Tasers Don't Aim Up As Ultimate Solution

Newcastle Herald

Tuesday October 14, 2008

writes Michael Hyland

WHEN police shoot dead a member of the public, anyone with a balanced sense of the complexities involved is going to understand that it's an awful tragedy that all involved would wish never happened.

The police, called to a nightmarish scene where a dangerously emotional person is armed with a weapon, have seconds to evaluate the situation. They have to deal with someone who is in a highly agitated state, and who may well be suffering from some form of mental illness, or under the influence of alcohol and other drugs.

Often, in the wake of such episodes, we find out later that a usually quiet and gentle person with no history of violence has simply forgotten to take his medication or is caught in a desperate situation involving family that's sent him off on a rampage. Sometimes the knife he has chosen to wield in anguish is nothing more than a bread knife with a thin blade that wouldn't stab a hole in the side of a tent.

But the police don't know that. How could they?

When the police service issued two Taser stun guns to each of its 80 local area commands at the start of this month, 400 general duties inspectors (duty officers) and sergeants (supervisors) had been trained and certified to use them.

There have been calls for all police patrol cars to be equipped with Tasers, which increases the potential for Taser use on members of the public because most patrol officers do not have the high levels of experience that officers currently authorised to carry and use Tasers do.

With experience comes an instinct to "read and defuse" dangerous situations without the necessity of weapons. Surely in a "crisis" situation a young, inexperienced and frightened police officer will more readily resort to Taser use.

Announcing the release, NSW Commissioner Andrew Scipione called the Tasers "an effective less-than-lethal alternative to drawing their Glock and shooting somebody". The commissioner was being careful with his choice of words. "Less than lethal alternative" is not the same thing as "non-lethal alternative".

While there have been no fatalities in Australia even though Tasers have been used on 44 occasions in a limited capacity since 2003 there have been deaths overseas. And not just a few; the tally is in the hundreds according to Amnesty International.

The manufacturers say that the weapon doesn't cause pain (the looks on the faces of people I've seen hit with it appear to tell a different story) and causes strong muscle contractions by stimulating the nervous system. In this way, anyone with a high tolerance to pain someone affected by methamphetamine (ice), for example will still be rendered harmless.

As a precaution, each of the X26 Tasers has an camera that records sound and vision of whatever is going on as soon as the safety catch is released. The Taser shoots out twin metal darts that connect with the target and deliver a 50,000-volt shock.

Taking into account the fact that the spectrum of control measures allowed to police before Tasers were introduced was essentially capsicum spray or a firearm, the Tasers do offer another alternative.

All the same, their use must be tightly regulated and consistently reviewed by a body independent of the police or the State Government will be left vulnerable to litigation for personal injury should some form of reckless indifference on the part of officers be proven.

As things stand now, NSW police are given only eight hours of practical training where they fire Tasers in a simulated exercise, which is required in addition to other weapons training where they are taught how to react in difficult situations. They are also given a written test in which they have to score more than 80 per cent.

Officers are trained to take into account the age and behaviour of the person, what sort of physical condition they might be in, and any other potential risks including where they are located.

And, of course, they often have only seconds in which to make a decision.

There is, of course, an even better solution: a more effective mental health system. It might not give the state's politicians the publicity they obviously crave, but would be good public policy all the same.

Tragedies could then be avoided because angry and emotionally disturbed people would then be surrounded by people who know who they are, know what the dangers are and know how to care for them, instead of police who don't have the time to be quite so understanding.

Michael Hyland is an associate with Turner Freeman Lawyers.

© 2008 Newcastle Herald

Back to News Index | Back to Home