6 ms·
It seems to me that the takeaways from stun-guns in the hands of police are simple and easy to observe: * The instances of their use as a substitute for lethal
by jMyles 9y ago
It seems to me that the takeaways from stun-guns in the hands of police are simple and easy to observe:
* The instances of their use as a substitute for lethal force are vanishingly rare. So much so that it's hard to find a case by googling. They're always and only used in a lower stage of the use-of-force continuum than as a substitute for a firearm.
* They're often used completely inappropriately, with no self-defense component at all (ie, used as a way to torture people into complying).
* They're sometimes used purely as a torture device against people who are restrained, already subdued, or even already unconscious.
* They cause a lot of lasting injuries and some fatalities.
It's been an interesting experiment, but it's time to end it. Let's just remove them from the police arsenal (like we have mostly done with nunchaku, which were a less-lethal fad in the 80s and 90s).
I'm of the mind that police force needs to be more black and white, just as the law needs to be more black and white. If there is serious cause to use lethal force, the police need to use (and be trained with) dependable firearms. If there's not, then I don't really want them using weapons at all.
Let's treat failure to comply with lawful requests as a civil matter. You can continue non-compliance as long as you want, but you'll be liable for all the costs incurred by your doing so. Let's not torture or injure people on this basis.
This middle-ground / gray area in the use-of-force continuum creates a strange mindset for everyone involved. Are the police simply dispassionately enforcing discrete laws? Or are they forcing their own will or an unwritten will of the state?
- pps43 9y agoThe problem that stun guns are designed to address does exist. There is a place in use-of-force continuum between shouting and shooting. You can't really require police officers to get into fistfights, especially when they are at a disadvantage because of weight, age, gender, etc. Like any technology, stun guns can be misused, and oftentimes are. It's important to recognize this problem and address it, through raising awareness, improving training, etc. If you simply take stun guns away, the police will simply shoot people with real guns more.
- adrianpike 9y ago> when they are at a disadvantage because of weight, age, gender, etc. Private security, club bouncers, bodyguards, all seem to be trained and conditioned for physical advantage, but I've seen a lot of out of shape officers, at least in the US. I wonder if we're leaning on force equalizers too much, or if it's just something that's happened organically.
- RonanTheGrey 9y agoPrivate security, bouncers, etc. do not have the legitimization of the force of state behind them. Police are "allowed" to be violent because it is the state being violent, not a privately employed individual. That changes the ballgame significantly. Should it? A totally different question. Does it? Incontrovertible.
- jMyles 9y agoI agree that this is the case, at least in the mindset of everyone involved. But then how do we reconcile the fact that, at least in common law societies, it is not the case de jurie? If the laws surrounding this are different from the reality, haven't we lost our claim to be a society of laws and not of men?
- RonanTheGrey 9y agoThat's a big question, isn't it.. and I think in part, the answer is yes. When we make exceptions to the law, even if convenient at the time, that's exactly what we lose. If we make exception after exception until the law is a watered down toothless goat, well...
- jMyles 9y agoCan you give me (or via comment or a link) an example of a hypothetical scenario in which force is required, but unarmed force won't do?
- sokoloff 9y agoA combative 6'2", 215# body-builder high on PCP or methamphetamine, acting aggressively in a public place. If that's not enough, give him a bat or a knife as well.
- Zigurd 9y agoThis is an example of a lazy argument for not being taken from a real-world case that isn't an outlier, and one that is compatible with the image of police portrayed on cop shows, so people are conditioned to glom onto it. It also ignores cases where private security has to deal with violent drunks (not an outlier at all) without tasers. And this is how poor police performance in the US continues to get a pass.
- sokoloff 9y agoGP called for a hypothetical example. I provided. I'm sorry that you feel that's lazy. Would you share with us how you'd prefer the police to handle that situation?
- pjc50 9y agoThe UK police would handle it with a combination of CS spray and side-handled batons. https://www.westyorkshire.police.uk/sites/default/files/files/disclosure-logs/2014_218_foi2014514185_use_of_force_policy2.pdf https://www.westyorkshire.police.uk/sites/default/files/file... actually provides a worked example, including the paperwork you need to fill out after whacking someone in the head.
- Zigurd 9y agoI explained that by way of pointing out the omission of addressing how private security manages to do their job without sometimes fatal electric torture devices.
- pjc50 9y ago> They're always and only used in a lower stage of the use-of-force continuum than as a substitute for a firearm. The real problem here is that, in the US, there is no real reason for the police not to use lethal force once the situation has got even slightly violent; and once they've killed the only witness, they can retroactively claim the situation was more violent than it actually was. Comparable UK Taser stats: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/aug/16/timeline-of-taser-controversies-in-the-uk https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/aug/16/timeline-of-ta... Not strictly relevant but since I dug it up: use of force policy, or how the UK police manage to handle 99.9% of situations without carrying firearms https://www.westyorkshire.police.uk/sites/default/files/files/disclosure-logs/2014_218_foi2014514185_use_of_force_policy2.pdf https://www.westyorkshire.police.uk/sites/default/files/file...
- rdtsc 9y ago> there is no real reason for the police not to use lethal force once the situation has got even slightly violent Also interesting to note that even private citizens who are armed and are using it in self defense, are instructed to shoot to kill only. Obviously they are first told that it should only happen if their or others lives are in danger, but once the firearm comes up basically just empty the magazine as fast possible without hesitation. The logic is a bit like above. Shooting to wound, brandishing the weapon to scare, threatening, all those things end up "not working out" legally as well as killing the person as quickly as possible. Basically hesitating or wounding or scaring all can be later reinterpreted in court as "your life wasn't really in danger if you hesitated and just shot to maim, so you shouldn't have even pulled the deadly weapon out to begin with". Also I can see that even the perpetrator (say the burglar) might be justified in suing the owner if the owner pull the weapon out and wounds him. The burglar might even be justified in pulling his/her own weapon and shooting back because now the situation is threatening their lives. So to avoid that mess, just empty the magazine.
- danielvf 9y ago"The burglar might even be justified in pulling his/her own weapon and shooting back because now the situation is threatening their lives." In the US, there's the "Clean Hands" doctrine that excludes a legal defense of self defense from anyone who was committing a crime at the time. The hypothetical burgler would just be adding charges.
- segmondy 9y agoWhy remove em? We should remove guns, let most of them carry just stun gun and the ones with extensive training and experience to carry real guns.