The use of tasers

Freedan · Mon Jul 27, 2009 7:05 pm

Tasers are supposed to be a non-lethal way of subduing someone. You send a strong shock in to them, they collapse, end of story. But lately, they've been getting a fair bit of negative press here in Canada.

Some time ago, a Polish immigrant named Robert Dziekanski was hit with a taser (more than once, if memory serves) while at an airport. (EDIT: Yes, apparently he was shocked 5 times). He was agitated, because no one was there to pick him up from the airport, he didn't speak English, and no one would help him (he was led to a small room where he was kept for a time). As he grew more frustrated, police officers were called in, and eventually tased him after he threw a chair around the room and picked up a stapler (or something like that). The important thing to remember here is that there were around 4 officers in the room. They said they felt threatened (the 4 of them, threatened by a 45-year-old man with a stapler), and tased him multiple times.

Dziekanski died later from it.

Tasers are meant to subdue, but at 50,000 volts, they're easily capable of causing cardiac arrhythmia, or even stopping the heart entirely. I don't know what the stats are for other countries, but in Canada, 25 people have been killed in the last 8 years from being tased. (Some people have said that those who died were often on some kind of drug or stimulant, but I've never seen any proof of that). In many of those cases, people were tased more than once, and the justification for even using the taser was shaky at best, and bullshit at worst.

Now their use is the subject of some discussion in this country. Police say they're safe, they work, and they're effective at subduing from a distance when pepper spray or batons aren't available, but the public is becoming quite angry every time we hear about another person dying from it. (especially considering they're always touted as a 'non-lethal weapon'). The fact that the police often seem overzealous in using it doesn't help any.

So what do you folks think? Ban tasers? Restrict the conditions for their use? Tone down their intensity? Keep it all the way it is?

Personally, I think accountability is needed. Tasers should be equipped with a video camera (not realistic, but it's my idea, damn it). If an officer pulls a taser, there will be video evidence as to whether or not it's needed. If they get too shock-happy, there will be proof, and they can actually be punished (cops almost never get punished, seeing as they look out for each other and all).

Thoughts?

tay120n64 · Posted: Mon Jul 27, 2009 7:28 pm Post subject:

Accountability is crucial.

I think tasers should be given to cops on a case-by-case basis. In other words, a cop has to be intelligent enough to know when to use it before he can wield one.

Jason Tandro · Posted: Mon Jul 27, 2009 10:23 pm Post subject:

I think if you're stupid enough to give a cop a reason to use a tazer, then you deserve whatever happens to you. Same thing with a gun.

Sure there are bad eggs, no question, and the point of tazers is to at least reduce the percentage of fatalities.

Freedan · Posted: Mon Jul 27, 2009 10:35 pm Post subject:

Jason Tandro wrote:I think if you're stupid enough to give a cop a reason to use a tazer, then you deserve whatever happens to you. Same thing with a gun.

That's the problem, though. Cops tend to be far too quick to break out the stun gun. I can't even begin to count how many stories are out there of people being shocked for no good reason. The cops have been given a power, and are all too happy to abuse it.

Pulled over for speeding? Consider yourself tasered.

Kid acting up in 9th grade history class? Call in the cops to zap some obedience in to him.

Look at a cop funny? Break out the taser.

Gods help you if you commit a minor infraction near a cop who's having a bad day.

It's not even the taser I have a real problem with... I have no problem with a weapon doing what it's supposed to do... it's the cops' willingness to use it in situations that don't warrant it. In some cases, repeatedly (while they're already on the ground twitching).

And good luck ever proving that a cop acted improperly. It's your word against theirs, and even if an officer is found to have done the wrong thing, the department will defend them to the death.

psychokind · Posted: Tue Jul 28, 2009 7:22 am Post subject:

tasers aren't that bad of a thing, you just have to add restrictions for their use in the US. I'd go for good ol' nightsticks

EverPhoenix · Posted: Tue Jul 28, 2009 9:00 am Post subject:

id say tasers are a bad idea. mainly because since they are "non-lethal", a large number of the police population will see no reason to repeatedly (or just multiple at once) zap someone.

same goes for the batons. in the wrong cop hands, those can be brutal.

now if world order could be maintained by a group of 3-6 teenagers, one wielding a massive sword, and the token girl wielding sorcery and a staff... that would be ideal