Are tasers safe for law enforcement use

[prisonchaplain]

In another thread this topic came up. There were some strong opinions offered, so I figured the issues was worthy of its own thread. We have a few posters on the site who have first hand experience--either deploying the device, or having been subject to it. I have neither. As with many difficult matters in life, I prefer to learn through the experiences of others. So, below are two articles--one suggesting that tasers are safe, the other that they are not.

PRO: Tasers Used By Law Enforcement Are Safe, Review Suggests -- ScienceDaily

CON: Tasers deadly, should be banned | Philadelphia Independent Media Center

[estradling75]

Safe compared to what?

Safe compared to getting shot by a gun or beaten by a nightstick. Sure.

Safe in that you can give it to a kid as a toy... nope.

If a cop feels he has to take me down then I would prefer he use a taser over some of his other alternatives. But I would much perfer that the cop never feels the need to take me down.

[applepansy]

I read a bit about tasers when they were first added to law enforcement. As most here know I have Fibromyalgia. The thoughts of being tased makes me shudder. Just a bump in the road while driving in the car can cause more pain for days. I will do everything I can to make sure I'm never tased. :)

I am happy that police officers were given a non-lethal tool to use in their job. I'm glad to see that there are fewer injuries on both sides.

[mnn727]

Its another tool in their arsenal.

I would really want the cop to be trained in its use and misuse as well as possible consequences and what do do when the unexpected happens.

Personally like the old saying goes "if you can't do the time don't do the crime" -- in this case don't do anything to get yourself tased or shot.

[Bini]

I don't know enough about tasers but read this: Police use 50,000-volt Taser on 15-year-old schoolboy with learning difficulties after being called in over 'scuffle' | Mail Online and was appalled.

[NeuroTypical]

Why were you appalled Bini?

[Bini]

Why were you appalled Bini?

This bit in the article is appalling.

The shocking incident comes after new figures revealed that Tasers are being used by police against children as young as 11 almost every day.

Unless an 11-year old has a knife to someone's throat or a gun pointed, I think tasering is an excessive measure, and should be prohibited unless in the aforementioned cases. I feel a police officer should have better judgement. If you need to tackle an out of control child and physically restrain them before cuffing them - so be it. But I doubt these 11-year olds mentioned in the article fit the knife-to-throat or gun pointed scenarios, at least, not on a daily basis.

[MorningStar]

My brother is a cop and used a taser recently on a man who is mentally ill. He was making a scene in a parking lot and when my brother got there, he reached into his pants and yelled, "I have a gun!" My brother was thinking, "Oh, crap. I have my hand on my taser." Thankfully everything turned out OK and the guy didn't have a gun. My brother was glad he didn't shoot him, which is what he would have done without his taser.

[estradling75]

This bit in the article is appalling.

Unless an 11-year old has a knife to someone's throat or a gun pointed, I think tasering is an excessive measure, and should be prohibited unless in the aforementioned cases. I feel a police officer should have better judgement. If you need to tackle an out of control child and physically restrain them before cuffing them - so be it. But I doubt these 11-year olds mentioned in the article fit the knife-to-throat or gun pointed scenarios, at least, not on a daily basis.

Lets break it down... Using a Taser is a "Use of Force" Therefore replace all instances of the word Taser with "Use of Force"

And with that the quote become "Use of Force" are being used by police against children as young as 11 almost every day. That indeed is appalling.

The question becomes was the Use of Force justified on the part of the Officers? If the answer is no... then the means is irrelevant and it is indeed very appalling.

However if the answer is yes, use of force was justified then you get to pick your form. Would you prefer a gun? Nightstick, pepperspray, physical grapple, taser or something else used on these kids?

[NeuroTypical]

My local police chief tells a story. In his decades of service, he's only been injured by a suspect in cuffs once - by a 80 pound fourteen yr old girl. She was a danger to herself and others, so they cuffed her. She was trying to get away, so he had a firm hold on her arms. She lifted herself up using his hold as leverage, and came down with her full weight in her heel, right into his knee. I forget how many weeks he spent in recovery, but it was more than one.

I suppose tasering children is arguable. Can you indicate which headline would be less appalling?

nightsticks are being used by police against children as young as 11 almost every day

You'll have a nice injury statistic to go along with that - nightsticks bruise and break.

pepper spray is being used by police against children as young as 11 almost every day

I volunteered for a taser demonstration, but I stayed far away from the mace demonstration.

physical force is being used by police against children as young as 11 almost every day

Again, there'll be a nice injury statistic here. Abrasions, breaks, sprains, bruises, dislocations.

So, if tasering is excessive, please pick the less excessive method to restrain children?

[Bini]

Lets break it down... Using a Taser is a "Use of Force" Therefore replace all instances of the word Taser with "Use of Force"

And with that the quote become "Use of Force" are being used by police against children as young as 11 almost every day. That indeed is appalling.

The question becomes was the Use of Force justified on the part of the Officers? If the answer is no... then the means is irrelevant and it is indeed very appalling.

However if the answer is yes, use of force was justified then you get to pick your form. Would you prefer a gun? Nightstick, pepperspray, physical grapple, taser or something else used on these kids?

If it does not fit the two scenarios that I mentioned (that being directly endangering themselves or others) using a taser is EXCESSIVE, period. Use physical restraints if needs be.

[Bini]

LM, an officer can tackle and physically restrain a child without resorting to a weapon - especially - an 11-year old child. Yes, there might be bruises and abrasions from restraining the child but it is the lesser of the other options of using a taser or gun. So again, unless the child is immediately threatening another's life (holding a knife to throat or pointing gun) - a taser is EXCESSIVE.

[Praetorian_Brow]

https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/233432.pdf

The study by the Justice Department that is linked above makes the case that Tasers when used "properly" are safe. However, the study notes that high stress, environmental factors can lead to a cascade effect, that can lead to injury, which is ironic considering that when won't a Taser be used in a stressful situation. Falling, landing hard, that sort of thing. As the darts are 9mm, they can perforate skin as designed, but if they hit vital exposed areas such as throat or eyes, then the injury could be lethal.

I would prefer law enforcement to use tasers before guns and appreciate they have an alternative that is less lethal, however reports seem to encourage the idea that officers are far too quick to deploy tasers simply out of convenience. Escalation of suitable force needs to be paramount, but as always, it usually comes down to the officer's training and ability to de-escalate the situation.

Abuse of tasers can dramatically increase the possibility of death, as the study notes. Continuous shocking or multiple hits outside the guidelines can happen. Either way, I consider them an improvement over firearms, but they do need to be considered one of the last methods when all less dangerous options have been exhausted.

[Guest]

LM, an officer can tackle and physically restrain a child without resorting to a weapon - especially - an 11-year old child. Yes, there might be bruises and abrasions from restraining the child but it is the lesser of the other options of using a taser or gun. So again, unless the child is immediately threatening another's life (holding a knife to throat or pointing gun) - a taser is EXCESSIVE.

I understand what you're saying here. But I flip-flop on your conclusion. In a case where you need to restrain people - children included, I can see the benefit of a method that is more measurably consistent in the amount of force it inflicts and the intended resulting physical response than leaving it to the not-easily-predicted human application of physical force that has a random force application and random force response.

Looking at my kid - 11 year olds are bigger and stronger than me. An adult. My 12-year-old is 5'5", 130 lbs. That is the size of a regular woman. And he is stronger than regular women.

Because... I can see this very clearly - a cop tries to restrain a 120lbs, 5'3" 11-year-old who had about 5 martial arts classes - he tries to twist and punch/kick the cop, the cop applies increased instinctive force, the kid twists his head just in the right way and ends up breaking his neck. Cop is ruined for life.

You tase the kid - measurably consistent amount of force - kid drops to the ground - consistent physical response. Any accidents are reduced.

But just like cars and crash test dummies, many many many tests need to be conducted on the taser versus the child.

Edited March 11, 2014 by anatess

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

LM, an officer can tackle and physically restrain a child without resorting to a weapon - especially - an 11-year old child. Yes, there might be bruises and abrasions from restraining the child but it is the lesser of the other options of using a taser or gun. So again, unless the child is immediately threatening another's life (holding a knife to throat or pointing gun) - a taser is EXCESSIVE.

Bini, tackling and physically restraining a child might seem less of a use of force than tasering IF you have never had to restrain a really out of control child . . . which to be fair, I imagine few people have had. There have been cases of kids being killed from being restrained in the safest way possible...more about that in a moment.

I have worked with difficult youth for several years now. Fortunately, my current job is calmer, but I used to work with abused children and some of them were absolutely out of control at times . . . physically threatening themselves, others and/or property was common. I've heard children as young as seven using the f-word quite liberally (I shudder to think what their home life was like to have taught them to behave that way.)

Of course we had rules to only restrain them only when they were harming themselves or others and yet there were still plenty of retraints. Unfortunately restraints are not completely safe either. We were taught a form that was supposed to be as gentle as possible, and yet we were warned that some kids have died in this hold due to being asphyxiated accidentally. In this restraint the child is placed into a "T" position lying on their flat on their stomach on the floor. One staff the feet, and one staff member holding each arm with a hand on the chest. If you are not careful with that hand on the chest, you can unintentionally cause the child/teen difficulty breathing. I participated in a number of restraints and it is always ugly.

Once our staff had to restrain a child on the side of the road, to keep that child from running into the road! He was not rational. People passing by didn't understand what was going on as were--as you can imagine--horrified to see three adults taking a child to the ground and restraining him. They yelled from their cars that they would call the police. Staff said, "that would be helpful thanks!"

Can you imagine the uproar if police tackled a child in public? People would freak out. I think the ideal, whether you are a child or not, is don't get yourself in a situation where the police feel the need to restrain you in any form whatsoever. Most of us go through our lives without having any issues, it can't be that hard.

Remember also, any story can be "spun". The only thing we really know about kids as young as 11 being tazered, is that we weren't there and don't know all the facts.

[prisonchaplain]

I lean towards favoring the use of tasers. It is a weapon, and would likely be categorized as "less lethal." My one hesitation is that complacency is a danger. Most non-violent confrontations should be resolved by communication. However, if I know I can use the "less-lethal" taser, I may give up on using communication too soon. Bottom line: I wonder if taser use results in an increase in overall "uses of force," even while they may reduce the use of more dangerous alternatives.

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

Interesting questions PC, I'm with you.

I don't know very many police officers, but I have known correctional officers (as you do.) I've noticed that the old adage is true that "power corrupts". One of the nicest guys from my training class, a big huggable teddy bear type was completely the opposite with the inmates. It was a real Jeckel and Hyde scenario. If ever there were a serious riot, he would be the first one the inmates would go after. I do worry about officers like him using tasers, for sure. But not all officers are corrupted by "power". I wasn't, and I have family members that have been police officers and I feel confident that they weren't. But yes, the possibility for over use is certainly a danger.

I think the biggest problem is that we are dealing with human beings in general :) In a perfect world we would have no need of police at all. :)

[Maureen]

I googled "taser and excessive force" and found several articles; and in a couple examples tasers were used on a pregnant woman and a mentally disabled person on a ledge. There was no threat to the police officers involved in either case. Tasers can be a benefit but they can also be used irresponsibily.

M.

Edited March 11, 2014 by Maureen

[NeuroTypical]

Yes, there might be bruises and abrasions from restraining the child but it is the lesser of the other options of using a taser or gun.

Again - for a taser, why is it excessive, and physical force preferable? Tasers reduce the rate of injuries. Let's say that again - cops wrestle 1000 people into cuffs, and taze 1000 other people into cuffs. The wrestled group will have higher rates of injury of all kinds, from bumps and bruises to broken necks and death. The group tazed into compliance will not have as many injuries at any level. Fewer bruises, fewer dislocations, fewer breaks, fewer deaths.

How is it you see tasers as excessive? I'm still trying to understand.

I googled "taser and excessive force" and found several articles; and in a couple examples tasers were used on a pregnant woman and a mentally disabled person on a ledge. There was no threat to the police officers involved in either case.

Well, surely police officer safety is a consideration, but where do you find the information that these cases did not involve any threat to the officer? Surely you're not claiming that pregnant women become helpless and weak, unable to harm another, are you? And surely you're not claiming that folks with mental issues are always totally nonviolent and never dangerous, are you?

I'd love to understand where you're coming from as well.

[Bini]

I don't want to quote everyone so I'll just do an overall response.

There are different kinds of restraint methods. I am no police officer nor soldier but believe it or not, I have taken training on how to physically restrain an individual that is threatening to themselves or others, when I worked briefly in a special unit with very disturbed and often violent people. So I have been there, even though I was there on the nursing aspect, it was mandatory that I knew how to protect myself and other patients in the event of an escalation. Some of these people were so manic in their actions that I was not allowed to be with them without a male orderly to assist me in the event of craziness. One kid threw TVs, you'd think, why not ban him from the recreational room? Well, he has rights and believe it or not - "special kids" get special treatment. Maybe more so than regular well-balanced folks.

My point being, we were taught how to restrain these individuals during horrific outbursts, some due to mental disorders and others due to just being mad. While the restraints are taught to subdue threatening or violent behaviours, the specific course I took focused on utilising manoeuvres and holds that resulted in little or no harm to the individual being handled. That's not to say that "owies" don't happen but it shouldn't be anywhere near on the same scale as a beating or even roughing someone up. I think, if this is not already in practice, something like this ought to be incorporated into training for police officers and even those dealing with troubled people in reform or special unit programmes (I know not all do) - especially - when dealing with young kids, like 11-year old or younger even.

I accept the differing opinions on this but I am strongly against the use of a weapon upon a child unless the child is a direct threat (life or death) to another.

[Bini]

LM, I am indifferent about a taser being used on adults or even teens. My issue is using something like that on a young child. An 11-year old child (or younger) should NOT have to be tasered unless he is a direct threat to another.

[Guest]

LM, I am indifferent about a taser being used on adults or even teens. My issue is using something like that on a young child. An 11-year old child (or younger) should NOT have to be tasered unless he is a direct threat to another.

Sure. But, a police officer answering a call to restrain an 11-year-old is not going to have time to check ID. When my kid was 11, he was bigger and stronger than me.

[Anddenex]

Well, seeing a taser, is a preferable method, we might as well as parents become trained with them, and when our children begin throwing tantrums, just taser them instead. Much easier than restraining your 11 year-old, and some 11 year-olds need to be restrained.

anatess, since your son is taller and stronger than you already...you should be the first parent to buy one.

As for me, if a taser is proper used, it is a great resource for police officers. I am even fine with a taser being used on a 8 year-old if the situation calls for it, which reminds me of an article in the news about the boy, I believe he was pepper sprayed, because he threatened to kill his teacher, he had turned over the majority of the desks, and even threatened to kill other students. When the cops arrived they saw he had, if I am remembering correctly, a broken piece of wood (pointed edge). Instead of seeking to remove the wood piece, they pepper sprayed him....solved that situation really quick. In this scenario, I would have be fine with a taser on the kid, but that is just me.

If the police use the taser properly, by all means, and if not they should be disciplined and other police officers should be open enough to mention when it isn't instead of giving excuses for wrong behavior.

[Maureen]

...Well, surely police officer safety is a consideration, but where do you find the information that these cases did not involve any threat to the officer? Surely you're not claiming that pregnant women become helpless and weak, unable to harm another, are you? And surely you're not claiming that folks with mental issues are always totally nonviolent and never dangerous, are you?

I'd love to understand where you're coming from as well.

Judge for yourself LM.

Brooklyn judge rules that NYPD officers used excessive force in fatal Tasering - NY Daily News

Justices decline case of police Taser use on pregnant woman - CNN.com

M.

[prisonchaplain]

So far I have gathered the following:

1. Tasers are generally safer than batons or guns

2. Tasers have been used inappropriately

3. Tasers may cause LEO to give up on confrontational avoidance too quickly

4. Tasers, used properly, are effective, and usually result in no damage, or minor scuffs and abrasions.

5. There are, nevertheless, many anecdotes of great harm caused by inappropriate use, or by a person who is physically unable to sustain tasering

Bottom line: Tasers are not likely to go away. They should be used sparingly, and police departments should train with them as less-lethal weapons, not as harmless compliance-tools.