Social Links

Run of Site Leaderboard

Articles in this series

22 responsesSubscribe to comments

  1. In case there are those interested in signing onto the Taser Moratorium online petition mentioned within the above article, it is hosted on SignOn.org at:
    http://signon.org/sign/call-for-moratorium-on

    1. In case there are those interested in facilitating the workplace safety of public servants, please contact your representatives to insist that police officers be given some other option than rolling around on the ground to grapple with crazed suspects. Tasers are an essential intermediate step short of lethal force.

    2. The myth that Tasers equals less use of lethal force by police has been well documented, including within the 2011 Montpelier Taser Committee report (pages to read include: iii, 13 & 14), here.

      In fact is, and this is also documented elsewhere within the report as well, rather than being used instead of employing lethal force, Tasers are more often used against certain populations, groups or types of persons in instances and circumstances when using firearms or even other potentially lethal weapons, tactics or means would not be justifiable.

      In addition, as the Tasering of Macadam Mason as well as numbers of other persons across the nation tragically help to illustrate, depending on various factors including their not being used according to Taser International’s own guidelines, deaths occur after Taser use and are therefore among those weapons, tactics and means used by police with the potential of resulting in the use of lethal force.

      The 2011 Montpelier Taser Committee report also includes certain alternatives and approaches worth considering as well as employing, some of which are called for within the Taser Moratorium statement signed onto and issued by various civil rights and disability/mental health advocates as well as concerned citizens, here.

      1. Mr. Brown,
        Tasers are not an alternative to deadly force, though that is the standard the ACLU would like to see applied. If that becomes the standard across Vermont then Tasers should immediately be withdrawn from service. If an officer is in such a dire situation that deadly force is warranted, then he/she should immediately apply deadly force using a firearm that can generally be relied upon to be lethal.

        One of the critical factors not addressed by the Montpelier Taser Committee (chaired by a Director of Vermont ACLU) is the reduction in officer injuries resulting from the use of Tasers as an alternative to rolling around on the ground with a crazed subject. The Taser committee classified all injuries sustained by Montpelier officers since 2009 as “minor”, though to be fair any injury is minor when it happens to someone else. What they didn’t address was the responsibility of the municipality to mitigate hazards in the workplace for their employees; the officers. Tasers are a singular capability for doing so.

        As a theoretical comparison, imagine you own a machine shop. One particular piece of equipment or process has caused relatively minor injuries to nine different employees over two years. There is a piece of safety equipment that can be purchased that would mitigate the risk of such injuries occurring, yet you decide not to purchase that safety equipment because you aren’t concerned with the minor injuries of your employees. The tenth time it happens an employee is blinded or killed, whose fault is it? You had plenty of warning that such injuries were possible, you had no reason to be believe that your luck in having only minor injuries to that point would continue, and yet you chose not to protect your employees. It’s your fault.
        “It is the policy of the state of Vermont that in their employment all persons shall be provided by their employers with safe and healthful working conditions at their work place, and that insofar as practicable no employee shall suffer diminished health, functional capacity or life expectancy as a result of his or her work experience.”

        1. Patrick Cashman wrote:

          “Tasers are not an alternative to deadly force, …”

          Concerning this instance only and not addressing the remainder of your statements: Although I might not have addressed it within my follow-up comment, since having long been aware about how Tasers have not been a substitute for the use of other means or forms of lethal force and given how the use of Tasers can also prove to be deadly, I never suggested otherwise.

          1. Mr. Brown,
            I have to say that doesn’t seem to be a coherent response. In your first comment you wrote “rather than being used instead of employing lethal force”. If, as you stated, you do not believe Tasers are an alternative to deadly force than ideally there should be no instance in which a Taser is employed “instead of employing lethal force”.

          2. Patrick Cashman had previously wrote:

            “Tasers are an essential intermediate step short of lethal force.”

            This is the argument that if it was not for Tasers, guns and bullets, which is lethal force, would be the only choice left.

            The point being made in the instance you appear to be referring to concerning one of my comments and seem to be taking out of context was that “… rather than being used instead of employing lethal force, Tasers are more often used against certain populations, groups or types of persons in instances and circumstances when using firearms or even other potentially lethal weapons, tactics or means would not be justifiable.”

            And, in addition, I had also written “… deaths occur after Taser use and are therefore among those weapons, tactics and means used by police with the potential of resulting in the use of lethal force.”

            It could be that I should have written “… rather than being used instead of employing *other forms of* lethal force, Tasers are more often used against certain populations, groups or types of persons in instances and circumstances when using firearms or even other potentially lethal weapons, tactics or means would not be justifiable.

            Either way, the point is about how proponents of Tasers argue if they did not have Tasers, the only other option is to use lethal force, when in fact Tasers are more often used not so much in those worse case scenarios, but when using other forms of lethal force would not be justified, including when someone is unarmed and even at times when they are not posing a risk to themselves or others and so on.

          3. Mr. Brown,
            I’m afraid you are misinterpreting my statement “Tasers are an essential intermediate step short of lethal force”. That most certainly does not mean that in the absence of Tasers firearms are the “only choice left”. Tasers are a less than lethal system that preserves the safety of the officers as much as possible given current technology. In the absence of Tasers officers would be left only with attempting to grapple with an aggressive and belligerent person or use a blunt instrument, at some risk to the subject but at much greater risk to the officer.
            Tasers are essential tools to increase the safety of municipal employees on the job and reduce officer injuries. While I am sure that at some point someone has tried to use the argument that Tasers reduce the incidents of deadly force being applied by preventing a situation from escalating to the point that deadly force is warranted, in my opinion it is too hard to measure what hasn’t happened and that isn’t an argument I would make.

  2. my heart is with the people of Vermont i hope that you get the ammount of people you need to get this passed by the state

  3. Tasers ARE Letthal Force!

  4. Kudos to Digger for an amazingly full and complete report on tasers in Vermont. It really vindicates Digger’s approach where words are “only electrons” (as a friend used to say when digital cameras were brand new) and long stories don’t cost newsprint. But it’s not just that such stories are long because they CAN be long: the publication has shown over and over a commitment to real journalism the like of which hasn’t been seen for decades.

  5. I agree…real journalism is much needed and appreciated. Please support our journalists.

  6. Shumlin said “What a taser allows an officer to do is allows a police officer to slow someone down that is threatening people, harming people without possibly inflicting a gunshot wound. So tasers have a purpose.” So he is implying that the 33 times that tasers have been used since April 2011 the officers considered using deadly force. I find it hard to believe that 33 times in just over a year police officers would think about shooting a suspect, with a gun, if they didn’t have a taser. I don’t know the stats, but I doubt the police have shot that many times at suspects since I was born in 1953.

  7. Tasers, guns, fists, boots have all been used as death weapons. The underlying issue related to those who are required to carry firearms (police, military)and the public is ‘abuse of power’. We the people are understandably threatened by abuse of power of those with weapons. A taser in the holster of one who truly understands “last resort” is a useful tool; in the hands of one who wields power as a weapon – and abuses power – it represents unnecessary force, sometimes lethal. Our weak system of review and accountability creates the backdrop of justified citizen fear – tasers notwithstanding.

    1. Well said Fred.

      “Our weak system of review and accountability creates the backdrop of justified citizen fear – tasers notwithstanding.”

      How true. But more so, How sad.

      Police are here to protect us and if our Police Academy is training them to intervene in situations in which they are either; illprepared or acting with over zealous and deadly force then its time for peaceful tax paying citizens to voice their concerns.

      Remember this, as sad as it is, Police are never wrong in Vermont, (We know this from Bill Sorrell) and even when they are wrong, they will NOT be held accountable for their actions (OR inactions/ref. Levi Duclos). Just look at all the cases over the past fifteen years where people lost there lives, or fell victim to injury, trauma and unnessessary emotional distress.

      The immense detriment and harm that has come to so many peaceful Vermonters from our very own police put us on the national map for having the highest police misconduct rate IN THE NATION per capita of police officers (NPMSRP.)

      Its time for a change. Its time to bring Vermont back to where it needs to be for its own moral integrity and for our own prosperity.

      Thanks Digger for keeping on this.

  8. Mr. Noll: I have found the NPMSRP (Cato Institute) 2010 listing by state, in which Vt appears to be 14th in police misconduct. Where did you find it the highest? Thanks.

    1. Sorry Fred,

      Only recently did CATO take over from D.Pracket the NPMSRP.

      Its now the NPMRP and a little different. The numbers are from 2009 and Vermont had a police misconduct rate not only leading the nation, but THREE and a half times the national average. They reflect the preceeding four years.

      Its per capita of police officers and we only had 955 uniformed officers in 2009.

      I have the map from injusticeeverywhere which won’t post on this field for some reason. I can email you the map.

      Also the Better Government Association’s Alper Integrity Index was also quite telling with Vermont ranking 49th in the nation for Governmental Integrity.

      You’re welcome.

  9. Taser’s have small video cam’s on them so where’s the video? If we have “older” models then update them to show what really happens. I’ll defer to the police who have to deal with folks that are mentally challenged, brain injured, over and under medicated, violent and who pose a threat to themselves and others. It’s a no-win situation with the cops in the middle, and if one calls a hospital and threatens harm to anyone, what are the police to think, much less do? A lot of people consider them garbage-men with guns and give them no credit, much less any respect for the low-wage day-to-day high stress jobs that they routinely perform. Get the tasers with camera’s so folks can see what they have to deal with, then thank them for their service to the community, they are our only line of defense and spread way too thin in the rural areas. SM, N. Troy

    1. Mr. Merrill,

      Thank you for your comment. I checked with the Vermont State Police about whether they have cameras on their Tasers.

      Vermont State Police Tasers do not have cameras attached.

      A representative for Taser International confirmed that there is no Taser model that comes standard with an attached camera. However, a camera that can be attached to the X-26 (the model Vermont State Police use) is available from Taser International. The State Police, however, do no have those equipped.

      According to news reports (here: http://www.abcactionnews.com/dpp/news/taser-mounted-cameras-produce-painful-videos ), the “Taser Cam” costs $400. Taser International refused to say how much the law enforcement version of the Taser Cam costs, but their customer service representative said the civilian version is $500.

      For the Vermont State Police’s 207 Tasers, such an upgrade would cost $82,800 to $103,500.

      Thanks for reading!

      1. Nice work Taylor.

        I was wondering about that myself. Even with cameras, look what vtdigger editor Anne Galloway had to go through just to get the records of the W.Burwell case.

        Police cruisers have cameras on board also but from what I’ve understood if the officer chooses to not film, they may do so by turning off their emergency lights and the cameras turn off. At least this is what South Burlington Police Chief Trevor Whipple told me.

        The hell and high water one would have to go through to get any video evidence from police is why we need more transparency in Vermont. Many police believe that their cameras are for them only to assist in prosecuting whomever they’re apprehending. I’m amazed that our Police Academy teaches them this.

        In fact their cameras are also there to make sure they aren’t abusing their power in any way and are doing their job ethically. These days, private citizens have to film back, just to make sure they aren’t abused in any way because often times if there is a video, it will go missing.

        Its really quite sad actually.

        Thanks for covering this.

  10. i hope that this issue in vermont is taken care of as soon as possible so that that the people can go on with their lives and get back to normal god bless the people of vermont

Leave a Reply

Comment policy

VTD requires that all commenters identify themselves by first and last name. You may wonder why we don't accept anonymous comments. The short answer is: We want to keep the discourse civil.

You might rightly ask, since most online newspapers accept anonymous posts from readers, what makes VTD so special?

The long answer is: Anonymous comments don't support our mission. We are a nonprofit news organization dedicated to enhancing democracy through in-depth journalism. Our role is to foster a civil online discourse, and one very simple and effective way to do that is to require commenters to identify themselves. This isn't a new idea, of course. This is the way newspapers have treated letters to the editor since time immemorial.

As a result of our comment policy, VTD has created a safe zone for readers who want to engage in a thoughtful discussion on a range of subjects. We hope you join the conversation.

Privacy policy

VTDigger.org does not share specific information about our readers with other entities. Email addresses we collect through our subscription list and comment submissions are kept private.

We use Google analytics to generate aggregated data regarding the size and geographic distribution of our readership. This information helps us gauge how many readers come to the website and what towns they live in. It does not include addresses or other identifying characteristics about our readers.

Donate Today

We're an independent nonprofit organization, your donation helps fund the digging, and, it's tax deductible.

Thanks for reporting an error with the story, "Analysis of Vermont State Police records shows officers fired Tasers ..."