A Stitch in Haste

"In Britain, the police don't have guns, and the criminals don't have guns. So if you commit a crime, the police yell, 'Stop or I'll ... yell Stop again!"
--Robin Williams

Actually, now it seems that Britain — like many communities in America, will increasingly rely on "Stop or I'll tase!"

Officers in 10 forces, who are not firearms specialists, will be able to use the 50,000-volt Tasers to protect themselves or the public.
...
Until now, about 3,000 Tasers had been issued in Britain, but only to members of police firearms units.
...
The Home Office said officers would not be routinely equipped with Tasers. Instead, there would be a selection procedure and only specially trained officers who completed a training programme approved by the Association of Chief Police Officers would be issued with one.

Meanwhile, Taser is now selling "personal tasers" geared specifically for women (cost: $350; color options: five, including pink).

All this occurring, meanwhile, as accounts of "taser abuse" accumulate:

--Hospital security guard tasers a man holding a newborn.

--Campus police taser a UCLA student who refuses to show ID in the school library. (Video.)

--Tasering a dog to death during a drug bust.

--Several recent accounts of "death by taser."

A big part of the problem with tasers is that they were originally marketed as a substitute for guns, but have become a substitute for exertion. Tasers are, increasingly, not used to save lives but to merely make cops' lives easier.

If the rule were: "Never use your taser unless you would also be willing to shoot your firearm..." then I can't imagine too many incidents of "taser brutality." (See, e.g., here.) But instead the rule seems too often to be: "Use your taser whenever you perceive a risk to yourself." Or, worse: "Use you taser whenever you deem it convenient."

That simply cannot be right — not to the tune of 50,000 volts.

So the question becomes: Is the taser debate just a typical, predictable and (hopefully) temporary "feeling out" process that will eventually settle into a widely accepted consensus on proper use? Or is the corruptibility of law enforcement, like the corruptibility of politics, so endemic and ubiquitous as to make the taser a losing proposition from the outset?

(Via Danger Room.)

---

As for private tasers, I think there is unarguably a right for competent adults to possess them. The rules and standards for their use should be no different than any paradigm for the private use of force: both a proper justification (e.g., self-defense, defense of others) and an objective standard of reasonableness (i.e., non-negligence) should be required, otherwise the conduct should be both a crime and a tort.