This entry was posted on Sunday, December 27th, 2009 at 7:03 pm and is filed under environment. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
Police Officers Have Found that Stun Guns Have Decreased Effective Results When Zealous Rules Hinder Their Utilization
Stun guns are now authorized for use by police officers in all U.S. states now permit the use of stun guns to be used by police officers.Consequently of the final state to allow stun gun use means its permitted use has been radically limited.Because of limit ability it is hardly a viable option. Considering the maze of regulations, police officers are more likely to use their handgun than risk overstepping the tight boundaries regarding usage of stun guns.
Stun gun availability can be a hindrence
One of the major limits in New Jersey’s policy is that municipalities with less than 25,000 residents can only have one officer authorized to carry a stun gun. Because that officer cannot be in more than one place at any given time there is a significant chance that situations that should not need to escalate to lethal force will unfortunately rise to that level.
If stun guns are meant to decrease the number of fatalities and/or injuries in police events then it makes no sense to set such an extreme limit on the number of stun guns available to the police. New Jersey’s Star-Ledger makes the interesting point that police officers who have not earned the trust to acquire and carry a non-lethal weapon are all as a result carrying guns - but if you trust the officers with lethal weapons such as a gun then why not non-lethal weapons such as a stun gun?
Split Second Police Decisions on Stun Gun Usage
Police officers are required to make split second decisions in tense situations and the list of stun gun rules in New Jersey makes a difficult situation even more complex. Usage is permitted upon the mentally ill, for example, a difficult diagnosis to make in the middle of an incident, but not to prevent a suspect from fleeing, to keep a suspect compliant, or to prevent property damage.
Is it surprising, then, that officers would reach for their handgun, with rules and regulations that are readily understood, rather than the stun gun?
Therefore if the utilization of a stun gun has been proven to lessen the number of injuries and fatalities during police incidents then usage should not be disabled by government officials who are overcautious.
Leave a Reply
