Guilty until proven innocent
Debating the use of tasers
Jacques Marcoux, Volunteer Staff
Over a month has passed since the unnecessary death of Robert Dziekanski. The Polish immigrant, who had been detained by Vancouver International Airport officials for over 10 hours, died during an altercation with the RCMP following the seemingly unnecessary discharge of a taser. Ever since, this story has been at the forefront of discussion in most media outlets and has garnered much attention across the world, casting a dark cloud over the internationally renowned mounties.
Incidentally, as the RCMP arrived on scene to confront the clearly disturbed Dziekanski, a bystander had the presence of mind to record the entire incident on his video camera. When asked by the RCMP to hand over the tape, he complied on the condition that it be returned. However, once the tape was in the hands of the RCMP, they refused to give it back. The bystander, Paul Pritchard, took legal action and quickly retrieved his tape from the RCMP. Widely available on the Internet, the video appears to show RCMP officers overreacting to the situation by employing force without much consideration for less abrasive alternatives, actions which ultimately lead to the death of Dziekanski.
As we wait for the results of the RCMP investigation, the incident has spurred much debate yet offered no answers, given that generally the only evidence available to the public is the unclear video footage on the Internet. Some question whether or not Dziekanski posed a threat to the officers. Some question the mental state of the man in custody. Some question whether or not the officers were overzealous with their use of force, with rumours that a witness overheard an RCMP officer excitedly asking, “Do I get to use my taser on him?” Some question whether or not tasers can directly cause heart failure or other injuries. Some question why the man was held in custody for so long. And finally, some question why, given that the situation was under control, a Polish translator was not called upon to ensure Dziekanski understood the commands of the RCMP. All these questions and so few answers.
These are all relevant and important questions, but without more information we cannot come to any certain conclusions yet. While the RCMP probes the incident, there is, however, one important underlying issue that has seldom been addressed. The question is not whether or not the use of the taser in this specific case was justified; rather, the question and debate lies in the nature of the taser itself and its resulting implications.
The allure of the taser is that is non-lethal. Non-lethal implies that it does not inflict much physical harm to the individual, as opposed to the use of a firearm. Therefore a taser provides law enforcers with the effective stopping power and control of a gun through the physical repercussions of getting shocked by static. The device essentially overrides the victim’s central nervous system, rendering them completely disabled. No other device comes close to this kind of effectiveness. More traditional methods such as pepper spray, batons and brute force either lead to more aggression, compromising the safety of officers or to police brutality lawsuits.
Given the near perfevction of the device — lethal-force effectiveness but harmless and safe at the same time — it is no wonder that the use of tasers is so attractive. In Vancouver, the use of tasers went up 41 per cent between 2005 and 2006, and the rising trend follows across North America. The problem with such a flawless weapon is that law-enforcers are beginning to develop the habit to “Shoot first, ask questions later,” knowing well that there are no repercussions to their actions. A report by the Canadian Press revealed that three-quarters of the time suspects tasered by police were found to pose no immediate threat and had no weapon in their possession.
The mindset of officers must be that the taser is the same as their gun, a last resort – not a luxury with absolute impunity
“But what’s the problem? No harm’s done,” one might say. The problem, though, is that this kind of policing implies that you are “guilty until proven innocent.” This removes us from a democracy and then replaces it with a police state.
You could be drunk and incoherent and therefore not comply with police orders — ZAP. You could be arguing with police over a ticket and be visibly frustrated — ZAP. Or you could be a foreigner held up in airport security, not listening to orders due to language barriers — ZAP. All probably innocent individuals, being treated like cattle.
Consider the methods the CIA uses to interrogate suspected terrorists. Consider that the use of water-boarding as a method of non-lethal torture is condemned by most democratic countries. It causes no physical harm, but is remarkably successful in attaining desirable results. For the same reason that water-boarding is illegal, the coercive use of tasers must not go without punishment.
Since the introduction of the taser, many lives of both criminals and law-enforcers have been saved, and tasers should without doubt continue to be issued. However, the near perfect effectiveness of the device is, ironically, what has made the practice so dangerous and feared in the public eye.
We should all give the RCMP the benefit of the doubt. We were not present when Dziekanski was confronted and the video evidence is certainly not enough to base an important decision on. However, regardless of the outcome of the investigation, the key to getting around the troublesome paradox of taser use will rest in the training approach of law-enforcement. The mindset of officers must be that the taser is the same as their gun, a last resort — not a luxury with absolute impunity. Although it may be correct that the taser is non-lethal, it needs to be treated as though it were.
Jacques Marcoux is a fourth-year commerce student.
