Thank you, Mr. Chair. Perhaps I could quote directly from the policy:
The CEW must only be used in accordance with CEW training, the principles of the Incident Management/Intervention Model (IM/IM) and in response to a threat to officer or public safety as determined by a member’s assessment of the totality of the circumstances being encountered.
NOTE: Members' actions must be reasonable and the force used must be necessary in the circumstances.
It goes on to say: “All members must recognize that any use of force entails risk.”
So yes, I am satisfied that our policy and our training are appropriate.
I might just comment that while the example I gave was one of the deployment of a taser preventing death or grievous bodily harm, in our view that is not the only circumstance in which a taser can be used appropriately. In fact, the classification of the CEW in the committee report recommending it be treated as an impact weapon would suggest that a CEW could be used in circumstances where another device like a baton might otherwise be used. A baton in police parlance could certainly be referred to as an impact weapon; you basically hit somebody with it. You wouldn't use a baton if there were a risk of death or grievous bodily harm.
We train our members that if there is a risk of death or grievous bodily harm, they should use their firearm. The only instance where they should not use their firearm and where the application of force is necessary is as in the example I gave in my opening comments, where there is lethal overwatch. In other words, if the taser doesn't do it, another member is there who will use his firearm.