A sword-wielding man was shot by police here in Saint Paul yesterday. I suspect - okay, I hope - few will argue that officers were justified in their use of force in this instance. However, I have a sneaking suspicion that this incident is going to end with lawsuits - lawsuits which could have avoided had the officers had Tasers on them.
Firearms are the very top of the “use of force” scale for law enforcement, approved for use only where no other, less-dangerous option available to officers will protect them in a life-threatening situation. Unfortunately, I’m not sure either of the officers involved got that memo…
Firearms are “lethal force”. If you have a concealed-handgun permit, you learn - as do police officers, early in their training - that there is no legal justification for “shooting to injure”. If you’re trying to merely incapacitate someone with a firearm, you shouldn’t be shooting, at all. If you’re in a life-threatening situation where lethal force is justified, then shoot to stop - to kill - not to wound. It sounds horrible, but in today’s lawsuit-happy age, that’s the way it works.
Had either officer had a Taser, odds seem very good they would have made use of them, rather than shooting the subject in the arms and legs. The fact that they shot to wound seems a tacit admission that they didn’t feel threatened enough to kill, yet still wanted to - had to, really - act.
It might be worth thinking about that, if you’re one of those whose undies are in a bunch over the SPPD’s impending acquisition of Tasers - which fall in the use-of-force spectrum between batons and firearms. Every individual who is Tasered by law enforcement is, potentially, an individual not shot with a pistol, shotgun, or assault rifle. Yeah, yeah, people have died after being hit with a Taser. Statistically, a lot more pass on after being hit by bullets. Tasers don’t take lives, they save lives. It’s pretty much that simple.