Rethinking The Taser
by digby
In the wake of the 9th Circuit ruling on excessive force with a taser,some police departments are refining their procedures. And that's a good thing.
A reader sent this in from Burbank:
Local law enforcement agencies plan to amend their training programs to include the findings of a federal appellate court that ruled a Coronado police officer used excessive force when he Tased an unarmed, nonviolent man during a traffic stop.
If it stands, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling would establish legal precedent for when officers are allowed to use Tasers, forcing some law enforcement agencies to reexamine policies concerning their use of the nonlethal weapons, experts said.
Because the Dec. 28 decision specifies an immediate threat, officers who use Tasers on passive resisters could be held liable for injuries suffered, said Michael Gennaco, chief attorney for the Los Angeles County Office of Independent Review, which oversees the county sheriff’s department.
“That’s why a tight policy is critical,” said Gennaco, who planned to meet with county sheriff’s officials to ensure their policies and training were consistent with the court opinion. “That way, the departments will be much better off than on their own.”
While Burbank officials maintained that strict language governing the use of the nonviolent weapons were in line with the ruling, Glendale city attorneys said they were in the process of a comprehensive review.
“Generally speaking, a Taser is used based on a reasonable officer’s standard at the time,” said Carmen Merino, general counsel for the Glendale Police Department. “It generally may be used when an officer is confronted with a violent and threatening subject, and after warning has been given.”
Burbank officials reviewed their policies and found that while further training is in order, it would be unnecessary to amend the policies, Chief Assistant City Atty. Juli Scott said.
Barring extreme circumstances, Tasers can be used only on those who are actively resisting arrest, are aggressive or in danger of harming themselves or others, Scott said.
“Our policy is very narrowly drawn. We wouldn’t typically want someone to use it on a suspect who is just standing there,” she said. “It is to be used to temporarily immobilize a suspect so that he can be safely taken into custody — not just someone who is not obeying your commands.”
The whole philosophical argument about tasers rests on the idea that in a free country, representatives of the government are not allowed to brutalize citizens just to make their jobs easier. It says something that they have to make that explicit to police officers, but they do. I've read far too many comments and articles from police officers and their defenders saying the opposite. Perhaps this ruling will at least serve to make police departments aware that they need to make this clear.
It's not the whole story. Tasers are unsafe and they are killing people who present no deadly threat and have been convicted of no crime. Their use should be severely restricted if not banned. But at least the idea that police should not be able to tase people for any reason they choose is being challenged on a basic constitutional basis. If you don't make it clear to people who have been given tremendous power over individuals in every day life that they will be held accountable for abusing that power, they will ... abuse it. It's the way the world works. In a free society, I think it's to everyone's advantage to understand the limits of what police can do with an immobilizing weapon of pain, don't you?
.