I was at a cookout this weekend, and got dragged into a conversation about Kathryn Winkfein, the 72-year old woman who was tasered twice by Travis County sheriff’s deputy Chris Bieze during a traffic stop. The story’s pretty controversial for a couple reasons: One, it, um, involves a 72 year old woman being shocked by the police. Two, the woman was literally asking for it. You can hear on the video that the words out of her mouth that immediately preceded the tasering were, “go ahead, I dare you.”

So, she didn’t get a lot of sympathy from the cookout crowd. A lot of talk ensued from the gathered 20- and 30-somethings about old people who think that the rules don’t apply to them, and what else was the officer to do, and she shouldn’t have gotten so belligerent. (The video also features a shot of her telling him “Give me the f**king thing and I’ll sign it already”, in reference to the speeding ticket that started the confrontation.)

Thing is, none of that is relevant here. What’s relevant is that this isn’t what tasers are for. The police don’t have tasers to teach lessons to people who think that they’re above the law. They don’t have tasers because police officers, when they’re not sure how to handle a situation, need to be able to shock a suspect. They don’t have them to punish people for being belligerent, or even to give people who ask for it what they deserve.

The APD, when introducing tasers a few years ago, hired medical experts Edward Racht and Pat Crocker to assure citizens of the weapons’ safety. They drew their research from two reports, including one by a British doctor named Anthony Bleetman, who was at the time the only independent doctor who had done a peer-reviewed study on the subject. The APD has since widely ignored the key item outlined in the report:

“Police officers are legally and morally required to use the lowest level of force necessary to control a situation and to de-escalate at the earliest opportunity. Use of force options start with good communication skills, then escalate from unarmed physical skills (holds, restraints, strikes), deployment of incapacitant sprays, up to the use of batons. At present, when facing levels of threat that exceed the capacity of an officer deploying a baton, there remains only the use of a firearm. Police agencies have searched for "less lethal" weapons to fill the operational gap between the baton and the gun."

Or, as it’s put more succinctly at the conclusion:

“The Advanced TASER is to be used only as an alternative to firearms and any outcome measures should be considered in this context.”

The medical reports that were used to determine the taser’s safety explicitly state (and are consistent with Amnesty International policy on torture) that the weapons are only to be used when the officer’s only other choice is to shoot the suspect.

We can pretty safely assume that Bieze wouldn’t have shot Winkfein if he hadn’t had a taser. So all the rest – whether she was acting like she didn’t have to follow the rules, whether she deserved it, whether she’s responsible for escalating the situation (she is) – all of that is irrelevant. What’s relevant is that the taser was a disproportionate response, and that it was misused.

And that’s true in many taser situations, not just this one. It’s true of the don’t tase me, bro kid. The taser wasn’t sold to the public as a cool new way for police to zap suspects. It was sold as a way for them to stop people who would have otherwise been shot.

EDIT: Furthermore, APD policy specifically outlaws the use of tasers on a suspect like Ms. Winkfein. From the Austin Police Department Policy On Taser Use document:

The TASER will not (emphasis theirs) be utilized under the following circumstances:
a. Against any subject already handcuffed.
b. The suspect is fleeing from officers for a misdemeanor or non-violent offense (emphasis mine), unless the suspect is armed and poses an immediate threat to the officer or another person.
c. Against persons displaying passive resistence (passive resistance means a subject offers no physical resistance to arrest, simply goes limp, or makes no overt act of aggressive behavior)
d. When flammable liquids or gases are pregnant.
e. Against a woman who is obviously pregnant, a child, which by physical stature and size appears to be under the age of 14, a disabled individual, or an elderly individual (emphasis mine), as defined by section 22.04 of the excessive use of force involving the device.

Now, the Travis County Sheriff’s Department is a different entity than APD, and I’m not sure that this document applies to them (I’m the non-lawyer in the office – any of the lawyers want to chime in?), but regardless – if APD finds it important to enumerate restrictions against the use of tasers on people involved in misdemeanor offenses and the elderly, then there’s really no reason to believe that it’s totally safe and warranted to taser a 72-year old when the Sheriff’s Department does it.

(graffiti image via Lola May’s Flickr stream)

Labels: APD, police violence, tasers, Travis County Sheriff's Department

posted by Dan   permalink   0 Comments