ACLU, Safety, and Tasers
Cross-posted from Right on the Right:
I’ve found that in California, the ACLU is against the use of tasers. For those that might not know, tasers are devices that launch small needles into a person and put 50,000 volts into their body, effectively stunning them and sending them into shock. This is meant to be a non-lethal form of subduing a person, as opposed to shooting them. I agree with the use of tasers, but the ACLU is concerned about the safety, since there have been taser- related deaths.
EVERY MONTH or so another a story appears detailing how a person police were trying to arrest died after a Taser was employed to control and eventually place the suspect into custody.
Last month a Dublin man died after San Leandro police repeatedly used a Taser after responding to a domestic violence call.
And while the Alameda County Coroner has yet to determine the cause of death, the incident involving Jose Perez, 33, has brought unflattering focus once again on the use of Tasers.
Proponents call them a safe alternative to deadly force. Critics say the dangers associated with Taser stun guns is being grossly underplayed.
Seems like a good point, except then the author brings up a point that pretty much destroys the ACLU’s argument. Is the person still a victim from dying from a taser if they’re doing something illegal that amplified the taser’s effect?
The particular Taser used, the Taser X26, is capable of delivering a 50,000-volt shock from 25 feet away. It is billed as nonlethal, but 50,000 volts is hardly safe, especially for someone who is high on drugs.
So these people are on drugs, which alone could get them killed, and the ACLU wants to call this a safety issue and defend these people. If you’re using a drug that could turn increase your chances of dying from a normally non-lethal device, why should you be defended?
But consider the alternative. Should police have shot Perez in order to arrest him before he harmed himself or officers?
According to an American Civil Liberties Union report published last month, there have been “15 post-Taser fatalities in Northern and Central California” during the past year.
Medical examiners, however, have never proved that a Taser was solely responsible for any deaths, a spokesman for Taser International said.
In the ACLU’s own report we see a common culprit in many of these deaths: drugs. The ACLU says deaths associated with Tasers “share similar patterns. … Many victims who die after being jolted by Tasers are under the influence of drugs.”
Is there any kind of device that is nonlethal when used on a person flying high from days upon days of being fried on methamphetamine? The physical process and stress that happens when apprehending an addict has been known to stop the heart of a detainee.
But certainly we would not expect the police to allow a drug user to run free because they are concerned the altercation may affect his heart rhythm.
Taser usage is well documented. In fact, the Taser itself has a database built in to record its own usage.
And while it may look cruel to apply 50,000 volts of electricity to subdue a person, it certainly is more humane than to justifiably shoot a suspect point blank.
Obviously, using Tasers safely is a top priority. We should continue to closely scrutinize all Taser incidents, especially fatal ones. If it is shown that a Taser jolt directly contributes to someone’s death, then police departments should reconsider the matter.
Meanwhile, Tasers have given police a less deadly option than shooting an out-of-control suspect. In the long run, more lives will saved.
Whoever wrote this editorial (it’s not listed online) is right. Would the ACLU rather having the police shoot at fleeing, violent, or uncontrollable suspects? If the police are forced to either shoot or electrocute the person, we would all want them to use a taser. If the person is not on drugs, then the taser is normally non-lethal. The person who is on drugs brought the amplified damage upon themselves, and shouldn’t be defended in a court of law.
REAL Teen is the founder of Right on the Right. He contributes to Stop the ACLU, Gribbit’s Word, Kender’s Musings, Republican Voices, Conservative Spirit and Big Dog’s Weblog.
Email This
Posted by Justin Higgins on November 27, 2005 5:00 pm
Trackback URL:
Comments
2 Responses to “ACLU, Safety, and Tasers”
-
-
-
Affiliations
The Giants
Advertise
-
-
Our Store
- Click the design to visit our store and help Stop the ACLU!
-
- More blogs about the ACLU
Syndicate Me
This is just the same as the abuse of the poor prisoners of war that the ACLU complained about in Iraq. I really dont see very much wrong with abusing one or two prisoners if you get information out of them that might save the life of 1000 human beings. But I guess the ACLU does not think of innocent people as human beings. If I did something wrong (heavens forbid if I ever do) that would require a policeman to use a taser on me instead of shooting me, I think I would probably want to kiss that cop, especially if it was a good looking female cop.
Actually, I believe that the ACLU would prefer that the criminal be let go than chance him being injured. After all, doesn’t everyone have a constitutional right to commit crimes?