S.F., cops debate policy on Taser use
Union pushes ballot measure with less restrictive guidelines
The long debate over whether San Francisco police officers should carry Tasers has ended, only to be replaced by a similarly contentious dispute over how the city should regulate use of the electroshock weapons.
A pivotal step in the rollout of the devices comes Wednesday when the Police Commission is scheduled to discuss — and possibly adopt — a Taser policy drafted by the Police Department after it convened several community working groups.
Crucially, the commission is also scheduled to vote whether to formally oppose a measure on the city’s June ballot, put forth by the pro-Taser police officers’ union, that would establish its own less restrictive guidelines for when the stun guns may be deployed.
Proposition H, criticized by opponents as a bid to usurp the commission’s oversight power, would also require San Francisco to “take all necessary means” to put the weapons in cops’ hands by the end of the year.
The battle has been brewing since November, when the commission voted 4-3 to equip officers with Tasers. The Police Officer’s Association submitted Prop. H in part over frustration that the commission was
slow to create guidelines.
The dueling efforts pit Police Chief Bill Scott, who has been overseeing a slate of reforms since taking command in January 2017, against the department rank and file and Mayor Mark Farrell, a longtime union ally.
Scott recently sent a letter to the city’s Department of Elections blasting the ballot measure, calling it “the antithesis of the spirit” of reforms recommended by the Department of Justice in 2016 following several controversial police killings that prompted the resignation of Police Chief Greg Suhr that year.
One of Scott’s main concerns is that if the language of Prop. H is adopted, it can be amended only at the ballot box or by an ordinance adopted by a fourfifths vote of the Board of Supervisors.
Farrell, a caretaker mayor who is serving from January to June following the death of former Mayor Ed Lee, wrote a statement supporting the ballot measure “until such time as the Police Commission adopts a ... policy that works for our officers and community.”
Farrell said Tuesday he was glad to see the Police Commission hold a hearing on the rules, calling it “long overdue.”
“If the commission adopts a policy that works for both our officers and the community, I will support it,” he said.
Scott and other supporters of the Police Commission’s work hope to enact a Taser policy before the election, which might sway voters to turn down Prop. H.
Commissioner Bob Hirsch, who voted in favor of Tasers for cops, said the measure’s passage would undermine more than a year of broad efforts to better regulate how San Francisco officers use force in the field and prioritize de-escalation of potentially dangerous encounters.
“I think this ballot initiative is a huge mistake and I oppose it,” Hirsch said, noting that the union had taken part in working groups to determine stungun policy and had offered helpful suggestions. “It’s just not the way that policy for the department should be set. For the life of me I don’t know why the POA did it.”
The draft policy the commission will review Wednesday may be changed before it goes to a vote. As it is, the 24-page policy differs from Prop. H in significant ways, going into great detail about when officers can use Tasers and when they cannot, and outlining factors that must be taken into account.
Under the draft rules, officers can use Tasers only under the department’s use-of-force policy that emphasizes deescalation. When it comes to suspects who are resisting arrest, the draft rules state officers are authorized to use Tasers only if a subject is “violently resisting” — compared with “actively resisting,” which Prop. H would establish as a standard.
John Crew, a retired attorney and police practices specialist with the American Civil Liberties Union, said that “actively resisting” is not a strong enough standard. He said an action as minimal as “tensing up or holding on tightly to a light pole” could be interpreted as active resistance.
“I think the chief ’s proposal has a number of weaknesses in it, but having said that, if the commission adopts the proposal, it is still in concrete ways stronger than the ballot measure,” Crew said.
Tasers shoot a pair of dartlike electrodes that are supposed to strike a person, with a current between the electrodes then incapacitating the person. The device can also be pressed against a person in “drive-stun mode,” which can gain compliance through pain.
Proposals to acquire the weapons have been repeatedly defeated over the past decade, making the San Francisco Police Department the last major city force in the country without them. In the Bay Area, almost every police department uses Tasers, with Berkeley another notable exception.
Stun guns have long been controversial due to the deaths of people who were shocked. But more recently, in San Francisco and other cities, critics have also questioned whether they are effective enough. In some cases, officers have shot people after failing to subdue them with a Taser.
But supporters argue that officers need an alternative to firearms in some perilous encounters. Former Chief Suhr suggested the devices could have averted the fatal, videorecorded shooting of Mario Woods in the Bayview neighborhood in December 2015.
Woods, a suspect in a stabbing who was allegedly still carrying a knife, was shot by several officers as he ignored commands and shuffled slowly along a sidewalk. The officers, whose actions are under investigation, had failed to subdue him with beanbag blasts and pepper spray.