Reasons to Fear Increasing Taser Abuse in NYC

By TChris, Section Crime Policy
Posted on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 03:28:15 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

The headline in the Metro section of today's New York Times only tells half the story:

Tasers Getting More Prominent Role in Crime Fighting in City

The title to this post reflects the other half.

NYPD officers now use their 500 Tasers in limited situations. Expanding Taser use is a perilous experiment. It isn't particularly comforting to know that only sergeants will have the authority to handle Tasers, in light of this:

Stun guns were introduced in New York in the early 1980s, when officers were confronting a higher number of disturbed people because of the rapid and widespread deinstitutionalization of mental health patients. The devices were not seen as a success. ... Several high-ranking officers and sergeants were transferred from the 106th Precinct in Queens after officers were charged with using stun guns on drug suspects during interrogations. [emphasis added]

The most important facts, at which the Times headline does not hint, come at the end of the linked article: [more ...]

On Monday, a 26-year-old man died after he was shocked twice with a Taser by an officer on Long Island trying to keep him from swallowing a bag of cocaine, the Suffolk County police said. The man, Tony Curtis Bradway of Brooklyn, spat out a white powder and “remnants of a plastic bag,” the police said, and he died at a hospital nine hours after the episode.
The next day, news broke that a federal jury in California had held Taser International partly responsible in the death of a Salinas, Calif., man and had awarded his family more than $6 million in that civil case. ...

On Wednesday, Sanford A. Rubenstein, a lawyer, announced the filing of a lawsuit against New York City in the case of a retired police lieutenant’s son who had been hit four times with a Taser after the police responded to a barbecue at his Harlem home last August. The man, Alexander Lombard III, who was 18 at the time, “has permanent Taser marks and scarring,” Mr. Rubenstein said. “And he is getting counseling and getting physical therapy.”

Also on Wednesday, Amnesty International said it had tracked more than 300 cases since 2001 in which people died after being shocked by a Taser. And although studies have not shown what role the devices might have played in those deaths, “extreme caution” is in order, said Larry R. Cox, the executive director of Amnesty.

In light of the well-founded fear that officers will use a supposedly nonlethal weapon inappropriately, either unnecessarily or as punishment, the warning sounded by Larry Cox should be at the beginning of the Times article, not at the end:

“They should be fired in circumstances when the use of deadly force would be the only alternative,” said Mr. Cox. He said that the Taser’s billing as a “safe, nonlethal instrument” was faulty.

TalkLeft has made that point repeatedly.

< Gallup Daily Tracking Poll: Statistical Dead Heat | Elections in the Internet Age >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Reasons to Fear Increasing Taser Abuse in NYC | 29 comments (29 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

It is not a tool; it is a weapon (5.00 / 1) (#4)
by befuddledvoter on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 04:41:25 PM EST

In Oct. of 2004 Victoria Snelgrove was killed by "non-lethal weapon," FN303, which are projectile launchers. She was a junior at emerson college who descended on Kenmore Square with about 30K others to celebrate the Red Sox winning of the AL East Championship. She was an innocent bystander. No evidence at all that she was rowdy or unruly. Really tragic.

I was abused by a bullhorn by a sergeant during (5.00 / 1) (#5)
by jawbone on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 05:24:33 PM EST

the February 2002 anti-Iraq Invasion rally in NYC.

Of course, we never got to the rally bcz we kept being funneled onto and up Third Avenue, then eventually penned in by block. Once we were hemmed in by a wall of cops across each end of the block, I went up to the guy who appeared to be giving orders and suggested, in my best Wisconsin politely reasonable tone, that if he wanted cooperation he might want to use his bullhorn to explain to the people what he wanted them to do, that people would be less nervous and fearful and would be more maleable.

The officer turned his bullhorn directly into my right ear and began shouting orders to the cops. It felt like being assaulted; the sound was so loud and directly into my ear that my head was ringing and it took hours to hear well on that side.

I'm still shocked that the guy went off on me like that. I did absolutely nothing--except try to be reasonable.

It was then that we were pushed into corners, held in place by an angled wall of cops, with our back and sides closed off by barricades. Later, they had horses pushing the people into tighter and tighter space. There was no reason for this; no need to do this.

I was in the front and held my arm out straight, thinking that when the horse felt my hand it would stop moving inward, which is what did happen. There were women and kids behind me sobbing hysterically from feeling they were going to be crushed. One woman, with the most amazing voice, just kept shouting over and over and over, "Let me go home. Let me go home." She perhaps had voice training, as she never got hoarse. People who were simply on the wrong block at the wrong time got caught up in this intimidation tactic.

It was on my block that, when the horses were being brought into our block, at pretty much a gallop, one of the horses hit some ice and went down. The police were ordered to use their horses simply for intimidation and thus put those animals in danger. Good grief!!

It was a stunning example of the government using force simply to make people afraid.

And, for what? Just to teach people that it could be done to them?

Mayor Bloomberg said there was nothing wrong with what the police did that day. However, things were far different during the March anti-war march.

: Point being, anything can be misused to enforce, (5.00 / 1) (#6)
by jawbone on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 05:35:30 PM EST

well, force.

Why not just hold tasers... (5.00 / 1) (#9)
by dianem on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 06:48:24 PM EST

...to the same standard as guns? If an officer fires a gun in the line of duty he has to fill out paperwork explaining why he did so. I'm certain that taser use could be tracked the same way, and I'm betting that if police officers knew that they'd have to explain each usage they would be far more reluctant to use them. This would also result in better tracking of usage - and a better idea of how often such usage results in serous injury or death.

it seems to me that tasers can be used (5.00 / 1) (#11)
by hellothere on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 11:20:30 PM EST

in a very limited manner in certain situations where an officer would resort to a gun. i am thinking about someone under the influence of pcp where they are out of control and have to be brought down so to speak. it is not a good thing to ever use but if handled properly it is far better than a bullet. when i see a video of someone being abused with a taser, i feel deep anger.

certainly they are being abused and yes other methods such as talk down should be used first. more training and fast response to abuse come to mind.

Was does "subdueing" (5.00 / 1) (#18)
by jondee on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 01:13:52 PM EST

seem to always have to involve the inflicting of pain?

I mean, if it's absolutely necessary, couldnt they come up with some nice little cocktail that would fit into a dart?

They take more care subdueing hyenas than they do humans these days.

Same with interrogations: I think they could make more headway with a couple of hits of oraganic mescaline and the Brandenburg Concertos ( good cop) or The News From Lake Woebegon (bad cop) on a continuous tape loop than with the black gloved fascistic tactics they use now.

: Why does (none / 0) (#19)
by jondee on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 01:14:40 PM EST

Sheez

It's a tool (none / 0) (#1)
by nellre on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 03:38:22 PM EST

The tools are only as good at the person using them.
We need better cops.

If That Were A Practical Solution (none / 0) (#2)
by squeaky on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 03:59:14 PM EST

We would not need to have nuclear disarmament, for example. Seems that limiting the weapons is more practical than finding people that would not abuse them.


I think the Taser has been over-promoted (none / 0) (#3)
by oculus on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 04:03:39 PM EST

as harmless. However, it is usually much less harmful than shots fired by a law enforcement officer's service revolver. Using a Taser during interrogation, however, smacks of applying John Yoo's memo to a situation where police practices manuals and training regimens should control.


WTF do nuclear weapons (none / 0) (#8)
by daryl herbert on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 06:12:28 PM EST

have to do with Tasers?

What lessons can you learn about tasers, from looking at nuclear weapons proliferation?

We will always need an armed police force. The question is what kind of weapons they will have, and under what circumstances they will use them.

If police shouldn't have tasers, why should they have handguns?


: Maybe You Need To Adjust (none / 0) (#10)
by squeaky on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 07:20:18 PM EST

Your browser. I was responding to this comment:

The tools are only as good at the person using them.
We need better cops.
In that context Nukes are also tools and would not have to be regulated if the people that had them, or sought to acquire them were better people.

I have no idea if this is true (none / 0) (#7)
by Iphie on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 05:37:51 PM EST

but someone told me that the more law enforcement rely on supposedly "non-lethal" weapons the more lax their training becomes in diffusing dangerous situations by other means -- either verbally or physically without the use of weapons. It came up in context of the "don't tase me, bro" incident -- my friend pointed out to me the large number of security guards that were needed to eventually remove the student from the room. He said if they'd had proper training the student could have been subdued and removed much more easily and with less violence. It seems that training is being replaced with things like tasers -- I think about that every time I hear someone has been seriously wounded or killed by a taser -- was there a way the situation could have been handled without the use of weapons, period?

just recently, here in va, (none / 0) (#12)
by cpinva on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 12:33:35 AM EST

there was an incident in which the local police used beanbags to subdue a violent suspect. the only damage suffered was a few minor bruises, where he was hit. oh, i think a couple of the bags gave their lives in the line of duty as well.

i believe "non-lethal" is a misnomer. they should more accurately be called "non-intentionally lethal". any time you shoot something at someone, regardless of how benign its intent, there is always the possibility of serious injury or death resulting from it. that is just a fact.

by selling these items as "non-lethal", they sound a lot safer than they actually are, and the police (and general public) are lulled into thinking so.

until this sales approach changes, we'll continue to have unfortunate incidents resulting from their use.

Abuse Of Power (5.00 / 1) (#13)
by squeaky on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 12:58:39 AM EST

I do not think any police are lulled into anything. It is a power trip. Instantly they can bring anyone to their knees while writhing in pain. That kind of instant submission with no physical marks must be quite appealing to those police who have a sadistic streak. The near certainty that, if challenged, the courts will give a nod and a wink makes tasering a seductive option for many.

Police power needs to always be checked. What is next? Glass towers where police can shoot shock guns to keep jaywalkers in between the lines, while munching on doughnuts in comfortable safety? Mild shocks only, mind you, Just little reminders.


: that was kind of my whole point. (none / 0) (#14)
by cpinva on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 07:52:20 AM EST

as "non-lethal", they can be used indiscriminantly, which a gun obviously can't be.
because they are supposedly not designed to permanently damage you, no harm, no foul. not to mention, they don't have to account for bullets.
a gun requires that you be willing to accept the normal consequences of its use, and explain yourself, multiple times. my guess is that's not at all true of the "non-lethal" weapons. no repercussions, far less hesitation.
actually, what i really want is a remote control that works on people. then i could just turn off the ones i find most irritating.

Is there anykind.... (none / 0) (#15)
by kdog on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 10:18:34 AM EST

of anti-taser technology on the market? Like a taser-proof vest or a jamming device or something....I have the feeling I might need it:)

Yes There Is (none / 0) (#16)
by squeaky on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 11:46:20 AM EST

Taser proof clothing.


Cool.... (none / 0) (#17)
by kdog on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 12:43:13 PM EST

As always you're a wealth of info squeak....I bet my "Dictators Love Unarmed Peasants" patch would look great sewn on there:)


kdog, something tells me (none / 0) (#21)
by cpinva on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 02:03:23 PM EST

that won't protect you against a 9mm, which would presumably be the police back-up, should the taser fail.

might want to see if you can get the "ceramic plate" version.


: Being the.... (none / 0) (#25)
by kdog on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 02:48:41 PM EST

"can't hurt a fly" type, I'm not worried about the 9mm...as TL has shown us you don't need to get violent to get tased.

Saw a show on Discovery or something (none / 0) (#23)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 02:15:41 PM EST

recently where they tasered a guy who was ready & waiting for it.

He was able to take a swipe at the wires attached to the probes as he was falling and knocked one of them out.

Two probes knocks you flat, one probe is nothing more than a jab from a thorn.

Dude bounced right back up off the floor.


Hello? (none / 0) (#20)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 02:03:02 PM EST

On Monday, a 26-year-old man died after he was shocked twice with a Taser by an officer on Long Island trying to keep him from swallowing a bag of cocaine, the Suffolk County police said. The man, Tony Curtis Bradway of Brooklyn, spat out a white powder and "remnants of a plastic bag," the police said, and he died at a hospital nine hours after the episode.

Det. Lt. Jack Fitzpatrick, commanding officer of the Suffolk County Police Homicide squad, which is investigating the death, said the ingested cocaine, not the Taser shocks, likely caused the death

Well (none / 0) (#22)
by jondee on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 02:10:28 PM EST

of course we can trust that it always happened exactly the way the police say it did. I learned that after following the recent adventures of the Toronto narcotics squad.


Dude ate a bag of coke. Yum yum.. (none / 0) (#24)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 02:21:13 PM EST

Do you suppose we can trust the coroner's report?

Because I'm sure if it shows the guy died of a coke OD TChris'll be the first one to blog about it...


I think he would.... (none / 0) (#26)
by kdog on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 02:52:42 PM EST

blaming the drug war for another casuality...and rightly so.

No prohibition, the guy ain't eating bags o' blow in a panic.


Neither you , me nor the dead guy has any (none / 0) (#27)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 03:03:02 PM EST

control over the drug war, but we all have control of our choices.

I can't for the life of me figure out why anyone would eat a bag of coke, especially someone who presumably should have a pretty darn good idea of what might happen asw a result...


The answer is fear.... (none / 0) (#28)
by kdog on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 03:09:00 PM EST

Fear makes people do things that don't make any sense.

I'd never eat a lit half a joint, wouldn't make sense...until I'm sitting on the beach enjoying a smoke and the park police roll-up, then it makes perfect sense:)


: Fair enough. (none / 0) (#29)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 03:09:48 PM EST