...and better pre-hire screening.

Scenario: admittedly bizarre individual is 30 feet up in a tree. Deputy, who according to the article "wanted to get him down before he hurt himself or others", decides that the appropriate response is to use a Taser. Trouble is, the deputy draws pistol instead of Taser and shoots the man in the leg!

Aside from the obvious stupidity, think about this: the man is up in a tree, approximately the height of a two-story house roof. The deputy decides that the way to get him down is to use a device that disrupts one's motor control. If the deputy had used the Taser, the man would quite probably have fallen 30 feet to the ground!

What outcome did the deputy expect - that the guy would suffer a fall from that height with no injuries? How does this square with the quote about not allowing the man to hurt himself? It doesn't, and that's the problem.

The deputy made two egregious errors - one in judgment, and one in performance. This is someone who should really be doing something else for a living...."you want fries with that??"

-=[ Grant ]=-