'Protect and serve'

Before completing the first paragraph of this column, let me state, upfront, that I tend to believe that the majority of law enforcement officers in southern Ohio do their jobs to the best of their ability and often under trying circumstances.

There are, of course, exceptions.

The same initial paragraph might be mildly altered to read that the majority of citizens in southern Ohio do their jobs to the best of their ability and under often trying circumstances.

In other words, those in the former vocation are no more or less important than anyone else in the realm of any given productive populace. Good work is good work and ought to be rewarded accordingly.

Moreover, many of us have the tendency to ignore and conveniently forget the occasional fallibilities of those in certain uniformed vocations, such as law enforcement officers. That is, after all, somewhat understandable.

Perhaps it is simply human nature to want to believe that those who are entrusted to "protect and serve" really do their best to live up to the responsibilities that come with a badge and a gun. (And, these days, a Taser – a weapon that fires barbs or prongs attached with wires to batteries that can cause temporary paralysis.)

My personal history with publicly compensated, professional law enforcement officers varies. I have had occasion to be duly impressed with some and I have had occasion to be thoroughly disappointed with others.

For instance, I was once denied access to a courtroom by a former state trooper and county sheriff. He should have known better. The judge also should have known better. They learned.

I've known a few others in the law enforcement community to be similarly loose with the laws they are paid to enforce. (The record is what it is.)

More often than not, though, it has been my inclination to give those with taxpayer-purchased guns, badges and Tasers the benefit of the doubt.

But every once in a while, the evidence suggests otherwise.

After watching a somewhat disturbing video from WBNS Channel 10 TV in Columbus (go to: http://www.10tv.com/content/stories/2014/05/08/fayette-county-man-injured-after-taser-to-the-eye.html), in which a passenger in a pickup truck was reportedly shot in the eye with a Taser, I can only surmise that this was the act of a grossly overzealous deputy.

From the video evidence, the Ohio State Highway Patrol trooper had the situation under reasonable control. A deputy from the Fayette County Sheriff's Office then took action and discharged a Taser, allegedly into the suspect's eye.

The deputy's action has resulted in a lawsuit that will be defended by the taxpayers.

Following the incident, the Fayette County sheriff said the deputy "was not reprimanded for these allegations. I thoroughly reviewed the video and believe he acted within policy."

If that's the case, sheriff, with all due respect, you ought to rewrite your policy. The sooner, the better.

Your deputy's actions were at the least reprehensible. Time will tell if they were culpable.

Most likely, the victim will accede to his attorney's advice and, at some point, agree to a monetary settlement for the deputy's actions. The taxpayers, of course, will pay all damages. Everyone else will play the CYA game.

The more serious consideration is this: Will the county sheriff take any meaningful action to ensure this doesn't happen again?

Watch the video and draw your own conclusions.

Rory Ryan is publisher and owner of The Highland County Press.