Historicist: Life in Wartime
Elsewhere in the Ist-a-Verse
If you're even a casual viewer of Cops, you'll know how spectacular a TASER takedown can be. Looking straight out of a Star Wars flick, this bug-zapper-for-people sends a whole whack of electricity into the body, disrupting muscular and nervous function and rendering the target helpless. The charge is meant to be non-lethal, and the various incarnations of the weapon have been widely adopted by police forces who enthusiastically hail their effectiveness.
The Toronto Police Department has been talking TASER for a long time. The Toronto ETF unit has been using them for a while and if you saw one strapped to the hip of a divisional officer, he or she was participating in a pilot program. Now, the Toronto Police Services Board announced that 439 new TASERs will be implemented into the force.
TASER is actually a brand name; an acronym for "Thomas A. Swift's Electric Rifle" (the original inventor, Jack Cover, was a Tom Swift sci-fi fan). The new electroshock weapons are costing the cops a little more than $2300 per "gun" to implement, but it's a welcome addition. The devices should give an officer less reason to draw a pistol, and they've proven to be effective against aggressive animals as well.
The use of electroshock weapons has not arrived without controversy. First of all, getting tased is unbelievably painful, and a subject can't fight through it while the charge is being applied. The weapon's infliction of extreme pain has caused some opponents to label TASERs inhumane. Secondly, electricity can stop a heart. There have been some cases where a TASER is believed to be a contributing factor to a death, though most suspect casualties proved to be a result of drugs, physical trauma during arrest, or a pre-existing medical condition.
Then there is the question of judgment. If an officer has a "less-lethal" electroshock weapon at their disposal, are they more likely to use it when pepper spray, baton, or even a concussion granade will do? Last month, B.C. Lions wide-receiver T.J. Acree was immobilized by a TASER while drunk and uncooperative following a street fight (Acree says he wasn't involved). Questions have been raised on whether it was an appropriate use of force under the circumstances, though Acree hasn't pressed charges.
How the weapon is used is also important, and Toronto Police will be extensively trained in their proper use (and even zapped themselves). A very short zap might be enough of a deterrent because it's so painful. A second or two won't bring someone to the ground, but they may have muscle contractions and get disoriented. Sustained current will completely render most people immobile. As with a firearm, officers must make a report when a TASER is activated.
TASER International claims that police shootings have dropped significantly as a result of their technology. Since 1998, TASER has sold 184,000 units to police forces worldwide. There's no doubt the devices work, but what the company once classified as "safe and non-lethal" has now changed to "safer and less-lethal" alternatives to deadly force.
TASER International has even posted a clip on their site of Toronto's ETF taking-down a suspected gunman. It's not yet clear which models our force will be using, but it's likely the most common device which involves a removable cartridge in the snout of the weapon that shoots barbs into the target's skin, sending 50,000 volts down fine wires tethered to the darts. Some models release confetti-like ID tags when fired to help with the post-investigation, and newer TASERs can record the exact date and time they were activated.
Images courtesy of TASER International and CityTV.
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
Not to be a spoilsport, but tasers are almost never used against a "gunman". People with guns get shot by police. Tasers are used against unarmed people who are uncooperative. At least 50 people have been killed over the past five years by tasers; a jolt of electricity strong enough to knock someone down is strong enough to kill if you have a weak heart or happen to be hit in the wrong place.
Tasers probably do reduce the injuries to police officers - black eyes, bruises, and the other sorts of injuries acquired when arresting someone who is struggling. But there's plenty of evidence that they are used unnecessarily; rather than talking down a distraught suspect, police will immediately go for the taser and baton. Overall they're probably a net loss to the public - people who wouldn't normally have ended up in a physical confrontation with police get tasered and beaten down because the weapon is deemed "less-than-lethal".
Interestingly, if you went around tasering your neighbors for fun, you would be charged with assault with a deadly weapon.
You're right -- the suspected gunman in the video clip was being coralled by the ETF, which so far is the only force in Toronto with Tasers, but also the force that deals with that type of situation.
The gunman in the video clip also had ETF rifles trained on him simultaneously, and had he made any sudden moves, he would undoubtedly have been shot.
As for the deaths invoving Tasers, the vast majority of them were drug related, and only a small amount were due to pre-existing physiological conditions. Though a Taser may have been a contributing factor to a death (stress-induced cardiac arrest on a PCP/meth-damaged heart, for example), there hasn't yet been a case where it has been ruled the actual cause. That's not to say that it's been ruled-out either.
In all of these suspect deaths, however, the subject was engaging in dangerous public behaviour that required police intervention (mostly drug-related). The police have a responsibility to act on these situations, and so far, the downsides seem to be greatly outweighed by the benefits. If I remember correctly, the voltage of todays Tasers is also much lower than it used to be to help belay concerns over their potential danger.
Obviously there are exceptions, but I'm of the school of thought that if the police are engaging you, you do what they say before any weapons are drawn and deal with discrepancies afterward. It's useless and stupid to resist arrest (unless, perhaps during a peaceful demonstration under the right of assembly, when weapons should rarely be engaged anyway).
I entirely believe that a cop may be more likely to pull a Taser than a firearm, but it's those times when a Taser is pulled instead of a firearm that make it worth employing to our officers. By the way, I think only street-level supervisors are to be equipped with Tasers in Toronto.
Frankly, I'd much rather be tasered for a few seconds than be pepper sprayed, hit with a baton, or have a police-issue Glock 9 pointed at me. More so, I try to avoid the likelihood of being in that situation in the first place!
A few points:
"As for the deaths invoving Tasers, the vast majority of them were drug related, and only a small amount were due to pre-existing physiological conditions. Though a Taser may have been a contributing factor to a death (stress-induced cardiac arrest on a PCP/meth-damaged heart, for example), there hasn't yet been a case where it has been ruled the actual cause. That's not to say that it's been ruled-out either."
I'm not sure why it matters if it matters if the deaths were drug-related or not. In fact, that exposes more reasons not to use tasers---if the majority of deaths are drug-related, and if the majority of caes cops will use tasers are drug-related, doesn't that indicate that taser use during drug-related incidents are dangerous?
Further, no matter what other factors are involved, that doesn't mitigate the fact that such deaths would not have occurred without the tasering.
"I entirely believe that a cop may be more likely to pull a Taser than a firearm, but it's those times when a Taser is pulled instead of a firearm that make it worth employing to our officers. By the way, I think only street-level supervisors are to be equipped with Tasers in Toronto."
I think the point was that a cop may be more likely to pull a taser than to actually engage in nonviolent ways of defusing a situation. This has been borne out in quite a number of cases across both Canada and the US.
Why would weapons be 'engaged' "during a peaceful demonstration under the right of assembly" at all?
Theoretically, weapons should never be engaged by officers during peaceful demonstrations, but unfortunately that's not always the case.
Robis: I fully agree that an officer would be more likely to pull a Taser when a weapon would otherwise not be used, and that's not a good thing. Nonetheless, when someone is out of their gourd on drugs, they often need to be subdued at the very least for their protection. Since physical contact with drug users also means a risk of being stuck with a needle, hidden weapon, or exposed to HIV+ blood, perhaps it's better in certain circumstances that the subject is immobilized before secured and arrested.
I'm sure officers prefer it sometimes over pepper spray, for example, since they often get caught in the spray/residue as well, and it it requires closer proximity.
Though I'm concerned about (and witnessed) excessive force used by our officers, I'm comfortable -- so far -- that they are receiving the proper training. Since a report must be filled-out when the Taser is fired, this should allow for a proper trail in case of investigation.
It may be MEANT to be nonlethal, but it has killed people. Hunter H. Cashdollar
Subduing a person who doesn't want to be subdued can lead to injury and death whether the police are using a taser, a billy club, or bare hands. In fact, an argument could be made that a taser charge is less dangerous than an uncontrolled free-for-all with several adrenalin charged cops. And obviously, the risk to police is less if the resisting individual can be taken down from a distance. Seems reasonable to me.
The question of whether police are prone to using force unnecessarily is worth asking, but doesn't have anything to do with tasers.
Why aren't they using net guns instead? C'mon, guns that fire nets. That's pretty cool.