Disarming officers was treated as a non-starter in this small, self-selected room: No won by more than ten to one, with almost all the argument coming from that side. The floor’s most-respected case did not offer a blank cheque, instead pairing “a fundamental right to workplace safety” with accountability and oversight.
The winning case was that tasers and spray are defensive tools in a dangerous job, not a substitute for restraint. Some voters wanted officers to use tasers more readily, while others put it more simply: “Police officers need to be able to defend themselves - and us.” A few No voices turned combative, attacking the proposal and its supporters rather than developing the case.
Yes had the thinner presence but a clear objection: the danger was not only to officers, but to people subjected to force. One voter pointed to the “potential for misuse on individuals”; another said that, because of bias and brutality, “Sadly, that is not the reality, so Im voting yes for now.” Their case rested on the possibility of serious harm and the loss of trust that follows it.
The debate therefore ran past itself: No talked about immediate safety and the practical limits of policing, while Yes talked about institutional power and unequal use. Yet the strongest internal criticism came from a No voter too, who said “The real issue is the shocking lack of training” and warned that officers could misuse the tools. The room’s answer was reform and tighter control, not removal.
This was a decisive vote against abolition, but not a vote of complete confidence in how force is used. In this chamber, the remedy for misuse was oversight rather than disarmament.
17 Opinions
If police bias, systemic racism, and brutality weren't features of our police infrastructure, and they were capable of using them safely, equally, and morally, then I'd disagree. Sadly, that is not the reality, so Im voting yes for now.
2017 review found in National Library of Medicine. Says the spray is safe for crowds, potential for misuse on individuals. Resulting in unwanted outcome. 2012 American Heart Association. Can cause ventricular arrhythmia. Cardiac arrest, with possible unwanted outcome. In 2018 US 49 people tasered, had the unwanted outcome.
I'd be really interested to see someone argue yes for this
Should actually use tasers more instead of 4 or 5 officers struggling with 1 or 2 aggressive person's
The Green party, and their loopy leader, are ideologically captured and dangerous lunatics. This is a ridiculous idea, even by their standards. Placing officers and the public they are supposed to protect at further risk. While giving criminals, who won't care about the law when it comes to the use of weapons, more of an upper hand. Unbelievably stupid. "Please stop waving that machete about & trying to stab people or I'm going to have to say please stop again".
Should we go back to the police subduing violent offenders with battons instead which are more likely to cause lasting damage to the offender and put the officer in greater danger of harm themselves?
Police officers need to be able to defend themselves - and us.
The real issue is the shocking lack of training the Police receive and that they think they can freely use these measure to shut down any opposition. There are plenty of online examples of the Police misusing sprays & Tasers and seriously assaulting members of the public. Yet woman cannot use pepper seats to prevent rape. Bizarre.
I question the mental state of anyone who votes yes on this.
The Police have already been weakened by political correctness. They should all be equipped with tasers. The Police should be able to do their job in a modern world.