23 December, 2007

Is it really necessary?

In these days of not trusting the police, TASER has introduced a TASER cam. They have upgraded a model of their hand-held non-lethal immobilizer. The X26 model is able to be fitted with a video camera that can capture as much as an hour and a half of video with sound.

I saw a report on the news about this new feature, and a debate on the concept.

What does this mean for law enforcement? Well, if it is anything like the dash cams in patrol cars, it doesn't bode well. Remember when they started to go into cars? They were supposed to be to verify police officers actions. Instead what what they have done is bread police misconduct complaints.

The problem I have with all of the complaints about it is, the TASER was designed to be a non-lethal way for law enforcement to subdue potentially violent assailants before they become violent. To prove the safety and efficacy of their devices, many employees and all of senior management have taken shots (including several by CEO Rick Smith) from the TASERs they produce.

Why is it that someone is threatening civilians or law enforcement officials, they can only act when it seems it is too late? Isn't that what the TASER was supposed to be? A non-permanent way to save innocent lives? Now, like in so many cases in today's legal system, the criminals have more rights than the victims. And no, a bank robber who got TASERed is not the victim.

My piece of advice, if a cop is telling you to do something, 'do it'. If you don't, the officer's choice is the .40 cal or the TASER. Which would you prefer?

Powered by ScribeFire.

No comments: