After the controversial deployment of a stun gun device on a 14-year-old student at Memorial High School in January, the Madison Police Department’s use of Tasers surfaced to the forefront of local debate. Citizens’ concern for stun gun safety inevitably clashed with the department’s concern for protecting officers and suspects, and a lack of available and accurate information led many to fear the health implications of law enforcement’s newest tool.
As a member of the City of Madison Public Safety Review Board, I was included in policy recommendations regarding the incorporation of Tasers into MPD officers’ weapons arsenal. Chief Noble Wray and his staff should be publicly commended for their adamant work in ensuring transparency between the department and the community on the Taser issue, which included holding multiple press conferences, community forums and circulating a comprehensive report on every officer’s use of stun gun devices since the department began utilizing the technology in 2003. In his first political test since being promoted last fall, Chief Wray displayed an honorable commitment to his officers and Madison citizens by listening and adhering to everyone’s concerns.
Fundamentally, Tasers prove advantageous in ways that other use of force techniques do not: they allow officers to deploy non-lethal projectiles from a safe distance and incapacitate, not injure, suspects while leaving no bruises, cuts or sores. To date, no medical or scientific research has suggested that Tasers are unsafe. Of the MPD’s 83 Taser deployments over a period of 18 months, no injuries or deaths resulted from the device’s electrical discharge. Looking at Taser use nationwide (more 150,000 deployments), only 5 fatality cases listed a Taser as a possible significant contributor. Either major heart disease or drug overdose was evident in all these subjects.
Though electric shock may pose a threat to sensitive individuals, when deployed in appropriate amounts it’s far safer for absorption by the human body than a bullet. As long as policies are put in place that properly define and regulate terms of usage, including thorough officer training, stun guns serve as a safe and effective law enforcement tool. As Tasers’ health risks prove miniscule at best when compared to those of a firearm, they help save lives by providing an alternative to deadly means of force. In fact, a report released by the Potomac Institute for Policy Studies estimated that Tasers’ ratio between people saved versus people killed exceeds that of car air bags.
With stun guns’ health implications revealed, the real Taser debate focused on MPD’s policy, rather than Tasers themselves. The MPD, in order to protect their officers under specific statutes (ensuring that only the department could be sued in claims of wrongful use) placed the Taser too low on the use of force continuum. This was evident in the MPD Taser report, which revealed that 59 percent of Tazed subjects were only charged with misdemeanors — a somewhat disturbing trend, as using a stun weapon against fleeing shoplifters seems unnecessary and excessive. As Tasers potentially pose health hazards (though very small ones) they should serve as a last option before using deadly force. Coming to this realization, the department’s chiefs took the necessary measures to elevate Tasers on the Intervention Options matrix, which will better regulate the use of Tasers in police protocol in the future.
Stun guns undoubtedly have a future in security and law enforcement sectors. 7,000 U.S. police departments equip their officers with Tasers, and it has been noted that stun devices are the only non-lethal weapons that could be used safely on airline flights. As police, homeland security, and intelligence officials search for more advanced non-lethal weapon technologies, tools that can achieve the fundamental goal of a firearm (incapacitate a suspect) without the dreaded consequences (death or severe injury) may be the answer.
But policies and training aside, the use of Tasers inevitably comes down to officer accountability. As each situation renders different circumstances, exceptions and protocols, city officials and citizens must put their faith in individual officers instead of specific policies. Any police tool could have drastic repercussions if used improperly and excessively, but that should be the fault of the individual, not the device itself.
Adam Lichtenheld ([email protected]) is a sophomore majoring in political science and international studies. He is a member of the City of Madison’s Public Safety Review Board.
