A Stitch in Haste

“In Britain, the police don’t have guns, and the criminals don’t have guns. So if you commit a crime, the police yell, ‘Stop or I’ll … yell Stop again!”
–Robin Williams

Actually, now it seems that Britain — like many communities in America, will increasingly rely on “Stop or I’ll tase!”

Officers in 10 forces, who are not firearms specialists, will be able to use the 50,000-volt Tasers to protect themselves or the public.
…
Until now, about 3,000 Tasers had been issued in Britain, but only to members of police firearms units.
…
The Home Office said officers would not be routinely equipped with Tasers. Instead, there would be a selection procedure and only specially trained officers who completed a training programme approved by the Association of Chief Police Officers would be issued with one.

Meanwhile, Taser is now selling “personal tasers” geared specifically for women (cost: $350; color options: five, including pink).

All this occurring, meanwhile, as accounts of “taser abuse” accumulate:

–Hospital security guard tasers a man holding a newborn.

–Campus police taser a UCLA student who refuses to show ID in the school library. (Video.)

–Tasering a dog to death during a drug bust.

–Several recent accounts of “death by taser.”

A big part of the problem with tasers is that they were originally marketed as a substitute for guns, but have become a substitute for exertion. Tasers are, increasingly, not used to save lives but to merely make cops’ lives easier.

If the rule were: “Never use your taser unless you would also be willing to shoot your firearm…” then I can’t imagine too many incidents of “taser brutality.” (See, e.g., here.) But instead the rule seems too often to be: “Use your taser whenever you perceive a risk to yourself.” Or, worse: “Use you taser whenever you deem it convenient.”

That simply cannot be right — not to the tune of 50,000 volts.

So the question becomes: Is the taser debate just a typical, predictable and (hopefully) temporary “feeling out” process that will eventually settle into a widely accepted consensus on proper use? Or is the corruptibility of law enforcement, like the corruptibility of politics, so endemic and ubiquitous as to make the taser a losing proposition from the outset?

(Via Danger Room.)

—

As for private tasers, I think there is unarguably a right for competent adults to possess them. The rules and standards for their use should be no different than any paradigm for the private use of force: both a proper justification (e.g., self-defense, defense of others) and an objective standard of reasonableness (i.e., non-negligence) should be required, otherwise the conduct should be both a crime and a tort.

Similar Posts:

• Video Camera = Weapon?
• Taser Thug Quote of the Day
• Another “Jackboot + Taser” Travesty
• Tasers: “Authorized” is Not Synonymous with “Reasonable”
• Linkfest: Sunday Updates

Filed under: Fourth Amendment, Law Enforcement Abuses