posted on Oct, 31 2007 @ 09:45 AM
I'm not making any judgment on this, as the details are pretty sketchy. But would same cop have been within his duty to put a .40 caliber round
through the guy?
Because that is what the taser was supposed to replace doing. It wasn't meant to be something to keep an officer from getting his pants dirty taking
down a suspect or subduing someone. It wasn't meant to be used as a control, like an electronic shock collar for a dog.
Now this case may indeed have been one where it was either shoot the person with the taser, or use deadly force with a pistol. But in many cases I see
tasers being used as a way to avoid any contact with a suspect, and to force them to obey or suffer.
Before any of my friends that are cops point out that people are supposed to obey a cop, bear in mind that this is not always true. Just as in the
military, an unlawful order is not to be obeyed.
And too, there is the "obedience habit" that police take. Because they have a tool that makes people obey, then they are less likely to care about
interacting with people. Because police can use this force more easily than a pistol, they become more separated from the general public. But the real
separation between officers and the general public is when instant obedience is expected, and replaces the need to do more than issue commands.
The danger is how easily the taser creates an ideal environment for the "us" and "them" mindset to cement. The power to have instant verbal
obedience makes "king" personalities. With such power it is the "king's" word that is obeyed, not just the law. Soon enough, in the mind of the
"king", there is no difference between his word and the law.