On Sun, Aug 20, 2006 at 03:19:44AM +1200, Russell McMahon wrote: > That's akin to saying that baseball bats used as weapons are designed > to be non lethal. I imagine that it's true enough. But 'death by > baseball bat attack' would surprise no-one. A Taser (tm) (not Tazer) > is not "basically non lethal". It has a far lower probability of death > in use than a typical law enforcement handgun BUT if anyone dies when > one is used it does not surprise anyone who has any experience in the > field or break any laws of physics or (probably) cause the user any > great legal problems. Hundreds of fatalities have been caused by > Tasers to date. [[Some vigorously claim this is untrue. Most of these > are probably holocaust deniers who used to be cigarette company > executives and who haven't stopped beating (or Tasering (tm)) their > wives yet]]. FWIW (and WIW will vary with the perceptions of the > reader), here's Amnesty Internationals thoughts on the subject. > > http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGAMR511392004 I used to live next to a police officer who said they were explicitly told in their training that all use of force was potentially lethal, handguns were called lethal force, and stun guns, rubber bullets, even baton blows to the head were all known as less lethal force. All these "less lethal" alternatives were to be used only in situations when use of a gun was otherwise justified. Obviously you can see that training and actual practice are two very different things. I've seen news reports of many known to be unarmed, often even non-violent, suspects having stun guns used against them. Taser International calls their weapons non-lethal. But read the actual definition, and it's easy to see it's defined as weapons explicitly designed to *minimize* fatalities... If they built my rock-climbing equipment under that legalize I'd stay home! -- http://www.petertodd.ca -- http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive View/change your membership options at http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist