The People vs. Thomas A. Swift

February 4, 2008 – There has been no shortage of news coverage lately pertaining to police deployment of Tasers.  Headlines such as Hearing Impaired Man Tasered by Police[1], Healthy Man Dead After Trooper Tasering[2], the infuriating Tasered at his home: the Shawn Hicks story[3], and the infamous Don’t Taser me Bro video have ignited much unwelcome scrutiny for the proponents and manufacturers of these devices. 

It is worth noting that Taser is to a conducted energy device (CED) want Kleenex is to facial tissue.  It’s a brand name.  It is also an acronym for ‘Thomas A. Swift’s Electronic Rifle’.  Invented in 1969 by Jack Cover, it was named after the science fiction teenage adventurer, explorer, and inventor character - Thomas Swift.  These devices are also known as conducted electrical weapons (CEW), electro-muscular disruption technology (EMDT), or electronic impulse devices (EID). 

A Taser is not considered a firearm because it does not use black powder as a propellant.  It uses compressed nitrogen to propel two barbed darts, one positive and one negative, into a human being.  Once the darts are embedded, a squeeze of the trigger delivers approximately 50,000 volts into the body causing abrupt muscular disruption or muscle lock-up, interrupting all voluntary movement of the person being subjected to the charge.

Tasers have been available to law enforcement since 1974.  Today it is estimated that nearly 16,000 law enforcement agencies utilize some type conducted energy device.  Most law enforcement agencies employ the Taser brand. 

Originally promoted and publicized as a non-lethal alternative to lethal force, Tasers are now being deployed in situations that even the use of batons would not be justified.  For example, Utah State Trooper Jon Gardner tasered Jared Massey on September 14, 2007 for being ‘uncooperative’ and failing to sign a speeding ticket.  Imagine if the video would have captured Trooper Gardner beating Massey with his baton for the same behavior.  Amazingly, but not surprising, the Salt Lake Tribune[4] reported on December 1, 2007 that after an internal investigation, the Utah Highway Patrol determined that Gardner’s actions were lawful and reasonable under the circumstances.

Legislatively, little has been done by state lawmakers to clearly define when law enforcement can and cannot deploy Tasers.  This leaves the determination and discretion in the hands of law enforcement, which explains the increased usage of Tasers in less than lethal situations.  These devices, in far too many instances, are now being used like hot-shot cattle prods to control people.  Sprinkle in a dash of the no human involved (NHI) mentality of too many police officers, and what the citizenry is up against is more police state type tactics with no legal recourse.  Until laws are written prohibiting this type of Taser deployment – law enforcement can continue to say that they acted lawfully. 

As with any powerful corporation found in the security business sector, Taser International, through strong lobbying efforts, legal maneuvering, political connections, unwavering law enforcement association support, and favorable corporate news commentary has successfully disposed of every wrongful death lawsuit brought against it.  It also has an upper hand legislatively because no lawmaker wants to be perceived as weakening law enforcement.  Given these facts, any effort to outlaw Tasers will certainly fail at this time.  However, responding to public outcry, state legislators around the nation have been compelled to begin studying the risks of Tasers carefully, and are considering some type regulation. 

Unfortunately for the public, many of the studies available to lawmakers were encouraged, paid for, or provided by supporters of the devices, so any expectation that states will pass laws that protect the public from Taser trigger-happy cops, absent meaningful grassroots effort, is naive. 

For example, the Force Science Research Center, a non-profit institution based at Minnesota State University, Mankato, reported on December 12, 2004 the following conclusion: “Even a temporary ban on the issue of Tasers would literally create a catastrophe for peace officers.”  The report emphasized that lawsuits would increase, demonstrating once again that protecting the government from civil legal actions brought against it by the people remains top priority in this nation – at all costs – even if that cost is no justice for the family of a loved one that died during or soon after being tasered. 

According to some sources, 250 deaths have occurred as the result of a person being tasered, even though Taser maintains that those deaths are unrelated to the device. ‘Even a temporary ban’ opens the litigation floodgate for lawyers to argue that the ban demonstrates that there is something uncertain or lethal about the device. 

To suggest that a temporary ban on Tasers would ‘literally create a catastrophe for police officers’ is dramatic and ridiculous.  However, lawmakers fear such language because it could play wonderfully in a future political opponent’s campaign commercials. 

Faced with this type of rhetoric and left to their own devices, the odds are that if state lawmakers were to pass any legislation whatsoever, it would pass laws that outlaw Tasers in the hands of the people, but leave law enforcement free to continue going armed with Tasers to the terror of the people.

To begin to solve the Taser crisis, the people need to take simple steps.  As with any other grassroots effort, it will be advantageous for this movement to take small steps rather than a giant leap.  Trying to get Tasers outlawed will be a waste of resources and will fail.  

What the people should pursue at the local, county, and state level is to get laws passed that prohibit the deployment of a Taser unless deadly or lethal force is authorized.  This is the best approach that has a realistic chance of actually becoming law.  It doesn’t outlaw the device, it doesn’t cut into sales of the product, and it does not weaken law enforcement.  It just defines when and when not a Taser type device can be lawfully deployed.

Every state in the union already has laws that define deadly or lethal force.  And there are plenty of rulings in civil cases that substantiate the definitions and further explain what the courts have decided are circumstances in which deadly force is authorized.  For example, when arresting someone for a misdemeanor like disorderly conduct, see the Don’t Taser me Bro video, the police only may lawfully use lethal of deadly force in self-defense. 

When in self-defense where lethal force is warranted, law enforcement should have the right to deploy a Taser. 

When arresting a person for a felony, the courts have granted law enforcement more leeway.  During felony arrests, law enforcement may lawfully use all force necessary to overcome resistance to the arrest, to include deadly or lethal force.  Allowing law enforcement the discretion to deploy a Taser in these instances instead of a firearm makes good sense.

Passing laws at the local, county, and state level to regulate Taser deployment, making it illegal for any person to include law enforcement personnel, to deploy a Taser-type device unless deadly or lethal force is authorized is a mandate that the people must now fulfill.  It starts with you.  Keep it simple, don’t allow yourself to get bogged down in purposefully divisive debate, and repeat what you want over and over – a law that prohibits the deployment of a Taser-type device unless deadly or lethal force is authorized. 

With a little organization and persistent determination, we the people just might prevail in protecting ourselves from being tasered in instances that it would be unlawful for law enforcement to use deadly or lethal force. 

---

If you enjoyed this article, please consider donating to the MUCKRAKER REPORT.
Your donations keep the Muckraker Report subscription free!

To comment or request reprint permission, please contact Ed Haas via e-mail.