“The Taser is a weapon, and like any weapon, it can be lethal.” For nearly a decade, Italy’s National Ombudsman for the Rights of Persons Deprived of Liberty has been repeating this warning in annual reports. The device, he insists, should never replace de-escalation tactics—its only justification is to reduce the use of firearms.
Yet in Italy, as elsewhere, the Taser is often marketed as “non-lethal” or even “smart.” International evidence tells a different story: the weapon can and does cause serious injury and, in too many cases, death.
Italy – From Experiment to Deployment
The Taser—short for Thomas A. Swift’s Electronic Rifle—entered Italian law in 2014, when Parliament authorized a pilot program under strict health and safety conditions. The first trials began in 2017, and by early 2018 the Interior Ministry had published guidelines defining it explicitly as a “weapon.” Its purpose, the ministry said, was to provide an alternative to firearms in cases where a suspect needed to be immobilized.
But here lay the first contradiction: a tool presented as a way to reduce violence risked expanding the range of situations where force could be used.
Early Warnings
In 2018, Ombudsman Mauro Palma issued his first caution: Tasers should be used only in situations of a “real and immediate threat,” never simply to enforce compliance. He laid down four principles—necessity, proportionality, gradual escalation, and precaution—along with strict bans on their use in prisons, migrant centers, or deportations.
Palma also rejected the “non-lethal” label, citing Reuters’ documentation of more than 1,000 Taser-related deaths in the United States. In 2019, he sharpened the warning: it was precisely the illusion of harmlessness, he said, that made misuse more likely.
The Trial Numbers
Trials began in 12 Italian cities in September 2018. The numbers seemed modest: 31 incidents involving the State Police, 24 of which were resolved simply by brandishing the device, and eight incidents involving the Carabinieri, most also without firing.
Palma acknowledged that the rollout was careful and tightly monitored. But he raised alarms when Italy’s “Security and Immigration” decree authorized local police forces to carry Tasers, warning this could open the door to widespread—and riskier—use.
A Turning Point
By 2020, the picture had changed. Data showed 62 documented uses across police forces, most still without discharges. The bigger concern came from international studies.
A U.S. survey covering 2015–2017 found Tasers worked in only 60% of cases. Failures often escalated violence: in 250 incidents, an ineffective Taser was followed by a shooting; in 106 others, it provoked a stronger violent reaction from the suspect.
Far from being a conflict-solver, the Taser sometimes became a catalyst for bloodshed. Particularly dangerous, Palma warned, was its use on people with mental health issues, for whom the shock could be devastating. He also recalled a 2014 European Court of Human Rights ruling against Bulgaria for disproportionate Taser use—proof, he argued, that protocols alone aren’t enough.
Abroad: More Problems Than Solutions
The Ombudsman frequently compared Italy’s approach with other countries. In North America, widespread adoption led to well-documented abuses and fatalities. In Europe, only a few states—France, Germany, and the UK—have embraced the device, and always amid controversy.
The Council of Europe’s anti-torture committee has warned that introducing Tasers without strong safeguards risks encouraging disproportionate responses. In other words, they are less a safety tool than a shortcut to coercion.
A Weapon Among Weapons
Over the years, Palma’s stance has been unwavering: the Taser is a weapon. It may have a limited role, but it must never replace dialogue, negotiation, or mediation. Its only legitimate purpose is to reduce the use of firearms.
And yet, police training sessions revealed something troubling. When officers were asked if they would have used their guns in situations where they instead deployed a Taser, the answer was often no—they would have called for backup, talked more, or restrained the suspect differently. In practice, then, the Taser didn’t replace firearms. It simply added another weapon to the toolkit—one that required less dialogue and fewer resources.
The Real Risk
This is the paradox: the very belief that Tasers are safe could normalize their use, making them routine and banal. Palma has long fought against this drift. “Only if its deployment reduces firearms use—while protecting everyone involved—can the trial be considered a success,” he said.
Otherwise, the Taser is not a smart weapon. It is, at best, another illusion of security.