It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
(visit the link for the full news article)
physicians use the term to describe a state in which a person becomes agitated and combative, with superhuman strength and skyrocketing body temperature. However, the American Medical Association does not recognise the disorder, which has led to claims that it does not exist and is merely an excuse used by police.
Originally posted by tamusan
If it works for them, then in theory it should work for me if I ever run or resist.
posted on 25-8-2008 @ 03:27 PM
During this argument you quoted … It does not say that they died because of the Taser. … it makes no direct statement such as ' the Taser killed my (fill in the blank)'…
It does not say they died because of the Taser because, at the time, they had been legally blocked from making that assertion, since all the tools of corporate law have been brought to bear protecting the manufacturer of this misrepresented weapon. Their argument hands us the logic that the ‘contributing factors’ of the so-called “excited delirium”, drugs in the suspects system, or unknown medical conditions, are the ‘cause’ of death, an empty theory that seeks to circumvent the presence of the Taser in the equation. Most of us have seen this tactic used before, tobacco, faulty mechanical devices, and poorly-tested pharmaceuticals. In the courtroom they had succeeded in using all the tools they have been granted as corporate citizens to eliminate their liability until recently, (June 2008 Heston v. City of Salinas, et al., N.D. Cal. Case No. C 05-03658 JW,).
In fact, Taser International, Inc. had asked the court to dismiss the claims of the Heston family, contending that (1) Robert Heston’s death was not reasonably foreseeable, (2) its product is not inherently dangerous, and (3) it had no duty to warn of the dangers of its product.
I draw attention to number 3. ”.. it had no duty to warn of the dangers of its product.”
Is it any wonder they are still trying to squirm away from liability?
The jury found that TASER International knew or should have known that its [Taser] was dangerous because prolonged exposures to the device poses a substantial risk of cardiac arrest to persons against whom the device is deployed. The jury also found that TASER International failed to adequately warn purchasers of its device of the risks associated with its use.
Originally posted by tamusan
reply to post by chiron613
Thanks for the explanation of "excited delerium". I thought that it was an excuse for police behavior.
I was not talking about suicide by cop in my last post...
Originally posted by chiron613
reply to post by tamusan
For example, if you show a weapon (even a fake one) and start running towards the cops telling them you're going to kill them all,