<p>Parent, I dont doubt you have SC law, but trust me, municpalities do make large settlements. And at least NYC has lost in court where police did not follow procedure. Your case is police inaction. I know that NYC has lost BIG TIME on excessive force complaints.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Reality, huh? Got a cite for that?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Again, cite please? They might get sued, but only because suits like this tend to take a shotgun approach - sue everyone and everything that has even a remote connection to the case, especially if they have big pockets. </p>
<p>It’s interesting that people seem to be ok with ignoring classic tort law that has been around forever regarding the liability of manufacturers for their product when it comes to guns and other weapons. Under that system, there must be a manufacturing defect in the product at the time it was made and that defect must be the proximate cause of the injury that occasioned the lawsuit, otherwise there is no standing.
Reasonable people don’t usually think it’s acceptable to sue a car maker when someone is killed by a vehicle, unless there is a clear manufacturing defect with the car. Otherwise, if the car did what it was designed to do (i.e. accelerate when the gas is applied and brake when the brake pedal is pressed), where is the liability for the car maker?</p>
<p>The taser is not considered a non-lethal device. It is specifically marketed as a “less lethal” option (i.e. compared to a handgun). In this case, it functioned as it was designed to. Whether it was applied in a situation that warrants it is the question here, and that liability falls directly on the officers themselves and the policies that guide their actions. Not the manufacturer of the device they used.</p>
<p>And Parent1986, if you need a cite, check out 15 U.S.C. §§ 7901-7903, aka the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, and all of the subsequent court cases against gun manufacturers that were thrown out.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Indeed. …</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>"The reality is that the personality profile of someone who would go into law enforcement is that of someone who is controlling and sadistic.</p>
<p>Reality, huh? Got a cite for that?" #42</p>
<p>No cite. </p>
<p>To elaborate further on the personality profile of those in law enforcement - they are highly sexual. One could construe that this is due to a high testosterone level, but that might be considered sexist. </p>
<p>This personality profile applies to males and females in law enforcement.</p>
<p>@#44</p>
<p>You can sue whomever you want. If there are limits on liability defined by the municipality’s insurance, you won’t collect.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Unsupported opinion. Worth exactly nothing.</p>
<p>To all those defending the police officer: would you be defending him if he’d pulled out a gun and shot and killed the kid, in exactly the same situation? A kid who wasn’t even suspected of any crime? If not, than how can you justify the use of a taser? As others have pointed out, it’s hardly “non-lethal.”</p>
<p>That’s exactly why they have the taser. You obey or not. That’s your choice and if you choose wrong you might get hurt or even killed. Choose wisely. They were investigating an incident and everyone is a suspect until the facts are sorted out. You act up you ask for trouble. Sit down and shut up and you will be just fine.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Hoping this is sarcasm, but if not, I’ll just say that force must be proportional to the threat. POST puts a lot of emphasis on the force continuum. And the police have a duty to react appropriately, not overreact or act with malice or be punitive.
A lot of people will drag out the “officer safety” argument, i.e. that an officer should be allowed to do whatever is necessary to come home to his family at night, etc. Well thats a nice way to justify basically any action, and is really a crap argument. There is inherent risk in being a police officer and deal with crime on a day to day basis. Yes, you take precautions to avoid harm, but if someone doesn’t realize what doing that entails, they shouldn’t be a police officer.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Where do you come up with this stuff, parent1986? This is laughable.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yeah, and it would be funny, were it not so sick.</p>
<p>
Watching too many Schwartzenegger movies?</p>
<h1>46 Please dont pretend you know how every municipality in the country works. Where I live, as I said, municipalities have lost lawsuits over damages from excessive force. Most cases do settle, some in excess of insurance amounts.</h1>
<p>Laugh all you want. It is common sense, from my education and professional experience.</p>
<p>Never seen an Arnold S movie. Don’t forget the sexual part.</p>
<p>Force just needs to remove the threat–not be exactly proportional. Any person of similar size refusing to stop and moving toward the cops in a manner considered to be a threat–say fists balled as in this case (reported)–can be stopped with reasonable force. It might be a take down, a billy club or it might be a taser. That’s up to the individual cop. Either would be OK in most broad circumstances of a late night threat by another male.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>At the risk of being repetitive:</p>
<p>Unsupported opinion. Worth exactly nothing.</p>
<p>“Perhaps not; but I have a good friend whose husband is a totally disabled ex police officer. He suffered irreversible brain damage while trying to make an arrest. He cannot work and is in constant pain. His wife’s work options are limited because she needs to care for him. He gets a small disability payment. His family was reasonably comfortable; now they live in subsidized housing and survive on food stamps.” annasdad</p>
<p>Annasdad, I’m sorry about your friend. However, I am not the focus of this thread. The tasing incident is the focus.</p>
<p>My friend’s husband has nothing to do with the fact that you’re making assertions that you cannot back up. If you have evidence to support your position, supply it; otherwise, it remains an unsupported opinion that is worth exactly nothing.</p>
<p>When a police officer takes out a gun and shoots someone, there is a good likelihood that that person will be killed or injured. When a Taser is used, that is not supposed to happen. The person is supposed to be temporarily rendered unable to move and stunned. People have died from Taser incidents but I would bet it’s a lot smaller percentage than those who die from being shot with a gun. I have read that many people who die from Tasering are either on drugs or have some type of co-morbid medical condition.</p>
<p>As for the basic personality profile of cops being that of testosterone driving sadistic sociopaths, I’d also like to see some statistically valid citations.</p>
<p>Cops have a hard job and if they stop you, you should just cooperate.</p>