Source: http://www.nj.gov/oag/newsreleases10/pr20101007c.html

 

October 7, 2010

 

TRENTON – Attorney General Paula T. Dow and Criminal Justice Director Stephen J. Taylor today announced a revised policy governing the use of stun guns by law enforcement officers in New Jersey, which was developed in consultation with the law enforcement community.

 

The new policy replaces a policy issued by the Attorney General’s Office last year, under the prior administration. Law enforcement professionals had expressed concern that the prior policy made it impractical to use stun guns because that policy was too restrictive regarding the number of officers who could carry stun guns and the circumstances in which they could be used.

 

The new policy continues to restrict use of stun guns, for the most part, to situations where an officer seeks to prevent a suspect from causing death or serious bodily injury to an officer, to another person, or to himself or herself. Law enforcement officers may not use them against a person who is only offering passive resistance to commands. However, the new policy eliminates restrictions in the prior policy that, as a practical matter, would frequently have prevented officers from using stun guns as an alternative to deadly force during a swiftly unfolding crisis. The prior policy was so restrictive that, in some instances, it prohibited the use of a stun gun in situations where an officer could use lethal force.

 

“Law enforcement officers have a very tough job, and we want to give them every tool that can assist them in their work of protecting lives,” said Attorney General Dow. “In consultation with the law enforcement community, we have developed a fair and balanced policy on stun guns that will provide officers with a practical alternative to using deadly force in appropriate situations.”

 

“There was a consensus among law enforcement professionals that the stun gun policy adopted by the prior administration was too restrictive, both in terms of the number of officers who could carry the devices and the limits imposed on their use in a rapidly developing use of force situation,” said Director Taylor. “This new policy provides responsible and realistic parameters within which police can use stun guns.”

 

“These revisions take the handcuffs off law enforcement to use stun guns for what they were designed to do: protect the people of New Jersey,” said Major Karl Kleeberg of the New Jersey State Police. “The video and data recording capabilities of these devices ensure that officers will be backed up legally for the justifiable use of stun guns,” Kleeberg added.

 

“The New Jersey law enforcement community and the public will be well served by this revised policy,” said Cranford Police Chief Eric Mason, President of the NJ State Association of Chiefs of Police. “It removes the unworkable and overly restrictive mandates from the original policy. As a result, it provides police officers with a much needed tool and the necessary guidelines for its use. Attorney General Dow’s willingness to get constructive input from law enforcement on this issue has resulted in better public policy, and we believe better policing.”

 

The prior policy permitted the use of a stun gun only if the officer made a judgment that the targeted person was “mentally ill” or “temporarily deranged.” The officer also needed authorization from an on-scene supervisor. The new policy does not require officers to make a clinical diagnosis that a person is emotionally disturbed and does not require the approval of a supervisor before a stun gun is used.

 

The new policy eliminates arbitrary limits that had been placed on the number, rank, and duty assignment of officers who could carry and use stun guns. Outside of SWAT teams, police forces in the largest cities could equip only four officers with stun guns under the prior policy, and those officers had to be of a supervisory rank. Cities with under 25,000 residents could equip only one additional officer. The new policy allows a department’s chief executive to determine which officers may carry stun guns, considering their experience and demonstrated judgment.

 

The policy requires the use of stun guns approved by the Attorney General that will make a date- and time-stamped digital video recording of every instance when the device is discharged. Such recordings must be secured by a superior officer as part of a prompt and thorough investigation of every discharge of a stun gun. The findings of those investigations must be reviewed by the county prosecutor and forwarded to the Division of Criminal Justice for review.

 

The policy requires that all officers who carry stun guns receive a course of training on stun guns approved by the Police Training Commission and re-qualify every six months. The course will include training on how to recognize mental illness and deal with an emotionally disturbed person.

 

The policy applies to “conducted energy devices,” defined as any device approved by the Attorney General that fires electrode darts attached by wires to the main body of the device, which is held by the officer. The darts transmit an electrical charge or current to temporarily disable a person. The charge stuns and temporarily incapacitates the person by causing involuntary muscle contractions.

 

Under the prior policy, a stun gun could be used only if the suspect were “isolated and contained.” That meant that a stun gun could not be used if there were a hostage or other innocent person nearby. The new policy provides that an officer must consider whether there is a substantial risk that an innocent person might inadvertently be struck by the electrode darts. An officer should fire a stun gun, despite such risk, only when necessary to protect the nearby innocent person from attack. The new policy recognizes that there are instances when firing a stun gun would be the safest alternative for the innocent person.

 

The prior policy contemplated that stun guns would be used, for the most part, only if a SWAT team were deployed. However, the law enforcement community expressed concern that the prior policy failed to recognize that officers who are first on the scene of a rapidly developing use of force situation may need to act quickly with a stun gun, before other units arrive, in order to resolve a confrontation before it escalates to the point where deadly force is required.

 

The new policy generally brings the rules for stun guns into line with the policy adopted in March 2008 for less lethal ammunition. That policy established a new level of force called “enhanced mechanical force” immediately under deadly force.

 

Under the Attorney General’s Use of Force Policy, deadly force may only be used when an officer reasonably believes such force is immediately necessary to protect an officer or another person from imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury. The rules for less lethal ammunition, and now stun guns, do not require that the threat of death or serious bodily injury be imminent or immediate.

 

The prior policy allowed for use of a stun gun only against a suspect who was armed with a deadly weapon. The new policy permits use of a stun gun against a person who is posing a risk of death or serious bodily injury to another person by, for example, choking the person, kicking the person’s head, or holding the person and threatening to strangle him or her.

 

The new policy allows use of a stun gun in several other circumstances where it was prohibited under the prior policy. The new policy allows an officer to use a stun gun, if needed, to prevent the escape of a suspect believed to have caused or attempted to cause the death or serious bodily injury of another.

 

The prior policy absolutely prohibited use of a stun gun against a handcuffed subject as well as use of a stun gun in “drive stun mode,” meaning when the device is placed directly against the subject instead of being fired from a distance. The new policy allows for those two uses of a stun gun in circumstances where deadly force would be permitted or where there is an imminent threat that the subject will kill or cause serious bodily injury to himself or herself. The new policy allows a stun gun to be used against a handcuffed suspect only if other types of physical or mechanical force are not available, would not be effective, or would be too dangerous for the officer to attempt to use.

 

The new policy for stun guns recognizes that while they are designed and intended to be used as less lethal weapons, they can cause serious injury or death. The policy requires officers to use particular care when using them against a person who may be vulnerable due to age or medical condition.

 

The policy prohibits use of a stun gun against the operator of a motor vehicle. It also prohibits the firing of two or more stun guns at a person at the same time. It directs that a stun gun shall not be used against a person who is in a precarious, elevated position, unless reasonable efforts have been made to guard against a fall-related injury. It further directs that a stun gun shall not be used close to a body of water or flammable materials.

 

The policy imposes limits on when an officer may unholster and display a stun gun, including “spark displays,” in which an arc of electricity is emitted from the device as a demonstration to discourage resistance. These restrictions are patterned closely after the current standard used to justify unholstering and exhibiting a firearm.

 

The policy makes clear that there is no requirement that an officer exhaust the option of using a stun gun before using lethal ammunition in any circumstance where deadly force would be justified and authorized under the Attorney General’s Use of Force Policy.

 

Attorney General Dow thanked Assistant Attorney General Ron Susswein for drafting the policy, as well as the many law enforcement representatives who provided extensive input regarding the policy, including, in particular, Dr. Richard Celeste, who is Director of the Somerset County Police Academy, Cranford Police Chief Eric Mason, who is President of the New Jersey State Association of Chiefs of Police, Executive Director Mitchell C. Sklar of the Police Chiefs Association, and Somerset County Sheriff Frank Provenzano Sr., President of the Sheriffs’ Association of New Jersey She also thanked Sarah Miller, a legal intern with the Division of Criminal Justice who compiled and analyzed feedback from the law enforcement community.

This would of helped in the recent report about the guy from New York who was walking around in circles with a 4" knife when police decided to open fire on him, killing him. Witnesses said, that he did not approach police at all, but was walking in circles when police opened fire.

 

If they had the option to use a stun gun in this instance, it would have saved a life. I'm glad they are allowing looser policies regarding the use of stun guns.

I'm all for use of it when less lethal force is warranted. The rules that certain depts were too small to have them is foolish. Small departments are probably less likely to need lethal force and more likely to need some persuasion.

 

I just hope it doesn't turn into the "Obey my authoritay" hot button that we've seen in other states.

I just hope it doesn't turn into the "Obey my authoritah" hot button that we've seen in other states.

 

That's what concerns me as well.

My understanding.....stun guns or tasers are only to be used in situations where deadly force can be used. As far as I know, NJ officers cannot use them in less than lethal situations. Also, as I understand it, most patrol officers were not even issued stun guns or tasers. Hopefully KPD will chime in.

My understanding.....stun guns or tasers are only to be used in situations where deadly force can be used. As far as I know, NJ officers cannot use them in less than lethal situations. Also, as I understand it, most patrol officers were not even issued stun guns or tasers. Hopefully KPD will chime in.

Absolutley NOT..if that was the case, then what is the point of having them?? YOU DO NOT USE LESS LETHAL in a Lethal Force situation. Originally the Less-Lethal munitions (Rubber, beanbag, ect) were considered Deadly force under the Statutes that existed until 2006. We COULD NOT USE THEM unless it was a Situation where Deadly Force would normally have been used..therefore, except for a couple of the bigger city Swat Teams, and Corrections, nobody bothered to use them. At that time the legislature changed the wording that would allow Less Lethal to eb used..of course we STILL DONT HAVE A GUIDELINE from the Ag that directs What, When and How, LL's can be used. most departments have dedicated Less Lethal shotguns..but they sit in the armories because we cant use them yet. As far as Taser, AFAIK 2C STILL PROHIBITS them..the AG can make any policy she wants, until 2C is amended we are in violation for possessing a Taser. Our former AG's Policy was utterly useless, which is why (aside form the whole prohibited deal) there hasnt been a Single Officer qualified since it went into effect. Without having the actual new policy in hand, i'm not going to comment on this..although Knowing Paula Dow as i do, I have no doubt this will be just as useless, just in a different direction. As of right now the ONLY authorized "Less Lethal" platforms in use are the "Pepperball" Systems, and FN Herstal's FN-303 (My own personal preference if I had a choice).

Now, to addess the other "Concern" Many areas that have adopted taser have placed it into the Use of Force Continuum BELOW "Physical Force" in other words, before you laid hands on anyone you were requireed to use the Taser. THIS occured for a number of reasons..mainly dealing with perception. When you tase someone, they go down, and are 99% of the time OUT of the fight until you can get them cuffed. it LOOKS better to an observer than to see a Cop throwing punches, arm bars, leg sweeps, and the attendant grunting yelling, and in many cases bruises...which lead to Lawsuits for Excessive force, even though the level and use of force was under the circumstances Completely Appropriate. they dont WANt their cops fighting people so the only alternative is to tase them anytime there is non-comopliance..of course it's much EASIER to just assume it's a 'Respect Mah Authoritah" issue rather than understand that it's guys following their departmental policy.

Im sorry, my mistake. Sometimes its hard to retain all the information when Im not actually in the field yet.

Im sorry, my mistake. Sometimes its hard to retain all the information when Im not actually in the field yet.

It doesnt help when the rules are so utterly idiotic either..one expects logic, and it has always been lacking once they rewrote the laws in the late 70's. I know of over a dozen situations with suicidal individuals, or psychotic individuals were the situation could have been resolved with a beanbag round to disarm the person, where in the end, the individual charged the cops and they were forced to kill him or her. Even if they HAD the means, the cops would have been PROSECUTED for using a Less lethal round because we are specifically prohibited from using Deadly Force (Which, as i said before Less Lethal still qualified as) to prevent someone from harming themselves. And the Legislature COULDNT SEE the Idiocy of the fact thet under the law we were MORE justified in killing someone than using the available tools and technology to save their lives.

Well that just sounds stupid. Suicide by cop is a messy situation, but bean bags or stun guns being available would definitely help situations like those.

Don't taze me, Bro!

That one was funny. What about Vietnam Tom?

The prior policy absolutely prohibited use of a stun gun against a handcuffed subject

 

The new policy allows a stun gun to be used against a handcuffed suspect only if other types of physical or mechanical force are not available, would not be effective, or would be too dangerous for the officer to attempt to use.[/b

 

In my opinion theres something to be said for the old policy in this regard. Too easy to abuse this one.

The prior policy absolutely prohibited use of a stun gun against a handcuffed subject

 

The new policy allows a stun gun to be used against a handcuffed suspect only if other types of physical or mechanical force are not available, would not be effective, or would be too dangerous for the officer to attempt to use.[/b

 

In my opinion theres something to be said for the old policy in this regard. Too easy to abuse this one.

 

 

you're right..it's MUCH better to just Whomp the Snot out of him with a nightstick when he's fighting until he stops, rather than tase him so you can put a hobble restraint or some other control device.

Handcuffs aren't a control device? How much fighting realistically goes on with a person face down in handcuffs? I know, I know, your going to tell me a lot, then reference the extremes of course.

 

I am not in the law enforcement field but I still say that tasering someone in handcuffs is not a good thing. There is a reason that it was originally banned. Just because it was changed doesn't make it right does it?

 

Can't wait to see the youtube videos of people in handcuffs being tasered. Since there have been numerous incidents of people being unjustly tasered already all over the internet and in the news. Just think of all the wonderful lawsuits that will happen because of this. I am sure most juries won't like seeing a video of a restrained person being tasered either. I have a feeling they will be very sympathetic to that.

 

 

So agree to disagree with eachother. No big deal. It's not going to change anything anyway.

There are videos ALL OVER the internet of stupid people doing stupid things. Simply because you have a couple cops who use a taser on somebody while they are handcuffed, does NOT mean thats how all LEO's will act. I saw a video of an officer SHOOT someone who was face down, cuffed, and being held down by ~3 other officers. Just because you see a couple videos of the "bad batch" means nothing.

Handcuffs aren't a control device? How much fighting realistically goes on with a person face down in handcuffs? I know, I know, your going to tell me a lot, then reference the extremes of course.

 

I am not in the law enforcement field but I still say that tasering someone in handcuffs is not a good thing. There is a reason that it was originally banned. Just because it was changed doesn't make it right does it?

 

Can't wait to see the youtube videos of people in handcuffs being tasered. Since there have been numerous incidents of people being unjustly tasered already all over the internet and in the news. Just think of all the wonderful lawsuits that will happen because of this. I am sure most juries won't like seeing a video of a restrained person being tasered either. I have a feeling they will be very sympathetic to that.

 

 

So agree to disagree with eachother. No big deal. It's not going to change anything anyway.

So in other words..the guy who actually HAS experience in something doesnt count.. Gotcha Baba. I wont bother to reference my experience again. YOU KNOW Better..after all i've only handcuffed a couple of thousand people over the years.

Even if they're in cuffs they can still hurt people. Legs are effective tools for escape or fighting.

all stun gun incidents will be recorded by video camera on the stun gun itself, so it would sway using a stun gun in situations where there isn't a need for it's use.

all stun gun incidents will be recorded by video camera on the stun gun itself, so it would sway using a stun gun in situations where there isn't a need for it's use.

the problem with the Tasercam is that it ONLY starts recording just before you fire...what it wont do is show everything that led up to that point. Either way i do not expect to see Taser in regular use in this stae before i retire.