You know the problem with tasers is since they don't "harm" directly the subject we tend to consider them more socially acceptable.
I ask you, what is the difference between tasing the guy and firing on him (not with the intention of killing).
There is no difference whatsoever, just as firing on that guy would be considered absurd, so is tasing.
Calling tasers non lethal weapons makes them socially acceptable.
But the nature of those weapons doesn't change.
A gun can kill, but it can also incapacitate a suspect. Does any sensibile person dare call a gun a non lethal weapon ?
