Many of you have no doubt been following the series of articles in the Seattle Post Intelligencer about the use of stun guns by police to subdue recalcitrant suspects. Every once in a while they'll get someone sky high on cocaine or PCP. They'll die from a heart attack and the coroner will say that drug overdose, restraint and the stun all played a part in the death.
Various civil rights advocates are saying that the stun guns are lethal, even though there is no case of lethality absent the drugs. They say the use of the stun guns should be suspended, pending further study, etc.
My question is this. Had the stun gun not been used in these cases, wouldn't it be very likely that the suspect would have died anyway? Also, wouldn't it be likely that the officers would have been much more at risk themselves? In some cases, the suspects might have ended up shot. If you take away stun guns, that leaves guns. I can't understand these people that want to ham string the police at every turn.