A video on the web shows police officers tasing an old man who has a heart condition, in the man's own home. They wanted to take him in for observation (he had been reported as saying suicidal things). He gave the officers the finger. You cannot do that, even in your own home, so the old man found out. That this incident occurred in ultra-liberal Marin Country, and that the video survived to circulate, is disturbing. Equally disturbing is the obvious fact that the officers knew the tasers had cameras, and so did their supervisors. It is hard to avoid the conclusion that police administrators allow, even encourage, tasing as a first resort.
Citizens of a republic rely on the police for security and protection, from each other and from themselves. It is understood that police officers can use injurious or even deadly force, as part of their everyday routine. Since this authority is deemed vital to the greater good, officers are given the benefit of the doubt in their use of force. Their job can be dangerous, and there are infinite unforeseen variables to influence or hinder the decisions they must make, often without time for rational deliberation.
Nevertheless, with the broad-ranging authority given the police, they are expected to use reasonable discretion where possible. When they do not, citizens have a right to know what went wrong, and to insist that elected representatives make needed corrections.
From the video it is evident that the old man was no longer, if ever he was, a threat to anyone or himself. He was back inside his house, dazed but quiet. The time and expense required to take him in for observation was obviously not justified. But he defied their authority. So they tased him.
The taser is a marvelous invention, disabling a living target as effectively at close range as a gun, without causing visible wounds or (usually) death. The victim is reduced to writhing, terrified helplessness. He will be intimidated. Although the effect of electric shock on someone with a bad heart is unpredictable, in this case the old man lived. Since tasing is rarely fatal, seeming to solve temporary problems without permanent solutions, there is no doubt a strong temptation to employ tasers in all difficult situations. Police tend to use this new technology without much concern for the situation, the victim, or public opinion.
The victim and his family have sued. We know how these things usually go: there is a quiet settlement, on condition of eternal silence afterward. It's as if the incident never occurred, but for some missing taxpayers' money. The unfortunate deputies (they too are victims) will be thereafter assigned to restroom patrol and quietly hounded from the force, not for the tasing itself, but for causing problems for management. In due time there will be further police tasings, also recorded on video. Once people know this sort of thing has become routine, average citizens will be frightened away from any contact with police. Authority will be respected, order maintained. There is a built-in inertia in all corporate organizations that seeks to avoid difficulties, and police departments are no exception. They rarely change from within, unless there is considerable pressure to change from without.
Citizens of a free society have every right to trouble authorities with legitimate concerns, such as random electro-shocks on fellow citizens. Police have the benefit of the doubt, not free rein. Regulations dealing with officers' use of guns should be applied to tasers as well. Police, like all public servants, work for us. When they work against us, we can and should make changes. This video assures us that what happened to that sick old man can happen to anyone.
No comments:
Post a Comment