Alright, touchy subject…

On the one hand I say these things are dangerous, under regulated and drastically overused.  On the other hand are they a better option than using an actual gun?

When looking at taser incidents the number of people dying from heart related deaths is cause for immediate question of how they work? I’m aware of an independent study performed by CBC that shows the charge level can jump drastically over the manufacturers specified limit.  If this is the case the taser manufacturers themselves should perfect their product before it is allowed to be used by any organization or individual. 

Secondly, has the taser replaced the hand gun or the billy-club?  If it has replaced the hand gun then the benefits to everyone are obvious.  Being tasered vs being shot presumably decrease the chance of a conflict resulting in death or serious injury. 

Now if the taser has replaced the billy-club or baton, this causes significant problems.  Once given a tool that makes your job easier, especially when you are facing the possibility of personal injury, you are definitelygoing to use it.  If this is the case certain rules need to be established with regard to use of tasers.

My question is what is the criteria for an officer to use their taser?  If these aspects are more clearly defined and people are aware of them, it will perhaps make the use of this weapon more acceptable. 

That being said without this the taser will continue to be seen in a negative light, justifiably.

Wow, rough subject… hope i didn’t offend anyone with my rant!! Till next post, vote for me!

Cheers,

Pfins