This article is biased and doesn\’t tell us much. I am sure Taser is well protected by disclaimers and hold harmless agreements and an army of competent lawyers.
Sure it\’s biased, everything is written by someone, usually with some, even slight, agenda.
Taser is one tool in a series of tools officers use in escalating force. When used in that manner, it\’s certainly better than shooting someone.
What experts on use of force expect (some at least), is that there will soon be a plaintiff argument in shooting claims that the Taser should have been used instead of shooting.
I think public entity risk managers would much rather defend a Taser claim than a shooting claim, as would the officers involved.
Does it really matter what the source is? There is not a great deal of information here & one could argue biases either way. I would not want to be a police officer in this day & age. We should appreciate the job they do, in spite of some transgressions.
Hey, Does it matter?
I am with you! The police today are damned if they do and damned if they don\’t. It just demonstrates the Cry-Baby attitude of a no respect population. Even when the court rules appropriately because of product warnings, someone (matt) has to cry about something concerning it. It seems like all I ever read or hear is someone crying about something. It makes me sick to see the country turn into a bunch of spoiled gutless complainers. lol
To those opposed to the Taser ruling, would you prefer 230 grains of lead, or the Taser? I think the answer is simple. The Taser is effective and normally does little, if any damage. With the other methods of stopping the bad guys, there will be injury or death!
We have updated our privacy policy to be more clear and meet the new requirements of the GDPR. By continuing to use our site, you accept our revised Privacy Policy.
This article is biased and doesn\’t tell us much. I am sure Taser is well protected by disclaimers and hold harmless agreements and an army of competent lawyers.
Sure it\’s biased, everything is written by someone, usually with some, even slight, agenda.
Taser is one tool in a series of tools officers use in escalating force. When used in that manner, it\’s certainly better than shooting someone.
What experts on use of force expect (some at least), is that there will soon be a plaintiff argument in shooting claims that the Taser should have been used instead of shooting.
I think public entity risk managers would much rather defend a Taser claim than a shooting claim, as would the officers involved.
Does it really matter what the source is? There is not a great deal of information here & one could argue biases either way. I would not want to be a police officer in this day & age. We should appreciate the job they do, in spite of some transgressions.
Hey, Does it matter?
I am with you! The police today are damned if they do and damned if they don\’t. It just demonstrates the Cry-Baby attitude of a no respect population. Even when the court rules appropriately because of product warnings, someone (matt) has to cry about something concerning it. It seems like all I ever read or hear is someone crying about something. It makes me sick to see the country turn into a bunch of spoiled gutless complainers. lol
To those opposed to the Taser ruling, would you prefer 230 grains of lead, or the Taser? I think the answer is simple. The Taser is effective and normally does little, if any damage. With the other methods of stopping the bad guys, there will be injury or death!