Right: the scene of the death of Brazilian student Robert Laudisio, in Sydney.
 Found a word you're not familiar with? Double-click that word to bring up a dictionary reference to it. The dictionary page includes an audio sound file with which to actually hear the word said. |
Arguments against issuing Tasers to general duties Australian police
1. Tasers can kill and injure
In February 2011, Amnesty International released a report on the number of deaths it claimed Tasers had caused in the United States. The report found that since June 2001, about 500 people have died after being shocked by police Tasers. In at least 60 cases, medical examiners and coroners concluded that the deaths were directly caused or significantly contributed to by the Taser shocks.
Among the cases reviewed, 90 per cent of those who died were unarmed. Many of the victims were subjected to multiple shocks. There are continuing reports of United States police officers using multiple or prolonged shocks, despite warnings that such usage may increase the risk of adverse effects on the heart or respiratory system.
On 13 February, 2012, Johnnie Kamahi Warren was the latest United States' citizen to die after a police officer in Dothan, Alabama used a Taser on him at least twice. The 43-year-old, who was unarmed and allegedly intoxicated, reportedly stopped breathing shortly after being shocked and was pronounced dead in hospital less than two hours later.
Critics of Tasers claim that the weapon's capacity to kill would not be a concern if the devices were used as an alternative to firearms given that Tasers are less lethal than guns. However, the evidence suggests that these supposedly less-than-lethal weapons are being used instead of guns in situations in which firearms would not be justified.
It is claimed that while Tasers are used in addition to firearms, their lethal capacity means that the number of deaths at the hands of police are likely to increase.
It has further been noted that Tasers have the capacity to cause serious harm to those who are stunned.
In a two-week period in 2005, police officers in five United States jurisdictions filed lawsuits against Taser International claiming they suffered serious injuries after being shocked with the device during training classes. The claims of injury included heart damage, strokes, multiple spinal fractures, hearing and vision loss and neurological damage.
That year, a memorandum from the United States Army discouraged shocking soldiers with Tasers in training, despite Taser International's recommendations. The US army warned that 'seizures can be induced by the electric current' and said not to use the weapons 'given the potential risks'. In 2009, Taser International issued a warning that Tasers should be used 'avoiding chest shots' to 'avoid controversy' about effects on the human heart.
2. Police are using Tasers rather than other, less lethal alternatives
It has been claimed that the increased reliance on Tasers means police are ignoring non-weapon-based strategies for diffusing conflict. Jude McCulloch, Professor of Criminal Justice and Criminology at Monash University, has stated, 'One danger with the promise of technological quick fixes such as less-than-lethal weapons is that police stop relying on non-weapon-based strategies for diffusing conflict and dealing with challenging situations.'
Critics of Tasers argue police are becoming increasingly militarised, with an array of weapons such as pistols, batons, capsicum spray and Tasers.
Specifically, critics have noted that police are relying less on developing negotiating skills and are less likely to attempt to persuade a distressed citizen to comply with a police direction.
It has been suggested that the use of more violent means of seeking compliance is particularly dangerous when police are dealing with mentally disturbed people or those who are drug-affected. It is claimed that such people are likely to react with increasing and exaggerated distress to Tasers or capsicum spray.
3. Police misuse Tasers
It has been claimed that police misuse Tasers in a variety of ways.
The rules in most Australian states indicate that Tasers should be used only as a less lethal alternative to a firearm where loss of life or violence is threatened. They should not be used to force compliance on someone who is running or passive. It has also been suggested that some police have used Tasers to punish or intimidate difficult prisoners. Additionally, it has been claimed that an unusually large number of Aboriginal people have been Tasered. In 2010 the Queensland Crime and Misconduct Commission released a report which found Tasers were being used disproportionately against Aboriginal people and further that police use of them on Aboriginal people had doubled over the two preceding years. The Queensland Crime and Misconduct Commission noted that Indigenous people are the subjects of one in five Taser deployments.
A number of other studies have indicated that police have used these devices in circumstances that did not warrant them. A recent audit conducted by the New South Wales Ombudsman, Bruce Barbour, identified the inappropriate use of Tasers in a minority of cases, including some which police had deemed appropriate.
Mr Barbour has warned of a trend known as 'mission creep', where police use Tasers in low-risk situations to gain compliance. He has given an example of one woman in the United States who was shocked by a Taser after refusing to follow a police order to get out of bed.
A 2011 Amnesty International report cited the case of a doctor who suffered an epileptic seizure and crashed his car. When he could not comply with a police officer's commands, he was jolted with Tasers, leading to his death. The same report further cited United States police officers employing Tasers on pregnant women, schoolchildren, and an elderly person with dementia.
Opponents of Tasers have noted a world-wide tendency for the weapons to be used with increasing frequency. They claim this increased use is likely to indicate misuse as the weapon is being normalised and used in non-life-threatening situations for which it is not intended. In 2008 video footage from the East Perth Watch House showed Tasers were used 13 times against an unarmed, non-threatening man surrounded by nine police officers. The man claims to have sustained long-term ill effects from the Taser shocks.
The 2011 Amnesty International report claimed the fundamental problem with Tasers is their inherent susceptibility to abuse since they are so easy to use and the consequences of their use tend to be minimised.
New South Wales Police figures show Tasers were used 125 times after their introduction in 2008, 404 times in 2009 before rising dramatically to 1151 times in 2010. (Last year the number fell to 881.)
4. Tasers' can be particularly harmful when used on vulnerable people
Taser International warns against the use of Tasers on individuals weighing less than 60 kilograms. This implies the potential danger of the device when used on children. It has also been suggested that Tasers are problematic when used on those with a pre-existent medical condition such as a cardiac condition or a nervous system dysfunction. It has been noted that being jolted by a Taser shock may trigger either a heart attack or a seizure in vulnerable individuals.
Despite this, recent research has indicated that Tasers have been used in the United Kingdom on both children and the elderly. Figures released under the Freedom of Information Act showed that 59 under-18s were shot at over a 30-month period. More than 120 others, including a boy of 12, had the weapon aimed at them by police.
The statistics for older people are similar. A total of 18 over-60s were hit by Tasers and a further 24 were targeted or had a gun drawn on them between July 2007 and December 2011. The oldest was an 89-year-old war veteran who was threatening to cut his throat with a piece of broken glass. North Wales police said he was 'Tasered' for his own safety. The retired carpenter, who was apparently suffering from the onset of Alzheimer's disease, was left traumatised
Oliver Sprague of Amnesty International called for a reversal of the policy that allowed the stun guns to be used by rank-and-file officers. He said, 'There are serious concerns that Tasers could be more dangerous to vulnerable groups, such as children, older people and those with mental health issues. That's why the split-second decision on whether to fire the Taser should be made only by an officer who has had the highest level of training and only in limited circumstances.'
Similar reservations have been expressed about Taser use in Australia, where critics have voiced concern that police show an inadequate appreciation of the potentially harmful effects of using Tasers on vulnerable individuals.
5. The safeguards around Tasers are inadequate
It has been claimed that the training offered to the general police officers using Tasers is inadequate and that the standards governing their use are neither clear nor consistent. There is no uniformly applicable set of standards governing police use of Tasers across Australia and some individual jurisdictions are internally inconsistent.
In 2008, the New South Wales Ombudsman, Bruce Barbour, noted that the risks of using Tasers are far higher when used by general duties officers compared to 'specialist units given that general duties officers receive significantly less training about managing high risk incidents, and they do not work in well-rehearsed team environments.' Mr Barbour further stated, 'In order to ensure that Taser use is safe, effective and consistent it will be imperative for these officers to receive clear, comprehensive and consistent guidance about Taser use.'
Mr Barbour went on to claim, 'There are no common standard operating procedures (SOPs) for Taser use across the NSW Police Force. Instead there are multiple SOPs used by different units and general duties officers.
Furthermore, while the current SOPs give general guidance on the types of situations in which Taser use is authorised, they do not give adequate guidance about the situations in which they should not be used.'
Mr Barbour was particularly concerned that 'The SOPs also do not give adequate guidance about the use of Tasers on potentially vulnerable individuals and in high risk environments. This poses an unacceptable risk to both officers who use the weapons and the general public.'
The inadequacy of the operating procedures followed by the New South Wales police appears to have again been made apparent in the circumstances surrounding the death of Brazilian student, Roberto Laudisio Curti. Though a coronial inquiry and a police inquiry have yet to be completed, a highly-ranked officer has noted that the fact that Mr Laudisio Curti was hit by Tasers several times did not mean he was shot by the same person.
The spokesperson stated, 'It's not uncommon for somebody to be Tasered three times, as multiple officers can make the decision [to fire] at the same time.' This observation supports the Ombudsman's judgement that the group operating procedures surrounding Tasers are not adequate.
In an opinion piece published in The Punch on March 20, 2012, David Shoebridge, highlighted what appears to be another inadequacy in the New South Wales Police operating procedures for Tasers. He noted that the guidelines advise officers to 'aim for the centre of the seen target mass of the back (where possible avoid targeting the head)'.
Mr Shoebridge has commented, 'They inexplicably fail to heed the manufacturer's additional warning, "When possible, avoid intentionally targeting the ECD on sensitive areas of the body such as the... throat, chest/breast, or known pre-existing injury areas without legal justification."'