Il Brits ha preso la a salto gigante avanti nella corsa verso il totalitarianism. La polizia è stata data il permesso zap tutti i sospetti violenti, anche se sono unarmed ed anche se sono bambini. Le valutazioni mediche dette Tony di McNulty del ministro della polizia del Ministero degli Interni avevano confermato il rischio di morte o la ferita seria da Tasers era “bassa„. La distensione delle limitazioni sull'uso delle armi viene malgrado gli avvertimenti che potrebbero innescare un attacco di cuore in giovanotti. Ma non è bambini giusti:
Gli scienziati di governo inoltre sono stati chiesti di esaminare se le armi potrebbero causare un miscarriage se usato su una donna incinta. Mentre non diceva se alla polizia sarebbe permessa a Taser una donna incinta, il Ministero degli Interni ha detto il comitato di DSAC “specificamente aveva chiesto„ le simulazioni su elaboratore di essere effettuato per analizzare l'effetto “su una femmina incinta„.
Gli uomini, le donne ed i bambini tutta la faccia la tensione.
Quasi un quarto degli ufficiali di polizia della forza 1.200 della polizia di Dyfed- Powys è stato studiato per le allegazioni di cattiva condotta, della corruzione o del guasto nel dovere in di meno che un anno.
Sopra circa 11 mese in 2007, 283 constables, sergeants ed ispettori hanno affrontato una sonda dal reparto professionale di campioni della forza (PSD).
Le figure di scossa sono state rivelate dopo un reporter dell'alberino di sera hanno chiesto i particolari sotto la libertà della Legge delle informazioni.
Le rivelazioni hanno scintillato una reazione forte da Llanelli l'Helen Mary Jones, che ha detto che le figure erano deludenti.
“Sono estremamente - interessato circa questi risultati,„ ha detto.
“non solo lasciati giù il pubblico, ma lasciati giù i molti ufficiali di polizia onesti che stanno facendo un lavoro eccellente nelle circostanze molto difficili.„
Cinque delle allegazioni erano così serii che gli ufficiali hanno coinvolto hanno offerto la loro rassegnazione.
La ricerca indica che sei degli ufficiali sono stati sotto l'esame accurato per due allegazioni separate, che porta il numero totale di accuse maneggiate dallo PSD a 289.
Around a third of the investigations were resolved by the PSD or the force division, with a number of others discontinued or found to be unsubstantiated. Some 120 of the inquiries are ongoing.
Female officers were the subject of at least 49 of the allegations, although details on gender were withheld in 30 cases.
Force spokeswoman Eleri Morris said: “To put this figure into context, the 283 officers were either the subject of a public complaint or internal misconduct procedures.
“It needs to be explained that these 283 officers were not all the subject of formal discipline.
“It has to be acknowledged that the majority of complaints against officers or internal misconduct results in either the matter being unsubstantiated or being dealt with by means of local resolution and/or managerial advice.
“It is comparatively few cases that result in formal discipline.”
The figures come after Llanelli inspectors Dyfed Bolton and Bob Price were temporarily removed from their Llanelli patches amid an investigation into alleged misconduct in an off-duty incident at the end of last year.
The FBI is planning to announce the awarding of a $1 billion, 10-year contract in an increased effort to “protect the borders to keep the terrorists out, protect our citizens, our neighbors, our children so they can have good jobs, and have a safe country to live in,” in the words of FBI Biometric Services Section Chief Kimberly Del Greco.
This seems to be a noble cause and something everyone can agree is important, but how exactly does the FBI plan on doing this? The FBI wants to create a database which compiles various types of biometric data, such as palm prints, eye scans, facial structures and even data regarding scars and tattoos.
And certainly this won’t only be used to track terrorists and criminals, as many of the FBI background checks (which already compile some of this data) are for people who are involved in such things as teaching and elder care.
While one can make the argument that this does not necessarily mean the system will affect every American citizen, regardless of his or her activities or standing in the criminal justice system, one has to admit that the potential is certainly there.
In this day and age, when government is too vast and too many operations and actions are being undertaken in secret in the name of “national security,” we must realize that this is potentially opening the door for a very Orwellian state and system in this country.
While it is probably impossible to find people who disagree with the notion that we need to implement new measures to combat and prevent terrorism and crime, it seems far-fetched to assume that these same people would agree with actions such as these, which have far greater impacts on society as a whole.
Certainly I’m not out committing atrocious crimes such as rape and murder, and would have no reason to be fearful of the government having my biometric data on file to link me to these crimes, but is it wrong to want, or even expect, some reasonable amount of privacy in my daily life?
This revelation, coupled with other actions and discussions on the part of the government, is leading us in a direction that just doesn’t seem too comfortable and compatible with our notions of liberty, privacy and freedom. In the past few years the government has discussed and implemented plans for a National ID Card.
There is ongoing discussion about fencing off our borders to keep outsiders out (but perhaps also to keep insiders in?). And who can ignore the depth and secrecy of the NSA’s wiretapping program, which has caused considerable controversy even within the government.
We must be aware of the potential for mistakes to be made with systems such as this. How can we know for certain that the government won’t suspect a person of having ties to a terrorist or terrorist organization, only to later find out that they don’t and that all the private and personal information which has been collected about this person does not aid the government in its endeavors? And what would become of this information? Surely the government wouldn’t want to simply destroy it, because it may help them later, should they ever have a reason to identify or track this person down.
Now why couldn’t they just use this same justification for everyone, as an excuse to know where anyone is at any time? The truth is, they could, and this is why this system should be frightening to many people, not just to so-called “privacy advocates.” Do you really want the government to know when you’re engaging in … ahem … marital relations with your spouse? Even worse, would you want the government to know if you’re doing the same with someone other than your spouse (not that I advocate this at all, but we’re speaking hypothetically here)? I didn’t think so.
Based on these new revelations, we need to ask ourselves how much of our liberties and freedoms we are willing to give up in the name of “national security.”
It is wise to remember the words of Benjamin Franklin when considering this situation: “They that give up liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” Are we moving towards a “more secure” and “safer” society, or are we moving towards the end of “society” as we know it?
The pretence of oversight has been ripped aside by the Khan bugging affair: the security apparat has become a law unto itself
Simon Jenkins
Wednesday February 6, 2008 The Guardian
The machine is out of control. Personal surveillance in Britain is so extensive that no democratic oversight is remotely plausible. Some 800 organisations, including the police, the revenue, local and central government, demanded (and almost always got) 253,000 intrusions on citizen privacy in the last recorded year, 2006. This is way beyond that of any other country in the free world.
The Sadiq Khan affair has killed stone dead the thesis, beloved of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, that any accretion of power to the state is sustainable because ministers are in control. Whether this applies to phone tapping, bugging devices, ID cards, NHS records, childcare computer systems, video surveillance or detention without trial, it is simply a lie. Nobody can control this torrent of intrusion. Nobody can oversee a burst dam.
Khan, an MP and government whip, was allegedly targeted by the police for having been a “civil rights lawyer” and thus a nuisance, though the recording of his meetings with a constituent in prison was supposedly directed at the inmate. Either way, the bugging destroyed the “Wilson doctrine”, that MPs cannot be bugged. It appears that they can if ministers, or the police, so decide.
Security machismo claims that in the “age of terrorism”, real men bug everyone and everything. The former flying squad chief and BBC dial-a-quote, John O’Connor, implied this week that it would be negligent of the police not to bug anyone they - repeat they - thought a threat. The Blair thesis that “9/11 changes everything” has been a green light to every security consultant, surveillance salesman and Labour minister wanting to flex his - or her- muscles in the tabloids.
Years ago a lawyer gave me unassailable evidence that a call with a client had been tapped by the police and handed to the prosecution. Such tapping allegedly required a personal warrant from the home secretary who, when tackled on the subject, flatly denied it could have happened without his approval, which he would never give in such a case. I checked back with a police chief, who roared with laughter. “The home secretary is absolutely right. He must authorise all taps sent to him for authorisation. But not, of course, the rest.” Orwell’s cuttlefish were squirting ink.
The grim reality of the past week alone is that it has seen a substantial section of the British establishment allowing itself to believe that private dealings between lawyer and client, and between MP and constituent, should no longer be considered immune from state surveillance. A cardinal principle of a free democracy is thus coolly abandoned. It is not a victory for national security. It is a victory for terrorism.
The monitoring organisation Privacy International now gives Britain the worst record in Europe for such intrusion, indeed the worst among the so-called democratic world and on a par with “endemic surveillance societies”, such as Russia and Singapore. The Thames Valley policeman, Mark Kearney, who bugged Khan’s conversation in Woodhill prison, claims to have protested that it was “unethical” but was overruled and placed under “significant pressure” from the Metropolitan police. He has since had to leave the force. The saga reads like a script from the film about East German espionage, The Lives of Others.
Britain’s poor record is the result of government weakness towards the security apparat. Even among supposed liberals, the response is to demand not less surveillance but more oversight. David Davis, the Tory spokesman, said yesterday: “It’s got to be controlled; it’s got to be accountable.” Civil rights champion Liberty wants “simpler and stronger surveillance laws, with warrants issued by judges, not policemen nor politicians”.
People have been saying this for years. Britain has a Kafkaesque oversight bureaucracy ranking with the one it purports to oversee. Some six separate surveillance monitors trip over themselves. All operate in secret and appear to be one gigantic rubber stamp. The distinction drawn by the justice secretary, Jack Straw, between “intrusive” and “directed” bugging, illustrates the prevailing mumbo-jumbo. The chief surveillance monitor, Sir Christopher Rose, has been asked by Straw to investigate the Khan affair, which appears to be a failure by the chief surveillance monitor. Is this to be taken seriously?
When the council can bug you for fly-tipping, when prisons can record conversations with defence lawyers, when any potentially criminal act can justify electronic intrusion - and when ministers resort to the dictator’s excuse, “The innocent need not fear” - warning bells should sound.
There is no “balance” to be struck between civil liberty and national security. Civil liberty is absolute, security its handmaid. Measures are needed to protect the public, but a firm line needs to be drawn round them. The line must accept a degree of risk, or a police state is just around the corner.
A quarter of a million surveillances in Britain are beyond all power of politicians or overseers to check. It is state paranoia, justified only by that catch-all, the “war on terror”. In truth it is not countering terror, but promoting it. Mass surveillances one of the poisons that the terrorist seeks to inject into the veins of civil society.
It is clear the overseers have gone native. Even the “independent” security watchdog, Lord Carlile, has bought 42-day detention. More oversight will not cure surveillance but mask its spread. The extension from terrorism to benefit fraud, fly-tipping and trading standards demonstrates how the official mind flips to Stasi mode at the least excuse.
To claim that Britain is a police state insults those who are victims of real ones. But I have no doubt that feeble ministers are slithering down just this road, pushed by the security/industrial complex. It is not oversight that must be increased, but rather the categories and boundaries of surveillance that must be drastically curbed.
Of course there are people who want to explode bombs in Britain. Taxpayers spend a fortune trying to stop them. But how often must we remind ourselves that the bomber need not kill to achieve his end when we appease his yearning for the martyrdom of repression? The amount of surveillance in Britain is grotesque. It is a sign of the corruption of power, and nothing else.
A man who died after being shot by police with a stun gun had fatally injured himself, detectives said last night. Armed officers were called to an incident in the Goldington area of Bedford at 7pm on Saturday after reports of a dispute between a mother and a son, Bedfordshire Police said. Officers used the Taser gun after the knife-wielding man, who was in his thirties, threatened police outside a terraced house.
The injured man retreated inside the house where he was discovered a short while later with “self-inflicted injuries”, a force spokeswoman said. The injuries from the Taser gun were “minimal”, she added.
He was taken to Bedford Hospital where he died. A post-mortem examination is due to be carried out today, and the incident has been referred to the Independent Police Complaints Commission.
Police cordoned off the house and the property next door while an officer stood guard. Flowers were laid outside the scene.
Neighbours said they thought the mother lived in the house alone and had more than one son. Amanda Luddington, 42, who lives opposite, said: “She is a very lovely woman. Every time I go into the shop she’s always there and says hello. As far as I know, she lives there on her own. I do not know her son. I am surprised at what has happened.”
Unauthorised demo in London, England, against SOCPA legislation which criminalises freedom of expression and freedom of assembly within a zone around Parliament. This legislation is under review and fears are that it might be extended.
After meeting up in Trafalgar Square it was decided to go for a walk in ‘Our streets’. The police were pretty laid back to begin with while several places of interest were visited such as the Home Office, New Sotland Yard, MI5, Parliament Square and Downing Street. They even allowed a sit down in the road for a short while in Parliament Square but then began forcing people back onto the pavement. The walk then proceeded to Downing Street where people sat down just outside the gates, and then lay down in the road. Several people were arrested, including Brian Haw and Steve Jago. The people lying down in the road were dragged back into the crowd outside Downing Street.
Charges were dismissed today against a northeast Ohio woman who was handcuffed and tasered by a patrolman whose actions were recorded by police dashboard video.
The Warren officer who arrested 38-year-old Heidi Gill outside a bar has been fired for lying to investigators in an unrelated traffic stop.
Richard Kovach had refused to testify against the tasered woman on the advice of his attorney. The FBI is currently investigating the matter, and Kovach himself may face federal charges.
A video made from a cruiser shows Kovach using a Taser on the woman as she screams and tries to kick out a rear window of the patrol car.
The officer got a two-month suspension in the stun gun case.
Tracy Timko Rose, the Warren Assistant City Prosecutor, said the city was prepared to go forward with charges against Gill but that Kovach’s unavailability to testify forced them to drop the case.
“Had he been here we would have pursued the matter,” she told CBS Affiliate WKBN “We believe there was probable cause. We believe should he testify the charges would be substantiated. But without his testimony we cannot prove the charges against her.”
Gill’s attorney, Mark Hanni, believes Kovach will face federal charges.
“The torture he put Miss Gill through is just totally unexcuseable and cannot be tolerated in the United States of America,” Hanni told WKBN.
Gill may not be off the hook for good; charges could be reinstated if Kovach is cleared in the investigation.
The King County Sheriff’s Office is investigating a scuffle that erupted when Seattle police tried to make an arrest on New Year’s Eve.
Police officers ended up using a Taser on the man who, at that time, was on his hands and knees.
Nearly a dozen police officers and at least one firefighter chased and tackled the man
Police say Richardson, 23, had a simple choice — comply or get arrested, and he chose the latter. But Richardson’s aunt claims the police took it one step too far when they didn’t have to, with her nephew already on the ground.
The scuffle broke out in the packed streets near the Space Needle when a computer glitch suddenly stopped the planned fireworks, sending the excited crowds on the ground over the edge.
The footage shows Richardson being pepper-sprayed, punched then Tased from behind while he was down on his knees.
“He was beat in the back of the head with a baton, he was kicked, he was punched in the face (and) for what?” said Michelle King, his aunt.
King, who works for Seattle’s Municipal Court, says she knows the justice system and is sure the officers went too far.
“To me, the police department is nothing but a licensed gang and I stand by my son. And no matter what happens after today, I’m going to stand by my son and my nephew until the end,” she said.
When KOMO 4 News showed the tape to Seattle police, they shared a different take of the incident.
Police spokesman Mark Jamieson said officers did not use excessive force, noting that Richardson was seen running in the footage instead of complying.
“Why would you run from the police?” Jamieson said. “If he is intoxicated, if he is under the influence of drugs, if he has a weapon on him… clearly if he’s on his hands and knees, his hands are free; he still has access to a weapon.”
Police said they faced a near-riot scene on New Year’s Eve and Richardson, who had been drinking, was making the situation worse.
“You saw how quickly the application of the Taser got him into compliance,” Jamieson said after viewing the video tape of the arrest.
Jamieson said officers may have been giving orders that Richardson wasn’t following.
Richardson’s cousin admitted that Richardson had a verbal argument with an officer before the scuffle.
“Just yelling, arguing,” said Isaiah Cooper. “No one fought no one had weapons.”
Richardson’s family plans to sue the Seattle Police Department.
Richardson could face several charges, including obstructing an officer and criminal trespass.
Richardson has several misdemeanors on his record, including an arrest for disorderly conduct. He bailed out of jail Tuesday evening.
No-one is to be punished for police failings that led to an innocent man being shot dead on a Tube train.
The Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) said four senior officers, including Deputy Assistant Commissioner Cressida Dick, should not face disciplinary action over the shooting of Brazilian Jean Charles de Menezes.
But the 27-year-old electrician’s family branded the decision - which brings a series of police watchdog reviews into the tragedy to a close - a “scandal”.
Campaigners criticised the IPCC’s decision to conclude the case before an inquest - expected to take place next year - and accused the watchdog of trying to bury bad news. But Scotland Yard said the decision was a “move forward” which would finally end uncertainty hanging over the four officers and their families.
Eleven other Metropolitan Police officers originally questioned under caution over the killing had already been told they would not face disciplinary action. That left Ms Dick and three other senior officers - known only by the codenames Silver, Trojan 84 and Trojan 80 - still facing possible action.
No individual faced criminal charges but the force itself was convicted on a general health and safety count at the Old Bailey last month.
Mr Menezes was gunned down at close range in a Tube carriage at Stockwell station in south London on July 22 2005. Police had mistaken him for failed suicide bomber Hussain Osman, part of the gang which tried and failed to blow up passengers on Tube trains across the capital the previous day.
The Metropolitan Police was eventually fined £175,000 and ordered to pay £385,000 costs after being convicted of exposing the public to risk at the Old Bailey trial. But the jury took the unusual step of adding a rider to its verdict saying that “no personal culpability” should be attached to the Deputy Assistant Commissioner.
They concluded that Ms Dick, who was the gold commander in charge of the operation that day, had been fed “inaccurate information”. That proved crucial in determining the IPCC decision. The commission became convinced that no disciplinary panel would be likely to come to a different conclusion from that of the jurors who sat through weeks of evidence.
“The IPCC cannot foresee any circumstances in which new evidence might emerge which would cause any disciplinary tribunal to disregard the jury’s rider,” the commission said in a statement announcing the decision.
The family of Jean Charles de Menezes have bitterly criticised the decision of the police watchdog that no disciplinary action will be taken against four Metropolitan police officers for their roles in events leading to his fatal shooting.
The Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) decision closes the last of the watchdog’s reviews into the shooting of the innocent Brazilian electrician in July 2005 at Stockwell underground station in south London. An inquest is expected to take place next year.
The Met’s deputy assistant commissioner, Cressida Dick (pictured) who was in charge of the control room, has been cleared, along with three officers on the ground identified only as Silver, Trojan 84 and Trojan 80.
The IPCC ruling means the guilty verdict in the healthy and safety trial at the Old Bailey last month, which saw the Met fined £175,000 for “catastrophic” errors, did not amount to personal misconduct.
In May, the watchdog cleared 11 other officers involved in the shooting.
De Menezes’ cousin, Vivian Figuierdo, called the decision a “scandal” and said it was “entirely premature” to have made the announcement before the inquest.
She said: “If the jury at the health and safety trial found the police guilty of catastrophic errors - why is it that no police officer is being held individually accountable?”
The Menezes family solicitor, Harriet Wistrich, said: “We fear that if new evidence emerges at the inquest, it may be harder to bring disciplinary decisions in the future as officers could argue abuse of process.”
The victim’s family are already taking their case against the decision not to prosecute individuals to the European court of human rights.
Delivering their guilty verdict in the health and safety trial, the jury made clear that Dick bore “no personal culpability” even though she led the operation.
The IPCC said it had considered whether Dick was responsible for planning or management failures that led to the force’s conviction, but found the jury’s rider “unequivocal”.
A spokesman said: “The IPCC cannot foresee any circumstances in which new evidence might emerge which would cause any disciplinary tribunal to disregard the jury’s rider.
“The responsibilities of DAC Dick and Silver, Trojan 84 and Trojan 80 were intertwined. The IPCC cannot see how any disciplinary tribunal could conclude that although no personal blame is attached to DAC Dick, it could attach to the other three officers.”
The Met welcomed the decision as a “move forward”. A spokesman said: “The shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes is a matter of deep regret to the Metropolitan police service and our continued thoughts are with his family.
“We acknowledge and welcome today’s recommendation by the IPCC that the remaining four officers should not face disciplinary proceedings for their part in the events of July 22 2005.
“We are pleased by this move forward and for these officers and their families who have faced much uncertainty.”
In a report released after the trial, the IPCC said a string of failings led to the innocent man being shot dead after being mistaken for a suicide bomber.
The report criticised Dick for failing to make it clear that her instruction to “stop” De Menezes did not mean that she wanted him shot. It was revealed that she missed part of a briefing because she was sent to the wrong room and she had been unaware how far out of position a firearms team vital to the operation had been.
De Menezes was followed from a south London address police believed was used by a terrorist suspect. He was supposed to be stopped by elite armed officers, but despite being ordered to get to the scene at 5am, they took more than four hours and were out of position and unable to stop De Menezes until he entered the underground station.
Last week, the IPCC concluded that Andy Hayman, the former Met chief counter-terrorism officer, should be reprimanded for breaking “code five of the police code of conduct that says officers should be conscientious and diligent in the performance of their duties” because of his actions following the shooting.
The Met commissioner, Sir Ian Blair, was criticised for delaying the IPCC’s investigation into the shooting but has refused to resign and retains the support of the Metropolitan police authority and the government.
Police use ‘Stun Gun’ on suspect while booking in at police station
CCTV footage with clear audio…. of a man going through booking procedure in a police station on a felony four charge but he gets stunned, not tasered, for what essentially boils down to non compliance of emptying his pockets.
WASHINGTON — Federal prosecutors are targeting a rising number of law enforcement officers for alleged brutality, Justice Department statistics show. The heightened prosecutions come as the nation’s largest police union fears that agencies are dropping standards to fill thousands of vacancies and “scrimping” on training.
Cases in which police, prison guards and other law enforcement authorities have used excessive force or other tactics to violate victims’ civil rights have increased 25% (281 vs. 224) from fiscal years 2001 to 2007 over the previous seven years, the department says.
During the same period, the department says it won 53% more convictions (391 vs. 256). Some cases result in multiple convictions.
Federal records show the vast majority of police brutality cases referred by investigators are not prosecuted.
University of Toledo law professor David Harris, who analyzes police conduct issues, says it will take time to determine whether the cases represent a sustained period of more aggressive prosecutions or the beginnings of a surge in misconduct.
The cases involve only a fraction of the estimated 800,000 police in the USA, says James Pasco, executive director of the National Fraternal Order of Police (FOP), the nation’s largest police union.
Even so, he says, the FOP is concerned that reduced standards, training and promotion of less experienced officers into the higher police ranks could undermine more rigid supervision.
“These are things we are worried about,” Pasco says.
For the past few years, dozens of police departments across the country have scrambled to fill vacancies. The recruiting effort, which often features cash bonuses, has intensified since 9/11, because many police recruits have been drawn to military service.
In its post-Sept. 11 reorganization, the FBI listed police misconduct as one of its highest civil rights priorities to keep pace with an anticipated increase in police hiring through 2009.
The increasing Justice numbers generally correspond to a USA TODAY analysis of federal law enforcement prosecutions using data compiled by the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse at Syracuse University.
Those data show 42 law enforcement prosecutions during the first 10 months of fiscal year 2007, a 66% increase from all of fiscal 2002 and a 61% rise from a decade ago.
David Burnham, the co-founder of the TRAC database, says prosecutions appear to be increasing, but “more important” are the numbers of cases prosecutors decline.
Last year, 96% of cases referred for prosecution by investigative agencies were declined.
In 2005, 98% were declined, a rate that has remained “extremely high” under every administration dating to President Carter, according to a TRAC report.
The high refusal rates, say Burnham and law enforcement analysts, result in part from the extraordinary difficulty in prosecuting abuse cases. Juries are conditioned to believe cops, and victims’ credibility is often challenged.
“When police are accused of wrongdoing, the world is turned upside down,” Harris says. “In some cases, it may be impossible for (juries) to make the adjustment.”
Tasers don’t reduce shootings, despite police and politicians’ claims
Despite claims by politicians and some police officers that Tasers would save lives by preventing shootings, the devices that are being used by a growing number of police forces were never meant as an alternative to guns, experts say.
Statistics obtained by the Canadian Press bear out that idea, showing that in some of the cities that have recently adopted Tasers, the number of police shootings has remained fairly consistent and low, while Tasers are being used exponentially more often.
Police are ideally supposed to try oral warnings and force by hand before resorting to the Taser, or other means such as pepper spray or the baton. (CBC)
In Winnipeg, for example, police shootings of suspects are rare. There was one in 2003, and none in 2004. In 2006, the Winnipeg Police Service fired guns on suspects twice. They also started using Tasers in September of that year, firing them at individuals 37 times before the year was out.
“Tasers are not meant to replace firearms,” Cst. Adam Cheadle, the service’s use of force co-ordinator, said in a recent interview.
“The Taser is on the same playing field as a baton or [pepper] spray.”
In Calgary, there was only one officer-involved shooting in 2003 — two years before Tasers were introduced — and none in 2007. So far this year, Calgary police have “deployed” (a term that includes any incident where the machine is unholstered and its laser is activated, even if it ends up not being fired) their Tasers 133 times.
In Montreal, police were involved in three shooting incidents in 2003, before they had Tasers. They also used their firearms three times last year, while firing Tasers 28 times.
Numbers in many other jurisdictions are hard to come by. The RCMP, whose members have fired Tasers more than 3,000 times since 2001, said it doesn’t keep track of how often firearms are used across the country. Police spokespersons in Toronto, Vancouver and Halifax were unable to provide comparable statistics on Taser and gun usage.
‘Another use-of-force tool’
The numbers that have been released counter the idea promoted by some politicians and police officials in the early 2000s, when the stun guns were being introduced, that officers would be able to use Tasers instead of their guns and that could save lives.
When the RCMP unveiled plans to equip its Alberta detachments with Tasers in 2002, Sgt. Steve Gleboff told reporters “what we’re trying to do is eliminate the necessity to shoot somebody.”
Two years later, when controversy erupted over Taser usage in Ontario, then Community Safety Minister Monte Kwinter said the devices were a better alternative to firearms.
Even the man currently probing the RCMP’s use of Tasers, Paul Kennedy, head of the RCMP Public Complaints Commission, told a police oversight convention last year that being hit by a Taser was better than being hit by a bullet.
That expectation was wrong, according to the man who trains Calgary police officers to use Tasers.
“Use of force experts across Canada right now, we’re kind of shaking our heads going, ‘How did we give the impression to the lay public or the media that Tasers were ever supposed to be a replacement for lethal force?’” said Staff Sgt. Chris Butler.
“They were another use-of-force tool in the same regard as the baton, the O.C. spray. Just another tool.”
Reduce injuries, compared to batons or spray
While Tasers may not reduce the number of police shootings, Butler said they have succeeded in reducing the number of injuries that can result from an officer having to use a baton or pepper spray on a suspect, or wrestle with him.
“In 99.7 per cent of Taser uses, there are no injuries. When you compare that to a baton use, the statistical likelihood of injuries from a Taser deployment are much less.”
The growing use of Tasers was highlighted in an interim report by the RCMP complaints commissioner last week, which said Taser use “has expanded to include subduing resistant subjects who do not pose a threat of grievous bodily harm or death and on whom the use of lethal force would not be an option.”
In response, the Mounties issued new guidelines limiting Taser use to situations where “a subject is displaying combative behaviours or is being actively resistant.”
Eighteen people in Canada have died in recent years after being hit by a Taser, although the company that manufactures the weapons stresses they have never been directly blamed for a death.
Police are ideally supposed to try oral warnings and force by hand before resorting to the Taser, or other means such as pepper spray or the baton.
Discussion
Recent Articles & Archives