Last year the Canadian police used a Taser stun gun on a Polish immigrant who spoke no English and had been stuck in a secure area of an airport for ten hours and the man died shortly thereafter. This provoked quite a bit of commentary and criticism at the time, and as a result of an investigation, the Canadian police watchdog, the Commission for Public Complaints, has now recommended that the Tasers should be banned unless police can moderate their use.
I think this is a fascinating result, and would be amazed to see this sort of accountability enforced in Australia. There was a case in the ACT recently where a police members who was responsible for a watchhouse was charged (and convicted, I think) of using OC (capsicum) spray on detainees who pissed him off. They even had video of it – it was quite fascinating to see how this guy apparently went for the pepper spray as his first response to frustration. And whilst the copper in question did get sacked as a result of his behaviour, there was never a suggestion that OC spray should be banned because police misused it. Admittedly it was an isolated case, but I'm sure if you went looking for it you could have found others.
Police in Australia have been clamouring to get Tasers for themselves, arguing that they will reduce the likelihood of requiring a lethal response. That's certainly a valid argument (and certain police agencies in Australia have, at times, had an unfortunate habit of shooting people dead), but there seems to be increasing evidence from the US that police, when they have access to Tasers, are escalating to their use too quickly, or using them as a means of coercion (a torture device, if you like). Something that causes pain and incapacitation without leaving any permanent injuries or marks is pretty tempting for the wrong people (and, unfortunately, some police are the wrong people). As such, I think it would be dangerous to allow these weapons without some sort of safeguards.
One of the safeguards that firearms have is that access to amunition is tightly controlled. Police are supposed to make a full report on any discharge, and I suspect that it would be difficult for them to replace a missing bullet without raising suspicion. The ammunition in itself is therefore an accountability mechanism. I'm not sure that there is anything equaivalent for Tasers, however. What I'd like to see before Australian police got access to Tasers is for there to be some way to tell whether they've been fired, and that if one is checked in at the end of a shift that has been fired, there has to be a full explanation for it. Of course, even such precautions are not foolproof (or police-proof), but it's a start. But it's unrealistic to think that police in Australia will be subject to the sort of accountability where they could be denied use of Tasers just because they were abusing them.
I think this is a fascinating result, and would be amazed to see this sort of accountability enforced in Australia. There was a case in the ACT recently where a police members who was responsible for a watchhouse was charged (and convicted, I think) of using OC (capsicum) spray on detainees who pissed him off. They even had video of it – it was quite fascinating to see how this guy apparently went for the pepper spray as his first response to frustration. And whilst the copper in question did get sacked as a result of his behaviour, there was never a suggestion that OC spray should be banned because police misused it. Admittedly it was an isolated case, but I'm sure if you went looking for it you could have found others.
Police in Australia have been clamouring to get Tasers for themselves, arguing that they will reduce the likelihood of requiring a lethal response. That's certainly a valid argument (and certain police agencies in Australia have, at times, had an unfortunate habit of shooting people dead), but there seems to be increasing evidence from the US that police, when they have access to Tasers, are escalating to their use too quickly, or using them as a means of coercion (a torture device, if you like). Something that causes pain and incapacitation without leaving any permanent injuries or marks is pretty tempting for the wrong people (and, unfortunately, some police are the wrong people). As such, I think it would be dangerous to allow these weapons without some sort of safeguards.
One of the safeguards that firearms have is that access to amunition is tightly controlled. Police are supposed to make a full report on any discharge, and I suspect that it would be difficult for them to replace a missing bullet without raising suspicion. The ammunition in itself is therefore an accountability mechanism. I'm not sure that there is anything equaivalent for Tasers, however. What I'd like to see before Australian police got access to Tasers is for there to be some way to tell whether they've been fired, and that if one is checked in at the end of a shift that has been fired, there has to be a full explanation for it. Of course, even such precautions are not foolproof (or police-proof), but it's a start. But it's unrealistic to think that police in Australia will be subject to the sort of accountability where they could be denied use of Tasers just because they were abusing them.
1 comments:
I heartily agree. In NSW, there has to be a report made of every discharge of a police firearm which is required to be sent to the Police Integrity Commission. Very minimum accountability standard like that before I'd want tasered up cops.
(At least that was the situation in about 2000 when it stopped being me reading the feckers.)
Post a Comment