That theory makes no sense. By that logic I should be innocent if I go out drinking, get behind the wheel and drive, and kill someone in the process.<p>I am not here to argue morals, ethics, or whether the use of force in situations is warranted or not. All I can say is that it is easy to arm chair quarterback a situation until you are placed in that situation and asked to make a split second decision that in end you know someone will always be second guessed.<p>My point was simply that taser statistics are deceiving to some extent. Sadly the statistics only show incidents where someone was killed by the use of a taser. If you compare that to the number of times tasers are actually deployed around the globe, you will find that tasers are in fact not as deadly as you think. In the vast majority of cases where a death does occur you will often find that there is an outside factor such as drugs that resulted in said death, not the taser.<p>The comment about police &quot;serve and protect&quot;. Unfortunately to &quot;serve and protect&quot; does not simply refer to the individual the police are questioning and&#x2F;or arresting. To serve and protect, first and foremost, refers to the officer&#x27;s own safety. Second it refers to the safety of the community as a whole. Finally it refers to the individual at hand. At every call for service an officer must make determine exactly how to &quot;serve and protect&quot; to the best of his or her ability all three of these groups. This decision often has to be made in less than a second with the officer knowing the wrong decision can end up being grave to one of the three groups. The best decision is no harm to any of the groups. The second best option is that the officer and community are safe. Regrettably, to reach that second option usually results in the injury or death of a party. But if that injury or death served and protected the larger community than in most scenarios it is considered justified.