Taser dilemma

TO Americans, the idea of arming only a tiny minority of police officers seems quaint and old-fashioned. Britain is a very different place, however, and despite the prevalence of gun crime, there has been an historic reluctance to see an armed police response become the norm, rather than the exception.

The use of Tasers by police, as in the stand-off with gunman Raoul Moat in Northumberland in July, represents a very British compromise.

Tasers, designed to allow officers to confront and incapacitate those who pose an immediate danger to the innocent public, do have a place in society and are far preferable to suspects being killed instantly.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

The case of Moat, which is still being investigated by the Independent Police Complaints Commission, is not so simple. On the run after shooting three people, he killed himself just as police officers, including those from West Yorkshire, discharged their Tasers.

What is clear, however, is that Pro-Tect Systems breached its licence in the way weapons were transported, and that the Home Office was circumvented.

This is alarming and Theresa May, the Home Secretary, had little choice but to revoke Pro-Tect's licence once the chain of events had become clear.

The handling of Tasers has to be done by the book, not for the sake of pleasing officialdom but so that the public can have confidence in the way they are used. Tasers are part of modern policing because the alternative, of routinely armed officers, is too extreme.