I didn't include pain tolerance as a factor in whether or not you deploy the taser. The officer uses his normal judgment, in terms of, is the individual going to be violent or combative? Just what is there—because it is designed for a particular purpose. You don't look at a person who's done nothing and say, “I wonder what your pain tolerance is? I think it's pretty high, so I'll hit you with it.” There has to be a proportionality to the event.
The pain is relevant to the fact that it is a weapon. In my interim report there are quotes from the Hannibal case, which Judge Challenger looked at, and which had expert-led testimony. There's also the Amnesty International report, which has comments from officers who have been tasered. This wasn't described as a tonic. I saw some of the testimony at this committee about it being a brisk shot, that you're up and then you're ready to go again, just as if you've been to the gym. But the officers describe it as intense pain. What officers? These are police officers. They've been punched a hundred times. These are officers, not people who are inexperienced in terms of physical encounters, who said, having been tasered once, they'd never want to be tasered again.
So it is a weapon. Assuming it's a weapon, then you treat it as such, but where do you place it? I'm saying that if in your mind as an officer you can ask, would I use my baton, then we're in that category in which you can use your taser. And I'm not saying use your baton before you use your taser, because clearly you don't want to have to close with the person. But if it is at that level where you think there's going to be violence toward you or other people—and you can anticipate that, as you don't wait for the first punch—use your common-sense judgment.