Against: Weapons aren’t as effective as we believe

The San Francisco Police Department seeks the Police Commission’s authorization to arm officers with Tasers, with a vote expected Friday. We say not now — not before we can measure the effectiveness of de- escalation, bias and crisis intervention reforms, and not when the safety and reliability of this weapon are in doubt.

After two years of research by our Criminal Justice Task Force, the Bar Association of San Francisco’s Board of Directors voted unanimously to recommend against use of Tasers at this time. As the largest legal organization in the Bay Area, we believe it is our responsibility to advise San Francisco’s residents and government about the potential loss of life, the lack of effectiveness of this weapon, and a rise in lawsuits against the cities that use them.

At first glance, Tasers appear to be an attractive alternative, but this widespread myth is far from the reality.

Tasers will not and cannot replace guns.

Law enforcement officials, including those at the SFPD, and even Taser’s manufacturer, Axon, acknowledge that a Taser is not a substitute for a gun. When confronted with a deadly threat, officers use their firearm. That is not to say that Tasers don’t kill people — they do. A recent investigation by Reuters documented a minimum of 1,005 Taser- related deaths.

Many of the victims of Taser deployments come disproportionately from vulnerable populations

— the homeless and mentally ill — and 90 percent were unarmed. Other studies demonstrate that nearly two- thirds of the targets were black men.

Extensive manufacturer warnings most likely will shift legal liability.

It is significant that there are eight pages listing 22 manufacturer warnings issued in May. These warnings don’t prohibit the weapon’s use on those likely to suffer serious injury or death. Instead, failure to abide by these newly issued warnings means that whenever injury or death occurs, San Francisco, not the manufacturer, could be on the hook.

Tasers are also unlikely to reduce police shootings.

A 2009 UCSF study conducted across 50 cities found that in the year after the introduction of Tasers, police shootings by gun and firearm doubled, and deaths overall increased by more than 400 percent. The likely reason is that once a Taser is deployed, the situation escalates and lethal force becomes more likely. So, although Taser advocates often claim otherwise, Tasers probably would not have saved Mario Woods, Alex Nieto, Jessica Williams or other highprofile victims of police shootings in San Francisco.

Tasers are too unreliable to protect our officers

— especially smaller and female officers. In Oakland, Tasers have been found to be effective only 50 percent of the time they are deployed; the Los Angeles Police Department’s efficacy rate is 53 percent. Worse yet, the new Taser model delivers just half the voltage of the older models and has not been independently tested or studied. A recent lawsuit against the manufacturer by a Houston police officer alleges that she was severely injured because her new- model Taser failed to have any effect.

The SFPD is in the midst of implementing more than 270 reforms recommended by the Department of Justice intended to combat racial bias, reduce the use of force, and introduce long- needed accountability and transparency measures. Introducing a new and dangerous weapon before completing this work would severely undermine that progress. This is not the time for Tasers in San Francisco.

Introducing the new, weaker model may better protect the manufacturer against lawsuits but will probably put both the officer and the public at increased risk when the weapon fails to work.