Mr. Elliott said that if someone is in a life-or-death situation, he would not want a rule that would prevent an officer from defending him or herself. [LINK]
Oh shut-up! If an officer is really in a life-or-death situation, as opposed to facing down a confused traveller holding a stapler, then shoot the subject with a gun. Seriously!
Just not 600 times a year - please and thank you. [LINK]
This excuse is just the latest taser lie...
That 'tasers are essential to protecting the lives of officers.'
It's not even a good lie. See [LINK] [LINK]
Officers in Canada have real guns. They're rarely abused. They're rarely overused. And they're rarely misused. Nobody is talking about taking away the police guns. Police can keep their guns. They can use these guns to protect themselves, and the public, in life-and-death situations. Never really been a problem (except in rare instances).
But we are talking about a taser moratorium. It's because tasers are far too often abused, overused and misused.
They're too unreliable to depend upon in real life-or-death situations. And they're too dangerous to use them when the situation doesn't call for lethal force.
One state - Michigan - two teens 'died' after being tasered in recent weeks. Neither was a life-and-death situation - until the taser was fired. So you're gonna stand there and flap your gums about the benefit of tasers? Shut up!
Even now, I'm still surprised at how much like this debate is like living in The Twilight Zone. Bizarre and strange arguments being presented by people that should know better.
If you arrived here on direct link to a specific post, then you may click here if you wish to view all the latest posts on the Excited-Delirium blog.