Tasers, torture?

[lionking]

Don't disagree with these comments, but the event in #6 would not have been fatal if tasers were available.

 

[Bikewer]

It was a bit over a year ago that Amnesty International expressed concern over the use of the Taser, and issued a report criticizing it's "involvement" in a number of deaths.

NPR's Talk Of The Nation had an AI spokesman on the show, as well as the CEO of Taser International. The host immediately pointed out that reading the extract, it was apparent that nearly all the suspicious deaths were found to have been caused by "cocaine intoxication syndrome" or similar conditions.
The AI guy seemed to be concerned with the possibility that the device could be used to torture people, apparently unaware that the device is specifically designed to prevent such actions, and that people bent on torture can use all manner of devices easily obtainable. (electric drills seemed to be popular during the height of inter-faction conflict in iraq)

Tasers are quite efficient when deployed properly. There is very little danger to the suspect; nowhere near the danger that would be presented by say, beating him into submission.
Our department has been issuing them for about six years now, and we have had a number of incidents where the suspect has been quickly subdued with no side effects whatever.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Non lethal means of subduing people, no question these methods should be used.

Lots of things can be used differently than intended. "Don't tase me bro" comes to mind. So the fact one can abuse a taser is not a good reason to prevent implementing the devices in order to provide a non-lethal means of subduing a suspect.

 

[gumboot]

Actually, from what I gather in the news story in the OP, the committee seems to be more concerned about the potential for unlawful discrimination by police in the use of the Taser as against certain groups, particularly the ethic Maori and young persons.

That's because they commit most of the crimes. The report's remarks on that aspect are perhaps the most bizarre of all, particularly as it can really only be a socioeconomic issue, and therefore well outside relevance for the UN's committee on torture. What is an international committee on torture doing remarking on the ethnic make up of prison populations? What's the relevance?

 

[AmateurScientist]

That's because they commit most of the crimes. The report's remarks on that aspect are perhaps the most bizarre of all, particularly as it can really only be a socioeconomic issue, and therefore well outside relevance for the UN's committee on torture. What is an international committee on torture doing remarking on the ethnic make up of prison populations? What's the relevance?

Yeah, I noticed that too upon a second look. There are committees of the UN, particularly the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the Committee on Human Rights that might properly address those possible issues. It's not within the purview of the Committee Against Torture, as you note. I agree.

AS

 

[Quad4_72]

Anyone who says tasers are torture clearly has no idea what the term torture really means. As already stated, just about anything can be used for torture. But the fact that tasers can be implemented in situations where deadly force would be the other option is a huge advantage. Not to mention that even when deadly force may not be authorized to subdue a suspect, it keeps the officer from getting into a wrestling match with the suspect, preventing both injury to the suspect and the officer. Sure it hurts like hell for a few seconds, but then you recover immediately from it. The UN has gone nuts apparently.

 

[Sir Robin Goodfellow]

It's important to remember that Tasers, batons, chemical sprays, beanbags and so on are not "non-lethal", they are less-lethal. Suspects have died after simply wresting with police officers. This is an unfortunate reality of law enforcement. Sometimes suspects do not want to comply with lawful orders, and some manner of force must be used to bring said suspect under control.

Any tool the police have at their disposal has been misused at one time or another, even telephone books, but I don't think assuming that every police officer will automatically torture is reasonable.

 

[Darat]

...snip...

Thoughts, anyone? Is the use of a taser really torture? Has the UN redefined the term "torture" to such a degree that it has become meaningless?

I'm only going from the article you linked to but from that it doesn't seem to mean the UN is saying that, I think what they are saying is that tasers could be used to torture people

The severe pain they caused could be seen as a form of torture and could even kill someone.

That could hamper investigations into allegations of acts of torture and ill-treatment by the police, the committee said.

In other words it appears they have concerns about the impartiality of investigations into claims of abuse by the New Zealand police forces.

What I take away from this is that they are concerned that New Zealand police could be starting to use a weapon that could be used to torture someone because of weaknesses in the oversight of the police force. (Whether there are any grounds for that view I havena clue.)

ETA: Just had a thought - police forces throughout England and Wales are rolling out tasers, has the UN raised similar concerns about their use in the UK? It might help to work out exactly what the UN's concerns are.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

That's exactly my understanding of torture. As such I don't understand the UN's issue with police having tasers. The only thing I can conclude is they feel there's a risk police will use the tasers for the purpose of torture.

From what I read in the linked article in the OP, the issue was about them being used in a prison (which would fall under the definition of torture), not by police trying to apprehend a suspect.

 

[Bikewer]

Tasers are frequently used in prisons. In training, we were shown numbers of videos taken in "custodial" situations. One of the most common problems is the prisoner who barricades himself in his cell. Often they are undergoing some sort of mental-health issue.
The tactic previously was to essentially force entry and take the prisoner down by sheer force with several guards. Hazardous for all....
The Taser can quickly incapacitate even large, muscular, or drug-fueled prisoners.

Breaking up altercations between prisoners safely is another use.

 

[slingblade]

That's because they commit most of the crimes.

How can anyone know who commits most of the crimes? Who gets arrested doesn't indicate who commits the most crimes. It only indicates who gets arrested for crime most often.

What is an international committee on torture doing remarking on the ethnic make up of prison populations? What's the relevance?

Those numbers can reveal, among other things, disparity, discrimination, and racism in the population as a whole.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Tasers are frequently used in prisons. In training, we were shown numbers of videos taken in "custodial" situations. One of the most common problems is the prisoner who barricades himself in his cell. Often they are undergoing some sort of mental-health issue.

Sorry, I can't resist because this reminds me so much of an old George Carlin comedy newscast: "A man has barricaded himself in his house, however he is unarmed and nobody's paying any attention."

The tactic previously was to essentially force entry and take the prisoner down by sheer force with several guards. Hazardous for all....
The Taser can quickly incapacitate even large, muscular, or drug-fueled prisoners.

Breaking up altercations between prisoners safely is another use.

And again, these would not be torture, by definition. However, if you've got a guy already in your custody and you use a taser to intentionally inflict severe pain to get information, a confession or as punishment, then it would be torture. I think the U.N. is concerned that they may be using the taser as punishment. That's a no-no.

People keep getting this mixed up, though, with the use of tasers by police to apprehend a suspect (or break up a fight or whatever). I don't think the U.N.'s statement was addressing that use of the taser at all. If so, it wouldn't fall under the C.A.T. and has nothing to do with torture.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

I don't think anyone has a serious problem with tasers when they are used as an alternative to lethal force, by firing two darts into the target and running a current through their body.

I am slightly concerned that taser use, because it is so easy, could end up being used as an alternative to the softly, softly approach.

I'm a lot more concerned about what Taser Inc call "drive stun" mode, where the weapon does not fire any darts and is just pressed against the target. Used in this way it has no mechanically incapacitating effect, because the current is not running through the muscles, it's just a pain compliance weapon, and one that can very, very easily be abused.

Most of the morally offensive taser uses I've heard of or seen on video involved the (ab)use of a taser as a pain compliance tool. There is indeed a subtle semantic difference between pain compliance and torture as defined by the CAT, but for informal speech purposes I'm comfortable calling the taser a torture device when it is used this way.

The cases where people died after being shocked a large number of times with tasers fall into the category of tasering-as-torture as far as I've been able to tell without doing really serious research. It's akin to using a cattle prod to try to bring a wild animal under control and then acting surprised when it keels over dead rather than calming down and licking your hand. Torturing a mentally ill or chemically altered person with electric shocks until they settle down is not a rational approach.

 

[Cainkane1]

UN expresses concern about Tasers in NZ

Okay, so hopefully we can move on from debating waterboarding, which is quite obviously being utilised as torture, and into an area where I think there actually is room to debate.

New Zealand is about to introduce tasers for frontline police officers in an effort to provide them superior protection without moving to the extent of having a fully armed police force (New Zealand police are not normally armed).

My understanding is the tasers we are to use are of the single-fire mode that lets out a single shock, rather than the type where you hold the weapon against a person and use it as many times as you wish.

As the linked article explains, the UN are not happy about this.



Now, the grounds on which the UN claims tasers are a form of torture is that they can cause severe pain and even death.

The same, of course, could be said of any sort of weapon police might use. Most notably firearms, which certainly can cause severe pain and even death.

Does anyone really grasp the UN's point here? Are they seriously saying that anything that can cause severe pain or death is torture?

My understanding is that torture is about the purpose and technique employed, not the instruments. Water can be used for torture, as we know.

I can only think of two real suggestions.

1) If you inflict any sort of pain on someone you're torturing them.
2) New Zealand police, issued an instrument that could be utilised to torture people, will almost certainly do just that.

To which I respond:

1) The UN has clearly lost its marbles.
2) New Zealand police already possess instruments that could be utilised to torture people, but don't seem inclined to do so.

Thoughts, anyone? Is the use of a taser really torture? Has the UN redefined the term "torture" to such a degree that it has become meaningless?

If I was in trouble with a law officer armed only with a taser I'd cooperate to the fullest to avoid being tased. I don't care how innocent I was or how unfairly I felt I was being treated I'd do what the cop said.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

How can anyone know who commits most of the crimes? Who gets arrested doesn't indicate who commits the most crimes. It only indicates who gets arrested for crime most often.

Those numbers can reveal, among other things, disparity, discrimination, and racism in the population as a whole.

The official data does say Maori represent half of the victims and offenders. I don't think Gumboot implied the cause was genetic and not economic and social.

Review of Crime and Criminal Justice Statistics; Report 2009; Statistics New zealand

Māori are of special interest within the criminal justice system because they are the indigenous people of New Zealand and are also over-represented within the system. Māori represent roughly half of all criminal justice offenders and victims, a proportion far greater than would be expected for the size of the population. There is an urgent need to address this over-representation for the benefit of Māori and New Zealand society as a whole.
There is a clear need for all datasets to be able to be disaggregated by ethnicity (and by age, gender, and location) to establish and monitor the extent of offending by Māori, victimisation of Māori, interventions that work well for Māori, and Māori rehabilitation.
There have been significant pieces of work on Māori and the justice system over the years, including:

 

[Bikewer]

The much-discussed use of the Taser in the "Don't Tase me, Bro!" incident was in fact a "pain compliance" use.

The individual, while loudly protesting (he's a known agitator with several such incidents in the past) was resisting being handcuffed, likely to prolong the "scene".

the officer with the taser removes the "air cartridge" (the business end with the darts) and applies the device in it's "drive stun" (Taser's terminology) mode.
This inflicts pain, but does not result in the strong muscle contractions that the darts do.

The weapon is not fired in it's normal mode, the officers wrestling with the individual are not told to "clear", the mandatory "Taser, Taser Taser!" warning is not issued, etc.

Entirely appropriate, in my view.

 

[TraneWreck]

Heh, this reminds me of my first thread, Linky.

While tasers are used instead of shooting, they may also be used "because they can" in situations where they would not inflict such pain otherwise.

I think this is a key point.

If tasers are being used in circumstances where the only alternative would be to shoot the person, beat them with a billy club, or have a group of police tackle and wrestle an individual, then it's actually a much safer alternative.

If, however, the police use it under dubious circumstances, which has happened quite frequently, just spend a little time on the YouTube search, then we have grounds for discussion (although "torture" does seem a little strong).

When you hit someone with a club, you can see the results: bruising, bleeding ,swelling, it's obvious that you've done damage. The effects of using a taser are less obvious, just some twitching, then very little visual representation of the damage. People often come to the mistaken conclusion that it's harmless and can be used casually.

 

[DC]

Tasers can sure be used to Torture, but the Taser as such is not a torture tool. Just like Water, it is also not a Torture tool, but it can be used to torture someone.

Im not a fan of tasers but calling them Torture is kinda strange.

what about the Guns of Swiss Police? Uebertorture?
what about the rubbersticks the UK Bobbys have? Softtorture?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

The much-discussed use of the Taser in the "Don't Tase me, Bro!" incident was in fact a "pain compliance" use.

The individual, while loudly protesting (he's a known agitator with several such incidents in the past) was resisting being handcuffed, likely to prolong the "scene".

the officer with the taser removes the "air cartridge" (the business end with the darts) and applies the device in it's "drive stun" (Taser's terminology) mode.
This inflicts pain, but does not result in the strong muscle contractions that the darts do.

The weapon is not fired in it's normal mode, the officers wrestling with the individual are not told to "clear", the mandatory "Taser, Taser Taser!" warning is not issued, etc.

Entirely appropriate, in my view.

And also not even remotely a form of torture since the person is not already in custody or control (one of the legal requirements for torture in the C.A.T.)

Just to clarify: the question of inappropriate or excessive force is not the same as the question of torture. They're two very different things.

 

[Belz...]

Thoughts, anyone? Is the use of a taser really torture? Has the UN redefined the term "torture" to such a degree that it has become meaningless?

The only thing I think about tasers is that since they are deemed to just "stun", people may be tempted to use them in less critical situations, but there is a real danger to their use.