The question left in my mind and many other people's minds was whether using a taser in this situation was the really the RIGHT thing to do, particularly because now it is believed that the deceased was unarmed.
Another case of questionable killing has been internationally circulating around the death of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin, an African American who was shot last month in a gated community by George Zimmerman, a white neighbourhood watch volunteer. It is also believed that Trayvon just like Curti was also unarmed.
It has also been claimed by witnesses in the Curti killing that he had yelled loudly for help before being fatally tasered. It was also claimed that the police had used capsicum spray on Curti after he hit the ground. Was this really necessary? It is clear that Curti was already on the ground and being held firmly by police, why was capsicum spray also necessary in this instance?
An 'immediate moratorium' has been called by the NSW Council for Civil Liberties in an attempt to crack down on the use of the supposedly 'non-lethal' weapon. According to NSW police criteria the taser must only be used to:
"protect human life . . . where violent confrontation or resistance is occurring or imminent; protect officer/s in danger of being over powered or to protect themselves or another person from injury" (Taken from The Age).
Again, according to witnesses of this cruel incident, it did not appear to them that the police, or any other person was in immediate danger of Curti. They just wanted to catch a thief.
The incident began when at 5:30am on Sunday morning, a topless Curti walked into a convenience store and told the employee that somebody wanted to kill him. The employee later mentioned to police that this visibly upset and disorientated man 'did not want any money, he just wanted protection and he took a pack of biscuits'. It was also clear to the employee that the man was affected by drugs when he stated he was 'a messenger of god and the end of the world was near'. What is questionable is the fact that the employee never cited Curti as a threat.
Another witness claimed she saw the man screaming and running from the officers yelling 'help'. A short time after he hit the ground, a female police officer starting kicking him in his side.
It is apparent that the use of the taser has come under scrutiny in the past. Another man in 2009 was killed after he was hit several times by a taser in Queensland.
Through this evaluation I am not only questioning the use of the taser by NSW police, I am questioning the fact that Curti was unarmed at the time. He was not a threat, he did not announce to the witnesses or the police that he intended to cause harm. I was particularly angered when I heard about the death of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin who fatally shot by neighbourhood watchmen, George Zimmerman as he walked through a gated community in Florida in the US.
The incident began with Martin after visiting a local convenience store, was walking back home with a packet of skittles and a can of iced tea and the hood of his jacket pulled over his head due to rain, was approached by 28-year-old Zimmerman. Zimmerman called an emergency operator and told them he thought Martin looked suspicious. According to the recording of this conversation, the emergency call operator told Zimmerman to leave the young man alone.
Martin, sensing Zimmerman's hostility and anger starting to run back home, Zimmerman immediately took chase with his gun in hand. Martin didn't stand a chance.
Similarly to the taser in Australia, Florida has a law known as 'stand your ground' which allows the use of deadly force if someone believes they are in danger of imminent death or great bodily harm. Does this sound familiar?
What angers me more about this case is the simple, painfully obvious fact that Martin, who was easily half the size of Zimmerman and unarmed was seen as a threat?
Currently Zimmerman is not in police custody because he cited to the police at the time of the incident that he was 'imminent danger' and that Martin was a clear 'threat' cue the 'Stand your Ground' law.
The FBI and US Justice Department have opened a civil rights investigations, and a grand jury is considering whether to charge Mr Zimmerman with this incident.
Martin's family, community and civil rights activists are now campaigning for the 'Stand your Ground' law to be abolished, with an online petition also demanding the arrest of Zimmerman. It has drawn 1.4 million signatures and counting.
I understand that both these cases are fundamentally different, but what I thought was compelling for both of these cases is the fact that both of the victims were unarmed. Where do we draw the line between somebody being a threat? In the case of Trayvon Martin, I believe the government who passed such a law as 'Stand your Ground' needs to be held in some way accountable.
It's a hard one. But, I certainly think both deaths could have been easily avoided. Such a waste.
1
