4 ms·
Are you implying that tasers have never been deployed when a firearm otherwise would have been?
by nathanaldensr 4y ago
Are you implying that tasers have never been deployed when a firearm otherwise would have been?
- colechristensen 4y agoThe key word is “eliminate”, obviously they have not eliminated anything and have brought their own problems with officers using them when they would never use deadly force when trasers are only less lethal and kill plenty of people.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- TaylorAlexander 4y agoI can't speak to what the parent is saying but I do know that tasers have themselves resulted in deaths, which may never have occurred if the only alternative was shooting. That is, tasers are perceived as non-lethal so they get used more often, even though they can be fatal. Guns are understood to be fatal so likely used in fewer scenarios. Thus there must have been times where an officer would not have used a gun but was willing to use a taser.
- eyeudhfyf7rj 4y agoBeing beat/choked to death also happens. At a certain point I feel like the argument is either needlessly pedantic or the counter aegument is simply "So what?" The alternative to any confrontation is leaving the individual to go free which is hardly a win for their community.
- uoaei 4y agoThe supposition that every police action is justified, simply because it's being conducted by police, is defined as "authoritarianism".
- lmm 4y agoIt's apparently routine to tase someone who runs from a traffic stop because they had a minor warrant that wasn't being actively pursued. I think it's fair to say neither shooting them nor beating/choking them is routine in that situation; there's no real public safety argument (if this person was a danger to the public they'd've been pursuing the warrant already). At some point the actions that this tool is enabling are doing more harm than good.
- Eisenstein 4y agoDid you purposefully misread that statement?