Re: Taser cripples copper

On Oct 22, 10:10 am, crazyh0r...@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
On 22 Oct, 09:56, Mel Rowing <mel.row...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:



The alternative is, of course, a bullet!......

.....or seven.

A silly response!

De Menzies died as the result of a tragic mistake whatever the
circumstances leading up to that mistake. Either that of he was the
victim of not only a callous but a motiveless crime carried out be one
stranger against another in the certain knowledge that the identity of
the perpetrator(s) would be known from the outset and so any
repercussions would be swift in coming, The legal processes would seem
to favour the former view.

So on the assumption that Menzies was not murdered but his killer
sincerely held the belief the he was about to or had the capacity to
explode an explosive device on that train then should he have been
killed or merely restrained?

In other words, under a different scenario should a police officer
faced with a suicide bomber have to depend upon a tazer? I would argue
not!

I had in mind a more common occurence where a poice officer is faced
with a deadly weapon like a knife, a machette or a firearm of some
kind. In such a case should his sole means of defence be physical
restraint.

.