B.C. government tells police to 'severely restrict' Taser use

Source: Calgary Herald

The British Columbia government has directed "all police, sheriffs and corrections officers in B.C." to immediately "severely restrict the use" of Tasers in response to recommendations by the Braidwood inquiry.

B.C. Solicitor General Kash Heed announced Thursday the government accepts all 19 recommendations made by retired judge Thomas Braidwood in his report on the first phase of the inquiry.

Braidwood called for "the threshold for use" of the weapons to be "significantly revised from 'active resistance' to the much higher standard of 'causing bodily harm.' "

The inquiry was called following the high-profile death of Robert Dziekanski, a Polish immigrant who died after being shocked with a Taser at the Vancouver International Airport in October 2007. The incident was captured on amateur video, which resulted in international public outcry.

Read more: http://www.calgaryherald.com/government+tells+police+severely+restrict+Taser/1824389/story.html

---

That's one small step for justice, one giant leap for common sense.

Any move towards non-lethal devices is a good one. The problem resides in the hiring and training processes of the current generation of LEO's. We need more threat de-escalation and proper community policing instead of ham fisted tactics to get 14 year olds and grandmothers under control.

Improper training and use should be decryed not the issuing of the tool, as I believe it will lead us down a road of more non-lethal and more effective means of subduing folks without having to kill or permanently hurt them.

..............instead of fucking Neanderthals.

I'd hate to have to rely solely on screening and training for the use of any kind of force. If you accept that premise, then the whole debate comes down to where we draw the regulatory line. I think this recommendation is pretty good.

That said, better screening (to weed out the people who want to become police primarily for the ability to exercise power) and better training would be welcome, as would a greater ability to hold police accountable for violations of their training as well as regulations.

On edit: I do think that the number of deaths that have resulted from Taser use is prima facie evidence that the regulatory limits have been too loose.

I am just saying that non lethal or more aptly named less then lethal devices are still very dangerous and I think overall hiring practices and training is more to blame then anything else.

I think the move away from police officer being members of the community / helping the community to more like protectors/enforcers etc. due in large part to the war on drugs has had a hugely negative effect on both how they do their job and how we as the public see them. I think the abuse of tasers is a symptom of a larger problem.

I do stand by the fact that less then lethal technology is not a bad thing whether it be tasers, bean bag rounds, sprays etc. But these items should still be reserved for the truly violent/out of control and not the simple belligerent.

and it's being abused too often!

less then lethal not non lethal. Any of these weapons can indeed kill somebody but at the end of the day they are much less likely to do so then two hollowpoints to the chest.

Once again the tool has merit, it is its implementation that is the problem.

depending on that person's heart condition.

The use of a taser should be limited and employed with the same mindset that one would employ a firearm, only with the intent to incapacitate in a less then lethal manner.

Just because a suspect has a heart condition doesn't necessarily make them not a threat to the LEO or others. Now I am speaking of legitimate threats not blind deaf guys, or 14 year olds or angry grandfathers etc. I am talking about those actively engaging in attacks that could be lethal or exceedingly dangerous to the officer or others.

One should not be able to bust out the taser every time somebody gives them lip or is difficult to contain.

Given the choice of using legitimately called for force on said person with a heart condition the taser is still a better option then a firearm in terms of escalation of force.

Now you will not hear me disagree that there have been a great many abuses of this tool but those need to be addressed through training, hiring, regulatory and other ways not by simply removing a tool that IMO when used properly does more good then harm.

You erroneously claimed it was non-lethal, now you misrepresent what I said. I did not imply that the person with a heart condition is never a threat... instead I stated that the taser can be lethal to those with heart conditions. Too many tiomes do I read about cops using tasers in situations where there was no threat, but that the taser s used to stun people into submission just because of the tone of their voices. DO you suggest that in those situations cops would shoot people? They use it the way they do, because they assume it is non-lethal.

I thought I made it clear that tasers are indeed potentially lethal, if not I am sorry. Also I didn't mean to misrepresent what you said, I was trying to clarify.

I am fully on board with the fact that there has been misuse and in many cases there should have been no use of the taser or any force option beyond simple joint locks or even talking the person down. My point is that the TASER as a tool is not the bad thing and is actually likely a very very good thing and moves us further into a non lethal direction of stopping threats. Its the poor use / training / hiring practices of the users that is causing the problems and this is what needs to be addressed IMO.

Again, no disrespect or twisting of words meant in any way.

Different forcible means have different risks, but no force is risk-free. Because of that, we need to assess the actual lethal risks of the various means available, and establish regulatory "bright lines" for each of them. On one side of the bright line the risk is unacceptable and the means is not legal, while on the other side the risk becomes acceptable.

I think we have tried to do that. However, what has happened with Tasers is that the company making them has obscured the actual level of risk in the interests of commercial success, causing the acceptable standard for their use to be set too low.

to human life.

In your opinion is there never a time that force (potentially lethal force) is called for to end a threat. Now I am not talking about "he jes needed killin'" but are there times where force is necessary?

If yes do you not agree there are situation where an act needs to STOP NOW!!! and as such a level of force that is lethal or potentially lethal is necessary not to kill but as a side effect of stopping?

If you disagree I don't disagree with you in theory as I would love to have the ability to set phasors to stun so to speak but we simply don't have that ability.

That being said tasers have been abused and many folks have been made to believe they are 100% safe, which is untrue. They are a force option and potentially dangerous.

and as for your question of whether there ever is a time to use force, of course. Say the man is reaching for a gun... fire away. I just think the taser is too unpredictable... especially in instances where a cop wants to resolve an instance without doing any real harm to people. Remember when the guy heckling Kerry, and how the taser was used in that instance. There was no need for them to use it, and they could have killed him, just for heckling.

It added "Don't Tase Me Bro!" to our national vocabulary. :rofl:

In a nutshell I totally agree there is misuse and this misuse needs to be addressed. The tool itself, however, I think is a good thing and is moving us in the correct direction.

What is D/U turning into?

If little Stevie Harper (pox be upon him) had his way we'd be living in a Red State.

Tasers save the lives of cops and suspects alike. I'd take my chances...

They do taser them, so the chance of dying for having an attitude goes way up.

I think the issue isn't with proper use of the tool as much as it is with improper use of the tool. There have been a great many instances of use that simply isn't warranted. Whether that comes from training, hiring practices, oversight or a lack of understanding that a taser can indeed be lethal I don't know, but we do need to address this issue. Tasing somebody who is simply being an a$$hole shouldn't be condoned. Tasing somebody swinging a baseball bat at you is a whole 'nother story.

During the first year after Taser deployment, in-custody sudden deaths increased SIXFOLD.

Is that really the chance you want to take? I don't like the odds.

Story: http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/health&id=6620623
AJC Study abstract: http://www.ajconline.org/article/S0002-9149%2808%2902113-9/abstract