Why Are Guns Always the Default Option For Police?
In the aftermath of yet another fatal shooting of an unarmed Black man by police, persistent questions on training and use of force
Publisher’s Riff
Special insights heard daily at #RealityCheck on WURD every Mon - Thur, 10am - 1pm ET LIVE at wurdradio.com or facebook.com/forwurd (10.26.20 edition). Wear your B|E.
Without showing the video - because it’s too disturbing and news reports will suffice - two Philadelphia police officers responding to a disturbance of a man armed with a knife in a West Philly neighborhood shoot that man - Walter Wallace, Jr. - multiple times until he drops. He’s later announced dead as one of the officers races him to the hospital. Once again, the Philadelphia Police Department falls under an uncomfortable national spotlight: from arresting innocent Black men at Starbucks to tear-gas herding protesters on a major Center City expressway to now this. For some reason, the PPD seems to have learned very little from these incidents, if anything at all. The fairly new Commissioner Danielle Outlaw (Philadelphia’s first Black woman commissioner), not a year into her job, is not the most publicly talkative or media skilled. This situation is in serious need of that right now.
A few initial, legitimate questions arise - and not just for law enforcement in Philadelphia …
Are law enforcement officers, in general, reading the national room? With so many high profile, recorded and volatile incidents that end up in massive social outrage and unrest, we’d think that police departments would aggressively direct officers to respond in ways that are prudent, cautious and inclined to de-escalation. For example: has Commissioner Outlaw in Philly had that conversation with commanders and rank and file officers, letting them know to use abundant caution in these scenarios given the tense national climate? Yet, with tragedies revealed at a frequent (seemingly daily) pace, it’s as if officers are either living in a bubble or consider themselves under siege. That said, one can’t really know the magnitude of very difficult decisions officers must make unless they are in the shoes of those officers. It’s a stressful job.
Why do police keep turning to their guns as the default option in situations that don’t need them? The parents of Wallace and the neighbors who watched him get killed are asking an important question: why didn’t they just use their tasers? I’ve posed this question on Twitter a short while ago and others are wondering, as well …
legitimate question seeking expert response: why aren’t tasers the first (non-lethal) option police reach for when they clearly possess the superior firepower in most situations? (&: do they just forget about the taser? If their default is always the gun then why have a taser?)So, what is the deal with that? It’s not exactly clear that tasers are either effective or safe in a situation like that. There is uncertainty around the safe, non-lethal use of a taser as the New York Times reported this summer …
At least 500 people in the United States have died since 2001 after being shocked with stun guns during an arrest or while in jail, according to a 2012 statement by Amnesty International, which supports stricter limits on the use of Tasers.
The largest number of deaths were in California (92), Florida (65) and Texas (37).
In a 2008 review of hundreds of deaths after stun gun use, Amnesty International found that 90 percent of those who died were unarmed. Most of the deaths were attributed to causes unrelated to stun gun use, but medical examiners listed the devices as a contributing factor in more than 60 deaths, Amnesty International said.
Police agencies in major cities have rated Tasers less than effective, according to “When Tasers Fail,” an investigation by American Public Media last year.
The site looked at 3,000 fatal police shootings between 2015 and 2017 that involved the use of a Taser and found that in 258 of the cases, a Taser “had failed to subdue someone before the police shot and killed them.”
Still, since the taser is widely viewed as non-lethal, the officers hypothetical use of it could have, potentially, given them something of a plausible explanation even if, say, use of a taser ended up with either Wallace being severely injured or killed by electrical voltage: “hey, he came at us with a knife [which, unfortunately, he did - the video shows it] and we immediately went for the non-lethal tools. We had no idea that he’d get cardiac arrest from it.” Not at all offering justification for police violence, just exploring the what ifs here.
I checked in with an anonymous source who is a (Black) Philadelphia police officer and this was their take on the use of tasers and yesterday’s situation in West Philly:
As far as a taser I never used one. I have seen it used on people before.
All I can say is each situation is different and tasers don’t always stop the threat. Based off what is seen, I probably would have did the same thing. Someone 10-15 feet away with a knife can easily close the distance in a second or less.
Why not, before we even get to the taser, exhaust the other non-lethal options? Officers have other tools such as their batons (which hurt) and pepper spray (which stings like a mofo). These could have been used, too, right? It’s hard to say in an intense situation like that. But, are police departments training officers correctly to go down the list of non-lethal options versus just going immediately for their guns?
Ok, so if the taser is also dangerous or other non-lethal munitions like pepper spray are not as effective, how come police are still not being trained in other methods? If the consensus is that policing is such a dangerous job that it requires being armed with lethal weapons at all times of the patrolling day then why aren’t police being trained to deploy other effective means of incapacitation? Perhaps police academies and training institutions should not only explore increased training for de-escalation (and, thus, expanding the number of weeks and months for training), but also look into advanced training for martial arts, similar to what’s offered in the military. One effective program that comes to mind is the Marine Corps Martial Arts Program developed in 1956. Perhaps basic self-defense training is not enough in a much more complex and asymmetrical world. And maybe advanced martial arts also teachers officers to better manage and channel the stress.
How do we act around police when an engagement or confrontation happens? This is an uncomfortable question, but it’s also necessary and legitimate. How do people who end up being either engaged suspects or participants in a domestic dispute or disturbance or a traffic stop engage with police? Some might argue this question wreaks of “respectability politics.” In the case of Wallace in Philadelphia, there is evidence emerging that he was struggling with mental illness, hence the reason behind why he seemed so agitated and belligerent, even as the police initially appeared to, in the beginning stages, attempt to talk him down. Still, that question also comes up because while, on one hand, we shouldn’t be subjected to mistreatment or civil rights abuses from police, on the other hand we have to conclude that they are lethally armed … and we’re not. So, do we want to stay alive or not? It’s a very tough question and a complex one because it may unfairly put the onus on the victims of these tragedies.
There are more questions, of course. But, ultimately, the conversation ends up here: American policing is still in urgent need of a fundamental overhaul and total restructuring. Its origins are still rooted in property protection and slave catching, the core elements of a white supremacist racist society. Until that aspect is addressed and dismantled, we’re going to continue seeing these tragedies unfold regularly.
powered by …