SAN FRANCISCO, Kalifornia - January 4, 2010 - The use of Tasers has become increasingly controversial over the last year, following high-profile cases such as the tasering of a 10-year-old girl who had refused to take a shower and video of a 72-year-old great-grandmother who was tasered following a driving offense.

Now a federal appeals court in San Francisco has set down new rules for when police officers are allowed to use Tasers. In particular, the 9^th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Tasers can’t be used simply to force a non-violent person to bend to an officer’s will. The court’s reason was that Taser’s X26 stun gun inflicts more pain than other “non-lethal” options:
 

The ruling followed a case in which an officer tasered a man named Carl Bryan after pulling him over for driving with an unbuckled seat belt. Bryan was verbally abusive, but obviously unarmed and non-violent.

The use of Tasers as compliance tools - means for compelling behavior - has generated a huge amount of protest. For many, the famous “Don’t Tase me, bro” incident, in which student Andrew Meyer was tasered at a political debate, signaled an alarming new form of oppression.

Perhaps the distinguishing feature of the Taser, compared with other forms of enforcing compliance, is that it can be used with one finger. Police have always been able enforce their wishes using batons or manual force, but a Taser is a much easier option, and perhaps this makes it more prone to abuse. Whether it’s zapping an unruly student protester, an uncooperative 11-year-old or an abusive driver, the trite observation that power corrupts may have some truth here.

The ruling specifies that the Taser X26 and similar devices should only be used where there is “strong government interest [that] compels the employment of such force.” This rules out any situation in which there are alternative means of dealing with the situation.