Not A Lawyer

72 responses so far ↓

• 1 Michelle // Nov 30, 2007 at 12:25 am

  We have had a rash of taser deaths here lately … its something I was playing with blogging about myself. It sounds to me like the pregnant woman you mentioned might just have the best chance at a successful lawsuit out of all of those I’ve heard of lately. Actually the most recent Canadian one, the guy was tasered, taken to hospital, released back into police custody and died 30 hours later in a scuffle with the cops. And although I could be wrong I’m pretty sure he wasn’t tasered a second time. So I would say it would be pretty hard to even prove that the taser caused or contributed to the death in that case.

  So back to your pregnant lady. The thin skull or crumbling skull or egg shell skull ‘rules’ are all variations on the same theme, that you take your plaintiff as you find them and if you are found legally liable for some injury you can be found liable for the whole injury suffered (or at least a large portion of it) due to the plaintiff’s pre-existing condition even though you couldn’t have reasonably foreseen it.

  But that’s a rule concerning the assessment of damages. First you have to prove liability … breach of a duty of a care. And that’s going to be the stickler in the case of the police. Its not that those other ‘rules’ don’t apply, its just that you have to get there first.

  You would probably be better off going for an intentional tort (like assault) rather than negligence. Although I suppose the smart plaintiff might plead both to cover the bases. But I would think that the courts would turn at least a partially sympathetic eye to the police in most of these situations. The pregnant lady being the possible exception.

  Sorry for the length of the comment. Its just that its an interesting discussion to me. Perhaps I will search the blogosphere to see what others are saying.

• 2 Gerri // Nov 30, 2007 at 12:46 am

  Michelle,

  Please don’t apologize for the length of your comment. I am happy to have discussion on this topic because it’s been bothering me for quite some time.

  What you said makes a lot of sense, in that the liability has to be proven first.

  I am looking forward to seeing if this pregnant woman will sue the police. I saw an interview with her and she did suffer burns and multiple contusions on her body. She said that when the officer pushed her down and demanded her hands that her body was laying on one of her arms, and since the cop was on top of her, and hurting her, she could not free her arm and because of that she was shot with the Taser.

  Most importantly, I hope her innocent baby will be fine and not suffer any from this.

• 3 Matt Castille » Blog Archive » Taser Use By Police Officers Is Out Of Control // Nov 30, 2007 at 1:46 pm

  […] Use By Police Officers Is Out Of Control Taser Use By Police Officers Is Out Of Control: Police Taser Use Out Of […]

• 4 David // Nov 30, 2007 at 1:52 pm

  Here’s an idea…don’t resist! All these incidents happen because stupid people fail to follow an officers simple and repeated instructions. Just do what the officer says and you won’t get tasered. You will get your chance to speak and plead your case, but the officer needs to ensure his and your safety before anything else can happen. As far as I am concerned, the officers are thinning stupid people out of the gene pool and in the long rum making the world a better place.

• 5 Jay // Nov 30, 2007 at 1:53 pm

  I’m glad that other people have taken notice of what I have seen as a growing trend in the use of tasers in non-serious situations.

  I understand that there are always two sides to every story, I’m sure some people do deserved to be tasered since they were not only a danger to themselves, but a danger to others. But when you taser people for simply not wanting to remove themselves from a location, then using a taser seems a bit too extreme.

  I know the police have a job to do as well… but the taser just seems to give the police a reason to not have to think in these situations.

• 6 John // Nov 30, 2007 at 1:57 pm

  The increase inincidents, be they deaths, injuries, video taped tasings are not really surprising.

  When the Houston PD began issuing Tasers en masse one of the local activists made the point that sicne Tasers were/are regarded as non-lethal then cops would be more prone to use them as opposed to the known lethality of the pistol.

  I think what we are seeing is the accumulating weight of evidence that suggests that they are becoming a first-choice option for many police AND that they are more dangerous than thus far realized…

• 7 T. Kamp // Nov 30, 2007 at 1:58 pm

  While I feel bad for the families of those who have been hurt by victims of the taser, it still has about a .01% mortality rate. Last time I checked, a cop with a 9mm or a .45 will be upwards of 90%. As a law abiding citizen, I don’t feel bad for those tasered. I am currently preparing a persuasive speech saying that the Taser is a valuable weapon in the cop’s arsenal. The police have been instituted by the government, and when you resist being handcuffed, struggle, or don’t comply fully - then you should be maced, hit with the baton, or tasered, regardless of your medical condition. The police are required to say that if you do not comply you will be tasered - if that’s not warning enough, I don’t know what is. If you don’t want to be tasered, obey the law - it’s that simple. When the officer kindly asks you to get down on the ground, please realize that you indeed are under his authority, and should probably obey him.

  I do hope the innocent baby is ok as well.

• 8 Aunteros // Nov 30, 2007 at 1:58 pm

  So I suppose you’d rather get shot in the face with Mace, whacked with a baton or worse, shot when you’re uncooperative. It’s easy for people to attack the police for doing their job, but who do you call and expect to handle the guy with a gun who’s broken into your home?

  Ever wonder why they are given those tools in the first place? Here’s your answer, because there are folks out there that wouldn’t think twice and shooting, stabbing, punching, kicking or killing a cop to get away. Officers get shot all the time just walking up to a car on a routine stop out of the blue. Have some respect for those in public service, everyone makes mistakes, including yourself.

• 9 Phil // Nov 30, 2007 at 2:00 pm

  Eggshell skull is indeed a tort in the USA and Canada (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eggshell_skull) but as Wikipedia mentions, it is defended by the crumbling skull defence, which is where cops get off — if this person is causing trouble, and they are attempting to stop him, they should not be liable for damage they cause related to previous injuries because they put themselves in line for injury that would have already occurred. That’s why defence lawyers and manufacturers such as taser international argue towards “excited delerium” (http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=129937&p=NewsArticle&id=1079167).

• 10 Benjie // Nov 30, 2007 at 2:00 pm

  I (sarcasm) like the one where someone went into diabetic shock on a bus. People got off the bus to wave down two police officers. The officers bored the bus and demanded that the victim, in diabetic shock who was clearly unconscious and had a diabetic necklace on, respond. The victim didn’t/counldn’t respond, so they tasered him and he died. I guess they’re immune from getting in trouble also because he couldn’t been faking it and could have possibly had a bomb in his back-pack.

• 11 Mike // Nov 30, 2007 at 2:03 pm

  I recently posted a blog about this topic on my own page and was interested to see what you said. While I agree that the incident with the pregnant woman was inexcusable given that she was already on the floor and mostly restrained, and I certainly acknowledge that there are widely publicized cases of trigger happy police, I don’t believe Tasering is actually out of control as you say.

  Ask yourself how many police are out there correctly using (or not using) their Tasers every day. Many officers are in situations every week where they could use a Taser but don’t, or are in a situation where a suspect or criminal elevates the situation from calm to dangerous and some sort of force is required.

  I’m not saying that all police officers are saints, but the vast majority are just doing their job and are now under fire by uninformed citizens and a media feeding frenzy.

• 12 Daniel // Nov 30, 2007 at 2:07 pm

  I too hope that that woman and her unborn child will be fine.

  I do feel however that the best way to get the police to stop tasering people is to merely quit resisting arrest, or police orders. Any order given to a person by a police officer is supposed to be followed. 20 years ago, people who chose to resist arrest would often have a baton used against them, which could do just as much damage as a taser, but also endagers the life of the officer making the arrest. Tasers help make the already very dangerous job of law enforcment officers just a little bit safer.

  I guess my real point to this is: If you don’t give the police a reason to use force against you, they won’t.

• 13 Jay // Nov 30, 2007 at 2:09 pm

  There was auctually another death in canada just over the weekend. The man was brought to the ground, beat with the billy club, and then tasered, he died 2 days later in the hospital.

• 14 Rob // Nov 30, 2007 at 2:13 pm

  I think what might be missing from the Taser discussion is what would have happened in these and similar situations if Tasers had not been available to police? Would police be forced to resort to gunshots instead? Would Amadou Diallo be alive if he had been Tased rather than shot by NYC police? I don’t know but I suspect that the fallacy of a Taser being non-lethal force is quickly coming to light. The problem is probably rooted in training and procedure. Tasers should be a last resort in a dangerous situation not a means for punishing resistance. They should be treated as an alternative to guns not nightsticks.

• 15 Curtis // Nov 30, 2007 at 2:15 pm

  Uhm, have any of you individuals who are so against the CED spent any time as a law enforcement professional? Do you know the details that comprise their day? Do you realize that these people are out there every single day making it safe so that you can go shopping and having dinners?

  But I guess out of sight out of mind right? (obvious sarcasm noted)

  Maybe the Police should just pepper spray them in them instead? Or wait.. I guess they should ‘probably’ do a medical history to ensure there are no contraindications to pepper spray.

  This whole ‘ban the Tazer’ movement is getting out of hand. Have you personally ever tried to contain an individual who is on meth? hmmm…

• 16 Jonathan // Nov 30, 2007 at 2:16 pm

  While I agree that todays cops use excessive force - is there not an onus on these “victims”?
  Do they not have a responsibility to act in accordance with the law? Most of these cases, the person was resisting in some way.

  BELIEVE me when I say that I do not have that much faith in our police force, but truth is…if I was ever in a situation where a cop was yelling at me to do something, I would comply. I know how trigger happy they can be…gun or taser.

  Cops need to be better trained in general, but I think todays public needs to behave better in general.

  Tasering a woman, completely unacceptable. Tasering that guy who got out of his car and was just a loudmouth…maybe not 100% necessary, but much more understandable.

  All in all, I would rather be Tasered then shot.

• 17 Marc // Nov 30, 2007 at 2:21 pm

  First of all, she should have not been arrested in the first place. This is a colosal violation of human rights. The woman is seeking help, and gets arrested instead. Secondly, given the egshell skull rule, tasers should not be allowed, period. Police officers do not know is someone has a pacemaker or other afflictions. Our police force is out of control. This election, forget any other issue and vote for FREEDOM. Demand civil liberties.

• 18 Gabriel // Nov 30, 2007 at 2:23 pm

  i was looking for this other taser video i’ve seen, seem like the guy has a good case.. but i actually found a video of the above mentioned case:
  http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22847362-2,00.html

  here’s the other clip i wanted to post, guy from utah..http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=fae_1195587967&p=1

• 19 Michael // Nov 30, 2007 at 2:26 pm

  First, I think that police do tend to overreact to certain situations - and I think that is primarily due to their training. Police are an instrument of force. They are trained to use force to enforce the law. A lot of people seem to forget this fact when confronted with Police. They become belligerent, resistant, don’t want to submit to commands (Police don’t generally issue requests), etc. There is fault on both sides of this argument, but a lot of the issue could be avoided by listening and complying with the officers instructions. If you disagree with their training, that’s fine and understandable. However the time to address it is not when the Police are in front of you.

• 20 Larry // Nov 30, 2007 at 2:28 pm

  It looks like the taser is being used as a compliance device rather than self defense. Some have went so far as to suggest it is being used as a torture device to enforce obedience. The taser should be used as a safer alternative to bullets but its use should be strictly defensive and the rules of use should be exactly the same as firearms as they have proved to be deadly in an alarming number of instances. Officers that use them indiscriminately should be held accountable.

• 21 Jimbo // Nov 30, 2007 at 2:35 pm

  To answer your question, yes the individual officer is indemnified (more or less immune) from civil liability while acting in the scope of his employment and within his agency’s policy and procedure.

  In California, and I would guess most states, an officer is allowed to use any force reasonably necessary, up to and including deadly force, to apprehend a subject. There are rather strict guidelines on use of lethal force to apprehend a subject, such as the person has to have committed a violent felony and be an ongoing danger to the officer or the public, however no such restrictions exist for intermediate uses of force.

  Most agencies simply require that the subject be somehow actively resisting the officer’s attempt to detain them. Active resistance can include anything from tensing your body, to taking a fighting stance, to verbally telling the officer you will fight them, to turning and walking away.

  Also, per California law, as well as most other states I would assume, the officer never needs to wait for a situation to come to a self defense situation. If the officer can articulate why the force was necessary, regardless of any overt threat tot he officer, the force is justified and the officer will not be deemed the aggressor in the situation.

  Police training as well as case and written law fully support this use of intermediate force (including tasers) for any form of active resistance, regardless of the status (age, gender, sex, size, pregnancy, etc etc).

  Hopefully that was a fairly objective answer to your question.

  There are certainly times when tasers are abused, the vast majority of the time tasers are used properly, legally, and more humanely than their alternatives (sticks, fists and OC spray).

  For the people who are against their use, the blame doesn’t lie with the officers using them but the law which is written supporting their use. Writing your congressmen will have a much better effect than flaming the police officers.

  PS, most of that is relevant to the US but I’m sure most countries have somewhat similar concepts.

• 22 Dave // Nov 30, 2007 at 2:36 pm

  Interesting article and good question.

  I have noticed quite a few of these Taser incidents lately as well. What I find interesting is that no one is really speaking up about the rampant use of taser guns on citizens (whether justifiable or not). But everyone is up in arms about waterboarding (suspected) terrorists?

  Wouldn’t tasering be just another form of torture (according to the media’s latest definition)?

  It would be interesting to see some stats on deaths caused by tasering vs waterboarding.

  Sorry I digress.

• 23 Ian // Nov 30, 2007 at 2:45 pm

  I do agree that there are situations where a taser is used and probably doesn’t need to be used. However, there are many situations when the taser actually saves lives, including that of the suspect. Remember that they are using the taser in lieu of using physical force on the suspect. Its very easy to focus on the “big bad” police, but if you put yourself in their situations, its dark, they’re alone, they’re trying to arrest someone for a crime, (the crime does not matter), and they have several options, let the person go(bad choice), fight with them, where they could possibly get hurt and be off the streets for several weeks, shoot them(also a bad idea), or they can taser them. 5 seconds and the person is down, and then handcuffed.
  We never see the hundreds of stories where the taser was used properly, we only see the ones where the cop was wrong.
  I wholeheartedly support going after cops who break the law, but remember that resisting arrest or failure to comply with a lawful order is also a crime.
  Just because someone got pulled over for speeding doesn’t give them the right to be an ass and get away with it. If you’re told to comply then the officer has the right to force them to comply.
  Sorry for the rant, but please focus on the bad cops, not a tool that has saved many lives.

• 24 Bryan // Nov 30, 2007 at 2:47 pm

  I’m pretty sure that governmental immunity protects police from all civil tort liability for all acts that can’t be shown to be intentional acts. So, police can kill people left and right with tasers, and are immune from civil liability unless it can be shown that they had the specific intent to kill the target. In order to show that, you’d have to show that the officer actually knew of the “eggshell skull”, the unique disability of the target that resulted in the death by the taser.

  Now, there’s a story in the new of police tasering a pregnant woman, so maybe a jury would accept the argument that the tasering was done with intent to kill if the target was obviously frail, such as a pregnant woman, old person, or even if the victim just screams, “don’t taze me bro, I have a heart condition.”

  That’s probably the moral of the story- if you anticipate that you are going to be in a situation where the police will taze you, do everything you can to put the police on notice of your ailment/fraility, so that your family can sue the police dept. and that officer after they kill you.

• 25 BWS // Nov 30, 2007 at 2:48 pm

  Tort law is of course applicable to police.

  Recall that the elements of a tort are: (i) duty, (ii) breach, (iii) causation, and (iv) damages/injury.

  Police owe a duty not to use excessive force. In other words, they have a duty to use the minimum amount of force necessary to achieve a legitimate end. If an officer has warned a person verbally and attempted to use unarmed physical force, then use of non-lethal armed force (like use of a taser) might not be deemed excessive. If this is the case, then there’s been no breach, so there’s no actionable tort. The law applies to the police officer, but he isn’t deemed liable because he acted within the law. It doesn’t matter whether the damages/injury is 100 times greater than what the officer reasonably thought it should be (as might be the case with an eggshell plaintiff), he didn’t breach a duty, so he’s not liable.

  Even if he did breach a duty (say he could have subdued the plaintiff with unarmed physical force rather than non-lethal armed force (like use of a taser) and has therefore breached his duty), the concept of comparative negligence could come into play. Yes, maybe the officer used excessive force, but the plaintiff is also partly or wholly responsible for the damage as a result of his own negligence (not obeying the orders of the officer).

  Tort law differs by state, so the above might or might not be applicable in a particular jurisdiction.

• 26 Brookz // Nov 30, 2007 at 2:53 pm

  It’s call not resisting arrest and you don’t get shot with a taser…

• 27 Chad // Nov 30, 2007 at 3:01 pm

  It seems to me the problem here fundamentally is the mis-labeling of the taser’s status as a law enforcement tool. Clearly it is less lethal than a gun, but if the rules for it’s use are so relaxed that it is used much more often than a gun, then it might end up being responsible for more deaths than guns overall.

  I understand it is classification and rules of use that are used as an excuse, even when these uses amount to merely non-compliance of an officers commands in some cases. More often it seems to be resistance to arrest in which some force is allowed which blurs the boundaries.

  Given that so many deaths have resulted from tasers, is there a reasonable legal argument that the labeling and rules of use of tasers is willful negligence on the part of police departments? After all, they can’t just re-classify a gun as a non-lethal weapon and therefore allow them to shoot people for non-compliance.

  I’m not familiar with this area of law.

• 28 Santa Fe // Nov 30, 2007 at 3:06 pm

  Police are not our friends anymore… a police state requires so many cops that the force becomes a magnet for every sicko sadist who isn’t fit to join the army –

  I think police are institutional sadists. I’ve only known a few, but the ones I knew never should have been allowed to be cops. I knew them as teens…. and whoa…. LOSERS!

• 29 heather // Nov 30, 2007 at 3:11 pm

  i know that they have the responsibility to step it up a notch before they or someone else gets killed. Let’s say someone is using a knife to attack them, they can always use more force. This is part self defense, part preemptive strike. They can’t return punches with punches, they have to control the situation, because if they don’t that is when crazy criminals start shooting innocent people. Now obviously there is abuse in the system, and it isn’t always true that they are controlling a crazy criminal. But they basically are trained to shoot first ask questions later, if the situation is tricky. There are plenty of testosterone overloaded cops out there though who jump the gun and look for the opportunity at every turn to use excess force. But one thing we should remember, these are the types of people they deal with most of the time. They get used to dealing with dangerous people, and pretty soon they start feeling the need to assume everyone can be dangerous. it is a thin line they walk. My father was a corrections sheriffs deputy at the county jail, and is now a sheriffs deputy weighmaster….so this isn’t just my opinion. We need balance and accountability, but people need to realize that ‘most’ cops are not out to get everyone, they usually start out trying to make the world a better place. Unfortunately, they also end up getting sucked into the system of ‘us against them, once a criminal always a criminal’.

• 30 heather // Nov 30, 2007 at 3:19 pm

  i should add that as a mommy who just had her second baby, NO ONE should ever tazer a pregnant mommy. This would unleash my ‘mother bear’ in a heart beat. If we both have one left afterward. I highly doubt they have tested tazers on pregnant women. Few tests are done on pregnant mothers for any reason, just because no one wants to cause baby problems.

• 31 John // Nov 30, 2007 at 3:22 pm

  I always thought that the taser was a less than lethal alternative to the police. So, in a situation where they would normally pull out their service revolver and kill a suspect, they can instead choose to use a taser instead.
  What is really bothering me is the consistent use of the taser as a coercive technique.
  i.e. “Don’t do what I say, I’ll taser you till you crap your pants”

• 32 Joe Bob Snuckers // Nov 30, 2007 at 3:22 pm

  You know why the world is screwed up today, because of people who are weak like you, tasers are a very necessary part of police work, try going out on the street with some of the thugs, loonies, and criminals that they face everyday and tell me a taser isn’t necessary.

• 33 entomie rastor // Nov 30, 2007 at 3:24 pm

  The role of law enforcement is pretty important. Unfortunately, as in all occupations, there are good workers and not-so-good ones. I would say that in most cases, law officers work hard for mediocre salaries, are dedicated, at risk themselves, and should be able to subdue someone with the full support of the public. If someone refuses to cooperate or becomes belligerent, some force should be used. Sometimes, the use of non-lethal force becomes lethal via a variety of unfortunate circumstances. However, pepper spray and Tasers have given officers an alternative to the lethal force of a firearm. I would say, with respect, that bloggers sometimes play a much more harmful role by failing to understand law enforcement. Along with adequate knowledge of this most difficult necessity comes a respect for officers and the dangers they must face attempting to keep the public safe.

• 34 glitch // Nov 30, 2007 at 3:30 pm

  Actually, you cannot sue a public official when they are acting within their jurisdiction. This means, if you get harmed while an officer is acting within his bounds as written by the law, any damage done to you or property cannot be claimed.

  Many of these Tasers cases are being considered excessive force in which case a lawsuit is possible. The purpose of this law is to protect officials such as judges from being sued by bad or misinformed decisions as long as those decisions were within the law.

• 35 heather // Nov 30, 2007 at 3:34 pm

  i suppose it is also obvious i didn’t read the whole thing before my last 2 comments, sorry, distracted by the baby and the toddler! I think the way the cop used it was ridiculous, considering the fact that she was not a threat to him at all. Even if she wasn’t pregnant, it doesn’t sound like she was posing a threat of violence to anyone at all, and just handcuffing her should have been sufficient. Sad though that she would try to leave her child there, and sad that he had to watch all of this take place. I guess she didn’t realize that the law about abandoning your baby at a police station or fire department with no questions asked only applies to newborns 7 days old or less. I would not consider her a fit mother, but what the police did was out of control as well.

• 36 Daryl // Nov 30, 2007 at 3:36 pm

  I beleive there are more and more tasering incidents occuring as time goes on. I think it is wrong because there are too many police officers with power trips or big egos. I have being to parties before when cops would threaten and use tasers on teenagers that are not even resisting. I mean seriously there is no need to use a taser at a underage party. Its terrible how police can get away with pretty much anything they want. Tasers give police more fuel for the power trip.

• 37 Kevin // Nov 30, 2007 at 3:41 pm

  Obviously, the author of this article has absolutely no idea what it is like to be a law enforcement officer. Thousands of people have been spared harsher treatment due to the taser. The taser is NOT a deadly-force method of protection. It is right around the same level as hands-on techniques (arm locks, light strikes, etc). The absolutely only reason why this is being debated is because of these 30 second clips of people being tasered. Just like how the news never reports the humble and gracious acts in society, we also never see the successful deployments of tasers. Go to any police department and ask them about their usage of the taser. They will ALL respond that is is rare, and even RARER to have a serious physical side-effect of the taser, and even RARER to have the end result be a death.

  This does not mean that all deployments of the taser have been warranted, just like not all police officers are perfect cops. You only see the extremely rare and negative failures of the use of a taser.

  Was excessive force used in this case? That remains to be seen. There are awful and unfortunate uses of force all around the country, but blaming the taser is not the answer. The taser has proven to be an effective and most often LIFE-SAVING device to subdue those in wrong-doing.

• 38 JC // Nov 30, 2007 at 3:50 pm

  You say there’s an egg shell tort, but you didn’t exactly explain the reasoning behind it which would be the only reason to consider it. Not just because it’s something they taught you in law school. I’d say it’s more reasonable that a person with some condition should be that much more careful to cooperate with police since he’s so weak. As for a hidden condition, heck I say all bets are off when you decide to resist a police officer’s demands. You made that choice, not the police officer. If you want to fight a police officer the place to do it is in court in front of a judge, not in the street.

• 39 null // Nov 30, 2007 at 3:54 pm

  The man had criminal records and he didn’t even show them to the officer. He wasn’t allow in. what can you expect?

• 40 Chaos Motor // Nov 30, 2007 at 4:57 pm

  I’ve been busy with schoolwork, so I haven’t been posting this last month, but police taser deaths (and police brutality as a whole) is something I was keeping track of on my blog.

  http://chaosmotor.wordpress.com/category/police-brutality/

• 41 Jack // Nov 30, 2007 at 5:10 pm

  The thing people don’t seem to understand is that it is not part of a police officer’s job to have to physically fight with someone. Police officers are not bouncers. That is why they are given tools (i.e. pepper spray, batons, stun guns, tasers, service weapons, rifles and shotguns). It is a sad thing when someone is injured or killed in a confrontation with the police but one way or another the person brought the situation upon themselves and it didn’t have to happen. They were in complete control up until the police were forced to act. The failure to act by police is a crime in itself in many areas. At least with a taser the risk of injury or death is very small when compared with the risk if a baton or service weapon are used.

• 42 Bryan // Nov 30, 2007 at 5:12 pm

  electric chairs and cattle prods are so 1950’s, any modern repressor needs the flexibility to torture and kill on the go. I think the problem is how tasers are termed non-lethal, thereby opening the door to excessive use. A police officer will usually think twice about putting a cap in somebody’s ass but jumps at the chance to bust out the taser gun at the slightest hint of resistance. Night sticks, guns, dogs and even squad cars can all be used with deadly or at least excessive force. It’s all about the people behind the weapon, you gotta feel bad for the men and women that have to make that call everyday, the lines have got to get blurry sometimes.

• 43 Levi // Nov 30, 2007 at 5:25 pm

  The police have the legal right to detain someone, failure to follow direct commands from a police officer is against the law. It seems ever time these taser incidents come up people forget this part about the person resisting arrest (a jail-able offense). Given the absence of tasers the officers recourses are physical restraint (i.e. clubbing/hitting/kicking you into submission) or deploying their firearm (only legal if they feel their life or another life is in danger). Taser are potentially deadly to people with serious heart conditions and those on narcotics. Being hit repeatedly with an ASP or some other club also has health risks.

  It is also helpfuk to look at things from the officers perspective. Either they can wrestle the person to the ground, risking severely injuring or killing them while putting yourself at the same risks, even a pregnenant woman might have a concealed knife to stab them, or they can stun them with the taser from a safe distance. The taser is not used to kill, it is not meant to kill. Every officer licensed to carry a taser has been tasered themselved, repeatedly. 99% of the time a taser is completely safe to the person being tasered.

• 44 MarcusBrutus // Nov 30, 2007 at 5:29 pm

  Taser abuse and deaths resulting from this abuse are just a symptom of a bigger problem, the continuing erosion of our civil liberties and increasing police powers. A shift in ideals and recent changes in law have given a percentage of our public servants the notion that it’s OK to use a weapon that may kill, as a control/submission method for non-violent civilians. What we should be asking is “Why isn’t anyone telling them any different?”

• 45 Fds // Nov 30, 2007 at 6:02 pm

  I saw that video. It’s insane. She goes to the police FOR HELP and she gets TASERED IN THE NECK.

  Why? What possible reason could the police have to taser that woman? She did nothing wrong. Here’s a woman looking for help, supposedly the police are here to protect us and help us, and for that she gets mistreated and physically assaulted? I am glad the FBI is investigating this, but if this is not dealt with, and those police officers are allowed back on the street, then heads ought to roll.

• 46 Clayton // Nov 30, 2007 at 6:05 pm

  You are completely correct in the whole liability thing.

  One thing that does cause problems in the Ohio case, here in Ohio we have a law that allows mothers to abandon their infants to: A hospital, Police station, or fire dept. with no questions asked.

  The fact that the officer did not follow the no questions asked part, I see the liability landing on his shoulders. He should have just taken the child like he is supposed to and none of this would have happened.

• 47 A Blog about Nothing // Nov 30, 2007 at 6:07 pm

  Is it an issue of more taser usage or that they’ve been brought front and center in our minds thanks to media hysterics?

• 48 mark // Nov 30, 2007 at 6:50 pm

  Alright I have read many things about this whole taser thing. I belive cops are out of line. Sure you could say that their just doing their job…Let’s see here. Is it not there job to serve and protect. Now where do I see them protecting people. Sure I know it can be argued that the police are protecting the person resisting arrest. But what are they protecting? Their killing people for their own protection now? Whoever said it was right to just grab a taser and shock them? Hello!? Whats that pepper spray on your belt there for? I have yet to read an article where it states that the police officer tried their pepper spray before the taser. Now I know that pepper spray doesn’t always work. But, at least try first that way we know youv’e at least tried before grabbing that taser and eletrocuting the person.

  well those are my thoughts anyways

• 49 Dan // Nov 30, 2007 at 7:00 pm

  Personally I think that the use of a Tazer should be treated the same as the use of a hand gun. The office who discharged his weapon will be put on desk duty until a report and an independent review has been filed. This should stop the the more flagrant use of Tazer’s and make them what they should be a weapon of 2nd to last resort. Last resort of course being the firearm.

• 50 Michelle // Nov 30, 2007 at 11:41 pm

  Wow, you sure did hit a nerve, Gerri.
  On a very rough count, 18 commenters ‘in favour’ of its use and 13 ‘against’.

  I agree its a complex question and we have to be careful not to jump too quickly to easy answers. And law enforcement is definitely not an easy job. But its interesting to see that more and more jurisdictions are ordering enquiries into police use of tasers. I wonder what the results will be.

  Jay, do you have a link to that most recent one in Canada that you mentioned? Or can you at least tell me which province it was? I think I am familiar with the one you’re talking about but I would just like to be sure.

• 51 Dan Miglin // Dec 1, 2007 at 1:02 am

  How about, um, not writing on the ground and resisting arrest while pregnant? Just a thought.

• 52 Dan Miglin // Dec 1, 2007 at 1:02 am

  That was supposed to be “writhing,” in my above comment. Sorry.

• 53 Gerri // Dec 1, 2007 at 3:43 am

  Dan, actually she didn’t. She was shoved to the floor and then because her arm was trapped underneath her body and she couldn’t get it free to give it to the officer, she was tasered and suffered burns on her neck and contusions on her body.

• 54 Jestly // Dec 1, 2007 at 6:18 am

  It appears that a lot of commenters above have never ventured out of America and seen the police in other countries. If this had happened in my native country, the officer would have probably been summarily dismissed or atleast suspended pending a thorough investigation. Although of course, we do have very strict gun laws there. I believe that guns belong ONLY in the army/defence forces.
  The police have a FUNDAMENTAL duty to protect the citizens. Agreed, there is a substantial risk to the lives of policemen as they go about their duties. But this is a well known fact and should be considered by people before deciding to join the police force. The probable risk to their lives cannot and should not be used as an excuse to shoot first and ask questions later.

• 55 entomie rastor // Dec 1, 2007 at 8:19 am

  Gerri, the lady did certainly resist. The officer was attempting to detain her, feeling that she posed a threat to the infant. That a reasonable assumption since the lady intended to give away an infant, and when asked for some information, she tried to leave! When an officer instructs you to do something, you must comply or else you have chosen to escalate the situation - perhaps into the realm of force. What would be your definition of “resisting”? I am so glad you aren’t in law enforcement because there would be a much greater chance of someone getting hurt.

• 56 Gerri // Dec 2, 2007 at 12:28 am

  Entomie, the officer said that the reason he wanted her to stop was because he was afraid for the safety of the child. Ok, they snatched the child away from her BEFORE she was pushed down and Tasered. So where is the logic? If the concern was for the child, and they had the child, then why were they even arresting her in the first place?

  I do agree that it’s best to cooperate with police. However, it should not be for fear of getting shot with a Taser.

  I don’t think it was that she was simply asked for information. I think she became frustrated and uncooperative because she was doing what child services told her to do, and the cop was saying things to her like “what kind of person are you to give away your baby?” etc. No wonder she was frustrated and said “Just forget it.” She didn’t go there to be abused, she had already taken enough abuse from the child’s father, hence the need to give him up.

  Bottom line for me: This could have, and should have been handled better. She was Tasered for not giving her hand to the officer. The hand was under her body and the cop was on top of her. How could she comply?

  I think it is more the case that the cop was disgusted with her for wanting to give away her own child, pissed off that she tried to leave without responding to his abusive questioning process and went on a power trip and shot her with the Taser.

• 57 entomie rastor // Dec 2, 2007 at 9:17 am

  OK, OK! You win, Gerri. Everybody - drop off your babies at the police station, and don’t answer any questions posed by officers. You have a right to leave even if an officer tries to gather information from you. The above is a sarcastic, hypothetical scenario from the futuristic world of liberals.

• 58 Jimbo // Dec 2, 2007 at 4:15 pm

  Mark -

  Many pepper sprays are alcohol based. Unless you like human bbq’s, it might be a bad idea to pepper spray before you tase.

• 59 Gerri // Dec 3, 2007 at 12:17 am

  Entomie - I think you missed the part where I don’t totally disagree with you. She should have cooperated, the officer should not have berated her and then everything would have gone a lot differently. I understand the cop thinking she was pretty much not the greatest mother, I probably would have thought the same thing. However, in a professional situation, I differ from the officer because I know how to act professionally and not turn a bad situation into something much worse.

  It’s not only the woman and potentially her child that has suffered in this situation. The officer and his reputation, as well as the police department have taken a hit as well. I just think it is unfair to everyone that this unfortunate situation happened in the first place. There were a lot of wrongs, and they don’t add up to a right.

• 60 Matt // Dec 3, 2007 at 5:49 pm

  For some reason they have successfully marketed this weapon as nonlethal and somehow perfectly safe…the reality is it is very powerful/dangerous. I just saw a story on the news about cops trying to taser a 10 year old…this is clearly getting out of hand.

• 61 Gerri // Dec 4, 2007 at 1:07 am

  Matt, I have heard of them using the Taser on kids as young as 6. You are correct, it is out of hand.

• 62 Mike // Dec 4, 2007 at 12:23 pm

  The taser is out of the box, and there’s no way for Americans to put it back in.

  It’s a modern way to ensure compliance electronically, compared to the nightstick, brass knuckles or gloves filled with lead shot.

  Scientists in Russia have developed a new taser type product aimed at children - the Taseler™:

  www.sandman.com/taseler.html

• 63 Shanna // Dec 5, 2007 at 2:08 pm

  It never amazes me how callous people have become to the needs and suffering of others. What ever happened to PROTECT and SERVE. While I agree that people should respond to cops demands, I think the biggest problem is cops are not taught how to deal with people in mental distress.

  That pregnant woman was obviously reaching out for help, what is the likelihood of her reaching out to another authority figure when in need now that she has suffered this abuse. This was a man versus a woman with child, there are other ways to restrain a person beside shocking them. What that cop did was disgusting, whether she was pregnant or not, she needed to be diverted to social services immediately, maybe if he wasnt so worried about getting her name and showed her some her some compassion she would have got the services she needed for her and her children.

• 64 James // Dec 15, 2007 at 2:54 am

  The thing that some of you whom seem to support the use of tasers seem to forget is that in some cases the person taserd “couldnt” comply.
  The incident involving the man tasered in his home after he got out of the bath. This man was deaf, and couldnt understand what the cops were saying or why they were even there. How about the incident where the man was having a diabetic siezure on the bus and the cops, “who were called to help him”, tasered him for not responding. There are cases where the person was mentally disabled , and they were tasered.
  come on people, this is rediculous. Its time cops did what they were “trained” to do which is to enforce the law, but to do so with good judgement. NOT to just go Rambo & Trigger Happy………………

• 65 S.N. // Dec 19, 2007 at 9:03 pm

  I am doing M.A. thesis research on spanking. I did a survey of 350 students at a mid-sized university. Interestingly, the 2 disciplines which had the highest percentage of survey respondents who had been hit with belts by their parents were criminal justice and school administration. They are both fields that deal with power and enforcing rules. This research and other experiences in life have led me to the conclusion that a substantial number of people who go into law enforcement have unexamined anger, perhaps a “rage.”

  There is no other profession (besides professional sports) where you can be physically and verbally aggressive as part of your regular duties. Aggression releases adrenaline, and adrenaline is addictive.

  Cops subconsciously are looking for reasons to use these tasers. Freud said all human beings have an aggression drive, and we all are prone to sadism. If that is the case, then as a society we need to minimize the cases where this aspect of human personality can be endulged in easily.

  Tasers are indeed a form of torture, and if using them is held up as a legitimate activity, the dark side of the human psyche will too easily take over. Yes, it is true that the police can still beat someone up, or shoot them with a gun, instead of using a taser. But those are both actions that require more of an effort than using a taser, and are less likely. Tasers should not be legally manufactured or sold in the U.S. or used by police.

• 66 Ty // Jan 10, 2008 at 6:48 am

  The constitution says that we have the right to not be punished before conviction, the taser clearly is in violation. The use of tasers in demanding compliance is a form of slavery, also unconstitutional. It also says that a punishment must not be degrading to human dignity, have you heard the screams of the victims or seen their soiled pants? A punishment that is obviously inflicted in a wholly arbitrary fashion is also unconstitutional. A punishment that is clearly and totally rejected throughout society is unconstitutional. A punishment that is patently unnecessary is also considerewd severe and therefore unconstitutional.

• 67 Michelle // Jan 12, 2008 at 5:12 pm

  That’s a pretty broad brush you’re painting with, S.N. First of all, a huge generalization from your 350 person sample size to decide that a substantial number (does that mean the majority?) of those who go into law enforcement (which includes a lot of different professions) have anger issues, perhaps even “rage”? Sounds very scientific to me.

  Ty, if a cop can’t ‘punish’ someone before conviction, I guess they can’t do a damm thing to stop a law-breaker from doing anything they choose. Catch a guy raping someobody? Ask him to stop and he ignores you … oh well, maybe he will come along nicely when he is done so we can have a trial and perhaps even convict him. Yay!

  But wait, he finished and he’s running away. Damm, I can chase him but better not do anything resembling your definition of punishment once I catch him. Uh huh.

  I have been saying all along that cops need better training on when its appropriate to use a taser. They probably wouldn’t have shot the guy having a seizure with a gun so they shouldn’t have tazered him either. But that takes us to another issue, they also need training around mental illness and disabilities. But its a huge jump from that to proclaiming that tasers should be illegal.

• 68 S.N. // Jan 13, 2008 at 4:21 am

  Michelle,

  Yes, better training might help to reduce the number of incidents, but the fact is that the technology itself too easily leads to abuse. This instrument gives the police officer the means to harm someone relatively remotely, and to do it over and over again without a substantial effort involved. If a police worker is already pumped up with adrenaline from a chase or just from getting attitude from a suspect, punishing someone this way is an easy act. Unless the law enforcer is a saint like Jesus, abuse will happen. And, as someone mentioned earlier, at least baton blows will produce bruises, evidence of brutality . . . thus that evidence is one deterrent to that type of brutality. Plus, batons take extra physical energy to use. Tasers have no built-in deterrent feature.

  The taser will increase sadism in those who have it at their disposal, and it is ultimately harmful to all of society, including police officers. Police officers already are at higher risk than the general population for relationships problems and divorce. Torturing people with electrical current, even if the administrator of that believes it is justified, is something that changes the one who applies it.

  We don’t need tasers. The police can do as good work, better, without them.

• 69 Gabe // Feb 19, 2008 at 12:58 am

  The primary duty of a police officer is to protect life. Tazer gun is currently the most efficient tool to neutralize a dangerous individual after argumentation, use of physical force, cayenne pepper or telescopic baton have failed. Tazer Gun is the last barrier before policemen have to pull out their gun and shoot, killing the individual most of the time. Cayenne pepper isn’t efficient against deeply deranged or drugged (PCP cocaine, etc) people. And even when it is possible to use it, it actually takes from 15 to 30 seconds to react correctly and bring the criminals to their knees.

  Police officers use the tazer gun frequently, and three deaths is a very small percentage. It IS deplorable, but the goal of this tool is to neutralize a criminal by striking his nervous system, bringing him to the ground without any wound most of the time. Do I really have to explain why it is a LOT less harmful than a bullet in the chest?

  Remove Tazer Gun and you will have to deplore more than 3 dead criminals next year, because police officers will have no choice but to shoot them.

  There, I’ll invite you to my blog talking about this same topic:
  http://justice-herald.blogspot.com/2008/02/controversy-growing-around-tazer-gun-in.html

• 70 S.N. // Feb 27, 2008 at 5:48 pm

  Gabe writes: “Tazer gun is currently the most efficient tool to neutralize a dangerous individual after argumentation, use of physical force, cayenne pepper or telescopic baton have failed. Tazer Gun is the last barrier before policemen have to pull out their gun”

  The Taser is being used as a first resort, not the last. It is being used in place of explanation, arguing, baton, pepper spray, etc. There are many more than 3 deaths ascribed to taser use — try 100.

  The taser is an implement of torture and it is not something peace officers should use.

• 71 Michelle // Feb 27, 2008 at 9:43 pm

  Actually, I would suggest you research the issue of deaths actually caused by a taser as opposed to deaths occuring after being shot by a taser a little more carefully.

  I researched it not long ago because I wanted to show a friend that she was wrong, that tasers were responsible for a fair number of deaths. Problem is I was only able to find one, maybe two (can’t remember exactly now) where tasers were found to have actually caused the death.

• 72 All In One Forum // Mar 16, 2008 at 5:14 pm

  I saw the police in NC use this on a man trying to get his wife to the hospital

  http://www.allinoneforum.com/

Leave a Comment