So, our Two-Fisted Attorney General held a public forum yesterday on the use of Tasers. Not sure why, because he remained absolutely unmoved by anything he heard. Went in defending the cops, came out defending the cops.

And I’ll tell you, I don’t entirely disagree with him. Tasers could be a valuable tool if used correctly; the problem is, Vermont’s law enforcement community gives us nothing but lip service on the issue.

But here’s the thing. A 2012 investigative report by VPR’s John Dillon was brought up. He’d looked into the use of Tasers on people with disabilities. He found about 25; and in 10 of those cases, Tasers were fired at people “threatening suicide or… experiencing a mental health crisis.”

Sorrell’s response: those instances only made up a small minority of “the hundreds and hundreds of times tasers have been deployed in the state.”

Not true, Bill. Big fat honkin’ lie, in fact. Dillon’s survey covered police records from an 18-month period — from the spring of 2011 to the fall of 2012. And according to a State Police official, Tasers have been fired roughly 70 times between March 2011 and the present.

In other words, that’s 10 out of no more than 70 — not “hundreds and hundreds.”

And although Sorrell and Public Safety Commissioner Keith Flynn continue to insist that we have good policies, Dillon uncovered some cases that belie those bland assurances.  

n one case, a state police video shows an officer chasing down a man who’d created a disturbance at a residential group home. After firing his Taser and subduing the man, the officer said this to the man’s caregiver:

“What I got him with was a Taser. It doesn’t cause any damage to him at all, but it will keep him calm and controlled.”

This officer needs some retraining, stat. Or perhaps the VSP’s trainings aren’t as clear and thorough as they’re made out to be.

Dillon also reported an incident in which a man with Down syndrome, who’s 5 feet tall and weights 110 pounds, refused police orders to move. Note: passively refused. The police explained that “his refusal could be seen as a precursor to violence.”

Which seems to be at odds with VSP’s policy of using Tasers only on subjects who are “actively resisting” the police. Either that, or the VSP has an awfully generous definition of “actively resisting.”

I realize that the police have a very difficult job. God knows I wouldn’t want to be a trooper. And when they’re responding to a report of a troubled or disruptive individual, there’s a great deal of uncertainty. The situation can escalate very quickly.

But when an officer believes Tasers are harmless, or when a Taser is fired on a passive resister of small stature, you can understand why people don’t trust the police or their reassurances. And why the words of Bill Sorrell sound callous and uncaring.