Tasering During a Welfare Check

The So-Called Austin Mayor blog links to a Sun Times column by Mary Mitchell about some Chicago cops who were called in to do a welfare check on 82-year-old Lillian Fletcher and ended up tasering her.

I’m not particularly willing to let cops get away with stuff, and this sounds pretty awful, but…I think the cops might have done the best they could in a difficult situation. Here’s how it all went wrong:

When Fletcher refused to open her door, police were called. Although Fletcher cracked the door, she still refused to let her visitors into the house.

But police officers wouldn’t take no for an answer and pushed their way in. Fletcher ran and got the hammer she keeps beside her bed.

A few more facts paint the whole picture: Fletcher is only about 5 feet tall but weighs 160 pounds, so she’s not exactly a frail old lady, and she has schizophrenia and dementia. The police say she became agitated and violent.

Let me put that a little differently: The officers were facing a crazy lady swinging a hammer. That could mess you up bad.

I don’t know much about policing, but I think of all the ways the cops had of stopping her—gun, riot stick, fists, tackling, pepper spray—the taser may have been the least damaging. It sounds like a tough call.

I think part of my pro-police reaction to this incident is because I don’t care for Mitchell’s viewpoint. For example:

Unfortunately, despite Fletcher’s documented mental condition, police officers — including a sergeant — resorted to the same tactics they use when they are dealing with violent criminals.

They were dealing with a violent criminal. She attacked them with a hammer. That she has a mental condition excuses her behavior as a legal matter—she stops being responsible for her behavior when she stops being in control of it—but it doesn’t change the tactical situation the officers were facing. Once they were under attack, they didn’t have a lot of choices.

On the other hand, I’m having trouble understanding why the officers entered Fletcher’s home in the first place. They were sent to do a welfare check on a woman, and she met them at the door and refused admittance. Why did the officers insist on forcing their way into the property?

I really have no clue how police are supposed to handle a welfare check, but I’d hate to think that cops could enter my home against my will just because some third party told them to check on me. I’m hoping there’s more to it than that.

However, if officers broke the law by entering Fletcher’s home, then they lost their right to self-defense, just like any other home invader. When she came at them with a hammer, their only legal option was to stop trespassing and leave.

The ethics of violent confrontations often depend on very specific facts, and those facts often get left out of newspaper accounts. I’m filling in a lot of the gaps with guesswork about what was going on, so my opinion here could change on a dime if I learn better facts.

Update: Here’s an example of how important missing facts are: According an AP wire story about the incident, when social workers came to see the woman, they saw through a window that she was swinging a hammer around, so they called the police. When the cops arrived, the landlord let them in. This suggests the police knew about her condition and were entering the home because the social workers were afraid she’d hurt herself.

These kinds of stories are less about principles or ideals or values than they are about what specific people did what specific acts. Tomorrow, another random fact could come out which swings the story the other way.