For years, police departments have been tasing people to simply get them under control.
The most recent being the kid who ran on the field at the Phillies game. Police couldn't catch him, so they tased him. Then took him off the field:
This officers actions were deemed appropriate by the Police department.
And of course we all know the "Don't tase me, bro!" guy:
It was also determined that the police were justified in their use ofthe stun gun in this event.
Police also tased a 72 year old woman who refused to comply with orders:
This too was determined appropriate:
Hell, police have even tased a 6 year old!
And declared that justified as well.
They justify these cases, by the fact that the stun gun is a non-lethal, non-deadly "tool". Unlike their handguns, which obviously are deadly weapons.
Ok, I'm not saying I disagree with any of these decisions. Hell, I love to watch some jackass who thinks he's gonna be cool and run on the field in the middle of a baseball game take 50,000 volts to the back of the neck. I only wish I was there to see it live.
Maybe if they start doing that regularly, ticket sales will increase. I know I'd start going.... anyways, I digress....
If the police justify their using of tasers, as a non-lethal means to subdue a criminal, then why are these women, who chased some guy with a stun gun, being charged with "Assault with a deadly weapon"?
So the police are being quite contradictory here. Is a stun gun a deadly weapon or not? And if it is, why are you using deadly force to stop some guy running around a baseball field?
I call bullshit!
There is no double standard here. Pick one!