I understand the anger about the use of the taser on a naked, helpless deaf man (Donnell Williams) who just got out of the bathtub and did not hear the police's commands. At the same time, I can understand why it happened. The police were trying to handle a dangerous situation according to police protocol for handling a report of a shooting.
I examined all the news articles about the incident, trying to piece together what happened and have comments about certain key events.
1. The police were responding to a very potentially dangerous situation, that of a shooting. (The report later turned out to be false)
2. When he got out of the bathtub wearing only a towel and went around the corner, he saw guns pointing at him.
3. The police say they commanded him to show his hands (and bear in mind he was naked wearing only a towel - we don't know if he was using his hands to hold the towel)
4. It is not clear if the command to show his hands came when he was face to face with the guns, or if it came after he allegedly walked away and then returned. ("He walked out of their field of view and then came back," Lee said. Quote taken from today's article in the Wichita Eagle. )
5. Why did he walk away when facing police? Walking away may have been a bad thing to do, because when you walk away and turn your back, you are not going to be able to hear anything said behind you. Was walking away the rational response to being face to face with police? Should he have stayed where he was and tried to communicate to the police that he was deaf?
Or was it different - did he react the way people react when surprised? Bob pointed out that when people are surprised, they sometimes walk backwards, hide a bit, then peer around to see what is going on and come back. Is that what happened here?
Bob also wonders if he was going to get something to write on.
6. When the police thought he was refusing to obey the command to show his hands, they shot him. Did they shoot him from behind? Was he facing them (bear in mind that they say he returned) ? None of the news articles seem to have this information.
7. Williams says that he kept telling them he could not hear. It is not clear from news reports if his back was turned or if he was face to face with the police when he was telling them that. It makes a big difference which way he was facing. It might have been a factor in their deciding to taser him.
That's the problem with news reports...they often create more questions than they answer.
In the Eyewitness News 12 story, the police deputy chief said:
"Do I wish there would have been some way they were notified in advance this gentleman was hearing impaired? I certainly do. No one is happy with the way it worked out," says Lee.
And that brings me to the damned if you do, damned if you don't of this blog post. What can the police do to prevent this kind of thing from happening again? What if the police had a rule that said "no tasering until you are sure that the person can not hear?" That could lead real criminals or shooters to pretend to be deaf and take advantage of the time delay to cause more harm to people, police or otherwise.
I don't want to be tasered by accident, but if the police had reason to believe I was a mall shooter, who would blame them for tasering me before I could explain that I could not hear? How do you protect individual rights of a deaf person in the face of the greater need - to prevent death and mayhem? Should deaf people be required to register with the police in their communities? That would smack of big brother, but I don't know of any other way to make sure police know in advance that someone they are about to confront in their home is deaf! I'm sure no deaf person wants to put up a sign in front of their home that says "A deaf person lives here. Police, please be careful."
The police and the Wichita Association of the Deaf met today to come up with to prevent this situation from repeating itself. If they come up with something workable, hopefully it can be replicated in communities nationwide.
Thursday, December 06, 2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comments:
Here's a fairly straightforward compromise... get the state legislature to pass a law granting automatic statutory damages of $25,000 to any deaf individual who gets tasered and whose only "crime" was being deaf, in the wrong place at the wrong time. It's a big enough financial hit for police supervisors to pressure officers to use good judgment, and enough money to at least let the unfortunate deaf victim walk away from the incident with a new car to make up for it.
The police unions would never agree to it, but a provision that 10% of the amount come from the officer himself would add an extra dose of caution.
If someone argues that it gives special privileges to the deaf, suggest that the proposed law be broadened to apply to ANYONE who's not guilty of any wrongdoing and nevertheless gets tasered due to misunderstanding or impatience. IMHO, police in some places (California, in particular) have become WAY too trigger-happy with tasers.
Post a Comment