Our fair city was awash in helicopters and emergency vehicles again Wednesday, as a prisoner attempted to escape his handlers while being taken to Mass. Eye and Ear for treatment. Those of us who happened to be downtown couldn’t fail to notice the uproar — I found myself wondering if I was going to be stuck in the city during a another regional shutdown. As it turns out, the excitement happened after the convict attempted to grab the gun of his handler. Shots were exchanged, and ultimately a Sheriff’s Deputy was wounded and the convict was critically wounded.
My wife immediately asked what I think is the most important question about the event — one that I have not seen asked by anybody else since the episode (hence this post).
Did the weapons carried by the handlers help or hurt the situation? If the handlers had been unarmed, would this convict have ever attempted to escape? Given the number of handlers present, if the convict had attempted an escape, would he have succeeded? They knew this convict was being taken to an emergency room. The sheriff’s department could presumably assign as many individuals as needed to keep the convict under control with or without guns.
In an era where our government shreds our liberties, destroys our privacy, and conducts worldwide dragnets for whistleblowers who dare to spill the beans — all in the name “public safety” — where were the concerns about “public safety” in this episode?
It appears to me that a realistic concern for public safety would lead the sheriff’s department to conduct such excursions without weapons. Had sheriff’s deputies Jonathan Persson and Sean Lee been unarmed, there is a good chance the attempted escape would never have happened. If it did happen, neither Mr. Persson, Mr. Lee, nor the public (never mind the prisoner) would have been endangered.
The reaction to this episode — the tired and trite slogans offered by the Sheriff — (“This incident further highlights just how unpredictable and dangerous this profession can be. As frightening as this situation was, it could have been much worse, if not for the efforts of these two highly trained and respected officers.”) demonstrate that “public safety” is not a goal, but is instead an excuse. The aspect of this situation that was frightening to yours truly was the fact that the officers were armed. I expect sheriff’s deputies to be trained to keep prisoners under control without shooting them. Isn’t that why God gave us handcuffs and shackles?
It seems clear enough that, whether acknowledged or not and whether intentional or not, the goal is forceful armed domination of the public by its government. Mr. Persson and Mr. Lee should not have been armed. If four handlers, instead of two, were needed then four handlers should have been provided.
That approach, however, would have simply worked — no theater necessary. Instead, we again had a sky filled with helicopters, our streets filled with emergency vehicles, our air filled with a cacophony of sirens, and an emergency room filled with patients cowering in fear.
That’s what “public safety” apparently means to our authorities.
…that arming the deputies for this particular assignment wasn’t given much thought ahead of time. In other words I don’t think it’s likely that the deputies were told or decided on their own that they had better be armed for this escort in case something happened. Rather they were probably armed simply because in their job putting on their gunbelt is just a routine part of getting dressed as shirt, pants, shoes, etc. would be for the rest of us. Not that these aren’t valid points to raise. In other countries which we lament have far fewer guns than we do, that includes in my understanding law enforcement.
I agree that they most likely didn’t even think about it — I guess that’s sort of my point.
Rather than think about ways we can reduce the possibilities of violence, especially armed violence, we instead mindlessly continue to step up the arms race.
In my view, the interests of public safety are far better served by looking for ways to reduce, rather than increase, the militarization of our police (and similar law enforcement agencies).
The report I saw said the prisoner slipped his restraints while in a bathroom alone (that accomplishment and circumstance raises certain questions about competency), and when he came out, he tried to rush past the deputies to freedom. When they grabbed him, he tried to get one of their guns. Obviously, if they hadn’t been armed, nobody would have been shot. It does not appear that he came out of the bathroom with a plan to grab a gun; he thought he could race past the cops. I doubt that he would have got past them, but I wasn’t there.
The Sheriff’s statement is clearly self-serving BS, but it’s what I’d expect. A massive rollout of police forces seems completely uncalled-for, given that the prisoner never actually escaped custody.
As you observe, there is little chance the prisoner could have escaped custody. Had the deputy not been carrying a weapon, there would have no reason for the prisoner to make any move towards the deputy.
Shots were fired and the patients and staff of a major hospital traumatized and endangered.
This episode should never have happened.