| TASER – “It’s Better Than Shooting Someone, Isn’t It?” |
 |
 |
| Written by Tiffany Sanders | |
| Tuesday, 18 March 2008 04:40 | |
 Controversy abounds about whether TASER use by law enforcement reduces the use of deadly force and whether TASER use is in itself deadly force, but the debate—however well-intentioned—misses a more important issue. Law enforcement officers and other supporters of liberal use of TASERS often point out that it’s “better than having to shoot someone”. It is. Without question, it is. But is that really the decision that law enforcement officers are facing?News reports have been full of TASER stories over the past several months, and many of them have provoked outrage and controversy—bloggers and newspaper reporters across the country have taken issue with the reasonableness of “tasing” (among others) a student who declined to yield the microphone at a political event, an elderly woman, a woman in a wheelchair, and a six-year-old child. In nearly every case, law enforcement officers and others stepped up in forums and editorials to explain why the use of a TASER had been perfectly reasonable under the circumstances. So, the debate rages about whether or not the use of a TASER was right in a particular high-profile case, whether or not TASERS are safe for use at all, whether or not TASERS should be legal and on and on and on. Unfortunately, with emotions running high and victims of apparently extreme tasings taking the spotlight, one basic and absolutely critical fact is being overlooked: these aren’t cases in which police have used TASERS instead of guns. They’re cases in which an officer using his gun would not only have been likely to have been suspended, but might very well have faced murder charges. In other words, in many cases TASERs don’t decrease the level of violence, but introduce violence into a situation in which it would clearly have been unacceptable without them. Consider again these recent high-profile TASER cases, but asking a different question. Rather than thinking about whether or not the officer “should” have used his TASER, think about whether or not he COULD have used his gun.
Were all of those tasered behaving reasonably? Of course not. Should some of their actions carry legal penalties? Probably. But with law enforcement officers and others continually repeating, “It’s better than shooting them, isn’t it?”, it’s important to consider just how often that really is the issue. It seems unlikely that police in the circumstances above would, in the absence of TASERs, felt comfortable and justified in using their guns. It seems certain that if they had, successful lawsuits and possibly criminal prosecutions would have followed. Reasonable people may be able to argue about the relative dangers and merits of TASERS. Even the Australian Medical Association has stated that they can save lives. But if they’re going to save lives, it will be because they truly are used in place of deadly force rather than any time an officer feels he isn’t shown the proper respect.
Set as favorite
Bookmark
Email This
Trackback(0)
Comments (3)
  written by Joel, March 26, 2008
What’s really maddening is the media’s complicity with TASER International in framing the terms of the argument. They follow the simplistic chain of reasoning that “TASER = non-lethal weapon” and “non-lethal = 100% safe”—then when someone actually dies, everybody is surprised. TASERs aren’t an exception to Occam’s razor; in the words of former President Bill Clinton, “It’s the 50,000 volts, stupid.”
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
 written by Bergman Oswell, March 27, 2008
...why do police, when confronted with a Taser-armed suspect, respond by drawing firearms?
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
 written by castocreations, April 03, 2008
I disagree...I'm sure there are times when tasers are used inappropriately but even for the stories above I do not think they are completely inappropriate. A 6 year old with a piece of glass could cause a lot of damage and if they cut just right could cause death. I don't know that tasing would be my first choice for a 6 year old though.
Pregnancy is not an excuse to ignore police orders. There are plenty of pregnant women in jail for breaking the law and there's no reason why a pregnant woman could not endanger the life of an officer. Using pregnancy as a defense is not legitimate. Just because a suspect is on the ground does not mean they are no longer a danger. If they are resisting they are continuing to disobey as well as adding potential danger to the officers. My husband is an officer and just had to use his taser for the first time last week. He had the guy on the ground and from the video you can't tell WHY he pulled the taser. He warned the guy three times that he was going to be tased if he didn't stop resisting. Apparently this guy was reaching for my husband's GUN! Of course you couldn't see that on the video so some might say that he used inappropriate force but I thank God that he used his taser rather than worrying about liberal bleeding hearts who are more concerned with criminal rights than about my hubby coming home safe and alive to me at night. Every officer in my husband's organization is required to be tased themselves before carrying a taser. And yes, it sucks. It left two little burn marks on hubby's back and he was only tased for one second. Some guys went for three. They are supposed to use theirs for 5 on a suspect. Hubby only used his for one on the guy. Officer discretion. It drives me crazy that when an officer is trying to do their job to maintain law and order that they get dinged for using force (NON deadly). The taser isn't the perfect answer to everything but it is a necessary tool in an officer's arsenal of options. And yes, it is better than pulling their guns. In the year that hubby has had his taser, this is the first time he had to use it on a suspect. And I thank God that he did. When the taser is used inappropriately officer actions will be reviewed. The system is not perfect but it's the best one we have. report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +1
Write comment
|
TrackBack URI for this entry
Subscribe to this comment's feed
Reality television survives, ironically, through a carefully maintained web of lies. Some of those lies are simple and wouldn’t surprise most people: spontaneous events are shot multiple times, scenes are filmed out of season, time sequences are misrepresented. But the larger lies are the ones sold to the participants—lies that are absolutely acceptable because the contract says so. When you step into reality television, you must agree—explicitly—to be deceived, and that you have no recourse if the outcome of that deception is harmful. All well and good, perhaps, for adults who understand what they’re getting into. But what about an etiquette-school teacher who thinks she’s part of a documentary and ends up in Borat’s movie? A child rented out to Kid Nation?