Submitted by lambert on Wed, 2007-11-28 01:02.

There are at least three arguments and they’re separate:

1. One is the medical studies thread; is it safe, is it torture or torment, and so on. This argument tends to rely on the studies, or press releases about the studies, for evidence.

2. The second is the law enforcement procedure argument. This tends to go to cases; was the tased person a “jerk,” were his movements threatening, do tasers save lives by substituting for guns. This argument tends to rely on documented police procedures, and the experiences of law enforcement personnel.

3. The third is whether electroshock is being normalized in the culture as as a routine means for law enforcement personnel to enforce “compliance,” even in cases where guns would not have been used. This argument tends to rely on incident reports, and the people most worried about this tend to see themselves as being tased for their political opinions at some point in the future.

These three arguments are separate, although they are often intermingled, and the parties talk past each other.

Clearly this topic for the day is #3 and maybe a little of #2.

“Just a tool” ….

Note that I got the categories a bit wrong and need to reframe, in my copious free time. Sarah makes a moral argument on behalf of the police. It’s important to remember this!!!!!! I would put it on under #2, thinking that procedure will keep all parties on the straight and narrow as far as possible, given the messy givens of policework.

We. Are. Going. To. Die. We must restore hope in the world. We must bring forth a new way of living that can sustain the world. Or else it is not just us who will die but everyone. What have we got to lose? Go forth and Fight!—Xan

If they started putting that in police manuals, would taser enthusiasts approve? After all, it’s like eating a Reese’s. There’s no bad time to do it!

But I still believe
And I will rise up with fists!!

Of course the categories probably need to be more flushed out (procedurual, policy, normative behavior, use as substitute, society influence, pavlovian response to images and media sensationalism, power abuses, technology vs. human interaction)

Anyways, I disagree that this had anything to do with #2. This was the case where a gun wouldn’t even be considered. This was done because someone disobeyed and needed to be taught a lesson. This is the same as a suspect that runs must be beaten.

I suppose your #3 is more about torture and political use of electrocution. But this wasn’t a taser is safer for the officer than brawling with the suspect. And is isn’t the case of, well at least she didn’t get shot.

This was like the “don’t tase me bro” where getting the suspect under control in 2 seconds trumps getting the suspect under control in 4 or 5 seconds.

C’mon, she could have had a bomb under the coat!

After all, terrorists aren’t afraid to use children.

You should pity the poor authority figure. She could have had anything under that coat. The situation could have gotten seriously out of control.

No primary citation shows unborn children have any distress when exposed to 50,000 volts in utero.

Therefore, your argument against it must be illogical, based on belief and not reason.

Aren’t you glad that’s been cleared up?

No Hell below us
Above us, only sky

from intranets:
“A suspect that runs must be beaten.”

This is on par with Kelley B’s:

“And it won’t be cruel and inhumane, it will only be a tool, like a nightstick in the back of the head after the perp is handcuffed.”

I give up.
Seriously.
Where does this stuff come from?
How does this become conventional wisdom?
What degree of idiocy and lack of common sense must people who perpetuate these memes ascribe to police officers?

Ya think? No, I realize, you don’t.

Sorry.

No Hell below us
Above us, only sky

Did you press charges?

Press charges against bad police behavior, with whom?

The police? That only works when the police don’t retaliate. Where there is a chance for justice.

Lady, I have no doubt you are an honest cop, who knows honest cops.

Unfortunately for the rest of us, and perhaps for you when you finally wake up, the world is not run by honest cops.

No Hell below us
Above us, only sky

1. When I read this story, IIRC the woman wasn’t “showing” yet, and so I didn’t use it, exactly because the inflammatory “pregnant woman beaten” meme was so tempting, and yet, not right.

2. As far as the “He who runs must be beaten” — Though I lack expertise in police procedure, this strikes me as an entirely natural extension of “Don’t put your hands in your pockets if you don’t to be tasered.” Eh?

3. Kelley writes:

Lady….

Who the fuck are you? Jerry Lewis?

I have no doubt you are an honest cop, who knows honest cops.

Unfortunately for the rest of us, and perhaps for you when you finally wake up, the world is not run by honest cops.

The world is not run by cops at all. Or do you think that Richard Mellon Scaife and Adolph Coors are policeman? Surely not.

Sweet Jeebus, you’d think that when you actually meet an honest cop you’d have the sense to work with that.

We. Are. Going. To. Die. We must restore hope in the world. We must bring forth a new way of living that can sustain the world. Or else it is not just us who will die but everyone. What have we got to lose? Go forth and Fight!—Xan

go to the watch commanders or the IAB. If it’s the sheriff’s office, go to the state. If it’s the highway patrol go to the state’s investigative service.

With us, here in Texas, if you have a beef with anybody with a badge (ok not firefighters or EMTS but you get the idea) go to the Texas Rangers. YES, even if your beef is with the ATF/FBI.

Look — you get what you give.

From your answer, I gather one of two things:
either you’ve never directly, firsthand, seen a suspect handcuffed and then hit in the back of the head with a baton, or you did see it and didn’t report it to the proper authorities.

which is it?

I have only been talking about victims of police abuse. It’s stupid though to say that cops are the model of restraint when there is so, so much video footage to the contrary. Sure we only hear about the small percentages of when something goes wrong. And maybe there are a few sluts that sleep around a lot and give all the gals a bad name… but ideally those people would be dealt with and if not, then it is a managerial decision to keep them in the game.

With great power comes great responsibility or something. When people have power over your freedom (ie. detention) they have a higher obligation to, say, not choke someone to death, or taser someone 15 times. Sure, they are risking their lives, but so is a pizza delivery guy.

Many, many countries have police that walk around without guns or tasers. How can that be? How were suspects ever arrested before tasers?

If they started putting that in police manuals, would taser enthusiasts approve? After all, it’s like eating a Reese’s. There’s no bad time to do it!

I’m all for scarshapedstar’s idea. If these things are so safe, let’s just taser anyone before approaching to put on handcuffs. Why not? It is safe, so let’s say your grandmother or wife gets pulled over for speeding. Why risk the officer’s safety. Let’s just taser through the window to make sure there isn’t a weapon.

Seriously. Cops get shot on these routine traffic stops, and this would save lives. Since I have been told over and over again that (a) tasers are safe and (b) it is just a tool like a whistle, gun, handcuffs… tasers don’t hurt people, bad intentioned cops do…
Let’s make this an official policy. Can any of the pro-taser crowd tell me why this isn’t police procedure?

every situation would deteriorate?

no.. every situation would begin with officer gaining total control. Sure sometimes it would take two of three stun cycles.

Maybe people would be pavlovian conditioned when they see the police to lay on the ground. this is the ideal outcome because no one gets hurt. Lives are saved. That’s not deteriorated, that is progress.

and in mine, no situation deteriorates beyond a point where it can be solved without hurting people….on the other hand, what’s to be done with the enraged spouse / parent who’s already bloodied housemates and isn’t stopping without being stopped?

what’s to be done with, e.g. the DC sniper or Ted Bundy?

“Many, many countries have police that walk around without guns or tasers.”

Please name some. (And don’t bother with the UK, those days will soon be gone.) If there are “Many, many countries…” where law enforcement carries neither firearms nor tasers, you should be able to name several.

And as long as you’re here:

“If these things are so safe, let’s just taser anyone before approaching to put on handcuffs.” “every situation would begin with officer gaining total control. Sure sometimes it would take two of three stun cycles.” ” If these things are so safe, let’s just taser anyone before approaching to put on handcuffs. Why not?”

A false premise argument. Why not is because no one in American law enforcement wants to exert violence to “gain total control” in every encounter.

Reality is that, oh, I dunno, 99%++ of cops just want to get through he day without any more effort than necessary, eat their doughnuts, grab a beer with their buddies and make it home to spend time with the wife and kids (or significant other of whatever persuasion.) They don’t want to dominate anyone, they don’t want to control anyone, they don’t want to arrest any one, they don’t want to taser anyone and they sure as hell don’t want to do any more paperwork than is absolutely required and every arrest, every weapons use, means a pile of paperwork; but if they have to they will because its their job, the job they swore an oath to. That’s my experience, with 99%++ of all the cops I’ve ever encountered; one thing and another there have been quite a few.

Please don’t forget that list of unarmed law enforcement countries now, thank you in advance.

“File charges” against a cop! i love comedy in the morning.

___________________________
.delusions of un mundo mejor.

Ok, before I start naming countries, I’m sure that your definition of “several” is openended.

I don’t feel like doing research this morning, but Iceland, New Zealand, and Norway for three (I guess UK is out). Is Wales allowed?

If you have access to Lexis, you could start here: http://www.allacademic.com//meta/p33314_…
Maybe even read some on google:
http://books.google.com/books?id=GV6HmCs…

It also may not be fair comparisons when some countries have mandatory military service and every home has an assault weapon that people take home.

I’m not sure what is the point of demanding a list of countries or even listing them. Is step 2 to show ?? what? My point was that some places have cops go about their day without firearms. Once upon a time US cops didn’t need tasers. I think tasers are great, but in the sense that they are used INSTEAD of a gun. ie. a circumstance where you would have to shoot the maniac with a knife, you can use a taser instead.

Not for crowd control or rowdy teenagers or people already in handcuffs.

They are right where you put them. What I propose to do now is examine what they mean and what they don’t.

Intranets:”I’m not sure what is the point of demanding a list of countries or even listing them. Is step 2 to show ?? what?”

My point in asking is to show, one; that there aren’t very many countries where law enforcement goes unarmed and two; that they are very different societies from what we have here in America in terms of the challenges facing law enforcement. These differences in the expectation of violence committed by civilians are clearly exposed in the reference you just provided,Arming the British Police: The Great Debate by Roy D. Ingram (1997).

The incidence of violent crime is much higher in the US compared to Western Europe and The Antipodes. From Ingram, Pg 114, (data from various years but held by the author to be reasonably representative):

—————————————————————————————

Table 4
COMPARISON OF VIOLENT CRIME FIGURES
(PER 100,000 INHABITANTS)

Country: Homicides (Robberies)

England & Wales: 1.2 (89)
France: 4.4 (86)
Germany: 3.1 (40)
Belgium: 1.5 (NA)
Norway: 0.3 (41)
Sweden: 2.0 (73)
New Zealand: 2.6 (42)
Australia: 1.7 (75)
Iceland: 0.4 (15)*
USA: 93 (264)**
USA 2006: 5.9 (160)**

[*1997-1998 average, data from another source.
**Ingram’s data for the USA are suspect; he may have dropped a decimal point on the homicide rate. In comparison, 2006 data from FBI/CIUS is provided.]

———————————————————————-

Ingram, Pg115:

“What this table clearly shows is the fact that crime in the countries surveyed is remarkably similar and, in every case, very much lower than that in the United States, which confirms the original contention that the country is not a good one with which to make comparisons. “

In the UK, the upper echelon of Police supervisors and the Parliamentary Advisor’s Office have resisted arming street patrols, citing a 1991 study questioning the Essex police that showed 77% of police opposed routinely carrying firearms and a 1994 policy statement by the Association of Chief Police Officers supporting that position. However, a much broader survey in later 1994 asking the question of patrol officers found 45% wanting to carry firearms. Since then, the street violence in the UK has changed for the worse, with common street thugs now more likely to be carrying guns than not. Consequently, the danger to police officers is much greater than it was just ten years ago. Again from Ingram:

“It would therefore be fair to say that, of those police officers at ‘the sharp end’, nearly half wish to be issued with guns and that, based on earlier surveys, this number is growing rapidly. The reason for this is not hard to find; there is a growing perception that contemporary society is a violent one, and that the representatives of law and order are among those most at risk.”

New Zealand will not be far behind; speaking of overall crime, Ingram presciently observes:

”the lowest [of those he surveyed] is New Zealand which has been enjoying several years of economic stability but there are clear indications that, as this country falls into recession, the crime figures there are rising markedly and by the time these words are read they may have caught up with the rest of the countries surveyed.”

New Zealand’s unarmed police are ill-equipped to deal with people who are perfectly willing to use guns as weapons and train others in their use. In response, law enforcement is turning to more frequent use of firearms and is trialing the deployment of tasers. Whether strict firearms licensing laws (training program, written test, background check with criminal exclusion, police interview of every individual application and a final determination by the police as to whether or not the applicant is “fit and proper” to own a gun) will be enough to allow law enforcement to continue generally unarmed remains to be seen, but the trend is doubtful.

Intranets: ”My point was that some places have cops go about their day without firearms.
There are some places, but they are very few. In England and Wales the pattern is quickly changing, and even New Zealand has seen the need to explore, if not yet fully deploy, tasers as an adjunct for threatening situations.

That leaves Iceland and Norway, where the form of societal control is much more invasive and oppressive than what we are used to in the US. Both countries are small with uniform and closed inward focused cultures. There is no real privacy; as in a village, everyone knows everyone else’s business. Both are theocracies under Scandinavian Lutheranism, a strict hierarchical authoritarian paternalistic belief system. In Iceland it is the official state religion, and the government employs taxpayer salaried ministers who attend to state-owned and maintained churches. While free to believe as they wish, every citizen is registered according to religion with children being automatically assigned to that of their parents’ at birth, and every citizen pays an annual Church Tax to support the system. All citizens of Iceland are required to participate in a DNA database, which along with the Registry of Records allows research into every citizen’s genealogy, family disease history, religious beliefs and residence history. In Iceland, every baby knows who their Daddy is. Both countries are extraordinarily misogynistic, with rapes rarely reported because the victims become social outcasts, it being assumed that they were in some way culpable for enticing or allowing the crime. Prison sentences for rape are brief, an average of 12 months in Iceland and 24 months in Norway.

But crimes of violence with weapons are rare. We could, I suppose, try this approach in the US but I’m guessing that very few here would be willing to give up personal privacy and embrace theocratic paternalism in return for disarming law enforcement.

Intranets: ”Once upon a time US cops didn’t need tasers.
I disagree. Rather, once upon a time police didn’t have tasers, which is a different thing. The need has been there all along, for tasers or something like them, a minimally lethal (semi-lethal, less-lethal – my view, all but non-lethal – take your pick) means of gaining control over those resisting arrest. Even Amnesty International agrees that there is such a need. Tasers may be an answer.

Intranets: ”I think tasers are great,” [Whoa, missed the memo on that opinion shift but fine.] ” but in the sense that they are used INSTEAD of a gun. ie. a circumstance where you would have to shoot the maniac with a knife, you can use a taser instead.”
Tasers are emphatically not useful in response to a lethal threat, with rare exceptions. When confronted with a lethal threat, officers should employ a firearm and if the threat is imminent, they will shoot to kill – there is no safe alternative. Police who use the taser instead are either very courageous or foolhardy. The appropriate use for tasers is along the lines of billyclubs or pepper spray, where the subject is non-compliant to commands for detention and poses a threat to others or themselves. That threat test applies equally to the police, who should not have to put themselves at physical risk simply because someone else is physically belligerent.

Intranets: “Not for crowd control or rowdy teenagers or people already in handcuffs.”
Not to worry about crowd control, not an effective use for the taser and no, the Fearsome French Fantasy Flying Saucer taser will not be either. As for people in handcuffs, feet are weapons so for me it still depends on the behavior of the person in custody. If their actions present a threat to the physical well-being of the officer, then in my mind it is justified. For “rowdy” teens, it depends on what rowdy is. If its just horsing around, surely not. If they present a threat, then maybe, depending. I think on this topic I will return with an example, which might prove interesting to discuss.

So what we see in terms of countries having unarmed law enforcement is that in small countries, especially where the culture is statist, theocratic and authoritarian with little personal privacy, it is possible. In Iceland, Norway and still to a large extent in New Zealand there is the reasonable expectation by law enforcement that subjects of apprehension will either not be armed or will not use whatever weapons they may have.

That is decidedly not the case in the US, where police must of necessity assume that every suspect is armed and dangerous – of 15,000 US murders in 2006, over 10,000 of them were committed with firearms. What we don’t find are large, open, free societies with a high level of personal autonomy and privacy where law enforcement can safely do their jobs without carrying lethal and just sub-lethal weapons.

I wish we had such a society, no weapons, no crime, and no oppression. Until then, I believe that we need to empower law enforcement to do the job we want them to do, monitor the hell out of them to ensure there is no abuse, severely punish those who are abusive and combat actual oppression in all its forms. IMNSHO, tasers used responsibly fit within that structure.

I’m pleased we’re once again on speaking terms. Thank you for that.