Reply #28: "lethal and dangerous weapon"

[NC_Nate]

I'm not here to cause problems...Like I said in the first post, Its hard to say if the officer' action were not justified without being there. But tasers are not lethal or dangerous. When I went to the training class I believe only 3 or 4 people have died as a result of being engaged with the taser..and all of them were on some kind of methamphetamine. In the above post you mentioned Rodney King. The shock devices they used on him were not the tasers the police depts. of today are using. I believe that they used shock sticks on him. The taser we carry today are very safe and effective. The worse thing about using them is the fall after the subject has been "shot". Unlike you typical stun gun that uses pain to bring the subject down, tasers actually over-ride the brain circuits to control the subject. Although it does hurt (for a few seconds) there is no lasting affect.
you learn more about them at www.taser.com

Ewolski v. City of Brunswick, 287 F.3d 492 (6th Cir. 2003)
The court affirmed the decision in Russo v. Concinnati, cited above, and held that the defendant police officer’s use of Taser non-lethal force to subdue a potentially homicidal individual did not transgress clearly established law. The court further held that the use of Taser non-lethal force against an armed and volatile suspect does not constitute excessive force and concluded that the defendant police officers are entitled to qualified immunity on the Plaintiff’s excessive use of force claim.

The court further held that in cases in which officers must choose among alternative use of force options, a plaintiff must show that the police "knowingly and unreasonably" opted for a course of conduct that entailed a substantially greater total risk than the available alternatives. Accordingly, the use of force option with the lowest risk of injury is the best alternative with the least likelihood of liability. Statistics from law enforcement agencies that have deployed TASER conducted energy weapons have established the TASER conducted energy weapon as having the lowest risk of injury of any alternative less-lethal weapon.

This case is also very significant in that the court noted that a state official's decision to initiate a rescue with sub-optimal equipment “sounds in negligence”. The implication of this dicta is that municipalities must provide their police officers with optimal equipment to avoid a charge of negligence and potential liability. The TASER is being recognized by law enforcement agencies as the optimal equipment for many rescue situations due to its high rate of effectiveness and safety record, and the failure of a municipality to provide TASER conducted energy weapons may well be negligent.

Bennett v. Cambra, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1584 (N.D. Cal 1997)
The court held that it is not unreasonable for the jail officials to conclude that the use of a stun gun is less dangerous for all involved than a hand to hand confrontati