The stun gun has not been banned because it is no longer of any use. In many instances it is preferable over using live fire, and it could prevent loss of life. Even when a stun gun is used as an electric shocker, this is not necessarily a bad thing.
But when it is used in a violent, illegal or inappropriate manner, the stun gun becomes criminal. Any crowd dispersal tool or means of dealing with lawbreakers and people who pose a threat to public safety is dependent on the person using it. Just like a deadly weapon, a club, rubber bullet or water hose can be a legitimate means of enforcing the law, or alternately, can be used with excessive violence. Using a stun gun with no apparent justification constitutes a violation of human rights, and is a grave incident that should not transpire in a democracy.
If the Special Patrol Unit officer who entered the home of Boaz Albert last Thursday had been carrying a gun, he would not have used it. Even though the suspect did not appear to resist the arrest in any way, the police officer decided to use his stun gun on the suspect, while the latter was lying on the ground and not showing any physical signs of resisting, with his wife and children watching all the while.
Unfortunately, police brutality is a hideous phenomenon, and the commanders of the police force should be first in line to combat it and restore the public's faith in the police. Police officers who use excessive violence and are protected from prosecution just because they are members of the police actually pose a bigger threat to democracy than the lawbreakers they pursue. The law gives police officers the authority and power to use force, and anyone who abuses that authority is undermining the very foundation of the law enforcement system.
We all remember that indelible image of the IDF's Lt. Col. Shalom Eisner, who was filmed smashing the butt of his rifle into the face of a Danish activist. Eisner was almost immediately suspended.
The police commissioner, who rushed to discontinue the use of stun guns, would actually serve the police force much better by suspending the officer in question, thereby communicating a message to the rest of the police force not to use force unless it is necessitated by the task at hand.
And some food for thought: In Boaz Albert's case, it is difficult to ignore the fact that the police were enforcing a restraining order -- an order that by its very nature is more reminiscent of a dictatorship than a democratic state. The order was issued without a trial, and the suspect never had a real opportunity to present his case and argue for his rights and freedoms. This is something we should think about.
Nachi Eyal is the director-general of the Legal Forum for the Land of Israel.
טעינו? נתקן! אם מצאתם טעות בכתבה, נשמח שתשתפו אותנו