Scoot
Well-Known Member
Where the problem comes in is that the Police will argue that a taser is a "Non-Lethal weapon" that they can freely shoot you with total impunity. Yet, if you shoot it at them... well, the rules change! Is it a "weapon," or isn't it? If it is a weapon, then firing back is fair and reasonable. If tazing someone is "non-lethal," then tazing a cop is not the same as justifying shooting someone with a gun!
In one part I understand exactly where you are coming from. There are double standards and this can be open to abuse (and can be abused by some police).
But I also think there's more to it than just this. It's not a level playing field. A criminal or suspect does not have to put themselves into a situation. They have more choices regarding their actions. They can also do what they want (and choose not care about the laws). Many criminals know (at least to some extent) what rules the police need to play by and can use that to their advantage.
I think of a football match where one side can do what they want, but the other side has to follow the rules. This in large is what the police can be up against daily. That must be hard.
The police also have a duty that they need to uphold - which at that point included apprehending the suspect and recovering the taser. They couldn't choose "oh well - let's just let him get away - it could be dangerous for us to chase".
I suspect firing a taser at someone's face while they are running could lead to a fatal situation if they were to sieze up and hit their head. It's my understanding that police are trained in taser use, which includes considering potential hazards for their use, which could be another contributing factor.
I am not familiar with Tasers, but in my ignorance - I'm willing to consider the possibility that in the wrong hands, used in the wrong way or moment - tasers have the potential to be deadly.
I also understand police have to put themselves into situations that can be life threatening. I know - it can be argued "that's the job they chose", but it still doesn't negate that the two sides have very different situations.
This in no way endorses or justifies what happens? I don't know enough about the situation, but I know there are two sides to every story (many times 3) - but it seems most people these days end up only being interested in one side. Not just with social topics - but with scriptural topics as well, and this really concerns me.
I believe justice needs to be served. But I also believe in being innocent until proven guilty - and allowing the defense an opportunity to speak for themselves. I am in favour of holding judgement until all the facts come out whilst considering many possibilities.