LETTER: Tasers prove too dangerous, vote to make Conducted Electrical Devices unlawful

Thursday, September 9, 2010 | 12:04 p.m. CDT; updated 8:15 p.m. CDT, Tuesday, September 28, 2010

In placing Proposition 2 on the Tuesday, Nov. 2 ballot, City Council and the mayor have entrusted a crucial decision regarding public safety to the voters of Columbia.  This proposition would make it unlawful to use or threaten to use Tasers and all other Conducted Electrical Devices (CEDs) within the city limits.  This ban does not affect ownership of CEDs. And it applies not just to law enforcement, but to everyone.

Voting Yes on Proposition 2 is important to the safety of both citizens and law enforcement for many reasons that include the growing number of deaths, injuries and liability suits, both nationwide and in our region, subsequent to the use of CEDs. But the primary reason to vote Yes is based on the following principle of good judgment: These devices are unreliable and unpredictable in their effects. These qualities of uncertainty make them highly dangerous to everyone. Far from making our community safer, CEDs, because of their uncertainty, make us less safe.  Taser International, the company that produces and markets these devices, issued an advisory warning in Fall 2009 not to shoot into the heart and chest area.  Since the company itself is still finding out the effects of CEDs, these devices should not be used.

Our elected City Council and mayor, who are charged with the well being and safety of our community, could have passed an ordinance making CED use unlawful.  They did not.  Now we, as citizens who are committed to public safety and the common good, have the opportunity to make Columbia a safer place to live by voting Yes on Proposition 2.

Catherine Parke is a Columbia resident.


Like what you see here? Become a member.

Show Me the Errors (What's this?)

Report corrections or additions here. Leave comments below here.

You must be logged in to participate in the Show Me the Errors contest.


John Schultz September 9, 2010 | 1:10 p.m.

And what good is ownership if one cannot defend themselves? Vote no on this silly ordinance.

(Report Comment)
Ray Shapiro September 9, 2010 | 1:28 p.m.

("For law enforcement (LE), the Dazer Laser non-lethal weapons should logically fill the non-lethal role preceding the Taser less-lethal electro-shock weapons (Taser X3, Taser X26, and Advanced Taser M26), pepper spray, and baton-type weapons (PR-24, ASP, etc.) in the “force continuum” a.k.a. “use of force continuum” a.ka. “continuum of force”.

In other words, you should “Daze ‘Em Before Ya’ Tase ‘Em.” (Slogan/Tagline Copyright: David Crane.")

(Report Comment)
Russell Perkins September 9, 2010 | 1:53 p.m.

Ug, the taser is an extremely effective way at stopping foot chases and all sorts of other really bad acts. That said it is only as intelligent as its user.

The fact that people have died because of this device speaks volumes for the quality of police we have. We need to get better officers of the law if we want to truly protect our safety and freedoms. That does mean an increase in taxes to offer better wages. But along side that we could then afford better regulation and background/mental checks.

Its in our best interest to give our officers the best weapons and equipment we can afford, but we must also simultaneous make sure what we only have the best of the best out on the street with the guns and tasers.

(Report Comment)

Leave a comment

Speak up and join the conversation! Make sure to follow the guidelines outlined below and register with our site. You must be logged in to comment. (Our full comment policy is here.)

  • Don't use obscene, profane or vulgar language.
  • Don't use language that makes personal attacks on fellow commenters or discriminates based on race, religion, gender or ethnicity.
  • Use your real first and last name when registering on the website. It will be published with every comment. (Read why we ask for that here.)
  • Don’t solicit or promote businesses.

We are not able to monitor every comment that comes through. If you see something objectionable, please click the "Report comment" link.

You must be logged in to comment.

Forget your password?

Don't have an account? Register here.