We at Politicus Machamux have had our disputes with Chris Grimm (RTM District 5) and he has taken us to task in the past. But today we cheered out loud for him.
We were very happy to read in the Westport News that Mr. Grimm has taken the lead in opposing the use of tasers in Westport. In a letter to the editor, Mr. Grimm questioned why the Town would want to arm the Westport Police Department with tasers.
But why summarize Mr. Grimm? He said it all in his letter and he said it very well, so we quote his letter in its entirety:
Next Tuesday, March 4, RTM is scheduled to deliberate over a proposed appropriation of $24,000 (from the asset forfeiture fund) for the purpose of purchasing 15 Tasers for the Westport Police Department.
“We have been researching Tasers for quite some time now, and I do not see any downside to making them available to our officers,” said Chief Al Fiore in making the request. “I believe that this is a necessary tool for our officers.”
Amnesty International, which opposes the use of Tasers, cites more than 200 deaths that have occurred in the U.S. after victims have been Tased. Even if this number is over-stated, that certainly would constitute “downside.” And what exactly is the “necessity?”
Unfortunately, Westport is (once again) addressing a decision with emotion, rather than logic. The chief has cited an incident in which one officer was injured during a physical altercation. I fear that we are heading down the path toward greater consequences, both foreseen and unforeseen, in response to a justification with a single worst-case scenario. (In addition to the obvious potential consequences of injury and/or death of a citizen, law enforcement officers in a handful of states have filed lawsuits because of injuries that they have suffered.)
The purpose of the device, according to the manufacturer, is not to create a new level of violence with which an officer can deal with a citizen, but rather as “a more humane and safer alternative” to deadly force (firearms).
With that in mind, the people of Westport should consider the estimated number of firearms discharges that this proposed acquisition would prevent. Unfortunately, our approach reflects the national trend of using Tasers as a way to increase violence against citizens rather than as a way to reduce the use of firearms or other deadly force. Even the briefest consideration will tell one that the purchase is arming the police, not about protecting citizens.
We are not living in a high-crime environment in which our local officers are routinely drawn into violent confrontations with citizens. If that were the case, I would probably be more supportive of the proposal. Instead we are blessed with too much money and not enough to spend it on. That is no reason to put the health and wellbeing of our citizens at risk.
Chris Grimm, RTM District 5, Westport
We at PM - like Mr. Grimm – were shocked (pun intended) that the Westport Police were considering the use of tasers. Do we really want our officers to be armed with 50,000 volts of electricity? What would they do with this additional power? Would the police be willing to use tasers on a Westport teenager if he tried to flee the scene of a drug bust? This is not as far fetched as it sounds. Police in the United Kingdom are now free to taser kids.
We shouldn’t follow London’s electric lead. There is no need for tasers in Westport. That’s why we are very happy that Mr. Grimm wrote a letter questioning the Police Department. Way to go! Thank you Mr. Grimm for reminding us that sometimes we should just say no, even to the police.
3 Comments
February 28, 2008 at 9:01 pm
Thanks for covering this rather troubling issue. I’d encourage any and every PM reader to attend Tuesday’s RTM meeting.
March 4, 2008 at 11:54 pm
Thanks to all of the members of the public that came out to RTM to speak on this issue.
While I would have prefered to vote “no,” I certainly welcome the opportunity to have further debate, with the members of the public and the RTM having access to actual information on which to base a decision, rather than just a one page proposal from Town Hall.
Finally, as PM noted, I have previously been critical of the seeming narrow focus of the PM news coverage. But I welcome the increased breadth of coverage of local issues, especially as the Town’s former online news source (to which I once contributed) has become less about news and more a contradiction of fluff and promotion of agendas.
CG/D5
March 6, 2008 at 9:28 am
I agree on all counts. A no vote would have been nice, but I am comfortable keeping an open mind and getting more information. My biggest concerns are policy-oriented: who gets them, when are they used, etc. Too many questions remain.
For example, I hate the idea of a right handed officer grabbing one of these with his/her left hand and possibly using it on a teenager in a high stress situation. Given the frequency with which they seem to be used on people who have taken drugs, which appears to increase the likelihood of harm (elevated heart rate and adrenaline), it seems like a bad idea.
I just wasn’t convinced that there was a need for Tasers in Westport at this time, and despite the assurances of training, there is too much uncertainty surrounding the vulnerability of a suspect (conditions that would make Taser use more likely to be lethal, such as heart issues, pregnancy…). There is no such question with a firearm. Drawing a Taser thinking it is a non-lethal alternative may be a costly, irreversible mistake.
I have a lot of respect for our officers, and support anything that keeps them safer without unduly increasing the risk of harm to citizens. Let’s get the additional information and make an informed decision. If we had to decide this week, though, my choice would be no.
Thanks to Mr Grimm for taking a stand, and for participating in this forum. I look forward to lively debates and hopefully collaboration on many issues going forward.
Adrian Bowles