Police love tasers. They claim that tasers promote public safety. Isn't it better to "deploy" a taser on an unruly citizen than to be forced to use deadly force? So goes their rationale.
Last month in sleepy but politically active Eugene, Oregon an 18 year old protestor holding a bucket of water was "subdued" by local police with a taser. Many witnesses describe the use of such force by the police as being unnecessary to the point of being criminal.
It turns out that the 18 year old was wearing protesting the use of pesticides and claimed that his bucket contained poison which he was spraying around the public square. The police were uncertain whether he was telling the truth and didn't want to risk exposure to poison. That sounds plenty reasonable but why introduce the taser?
The strangest thing about this little demonstration is how it got reported to the local police. As it turned out, a vigilant employee of the Department of Homeland Security was maintaining surveillance on this small demonstration of 30 pesticide protesters. Wow, talk about Big Brother. What other kinds of things is the Dept of Homeland Security spying on? Chances are this blog is being monitored. And maybe your email. Does this make you feel safer?
Back to tasers. How dangerous are they? Here's the party line: the 50,000 volts a person temporarily receives temporarily disables them enabling police to secure the individual. The voltage is painful but after application of a 1-2 second burst, most individuals experience no further pain and have, at most, minor burn marks from the fish-hook barbs. Hmmm. Mainstream media (CBS) reported that taser use by police was responsible for 70 deaths in a report published in 2004. The manufacturer of Tasers denies that the electrical charge imparted by the Taser is responsible for no deaths. Who do you believe?
No comments:
Post a Comment