Thursday, May 03, 2007

LPD Faces Third Taser Related Lawsuit

KCBD - NewsChannel 11 / Lubbock, TX: LPD Faces Third Taser Related Lawsuit

We have been posting links to indiscriminate Taser use in parts of the USA. When an innocent is subjected to 50,000 volts of paralyzing current, in America they can at least try their luck in the courts at the multimillion dollar lottery of judgements that go with the plaintiff against the police. If any do.

One would imagine that if the police can prove resisting arrest, then the remainder of the burden of proof naturally relies upon the result of that arrest.

If the arrest involves intentional brutality then the Taser use also seems well outside the law. In cases where the arrest is not proper or even warranted the awards could be flowing. Society's little experiment with these dangerous weapons may be an advance in the USA over handguns and 9mm bullets.

New Zealand has had police using pepper spray, batons and body armour without conflating the pressure response. Increasingly we hear of police busting drug lords with significant weapon cachets. But we do not hear of a huge number of gang warfare shooting related deaths. Criminal militia are an undesirable consequence of poverty and despair, but the police trial of the Taser in New Zealand does not afford the innocent with the luxury of trial before punishment, and exposes them to unacceptable levels of risk.

Why can the police not come up with a better method of capturing their quarry before they start shocking jay-walkers or kids or simply the wrong person. What about a net gun, or some kind of harmless sedative dart? Even tear gas rarely injures people.

At least in America the innocent can sue. In New Zealand, no go. We are "protected" by a social contract - universal Accident Compensation. Its not adequate to merely compensate for the lost work time or embarrassment or pain. And ACC would defend their fund by saying that arrest is no accident.

So our Tasered become a disadvantaged underclass. The risks of their introduction outweigh the advantages.

When is it necessary to use a Taser and not a gun? What alternatives to electric shock are there to disable a violent person? Should this weapon be in the hands of the New Zealand Police?

No comments: