SHARE THIS SHOW:
RELATED CONVERSATIONS:
RECENTLY ON TOL:
The TOL Blog
TAGS:
Stun Guns
A recent Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision (pdf) has police departments across the region reexamining their Taser policies. At heart, the question is when — and on whom — it's appropriate to use these usually nonlethal weapons. The ruling coincides with two recent incidents in Eugene that have raised the issue of stun gun use on unarmed citizens.
As the LA Times wrote last week:
The weapons, which resemble handguns, can be fired from about 20 feet away and project two dartlike electrodes. The electrodes send an electrical charge coursing through the target -- a shock that temporarily paralyzes the person's muscles and causes extreme pain....
Though stun guns have been in use for about three decades, the number of police departments issuing them to officers has proliferated in the last 10 years. Advocates tout the weapons as a less-than-lethal alternative to firearms and say they help resolve dangerous face-to-face confrontations with combative suspects. But several controversial Taser incidents, some involving fatalities, have led to widespread debate over when police should be allowed to deploy the weapons.
That debate is very live in Oregon: from Medford to Salem to Portland to Eugene where, in the most recent case, a Chinese university student who spoke no English was tased after being mistaken as an intruder in his own townhouse. Eugene's chief of police found this week that the officers' use of force "is at the edge of what’s allowed by policy. But it is within policy."
If you work in law enforcement, have you ever used a Taser? When and why? If you've been tased, what lead to it — and what did it feel like? Have laws governing the use of nonlethal force kept up with the technology?
GUESTS:
- Willie Bose: Commander of the services division overseeing training and professional standards for the Washington County Sheriff's office
- David Fidanque: Executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Oregon
- Jeff Salisbury: Attorney in Eugene whose son was fatally shot by police officers in Eugene in 2006 before Eugene police began carrying Tasers
- Geoff Alpert: Professor of criminology at the University of South Carolina and principal investigator for a recent study (pdf) on police use of force
Photo credit: hradcanska / Creative Commons
-
Simply put, they're torture toys for sadistic cops. Cops use tasers as "compliance" weapons for people who either have a bad attitude, ask questions, or simply don't obey orders [quite] fast enough.
Cops also most often use tasers against:
Blacks/brown-skinned people, women, rowdy kids, the mentally ill, people who don't speak English (hence, don't comprehend orders barked at them), & people who're hard of hearing.
Also note, as far as police are concerned "resisting arrest" can mean something as little as talking back. This can also warrant being tasered.
Restraining violently resisting suspects is really NOT the issue here.
-
If what you are saying is true it is very concerning. If you don't mind my asking, where did you get your information?
-
TASER darts not only emit 50,000 volts of electricity to the victim, they pose a huge health hazard to the emergency responder/medical community. When a TASER is fired it projects two barbed darts that penetrate the victim’s skin 3/8 of an inch and when removed are contaminated with the victim’s blood and tissue. To accomplish patient assessment and out of the fear of an officer’s injury and contamination from the bloody darts that can lead to illness or even death from HIV-AIDS the different strains of Hepatitis or other blood-borne pathogens, Law Enforcement agencies world-wide do not remove the darts. Locally, Portland Police Bureau and other Law enforcement agencies call on Portland Fire Bureau paramedics to remove them. The first-responders who remove these contaminated darts with forceps, pliers or nothing more than their hands are in danger of being injured with either a needle-stick type injury or a scraping injury from the sharp barbed darts, especially if the person subdued is struggling or uncooperative during the removal process. Following removal, these darts are stored in nothing more than the container they were projected out of, which is not a medical sharps container. Once stuck, people injured by contaminated stun-gun darts are entered in an exposure program (OHSU) for testing and treatment and a have a potential of contracting one of the potentially deadly blood borne pathogens.
The only FDA cleared and patented medical device on the world market today, manufactured by the Camas, Washington.- based Global Pathogen Solutions Inc., provides complete protection to first responders by allowing them to remove stun-gun darts from subjects without touching the dart. The D.A.R.T. Pro and X-TRACTOR Tip system acquires, removes and houses the TASER dart in a FDA cleared sharps container. Using this device makes the removal and handling of these dangerous darts completely safe. The D.A.R.T. Pro may be seen at www.globalpathogensolutions.com. President/CEO, Carson Linker may be reached at 503-679-7612.
Carson Linker
-
As a mental health professional, I would like to know more about
the risks of infection from contaminated Taser darts and what is
being done about that. Thankyou
-
The problem is not the tazer, but tazer abuse. Tazers are an alternative to deadly force where a deadly threat is present. They should not be used merely for convenience in non-life threatening situations.
-
I'm a little confused about TASERs.
A well-trained officer can beat suspects without killing them or even leaving marks. That's non-lethal, but is horribly unacceptable (to most people).
So, what makes MOST-OF-THE-TIME-non-lethal electrocution acceptable? Even if we could make it 100% non-lethal, how is electrocution acceptable?
How many times do we have to hear police whine about needing "tools" to fight crime and then deal with the torrent of abuse that follows before we start studying ways to actually make police more effective instead of just giving them bigger guns and electrocution devices?
You can measure the amount of time police have had guns in centuries and we still cannot stop police from accidentally/intentionally shooting innocent people. Yet, now we are allowing them to pack AR-15s in their trunks because of the off chance that they might have to get in a fire fight with someone packing a similar assault rifle.
Thinking that the problems with TASERs is just procedural and that we can just tweak the procedures to make them safe is just stupid.
-
The police services of this country need sub-lethal methods, and something less damaging than a club to the skull. I have been tasered, voluntarily, to understand the effect. Yea it hurts, bad, is debilitating, and may be harmful to some persons. But giving the officer a chance to do something less than using his sidearm, or to close in and grappel, increases his and the suspects safety. Abusive persons must be kept from entering Police departments. It is person using the technology, not the tool itself that is abusive. Keep our officers options open.
-
I don't have a problem with Tasers as an alternative to guns in non-life-threatening situations. But I think the bar needs to be raised as to when the Taser is used. In the cases in Eugene, this same officer has used the Taser in two very public situations where this use of non-lethal force was not warrented. The fact that the Cheif of Police found that the officer acted within the department's policies whereas the police auditor found otherwise demonstrates the problem. The police are too into "protecting their brothers," and not enough into being fair to the public.
-
One major difference between being willingly exposed to electric shocks and being tased against your will is the psychological harm that occurs. The gentleman speaking was prepared for an unpleasant experience. People who are coming face to face with an armed policeperson will also experience fear, surprise, anger, and terror, which inflict ongoing harm on their psyche. This is the damage that I have problems with, and which are unaddressed in your speaker's commentary.
-
Is the infliction of pain really acceptable when the officer has direct control over the amount of time a person feels that pain?
Hitting someone with a baton and electrocuting them are the same to me. It doesn't matter to me that person being electrocuted (usually) does not have lingering pain.
Also, I love to hear police types say people should just be compliant. Have these people ever considered what it is like to be confronted by an aggressive person or persons in military-like clothing carrying a variety of weapons on their belts, all of whom are shouting orders at you? The confusion, the fear, the anger. How does a police officer judge non-compliance in that situation? How can a police officer expect someone to react instantly in that situation?
-
The show started off with an account of the case in Eugene, which was initiated by a call from a landlord who thought their apartment had been broken in to. It was then stted that the apartment had recently been rented. If the landlord had just rented the apartment, why did then then think it had been broken in to when there were people in it? Take away that call, and that whole situation never happens. I know that this show is mostly about the use of stun guns, but in this particular case, it seems as though some common sense on the part of the landlord would have gone a long way to avoid this specific problem. Now the community is likely to endure a long and expensive investigation of an event that seemingly could have been easily avoided.
-
But when someone makes a mistaken assumption, it is the responsibility of the police officers to be objective in their investigation. As soon as they arrived at the "unrented" apartment and noticed that the students had laptops and student equipment they should have stopped in their tracks. They could have visually communicated to ask to see a key or retreated and checked back in with the landlord before proceeding. Instead they blindly assumed the worst despite evidence to the contrary. Then they used a taser to top it off.
-
I agree with you ORSunshine, but consider the dangerous position that police officers put themselves into every day. Or better still, and as in this case, the dangerous positions WE put them into every day. Would it have been better if they retreated and reassessed? Undoubtedly so. But we don't know all of the circumstances surrounding the case, though it does appear that the officers gave commands which were not followed. We now know, and I suspect the officers wish they knew at the time, that the students didn't speak English well, and they were likely terrified too. I think the take-home message of this case is that we should be happy that the police have stun-guns and other non-lethal means at their disposal and that this particular officer thought enough to use the non-lethal means rather than lethal. I think that people in this case are overlooking the fact that the officer in question clearly did use judgement, and that is why we are all having a discussion about a student who was 'tased', rather than one who was shot.
Again, I still maintain that the landlord should have him/herself exercised some judgement and at least informed the 911 operator that the apartment had recently been rented and perhaps even let them know that the new tenents didn't speak English very well either.
Unfortunate event - yes, undoubtedly. Fortunately though not tragic, thanks exclusively to the officers judgement and ability to use non-lethal, rather than lethal force.
-
complete training in martial arts (soft methods) of suspect control - with adequate training, no reason a 200 lb officer cannot control almost anyone - look to public policing in Asia - stun guns are dangerous
-
So would the officer have a problem if I used them on my teenager? They are just tools to get people to do what is needed.
-
I'm hearing what appears to be avery limited understanding of the effects of taser use on individuals with cardiac arrythmias. Given documented issues in enforcement restraint, I believe the use of tasers on individuals with impaired electro-cardiovascular systems may constitute the use of deadly force. Please have your experts respond. Thank you.
-
To TOL,
To my knowledge there is an unacknowledged issue with Tassers that is bound to appear sooner or later. In general I support a fairly restrictive use of Tassers.
However, my brother discovered his 26 y.o. old son and a couple of his friends using Tassers on each other - FOR FUN! We don't know how they got a hold of this "tool" but keeping these things out of the hands of the general public seems paramont. Accidential deaths seem inevitable, otherwise.
Ron Funke
-
Stupid people do stupid things. Sounds like we need to hire smarter police officers. Reminds me of the case in Gresham a year or so back, when a concerned mom called police because her son was behaving badly and waving a knife around. The police came, saw the knife, felt threatened and killed him. DEAD. Forever. Because he was a kid waving a knife around. I'm so lucky my own parents never called the police on me. They might have killed me, oh, about a hundred times. WTF? Who are these idiots using deadly force on people? Take their F-ing guns away---take them away from everyone, and we'll all be safer.
-
How would a stun gun affect someone who had an implanted cardiac defibrillator?
-
There is a great deal of ignorance surrounding not only the Taser, but Law Enforcement's use of available force options. So many more people would be shot and likely die as the result, if it were not for the Taser as an available less than lethal force option. For those that have had a Taser used on them in circumstances that otherwise could have justified an Officer's use of deadly force, be thankful it was used and effective.
-
Mr. Salisbury sounds like a saint. What a kind, gentle person. My heart goes out to him for his horrific and unbearable loss.
-
As a police officer I have worked for an agency that has a Taser and one that does not. I have been pepper sprayed and Tased. Yes the Taser was much more painful and impossible to fight through. However, when pepper sprayed I was able to strike multiple targets with full strength and negotiate an obstacle course. I felt the effects of the Taser for 5 seconds. I felt the effects of the pepper spray for three days. That said, I would much rather be Tased then pepper sprayed or hit with a baton and risk having a broken bone.
I arrested a male who was highly intoxicated and resisted arrest. Several focus blows were used and he was restrained by three officers to be placed in handcuffs. Two day later when he was sober he told me he didn't remember much. I told him I almost pepper sprayed him since I no longer work at an agency that carries Tasers. He said he was glad he didn't get sprayed because he'd probably still feel it. He was unsure if his muscle soreness was from resisting arrest or the fight he was in prior to our arrival. He told me he has been Tased six times and he would rather be Tased instead of sprayed anytime.
-
Wow, the bias was audible today!
-
I've been reading the comments here. First, I'm very sorry for the loss suffered by the gentleman in the discussion. Indeed, he sounds like a saint. On the other hand, I don't see a lot of understanding or critical thought in the other comments written here. Clearly, most of those making the comments have never experienced a life threatening situation. Yes, I've used a Taser to subdue a man who tried to kill me with a knife. But the Taser can't be limited to situations wherein lethal force would be appropriate. Even a very minor encounter can quickly turn into a physical confrontation, a struggle, and a life or death struggle. (And, contrary to what many seem to believe in these comments, it isn't always the policeman who seeks that outcome). Finally, think on this -- every police officer carries the instrument of their own death on their hip . . . a substantial number of police who are shot every year in this country are shot with their own weapons. Finally, as to having police officers who are qualified by intelligence, temperament and strength to handle these encounters without resort to force or deadly force . . . well, in many ways, that ship has already sailed. You get what you pay for . . . or, as George Bernard Shaw is reputed to have said, "Democracy is that form of government in which the people get exactly what they deserve."
-
Yes, you're right. There's no critical thought by those of us opposed to TASERs. We should just trust someone trained to deal with situations a certain way that the training they received is the correct training, the only effective training, and that it best serves the public.
Since I have never experienced a life threatening situation, I am obviously unqualified to comment on something that could affect my life at some point, right? That's called an argument from authority, it's a logical fallacy (and indicates a lack of critical thought on your part), and you provided no evidence that guns, TASERs, batons, or chemical mace are the only means to deal with situations, and no evidence that your ability to use them reduces crime and keeps the peace.
I personally have spent a lot of time around police. My opinion of their training is that they are trained for the worst possible outcome and trained to approach every situation as though that is going to be the outcome. In many situations, that makes a violent outcome guaranteed.
Yes, there are situations where non-violent resolution is hard to imagine. Handling someone crazed on drugs with a knife, for instance. But, I find it absolutely impossible that there is no other way to handle that than to either shot the person or electrocute the person. The use of TASERs, CEDs, whatever they're called, is just a thought-terminating option. It's easy to use, gets the desired results for the police, and eventually people just stop thinking about better ways to handle dangerous situations.
-
How is it possibly that medical professionals deal with & successfully handle unstable people everyday WITHOUT using any weapons at all, but cops seem to need tasers just to get someone to "comply"???
Note: tasers are largely regarded as "less-than-lethal", which means they're still POTENTIALLY LETHAL weapons! In much the same way that guns are "less-than-lethal", so long as the bullet doesn't hit a major organ or artery.
-
In reply to DamosA, doctors and other medical professionals deal with unstable people through physical restraints, hypodermic injections, calling security, or calling the cops. Paramedics won't even respond to some situations unless the cops are "on-scene" first. I've had to respond to calls by paramedics for help when a situation went sideways, and several times to hospitals (esp. Emergency Rooms) where a situation had gotten out of hand. Many mentally ill or otherwise unstable people are also afflicted with the complicating factors of alcohol/other drugs. These are not predictable situations.
-
Tasers can be very dangerous if the target falls and cracks their head on a hard object or even the ground. Also, a person can fall off a high place and die if the officers aren't careful. They aren't a perfect non-lethal weapon.
-
Key word 'unarmed'. It is so scary that police can justify using deadly force simply in not seeing one of your hands under the blanket. HELLO!! You are in the person’s private quarters. The Eugene student is unfortunate but certainly avoided tragedy, with these trigger happy lunatics. Did they even knock? Or was it raid style 'shoot first ask questions later' tactics? Perhaps training would be beneficial or better screening before hiring; some of these cowards run around terrorizing people with their god-like authority and then justify killing or worse traumatizing an individual for life by their inability to reason through close contact scenarios.
I am not pleased, at all content, or do I even feel safe with these sorts of events taking place. Freedom and civil rights have become a thing of the past, and so soon in America. I mean you don't even read about this sort of crap happening in Russia.
-
TASERS, like all tools, get used and misused. It takes no degree in Psychology to know that given a way to handle something with less effort, that way will become the primary way of handling it. Cops are not known to be the sharpest Crayolas in the box, but a positive is that TASERS have saved people from being killed---what they were meant to do.
Since the two Wars the pickings for jurisdictions have dropped dramatically. Most have officially lowered their standards. Some dramatically. We have Excesssive-Body-Art Cops. We have Body-Pierced Cops. We have Cops who have Pot convictions. We have perjuring Cops. We have "Creative-Report-Writing" Cops. We have Cops who are Pathological Liars. Boston admitted that they refuse too-high-IQ applicants because they get bored and quit. Lower-quality mentalities have less difficulty with the low-stimulous-most-of-the-time job.
Many who get on the force could not dream of making the kind of money they make as a Cop.
A reason people want to be a Cop is low, self esteem (they can be "somebody"). Many become fat and that endangers citizens because the use of a TASER or firearm are the only ways they have of stopping a fleeing individual. They cannot chase them on foot (there are Cops who is morbidly obese and waddle---check King City).
Another set of factors in this esteem pathology are the Pumping-Iron types who, like the Fat-Asses, Body-Art, Body-Piercing and prevaricating genres, have blatant, self-image issues.
Many youngsters seek Law Enforcment for what seems the right reason, but few "good" ones stay after the realities of the profession set in. They are surrounded by lack of self esteem which creates arrogance and the controlling reality. Arrogance creates misbehavior. Misbehavior creates corruption. Corruption creates more corruption, ad infinitum.
The Ninth Circuit recently (in Bryan) decided that the misuses of TASERS have gone far enough. For at least the Western United States, the door has been opened for civil suits to reduce jurisdiction's treasuries if their badged agents fail to use their heads before their TASERS. Guess what you can count on? More taxes to cover the payouts.
Remember a simple Fact: If there were Good Cops there could be no Bad Cops. Simple because the former would arrest the latter.
-
TASERS, like all tools, get used and misused. It takes no degree in Psychology to know that given a way to handle something with less effort, that way will become the primary way of handling it. Cops are not known to be the sharpest Crayolas in the box, but, a positive is that TASERS have saved people from being killed---what they were meant to do.
Since the two Wars the pickings for jurisdictions have dropped dramatically. Most have officially lowered their standards. Some dramatically. We have Excesssive-Body-Art Cops. We have Body-Pierced Cops. We have Cops who have Pot convictions. We have perjuring Cops. We have "Creative-Report-Writing" Cops. We have Cops who are Pathological Liars. Boston admitted that they refuse too-high-IQ applicants because they get bored and quit. Lower-quality mentalities have less difficulty with the no-stimulous-most-of-the-time job.
Many who get on the force could not dream of making the kind of money they make as a Cop.
One reason people want to be a Cop is low, self esteem (they can be "somebody"). Many become fat and that endangers citizens because the use of a TASER or firearm are the only ways they have of stopping a fleeing individual. They cannot chase them on foot (there are Cops who is morbidly obese and waddle---check King City).
Another set of factors in this esteem pathology are the Pumping-Iron types who, like the Fat-Asses, Body-Art, Body-Piercing and prevaricating genres, have blatant, self-image issues.
Many youngsters seek Law Enforcment for what seems the right reason, but few "good" ones stay after the realities of the profession set in. They are surrounded by lack of self esteem which creates arrogance which controls the working reality. Arrogance creates misbehavior. Misbehavior creates corruption. Corruption creates more corruption, ad infinitum.
The Ninth Circuit recently (in Bryan) decided that the misuses of TASERS have gone far enough. For at least the Western United States, the door has opened for civil suits to reduce jurisdiction's treasuries if their badged agents fail to use their heads before their TASERS. Guess what you can count on? More taxes to cover the payouts.
Remember a simple Fact: If there were Good Cops there could be no Bad Cops. Simple because---the former would arrest the latter.
-
TASERS, like all tools, get used and misused. It takes no degree in Psychology to know that given a way to handle something with less effort, that way will become the primary way of handling it. Cops are not known to be the sharpest Crayolas in the box, but, a positive is that TASERS have saved people from being killed---what they were meant to do.
Since the two Wars the pickings for jurisdictions have dropped dramatically. Most have officially lowered their standards. Some dramatically. We have Excesssive-Body-Art Cops. We have Body-Pierced Cops. We have Cops who have Pot convictions. We have perjuring Cops. We have "Creative-Report-Writing" Cops. We have Cops who are Pathological Liars. Boston admitted that they refuse too-high-IQ applicants because they get bored and quit. Lower-quality mentalities have less difficulty with the no-stimulous-most-of-the-time job. Most who get on the force could not, in their wildest dreams, make the kind of money they make as a Cop.
One reason people want to be a Cop is low, self esteem (they can be "somebody"). Many become fat and that endangers citizens because the use of a TASER or firearm are the only ways they have of stopping a fleeing individual. They cannot chase them on foot (there are Cops who are morbidly obese and waddle).
Another set of factors in this esteem pathology are the Pumping-Iron types who, like the Fat-Asses, Body-Art, Body-Piercing and prevaricating genres, have blatant, self-image issues.
Many youngsters seek Law Enforcment for what seems the right reason, but few "good" ones stay after the realities of the profession set in. They are surrounded by lack of self esteem which creates arrogance which controls the working reality. Arrogance creates misbehavior. Misbehavior creates corruption. Corruption creates more corruption, ad infinitum.
The Ninth Circuit recently (in Bryan) decided that the misuses of TASERS have gone far enough. For at least the Western United States, the door has opened for civil suits to reduce jurisdiction's treasuries if their badged agents fail to use their heads before their TASERS. Guess what you can count on? More taxes to cover the payouts.
Remember a simple Fact: If there were Good Cops there could be no Bad Cops. Simple because the former would arrest the latter.
-
This comment has been removed by the TOL staff.
-
Comments are now closed.
Isn't it effective, through the use of psychological techniques and non-violent force, to control a situation involving a single, unarmed citizen?
Would the use of a taser be most appropriate for situations involving suspects who have short range weapons such as knives, but not long range weapons such as guns?
I think that tasers have their place in public safety scheme, but how can we best determine that role?