lazarus1983
Posts: 828
Joined: 2/25/2006 Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: SugarMyChurro The point is that those type of electroshock weapons are potentially lethal. They are sold on the basis that they are non-lethal, and people are trained to believe that assertion. Well, they *are* lethal in many, many cases. Police should not use them as if they were non-lethal when there is such a potential for misuse and the additional risk of killing someone. A taser does not substitute for talking someone down or other non-lethal force such as restraints. Plus, I don't see these cops asking anyone if there is a previous heart condition that might make the taser more lethal - if they are going to use a taser they aren't asking any more questions. And that's another part of the problem right there. I knew someone was going to try to argue that the use of the taser was justified. My precise point is that the taser cannot be used justifiably unless one absolutely intends to kill - because the potential is there. Rather than let the police roll the dice on people's lives, how about we just declare tasers to be lethal force. I have heard that the guy in the Canadian newsbit was throwing chairs and becoming more and more perturbed after being in the airport for 10 hours. The question becomes was he doing anything that required lethal force be used against him. With tasers the potential is there to kill him - it can no longer be assumed to be a mistake. The weapon kills. End of story. So your argument is that if there is a potential to kill in a device, then it must be banned based solely on its potential. Well then, everything is "potentially lethal," from good old fashioned physical force all the way up to a standard issue handgun. Everything has the potential to be lethal. Better cork your silverware, by golly that's potentially lethal!
|