LnGrrrR
08-11-2009, 07:58 AM
Glenn Greenwald is on vacation, but the invaluable Digby is guest blogging for him today...
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/08/11/tasers/index.html
Some highlights:
As awful as the possibility of death is, tasers would be a blight on any free people even if they weren't so often deadly. Tasers were sold to the public as a tool for law enforcement to be used in lieu of deadly force. Presumably, this means situations in which officers would have previously had to use their firearms. It's hard to argue with that, and I can't think of a single civil libertarian who would say that this would be a truly civilized advance in policing. Nobody wants to see more death and if police have a weapon they can employ instead of a gun, in self defense or to stop someone from hurting others, I think we all can agree that's a good thing.
But that's not what's happening. Tasers are routinely used by police to torture innocent people who have not broken any law and whose only crime is being disrespectful toward their authority or failing to understand their "orders." There is ample evidence that police often take no more than 30 seconds to talk to citizens before employing the taser, they use them while people are already handcuffed and thus present no danger, and are used often against the mentally ill and handicapped. It is becoming a barbaric tool of authoritarian, social control.
Included in the article is another example of a man who was stopped by police without ID, correctly said it was not necessary to produce such an ID, and after things escalated, was tased.
What's a good way to deal with this issue? Better training? Stricter rules for carrying and operating a taser?
Or do people think this is acceptable? Should we mandate having a form of ID at all times, to be surrendered to any acceptable authority figure? Should we outlaw speaking to the authorities in a disrespectful tone?
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/08/11/tasers/index.html
Some highlights:
As awful as the possibility of death is, tasers would be a blight on any free people even if they weren't so often deadly. Tasers were sold to the public as a tool for law enforcement to be used in lieu of deadly force. Presumably, this means situations in which officers would have previously had to use their firearms. It's hard to argue with that, and I can't think of a single civil libertarian who would say that this would be a truly civilized advance in policing. Nobody wants to see more death and if police have a weapon they can employ instead of a gun, in self defense or to stop someone from hurting others, I think we all can agree that's a good thing.
But that's not what's happening. Tasers are routinely used by police to torture innocent people who have not broken any law and whose only crime is being disrespectful toward their authority or failing to understand their "orders." There is ample evidence that police often take no more than 30 seconds to talk to citizens before employing the taser, they use them while people are already handcuffed and thus present no danger, and are used often against the mentally ill and handicapped. It is becoming a barbaric tool of authoritarian, social control.
Included in the article is another example of a man who was stopped by police without ID, correctly said it was not necessary to produce such an ID, and after things escalated, was tased.
What's a good way to deal with this issue? Better training? Stricter rules for carrying and operating a taser?
Or do people think this is acceptable? Should we mandate having a form of ID at all times, to be surrendered to any acceptable authority figure? Should we outlaw speaking to the authorities in a disrespectful tone?