Tasers:
We have given the police the power of Zeus, to cast lightning bolts, and just like the Greek God, they are capricious and arbitrary. All the human frailties we all suffer from are present in our police, they are us, the panic, the rage, the desire to take the easy course, all of it. Now they have a weapon that allows them to indulge these, as a pistol or baton never could.
I would rather see them use a Taser than a pistol, of course, but why must they have ones that are capable of multiple usage? Surely it would reduce the risk of abuse or accident if they were equipped with “edisonic epidural educators” that would only fire a couple of times, or three, certainly less than five times?
Another question that springs to mind, perhaps it’s possible to reduce the amperage, make it still effective but less likely to induce deleterious side-effects

Why have terrorists if they don’t instill terror. It is no good giving Police absolute power, and making them totally unaccountable, unless you give them a true terror weapon to go with it. The report from North Queensland indicates that the fellow Tasered and murdered at Brandon, was hit up to fifty three times. This deadly weapon would not be available to anyone, in a democracy. In a democracy, this terrorist weapon would be locked is a safe, and used as a last resort in a riot situation.

There would not be one Police Officer in all of Australia who would use one, if they knew they could be sued in a fair just and impartial court. Inflicting GBH, has always been a crime. These things are capable of inflicting GBH and even death. Just fix up the Federal Courts, so anyone tasered by a State Policeman can sue for damages as a member of the Commonwealth, without restriction, and get a fair go there and a jury trial, paid for by the Commonwealth, as Parliament has legislated, and the ten million dollars spent by Nathan Rees on Tasers, will be wasted.

What are they scared of? Are they so morally bankrupt that they must give more and more weaponry to an increasingly isolated and demoralized Police Force. Why is it impossible to retain Police in New South Wales? Is it because their own internal moral code rebels against the jobs they are asked to perform?

I think the Commonwealth should take over all policing, under S 51 Placitum Vi Constitution. They have the power, and they should be protecting us all from State sponsored terrorists. The war on terror, should have a home grown aspect. By S 114 Constitution The States have raised a paramilitary force without Commonwealth consent. They are also taxing property belonging to the Commonwealth. All freehold land reverts to the Commonwealth, as soon as it becomes freehold, so land tax is also illegal.

Tasers are just the latest in a State reign of terror, started in 1970. With courts not Courts they will not last

Just like the quick fixes they use on children with ADD[retinol] so is the taser to policing. Policing skills are lost and the taser will replace communication and good judgement.

"All the human frailties we all suffer from are present in our police, they are us, the panic, the rage, the desire to take the easy course, all of it."

You've hit the nail right on the head, Maximillion. You've got to ask whether the police will start using these weapons a lot more because they've been sold the idea that tasers are non-lethal, when recent events have shown that they can be lethal. Even if the technology doesn't kill you, it can seriously humiliate.

Every time I see a senior policeman or a police union spokesman get in front of the camera, all we ever hear is the point of view of the policeman in the situation. How he was protecting himself etc etc. While there are always situations which turn out this way, there are instances where cops carry out actions against people that are marginalised and who they think either won't complain or have anyone complain on their behalf. This is probably just as illegal as other bad behaviour they are supposed to be policing. But who's doing anything about bad police behaviour?

At the end of the day, it is the policeman who decides to use force. The initial response of police command is to support the officer concerned no matter what. That's a one-eyed view and, by itself, can't possibly be justice.

With the idea of reducing unecessary deaths during attempted arrests, first it was the longer baton; then they scrapped the longer baton for the silly little 'asps' which are easier to pack. So, back to shooting in self-defence. The goody two shoes complained even more about the deaths of criminals who were threatening the lives of police doing their job to protect society. So, voila, we have the tazer.

Now a violent person has died after being 'tazered'. We all knew that this would happend soon enough. How is anyone to know that a person has a physical condition that won't stand up to an electric shock.

Do the bleeding hearts have any further suggestions to protect thugs resisting arrest and attacking police? Probably not.

Let's stop this poor criminal rot. 99.9% or the population will never be arrested by police, and those who will be arrested need only to obey reasonable and lawful requests made by police.

If they attack police, particularly with weapons, shoot them!

Leigh, that would be fine, if our police weren’t human, and only ever used Tasers as and when they were supposed to, but that’s not how it works out on the street.
That was the point of my questions. Not whether they should have them, but how to deal with the problems associated with them.