Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Tasers Are an Outrage We Must Resist
Daniel Sylvester can't forget the night the police fired 50,000 volts of electricity into his skull. The 46-year-old grandfather owns his own security business, and he was recently walking down the street when a police van screeched up to him.
He didn't know what they wanted, but obeyed when they told him to approach slowly. "I then had this incredible jolt of pain on the back of my head," he explains. The electricity made him spasm; as he fell to the ground, he felt his teeth scatter on the tarmac and his bowels open. "Then they shot me again in the head. I can't describe the pain." (Another victim says it is "like someone reached into my body to rip my muscles apart with a fork.") The police then saw he was not the person they were looking for, said he was free to go, and drove off.
This did not happen in Egypt or Saudi Arabia or any other country notorious for using electro-shock weapons. It happened in north London and, if the Home Secretary, Jacqui Smith, has her way, it will be coming soon to a street near you. In Britain there are 3,000 police officers trained to use Tasers as part of specialised armed response units, but Smith has fired a jolt forward. She wants there to be 30,000 Taser-carrying officers, authorised to use them against unarmed citizens, including children. These "stun-guns" fire small metal darts into your skin, and through the trailing wires run an agonising electric current through your body.
Smith is right to say that the police face a growing threat of violence, and these heroic frontline officers must have the means to defend themselves. She's also right to argue it better to use a Taser than to use a gun. But the police can already swiftly call out armed response teams, equipped with Tasers and firearms. If we move beyond this to a widespread culture of assault by electricity, it will only endanger the police - and the rest of us.
Smith wants Tasers to be distributed well beyond the ranks of specially trained firearms officers, but Tasers can kill. Amnesty International has just published a report showing that, since 2001, 334 people have died in the US during or just after Tasering. Jarrel Gray was a partially deaf 20-year-old black man involved in an argument in the street in Frederick County, Maryland, when the police approached him and ordered him to lie on the ground. He didn't hear them - so they Tasered him. As he lay paralysed on the ground, they told him to show his hands. He couldn't obey. They Tasered him again. Jarrel died in hospital two hours later.
Ryan Rich was a 33-year-old medical doctor who had an epileptic seizure while driving his car on a Nevada highway. He crashed into the side of the road. The police smashed a window to get into the car and Ryan woke up, startled. The police officer reacted by Tasering him repeatedly. Only when they were handcuffing him did they notice he was turning blue. He was dead before he got to hospital. The coroner noted dryly that the Taser "probably contributed" to his death. Taser International's brochures claim their weapons have "no after-effects."
There may, in fact, be even more deaths than are recorded. Taser International has responded to medical examiners saying their weapons kill not by changing their weapons, but by suing the medical examiners. After the chief medical examiner of Summit Country, Ohio, ruled that Tasering caused the death of three young men, they sued her, and she was forced to remove the conclusions from her reports. The president of the National Association of Medical Examiners says Taser International's behaviour is "dangerously close to intimidation".
Yet Smith appears still to be taking the corporate propaganda of Taser International - who dominate the international stun-gun market - at face value. The company are startlingly glib when their spiel begins to crumble. A recent scientific study conducted by biomedical engineers for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation found that nine per cent of the guns give a far larger electric shock than advertised. Some sent a 58 per cent higher voltage through the victim's body. Steve Tuttle, the vice-president of Taser, responded: "Regardless of whether or not the anomaly is accurate, it has no bearing on safety." The UK Defence Scientific Advisory Council has warned there is research suggesting that Tasers could cause "a serious cardiac event" when fired at children. But still Smith won't compromise.
Everyday on-the-beat policing does n0t happen in the tightly controlled scenarios imagined by the Home Office. It is messy and scrappy and carried out at high speed by people who are frightened and coursing with adrenaline: some 90 per cent of Tasered people in the US are unarmed. Matthew Fogg, who led a SWAT team in the US, warns that Tasers create a culture where "if I don't like you, I can torture you".
If we slip into that policing culture, mistrust and violence against police officers can only increase. That's why so many senior police are highly sceptical about Smith's plans, from the former head of the Flying Squad, John O'Connor, to the former head of the West Midlands Police, Barry Mason.
Far from lowering violence, Tasers seem to lower the threshold that by which the police resort to violence - and criminals respond by lowering theirs. In the US, a 16-year-old schoolboy was Tasered by cops in a playground for "using profanity"; a dementia-riddled man in his eighties was shocked for urinating in the park; 50,000 volts were fired at a 17-year-old boy who had fallen off an overpass and broken his back.
The Metropolitan Police have said they won't participate in Smith's Taser roll-out because they know it'll be particularly disastrous for relations with black and Asian communities. In the US, only 18 per cent of Tasered people are white. Imagine if the boys in Brixton and Moss Side weren't just been stopped-and-searched - which creates enough grievance - but apprehended in this way. How many Taser attacks would have to make it onto YouTube before we have riots?
Daniel Sylvester still has nightmares about what happened to him. If we don't stop Jacqui Smith, many more British people will be joining him - and we will all be in for a shock.
- Posted in


13 Comments so far
Show Allpolice departments may need to be dissolved if this sadistic behavior cannot be checked...i'd much rather take my chances with criminals...at least they're subject to legal recourse...citizen oversight of police? what kind of perverted souls taser helpless, unarmed or innocent individuals and feels good about it? why can't these be declared lethal and outlawed? this culture is so backwards...the worst terrorists are the ones 'protecting' us...happy unbirthday...
Their mission is so ingrained into their personalities. That mission being dominace over the public. In some cultures they are considered a part of the whole. Here they are trained to see the whole as a threat.
I have heard Frank Morales of Demilitarize the Police many times over the last several years on WBAI, usually in last year with Bernard White on "Wake Up Call" www.wbai.org. Frank Morales was on the NYC Civilian Complaint Review Board long ago.
see www.demilitarizethepolice.netfirms.com Also, DemocracyNow has been covering tasers causing death often www.democracynow.org transcripts are online free.
does this type of blind attack by police mean that citizens might soon be able to argue that proactive attacks against police are self-defense? If you reasonably suspect the presence of police might equate to unprovoked tasering by those same officers, would that not mean that immediate defense (pre-tasering)by approached citizens might be justified?
Of course. It is natural for humans to defend against threats to freedom and life. The taser is nothing more than a tool to control. With cattle it is used to herd them to the slaughter. For humans it will serve the very same purpose, simply add a degree of obscruity and call it law.
As far as Tasers are concerned, I think we have already reached the point where citizens could argue that proactive attacks against police are self-defense.
The problem with the Taser is it is so "easy" to justify using it.
You taser a guy who is no threat...yet claim he was "belligerent" and that seems enough for any court of law.
Belligerent, or argumentative or non compliant all mean the same thing in the Police handbook and apparently in the court room.
"The Police officer felt an Immediate threat to his or her own life and was therefor justified in tasering the Victim.
Apparently even "Asleep on the Couch" is now an immediate threat to the Police officers life.
While it is true that the Taser is less lethal than firearms, it does not follow that it should be used in situations that would not justify the use of a firearm. Because it is still a potentially lethal weapon, its use should be restricted to situations in which the officer must use the weapon to prevent death or serious bodily harm to him/herself or others. Taserings should be investigated in the same manner as police shootings, and officers who use them in violation of policy subject to criminal prosecution. The problem isn't so much with the weapon itself as with the judgment of its users. This is lost on most police officials and the manufacturer. If they want to retain this weapon as an option, they should embrace logical, humane policies governing its use.
Alex
This night December 22 2008 I watched on a local television news program, a story about student truancy in high schools in the USA. The Administrator's solution to the problem of student tardiness and absenteeism was to "ankle bracelet" the students or children who happened to be late or absent.
Firstly, the government orders you to turn your children over to the state for a specified time period each day of the week, as determined.
Now, they demand that your children be monitored continuously to ascertain their locations at anytime or at the least a significant period of time.
Finally, you accept this policy believing they know better than you, and in the end it will all be good, fine and dandy, because after all their interest for the welfare of your children\student, and the sate is mutually beneficial.
As a result, in time your student the future citizen grows up with a very high tolerance for being controlled and monitored by the state.
Tasers, resisting tasers? How did this ever become a subject of conversation?
The ambush to freedom, thought and human social progress is moving forward with ease and determination.
Right, almost every time I hear about someone being tasered, they were either already in handcuffs and on the ground, or just expressing anger/annoyance at being unlawfully detained and demanding answers. Apparently, it is against the law to verbally express your anger when your rights are being violated.
This past weekend, in the SF Bay Area, 2 individuals undergoing arrest for public displays of 'bad behavior' died after being tasered.
But I could be wrong. But I'm not.
curmjudgeon99:we had a couple of men in NYC, in Sept./Oct or thereabouts: mentally ill young men who were not subdued but tasered and killed. Several more before them. People who were no threat.
If we are to believe you please provide a reliable, independent source.