Tasers remain reserved for the special unit in the city police. The left fear the devices could be misused.
Police officers from the cantonal police, like the one pictured here, carry tasers on them. In the city police, only the intervention unit is equipped.
On December 27, 2015, there was a serious police operation in the city of Zurich. It is six o’clock in the morning when an Ethiopian with a 25 centimeter knife in his hand runs towards a group of police officers near the Wiedikon forge. “Kill me, kill me!” screams the man.
An exceptional situation. One of the five police officers shot the then 42-year-old attacker eleven times, and the man was seriously injured by the shots. It later turns out that the Ethiopian suffers from paranoid schizophrenia.
The police officer who drew the gun will later have to answer in court. The public prosecutor accuses him of attempted murder. Legal back and forth ensued until the Supreme Court finally acquitted the police officer.
During the trial, the accused police officer’s defense attorney asked a crucial question: Why weren’t the police officers carrying a taser with which they could have put the attacker out of action? The answer: because only the intervention unit of the city police is equipped with tasers. The situation is different with the cantonal police. Last year, the cantonal police announced that they would equip the emergency services with up to 191 new tasers – including the regional police.
The former commander of the city police, Daniel Blumer, said in the spring before he left the NZZ that he would like more tasers for police officers. Unlike firearms, Tasers are not lethal.
“Milder than firearms”
The 2015 incident sparked debate about the use of stun guns. They are controversial in politics. A year after the Ethiopian attacked the police, the SVP submitted a motion to the city parliament demanding that police officers at the front be equipped with tasers. He failed.
On Wednesday, the SVP made another attempt with the same request. Walter Anken, who submitted the request together with Samuel Balsiger, described how he spent a night with members of the city police in September. They would have clearly wished to be equipped with stun guns. This is understandable for Anken: Tasers are a milder means than firearms and would protect perpetrators as well as police officers.
The left could not do anything with this argument. SP, AL and Greens rejected the initiative, as did the GLP. “There is a tendency for tasers to be underestimated and downplayed,” said Reis Luzhnica (SP). They could be a deadly weapon. “If you have a taser, you use it. De-escalation and dialogue would suffer.”
“deadly naive”
Words that caused incomprehension among the commoners. “To believe that you can ward off an attack with nice words is deadly naive,” said Andreas Egli (FDP). “It’s a special form of irresponsibility.”
The city council was ready to accept the initiative, as head of security Karin Rykart (Greens) explained. As recently as 2016, Rykart, then a local councilor, rejected the SVP’s initiative. Now she said: “In most cases, tasers have a de-escalating effect.” Those police officers who are allowed to use electric shock devices are trained accordingly. In addition, police officers are obliged to act in a proportional manner during operations.
However, the left could not be persuaded: the initiative was rejected.