How about that 'nonlethal' Taser
So let me get this straight ...
Baron "Scooter" Pikes was handcuffed when Officer Scott Nugent, of Winnfield, Louisiana, began administering Taser shocks to him. At least some of those shocks were inflicted, says the medical examiner, while Pikes "was talking in the back seat of the car." According to that same ME, Pikes might well have been already dead by the time he received the last of the voltage that Nugent dished out, and therefore in little condition to engage in the sort of behavior that might be considered justification for such treatment.
And Officer Nugent was subsequently fired by the police department.
Yeah, I'd say the grand jury considering whether to indict the former police officer might be justified.
Let me add here that I'm not a reflexive Taser-hater. I think the idea of a less-lethal option to be used in situations that might otherwise call for deadly force is at least a theoretically good one.
The problem, though, is that the Taser isn't necessarily being used as a "but for this, the gun" alternative. Instead, too many police officers seem to be going to it as a first choice -- or simply using it as an instrument of abuse and torture, as one could reasonably infer from Officer Nugent's conduct. And since it's not a "nonlethal" weapon, but rather a "less-lethal" weapon, people are dying in circumstances where lives should not have been at risk -- 290 since 2001, according to Amnesty International.
Now, even media outlets in places generally deferential to authority are questioning Taser use. The police may ultimately lose the use of these devises -- which will be unfortunate for those situations when a properly deployed less-lethal devise is appropriate, but not such a terrible thing if it's going to frequently be used to abuse suspects.
Baron "Scooter" Pikes was handcuffed when Officer Scott Nugent, of Winnfield, Louisiana, began administering Taser shocks to him. At least some of those shocks were inflicted, says the medical examiner, while Pikes "was talking in the back seat of the car." According to that same ME, Pikes might well have been already dead by the time he received the last of the voltage that Nugent dished out, and therefore in little condition to engage in the sort of behavior that might be considered justification for such treatment.
And Officer Nugent was subsequently fired by the police department.
Yeah, I'd say the grand jury considering whether to indict the former police officer might be justified.
Let me add here that I'm not a reflexive Taser-hater. I think the idea of a less-lethal option to be used in situations that might otherwise call for deadly force is at least a theoretically good one.
The problem, though, is that the Taser isn't necessarily being used as a "but for this, the gun" alternative. Instead, too many police officers seem to be going to it as a first choice -- or simply using it as an instrument of abuse and torture, as one could reasonably infer from Officer Nugent's conduct. And since it's not a "nonlethal" weapon, but rather a "less-lethal" weapon, people are dying in circumstances where lives should not have been at risk -- 290 since 2001, according to Amnesty International.
Now, even media outlets in places generally deferential to authority are questioning Taser use. The police may ultimately lose the use of these devises -- which will be unfortunate for those situations when a properly deployed less-lethal devise is appropriate, but not such a terrible thing if it's going to frequently be used to abuse suspects.
Labels: kop kapers
posted by J.D. Tuccille at
2:57 PM
1 Comments:
The CNN report you cited says "[t]en of the 14 incidents involved Nugent, who had no public disciplinary record."
Ten of 14 total uses in a year by a single officer seems like it ought to have been a red flag to department supervisors. Doesn't necessarily mean those taser deployments weren't justified, and we don't know how many officers the department has or whether every officer is issued a taser (some departments only issue to patrol supervisors) but if over 70% of the total deployments are by one guy, absent special circumstances, that ought to have raised concern well before the deployment which resulted in the fatality.
At any rate, applying the taser *nine* times on a handcuffed suspect already on the ground doesn't hardly seem like a reasonable use of force, which might explain why the department reportedly fired the officer.
The taser is a useful tool, but like any tool can be abused by an officer (just like any of the other force tools the officer carries). The solution isn't making the tool unavailable, but in identifying and remediating (or terminating, or criminally prosecuting, if necessary) officers who use the tool in a manner inconsistent with the Fourth Amendment and/or state laws or department use-of-force policies.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home