International Law

Taser time

A new report that came out today (CBC, Toronto Star) paints a troubling picture about the reporting of Taser use.

The RCMP is stripping crucial details about Taser firings from public reports as use of the controversial stun guns skyrockets across the country.

A joint investigation by The Canadian Press and CBC found the Mounties are now refusing to divulge key information that must be recorded each time they draw their electronic weapons.

As a result, Canadians will know much less about who is being hit with the 50,000-volt guns, whether they were armed, why they were fired on and whether they were injured.

RCMP officers are required to complete a form (pdf file) every time they either threaten to use a Taser, fire it, or pull it from their holster.

The forms provide details about individual Taser incidents, such as whether the person was armed or may have been suffering from a mental illness. But the documents released have been heavily censored and that sort of information has been removed. Other circumstances that would help determine why the stun gun was used are also missing.

Reports released to The Canadian Press in 2007 revealed that in the majority of nearly 600 Taser incidents, the victims were unarmed. Many incidents also occurred in native communities. However, the most recent documents censor more information, making it impossible to determine whether the person was armed, or what an officer may have said to the targeted person before using the stun gun.

Personally I think Tasers do have a role to play in law enforcement. Having said that, I’m also concerned about the rise that has been recorded in their use. And so I think some stricter oversight in this regard is in order. But the opposite is happening. And no, internal reporting doesn’t cut it. What I don’t understand is why the need for such secrecy. The RCMP’s initial response has been baffling.

The RCMP cites the need to protect privacy and investigations to justify why it removed such basic details from other reports.

Liberal public safety critic Ujjal Dosanjh scoffed at the explanation.

“That’s hogwash. That’s absolute nonsense,” the former attorney general for British Columbia said in an interview. “Whether or not someone was armed . . . how does that violate privacy?”

Dosanjh noted that names and addresses are already removed from the forms.

“The RCMP is a public police force. They are accountable to Canadians. They have to provide that information so that people can judge for themselves whether or not their police force is acting appropriately.”

I’m a big believer in protecting privacy, but I don’t see where that comes into this. It bothers me that there doesn’t seem to be anything going on here except the bureaucratic imperative to cover your ass.

Full post as published by Criminal Review on March 25, 2008 (boomark / email).