The video embedded in this story from MSNBC has been heavily edited but I think the screams of the granny speak for themselves.
I still find this incident disturbing, and the actions of the deputy immoral, even though there may be a reasonable person out there that could answer our standard question with a "yes." But that all depends on how you frame it, and whether the taser is supposed to be a less lethal substitute for the officer's pistol.
If you frame the question as whether the use of the taser saved lives in this incident, a reasonable person could answer in the affirmative. If you ask whether the deputy would have had to resort to use of his side arm or lethal force if he were without his taser, the moral calculus changes.
The story provides precious little in actual details, so I think my headline falls just short of yellow journalism. After a man had finished his meal at McDonald's with his sleeping service dog the manager summoned police who then used pepper spray and a tazer on the seizure prone man.
I hope they didn't use the particular type of pepper spray that catches fire when combined with a tazer.
Again the article offers little in the way of details, we can only hope someone took a cell phone video so we can know more about the altercation. And can corroborate the story the cops gave. I am sure it is just as reasonable as all the other stories of the police using force on a disabled person.
Tazers: The CBC's As It Happens, had a segment focusing on the judicial review of the RCMP's use of tazers and in particular their deployment of tazers and the resulting death of Robert Dziekanski.
Environment: Earth Hour was yesterday. Did you turn off and unplug?
Space: Shuttle Discovery landed safely yesterday after upgrading the International Space Station. NASA TV was incredibly boring. The peaceful and safe use of space in the spirit of international cooperation continues. Thank God that our forays into space display the very best our species has to offer.
War: Continued victories in Iraq. Perhaps even progress? Though the entire escapade is a huge distraction from real threats and future battlegrounds. Maybe I spoke prematurely regarding the peaceful use of space.
California state Assemblyman Tom Ammiano, Democrat, introduced a bill in that state's legislature proposing the legalization and taxing of recreational use of marijuana. Ammiano's arguments immediately touched on all the major points that the pro-legalization crowd has been making in between bong hits for decades now. To me the most significant argument is the fiscal one.
Legalization of a nonviolent activity lowers the number of criminals, reduces police costs of pursuing recreational pot smokers, reduces numbers of criminals in prison, reduces prison costs, eliminates need for violence in pot buying transaction and so reduces violent crime, brings marijuana production into the light of day where it can be regulated which produces tax revenue and regulation, regulation of production and use and quality has health benefits, which further reduce costs to society, and creates jobs.
Sure its not a new argument and it is the one that most young potheads are likely to jump on first because it seems like it would be so appealing to the forever cash-strapped government. "Lets just let them tax pot and then they will rush to make it legal, man." The major proponents of such thinking being in a chemically induced type-B personalities, rarely get any traction in mainstream politics. In trying economic times such as these I would expect a well reasoned argument that points out, not only the increased tax revenue ($1 billion in California alone) but also the potential cost savings in other programs, would get a better reception.
However, these arguments have failed before and its not because they are poorly reasoned, despite my poking fun at potheads. There are the usual histrionics that are thrown about by the anti-drug lunatics about the impending collapse of society, and "Oh God, won't somebody please think of the children!?!!?!" Despite the truth that legalized recreational drugs do lead to negative health consequences, and beer and tobacco companies do target children with advertising, those are threats that have proven to be small and that we as a society have obviously chosen to live with. It is also popular to point out that history(the repeal of prohibition, Amsterdam) has shown us that when certain recreational drugs are legalized it eliminates the demand in the informal market for the goods, which directs the attention of professional criminals to other activities. Then the reduction of interaction between normal Joe Sixpack (Johnny Jointsmoker?) people and hardened criminals and the police reduces violent crime. All of this is still to leave out the potential beneficial impact on our foreign relations.
I suspect that the main reason this type of legislation fails time and time again is that it has to be voted on by politicians. Politicians who can count votes. It doesn't matter how many potheads and marijuana activists get together because their voice will still be marginalized in the minds of the elected officials. It's hard to be taken seriously when the thing you are advocating for is illegal and all you want it for is recreation. (Hence the medical marijuana movement) The other reason elected officials will never vote for legalization of recreational marijuana is that they don't want to have their name associated with the downfall of society if all the histrionics of the sour-faced Republican old lady's turns out to be true.
I am Libertarian, and there are two ways to look at the recreational marijuana issue from that perspective as long as you believe that marijuana smoking is no different than tobacco or alcohol use. There is the Ron Paul view that whatever you do with your body is none of my business as long as it doesn't affect me. Then there is the long term Ted Nugent view that says this does affect me because on the aggregate there will be societal health costs from the negative health impacts of drug use.
I suppose I fall into a third category that doesn't care. Sure there are health costs, but like I said above, there are social costs involved, but most social costs of marijuana are created by its illegality, the real social costs stemming from health and high driving when likened to tobacco and alcohol are clearly so minimal that our society has decided (and I agree) that the benefits of legalization outweigh the costs.
So why don't I smoke? There are various reasons but mostly its a political statement. In my experience pot smokers can tend to get over enthusiastic about their recreational drug of choice and become zealous advocates of its use, and distrust those that do not. Sure, this could easily be because it makes one paranoid, but just being in the room makes you just as arrested when the cops show up. My true friends respect me even if they don't respect my decision and offers to partake are made out of common politeness arising from commensality. (After all, what can be a more ritualistic "breaking of bread" than a shared consumption of something that not only involves shared risk but that gives a spiritual sense of significance?) Still, my reflexive aversion to perceived peer pressure, my history of refusal that has lasted so long it has become part of my identity, combined with what I fear is addictive behavior continue to keep me away even though I think legalization of recreational use of marijuana would be a good thing for the country.
I will leave you with this video a friend posted to Facebook.
I have been trying to keep the start of the new year on this blog light with video game reviews and silly articles. I have avoided discussing the conflict in the middle east even though that is the most significant international news right now.
But the riots of last night and the, execution style, police killing of Oscar Grant III are too much to ignore. These are very much subjects which we at The Fringe Element are concerned with. I'll start with the widely viewed video.
I don't know much of the story but people attribute Officer Johannes Mehserle's apparent shock to his mistakenly using his firearm when he intended to use his tazer. I am not sure how this is much better. As you can probably guess from previous articles, we here at The Fringe Element don't approve of liberal use of tazers by police, considering them to be a substitute for lethal force only. Whereas countless news stories indicate that police around the country treat this otherwise useful device as a shortcut to incapacitate any person the officer finds inconvenient to deal with.
In this case the use of a tazer would have been substantially less likely to cause death. I suppose that difference in outcome is supposed to mitigate the severity of the actions of the officer in this case in the minds of some people. But again, I don't consider a tazer to be non-lethal force. Neither do its proponents who call such devices "less lethal." In the same category as rubber bullets. The idea is to incapacitate with sufficient force to be sure to incapacitate with a single use. In many cases, the requisite amount of force to do so with such certainty is enough to kill. Again, I am not arguing against the use of tazers, I am arguing that people at large, and particularly the police, need to stop thinking of using a tazer as less serious than using a firearm.
A dead body was discovered in the Cleveland impound lot on Monday. This was two days after the car was impounded. A little background; there was an ice storm last Friday night in the area causing a large multi-car accident. One of the cars towed away from the scene contained the person who was not discovered. The question I have not heard any local media raise is whether the person was already dead at the time the car was towed. And if not, whether it was the negligence of the police in leaving him in the car for two days that caused his death
First, a new study shows that half of all American doctors prescribe a placebo to their patients, and most of them that do, do not inform the patient that the medication will not do anything for their condition. The study goes on to say that doctors usually use pain medication, vitamins, or stress medications rather than the sugar pill one usually associates with placebo.
This throws into question medical ethics and the doctrine of informed consent. It would be possible to meet the standard of informed consent and still get the beneficial effects of a placebo. It also raises questions of further wasting money in the already inefficient American medical system.
This strikes me as similar to the use of tazers since in both cases a professional with a fiduciary duty to the people is using a device as a shortcut around dealing with the psychological difficulty's of the individual they are faced with at the time. It's lazy. It's laziness that has harmful consequences.
Second, the McCain campaign volunteer who claimed to have been attacked and beaten by a black man who carved a "B" into her face to signify Barrac Obama, admitted to lying about the attack. Apparently the woman is mentally unstable and probably did it to herself.
Lastly, we have the Maryland police spying scandal. The state police went to public meetings of politically left protest organizations and entered the names of participants in a database of persons suspected for involvement in terrorism. So essentially what we have is a law enforcement body labeling as terrorists, U.S. citizens who are exercising their constitutionally guaranteed first amendment rights without any evidence that any crime had or would be committed.
The ACLU were the ones credited with this story seeing the light of day because of an information request. This week the state started sending out letters to people who's names are on the list. There are varying accounts of what the letters say or what their purpose is. Questions need to be answered like; why were these people targeted, was it because they were politically liberal, why not investigate groups like the KKK which is already listed as a terrorist group, what prompted this spying, will the victims be able to see what is in their file, what criteria are used to determine someone is a terrorist, how does someone get their name off the list, is it possible to remove someones name?
This again gives an answer the question, "if you aren't doing anything wrong, what do you have to fear?" These people were not doing anything wrong. One officers reports even showed that these people were not planning on doing anything wrong. Yet they were labeled as terrorists. At this point we still do not know why. Again, most people don't concern themselves with the draconian methods of dealing with suspected terrorists since 9/11. Except we have been repeatedly shown that one does not need to do anything wrong to be labeled a terrorist and be subjected to torture. But then again, this woman seems to think that protesters, or anyone that is vocal about their political opinions deserves to be given the third degree.
The office of House Minority Leader and Ohio Representative John Boehner was evacuated on Monday because of a box of bacon. Apparently an angry constituent sent this as a commentary on the pork laden Wall Street Bailout. I wonder how many more taxpayer dollars will be wasted on overreactions to imaginary threats.
A Boston man was standing on a fire escape and shouting at people. The cops were summoned and he swung a light bulb at the cops. This article quickly frames the issue in the usual way, that tasers are a substitute for lethal force and so save lives. The obvious question in so many of these cases is whether lethal force was even called for. We weren't there so it is unlikely we will ever know. However, so many of these cases raise the question that they lead to the assumption that these useful devices are not being used exclusively as a substitute for lethal force, or are even diminishing the use of lethal force, but instead are being used as an excuse to use violence since it is more expedient than taking the time to deal with the mentally disturbed.
9/26/8 update: Another article with more information from the victim's mother and a second cell phone video. Also, this article has some details of the guidelines for taser use by NYPD.
Instead of waiting for scenes of peaceful protesters being outnumbered and surrounded by riot control police, or being sprayed with a pepper spray cannon that looks like a fire extinguisher, or being callously shoved to the ground as was the case in Denver, the police in the greater Minneapolis/St. Paul area have been proactive in suppressing potential problems. Instead, they have staged a series of raids on houses and meeting places of potential protesters, and confiscated computers and written materials. Of those arrested so far, the only charge that has been brought forth is a constitutionally questionable charges of "conspiracy to incite a riot." The St. Paul police spokesman Tom Walsh said that the cause for the search warrants that police were executing is not public at this time. Also targeted in the raids were journalists from other parts of the country in the area to cover the protests.
The group targeted, the RNC Welcoming Committee, which describes itself as "anarchist/anti-authoritarian," was described by Ramsey County Sheriff Bob Fletcher as "a criminal enterprise made up of 35 self-described anarchists...intent on committing criminal acts before and during the Republican National Convention."
For a bit of editorializing, the police are engaged in an active campaign to block freedoms of speech and assembly, which form the cornerstone of representative democracy is unabashedly loathesome. The fact that only a handful of those detained have been arrested is a clear indication that the authorities in Ramsey County are limiting their actions to those which rest in the ambiguous grey margins of the law, as evidenced by use of the 'conspiracy to commit riot' charges.
That guy that was tazered on his own couch by the cops that broke into his apartment and continued to tazer him after he identified himself, ya he just got a settlement of $100,000. Too bad that after paying his lawyer and the taxes on that shit he will only see $40,000.
The important thing to remember is the cost of justice. The officers that did this will not face justice for their actions but the taxpayers of this burrow will be the ones that have to pay for the actions of the persons that they have stuffed into uniform. This is why every individual in the community should care about the quality of the police officers on their streets.
The headline here is basically the whole story. The most darkly humorous part of the story is the way the cops change their story when pressed and claim that the psychologically traumatized kid with the broken back was threatening them. But really they tazed him for his own good. You know, to keep him from hurting himself. Or is it even more tragically laughable that the effects of the electrocution delayed the boy's surgery by two days?
A man was tazered after he drove around a police roadblock to get to his house that was on fire. The cops say he was resisting, uncomunicative, and reached for a weapon, and drove on the sidewalk endangering people. Except witnesses disagree. Witnesses say he identified himself as the resident, and that the police continued to tazer him after he was handcuffed and pinned to the ground. Also the video on this article shows where he went off the road and that it had no sidewalk.
So I ask you our standard questions: Did use of a tazer save anyones life here? Did the tazer act as a substitute for lethal force where lethal force was called for in the course of the job of a peace officer?
Sure the guy behaved foolishly when he drove around a police roadblock, but he was never a threat to anyone. In a stressful situation where you are panicing from your house being on fire, wouldnt you prefer a bit more discression in your police?
Cleveland is such a terrible cesspool that the suburbs long ago seperated themselves from it politically and financially as much as possible. This amounts to dozens of tax districts in one county. Each of them jealously guarding their hoard like the poison spewing worms they are. They also tax you both in the city you work and in the city you live. So if you commute from a residential suburb to a commercial or industrial town for work then at tax time you get double teamed up the asshole by fat government dicks.
As you can probably tell this is rather personal for me since this double-dick ass fucking I am getting from these cities amounts to a bill for $100 a month. These are cities in the rust belt. The industry left decades ago. The sewers overflow when it rains. The roads have huge and frequent holes which make them worse than most gravel roads I have driven on. These cities don't plow the snow all winter. There are packs of wild dogs roaming the streets at night. Arson is on the rise. What is that money going for?
To start off what otherwise might be a drab and depressing column about Tasers with a bit of humor, here is a case, from Hamilton, Ontario, of Tasers accidentally setting a perp on fire. With a mind to use it as an improvised weapon, the suspect hid a can of hairspray in his belt, which ignited and set the poor victim of physics aflame briefly. The officer, who extinguished the flames, has been completely cleared of any wrongdoing.
In a twisted web of impartial recollections, contradictory statements, and colorful characters, a Palo Alto man without address is questioning whether police were justified in deploying Tasers against him. I'm not sure how it's reasonable to assume a two liter bottle is a dry ice bomb and thus justify deploying a Taser, but that's what makes this case so interesting.
In a tragic case of would haves and could haves, Robert Ingraham of Thibodaux, Louisiana died after officers deployed a Taser on him. Sadly, this article is lacking in detail, but statements like "he should have gone to court" or "he should have not hit his wife" seem rather inconsequential when one remembers that a man died. The only real questions are "how did a 27 year old man die from a Taser shot?" and "how could this have been prevented?"
In a rare show of positive PRwerk for Taser International, the New York Times reports a study into a case where Taser put someone back into a normal cardio rhythm after 40 minutes in a cold lake in Connecticut. Please don't try this at home, or even in a hospital for that matter.
I wish to preface what I am about to say by clarifying my position on Tasers and also preface that with this disclaimer, that the other contributers to this blog may not necessairly share my views.
I think the Tazer is a good and useful technology. I think it is a wonderful substitute for a gun or pepper spray for self defense, depending on your preference. If you feel threatened but don't want to kill anyone or are intimidated by a gun, then a less-lethal taser can give you a comprible amount of self defense in its ability to incapacitate. The Taser also has advantages over pepper spray because it is relatively contained and the effect is limited to the individual hit with the wires. With pepper spray you release a cloud of fine particles that can shift with the wind, cover your clothes, and should never be discharged indoors. I have accidentally pepper sprayed myself and being just as incapacitated as the person you are attempting to flee from is a ticket to disaster town. A taser is a weapon but is not a firearm and that legal distinction makes it far more practical as a person's self defense device since you can use them in more states and carry them across more state boundaries without fear of breaking the law. They are still subject to certain restrictions though.
My problem is not with the Taser devices. My problem is with the cops and thugs that use them as a weapon for torture.
Ohio is one of the few U.S. states where a judge may overrule the county coronor as to the cause of death on a death certificate. When the Summit county medical examiner ruled that three suspects had been murdered by police and that Tasers were partly responsible for the heart failure, Taser International sent is lawyers to Ohio to get a judge to change the record. yesterday they were successful.
I am not the least bit suprised that Taser International would use every means at their disposal to protect the reputation of their flagship product. Given the nature of how the devices tend to be used, I think they would appear to be better corporate citizens if they denounced misuse of their product by pointing out these are the actions of bad people and that their device does not have discretion as to who it electrocutes.
I see two odd clashes in the public statements of Taser International. They loudly proclaim their support for law enforcement. Cases like the one above lead to the assumption that this support of law enforcement goes beyond providing a useful tool to suport a necessary public institution, and actually extends to blind support of the individuals that wear the badge. Admititadly that is a bit of a strech. But it is hard to see this case as anything other than an interference with justice.
The second clash of policy with reality I see within Taser International is what I percieve as a sympathy for the arguments of the anti-gun lobby. It is commendable that Taser International takes every step possible to insure the safety of each of their devices. The instruction manuals are concise and effective, the models for civilian use are locked with a security code so only the person who purchased them can activate the device, they even sell a camera that attaches to the device that starts recording as soon as the safety is switched to the fire position so that there is video evidence that it was necessary to fire. It is admirable that Taser Interantional has chosen to go the extra mile in providing for the safe and proper operation of their products. This intersects with reality because the company and its devices cannot control when they are used. just like a firearms company cannot control when their guns will be used or who will get their hands on them. Once an object is sold it is beyond the control of the manufacturer. So the problem here is that while Taser International is not responsible for misuse of their devices by wicked cops or juvinile thugs, they inject themselves into these instances, insisting that their inanimate device that is beyond their control is incapable of being misused. My main point here is that the Tazer is a good and useful less-lethal alternative for self defense and law enforcement but Taser International needs a more mature and consistant public relations policy.
Here is another reason for innocent people to fear a government with free access to lots of information. They will use it to widen their dragnet and intentionally sweep up people they know are not involved in the crime they are investigating.
California (that pioneer of hairbrained legal shenanigans) has decided to use DNA evidence to round up family members of whoever's DNA they happen to find at the crime scene. I left DNA everywhere I went today. If a crime happens there later, does that mean the cops are going to go harrass my mother at her workplace in the hopes of finding a clue? Or will they simply use this circumstantial evidence as an easy way of pinning the blame on the first most likely suspect they can scrape up, in a horrifying combination of lazy police work and beureaucratic demands to justify an expensive test?
The practical problems I have with this new California program is that they will be spending millions on testing to answer a question that a simple records check could answer. Also, this law will only serve to create more costly criminal litigation as the courts hash out how it dovetails with the new federal law making its way through congress that forbids discrimination based on genetics.
Granted, they never taze reasonable people. However, the argument Taser International makes is that these things save lives by incapacitating a violent criminal that the cops would have to kill otherwise. This argument is highly questionable in light of how tazers are actually used by law enforcement. They use it as a crutch whenever incapacitating someone would make their job easier, not as a replacement for lethal force. The point we have been trying to make all this time is that using tazers in this way increases the number of deaths that result from regular police work, because taers are more likely to cause death than the methods the peace officer would have had to use to resolve the situation. This is in turn compounded by some officers apparent inability to diffierentiate between a regular citizen and a genuine threat.
