Apparently they think to many people die from its use well #1 maybe if the suspect wasn't resisting arrest he wouldnt get tasered? And if LEOs dont have tasers to subdue the suspect I wonder how many more people will be shot by the police instead. stupid fucking liberals http://www.courant.com/news/opinion...taug17,0,2116961.story?coll=hc-headlines-oped Ban Stun Guns August 17, 2006 Stun guns, those wonderful toys that allow police to disable suspects by piercing them with two darts that send electric current through their central nervous system, don't kill people or contribute to their deaths. The devices actually save lives and cut down on police injuries. So goes the hype from Taser International of Scottsdale, Ariz., the leading manufacturer of the weapons, and testimonials from more than 9,000 police and military agencies, including 131 in Connecticut, that have added Tasers to their arsenal. ADVERTISEMENT SPONSORED LINKS Perhaps it was just incredibly bad timing that caused about 180 suspects in the United States and Canada to drop dead shortly after police jolted them with stun guns. According to medical examiners, they really died of drug intoxication, bad health or their hearts just stopped beating through no fault of the Tasers. A very high number of post-tasing deaths were caused by "excited delirium syndrome," a recently discovered condition, not yet recognized by the American Medical Association or the American Psychiatric Association, that seems to occur only in police restraint fatalities. That's right, all those people would have died anyway. Stun guns aren't dangerous at all. And my name is Daffy Duck. Not only can stun guns cause serious injury, they've given casual torture a perversely fashionable appeal. Turning a suspect into a spastic pile of flesh by preventing his muscles from contracting for five seconds at a time has ceased to be repulsive - just another day at the office. Besides, those most likely to require zapping are street-corner drug addicts and emotionally disturbed poor people. So who cares? But that's precisely why the state should follow the advice of Amnesty International and ban stun guns until it formulates consistent and coherent rules that address their potential to kill. Data shows that drug addicts and mental patients are also the most vulnerable to dying after being zapped. Yet, the only unwavering guideline seems to be that a Taser should be fired as often as is appropriate to subdue a suspect - a standard open to very broad interpretation, depending on where you happen to be. The absence of uniform criteria means that what may pass as excessive or inappropriate tasing in, say, West Hartford could be perfectly acceptable in New Britain, where Jesus Negron died last month after an officer stunned him twice in front of a witness who said Negron was handcuffed to a stairway railing when the second shot was fired. New Britain at least has a general set of written guidelines on Taser use. Stamford, which equipped its police department with Tasers only a few weeks ago, has no written rules. Some police departments limit the number of times that a stun gun may be fired. Others don't. Some departments require a full written report whenever a stun gun is fired. Others can't be bothered with the paperwork simply because stun-gun use is already so routine that filling out reports would gridlock the agency. Some departments prohibit officers from zapping children, senior citizens and pregnant women and only seven states and the District of Columbia prohibit civilians from possessing stun guns. What's more, no one seems to know how much juice is enough. The strength of the electric current in a stun gun varies depending on the model and the manufacturer. Still, Taser International has succeeded in building a perception that the gadgets are effective, safe and above reproach, an opinion aided by the firm's employment of off-duty police officers as Taser trainers. Taser International spokesman Steve Tuttle said that the company has compensated many trainers with stock options, an additional incentive for them to promote the product among colleagues as the greatest thing that ever happened to law enforcement. Not that stun guns are a hard sell. Studies confirm that they do help to dramatically reduce police injuries and cops will embrace anything that improves their odds of making it to those fat retirement pensions without a scratch. Unfortunately, the lack of regulation and the generally accepted principle that stun guns are harmless leave way too much room for the proverbial loose cannon with a badge to take a life needlessly and escape close scrutiny. That's unconscionable. And until Connecticut closes that loophole, there should be a moratorium on stun gun use. David Medina is an editorial writer at The Courant.