More on lethal v. non less-than-lethal
A few times I have opined that I think people, particularly police, carrying non less-than-lethal weapons may lead to unnecessary use of those weapons. In other words, if one has a taser or pepper spray, they may use it when it is unnecessary whereas the finality of using a gun would not result in its misuse when lesser force will do. To wit, police tasered a 75 year old women and a six year old.
November 19th, 2004 at 2:07 pm
I don’t think you mean “less-than-lethal,” I think you mean “less-likely-to-be-lethal.” And in the case of police, something like a taser out to be governed by the same rules that govern use of deadly force.
November 19th, 2004 at 2:52 pm
Tasers are good tools for cops to have, but they should only be deployed under conditions that would justify using a gun. And tasing people under other conditions should be treated as seriously as shooting people under other conditions.
November 22nd, 2004 at 12:57 pm
“Tasers are good tools for cops to have, but they should only be deployed under conditions that would justify using a gun.”
I do not agree that they should ALWAYS be used in the same conditions that would justify using a gun.
There was a case of a 12 year old getting tased because they were on drugs and about to run into traffice.
Obviouly they did not need to be shot, but they did need to be stoped some how. Of couse the police officer could have ran faster and restrained the kid, buy why when you can just stun them.
If a person is jumping around and yelling and is basically resisting, you do not want to shoot them…you want to restrain them.
Allowing a police officer to stand back a few feet and stun them is the ideal way to go for the safty of the police officer and the person being restrained.
Yes it COULD result in death, but the chanes of that are smaller than with a gun every single time the taser is used.
Tasers are not guns. We need an entire set of rules governing the use of much “less-likely-to-be-lethal” force.