc. The only difference is, as this officier clearly tried to provoke my son, he remained calm, apologized several time and FINALLY TALKED THE OFFICIER DOWN! Scary.

Third, when my nephew was the driver in a drive-by shooting (got your attention?), he was subjected to harrassment and abuse by the MI State Police. It was only after afore mentioned police officier from PA intervened as the "god father" that the abuse stopped. That included breaking down his door when he would have just opened it for them, throwing him to the floor when he would have gone peacably, doing a little Rodney King action on his rib cage, etc.

Now this kid wouldn't hurt the proverbial fly. They were just feeling the power. Oh, the charge, he had to plea it because his parents were poor. He also was required to take an anger management course, because for some reason he was having trouble coping with the way he was treated. Seems he was "angery". Go figure.

Yeah, he was the driver. The shooter was his brother's friend, he had no idea a gun was involve. He thought he was taking a black friend to see his white girlfriend. Seems the neighborhood white boys didn't approve and had beaten and threatened this kid. A little payback was in order. Luckily, he was a bad shot.

Then there's my cousin in Philly. He would alway talk about the rush he got from cracking "blacks" on the head with his billy club. Great city cop.

So even though I have problems with morons with authority, I show nothing but respect and cooperation whenever I encounter them, and thank the gods I'm white when I have to.

PS I work with an ex-cop who is a bright, wonderful ole guy. That said, he did pop a few more folks than were necessary, to hear him tell it. The exFBI guy's a whole 'nother story.

7/20/2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

In the cases of the first and last videos, it's clear to me that the results could have been wildly different but for the behavior of the arrested.

In the first case, the lady probably would not have been arrested, and might even have been allowed to drive home, despite the suspended license, but she chose to be beligerent to the very person who could have chosen a more lenient outcome, and it was her resistance to arrest that got her tasered. I do agree however that the additional tasering may have been over the top, and I wonder what might have been seen in the 3 minutes that were cut out of the video.

In the second case, the man was going to jail one way or the other. He probably didn't have the presence of mind to choose the painless way, but he did show a remarkable ability to function everytime the taser was 'off'. In a case like this, the officer has to assume that the man may have a gun, and is clearly incapable of acting rationally. The additional taserings were for the officers safety. I notice there was a bit cut out of that video too, wonder why?

In my short stay on this planet, I've had many occasions to 'interact' with the police. In almost every situation, I've found them just trying to do their jobs as peacefully as possible, and it's amazing how a little bit of respect and cooperation can turn a possible arrest into just a warning. And the reverse is equally true. The lady in the first video turned a possible warning into a two count arrest.

My advice, keep your hands in plain sight. Use 'Yes sir' and 'No sir' and be honest, if you were speeding, don't pretend otherwise. Don't consent to a search, but once arrested, your consent is no longer required. Never take a swing at a cop unless you have some teeth that you were hoping to lose, or you've been looking forward to spending a few months in jail.

7/20/2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The drunk deserved what he got. He obviously wasn't responding to the police officer's requests, and got physical. The officer's do need to realize that once someone is tasered, they lose some motor control and may not be able to put their hands behind their back, but that man was still functional, he kept trying to get up all the time the officer was telling him to lay on his stomach.
As far as the lady is concerned, one of the officers mentioned that she took a poke at one of them. From the camera angle, we couldn't see what that was about. But when a police officer informs you that you are under arrest and to put down the cell phone, you don't tell him "No, I'm talking to someone". She received several warnings to follow instructions or be tasered, she chose to continue her belligerence. So, in both cases, I feel that the initial shot was justified. It was either that or get physical with the suspect, because neither of them was paying any attention to what the officer wanted. The follow-up shots may have gone over the line, more so on the woman than the drunk. But the recovery for a taser shot seems to be a lot less than getting your skull cracked by a club.

7/20/2006  
Blogger antichrist said...

The above comments are from a sadist, anonymous of course. The drunk deserved what he got, and the woman didn't put down her cell phone, and its better than getting your skull cracked, or perhaps a bullet in the head. The excuses that are made for cops is beyond reason. What ever happened to common human decency? I guess in America, cops can do what they want, without being responsible. Would you want your mother to be stopped by one of these cops? Better tell her to keep her mouth shut, or the encounter might kill her.

If a cop cannot subdue a drunk, or a woman on a cell phone, without a taser, then how is a cop any different from a 12 year old. Perhaps a cop should have some skill at their job. Cops should be held to higher standards, not the standards of a sadist.

7/21/2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I disagree mr. Christ.

It's rather foolish to get in a wrestling match with anyone when your belt has all the tools necessary to subdue you and end your life.

Remember the guard in that courthouse not to long ago with a gun on her belt? A prisoner got ahold of that gun and killed a number of people. I'll bet the guard, and many others in that courthouse wish she'd had a taser.

7/21/2006  
Blogger antichrist said...

I agree with mr. anonymous. All americans should be treated as prisoners on trial in a court house. I'm surprised these angels from heaven were able to restrain themselves from sending these criminals to hell. Perhaps mr. anonymous is from Russian or China, or just wishes so. You know you are in hell when the antichrist becomes the voice of reason.

7/21/2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Let's see, mr. anti, you agree that all Americans should be treated as prisoners, and yet, you're the only one to have said that. So, I guess you're agreeing with yourself. If this is what you call the 'voice of reason', I think reasonable men will often disagree.

In fact, I'll have to disagree with you again. I think American's should be free, like me. But if Americans are going to hire people with guns to keep drunks from driving on the sidewalks and speeders from running red lights, they should be intelligent enough not to pick fights with them. Leave them alone and follow the laws, chances are you'll never even meet one. What kind of prison does that describe?

7/21/2006  
Blogger antichrist said...

I think your describing fascism.

7/21/2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'm describing America as it's been throughout my lifetime. Free men walking the streets without fear of being 'tased'. Lawbreakers getting away with all they can, and dealing with the conseques if, and when they are caught.

We hire the police to do dangersous work that we don't care to risk. They do the job, for better or worse. Some are corrupt and power mad, most are law abiding citizens.

Next time you see a cop, walk up to him or her and just stare, then just go on about your business. You'll notice nothing happens to you, no taze, no arrest, pretty simple really.

The next cop you see, say hello and ask directions ... again, nothing untoward.

The next cop you see, tell them you think cops are fascists, and then walk away. Hmmm still no repercussions.

The next one, call him a fascist and take a swing at him. When you get out of jail, tell us about the terrible police state where you can't even hit a cop whenever you wish ... damn fascists.

7/21/2006  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home