When lethal force is required, lethal force should be used. A taser is a less than lethal option that is correctly used 99% of the time however as we all know when everything goes right it's not news. Any of the less than lethal options should be used fully to prevent a potentially dangerous incident from escalating.
If you take away a police officers right to use force I don't want to live anywhere near that area as at that point there is nobody with the ability to exercise control and it becomes dangerous for everyone. I appreciate the fact that they have adequate training in the proper and timely use of their multiple levels of subduing devices and when the fecal matter hits the oscillating device I'm sure glad that they're around.
On topic, glad to see that the results show that tasers are much safer than any alternative.
As I said, I am not against the use of tazers, but the trouble is in my experience (not from tv or print news) that police officers (including many good ones I know) taze people because the option exists. I think it is the same psychology that a person carrying a weapon is more likely to resort to violence than somebody who is not. Police officers sometimes forget that since they have a sociological monopoly on the use of violence, that considerably more responsibility must be exercised in its use. There are situations that require the use of deadly force as well as less lethal options for sure. But “contempt of cop” is not one of those times. If a subject is acting in a nonviolent or non physically threatening manner that suspect should not be tazed, beaten, or any other “control violence” method to get them to “comply with orders.” I do not agree with the idea of “why talk to the suspect for ½ hour when I have things to do and I can just tazer him down?” The same with shooting people with bean bags or any other device. Besides, if a suspect is threatening you with a weapon, I will defend your right to shoot him with a real bullet, shot, or lethal projectile to my last breath.
Being a police officer is an inherently dangerous job, just like being a firefighter, construction worker, fisherman, etc. Nobody forced a police officer to that job. Some risk must be accepted. If medical persons in a hospital can get enough people to subdue a patient without the use of a tazer, etc, then police should wait for sufficient backup to do the same. Obviously if the person is waving around a weapon, or threatening to use violence, by all means taze him down, but not because you had to tell him 4 or 10 times to do something. I would think if ultimately the person is going to be charged with a misdemeanor, a tazer is most likely not indicated. But it also doesn’t mean trump up minor charges to use the tazer so they can be downgraded or dropped later. Just like a firearm or night stick, a tazer needs to be a last resort, not a first choice because it is not as bad as the others.
I am not a law enforcement officer or legal expert, simply a citizen who believes that law enforcement needs to have rules so we do not see the abuse of power demonstrated by police in other nations. It is certainly not in the job description of police officer to deal out justice.
I very much doubt tazer use is correct 99% of the time. I have not experienced that in my small sampling of the world. I doubt such a source exists to verify that. Logic would dictate if my local police are getting carried away from time to time, then so is everyone else’s.
One student did get sprayed and I doubt he will ever volly to do that again haha... I would much rather get tazed, then get hit with spray. As tazing, its there and then its done... spray, its there and it stays there for a VERY long time.
