Unsigned Editorials
Us anonymous guys in pajamas have no credibility, or so factions of the media say. When the media choose to be anonymous, it’s an editorial. In this particular case, that’s a good thing as I can’t see how someone would want to take credit for something so damn stupid. This Times Herald editorial on police and citizen uses of Tasers (my concern regarding tasers is well documented):
We certainly would support Taser’s ad campaign aimed at having private citizens buy their stun guns if data would show a corresponding decline in the number of handguns purchased.
That correlation is not entirely relevant. People buy handguns for target practice and hunting (in addition to self-defense). On solutions to the problem of citizens with Tasers:
Perhaps one answer would be to lower the voltage in Tasers available to the general public.
As a general rule, a home defense handgun should be comparable to what a police officer is willing to carry. For me, that would apply to Tasers as well. If using a Taser, I would want to incapacitate the individual, not piss them off.
Police shootings dropped by more than half and fatal shootings by 31 percent in 2003 due to the use of Tasers, according to an Associated Press story. We believe those numbers are extremely encouraging.
I’d like a cite for that. There are these things called hyperlinks. However, there are also cases where Tasers were clearly used when unnecessary, such as against a 6 year-old and a 75 year-old woman. Again with the gun comparison:
But anyone interested in stemming the proliferation of handguns must consider the stun gun as an alternative. Anyone on the right side of the law has no desire to shoot anyone else; stun guns could provide a solution.
Proliferation of handguns? What media bias? Lethal use of force is justified in self defense even for civilians. Even if they use a gun. I personally wouldn’t take my chances with a Taser to defend my family. They’re ineffective against multiple attackers and may not stop an intruder. However, not many folks can survive a 230 grain 45 ACP center mass.
December 8th, 2004 at 10:13 am
First of all, great blog. I’ve been a reader for quite some time, but this is the first time I have felt compelled to comment.
I don’t understand your concern about Tasers. We are taught as police officers that Tasers are non-lethal and are just another tool in the force continuum. As a police officer I can see a situation when I would Tase a 6 year old and a 75 year old. Tasers are compliance tools, just like handcuffs. I would much rather Tase an old lady than use a nightstick on her.
Police officers are routinely called to situations that other folks have allowed to escalate. Domestic disturbances come immediately to mind. When two or more folks are shouting and screaming and throwing stuff, I don’t have time to play nice. I also don’t want to go to the hospital because some citizen hurt me. If I have a Tazer available and you don’t want to turn around politely and put your hands behind your back, I will Taze you. I don’t care if you are pissed off, drugged, drunk, or whatever. I don’t intend to get into a fight. I know how to fight, I will win the fight, but they hurt and I don’t like them much.
Nobody calls the police when things are going well. Second-guessing the police after they have handled a situation is a lawyers tactic.
December 8th, 2004 at 10:30 am
Thanks for the comment and the compliment. My concern for tasers are similar to my concerns for pepper spray and other less than lethals. Since there is no perceived finality (i.e., death) from their use, they may be over used when not necessary. The evidence seems to support that. Click the “well documented” link in this post for examples.
I don’t oppose their use but think criteria for their use should be clear (like that of lethal force – meaning lethal force has clear criteria not that the criteria should be the same). Tasers have killed 40 or so folks in the US so they’re not necessarily non-lethal.
Point taken on using a night stick on an old lady. But it seems a 75 year old woman could probably be restrained simply by grabbing her.
I just think that since the perception that they won’t kill someone is there, some may use tasers/pepper gas almost as a punishment or attitude adjuster when it’s unnecessary.
I think police should have tasers/spray/handguns/rifles or whatever else makes their jobs easier. I just think criteria for their use would prevent abuse and potential lawsuits.
December 8th, 2004 at 11:32 am
Me again. I read all the your research and agree with most of your conclusions.
As a long-time cop (23 years)I know that we as an occupation need to clean up our act and be aware of perceptions about what we do.
Lets take the old lady in the nursing home. She claims she was just confused, didn’t know how her friend was doing, couldn’t understand.. etc, etc.
What is so frigging hard to understand about a policeman asking you to leave a place? And why should that cop be expected to tussle with an old lady? or anyone for that matter?
Please understand. I hate violence in all its forms. I wish the world were full of sweetness and light. I hope that someday I am able to work a full week helping people without having to order someone to do something they don’t want to do. Unfortunately, the world isn’t like that.
I also believe that the police should protect citizens rights, not be treated with any special priveliges, and I routinely turn down discounts at restaurants. I think cops should refrain from speeding and should always remember that our job is to serve the public.
But, when all else fails and you call me to handle a situation, don’t second-guess it. If I feel endangered, I am going to use whatever the tools at my command to go home safely at the end of the shift. If an old lady tries to pull away from me, or bite me, then she has entered my world, and welcome to it.
If you don’t want the police to handle a situation, don’t call the police. Call your social worker and see if he will come out at 3:00 a.m. to settle a dispute.
December 8th, 2004 at 11:40 am
I agree that police need to work on portraying the right image. My dad is cop and has been for a few decades. He tells me that about 0.1% of police officers make the rest look bad.
And I’m glad to have a cop, who respects rights, such as you and him on the road. As for discounts cops are offered, I say take them. People do that to show appreciation for a job they appreciate being done. It’s not like it’s government ordered or anything 🙂
December 8th, 2004 at 12:03 pm
“Tasers are compliance tools, just like handcuffs. I would much rather Taser an old lady than use a nightstick on her.”
This has already been stated, but tasers can kill (although they are not meant to, and do not in most cases).
A Simple biology lesson, and you will understand why Tasers are more dangerous than actually hitting someone with a nightstick.
You body uses nerves to send electrical impulses to the muscles, then you muscles respond to the impulses. AGAIN your brain sends energy through the nerves to the muscles, then the muscles respond. This is why grabbing an electrical wire is so dangerous, the electricity makes the hand constrict, and you cannot let go and cannot make yourself let go. If you overload the nerves the muscles respond in an overloaded way.
The electrical impulse from a Taser incapacitates because it makes all the muscles spasm and constrict. All muscles, which also means the heart. Which as a police officer in Memphis, I have heard that you have to have the Tasers used on you to carry them, and you know this (at least from personal experience).
For the old and young it is especially dangerous to Taser (I doubt that old ladies pace maker will function after you Taser her.), because of body mass considerations. A pace maker is a medical device which regulates electrical impulses to the heart (you disturb that, the person has an irregular heart beat)
Tasers should be used after physical forces, and before at gun should be used.
December 8th, 2004 at 1:33 pm
Must be nice to have the luxury of progressive use of force. Granted, in hand-to-hand situations, the Taser is a fine alternative to having to duke it out. However, when confronted with overwhelming physical force or weapons, then the standard philosophy of survival prevails. The police deserve to go home to their families, and they should be allowed to control their situation in whatever way they see fit, provided the force fits the fight. Never bring a knife to a gun fight, ya know.
The original article strikes me as almost farcical in its strident hysteria. Let’s just throw flowers at bad guys. What a maroon. No wonder it was anonymous.
December 8th, 2004 at 2:11 pm
cube writes: “Tasers should be used after physical forces, and before at gun should be used.”
Why should I have to wrassle with anyone? Anytime I use force the possibility is there for it becoming lethal force. I’m sure everyone has heard the old story about the boxer who died in the ring from one punch. I don’t know the medical history of those I have to take down. THEY should know their own medical history, and if it is dangerous for them to be Tased, then they should stay the hell out of a confrontation with police.
Similarly, if it is dangerous for a person to be thrown to the ground (as in the case of the elderly breaking hips and such in falls), then those persons should do everything in their power to avoid such a situation.
Everything I have been taught was that the Tazer is to be used so I don’t have to get physical with a subject. Anytime the subject wants to comply, turn around politely and be cuffed, then we don’t need the tazer.
December 8th, 2004 at 3:56 pm
More info on other less-lethal solutions (that sometimes turn out to be very lethal).