License to Tase

Next to the men and women currently serving in uniform in Iraq or Afghanistan, the next most dangerous work being done on a daily basis is probably the work handled by our law enforcement forces here in the states. Now for years, police have carried firearms as a means of protection but also for defense against any threat that could harm them or others around them. Now needless to say there have been instances where individuals have been fatally shot for something that was not even a life threatening event. Whether it was for waving a toy gun or refusing to follow police directions, there have been cases where innocent people have been shot up by police and immediately the media (followed closely by the public) jumps on the police for being 'too harsh' or 'trigger happy'. The taser was meant to act as an alternative though it has been getting a lot of fairly negative press lately as well.

As you can see in the photo accompanying this blog, a taser basically fires two probes at the threat and remains connected to the 'gun' portion which then can deliver a jolt of electricity through the connecting wires thus subduing the 'attacker' with a minimum amount of injury. Now people who have been tased by this device claim that the sensation is anything but pleasent and that it too is a cruel and unusual device that police can carry. Perhaps because of the case in Florida where a student at a political debate with Senator John Kerry was tasered was the public's first exposure to what exactly a taser does but if nothing else, it has given the media and the public something else to latch onto when discussing whether the police are purposely being mean and nasty to assumed criminals.

Now I am fortunate enough to live in a fairly safe area and have seen my neighborhood patrolled on occasion by police officers though I won't say it's a regular thing simply because it's a fairly quiet residential area. Still, the police that I do see patrolling my area do carry firearms despite the fact that the most they may run into is an angry shopper at Tysons or a jaywalking jogger (or should that be a jayjogger?). In any case, I don't feel that it reflects badly on the officers nor does it mean that they are purposely carrying it to show their power. After all, most people when they see a uniformed person without a sidearm they generally assume the person to be nothing more than a glorified security guard with a flashlight and mace to back him up. A handgun or taser is part of the uniform and part of a police officer's tools of the trade.

I think that people, especially criminals, are probably safer now than they had been when police were simply armed with handguns. They are generally taught to wound a violent criminal unless he is directly threatening someone in which case officers will generally fire enough shots to ensure that the criminal is no longer a threat to anyone. That's fine in cases of psycho killers waving guns or knives around but what about someone turning violent at a political rally and shouting and defying police direction to vacate the room? Should the police draw a firearm at that time in order to pacify and subdue the troublemaker? If you do that then the immediate reaction is that the officers are overstepping their powers and being unnecesarilly brutal. I mean if the officers in Florida had drawn a gun on the student there I'm sure the fallout would have been greater.

A taser adds a level of separation from a potential troublemaker by adding some distance. Similar to the negative connotations of a handgun in front of the public to subdue a protestor, if they had pulled out their nightsticks and used them to subdue the troublemaker they would have been in trouble too. Rodney King and the whole situation with the LA police back in the early 1990's has forever tainted the public's view of nightsticks and their use. It's come down to the taser now and even there the public is beginning to wonder whether or not this device is too much of a threat even in the hand of police. I mean lately you can rarely read through the news online without running across an article about police using a taser on someone or the other who apparently does not warrant a tasering and in some cases I agree. For instance, recent statements by police nationwide indicate that many police districts authorize police to use tasers on anyone regardless of age. Immediately the critics jump on this statement saying that this is an indication that the police would even stoop to tasering children as young as six.

It's an arguement that is not likely to go away anytime soon but still, I don't think it should be an arguement at all. If an officer is of a temprament that he will injure someone, whether he has a gun or a taser is moot, he will do the injuring somehow or the other. Similarly, just because an officer has a taser as an option doesn't mean that he is automatically prone to abusing that power. People ask whether tasers are a viable and proper option for police to have and I would pose this question to them. Would you rather be shot with a 9mm bullet or would you rather get shocked. Or better yet, just in case there are any gluttons for punishment out there, what if your child was brandishing a gun in a highly threatening manner and police were attempting to disarm him and subdue him; would you rather he be shot or tasered? I think in those cases the question answers itself.