Did you read the story? The officer was seperated from the suspect by an electric fence. Not to mention the guy was using deadly force on a toddler. If this had been another adult being beaten, he likely would not have been shot. The suspect using deadly force on a toddler merited the bullet in the forehead. Also, many of the situations where you're advocating tackling and handcuffing aren't situations where the officer should be getting close, ie combative armed suspect, etc. Yes, they do still tackle and handcuff, but there are situations where it puts the officer in undue risk. Guns and tasers come out in different situations. You're comparing apples and oranges. Guns are meant to be lethal. Tasers are meant to be less lethal, and used in high risk situations where the suspect is non compliant. Once again, you'd do yourself well by actually doing some research. There is a level of escalation that's involved, and it's all up to the suspect as to how he wants to go down. If you go peacefully, you're going to get treated peacefully. If you decide not to listen, then the officers have training to escalate the response to accomodate the situation. By the time someone is getting tased, they've been warned multiple times. It's not like the officers just decide to tase someone for the hell of it. There are department guidelines that regulate the use of force, and the officers have to abide by those or become subject to prosecution themselves. Hell, every officer in training has to get tased and pepper sprayed so they know exactly what they're using and what it's like from the other end. As far as being "dependent" on them, Taras do you even know any cops? And I'm not meaning the ones you get pulled over by. That just seems like another one of your little outbursts like "They just need to neuter them better". Do you have any idea what kind of a job that is? Any tool that's going to allow them to defuse a situation that could be potentially harmful to the officer (Like the last case in Fridley where a guy died after being tased, 5 State Troopers and 1 combative suspect who would otherwise have been wrestling on the shoulder of 694 and putting them all in danger. Nevermind the fact that the guy was on cocaine) without having to shoot the suspect is fine. I'm betting you have zero experience in law enforcement, and so hiding behind that ignorance you can say things like that. Guess what. A taser is a tool for them to use. It's not a first resort, it's not a last resort, although it's right up there on the scale. Don't want to get tased? Don't break the law. That one too hard? Then don't resist when you're being arrested.
Perfect example Person refusing to leave, despite being ordered to several times. Person resists, person gets warned, person gets tased. Doesn't matter if he was being "peaceful" or not. He was ordered to leave, he refused to several times. The alternative was to take a nightstick/baton to him. Which one causes more damage? Impact injury or momentary incapacitation?
If they could have, they would have. It's not like the cops wanted to be shooting anything near a baby, unless they had to. They had to, they could not get to him. This is the very definition of a clean shooting if the facts are as I have read. Shooting to kill is the only way to shoot in this circumstances. Missing could have caused the suspect to harm the baby further and hitting the baby was a real risk. The torso is the easiest target to hit and besides the head, the most likely to stop the action (head is easy to miss) Eeeeh, given what was on the video it was had to say either way. However, no one was seriously injuried etc, and it gave us an awesome catch phrase. The real issues come when diabetics and people with epilepsy are tased. In those cases, it is often a training issue. (And is a real problem because these people have real, serious medical conditions who's treament is at least delayed, if not complicated by treatment). The worst case I've heard of is a diabetic who was tased even after officers were aware of his condition.
