Should a drive stun be used solely for pain compliance?

The use of a drive stun, which refers to deploying a weapon such as a Taser to deliver a jolt of electricity for the purpose of incapacitating an individual, is not meant to be utilized exclusively for pain compliance. The rationale behind this approach is rooted in the understanding that while pain compliance can be an effective method in certain scenarios, relying on it as the sole reason for employing a drive stun may not accommodate the complexity of various situations encountered by officers.

There might be exceptional circumstances that necessitate the use of a drive stun for reasons beyond merely inflicting pain, such as the need for control during an incident involving a potentially violent subject or in situations where an immediate threat is present. In these contexts, the aim is to ensure both the safety of the officer and the individual involved, rather than focusing solely on pain as a tactic for compliance.

Hence, the acknowledgment that there are exceptional circumstances where using a drive stun may be warranted demonstrates a more nuanced understanding of situational deployment, making it clear that the action should not be restricted solely to pain compliance but needs to be evaluated within the broader context of officer safety, threat levels, and necessary control measures.