The Right Emphasis?
Posted by Peter Holran
There is certainly a lot of attention being paid to the arrest in Travis County, Texas, involving the use of a TASER® device on a 72-year-old woman. It is dominating blogs, Twitter and websites all over the Internet — almost to the same level of ubiquity that the “naked wizard guy” video received after it went viral last month. Then, following yesterday’s release of the in-car video of the Travis County incident, it now has been covered by most traditional television, radio, and print media outlets across the country and throughout the world.
One of the most balanced reports I have seen thus far on the incident was on the NBC Today Show yesterday — including the after report discussion between Erin Burnett and Matt Lauer sharing their personal views on the situation.
While I can understand the sensational draw and the spirited debate over this incident, I am left wondering why only a select few TASER uses are covered this intensely by the media or on the Internet. It seems as if the TASER device only gets this kind of coverage when it is used in what is perceived to be a negative or controversial situation.
There are thousands of videos where officers used a TASER device according to their agencies’ policies and it directly led to the saving of an individual’s life. But we rarely see these instances covered on a national scale.
Electronic control devices are saving lives, reducing injuries and saving precious taxpayer dollars in workman’s compensation and litigation savings in the communities across the United States that are patrolled by the nearly 14,000 law enforcement agencies that carry TASER devices.
I personally believe a life saved deserves the same, if not more, coverage than a 72-year-old who became belligerent in refusing to sign a ticket or a naked guy at a music festival. This is certainly true with the story today from Amherst, N.Y., about the 6 month-old baby who was saved by an officer using a TASER device.
# gayle wrote on 10/13/2009 6:25 am:
I am so sick of our media’s villainizing people doing their jobs. That granny got what she deserved. 1. she broke the law putting construction workers lives in danger 2. She was belligerent and combative verbally 3. She physically put herself, the cop and the passers by in danger by forcing him to deal with her trying to get back in her car 4. she asked for him to taser her. Granny, shut your big yap and take the money you got paid to endager others and waste our time.
# Jack wrote on 8/8/2009 12:49 pm:
I hadn’t heard about this before reading about it here, so I located the dash-cam video (I couldn’t get NBC’s “balanced” video to work…). Oh, boy – another icky taser torture-porn clip (TTPC)! Over a little old lady’s refusal to sign a speeding ticket (why could’t he cop just call for backup if she was so menacing; wait, he did – after she was safely zapped and screaming…).
Now here’s something that puzzles me: the most current post on this blog (“The TASER Worked!”) contains the claim that the effect of a taser jolt lasts five seconds or so, yet *every* YouTube TTPC victim pleads with the “brave” cop not to send a follow-up shock, because none of them seem to be able to comply with what they’ve been told to do. This TTPC was, of course, no exception; nor was the goon’s threat that the victim “put your hands behind your back or I’ll tase you again!”.
Lovely friends and customers your company has, folks.
# ndresident wrote on 7/1/2009 10:46 am:
First of all, the lady violated some law and her refusal to obey that law required the officer to take action. While taking action the lady’s refusal to follow instructions caused the officer to resort to the tools he was issued by his department. I’m sorry folks, but the officer is paid to enforce the law and sometimes that isn’t pretty. If this was a 20 year old male breaking the law nobody would care. Why does age and gender make breaking the law okay?
# Spartan Cops wrote on 6/26/2009 10:20 am:
@t506
I did not agree with any of your statements. I was asking a question to clarify your argument.
Your agenda is clear and your arguments lack substance with me and probably many others because they are not rational but emotional.
I think that TASER is one of the better tools for law enforcement and the military to perform their functions. It can be abused just like any other tool. In those instances the operator should be held responsible.
# Jason wrote on 6/25/2009 8:24 am:
“You manufacture a tool for a specific purpose which is then used for *another* purpose”
Your arguments and examples are invalid Jason. The “misuse” of a taser is an extension of its original purpose, not a completely different purpose.
How is it invalid? If he’d shot the woman, would we have blamed Smith and Wesson or Glock or H&K for the shooting? I wouldn’t have. A firearm is meant to be used as a weapon, and cops are supposed to use them only when necessary for the public good. Shooting an old lady is as much an “extension of its original purpose” with a gun as the tasing is in this case. Both are wrong. In neither case is the manufacturer responsible.
If you want to invalidate my arguments, I’m willing to listen, but you’ve provided here no evidence to invalidate them. Any weapon, lethal or non, can be misused. Why is this so different than my original examples, or the example of the gun manufacturer, and what makes my arguments so invalid?
“Of course, the question of what defines “misuse” is totally subjective – it all depends on what kind of society you want to live in/create. And this is where the issue of moral/social responsibility comes in.”
I never said anything different. I believe this *is* misuse. The officer’s social responsibility is to *not* tase old ladies. Ours is to condemn him for doing so.
“Another invalid argument. Here you assume that man-handling and “pain-compliance” were the only alternative to the use of a taser, yet in your previous paragraph you state that this woman was neither violent nor dangerous.”
1) This was, as I stated quite specifically, only a *side* point, not an attempt to say he did the right thing (which I’ve said several time he did not). Saying something is “somewhat possible” hardly constitutes a central point of my position.
2) I’m not actually saying that they were the only alternatives, only that, from what I’ve seen of police training, that’s how they tend to put resisting people in cars. That’s it. Just because she’s not able to hurt him doesn’t mean that putting a thrashing adult individual in his back seat is going to be easy.
Look, I’m personally in agreement with Kevin, who said he can’t believe how police are misapplying the taser. In this case, they are. And this officer’s department should have condemned it also, but they didn’t take the high road. But blaming the manufacturer takes blame away from the real guilty individual here, who is the officer himself.
# johnathan Vrozos wrote on 6/25/2009 6:55 am:
Johnathan Vrozos JV says WOW. I can’t believe how idiotic some of the above statements are.
Firstly, gun manufacturers are not responsible for people killing others are.
Secondly, Beer and Alcohol manufacturers are not responsible for drunk driving or alcoholism.
Thirdly, the state is not responsible for creating gambling addicts with lotteries, slot machine, casinos, sports betting.
Fourthly and more, Taser is not responsible if someone misuses the device and hurts someone.
We must take responsibility for our own actions!!!
We must be our own CONTROL BOARDS if we are over 21 years of age!!!
By Johnathan Vrozos JV
# t506 wrote on 6/21/2009 4:30 pm:
“You manufacture a tool for a specific purpose which is then used for *another* purpose”
Your arguments and examples are invalid Jason. The “misuse” of a taser is an extension of its original purpose, not a completely different purpose.
Of course, the question of what defines “misuse” is totally subjective – it all depends on what kind of society you want to live in/create. And this is where the issue of moral/social responsibility comes in.
“As a side note, it’s somewhat possible that, in spite of his being clearly too aggressive, his use of a taser actually posed less threat to her physically. Manhandling her into his cruiser with pain-compliance holds and the like might have been more likely to cause injuries that a brief shock–though I haven’t the medical expertise to say for sure.”
Another invalid argument. Here you assume that man-handling and “pain-compliance” were the only alternative to the use of a taser, yet in your previous paragraph you state that this woman was neither violent nor dangerous.
# Jason wrote on 6/20/2009 12:05 am:
I hear a lot of “TASER needs to take some responsibility.” It does? How is it morally responsible? You manufacture a tool for a specific purpose which is then used for *another* purpose, outside of its intended operations parameters, and somehow the corporation is responsible?
Let me put it another way: to accept that argument, you have to accept the argument that kitchen knife manufacturers are responsible for the t3ens of thousands of kitchen knife assaults every year, beer manufacturers are responsible for people hit by their bottles during bar fights, gasoline makers are responsible for that homeless man in the US a year or two ago being doused with gasoline and lit on fire, video camera makers are responsible for someone who shoots underage porn films on their equipment–the list is never-ending. Unless you want everyone to stop manufacturing everything, then yuor argument just doesn’t hold water.
#t506 asks what the company considers appropriate use of a taser. But he quotes the marketing material in the same post in which that question is answered: on violent or dangerous suspects and offenders. Okay. This woman was not violent or dangerous, so the officer clearly went outside of the company’s definition of appropriate use (though not his own police department’s, apparently). So that means *he* is to blame for the misuse, not the corporation. And as far as I’m concerned, he *did* cross the line in his physical aggressiveness with her up to and including the use of his taser. And so he should be sanctioned.
As a side note, it’s somewhat possible that, in spite of his being clearly too aggressive, his use of a taser actually posed less threat to her physically. Manhandling her into his cruiser with pain-compliance holds and the like might have been more likely to cause injuries that a brief shock–though I haven’t the medical expertise to say for sure.
# Londoner wrote on 6/16/2009 9:38 am:
Taser International should face up to the widespread misuse of their products around the world, and start taking some responsibility.
As #t506 describes it, a human cattle-prod for humans.
In Queensland, Australia a man died on Friday 12 June after being tasered three times. In Nottingham, England a man who, whatever he may have done beforehand to attract police attention, was on the ground and posing no realistic threat to anyone, was tasered twice:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s5S4R6sHx9c
# t506 wrote on 6/15/2009 2:49 pm:
@Spartan Cops
It is good to hear that you are in agreement that this was a misuse of the taser.
However, your argument would only have relevance if Henry Ford had in fact designed his cars to gently knock people over, whereas in fact people were deliberately using them to kill people.
# Spartan Cops wrote on 6/14/2009 8:00 pm:
In response to t506.
What tool has been built that could not be misused?
Is Henry Ford a mass murderer because Ford automobiles have been involved in so many deaths?
# JJ wrote on 6/13/2009 10:08 pm:
Kevin, you are correct. I too, can’t believe how police are using this tool. I would have shot the the guy with a knife to the baby’s neck right between the eyes.
# t506 wrote on 6/13/2009 7:55 am:
The Taser is marketed thus:
“TASER International offers a powerful and a safer use-of-force options to subdue violent offenders and inmates that are safer compared to traditional hands-on force tactics. The TASER ECDs allow officers to incapacitate dangerous or violent subjects from a distance…”
http://taser.com/Pages/le_overview.aspx
Fair enough.
However, more and more examples are coming to light where the Taser is being used as a tool of compliance – a cattle-prod for humans, if you will.
This kind of use is becoming more acceptable to police forces, and verbal non-compliance is often all that’s needed to deploy the Taser in some cases.
http://forums.officer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=121914
I’d be interested to hear what you consider proper use of a Taser, and whether you and your company consider the tasing of a 72 year old woman who did not pose any threat to the police officer or herself, appropriate.
Ultimately, as the manufacturer, Taser and its employees are partly responsible for its misuse – if not legally, then at least morally.
# Kevin wrote on 6/11/2009 5:10 pm:
I can’t believe how police are using this tool – its going overboard.