In the newspaper article, “ Vt. AG rules trooper justified in stun gun death,” it states that the trooper was justified in his actions towards the man because “a person is allowed to use force for protection if they believe they are in immediate danger of bodily harm,” meaning self-defense. Since Mr. Mason, the dead man, was not armed and was hit with the stun gun by the trooper after he “moved toward the trooper,” Mr. Mason must have been very dangerous.

I always thought that police were trained in restraining people who are out of control and then slapping the cuffs on them and hauling them off to the slammer. If necessary, police can smack these violent people over the head with a police baton like the riot police did to the Occupy Wall Street protesters or the Vietnam War protesters from the 1960s. Yes, their heads do bleed, but they live to see another day.

The stun gun that killed Mr. Mason is really the issue here, not the officer’s conduct. People die from stun guns, so why are they still in use? Police need to restrain violent suspects, not stun gun them to death.

TOM KING

Shaftsbury