Orville Taylor | Tase them: don’t erase them

When you start with the assumption that all human life is precious and sacred, then it is almost impossible for one to make major errors when it comes to the taking of another person’s life, whatever reason or pretext one may have.

I want to publicly thank Commissioner Hugh Faulkner, of The Independent Commission of Investigations (INDECOM), for his commentary last week regarding the need for use of less deadly methods of apprehending or dealing with persons with mental illness.

Let’s be realistic, first of all. The legal right to use deadly force really has nothing to do with the mental state of the assailant. What really matters is whether or not such an individual is embarking on or about to pursue a course of action, that is likely to lead to serious harm or death of another individual. This includes the person herself who needs to be protected or any other innocent target.

Whether or not the insane or enraged individual is fully cognisant that his action is likely to bring about your demise is irrelevant. One simply has to use appropriate or proportional force to dispel the threat. Thus, as cold as this may sound, if a seven-year-old is pointing a loaded gun in the direction of another person, and there is no other way to stop him, except by discharging one’s firearm; then, may The Lord forgive the shooter, who has to grapple with his conscience for having killed a child. However, the action would have been justified, because other lives have been saved.

One has to agree with Faulkner, because it is long overdue for us to start focusing more on giving our law enforcement officers less lethal means of dealing with threats.

Now, let me make it clear, despite the loose lips to the contrary, if you have the justification to use deadly force, then you use it.

Nonetheless, in many jurisdictions, you have wide-scale distribution of tasers. True, some of our officers have pepper spray and the ubiquitous baton. But, they do not immobilise rabid attackers, hell-bent on disarming the officer.

SHOCKING FACT

Doubtless, a shocking fact is that tasers deliver a 50,000 volts jolt, which stops the average person in his tracks and has him stuttering and stammering when walking. Certainly, there is research that demonstrates that this weapon can cause permanent neurological injuries and has been known to lead to cardiac arrest and residual heart disease in otherwise healthy individuals.

However, bullets will lead to copper or lead poisoning if the victim does survive. Remember! The operative word is justifiable. Therefore, the circumstances under which the police have the authority or the right to use a firearm would be exactly the same.

A taser is not a complete substitute. In dispelling an attack, the officer will have time to determine if it has stopped the suspect. Usage of the more potent firearm must always be an option.

Officers, whose arsenal of tools include discretion, must make that evaluation, because there are some people who are very resistant to the taser.

In a country where 12 of the 119 persons killed by the police since January were believed to be mentally ill, a 1:10 ratio is scary. However, a holistic analysis of the data should include the percentage of killers who are mentally ill in a country where police homicides have been trending down.

NO AUTHORITY

Truth is, unless the cop on the ground is a trained clinical psychologist, he has no authority to determine that one is has a psychological disorder. This is not a drunkenness sobriety test. His job is to evaluate whether or not the attacker is a source of imminent danger.

Therefore, a cop, even if he is told that the person is off his medication, should simply try to stop him.

Unfortunately, exasperated officials often speak, misspeak or get misunderstood. Incredible as it might sound, Faulkner and Security Minister Horace Chang are saying much of the same when the latter told his police officers “shoot to kill!”

If a criminal is unwise enough to engage the security forces or raise a firearm, no one is saying “Tase him!” in such circumstances, “Blaze him; don’t faze him!”

But, if someone backs out a stick, butter knife, or even comes with fists alone, tasing is always an option. Nonetheless, a man without a weapon is not necessarily unarmed; because there are many, including someone who shares my birthday today, whose entire body is a weapon. “Osu!” Jun Shihan.

Anyone who attempts to disarm a legal firearm holder has given full cause to be shot.

Police and firearm holders are trained to make kill shots. The range targets don’t even have legs, like the dummies who take on the cops.

The Use of Force Policy protects police and citizens alike and helps the cops to build goodwill with citizens. Inasmuch as we are afraid of our ‘mad’ relatives and friends, we do not want them dead, even if it means saving other lives.

Thus, even more important than body cameras, the commissioner should give tasers to officers, to whom they issue firearms as well.

With pastors and others who know better but are still advocating bloodletting, a constabulary that shows value for all life is always a “force for good”.

Dr Orville Taylor is senior lecturer at the Department of Sociology at The University of the West Indies, a radio talk-show host, and author of ‘Broken Promises, Hearts and Pockets’. Send feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com and tayloronblackline@hotmail.com.