---

Stun gun restrictions
reflect wise caution

THE ISSUE The Honolulu Police Department has decided to permanently arm its officers with stun guns.

NUMEROUS incidents involving police use of stun guns have caused nationwide concern. Honolulu Police Chief Boisse Correa has taken those concerns to heart in approving guidelines that should limit their use to preventing suspects from harming themselves or others. Monitoring their use should indicate whether the limitations have been effective.

Honolulu police conducted a pilot program involving the newly developed Taser stun gun last year. The department now deploys 229 Tasers and has ordered 134 from Taser International Inc. of Scottsdale, Ariz. Correa says the new stun guns will replace older models used during the pilot project.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Hawaii complained that Tasers were used in four instances during the pilot program where lethal force would not have been justified. The Tasers, which deliver 50,000 volts of electricity through two wires attached to darts, can shut down the central nervous system and have been identified in numerous deaths.

During the pilot program, officers were allowed to use Tasers in "passive-aggressive" situations, including subduing a person resisting arrest. The department's new rules would disallow use of Tasers under such nonthreatening circumstances.

Correa said the new rules allow Tasers to be used against a person who "is challenging officers to a fight, or lunging with a knife and attacking people," but not "to effect arrest if the person is just being uncooperative." He said they cannot be used against "juveniles, pregnant women, the elderly and the mentally challenged."

In April, the International Association of Chiefs of Police issued a report urging law enforcement to use caution in developing policies for the use of stun guns. The guidelines are "a framework for developing safe and sensible deployment and management plans for stun guns" but do not include specific recommendations. Correa appears to have adopted rules on the side of caution.

---

BACK TO TOP
|

Ads in public schools
truly a ‘can of worms’

THE ISSUE School board members have criticized a plan to allow advertising in public schools.

UNFAVORABLE reaction stymied a proposal to allow advertising in Hawaii public schools, but the idea will become more difficult to resist as schools continue to struggle with funding shortages.

Members of a state Board of Education committee soundly -- and rightly -- criticized the proposition this week, recognizing the heavy load of problems schools would encounter just in managing such a plan. However, a parent's remarks pointed to the more slippery issue of whether to hand over to advertisers a captive audience of pliable children for cash.

The money is certainly needed. But commercialism in schools rubs against an elemental ideal that education flows from public will rather than for-profit entities.

Board chairman Breene Harimoto correctly described the proposal as a "can of worms."

Schools would have to wrestle with legal matters that could keep constitutional lawyers busy day in and day out. Prickly points include determining what businesses or organizations would be permitted to advertise, the criteria for accepting ads and the content of ads.

Even if they have to tailor content, many corporations are eager to put up money for schools not only to sell individual products, but to lock in brand loyalty. Marketing targets now encompass children as young as 3 to 5 years old, having identified that advertising to kids in that age group will likely bring a lifetime of value.

Other economic conditions also would come into play. Commercial interests would want to invest in schools in more affluent neighborhoods so a school in Kahala could attract more advertising -- and therefore more cash -- than a school in Kalihi, upsetting a balance of funding for education.

It might be that the idea could be conducted fairly and with minimal difficulties, but the current proposal has a long way to go. The board's wariness is deserved.

---

---

---