If tasers aren't for use in place of deadly force what are they for?

[phantom power]

I've written a couple of things about tasers this week, one on Salon in which I questioned their use as torture devices for cops' convenience and one here where I explained why I don't think they should be banned. I explained that while they are often misused, if they were deployed only in situations where lethal force would be the only other option, they would be a very useful tool in the toolbox. I raised the Powell killing in St. Louis as an example of how they should be used.

Well, I think I'm changing my mind. From what I gather on the internet, a lot of police and other experts believe that tasers cannot be used in situations where a citizen is wielding a knife or other weapon other than a gun because there is no guarantee that a taser will stop them. Therefore, the protocol is to use deadly force in any situation where they feel threatened. The St. Louis police chief was quoted on CNN saying "Tasers aren't 100%. That's what guns are for."

And that means the only use for tasers is to force compliance of unarmed citizens with the use of 50,000 volts of electricity --- which is torture.

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2014/08/if-tasers-arent-for-use-in-place-of.html

[Electric Monk]

1. Punishing people who aren't really a threat, but just aren't cooperating fast enough?

[phantom power]

2. so it would seem

As Digby says, if "compliance" is the only actual purpose of these things, they should be banned.

But they won't.

[intaglio]

3. Torture - or as it is called now, "pain compliance" n/t

[Lee-Lee]

4. Another person without a clue

Tasers are good for some situations, yes, not for others.

I would love to take people here out with a simulator and it will run them down through a bunch of drills and let them see just how hard a taser is to employ against a moving person, and how easy it is to get stabbed by a person.

As for the use on unarmed people, yes it can be and is sometimes valid. Here is a shocking little fact for people-

A taser is SAFER than using batons or hands/fists when subduing a noncompliant person.

Safer for the person being tased and safer for the officer(s).

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18168-tasers-safer-than-batons-and-fists.html#.U_et38VdWDo

The team examined over 24,000 cases where police had used force, including almost 5500 incidents involving a Taser. After controlling for factors such as the amount of resistance shown by the suspect, they found that Taser use reduced the overall risk of injury by 65 per cent.

So a taser is a great tool, in situations where its use is valid and can be effective. but it isn't a magic wand and isn't 100% reliable and is more difficult to employ, so sometimes it isn't an option. In those cases you don't use it.

Yes, I have tased an umarmed person, more than once. In each case they came out less injured than they would have if we would have had to subdue them by other means.

[tblue37]

5. They are used for pain compliance, exrajudicial punishment, and just plain ol'

fun for sadistic cops.

[Glassunion]

6. All cops should just carry a picture of me naked.

100% guarantee to induce vomiting, disorientation, chest pains, and at times immediate and violent defication.

Only downside I fear it's not 100% compliant with the Geneva Convention. As it may be considered torture.

[The CCC]

7. If tasers aren't for use in place of deadly force what are they for?

To be accurate no force is 100% effective even a firearm. With the use of a firearm you need to willing to accept the consequences of a high probability killing another human being.

[TheKentuckian]

8. Torture and something to use on old ladies and little kids with reduced blowback.

[2pooped2pop]

9. tasers are for kids and grandma

at least it seems so to me.

[madokie]

10. For the cops to get their jollies

I guess. Otherwise why use a cattle prod on people? Isn't a taser pretty much like a cattle prod?