KEY POINTS:
Throughout the year, police officers have fretted as Commissioner Howard Broad dallied over whether the force would adopt the Taser stun-gun.
During that time, they reiterated that they did not want to carry firearms routinely, even though a survey suggested most New Zealanders favoured this. Their wish was a less-than-lethal option, the Taser, to fill what they saw as a gap in their armoury. This week, Mr Broad belatedly bowed to their judgment, and to common sense, in formalising the weapon's adoption.
Before that happened, however, he was guilty of unnecessary hesitation and, worse, the unfortunate politicisation of the issue through his referral of it to MPs.
Mr Broad seemed to have been spooked by an anti-Taser campaign by civil libertarians and some lawyers. A quick change of heart occurred when the Police Association pointed out the convention of the commissioner's operational independence from Parliament.
The successful 12-month trial in Auckland and Wellington should have quelled any concern about the police's ability to use the weapon appropriately and the potential for it to cause lasting injury.
The Taser's mere presence was shown to be a considerable deterrent. When it had to be used, it was a valuable means of incapacitating lightly armed but aggressive suspects, or people under the influence of drugs or liquor.
It is especially relevant to consider what would happen to those involved in incidents, officers, offenders and the public, if a Taser is not available. Firearms would probably be used and avoidable deaths would occur.
This, above all, is why Tasers must be added to the police's arsenal. We expect officers to put themselves in positions of danger, and assaults on them are increasing. They should have a range of weapons allowing them to handle any perilous situation.
