Are Tasers increasing police violence, not decreasing it?

[Capt.Ridley_s_Shooting_Party]

AFAIK, the rationale for bringing in Tasers for use with the police was to reduce the number of fatal shootings that police had to dole out with enraged, armed or maniac suspects.

After watching the video related with this news story, where a Georgian grade school teacher is repeatedly tased by two male police officers whilst handcuffed (after reporting a prowler outside her own home!), which is just one of a long litany of related videos, where otherwise subdued (handcuffed) though boisterous suspects are Tased, are individual police officers actually doling out more violence now than they were before Tasers were introduced?

[Kinthalis]

Wait, that fucking scumbag is STILL a cop?

The hell? Someone actually hired him?

“He was an excellent officer except for this instance.”

Yeah, sure he was.

And yes, cops have been using it as a way to punish, rather than subdue. Recall the recent update on the case of the imbecile cop who decided to taser a suspect that was completely under control and NOT resisting and lying prone on the ground, only to instead shoot him in the back and kill him (imbecile cop mistook his gun for the taser).

[Alessan]

Seems to me that a taser is essentially a high-tech nightstick.

[jayjay]

@Alessan

Seems to me that a taser is essentially a high-tech nightstick.

But it’s so much better for PR! You no longer have photos and videos of police beating on people with a big stick. You just have video of people gently placing a device on someone’s skin. Bad visual PR all gone!

[Brown_Eyed_Girl]

I was under the impression TASERS were also intended to reduce injuries to both LEOs and suspects during arrest and to facilitate compliance. Along the same lines as pepper spray and batons.

ETA: At least that’s the way they are marketed.

[Northern_Piper]

There’s some support for that concern from the recent Braidwood inquiry in British Columbia. The inquiry was triggered by an episode where a Polish immigrant was tasered by RCMP officers in Vancouver Airport and died. The provincial government held an inquiry into the use of Tasers by police in B.C.

From the Executive Summary of the portion of the inquiry report dealing with Taser use:

In 1999, the Attorney General authorized municipal police departments to use conducted energy weapons, after a six-month field study by the Victoria Police Department. Approval was based on assurances that the weapon was absolutely safe to use, the weapon had been thoroughly researched and would be used sparingly—where the subject was assaultive or combative, a threat to themselves, the police, or some other person.
…
Municipal police departments deployed the weapon at least 1,397 times, although the actual number of deployments may be much higher (up to twice as many). The number of deployments has increased at a rate faster than the increase in the number of weapons. There were surprising variations in the frequency of deployments by individual police departments, ranging from a low of 5.2 deployments per 100,000 population, to a high of 130.7.

The weapon was most frequently used when police responded to calls concerning suicide attempt/self-injurious behaviour (19.8 percent); violence/threat of violence (17); disturbance (15.3); drug/alcohol intoxication (12.4); and emotionally disturbed persons (10.7). Subject behaviours frequently included active resistance, alcohol/drug intoxication, assaultive behaviour, and to a lesser degree, yelling and verbal aggression/threats. When the type of weapon deployment (including use in display mode only) was matched against the highest level of resistance by a subject, it was revealed that officers deployed the weapon more than 160 times when the subject was being cooperative or displaying passive resistance (neither of which justifies deployment), 485 times for active resistance, 669 times for assaultive behaviour, and 19 times when there was a risk of grievous bodily harm or death to the police officer (when lethal force is authorized).

…

Based on the presentations of psychiatrists, other mental health professionals, and emergency medicine physicians, I concluded that:

• Police officers are called upon, with increasing regularity, to deal with emotionally disturbed people who display extreme behaviours, including violence, imperviousness to pain, superhuman strength and endurance, hyperthermia, sweating, and perceptual disturbances.

• Such emotionally disturbed people are often at an impaired level of consciousness; may not know who they are or where they are; may be delusional, anxious, or frightened; and may be unable to process or comply with an officer’s commands.

• This cluster of behaviours is not a medical condition or a diagnosis. They are symptoms of underlying medical conditions that, in extreme cases, may constitute a medical emergency.

• The officer’s challenge is not to make a medical diagnosis, but to decide how to deal with the observable behaviours, whatever the underlying cause.

• It is not helpful to blame resulting deaths on “excited delirium,” since this conveniently avoids having to examine the underlying medical condition or conditions that actually caused death, let alone examining whether use of the conducted energy weapon and/or subsequent measures to physically restrain the subject contributed to those causes of death.

• The unanimous view of mental health presenters was that the best practice is to de-escalate the agitation, which can best be achieved through the application of recognized crisis intervention techniques. Conversely, the worst possible response is to aggravate or escalate the crisis, such as by deploying a conducted energy weapon and/or using force to physically restrain the subject. It is accepted that there may be some extreme circumstances, however rare, when crisis intervention techniques will not be effective in de-escalating the crisis. But even then, there are steps that officers can take to mitigate the risk of deployment.

[Paul_in_Qatar]

If police officers are using a Taser instead of a gun, that is a Good Thing, but it seems they are using it as a form of street punishment. That is a Bad Thing.

[Brown_Eyed_Girl]

@Capt.Ridley_s_Shooting_Party

After watching the video related with this news story, where a Georgian grade school teacher is repeatedly tased by two male police officers whilst handcuffed (after reporting a prowler outside her own home!), which is just one of a long litany of related videos, where otherwise subdued (handcuffed) though boisterous suspects are Tased, are individual police officers actually doling out more violence now than they were before Tasers were introduced?

With regard to this story, I fail to see how this is different than any other story in which a cop misuses his authority and applies unnecessary and/or excessive force than what the situation reasonably calls for. If the LEO acts incorrectly, it doesn’t matter whether the excessive force is applied using a TASER, gun, pepper spray, or physical contact.

[Telemark]

@Paul_in_Qatar

If police officers are using a Taser instead of a gun, that is a Good Thing, but it seems they are using it as a form of street punishment. That is a Bad Thing.

But a Taser isn’t an alternative to a gun. It’s an alternative to other non-lethal (or less lethal) methods such as billy clubs, choke holds, etc.

[Kobal2]

@Alessan

Seems to me that a taser is essentially a high-tech nightstick.

It’s in fact much better than that, for any and all over-the-top violence purposes :

• it’s effortless. Swinging a length of wood is tiring, but all you gotta do with a taser is reload and pull the trigger for 10 more seconds of unbearable searing pain in the target. It’s linear : more ammo, more pain ! None of that loss of efficiency over time as your swinging arm gets tired.

• it’s got range. No need to look at or even touch the victim. Point and click, baby ! If it worked for Microsoft, it can damn well work for the old ultra-violence. You don’t even have to bend down to bash unarmed demonstrators in the noggin’.

• it leaves no marks. Not only does it avoid those ghastly headline photos with the faces bruised all over and such, it’s frickin’ *hard *to prove you’ve ever been tased. Unless you sort of… die of it. We’re working on that. But other than that, it leaves no mark, no bruise, no lasting trace of the aforementioned unbearable searing pain. Unless there’s video evidence, of course, but we’re working on phasing that shit out (see related and scary-as-heck GD thread).

• it looks much, much more harmless. That’s the big seller, right there. Even the bloodthirstiest, most order-obsessed crypto-fascist looney will cringe when he sees videos of, say, the Rodney King smackdown. But with that gizmo ? Your average citizen can safely put his rose shades on. It doesn’t look that bad, does it ? Like a jolt from those cattle electric fences. Stings a bit, but completely harmless ain’t it ? It’s even funny to watch them baddies squirm on the ground and scream for no reason ! And they don’t seem worse for wear afterwards, so it must be OK.

• Anybody who’s ever tasted it will have the fear of God put into them. Sure, I guess the same is true of ye olde beating within an inch of your life, but the pain is so sudden and intense, it’s just better somehow. And the fact they know we’re so much more likely to use it ? Priceless. The pants-shitting terror is like sweet, sweet penis enlargement pills.

---

Now, black humour aside, I know not all LEOs are like that. In fact, I’d guess they’re in a minority - but they do exist. Cops like that have existed ever since police was invented. And tasers have made it so much *easier *for them that, yeah, I’d say the devices are more a danger than a boon right now.
Maybe if there were more stringent controls, if “sensitivity training” was worth spit or police recruitment more discerning, if there was closer supervision linked with the use of tasers, I’d have a different opinion. But as a guy who’s been tased for precious little reason once, and once too many : fuck 'em, and fuck their advocates.

[kingbighair]

Slightly off topic - I did some work a few years ago with the ACLU in a city whose police force had pretty significant racial problems with the public. We received a record detailing every taser firing by the police force over a period of time.

MY GOD. Looking at the data sickened me. If people had any idea how often and how barbarically these are used, they would want them banned immediately. We are talking instances of 8 firings in a row, or 35 second bursts. Truly egregious cases. These are torture devices being used on the people with no voice in society.

I am not sure if taser use is increasing violence overall, but the magnitude of the violence has certainly increased.

[TruCelt]

@Kobal2

• it leaves no marks. Not only does it avoid those ghastly headline photos with the faces bruised all over and such, it’s frickin’ *hard *to prove you’ve ever been tased. Unless you sort of… die of it. We’re working on that. But other than that, it leaves no mark, no bruise, no lasting trace of the aforementioned unbearable searing pain. Unless there’s video evidence, of course, but we’re working on phasing that shit out (see related and scary-as-heck GD thread).

Wow. I always thought it left burn marks. So there’s really no sign at all? Is that true only for the hand-held ones? I thought the “shooting” ones shot needle-like things that stuck into you? Surely that leaves a mark? Or is it a matter of there’s no mark the next day, as opposed to at the moment it happened?

[Marley23]

@Kobal2

But other than that, it leaves no mark, no bruise, no lasting trace of the aforementioned unbearable searing pain. Unless there’s video evidence, of course, but we’re working on phasing that shit out (see related and scary-as-heck GD thread).

I object to those policies as much as you do but, in the interest of fairness it should be pointed out that a lot of departments have installed cameras on the dashboards of police cars so there is a video record of any incident. I think there may even be some recording equipment that is specific to tasers because a lack of video record also leaves the departments vulnerable to false allegations along with potentially covering up the truth in abusive cases.

I don’t know any statistics about this one way or the other aside from the study Northern Piper posted. Used in a legit way, a Taser is probably a real improvement over a nightstick because of the reduced risk of broken bones and skulls. But the risk of abuse is also great and every one of these unnecessary Taser uses is more evidence that some officers are telling themselves ‘they’re fine after, so it’s no big deal.’ Except that these things occasionally kill people and if the use is unnecessary, the fact that it does not do permanent damage doesn’t make it acceptable.

@TruCelt

Wow. I always thought it left burn marks. So there’s really no sign at all? Is that true only for the hand-held ones? I thought the “shooting” ones shot needle-like things that stuck into you? Surely that leaves a mark? Or is it a matter of there’s no mark the next day, as opposed to at the moment it happened?

I thought the prongs usually get embedded in the skin and need to be taken out afterward.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@TruCelt

Wow. I always thought it left burn marks. So there’s really no sign at all? Is that true only for the hand-held ones? I thought the “shooting” ones shot needle-like things that stuck into you? Surely that leaves a mark? Or is it a matter of there’s no mark the next day, as opposed to at the moment it happened?

The electrodes penetrate clothing, not skin. In fact, if you wear the right clothing you’re pretty much invulnerable to tasing. Well, unless you’re sweaty.

The electrodes can penetrate exposed skin, but since they’re fired at the torso that usually isn’t a problem.

In drive stun mode (when held against the body without firing the electrodes) they do leave a burn mark, or at least redness. Only law enforcement and military models have the drive stun capability, though.

[shijinn]

@Brown_Eyed_Girl

With regard to this story, I fail to see how this is different than any other story in which a cop misuses his authority and applies unnecessary and/or excessive force than what the situation reasonably calls for. If the LEO acts incorrectly, it doesn’t matter whether the excessive force is applied using a TASER, gun, pepper spray, or physical contact.

as mentioned, the difference is that the torture device is easy to apply and leaves little or no evidence. this apparently encourages its use more often than called for. it would be better all around if tasers were to leave red, ugly bruises; then we wouldn’t have to wait for people to start dying before they take the trouble to look deeper into the matter.

[Cat_Whisperer]

@Brown_Eyed_Girl

With regard to this story, I fail to see how this is different than any other story in which a cop misuses his authority and applies unnecessary and/or excessive force than what the situation reasonably calls for. If the LEO acts incorrectly, it doesn’t matter whether the excessive force is applied using a TASER, gun, pepper spray, or physical contact.

I’d have to say, yes, it does - most healthy adults won’t die from a taser shot. Most healthy adults DO die from a gunshot wound to a sensitive area, and from what I understand, if a police officer has to shoot at someone, they’re trained to shoot to kill. There’s obviously a lot of room for debate on whether or not police are using tasers too quickly or too often, but in cases where they are using them instead of shooting someone with a gun, I’d take the taser instead of the bullet.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

I’m wondering why the LE models dont come with a chip that records the time and duration of each discharge.

[Peremensoe]

@Telemark

But a Taser isn’t an alternative to a gun. It’s an alternative to other non-lethal (or less lethal) methods such as billy clubs, choke holds, etc.

I think that perception is exactly the problem. If they are used at all, Tasers should be an alternative (step down in violence) from a gun, not an alternative (step up in violence) from other methods.

[running_coach]

@Cat_Whisperer

I’d have to say, yes, it does - most healthy adults won’t die from a taser shot. Most healthy adults DO die from a gunshot wound to a sensitive area, and from what I understand, if a police officer has to shoot at someone, they’re trained to shoot to kill. There’s obviously a lot of room for debate on whether or not police are using tasers too quickly or too often, but in cases where they are using them instead of shooting someone with a gun, I’d take the taser instead of the bullet.

Police are not trained “shoot to kill”. They’re trained to shoot to stop. Since this involves shooting to “center of mass” i.e. the torso, you are putting bullets near or into really vital organs and death may occur.
The only real shoot to kill placement would be to the head.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@Cat_Whisperer

I’d have to say, yes, it does - most healthy adults won’t die from a taser shot. Most healthy adults DO die from a gunshot wound to a sensitive area, and from what I understand, if a police officer has to shoot at someone, they’re trained to shoot to kill.

Actually, most people (31.7%), healthy adults or not, survive gunshot wounds. Even being shot in the head only comes with a 60% chance of death.