The Problem With Tasers
Editorial
Taser use has been in the news several times in the last few weeks. In one incident, a man in Canada died after being tasered. In another incident a pregnant women was tasered after refusing to sign a traffic ticket. An 82 year old women in Chicago was tasered. The common thread in each of these stories is that prior to having a taser police would have physically subdued these individuals. The only one of these individuals that was armed was the 82 year old women who was confused and swinging a hammer.
Prior to the introduction of the Taser police would have physically subdued these individuals or at worst tried to intimidate them with their firearm, in itself an over reaction. The question becomes does the Taser prevent deaths and is it a better option than physically subduing people. Many police interviewed about Tasers have been very supportive of them saying that they give police a less lethal option for subduing people.
The taser being a less lethal option is true if taken at face value. If the only time a taser is used is as a replacement to shooting the individual then tasers are indeed a valuable and highly desirable tool. The real problem is that most of the instances in the news recently have been occasions when a police officer would not have shot the individual if a taser was not available, it was instead a convenient option for subduing someone without physically subduing them.
Police also argue that physically subduing suspects put both the suspect at risk and the police officer as well. This is true, so the question is really does the taser prevent more injury then it causes. One could argue that the police are using tasers quite readily, while before when confronted with the option of physically subduing a person an officer might take more care before going to extremes. No responsible officer would draw their gun if it wasn't necessary, and with the prospect of getting injured physically subduing someone, an officer might take more care in handling situations than if they have a handy safe(for them) way of subduing someone.
It is human nature to avoid pain and to handle a situation in the easiest manner possible. Police are starting to view a taser as something like the fiction phaser from Star Trek. The problem with this assumption is that tasers seem to be able to cause physical problems, although the manufacturer denies this, for those who endure them not to mention the physical torment of being electrocuted. Police seem to be taking a convenient route for handling problems that in the past might have been talked out or have involved mild physical confrontation.
Police have a hard job to do and tasers undoubtedly can be a better option than shooting someone. The problem is that with all of the power in a physical confrontation being in the hands of the police they seem more likely to initiate those confrontations when the fear of physical injury might have given them pause in the past. The solution to this is to make sure that police are trained in such a way as to use a taser only as a last resort. Use of tasers should be only when absolutely necessary, it should not be a substitute for other means of subduing a person.
Prior to the introduction of the Taser police would have physically subdued these individuals or at worst tried to intimidate them with their firearm, in itself an over reaction. The question becomes does the Taser prevent deaths and is it a better option than physically subduing people. Many police interviewed about Tasers have been very supportive of them saying that they give police a less lethal option for subduing people.
The taser being a less lethal option is true if taken at face value. If the only time a taser is used is as a replacement to shooting the individual then tasers are indeed a valuable and highly desirable tool. The real problem is that most of the instances in the news recently have been occasions when a police officer would not have shot the individual if a taser was not available, it was instead a convenient option for subduing someone without physically subduing them.
Police also argue that physically subduing suspects put both the suspect at risk and the police officer as well. This is true, so the question is really does the taser prevent more injury then it causes. One could argue that the police are using tasers quite readily, while before when confronted with the option of physically subduing a person an officer might take more care before going to extremes. No responsible officer would draw their gun if it wasn't necessary, and with the prospect of getting injured physically subduing someone, an officer might take more care in handling situations than if they have a handy safe(for them) way of subduing someone.
It is human nature to avoid pain and to handle a situation in the easiest manner possible. Police are starting to view a taser as something like the fiction phaser from Star Trek. The problem with this assumption is that tasers seem to be able to cause physical problems, although the manufacturer denies this, for those who endure them not to mention the physical torment of being electrocuted. Police seem to be taking a convenient route for handling problems that in the past might have been talked out or have involved mild physical confrontation.
Police have a hard job to do and tasers undoubtedly can be a better option than shooting someone. The problem is that with all of the power in a physical confrontation being in the hands of the police they seem more likely to initiate those confrontations when the fear of physical injury might have given them pause in the past. The solution to this is to make sure that police are trained in such a way as to use a taser only as a last resort. Use of tasers should be only when absolutely necessary, it should not be a substitute for other means of subduing a person.