TheAgitator.com
Taser Files
Tuesday, December 4th, 2007John Cole’s got a doozy: toweled deaf man taking a bath is Tasered for not obeying officers’ commands, after they mistakenly entered his home.
A few thoughts on the Taser debate:
When I was at Cato, I remember someone asking if I wanted to attend a propaganda session from the folks at Taser International, where they’d planned to defend the mass use of their product by police. I declined because I was working on some other issues, but Taser International did send me some literature. They push the “non-lethal” stuff pretty hard, arguing that it’s a safer alternative to bullets. That’s true, of course. The problem is that (a) there seem to be a troubling number of stories death-following-a-Tasering of late that cast doubt on the blanket “non-lethal” claim, and (b) I fear that repeated iteration of the “non-lethal” claim may well make police officers more inclined to use the thing than they otherwise might be.
As for (a), I’ve heard Taser defenders say that a Taser has rarely if ever been solely implicated in a death, that such deaths are usually the result of pre-existing conditions, drugs or alcohol in the system, or a mysterious ailment called “excited delirium.” I guess my response to that would be that if these conditions can be lethal when combined with the shock of a Taser, then the Taser isn’t “non-lethal.” You’re using the thing on the general population, where there are going to be pre-existing conditions. And given that you’re arming police officers with them, it’s certainly likely that you’ll be using them on people with drugs or alcohol in their system.
As for (b), witness the glut of videos of Taser-ees who don’t seem to pose much of an actual threat to police, themselves, or anyone else, who get the shock treatment for little more than mouthing off, being uncooperative, or otherwise not showing due deference and respect to a police officer. I think you should, in most cases, show due deference and respect to a police officer. But people who don’t oughtn’t be subjected to a paralyzing jolt of electricity. Not unless they pose a threat. There are better ways of dealing with people than assaulting them. Even if you do think not immediately obeying a police officer’s orders warrants a stun, there have been plenty of incidents in the news over the last few months showing how such a policy can go wrong–see the stories about Taserings of people in insulin shock, people who don’t speak English and can’t understand officer commands, or, like the story above, people who simply can’t hear, for example.
On a related note, it looks like Taser International is now sending chill letters to bloggers who write about Taser-related deaths. The claim that “Taser” is a copyrighted trademarked term that only Taser International can give permission to use is particularly lame. The may be on firmer ground when it comes to someone who has explicitly written that a Tasering caused a death when that hasn’t been proven, though there’s not much of anything they can do about someone merely noting the troubling number of deaths following a Tasering. More generally, though, cease-and-desist letters are bullying, and the sort of thing you expect from a company on the defensive, not from a company that’s confident in its product.
CORRECTION: The letter said “Taser” is a trademark, not a copyrighted term. My mistake.
The criminal law is pretty clear on what happens when you assault someone who has a “pre-existing condition.” If the person dies, you are liable for the person’s death, under the well recognized principle that “you take your victim as you find them.” AKA the eggshell skull doctrine.
Of course, there are a lot of legal presumptions that are there to protect the police from bad things that happen when they act reasonably. For example, the police would not be guilty of murder unless they had no legitimate reason, like deciding to tazer someone for fun and the person died.
However, if you can keep showing that the Tazer is dangerous, more dangerous than supposed, then a court might not be so deferential to indiscriminate use of Tazers: they don’t automatically assume that it is appropriate to shoot someone, for example.
So, keep up the good fight Radley. More exposure can only help.
Why should the police be allowed to use a taser except as a defensive weapon? Based on the logic that says they should be allowed to use it with people who are simply being rude or mildly resistant (any male cop should be able to overpower most suspects with his bare hands!), it should be reasonable in these same situations to allow a cop to pistol whip people for the same offenses.
Pistol whipping someone is generally non-lethal too. Not too different from a night stick or a taser hit when you get to the sheer amount of pain the person would experience.
So how about it? Why can’t cops get away with a good ol’ pistol whipping of a citizen under the same circumstances?
I don’t understand the use of the phrase “non-lethal.” Nothing is “non-lethal.” I also don’t understand how this many police departments have failed so miserably to train their officers in basic escalation of force. Tasers should ONLY be used in a situation where one would feel justified using a firearm.
Of course, to say I don’t understand doesn’t mean I’m surprised. “New professionalism,” indeed.
You’re just looking for a zapping, aren’t you? “Mr. Balko, I find your blog threatening to me…” ZZZZZAP!
Seriously though, I’m much more worried about being tased by some overzealous cop that has had a bad morning than I am about being assaulted by a real criminal. Maybe I just read this blog too much.
MikeT makes a good point. Take the video of the guy stopped in the construction zone. Granted, arguing with a cop is stupid (you’ve got a pretty good shot at getting tased), but how would people have reacted if the guy had turned around and the cop took out his nightstick and gave the guy a couple of kidney shots with it? I’m sure police sympathizers, and other police would have been okay if the cop had shot him in the leg, but let’s talk about normal people.
I suppose the good thing in all of this is that my mistrust of the police will exempt me from jury duty on a huge number of cases.
Robert,
Well said.
I tried to explain to a friend that I wanted to get myself some protection to defend myself from cops, and not so much from criminals, and he looked at me like I was nuts. I give him a month of reading this site before he gets himself some pepper spray, you know, in case his door gets kicked down by some jack-booted thugs.
Oh, and my dog sleeps in her crate every night. God knows what would happen if those thugs busted down my door and she looked at them the wrong way (pretty blue bow in her hair and all).
The “non-lethal” except when the taser kills somebody point is definitely important, but the real crux of the issue is the way in which police ACTUALLY USE tasers. They don’t use the taser instead of the guns, they use it instead of wrestling someone to the ground or using the billy club or pepper spray (or saying come here, I’m going to handcuff you, you’re under arrest). Or disturbingly, they use tasers because they feel like inflicting pain on someone.
It makes sense too; would you rather shoot somebody with a taser from a distance or have to go and exert physical energy to subdue someone (or hurt them)? Besides, getting on top of a guy and pounding on him will probably be seen as “police brutality” by most people, whereas giving the guy a “ride on the taser”, even repeatedly, is okay in most people’s eyes because it’s “non-lethal”.
1. The word “Taser” cannot be copyrighted. It does not meet the necessary standard for a creative work. In any case, even if the word _could_ be copyrighted, its use in a discussion regarding the safety of the product would constitute a textbook example of fair-use.
2. The word “Taser” CAN be trademarked, but to face action under trademark law the defendant would have to be another business seeking to capitalize on the TASER brand name by creating confusion in the minds of consumers.
In short, Taser International is blowing smoke. It is as bad as the case in Australia of the suburban beekeeper who claimed that he had copyrighted his own name and that any use of his name in a police report or complaint to the city council would violate his copyright and be subject to a fine of many thousands of dollars.
All bullshit, of course.
heh, I was going to write exactly what Cranston said, but he beat me to it.
What gets me is that any law student who takes a single course in IP law would know that. Heck, anybody who reads an encyclopedia entry on ‘copyrights’ would know that. Why would Taser Int.’s lawyers send out letters that contain clearly unenforceable legal demands, with clearly erroneous legal claims?
Do they claim that the punishment for copyright infringement is 40 jolts?
Well we can call it electrically convinced to give up, and in some cases die by the chair without due process!
It’s really too bad that Andy Griffith shows are not a requirement of weekly training by all of those carrying a badge.
Might help us separate the Andy’s from the Barney’s. That alone would be a big help!
Re: the name”Taser” being trademarked: I suggest we all start using the device’s proper name … according to the company, Taser is an acronym for “Thomas A Swift Electric Rifle!” Yep, that’s what it stands for … 1930′s juvenile science fiction to the rescue.
I laugh at the phrase “non-lethal.” EVERYTHING is lethal. Even water is lethal (if you drink too much, you die of water poisoning, or you could just drown in a waterboarding session with the government). We all know that electricity is lethal. It’s a matter of dosage but all humans are not the same. Some can take a much smaller voltage/amperage than the general population before they die. It’s just how nature made us.
Which is why many departments use the phrase “Less-Lethal”
It is not as easy as you may think to cuff a person who does not want to be cuffed. You have to arrest somebody that is not threatening you, but needs to be arrested. So, you ask but if that person refuses you might have to use a pain complaince. Armbar, pepper spray, cuffs, and yes even a Taser.
Just becasue there are jerks that abuse power does not mean we have to give up on tool that I believe is safer to the perp than a nightstick or even wrestling on the floor where a head can be hit or bones broken on the cop or perp.
It bothers me that even a disagreement with a cop,or being rude, seems to be a reason to jolt people.I have worked with the public all my life and owned a barber/beauty shop in a mall for many years.I have deal with my share of unruly clients.Suffering fools gladly comes with the job.Around the holidays it’s worse.I’ve always believed diplomacy is telling you to go to hell in a way you will look forward to the trip.Of course I didn’t have a badge,a gun and the force of the law to back my actions.
People should carry their own tazers and fry some bacon next time they get all chuck norris on us. The pigs work for US! They need to show US some respect for a change.
Tasers are just as violent as striking a suspect with a nightstick. It just doesn’t look that way. Do you think there would have been the same reaction to the Rodney King beating if he were laying on the ground being repeatedly tasered? Police inflicting pain not in prevention of immediate harm but to bring compliance is ripe for abuse. Can’t someone come up with a technology that immobilizes a suspect without resorting to inflicting physical harm or intense pain?
Arguing that a Taser is safer than bullets denies the reality of their use. Police aren’t using them as an alternative to bullets, they’re using them as an alternative to billy clubs.
I wonder if the literature sent to the press is different from the literature sent to police departments. Seems like the selling points are “cleaner and faster than clubs, now your smaller officers (read: women) have a better chance”, etc. Imagine the Rodney King video with Tasers instead of clubs, the officers wouldn’t look like psychotic thugs. Sure we have Tasering videos now, but most of their appaeal is along the lines of “wow, cool!” rather than “the cops went ape shit”.
Taser cannot require you to use or not use the word Taser when discussing the Taser. Ignore any such “demands.”
The first point I wanted to make has already been mentioned, but I will reiterate it anyway: Taser is supposed to be an alternative to using a gun, not an alternative to restraint. But in many of the videos we see, at least, it seems to be used before even a billy club or handcuffs would be appropriate.
Second, you should be able to argue with a cop if he is wrong without it being interpreted as resistance or disrespect. Hell, you should be allowed to disarm and restrain a cop if he is out of control of acting dangerously.
It is not as easy as you may think to cuff a person who does not want to be cuffed.
This sounds like stereotypical police officer whining.
Of course it’s hard to cuff someone. No shit, Sherlock. That’s why you’re supposed to use discretion, have proper training, and stay in shape.
does not mean we have to give up on tool that I believe is safer to the perp than a nightstick
More bullshit. Police use the Taser to make their job easier, the safety of the perp has always been propaganda. I know several police officers (chicago) and every one of them says the “safety of the perp” is never the the first concern. Basically, it’s “subdue the perp, ask questions later.” And I’m not disagreeing with that priority, what I mostly disagree with the widening definition of “perp”. More often than not it’s a matter of filling arrest quotas.
The thing you have to ask is how many lives have been saved because of the Taser? Cop comes upon wacked out guy with knife, guy won’t drop knife. Before Taser, cop shoots guy with knife with firearm. Now, cop uses Taser – guy with knife doesn’t die. I’m pro Taser because I think a lot of people would be dead from police shootings who are now alive because of the Taser.
The other thing is (excepting possible deaths) Taser doesn’t cause lasting damage. Given the choice between being stomped by police and suffering days, if not weeks or months of pain and discomfort following the drubbing, I would take a few seconds of intense pain.
My cop friend’s force says Taser is on the same place as fisticuffs on the use of force continum. So on that force If a cop can swing at you, he can Tase you. The problem with so many of these cases we see on youtube is that the Cop didn’t have the right to use any force at all. Until a sufficient number of citizens demand proper police behavior we will continue to see the regular disregard for rights by the police.
Russ It’s not whining it’s fact. Yes you stay in shape and train. So what. I am sure you could do it but most mere mortals can’t I don’t care how strong or welltrained you are. I know becasue I have been there. Not watched Youtube and become an expert on police matters.
Yes it makes my job easier. I do want to go home and see my kids and family. And while my going home in one piece is my first concern that does not mean the safety of others is not a concern. For mean it’s because I am a Christian for others it may mean that don’t want to deal with AL Sharpton. But whatever the reasons most cops do not go out there wanting to hurt people.
It’s funny how upset you guys get here as seen by the language, I wonder how well any of you would do in situations that I have been in where somebody is trying to kill you? Some of you can’t control yourself here.
The Taser is a tool, and as it happens, a damn fine one. I have had the pleasure of watching a fight with a big, desperate convicted felon come to a sudden end when he got the shock. I was incredibly glad, because the three deputies wrestling with him to that point weren’t getting the job done and he was heading right toward me. He was looking right in my eyes when he shuddered and fell.
The problem is, for the most part we do a lousy job of training cops to subdue people. It’s even worse at colleges and other places that try to play cop to varying degrees. Budgets shrink and training dollars are among the first to go.
Both the UCLA Library incident and the “don’t tase me, bro” farce, as examples, could have been avoided completely if the cops in question had been smart enough to just pick up the twerp in question, one to a limb and one with a grip on his money-maker to “ensure compliance,” and carry him out of the building.
A cop with little or no practical skill at subduing a suspect — or for that matter, no skill at threat assessment — will reach for the Taser with way too little provocation. This is not a problem that will go away until we get a lot more serious about teaching cops how to handle difficult situations. Until then, we’ll see many more inocent towel-draped deaf guys get zapped.
The “electronic device designed to incapacitate people through the use of a high-voltage shock” (Don’t want to get sued for trademark infringement) should only be used in situations where use of a firearm would be authorized.
Marty,
How often have you been in situations where someone is trying to kill you? Is it a daily occurrence or is it rare? Either way, I don’t think that anyone would begrudge an officer using lethal force in such situations.
One of the problems here is that the public and the police are working from very different assumptions. To the average person, for instance, asking “Why are you arresting me?” wouldn’t rise to resisting arrest or presenting any threat to the officer. To an officer trained to regard “non-compliance” as a potentially lethal situation, it would. The trouble is that no one bothered to notify that public that officers were being trained this way(as they mightnot stand for it).
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I think Taser has changed their definition of the taser from “non-lethal” to more of a “less-lethal” alternative to bullets. I can’t remember where I read that though, so I could be completely wrong.
That being said, any weapon (lethal or non) should be used with extreme caution and only to defend the safety of the officer or the public (or to make hilarious youtube videos), not as a coercion tool or an easier way to get someone in handcuffs.
Where somebody is actually trying to kill me rare, though it has happened and there are other more common situations where the person is not trying to intentionaly hurt me but he is putting my life in danger.
The question “why are you arresting me?” is not in and of itself resisting and is not a threat. I have arresting people who just stabbed or shot someone and that ask that question. I was never trained to think it was. I don’t know where they train that way.
Non Compliance is not asking a just question. There are levels of non-compliance and some, yes can be deadly. Yes the public would be outraged to hear that asking questions is resisting. But, I don’t know where asking questions is considered non-comploance. Actions can indicate non-compliance.
David, I am not, in anyway condoning what some cops do. I appreciate the work that Radley does here. We live in a free society, that yes is still free. Nobody is looking to leave this country.
We need to point out cops that do wrong. I agreed with Radley’s post just disagreed with some comments.
Apparently Taser(tm) International doesn’t understand or thinks others don’t understand what trademark law allows them to claim or do with a trademark.
First, you can never force anyone who simply refers to your trademark to do *anything other than acknowledge your trademark* if they are not trying to use the trademark for *direct commercial gain through its use or misrepresentation*.
In other words, at most, and possibly not even that, you can require that someone *refer to the trademarked word or phrase with the appropriate ™ tm or ® (R) symbol. That’s all they can do based on trademark law itself. They can sue you for defamation if you slander or libel the good name of the company represented by the trademark but that has no different burden of proof on their part than if you bad-mouthed the CEO.
Second, the trademark appellations: “tm” is for an unregistered trademark. You can put a “tm” on anything you want but it only means you’ve planted a stake in the ground for later formal registration or for pending but unaccepted registration. You can use the “tm”-ed word or phrase and if it had a “tm” the whole time (and every time) you used it, that time would be counted as part of your “continuity of use” argument if you ever went to court to defend the mark. “tm” doesn’t grant you anything thing else at all! And if you don’t and haven’t used at least “tm” in all literature and communications with that word then you don’t even have the continuity argument to stand on – only the threat of deep pockets for lawyering up but not the law itself.
The “(R)” is a registered mark. You can only use it if your mark has been registered and accepted by the government. This doesn’t mean you can keep it though. You must continually use it and you must continually defend its use. The scope of what you can do defend it is limited to the point above (namely and narrowly get people who use the term to apply “™” or “®” , and possibly a parenthetical of the company name, and that’s about it).
If you say anything derogatory about “Tasers” the most they can enforce under trademark law is that your apply a “™” or “®” or sue you to acknowledge such. They can not use trademark law to handle slander or libel based on not likely what you are saying about them or their product. They have to handle those exactly as if you had said “Tasers® Deaths” or “Tasers™ Deaths” and said they are “lethal weapons” rather than the misrepresentation otherwise. Label the word “taser” that and you are in complete compliance of any trademark law, if they have a defensible mark in the first place.
However, other generics like kleenex, xerox and google managed to get away from the trademark holders pretty easily by being “verbified”. Given that you could probably show that most of their customers (police departments, etc.) have integrated the word “taser” as a verb throughout public documents for a decade or more, they probably don’t even have a defensible mark in the first place!
i’d welcome a non-lethal alternative for police officers – i’d rather get zapped then capped.
however, i believe we’re seeing a growing willingness by officers to use tazers as a pain compliance device. this concerns me because it places you further along an authoritarian path. the majority of the tazer videos i’ve seen did not justify tazer use. in most of them the officer acted to control the situation in an overtly oppressive manner and just shut down the perp because the encounter wasn’t going the way the officer wanted it to. this says a lot about our current policing techniques and also about the establishment’s current attitude towards dissent and opposition.
the tazer, while it may have reasonable beginnings has morphed into an instrument of control and pain compliance.
Joe Horn in Texas shoots two on lawn across from his house and is not charged. WOW! Of course there will be a grand jury, but not charged by police. They perps had no gun! Why not wrestle the them to the ground?
If this were a cop libertarians would be outraged. I guess life only matters when cops take the life? Or drugs are involved. I noticed on another libertarian site outrage when a cop unintentionaly took a life and was not charged but this is not mentioned. Why?
Now, undertand I support Joe Horn protecting his property and home. He did not know the owner of this house but I will wait for the grand jury. I think he will not be charged. I support the 2nd amendment, property and local police.
http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=145182
Robert #4: Seriously though, I’m much more worried about being tased by some overzealous cop that has had a bad morning than I am about being assaulted by a real criminal. Maybe I just read this blog too much.
I think you’re reading this blog too much. Yes, there’s an awful lot of evidence of overzealous cops getting happy with the lightning juice lately. But there’s a hell of a lot more violent criminals around.
(I won’t get into the reasons why there are so many criminals, just a short “WAR ON DRUGS” should cover it.)
You’re better off if your threat model matches reality. I mean, sure, treat police officers with the deference you’d give a mad dog, certainly, and you’re unlikely to get zapped. That’s one part of your threat model. But don’t ignore the danger from muggers and what not, and you’re less likely to be surprised by them.
“But there’s a hell of a lot more violent criminals around.”
Are there? And compared to when? It was my understanding that violent crime rates have generally been tending downwards for some time in most parts of the country.
I’m trying to be supportive of Marty but I’m falling a little short. Most of his argument seems based on the assumption of guilt and and the myth of the constant life threat they live under. BUT, he admits the actual situation count is rare. David, you said it right on that we are clearly operating on different assumptions and it’s the police that need to change or need more training, not more brainwashing the public to be more supportive of the police state. As for non compliance never happening: Last year I was DD while using a friends car, pulled over for DUI for wandering a lane on an unfamiliar road. I refused a illegal field sobriety test and was arrested for non-compliance and suspicion of DUI. I blew -0- of course and they made my paperwork disappear (although there has to be some record of it somewhere). But the reasoning itself was as stupid as it gets. No amount of reasonable explanation was enough, I was guilty from the moment they targeted our vehicle as we left the bar. Trust goes both ways and our police depts. lose more every day for a whole variety of issues. If the police can’t deal with the pressure, quit taking paid leave for mistakes and get real time off and take a vacation, OR, get a different job, that’s what everyone else is expected to do.
Marty,
From the article you linked, I’d say that horn deserves to be charged with manslaughter at the least. He was personally in no danger until he confronted to two thieves, and it doesn’t sound like his neighbors were in physical danger either.
The obvious difference between why libertarians would be indifferent to a shooting like the Horn’s and one involving a police officer is that police are agents of the state. Also, their cases are investigated by coworkers who may or may not do so objectively, and rarely with any transparency.
David hits the nail on the head.
The taser, if used in the right circumstances, seems to me to be a very effective tool to preserve the safety of anyone involved in a potentially threatening situation.
The problem is that tasers are being used inappropriately. The attitude of the police needs to change, the only way to bring about this change is for there to be strict oversight of the conduct of officers and stiff punishments for those officers that step over the line.
I personally believe that things are going to get much worse before they get any better, but as long as I’m free to voice my opinion (I’m sure cops would love to shut people like me up) I’m going to do so. Commenting here is basically preaching to the choir, but it’s a good outlet.
Officer deaths have been in a steady decline since the 70s, well before Tasers were introduced into the mix. Police shootings have also been dropping since the 70s. The right question to ask is, since there has been a trend for a long, long time to less officers killing and being killed, why is there such a surge of taser use and misuse?
Officer deaths have been in a steady decline since the 70s, well before Tasers were introduced into the mix. Police lethal force use has also been dropping since the 70s. The right question to ask is, since there has been a trend for a long, long time to less officers killing and being killed, why is there such a surge of taser use and misuse?
If Joe Horn lived in say… New Jersey, he would most likely be in jail, and facing charges.
Regardless of how much libertarians yelled and screamed bloody murder, if it were a cop that shot some people it’s very unlikely he or she would see any jail time. If I accidentally shoot someone, I go to prison, if a cop accidentally shoots someone… too bad for the guy who got shot. That has to change.
Just link me to the web site listing all of the police officers that have been fired and prosecuted for crimes commited while on duty. Maybe I’ll change my opinion. Until then, I’ll take the dozens of stories where police abuse their authority to comit crimes and get away scott free as evidence that something is gravely wrong.
As I’ve seen mentioned on other sites, the danger as I perceive it is the predominating use of Tasers as a “pain compliance” tool. Someone is being belligerent or non-cooperative, so the officer uses the Taser to force compliance. In fact, police departments have already stated such a use of the Taser is legitimate. As a result, I think it won’t be long before we see this defense being used in court to justify police behavior, at which point such use will be codified as law.
Unfortunately, there seems to be a whole rash of new, “non-lethal” energy weaponry being developed (such as microwave weapons) that will soon be used as pain compliance tools for crowd control.
Robert there are two in the news Right now….Border Agent Ramos and Campean both in Jail right Now just do a search or go to WorldNetDaily.
There are four or five cops in Queens NYC that have a trial upcoming and are being prosecuted for shooting an unarmed man.
A few years ago after the Diallo shooting in the Bronx cops were prosecuted but a jury declared them not guilty.
That’s three off the top of my head I will look into more.
I just showed you a guy who in TExas who was not prosecuted.
Robert who goes to jail for accidentally shooting somebody? Even in New Jersey. So, in your mind if you shoot somebody by accident you go to jail. Really? Your in NJ do your remember Bernie Getz? No jail time for the shooting just unregistered gun.
RE: Trademark
TASER = Tom A. Swift Electric Rifle
Robert
I am a cop, work with cops and am related to cops. Believe me no cop wants to shut you up or anybody on this site. They may argue with you but they do not want you to shut up.
We have had meant come to our academy and range to practice in shot don’t shoot situations on the computer based on actual situations. It’s interesting to see guys with no guns getting lit up by ACLU lawyers.
This is why so many hae respect for their local police even while pointing out wrong decisions and outright abuse. I have a lot of respect for those people including the guys like that on this site’s combox.
Further to my point:
If pain compliance is a legitimate use for the Taser, what constitutes the threshold for belligerence or non-compliance for such use? The road we travel down if we accept this use for the Taser is that cops will get less confrontation de-escalation training because who needs to be reasonable when you can put someone on the ground with 50,000 volts and suffer very little scrutiny or reprecussions?
The short-term problem is that the Taser is in danger of being the fall-back tool of the untrained (insecure, power-hungry, megalomaniacal) officer in the field. (The long term problem, as I see it, is at the end of my post.)
Someone said to me recently, “Hey, I remember when they used to just club you over the head, so this Taser thing is a good idea.” But that seems to be a false choice to me. A new tool, which can be used wisely but rarely is, should not be considered substitution for proper training.
If we legitimize Tasers as a non-lethal, pain-compliance tool rather than as a potentially leathal weapon (which it clearly is) we’re simply inviting it to be used on people don’t comply with an order to disperse from a lawful protest rally, or on people who get a little mouthy, or on poor deaf guys who have their doors kicked in by cops who got the wrong address in the first place.
And ultimately, it’s not so much the Taser per se that I have a problem with. I’m confident it could be a legitimate tool for law enforcement if properly used. But I’m disturbed that its use has become so expansive and unregulated in such a short amount of time and that police departments across the county have become apologists for obvioulsy over-zealous use by their officers.
This, it seems, is how it all starts. The legitimization of pain-compliance tools in the civilian arena without oversight or clear rules of engagement will lead to the use of pain-compliance weapons on the civilian population in order to control/disrupt lawful dissent.
Because, in the end, the question becomes: Compliant to who?
Published: February 19, 2005
y The Associated Press
A former New York police officer who pleaded guilty to federal civil rights charges in the 1998 death of a drug suspect he hit in the head with a walkie-talkie was sentenced yesterday to 2 years and 11 months in prison.
Judge Victor Marrero of United States District Court issued the sentence to Craig Yokemick, 36, who pleaded guilty in August to two felony charges.
Advertisement
Mr. Yokemick had admitted violating the civil rights of the suspect, Kenneth Banks, when he hurled the two-pound police radio at him as he tried to escape on a bicycle. Mr. Banks later died of trauma to the head.
A grand jury cleared Mr. Yokemick in 1999 of using excessive force, and the city reportedly paid Mr. Banks’s family $750,000 in a civil settlement.
*one* quick little question, marty.
what would cops say if a homeowner accidently tased a cop who’d come onto his property? say if the cop was chasing a bad guy; the homeowner was worried about said bad guy; the homeowner was “fearful for his safety”, which seems to be a key phrase; and the homeowner mistook the cop – who, in this instance, was dressed up as a badass ninja **warrior!!**, which cops seem to love to do so much – ….
and the homeowner somehow owned a taser, and tased the cop with it?
what that be ok with you cops? it WOULD, right? nonlethal force, right? he “feared for his safety”, right? what if it was one of those amazingly frequent “isolated incidents” where the individual who got tased – completely safe, mind you: taser tells us so – then proceeded to up and DIE? a cop accidently killed by a homeowner. sad sad sad. ah, well. honest mistakes occur, no?
how ’bout that? speaking as a cop, would you or your cop friends just shrug and tell yourselves “accidents happen”? “nobody at fault”? would you encourage the DA not to prosecute?
or would you howl bloody murder and demand the homeowner be prosecuted? and if so, why? why should the homeowner in this hypothetical be held to a different standard than a cop’d done the same thing to the homeowner? or a grandmaw who’d gotten too lippy to suit him? or an unhappy speeder? or a foreign guy who didn’t understand why he’d been kept locked up in an office for 10 hours? or a naked guy getting out of his own bathtub? etc etc?
you’re mad at the old fart in texas not getting in trouble for shooting baddies, right? so it’s CLEAR you hate double standards, right?
Well, Since you did not read what I posted and want to just post what you think cops would say. I will repeat:
I support the Old Fart! Did you hear? I support him and the 2nd amendment. I was not mad here at anytime.
In 12 years ,two people, once in a house and once in an apartment mistook me for non-cop. One sent his dog after me and the other threw hot sauce on me. The sauce was hot and hurt like hell but did not burn. I yelled a bit becasue of pain but neither person went to jail. The dog scared me but I knew it was the owners. And although basicly pinned me did not bite.
A Taser is Less Lethal force. Not non lethal.
As far as the person usign the Taser on the Ninja you speak of I will have to think about it and see if I can find a similar situation where somebody killed a cop by mistake.
no, marty, word-for-word you said: “joe horn in texas shoots two on lawn on lawn across from his house and is not charged. WOW! of course there will be a grand jury, but not charged by police. the perps had no gun! why not wrestle them to the ground? if this were a cop, libertarians would be outraged. i guess life only matters when cops take the life?”
does that sound like you “support” him?
of course, later on you DO make the obligatory “i support him + the 2nd amendment” disclaimer necessary to keep you in good stead on a libertarian blog. but it’s weak, marty. weak weak weak.
from *your own words*, it appears that:
1) you’re not at all happy at the mere suggestion that cops be held accountable for their actions
2) you sense your argument isn’t too strong, so you attempt to cloud the topic with another story on a different topic
3) in order to claim the moral high ground, you resort to clintonian mealymouthed positions on BOTH SIDES of the issue.
you also neglected to tell us if you think someone who accidently kills an on-duty cop should not be prosecuted. you don’t need to look up a case where this happened: balko has done so extensively. google “cory maye”. let us know whatcha think.
Ummm… why even create a hypothetical? This blog is full of examples of what happens when a civilian isn’t a pychic and doesn’t realize that those guys dressed all in black breaking into his/her house in the middle of the night really are police and not some of the smarter seedier elements of the bad neighborhoods they live in.
The real problem for cops is the blue wall of silence that protects the assholes, degenerates, idiots, and criminals of the police force. If cops would stop covering up for those idiots, it would go a long way towards repairing their image. Until they stop doing that cops really don’t have a leg to stand on when complaining about civilians not respecting them. Respect is a two way street, and it’s earned not bestowed on someone because of the outfit they wear.
Okay, so you’ve found 3, two involving a cop killing someone trying to flee, and another (the Queens case) in which a cop fired 31 shots at unarmed victims. Don’t you have to reload at least once to fire off 31 shots? Wouldn’t you think in that amount of time you could figure out that your victims aren’t shooting back?
Why would someone be convicted in federal court of violating someones civil rights for killing them? Because either they got off at the state level, or the state didn’t press charges. I don’t think there’s any chance that I would ever make it to a federal court if I killed someone running away from me, regardless of the circumstances. I would go to state prison, do not pass go, no unlimited funds for lawyers from a police union.
So you’ve found 3 cases, and in each of them someone had to DIE. Looked at the wrong door raids map much? There’s even a filter for raids in which someone was killed. Lots of the wrong people getting killed by the police, few, if any prosecutions.
So a few examples of police officers being appropriately prosecuted is supposed to make me feel all warm and fuzzy inside? How does that make up for the dozens of stories of police coverups, stories about police beating, or shooting innocent people with no repurcussions? Are you trying to insinuate that police don’t get an EXTREME amount of leeway when it comes to prosecutions for assault and/or killing someone? If so, I think it’s time you open your eyes and take a look around.
I’ll grant you that all of it isn’t just cops being crazy, many of the policies in place are geared toward creating violence where none would have otherwised existed, but it doesn’t take too long to find a video of a cop on youtube being disrespected and beating someone down for it.
Oh, and as for Joe Horn, if I read the story correctly, he didn’t accidentally kill anyone, he shot them on purpose while they were in his yard. BIG difference. He would have gone to prison in many states, I bet New Jersey is one of them.
I think the key issue here (as others have pointed out) is not the lethality/nonlethality of Tasers, it is that they are too frequently used. When a gun is used inappropriately, and someone dies, there is more likely to be some serious questions asked.
However, there is little investigation of overuse/abuse of pepper spray, tasers, whacking someone with your stick or flashlight, or even arresting them. Because there is little investigation, and little accountability, there is more likelihood of abuse.
As Radley has shown, a key problem is public accountability. Tasers are only emblematic.
Given the scope and depth of the problem, I advocate a reinterpretation of the 4th amendment. Currently, the defense against police misconduct is the “exclusionary rule:” the evidence cannot be used in a criminal trial. This sucks for two reasons:
1. Some scumbag criminal can get off because a legitimate and reasonable police officer made a procedural error. The result of this is that the exclusionary rule has been eviscerated to minimize “getting off on a technicality”
2. The average citizen has almost no recourse against police abuse, as proving a constitutional violation is very hard, and very expensive.
For example (a situation I heard about in DC a few years ago) the police officer performs a cavity search on a man, while the man is standing (bending over, actually) on a public street corner. Nothing was found. But if something was found, should it be excluded? Perhaps we should both (a) say that the perp is guilty of possession AND (b) find the cop guilty of excessive force.
As it stands, however, the exclusionary rule doesnt help the citizen, and its too hard and expensive for him to receive relief through Federal Courts.
Oh, as for my reinterpretation of the 4th amendment: the exclusionary rule is relatively recent (early 60s, I believe).
Zeb #22: I was speaking in relativistic terms. Yes, I think there are probably more violent criminals around than overzealous cops. My personal threat models are tuned more towards dealing with possible criminals than crazy police officers. And that’s speaking as someone who really doesn’t like cops all that much, and has had primarily unpleasant experiences with them.
“no, marty, word-for-word you said:”
I was being **sarcastic***. I would suspect you would have gotten that at the end when I said I support him. Yes at times I am on both sides. I think I can support police and support much of what Radley does here. Why not? I don’t see from anything that Radley has written that he hates the police or the need for local police. Why can’t I? I may seem like Clinton but I dont see that.
I don’t care to prove my libertarian creds becasue I am not one. I am a conservative. I guess of the paleo-conservative type.
Robert I had four off the top of my head form memory Radley does this all day and has many people sending him links give me a break and some time.
Well as a conservative I will be finishing my copy of Day Of Reckoning tonight by Pat Buchanan and so, although I am not done with this site I am done with this thread.
Goodnight.
Oh one mre thing:
My department does not allow cavity searches. Thanks God.
that’s an interesting strategy there, bubba. “why, yes i DO sometimes choose to take both sides of an issue, depending on whichever side benefits me most at that instant!”
but it DOES explain a lot. good luck with that. don’t be too surprised if it doesn’t win many converts to the ‘cop’ side of the argument, though.
Armed And Dangerous?…
by matttbastard
Ah, wonderful–yet another shocking incident involving the indiscriminate discharge of an electronic control device™SM®OMFGWTFBBQ!!!1:
Donnell Williams had just gotten out of the bath tub, wearing only a towel around his waist, …
You are a great sport Marty, I hope your attitude serves as an example to some of your coworkers that likely need it. I’d like suggest that when you were bit by dog, doused in sauce, and likely many other times you would like to have been treated better you were likely not wearing standard blues where you could easily be identified. I offer that when cops stroll through the our neighborhoods like they own the place, kill our pets out of convenience, live their life as some top secret undercover wet dream AND expect us to trust every joe blo acting like a jerk telling us to put our lives on hold til they get what they are after a lot of people just aren’t going to them. Oh, and if a person didn’t trust or like cops before, I guarantee that after an experience in pain control they’ll want a piece of the next cop that tries it. Tasers should be yet another tool of last resort but aren’t.
When we’re talking about pain compliance we’re really talking about torture.
Taser is an acronym for “Thomas A. Swift’s Electric Rifle”.[4] Arizona inventor Jack Cover designed it in 1969 and named it after the science fiction teenage inventor and adventurer character Tom Swift[5].
there’s a reason we called them pigs back in the day
Taser and risk…
Last week I was talking to a SJ detective about some of what Radley Balko writes at The Agitator regarding the use of Tasers. When I brought the subject up, he immediately said, “I’m a huge fan of Tasers.” I asked him about the case…
[...] of SWAT raids, overturning the Posse Comitatus act, ignoring habeus corpus, videotaping protestors, tasering more and more people into submission, putting a record number of Americans in prison, making travel more difficult, and much more. It is [...]