Column: Taser use needs research
Published March 23, 2010
On Thursday, the Columbia Police Department arrested a man in front of Lakota Coffee after subduing him with a Taser weapon. According to news reports, the man punched a police officer in the head, was stunned and was arrested.
I've never been hit with one of these, so I don't know how inhumane the practice is. However, if you watch any crappy comedy, it's clear that being on the business end of a Taser charge is similar to being kicked in the genitals.
I'm not saying that using a non-lethal method of subduing potentially dangerous suspects is a bad idea. However, with the multiple reports of how deadly Tasers can be, I'm a little scared that most police officers are carrying that kind of weapon around.
In 2008, in my hometown, a 23-year-old man died after resisting arrest during a traffic stop. He received two shocks from the Taser after he had been handcuffed. The investigation took more than a year, and the Moberly city government eventually agreed to pay $2.4 million to the family of the man.
Also in 2008, the Columbia police used two Tasers on Phillip McDuffy, which resulted in him falling off a bridge and sustaining multiple injuries. Late last year, the Columbia government settled with him for $300,000.
These are just two recent stories close to home. You can find endless other anecdotal evidence, court cases and arguments for and against Taser use with a simple Google search.
I am obviously a proponent of banning the use of these weapons, at least until more research is done. However, there is a lot of talk on both sides about the ethics or importance of Taser use by our police officers. So, I'd like to simply level my argument to a financial one.
The increased instances of improper Taser use and injuries from proper Taser use are resulting in ridiculously expensive lawsuits and court settlements. In a lot of cases I found online, most Taser victims were probably more easily subdued or apprehended using the Taser, but the Taser was never necessary to make an arrest or keep officers or the public safe.
Not only are the Tasers expensive, but the training for them and their upkeep is expensive as well. Obviously, the ensuing legal problems are expensive. Why spend all that money for a tool that usually isn't needed in the first place? I'm not going to call CPD lazy, but maybe it has been a little overzealous in embracing new technologies.
Like downtown cameras, I think our police department keeps trying to incorporate technology just because it's new, not because we need it or because it solves our crime problems. Call me a purist, but I think our police force works best when it is present, calm, engaged and trained for all situations.
Even if you don't find an ethical problem with the use of Tasers, you have to admit that the policies leave something to be desired. If we could make these devices non-lethal and cheaper, and if we could train our officers to use them safely and effectively, I would have no need to complain.
That's why everyone should contact their state representative and tell him or her to introduce a bill similar to last year's House Bill 931, which would have created a task force charged with conducting an in-depth investigation into the use of Tasers and other similar devices. Only with more research will we find the safest compromise between new technology and ethical police work.
Jordan Stein is a senior political science major and a campaign volunteer for Columbia mayoral candidate Sid Sullivan. She can be reached at jesf25@mail.missouri.edu