Don't Blaze the TAZER, Bro!

Across the country, there has been a lot of coverage regarding the use by police of the Tazer—an electrically charged dart gun—used to temporarily short circuit the body’s nervous system and disable a resisting or escaping suspect. While dramatic in its temporary affect, the public should understand it is harmless to 99% of the suspects upon whom it is used—no lasting effects, whatsoever.

A police officer has certain choices in the tools he uses when he must take physical custody of a human being or in some way, direct their movement. In rising order of force, they start with visual command presence; i.e., a glance of disapproval. Then, verbal requests, verbal orders, hands-on direction, pain-compliance techniques, blunt force, such as a baton or, finally, firearms. The question, is where does the Tazer fit into this choice?

To know the answer, one must decide how much abuse or harm we as a society will demand our police must absorb in our name. Remember—the police represent you and what you demand of civilized behavior.

Should the police absorb verbal assaults? Sure. They always have and they always will—it’s part of the job. Verbal name-calling, verbal abuse and foul language are all hallmarks of the less than desirable people in any society. Often needing direction, correction or physical custody, these seedy types really do not like the police for obvious reasons and are rarely timid in saying so. So be it. Sticks and stones and all that.

However; sometimes, verbal assaults are actually verbal warnings—words or inflections which mean much more to an experienced and seasoned police officer than a simple insult. They are often, a signal of imminent harm. Of an intended attack. Should a police officer—would you—allow that attack to happen first, before you responded to protect yourself? If you had a tool; harmless yet instantly and almost always completely debilitating to a charging or resisting suspect, would you not deploy it to protect not only yourself, but the public? Of course you would. Would you be willing to risk an injury to yourself and thus, allow a suspect to either attack and injure you or an innocent bystander? Of course not. At least, no professional peace officer would. If so, that peace officer would be derelict in his duty.

Remember that you employ your police to protect you as a society by protecting themselves. If a police officer allows himself to become injured or disabled, he takes himself out and leaves you to fend for yourself. This is not why you pay your taxes. A police officer has the responsibility as a professional, to protect himself at all costs, so that he is there to serve you in your time of need. To apprehend a deranged or violent suspect, before he gets to those you may love.

In my day, I had no Tazer and often had to resort to inflicting drastic injuries to suspects, to control them and to protect myself. Believe it or not, I did not enjoy hurting these people. A Tazer might have prevented this.

A Tazer is one more very useful, less than lethal tool at an officer’s disposal to affect control, without bringing fractured bones, dislocated joints and perhaps death, to an undesirable who doesn’t deserve such pain or death. Sadly, we could look back in time to thousands of cases where a Tazer would likely have prevented the deaths of suspects, but ill-equipped police officers of that time were left no choice—no “less than lethal” tool—in stopping a violent suspect.

In these days when it is popular politics to question and suggest excessive force by your local police, I would ask you to allow for another possibility. That such force—such as a Tazer—was used because a professional peace officer, perhaps with a spouse and kids waiting at home, wished to protect not only himself, but wished no harm on anyone else.

That a professional in your employ, wanted nothing more than to control an unfortunate incident and to give an “innocent until proven guilty” subject his day in court; as promised, by our glorious system of American justice.