(2 of 2)
Police supporters of the stun guns contend that they solve an old problem: how to avoid serious harm while capturing suspects who are a danger more to themselves than to others. The Houston officers who serve commitment warrants on the mentally disturbed use Tasers regularly and gratefully; injuries are down. The XR-5000, says Police Chief Conrad Teller of Southampton, N.Y., "sets them on their fanny nice and quiet. So far as we can see, it's the most humane way to do it." There are police complaints, however. The devices do not always work. Large and aggressive suspects sometimes keep on coming despite being zapped. Lieut. David Townsend of the Michigan state police is not sure of the stun guns' safety. "The manufacturers claim they are not lethal to healthy hearts," he says. "The people we deal with are not always healthy, so there is a risk of injuring or killing someone."
The Taser is considered a firearm (because it shoots darts), and its sale is somewhat restricted by federal law, while a handful of states have tougher rules that ban both Tasers and Novas, or limit them to police. Many civil libertarians are cautious supporters of stun guns on the ground that police are more likely to injure suspects with a gun or a nightstick. But the new charges of stun-gun abuse have sharpened their concerns. "The risks are the same as the advantages," answers Greg Thomas, a Washington police researcher. "It all comes back to the judgment and discretion of the officer."