Tasers, torture?

[gumboot]

UN expresses concern about Tasers in NZ

Okay, so hopefully we can move on from debating waterboarding, which is quite obviously being utilised as torture, and into an area where I think there actually is room to debate.

New Zealand is about to introduce tasers for frontline police officers in an effort to provide them superior protection without moving to the extent of having a fully armed police force (New Zealand police are not normally armed).

My understanding is the tasers we are to use are of the single-fire mode that lets out a single shock, rather than the type where you hold the weapon against a person and use it as many times as you wish.

As the linked article explains, the UN are not happy about this.

The severe pain they caused could be seen as a form of torture and could even kill someone.

Now, the grounds on which the UN claims tasers are a form of torture is that they can cause severe pain and even death.

The same, of course, could be said of any sort of weapon police might use. Most notably firearms, which certainly can cause severe pain and even death.

Does anyone really grasp the UN's point here? Are they seriously saying that anything that can cause severe pain or death is torture?

My understanding is that torture is about the purpose and technique employed, not the instruments. Water can be used for torture, as we know.

I can only think of two real suggestions.

1) If you inflict any sort of pain on someone you're torturing them.
2) New Zealand police, issued an instrument that could be utilised to torture people, will almost certainly do just that.

To which I respond:

1) The UN has clearly lost its marbles.
2) New Zealand police already possess instruments that could be utilised to torture people, but don't seem inclined to do so.

Thoughts, anyone? Is the use of a taser really torture? Has the UN redefined the term "torture" to such a degree that it has become meaningless?

 

[tomwaits]

I know that tasers have killed people with heart problems. However, I've seen police use billy clubs instead of tasers and I know which one I would prefer.

 

[Doctor Evil]

Its all about judging the alternatives. If tasers are used in situations where otherwise guns would be needed then this is not torture. If tasers are used just to intimidate suspects then it is torture. So, I agree with you. Tasers can be used to torture, but so can a car door or a desk drawer.

The UN has clearly lost its marbles

We passed that stage many years ago. The UN have not only lost its marbles, its also lost its balls, balloons, planets,... (insert larger and larger spherical objects here)

 

[Doctor Evil]

By the way, is there an effective, non lethal, alternative for tasers?

 

[tomwaits]

By the way, is there an effective, non lethal, alternative for tasers?

The three alternatives I can think of:

1. Gun
2. Billy club
3. Let them run away

So yes, I think that tasers are (by far) the best option in law enforcement. Maybe in the future there are better ways to stop a suspect, but I'll just quote Jim Carrey in Liar Liar:

"Stop breakin' the law, ***hole!"

 

[lionking]

The same debate is happening here. Does the UN want these events to keep happening:

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,24788737-1243,00.html

Tyler Cassidy, 15, was shot and killed when three officers opened fire on him in a Melbourne skate park last night after he allegedly threatened to kill them with two knives.

Tasers would almost certainly have prevented this tragedy. I should add that I do not criticise the police involved in this event, just the lack of the right equipment.

 

[AmateurScientist]

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10573660
My understanding is that torture is about the purpose and technique employed, not the instruments. Water can be used for torture, as we know.

I can only think of two real suggestions.

1) If you inflict any sort of pain on someone you're torturing them.
2) New Zealand police, issued an instrument that could be utilised to torture people, will almost certainly do just that.

To which I respond:

1) The UN has clearly lost its marbles.
2) New Zealand police already possess instruments that could be utilised to torture people, but don't seem inclined to do so.

Thoughts, anyone? Is the use of a taser really torture? Has the UN redefined the term "torture" to such a degree that it has become meaningless?

I'd say you're right on the money on all counts.

A Taser is a non-lethal means of using force. When used under appropriate circumstances and with proper training, it is certainly the more desirable alternative to using lethal force to apprehend a dangerous subject or fleeing felon. Does it hurt? Hell yeah it hurts.

Does the UN mean to suggest that it condemns police forces for using lethal force as well? Does it mean to suggest that using lethal force is a more desirable and more humane alternative to using non-lethal force? Does it prefer that police ask dangerous subjects nicely to stop being dangerous if they please?

Yeah, they're daft and they have rendered "torture" meaningless in this context.

AS

 

[Policenaut]

There are a plethora of non-lethal weapon options. Of course many are for specific situations. For an all purpose stopping weapon you have tasers, clubs, beanbag rounds, rapid fire pellet guns, various chemical sprays to induce temporary blindness or choking, ultrasonic guns (which are mostly still in the testing phases) etc etc. Tasers are the easiest to use by all and are effective on all but the strongest and most drugged up offenders.

 

[gumboot]

There are a plethora of non-lethal weapon options. Of course many are for specific situations. For an all purpose stopping weapon you have tasers, clubs, beanbag rounds, rapid fire pellet guns, various chemical sprays to induce temporary blindness or choking, ultrasonic guns (which are mostly still in the testing phases) etc etc. Tasers are the easiest to use by all and are effective on all but the strongest and most drugged up offenders.

I recall someone saying pepper spray was torture when our police were trialing that as well.

Presumably all of the other things you mention would be torture also.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I addressed this in one of the other torture threads. For it to be torture, at least legally, it's got to be an agent of the government intentionally inflicting severe pain on someone in his control or custody for the purpose of extracting information, a confession or as punishment.

Generally, in law enforcement a taser is used to bring someone under control, so that use wouldn't fit the definition of torture.

However, if you're talking about a situation where you're interrogating a prisoner who's already under your control (say handcuffed and seated), and you use a taser to inflict severe pain for the purpose of getting a confession, then yes, it certainly would be torture.

For torture, the question of lethal vs. non-lethal isn't really the issue. There are plenty of non-lethal things that comprise torture. In fact, the C.A.T. and the U.S. Code consider hurting or threatening to hurt a 3rd party (not the person being tortured) as a form of torture (causing severe mental pain in the person being tortured).

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Does the UN mean to suggest that it condemns police forces for using lethal force as well? Does it mean to suggest that using lethal force is a more desirable and more humane alternative to using non-lethal force? Does it prefer that police ask dangerous subjects nicely to stop being dangerous if they please?

No. . . or at least none of these things are addressed under the Convention Against Torture. Torture is specifically applied to a situation where the victim is someone already in custody.

My understanding in general is that law-enforcement can use appropriate force to take someone into custody. They are only supposed to use lethal force when someone is being threatened with lethal force. (If someone pulls a gun or knife on an officer or someone else, the officer can shoot the person.) BUT, none of this has anything to do with the laws against torture.

 

[gumboot]

I addressed this in one of the other torture threads. For it to be torture, at least legally, it's got to be an agent of the government intentionally inflicting severe pain on someone in his control or custody for the purpose of extracting information, a confession or as punishment.

Generally, in law enforcement a taser is used to bring someone under control, so that use wouldn't fit the definition of torture.

However, if you're talking about a situation where you're interrogating a prisoner who's already under your control (say handcuffed and seated), and you use a taser to inflict severe pain for the purpose of getting a confession, then yes, it certainly would be torture.

For torture, the question of lethal vs. non-lethal isn't really the issue. There are plenty of non-lethal things that comprise torture. In fact, the C.A.T. and the U.S. Code consider hurting or threatening to hurt a 3rd party (not the person being tortured) as a form of torture (causing severe mental pain in the person being tortured).

That's exactly my understanding of torture. As such I don't understand the UN's issue with police having tasers. The only thing I can conclude is they feel there's a risk police will use the tasers for the purpose of torture. But this argument seems rather meaningless since police already have ample equipment with which to torture suspects if they wanted to.

They're not torturing people though, so on what grounds would you conclude if they were given tasers they would suddenly start doing so?

Does possession of a taser magically turn you into a vindictive psychotic?

 

[firecoins]

I have dealth with suspects tased by the police. It is a much better optin than shooting them. The police also have pepper spray which can not be used in enclosed areas. Also sprays and gases can not be used in a crowd with only one suspect.

 

[ma1ic3]

I've seen police use billy clubs instead of tasers and I know which one I would prefer.

Oh billy!

 

[AmateurScientist]

No. . . or at least none of these things are addressed under the Convention Against Torture. Torture is specifically applied to a situation where the victim is someone already in custody.

Agreed. I asked rhetorically.

Actually, from what I gather in the news story in the OP, the committee seems to be more concerned about the potential for unlawful discrimination by police in the use of the Taser as against certain groups, particularly the ethic Maori and young persons.

From the article:

During the trial period the Taser was mainly used on Maori and youth, which was concerning, the committee said.

Also, from Part I, Article I, Paragraph 1 of the Convention is this salient declaration about what does and does not constitute torture:

It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.

Using force, whether lethal or non-lethal, incidental to lawful sanctions, such as in defense against an armed or dangerous subject, is by definition not torture. I think the committee was likely worried about unlawfully discriminatory use against historically oppressed groups.

My understanding in general is that law-enforcement can use appropriate force to take someone into custody. They are only supposed to use lethal force when someone is being threatened with lethal force. (If someone pulls a gun or knife on an officer or someone else, the officer can shoot the person.) BUT, none of this has anything to do with the laws against torture.

A prudent law enforcement agency will have a written directive or policy explicitly outlining a force continuum for use by its officers in dealing with the public. Such a force continuum often begins with voice commands and escalates all the way to deadly force on the opposite end of the continuum, with many non-lethal alternatives along the way. Ideally officers should receive continuous training in the use and application of the force continuum beginning with their initial police academy training and again at regular and frequent intervals throughout their active duty service as sworn officers.

You're right. None of that has anything to do with torture.

AS

 

[Shadowdweller]

One should, I think, be very suspicious of making judgements based on secondhand information. Is this the report in question? If so, the UN record seems to consist more of questions than condemnations.

 

[fuelair]

Its all about judging the alternatives. If tasers are used in situations where otherwise guns would be needed then this is not torture. If tasers are used just to intimidate suspects then it is torture. So, I agree with you. Tasers can be used to torture, but so can a car door or a desk drawer.


We passed that stage many years ago. The UN have not only lost its marbles, its also lost its balls, balloons, planets,... (insert larger and larger spherical objects here)

UN really has become a pointless tool - managed by a bunch of pointless tools.

 

[Gagglegnash]

Hi

There is no such thing as a, "weapon," that is, "non-lethal." If it can do any damage, and can thus termed, "a weapon," you can kill someone with it.

The very best you can hope for is the convenient and somewhat-politically-correct, "less-lethal."

If the UN objects, just tell them that they're right, and that you're going to have your police go back to shooting violent and intractable suspects with their regular. old-fashioned guns.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Heh, this reminds me of my first thread, Linky.

While tasers are used instead of shooting, they may also be used "because they can" in situations where they would not inflict such pain otherwise.

 

[Furcifer]

There was a highly publicized incident at the Vancouver airport where a man became hysterical and was Tased to death.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2009/05/08/bc-taser-inquiry-tseng.html

In the article you may notice that one expert says the rate of in-custody deaths have gone up by 6 fold since the introduction of Tasers, although not all have been directly attributed to Tasers.

Then you may note that the expert paid by Taser says that this incident didn't seem to be related to the use of the Taser.

Draw your own conclusions.

In a country where the police carry firearms I don't see the need for Tasers. In most of the cases where people have died, the suspect posed no immediate threat to the police. Tasers weren't used instead of guns, they were used because the police had them.

To be fair, it's hard to say how many lives were saved by the use of Tasers as those cases never make it to the news.