Tazers In The News

[Lloyd Danforth]

OPED

Ban Stun Guns
August 17, 2006
Stun guns, those wonderful toys that allow police to disable suspects by piercing them with two darts that send electric current through their central nervous system, don't kill people or contribute to their deaths. The devices actually save lives and cut down on police injuries.

So goes the hype from Taser International of Scottsdale, Ariz., the leading manufacturer of the weapons, and testimonials from more than 9,000 police and military agencies, including 131 in Connecticut, that have added Tasers to their arsenal.

Perhaps it was just incredibly bad timing that caused about 180 suspects in the United States and Canada to drop dead shortly after police jolted them with stun guns. According to medical examiners, they really died of drug intoxication, bad health or their hearts just stopped beating through no fault of the Tasers. A very high number of post-tasing deaths were caused by "excited delirium syndrome," a recently discovered condition, not yet recognized by the American Medical Association or the American Psychiatric Association, that seems to occur only in police restraint fatalities.

That's right, all those people would have died anyway. Stun guns aren't dangerous at all. And my name is Daffy Duck.

Not only can stun guns cause serious injury, they've given casual torture a perversely fashionable appeal. Turning a suspect into a spastic pile of flesh by preventing his muscles from contracting for five seconds at a time has ceased to be repulsive - just another day at the office. Besides, those most likely to require zapping are street-corner drug addicts and emotionally disturbed poor people. So who cares?

But that's precisely why the state should follow the advice of Amnesty International and ban stun guns until it formulates consistent and coherent rules that address their potential to kill. Data shows that drug addicts and mental patients are also the most vulnerable to dying after being zapped.

Yet, the only unwavering guideline seems to be that a Taser should be fired as often as is appropriate to subdue a suspect - a standard open to very broad interpretation, depending on where you happen to be.

The absence of uniform criteria means that what may pass as excessive or inappropriate tasing in, say, West Hartford could be perfectly acceptable in New Britain, where Jesus Negron died last month after an officer stunned him twice in front of a witness who said Negron was handcuffed to a stairway railing when the second shot was fired. New Britain at least has a general set of written guidelines on Taser use. Stamford, which equipped its police department with Tasers only a few weeks ago, has no written rules.

Some police departments limit the number of times that a stun gun may be fired. Others don't. Some departments require a full written report whenever a stun gun is fired. Others can't be bothered with the paperwork simply because stun-gun use is already so routine that filling out reports would gridlock the agency. Some departments prohibit officers from zapping children, senior citizens and pregnant women and only seven states and the District of Columbia prohibit civilians from possessing stun guns. What's more, no one seems to know how much juice is enough. The strength of the electric current in a stun gun varies depending on the model and the manufacturer.

Still, Taser International has succeeded in building a perception that the gadgets are effective, safe and above reproach, an opinion aided by the firm's employment of off-duty police officers as Taser trainers. Taser International spokesman Steve Tuttle said that the company has compensated many trainers with stock options, an additional incentive for them to promote the product among colleagues as the greatest thing that ever happened to law enforcement.

Not that stun guns are a hard sell. Studies confirm that they do help to dramatically reduce police injuries and cops will embrace anything that improves their odds of making it to those fat retirement pensions without a scratch.

Unfortunately, the lack of regulation and the generally accepted principle that stun guns are harmless leave way too much room for the proverbial loose cannon with a badge to take a life needlessly and escape close scrutiny.

That's unconscionable. And until Connecticut closes that loophole, there should be a moratorium on stun gun use.

David Medina is an editorial writer at The Courant.


 

[Russell Kanning]

More Taser insanity: Taser International Inc. is suing a Police Medical Examiner after she determined that deaths were related to tasering incidents!

http://www.dvorak.org/blog/?p=8144

[Concord]

I certainly understand the positions from both sides in this matter.  I do believe the taser is justified when in a lethal force situation when it is used rather than a firearm first.  If it does not subdue, then unfortunately lethal force is still justified and the firearm can be utilized as we saw through a troopers case in NH not long back.  I do agree that there should be limits when they can be used.  I don't believe they should be used to make others comply in civil disobedience situations, etc.  It should be used when there is clear and articulable reasons to protect one self or another from fear of impending physical harm.

Do they cause death?  Who actually knows but the ones who study those matters?  As a Taser instructor, I have been shot with it about five times so far and I am still here blabbing about it. What that means in a debate? Probably nothing. 

Brian

[maineiac]

I certainly understand the positions from both sides in this matter.  I do believe the taser is justified when in a lethal force situation when it is used rather than a firearm first.  If it does not subdue, then unfortunately lethal force is still justified and the firearm can be utilized as we saw through a troopers case in NH not long back.  I do agree that there should be limits when they can be used.  I don't believe they should be used to make others comply in civil disobedience situations, etc.  It should be used when there is clear and articulable reasons to protect one self or another from fear of impending physical harm.

Do they cause death?  Who actually knows but the ones who study those matters?  As a Taser instructor, I have been shot with it about five times so far and I am still here blabbing about it. What that means in a debate? Probably nothing. 

Brian

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that your opinion is slightly biased.

Have you received any remunerative stock packages?

[Spencer]

Equating Tasers as an alternative to gun use by cops is wrong: Tasers are neat "toys" that the cops love to (over)use.  They don't even represent an alternative to night sticks and fists -- they are relied upon far too often by cops to achieve what a tap on the shoulder or a loudly-spoken "have a seat" can -- and used to -- accomplish.

[aries]

i'd rather be knocked out cold with a night stick rather than be tazed

[Michael Fisher]

We should make some satirical videos of the recent tazer-gestapo attacks.

Some of us will dress up as cops and approach someone just minding their own business. We'll ask a few questions, then proceed to taze the person senselessly and repeatedly. With some creative video editing, the person could be replaced with a dummy which then bursts into flames. Then we put out the fire and throw the dummy into the police car with the logo: "To Serve and Protect the Government"

It would be funny if it weren't so real.

[Russell Kanning]

In the Marlborough case, I believe the taser and then gun were used on a man running away from a state trooper goon. Is that anyone's idea of justified?

[Ron Helwig]

Police should not be armed with anything. If they need to use force, they should get bystanders/citizens to do it. That would go a long way towards returning police to their traditional job.

[Spencer]

In the Marlborough case, I believe the taser and then gun were used on a man running away from a state trooper goon. Is that anyone's idea of justified?

In Portland a couple of years back they used a gun (killing the motorist, James Jahar Perez) then a Tazer on the corpse (they cycled it through for approximately three minutes).  The only reason that anyone found out the order of things was that a nearby citizen had an audiotape recorder, so you could clearly hear the gunshots followed by several minutes of the crackling of a Tazer.

Portland cops love their Tazers, as the following incident resulting in a $145,000 settlement illustrates:

The incident began when the woman, Eunice Crowder, challenged city employee Ed Marihart, who was forcibly cleaning up her yard based on a search warrant. Marihart called 911 and officers Robert Miller (#38512) and Eric Zajac (#3783) arrived. One of the officers struck her in the head, causing her false eye to come out. According to the April 23 Oregonian, police admitted pushing her into the dirt. Zajac Tasered her in the back twice and once in the breast. Crowder's 94-year-old mother, who came out and tried to let them know Crowder was hearing and vision-impaired, was not harmed. A judge dismissed charges against Crowder of harassment and interfering with a police officer.

http://www.portlandcopwatch.org/PPR33/Tasers33.html

[aries]

I wonder if they train cops not to have remorse in the academy or just reward them enough when they do kill or beat up old women that they come to believe they've done good

[Concord]

"I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that your opinion is slightly biased.

Have you received any remunerative stock packages?"

Actually, no I have not, and clearly you have no understanding of who I am or what I stand for.  I am probably one of the most vocal people against police corruption issues in Concord.  I do believe there is a time for Taser and I do believe they are misused.  That said, I will reiterate, "It should be used when there is clear and articulable reasons to protect one self or another from fear of impending physical harm."

Of those officers who misuse it, fire them and prosecute.

Also, as a civilian and LE pepperspray instructor, I would rather take a 5 second ride on the Taser than be sprayed with OC any day. 

By the way, that little quote below my info here, that's mine.  BKB

[Michael Fisher]

"I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that your opinion is slightly biased.

Have you received any remunerative stock packages?"

Actually, no I have not, and clearly you have no understanding of who I am or what I stand for.  I am probably one of the most vocal people against police corruption issues in Concord.  I do believe there is a time for Taser and I do believe they are misused.  That said, I will reiterate, "It should be used when there is clear and articulable reasons to protect one self or another from fear of impending physical harm."

Of those officers who misuse it, fire them and prosecute.

Also, as a civilian and LE pepperspray instructor, I would rather take a 5 second ride on the Taser than be sprayed with OC any day. 

By the way, that little quote below my info here, that's mine.  BKB

You're right. We wouldn't want to be anti-tazer (inanimate objects), just anti-government, and especially anti-police abuse.

[Michael Fisher]

Police should not be armed with anything. If they need to use force, they should get bystanders/citizens to do it. That would go a long way towards returning police to their traditional job.

Police should be allowed to carry like any other citizen. But their legal immunities must be taken away, or at least people should not be prosecuted for protecting themselves from the police.

[SeanSchade]

Police should not be armed with anything. If they need to use force, they should get bystanders/citizens to do it. That would go a long way towards returning police to their traditional job.

That would make them pretty ineffective. There are a lot more good cops out there than bad cops.

I think LEO's should be held MORE accountable for their actions. I also think the misuse or overuse of force needs to be monitored more closely, and punitive actions taken when it occurs.