Obviously they do kill some people. So do defibrillators and aspirin. However, in comparison to the other items a police officer carries, they are considered "non-lethal" and a better alternative for subduing a suspect then a .9 mm.
If they kill they are not non lethal.
End of discussion.
Okay, fine. "Less lethal". Whatever. You'll never hear me say tazers are 100% safe. You'll just hear me say "better than getting shot".
Tell that to the people they kill.
And this was clearly disproportionate use of firce.
That occurred near the beginning of the encounter, and was dealt with the command of "Let me see your hands," or whatever it was he actually said. So, yes, the officer should actually have to wait for him to pull a weapon before he shoots. You might not like it, but that is the rules, and that cop knew it when he took the job.
I think no such thing. I fully believe police should take the steps they need to protect themselves and the public. I also expect them not to shoot people just because they are having a bad day. It ain't fair, but life ain't fair.
Does that mean you think the police should be able to shoot anyone who approaches them, even if they are confused, dazed, deluded, or just plain crazy? Doesn't it make more sense to make sure the police are actually facing a danger before they shoot than to give them blanket permission to shoot people just because they might be a danger?
I can post plenty of stories of cops shooting people who are deaf and did not obey a command. I understand it happens, but it should be avoided. I want to do that by training officers to be better at judging situations, and to be ready to walk away of they are the only ones in danger. You want to allow them to shoot people who argue with them.
Different approaches, but I will take mine.
He was being shocked by 50,000 volts of electricity, it he wasn't subdued it would have taken a lot more than 3 people to hold him down. On the other hand, if they had just stopped shocking him, a 4 year old could have put the cuffs on him.
The county is probably being sued because one of their officers responded. I would have to know how long he was there and what he saw before I could judge the degree of culpability.
They don't, but they do have to wait until they have a weapon.
No he wasn't, because the guy did go beyond being verbal. Police should not use force unless they are responding to force.
No, I believe the police have a right to defend themselves against a demonstrated threat.
What threat was demonstrated? Remember that police are, theoretically, trained to deal with people who are simply angry. I had people yell at me as a customer service rep and never responded with violence, or even yelling back at them. And I wasn't trained for that.
I have ignored the "truth"? Where?
You backed off from your position that Tasers are non lethal. You do, however, seem to believe that police should react the same way you do to a problem.
They shouldn't.
