Ravenwood - 06/30/05 07:00 AM
Reader Phelps sends this article about Taser abuse. It seems pretty comprehensive, but here's a short highlight:
But for a weapon whose makers crow about its "stopping power," Tasers occupy a strange place in the police rulebook. Law enforcement officers learn what is called a "use of force continuum" to determine what means or weapons they may use in different situations. The "continuum" begins with simple police presence, then moves up to issuing commands, then the use of open hands, and after that, pepper or other chemical sprays, closed hands (including elbows and knees and other takedown moves), the use of a hard baton, and finally, the use of lethal force.You might think Tasers would fit somewhere near the "lethal force" end of that list, right before a gun. Instead, however, many police agencies place Tasers immediately after the "issuing commands" force level - which suggests to officers that using a Taser is less serious even than a push or pepper spray. Which also means that if an officer asks you to produce your driver's license and you ask "Why?" rather than immediately complying with the order, there's a chance, in some jurisdictions, that you could, within their rules, be hit with a Taser for refusing the command. That's in part how Tasers have begun to be used, not as serious, life-threatening weapons, but as a bully's tool of compliance, something to get people in line - with sometimes egregious consequences.
While I don't condone misuse of tasers, I can understand the logic here. There are certain situations where a lone officer is dealing with somebody who is both aggressive and irrational; he knows that the minute he lays hands on this guy it's going to turn into a wrestling match which is dangerous for everyone.
If his rules of force prohibit the use of a taser until after the wrestling match begins, the value of the taser has been lost.
This does not mean that it's always OK to move directly from verbal commands to electric shocks, but it is certainly sometimes the right thing to do.
Posted by: Mike at June 30, 2005 8:01 AMIf the officer "knows that the minute he lays hands on this guy it's going to turn into a wrestling match" then his first move should be to call for backup, not draw his TASER. It isn't violent then; it isn't going to become violent until he moves. Why not get more officers on the scene?
Posted by: Phelps at June 30, 2005 10:31 AMHere in Texas (pdf), Deadly Force is defined as:
"Deadly force" means force that is intended or known by the actor to cause, or in the manner of its use or intended use is capable of causing, death or serious bodily injury.(See p 47). Given the track record of tasers, use of them should definately be moved into that category. (At least in TX...I really don't know how this plays out in other states.)
In short, police (or anybody, for that matter) shouldn't taser anybody unless shooting them would be justified.
Posted by: MMW at June 30, 2005 10:34 AMThere needs to be a spot on that continuum between "issuing commands" and "use of force". In that spot goes "Explain the situation and the requirements of the law." Anything above that level should require an arrest warrant (or equivilent probable cause to arrest), or an offering of violence by the individual,
There is no reason for a police officer to initiate a physical struggle simply for refusing a command, or asking for an explanation. I don't care how dangerous "the streets" are these days.
Most police officers understand this, even if it's not explicit in the rules. But a growing number of antisocial bullies do not want to explain themselves. It's easier to whip out the spray or the taser and zap them. Couple zaps, you learn real quick not to ask questions, yes?
Posted by: TriggerFinger at June 30, 2005 5:02 PM(c) Ravenwood and Associates, 1990 - 2014
