By now the story of the exorcism will have made its round through the media.  After the movie, there’s no decent exorcism story that doesn’t get widespread play.  But the real story here has nothing to do with the exorcism.

The police sought to stop the grandfather from choking the life out of a 3 year old in this home-made exorcism.  They did the right thing.  The police could have just shot the guy, but instead tried what they believed to be non-lethal force:  a stun gun.  Not only should they not be faulted to doing so, but commended for trying to save a life without taking another.

The problem, and the story to me, is that the old technology of stun guns and tasers has produced too many unintended deaths.  Sold as a non-lethal means of subduing a person, the chances are too high that these good intentions, and marketing representations, will still result in death.

There must be a better way.  I would not be at all surprised to learn that the technology, the means to subdue, already exists and is readily available.  I’ve watched “future weapons” on Discovery Channel, and there’s a whole lot out there that the general public knows nothing about.  And that’s just the stuff that they make public.  Imagine what they’ve got behind closed doors.

But why, if totally safe and effective non-lethal weapons exist, are they not in the hands of police?  Am I wrong to think that most of us would want police to have the means to protect themselves and us from those who would commit acts of violence without causing the death of another human being?  Safe and effective are not mutually exclusive. 

As we used to say, if we can put a man on the moon, can’t we produce safe and effective non-lethal weapons?  If we let everyone have one, I bet that Steve Jobs could figure out a way to put it into an iphone.  There’s no reason why people should still die from the use of stun guns and tasers.