Tasers, torture?

[JoeTheJuggler]

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.

I understand your point, but that only might apply to the question of the use of excessive or inappropriate force and not the issue of whether it is torture.

In other words, the gravity of the situation (more or less critical) can never be used to justify torture. (ETA: the C.A.T. specifically says that there is no circumstance whatsoever that can justify torture.)

I think the problem is that the U.N.'s criticism of the use of tasers as possibly being torture can only apply to the user of tasers in prison, and only if it's used to inflict severe pain in order to get information, a confession or as punishment. (I suspect in this case, the "as punishment" is the pertinent purpose.)

Even if a cop wrongfully uses a taser in trying to apprehend a suspect, it would be a case of excessive or inappropriate force and not torture.

I suppose if the cop has a suspect cuffed and on the ground and docile and then decides to be judge, jury and executioner by delivering punishment with a taser, it could be torture--but I don't think that's what the U.N. was talking about in this case.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

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.

As I said earlier I think there's a slim semantic difference. Electric shocks exactly like the one delivered by tasers are used by torturers because they are a convenient way to cause extreme pain. Tasers when pressed against the flesh of the target are nothing more or less than a convenient way to cause extreme pain to the target until they do what you tell them to.

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.

If he was resisting violently, I think you'd have a point.

Not a great point, because there were enough officers on him to restrain him anyway, but a point.

Since he wasn't resisting violently it was being used as a way to cause him extreme pain until he did what he was told. What's wrong with putting the cuffs on him and dragging him out, the way bouncers have to drag unruly bar patrons out every night? It's more convenient to use a torture device on him until he complies, certainly, but the convenience of the police is not the sole relevant factor.

 

[gumboot]

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.

Our police don't run our prisons, and we haven't indicated any intention of arming Corrections Officers with tasers.

 

[gumboot]

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.

We do have statistics on reported crimes as well, you know. More crime occurs in the Maori and Pacific Island community. In particular, more violent crime.

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

Even presuming all of this is true, what is its relevance to torture?

 

[gumboot]

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.

The New Zealand Police have a reporting system via which any use of restraints, dogs, OC spray, batons, or firearms is currently reported and monitored. Tasers were added to this during their trial, and will be part of the reporting system for implemented use.

I can only presume such a monitoring system is designed specifically to ensure police brutality does not occur, and to investigate incidents accordingly. One thing I am curious about, and might be a big issue, is how tasers will fit in. Currently, any time a police officer discharges a firearm for any reason there is an Independent Police Complaints Authority inquiry (this is generated automatically, and is not related to any complaint). I do not know whether the same will be applied for all uses of a taser (it seems likely, a IPCA inquiry is also initiated every time a police pursuit results in a car accident).

Also, on a side note, the report's criticisms of the IPCA might be a result of a lack of understanding of the Authority's role. No members of the IPCA are currently serving police, contrary to the report's claim. Rather, for most complaints (minor ones) the IPCA do not investigate the claims themselves, but direct police to investigate, and provide oversight and monitoring of the police investigation.

The report may have (wrongly) assumed the police conducting these investigations are part of the IPCA.

 

[gumboot]

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 quote you highlight doesn't say that though.

(It's not indicated in the article but that quote is actually directly from the report)

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

This isn't saying "A taser could be used for torture"

It's saying "Using a taser could be seen as torture"

Which is a politic way of saying "Using a taser is torture"

After all, this is the UN committee on torture. For them to say "it could be seen as torture" is nonsensical. Part of their job is to decide what is and isn't torture.

In other words they're not saying that tasers could be misused for torture, but rather saying that using a taser could be seen as amounting to torturing someone (because it inflicts severe pain and can cause death).

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.

Good question. Do you recall hearing anything about it?

 

[ponderingturtle]

I recall someone saying pepper spray was torture when our police were trialing that as well.

Presumably all of the other things you mention would be torture also.

It could well be used to torture someone.

It all depends on when it is used. Spraying peaceful protesters with pepper spray, that should fit into categories of torture more or less.

 

[slingblade]

Even presuming all of this is true, what is its relevance to torture?

Incredible. Just incredible. Say that with a straight face, did you?

 

[tyr_13]

Incredible. Just incredible. Say that with a straight face, did you?

Racism is not torture. Torture might be used because of racism, but racism itself has no bearing on if any specific act is torture or not as far as I can tell.

Care to explain?

 

[AmateurScientist]

Incredible. Just incredible. Say that with a straight face, did you?

I'll repeat it with a strait face, even though it was gumboot who said it:

Even presuming all of this is true, what is its relevance to torture?

I believe in this context, gumboot is correctly referring to torture as defined in the Convention Against Torture, as it is commonly known, and as surely the UN Committee Against Torture must use it (unless they are torturing the definition of the word). Again, what relevance does possible discrimination against minorities have to do with torture itself?

Surely you do not mean to imply that being incarcerated is itself torture if you happen to be a member of a minority group?

AS

 

[gumboot]

It could well be used to torture someone.

Just about anything can be used to torture someone. You could use a sock, if you wished.

I didn't say "could be used to torture someone" I said "is torture"; that is, the very act of using the device on a person constitutes torture, irrespective of the circumstances.

There's a profound difference in these two observations, and the UN report is clearly making the second observation, not the first. This should be painfully obvious, given that the first observation could apply to virtually any object in existence, and therefore is entirely meaningless.

 

[gumboot]

Incredible. Just incredible. Say that with a straight face, did you?

I typed it with a straight face, if that's what you mean. Would you care to explain the direct link between discrimination and torture? I fail to see one. And I'm typing this with a straight face too, just so we can avoid another pointless question.

To repeat my earlier question:

Even if all of this is true, what is its relevance to torture?

 

[slingblade]

I think some folks are pretending to be obtuse.

Racism is a power structure. Torture is a device used by persons in power over others. Are you honestly telling me you can see no possible relationship between power and torture? Not even in a general sense?

 

[tomwaits]

I think some folks are pretending to be obtuse.

Racism is a power structure. Torture is a device used by persons in power over others. Are you honestly telling me you can see no possible relationship between power and torture? Not even in a general sense?

I thought the thread was about tasers?

 

[gumboot]

I think some folks are pretending to be obtuse.

Racism is a power structure. Torture is a device used by persons in power over others. Are you honestly telling me you can see no possible relationship between power and torture? Not even in a general sense?

I am sure links could be made between torture and just about anything, if you really tried. The committee's task is to comment on torture, however, not discrimination. There are other committees tasked with that.

If their only aim is to make observations about those that could commit torture, they have just rendered themselves irrelevant, as anyone in power could commit torture, if they so wished. We do not need an international committee to point that out to us.

Their job is to identify actual cases of torture, not to invent fantasy as an excuse for criticising nations innocent of torture.

 

[AmateurScientist]

Racism is a power structure.

For the purposes of this discussion, I'll ignore this canard, which I find to be a deliberately bogus definition of racism which has a specific and disingenuous political agenda associated with it.

Torture is a device used by persons in power over others.

Nonsense. I suspect what you mean to say is that "Some persons in power sometimes use torture to oppress minority factions within their custody or under their control."

In no way does that imply that all persons in power use torture or seek to oppress others. Nevertheless, that is clearly the implication of your rather biased remarks in this thread.

Furthermore, once again, your assertion has nothing to do whatsoever with NZ's police considering using Tasers in law enforcement. The UN's Committee Against Torture's remarks were clearly irrelevant and inappropriate in that regard. That committee's remit has nothing to do with commenting or advising about possible unlawful or unfair discrimination against minority or otherwise oppressed ethnic groups. The Committee Against Torture might as well render its opinion on the designated hitter rule in Major League Baseball. It has as much relevance to this discussion as its concerns about the use of the Taser by police forces in law enforcement.

Are you honestly telling me you can see no possible relationship between power and torture? Not even in a general sense?

Not in this context, no.

AS

 

[Beerina]

I know that tasers have killed people with heart problems. However, I've seen police use billy clubs instead of tasers and I know which one I would prefer.

The choice for the police is taser vs. gun, not taser vs. billy club.


And billy clubs don't change the enormous lawsuit issue with respect to killing fragile people. Consider the Malice Green case in Detroit fifteen years ago.

 

[E.J.Armstrong]

The three alternatives I can think of:

1. Gun
2. Billy club
3. Let them run away

So yes, I think that tasers are (by far) the best option in law enforcement. Maybe in the future there are better ways to stop a suspect, but I'll just quote Jim Carrey in Liar Liar:

"Stop breakin' the law, ***hole!"

You seem to have forgotten the primary option

4/ Use reasonable force.

5/ The USA is not an example of the use of tasers to look up to.

This would all be fine if their use were properly regulated and the police could be relied upon to control themselves. Unfortunately there are too many instances that show neither is true in the USA.
See
'...SAN FRANCISCO - Few if any controls are imposed on police using Taser stun guns to subdue suspects, which could explain the rise in Taser-related deaths throughout the region, according to a new study released today by the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California. ...' from
http://www.aclu.org/police/abuse/19977prs20051006.html

I suspect the NZ police are not so trigger happy but I suspect it won't be too long for the first death and first case of police abuse of the weapon.

Of course there are those like Jim Carrey in Liar Liar who believe that if you are even suspected of breaking the law you deserve everything you get. Luckily I don't believe NZ police or population fall into that odious mindset.

 

[gumboot]

I suspect the NZ police are not so trigger happy but I suspect it won't be too long for the first death and first case of police abuse of the weapon.

On what grounds do you base that assertion?

 

[tomwaits]

You seem to have forgotten the primary option

4/ Use reasonable force.

You mean like, ask them pretty pretty please?

Of course there are those like Jim Carrey in Liar Liar who believe that if you are even suspected of breaking the law you deserve everything you get.

OK, umm...I get the feeling you haven't seen the movie. Not that I suggest you do (it's not that great of a movie), but it's a particularly funny scene.