When 18-year-old University student Ian George Van Ornum helped organize a rally Friday to promote pesticide awareness, it is unlikely he considered the event would end so abruptly, and at the hands of one very powerful piece of police hardware.
A Taser is a non-lethal weapon that delivers an intense electric shock to its recipient via two probes that are fired from the weapon’s body. The Eugene Police Department has been equipping officers with Tasers on a trial basis since January. Since then, EPD officers have used the weapon nine times.
But it’s their most recent use – on Van Ornum during Friday’s demonstration – that sparked outrage from the community.
Policy 309 of the EPD’s Department Command Directive outlines the policies in relation to Taser use by officers. According to the policy, “a Taser shall not be used at a demonstration or protest without authorization of the Chief of Police or designee unless its use is reasonably necessary to prevent injury to the officer or another person.” There are varied accounts of precisely how the confrontation between Van Ornum and police occurred, but most accounts do not recall Van Ornum exhibiting violent, threatening behavior. Rather, the majority of witnesses said the protester resisted the officers, and “was swinging the handcuff around,” as one witness said – behavior that could most likely be subdued without resorting to Tasers. The EPD press release announcing the incident was extremely vague: “(Van Ornum) pulled away and then began fighting with the officers.” Unless EPD can provide the public with a clear justification for using a Taser – in any instance, but especially at a location where Taser use is generally prohibited – police should refrain from doing so.
Tasers are classified as a non-lethal self-defense weapon, but their use in the past has been associated with lasting physical damage, and in extreme cases, death. It is therefore crucial that officers using them understand and comply with all aspects of the directive.
Section 309.3 of the directive reads: “Unless it would otherwise endanger safety or is impractical due to circumstances, an explicit verbal announcement of the intended use of the Taser shall precede the application of a Taser.” This measure is enforced to make sure that police officers do not use their Taser on an individual without making perfectly clear to the suspect that he or she has left them with no other choice but to do so.
It cannot reasonably be known whether or not police first warned Van Ornum before deploying the Taser. What is clear is that multiple officers were on the scene and engaged in the act of apprehending him. The question that must be asked, then, is whether use of the Taser was justified, given that Van Ornum seemed to be nearly within control of the police.
Van Ornum should not go entirely without blame. He should not have taken his protest from Kesey Square, a designated “free speech zone,” into the street, where police initially approached him for blocking traffic; nor should he have lied to the officers about his age or resisted arrest. By doing so he only helped the situation devolve into one where violent force became justified.
Still, this incident is a reminder to Eugene police officers, and officers everywhere, of the necessity to exercise discretion when using their weapons. Tasers in particular have been heavily scrutinized over the past year, after their use on several college campuses led to protests by students. Police have other instruments at their disposal – pepper spray and batons, to name two – that can and should be used before a Taser. It does not appear Van Ornum will suffer any long-lasting damage from Friday’s incident. But the events that took place should serve as a warning for what happens when free speech goes too far, and when necessary resistance becomes excessive force.