I believe the death of a 17-year old in Winnipeg last week after being Tasered by city police brings to about 22 the number of people killed in Canada with the device since 2003.
Coincidentally, that would be one-quarter of the number of soldiers killed to date in Afghanistan, tragic events that bring pomp and ceremony, flag lowering, somber parades serious national debates and calls for change. I don’t know if you can draw any intelligent revelations from that comparison, but I just thought I would mention it and see if anything strikes you (zaps you?)… two different worlds, both our Canadian people.
We still hear claims from some of the law enforcement community that the “stun gun” is a comparable device to things like Billy Clubs, and perhaps even safer since you don’t get welts on the head from it. Certainly it’s been judged as safer for the officers involved, who wish to avoid a thrashing on the ground with the enraged “arrestee”, something that might have resulted in harm to them. I noted with interest the recent racially charged incident in Digby where a highly trained off-duty police officer took a swing at a young man outside a lounge, and was promptly felled and hospitalized with one punch (then the young man was soundly Tasered, of course, and arrested). There is a danger in mixing it up.
There was always a jingle about officers and their guns that went like this: “Don’t pull your gun unless you’re prepared to shoot it; don’t shoot your gun unless you’re prepared to kill someone.” Things have a way of getting out of control. The worst case scenario is always possible. It’s a good warning, and one that needs to be adopted by those pulling Tasers, given the results so far. “Don’t pull your Taser unless you’re prepared to kill someone” seems to take the device out of the realm of the Billy Club; no doubt the occasional person has been killed by them too, but we don’t read about that monthly.
Let’s get serious about these things… when there were a scattered few deaths due to Tasers, the argument that the deaths were somehow accidental and related to issues of anxiety that the victim uniquely had made a little sense. While they are being used hundreds of times across Canada every week and this number of deaths is “statistically” low, it’s obvious that it’s more than just a chance one-in-a-million meeting of a Taser and a victim predisposed to cause trouble (like they always have, the buggers) by dying on them. If there is a deadly relationship between an extreme anxiety medical situation and being Tasered, it would seem reasonable to assume that being surrounded by police (likely as the result of being involved in crime), with one of them pointing a Taser at you, brings on an extreme anxiety situation in the best of us.
The Taser is a lethal device. Demonstrated. Like the gun, where the victim might be incapacitated by a shot in the leg (did they ever think of that with people like the 17 year old who wouldn’t put down the knife?), or might be killed with a shot in the head, the Taser has the potential of rendering the victim compliant, or on occasion dead. Thankfully in most cases, the result is compliance (but amazingly they talk about Tasering people several times, over and over— poor electrical contact or great stamina?), but in 22 cases the result was death.
One inquest on the use of the Taser recommended having an EMT person on hand in a Taser situation, but that of course is not a reasonable request. In a crisis situation, certainly things cannot be put on hold while they wait for an ambulance and attendants to arrive.
Taser situations are front page news lately, a fact certainly not appreciated by the police forces. Related news stories indicate that many police forces have revised their policies in regard to Taser use, and Taser use is likely being restricted, but this makes you wonder if the response is to the fact that they are proven to be capable of killing, or that their use has resulted in great PR troubles for forces experiencing a death. I notice that lately a memo must have circulated pointing out that “Taser” makes for poor press at the best of times, and the stun gun is now being referred to by enforcement agencies as “electronic control devices”. And I thought that was my wall thermostat! Sounds about as innocuous— “Put down the knife or I’ll be forced to use this VCR Remote on you!”
What’s the answer? What was the question? Were an inordinate amount of officers being harmed in the role of taking down perpetrators (gee, I’m starting to take on the jargon myself— maybe “perps” even, threatening the “members”), so that the ECD’s (keeping up with the terminology— must stay current) were needed? How many officers were killed or seriously harmed in that aspect of their role? Twenty-two in the last few years in situations where the Taser would have made a difference? I don’t see that in the news. Unfortunately I read of officers being shot from a distance in places like Mayerthorpe, Alberta, but I don’t read headlines where trained officers are killed in wrestling teenagers to the ground. Was there an established need?
It’s just one more of those issues where red flags are popping up all over the place, and as usual— something needs to be done.
—–
A few thoughts on this topic.
I’ve been working with a perfumer who spent ten years as an English policeman (bobby). And he didn’t carry a gun. In fact, it’s easier to picture him doing Buddhist meditations than commiting an act of violence, even in self defense.
His comment to me on guns was simply, “since the bad guys KNOW that YOU don’t have a gun, there’s no need for them to feel they have to shoot you.”
In other words, in a confrontation, the “perp” knows that this is a non life threatening experience that will, ultimately, be resolved with minimum violence and perhaps just some firm words.
A gun in the hands of a policeman creates a different situation. High anxiety on BOTH sides. And, I suspect, from the point of view of the “perp,” a gun or taser are viewed about the same. So an aggressive stance by the authorities creates MORE anxiety on the other side, and the risk of injury becomes greater.
Down our way in the USA, police use guns for a number of purposes. One of the saddest is to shoot their wives. (We have seen it happen SEVERAL times over a 10 year period in our area.) To me, this suggests that the relationship between these PARTICULAR policemen and their guns is not one of the gun being a necessary tool but an instrument of power, to be used when they are feeling powerless. (Please note: these policemen are THE EXCEPTIONS, but there are too many exceptions.)
The great illustrator, Norman Rockwell, told the story of an incident in Vermont when a man had barricaded himself in his house and dozens of law enforcement agents were climbing the hill to reach him for a confrontation, which probably led to someone being killed.
One local policeman, cooler than the others and someone who KNEW the subject, walked DOWN the hill to his backdoor and told him to put down the gun and surrender. The “standoff” was ended and nobody was harmed.
I think that this incident demonstrates that when the police and the people being policed KNOW each other and respect each other and have a certain amount of trust for each other, violent confrontations become unnecessary.
Of course there are exceptions where only force may be effective, but I think that these incidents SHOULD be just exceptions.
Phil, your description of the fellow holed up in his house and the way guns tend to lead to more aggression reminded me of a book I read about the first use of DNA in Scotland in solving a crime (not significant in this comment). When police finally knew who the serial killer was, they followed him and allowed him to enter his house, surrounded it and entered. It was mentioned that this practice would not go on in the US– the suspect must be taken down outdoors, letting him enter his house might allow him to access an arsenal of weapons.