Taser Found Liable in Wrongful Death Suit

[n23x 0]

Don't sue me, bro!

Think this is going to be reversed so that Taser can have an untarnished name, or is Taser going to face a flood of these suits (and potential court losses)?

Think Taser is partially responsible for most deaths that occur near or during the use of their product?

I wonder if we'll see similar issues with the ADS (active denial system), particularly as portability increases.

.jim

"Don't touch my fucking Easter eggs, I'll be back monday." ~JTFC

[Andrewwhyte 1]

Ya, I don't see this standing up. Tasers don't kill people, cops do.

[normiss 897]

Given the current efforts to limit the ability to sue gun manufacturers, I would expect that limitation to extend to cover the taser device as well.
Cops on the other hand....
They give them deadly weapons and insufficient training in how to deal with the situations surround their use. At least IMO anyway.

[pilot-one 0]

Quote

Ya, I don't see this standing up. Tasers don't kill people, cops do.

Well said.

[jumpin_Jan 1]

I agree with the replies posted so far.

It is the user of the tool, not the tool.

I do have an issue with them being marketed as 'non-lethal'.
The evidence suggests otherwise.

Most firearm injuries are non-lethal too.

The taser reduces the costs involved in cleanup though!


PULL!
jumpin_Jan

"Dangerous toys are fun but ya could get hurt" -- Vash The Stampede

[n23x 0]

I kind of look at it this way. Taser marketed the taser as a non-lethal (less lethal) option, which it is now proving not to be.

Perhaps something to do with testing on large, healthy people, who weren't experiencing any kind of cardiac stress?

While I agree that the officers potentially also share blame, I believe they share LESS blame if they were made to think they were using a non-lethal option, or mislead into the actual possible results of using such a weapon.

Things that would be easy to test your product on in a controlled environment:

Targets w/ varying weight, sex, age and body build.

Things that would be hard/impossible to test your product on in a controlled environment:

Targets w/ varying levels of heart issues, local stimulant/drug consumption, stress.

I look it like a software engineer who promotes his product as working on all platforms but really, it only works for linux.

.jim

"Don't touch my fucking Easter eggs, I'll be back monday." ~JTFC

[mnealtx 0]

I thought Taser had always been advertised as "less lethal", not "non lethal".

Still and all, this should have been a suit against the officer/PD.

I'd still rather (if I were in the situation) take my chances with a Taser charge than a couple of GSW in the upper chest.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Scoop 0]

Seeing as a Taser SHOULD only be considered for use as a less lethal option where you may otherwise have used greater force (firearm) I don't see how they can be held accountable for anything. As someone else said if anyone should be questioned it should be the person using the device, were their actions at the time of use justified etc.

Otherwise baton and pepper spray manufactures would have to be held liable. I don't think they ever guarantee safety for the subject, only for the user

[downwardspiral 0]

People need to understand that tasers are classified as a "less than lethal" weapon and can cause serious injury or death. IF a LEO warns you that he will tase you...it is because YOU are uncooperative and YOU need to start cooperating otherwise YOU risk serious injury or death.

I understand we'd love it if our police officers had a safer more effective option but at the moment this is what we have. Do we prefer to remove that option?

BTW I've never heard it called a non-lethal weapon and took a cursory look at taser's website and saw no mention of this.

www.FourWheelerHB.com

[n23x 0]

re: non-lethal vs. less-lethal.

I thought that tasers had initally been marketed as non-lethal, and then picked up the less-lethal early on in the game. I certainly could be wrong, however.

W/r/t the comparsion of tasers to batons and pepper spray, I think there's a little more of a jump.

The taser doesn't give you the option of moderating the level of force applied (duration yes), and where it is applied to. It is effectively a go/no go device. (Intention is to shoot at COM, just like a firearm, correct?) The officer wielding the baton can better select the location he chooses to strike with the baton, as well as moderate force applied. Same for pepper spray.

Quote

IF a LEO warns you that he will tase you...it is because YOU are uncooperative and YOU need to start cooperating otherwise YOU risk serious injury or death.

While I agree this is likely in most situations, we are seeing an increase in taser-useage that appears to "jump the gun". The way the manufacturer promotes a product/trains with the product could have a direct affect on the way officers choose to use it.

Perhaps the difference could be:

1.) I don't want to use this thing unless I would consider shooting the guy with my firearm, because it could be potentially fatal.

2.) "Fuck, this guy is getting on my nerves, I'm gonna give him a little zap because Taser said almost nobody has ever died, and if they did they were cranked up on meth."

.jim

"Don't touch my fucking Easter eggs, I'll be back monday." ~JTFC

[Scoop 0]

Quote

IF a LEO warns you that he will tase you...it is because YOU are uncooperative and YOU need to start cooperating otherwise YOU risk serious injury or death.

I think its important for LEOs to remember that Tasers are not compliance tools and should be deployed only as a less lethal response to a serious threat to life.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

The suit, filed by the family of 40-year-old Robert Heston Jr. Heston was killed when the police tased him, the autopsy finding that he "died from a combination of methamphetamine intoxication, an enlarged heart due to long-term drug abuse, and Taser shocks." The jury found that Heston was 85% at fault, making Taser 15% responsible for his death.

I'm not crazy about these sort of jury verdicts where the plaintiff is held as 90% responsible, but the product with deeper pockets is 10%, but the amount is millions or billions. If the fault goes further than 66/33%, suck it.

But the overall problem for taser exists. It can't claim the same protection that gun maker have - guns are made to kill. Tasers are made to do something else. And even if they've removed all the verbiage about non lethal, it's been sold and promoted that way from the beginning.

When a taser kills someone that's not a speed or coke freak (how about a 24 yo blonde woman), they're going down.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

It can't claim the same protection that gun maker have - guns are made to kill.

Oh Lord... this AGAIN?

Try again - because if guns are made to kill, there's MILLIONS of defective ones out there.

It's still the USE that decides lethality.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

It can't claim the same protection that gun maker have - guns are made to kill.

Oh Lord... this AGAIN?

Try again - because if guns are made to kill, there's MILLIONS of defective ones out there.

It's still the USE that decides lethality.

Don't try to sidetrack with that bullshit - I have 7 guns. When you use one, you shoot for centermass. That is meant to kill. Gun makers can't be sued for making a defective product because that's their intended use.

Taser is sold as a product that gives the cop the same benefit of the gun - the perp is incapacitated, without killing him. If he dies as a result, that is a potential product defect (say the voltate/amps aren't well regulated and he gets a massive charge) and should not be immune from ligitigation.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

It can't claim the same protection that gun maker have - guns are made to kill.

Oh Lord... this AGAIN?

Try again - because if guns are made to kill, there's MILLIONS of defective ones out there.

It's still the USE that decides lethality.

Don't try to sidetrack with that bullshit - I have 7 guns. When you use one, you shoot for centermass. That is meant to kill. Gun makers can't be sued for making a defective product because that's their intended use.

Taser is sold as a product that gives the cop the same benefit of the gun - the perp is incapacitated, without killing him. If he dies as a result, that is a potential product defect (say the voltate/amps aren't well regulated and he gets a massive charge) and should not be immune from ligitigation.

You're the one that sidetracked with the bullshit "design" issue.

USE != design

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[downwardspiral 0]

Training and usage is a different thing entirely.

You guys make valid points. I honestly can't say that its never been marketed as a non-lethal weapon. I've just never seen it marketed as such.

I just see it as an option LEOs wouldn't have otherwise. Batons, pepper spray, and cs just aren't as effective. One year during NBC training I stepped into the gas chamber for a nice dose of cs to find a Gunnery Sgt. standing there without a gas mask smiling like a real asshole. People have different levels of tolerance for pain.

www.FourWheelerHB.com

[downwardspiral 0]

I agree. When I was in highschool I was on our shooting team. We fired .22 caliber bolt action target rifles designed to shoot small holes in paper with circles drawn on it.

www.FourWheelerHB.com

[Scoop 0]

I am mostly immune to CS too. I think about 1 in 20 people are. Just lucky. Pepper spray, however, is a whole different story for me!

Tasers are another option but should never be used where you wouldn't otherwise be considering lethal force as far as I'm aware. If you wouldn't point a gun at someone you shouldn't point a Taser at them either.

For example, someone with a knife waving it around in the street. You would be justified in shooting this chap however use of a Taser may be more suitable and MAY save his life. That is the key point and why it is considered a "less lethal" option. Any action is potentially lethal. I could kill someone taking them to the ground using nothing but my hands, but it is unlikely. There is no such thing as non-lethal and everyone trained in self defence or use of force will understand this.

If someone isn't being compliant you don't 'Tase' them. You deal with it the old fashioned way with brute force, pressure points, CS/Pepper spray and baton.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

I agree. When I was in highschool I was on our shooting team. We fired .22 caliber bolt action target rifles designed to shoot small holes in paper with circles drawn on it.

You're *obviously* wrong - that rifle was designed to KILL.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[downwardspiral 0]

In a weird way I miss my annual trip to the gas chamber.

But you are correct in that perhaps LEOs are optioning to use the taser too readily as a compliance tool. Its tough for me to judge when its the right time and when its not. When does non-compliance turn into a threat of violence?

I suppose the "don't tase me bro" guy would be a good example of non-compliant yet non-threatening.

www.FourWheelerHB.com

[downwardspiral 0]

Quote

Quote

I agree. When I was in highschool I was on our shooting team. We fired .22 caliber bolt action target rifles designed to shoot small holes in paper with circles drawn on it.

You're *obviously* wrong - that rifle was designed to KILL.

I tell you what. I killed the shit out of many a target. They should never have threatened me.

www.FourWheelerHB.com

[grimmie 186]

We had one of our police officers taser a guy in 1984. He had doused himself, his girlfriend and their baby with gasoline. It was a real stand off with guns drawn and the Sgt. had a Taser. The perp had a lighter and was threatening to light them all on fire. The girlfriend made a dash for it when he dropped the lighter and bent down to pick it up. The Sgt. hit hm with the taser darts and shocked him. He ignited like Johnny Torch and was bouncing around the backyard on fire. We (the FD) arrived and doused him. He caught the garage on fire too, as he fell into the trash cans by the garage and it all started burning. He died on Christmas Day 1984 of serious burn injuries. Taser had never thought about this situation. The girlfriend sued the city but not Taser. They awarded her $400,000.
I was an Arson squad guy at the time. Taser had us conduct a test with mannequins at our training facility. Every one doused with gas ignited when tased. A new warning was put out internationaly at once.
I have been on about 30 or so taser patients(we get called when a perp gets it) and none of them have died since. Most of the people getting tasered are druggies or mentally ill.

[Scoop 0]

I don't mind not being sprayed although every now and again a colleague reminds me what its like with a little bit of unavoidable cross contamination!

I find conflict management facinating as there is no real answer correct for any one scenario.

To hold Taser (the company) responsible for anything is beyond ridiculous though

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

In a weird way I miss my annual trip to the gas chamber.

I actually had MORE problems after the chamber (itching from the crystals being in my clothes) than I did with the chamber itself - it never affected me all that much.

Quote

I suppose the "don't tase me bro" guy would be a good example of non-compliant yet non-threatening.

I don't know about 'non-threatening' - any time you have someone with their hands not visible, you are unable to tell if he is going for a weapon or not. In fact, didn't he almost catch one of the officers in the throat with an elbow? I don't recall 100% from the clips I saw on the news.

Regardless, the young gentleman got what he wanted - his 15 minutes of fame. Unfortunately, said 15 minutes make him look like a complete tool.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Scoop 0]

Thats a bad situation and a ridiculous one.

Who would have thought bringing fuel and electricity together could be dangerous? Even without a warning someone must have been able to see that could happen.