Posted on August 5, 2009 by Chuck Peterson

Taser Update - Charlotte Agrees To Pay $625,000

You may recall that I recently wrote about an incident involving a Boise man who was Tasered against Boise Police Department policy and the City Ombudsman's decision that the officers had violated their policy and his rights.  He planned to sue for damages while local officials could not find a criminal charge to use against the officer.  Today we have a reminder of just how much danger a Taser may pose to each of us if not used "correctly."

The Charlotte Observer reports that city will pay the family of a 17-year-old who died after being shocked by a Taser, $625,000.  The paper reports that the officer kept pulling the Taser trigger for 37 seconds - while the boy collapsed and ultimately died.  

Power - again the power we give the police requires them to act reasonably, so says the Constitution.  

And most officers do act reasonably. But when they do not - a victim has a cause of action for the damages caused by the officer's actions.  I know that Tasers are supposed to be safe when properly used, but the safety of the device depends on the person using it.  You know - sort of that "Tasers (guns) don't kill people, people kill people."  Let's hope this never happens in Boise - and that the officers we count on for protection will act reasonably.

Tags: , , , , ,
Posted on October 27, 2008 by Chuck Peterson

When Is It Excessive Force? Taser Time In The 11th Circuit

 I happened to check out a blog entry tonight in which the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals decision in Buckley v. Haddock was reviewed.  In Buckley, Court ruled that an officer who used his taser on a handcuffed man arrested for a misdemeanor had NOT used excessive force.  The cop had ordered the man to get up off the ground, and threatened his with the taser.  Imagine this - the man who was on the ground crying, did not get up after being tased the first time, so the officer tased him again. And again. And again. Just like when your four year-old won't stop hitting his sister, so you have to hit him.  Right? Not excessively, of course.  Just a little whack to stop him from whacking his sister. Apparently that's the way they do it in the 11th Circuit.  I always wonder if the Judges who have sworn an oath to uphold "justice" would rule like this if it was one of their own family or friends on the ground twitching from the use of the "non-excessive force."

In ruling that the deputy did not use excessive force, the Court stated:

"Needless to say, officers acting alone may not always use any and all force necessary to complete an arrest without assistance. If Deputy Rackard had used more severe techniques (beaten [the motorist's] head with a club or shot him, for example), this case would be a different case. Here, the record shows that Deputy Rackard only used moderate, non-lethal force; and he did so only after reasoning with [the motorist], then after trying to lift [the motorist], and finally after repeatedly warning [the motorist]-a warning given before each use of the taser-that a taser would be used. In short, Deputy Rackard gave [the motorist] ample warning and opportunity to cease resisting before the deputy resorted gradually to more forceful measures. Even then, [the motorist's] injury was not great; and the deputy holstered his taser after using it briefly three times."

Here's an idea - let the drunk sit on the ground and call for assistance.  Too easy?  OK, just gently tase him then.

A friend of mine who is a preacher says that someday there will be justice, but until that day, there's "just us."  Check out the video and see what you think.

 

Tags: , , , ,