Slashdot Mirror
UN Says Tasers Are a Form of Torture
The use of Tasers "causes acute pain, constituting a form of torture," the UN's Committee Against Torture said. "In certain cases, they can even cause death, as has been shown by reliable studies and recent real-life events." Three men — all in their early 20s — died from after tasering in the United States this week, days after a Polish man died at Vancouver airport after being tasered by Canadian police. There have been 17 deaths in Canada following the use of Tasers since they were approved for use, and 275 deaths in the US. "According to Amnesty International, coroners have listed the Taser jolt as a contributing factor in more than 30 of those deaths."
Wtf is Excited Delirium? The Taser company and police department seem to be always quick to blame any deaths associated with tasers on this supposed condition, while APA nor any other medical body recognizes this as any type of medical condition.
Originally, tasers as used in law enforcement were conceived as an alternative to lethal force--why shoot someone when you can use nonlethal weaponry?
Yet it has been proven over and over throughout history that whenever you give someone a nonlethal weapon, they're more likely to use them than a lethal weapon, even though its supposed to be a replacement for the lethal weapon.
And not surprisingly, this has happened with tasers, too; police are using them in absurd circumstances, even in some cases when the subject did nothing beyond verbal defiance, and worse, in cases where someone was "acting suspicious", such as in a recent case where an Egyptian man was tasered on a bus without any provocation--yet these were supposed to be used as replacements for guns, not as general-purpose weapons to put down anyone who looks suspicious!
That's a form of torture too and the kind of "non-lethal force" the police used to turn to. The only difference between beating someone with a baton and tasering them is that the officer using a taser doesn't have to be physically stronger than the victim (err, suspect), and suspects don't think they can fight back like they do against police using batons.
How we know is more important than what we know.
A hat is not enough; I'm going for full body coverage.
Good now maybe it will affect police department policy reguarding them. Remember back when tasers were first issued they were praised as being a non lethal way to stop a dangerous person. Instead of having to shoot a rake wielding drunk you could tase them instead. Now look at it's use today, if you even look at a cop wrong his hand travels towards it. So far removed from its initial purpose I hope this helps bring it back toward it's proper applications.
More like:
"I say, old chap, don't taser me."
[Zzzzt]
"I say, that was rather rude.
[Zzzzt]
"Bloody hell, please stop tasering me.
[Zzzzt]
"Sod off, you wanker!"
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
It seems that police use it as a extra form or untraceable corporal punishment. It's meant to be used as a next to lethal last resort but increasingly it's just replaced "couple punches to the face with a phone book in between". Stories vary but often after a person has put up a fight the police subdue him and then taser them. or use the taser to subdue him but then give a couple of extra shock to show whose boss etc... I find the people to gravitate to or are allowed to be policemen in my city aren't much different then the thugs that watch the exit at bars nor the bullies on the play ground. Anecdotally, a athletic friend of mine who had a black belt was turned down for enrollment into the police academy because he "lack life experience" while an acquaintance who spent a year as a bouncer at a strip club got accepted.
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
Eh... I don't care how many meth-addicts you come across during a typical day. If you can't learn the difference between them and a kid that's being held on the ground by 6 cops at a John Kerry speech or a guy going 10 over the limit, then you are not fit to protect or serve anything. Period.
When the choice is gun or taser, taser is obviously the better answer. However, many cops have the attitude that since a taser won't kill you, it's easier to just taser you, and avoid any kind of confrontation at all. Instead of just taking an unarmed guy down the old fashioned way by tackling him, they just taser him.
Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
Apparently you missed the point, making your statement a strawman, no sane person would say the gun.
The issue is unnecessary use of tasers (OR GUNS!), thats have a more realistic situation, hysteric/angry and seemingly unbalanced man is arguing with police after they question him. They know he is unarmed and while alarming, has no tried to attack anything living. What do they do:
1) taser him, and possibly kill him.
2) be polite and ask him to calm down. (then pick another option when that dont work)
3) ask for backup and have several officers arrest him with conventional means. (stick, pepper spray, and hands/body)
4) try to restrain him yourself with conventional means.
5) try to lure him somewhere where he cant hurt anything. (then picking another option)
6) wait and talk, hoping he calms down. (then picking another option)
Police are supposed to be trained in restraining people, yet far to many simply jump to the taser, a less-lethal-then-a-gun type of weapon, but still one that is VERY dangerous, and dosent always work (leaving the person VERY angry, and rightly afraid for their life). For that matter, cops seem to have a way of killing people with methods that shouldent be that lethal, suggesting that they do lack the serious training of restraining people without hurting them, and the knowledge of basic medical care to assist after a serious injury they inflicted.
Weapon involved? Tasers are good in this case. Unfortunately, tasers are not used in that manner exclusively. They are also used to "calm people down", saving the cop from having to communicate with the individual. This is unacceptable. Pulling your arm away from a cop who is trying to grab you is not immediate justification to tase (see "don't tase me, bro!") since it might very well be considered a natural reaction. And "don't let a few bad apples spoil the whole bunch" has been considered. When 80 year old, wheelchair-bound schizophrenic women are being tased (and subsequently, end up dead) because the cops are too scared to handle the situation as they were trained, then tasers are obviously too much responsibility for them to handle.
And don't raise your voice around an undercover police officer.
And don't protest against anything.
And don't "act suspiciously" on a bus.
As long as you remain a complete sheep and don't do anything that might resemble, you know, being a free person, you'll be OK.
Bullshit. Because tasers are supposed to be nonlethal they are often abused and used on people who have broken no laws at all. See the recent case of the man who went into a diabetic coma and was subsequently tasered while lying helpless. See the case of the 87 year old woman who was tasered at her rest home for yelling at a police officer from her wheelchair. Neither broke the law, but both were put in danger.
I fail to see how something that is painful and has a non-zero chance of death is automatically torture and should be outlawed. By that measure we should outlaw the average daily commute.Have you ever been tasered? I volunteered to try it. It really hurts, a lot more than a punch to the face even. Have you ever seen the TV show Cops, where they'll hit a guy multiple times while they're laying on the floor. Tasers make muscles contract, and you fall down. That's great, since then they can subdue and cuff a violent offender. Hitting someone more than once, however, is simply torturing someone into compliance. That is torture, unlike a daily commute. Don't believe me, go to a store that sells them and ask for a test shot, a regular 500K stun gun is pretty similar, if tasers are not available to civilians in your state.
I find it very interesting that Taser International claims that the 150+ deaths that have occurred immediately after the person is shot with the Taser are not caused by the Taser. At the same time their website has pages (see below) of warnings about all the medical risks associated with being shot by a Taser (such as an increased risk of heart attack).
http://www.taser.com/SiteCollectionDocuments/Controlled%20Documents/Warnings/LG-INST-CTZWARN-001%20REV%20E%20Citizen%20Warnings.pdf
As other posters have already commented, it is not the Taser itself that is the problem, it is the use of it. If these were being used only in cases where a firearm would normally be used it is one thing. In that situation a small risk of death by Taser is acceptable when compared to the near certainty after being shot multiple times. But that is not what we are seeing. People are dying in situations where without the Taser they would not be seriously harmed....and that is what I have a problem with.
Yeah, no one's ever been hurt by being tackled.
Slashdot - where whining about luck is the new way to make the world you want.
Seriously, that's the choice in many situations - crazy meth'd-up homeless guy charges cop with knife...cop tases or cop shoots. Which do you prefer?
OK, how about "guy starts arguing about a speeding ticket". Now is this situation worth risking the person's life using the potentially lethal taser? How about this guy, who was rude and stole a microphone? Yes, let's risk his life too. Or how about these incidents?
Police need to be aware that every time they use a taser there is a small but REAL chance that they will kill the person they are shooting. Therefore they should be a lot more hesitant before using them than they are today. If as a doctor I perform a procedure on a patient without considering (and informing him of) the risks involved, I am liable for murder if the patient dies. The police should also be accountable, just like when draw their weapons - they need a VERY good reason to do that.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
I think the main problem is that tasers are not being used only as an alternative to a gun. If police were to think "I will only use the taser in the circumstance that otherwise I would be firing my gun," then your point is valid. However, it seems that in many situations, police are using tasers as a way to simply make their job of arresting someone easier.
The videotape of the guy in Vancouver shows pretty clearly that he was not in the process of attacking the police when they tased him. I seriously doubt that the police would have shot him had they arrived without a taser in that circumstance. Without a taser, they probably would have tried to slowly convey to him their intent to arrest him (he didn't speak English), and if unsuccessful they would have had to tackle him and struggle to restrain him. Both processes would be lengthy, difficult, and stressful for the police. Instead, it appears that they took an easy shortcut and just tased him so they could get the cuffs on him quickly. The man paid for this with his life. Without a taser, I submit he would likely be alive today.
So you're right: a taser used as a substitute for a gun (when the use of a gun is warranted) is fine. Using a taser when use of a gun is not warranted is the problem!
Look at the tomato! Isn't it sad? He can't dance! Poor tomato!
Things are going downhill with the UN calling tasering "torture". Because we don't torture, therefore, we don't taser. So let's call it something cooler, hipper, like "waterboarding". I'm waiting for suggestions.
You just got troll'd!
Thats all fine and dandy, IF you could actually live your life without breaking a law.
The gun.
To be serious it's not a matter of which weapon is more lethal. It's a matter of which weapon is BELIEVED to be more lethal. Cops believe wrongfully that tasers are safe and are willing to use them in the wrong situations.
If your life is in danger, USE A GUN. There is still a chance that shooting them won't kill them, but there is nothing more horrible than a good person using a taser in the wrong situation and killing someone who was not a threat and becoming a monster.
Cops aren't supposed to use weapons where nonlethal force is advised. If nonlethal force is advised, that means negotiate. It does not mean shoot.
If you can read this, I forgot to post anonymously.
They WERE being pushed as an ALTERNATIVE to lethal force ("guns").
They WERE being pushed as "cop is in a dangerous situation, he can shoot or he can use a taser".
Now the tasers are the FIRST option. If the person is not IMMEDIATELY respectful and obedient, it's taser (defined: "torture") time!
How do they figure 275 people being killed by tasers, when only 30 have been reported as such by the coroners? Where does this figure come from?
In Hollywood they play muzac over your feed, in Florida you get tasered and arrested for inciting a riot.
You can't take the sky from me...
I've always viewed the U.N as a corrupt orginization and an enemy of the US. I'm sure many agree.
Actually, the UN is pretty mild in what it does, mostly because the US set it up that way. If the UN actually were a democratic organization, the US and Europe would fare far worse. That's not "corruption", it's reality.
The best thing the US can do is listen to what the UN has to say, because sooner or later those impoverished and powerless people that make up the majority of the world's population are going to be not so impoverished and powerless anymore.
Tasers are supposed to be a replacement for guns. Instead is has become a replacement for "Stop!". I have seen videos of people been tased several times for not being able to show a drivers license. The US has become a weapon-loving country. Both the public and the police love guns. Here in Norway police don't even carry guns unless there is a case where the suspect has a gun or other equally dangerous weapon. We can keep it like this because most people don't have access to guns, and if they do it is mostly shotguns or rifles for hunting. We also have the lowest crime rate in the world here. Now don't come complaining about how we are a smaller country, because it doesn't matter (you could enforce it at a state level in the US). The biggest problem in the US now is that people are so used to having weapons, and of course that it is in the constitution (though people seem to have given up that anyway). Back on topic: Tasers would be okay if they are only used in dangerous situations (where people can get killed or seriously injured). But since they are not, it should be regulated if not banned.
It's not really an issue of lethal rounds or nothing, it's the lower barrier of entry and lower accountability of using a taser. Would this Polish guy at Vancouver airport have been shot in the heart? Unlikely. Would he even have been clubbed? Again, unlikely. Tasers seem to take on this extra appeal. There's no accountability to using them. You don't feel the force of your impact, you're detached from the fact that your volts very well could be killing this person. In essence, you've got no negative feedback for tasering them, and thus a taser becomes an acceptable weapon at a time when weapons are not needed.
Pepper Spray, clubs, Handguns, and even hand to hand all have different negative feedbacks which inhibit their abuse, at least a little bit. A taser has none. Look at the guy that tasered a handcuffed 17 year old girl. They dropped the case, citing there wasn't enough evidence. The police force's current taser policy is clearly pretty unacceptable.
While I think that using tasers can be a better idea than guns or nightsticks, you've only got to watch youtube videos and TV shows like Cops to see how much American police abuse their use.
They seem far too quick to reach for the taser, and often use it as an immediate punishment for verbal non-compliance rather than to disable someone who is actually a physical threat.
So much for free speech.
They also regularly seem to shock the target continuously or multiple times sometimes rather than just administer enough to disable them.
I think the US cops could learn a lot by working with the UK cops who often don't even carry weapons. They know how to deal with the same problems the US cops deal with, but by talking and using their heads instead of escalating the violence by attacking first.
I don't care a whit for the temporal safety of police officers. They knew they were risking their lives when they signed up. What I do care about is citizens being free to go about their business without having to explain themselves or get searched because they look a little odd. The police will take things from your person without your consent, beat you, search your car, then lie on the report, just because they're paying child support to their two ex-wives and are angry at the world. That tape from the hood of the car? There's no reason it can't get lost. The judge will always rule in their cops' favour because they had a reasonable suspicion, and if you spend a few thousand dollars to go to appellate court, you MIGHT get some recourse. Hope you have a witness, and try not to ever jaywalk again.
My opinion is that there should be no protected class of people in whose presence your hands must be visible at all times, and whom it is a great offense to even touch. I take great exception to the idea that anyone should be allowed to stop me on the street at night and demand my wallet and weapons, as to let the peasants have weapons would create a threat to the social order. I have known cops to give law-abiding people a hard time because they had long hair, because they were skateboarding, because they were carrying a bag, and, yes, because they were black. Some of the cops who get away with this stuff are my personal friends. Many Americans have perfectly legitimate reasons to hate cops, and while my experiences have not led me to conclude that there should be no law enforcement, current police authority is overreaching. Those with power will always be insensitive to the humanity of those "below" them, but we shouldn't have this powerful, completely corrupt system backing them up.
It doesn't matter if it's on YouTube or LiveLeak or wherever. The citations that can be made for improper use of tasers are many. They've become an unfortunate and easy and deadly choice.
I understand that police officers are confronted with hell and tough choices, but they have to make the proper ones, and tasers ought to be a very last resort, not one that simply allows a cheap way out of a potentially hostile situation. I feel for peace officers, but tasers remove the peace from the officer at the increasing cost of lives that shouldn't have been taken under the circumstances. That poor Polish immigrant in Vancouver-- he didn't deserve to die. It granted judge-jury-executioner status to the mounties at Vancouver Airport. They are none of those. It's abhorrent.
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
I've heard the "crazy meth'd up homeless guy" argument several times in every taser discussion.
Yet I've known several cops, and none of them have had to take down any crazy meth'd up homeless guys who were impossible to restrain using normal force, in their entire careers. I've never seen one outside of sensationalist websites or TV shows.
It's gotten to the point that Canadian police are trained that certain subjects suffer from a health condition called "excited delirium," where they do not feel pain, cannot communicate, and are in imminent danger of hyperthermia and death. It is in their interest, therefore, to be tased as many times as necessary to get them to a doctor and save their life. This is the belief that killed the Polish immigrant who couldn't speak English and was frustrated enough at Customs' ineptitude to try to break through the glass wall separating him from his mother. "Excited delirium" is then blamed for deaths that result from multiple taserings.
The coroner and medical community have another word for it - custody death.
--------
I'm in favor of simply completely removing "drive stun" mode, making tasers projectile only, and having cops fill out all the same paperwork and undergo the same investigation as firearm discharge entails. In order to safely use one as a stun gun, you have to have the prisoner basically within the scope of your physical control. THIS is torture - using pain compliance to subdue a subject who has been rendered harmless by the situation, or who was always harmless, but resisting arrest as best they are able (if that). It's the same as having cops hold down someone to pepper-spray their eyes.
I think it might also be wise to reform the doctrine to make further tasering after the first successful application, a substitute ONLY for lethal force.
This is what's required, in my eyes, to bring the taser back to the level of humanitarian weapon.
People in Soviet Russia, however, appear to be afflicted with amusing juxtapositions of the aforementioned situation
Is time worth a life? Can you wait a minute, potentially diffuse a situation, and save someone from dying?
Or is it: fuck it. Taser the sucker. I don't care if he/she croaks.
I know what kind of peace officer I'm willing to pay for: a little patience in the face of hostility. Tough to do. Might take a little patience and/or courage.
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
a former deputy sheriff. Don't point a gun at something you don't mean to kill. In this case, a Taser is a GUN. The lack of regulation and procedures regarding their use is troubling. If the paperwork involved was half of what was needed after pulling a gun then the incidents of their use would go down.
I believe a Taser is a safer and effective weapon, but should be respected just as much as a firearm when its drawn.
One of many abuses with no accountability forthcoming, the ability for the normal patrol car to lookup information of licenses places for purposes of stalking, abusing, and harassing people has been around for years. The patrolling near a bar, finding a vehicle with an owner low on points, then as they leave give them an ticket for leverage or excuse them from a ticket for leverage has been well documented.
... pre-911 ... we forthcoming, but now would obviously be impossible. Nobody is going to have oversight on what people are querying outside a bar, near a beach or out on the highway.
Efforts for oversight (i know get ready for this)
members are seeing something, your seeing an ad
As someone who used to work in law enforcement (San Diego 1993-1997) I think I may be able to shed a little light on the subject. You see, in the academy you're taught a concept called "escalation of force" (some instructors may also call it "the force ladder"). What this means is that there exists different levels of force, starting with Vocal (basically shouting "Police! Stop what you are doing, NOW!") and ending with deadly force (your firearm). Between those extremes you have varying and increasing levels of force (baton/PR-24/Asp; pepper spay or mace; etc). Usually you want to step into a situation using a level of force sufficient enough to stop whatever situation you're facing, and in many (but not all) cases this usually means going one level above the force being used against you or the person you're protecting (I know what some of you are going to say about that but remember - it's not the officer's job to have a fair fight, it's his job to STOP the fight in its tracks). One of the issues is that not all agencies arm their officers with all the less-than-lethal options available to them. This can be a real problem because, for example, you can easily have an encounter where you come in using the lowest level of force but the situation escalates (thereby requiring the officer to also increase the level of force he's using). You can already see where this is headed - the fewer less-than-lethal alternatives an officer has at his disposal, the more quickly he ends up pointing a gun at someone. If anything, someone should tell the UN that actually BANNING tasers would be inhumane. Also, as some other posters have already pointed out, it's not that tasers themselves are that bad; the real problem is that now we have officers badly misusing tasers. I believe if academies did more to emphasize APPROPIATE usage of tasers (much like they do with firearms) then their usage wouldn't be so controversial.
This space for rent!
To clarify: the glass wall that did not directly separate him from his mother at any time, and which, at the time of his frustrated outburst, did not separate him from her at all, since she had gone home several hours earlier after being told repeatedly by airport staff that her son was not in the airport.
Also, the man had already passed through customs; in fact, he was waiting on the far side of the door between the arrival area (where his mother had told him to wait) and the main part of the airport (where his mother waited for him).
I'm not trying to say that his tasering was a good (or even reasonable) course of action, but people seem to be screaming bloody murder because the police just waltzed on into the airport, looked for the first foreigner they could find, and tased him at the first excuse; in reality, he had been waiting there for eight hours because his mother told him to wait in the wrong place and airport staff were too lazy/incompetent to find him. By the time the police arrived and enacted their screwup, everyone else had done theirs already; if they hadn't, he'd still be alive.
This is the major problem with "non-lethal" weapons. When you have a pistol, the consequences of using it in any situation other than "he's charging at me with a knife and going to stab me" are rather dire. The penalties for misusing a taser are far less serious. If there are any penalties at all. A taser becomes a one-shot fix to any situation. Any "non-lethal" device can have serious side-effects or become lethal when done to the wrong individual, but I think tasers are being shown to be too dangerous. Rather than a last resort when you can't even wrestle someone to the ground, it's a first-resort.
Part of the problem is people see only two options, bullets or a taser. There are many more options. What on earth must police have done before guns, tasers, and even pepper spray?
If you have to use a gun, why not a net gun? If you can hit someone with a taser, you can hit them with a net gun, too.
As much as Taser International might like you to believe it, tasers are not the only non-lethal alternative. Unfortunately, my (perhaps biased) perception seems to be that because law-enforcement buys into the "non-lethal" part of the story, they feel they are justified to use it in all kinds of circumstances where a real gun would never have been employed. We've all seen the numerous videos of people being tasered after three officers have already taken them to the ground, or being tasered simply for yelling or shouting and waving their arms around. Strap on a pair of balls and tackle the guy why don't you? It's not like cops aren't armed with a long reach baton.
That's a good example of an ad hominem argument. The fact that it was Iran doesn't change the fact that Canada probably has committed such abuses, especially in our treatment of our native people.
Iran on the other hand has ongoing issues with religious and racial minorities.
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
Wrestling down a suspect may be easy, but wrestling a suspect and not letting them grab the gun/tazer etc. from your belt might not be as easy.
Saying Java is nice because it works on all OS's is like saying that anal sex is nice because it works on all genders.
Some of them got along just fine before tasers were popularized, without any lethal force capability, to satisfy unfounded British fears that cops would be too aggressive if they were given lethal firearms.
Tasers are a less lethal weapon, and there is no doubt in my mind that they have saved more lives than they have ended. They have had a net positive effect.
But if they're used to torture people into compliance, or if they're used in gun mode so often that even mere vocal resistance to arrest or refusal to move, is answered with tasering, the fact that they've saved lives doesn't matter - they have caused the police in jurisdictions where tasers are used liberally to become an overtly oppressive force. And when this is allowed, it feeds on itself (power corrupts) until it produces scandal and we enact countermeasures. We've had several scandals, but countermeasures havn't even kept up with the spread of this weapon. Thus, we need more measures to keep taser use in check, without simply removing such a useful tool from the force. Tasers HAVE been proven deadly according to multiple coroner reports, been suspected COD in many others, and in others illnesses have been invented to pretend that they weren't the COD.
Drive Stun mode involves causing extreme, but not instantaneously disabling pain, in order to make a person submit to the officer's authority. In order to use it (as a melee weapon), the officer has to have passed within fist/knife/(possibly teeth) striking distance and be able to get an angle on uncovered or thinly covered skin. This typically happens after officers have the risk that the subject poses (barring hepatitic vampires) completely mitigated, but before the subject is acting as an obedient prisoner. I am saying that we NEED to restrict taser use to incidences where the subject still poses a risk, because anything else can be construed as torture - which our ethics system has traditionally claimed to be vehemently opposed to.
You do not stun a man with a knife or a gun, you either shoot him or you tase him until he drops his weapon or he dies. This is a fully defensible practice. But the chance that a man in a wifebeater who's being arrested for public drunkenness has hepatitis or AIDS is not reason enough to tase him or stun him half a dozen times if he isn't being the perfect prisoner, but doesn't threaten injury. Neither is it reason enough to hold him down and beat him with clubs until he submits to being cuffed. We train our (volunteer) police corps in physical combat because the application of force to limbs and body may be needed to get an unruly prisoner in shackles. A 'safe pain mace' (stungun) should not replace that, and a 'loss of muscle control gun'(taser) should only be used in extreme circumstances.
People in Soviet Russia, however, appear to be afflicted with amusing juxtapositions of the aforementioned situation
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
I think it behooves us to also look at the other side of it, impossible as it may be to properly quantify. How many lives have been saved by the use of Tasers? For instance, without a taser it may indeed be much more likely for cops to have to resort to guns and/or other less predictable violent means to protect themselves. Or, if using the traditional hand-to-hand or club route, there's a much more significant risk of the suspect outmaneuvering the cop and gaining the upper hand, thereby putting him/her in more danger.
I won't argue with the fact that tasers are painful, probably over-used and sometimes lethal, but that's not to say they should be banned. Perhaps more oversight on its use? Like guns (forgive me if i make assumptions here, TV is my only education in this matter), if they are discharged in the line of duty there should be some sort of hoopla, an investigation of some sort and severe punishment if it was found to be used as a first-resort, they would likely be used more cautiously.
Education is also an important factor, it's possible that the cops that have killed with them were not properly educated as to their lethality and would have exercised more caution if they were.
Yeah, but it looks a lot worse when you club a 6 year old kid into submission.
I see your informative link, and raise you a pithy comment.
I would imagine the cops only reach for the taser when they know they are safe. It would be interesting to see whether there was a reduction in accidental/mistaken police shootings after tasers were issued to cops. Certainly, here in the New York area, the cops seem to mistakenly shoot someone every 3 months or so.
it's possible that the cops that have killed with them were not properly educated
That may be true. And exactly what leeway do we want to give to people who kill because they are "not properly educated "? Should a cop (who is supposed to be so educated) get more leeway than any other bozo (who may not have such occupational credentials)? Or should "I was not properly educated" be a fitting defense for everyone?
In fact, that is the standard I think should apply to taser use-Would you have used your gun in that situation? The whole point of the taser was to give a cop the a less lethal alternative to lethal force. But as we have seen all over the Internet lately, it has become either a "He/She was looking at me funny" tool of intimidation or a "Don't tase me bro!" tool of torture. I think until a higher standard of conduct can be written in regards to tasers a moratorium should be in place. It has just become another torture device as it is now.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
Cops get tased in very controlled circumstances (spotters, padded floor with ems on hand) and only for extremely short durations and only once. They then feel like they can tase people who are standing on concrete, in poor health, for as long as they want, and as many times as they want. Just once I'd like to do some real world testing on cops like they do on citizens routinely. If they got pissed at how much I was enjoying it, well I'd just give em another jolt to calm them down. This would continue until they saw my the logic of my superior reasoning.
You're overstating the "benefits" of being native, being a Status Indian myself, I should know.
Natives certainly do pay taxes. You can avoid paying income tax provided your job is on a reserve. Unfortunately, most reserves have been placed in far-flung areas where the land had low productivity, any windfalls were mere oversight. On my own reservation, there's two gas stations and the Band Office for work, almost all the people work in the nearest town and pay taxes just like everyone else.
I hear about us not paying taxes all too often, so it's not common knowledge, but should be. I'd probably deal with a little less racism if it were so.
Education is also an important factor, it's possible that the cops that have killed with them were not properly educated as to their lethality and would have exercised more caution if they were.
Here's a rule that would lead to some restraint: no police officer should be allowed to carry a taser until they've experienced being at the wrong end of one.
I saw the same video. I completely and whole heartedly disagree with you. It was completely unnecessary instance of "because I got the gun" going to small minded idiots' heads.
What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
One of the people they came across was someone who had fallen asleep. When they woke him up and told him to leave the beach, he was a bit groggy, and slow to gather his stuff, get dressed and leave. ... so they tasered him.
Now, I don't think that a groggy (nearly) naked guy is the kind of situation where use of a baton would be considered reasonable force. I don't even think it would be considered reasonable to use a half-nelson on the guy. Hell, the only thing that they could do for him being too late on the beach was to give him a ticket.
| But he was tasered.
My only explanation is that they intended the tasering exactly as torture -- and an exemplary action to other beach users that you quickly comply with orders to get off the beach at the stroke of sunset or else!
Sometimes boldness is in fashion. Sometimes only the brave will be bold.
The current policy is awful, but the voltage policy is improving.
Tasers have their proper use and proper place. Calling them torture is alarmist and absurd. They don't really hurt. I've been shot by my own Taser (in training), and while I would call it very unpleasant, I would not call it painful. It's like being sat on by a very heavy person and having all the air forcefully expelled out of your lungs. The itching afterwards is also very unpleasant.
First, a Taser is not a non-lethal weapon. It's a less-lethal weapon, and should be treated as such. It cannot kill a normal person under normal circumstances, but people under the extreme influence of drugs (a state of excited delerium) can have their status exacerbated into one known as "aggravated delerium", which is almost 100% fatal.
Using Tasers for "acting suspicious" is also absurd. They are designed and should be used as a weapon to stop imminent violence or flight. I have used mine three times in the line of duty.
The first was a fighting suspect who had jabbed another officer in the stomach, and only had one handcuff on and was about to break loose. In this case, the wires broke and I had to chase him four blocks.
The second was a 6'4" tall, very well built person, who had already broken my hold when I tried a non-violent handcuffing technique and took a swing at me. He promptly surrendered afterwards.
The third bit me, kicked another officer, and broke the nose of my sergeant, a 24-year-veteran who has seen more street fights in real life than I've seen in movies. We tried everything before the use of the Taser, because of fears that the Taser could react with the drugs in his system. The only reason I used the Taser in this case is because if I had not, I would have had to shoot him. He successfully fought of six officers at once and was *attacking*, not trying to escape.
If misused, the Taser can be torture. Properly used, it is a life-saver.
Pepper spray, on the other hand, *is* torture. I flatly refuse to use it for any reason. It hurts like hell for hours, continues to burn for days, and lacks the stopping power of a less-lethal weapons like punching, using a baton weapon, or using a Taser.
He had travelled on a long 12 hour flight from Europe (Poland) to the west coast of North America. He had then spent another 10 hours waiting in the baggage collection lounge for his family (who had instructed him to wait by the doors with his luggage). Altogether, he had been without decent sleep or a solid meal for 20+ hours. Anyone who has taken such a journey will probably agree that you can become irritable, annoyed and confused by simple things.
Why was he allowed to spend 10 hours in the baggage collection zone in the first place? Didn't anyone from the airport notice someone hanging around, and ask them if they had a problem (missing bags, wrong carousel, damaged suitcase, etc...).
Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
First, my reaction to the UN's declaration was that yes, a Taser can be used as a torture device. So can't a gun, knife, lead pipe, car battery, bamboo splinters, fire, torches, soldering irons, rubber shirts, spoons, etc...
Heck, even bare hands and feet can be used.
Used properly(1), a taser is not only supposed to be a substitute for a gun, it's also a substitute for pepper spray(2), baton(3), and various forms of barehanded submission techniques like beating the subject on the head until he's too disoriented to resist being handcuffed while three or four officers put their weight on him.
As for risk of death - people die suddenly all the time; for reasons that make you go 'huh'. It's kinda like how sex can kill somebody with a heart problem. The trick is, the sex was frequently just the 'last straw'. It could have been the flight of stairs a few days later, that slammed door resulting in a shock and adrenaline burst, or just going to wake up, or even just out of the blue. Heck, nominally healthy people like highschool football players have a nonzero chance of dying of heart attack. A simple hit, merely bruising could dislodge a clot or something and result in a lethal stroke. There's 300 million people in the USA. I can't find the number of arrests other than '800k' for weed. Marijuana arrests are a big chunk, but I don't think that's the majority. Most arrests are non-violent on the other hand. Let's go with 500k-1M physical force arrests - that's enough that you'll have some weird stuff pop up.
At least some tasers have recording devices in them - the police can tell how many shocks were delivered, the length of each, how far apart, etc... In at least one of the cases it WAS used as a torture device - how else can you explain 30 shocks over a 5 minute period? Still, go after that officer for torture, not ban the device. Make sure there's good training as well.
Interesting post by Lawdog on the subject of tasers and force usage.
My conclusion? Taser usage needs to be monitored; should not be used alone, should be used for it's purpose: disrupt the individual enough that other physical controls such as handcuffs can be emplaced. Should definitely not be used as a torture device. As you're using a taser, you should be arresting somebody - have the details of the usage, along with justification, be in the report.
(1)As we've already determined that improper usage can turn more devices into torture implements than can't be.
(2)Still a nonzero risk of death; asthma, patients with breathing problems, and pain is longer than necessary
(3)You're clubbing the person into submission - risk of death is very real, as is lasting injuries.
I don't read AC A human right