-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
Deputy, confused, shoots man with gun, thinking it was taser - 4th circuit says OK
- Thread starter Repeater
- Start date
Dreamer
Regular Member
That's how the LEAs and the courts roll in MD...
Different rules for the two different classes--one set of rules for the "rulers", and another set of rules for the "subjects".
Different rules for the two different classes--one set of rules for the "rulers", and another set of rules for the "subjects".
Ain't just Maryland Dreamer. Virginia has a pretty miserable track record.
The Donkey
New member
The parties stipulated that the officer drew and fired the Glock in the good faith belief that it was a Taser.
There is no good argument that the use of the Taser would have been "excessive force" in these circumstances.
The question then is whether an officer's dumb-ass error in thinking that he was not using deadly force should immunize him from federal liability for his actions when it turned out that he was.
I think the courts have gone way too far in the extent of their demands that -- to avoid qualified immunity -- Plaintiffs show that officers should know that their specific actions violated "clearly established law."
However, I am torn on the central issue in this case: to what extent should an officer's subjective beliefs about the situation (ie whether he is holding a Taser or a gun) be considered in deciding if qualified immunity applies.
Your thoughts would be appreciated.
There is no good argument that the use of the Taser would have been "excessive force" in these circumstances.
The question then is whether an officer's dumb-ass error in thinking that he was not using deadly force should immunize him from federal liability for his actions when it turned out that he was.
I think the courts have gone way too far in the extent of their demands that -- to avoid qualified immunity -- Plaintiffs show that officers should know that their specific actions violated "clearly established law."
However, I am torn on the central issue in this case: to what extent should an officer's subjective beliefs about the situation (ie whether he is holding a Taser or a gun) be considered in deciding if qualified immunity applies.
Your thoughts would be appreciated.
JoeSparky
Centurion
The officer INTENDED to use the tasar. HE FAILED and used a firearm instead, so this officer was negligent and by extension those who trained him ect.
He should be held liable (NOT CRIMINAL) for his actions but I am glad I am not on his jury....
He should be held liable (NOT CRIMINAL) for his actions but I am glad I am not on his jury....
What we seem to have in this and many other accidental shootings when the use of a tazer was intended is a major training and policy issue failure. As far as I can recall, all of these cases involve the officer carrying the tazer either in front of or behind the firearm holster.
Since police departments can establish policy for not only what is and is not allowed to be carried on the duty belt, but where on the belt it is located, the simple solution to preventing these accidental uses of the firearm when the tazer was meant to be used is to move it to the other side of the duty belt.
Too much other stuff on the Bat-belt? Move it around or get rid of some of the stuff.
I'm no genius (just ask around
) but this is not rocket surgery.
stay safe.
Since police departments can establish policy for not only what is and is not allowed to be carried on the duty belt, but where on the belt it is located, the simple solution to preventing these accidental uses of the firearm when the tazer was meant to be used is to move it to the other side of the duty belt.
Too much other stuff on the Bat-belt? Move it around or get rid of some of the stuff.
I'm no genius (just ask around
) but this is not rocket surgery.stay safe.
The Donkey
New member
Moved the Thread??
From Virginia to Maryland?
But the US 4th Circuit covers the Carolinas, Virginia, West Virginia, and Maryland . . . and its qualified immunity law applies to all of these states.
I can see the thread going in any of these states.
From Virginia to Maryland?
But the US 4th Circuit covers the Carolinas, Virginia, West Virginia, and Maryland . . . and its qualified immunity law applies to all of these states.
I can see the thread going in any of these states.
All American Nightmare
Regular Member
Any LEOS care to post on this?
SAvage410
Regular Member
This is similar to a recent incident in California
A subway cop did the same thing - pulled his firearm and shot a passenger to death having intended to pull his Taser:
http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2010/07/08/verdict-reached-in-oakland-subway-shooting/
He was found guilty of involuntary manslaughter. It seems to me that the officer should have been sentenced similarly in this case as well at the very least.
A subway cop did the same thing - pulled his firearm and shot a passenger to death having intended to pull his Taser:
http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2010/07/08/verdict-reached-in-oakland-subway-shooting/
He was found guilty of involuntary manslaughter. It seems to me that the officer should have been sentenced similarly in this case as well at the very least.
VAopencarry
Regular Member
There should be no free pass for 'oopsies' that involve lethal force.
Sorry officer but the gas pedal was right next to the brake pedal on the floor of my car, I got them mixed up.
Sorry officer but the gas pedal was right next to the brake pedal on the floor of my car, I got them mixed up.
TFred
Regular Member
That's my question, what is different between these two cases? Completely different outcome from the same story given by the two LEOs.
Inconsistent justice is no justice at all.
TFred
Last edited:
paramedic70002
Regular Member
Part of me says OK the LEO screwed up but it was the fault of his trainer or the dept for putting the Taser next to the weapon. Still I cannot shift total culpability away from the LEO. It comes down to 'knew, or should have known' that this is a recurring problem.
If I give the wrong medication to a patient I doubt I can blame the guy who stocked the drug box and put other medications next to the one I needed, or the EMS authority for issuing a drug box with half the drugs thrown together willy nilly without organization (see pic). Or the manufacturer, for coloring the vial similar to another medication. Sheesh, know your tools. Does a carpenter ever try to pound nails in with a screw driver?
So share the blame. It seems the court wants to absolve the LEO in favor of other parties. I wonder how hard it would be to subpoena the LEO's training records, trainer, trainer's notes, dept policy manual to show if this was addressed. I wonder if this was done, or attempted, before it went to court. Too late now I bet. Generally appeals don't give credence to evidence you forgot to get the first time around.
If I give the wrong medication to a patient I doubt I can blame the guy who stocked the drug box and put other medications next to the one I needed, or the EMS authority for issuing a drug box with half the drugs thrown together willy nilly without organization (see pic). Or the manufacturer, for coloring the vial similar to another medication. Sheesh, know your tools. Does a carpenter ever try to pound nails in with a screw driver?
So share the blame. It seems the court wants to absolve the LEO in favor of other parties. I wonder how hard it would be to subpoena the LEO's training records, trainer, trainer's notes, dept policy manual to show if this was addressed. I wonder if this was done, or attempted, before it went to court. Too late now I bet. Generally appeals don't give credence to evidence you forgot to get the first time around.
Attachments
The Donkey
New member
The difference is that there is no qualified immunity defense to involuntary manslaughter.
In this case, the plaintiff's Maryland state law claim survived the appeal because Maryland recognizes an exception for "gross negligence" to its sovereign immunity defense.
(However, the Plaintiff is still probably out of luck because Judge Motz probably will not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claim now that the federal claim has been dismissed. 100 to one that this case ever makes it to trial.)
Gunslinger
Regular Member
Well putting a badge on a moron doesn't stop him from being a moron.
Gunslinger
Regular Member
Well, an officer's sujective stupidity seems to be OK. Except for a different grip, different weight, different color and different sights, anyone could confuse the two. Anyone with an IQ of 30, that is. Seems about the mean for cops in this state.
Kirbinator
Regular Member
Negligent homicide is still homicide, even though we may call it manslaughter.
I did not read much into what actually occurred nor was I there, however, I will still post my thoughts on the topic. Let's all agree that the LEO intended to use a taser during a situation and used his firearm instead.
First I want to state that a lot of situations that some LEOs deal with are fast paced, dangerous, and require split second decisions which may result in errors. I believe some errors should be forgiven with the understanding that humans make mistakes, especially in this type of career. However, I am not on the bandwagon to suggest that a LEO should endure immunity when he or she confuses a taser with their firearm. I understand that mistakes can be made, we are all human, but I think that using deadly force when you intend to use less than lethal (taser) is not an excuse in some instances. I wouldn't want a LEO backing me up who can confuse their taser with their firearm and I think they should be held liable for doing so. LEOs that make dumb mistakes like this always make the news and give us all bad names. Tasers are such a great tool in LE and irresponsibility by a very slim majority will ruin their reputation.
I saw it was mentioned above about the taser position on the belt. My department requires tasers to be place on the weak side and requiring a cross draw which I'm sure is for liability reasons. I agree with that. I guess the controversy really lies with the court and what they deem reasonable. Situations are so vastly different that it's difficult to draw a line between what you will accept as being a reasonable mistake by LEOs and what you determine is not. For me, it's a case by case basis, and I can see the difficulty in trying to draw the line.
Just my 2 cents to put in a LEO point of view.
Last edited:
All American Nightmare
Regular Member
Things happens we all understand that. If you do something, long enough you are going to make a mistake no way around it. Would a non-LEO get charged? However, at the very least, he should be charged with reckless handling of a firearm http://law.justia.com/virginia/codes/2006/toc1802000/18.2-56.1.html and malicious bodily injury http://law.justia.com/virginia/codes/2006/toc1802000/18.2-52.html let a jury decide his fate.
Gunslinger
Regular Member
Good post. No wait, I take that back because I am a LEO basher...I'm so confused. A cop who makes sense and obviously has common sense. How can this be??? John, please remove this post or I'll become known as an apologist for bad cops.....
Like I said, good post, on target all the way.