ONE.
Public Safety?
If Med Examiner's Autopsy Report referred to Taser marks on one/some victims, LE
could publicly disclose ---- a Taser was used.
But
why? So the public watches for ppl brandishing Tasers? Would this help keep the public safe?
Does it make sense for someone on a street/sidewalk to think--
Oh, somebody wearing a hoodie is approaching, but I do not see a Taser in hand, so no danger to me?
If ppl are
situationally aware/alert about potential dangers to their personal safety, they are cautious, can/may perceive others who are potential threats.
With or w'out a visible Taser, stun gun, knife, gun, other weapon.
OTOH, ppl out and about w their eyes glued to their cells may be (are likely to be imo)
oblivious to others approaching them in a threatening manner.
With or w'out a visible Taser, stun gun, knife, gun, other weapon.
TWO. False Confessions?
Let's say a Taser was used in these Moscow murders, and LE publicly releases that info. During later interviews, how can LE distinguish whether a person knows of the Taser because of MSM reports or because that person committed the murders or is somehow involved in the crimes.
As
@OldCop posted, releasing investigatory findings can lead to false confessions and cause LE to needlessly waste time sorting them.
If a Taser was used, then after an arrest, during discovery, the state provides Autopsy Report, etc. to the def't. & counsel, who gather evidence to present.
Then at
trial, Med. Examiner testifies; def. counsel cross-examines ME/other witnesses on it, etc.
Imo seems that's the
time for
Taser info (if applicable to this case) to be
made public --- as part of all the evidence the jury uses in deliberating to find the accused guilty or not guilty.
JM2Cents.