nuc65
Activist Member
imported post
I apologize if this is slightly off topic. I don't know who carries a TASER. Being an engineer and having an electrical background I have never bought the argument that TASERS aren't lethal weapons. I have always believed that they have the potential to be just as lethal as any other weapon, maybe more so because of the cavalier approach that is taken with them. Anywho, I read this in the NYT.
New York Times:Editorial:Tasers and Liability
Published: January 4, 2010
A federal appeals court in California has sent a strong warning to law enforcement officials that should make them rethink the all-too-common use of Tasers. It ruled last week that a police officer can be held liable for delivering a high-level electric shock to an unarmed person who poses no immediate threat.
Carl Bryan, 21, was driving to his parents’ home in Southern California when he was stopped for speeding. On the same trip, he was pulled over for not wearing a seat belt. Angry at facing a second traffic citation, he hit the steering wheel and yelled expletives to himself. He then stepped out of the car. There is some disagreement over what happened next — the officer said Mr. Bryan took “one step” toward him, while Mr. Bryan said he did not take any. It is undisputed that Mr. Bryan, who was not armed, did not verbally threaten the officer and was not attempting to flee.
Without warning, the officer shot Mr. Bryan with a Taser, which uses compressed nitrogen to propel “probes” — aluminum darts connected to wires that deliver a very painful, 1,200-volt electric charge into the target’s muscles. As the current immobilized him, Mr. Bryan fell to the ground, fracturing four teeth. A doctor had to remove one of the probes with a scalpel.
Mr. Bryan sued for assault and battery and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The officer tried to get the suit dismissed on summary judgment, but the trial court ruled that it could go forward. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, based in San Francisco, affirmed that decision by a 3-to-0 vote.
The appeals court ruled that the officer was not justified in using the Taser. The evidence showed, the court said, that Mr. Bryan did not pose an immediate threat. It was also relevant that the “crime” he was accused of was a mere traffic violation. Given these facts, the amount of force used was unreasonable.
Although the Ninth Circuit’s decision is only binding on a group of Western states and territories, all of the more than 17,000 law enforcement agencies across the country that use Tasers should follow its guidance. There are questions about how safe Tasers are in the best of circumstances, an issue that deserves greater study. But it is clear that they are too powerful for use on people who do not pose a serious danger to others.
I apologize if this is slightly off topic. I don't know who carries a TASER. Being an engineer and having an electrical background I have never bought the argument that TASERS aren't lethal weapons. I have always believed that they have the potential to be just as lethal as any other weapon, maybe more so because of the cavalier approach that is taken with them. Anywho, I read this in the NYT.
New York Times:Editorial:Tasers and Liability
Published: January 4, 2010
A federal appeals court in California has sent a strong warning to law enforcement officials that should make them rethink the all-too-common use of Tasers. It ruled last week that a police officer can be held liable for delivering a high-level electric shock to an unarmed person who poses no immediate threat.
Carl Bryan, 21, was driving to his parents’ home in Southern California when he was stopped for speeding. On the same trip, he was pulled over for not wearing a seat belt. Angry at facing a second traffic citation, he hit the steering wheel and yelled expletives to himself. He then stepped out of the car. There is some disagreement over what happened next — the officer said Mr. Bryan took “one step” toward him, while Mr. Bryan said he did not take any. It is undisputed that Mr. Bryan, who was not armed, did not verbally threaten the officer and was not attempting to flee.
Without warning, the officer shot Mr. Bryan with a Taser, which uses compressed nitrogen to propel “probes” — aluminum darts connected to wires that deliver a very painful, 1,200-volt electric charge into the target’s muscles. As the current immobilized him, Mr. Bryan fell to the ground, fracturing four teeth. A doctor had to remove one of the probes with a scalpel.
Mr. Bryan sued for assault and battery and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The officer tried to get the suit dismissed on summary judgment, but the trial court ruled that it could go forward. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, based in San Francisco, affirmed that decision by a 3-to-0 vote.
The appeals court ruled that the officer was not justified in using the Taser. The evidence showed, the court said, that Mr. Bryan did not pose an immediate threat. It was also relevant that the “crime” he was accused of was a mere traffic violation. Given these facts, the amount of force used was unreasonable.
Although the Ninth Circuit’s decision is only binding on a group of Western states and territories, all of the more than 17,000 law enforcement agencies across the country that use Tasers should follow its guidance. There are questions about how safe Tasers are in the best of circumstances, an issue that deserves greater study. But it is clear that they are too powerful for use on people who do not pose a serious danger to others.
