Post by KC on Jan 7, 2007 19:34:55 GMT -5
In Euless, police fired a stun gun three times at a 37-year-old man who appeared intoxicated and combative on a state highway.
The man, it turned out, wasn't drunk. He was in diabetic shock.
In Portland, Ore., police shocked a 260-pound male who refused orders to drop a stick.
The victim, it turned out, wasn't a noncompliant brute. He was an autistic 15-year-old.
In the hands of imperfect police, Tasers do not produce perfect results.
Everyone agrees on that. Not everyone agrees on how best to reduce mistakes.
In the view of one imperfect critic, there is no perfect solution. But Lon Burnam has an idea: legislation. He wants to tell police when they can use stun guns.
"Tasers are being used when they shouldn't be used," says Burnam, a Democratic Fort Worth state representative. "You should have the same restrictions on Tasers that you have on a gun."
Burnam has filed a bill that would limit Tasers to "deadly force" situations.
I can hear police right now — "Hold it right there!"
Problem No. 1: Tasers were not created for "deadly force" situations. There are intermediate weapons designed to prevent conflict from escalating.
Problem No. 2: Faced with an armed suspect, peace officers aren't going to deploy a Taser. They're going to fire a gun.
Problem No. 3: No law can address the myriad, split-second judgment calls required of police.
In other words, how can a lawmaker in Austin tell a cop in Abilene when to stun?
On the flip side, documented cases of Taser abuse cannot be ignored.
In November, a campus police officer zapped a 23-year-old UCLA student five times after the student refused to show his ID and leave the library. Other abuses have been reported in Tarrant County, the district Burnam represents.
"I acknowledge how important and useful the Taser is in law enforcement," Burnam says. "But we've got abuse. We don't need Tasers being used on 15-year-olds."
Police acknowledge some abuse stems from improper training, some from poor officer discipline. Another problem: Every police department has a different policy on Tasers.
SAPD officers face several restrictions. They can't, for example, use stun guns "to escort or jab subjects." Nor can officers fire Tasers "punitively for purposes of coercion, or in an unjustified manner when a prisoner is handcuffed."
Burnam says he doesn't want to eliminate Tasers. Police say the weapons can't be limited to deadly force encounters.
Burnam says abuse can be reduced with more restrictions. Police say mistakes can be minimized with better training.
Doesn't sound like there's much room for middle ground, but Burnam and his staff want to find some. They are meeting with chiefs and police unions to discuss abuse prevention.
Burnam wants law enforcement to support his bill, even if he has to amend it. But that's going to be a tough sell.
It's impossible to say whether Burnam's bill has a chance of becoming law. But this much is clear: Proponents and critics are gearing for a fight. A fight over law and order and a 50,000-volt blast that almost everyone says is preferable to a bullet.
www.mysanantonio.com/news/metro/stories/MYSA010707.01B.KROD.2f1989e.html
The man, it turned out, wasn't drunk. He was in diabetic shock.
In Portland, Ore., police shocked a 260-pound male who refused orders to drop a stick.
The victim, it turned out, wasn't a noncompliant brute. He was an autistic 15-year-old.
In the hands of imperfect police, Tasers do not produce perfect results.
Everyone agrees on that. Not everyone agrees on how best to reduce mistakes.
In the view of one imperfect critic, there is no perfect solution. But Lon Burnam has an idea: legislation. He wants to tell police when they can use stun guns.
"Tasers are being used when they shouldn't be used," says Burnam, a Democratic Fort Worth state representative. "You should have the same restrictions on Tasers that you have on a gun."
Burnam has filed a bill that would limit Tasers to "deadly force" situations.
I can hear police right now — "Hold it right there!"
Problem No. 1: Tasers were not created for "deadly force" situations. There are intermediate weapons designed to prevent conflict from escalating.
Problem No. 2: Faced with an armed suspect, peace officers aren't going to deploy a Taser. They're going to fire a gun.
Problem No. 3: No law can address the myriad, split-second judgment calls required of police.
In other words, how can a lawmaker in Austin tell a cop in Abilene when to stun?
On the flip side, documented cases of Taser abuse cannot be ignored.
In November, a campus police officer zapped a 23-year-old UCLA student five times after the student refused to show his ID and leave the library. Other abuses have been reported in Tarrant County, the district Burnam represents.
"I acknowledge how important and useful the Taser is in law enforcement," Burnam says. "But we've got abuse. We don't need Tasers being used on 15-year-olds."
Police acknowledge some abuse stems from improper training, some from poor officer discipline. Another problem: Every police department has a different policy on Tasers.
SAPD officers face several restrictions. They can't, for example, use stun guns "to escort or jab subjects." Nor can officers fire Tasers "punitively for purposes of coercion, or in an unjustified manner when a prisoner is handcuffed."
Burnam says he doesn't want to eliminate Tasers. Police say the weapons can't be limited to deadly force encounters.
Burnam says abuse can be reduced with more restrictions. Police say mistakes can be minimized with better training.
Doesn't sound like there's much room for middle ground, but Burnam and his staff want to find some. They are meeting with chiefs and police unions to discuss abuse prevention.
Burnam wants law enforcement to support his bill, even if he has to amend it. But that's going to be a tough sell.
It's impossible to say whether Burnam's bill has a chance of becoming law. But this much is clear: Proponents and critics are gearing for a fight. A fight over law and order and a 50,000-volt blast that almost everyone says is preferable to a bullet.
www.mysanantonio.com/news/metro/stories/MYSA010707.01B.KROD.2f1989e.html