A better approach

San Francisco is taking the final and overdue steps to deploy stun guns to its police force. The Police Commission promises to limit the risks and tap the clear advantages that Taser guns offer in handling violent encounters more safely.

The decision carries another impact. It should eliminate the argument for Proposition H, which is backed by the Police Officers Association, on the June ballot. That flawed and overbroad measure would permit stun guns under conditions that can’t easily be modified if trial-and-error points up problems.

The department, not the union, should set the rules, a situation that led Chief Bill Scott to oppose the ballot measure. Mayor Mark Farrell, who initially favored Prop. H, is signaling he may drop his support now that commission has hammered out rules on Taser use. The union is hailing the commission vote, claiming it only came about because of its ballot measure.

The debate has lasted too long, fueled by ideologues more worried about extreme examples of stun gun dangers than the need for a nonlethal option on a cop’s belt. The commission signaled its direction last year, and then worked out detailed policies approved this week.

Expect to see Tasers by year’s end, but not everywhere. Only officers trained in crisis intervention will get them, and the devices are barred when it comes to encounters with the young, old, frail or pregnant. These instructions and limits are contained in a 24-page directive worked out after months of talks with community groups, which played a role in Taser use.

Police work is essential and comes with the need for public support and modern tools. Endorsing the use of Tasers under controlled conditions meets that responsibility. The issue has been addressed the right way. Vote no on Prop. H.