TASER. Stun guns — Officer views on safety
In general, officers in England and Wales are highly positive about TASER. They identify several ways in which the weapon advances their safety, and this was often a key motivation for wanting to carry it.
TASER is particularly valued given relatively low staffing numbers, which some officers felt had been exacerbated recently. For example, officers noted the importance of:
‘The safety aspect — we are now in a rural area and I cover an area which is… I’d say 8 times what it was before…I have got less staff so I’m very that aware we are single crewed… I want to have the confidence to stop a car, go to an incident and just be a little bit more protected’.
(Officer 1, Countryshire)‘I cover over 100 square miles around (location omitted) and I just thought that it is such a large area and it’s a useful tool to have for myself and my colleagues. Because it’s not necessarily me that would be in a situation to need it, but it’s a useful tool to have as a backup for my colleagues as well’.
(Officer 2, Townsville)‘With so many people you know or work with… being assaulted and stuff and maybe a TASER won’t stop that happening but it just gives you a better, safer option’.
(Officer 12, Big City)
More specifically, the weapon is seen as enhancing officer safety in multiple ways. First, the majority of officers speak about the value of the ‘red-dot’ function. One officer, for example, described it as ‘the best thing about TASER’. Officers also note that the weapon can act as a ‘deterrent’ by its’ mere presence. For example, an officer in Townsville stated that ‘merely having it as an option is a deterrent to a lot of people. You don’t even need to draw it… You turn up to somebody who recognises…that you could be carrying it, it just changes their state of mind’ (Officer 2, Townsville). Such findings are in keeping with De Angelis and Wolf’s research, which found that officers felt that the weapon allowed them to de-escalate encounters without the use of ‘dangerous types of physical force’. The deterrence effect of the weapon, and its seeming ability to prevent use of force incidents, is highly valued.
Officers also feel that, when they do need to fire TASER, it helps ensure their physical safety more readily than other forms of force, for several, interconnected reasons. Officers value the extra distance they feel the weapon gives them: ‘It gives you a bit of distance and I think that’s the key thing — it’s the distance. Whereas (with) the other PPE (personal protective equipment), you’ve got to be close. (Officer 1, Townsville) ‘I would always, more often than not, go straight for my TASER rather than CS or baton, as long as the circumstances dictated. Its proximity, rather than having to be fighting and get myself injured as well’. (Officer 7, Countryshire) This was also emphasised in training, with trainers reinforcing to course participants during scenario exercises that ‘it’s a distance control device’. In addition to distance, officers also stress the perceived effectiveness and benefits of (neuro-muscular) incapacitation:
‘It’s nice to have something extra that you know would work. Baton might not work, I don’t really fight with a baton if I can help it. CS… could affect me as much as it will affect them… I guess it (TASER) gives you the option to control. They have no choice: if you are accurate they will go down’.
(Officer 2, Countryshire)‘(With TASER) It can just be a couple of seconds to get that compliance, and then they’ll suddenly think right OK I am going to comply and there’s no more fighting. Whereas (without TASER) you could end up in a big struggle, everyone on a heap on the floor’.
(Officer 1, Townsville)
As such, the incapacitation associated with TASER is highly valued and, more broadly, the weapon is seen as highly consistent, predictable and reliable, and as likely to be effective — especially when compared to other forms of force. The targeted, accurate nature of TASER is also compared favourably to the other force options available, in particular, CS irritant spray, and especially in confined spaces. Officers note that:
‘I tend to use TASER because it’s far better… It has got so many benefits that you think about. The environment’s one of the key issues. You’re in confined spaces a lot of the time and you can’t swing your arm back for the baton you’re not going to go to CS… TASER is the go-to’.
(Officer 4, Countryshire)‘(I was faced with a situation) the initial threat was ‘where’s the knife’… I had a foot (of distance) to work with. CS spray would not have worked in a confined space… (baton) there’s not enough room… TASER with the drive stun, it was the best option available’.
(Officer 3, Townsville)
Indeed, when asked for their views on the weapon, few officers (N = 4) proactively mentioned limitations of, or downsides to, the weapon. The vast majority of interviews (with perhaps one exception) were overwhelmingly positive about the weapon, with many officers talking about it in glowing, almost messianic, terms. Officers noted that:
‘It’s an extra piece of equipment that is essentially completely safe and that’s becoming far more essential working in the rurals’.
(Officer 1, Countryshire)‘It’s a brilliant piece of kit so long as it’s used properly’.
(TASER trainer 2, force omitted)‘You have to take certain things into account, your surroundings and things, have to be careful but it is a tool that’s good, I don’t think there’s anything bad that I can say about TASER’.
(Officer 6, Countryshire)
