Tasers are torture (UN), but OK for UK police (Jacqui Smith)
Discussion
Tasers constitute a form of torture says the United Nations Committee Against Torture, but UK Home Secretary, Jacqui Smith, says they are a "sensible provision" for all UK police officers.
Streaky
UN Committee Against Torture said:
25 November 2007 : The use of Tasers "causes acute pain, constituting a form of torture," the UN's Committee Against Torture said. "In certain cases, they can even cause death, as has been shown by reliable studies and recent real-life events." Three men — all in their early 20s — died from after tasering in the United States this week [w/c 18 November 2007], days after a Polish man died at Vancouver airport after being tasered by Canadian police. There have been 17 deaths in Canada following the use of Tasers since they were approved for use, and 275 deaths in the US. "According to Amnesty International, coroners have listed the Taser jolt as a contributing factor in more than 30 of those deaths."
Daily Telegraph said:
3 December 2007 : Every police officer could soon be armed with a stun gun.
Jacqui Smith, the Home Secretary, said it was "pretty clear" that the weapons were more effective for subduing suspects and caused less harm than traditional batons.
Issuing the 50,000-volt electric stun guns to all officers would be a "sensible provision" provided they were properly trained in how to use them, she added.
The weapons, previously used only by specialist firearms officers, have recently been issued to trained regular officers in pilot schemes.
Human rights campaigners argue that they are too dangerous to be issued routinely.
Mrs Smith told Police Review magazine that she "could see a day" when all officers were armed with stun guns. "If police officers could be prevented from injury because they are able to subdue someone more quickly than with other methods, then it would be viable," she said.
"I have talked to some of the police officers I work most closely with and it is pretty clear from what they tell me that even using a baton on someone is likely to be less effective and wreak more damage on the person receiving it. There is a logic here. If we can find a way through it that provides the appropriate training, and if we can be confident, as we have been, about the medical impact… it seems to me like a sensible sort of provision."
The Police Federation, which represents rank-and-file officers in England and Wales, has called for all officers to be equipped with stun guns. However, in the United States, where they are used widely, more than 150 people have died after being shocked with the weapons. Most of the deaths were put down to factors such as drug use or heart conditions.
Taser International, one maker of the devices, has successfully defended more than 50 legal claims of wrongful death or injury.
Kate Allen, director of Amnesty International UK, said that because stun guns could kill, "they must be treated as lethal weapons. We want an assurance from the Home Office and police chiefs that these weapons will only be issued to trained firearms officers and kept locked in the firearms box."
Discuss.Jacqui Smith, the Home Secretary, said it was "pretty clear" that the weapons were more effective for subduing suspects and caused less harm than traditional batons.
Issuing the 50,000-volt electric stun guns to all officers would be a "sensible provision" provided they were properly trained in how to use them, she added.
The weapons, previously used only by specialist firearms officers, have recently been issued to trained regular officers in pilot schemes.
Human rights campaigners argue that they are too dangerous to be issued routinely.
Mrs Smith told Police Review magazine that she "could see a day" when all officers were armed with stun guns. "If police officers could be prevented from injury because they are able to subdue someone more quickly than with other methods, then it would be viable," she said.
"I have talked to some of the police officers I work most closely with and it is pretty clear from what they tell me that even using a baton on someone is likely to be less effective and wreak more damage on the person receiving it. There is a logic here. If we can find a way through it that provides the appropriate training, and if we can be confident, as we have been, about the medical impact… it seems to me like a sensible sort of provision."
The Police Federation, which represents rank-and-file officers in England and Wales, has called for all officers to be equipped with stun guns. However, in the United States, where they are used widely, more than 150 people have died after being shocked with the weapons. Most of the deaths were put down to factors such as drug use or heart conditions.
Taser International, one maker of the devices, has successfully defended more than 50 legal claims of wrongful death or injury.
Kate Allen, director of Amnesty International UK, said that because stun guns could kill, "they must be treated as lethal weapons. We want an assurance from the Home Office and police chiefs that these weapons will only be issued to trained firearms officers and kept locked in the firearms box."
Streaky
ajstephe said:
If you don't want to be tortured (tasered) don't commit crime or play up....simple but effective advice
I know it's an angle that's been discussed at length, but there are numerous cases of people being "wrongfully" shot - either people who appeared to be a threat but were totally unharmed (man with a table leg? / bloke in the tube station), or people who simply weren't a threat to anybody (man on the bus having a diabetic episode). Whilst these are isolated incidents, if we increase the likelihood of tasering (by issuing them more widely) then we also increase the number of "wrongful shootings". Lets make no mistake, these are firearms, and bloody dangerous ones at that. Whilst the deaths in the US are largely put down to medical conditions or drug use, the fact is that many people DO have underlying medical conditions, or use drugs (or one as a result of the other!) - we KNOW this to be true. We KNOW that the UN consider tasering a form of torture. We also KNOW that police will get it wrong on occasions (they're human, this is not their fault). Put that together, and we KNOW 100% that completely innocent people will be shot, with a 50,000 volt taser, and die a painful torturous death as a result. And yet we accept this?
Maybe the lashings dished out in Sudan aren't as un-civilised as we, the Western world, would have everyone else think.
Jacqui Smith, you've made my list, you Miss, are a complete Spacktard of the highest order, and I hereby metaphorically kick you in the face as a sign of my disapproval. <kick>
Edited by tigger1 on Monday 3rd December 19:02
Jaqui Smith said:
"I have talked to some of the police officers I work most closely with and it is pretty clear from what they tell me that even using a baton on someone is likely to be less effective and wreak more damage on the person receiving it. There is a logic here. If we can find a way through it that provides the appropriate training, and if we can be confident, as we have been, about the medical impact… it seems to me like a sensible sort of provision."
While she is, undeniably, a dangerous berk, her own words in this case are pretty sensible. Ignorant, maybe, and designed to lead us somewhere we don't want to go. Read it again, emphasizing the 'If'.Personally, I think Tasers are very, very dangerous weapons. The police are human beings, and they
up just like the rest of us. But common sense will stop most rational people from beating a person to death with a stick. At ten feet, pressing the "Dance like a spastic" button is all too easy.These are not "Non Lethal" weapons. They should be treated as such.
ajstephe said:
If you don't want to be tortured (tasered) don't commit crime or play up....simple but effective advice
Ahem!http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/west_yorkshire/...
Do you still stand by your comment?
It is one thing to say that tasers are nasty and should not be used. The more difficult option is to say what they can be replaced with.
Officers have to subdue prisoners. Officers are required by law, under penalty of prison, to defend members of the public. Truncheons are ineffective and provide a weapon for the offender to use in many cases. 'Pepper' sprays do not work and further have a nasty habit of affecting the officer as well. One could, of course, revert to 'self-defence' techniques but these have, historically, caused many deaths as well.
The problem is that a drunken/drugged/hyper offender is extremely difficult to subdue. Pain holds do not work, chemicals do not work and hitting him with sticks works even less. Long handled batons, which can work very effectively in trained hands, have been deemed as too offensive. The old method of subduing an offender with superior numbers is long gone. We have sub-divisions patrolled by individual officers from 20.00 to 0.600. An offender is more likely to die of old age waiting for my force to get more than two officers to a scene.
Under the classic definition, all such restraint methods are indeed torture. However, the question remains, what is the alternative? Harsh words?
Ask yourself this: if you were facing a person you have to arrest, one who is drugged or drunk, what tool would you like attached to your belt?
Officers have to subdue prisoners. Officers are required by law, under penalty of prison, to defend members of the public. Truncheons are ineffective and provide a weapon for the offender to use in many cases. 'Pepper' sprays do not work and further have a nasty habit of affecting the officer as well. One could, of course, revert to 'self-defence' techniques but these have, historically, caused many deaths as well.
The problem is that a drunken/drugged/hyper offender is extremely difficult to subdue. Pain holds do not work, chemicals do not work and hitting him with sticks works even less. Long handled batons, which can work very effectively in trained hands, have been deemed as too offensive. The old method of subduing an offender with superior numbers is long gone. We have sub-divisions patrolled by individual officers from 20.00 to 0.600. An offender is more likely to die of old age waiting for my force to get more than two officers to a scene.
Under the classic definition, all such restraint methods are indeed torture. However, the question remains, what is the alternative? Harsh words?
Ask yourself this: if you were facing a person you have to arrest, one who is drugged or drunk, what tool would you like attached to your belt?
Spokey said:
Yeah, because the cops never get it wrong, do they?
And Police officers never get stabbed to death, do they?Three weeks ago, I was threatened with a knife twice in the space of a week. I don't just mean that someone waved a penknife at me from across the road, of shouted "I'll stab you". I mean faced two separate men at incidents inside the confined space of a house, both of whom were threatening me with large kitchen knives from just a few feet away.
On both occasions, after protracted negotiations, I managed to persuade them to give themselves up and they were both arrested without injury to anyone, including themselves.
However, we're dealing with people who are mentally deranged, out of control due to any number of drugs, drunk, stupid, or any combination of all those things on a daily basis.
Would I like to have been in possession of Taser on both of those occasions? Bloody right I would - they could have both turned out very differently, and there was one point with the second male where I came extremely close to being stabbed.
Would I have used Taser? Probably not, no, but if I'm expected to deal with these people - the absolute worst people in society - on behalf of everyone else, then why shouldn't I be in possession of the right equipment to deal with them?
It's all well and good saying that they could be used for torture, but that goes for every other piece of equipment I carry. I could easily use my baton to torture someone, or my rigid handcuffs, or my pepper spray. My pocket book has a thick leather cover, which I'm sure would be painful if I slapped someone across the face with it.
Have I ever used any of these things to torture anyone? No - of course not. I've only ever used them to defend myself or to subdue a violent suspect. There is no more likelihood of me using Taser to torture anyone than with any of my other items.
Could an officer use Taser for torture? Of course they could. There are rogue officers just like any other job, but in my experience, they're few and far between, and we have one of the most robust and thorough Police complaints systems in the world, so anyone who did wouldn't last long.
Teppic said:
ajstephe said:
If you don't want to be tortured (tasered) don't commit crime or play up....simple but effective advice
Ahem!http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/west_yorkshire/...
Do you still stand by your comment?
The police officers, on seeing someone of middle-eastern appearance sitting on a bus clutching a back-pack at a time of heightened security were right to be apprehensive. They challenged the chap but, it seems, he was unconscious so unable to respond. The officers did not know this. The suggestion by the brief that he had something around his neck that identified him as having a medical problem is, to say the least, a bit off the wall. But then, he’s a brief and there’s a chance of getting some compensation for himself. And maybe for the chap as well.
Whilst I believe in my heart of hearts that the chap is suffering from post traumatic stress, despite not being aware of what was going on during the incident – I really, really do believe it – you’ve got to say that what happened to him was infinitely preferable to what happened a week or two later on the underground.
If anything, this is one up for the tasers. The bloke isn’t dead, he suffered no pain – being unconscious at the time of the incident – and he will get untold riches after applying for compensation. Yet the baseline is that, at a time of bombings on buses, a chap of arabic appearance did not respond to challenges by police when sitting on a bus clutching a back pack.
There were armed officers at the scene. If he had come out of the coma suddenly and not conformed to directions given him, he could well have been shot. He was extremely lucky there were taser armed officers at the scene.
If tasers limit the times armed officers are deployed, then that must be a good thing.
Edited by Derek Smith on Monday 3rd December 20:33
Tasers, how to circumvent their effects.
Aluminised backing on a fabric, or lightweight chain mail garments or carbon impregnated cloth.
Faraday effect. Electricity always takes the shortest route, and will always discharge over a conductive surface rather than go through you.
Dont leave home without your countermeasures.
http://www.defensereview.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=860
Right click-save as.
http://www.thorshield.com/images/ThorShield.wmv
Aluminised backing on a fabric, or lightweight chain mail garments or carbon impregnated cloth.
Faraday effect. Electricity always takes the shortest route, and will always discharge over a conductive surface rather than go through you.
Dont leave home without your countermeasures.
http://www.defensereview.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=860
Right click-save as.
http://www.thorshield.com/images/ThorShield.wmv
I could torture someone fairly effectively with my bare hands.
Let alone a baton and CS spray.
I fail to see the point of the debate.
If the use of any weapon is justified under the criminal law it is not torture.
If it is not justified then that is an assault, which could amount to torture.
Nothing new here.
Let alone a baton and CS spray.
I fail to see the point of the debate.
If the use of any weapon is justified under the criminal law it is not torture.
If it is not justified then that is an assault, which could amount to torture.
Nothing new here.
Chrispy Porker said:
I could torture someone fairly effectively with my bare hands.
Let alone a baton and CS spray.
I fail to see the point of the debate.
If the use of any weapon is justified under the criminal law it is not torture.
If it is not justified then that is an assault, which could amount to torture.
Nothing new here.
So, if our lovely government legislates to allow the police to use electric shocks to the genitals then that will not be torture?Let alone a baton and CS spray.
I fail to see the point of the debate.
If the use of any weapon is justified under the criminal law it is not torture.
If it is not justified then that is an assault, which could amount to torture.
Nothing new here.
Read your post again.
I appreciate that the majority of BiB would rather have tasers than not - but what happens when you hit somebody with one, and they die?
How will you feel?
Will you still think, "Glad I didn't just try to talk down this situation"?
R_U_Local makes a point about negotiating his way out of 2 very bad situations recently, which raises the point that these people *can* often be talked to and dealt with by non-violent means. I don't think a threat of "greater" violence from police is the way forward. There was also a comment about low-force numbers, and for me, this would be a much better way to spend money. Arm each officer with MORE OFFICERS, rather than firearms training. This will be more of a deterrent to crime, hopefully improve response times, and help in situations where an officer's (or MOP's) life is at stake.
"SOMETHING must be done.
This is SOMETHING.
Therefore THIS must be done"
^^^^ Flawed Logic^^^^
How will you feel?
Will you still think, "Glad I didn't just try to talk down this situation"?
R_U_Local makes a point about negotiating his way out of 2 very bad situations recently, which raises the point that these people *can* often be talked to and dealt with by non-violent means. I don't think a threat of "greater" violence from police is the way forward. There was also a comment about low-force numbers, and for me, this would be a much better way to spend money. Arm each officer with MORE OFFICERS, rather than firearms training. This will be more of a deterrent to crime, hopefully improve response times, and help in situations where an officer's (or MOP's) life is at stake.
"SOMETHING must be done.
This is SOMETHING.
Therefore THIS must be done"
^^^^ Flawed Logic^^^^
tigger1 said:
R_U_Local makes a point about negotiating his way out of 2 very bad situations recently, which raises the point that these people *can* often be talked to and dealt with by non-violent means.
No I didn't - I made a point about how vulnerable we are when dealing with people like that, and how I and many of my colleagues would like another tactical option available to us. Yes they can sometimes be talked down, but there are plenty of other occasions when they can't, and I don't see why I should be expected to get injured or killed when dealing with them.R_U_LOCAL said:
No I didn't - I made a point about how vulnerable we are when dealing with people like that, and how I and many of my colleagues would like another tactical option available to us. Yes they can sometimes be talked down, but there are plenty of other occasions when they can't, and I don't see why I should be expected to get injured or killed when dealing with them.
I do not want or expect you to get injured or killed in the course of your job. Yet, some level of risk is inherent in what you do. The Taser is now an option, but it is not "Non Lethal" and even the manufacturers will not claim this. It can kill. It has done.It should be treated like a standard firearm.
lets put it this way.
if some trigger happy 2 bit plod tasered me without very very very good reason (im a good guy really so it wouldn't be provoked) ill sell everything i own making sure I legally take away everything they have ever earnt.
then make aware their future employers (becuase they will not be BiB no more), landlords (becuase ill have them personally since the force wont back them up after a bit of rough in the courts, thus will not be able to pay their morgtage), everything (read into that what you will).
actually id probbably just pay somone else to do the "make everyone aware" for me but you get the picture
tasers dont bother me, if they do, ill make sure they bother whoever bothered me with a taser, and ill keep bothering them till they have nothing, then ill pay somone to make sure they stay that way till they cark it, with nothing.
and i mean nothing.
if some trigger happy 2 bit plod tasered me without very very very good reason (im a good guy really so it wouldn't be provoked) ill sell everything i own making sure I legally take away everything they have ever earnt.
then make aware their future employers (becuase they will not be BiB no more), landlords (becuase ill have them personally since the force wont back them up after a bit of rough in the courts, thus will not be able to pay their morgtage), everything (read into that what you will).
actually id probbably just pay somone else to do the "make everyone aware" for me but you get the picture
tasers dont bother me, if they do, ill make sure they bother whoever bothered me with a taser, and ill keep bothering them till they have nothing, then ill pay somone to make sure they stay that way till they cark it, with nothing.
and i mean nothing.
Edited by DucatiGary on Monday 3rd December 22:40
Zod said:
So, if our lovely government legislates to allow the police to use electric shocks to the genitals then that will not be torture?
Read your post again.
Genitals are not target specific in the manual of guidance and in most cases are too small to actively target and especially if they are covered by clothes!Read your post again.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff