San Francisco Chronicle
SAN FRANCISCO — A deranged suspect waves a gun. Officers ponder their options: Try to talk him down. Wrestle him to the ground. If the weapon is aimed and all else fails, lethal force is a last resort. San Francisco officers are trained to shoot the suspect twice in the torso with their .40-caliber guns.
When he took office last summer, Police Chief George Gascón ordered a study of officer-involved shootings. Lo and behold, he found that a third of 15 instances over the past five years were avoidable with the use of close-quarters TASERs.
There were other benefits: fewer lawsuits, injuries to officers, and deaths to suspects, who generally recover after the high-voltage darts knock them senseless. “They are not risk free,” Gascón admits, which is why he wants months of training and further planning, not a quick deployment. Frail suspects with heart conditions or drug habits can be fatally harmed, according to several studies.
But instead of accepting these complexities and giving officers a tool to handle danger, the Police Commission has dumped the option. It’s back to guns blazing when a standoff turns dangerous.
The decision’s done another thing: rebuked a popular, professional police chief who is challenging the city to modernize its force. San Francisco’s political culture - fretting over a new police department initiative - is locking in the bad old days.
As a result San Francisco will remain one of a handful of major-city forces that don’t use the stun guns. It’s worth noting that Sheriff Mike Hennessey - a standout liberal in law enforcement - has deployed TASERs for the past seven years and can’t imagine running his jails without them.
TASERs “are a good tool, one you have to take seriously” said Gascón, who introduced them in his last job as chief in Mesa, Ariz. He added: “I’m very disappointed and frustrated.”
In San Francisco’s intense political world, public safety arguments don’t necessarily prevail. Progressives aren’t comfortable with giving police more weaponry, the high impact effects sound like border-line torture - and some leaders of the left were looking for a chance to chip a little gloss off the popular newcomer Gascón.
Add to this the political split of the seven-member commission with four appointed by the mayor and three by the Board of Supervisors - a cat-and-dog combination that delayed the decision before killing it. By several accounts, text messages were flying during the final vote with Supervisor David Campos, a former police commissioner, pressuring the members to reject the chief’s plan.
The result is a defeat for a sensible public safety measure. San Francisco’s police deserve a chance to use a new technology that offers more positives than negatives. When the next suspect is shot down by hard-pressed cops, the what-ifs and criticisms will fly. One new question should be asked: Would a stun gun have ended the threat and saved a life?
Copyright 2010 San Francisco Chronicle