[rothko]

[ QUOTE ]
"yes, it was improper procedure. tasers are supposed to be almost the last resort, just before firearms. they are meant to be used in situations where firearms would be used if there were no tasers."

I think this is misleading. There are no hard rules designating Tasers as a second last option for Canadian officers. It is an immobilizing tool that uses pain compliance, just like batons, pepper spray, or physical techniques. It is unfair to think that officers should put their bodies in harms way in order to subdue an individual if a reasonable alternative exists, especially since the other techniques can escalate a situation.

The suspect exhibited violent behaviour by throwing equipment around and resisted arrest by not following the officers' orders. Legally, they are covered for using the Taser. What they did afterward though is rightfully subject to criticism.

[/ QUOTE ]

good lord, yes it is the case that tasers are supposed to be used at the upper end of the conflict hierarchy.

it's also not about the legality of using the taser. wtf, how silly to say that.

/trying with you