Not A Lawyer

I really don’t know when the Taser gun started being a standard issue item for police officers. I know that the Taser was invented in 1969. According to Wikipedia, they were introduced in police work as a less lethal alternative to guns.

Well, maybe. It seems that in the news we hear more and more about people dying from being shot by police with Taser guns.

One news report about one of three men in Canada who have recently died as a result of being shot with an electroshock weapon said over and over that he was resisting arrest and that the cops had to shoot him with the Taser weapon in order to subdue him.

So, now police can legally kill you if you resist arrest?

I remember in my study of torts in school there is an “eggshell skull rule.” It means that you take the victim, or plaintiff, as they come. That means that if you knock someone down and they happen to die because their head falls off or because of some other condition they had that you didn’t know about, it’s still your fault. Basically, if you cause much greater damage to a person through your negligence or intentional acts because of some unforeseen condition that they have, it makes no difference, you are still liable for whatever happens.

However, I think this must not apply to police actions. The way they use the Taser left and right, without knowing if someone could have a heart problem or some other medical condition seems quite reckless, but I have not yet heard of a successful lawsuit against the police for use of the Taser. Perhaps it’s just too early yet.

Does anyone know if police officers have special protection from the eggshell skull rule? If not, I would think that we will begin to see lawsuits about the use of the Taser and the deaths that have resulted from its use. Time will tell.

I think that some lawsuits and perhaps some stiff punitive damage awards might not be a bad thing if it slows down this liberal and seemingly indiscriminate use of the Taser gun.

In Ohio, a pregnant woman who was on the ground was shot with a Taser gun by a police officer because she refused to answer his questions and resisted being handcuffed.

The woman had arrived at the police station with her 1-year-old son in tow and asked the police to take custody of the child because she was tired of dealing with his father. When questioned, she refused to answer and just tried to leave with her child. The officer decided to detain her because he says that he feared that letting her leave with the child could have put the boy in danger.

So, as the officer grabbed her, she resisted him and ended up on the floor and resisted being handcuffed. She was wearing a winter coat, so the cop didn’t realize she was pregnant and pulled out his trusty Taser and shot her with it.

This officer remains on duty as the FBI investigates the case to determine if excessive police force was used. The police department says that they are also investigating the incident.

Meanwhile, the condition of the woman and her unborn child are unknown.

Here is the video: Pregnant Woman Tasered

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

In Pennsylvania, a Family Court judge ordered a homeless and drug addicted couple, who had four children in foster care due to their neglect, not to have any more children until they could straighten out their lives and get their kids back. Three of the children were born addicted to cocaine.

While many people, including myself, would applaud the judge’s decision, she was, no doubt, in questionable legal territory.

Stephanie Pendleton, the mother of the four children who are now in foster care, challenged the Family Court judge’s ruling and the state Supreme Court overturned the ruling. I can not imagine who would agree to be her lawyer except maybe the most liberal civil libertarian on the planet? The five judge appeals panel decided that the Family Court judge had no authority to prohibit procreation.

The original ruling by the family court judge ordered Stephanie Pendleton and her boyfriend Rodney Evers to seek family planning services, get parental counseling and treatment for their drug addiction.

The judge wrote, “All babies deserve more than to be born to parents who have proven they cannot possibly raise or parent a child. This neglected existence is an immense burden to place on a child and on society.”

That sounds reasonable, right?

Well, the New York Civil Liberties Union had a cow and filed a friend-of-the-court brief when Pendleton filed her appeal. They argues that the Family Court judge had effectively ordered the couple to abstain from sex, use birth control or be sterilized.

I say: “Yeah. And?”

The Family Court judge had put forth that her ruling to prohibit Pendleton from having more children was allowed by a section of law that allows the court to impose medical treatment.

The appeals panel rejected that and overturned the ruling that Pendleton be prohibited from having more children until she can take care of the ones she has. The did not overturn the finding of the Family Court judge that the children were neglected or the one saying that the parents should be stripped of their parental rights.

So now the beast is free to go out and have more drug addicted children for the state and foster homes to raise. Good for you Stephanie Pendleton, good for you, and God help your children. I hope they find good homes FAR away from you.

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

In other news, people in hell want ice water.

Mary Winkler will be on Oprah on September 12 to talk about why she killed her husband and the alleged abuse she endured. He husband won’t be on Oprah today because, of course, he’s dead. So I guess we only get to hear one side of the story.

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!