imported post
smoking357 wrote:
Tasers are to be used in place of guns, that is, to repel a lethal, imminent, threat.
Was there a lethal threat in this case?
Wrong. Tasers and firearms are not interchangable.
Firearms are deadly force, used to stop a subject likely to cause imminent great bodily harm or death to another.
Tasers are 'less than lethal' force, used to gain compliance from a non-compliant subject.
Anyone using a Taser in place of a firearm, to repel a lethal, imminent threat is an idiot.
Tasers have a maximum range of 21', andaneffective range of8-15'. Bothprobes must make contact with the subject, and not be inhibited by thick or loose clothing, tobe effective.
Tasers, just as OC spray and Mace before that, are a means to gain compliance from a subject without having to beat the living s$%t out of them. It prevents injury to the officer and minimizes the injury to the subject.
Unlike the old 'stun guns', which just used pain compliance via electricity, Tazers actually generate 'white noise' in the nervous system, causing the body between the probes to 'lock up'. Yes it is painful, but that is not the primary purpose. By locking up the subject's nervous system, you are able to quickly move in and subdue him.
Yes, it sucks to be the human torch mentioned in the OP. It is not through misuse of the Taser, however. If you choose to douse yourselfin flamable fumes, you risk going "boom" through static electricity, or neaby smokers, among other things. Yes, the arc of the probes set him off, but generally, there is not time to have the subjects fill out a questionaire before choosing which non-lethal option to use.
I was going to stay out of this rant, but I can't let statements like the above just stand on their own. Such mis-information is no better than those who say "people who carry guns just want to shoot people", or "why didn't they just shoot the gun out of his hand?"