Update, Saturday 530pm--turns out tasing can also be an occupational hazard...
This week's Portland Mercury has a very interesting piece by Matt Davis on the use of Tasers, particularly of late in the Rose City. What The Merc initially found was a drop in the use of tasers over the last three to four years--which sounds like good news, except for informed supposition that the usage pattern seems to have shifted: originally touted for "less-than-lethal" situations, now compliance instead of submission in order to directly protect public safety, is more often the goal.
While the evidence for Portland is generally anecdotal (itself an issue, given the bureau's apparent refusal to publicly track situation and outcome data associated with tasering), the Merc relies on global taser data published in Australia that indicates a sense of "mission creep" among police across multiple jurisdictions:
"Tasers were initially introduced to provide police with an alternative to using lethal force in extremely high-risk incidents," says a 114-page report on global Taser use issued this month by the ombudsman's office for the state of New South Wales, Australia. "However, in many jurisdictions, Tasers are increasingly being used by police in situations where high levels of risk are not present, and police could likely manage the situation effectively without resorting to force...For example," the report continues, "On some occasions Tasers are being used in the first instance on people who are being uncooperative or non-compliant, but who are not acting in an aggressive or threatening manner."
Now, ordinarily I might not jump so quickly to allow Australia's empirical study to characterize the situation in Portland, especially without more precise data from our bureau on usage patterns. But the new head of the police union, Scott Westerman, does a bang-up job of reflecting exactly the kind of sentiment that would lead to a broader, more aggressive style of use:
"As more and more people mistakenly believe it's socially acceptable to publicly challenge the police, it creates an environment where people think that it is okay to ignore a uniformed police officer giving them commands," Westerman continues. "The environment in Portland allows this more frequently than in other cities."
I had to read that a couple of times to make sure he was saying what I thought he was saying, but he is: Westerman is telling us that Portland tases people because they're disrespectful punks who are insufficiently restrained by the city's social culture.
I frankly don't know what he's referring to when he talks about "social acceptability," other than the idea that Portland residents may actually better understand their LEGAL rights to challenge police activity, and asserting that knowledge is more acceptable here than elsewhere. It is entirely legal to challenge police on their behavior regarding your rights, certainly until one is told they are under detention for some reason (not arrest, but detention--as in, when you ask "am I free to go," they say no.") Cops of course don't like to have their authority challenged, and Westerman is pretty clear that in his view, it's this permissiveness about boldly attempting to assert one's rights that's the problem--not, say, the fact that Portlanders tend to pose a more consistent threat to public safety, which would explain the tasings on a more rattional-legal basis.
By giving this response to the question of changing usage patterns at PPB, Westerman not only implicitly admits that the focus HAS shifted from less-than-lethal to compliance circumstances--but pins that shift on cultural issues in the COMMUNITY, rather than those of the police bureau. In other words, if people would just shut up and do exactly as they're told without being rude or asking questions, they wouldn't be asking for the short sharp shock.
I don't think I need to explain how disturbing an attitude this is for the head of the policeman's union to express, do I? Tasers aren't being used because they're a safe way to protect people from harming themselves or others; they're being used because people often give cops a hard time about being stopped and/or detained. To me, that's a flatly unacceptable use of force by the police--a mouthy hooker or junkie is NOT a safety situation.
So Portlanders beware--if you think demanding your rights is an opportunity that law enforcement should be granting you, you might be in for a shock.
RSS Feed: http://www.loadedorygun.net/rss/rss2.xml
