Forgot your password?
New user?
State prison plans: mental therapy or torture?
‘Progressive’ City Council abuses vulnerable persons—and free speech
East Cambridge Property
Ten Lessons from the Criminalization of Dissent
Document Actions
Cambridge cops seek Taser weapons
© 2007 by Roy Bercaw
Cambridge Police Commissioner Ronnie Watson wants some Electro-Muscular Disruption Technology—stun guns or TASERs—for his crew. And once they get TASERs, they will be able to shop for a large and growing family of other “less-lethal weapons.” So on the morning of December 12, Watson came with several cops to the City Council’s public safety committee hearing on TASERs, to recommend their adoption.
When Councilor Henrietta Davis asked about the police killing of Emerson student Victoria Snelgrove with a less-lethal weapon, the Com-missioner said that was a pellet gun, not a TASER. Police murdered her due to negligent training, contrary to assurances by the manufacturer that the gun was safe.
When Davis asked about community input into the adoption of the new weapons, the Commissioner evaded the question. He said the Council’s public safety committee “needs to be engaged first.”
Then a public information bulletin would be published for the City Council and the Police Review Board. The Cambridge Police Review Board is a useless agency with no power, staffed by incompetents with little knowledge of police practices. The chairman is a bigoted man who also chairs the Human Rights Commission. He simply obeys the City Manager. He shows no interest in thinking for himself or protecting the rights of citizens.
Deputy City Manager Richard Rossi said a “steering committee,” which included Human Services and Cambridge Hospital would provide a “good cross section” point of view.
What is the steering committee? Who appointed these city employees to it? Where are the victims of police abuses or critics?
Lt. Ames said that “There are no after effects.” Really? What about the 167 TASER deaths listed by the Arizona Republic last year?
Dr. Tom Workman of Cambridge Hospital said “The TASER does not affect the heart muscle, but there are ongoing studies,” reassuring those who died from heart attacks after being TASERed, the latest reported as recently as Jan. 9, in the New York Post.
Of course “the company feels that the technology is safe.” They feel it is safe? What kind of morons make these statements to a government agency? Why do city administrators accept this nonsense?
Ames revealed the focus of the hearing saying, “there is no danger to the officer when the TASER subject is incapacitated.” What about the civilian? There was no one at the meeting to raise that issue. My letter filed on December 1, 2006, did not appear in the City Clerk's report.
John Roberts was there representing the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). The ACLU works with the Boston police and the FBI. They never criticize the police no matter how badly they act, as when the police killed Victoria Snelgrove.
Nancy Schlacter, an assistant City Manager, said, “pepper spray could cause harm to the police officer.” That would be a reason for the officer to be careful. There is no reason for care when using a TASER.
Councilor Sullivan said “this is the beginning of the process of the use of less lethal tools.” Notice he did not call them weapons. But it also demonstrates that he ignored my eight years of written and spoken complaints about illegal use of less lethal weapons in Cambridge.
Dr. Workman said, “the manufacturers dispute that TASERs kill. Some suspects were under the influence of drugs and some died due to misuse of the TASERs.” Well, duh!
Councilor Toomey said, "If a TASER had been used on Porter Street, a life would have been saved." In July 2002 Cambridge police broke down a door on Porter Street in East Cambridge and shot Daniel Furtado dead in his own home, with no court order and no warrant. If the police had not violated State and U.S. law there would have been no death either. The police violated the US Constitution and killed a citizen contrary to law. There's nothing to stop them from violating their regulations misusing TASERs.
Toomey's comment was at best misleading. Continuing to spin the facts Deputy Manager Rossi said, “there is not a lot of force and shootings in Cambridge.” I'm sure that is soothing to the family of Daniel Furtado.
Councilor Sullivan said, “five percent of people commit ninety-five percent of the crime.” He did not give the figures for the percentage of police who are criminals.
Councilor Davis expressed great concern about the dangers that these devices posed to citizens. But she backed down after the police and Assistant City Manager Rossi assured her that there would be lots of training and everyone would be very careful.
When Councilor Sullivan suggested that the public safety committee move on without making a formal recommendation, Rossi disagreed. He and the Commissioner wanted formal committee approval of TASERs.
Don't Shoot! (Taser safety claims)
Taser International first marketed its stun-guns as "nonlethal" weapons, which sounded absurd when used in reports describing yet another post-Taser death; indeed, this description may have contributed to the stun gun's misuse and overuse. They are not squirt guns. The distribution and use the of these weapons need a good, hard look, as policy regarding their use is determined by individual police departments, which are often taught how to use the weapons by Taser International's own trainers. Product safety claims are based on Taser Int'l's own self-funded or self-conducted experiments on animals.
Tasers are widely used, and there are ample human data sources to study and analyze. (Indeed, now epidemiological human studies are finally underway.) Taser experiments on animals are crude, they're cruel, the variables are subject to manipulation, and they certainly have not made these potentially lethal weapons any safer. Such tests are merely flimsy shields for the manufacturer to use in lawsuits, and they are indefensible.
Last year's University of Wisconsin experiments on pigs contradicted Taser International's claims. The manufacturer funded its own an experiment at the Cleveland Clinic, using Tasers on cocaine-dosed pigs. CEO Rick Smith is quoted in the Arizona Republic as saying, "The study will be pivotal as part of the company's litigation defense strategy." What's more important to these guys, profits and winning lawsuits, or safety?
For more information, please visit www.StopAnimalTests.com/f-taser.asp .