Tasers - Unpopular Opinion?

When the topic of tasers comes up in conversation, most times there is no middle ground. Either people are completely opposed to their use, or completely for it.

I like to analyze most social issues, but this one seems pretty cut and dry to me.

I'm the type of person who doesn't get into trouble. As my friends and family know, I'm law abiding to a fault (I've been told my pestering can be annoying); sure, I may be guilty of going over the speed limit from time to time, but other than that, I'm the buckle-up, dope-is-for-losers, no-fighting, take-a-cab-if-you're-drinking, I'm-calling-the-cops girl, and proud of it.

That's why it's easy for me to be completely pro-taser - I don't have any fear of them.

Last I checked, no innocent person who is behaving themselves and minding their own business has been tased while out for a jog or at the grocery store. Even criminals under arrest aren't in any danger if they're co-operative.

I can, however, cite many examples of unarmed or under-armed police officers all over the world being injured or killed by violent offenders, both before, during and after an arrest.

My point is, police officers need to be armed, but if you keep your nose clean and stay out of trouble, tasers should be of no concern to your personal safety. You reap what you sow.

Because we live in a part of the world where violent crime isn't as common as in other places, it's easy for us to forget that being a cop is a dangerous job. They may not face confrontation on a regular basis, but when they have to, most of the time it is at their physical peril. The police encounter people in a different set of circumstances and a different mind set than most of us.

They have to pull cars over, respond to domestic incidents, and deal with many other unpredictable situations that, often times, pose a serious threat of harm. A person who gets pulled over for speeding might be just a soccer mom in a rush to make the game. But it could just as easily be a drug dealer with ten pounds of cocaine in his back seat, and who is more likely to take measures to get out of the situation, than he is to face the consequences and be arrested.

What's preferred? For an assailant to be tasered, or shot?

But critics disagree with me. There have been instances where people who have been tased have died after being shocked, and the families of these people have cried foul, causing the Justice Department to call for tests and studies and analysis of tasers, to determine whether or not they're "safe".

Well, guess what - they're not supposed to be safe. They're not supposed to shoot rainbows and play soft music. They're supposed to circumvent the use of lethal force (like guns) and debilitate an individual, neutralizing a potentially violent or out-of-control situation. Sure, there are people who react badly to the shock, but the same can be said of pepper spray and peanut butter, and you don't see Stockwell Day and the national media in a tizzy over that.

I'll give you some numbers. In a study conducted by a doctor at prominent North Carolina medical center (a study which has been used by Amnesty International in determining the health effects of conducted energy weapons), of 1000 people subjected to taser use, 99.7% had either minor injuries, such as scrapes or bruises, or no injuries at all. Three received injuries listed as "more serious". Two of the subjects died, but the autopsy concluded that neither death was related to the use of the taser, but rather to pre-existing medical conditions.

Those are acceptable odds in my books.

So I look at it like this: we can arm trained and experienced officers with weapons that will resolve a situation with minimal fatalities, minimal permanent injury, and maximum effectiveness; or, we can punish an entire workforce for a few rare occurrences involving death or irresponsible usage, by banning these devices and making firearms the only employable weapon available for them to use in an extreme situation.

It makes more sense to me to let the taser-worthy be tased; if you have a condition that you think will be adversely affected by an electric shock (or even if you don't), don't resist arrest, or, better yet, don't get arrested.

Maybe you disagree, and that's all right with me. Feel free to fight the power and challenge the status quo. But until they're banned entirely based on very compelling evidence, I will continue to support the authority of the RCMP, their judgement, and the use of tasers.