Saturday, January 14, 2006
Law Enforcement May Pick Up the Slack of Responsibility for Stun Gun Safety
New, self-imposed stun gun use guidelines for the Salt Lake City Police Department signaled a possible trend. The combination of bad press, pressure from activist groups, and lack of leadership from stun gun industry players such as Taser International, Inc. has left a vacuum. To fill the void, law enforcement departments may end up taking more responsibility, themselves, for their officers’ use of new forms of less-lethal technology.
Someone who actually uses or develops stun gun technology needs not only to teach responsible stun gun use, but to communicate an interest in exercising safety. That someone is turning out to be law enforcement, the way things are going. We may be witnessing, with Salt Lake City’s actions, momentum for such a movement.
On Jan. 4 The Salt Lake Tribune reported changes to the city police department’s self-imposed rules for officers’ use of the largest stun gun manufacturer’s weapon. The article went on to report dissatisfaction with the extent of this move. According to the article, the American Civil Liberties Union and Amnesty International had asked the city to draft a policy allowing stun gun use “only in lieu of deadly force.”
Salt Lake City’s mayor reportedly rejected these activist groups’ requests in favor of a policy that allows police stun gun use when a “dangerous or violent subject aggressively resists or attempts to flee.” His decision was a departure from earlier guidelines that allowed use when a subject was violent in merely a verbal sense.
Stun gun use guidelines like those they’ve implemented in Salt Lake City this week represent a compromise. While some groups may see anything but the strictest of guidelines as a cause for alarm, what this industry needs on all sides is an ear for compromise. More important, officials anywhere in positions to inspire change must exercise their power for the common good.
We all need to recognize that stun guns can be dangerous. Yet they are also, properly designed, a promising alternative to firearms.
Plenty of groups, including those pushing for better-defined stun gun policy, realize the nuances of stun gun safety. Often, articles that follow developments in the stun gun industry fail to report on the opinions these diverse groups share, instead focusing on provocative statements. The result is a juggernaut of an argument that fuels a stun gun debate but not a solution.
Stinger Systems, Inc., a Tampa, Fla.–based firm, reportedly makes stun guns that may be safer than the largest manufacturer’s. Articles late last year indicated that Stinger even cut a deal to provide stun guns to the sheriff’s department in Arizona’s Maricopa County, close to the industry leader’s headquarters. Other stun gun players, such as Youngsville, NC–based Law Enforcement Associates Corp. (LEA), also have vied for attention.
A number of companies in this market space seem to communicate strong interest in safety, an issue that continues to dog the largest player. One way to alter the course of the stun gun debate would be for the media to refrain from reporting disparagingly on the competition that is indeed out there.
New, self-imposed stun gun use guidelines for the Salt Lake City Police Department signaled a possible trend. The combination of bad press, pressure from activist groups, and lack of leadership from stun gun industry players such as Taser International, Inc. has left a vacuum. To fill the void, law enforcement departments may end up taking more responsibility, themselves, for their officers’ use of new forms of less-lethal technology.
Someone who actually uses or develops stun gun technology needs not only to teach responsible stun gun use, but to communicate an interest in exercising safety. That someone is turning out to be law enforcement, the way things are going. We may be witnessing, with Salt Lake City’s actions, momentum for such a movement.
On Jan. 4 The Salt Lake Tribune reported changes to the city police department’s self-imposed rules for officers’ use of the largest stun gun manufacturer’s weapon. The article went on to report dissatisfaction with the extent of this move. According to the article, the American Civil Liberties Union and Amnesty International had asked the city to draft a policy allowing stun gun use “only in lieu of deadly force.”
Salt Lake City’s mayor reportedly rejected these activist groups’ requests in favor of a policy that allows police stun gun use when a “dangerous or violent subject aggressively resists or attempts to flee.” His decision was a departure from earlier guidelines that allowed use when a subject was violent in merely a verbal sense.
Stun gun use guidelines like those they’ve implemented in Salt Lake City this week represent a compromise. While some groups may see anything but the strictest of guidelines as a cause for alarm, what this industry needs on all sides is an ear for compromise. More important, officials anywhere in positions to inspire change must exercise their power for the common good.
We all need to recognize that stun guns can be dangerous. Yet they are also, properly designed, a promising alternative to firearms.
Plenty of groups, including those pushing for better-defined stun gun policy, realize the nuances of stun gun safety. Often, articles that follow developments in the stun gun industry fail to report on the opinions these diverse groups share, instead focusing on provocative statements. The result is a juggernaut of an argument that fuels a stun gun debate but not a solution.
Stinger Systems, Inc., a Tampa, Fla.–based firm, reportedly makes stun guns that may be safer than the largest manufacturer’s. Articles late last year indicated that Stinger even cut a deal to provide stun guns to the sheriff’s department in Arizona’s Maricopa County, close to the industry leader’s headquarters. Other stun gun players, such as Youngsville, NC–based Law Enforcement Associates Corp. (LEA), also have vied for attention.
A number of companies in this market space seem to communicate strong interest in safety, an issue that continues to dog the largest player. One way to alter the course of the stun gun debate would be for the media to refrain from reporting disparagingly on the competition that is indeed out there.
# posted by IDTheftSecurity.com @ 4:21 AM 
