Schneier on Security

Andrew • December 20, 2007 11:44 AM

I know more about this than I'm allowed to claim here (NDA). While I'm not a peace officer, I have been Tased repeatedly. This is a life-saving device.

I am amazed at what a lot of people speculate as to "what police officers think" who are not police officers, have not spoken to police officers and base their knowledge of the Taser on media articles and hearsay.

Taser International uses a "train the trainer" system to instruct peace officers on the proper employment of the Taser less lethal weapon. Presumably, peace agencies are familiar with the statutory and case law in their own states, territories, etc. and will fit the weapon into their own use-of-force doctrines.

When operated, the Taser records each time of activation and duration of firing; this can be downloaded by agencies and used as chain of evidence. Anti-felon ID tags are also discharged when a cartridge is deployed. Agencies have the option of attaching a video camera ("TaserCAM").

Note from a security perspective that the _agency_ decides when Tasers are properly employed, and how to investigate noncompliance. Then, officers mostly comply with policy. Mostly.

Some agencies have an internal culture that encourages cowardice, brutality, "test-a-lying" and falsification of police reports. I won't name names here. Not surprisingly, these agencies tend to have very broad use of force policies which are poorly enforced. Evidence tends to disappear and witnesses (if any) are intimidated rather than interviewed.

This isn't Taser's fault, any more than it is Glock's fault when peace officers shoot a suspect under questionable circumstances.

The concern about Taser has all the hallmarks of a "moral panic," with as little validity as usual.

Public attention should ALWAYS be paid to how police use their powers for good or ill. Ethical cops have no problem with this. "Who shall guard the guardians?" The courts, juries and the general public, of course.

>> although be aware that two of the authors have connections to Taser manufacturers -- so you should expect biased treatment of the issues.

By this standard we need to throw out most of the peer-reviewed articles in medicine, especially pharmacology. Certainly all of the "gun control" articles in the public health literature.

Don't Tase the science, bro!

Andrew • December 20, 2007 11:59 AM

> What, specifically, would have to be going on for you to fight against 3 cops so hard that you dislocate your own shoulder?

Let's see. Why would that be?

I'm drunk (70% of arrestees). I'm high (too?) on meth, cocaine, etc. I just robbed a liquor store, burgled a home, mugged a little old lady, etc. I'm mentally ill and I think the cops are trying to kill me. My buddies and/or girlfriend are watching and I don't want to look like a pansy. I've got a bad case of "I don't give a &@#!." I'm a gangbanger and I don't like cops. I want to be on YouTube. I was punked last time I was in jail and I don't want it to happen again. I'm a combat vet and I'm having a flashback. I'm a professional litigant and I want to make a lot of money. My foreign culture / life experience leads me to believe that the cops are trying to murder me. I'm panicked and don't know what's going on. Did I mention that maybe I don't like cops? I'm a loser, baby, so why don't you kill me? I'm freaking out due to a massive adrenalin rush and/or teenage testosterone.

Any of these would do. Usually it's more than one. Reasonable people generally aren't getting arrested. If they are, they know to just take the arrest calmly and fight it out later in court.

Not to mention how easy it is to dislocate a shoulder. Defensive tactics classes are taught on mats. Defensive tactics are USED on concrete, asphalt, gravel, etc.

Do you really expect a career police officer to risk an unnecessary injury to arrest a resisting suspect? As a taxpayer, I object -- it's bad enough what we have to pay people to be willing to be police, I'd like to avoid paying medical bills and disability on top of that, too.

Police KNOW what the consequences of unnecessary force are. Paperwork, litigation, civil settlements are one result. Avoidable injuries, disability and even death are another. Most police will try once, twice and three times to get a suspect to cooperate without violence.

Once that's failed, do you expect the police to use just a little bit of ineffective force, and ramp up slowly -- or use enough force to end the threat quickly for everyone's safety, including the suspect's?

Andrew • December 20, 2007 12:19 PM

@Brandioch

If you have the facts, you don't NEED an opinion.

Taser shocks certainly are visible evidence. In addition to the data stamp inside the weapon, drive stun leaves marks on the skin, and darts leave small puncture wounds which are distinctive.

As for "Don't Tase me, bro!" I agree that the police were too quick to go to force. (I've watched several videos of the incident a number of times.) They should have asked him to leave. Once he resisted arrest, however, he lost the legal high ground and committed a fairly serious crime. A shame, really, because the loss of civil liberties occurred when the police went hands-on.

Your unsupported, naive belief that "Tasers should only be used instead of shooting someone" is contrary to several hundred years of criminal law and common law. Police can and will use reasonable force to effect arrests and overcome resistance. Be thankful that we're no longer in the days of nightstick, blackjack and revolver.

I respectfully suggest that you go to your local police agency and request to go on a "ride along." This is a routine request that will teach you a LOT about police work and give you a good reason to meet peace officers under less stressful circumstances than being given a deserved traffic citation.

Andrew • December 20, 2007 4:07 PM

> How had he "resisted arrest"?

A police officer told him to stop and laid hands on him. He did not stop and evaded the officer's grasp. That's resisting arrest.

> And how did that necessitate the use of torture?

It's not torture. According to US law and Black's Law Dictionary, torture is the infliction of pain to obtain information. Know your terms.

I have been Tasered. Being Tasered hurts, but so does being pepper sprayed, placed in a wrist lock or arm-bar control hold, or for that matter, struck with a baton or shot.

> I didn't know that Tasers had been around for "several hundred years".

Police have. This is hardly the first time that the use of force by government agents has been considered. In English common law at one time, for example, a person could lawfully attempt to evade arrest so long as physical contact had not yet been made. Once touched, the person had to surrender or then face additional charges.

There is a rich and terrible history regarding how much force the government is allowed to use to control a person. We are re-visiting this history in ugly ways today, which is why this discussion is so important.

When you equate Tasers to torture, you imply that waterboarding and stress positions are OK.

> Like I said, I'd choose broken bones over instant compliance with any verbal order issued by a cop.

If I were your health insurance carrier, I'd cancel your coverage.

Instant compliance with a (lawful) verbal order from a peace officer is the LAW. If you don't like it, call your legislator, petition for the law to be changed, but when you get your bones broken, don't come complaining.

California Penal Code

"Resisting, Delaying, or Obstructing Officer"

"148. (a) (1) Every person who willfully resists, delays, or obstructs any public officer, peace officer, or an emergency medical technician, as defined in Division 2.5 (commencing with Section 1797) of the Health and Safety Code, in the discharge or attempt to discharge any duty of his or her office or employment, when no other punishment is prescribed, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by imprisonment in a county jail not to exceed one year, or by both that fine and imprisonment."

California Criminal Jury Instructions

"2656. Resisting Peace Officer"

"Someone commits an act willfully when he or she does it willingly or on purpose. It is not required that he or she intend to break the law, hurt someone else, or gain any advantage."

"2670. Lawful Performance: Peace Officer"

"The People have the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that was lawfully performing (his/her) duties as a peace officer. If the People have not met this burden, you must find the defendant not guilty of . A peace officer is not lawfully performing his or her duties if he or she is (unlawfully arresting or detaining someone/ [or] using unreasonable or excessive force when making or attempting to make an otherwise lawful arrest or detention)."

" [A peace officer may legally detain someone if [the person consents to the detention or if]: 1. Specific facts known or apparent to the officer lead him or her to suspect that the person to be detained has been, is, or is about to be involved in activity relating to crime; AND 2. A reasonable officer who knew the same facts would have the same suspicion."

"Any other detention is unlawful."

"Lawfulness of Officer’s Conduct Based on Objective Standard"

"The rule “requires that the officer’s lawful conduct be established as an objective fact; it does not establish any requirement with respect to the defendant’s mens rea.��? (People v. Jenkins (2000) 22 Cal.4th 900, 1020 [95 Cal.Rptr.2d 377, 997 P.2d 1044].) The defendant’s belief about whether the officer was or was not acting lawfully is irrelevant. (Id at p. 1021.)"

> Why do you have so much trouble addressing the issue as it stands?

Huh?

> I have the facts.

No, actually, you do not have the facts. Knowing nothing about the law, personal combat, police tactics and techniques, and the Taser device, you present your opinion that the Taser is equivalent to deadly force.

> There are videos of people who are NOT a physical threat to the cops who ARE being "tazed" by the cops.

You weren't there. You didn't read their reports. You didn't speak to the arrested party or eyewitnesses. You have no idea whether or not the people in question were a physical threat to the police, based on the information the police had at the time. You only know what the video showed during that snapshot of time.

Since you appear to have no training in law enforcement, defensive tactics, skilled observation and the basics of the law (and certainly correct me if this appearance is inaccurate) . . . your ability to understand what you see on the video is very much lacking.

Further, "for example" is not proof. Just because you have one or two or even a hundred cases where a Taser was improperly used, does not mean that the Taser should only be used when justified as deadly force.

So? I've got a picture in my history book of a Vietnamese guerrilla being executed by a so-called police chief. Does that mean revolvers should not be carried by police?

> Those videos support my position and contradict your's.

How so?

> Try focusing on the facts instead of your need to presume that I do not know the facts. Okay?

No, because you're wrong on the facts and your inability to recognize this is blocking you from further consideration of the subject.

If you want to make a case that Tasers should be more heavily regulated, do so. If you feel that Tasers are being over-used by police, you may be surprised to discover that I agree with you. But when you say that:

> Tasers should ONLY be used instead of SHOOTING someone. If it isn't a "deadly force" situation, then Tasers are NOT an option.

You are wrong on the facts. Hundreds of agencies carry Tasers. Agencies have been sued for NOT employing Tasers when they were called for, in preference to a firearm. Agencies have even been sued for failure to HAVE Tasers where they could have been employed as an alternative to deadly force.

So Tasers are an option and your denial on the subject does not serve you well.

Andrew • December 20, 2007 4:26 PM

Bhima says:

> Andrew, we've seen people tazered who were not physically resisting,

See my comments above. The totality of the circumstances must be considered.

If I am confronting a peace officer in a dark alley, told to "Freeze! Hands up!" and my hand dips into my waistband, am I 'physically resisting?' I am very likely to be SHOT in such a case.

Or, to pick a famous Taser case, if I am on the cell phone with someone telling them where I am, while a peace officer has commanded me repeatedly to put down the phone and get out of the car (to arrest me for driving with a suspended license), am I resisting? Even though I've created a situation where my contact (and X number of buddies) could come to my 'rescue' and attack the officer? Even though I'm sitting in control of a weapon (the vehicle) and could have other weapons in immediate reach?

If I have my hands under my body, and a peace officer says to put my hands out, am I endangering the officer? Could I have a weapon in my hand or in my waistband? Would the officer be justified in hurting me to make me show my hands, to keep me from murdering him? ABSOLUTELY.

> in fact we've seen people killed with tazers who were not resisting.

Please cite for me a case where a person has been killed with a Taser. People have been killed from positional asphyxia, drug overdose, cardiac arrest, etc. but no death has yet to be linked to the use of a Taser.

To me, one death from positional asphyxia is too many. Where's the outcry on that issue?!?!

> As a CITIZEN this is unacceptable to me.

Good. I am not saying that people should not criticize the police for excessive Taser use, or write their legislators, or break out the video camera (from a safe distance) or file a lawsuit if they feel their rights have been violated.

Security actor says:

> "Policies and training should be modified to reflect the fact that this weapon is prone to abuse and that its acceptable use should be subject to the same standards as other forms of force.

Absolutely. Any weapon is potentially abused. Taser is more trackable than most, actually. Largely, these policies are in place. Enforcement is the issue, and this means Internal Affairs willing to crack down on fellow cops, and District Attorneys willing to file when cops commit crimes.

BK says:

>> One thing I'll never understand: When you have four or five cops trying to subdue someone, do you know what happens? The pull against each other. This gives each cop the assumption that the person is struggling, when they're just being pulled from the opposite side.

The Kerry video

> Tasers are the new method of pain compliance for police. Back in the 60's, it was pepper spray.

Yes, and it still is. Pepper spray gets used BEFORE hands-on by many agencies.

> . . . These days, it's much quicker and cleaner to zap them with a taser repeatedly.

Less decontamination with Taser (still have to remove darts). But i'll say this, having been hit with both, the Taser pain cuts off immediately. OC pain keeps going for up to 45 minutes . . .

> While pain compliance is a nice clinical term, there's another word for it: Torture.

Definitions again. Pain compliance is simply this: I am going to HURT you, without causing INJURY, until you do what you are required by law to do.

Is it better to injure people? Really. We have a commenter who seems to agree that it's better to break bones than to shoot them with electric darts.

I don't think so myself.

I agree however that pain compliance is a use of force that should always been seen as serious and requiring justification. It should never become routine, nor should we become desensitized to it.

> I have no problems with tasering someone who brandishes a weapon of any kind. But they're being used on people who merely do not comply, and that's wrong.

I feel personally that the Taser should be used freely to protect officers from a serious safety hazard, such as a noncompliant subject with potential access to weapons or who is suspected of a serious offense.

I don't like the use of Taser on what the use of force doctrine calls "passive non-compliant subjects." It feels wrong, like an unnecessary short-cut where we are hurting people for our convenience.

Thanks everyone for being patient with my long posts. As someone who actually knows something about the subject, I'm very frustrated with the pundits and Monday morning quarterbackers who have never worn a gun, never been Tased and certainly never confronted with a person looking for an opportunity to hurt them badly.

Andrew • December 20, 2007 4:34 PM

> I also believe body armor designed to protect against bullets also works against taser barbs...

Let people go on thinking that. :)

Andrew • December 21, 2007 8:34 PM

Brandioch Conner says: "I do know my terms. It is torture. I don't care where you dig up other definitions."

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/torture

Pronunciation: \ˈtȯr-chər\

Etymology: Middle French, from Old French, from Late Latin tortura, from Latin tortus, past participle of torquēre to twist; probably akin to Old High German dr�?hsil turner, Greek atraktos spindle

Date: 1540

1 a: anguish of body or mind : agony b: something that causes agony or pain 2: the infliction of intense pain (as from burning, crushing, or wounding) to punish, coerce, or afford sadistic pleasure 3: distortion or overrefinement of a meaning or an argument : straining

Meaning 1: pain does not equal agony. I've been Tased and I've been in agony. No comparison. Try it out for yourself! I feel certain that your local police agency will be happy to set you up with a demo, either formally through the public affairs office or informally in a dark alley. Taser also offers free Tasings at the trade shows they attend.

Meaning 2: police do not 'punish,' that is what the courts are for. Police are not sadists and do not enjoy hurting people.

'Intense pain to coerce,' however. Now we're getting somewhere. If a Taser ONLY hurt, that would be a good point (and a reason why most police do not carry conventional stun guns.)

Tasers don't just "hurt" people (and would be ineffective if they did). A Taser locks up a person's muscles for five seconds, and can be repeated long enough to get handcuffs on. That is the life-saving benefit of Taser over pepper spray, baton, etc.

Meaning 3: Please stop torturing us with your narrow focus on grammar over content, logic and experience.

You don't need to go on a ride-along. You need to take a vocabulary class. Of course, I need to take a grammar class, so we're even.

"Looks like you just lost this conversation."

I'll let the other readers be the judge of that.

Taze the cops says: "I have a simple solution to the problem of overzealous cops, that would make taser use acceptable to me: 1) All taser-carrying cops must have been tased at least once in the last 12 months. 2) After using their taser, a cop cannot carry it again until they've been tased."

I have no problem with this. I am perfectly willing to be Tased yearly in order to carry a Taser. I am also perfectly willing to be "remedial Tased" as necessary to save my life or the lives of others, including the suspect.

I don't think most career peace officers would share this view. They would want to know, quite reasonably, why they need to be made to suffer for doing their job and obeying the law. We don't require that police be shot in order to carry handguns, after all.

I do feel that all police officers who carry Tasers should themselves be Tased at least once. I do know that not all instructors have been Tased, although this looks really bad in court.

Many agencies do require that police who carry pepper spray be sprayed.