July 19, 2005
Chiefs see the urgency for policy on Taser use
Last week, police chiefs in Palm Beach County endorsed a proposed law requiring specific policies for Taser use. The latest Taser-related death underscores the urgency.
Early Sunday, Michael Leon Crutchfield became Florida's nation-leading 24th such fatality since 1999. The 40-year-old Riviera Beach man died outside an assisted living facility in downtown West Palm Beach after a police officer shot him with the 50,000-volt electric stun gun. Police said he had forced his way into the facility, yelled that someone was trying to kill him, attacked residents and tossed furniture before being chased outside. There, he struggled with police, was Tasered, struggled to get up, was shot at least once more and fell to the ground. He died after paramedics arrived.
It was the first Taser-related death in West Palm Beach. Tasers undoubtedly can help officers defuse potentially lethal situations. Crutchfield had a record of arrests and charges, including theft, loitering, resisting arrest and possession of narcotics. But he was unarmed, outside the facility and surrounded by officers. Aside from the very important consideration of potential injury to the officers, the result from the supposedly non-lethal stun gun's use hardly was an improvement over bullets.
Critics again have reason to claim that law-enforcement officers are taking the easiest but not always best route for subduing rowdy suspects, and that their new tool means that some officers who are deficient in physical-force techniques may not bother to develop them. The need for tighter policies and better training was shown in The Post's recent reporting on the stun-guns' use by police departments from Boca Raton to Fort Pierce since 2001. Among other things, the review showed that 25 percent of suspects Tasered were not armed or posing any immediate threat to anyone, including themselves.
The police chiefs are developing a unified policy for Palm Beach County's 37 police agencies, motivated in part by potential liability over the myriad and often conflicting standards for the stun guns' use. Like that policy, the proposed legislation will be deficient if it doesn't also recognize that the health ramifications demand much more study. But the police agencies correctly are moving ahead rather than wait for the Legislature to define the issue for them. They recognize that Tasers don't always produce the results they do on TV.
Posted by Opinion staff at July 19, 2005 6:28 PMJust two sentences into this piece the Post's editorial writers come to the conclusion that Mr. Crutchfield's death was "Taser-related." Wouldn't it make sense to wait and see what the autopsy says before making up their minds? Especially since there was a similar incident last December in which another violent offender died after being Tasered twice by Delray Beach police.
In that case the autopsy revealed the man had ingested a lethal level of drugs and his death was listed as "accidental cocaine toxicity." Given Mr. Crutchfield's narcotics record, it certainly seems possible -- even likely -- that the same thing occurred this time.
As to the issue that the editorial purports to discuss -- the need for a single county-wide policy and state legislation on Taser use -- those may be fine ideas or they may not. We really can't tell based on the flimsy logic the Post presents us here. The Post's editorialists might have a little more credibility on this issue (or any other issue, for that matter) if they could remember to wait for the facts before coming up with their opinion.
At any rate, if it turns out Mr. Crutchfield's death was indeed drug-related, rather than "Taser-related," what good would a county-wide policy on Tasers have done him?
Can someone please explain to me why someone would say that it's ok to taser an unarmed suspect after he is down. Mr Crutchfield had a history of misconduct but never any violent and you cannot make me or any other rational person believe that four police officers could not subdue him.
Posted by: Larry Lane at July 20, 2005 10:46 AMLarry,
I'm not a policeman, so I don't pretend to have any first-hand expertise on the subject, but I'll have a go at answering your question.
First of all, your basic premise is inaccurate. He wasn't "down" -- he was up and fighting, still resisting arrest. If he had been passive and under control, using the Taser might be wrong, but from what I've read, that wasn't the situation at all.
Second, you say he didn't have a history of violence. But again, that's just not so -- he had a very immediate history of violence: just moments before he had been inside the nursing home attacking innocent people. This violence is why the cops were called the first place!
Third, even as a layperson, I know that people who have overdosed on certain narcotics can be incoherent, uncontrollable, immensely powerful and virtually impervious to pain. We're sitting here safe and secure in air-conditioned comfort at our keyboards. But if you were out there that night facing a raging, incoherent suspect who had just attacked several people and was still up and fighting, what exactly would have done differently?
I'd be interested to know what you alternatives you would suggest. Pepper spray? I understand it's often not effective against people on drugs. Again, I'm just a civilian, but it seems to me that the cops in this case had only two choices, neither of which was perfect:
1) They could pile onto the guy, get into a no-holds-barred wrestling match with someone who's high on God-knows-what who could easily break bones or cause them other serious injury, not to mention the injuries he himself inevitably would suffer. Or...
2) They could use the Taser, which is designed to cause no lasting injuries. (And which, for all we know, worked as designed. Remember, we're still waiting on the autopsy so we still don't know the cause of death.)
If you were faced with the choice of rolling around on the ground wrestling a powerful man who feels no pain, or using a tool that's designed to defuse such situations without injuries, which would you choose? I know what my answer would be. What's yours?
As usual, the cops are "damned if they do and damned if they don't." They used the Taser and you complain they should have subdued him without it. But if they HAD tried to subdue him without it, he'd certainly be bruised and bloodied, and you'd be bitching about "police brutality." And if they didn't subdue him at all, the people in the nursing home would be complaining (rightly) that the cops did nothing about a dangerous man.
And no matter what they did, he'd probably still be dead, because, as I've said for about the fourth time now, it still most likely that his death was caused by the drugs, not the Taser.
If the autopsy shows differently, fine, that's another discussion. But until it does, my question to you remains: what, exactly, would you have done differently?
Gary Bokelmann
Posted by: Gary Bokelmann at July 20, 2005 1:44 PMLarry?
Hello, Larry? Are you there?
I'm still awaiting your answer to my question, Larry. In case you missed it, here it is again:
If you were a policeman that night, facing a drug-crazed man who had just attacked several innocent people and was still resisting arrest, what would you have done differently? Here are your choices:
1) Everybody pile on and try to subdue him using nightsticks, fists, headlocks and shackles, resulting in almost certain injuries to everybody involved, including severe injuries to the suspect -- while also getting in close enough that he could get his hands on the officers' handguns.
2) Spray him with pepper spray, which is often ineffective against people whose senses are so addled by drugs that they don't even notice it.
3) Use a tool (the Taser) which is specifically designed to stop such people without causing permanent injuries.
4) Just let him go back to attacking people in the nursing home.
So what's the "rational" choice here? You proclaimed yourself to be a "rational" person, and then implied that any "rational" person would agree with your criticism of the police. So what would a "rational" person do in that situation?
I'm still waiting for your "rational" answer, Larry.
Uh, Larry?...
Gary Bokelmann
