The controversy around taser use has been a wake up call for many people, me included.
I have been under the impression police were trained in conflict resolution; that is to say mediation skills that can defuse a situation before it becomes violent or somebody gets hurt. Should the situation unavoidably become violent I also assumed they had martial arts training in subduing violent behaviors with a minimum of risk to themselves and the offender. This appears not to be the case as the taser apparently usurps any need to mediate and should it be necessary any need to subdue the person in a decisive and humane manner- when I was a kid if you got a hammer-lock on your opponent you were in control.
So the immediate question arises are police officers, the RCMP in particular, receiving training in conflict resolution and if so why is it not being used? They have obviously been well indoctrinated in taser use as the be-all and end-all to every confrontation, but what of their human skills as counselors, mediators, and if necessary skilled technicians in the martial arts.
The use of the taser is an unfortunate blight on our times. We have an immoderate love of technology, a desire for instant results with minimal investment and a waning regard for civil rights and liberties. The �t� in taser too easily becomes "the three ts"- taser, torture and toy. The UN and Amnesty International consider it a form of torture -which it is- and have called for a ban on its use. The woman in Kelowna BC who saw her 68 year old husband tasered for a minor parking infraction was right when she said the presiding officer behaved, 'like a kid with a toy.' Its frequency of use indicates too many police officers consider it something of a toy.
A fortunate sign of our times is that the negligent use of tasers is being caught on camera. Where official, effective civilian oversight of police activity is too often lacking, the camera packing public serve an invaluable role.
Head of the RCMP's public complaints commission, Paul Kennedy, has just delivered an interim report on stricter taser use as a result of the death of Robert Dziekankski.
Kennedy's report is seriously blemished in that he does not consider the sordid history of the taser and the fact that its use is resulting in an unacceptable number of deaths. Even though he makes ten recommendations for stricter controls on taser use he does not address the issue of civilian oversight. He still leaves the police accountable only to themselves and them alone to preside over and enforce these proposed changes. He merely begs the question by creating more bureaucracy. Instead of addressing the issue he deflects it. The central issue is whether to ban the taser. In other words, taser use is on trial and there are strong arguments to be made for its out right ban.
Kennedy states as part of his report:
The most powerful asset in a police officer's arsenal is public support. Anything that erodes that support reduces the ability of officers to successfully perform their duties on behalf of the public.
This is a fine and lofty sentiment but Kennedy's report immediately hollows it out. For quite clearly indiscriminate taser use, along with other major corruptions, has critically eroded public support and confidence in the RCMP. This support and confidence is not going to be regained by half-baked bureaucratic evasions. It is only to be regained by very real and visible change and getting rid of the taser is a good starting point.
The problem with the taser is that it was intended as a non-lethal alternative for police use but in too many instances its use has proven lethal. Frequency of use is also a problem. It was only to be used where a person is �combative� or poses a risk of �death or grievous bodily harm� to the officer or the general public. What has come about is the opposite; indiscriminate use and inappropriate over utilization.
Taser use must also be viewed from the standpoint of the dehumanizing effect it has on police officers. Its frequent use too easily becomes embedded in their culture and can too easily pre-empts training they may have in resolving confrontations in a more passive and humane manner.
There is the persistent perception the taser and its excessive use has supplanted worthwhile practices and procedures. Police in turn are paying a heavy price in terms of public trust and confidence. Their status as law enforcement officers ends up diminished by a crude over-hyped instrument with many failings.
It has always been a dictum for anybody in authority that if you lose your temper you lose your authority. Indiscriminate use of the taser is tantamount to losing one�s temper, losing real control, real respect and authority. Banning the taser becomes a very good way for police to once again use more respected and time honoured means for conflict resolution and goes a very long way to regaining public confidence and support.
RCMP Commissioner William Elliott makes the fallacious argument that if the taser is not available police officers might be injured. It is well documented by Amnesty International and others that most taser incidents have been non-threatening and in most cases their utilization constituted excessive and unnecessary force.
Kennedy suggests the taser must be reclassified as an �impact weapon� with stricter controls on its use. Reclassifying the weapon is not a solution, because obviously a very large part of the problem is not the taser per se but the attitude police hold toward its use and it is apparent these attitudes are deeply embedded. Attitudes are not easily changed and bureaucratic edicts are less than effective as they can too easily be subverted or treated with benign indifference especially when there is no effective oversight. It goes back to training and re-training.
Kennedy suggests re-training and a periodic re-certification in taser use but this does not cut deep enough. It is apparent there should be a review on the broader question of conflict resolution training, its most effective means, and the necessary training officers require to deal with these situations.
As part of this the taser must be considered from the standpoint of its potential lethality, the psychological effect it has on officer's who use them, and the lesser esteem the public holds for police using the taser.
Kennedy's interim report is sadly lacking as it fails to squarely address the issue of taser use. It has the odor of sliding over the real issue and the real issue is: Are we going to be a taser tolerant society? His is only the first of many reports to come and we only hope these are more pertinent.
To its credit the Vancouver airport authority has committed to making improvements to its immigration reception procedures, but for the RCMP there are much more serious criticalities to be addressed.
If police genuinely want public support and confidence as their most 'powerful asset' the taser becomes a worthy sacrifice.
Postscript:
No sooner does Paul Kennedy issue his report than the RCMP announces that it will curb taser use. This is clearly an orchestrated attempt to pre-empt any further public debate and subsequent inquiries.
Under these circumstances the impartiality of Mr. Kennedy has to be questioned.
Every institution no matter how venerable must at some time in its history undergo renewal. That time is now for the RCMP. If it expects public confidence and support it must resist the temptation to side-step public review, and politicians for their part must be diligently proactive in this process.