Father Tasered-to-Death for uncooperative behavior

[marmot]

<link to story>

<another link>

Mark Backlund was en route to get his parents at the airport when he was "uncooperative" after an accident.

"It takes the fight out of them," Garcia said.

It also potentially takes the life out of them!

Now before anyone gives me any grief over the subject heading, please note that it is true: the efficient cause of his death was his being tasered.

[chiggerbit]

"...became "uncooperative" after being involved in a wreck..."

Makes me wonder if he had head trauma. All law enforcement and emergency personnel should be trained to know that head trauma can result in unexplained, difficult behaviors. I wouldn't think tasering can be safe in those cases.

[marmot]

Tough questions for Taser International executive

As Toronto police consider spending millions on stun guns, forum audience comes armed with critical research

From Friday's Globe and Mail
January 18, 2008 at 4:06 AM EST

The packed auditorium listened in silence as the co-founder of Arizona-based Taser International Inc. explained at a public forum in Toronto last night the science behind the stun guns, but it was during the 75-minute question period that Thomas Smith found he had to defend himself from stinging accusations.

Mr. Smith, who was in town as the Toronto Police Services Board weighs a request by Police Chief Bill Blair to spend $8.6-million to equip and train every front-line officer with a taser, was confronted by the sister of a man who died after being tasered by Vancouver police.

He was also presented with an offer to stun an elderly man right then and there, and was caught off guard by audience members armed with research.

"Are tasers risk free? No. ... The reality is that there [are] still studies to be done, we encourage them, we work with them, we want them to be done because it's going to continue to answer those questions," he told the standing-room-only crowd.

If Chief Blair's request is approved by the civilian oversight board, the move would see the number of tasers deployed by city police rise significantly from the current 500 or so, and make the Toronto force the first in the country to have the stun guns so widely available.

Speaking to reporters after the heated question period, Chief Blair defended his position on the use of tasers as an alternative for guns.

"In the hands of a properly trained officer, properly directed, supervised and accountable for its use, those things can save lives and I want them accessible to my front-line officers for those circumstances where they can reduce injury to my people and also reduce injury to the public."

During the forum, Patti Gillman, whose brother, Robert Bagnell, died after being tasered by Vancouver police in 2004, said she was speaking on behalf of the more than 300 North Americans who have died after being shot by the guns since 2003.

"[My brother] was unarmed, he was of no credible threat to police or to the public and there were 13 police officers there the night that he died," she said. "I know that most thinking Canadians would concur that the use of tasers was not only unjustified the night my brother died, but was also likely unjustified in the majority of cases."

Ms. Gillman - who lodged a formal complaint after learning that a veteran Victoria police officer who played a pivotal role in a 1998 pilot program that led to his force adopting the weapons permanently had received several payments from Taser International since 1999 - asked Mr. Smith how many other Canadian police officers had been paid by the company.

Mr. Smith responded: "We also compensate officers when they train, for their time to train. I don't know if any Canadians were among those."

Ken Wood volunteered to be stunned in front of the crowd.

"Everything that I see that you do in your studies is basically physically fit, gung-ho military types saying, 'Go ahead, taser me.' You don't know my health history, you don't know who I am, I'm Joe Average on the street."

Andy Buxton, chair of Amnesty International Toronto, asked Mr. Smith about research on tasers conducted by Amnesty and other independent organizations. Mr. Smith repeatedly responded that he had not seen the data and so he could not comment.

Then, Mr. Buxton asked: "Are you familiar with research that suggests that 20 per cent of all use of tasers are in what you refer to yourself as pain compliance mode [set to inflict pain to get a subject to co-operate]?"

"I'm not familiar with that specific study," Mr. Smith responded.

"Those were your own statistics, Mr. Smith, from your own website," Mr. Buxton said.

<link>

[NaturalMystik]

These taser deaths seem to be occuring way too often these days...

Propaganda to force us to keep in line?

Don't taze me bro...

[marmot]

These taser deaths seem to be occuring way too often these days...

Propaganda to force us to keep in line?

Don't taze me bro...

you know what Shaman,,, i think that's part of the wonderful, beautiful, collateral effect the PTB are gleaning from all this,,, it ups the fear quotient for the masses,,, better to control us by,,,

[marmot]

Why is anyone under compulsion to sign anything?

Seems the premise for his arrest was unwarrented.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=IMaMYL_shxc

It appears that all Massey was trying to ascertain was why he was pulled over, which is his right as an American. The officer tried to claim speeding but refused to offer what speed Massey was traveling at. In fact, when he first addresses Massey, the officer clearly said that he “felt” he was traveling a bit fast. Massey was correctly astonished when the officer pulled his taser on him and shot him full of electricity. The officer than proceeds to terrorize the family in the car as well and tries to change the story to Massey “not listening to him” or “not following his instructions.” Specifically, Massey was refusing to sign the citation for speeding because he did not believe he had been speeding. For that, the brave officer shoots him with the taser and then brags about it to his partner later in the video. Toward the end you can hear the officer saying “he took a ride on the taser” and then mocked Massey by saying, “painful, isn’t it?” Further explaining to his partner, the officer reveals what really caused him to taser this citizen, “He wanted to be in charge.” His partner simply replies, “Good for you.” <from here>

[FourthBase]

Sickening.

Cop should spend years in jail for that.

[Uncle $cam]

As AhabsOtherLeg, mentioned in another post:
http://www.rigorousintuition.ca/board/v ... 412#161412

Burma used to be (probably still is) one of our (UK's) major customers for ... electric cattle-prods. Their biggest industry is agriculture, but somehow I don't think that's what they're being used for, and I'm sure the sellers know that too. Johnathan Aitken made a lot of money out of them back in the day. And Gordon Brown was in no hurry to denounce the Myanmar govt. during the recent strife. It's sickening.

Sickening indeed...

Just another sign of a closing societies tricks as Naomi Wolfe suggests. Tasers, cattle prods whats the diff...Tools of a totalitarian culture.

[NavnDansk]

According to Wiki, police officers are being flown to Israel by JINSA to learn how to be better gestapo.

[marmot]

Does anyone here know if it's a crime to refuse to sign a speeding ticket, or any ticket?

Because this is why he was asked to get out of the vehicle, and this is why he was being arrested. The guy was baffled. I think he even said to the cop, "What's wrong with you man?" And, yes, he was walking away. And for this he get tased.

Again, someone tell me, are we living in a country were it's a crime to refuse to sign something a police officer sets before you? Anyone know the law on this?

[Seamus OBlimey]

Another..

Man dies after police called out

A man has died following a confrontation with police in Bedford.

He was shot with a police stun gun after threatening officers with a knife before he "inflicted a more serious injury on himself", said police.

The incident happened at a house in The Spinney after reports of a domestic dispute between a mother and her son.

The man, aged in his 30s, went into the house after being shot and was found in "urgent need of medical attention", police said. He died in hospital later.

The Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) has been informed.

A post-mortem examination to determine the cause of death is due on Monday.

See how a Taser works

When officers arrived at the house at about 1900 GMT on Saturday they were confronted by the armed man, police said.

He was then shot with the police Taser gun.

"The man went into the house where he inflicted a more serious injury on himself," said Bedfordshire Police.

"When officers found him, he was in urgent need of medical attention."

He was taken to Bedford South Hospital, where he was pronounced dead.

A Bedfordshire Police spokeswoman said on Sunday: "The deceased will not be named until an inquest is opened later this week.

"There will be no more statements about this incident until tomorrow when it will be decided whether this is an IPCC led investigation, or if it is referred back to Bedfordshire Police."

When Tasers are fired, two metal barbs connected to the weapon by a thin wire pierce the skin before 50,00-volt electric charge is delivered.

Amnesty International has previously said that the weapons, which temporarily disable a suspect, have been linked to more than 70 deaths in America.

But according to UK police, there have been "no severe or adverse reactions" since Taser was introduced by forces in 2003.

BBC

Hmm...

[Pele'sDaughter]

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/251/story/81381.html

Federal appeals court sets limits on police use of Tasers

A federal appeals court on Monday issued one of the most comprehensive rulings yet limiting police use of Tasers against low-level offenders who seem to pose little threat and may be mentally ill.

In a case out of San Diego County, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals criticized an officer who, without warning, shot an emotionally troubled man with a Taser when he was unarmed, yards away, and neither fleeing nor advancing on the officer.

Sold as a nonlethal alternative to guns, Tasers deliver an electrical jolt meant to subdue a subject. The stun guns have become a common and increasingly controversial tool used by law enforcement.

There have been at least nine Taser-related fatalities in the Sacramento region, including the death earlier this month of Paul Martinez Jr., an inmate shot with a stun gun while allegedly resisting officers at the Roseville jail.

As lawsuits have proliferated against police and Taser International, which manufactures the weaons, the nation's appellate courts have been trying to define what constitutes appropriate Taser use.

The San Diego County case is the latest ruling to address the issue.

The court recounted the facts of the case:

In the summer of 2005, Carl Bryan, 21, was pulled over for a seat-belt violation and did not follow an officer's order to stay in the car.

Earlier, he had received a speeding ticket and had taken off his T-shirt to wipe away tears. He was wearing only the underwear he'd slept in because a woman had taken his keys, the court said without further explanation.

During his second traffic stop in Coronado, he got out of the car. He was "agitated … yelling gibberish and hitting his thighs, clad only in his boxer shorts and tennis shoes" but did not threaten the officer verbally or physically, the judges wrote.

That's when Coronado Police Officer Brian McPherson, who was standing about 20 feet away watching Bryan's "bizarre tantrum," fired his Taser, the court said.

Without a word of warning, he hit Bryan in the arm with two metal darts, delivering a 1,200-volt jolt.

Temporarily paralyzed and in intense pain, Bryan fell face-first on the pavement. The fall shattered four of his front teeth and left him with facial abrasions and swelling. Later, a doctor had to use a scalpel to remove one of the darts.

Bryan sued McPherson, the Coronado Police Department and the city of Coronado, alleging excessive force in violation of his Fourth Amendment rights.

The officer moved to have the claim dismissed, but a federal trial judge ruled in Bryan's favor.

A three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit affirmed the trial judge's ruling on Monday, concluding that the level of force used by the officer was excessive.

McPherson could have waited for backup or tried to talk the man down, the judges said. If Bryan was mentally ill, as the officer contended, then there was even more reason to use "less intrusive means," the judges said.

"Officer McPherson's desire to quickly and decisively end an unusual and tense situation is understandable," Judge Kim McLane Wardlaw wrote for the court. "His chosen method for doing so violated Bryan's constitutional right to be free from excessive force."

Some lawyers called it a landmark decision.

Eugene Iredale, a San Diego lawyer who argued the case, said it was one of the clearest and most complete statements yet from an appellate court about the limits of Taser use.

He said after Monday's decision that courts will consider all circumstances, including whether someone poses a threat, has committed a serious crime or is mentally troubled.

"In an era where everybody understands 'don't tase me, bro,' courts are going to look more closely at the use of Tasers, and they're going to try to deter the promiscuous oversue of that tool," he said.

That's especially true in the context of those who appear to be emotionally disturbed or mentally ill, said Johnny Griffin III, a Sacramento plaintiffs lawyer.

Griffin represented the family of a troubled Woodland man who died under police restraint after being struck multiple times with Tasers.

In May 2008, Ricardo Abrahams walked away from a voluntary care facility and disobeyed the orders of officers called to check on his well-being. They shot him repeatedly with stun guns.

The case against the city of Woodland and its officers was settled in June for $300,000.

"I think it confirms what I and other lawyers in this area have been saying: You can't treat a person with mental illness the same as someone without mental illness," Griffin said.

Law enforcement authorities in Sacramento said they don't expect Monday's ruling to prompt much change.

Sacramento Police Department and Sacramento County Sheriff's Department policies permit the use of force to gain control of a suspect or prevent harm to others.

"Certainly the officer should be able to articulate the reason the force (was used), and a mere resistance to comply may not be enough," said Sheriff John McGinness.

Sgt. Norm Leong, spokesman for the Police Department, said his agency's policy on the use of stun guns mainly covers safety considerations. It doesn't list behaviors or situations that warrant using the devices, he said.

"Ideally, in every circumstance, we try to gain compliance verbally, and force is the last option we ever want to use," he said.

[elfismiles]

* Posted on Tuesday, December 29, 2009
Federal appeals court sets limits on police use of Tasers

Why did police Taser wheelchair-bound Merced, Calif., resident Greg Williams?
By Hudson Sangree and Kim Minugh | Sacramento Bee

A federal appeals court on Monday issued one of the most comprehensive rulings yet limiting police use of Tasers against low-level offenders who seem to pose little threat and may be mentally ill.

In a case out of San Diego County, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals criticized an officer who, without warning, shot an emotionally troubled man with a Taser when he was unarmed, yards away, and neither fleeing nor advancing on the officer.

Sold as a nonlethal alternative to guns, Tasers deliver an electrical jolt meant to subdue a subject. The stun guns have become a common and increasingly controversial tool used by law enforcement.

There have been at least nine Taser-related fatalities in the Sacramento region, including the death earlier this month of Paul Martinez Jr., an inmate shot with a stun gun while allegedly resisting officers at the Roseville jail.

As lawsuits have proliferated against police and Taser International, which manufactures the weaons, the nation's appellate courts have been trying to define what constitutes appropriate Taser use.

The San Diego County case is the latest ruling to address the issue.

The court recounted the facts of the case:

In the summer of 2005, Carl Bryan, 21, was pulled over for a seat-belt violation and did not follow an officer's order to stay in the car.

Earlier, he had received a speeding ticket and had taken off his T-shirt to wipe away tears. He was wearing only the underwear he'd slept in because a woman had taken his keys, the court said without further explanation.

During his second traffic stop in Coronado, he got out of the car. He was "agitated … yelling gibberish and hitting his thighs, clad only in his boxer shorts and tennis shoes" but did not threaten the officer verbally or physically, the judges wrote.

That's when Coronado Police Officer Brian McPherson, who was standing about 20 feet away watching Bryan's "bizarre tantrum," fired his Taser, the court said.

Without a word of warning, he hit Bryan in the arm with two metal darts, delivering a 1,200-volt jolt.

Temporarily paralyzed and in intense pain, Bryan fell face-first on the pavement. The fall shattered four of his front teeth and left him with facial abrasions and swelling. Later, a doctor had to use a scalpel to remove one of the darts.

Bryan sued McPherson, the Coronado Police Department and the city of Coronado, alleging excessive force in violation of his Fourth Amendment rights.

The officer moved to have the claim dismissed, but a federal trial judge ruled in Bryan's favor.

A three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit affirmed the trial judge's ruling on Monday, concluding that the level of force used by the officer was excessive.

McPherson could have waited for backup or tried to talk the man down, the judges said. If Bryan was mentally ill, as the officer contended, then there was even more reason to use "less intrusive means," the judges said.

"Officer McPherson's desire to quickly and decisively end an unusual and tense situation is understandable," Judge Kim McLane Wardlaw wrote for the court. "His chosen method for doing so violated Bryan's constitutional right to be free from excessive force."

Some lawyers called it a landmark decision.

Eugene Iredale, a San Diego lawyer who argued the case, said it was one of the clearest and most complete statements yet from an appellate court about the limits of Taser use.

He said after Monday's decision that courts will consider all circumstances, including whether someone poses a threat, has committed a serious crime or is mentally troubled.

"In an era where everybody understands 'don't tase me, bro,' courts are going to look more closely at the use of Tasers, and they're going to try to deter the promiscuous oversue of that tool," he said.

That's especially true in the context of those who appear to be emotionally disturbed or mentally ill, said Johnny Griffin III, a Sacramento plaintiffs lawyer.

Griffin represented the family of a troubled Woodland man who died under police restraint after being struck multiple times with Tasers.

In May 2008, Ricardo Abrahams walked away from a voluntary care facility and disobeyed the orders of officers called to check on his well-being. They shot him repeatedly with stun guns.

The case against the city of Woodland and its officers was settled in June for $300,000.

"I think it confirms what I and other lawyers in this area have been saying: You can't treat a person with mental illness the same as someone without mental illness," Griffin said.

Law enforcement authorities in Sacramento said they don't expect Monday's ruling to prompt much change.

Sacramento Police Department and Sacramento County Sheriff's Department policies permit the use of force to gain control of a suspect or prevent harm to others.

"Certainly the officer should be able to articulate the reason the force (was used), and a mere resistance to comply may not be enough," said Sheriff John McGinness.

Sgt. Norm Leong, spokesman for the Police Department, said his agency's policy on the use of stun guns mainly covers safety considerations. It doesn't list behaviors or situations that warrant using the devices, he said.

"Ideally, in every circumstance, we try to gain compliance verbally, and force is the last option we ever want to use," he said.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/251/story/81381.html

Federal Court Blasts Cop for Tasering Man Over Seatbelt
Ninth Circuit US Court of Appeals held that police may not taser a motorist who poses no legitimate threat to the safety of others.

Judge Kim WardlawA federal court last week handed down guidelines that limit the ability of police to use tasers at will. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals made its decision in response to a 2005 incident where Coronado Police Officer Brian McPherson tasered and injured motorist Carl Bryan, then 21, over a minor seatbelt infraction. The court described in detail how Bryan had spent the morning driving 180 miles from Camarillo to Coronado only to be stopped by the highway patrol for allegedly speeding on the 405 Freeway. Bryan, upset by being hit with an expensive ticket, forgot to buckle his seatbelt before continuing on his journey.

When Bryan reached the Coronado bridge at 7:30, Officer McPherson was waiting with a "Click it or Ticket" trap designed to collect $84 seatbelt violation tickets. Bryan knew he was about to get a second citation in the space of a few hours and grew upset with himself. He pulled over and turned down his radio in compliance with McPherson's orders, but Bryan began swearing at himself as he stepped out of his car and stood next to the door.

McPherson claimed he felt "threatened" by Bryan, who stood in his boxer shorts looking away from McPherson some distance away. Without warning, McPherson shot Bryan with his 1200-volt taser. Bryan fell face first into the ground, shattering four of his front teeth. In addition to his injuries, Bryan was hit with charges for "resisting arrest" and "opposing an officer in the performance of his duties." Bryan sued McPherson and the police department, claiming his rights were violated by the use of excessive force.

Prosecutors were unable to convince a jury to convict Bryan of the crime often known as "contempt of cop," and a district court judge found that the use of the taser was unlawful. On appeal, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit agreed that McPherson should not be immune to the lawsuit because his actions were objectively unreasonable.

"An unarmed, stationary individual, facing away from an officer at a distance of fifteen to twenty-five feet is far from an 'immediate threat' to that officer," Judge Kim Wardlaw wrote for the court. "Bryan never addressed, let alone argued with, Officer McPherson once he left his car."

The court held that even though the X26 model taser used is portrayed as a "non-lethal" tool for police, the device has been known to cause death and significant injury. For that reason, its use must be limited to cases where it is absolutely necessary.

"We hold only that the X26 and similar devices constitute an intermediate, significant level of force that must be justified by a strong government interest that compels the employment of such force," Wardlaw wrote.

The court noted that there was nowhere for Bryan to hide a weapon and that he never made a verbal or physical threat toward McPherson. The court found reason to question the veracity of McPherson's testimony that Bryan "came toward him" in a threatening manner and that he believed Bryan was involved in "serious and dangerous criminal activity."

"The physical evidence demonstrates that Bryan was not even facing Officer McPherson when he was shot: One of the taser probes lodged in the side of Bryan's arm, rather than in his chest, and the location of the blood on the pavement indicates that he fell away from the officer, rather than towards him," Wardlaw wrote. "It is undisputed that Bryan's initial 'crime' was a mere traffic infraction -- failing to wear a seatbelt -- punishable by a fine. Traffic violations generally will not support the use of a significant level of force... None of the offenses for which Bryan was cited or of which he was suspected is inherently dangerous or violent."

Having decided against McPherson, the court remanded the case to the district court to continue proceedings on the federal Section 1983 lawsuit.

A copy of the Ninth Circuit decision is available in a 110k PDF file at the source link below.

Source: PDF File Bryan v. McPherson (US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, 12/28/2009)
http://www.thenewspaper.com/rlc/docs/2010/us-taser.pdf

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/30/3010.asp