The unintended consequences of non-lethal police encounters
With the recent spate of incidents in which police used non-lethal means against suspects and were roundly criticized, I wonder if there an unintended consequences to these new police tools. Are we increasing the frequency of violent confrontations by making those confrontations less lethal?
First there was a fight between Toronto police the Chilean soccer team:
The Thursday incident began as Chilean players were about to greet fans after their 3-0 loss to Argentina in a semifinal match at BMO Field.
Police prevented the players from reaching a large fence that separated them from hundreds of angry, chanting fans. There was pushing and shoving, and a Chilean official said police used pepper spray and a Taser to subdue the players and some other members of the country's soccer delegation.
And then there was Florida police officers stunning Marlins pitcher Scott Olsen with a Taser:
Police Lt. Michael Bentolila said Olsen was arrested in the Miami suburb of Aventura, where an officer clocked him driving 48 mph in a 35 mph zone and attempted to pull him over at about 3:40 a.m. The officer used the police car's lights, siren and public address system to get Olsen to pull over in his Infiniti sports utility vehicle, but he did not stop, Bentolila said.
Olsen then got out of his car and sat down on a plastic chair in front of his home, Bentolila said. When backup officers arrived and tried to arrest him, Olsen resisted by kicking at the officers, who then stunned him with the Taser, Bentolila said.
Let's not forget the pepper spraying of a baby by the RCMP, one of 14 people sprayed, including six children, in British Columbia:
Shannon Phillips sat cradling her six-month-old stepson this afternoon, still shocked a member of the local RCMP had sprayed her and her baby in the face with pepper spray.
Aside from calming the coughing and breathing difficulties, doctors at St. Mary's Hospital in Sechelt had to freeze young Kayden Mayers' eyeballs to check for serious damage, she said.
"He was screeching," said Phillips, 37. "It got right on his scalp, he had streaks of red marks. "You're supposed to be able to rely on your RCMP. How can you do that when this kind of stuff happens?"
A RCMP spokesperson apologized for spraying the children, but said the officers had to act in self-defense to stop the angry crowd.
The incident began when one officer saw 10 young people carousing in the back of Mayers' black pickup, the lead vehicle in the procession, and attempted to stop the truck and give him a warning.
In these cases, I'm not suggesting the police did anything wrong (though the apology in the case of the incident in British Columbia suggests otherwise). Investigations will make that determination. But I wonder if the use of Tasers and pepper spray and other non-lethal means is actually increasing the level of violence.
In times past, a police officer had a choice if thinking of physically intervening -- use his gun or his baton. The lethality of the gun made it the choice of last resort. But the only other choice was to pull out the baton and wade into a melee. Not a great option either. There would still be potential for serious injury, in particular suffered by the officer. The tendency then was then to talk.
Now officers have Tasers and chemical sprays and trained dogs -- all means of affecting physical force that are supposed to fall short of lethal.
Does that means police are depending more on these methods and less on negotiation and attrition to convince suspects to surrender?
These are anecdotes, but this report on the use of police dogs makes explicit reference to trying to discourage their use:
The RCMP public complaints commission is recommending the Mounties' attack dogs be classified as "impact weapons" after one of the animals ripped apart a suspect's leg earlier this year.
The designation should curb the use of attack dogs on suspects who are merely unco-operative or resistant as opposed to armed, threatening or aggressive, the commission said in its annual report to Parliament released yesterday.
So if a suspect is uncooperative, the police are not to release the hounds. Since a gun is also out of the question, the police might be forced into using gentle persuasion.
Will a decision like this have the desired effect? Perhaps. But remember that a mistake in employing non-lethal means will result in a hospital visit for the victim and an apology from the police department. A mistake with a gun has far more serious repercussions consistent with the severity of the mistake. So even if police are told to use far more discretion in using non-lethal means, in the field some cops might decide to pull out the Taser anyway, even in a low-intensity situation that runs counter to the guidelines. He knows he might be called to account for it, but since the likely outcome is an arrest and a suspect with a headache, the negative results for the cop will also be minor. Contravening guidelines in the use of a firearm are going to have consequences for the officer that are serious and career-ending, potentially even resulting in criminal charges.
But it's not just the police. Suspects too might be more aggressive in an environment where aggression is met with non-lethal weapons. Of course, no one wants to get a face full of pepper spray, but a suspect whose judgement is impaired to begin with, facing a police offer brandishing a small tube and with his sidearm holstered, might not be sufficiently cowed by what he sees to give up peacefully.
The point is that before there was stark choice for both police and criminals -- give up peacefully or someone is going to get killed. Now with the gradation of violence available, in particular on the part of police, means that police can avoid resorting to talking.
I doubt we can do much about this. The alternative -- take away Tasers and pepper spray and such -- in order to make an encounter with police more lethal by default, seems just wrong. Of course, so does the indiscriminate use of pepper spray.
Skew my story on Skewz.com
Rate political news for their bias, read related stories, and leave your own skewed commentary
Search for more opinions from Canadian bloggers on these related keywords
police pepper spray Taser police dog Chile Argentina soccer Toronto RCMP Florida Marlins Scott Olsen Sechelt British Columbia
Sphere presents related news articles and blog posts
Sphere It!
Comments
Of course all that needs to happen is for people to obey the law.
The propensity to get into the face of a police officer, then cry foul if someone gets hurt, is too stupid for words.
And by the way Steve, the officers did not pepper spray that baby. They were trying to subdue someone else and this silly woman brought her baby into the middle of the melee.
I do not think the Police should have apologized for this incident.
Posted by: Lee at July 22, 2007 09:09 AM
*
Steve... a small point.
You're misrepresenting the BC incident. The RCMP were in the process of arresting the woman's husband and she tried to stop them... with the baby in her arms. She was warned and kept fighting.
Note also, the RCMP officers were being mobbed by hostile aboriginals at the time. They apologised simply because of the optics and the way the media portrayed them as baby abusers. At the public meeting afterwards, the natives again went apeshit... I saw the video.
A no-win situation.
In other, less reported, soccer news...
Apparently in Iraq, simply cheering for your team is somehow considered inadequate... true sportsmanship requires suppressive fire.
shsshhh... we don't report on non-anglo insanity.
*
Posted by: neo at July 22, 2007 10:12 AM
As I said, the truth in these situations is still being determined, and if I quoted an incomplete report or an inaccurate account, oops. But it is almost obvious to say that these things happen in part because pepper spray is used liberally. People might not respect pepper spray the way they do a gun, and do stupid things (I made that point).
Posted by: Steve Janke at July 22, 2007 10:18 AM
Good topic, Steve. I have felt this was inevitable for quite some time........
Posted by: ZiLLa at July 22, 2007 10:41 AM
*
you're being mobbed by dozens of hostile people... the first time someone tries to overpower you, or wrestle your gun away, you have a choice to make.
without pepper spray... one half of the existing choices is to pull your glock and shoot someone in the face... before they get the gun and shoot you.
taser, pepper spray or a bullet.
at that point, that's the whole menu.
you choose.
*
Posted by: neo at July 22, 2007 11:09 AM
The only way government can become bigger is by taking power and wealth from ordinary citizens. The more continuous and unrestrained the growth of government the more friction it causes, which results in confrontations between the enforcers of government power and the enforcees. But the use of violence on behalf of allegedly benign and pragmatic government policies is a bit of a public relations problem, so the boffins have to come up with kinder, gentler ways of imposing themselves on their, ah, wards. "We're not brutes, we're only enforcing the new government ban on [insert some recent scare-story here] with rubber truncheons and plastic handcuffs." This helps them to shut up the smart-alecky civil liberty cranks for a while, until another crisis comes along giving them an excuse to pass another whole raft of laws and proclamations.
And they thought of a great cover story for the violence - this ain't tyranny, this here is the RULE OF LAW.
Posted by: at July 22, 2007 11:32 AM
I think a lot has to do with the type of people being hired in the RCMP and other police agencies. More book smarts then street smarts. More worried about how high up the ladder they can make it. Need to get back to training police officers. No more equality crap. Get the right people for the job.
Posted by: Brandon at July 22, 2007 06:34 PM
I've already remarked on tasers on my blog.
I'll add the following:
Tasers are used when the altercation is going to require force to bring the person into custody. In many cases suspects do not resist arrest, and no force is required. However, when force is required to enforce an arrest, a taser SHOULD be used. The taser makes any person instantly compliant. While they are very painful in the moment, the pain is over almost instantly, and the biggest risk in most cases is the suspect hitting their head falling to the ground in compliance (something police are trained to prevent from happening). Its better than pepper spray because some people will go into anaphalactic shock if they are allergic, which is not common, but has happened. By contrast, a taser is extremely unlikely to cause a permanent injury.
Compare that with the other methods of gaining control:
1) using physical force (grabbing them and wrestling them to the ground), which is very likely to result in at least one party getting injured. Someone is going to get punched, or elbowed, or have their head hit the pavement. Someone is likely going to get some injury requiring medical attention.
2) using a baton, and basically beating them into submission. Less risk to the officer as above, but much riskier to the suspect.
3) using a firearm. Obviously, the most potential for serious harm.
Tasers are a good weapon to use to gain compliance with the minimum of risk to both suspect and officer. They work regardless of whether or not a suspect is seriously intoxicated or drugged (fighting a suspect on meth or PCP is pretty much a lost cause since they don't feel pain). In the vast majority of cases the use of a taser results in a suspect being placed safely into custody without injury to anyone. Tasers save lives.
Posted by: Paul M. at July 22, 2007 07:01 PM
When I was growing up you had to be five foot ten to be a cop. And male. Being 5 foot 9 I wasn't bent out of shape, I found some thing else to do.
Now, thanks to affirmative action, we have female police officers who are five foot three, maybe 120 lbs.
You can't tell me with a straight face that this "innovation" hasn't resulted in significant changes in rules of engagement.
When I was 17 and was leaving a party that was getting busted up I asked a cop if I could go get my beer. He told me to f off, then pushed me down the stairs, not an option to a smalller, more female cop who might've pepper sprayed me instead.
Anyway, great post Steve.
Posted by: Reno at July 22, 2007 07:21 PM
I'm just curious: How is a police officer to talk through a possible problem with a soccer team member who's hot under the collar, having just lost a game, and whose mother tongue is Spanish not English?
To further compound the problem the Toronto police had on Thursday night, how do you talk down a crowd of juvenile soccer players, whose handlers think it's OK for them to behave any way they want: they're "just playing a game, after all and they're under 20"?
If people are going to break the law, then they'll have to deal with the consequences, whether pepper spray, Tasers, or guns. I agree that guns are going a little too far, in most cases, but to do nothing and let hoolgians and law breakers get away with their brawling and causing civil disorder is, actually, going even further, and no good can come from it.
Posted by: 'been around the block at July 22, 2007 08:49 PM
What ever happened to the good, old, dependable BILLY CLUB?
WHAP! WHAP! WHAP! ...a few good shots to the head would subdue most suspects, and would provide the Bulls with their pleasurable, tactile feelings, by literally beating on someone's face....
Posted by: Feldwebel Wolfenstool at July 23, 2007 06:24 AM
People might not respect pepper spray the way they do a gun,
Thieves either.
Maybe they need trigger locks on their pepper spray?
Posted by: DrWright at July 23, 2007 08:42 AM
Steve: Two of the elements that has made seemingly mundane public contacts with police into potentially violent confrontation are:
1) The militarization of police forces who are being indoctrinated in military/martial mindset, tactics and hardware. The purpose of martial forces is to control the public not protect them. You "take" objectives...you bark out "orders" and you intimidate...citizens become objectified as the "enemy" in these new martial policing techniques.
2)Besides being over-bearing in a martial manner, police increasingly are charged with enforcing a litany of bad laws which are at best marginally civil/constitutional. This raises the ire of people and when this is combines with police militancy, the probability of a confrontation escalates.
3) The deep politicization of the police forces by this new trend in neo-statist integration has them working for politicians who have them enforcing regime policies and not law.
Ya I can see confrontaions....you have to be an aggressive steroid-driven, tattooed, shaved head "enforcer" to justify the crap police have to do these days...that's why the old styled Robert Peel cop is few and far between in the blue ranks these days.
Posted by: WL Mackenzie Redux at July 23, 2007 10:51 AM
"No more equality crap. Get the right people for the job"
Interesting article by Ted Byfield in the Calgary Sun.
"Don't misunderstand me," he said at last, "but I think it started with the women. I think when we took women into the force, that began a major change. And that change has led to what we have today.
"You don't mean to say," I said, "that women caused all the problems that the Mounties are now confronted with.?"
"No, no, not at all," he said. "Women make very good officers, much better in some ways than men."
"Then how did they start the problem?
He then explained that up until women began to appear in the Mountie uniform, the RCMP was very much like a military unit. It had a kind of regimental discipline. A code.
Posted by: at July 23, 2007 04:17 PM
"No more equality crap. Get the right people for the job"
Interesting article by Ted Byfield in the Calgary Sun.
"Don't misunderstand me," he said at last, "but I think it started with the women. I think when we took women into the force, that began a major change. And that change has led to what we have today.
"You don't mean to say," I said, "that women caused all the problems that the Mounties are now confronted with.?"
"No, no, not at all," he said. "Women make very good officers, much better in some ways than men."
"Then how did they start the problem?
He then explained that up until women began to appear in the Mountie uniform, the RCMP was very much like a military unit. It had a kind of regimental discipline. A code.
Posted by: tomax7 at July 23, 2007 04:17 PM
RCMP CODE...Fight the War on Drugs on the backs of its Victims.
Posted by: Feldwebel Wolfenstool at July 23, 2007 07:40 PM
 
|
|
