The brainchild of a NASA researcher, the modern-day electronic control device dates back to 1969 and has a fascinating history behind it, thanks to a man named Jack Cover. In contemporary era, however, Tasers were re-outfitted, engineered for and introduced to police and military personnel, providing law enforcement an option far-less-lethal than a traditional firearm.
The pioneer which retooled the device from gunpowder to conducted electricity has already rebranded, changing its name from Taser International to Axon in April 2017. Here we are in 2018…and the San Francisco Police Department —billed as the 11th largest police department in the US— has yet to settle a Taser policy, let alone purchase the less-lethal duty-belt gadgets for its police officers. Currently, SFPD employs about 2,200 cops.
Why? It seems too many cooks are in the kitchen, even some without any experience with the tabled recipe. The metropolis conglomerate of San Francisco has been distilling a Taser policy for some time, and it incorporates opinions and stipulations from varied factions of government: The Police Commission; the San Francisco Police Officers Association, and a civilian review board. Add in elected officials such as the mayor and the issue is deemed fraught with infighting leading to indecision culminating in delay.
It didn’t stop there. The meaty hand of mainstream media launched its own effort to measure pro/con sentiments regarding Taser (“stun gun”) use in San Fran, polling viewers in June 2017.
Many respondents commented rather sarcastically, such as one by Chris Zimmer who replied, “Why is this even an issue? Of course we should outfit cops with all the technology possible.” It really is a demonstration of behind-the-times fiasco.
Earlier this month, San Francisco police Chief William “Bill” Scott contended that a ballot measure geared toward Taser policy stipulations left to a civilian demographic will effectively negate the police from having a legitimized voice pertaining to use-of-force policy, Taser applications, and reporting metrics.
San Francisco Mayor Mark Farrell told the local media: “On this issue, we may disagree on the method to get there, buy we both agree on the underlying policy, which is the most important thing at the end of the day, without question. We always wanted it to happen through the [Police] Commission. And unfortunately, it’s taken much longer than anyone has wanted.” Not sure if that is intended to allay comfort for their police officers or not, but it smacks of politi-speak. And if the city’s top cop disagrees with the city’s premier leader, something is hinky in the hilly city.
Chief Scott submitted a letter delineating his position on the Taser matter, addressing, “One of the most salient impacts of the measure is that, if enacted, it can only be changed or rescinded by a majority of the voters of the City and County of San Francisco, or by an ordinance adopted by a four-fifths vote of the Board of Supervisors.”
Need to modify the Taser policy once it is finally decided and put in-use? No problem, just poll the majority of the city’s roughly 1.2 million population.
As to being on differing ends of the Taser spectrum, Chief Scott echoed Mayor Farrell’s sentiments, saying, “At the end of the day, we’re in the same place and we want a safe city.”
Martin Halloran, former president of the San Francisco Police Officers Association said,” Unfortunately, the Chief allowed himself to be played like a cheap fiddle by some on the Police Commission who have their own agenda. He should get rid of whoever is advising him — otherwise, he is going to drive an irreparable wedge between himself and the membership.”
The Police Commission, a seemingly civilian body of seven appointees, has been dissecting the Taser policy issue throughout. “The mission of the Police Commission is to set policy for the Police Department and to conduct disciplinary hearings on charges of police misconduct filed by the Chief of Police or Director of the Office of Citizen Complaints, impose discipline in such cases as warranted, and hear police officers’ appeals from discipline imposed by the Chief of Police.
“Commissioners are appointed by the Mayor and the Board of Supervisors and they oversee the Police Department and the Office Of Citizen Complaints.” Nothing in the Police Commission informational page attests that any member is or was a member of law enforcement in any capacity. Of the seven-member Police Commission, five are attorneys, one is a social worker, and one is a community activist; none are law enforcement practitioners.
And being a member of the Police Commission makes each of the seven a “police commissioner,” a title and status traditionally reserved for those who actually completed a police academy and thereafter climbed the law enforcement ladder for decades before attaining that honorable plateau.
On the issue of Tasers, the Police Commission is divided. Per the San Francisco Examiner, “The proposed ballot measure would prevent the Police Commission from passing or having a Taser policy that is inconsistent with the policy in the measure without approval from the Board of Supervisors or voters.”
“If we had voted against Tasers in November [2017] , it would have overruled our vote,” said Bill Ong Hing, one of three commissioners to vote against Tasers. Incidentally, police Commissioner Hing is a law professor and immigration attorney who replaced a criminal defense attorney.
“Hing’s appointment appeared politically connected and that regardless of his respected reputation and years of experience, he seemed unenthusiastic about the position and the criminal justice issues handled by the commission,” wrote Vivian Ho in her report for the SF Gate. “This is yet another example of City Hall cronyism and politicalization of the city’s criminal justice system,” expounded Ho on Hing’s critics.
From what I’ve learned, I’m not so sure the police commissioners authentically stand behind cops as much as they do other demographics. In January 2018, KQED ran a story claiming San Fran police commissioners are upset with Homeland Security’s ICE agents —bona fide law enforcement officers— enforcing federal codes in their city. It seemed sanctuary city status was rubbed wrong by legitimate enforcers of federal codes.
Albeit to varying degrees, jurisdiction is a commonality in law enforcement circles. It defines the extent of a cop’s enforcement ability based on his/her level of jurisdictional authority conferred by either city, county, state or federal capacity. Thus federal agents of the United States government have nationwide scope of enforcement authority, to include San Francisco. San Fran’s elected and appointed leaders know this quite well, effectively rendering their argument, contention and accusation moot.
Accusing federal police of “impersonating police” is not exactly wise, and it echoes both arrogance and ignorance while illegal immigration woes fester in their city and county. It is a relative norm now that sanctuary city governance seeks to deprive federal agents from enforcing codes of the US Constitution having to do with violations of the Immigration and Nationality Act.
Given that particular stance, it becomes dubious as to agendas and anti-police sentiments unleashed to make decisions regarding police policy and operations. Something clearly stinks and it smells a lot like bias born of political ideology undermining procedural mechanisms.
Case in point: a few days ago, PoliceOne published sentiments underscoring foot-dragging by the police commission. “The Police Commission has had plenty of time to set policy and they failed to do so, so now it’s going straight to the voters.” That statement came from the mouth of Nathan Ballard, a former POA spokesman who happens to be a current adviser to mayor Farrell.
According to Michael Barba writing for the San Francisco Examiner, “The Police Commission is scheduled to discuss and possibly vote on a draft Taser policy next Wednesday [March 14], after voting last November in favor of equipping officers with the controversial devices by the end of 2018.”
On January 23, 2018, the Police Commission produced a draft policy titled “Use of Electronic Control Devices” and, presumably, that draft is what they are set upon having as their police force Taser guideline.
The “controversial devices” alluded to here stems from several cases nationwide whereby suspects subjected to Taser incapacitation died shortly thereafter. One common denominator of many of those deaths implicates cocaine use correlated to cardiac arrest. For years, scientific proof that Tasers caused any of these deaths has been elusive. That may be why some elected officials seem to be experiencing ambivalence or outright cold feet regarding marrying their cops and Tasers.
Lest we not mention the pros, the Police Executive Research Forum (PERF) conducted a study in 2009, finding that a significant 76-percent reduction in injuries to officers correlated to when cops use Tasers to subdue otherwise combative, resistant or fleeing suspects. In short, close-quarter violence is quelled by using Tasers as a less-lethal (officer and citizen safety) option.
Incidentally, throughout all this lollygagging in San Fran and material reporting on the much-delayed Taser policy, not once is funding mentioned. Ordinarily, cost is the torpedo in the water which compels politicos to shun support and nix plans altogether. But not here; it seems purely political posturing, not fiscal depletion.
Although I do not mean to condemn, I find it astounding that a major metropolitan police agency such as SFPD can be hemming and seaming the nuances among too many factions focusing on street cops poised to receive Tasers among their arsenal of self-preservation and citizens’ protection. Only now!
More often than not, it is smaller cities, towns, and villages whose governance is wishy-washy on matters of growth and progressive maneuvers, not major hubs of bustle which can most certainly use modern technology instruments. I believe I trained for, qualified with, and was issued my first Taser in 2001 — 17 years ago. And here we have debate and diatribe about its most-effective use guided by policy…being decided by toe-stepping minds, some of whom have no pertinent experience justifying such participation.
On the Taser-freeze issue, the SF Police Officers Association site released the following statement: “When Bill Scott was appointed San Francisco’s Chief of Police it appeared that nobody warned him about the political snake pit he was entering into in this city. The POA meets with the Chief monthly and we have tried to develop a rapport with him but at times it’s been one step forward and two steps back.
“Fortunately, there is a reasonable voice in the room. Mayor Mark Farrell came out with a strongly worded statement in favor of Tasers. He called out the obstructionists on the Police Commission for who they are: short-sighted appointees who prefer to play politics than to do their job and keep officers and the public safe.”
In a nutshell, San Fran cops potentially receiving Tasers at the end of 2018 is being waffled-over by the split-decision all-civilian-body Police Commission on one side with a mayor favoring the device on the other end, with the police chief in the middle…ostensibly entangled in political strings. It’s all about who makes the rules.
Reinventing the Wheel
Logistically, of the approximately 18,500 law enforcement agencies across the American landscape, thousands of cop shops have had Tasers in use for many years. Like state legislators do with creating laws, looking to other states’ similar laws always serves as a framework to shape one’s own legislation. Thanks to human evolution, there is hardly ever a need to reinvent the wheel, to lay hot metal on an anvil and forge something completely different than what has empirically worked for the majority.
It is most-common among police departments to compare/contrast what other law enforcement entities are doing with their equipment, training methods, policy derivations and, ultimately, personnel. When I was on light-duty, the calls and emails from police agencies varying in size and seeking this-or-that policy was routine: I responded and/or mailed what we had in the playbooks.
Naturally, an agency may tweak a borrowed policy to suit any minuscule nuances it has in its jurisdiction, but San Fran’s Taser policy needn’t be so distinctly different that it consumes time needlessly wasted so that is in a state of languish. After all, we are talking about a plastic hand-held instrument which emits electric charges so bad boys are subdued from harming police and others.
Furthermore, since Tasers are not a new technology and have therefore been around the block enough, the courts have set case precedents which also serve as guiding lights for San Fran folks to finally put pen to paper and get this protracted police equipment on duty belts. While San Fran governmental factions keep punting, the city’s cadre of 2,200 cops are left partially equipped to perform duties with utmost officer safety. It isn’t too much to ask.
According to the Mayor Farrell, the city’s ballot measure “would require the [police] Department to implement the CED program by December 31, 2018,” he wrote to the city’s director of elections handling the ballot materials.
Or is this merely more of the wacky, zany brand of California governance I/we often hear about?
