2008 Woodie Awards
Non-violence should not be Tased
View from another campus
Todd A. Kulhanek: Daily Egyptian (Southern Illinois U.)
Issue date: 11/9/07 Section: Viewpoint
Over the last few months, there have been a rash of incidents in both the news and on video posting Web sites involving the use of Tasers against unarmed, non-violent individuals by police officers. While many of the subjects were "resisting," almost none of them were violently resisting the officers who were attempting an arrest (for the purpose of this article, "violently resisting" is characterized as trying to harm the officer, while non-violently resisting is the absence of any attempt to harm).
For the moment, most of us may agree that while it is somewhat comical to watch the DUI suspect repeatedly fall over having been "tasered," the real trend is disturbing: The inordinate use of violence via the Taser as a tool of control.
Let's be frank - the application of 50,000 volts should constitute an act of violence in anyone's book. Without question, there have been many situations where that act was necessary to (and did) protect the safety of the suspect, the officers and innocent people; however, these incidences are increasingly absent of any violence on the part of the suspect.
We are left with the inescapable conclusion - in light of no violent resistance by the suspect - that the use of the Taser is a simple means to bring quick, and absolute control over an offender; a violent method of controlling a suspect, which stands directly opposite of the manufacturer's official position that "Taser devices... quickly incapacitate dangerous, combative or high-risk subjects...."
Cursing at an officer, or simply refusing to sit when told to do so does not constitute "combative behavior" nor does refusing to stop filming with a video recorder confer the label "dangerous" on anyone.
The Taser is billed as a "non-lethal alternative to the use of a firearm." If an officer couldn't shoot an offender with a gun because that person refuses to stop cursing at the officer, the officer should have no right to use a lesser act of violence to affect the offender's silence. Former U.S. Marshall Matthew Fogg, who serves on the Amnesty International USA board, says that too many members of law enforcement seem to be using them as compliance mechanisms.
For the moment, most of us may agree that while it is somewhat comical to watch the DUI suspect repeatedly fall over having been "tasered," the real trend is disturbing: The inordinate use of violence via the Taser as a tool of control.
Let's be frank - the application of 50,000 volts should constitute an act of violence in anyone's book. Without question, there have been many situations where that act was necessary to (and did) protect the safety of the suspect, the officers and innocent people; however, these incidences are increasingly absent of any violence on the part of the suspect.
We are left with the inescapable conclusion - in light of no violent resistance by the suspect - that the use of the Taser is a simple means to bring quick, and absolute control over an offender; a violent method of controlling a suspect, which stands directly opposite of the manufacturer's official position that "Taser devices... quickly incapacitate dangerous, combative or high-risk subjects...."
Cursing at an officer, or simply refusing to sit when told to do so does not constitute "combative behavior" nor does refusing to stop filming with a video recorder confer the label "dangerous" on anyone.
The Taser is billed as a "non-lethal alternative to the use of a firearm." If an officer couldn't shoot an offender with a gun because that person refuses to stop cursing at the officer, the officer should have no right to use a lesser act of violence to affect the offender's silence. Former U.S. Marshall Matthew Fogg, who serves on the Amnesty International USA board, says that too many members of law enforcement seem to be using them as compliance mechanisms.
Be the first to comment on this story