It just seems to me that if police and others limited their use of Tasers to situations in which lethal force is justified, Tasers would be no big problem.
Obviously, if you are acting so dangerously that someone has the right to shoot you to death, then a Taser is a fair alternative. You might die, but at least you had a chance to survive.
So my question is, when are police allowed to use Tasers and other stun guns? And what do the manufacturers tell other buyers? “You may use this stun gun” when?
Like other ‘arms’? I’m not recommending anyone get a Taser, but why should their use be more prone to lawsuits than the use of handguns?
I notice the lawyers are learning they shouldn’t sue Taser International. They’ve decided they have a better chance suing only the police and claiming the police weren’t adequately trained to use the Tasers. That’s my point: Police have rules on when to use firearms; the same rules should apply to Tasers.
I wonder, too, if the courts consider stun guns as protected as other “arms” covered by the Second Amendment. (Of course, the Second Amendment is hard to pin down on anything. The courts so seldom rule on it.)