Well, I thought I'd start this one as someone's bound to.... I note that the Home Office are patting themselves on the back for spending Â£8million on 10,000 units. I'm led to understand that the total costs of investigationof a fatal collision from crunch to coroner's is in the region of Â£1 million. Not much of an investment when you think of it that way. And of course Amnesty are bleating like good un's about "Lethal" weapons. FFS, we're already equipped with expanding metal bars that are capable of killing and nasty horrid boots that could be used to kick someone to death. But generally, we don't and generally Taser doesn't. Their main concern seems to be the effect on people under the influence of drugs. My question would be, "Erm why are they under the influence of drugs?" I knw, I know, there are some PC's who shouldn't be allowed to have a sharpened crayon but it's always seemed to me that Taser is about as good as it gets for an almost harmless defence weapon. I've been tased and so has my missus whilst visiting a PD in the US and although unpleasant, it's not dreadful but, assuming a proper contact, it DOES make you stop... Thoughts anyone..?