The Taser - The New Weapon of Terrorists

If you have ever watched an episode of Cops, you have probably seen a police officer using a Taser® in some questionable manner. One that comes to mind is an episode in which a female officer takes down a woman for being disorderly in front of a night club. She was being a bit rough with the drunken woman but not completely out of line from what I could see on the tape. The young boyfriend however did not agree with the officer's actions and attempted to pull the officer off of his girlfriend.

The boyfriend was immediately taken down and restrained by a male officer on the scene leaving the female officer to finish her job. Or so you would think. The female officer became irate at being touched. She was never struck and the male was put under control before he could harm her in anyway. That was, however, not good enough for the female officer. She had to punish the now restrained ex-combatant.

What this young man did was certainly a crime. He attempted to interfere with an officer in the performance of her duties. But what the officer did next was completely insane and another case of cops that have crossed the line and attempt to punish those they do not feel are right. The female officer went over to the ex-combatant, now turned victim and proceeded to “Tase” him.

The Taser®, a device designed by Taser International for law enforcement as a non-lethal alternative has been handed out by nearly 10,000 law enforcement, military and correctional agencies in 43 countries.

 And it turns out that TI has been paying cops and compensating them with stock options to promote their use in their local departments. It would be interesting to know who if anyone has profited locally from the adoption of this weapon.  

This is actually a really cool tool that if used correctly has the potential to allow officers to control a situation without the need for more deadly options. However, it seems to have become more of a really cool toy than a really cool tool. It is now being used against non-violent, passive protestors and the mentally ill.  

Taser International has been sued numerous times and with the exception of a lawsuit for understating the potential hazard of their product to share holders, they have won every suit.

I’m not an attorney, but I have always thought that if a company knew or reasonably should have known that their product was likely to cause injury or death, then that company could be held liable. I had also believed that if a company or person sold a product to another individual or entity knowing that the buyer intended to harm another with the product the seller could be held liable for making that sale. If a car dealer sold a new Toyota to a person that was obviously drunk and that person crashed driving off the lot, that dealer would be part of any action taken against, or even by, the drunk.

If this company continues to sell their product to our law enforcement agencies that use them as means to torture or punish the public, I think they need to be held liable. This goes a lot deeper then it may appear on the surface. The company has admitted that these are “less lethal” weapons and not “non lethal”. I believe it is because of this that the company has a special duty to ensure they are properly used.

I would think that if the company was put on notice that a particular agency was misusing the weapon and they continued to supply new devices or support existing devices to that agency, they could be nailed for doing so.

I’m not sure exactly how to go about this, but I will be thinking about it. Possibly the creation of a registry that could be viewable by the general public with a few volunteers to document and ensure TI was properly notified of allegations of abuse. If a pattern develops from a particular agency or model of the company’s weapon then they could be put on notice that there is an issue needing their attention.

This is obviously a project that would be more manageable by an organization such as Amnesty International or the ACLU than a small website such as SACPD.  But maybe if I put the framework together, setup the site and database they may be willing to take a look at it.

I’m not normally one to want a company to be held liable for the actions of an individual but this case is unique. This company knows that these devices are being used for a purpose other than which it was intended and they continue to promote its use. This weapon is one step below a firearm and should be treated as such.

We live in a time that has agencies like the LAPD redesigning simple tools like flashlights because they are misused by officers. It is possible that the Taser® may need to be redesigned to protect us as well.