It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

First Jury 'Zaps' Taser: $6 Million For Wrongful Death!

page: 3
11
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 01:55 AM
link   
No Matter how you spin this, Tazer lost and will have to settle up. 6 million is the tip of the iceberg. Now attorneys will have a hey day in court with Tazer. It starts like this, National Television advertisement. “ Have you been tazered and suffer medical problems from it ? Or have you suffered from medical problems when you were Tazered and your health has deteriorated further from being Tazered, or has a death resulted in your family from a tazer gun. Call us today Know your rights” bla… bla.. call us. ABC Law Firm today. 1800 etc.." Oh , Tazer will pay more than 6 million and it’s about time Tazer pays dearly, because others have with their life. This judgment open the door to start enacting regulations on this Tazer weapon, because it’s just as lethal as real gun and should be labeled as such. The Public has been shown videos, Newscasts, etc.. all about the Tazer weapon and Tazer international is prime for many law suits to come. It will go as far as the officers also paying restitution . Tazer will pass the buck to everyone involved and sue them in turn to cover their losses. This in-turn will force these officers and rent –a-cops to use just good judgment or not use the Tazer weapon at all.




posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 07:04 AM
link   
reply to post by rcwj75
 


And what if you had killed him with the Taser? Are any of the other lethal tools used without training? It seems obvious that YOU have never been in a situation where you attempted to apply your misconceived notion of non-lethal force and wound up killing someone.

I agree 100% that the theory of the use of Tasers seems good, but thet application is inarguably a horror show and to pretend otherwise is very irresponsible.

Why not admit the flaws, fix the weapons, regulate their use within the force more, or get rid of them?

When I was a kid we used to root for the cops, but these days it seems they are deemed almost worse than the bad guys.

[edit on 12-6-2008 by wytworm]



posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 02:29 PM
link   
tasers have become attrocities even since they have become widely overused

in the begining, as tasers were meant to be used, were a great tool for police officers however corruption and psychologic issues of police combined with taser technology is fastly becoming a weapon of terror used to cattle prod society into complacency

tasers used in a situation rather then the gun is something that would save lives rather then shooting a person you momentarily disable them

tasers became problematic when every cop in any situation starts using their taser

we've heard of too many situations where police are tasing old men, the disabled, women, etc

i dont care what any cop says or any defender of this situation says, if you are a cop, a trained officer of the law, there is no reason you cant handle the situation more responsibly, there is absolutly no reason we should hear of 80 year olds being tased and disabled being tased etc

im not the biggest person in the world im average size i know from personal experience i dont need a taser to handle a situation with a elderly person or a disabled person

maybe if police were trained more in psychologic situations they could handle scenarios with less violence and more diplomatically and leave the killing up to the courts

[edit on 12-6-2008 by Dramey]



posted on Aug, 4 2008 @ 10:09 PM
link   
Cops are the bad guys. As a prosecutor we used to say there are more criminals behind badges than there are behind bars. I can count the number of honest cops I have dealt with in fifteen years on two fingers. We have become Sherwood Forest.



posted on Aug, 5 2008 @ 02:37 AM
link   
reply to post by rcwj75
 


While I agree that the use of a Tazer in your circumstance, being shovel vs you, was justified (although I would have preferred you use pepper spray), I also believe that the majority of cases where a tazer has been used has been unjustified.

Mr RCWJ75 Policeman sir, could you please provide the reasoning and justification of why a 16 year old boy got tazered 19 times when he was lying on the ground with a broken back? (By the way the police justification is absolute bullcrap.)



Or the case of the young man tazered for rightfully questioning why he was being given a speeding ticket and asking the officer to accompany him to the speed sign so he could state his case: (by the way unless you are blind it is obvious the young man was just pointing at the sign)....



Or the case of the woman at a nightclub who was tazered brutally before being handcuffed then tazered AGAIN while she was handcuffed and sitting in the police vehicle. The officers justification was that she was kicking the doors.



Mr RCWJ75 Policeman sir, these are just a few examples of tazers being used in situations that did not warrant a tazer. You have tried to say that these are a few 'isolated incidents' and yet if I Google the two words "Police tazer" I come up with hundreds of pages of different stories of tazers being used unjustifiably, some of which have resulted in serious bodily harm or death.

Mr RCWJ75 Policeman sir. I would suggest stopping trying to justify their use and start taking a good hard look at the criminals - aka fellow police officers - you work with. You have no support here in terms of tazer usage.

Kryties



posted on Aug, 5 2008 @ 03:15 AM
link   
Theres a get out clause the cops or anyone using a tazer should use. The should say to the person the following
" Get down on the ground NOW. or I'll tazer you. Failure to follow my commands is your acceptance of the following that allows me to tazer you and any injury (including Death) as a result we ( the dept or tazer company) will not be held accountable."

you watch how many people resist then.
of course by the time the cops said all this the guys done a runner or pulled a gun.


I have this sign to deter burgelers from entering my property.

Anyone trying to enter these premises without the owners consent or knowledge is liable for any damage caused , and also if the owner is on the premises while said intruders are attempting to gain entry, said entrant is liable to be injured or killed without recompense or lawsuit to the owners of the property, Continuing to gain unlawful entry is full acceptance of these conditions by the person or person gaining unlawful entry.

[edit on 5/8/08 by DataWraith]

[edit on 5/8/08 by DataWraith]



posted on Aug, 5 2008 @ 03:17 AM
link   
Finally !!! I've been waiting for the first case to be won against them. Hopefully there will be many more wins, not loss of lives. Maybe this will be the start to controling the idiots that use those things to make people mindlessly obey. Now if only somebody could win a lawsuit against the police department for the same thing, then maybe they'd actually think before using those things.



posted on Aug, 5 2008 @ 04:18 AM
link   
I don't understand it, it really baffles the mind.

Would Smith & Wesson have to pay damages to someone that an officer shoots and kills? Probably not I'm guessing, so why should TASER?

Can a TASER kill? Yeah, but the other alternative is a handgun, which is actually designed to kill. Pick one?


Did you know that tasers are fired by police more than 500,000 times per year in America? Yet we only have like what, 2 to 5 taser-related deaths per year?

You have a much greater chance dying from a bee sting than you do getting killed from a taser shock.

You can die from drinking too much water - should we outlaw water, is it now a dangerous weapon too?

The fact is, the TASER has never been proven to cause any deaths, only to help cause them. Every single taser-related death so far, the "victim" has died from other symptoms, the taser merely aggravated those symptoms. Like one case, a guy was so hopped up on drugs that his heart was ready to implode any minute on it's own. When he got shocked with the TASER, it merely sped up the process.

It's like getting bit by a snake, and then trying to run. By running, you are getting your blood moving, and circulating the snake's venom through your body quicker. So if you did that, would you blame your running, or the snake bite from killing you. Obviously, you would blame the snake bite.

So why blame the Taser?

No, but like mindless sheep, keep on going believing that the Taser is Dr. Evil's death ray, as the media would have you believe.

Did you know the Taser is estimated to save more than 200,000 lives per year? That's a lot more lives it saves than the 2 or 3 that it kills.

Heart surgery also can kill, just like the taser. But it also, like the taser saves a lot more lives than it kills. Should we outlaw heart surgery?



posted on Aug, 5 2008 @ 04:29 AM
link   
reply to post by ADisbeliever
 


The difference between Heart Surgury and being Tazered is that the patient is aware of the risks and the operation is necessary to save a life. When someone is being tazered I don't hear the policeman asking if they are pregnant, have a pacemaker, have an electro-chemical imbalance etc etc AND being tazered is not optional.

The fact is that the policeman is at fault for not using better judgement, the device itself is at fault for being what it is: a semi-lethal weapon, and the company is at fault for not having done extensive testing and for having failed to disclose its potential to be fatal.

Im sorry but your argument falls flat on its face.

Kryties.



posted on Aug, 5 2008 @ 04:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kryties
reply to post by ADisbeliever
 


The difference between Heart Surgury and being Tazered is that the patient is aware of the risks and the operation is necessary to save a life. When someone is being tazered I don't hear the policeman asking if they are pregnant, have a pacemaker, have an electro-chemical imbalance etc etc AND being tazered is not optional.

The fact is that the policeman is at fault for not using better judgement, the device itself is at fault for being what it is: a semi-lethal weapon, and the company is at fault for not having done extensive testing and for having failed to disclose its potential to be fatal.

Im sorry but your argument falls flat on its face.

Kryties.


If you are going to say my argument falls flat on it's face, then don't pick and choose.

What about the rest of my argument, aside from the heart surgery analogy?


You can die from drinking water too, and it's not a whole lot more unlikely than dying from a taser shock.

You going to sue the water company for not warning you that their product is lethal?



posted on Aug, 5 2008 @ 04:49 AM
link   
reply to post by ADisbeliever
 


You are justifying the use of tazers just because it ONLY kills a few people a year? You are justifying the use of tazers when they have the probability of causing other symptoms to occur which will harm the person?

Tazers ARE NOT meant to be used in situations where pepper spray or sheer manpower could have resolved the situation. They are meant to0 be a last line of defense BEFORE using a gun. They ARE NOT meant to be used to subdue someone who is in a wheelchair, has a broken back from falling off a bridge, is rightfully questioning a speeding ticket etc etc.

I have a question for you. Hypothetically, lets say, you have a pacemaker. Now you get pulled over for speeding and get out of the car to point at the sign and ask the officer to explain how you were speeding. The next thing you know you have two tazer needles in your back, not 5 inches from your pacemaker, you suffer a heart attack and die.
Was this use justified in this hypothetical situation?



posted on Aug, 5 2008 @ 05:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kryties
reply to post by ADisbeliever
 


You are justifying the use of tazers just because it ONLY kills a few people a year? You are justifying the use of tazers when they have the probability of causing other symptoms to occur which will harm the person?

Tazers ARE NOT meant to be used in situations where pepper spray or sheer manpower could have resolved the situation. They are meant to0 be a last line of defense BEFORE using a gun. They ARE NOT meant to be used to subdue someone who is in a wheelchair, has a broken back from falling off a bridge, is rightfully questioning a speeding ticket etc etc.

I have a question for you. Hypothetically, lets say, you have a pacemaker. Now you get pulled over for speeding and get out of the car to point at the sign and ask the officer to explain how you were speeding. The next thing you know you have two tazer needles in your back, not 5 inches from your pacemaker, you suffer a heart attack and die.
Was this use justified in this hypothetical situation?


Hypothetically If you got pulled over surely you'd wait to see what the officer has to say first?
Shouldn't you do as he says, then act reasonably and responsibly.
You should NEVER mouth off at an officer if you were doing wrong in the first place, it just makes it worse.
Just accept your punishment with good grace and don't do it next time. Be polite and listen to what he has to say, that way , you won't get your ass tazered....
I know that there are officers out there that can't use the gun so resort to using the tazer , and no amount of chat will stop them using it, but at least if you comply with every demand they make and they STILL use the tazer then you can sue them to hell and back and have the courts back you. As long as its on camera of course. And if you die because of it , thats ok (not for you though), your family can sue them for even more.

[edit on 5/8/08 by DataWraith]



posted on Aug, 5 2008 @ 05:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by DataWraith
Hypothetically If you got pulled over surely you'd wait to see what the officer has to say first?
Shouldn't you do as he says, then act reasonably and responsibly.
[edit on 5/8/08 by DataWraith]


Tell that to the guy who got tazered for rightfully questioning the officer about the ticket he was being given. The man had listened to what the officer had to say and got tazered for simply refusing to sign the ticket because he believed the officer was wrong.

In this video you willl notice the officer is headed to put down his notepad before the young man had exited his vehicle. The young man clearly does not pose a threat after he exits the vehicle (by the way you can hear him saying to the officer that he would like to show him the sign and then see him pointing at the sign in a non-threatening manner). The officer then grabs his tazer and shocks the young man FOR NO APPARENT REASON.




posted on Aug, 7 2008 @ 08:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kryties
reply to post by ADisbeliever
 


You are justifying the use of tazers just because it ONLY kills a few people a year?


Uh, yes? It's either that or the alternatives, and the taser is a heck of a lot safer than the alternatives.


Originally posted by Kryties
Tazers ARE NOT meant to be used in situations where pepper spray or sheer manpower could have resolved the situation.




Yes they are meant to be used in those situations, are you the maker of TASER and know how it's meant to be used? Give me a break.

And I've taken pepper spray to the eyes, AND taken a taser ride, and I would much rather get hit with a taser, even 100 times, before I ever got sprayed again.

And there have been more deaths related to pepper spray than there have tasers, look it up.





Originally posted by Kryties
They are meant to0 be a last line of defense BEFORE using a gun.



Yes, they are. And that's how they are being used.




Originally posted by Kryties
They ARE NOT meant to be used to subdue someone who is in a wheelchair, has a broken back from falling off a bridge, is rightfully questioning a speeding ticket etc etc.



Yes, because someone who is in a wheelchair is completely incapable of puling out a gun and shooting me.

And the kid who fell of a bridge, yes, when I'm walking up to him and he's shouting that he wants to kill me, I'm supposed to assume he has a broken back. That makes a lot of sense there.

I don't know about you, but if I had a broken back I would be crying in pain and telling the officers approaching me that my back is broken - not that I wanted to kill them.

But common sense is something people these days are really lacking, so it's no surprise to me.



Originally posted by Kryties
I have a question for you. Hypothetically, lets say, you have a pacemaker. Now you get pulled over for speeding and get out of the car to point at the sign and ask the officer to explain how you were speeding. The next thing you know you have two tazer needles in your back, not 5 inches from your pacemaker, you suffer a heart attack and die.
Was this use justified in this hypothetical situation?


The officer would be justified. It's pretty much basic knowledge you are not supposed to get out of your car and start flapping your arms in the air, and not expect to think the officer you are pulling out a gun and trying to shoot him.

I've seen a police video where exactly that happened, a kid got out of his car, then pulled a gun on the officer and shot him. The officer almost died. Was that officer supposed to automatically assume that that kid was just going to be pointing at a traffic sign? HEH, if the officer did that, he WOULD have died.


I know it's popular on this site for people to think that we are in a police state, and that they can see everything you do and know everything about you - but sorry, the police are not god, and do not know that you have a pacemaker.

If you have a pacemaker, it is YOUR responsibility not to put yourself in a situation where you would compromise your safety.

But that's also something people lack these days - responsibility. Just let everyone else do things for you, expect everyone to be able to read your mind, and expect things to go smooth.

Gotta love the socialist welfare state.






[edit on 7-8-2008 by ADisbeliever]



posted on Aug, 7 2008 @ 08:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kryties

Originally posted by DataWraith
Hypothetically If you got pulled over surely you'd wait to see what the officer has to say first?
Shouldn't you do as he says, then act reasonably and responsibly.
[edit on 5/8/08 by DataWraith]


Tell that to the guy who got tazered for rightfully questioning the officer about the ticket he was being given.



Are we watching the same video? I don't see someone get tasered for question his ticket, I see someone getting tasered for fleeing from arrest.

Just as the officer said in the video, "When you're under arrest, you don't go any where. That's just how it is."

At what point did that guy, or you for that matter, think it's a good idea to start walking away from a police officer at a fast pace while he is placing you under arrest?


Gotta love how in the video the girl gets out of the car, and when the officer tells her to get back in the car, she puts her hands on her hips and shouts "no" with a smug look on her face. Typical spoiled brat Paris Hilton generation - you all think the law doesn't apply to you.



posted on Aug, 7 2008 @ 09:35 AM
link   
First of all, There is NO SUCH THING AS A NON-LETHAL WEAPON!!!! Any piece of equipment can, in certain situations, become lethal. Its the use by those that are duly deputised that have the responsibility to have the common sense in they're use. Whats happening here in these tazer deaths is that the cops using them have become mentaly disposed to over using these weapons. Some i would think are pissed that many perps get off so easily in our broken courts and wrongly hand out punishment before any charges have been filed or adjudicated. If Lawmen don't know the principal that any weapon over used or used wrongly is capable of dealing death, they need to turn in they're badges. Its a red hering for them to state such drivel in a court of law. CYA will only make juries give more and more ammo for lawyers to take away useful tools being developed for the control of unruly citizens!!


Zindo



posted on Aug, 7 2008 @ 11:11 AM
link   
Cops shouldn't use a taser on anyone they're not allowed to shoot in the face. Tasers are not "short cuts" to achieving supremacy in a situation, but an alternative to a gun where the target has a better chance of survival. When they say "less lethal" they really mean "only slightly less lethal".



posted on Aug, 7 2008 @ 04:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by dave420
When they say "less lethal" they really mean "only slightly less lethal".


WTF? Says who?

When an officer shoots someone with a gun, they shoot to kill, center mass. At least 75% of people that get shot by police die.

Now, let's do some math. A taser is used in the USA roughly 200,000 times per year, last I heard. Yet we only hear about 1 or 2 taser deaths per year.

2 deaths out of 200,000 uses is 0.001%.

Hmm. 75% lethality of gun, or 0.001% lethality of taser.


How, the flying fark, is that "only slightly less lethal".



posted on Aug, 8 2008 @ 06:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by ADisbeliever
Are we watching the same video? I don't see someone get tasered for question his ticket, I see someone getting tasered for fleeing from arrest.


Fleeing? What the hell? The officer had his tazer out ready to fire before he'd even completed his turn to the young man, who by the way took 2 small steps. If you are not a police officer I hope you never become one because you would be the type to shoot someone in the back.


Just as the officer said in the video, "When you're under arrest, you don't go any where. That's just how it is."

At what point did that guy, or you for that matter, think it's a good idea to start walking away from a police officer at a fast pace while he is placing you under arrest?


Fast pace? Egads man, get your eyes checked.

EDIT: I may sound a little annoyed but that is because I do not appreciate being compared to the likes of Paris Hilton.

[edit on 8/8/2008 by Kryties]




top topics



 
11
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join