thaluikhain said:
Is a taser something that should be used solely when suspects are threatening someone, or is it something that can be used when suspects are merely unco-operative?
The weapon/tool thing is really a false dichotomy, but you're right to boil it down to this question. And it's not an easy one.
To my mind, however, it should be acceptable to use a taser on a non-cooperative subject. When they are an actual threat to people, that is justification for the use of
lethal force. Until that point, the police still need to have a very clear "or else."
There's a fundamental misunderstanding when it comes to tasers and police. I'd like to clear it up, if you'll permit:
Tasers are not primarily there to protect the subject being tased. They are there to protect the police officer.
Here's what I mean -- the common argument is that, in the case of a non-cooperative subject, the officer can wrestle them into the handcuffs, etc. (That's once we get past the hurdle of people refusing to follow instructions from the police, but there's no talking to those people.) Think about it as a police officer, and you'll see the problems. When you get in close for hand-to-hand with the subject:
1. You're putting yourself and the subject on equal footing, meaning you sacrifice a measure of control of the situation. Since
you're the person legally and ethically responsible for taking control of the situation, this is a huge problem.
2. You give up your advantage of distance, meaning you open yourself to harm or injury. Since, odds are, there aren't other officers in vicinity, you're risking "abandoning your post" when you're incapacitated or injured.
3. You're putting
your firearm and other weapons within arms' reach of an already-uncooperative subject. They could use it against you, or any bystander they choose.
Every cop should always think as though every subject would take the gun if they could.
4. Bloodborne illness is a huge issue for cops, teachers, and medical personnel. Cops have it especially bad, since most of the time they're the most likely to be dealing with drug users, and people who are angry and combative. Every second you spend in a physical altercation with the subject is time that you could be exposing yourself to hepatitis, etc.
No cop -- or human -- should have to shoulder that risk to accommodate an uncooperative subject.
5. If a subject is arrested, that's probably the last thing on his to-do list for the day. He's done. A cop, however, may need to be ready for the
next threat. There may even be multiple subjects at the same incident. The cop needs a way to deal with one subject without exhausting him/herself, so that he/she can be ready to handle any emergent problems, too.
These are the kind of things that get cops treated as "lazy" pretty often... because we have this idea that just because
this situation is over, the cop's day is done. Far from the case, ever. Those of us who haven't been in a lot of physical altercations are also not aware of how exhausting they can be... and also how chaotic they can get, and how hard it is to avoid injury. A subject has to undergo these risks
once. The cop has to endure them
every single time.
