posted on Feb, 21 2012 @ 04:57 PM
i try to analyze this and similarly contentious articles from a somewhat detached detached perspective, using objectivity and logic to understand for
myself. almost as if i were a member of an alien species observing human behavior, i.e. a classic anthropological lens. the problem with tasering
seems to be some dissonance between what it actually has the potential to do, which is to seriously injure or even kill a person (albeit, perhaps, a
fraction of the time compared to all examples of taser use) and the safety profile it's commonly believed to have.
the fact is that it CAN cause grievous bodily harm, and this is an example of that fact. even if it's not the normal reaction to being tasered (what
is normal, anyway?), if egregious harm is at all a possible consequence of having a taser used against a person - even if it's an atypical response -
it should be considered between using a deadly weapon (gun) and the use of strong force via a baton, a fist, and not an acceptable method by which to
subdue a person in this and similar circumstances. the woman was fleeing from the officer, so her actions were obviously not threatening his life or
person in any way, besides pissing him off and making it more difficult for him to apprehend her. to me, it seems that using a taser is similar to
using a baton to subdue a suspect... however, it's preferred by lazy cops because you don't have to be right next to a suspect to taser them.
so the problem with discussing the increasing use of tasering by police officers across the country is that a productive conversation cannot continue
unless we come to some kind of consensus as to a) a risk/benefit analysis of using a taser on a non-threatening suspect, b) considering the potential
probable harms of being tasered, and c) what act/acts are severe enough to warrant the risk. i don't think it's worth it in the majority of cases
i've heard recently.
problem is, because of the relationship dynamics we've cultivated as a society between law officers and the public is one of dominance and
submission, instead of service and support. the police do not serve to protect people from the government, or from each other, and they're supposed
to be... now, they serve to protect the government from the people, to reinforce the agenda of those in power, and accomplish this using physical
dominance. the police profession especially attracts individuals who enjoy exerting power over others, and while not all officers embrace their
career/role in society this way, those that do keep ending up in the news for situations similar to this one. so, we shouldn't be surprised - just
and we should praise and reward the police officers that buck the system of control and dominance by embodying the role of "public servant"
(although i hate the word servant, you know what i mean).