Editorial: Seeking less lethal restraints

The fatal shooting of a 28-year-old man at the state Capitol on Monday night once again raises questions of protocols for security — but, in this case, the defensive equipment provided to sheriff’s deputies was the larger issue.

Should there have been a security camera recording what happened in the makai corner of the rotunda courtyard? Maybe. Could there be ways of locking down access a bit better? Possibly, even in a structure expressly designed for open-access. House Bill 1488, sparked by the incident, would seek the development of an enhanced security plan there. But at the very least, the state should look into ways to give the officer a means to deflect an aggressor that falls short of using deadly force.

According to the official report from the Department of Public Safety, the deputy was patrolling when he spotted the man with an open bottle of alcohol. The shooting reportedly happened after the man resisted orders and then initiated a struggle, arms wrapped around the deputy’s head and chest.

It’s impossible to know whether that outcome could have been avoided, but having a Taser at the ready would have provided an alternative means of restraint that might not have killed the assailant.

DPS Director Nolan Espinda said the agency would look into that, so that’s encouraging. Body cameras are a possibility, though expensive.

No tool is perfect — Tasers can be somewhat limited in tight quarters, too, police say. But expanding options for public safety seems a crucial step here.