Well...
...except for that 43% of the time when they're used repeatedly,
...or used on that up to 8% of the population known to have heart problems,
...or used on the elderly, ...or used on children,
...or used on the other ill-defined and unknown-size population that is 'at risk' (I guess known only after the fact, when their 'unique anatomical makeup' [LINK] is discovered at autopsy- this is just ONE example). And some would say that those that tend to come into contact with the police tend to be those 'at risk'.
So there you have it.
1 comment:
Amen.
One thing I'm frightened of is that in NJ (just across the river from where I am), the attorney general said she was waiting for this interim report before weighing in on the now bipartisan bill (it was solely republican last year) that just sailed through a state senate committee.
I wrote about that here and the article quoting the NJ attorney general's office is here.
NJ may not long be the last state in the US where tasers aren't allowed at all.
Another interesting aspect about the NIJ panel's report is in the makeup of the panel itself. One of the members has an interesting blog with a post citing some interesting statistics on the safety of tasers. I wrote about the report and panel here.
Once again, love your blog.
Post a Comment