Tasers are the Wrong Answer

By Joshua Cardenas ‘19

In June, San Francisco voters overwhelmingly voted “NO” on Proposition H, which permitted the San Francisco Police Officers Association (SFPOA) to create regulations surrounding the use of Tasers. In the budget passed this past June, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors denied funding for tasers to the San Francisco Police Department. Now, we should urge the San Francisco Police Commission to reverse their policies concerning the use of Tasers, in order to be  consistent with the will of the voters.

I was encouraged by the police officers’ association’s efforts to explore less-lethal alternatives to reduce officer-related shootings and better methods to engage with individuals with mental illnesses, but, tasers are the wrong solution to both these honorable goals. In fact, tasers may even prove to be more counterproductive and damaging than we can imagine for the public safety and already strenuous relationship between our police officers and communities.

On the surface, it seems plausible to think tasers would be the best alternative to using guns to subdue a suspect. However, after taking a look at the research provided on the effects of tasers and the experiences of police departments who have deployed them, it is clear they are not “a less than lethal weapon,” as some of us would like to think. Tasers are widely used among police departments across the United States, but they have not helped police department achieve their desired outcomes. A 2009 study conducted by the University of California San Francisco (UCSF) found that after the first year tasers were introduced, officer-related shootings increased at roughly 200% in the 50 cities that provided the data on their use of tasers. The same study also found that in-custody sudden deaths witnessed a “6.4-fold increase” in the first year of deployment. Both these numbers lowered in the years that followed, but they have yet to return to pre-taser numbers. In 2011, the U.S. Department of Justice reported that police officers have come to increasingly use tasers in situations where their use was not required or justified. The deployment and subsequent abuse of tasers has led to more injuries and fatalities.  In addition, this abuse has translated to a disproportionate impact of tasers on our communities of color. According to Michael D. White and JessicaSaunders in their chapter in Race, Ethnicity, and Policing, African-Americans are more likely to be subject to the use of tasers by police officers than white Americans. In 2016, Mayor Rahm Emanuel’s Police Accountability Task Force found that “76% of African Americans were shot” out “of the 1,886 Taser discharges between 2012 and 2015.” In our own city, people of color are more likely to be the victims of excessive force by police officers. If a taser policy is successfully approved by the Commission or approved in June, this would setback the reforms currently underway in the police department and create more discontent and distrust of officers in our communities. Research has shown there is inconclusive data that proves tasers decrease the amount of officer-related shootings, and it shows that tasers are not the best approach to treating our mentally ill population.

Police officers are often the first to respond to mental health calls. According to KAWL News’s Ali Winston, most of the “police work in San Francisco” is dealing with people with mental illnesses, one of our most vulnerable populations. The San Francisco Chronicle found that “more than 60 percent of all fatal shootings by San Francisco police since 2010 involved people with mental health problems or who were acting erratically.” This number could increase with the introduction of tasers--as these lethal weapons can substantially increase the risk of sudden death of people with mental illness, according to the American Medical Association. As medical researchers have noted, using a taser when engaging with mentally ill individuals is one of the worst things one can do; instead of providing more security to both parties, it does the exact opposite. The San Francisco Police Department already has a promising solution to these problems: the Crisis Intervention Teams (CIT). The protocols and the department’s general order on CIT have not all been worked out yet, but we can already see promising results in Memphis and in Seattle. The Memphis police department reported that officer-related shootings of people with mental health conditions, and people who exhibit erratic behavior or struggle with drug-addiction have reduced, because of their crisis intervention training. Police officers already have numerous techniques and tools at their disposal: batons, bean bag guns, pepper spray, verbal commands, and takedowns, among other tactics. These should be the first things used in delicate situations, and police officers should call upon the CIT to help them de-escalate the situation at hand.

As a former San Francisco Youth Commissioner, I have always advocated for the police department to take greater responsibility with its CIT units and for more rigorous training in the academy to help newly sworn officers better interact with young people. I have also opposed the equipping of juvenile correctional officers with tasers for some of the aforementioned reasons. This is an issue I deeply care about, and I hope a serious discussion can be held at all levels of government regarding it. All candidates are running on a platform for change for San Francisco, and if they intend to implement some much needed reforms in our police department, this is the moment. Opposing this policy is not “pure politics”, as one mayoral candidate has said. It is literally the difference between life and death. If we want to ensure the public safety of our residents and the safety of our hardworking police officers, tasers are the not the way to do it. Tasers are not less-lethal weapons--they are just as lethal as a bullet.