Too Much Taser Abuse

The company capitalized on 9/11 by hiring Bernard Kerik. It markets its devices as fun fashion accessories.

And Taser injuries and deaths just keep making news (and blog posts - for a lot more links, go to the Pam's House Blend Taser Files). Most recently,

Los Angeles County sheriff's officials have launched a misconduct investigation of two supervisors who authorized the use of a stun gun on a 21-year-old arrestee because he was unruly and refused to submit to electronic fingerprinting, The Times has learned.

As a result of being shocked with a Taser, Blake Dupree fell off the top of a jail bunk bed and broke his back. The injury has left him temporarily paralyzed and he could be crippled for life, his attorney said.

According to sheriff's officials, Dupree, who showed signs of being mentally ill or under the influence of drugs, had been generally "uncooperative" for hours before a lieutenant at the Lakewood sheriff's station approved the use of the Taser, which delivers a 50,000-volt shock.

The investigation into the Feb. 27 incident -- much of it captured on videotape -- will determine whether use of the Taser violated department policy.

Department rules prohibit using the device on "persons in danger of falling or becoming entangled in machinery or heavy equipment which could result in death or serious bodily injury." Despite the prohibition, the policy does allow for supervisors to decide whether use of a Taser is warranted on a case-by-case basis.

This story is a classic case of how Tasers are routinely misused by police and security departments: The Taser was used not to quell violence or suppress an immediate problem, but to force compliance, and it was used despite the obvious risk of greater damage, in this case from a fall off the bunk bed. In other cases, physically or mentally ill people have been tased when their illness was mistaken for resistance by police unwilling to take time to assess a situation.

According to Amnesty International:

As a human rights organization, AI acknowledges the importance of developing non-lethal or "less-lethal" force options to decrease the risk of death or injury inherent in police use of firearms or other impact weapons such as batons. We support the development of such force options.

However, we have serious concerns about the use of electro-shock devices in law enforcement, both as regards their safety and their potential for misuse. Portable and easy to use, with the capacity to inflict severe pain at the push of a button without leaving substantial marks, electro-shock weapons are particularly open to abuse, as our organization has documented in numerous cases around the world.

While in the United States police operate under professional standards,(8) we are concerned that many U.S. police departments are using Tasers to subdue non-compliant or disturbed individuals who do not pose a serious danger to themselves or others. As our reports have documented, there are many cases where we believe use of Tasers has contravened international standards which require that police use force only when strictly necessary, in proportion to the threat posed, only for as long as the threat exists and in a manner designed to minimize pain or injury. We have documented disturbing instances where we believe that Taser use has amounted to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment which is absolutely prohibited under international law. The U.N. Committee against Torture has called on the United States to deploy Tasers only as a non-lethal alternative to using firearms.

The ACLU has also expressed concern.

In 2006, In These Times gave Taser marketing and use an in-depth look:

In October 2005, the Police Executive Research Forum, an influential police research and advocacy group, recommended that law enforcement only be allowed to use Tasers on people aggressively resisting arrest. The organization also recommended that law enforcement officers needed to step back and evaluate the condition of suspects after they had been shocked once. Similar recommendations were included in an April 2005 report from the International Association of Chiefs of Police. That report also urged police departments to evaluate whether certain vulnerable groups—including the mentally ill—should be excluded altogether from being shot with Tasers.

Although Fogg’s organization has called for an outright ban of Tasers until further research can be conducted, Fogg says that he knows responsible members of law enforcement are perfectly capable of using the weapons effectively. Officers who are willing to put their lives on the line for the sake of the community, he emphasizes, must be given the tools and training to be able to minimize harm to themselves and to others.

Fogg, who also serves on the board of Amnesty International USA, says that too many members of law enforcement seem to be using them as compliance mechanisms. "It’s something along the lines of, ‘If I don’t like you, I can torture you,’ " he says.

A few police departments have instituted strong guidelines for Taser use, which is the point: Finding an alternative to shooting people is a good thing. But even though there's no blood, you still need to be careful, and too many departments are failing miserably at that crucial piece of the puzzle. Meanwhile, Taser International ferociously defends itself against lawsuits claiming they've made inflated claims of Taser safety, and even went on the offense in 2005, suing Gannett Newspapers for libel. (They lost.) At the same time, they've sought to expand their market into private use, with the Taser becoming the new Tupperware.

There need to be strong standards for Taser use - police and security guards cannot be allowed to believe they are justified in tasing someone who makes them merely uncomfortable (especially since we know that means black people, poor people, sick people). Kagro X once said via email that "you'll need to calm down, sir" has become the prelude to tasing. Is that the kind of society you want to live in?