Despite protests, San Francisco police will get Tasers next year

taser

Liberal logic: Somehow this has something to do with Trump.

And why do demorats always desire to give criminals more power?

From SF Gate: The San Francisco Police Department can begin equipping its officers with Taser electroshock weapons in December 2018, the Police Commission said late Friday in a vote on an issue that has been debated and rejected in the city for 13 years.

Following an almost seven-hour meeting interrupted by a raucous protest that led to a lockdown of City Hall, commissioners narrowly passed a measure that the police officers union and several past police chiefs have long supported in the face of strong opposition from activists and critics of the department.

While members of the department’s top brass remained straight-faced during the hard-fought, 4-3 vote in favor of the plan, activists outside the chamber began chanting, “Shame! Shame!” — a sentiment echoed by Commissioner Petra DeJesus, a longtime opponent of the weapon.

“I think it’s incredibly sad in this age of Trump and Black Lives Matters, when our own officers are involved in shootings of minorities and mentally ill, that this commission is seriously considering voting for Tasers after all these years,” she said. “I was hoping this commission would do the right thing.”

San Francisco has one of the last major police forces in the country without the devices, in part because of the opposition from community members concerned about the weapons’ lethality and the potential for abuse.

But those in favor of Tasers, including police Chief Bill Scott, who took command in January amid controversy over a series of officer-involved shootings, say officers need less-lethal alternatives to firearms and Tasers provide such an option.

On Friday, Commission Vice President Thomas Mazzucco echoed Scott’s sentiments, citing a U.S. Department of Justice report last year that said San Francisco “should strongly consider” giving officers stun guns.

“In conversations with many people from the Department of Justice, they couldn’t believe we didn’t have these,” Mazzucco said. “They believe it will save lives.”

The report was the result of a six-month review of the city police force after officers fatally shot Mario Woods in December 2015. Woods, a stabbing suspect who was still carrying a knife, was shot while shuffling slowly along a Bayview neighborhood street, after efforts to subdue him with beanbags rounds and pepper spray failed.

The killing is still under investigation, but following the shooting, the Police Commission revised the department’s use-of-force policy to put more of an emphasis on the sanctity of life, deploying de-escalation tactics and using force as a last resort.

“De-escalation has been a topic that the San Francisco Police Department has taken very seriously,” Scott said Friday, as he made his case for Tasers. “The reality is there are times when de-escalation does not work and officers have to use force as safely as possible. We have a duty to reduce injuries to residents and officers when these type of incidents occur.”

But Commission President L. Julius Turman, who voted against the measure, said equipping officers with Tasers “will derail the progress we have made.” Commissoner Bill Ong Hing, who also voted no, said he had concerns about the studies that found officers use these weapons disproportionately on communities of color — communities with whom the department has been working to rebuild trust as part of the reform efforts.

“It’s the wrong message to be sending to the community to adopt Tasers right now,” Hing said. “It’ll put us so far back in terms of the achievements that this department has made with respect to credibility.”

While Friday’s vote did not delve into policy for Taser use, Scott has said he wants all sworn officers to be equipped with the weapon. As part of the vote, commissioners said officers could not begin using the weapons until December 2018, after the revised use-of-force policy has been in place for two years.

Commissioner Sonia Melara said she received about 100 letters in support of Tasers from community members, and a handful spoke at the meeting. But dozens more spoke in opposition. Activists speaking out against Tasers shut down the meeting for about an hour and prompted deputies to lock down City Hall.

“Please try (a Taser) on yourself before you make the decision,” activist Maria Cristina Gutierrez said just before she went beyond the two-minute allotment allowed for each speaker during public comment and Turman called the meeting into recess.

The activists remained in the room, chanting and making speeches against the weapons, as the commissioners filed out and reconvened in another room.

Read the rest of the story here.

DCG

Advertisements

21 responses to “Despite protests, San Francisco police will get Tasers next year

  1. Neighborhoods of color seem to be where the highest number of crimes are committed so why wouldn’t you think there would be a proportional number of people having negative contact with law enforcement in these areas. They’re not arresting them because of their color. It’s because in many cases, especially when deadly force is used, these bad actors have been bad actors for quite a while. We should focus on how these people come to be career criminals and get ahead of the problem. In the meantime we still have to deal with the ones for which it is too late.

    Liked by 3 people

  2. Wait, the hippie city of San Fran didn’t like cops having less-lethal options?

    Liked by 2 people

  3. “Commissoner Bill Ong Hing, who also voted no, said he had concerns about the studies that found officers use these weapons disproportionately on communities of color”

    …because Whites usually listen to police directions.

    They have to go back!

    Liked by 2 people

  4. Pingback: Despite protests, San Francisco police will get Tasers next year — Fellowship of the Minds – World Faithful Catholics

  5. Hmmm, a Maoist commissioner? Maybe they can provide crayons and soft toys to the felons. What do you think your odds of surviving as a “virgin” are in the San Francisco jail?

    Liked by 2 people

  6. My Modest Proposal:

    You know what would be more cost effective?
    Just gather the idiots disrupting meetings and either bleach, steam, ECT, or lobotomies to get them to stop being such anarchists. They’re obviously mentally deranged, so there’s no real risk to their intellectual capacities. It’s not like they’d become less-productive or less-compliant members of society.

    Then the criminals will stop being goaded into fighting for their “rights” to continue flaunting the law, attacking law abiding citizens and authorities, and crime would decrease…

    It would be a lot less destructive than, say, nuking SF and dropping the entire city into the ocean, which would result in the loss of, well, I would think quite a few good people as well as some spectacular views of nature…

    Liked by 1 person

  7. Common sense would make you think that those who scream the loudest over black people being shot by the police would be most thankful for a less lethal method of subduing the perpetrators. . . . . but NO! They don’t want any intervention by police when it comes to people from their neighborhoods. I say, good for the SF Police Dept.

    Liked by 2 people

  8. Yeah,nightsticks and tasers-just the thing for fighting an onslaught of illegal guns.
    What I’D do is LOOK AROUND-find the Cities and Towns in America with the lowest crime rates per capita,learn from what THEY do and try to duplicate the best of THEIR methods. That’s how I would handle their crime wave. But of COURSE being Liberals,THEY’D never allow GUNS to be part of the SOLUTION,so good luck to them bringing sticks and tasers to a gunfight…..

    Liked by 1 person

    • What the safest towns and cities do is… Be overwhelmingly White.

      Look it up yourself.

      Like

      • And, to be fair, in larger cities, mix in East Asians with the Whites.

        Like

      • Jurist . . . As sad as that realization maybe . . . I think you are correct. It is profoundly sad, but the change must come from inside the black community, white people cannot go in and demand the kinds of changes that would do away with criminality.

        Liked by 1 person

        • Lulu, as a lifelong colorblind person until a few short years ago, it pains me to have to bring this subject up. I really do wish we could all get along. But science and experience both indicate that the healthy communities are invariably culturally monolithic communities.

          God did His business at Babel for a reason. The world is better off when nations separate by ethnicity.

          PS: in the New Testament, the Greek word for “nation” is “ethnos”. Even “nation” has as its root “natal”, as in birthed into a genetic family.

          Liked by 1 person

      • Of course. But we’re not “allowed” to discuss this obvious fact. We’re supposed to pretend that it has nothing to do with the problem and come up with other ways to fix it or learn to accept it. Either way, we are not “allowed” to point to the cause.

        Whenever a person’s ill-conceived beliefs interfere with reality there are problems. Many are so happy with their belief that there are no difference between races that they will literally disregard any evidence to the contrary.

        I keep saying (and mean it), that I often don’t get to choose how things are. If I don’t like something I should either change it if I can, or accept it if I can’t. I don’t have to LIKE it.

        All anyone has to do to see this is to open their eyes and look. It isn’t just in the US.

        Like

        • Indeed. It’s everywhere. Even culturally different Whites can’t stand each other. See, e.g., Quebec vs Canada / Scotland vs. England / Catalonia vs Spain / Veneto & Lombardy vs Italy / Czech Republic vs Slovakia / the list goes on.

          Like

  9. I went to San Francisco once, in 1981, and I loved the City: It was beautiful and amazingly clean, unlike New York at the time. After having listened to radio talk show host Michael Savage for 11 years, and after having listened to passengers who were there, I understand the inmates have been running the asylum there for quite a while, and they’re really off the rails.
    That being said, should police officers anywhere be allowed to have tasers? San Francisco, of all cities, in its single instance of sanity, said No for a number of years. But, as usual, ideology and psychoanalysis always finds a way to infiltrate anything; These, after all, are the mental viruses the Left brings with them everywhere they go!

    Believe it or not, I am ABSOLUTELY AGAINST tasers. At first, it seems like the non-lethal alternative. But believe it or not, as the years have gone by, the manufacturer has increased the voltage and the intensity of the devices. MAKE NO MISTAKE: TASERS CAN KILL: The electric charge can kill immediately, which is rare, but they can cause instant and permanent nerve damage to the heart and the brain, killing months or years after the sting.
    I used to favor the electric chair for capital punishment. Several states’ Supreme Courts and the U.S. Supreme Court have rejected arguments that electrocution is “cruel and unusual punishment.” I used to agree with those decisions: After all, the killer killed once or more; The State can only electrocute the killer once. But after having thought about it, I would wish to deny the state the right to electrocute condemned persons, for this reason: The hangman’s noose or the firing squad presents more than enough to fear.
    Furthermore, as the police state ramps up and tyranny takes over—as it most definitely shall once the Anti-Christ appears—I want this method of subdueal and punishment denied to the state, denied to the tyrants: It would enable and accelerate killing of the innocent.

    Tasers and electrocution, like poison gas, should be banned absolutely and in all circumstances.

    Like

    • And some folk tasers just tick off… I’m not quite sure of the wisdom of using one on a bull:

      Liked by 1 person

    • MAKE NO MISTAKE: NIGHTSTICKS CAN KILL. GUNS CAN KILL. SWEEPING SOMEONE’S FEET TO BRING HIM TO THE GROUND CAN KILL.

      Should cops then be limited to strong words?

      Liked by 1 person

      • Point duly noted, Jurist, and I do agree with those who say being a police officer just keeps getting harder and harder over the years. Yet Tasers can kill, or even disable. My point is that, as the police state apparatus ramps up, I want certain options denied to it: It’s only a matter of time before the State would use them on a mass scale.
        Think this is an abstract fear? It’s happened before in numerous countries.

        Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s