Detailed study of fatalities and litigation involving police use of stun guns
It seems to me that the takeaways from stun-guns in the hands of police are simple and easy to observe:<p>* The instances of their use as a substitute for lethal force are vanishingly rare.  So much so that it&#x27;s hard to find a case by googling.  They&#x27;re always and only used in a lower stage of the use-of-force continuum than as a substitute for a firearm.<p>* They&#x27;re often used completely inappropriately, with no self-defense component at all (ie, used as a way to torture people into complying).<p>* They&#x27;re sometimes used purely as a torture device against people who are restrained, already subdued, or even already unconscious.<p>* They cause a lot of lasting injuries and some fatalities.<p>It&#x27;s been an interesting experiment, but it&#x27;s time to end it.  Let&#x27;s just remove them from the police arsenal (like we   have mostly done with nunchaku, which were a less-lethal fad in the 80s and 90s).<p>I&#x27;m of the mind that police force needs to be more black and white, just as the law needs to be more black and white.  If there is serious cause to use lethal force, the police need to use (and be trained with) dependable firearms.  If there&#x27;s not, then I don&#x27;t really want them using weapons at all.<p>Let&#x27;s treat failure to comply with lawful requests as a civil matter.  You can continue non-compliance as long as you want, but you&#x27;ll be liable for all the costs incurred by your doing so.  Let&#x27;s not torture or injure people on this basis.<p>This middle-ground &#x2F; gray area in the use-of-force continuum creates a strange mindset for everyone involved.  Are the police simply dispassionately enforcing discrete laws?  Or are they forcing their own will or an unwritten will of the state?