How does that logic not apply to a shot from a pistol? Both have a reliable range of ten feet. In fact if you believe a miss is possible firing either the taser is even more compelling (a miss with a pistol is deadlier to innocents).
I'm not saying charge the officer with a crime. I'm just saying if the responding officers were primarilly armed with non lethal options the outcome is perhaps different for the perp (and I acknowledge it could be different for the vic or officers but doubt it).
I still can't believe someone would do what she did. It completely baffles me what people decide to do in the presence of cops, who more often than not have incomplete context when they show up to a scene. Don't add to the confusion.
Tasers have become an essential tool for police, but how effective are they? An APM Reports investigation finds that officers in some big cities rated Tasers as unreliable up to 40 percent of the time, and in three large departments, newer models were less effective than older ones. In 258 cases...
An APM Reports investigation finds that officers in some big cities rated Tasers as unreliable up to 40 percent of the time, and in three large departments, newer models were less effective than older ones. In 258 cases over three years, a Taser failed to subdue someone who was then shot and killed by police.
Sure the Tueller drill cite refutes my knife effective range comment but both are irrelevant (or slightly additive) to the non-lethal alternative point I was originally making. Plus it's irrelevant because it involves holstered weapons.
In fact the tueller drill might support non lethal force here. I'd accept a position that an officer armed with non lethal force be allowed to more readily use the force BECAUSE of the data tueller introduces.