Friday, November 16, 2007

Nonlethal Weapon?


I've been thinking a lot about the phrase "nonlethal weapon."

For those of you who have not yet heard, last month a non-English-speaking Polish man who flew to Canada to visit his mother died in the Vancouver airport after a skirmish with border agents in which they used a taser to subdue him. Yesterday, a video of the incident, taken by a bystander, was finally released to the media (after being in the hands of the RCMP for awhile) and apparently has made its way around the world.

A lot of people in this country are talking about this incident, from members of Parliament to phone-in radio shows on CBC to people at the gym. I've heard several people say that cops, including border patrol agents and the RCMP, have a lot of people breathing down their necks and shouldn't be second-guessed. People have also said that the video released could not possibly show the entire incident (the man was at the airport for 10 hours, for some reason) and we don't yet know the full story. Et cetera.

Naturally, lots of people say that this incident is out of character for Canadians, that we shouldn't assume that frustrated people in airport are terrorists (implication: like the U.S. does), that we don't use deadly force, we're a peaceful, cosmopolitan people who think first and act second. Et cetera.

Apparently, the video does show the actual use of the taser, and some comments point out that the man was trying to cooperate when it was used. Others wonder why the officials didn't use CPR or other first aid measures when the man was down, obviously subdued, and in obvious pain. The video also shows the man's death.

A lot of the discussion focuses on tasers--how much do we know about them, how can they be lethal, and when is it appropriate for them to be used.

I can't watch the video; it's not something I can handle right now. I'm happy to know that several different investigations into the incident are underway, finally. I'm very very happy that people are talking about the incident instead of pretending it didn't happen.

And I'm thinking about nonlethal weapons. I know I'm incredibly naive about conflict, especially physical conflict. I don't even like it when words are used as weapons, but I've done it. I hate it when people with educational degrees use the letters after their name to intimidate others. In a conflict, I tend to try to make my position plain by my actions--I have physically left situations in which a conflict seems impossible to resolve, rather than continue to wound with words. I also cut off contact with institutions and organizations whose actions I can't support. As for physical conflict? Forget about it. I don't do it.

So my thinking about nonlethal weapons, like tasers, is purely hypothetical.

On one hand, I can see how it would be nice for law enforcement officers to have a way to immobilize someone who's out of control in a way that doesn't put the officers in danger. Bar fights in movies usually conclude with bigger people grabbing the fighters from behind and holding them down until they stop struggling. The people breaking up the fight almost always take a punch in the process. And you really can't tell when someone will break out another weapon--a knife, a gun. I can see why officers don't want to do that.

On the other hand, if you had a weapon that you believed to be 100% safe, I can see turning to it too often and in situations when it's not appropriate. Maybe you're a cop holding a line at a demonstration, and someone is in your face, yelling at you. There's no physical violence--yet. Words and other traditional policing methods would surely be enough to handle the situation. But I can see that a cop in that situation would be tempted to pull out the taser to de-fuse the situation more quickly and to reduce the chance of the situation becoming more violent. And I don't think that's appropriate.

I'm sure the RCMP, the border agents, and other organizations that use tasers have guidelines for appropriate use, and I doubt this particular incident in Vancouver will turn out to be an appropriate use. I'm also sure that a lot of situations come up in which officers have to respond in seconds to a situation that they don't fully understand.

But at the end of the day, a man who spoke no English, who flew to Vancouver to visit his mother, is dead. And the mother grieves. And that's not right.