The BBC reports that one of the terrorist suspects arrested in Birmingham today, was incapacitated with a Taser stun gun.
Obviously the pulsed 50,000 volt electric shock might not be enough to set off any sensitive suicide bomb explosives, as not much actual current is used, but the Taser is designed to disrupt the human nervous system. People shot with a Taser writhe about and convulse, and there is no way to predict if, say their arm and hand muscles are going to extend or contract.
If the idea is to prevent a would be suicide bomber from pressing or releasing a bomb trigger, then surely using a Taser is an insane risk ?
If the Police were confident that the suspect was not carrying a suicide bomb, and there has been no evidence so far of any "bomb belt" type devices whatsoever, they have all been bulky rucksack bombs, then was the suspect, say, brandishing a knife ? That is just about the only sort of weapon when the use of a Taser might be justified.
It appears that even Sir Ian Blair, the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police shares our misgivings over the use of a Taser on a suicide bomber suspect:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4726485.stm
"Sir Ian said using a Taser in such a situation was "not an option".
"We use Tasers regularly in London but a Taser sends electric currents into the body of somebody," he said.
According to Reuters:
http://go.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=9210948&
src=rss/topNews
"It was an incredible risk to use a Taser (stun gun) on a suicide bomber because the Taser itself could set it off and that is not the policy," he said."
"If there is a bomb on that body, then the bomb is going to go off.
"They [officers in Birmingham] may have been clear there wasn't a bomb. I don't know what the situation was."
You're right. They should just be shot in the head.