If I may add to that, that is one of the dilemmas we are faced with, because there are a couple of jury recommendations from coroners' inquests--for example, the recently concluded case of Otto Vass and then the case of another gentleman, Christopher-Reid. In both cases the jury wanted to know why tasers were not available, because chances are that if the taser had been available, these men would be alive.
But in order for that to happen, we would have had to agree to or approve the deployment of tasers to our front-line officers. In one case, the officers at the scene called for the emergency task force whose members are authorized to use tasers, but they were occupied elsewhere and there was a delay of 15 to 20 minutes. We had not yet approved the deployment of tasers to our supervisors, so nobody could come. And in that situation the individual died.
So it's a dilemma for the board that on the one hand the board does not want to allow access to tasers by every front-line officer. That is not our policy right now. We have restricted it to emergency task force and front-line supervisors. At the same time, the juries are saying there are circumstances where you might have saved lives.
The debate around the pros and cons of that is very much a debate for us.