|
The taser abuse issue has been building for a while and the "Don't tase me, bro" incident may have brought it to the surface.
They were originally introduced as a non-lethal alternative way of dealing with someone who the police would otherwise have to shoot. Drunk/drugged/crazy guy wielding a knife scenario, and they are great for this.
They have drifted into being a handy way to inflict pain on anyone who isn't co-operating, that doesn't leave spectacular scars for the lawyer to shock the jury with. Imagine the Rodney King video with tasers instead of nightsticks. Not so shocking? (so to speak).
I'd rather the police tased someone rather than shot them, if at all possible. But I have seen quite a few web videos where tasers were used as an alternative to negotiation, and that's not good. I'd rather see all police given more negotiation training.
There have been people who have died after being tased, but it's hard to tell if it is due to the tasing. Dammit they won't let me do the experiments. And there are reports of chronic pain, headaches, stuff like that. They aren't totally safe, so they should only be used when really necessary.
I suggest this decision-making procedure:
If you didn't have a taser, would you shoot this guy right now?
If no, don't tase, keep talking, but keep reviewing this stage with your finger on the taser.
If yes, is tasing enough? If yes again ... zzzzzzzttt!
If no .... bang bang.
Any badge-wearers out there care to assess this idea? Or armchair know-it-alls?
That said, police work is a hell hard job and if you want to avoid getting tased, shot, or beaten, when the cop says "Hands up!", put your stupid hands up!
(Also, arm the rangers. Tase twice for littering, including cigarette butts. Twice per butt. Once for loud radios.)
|