By Lenny Matthews ?letters to the editor
All use of force by enforcement officials should be consistent with international standards set out under the UN Code of Conduct for Law Enforcement Officials and the Basic Principals on the Use of Force and Firearms, which requires that force should be used only where “strictly necessary” and in proportion to the threat posed. Law enforcement authorities should also ensure that all officers” actions are consistent with the prohibition against torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.
As such, many of the deployments of conducted energy devices or CEDs indicate with history that the above set standard is not followed. Many law enforcement agencies, time and again, use them to subdue non-compliant or mentally disturbed individuals who do not pose a direct threat.
There were 404 deaths in the United States between June of 2001 and April 16, 2009 following the use of CED”s. Some were mentally ill, some on drugs, some foolish ? virtually all were unarmed. The oldest 63, youngest 15.
In most cases the coroners have attributed the deaths to other causes. However, in at least 50 cases the CED was listed as a contributory factor. In 32 cases the CED was in direct relation to the death.
Delivering high voltage, low current disrupts the central nervous system, causing muscle contractions. One CED model, the M26, was introduced into law enforcement in 1999. The X26, slightly more powerful, smaller and lighter, came in 2003. Battery powered and shaped like a hand gun it fires two darts (probes) propelled by compressed nitrogen from a retractable cartridge. The darts have barbs on the end that attach to the target”s skin or clothing, remaining connected to the hand-held unit from between 15 to 35 feet. The trigger is depressed and an incapacitating shock is delivered, causing the individual to collapse with uncontrollable muscle spasms. They are programmed to be activated in an automatic five-second burst, although the officer can stop or prolong the burst. Each stun gun has a built in computer chip which records the time and date of each discharge, which can be downloaded onto a computer for analysis.
There is no set standard for discharge and it appears the level of usage has increased by both police/sheriff and correctional staff. There is no governmental review in place for these weapons. There is no binding national standard on the use of CED”s and enforcement policies vary. Because they are compressed nitrogen, they are not classified as firearms with the U.S. Federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, therefore, they can be sold to civilians without control, unless state and local control restrict the sales.
I am not asking for CED”s to be eliminated. I am asking for a governmental standard of deployment to be set and met for their discharge, i.e., posing a direct physical threat to officer, armed or not. This should be in place to meet and address human rights concerns regarding their use, including their capacity to inflict torture and ill-treatment. We should examine policies and practices that are currently in place and suggest guidelines to minimize the risk of unnecessary force and ill-treatment of others. Ideal operating standards include incident reports upon discharge and chips in CED”s assigned to officers routinely checked for discharges. Those should be the basics.
Some information for this article was provided by Amnesty International.
Lenny Matthews is a Lucerne resident who has experience in the corrections industry
