Dear dudes in charge,

Thanks very much for letting tazers into the country for you to use against us. Thank you for the lack of security that has enabled these weapons to fall into the hands of ‘the public’. Thank you for the almost CERTAIN usage by a robber against their respective target in a robbery. Thank you very much.

Put yourself in Robbie Robber’s shoes. If you had secured the use of a tazer and you had the choice of using it and securing a victim ‘temporarily helpless’ against you, would you use it?

Lets speculate for just a minute that you have decided to rob a Seven-11 at 3AM (yes its their own fault for breaking their own hours). You walk in, tell the attendant to open the till with the threat of the tazer, they then open it. Do you then choose to tazer the sucker and take them out of action for a few minutes? or do you not tazer them and risk the chance that they could somehow over power you and stop you from getting any money or worse, threaten your ability to escape the store, or even worse increase your chances of getting caught and sent to jail.

I may be jumping to a huge conclusion here but I just don’t see how any Robbie Robber would be able to resist using the tazer as a necessity for their cause.

The flip side of the coin is that if tazers are as dangerous in terms of ‘unintentional death’ as researchers fear, then is there not a real possibility that deaths from crime could increase? Thus making the intended hope that tazers “should” save lives a forlorn hope?

Trackback URI | Comments RSS