Law enforcement officials claim that Tasers save lifes. This may be true, in the broadest sense. But the fact is, Tasers DO kill people.
So why do police use them as their first option instead of as their last resort?
I want to do two things in this diary. Highlight the problem, and pose a very simple solution.
There's the case of a man who was shocked 9 times by a policeman- after he was already handcuffed and subdued. And even though he was already dead, the police officer felt it was necessary to "zap" him two more times.
But a coroner's report found Pikes had been handcuffed and on the ground when first hit with the Taser and might have been dead before the last two shocks from the 50,000-volt device were delivered.
Then there's the case of a man who was electrocuted by police because he stole an Applebees gift card. I think most reasonable people can agree that the death penalty is unwarranted when it comes to something as petty as stealing a gift card from a restaurant.
While being booked, Davidson became "physically aggressive and was communicating loudly," Anderson said. That's when officers used one or more Tasers to get him "back under control," police said.
He was being booked which meant he was at the jail, and hence, unarmed (unless of course its police policy to let armed men wander around the jail). How much of a threat does an unarmed man pose in a jail surrounded by police officers? Well, enough to warrant being electrocuted to death, apparently.
Seventeen year old Daryl Turner died after the police electrocuted him an unknown number of times. Police refuse to say how many times they "zapped" Mr.Turner.
Turner died from cardiac arrest. An autopsy showed the teen's heart was pumping so fast and chaotically from the Taser shot and the stress of the confrontation that it stopped pumping blood properly.
And of course, there's that notorious incident in Florida where police electrocuted a student because he was talking for too long. This incident while not fatal, does illustrate how lazy our police officers have become and how eager they are to electrocute first and ask questions later.
These are just a few examples of the hundreds, if not thousands, of times police officers have felt the need to electrocute citizens.
In a 2006 study, Amnesty International showed that 291 deaths were caused by the use of tasers since 2001. That number has surely risen since the two years that have passed since that study was released.
More shockingly though than that number, are the circumstances under which the majority of those deaths occurred.
The degree of tolerable risk involving Tasers, as with all weapons and restraint devices, must be weighed against the threat posed. It is self-evident that Tasers are less injurious than firearms where officers are confronted with a serious threat that could escalate to deadly force. However, the vast majority of people who have died after being struck by Tasers have been unarmed men who did not pose a threat of death or serious injury when they were electro-shocked. In many cases they appear not to have posed a significant threat at all."
Of the 291 reported deaths, the organization has identified only 25 individuals who were reportedly armed with any sort of weapon when they were electro-shocked; such weapons did not include firearms.
Emphasis mine.
I'm betting that is no accident. There's a reason why most people who die from taser injuries were unarmed. It's because most of the people who are electrocuted by tasers are unarmed. Police are using a weapon that has been known to kill, on UNARMED citizens.
Do the math: if only 8 percent of those who were killed by Tasers were armed,(with weapons other than firearms, mind you) what possible justification could there have been to electrocute and kill the other 92%?
My theory is that cops are just lazy. Instead of taking the time to diffuse a situation the old fashioned way, by talking or calming down a suspect, or even a old fashioned gang tackling, they just zap 'em. And since, Tasers are considered to be "less than lethal" weapons, the cops figure, no harm no foul.
I'm not advocating police brutality or excessive force, but even Rodney King survived his brutal beating from the LAPD. I doubt he would have if they had zapped him a couple dozen times with 50,000 volts of electricity.
We need a fundamental change in attitudes. And it would also help if police departments around the country came up with "rules of engagement" on when it is and is not appropriate to electrocute someone.
Most police departments have NO policies or regulations regarding the use of tasers, and when they do, its usually pretty vague in terminology. There has to be an "immediate threat to others or self".
I have a solution. It's a pretty simple one and, quite honestly, i'm very surprised its not already in place in most police departments.
You may only use a taser on a suspect if that suspect is armed.
See? That right there would eliminate 92% of unnecessary and unjustified taser deaths.
And yet, police are reluctant to adopt any controls or oversight regarding the use of tasers because, well...from a police chief's perspective they make life for his officers so much easier and safer. Why risk getting hurt in a scuffle with an unarmed man when you can just electrocute him and save yourself the trouble?
I have a solution. But so far, law enforcement agencies across the country even refuse to acknowledge there is a problem. Until they do, we can expect more unneccessary deaths and unprovoked electrocutions from this "less than lethal" device.