Red Letter Day: I actually agree with the ACLU!

I've got to take issue with my esteemed colleague, Mr. Courreges, about Tasers. Here's why:

Tasers are supposed to reduce deaths because now, cops can zap a suspect instead of shooting him with a conventional firearm. Makes sense, right? If you zap a guy that you would've shot in the pre-Taser era, you've saved a life.

Nice theory, but it's not quite working out that way. Instead, police are zapping people in situations that wouldn't even call for a nightstick. Like putting 50,000 volts into a 6-year-old child.

Second, Owen implies that nightsticks are more dangerous than Tasers. But they're not. It's easy to adjust the level of force with a baton. The officer uses his discretion to determine how hard to hit, how many times, and where. Tasers don't offer that flexibility to adapt the level of force to the situation. It's just point, shoot, fry.

What we should be rely on is the expertise of our officers, augmented with proper training. Tasers are a clumsy substitute.