> If you have power and money, and your livelihood is on the line, its ethical to use whatever means are available to defend yourself. Not under any system of

> If you have power and money, and your livelihood is on the line, its ethical to use whatever means are available to defend yourself. Not under any system of ethics I'm familiar with. Indeed, I would imagine that a big part of most ethical systems is about _not_ abusing your power. For example, most people would consider it unethical for a company to manipulate, bribe, intimidate, and discredit people in order to suppress evidence of the harmful nature of that company's products. > Is it wrong to hire the best attorney for your defense just because they may be friends with the judge Are we talking about the godfather to the judge's child, or somebody who has coffee with him a few times a month? If it's the former, any decent judge would recuse himself - and the other attorney would rightly kick up a fuss if he didn't. > Also, how can you expect police and others to be unbiased when this device has probably helped them or saved their own life at some point. Are they supposed to ignore the fact that this is a critical tool in their belt? No. But, an ethical person would weigh the benefits Tazers offer against the risks they introduce: and it's hard to do that when Tazer systematically suppress evidence of those risks.