Tasers and minors

Ontario rejects call for banning taser use on minors

Sound decision.

Mind you, I understand the outrage over the tasering of a non-aggressive FAS-afflicted 14-year-old girl. I don't know all the facts, and perhaps none of us ever will, for a variety of reasons - not the least of which being the protection of her identity. The article itself states that none of the allegations has been proven in court, but that there is a tape recording of the incident which the Ontario children's advocate has seen and verified. I can only assume this means the tape is probably legitimate, but has not been presented formally as court evidence just yet. At first blush, this certainly seems to be an unnecessary and appalling (ab)use of police force. If this is indeed the case, the officers should be prosecuted to the maximum extent possible.

That said, an age restriction on tasers stating that someone's life must be "clearly at risk" might sound great on the surface when one is justifiably outraged about police abuse, but it would be neither practical nor properly enforceable. Violent situations can turn life-threatening in the blink of an eye. Do we want officers hesitating in such situations? Are we saying that, in the heat of a volatile situation, faced with what may quickly become a life-threatening situation at the hands of an young attacker, an officer should stop and question the subject to determine age eligibility for taser use? Because honestly, how else are the police expected to know? Maybe the violent suspect is 19... or maybe s/he is 17½.

And what exactly constitutes "a life clearly at risk?" If a youth pulls a knife, but hasn't attacked anyone with it (yet), does this fit the description? What about a youth sitting on top of someone and repeatedly punching him/her in the head? What about a youth who is verbally threatening to kill someone, but hasn't physically done anything (yet)? Two youths fist-fighting? A youth who appears to be reaching for a gun? In each of these cases it could be argued by a lawyer that a life wasn't "clearly at risk" - even if the danger was real and/or injury had already occurred.

Enacting such a narrow requirement would put police in an untenable situation when faced with potential danger to the public or themselves - what are they supposed to do? Should they taser, billy club, shoot, risk life and limb, or hesitate? Every option could potentially generate a lawsuit. If your child or other family member was permanently maimed by a young aggressor because police hesitated to taser him/her according to the requirement, would you sue? Or if the police went ahead and tased the aggressor before s/he had a chance to attack your loved one, would you want that aggressor's family to be able to sue and get big bucks because police guessed wrong and s/he was 17?

Unless you've been living in a cave for the last several decades, you also know that the vast majority of gang members are minors and young adults. I lived in L.A., the undisputed gang capital of America, for more than 30 years (before finally having the good sense to leave). Gang activities such as shootouts, drive-by shootings, and jumpings (surrounding and attacking a victim) were far and away the number one threat to citizens' everyday safety. One of the biggest problems we had is that minors knew they could get away with a lot more than adults could, and they used it strategically to their advantage. One mustn't forget this group of very dangerous young individuals that police must deal with - in some areas more often than others.

According to Statistics Canada, 33% of 2007 murder suspects were under the age of 25. That means minors and people who could be mistaken for minors made up fully 1/3 of all murder suspects. From this statistic alone, one can safely deduce that if the taser age restriction were to pass, police officers would face far too many volatile situations where they must choose between hesitating and risking the aggressor killing/injuring someone in the meantime, unnecessarily risking life and limb, or using other weapons such as a billy club or gun to stop the aggressor. Like it or not, the risk of permanent damage or death from a taser is still lower than it is for either of the other two weapons used to incapacitate an aggressor. Why would we force police to use the more damaging and risky weapons on youths? This makes no sense and in effect achieves the exact opposite of what is intended by potentially increasing the risk that young offenders will be permanently maimed or killed during violent conflicts with police.

No, this restriction is too narrow. It all looks good on paper at first blush... but life just doesn't work that way, so it all breaks down from there. Officers should not be forced to wait until someone's life is clearly at stake, regardless of the age of the aggressor. And there is no time in these situations to be guessing someone's age. It's so easy to judge the police and play Monday morning quarterback if you've never been in such a volatile situation yourself. I have - many times, unfortunately. Those situations are not nearly as easy to accurately assess in the heat of the moment as one might think. (And no I'm not in law enforcement, I'm a computer geek - but I've experienced all of the craziness L.A. has to offer, so I know what I'm talking about.) It is extremely difficult to predict whether an agitated and violent person is going to suddenly turn on someone and cause injury or death.

That said, tasers should only be used in those situations where there is (1) risk of injury and (2) a risk that officers could lose control of the situation if they don't use it. Acceptable: a single officer is trying to apprehend a suspect who is attacking and violently resisting arrest. Not acceptable: officers have already disarmed and subdued a suspect but taser anyway because s/he has pissed them off.

The particular situation of this 14-year-old, with the facts as presented so far, should never have happened. Not by virtue of her age, mind you, since 14-year-olds are certainly capable of assaulting and murdering people... but rather because she was (1) not threatening or attacking anyone and (2) already in a controlled situation by virtue of being unarmed and behind bars. As it stands, this looks like an alarming example of unwarranted police brutality on an unarmed, unthreatening, mentally disabled aboriginal child. Yes, we should be outraged - but just as important is that we are outraged for the right reasons.