Taser Controversy

In trying to sort out the controversy around the use of Taser stun-guns, Vermont Atty. Gen William Sorrell allowed himself to be zapped by one for five seconds. They were, he is reported to have said, "the longest five seconds in my life."

While we applaud the attorney general’s willingness to feel the pain of Taser victims, we fear that those five seconds may have fried his judgment. On Monday he made two important findings which appear to be contradictory.

In the first place, Sorrell said his investigation showed that in two controversial incidents in Brattleboro last July, municipal police were out of line in using Tasers. "I’m sorry to report that the Brattleboro police blew it in both cases," he told a press conference.

In one incident, police zapped two protesters who had chained themselves to a barrel and refused to leave the premises. The protesters, while annoying, posed no threat either to the police or the public. "(Police) should not have Tased the two even one time, let alone multiple times," Sorrell said. (Brattleboro is being sued over the incident.)

The second improper use occurred when a troubled youth had blockaded himself into a room at the Brattleboro Retreat. Sorrell said it was proper for the police to zap the teenager for the standard five-second shock, but instead they used a 10-second cycle. That, he said was "uncalled for, unnecessary, and excessive."

It was significant that Sorrell condemned the shocking behavior in Brattleboro, because he has steadfastly defended police in three controversial shooting incidents, including one in Orange County. But then he undercut his findings when he rejected a call for a statewide policy on the use of Tasers.

"I don’t want to say this is a one size fits all policy and you have to do it this way if you’re going to do it," he said in his press conference. Such guidelines, he said should be a "community decision."

It is clear, however, from what happened in Brattleboro and many times elsewhere that consistent standards are exactly what the use of Tasers require, if they are to be used at all. This is a brand new technology. It poses important questions, questions that towns should not be left to muddle through on their own. The argument in favor of Tasers is that, properly used, they can substitute for more violent means, such as a revolver. The argument AGAINST Tasers is that, improperly used, they become a substitute for LESS violent means, like pepper spray, just because they’re so easy. It’s much more convenient to zap someone and handcuff him when he’s stunned than to try to cuff him first. Thus, the temptation will always be to over-use the Taser. Firm guidelines are needed to keep that tempation in check.

Part of the question of whether Tasers are good or bad, therefore, is how they are used. The state of Vermont, through statewide standards, ought to do its best to see that they are used correctly. It is to be expected that local departments would welcome the guidance, rather than try to fashion their own standards.

We all want professionalism in our law enforcement, but it’s hard for local police agencies to demand it if the attorney general doesn’t care to impose professional standards on the use of extremely dangerous weapons.

* * *

The other part of the Taser question, of course, is whether abuse is so inevitable that this weapon ought not be permitted at all. The column from the Rutherford Institute, printed on this page, addresses that issue in strong terms.