Man with heart ailment dies after being shocked with Taser (TX)

[struggle4progress]

09:47 AM CST on Saturday, February 19, 2005
Associated Press

HOUSTON - A 52-year-old psychiatric patient who had a heart ailment died after Harris County constables shocked him with a stun gun, authorities said.

The two deputies went to the man's mother's home Friday afternoon to serve a mental health commitment warrant, Chief Deputy J.C. Mosier said. They used the Taser after the man resisted their efforts to take him away.

The man continued to struggle with the deputies, but he then started having trouble breathing. He was taken by ambulance to a hospital where he later died. <snip>

Tasers can fire metal barbs from up to 21 feet away that pierce a person's skin. Wires connected to the barbs deliver 50,000 volts into a person for five seconds, paralyzing muscles and often causing a person to fall down. <snip>

http://www.wfaa.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/texassouthwest/stories/021905dntextaser.c2c00f41.html

[Mikimouse]

1. I am getting real fed up hearing about this stuff...

especially in light of the fact that the other deaths have been so publicly displayed. It defies logic to assume that someone on a mental health committment would simply shrug and say, OK let's go. I have a real cynical attitude about how these things are being used. :mad:

[tibbir]

2. Of course he rersisted being involuntarily committed.

It isn't rocket science. They should have sent an adequate number of people to subdue him. This is so sad - and pathetic on the side of the police.

[saigon68]

4. Only Nazis and their fellow travellers

Get aroused sexually by killing people like this.

They know by now the possible outcome of their conduct.

They are thugs hoodlums and murderers

[proud2BlibKansan]

3. Don't they use straight jackets anymore?

How many people have died after being in one of those?

[slaveplanet]

24. Where have you been?

Look around , smile for the camera...We are All being put in the electronic straight-jacket. What you are now just noticing, is the licking of their chops. They've got big plans , and the Vampire's thirst will never be quenched....not until they get their New World Order run by a small elite with their every whim serviced by a small army of mind-controlled drones.

[Prisonerohio]

5. I love tasers.

Do people die while being subdued without tasers yes. Do people die when they are shot with bullets yes. I do not not understand how people who are anti-gun can be ant-taser. It is hands down a much safer alternative. Admittedly there has to be restraint as to how the taser will be used, and still there will be some accidents, but in the end the use of the taser will be safer for the arresting officers and for the person being restrained.

[struggle4progress]

7. If resisting arrest isn't a capital crime, why should it be met with ...

... deadly force? And let's not pretend that an instrument that causes generalized muscular spasms isn't potentially deadly when used against individuals with heart problems ...

[Robb]

15. Deadly force is allowed when arrest is being resisted.

Evaded, also. Change the laws if you don't want that to be the case, but don't tie the hands of the cops who have to enforce it by taking away tools that keep them safer.

Here's the formula: tasers sometimes kill, pistols sometimes don't kill.

As an ambulance driver who's been to calls where the guy resisted being taken down by a half-dozen cops, I am friendly to the taser. I'd much rather my paramedic work with defib than a gunshot wound.

[struggle4progress]

17. I really don't believe you're right about this.

Most civilians are sympathetic to officers, and most civilians think that officers should only be allowed to shoot under very specific circumstances. And in most jurisdictions, there are strict rules governing the use of deadly force. Since the taser is potentially deadly, its use should at minimum be governed by stringent regulation, similar to the deadly force rule.

Here are some Pennsylvania rules:

3.05 DEADLY FORCE

Members and enforcement officers shall use deadly force in the performance of official duties in accordance with this regulation, other Department regulations and existing statutes. Nothing contained in this regulation shall preclude the use of deadly force in self-defense, when warranted.

A. Arrest: Officers may use deadly force to effect the arrest or prevent the escape of a felon, when ALL of the following elements are present:

1. Knowledge a violent felony was committed.

2. Knowledge or reasonable belief that the suspect did, in fact, commit a violent felony.

3. Probable cause to believe the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious bodily injury unless arrested without delay.

4. All other reasonable means of effecting the arrest or preventing the escape have been exhausted.

B. Protection: Officers may use deadly force to protect themselves or another from what they reasonably believe to be an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury.

C. Firearms: Officers shall only discharge a weapon when the use of deadly force is justified. Officers shall not shoot to kill or shoot to wound, but shall shoot to stop the action by causing the instant incapacitation of the threat. For maximum stopping effectiveness and to minimize the danger to innocent bystanders, officers should:

1. Shoot at the center of available body mass presented by the threat.

2. Shoot at an alternative target, such as the head or pelvic area, when circumstances (i.e., body armor, drugs, adrenaline, etc.) render the center mass of torso target ineffective at immediately stopping the action.

D. Risk to Innocent Bystanders: Officers facing the decision to use deadly force must be cognizant of any innocent third parties that may be present in or near the line of fire. Officers are prohibited from discharging firearms when it appears reasonably likely an innocent person may be injured unless failure to use deadly force would likely result in the immediate death or serious bodily injury of the member, enforcement officer, or another person.

E. Other Offenses: Officers shall not utilize deadly force to effect the apprehension of persons who commit violations of the law amounting to summary or misdemeanor offenses, or who committed a felony, but do not present a threat of death or serious bodily injury.

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/tribune-review/news/s_112228.html


Here are some Georgia rules:

3. Justification for the Use of Deadly Force

Use of deadly force by an officer during his/her performance of duty is restricted to the following:

"Sheriffs and peace officers who are appointed or employed in conformity with Chapter 8 of Title 35 may use deadly force to apprehend a suspected felon only when the officer reasonably believes that the suspect possesses a deadly weapon or any object, device, or instrument which, when used offensively against a person, is likely to or actually does result in serious bodily injury; when the officer reasonably believes that the suspect poses an immediate threat of physical violence to the officer or others; or when there is probable cause to believe that the suspect has committed a crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm" OCGA 17-4-20.

The following examples are provided to show when an officer may use deadly force:
1. When the officer reasonably believes it necessary to defend his/her own life or the life of another, or to prevent grave bodily injury to him/her self or another and all available means of defense have failed or would be inadequate or dangerous under the circumstances;
2. When necessary to prevent the commission of forcible felonies;
NOTE: Deadly force shall not be used towards persons who have committed or are committing traffic violations, misdemeanors, non-forcible felonies, or forcible felonies not in progress.
3. To effect the arrest of a person at the scene of a crime who is attempting to escape, but only if there is a serious threat of immediate danger to the officer or third persons, such as the use of firearms or taking of hostages;
ATTENTION CEO: The U.S. Supreme Court's rule in Tennessee v. Garner permits police to shoot at fleeing felony suspects currently known to be unarmed if the suspects previously demonstrated their violence propensity by committing a crime of violence (e.g., armed robbery). Consequently, agencies should seek legal advice before finalizing a use of deadly force policy.
4. When necessary to destroy a fatally wounded or sick animal, but only after making every reasonable attempt to locate and receive permission from the animal's owner and only if an Animal Control officer is unable to respond in a reasonable amount of time.
NOTE: Special care should be taken to ensure that no person or property is injured or damaged when an officer fires his/her weapon.
5. When necessary to destroy an obviously mad or vicious animal that cannot otherwise be controlled. Again, Animal Control should be contacted first. Only when Animal Control officers are unable to respond in a reasonable amount of time should an officer destroy an obviously mad or vicious animal.

4. Shoot to Stop the Commission of a Forcible Felony

1. Before using a firearm, officers shall identify themselves and state their intent to shoot, when feasible;
2. Officers shall fire their weapon to stop an assailant from completing a potentially deadly act as described in section C above. Officers should shoot at the largest available mass provided by the assailant as a target area for the officer, to stop the threat and to minimize danger to innocent bystanders;
3. Warning shots are prohibited;
ATTENTION CEO: Some rural law enforcement agencies permit the firing of warning shots. If warning shots are permitted, officers must be trained regarding the proper use of warning shots.
4. Officers shall not fire their weapons from a moving vehicle or at a moving vehicle except as allowed under S.O.P. 12-2; and
5. Facts unknown to an officer, no matter how compelling, cannot be considered in later determining whether the use of lawful force, particularly that of deadly force, was justified.

http://www.dca.state.ga.us/research/law/Chap11_PurReg.html

[Robb]

28. Sure

...let's just take apart that first one.

A. Arrest: Officers may use deadly force to effect the arrest or prevent the escape of a felon, when ALL of the following elements are present:

1. Knowledge a violent felony was committed.

In most states this includes 3/4 of all assaults -- as well as resisting arrest.

2. Knowledge or reasonable belief that the suspect did, in fact, commit a violent felony.

...In other words, the cop thinks it's the guy.

3. Probable cause to believe the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious bodily injury unless arrested without delay.

Not tough to make.

4. All other reasonable means of effecting the arrest or preventing the escape have been exhausted.

"He's getting away."

Weapons are drawn all the time, to my experience, and the warning period is very short before they're fired. Cops get told all the time in training that even firing a weapon in the head, you've got about 15 seconds where the guy can still do great harm to you on autopilot.

Police like tasers because it's another option, oddly enough that incapacitates faster than a head shot. Plus, they can pick and choose a little. They're not always going to pick right; I've seen someone fight a taser, amazingly enough. They had to zap him again and again.

Police also like tasers, because when you pepper spray someone and go to subdue him, the officers are usually nearly incapacitated as well. That stuff's so nasty, you've got two, three officers who are out of service after the incident is complete for at least a half-hour to clean their eyes out. If they're needed during that half-hour, well, you get the idea.

I agree with you about the rules for using tasers. But if we're going to go that route, it should be the same for pepper spray/mace/tear gas. The numbers on fatal respiratory incidents related to pepper spray are startlingly high, as well.

[struggle4progress]

29. Your post #15 appeared to claim a blanket right to use deadly force ...

... whenever arrest is resisted or evaded. The sample regulations I posted provide no such blanket.


Moreover, it might actually be the case in certain jurisdictions that citizens have the right to use "reasonable force" to resist "unlawful arrest."

JOHN H. HILL, JR. v. COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
Record No. 1783-00-1
OCTOBER 16, 2001 <snip>

John H. Hill, Jr., (appellant) was convicted in a bench trial of assault and battery against a law enforcement officer, in violation of Code 18.2-57(C). On appeal, he contends that because he used reasonable force to repel an illegal arrest, the trial court erred in convicting him of the offense. For the reasons stated herein, we reverse the conviction. <snip>

Appellant ran a short distance before Officer Fromme caught him. Officers Duke and Rupe assisted Fromme in putting appellant on the ground. Appellant hit Officer Fromme "a couple of times" in the ensuing fight. Appellant testified, "I snatched away and I accidentally hit him.

At trial, appellant argued he had a right to use reasonable force to repel an unlawful arrest. The trial court, while acknowledging the seizure was illegal, found the police acted in good faith and their actions were reasonable. <snip>

It has long been held in Virginia that where an officer attempts an unlawful arrest, the officer is an aggressor which gives the arrestee the right to use self-defense to resist so long as the force used is
reasonable. <snip>

We find that appellant's response to an illegal detention and search was reasonable and proportionate to the conduct of the police. We,
therefore, reverse appellant's conviction and dismiss the indictment.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=va&vol=1783001&invol=1


This further suggests that there cannot be a blanket right to use deadly force against a person resisting arrest.

[NickB79]

37. So police are justified in, say, shooting suspects in the back?

4. All other reasonable means of effecting the arrest or preventing the escape have been exhausted.

"He's getting away."

If a suspect is getting away, and it's ok to shoot him to prevent this, where do the bullets go in?

[proudbluestater]

33. None of your rules apply to the mentally ill, it would seem

The mentally ill are not felons. They may resist, surely. Is this just a cost saving measure for the police? Send one guy and hope he can subdue the resister. If not, just taser away? Could they not send two or three and surely they could bring him under control.

Here's their job, deliver the PATIENT ALIVE and in one piece and let the medical personnel take over.

[struggle4progress]

35. I think I pretty much agree with your remarks.

[proudbluestater]

32. He was not resisting ARREST. He was resisting involuntary

hospitalization. That is surely his right. He is not a criminal for crissake.

[thecai]

38. Good Advice, Robb

"Change the laws"...
We've spoken out against these DEADLY Tasers very recently, so we repeat:
BAN the use of the deadly tasers within the police departments.

[NickB79]

21. This wasn't an incident where firearms use was warranted

The argument "better to be shot by a taser than by a gun" is illogical because, if an officer is in a situation that warrants his firearm being used, HE WILL USE HIS FIREARM!!! No police officer is EVER trained to go for the taser instead of the firearm; if lethal force is justified, lethal force is used.

The taser by it's very definition of use CANNOT replace firearms IN ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM!! You are comparing apples and oranges here.

[proudbluestater]

31. I'm quite sure there were other means used prior to taser, no?

We're not talking about some guy running off after he's committed armed robbery, we're talking about a sick person. There were certainly other equally successful means used prior to the invention of this "tool." I think the cops just don't want to get their hands dirty or exert themselves.

[pop goes the weasel]

6. very sad

I'm glad they tried the taser instead of using their guns, which was what would have been done just a couple of years ago. But the real problem is that police, rather than specially trained mental health officers, are being sent to deal with these issues, and even then the police are sent in too small of numbers and too poorly trained. In the name of budget cutbacks, programs previously in place to deal with mental health have been drastically cut back, with the policy makers who make these decisions thinking that they can just send in a couple of police officers with tasers. The people who should be blamed for this death are not the officers, but the legislators and council members and so forth who eviscerated Texas's already shabby mental health funding last go-around. I wonder how many more people will die because of stingy decisions that will be made this session?

[struggle4progress]

8. Under exactly what rules of procedure would police shoot a man ...

... who was simply resisting arrest?

[pop goes the weasel]

16. huh?

I'm saying that, before tasers, the same cops would have just pulled their guns and shot the guy dead. At least with tasers, there is a reduced chance of actually being killed.

But I still think that the use of tasers reveals serious problems. You might say that the police never should have used tasers on the guy. I say that police never should have been sent to begin with. Properly trained mental health officers are less likely to panic over the behavior of a person having an active episode of mental illness, and are thus less likely to use violence. It takes patience, the right attitude, and a lot of education. And that means money. The same legislature that cut out funding for mental health services in Texas also cut out the funding for specialized mental health officers.

Look, we can all cry about what an injustice this was. But that won't change things. We need to know that there are alternatives, and that our government needs to fully fund those alternatives. I said at the time of the cuts in Texas that there would now be more deaths of mentally ill people. No one seemed to give a damn at the time, and I emailed and called everyone I could think of.

[struggle4progress]

18. Perhaps I didn't understand you. You wrote: "I'm glad they tried ...

... the taser instead of using their guns, which was what would have been done just a couple of years ago." This suggests you believe that shooting people in such circumstances is common. So my question was, under what rules of engagement would anyone have been allowed to shoot this man?

[pop goes the weasel]

20. such shootings are more common than they should be

The circumstance in which use of a gun is allowed are pretty loose. Ever hear of "suicide by cop"? That's just part of it. People with active mental illness or mental retardation can act in ways that are unexpected and threatening.

In order to justifiably use his gun, the officer must feel that his life, or someone else's, is threatened. Giving the officers the benefit of the doubt, I think we can agree that there will be many times they might feel, justifiably, that their lives are threatened. That feeling may be only momentary, but they don't have the luxury of thinking it through, and so they act on the moment. So, lots of people have ended up killed by gun that an officer, if he'd had the luxury of time to think about it or more information, probably wouldn't have shot. Would they have shot this particular guy, too, if they hadn't had a taser to fall back on instead? Who can say? Maybe they instead would have clubbed him with their night sticks and put him in a choke hold. But people die from that, too. People die from pepper spray and mace. In general, death is always a possibility in a violent confrontation. What needs to be done is reduce the chance of violent confrontation and end the use of law enforcement as a "provider" of mental health care.

[NickB79]

23. Even during suicide-by-cop situations

The man or woman is almost always armed with a weapon of some sort. A police officer shooting someone without a weapon, who isn't at least physically imposing (say, a hulking bodybuilder), is not justifiable. This man had no weapon according to the article. A shooting in this instance, even if the police officer claimed he fired in fear of his life, would be very difficult to uphold under review.

[LeighAnn]

19. Doubt it.

I doubt it. I'll bet that the cops are at least ten times as likely to use the taser as they would have been to use a gun in the same situation. I watched COPS the other day and saw three people tasered in one six-minute segment. Those COPS wouldn't have shot those three people, they might have had to wrestle them, but no way would they have shot the three people they tasered. If you ask me, from my standpoint, they should have just left them alone. Anybody else see that episode?

[slaveplanet]

25. yes, and what the COPS are doing

is criminal , they are not following the operating guidelines ,nor Constitution and are acting very unAmerican. If you have followed COPS(fox) at all, It should be apparent by now that it is mass conditioning mind control to teach the masses(and especially other COPS) what the establishment wants to be acceptable militarized police behavior. In the late 80's it was friendly neighborhood cop, now it is Black ski masked tazer happy thugs...go figure....Ask a Russian about police in Black ski masks.

... all you people for tazers better wake up, won't be long before they're using them on Grandma or 6 year olds...Oh wait, they already are. http://bayarea.indymedia.org/news/2004/11/1705018.php

they have big plans...

[NickB79]

22. No, before tasers

They would have actually done what police are TRAINED to do: use force to incapacitate the man and put cuffs on him. Police are trained how to take down criminals for a reason. If a police officer had used a gun in this situation, he would have been booted off the force for excessive force and poor judgement, if not faced manslaughter charges himself. There was NO justification for deadly force to be used in this situation, unless the man got a hold of a police officer's gun, or had a knife or other weapon in his hand. If that were the case, the police would have resorted to firearms anyways, as they are trained to respond to potentially lethal threats with deadly force, not tasers. Tasers fall into a grey area, where they are not intended to replace firearms, but are also not intended to be used daily to incapacitate suspects resisting arrest. Tasers have a fairly small window of usage, something most police don't seem to be taught when given this equipment.

[proudbluestater]

34. Whaaattttt?

"I'm saying that, before tasers, the same cops would have just pulled their guns and shot the guy dead. At least with tasers, there is a reduced chance of actually being killed."

Any cops who would shoot a sick person who was resisting involuntary HOSPITALIZATION without ever having committed a crime would be asking to be arrested himself, if there is any justice in this world. I've seen it happen many times here in Michigan. And that's for people suspected of robbery, i.e. suspected felons, who were shot/tasered. Not sick people.

[William Bloode]

9. And of course as expected.....

The apologists come out. It is very clear these things are far more dangerous than we have been led to believe. Lazy ass police should learn to do the job they are paid for.

Also if this would have been handled properly there would have been no need for tasers.

I also always see these posts about how it is for the safety of the police.......Well in the immortal words of Rage Against The Machine "fuck the police" I am worried about my safety! Why should police have an advantage over me? Sure some of you by the "they are here to protect us" crap, but what about when the police become to aggressive, and oppressive and abuse their power? Or when the are used to suppress dissent? We the people deserve protection from the police themselves.

[struggle4progress]

10. "But ... but ... we thought he might have hepatitis ..."

Hepatitis test awaited in Taser death

... "Our deputies are very, very upset and also somewhat frightened," by Casey's reported case of hepatitis, Mosier said ...

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/metropolitan/3048126

[William Bloode]

11. Yeah,

There should be no excuse. I mean seriously they were not going to pick up someone for church. They knew good and well he was being committed and had a mental problem. Long story short, they knew what was up and should have been prepared.

What so many fail to realize, especially in these times is what are you gonna think when/if they come after me next?

[struggle4progress]

14. Agree 100%.

[tlcandie]

12. I guess this back and forth on well it was better than a bullet will

continue just like abortion. I'm tired of it. If they were going to use a gun and used a taser INSTEAD then it is okay...therefore, he would have been dead anyway, most likely. (Not that him being dead would have been okay, either, I'm saying if that had been the reason the taser was used.)

If they are not planning on using a gun then there should be NO taser used! Taser replaces gun and pulled/used ONLY as a gun with bullet would have been used!

Because they are called non-lethals....IMO, it seems they are using them instead of OTHER means when a gun was NOT necessary! In my books, this is disgusting and way across the line.

[slaveplanet]

26. Misnomer

-Because they are called non-lethals-

Non lethal...a term bandied about by the the corporate media....

Not even the manufacturer calls them non lethal....sales lit refers to them as less than lethal* weaponry...get it straight



*If proper guidelines are followed

[BiggJawn]

13. Sigh....

"Non Lethal"....When are people gonna start complaining? I thought the People controlled the Police, not the other way around....

Oh, stupid fUcking me...I forgot! they're the private army of The Wealthy!

[MadHound]

27. So how many of these deaths is America willing to witness

Before there is a movement to outlaw tasers? We are experiencing a death a week by taser, all across the country. Old people, young children, the mentally ill. It is utterly and absolutely immoral.

Tasers have become the lazy cops' way of taking down a person. Despite all of the training that police receive on how to take down and restrain a person, since the advent of the taser police are opting for the use of this lethal weapon instead of getting their hands dirty.

And sad to say, we're going to see more of this. With potential "non-lethal" crowd control weapons such as sound and microwave blasters, police with rely more and more on these potential killers, and those innocents who die will simply be written off as colateral damage. How sad that we as a country have come to this state.

If your local police force already has these weapons of random death, petition your local government to have them removed. If your local force doesn't have them yet, make sure that they don't get them. After all, with the increased use of these weapons, the next victim could be YOU.

[proudbluestater]

36. Now, you, TOO, can buy a taser for Personal Use!!

http://www.personalsafetyplus.com/tasers.php
Link to buy your OWN taser! It's cool! It's fun! Amaze and impress your friends! Google is loaded with pages where you can buy your very own taser! It's a good thing! (Apologies to Martha Stewart.)

Another article I came across from Amnesty International.


In fact, according to Amnesty International, the data shows that TASERs are used on unarmed suspects in 80% of the cases, including verbal non-compliance (36%), and only 3% of the time in cases involving potential "deadly assault". Their report details 74 TASER-related deaths that have occurred in the United States and Canada since June 2001. Amnesty International USA will also release information documenting more than 80 TASER-related deaths since 1999.

More shocking is the fact that more than 60 percent of these deaths have happened in the last year, from November 2003 to November 2004.

TASERs have become the most prevalent enforcement tool in some departments. They have been used against unruly schoolchildren, mentally disturbed patients, intoxicated individuals; unarmed suspects in misdemeanor crimes and people who simply fail to comply immediately with a "command."Examples include:

A handcuffed nine-year-old girl in Arizona,

A six-year-old mentally disturbed boy in Florida, and

A 71-year-old woman in Oregon who is blind in one eye

And the list goes on.and on.

http://educate-yourself.org/cn/taserstorturepolice22dec04.shtml

[anitar1]

30. They Seem To Have A Lot Of Assisted Deaths

in Texas.Taser madness.Or maybe they only need to staff one man per car if he has a taser gun.

[DS1]

39. Is this one a day now?