快猫短视频

HOW can I describe being shocked by an electrical weapon that delivers 50,000 volts? To the onlookers, mostly police officers and weapons distributors, my experience was rather unimpressive 鈥� at least that鈥檚 what their faces seemed to show.

All of us had been subjected to a brief burst of electricity from the Advanced Taser, a device designed to temporarily incapacitate the human body. In my case, I kicked my legs up in the air (I was lying down at the time), shouted something, and then got up as soon as it was over, apparently none the worse.

But from my standpoint, the experience had rather more impact. The shock sent a wave of excruciating pain running through my body. It is certainly not something I want to go through again.

If you are not familiar with the Taser, you soon might be. In eight countries across the globe it is already in use, and more are examining its potential for their police and military 鈥� including Britain, where the police are about to begin a six-month trial. Take part in a demo in some parts of the US this year, and you might even find the Taser is the authorities鈥� weapon of choice to get you off the streets.

Its name comes from the children鈥檚 story Thomas A. Swift鈥檚 Electrical Rifle, written by inventor Jack Cover, who developed the original Taser. The modern version fires barbed prongs connected by wires to a high-voltage source that can deliver 26 watts for several seconds at a distance of up to 7 metres. The target receives an incapacitating shock, designed to temporarily shut down the sensory and motor nervous systems. The weapon is billed as a 鈥渘on-鈥� or 鈥渓ess-lethal鈥� device that can be used to restrain people while minimising the risk of injury both to the user and to whoever is on the receiving end.

My experience of its power came at the end of last year, at a promotional conference in Brussels for police forces and European distributors. It was organised by Taser International, the Arizona-based company that makes the Advanced Taser, the latest incarnation of a weapon that was first marketed in the 1970s. Initially the Taser was not as effective at stopping people as had been hoped, and take-up by police forces in the US was slow. So Taser International came up with a simple solution to this problem: turn up the power. The Advanced Taser may be powered by only eight AA batteries, but it still delivers quite some kick. During tests in Saudi Arabia, it had enough power to take down a camel, according to one conference participant.

But Taser International鈥檚 head trainer, former US marine Hans Marrero, made it clear he wasn鈥檛 tolerating any cowardly concerns about the Taser鈥檚 safety from the delegates being lined up to experience what it felt like. 鈥淚 shot my kid with it and he is fine,鈥� he told us. Like Marrero鈥檚 teenager, I feel fine, but I have no way of knowing if any long-term damage has been done.

Police officers and distributors at the conference who, like me, had been given a taste of the Taser, reacted in a variety of ways. Some took the jolt in an eerie silence, while others screamed as their arms and legs flailed. What united us, though, was our response when the organisers asked if anyone wanted to take the 50,000 volts again. No one volunteered. And that was after only a fraction of a second鈥檚 exposure. Only one person agreed to be shocked on the default 5-second setting. He stiffened into a mummy-like pose and toppled over like a wooden board.

There have been concerns about the medical effects of such a powerful shock, but Taser International is keen to point out that no deaths have been directly attributed to the weapon. The conference participants are just the latest in a running tally of thousands on whom the device had been used without a fatality, or even any long-term injury.

Company-commissioned research appears to allay concerns about people with pacemakers, a heart condition or who are under the influence of illicit drugs. But past medical studies that have come to less reassuring conclusions did not figure in the course for 鈥渕aster instructors鈥� on the first day of the conference. Neither was there any mention of the limited amount of independent testing and regulation in the US and elsewhere. For those who stayed on for the second day of the conference, a medical consultant who has written a report on the weapon for Taser International acknowledged that there will always be concerns about its effects on susceptible people. But, he added, 鈥渆pileptic pregnant junkie ladies with pacemakers will not rob banks.鈥�

There certainly seems little reason to doubt that the harmful effects of being Tasered are less severe than those of being shot. Indeed, the organisations buying these weapons hope they will pay for themselves by cutting down on injury lawsuits. At the conference we were told that in Orange County, Florida, injuries to officers were cut by 80 per cent during the first three years Tasers were deployed. Serious harm to officers or the public caused by the device 鈥� and therefore payouts following litigation 鈥� was almost nonexistent, the company says.

But though the Taser may rarely if ever cause physical harm, its adoption raises far-reaching questions. How much pain it is acceptable to inflict on someone, for example? Is the 5-second default firing time really the minimum needed to subdue an individual, or does it inflict more pain than is strictly necessary? People operating a Taser do not have any easy way to gauge the force they are delivering, unlike someone wielding a baton. Few people who use the weapon will have had to experience a shock as part of their training.

Everyone at the Brussels conference, however, was encouraged to take a brief shock. The idea was that they would later be able appear in court as credible experts to testify to the innocuous consequences of being Tasered. Writing from the perspective of someone who was shocked, though, I am not convinced that such a brief and obviously artificial experience would have much in common with being Tasered by a police officer in the street.

Another danger is that the Taser might lead law enforcers to use force sooner and more frequently than they otherwise would. Indeed, company literature advocates the 鈥渆arly, aggressive use鈥� of the Taser in order to minimise injuries to everyone involved. But that means the Taser could all too easily be employed as a convenient way of gaining compliance, rather than as a last resort for dealing with people who pose a threat.

Concerns about Tasers becoming a convenient means of ensuring compliance seem well-founded. At the Brussels conference I received training, based on practice in the US, in how to use the Taser to get unruly individuals into police cars. Give a shock to the side of the knee, for instance, and a suspect quickly folds. You don鈥檛 have to fire the barbs to do this: remove the barb cartridge, and the Taser becomes a stun gun that can deliver a shock directly to the body.

The range of targets for whom the Taser is deemed appropriate 鈥� referred to throughout the conference as the 鈥渂ad guys鈥� 鈥� is similarly unsettling. Though they included people considered beyond the influence of calm reason 鈥� violent, aggressive individuals, sometimes on drugs 鈥� there was also mention of the mentally ill and the emotionally disturbed as possible 鈥渂ad guys鈥�. Marrero suggested the Taser was 鈥済ood for demonstrators鈥� too, including 鈥渢ree huggers鈥� and those shouting 鈥渉ell no, we won鈥檛 go鈥�. The reason is simple: anyone shocked automatically lets go of what they are holding onto 鈥� be that a tree, placard or another person. Rick Guilbault of the Sacramento Police Department in California told us that some agencies in the US have bought Tasers specifically for use against passive resisters.

There are also obvious questions about the public acceptability of these weapons. Some people will always regard Tasers as a dangerous path to start down, others as the best route to safe, efficient policing. In practice, both positions can claim some validity. One of the central messages coming out of the Brussels Taser conference, though, was that the public perception of the weapons needs to be worked on: Taser International wants its instructors to be ambassadors who can inform people at large of the benefits of the technology.

Those ambassadors are spreading far and wide. Attendees at the conference included police officers and distributors from across Europe, as well as individuals from as far afield as Israel and Singapore. In the US, things are already going well for the company. By the end of 2001, around a thousand American police departments had purchased Taser products. Ohio State Highway Patrol has nearly 1300 Advanced Tasers, Alaska State Troopers nearly 100, Los Angeles county sheriff鈥檚 department 500, and the LA police department 500. And it鈥檚 not just the police: after the 9/11 attacks, United Airlines ordered 1300 Advanced Tasers 鈥� though federal authorities have not so far allowed the airline to distribute them to pilots. When Taliban and Al-Qaida prisoners were transferred from Afghanistan to Camp X-Ray in Cuba, the soldiers guarding them were issued with Tasers for the flight.

Aggressive company promotion of the product abroad and the ubiquitous search for technical solutions to social problems mean there is good reason to believe the habitual use of the Taser is likely to spread 鈥� as will the debate over what constitutes proper use.

Taser International is certainly not expecting its instructors to deliver definitive answers on the ethical issues surrounding its products. Indeed, having been informed of the possible situations in which the weapon could be employed and the best body parts to shock to gain someone鈥檚 compliance, and having performed some simple manual exercises, police officers at the conference only had to complete a written test in order to become approved Taser instructors. I was mildly surprised to discover that a copy of the test 鈥� complete with correct answers 鈥� was provided in the lesson plan at the start of the instruction day. But after all I鈥檝e heard and experienced, it鈥檚 getting pretty hard to be shocked.