Taser to Cops: Never Mind the Courts, Keep on Zappin’ | Danger Room | Wired.com

Taser to Cops: Never Mind the Courts, Keep on Zappin’

taser1

Last month, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals appeared to restrict police officers’ use of Tasers, ruling that the stun guns should only be fired when the situation “compels the employment of such force.” Now, Taser International has given its version of what the court’s decision means: business as usual.

“Media accounts of the ruling indicated that this was some new and sweeping restriction on the use of TASER ECDs ["electronic control devices"]. It’s not. This judicial opinion actually follows well-established law and applies it to a specific fact situation,” the company asserts on its official blog.

The posting goes through the facts of the case as recounted in the ruling. The Plaintiff, Carl Bryan, was standing outside his car, wearing boxer shorts and tennis shoes and was clearly unarmed. He was some 15-25 feet from the officer and not advancing towards him. His behavior was “disturbed and upset” or “erratic” – he was swearing and hitting himself — but not threatening.

Bryan had reason to be upset. Having been stopped earlier for speeding earlier, he had then forgotten to put his seat belt back on, and the police had just pulled him up for the offense of not wearing one. His the day had started with his discovery that his cousin’s girlfriend had gone off with his car keys. A simple mission to collect the keys so he could drive his brother home was turning into a nightmare…and that was before he was Tasered and broke four teeth in his fall.

The court rules that the use of force was excessive, based on three criteria – the severity of the crime, the level of threat, and the lack of resistance or attempts to flee. These factors were laid down in a previous judgment, Graham v. Connor in 1989 , and Taser International does not attempt to argue that the court got it wrong. Their view is that a well-established principle was applied in this case, but that it cannot be generalized to mean that the use of Tasers is any less acceptable than before. Each case of Taser use needs to be looked at separately, the company argues. The ruling doesn’t implying any sort of new blanket prohibition :

In conclusion, while the Court’s decision further analyzes use of an ECD, the holding does not establish new law for use of an ECD apart from applying it to the specific facts of this case. [emphasis copied from original]

There’s a similarly robust view on PoliceOne, a web site for the law enforcement community which has published their own guidelines for police officers following the ruling, starting with: “Don’t let this court decision cause you to disregard erratic behavior as being harmless.” The list goes on to stress the importance of the significance of a suspect’s refusing to obey orders and mentioning how quickly someone can close distance.

The view that Tasers can only be used in the face of an immediate threat is not universal, and clearly there are going to be many arguments about whether a suspect was “threatening.” If more court cases go against police forces, then expect the use and possibly issuing of Tasers to be severely restricted.

But if you accept Taser’s own assessment of the situation, the ruling changes nothing.

[Photo: City of Mansfield, Ohio]

ALSO:

via wired.com

Posted via email from ElyssaD's Posterous

Comments

Post a Comment