The question of whether Boston Police should carry electronic control weapons, commonly known by the brand name Taser, has been renewed after the police shooting earlier this month of Usaamah Rahim in Roslindale.
At present they don't — and Boston Police Commissioner William Evans called the electronic weapons a "controversial issue," saying that whether Boston police now decide to add them is "something for discussion."
Not everything about electronic control weapons, or ECWs, is controversial. First of all, they are used by plenty of police forces, in over 100 countries, including more than 140 municipal departments here in Massachusetts as of 2012.
"It was the late '90s, early 2000s that we saw the explosion, if you will, of Tasers into the police workforce," said University of South Carolina criminology professor Geoffrey Alpert, who led a 2011 study on ECWs for the U.S. Justice Department. "It’s a very common tool these days. It’s kind of the rare department that does not employ Tasers."
Boston is, of course, one of them. In general, ECW’s work exactly as they are designed to, firing probes into a subject that then administer an electric current that temporarily incapacitates them. And, as Carl Williams of the American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts points out, many of the models also gather and store all kinds of data.
"When they were used, when they were last serviced, when they were last charged, the time it was out of its holster, how long it was deployed for, how much charge went through a person," Williams said.
That is potentially invaluable post–incident information for everyone from law enforcement to the courts, the press to the citizenry.
"It's a very effective tool when used properly, and I've got to qualify my statement with 'when used properly,'" Alpert said.
And here is where the controversy comes in. As songwriter Ani Difranco once said, “Every tool is a weapon if you hold it right.”
"These can be lethal devices," Williams said. "We need to be clear about that."
How often they are lethal depends on whom you ask. Amnesty International says that more than 500 people died between 2001 and 2012 because of ECWs. Alpert says the real number is difficult to get at.
"I can't tell you how many times we've been in conferences with medical examiners and medical doctors who disagree on the source of the death," Alpert said. "Some say it was the electricity, others say a preexisting condition, others say it wasn’t the electricity at all. We don't know."
Less disputed is the risk of injury.
"When you get hit with a Taser you just go limp," Alpert said. "Your muscles just don’t work. If you're running away and your leaning forward and I shoot you in the back, then you’re going to go forward, and if it's on cement you’re going to hit your face, you have no way to protect yourself."
Now, If ECWs were used exclusively as an alternative to firearms, you can easily see the benefit — despite the risk of injury or death. In fact, Taser International claims their devices have saved 148,000 people from death or more serious injury. What worries the ACLU is that this isn’t how ECWs are being used.
"Are people using Tasers where they never would have even thought of using a gun?" Alpert
said. "Or are they using them instead of guns? I think that’s the question. Is it a drop down or is it a step up for people to use?"
Alpert’s research suggests that concern is well founded. He says that ECWs — like pepper spray before them — are regularly employed too early, and too often, by police. In Seattle, a police trainer told him ECWs there have contributed to “Lazy Cop Syndrome.”
"Over the years we’ve seen the use of the Taser begin or start at relatively low levels of force," he said. "So in other words, rather than go hands-on with you, I’m just going to hit you with a taser so I don’t have to fight you."
Both Alpert and Williams agree any police force that employs ECWs needs to be aware of the potential for misuse, and take steps to minimize it.
"There’s a lot of good in it," Williams said. "There is some difficulty in it, we need to put the breaks on it and say hold on. There needs to be a lot of policies and procedure in place. They need to be the right ones and people need to be trained."
And there is one more question for the pile. ECWs aren’t cheap, neither is training, and budgets are finite. So if Boston does decide to introduce them, it’s also fair to ask: What is that money not going to be spent on?
