A name, residential address, and (preferably residential) telephone number is required from readers who comment on ODT Online. These details will not be visible to site visitors.
Submitted by MichaelA on Tue, 09/09/2008 - 7:25pm.
Whatever happened to personal responsibility here? If you
drink too much and behave in a manner than it likely to cause
harm to other people or their property then you deserve a
good blast with the taser. I have no sympathy for these
morons who think they can get tanked up and run riot without
consequence. As for the police, they do the work that most of
us quietly like to ignore. They deserve all the protection
that they can get and they deserve our whole hearted thanks
for doing the work they do.
Like many New Zealanders I am old and a bit overwieght (large
in fact). The first thing the police would do would be zap me
if I caused a disturbance. Next thing you know I'm dead with
a heart attack. The police would justify zapping me because
of my size etc. Look at how some police have used the
pepperspray.
Also, if it is such a safe thing to use, why can't the
members of the public have them to protect themselves? I for
one need it to keep me safe from muggers etc as with my
medical condition I can't even run from trouble let alone
protect myself. think my need is greater than fit and highly
trained police.
Submitted by martinam on Thu, 04/09/2008 - 3:55pm.
Even if you accept that Tasers are safe, which is certainly
arguable, there is still an inherent problem with "non-lethal
force." Police are much more likely to use it, whether it is
needed or not. There are plenty of methods of restraint
already available to police - adding tasers would only add a
potential for abuse.
Submitted by carleeee on Thu, 04/09/2008 - 1:04pm.
If you don't want to get tasered...don't break the law. It is
really that simple.
If you want to discuss basic human rights, perhaps have a
chat to the people who attack cops while they're trying to do
their jobs.
Submitted by pjscopeland on Thu, 04/09/2008 - 7:20pm.
No, it really isn't that simple. Sometimes people get clubbed
by the cops just for being there. And possibly because
they're easy targets - I've heard of people on crutches
getting thumped with batons before now. In Dunedin, too.
Submitted by NigelMcC on Wed, 03/09/2008 - 8:57am.
I definitely support the police having tasers, It is all very
well the people of Dunedin making "informed" opinion sitting
down here in the comfort of our relatively safe environment
but spare a thought for the police furthur north. Crime is
more organised, more violent and more threatening just
because of the increased population base.
When some form of equipment is required to subdue a violent
offender, surely a taser that won't kill someone is better
than police having guns and performing executions is more
acceptable.
Or do we send them into dangerous situations without any
tools any just say good luck?
Submitted by Augers453 on Tue, 02/09/2008 - 10:11am.
For those who oppose the use of tasers, please show me your
reasoning. Don't be the typical civilian who only lives by
the headlines. Show me facts for your reasons.
Submitted by sanabuu on Wed, 03/09/2008 - 12:15pm.
I dont think the cops should use Tasers at all. 2 people have
died as a result of being tasered. Don't you think that says
something. Apparently the guy that approved the Tasers has
never ever tried it himself and he did say that he would
never ever try it at all. Again don't you think that says
something????? If cops are going to use the Tasers they
really need to make sure that the person that they Taser
doesn't have a heart problem or anything. That is my biggest
concern for Tasers!!!
Submitted by pjscopeland on Tue, 02/09/2008 - 9:54pm.
We already have a number of cases where police officers abuse
the weapons they have. With tasers, the weapons they have
will be that much more potentially lethal, and accidents will
happen. It also seems to me that electrocution surely counts
as a form of torture.
Of course, there will be legal stuff about only using one
when appropriate; but such laws would only make any
difference after one has been used
inappropriately. Not to mention the fact that the definition
of "appropriate" is largely the prerogative of the officer
holding the weapon.
lizlowerhutt implies in her comment that she is not afraid of
one being used on her; let us hope she has no reason to be.
As for the implication that it's okay to use one on somebody
else... how exactly does that make sense?
Submitted by lizlowerhutt on Mon, 01/09/2008 - 9:47pm.
When the choice is shooting with a gun or taser, I think the
taser is a kinder option. At least there is not as much risk
of dying as with getting shot. People who oppose tasers are
probably the ones who are afraid it will get used on them.
A name, residential address, and (preferably residential) telephone number is required from readers who comment on ODT Online. These details will not be visible to site visitors.