Thursday, April 28, 2005
Continuing abuse-by-Taser allegations show why state legislators were correct to demand uniform guidelines for law enforcement's continued use of the 50,000-volt stun guns. The need runs deeper than even the more than 100 deaths nationwide since 1999 that critics claim stem from use of the Thomas A. Swift Electric Rifle that its maker touts as a non-lethal alternative to nightsticks or guns.
In recent incidents, a Santa Rosa County deputy resigned after using the stun gun on a man who had surrendered and had his hands up following a car chase. In another in-custody case, an Orlando officer was charged with misdemeanor battery for allegedly using a Taser on a drug suspect who was strapped and handcuffed to a hospital bed but would not or could not provide a urine sample. A rookie Leon County officer resigned and the sheriff apologized to a man on whom a Taser was used by deputies responding to a domestic-abuse call from elsewhere in his building.
The legislation that the Senate's Criminal Justice Committee approved last week, providing for statewide guidelines, at least would establish a uniform standard. But in saying that a person under arrest or in custody can be zapped for escalating from passive to active resistance, or for actively resisting an officer's command, Senate Bill 2240 is too vague. Also, allowing Taser use on a person attempting to escape remains excessive; it would not preclude such cases as a fleeing kid caught playing hooky, as when a Miami-Dade County officer Tasered a 12-year-old girl. <snip>
http://www.palmbeachpost.com/opinion/content/opinion/epaper/2005/04/28/m22a_taseredit_0428.html