This, of course, doesn't speak to why these people were tased in the first place. But, then again, the safety and well being of the innocent . . . what could have happened and didn't . . . is never a consideration of those who defend criminals.

Also, never mind those situation in which someone didn't get shot because the police had tasers in their arsenal.

I'm more upset by the use of pigs to study taser effects! Poor Babe!

I guess the good alternative to using a Taser, is to shoot a combative person with a .45 caliber round to the chest.

@Jimi and GPS:

One of the most commonly-held myths regarding tasers is that the taser is a replacement for a gun. Anyone holding this view is simply exposing the fact that they haven't paid the slightest attention to the taser issue.

Fact: Tasers are used about 100 times as often as guns ever were. This figure varies widely, but it is a good round number.

Would the RCMP have shot Mr. Dziekanski with a gun if they'd lacked the taser? Would the RCMP have shot 82-year old Mr. Lasser in his hospital bed if they'd lacked a taser. The examples are endless.

The statistics tell the same story, hundreds of taser deployments per year in juridictions that normally have had only a small number of police gun-fire incidents per year. If the police have been firing their pistols at this rate, then they'd be the biggest band of serial killers in history.

Tasers are not a replacement for the gun. Not even close. Nothing but a damn lie.

Much, much more on my extensive blog:

www.Excited-Delirium.com
(don't forget the dash)

I don't doubt there are taser abuses. You do read about it every now and then. To me, it's one of those things where you don't hear about how successful tasers have been and how they've reduced serious consequences because . . . well, because it's not news so you don't hear about it. My guess is that taser success far out weighs its abuse.

My point is that I simply don't care about a few burns and injuries to those who are breaking the law and need to be restrained due to risk of injury to themselves or others. Including the police themselves. I don't envy the job police do. Some situations call for split second decisions. No, I don't want pregnant women and autistic kids being tased. But, I don't want people thinking they can run from the cops either. Given various situations, the police simply don't have the luxury of evaluating each and every suspect for their medical history.

Not a replacement for a gun? Ask a cop.

What about the pigs?

No. In fact if you read carefully I said I didn't want pregnant women or autistic kids being tased. Do I have to make a complete list of what would be unacceptable? Or can you give me the benefit of the doubt here?

I also specifically said that it's the people who NEED to be restrained AND are breaking the law that I didn't care about.

People have died as a result of being tased. I don't question that. I also don't question tasers being abused. I also don't doubt some skewing by the company. I just doubt . . . highly . . . that the abuses out number the times when their use have prevented deaths.

You don't care about the pigs?!

Help me out here because I think I may have missed something.
Where are the statistics about the criminals that where injured or killed due to a knight stick to the noggin??
Where are the statistic about the police officers injured or killed due to close hand to hand combat with a combative criminal?
How many lives were SAVED because of a taser??
As more and more tasers are deployed, there will of course be an increase in injuries but you need to take a look at the whole picture of what happens in these situations, not just the part you don't like...... If I was dumb enough to put myself in a situation that required that I be subdued, then taze me bro..... I'll take a few burns over a skull fracture any day.