Taser International safety guidelines say that if a person is exhibiting signs or behaviours that are associated with “Sudden In-Custody Death Syndrome” (such as extreme agitation, bizarre behavior, inappropriate nudity, imperviousness to pain, paranoia, exhaustive exertion) then police should still Taser them, but should consider getting them extra medical help.

- Now, despite the fact that “sudden in-custody death syndrome” sounds like an extremely convenient “sydrome” to emerge – if these people are at a higher risk of death to the normal population should we really be encouraging police to electrocute them? -

Overall, The Daily Telegraph says, police in NSW are drawing their Tasers more than once each day – although the guns are often used as a threat rather than being used to shoot the person.

I’ve been meaning to write about the new Taser directive for days, but this new publicity has finally pushed me to it.

If you thought Tasers were dangerous, wait until you see these new devices.

As New Scientist has previously reported, US government funded research has found that there are serious health risks to people who are hit with some of the new Tasers. The long-range Tasers were found to be able to deliver shocks for up to five minutes, rather than the standard 20 seconds.

As New Scientist says, Taser International has argued that they have changed the design of the long-range Tasers but there has been no independent testing.

But back to this “advice” that has been issued by Taser International: they claim that they have told police not to shoot at the chest simply to “minimise controversy for police officers and police departments”.

But if there is no connection between Tasers and heart attacks, why would there be any controversy?

Basically they are saying “don’t shoot someone near their heart because it might result that in a controversial outcome, but if it does result in that outcome it will of course be pure coincidence”.

Hmmm…

Considering that the chest is probably one of the easiest places to shoot a suspect (and I believe officers are trained to shoot that part of the body with firearms), I would be very very nervous if I was a police officer who was expected to use a Taser right now.

(Here is a link to the Taser directive. I was hesitant to put it up because it has stopped displaying correctly on my computer, but I thought I would just in case you have better luck).

Apparently, the rules would have allowed police to view footage ”for intelligence gathering on individuals and locations” and increased the scope of the program to include all criminal offences except for the use of illicit substances.

While the sydney city council had originally said that the powers had been approved by a steering committe that included a member of the NSW coucil for civil liberties, the civil liberties council later issued a statement saying it had “reservations” about the plan.

Two things come to mind:

Firstly, this is a good example of the relevance of the “slippery slope” argument that is often made by proponents of civil liberties. The cameras are originally put in to help manage big events and street crime and then later they are used to monitor people who haven’t committed a crime and may well be doing legitimate (but disliked by the state) activities such as protesting.

Secondly, where was the NSW council on civil liberties on this one? Good work to Paul Bibby at the Herald but surely this is something that the civil liberties council should be making a fuss about loudly and clearly?

Michael McShane, an ex-police officer and current managing director of the company that produces Jack Daniels (!) wants to ban public drunkeness and give the police resources to enforce this ban.

Giving the police the power to enforce a law that is by it’s very nature ambiguous (there is no real sure way to know someone is drunk as one man’s drunk person is another man’s exhuberant idiot), and then telling them to enforce it in a high-stress high-hostility situation like a city street full of night clubs is just asking for trouble.

But of course, it suits the liquor industry to have the public purse pay for high-visibility policing rather than to have to bear the cost of reduced sales and higher taxes.

Another populist story in the Queensland media and another kneejerk reaction by Anna Bligh. This time we have had stories about the Bandido’s biker gang opening a new clubhouse in the middle of a retail street very close to the Gabba sportsground. And within two days of the story getting out Anna Bligh has announced a new crackdown on biker gangs in Queensland — supported by new laws! The Bandido’s have had a clubhouse in the general vicinity for over ten years!

The clubhouse was in a back street Bligh never complained then! I wonder if the quick kneejerk has anything to do with the new clubhouse being smack bang in the middle of her South Brisbane electorate? Funny thing is the old clubhouse was in her electorate too and it was never a problem because it was hidden from general view in a back street.

So all you need to change the Government’s mind is a story in the media and Anna will give you what you want…

In response, the ABC reports that Bligh has promised powers that include court declarations of criminal organisations and orders preventing gang members from owning weapons, fortifying properties and associating with one another. The Australian Council of Civil Liberties president Terry O’Gorman has called the proposed laws “repressive”.

Added: 25/08/09

Brumby comes in a number two with this promise to curb city violence with more police powers.