Forced Compliance

This is getting more and more press. Increasingly, tools of forced compliance (such as the TASER) are being used to force immediate compliance of any order given by any police officer. This story from Car and Driver illustrates some ridiculous uses of this forced compliance tool. What I'd like to know is what right does a police officer have to force compliance of orders when not in immediate, demonstrable danger if compliance is not attained?

For example, I could picture using something like a TASER on someone running around threatening to stab people with a knife--particularly if such a person has a history of violent behavior or is showing signs of being intoxicated (or having other signs of impaired judgment). But refusing to sign a traffic ticket before being told what the ticket is for? No evidence of imminent danger to officer or public--just a stall in immediate compliance of an officer's demand (never mind whether the demand is made legally). From the Car and Driver article:

When he returns to the SUV, we hear Massey say, “You’re giving me a ticket, but you won’t tell me why.” The driver wants to go back with the trooper to see where the 40-mph sign is.

“You’re gonna sign this first.” Massey refuses.

“Okay, hop outta the car.” Nineteen seconds have elapsed since Trooper Gardner reappeared with the ticket. The driver complies quickly and walks back in the direction from which he had driven, pointing toward something. He’s not aggressive toward the trooper, is not even facing him but, rather, looks down the road pointing. The officer draws his TASER, points it at Massey, and says, “Turn around and put your hands behind your back.”

The driver recoils. “What’s wrong with you?” he asks. He starts to walk the other way. Gardner fires at the driver’s back.

Zero to TASER: 32 seconds after the Trooper’s return.

What is wrong with him? I think that's a valid question. How is this acceptable behavior? How are police departments avoiding huge civil lawsuits for behavior of this kind? Maybe they're not. Certainly, Taser International has its share of lawsuits for wrongful death after many people treated this way by police inexplicably die. That doesn't jive with the "non-lethal" use of force so prevalent in standard Taser marketing materials.

This whole situation sits strangely with me. Back when I was interning for college requirements, I worked for a lean design firm that developed some of the first working prototypes for Taser. It seemed like such a great idea at the time. Since then I've done "ghost design" for other design firms whose client list includes Taser International. Knowing now what I didn't know then, would I design for them? No, I don't think so.

Remember Dr. Robert Stadler from Atlas Shrugged? He allowed the State (whether good or bad) to use the produce of his mind for for their desires (ultimately for evil). The problem with working with the State, as I see it, is that the creator of a given invention is immediately divorced from any control over such an invention. So I ask myself--with all I see happening with misuse of force--why I would want to contribute to the arsenal of tyrants? I do not. I'll save the produce of my mind in this regard for my own discretion.

Perhaps I should set upon developing Taser-thwarting apparel, such as a grounded shirt of conductive mesh. Obviously I'm now at risk for being a target for the illegitimate use of force, courtesy of the State.