Reply #6: Well I'm not interested in suing them. [View All]

[Kagemusha]

The problem I have in how AX10's comment was written goes beyond not having been confident that the Taser was always marketed as a weapon. (I'm aware that at any rate, police education on this issue was woefully inadequate even though the warning you posted is exactly what any cadet should hear about the matter.)

It's that just because we call something a weapon does not mean it is purposefully designed to be unsafe. Or, we'd be simply have to reject the mere speaking of the term "non-lethal weapon" for all time. (And maybe we should, but that's beyond the scope of a random message board thread.) Taser's warning can be read this way: the Taser was designed to stop individuals with non-lethal force; this is an inherently unsafe task with many variables; the Taser is not perfect enough to overcome all such variables, and for that reason, needs to be treated as any other use of force (good example: nightsticks), which is to say, with care and not as a first resort.

Now, knowing that some people are going to be killed by these things, is it worth using them? I'm not a good judge - I'm not in law enforcement or an expert. I'd have to know what the alternatives are and how likely they are to kill and injure under the same circumstances (rather than the ideal circumstance, which is not to have to use force at all)...

Edit: My original reply to the thread's first reply had me tripping over my words a bit. I shouldn't have said I respected the studies that say the Taser is "safe". I know the original testing by Taser before FDA approval was a bad joke. I don't know about later tests but regard the deaths that have resulted as a result of police action to be a "field test" of sorts. No one should claim the Taser is 100% safe. Not even the Taser corp does.