The government has formalized the use of tasers for security forces – 07/05/2019

By a resolution signed by the Minister of Security, Patricia Bullrich, the government regulated the use of non-lethal electronic weapons, taser guns, in the federal security forces.

According to the text signed by Bullrich and published Tuesday in the Official Journal, the security forces will be able to use these weapons with the following objectives:

Clarin Bulletins

What happened today? We tell you the most important news of the day and what will happen tomorrow when you get up

Monday to Friday afternoon.

a) Immobilize, arrest or prevent the escape of those who present an imminent danger of hurting others or injuring themselves.

(b) When self-defense or that of third parties should be exercised.

c) Prevent the commission of a crime of public action.

Among the arguments of the resolution, it is emphasized that the use of stun guns gives the police "an additional tactical option".

"This will address operational situations in which it is necessary to resort to force without the use of firearms, constituting an intermediate means to exercise a rational and progressive use of force in confrontational situations. with violent or threatening people, "explains the text

In January of this year, Bullrich confirmed Clarin who badyzed a first purchase of 300 taser guns, whose unit price, in its basic format, amounts to $ 3,000.

In principle, non-lethal weapons that shock will be used in airports and trains, where a large number of people are concentrated in small spaces.

Look also

The measure had generated view human rights organizations, considering that this type of pistol they can be used to torture.

Look also

This argument was part of the legal dispute that took place in principle in the city of Buenos Aires. In 2010, Mauricio Macri – then head of the government of Buenos Aires – proposed that the Metropolitan Police of the time uses the Tasers.

The discussion lasted six years and was settled by the Supreme Court in 2016, when it signed a decision authorizing its implementation, arguing that there was no evidence to corroborate this questioning.