Of Arms and the Law

Navigation
About Me
Contact Me
Archives
XML Feed
Home


Law Review Articles
Firearm Owner's Protection Act
Armed Citizens, Citizen Armies
2nd Amendment & Historiography
The Lecture Notes of St. George Tucker
Original Popular Understanding of the 14th Amendment
Originalism and its Tools


2nd Amendment Discussions

1982 Senate Judiciary Comm. Report
2004 Dept of Justice Report
US v. Emerson (5th Cir. 2001)

Click here to join the NRA (or renew your membership) online! Special discount: annual membership $25 (reg. $35) for a great magazine and benefits.

Recommended Websites
Ammo.com, deals on ammunition
Scopesfield: rifle scope guide
Ohioans for Concealed Carry
Clean Up ATF (heartburn for headquarters)
Concealed Carry Today
Knives Infinity, blades of all types
Buckeye Firearms Association
NFA Owners' Association
Leatherman Multi-tools And Knives
The Nuge Board
Dave Kopel
Steve Halbrook
Gunblog community
Dave Hardy
Bardwell's NFA Page
2nd Amendment Documentary
Clayton Cramer
Constitutional Classics
Law Reviews
NRA news online
Sporting Outdoors blog
Blogroll
Instapundit
Upland Feathers
Instapunk
Volokh Conspiracy
Alphecca
Gun Rights
Gun Trust Lawyer NFA blog
The Big Bore Chronicles
Good for the Country
Knife Rights.org
Geeks with Guns
Hugh Hewitt
How Appealing
Moorewatch
Moorelies
The Price of Liberty
Search
Email Subscription
Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

 

Credits
Powered by Movable Type 6.6.2
Site Design by Sekimori

« Quite a case | Main | The (anti)Gun Guys at it again »

Taser loses liability suit

Posted by David Hardy · 10 June 2008 04:12 PM

Story was here, but a comment made a good point--why link to a Bloomberg story? They lost a federal verdict for a million in actuals plus five mill in punitives. Officers used several Tasers on a fellow who was apparently high on meth. and his heart stopped. The jury found for the officers, but against Taser, on the theory that it had inadequately warned users against risks. Sounds thin to me, but the jury bought it.

· non-gun weapons

7 Comments | Leave a comment

Samuel | June 10, 2008 4:29 PM | Reply

About time. They need to start loosing a lot more of these suits.

Chuck | June 10, 2008 5:37 PM | Reply

Most of us say that the gun is not the problem it is the illegal use of the gun that is the problem. We constantly tell everyone we meet that guns don't kill people... Same with the Taser. Not a bad tool. Just a few bad people using it. When It was used as an alternative to deadly force it was good. Now that it is an alternative to an ASP and common sense...not so good.

Letalis Maximus, Esq. | June 10, 2008 8:31 PM | Reply

I sure hope Glock has been telling police officers (also known, apparently, as "idiots") that bullets can kill people.

James | June 10, 2008 9:39 PM | Reply

The officers I have spoken to on the issue say that the use of Tasers has reduced officer AND perpetrator injury rates. In many cases, the alternative to a Taser is shooting someone. Or using a nightstick, which also can result in death, if a strike hits the wrong place or the wrong way.

Gregg | June 11, 2008 3:51 AM | Reply

James,
Or at least reduced obvious injuries on non-LEOs. Using a baton on someone to enforce compliance is much more obvious than using a taser on them.

The police in question misused their tasers. Taser should not be liable for that misuse. The idiots misusing the tools are the ones who ought to be held liable, and by that I mean personally liable, not departmentally liable. The department didn't make the decision to keep shocking the ever loving bejesus out of the poor guy.

Assman | June 11, 2008 8:17 AM | Reply

If you use a Taser on a meth addict, should you be surprised that he has a heart attack?

The article says the police didn't know of the danger that it could kill the perp. If that's the case, then maybe the "failure to warn" aspect of the suit has some merit.

I still don't see how punitive damages are justified, though, and I'd like to know more about the evidence. It could just be a case of a jury going after the deep pockets of the Taser corporation rather than the more limited pockets of the municipality.

bud | June 12, 2008 3:01 PM | Reply

No comment at all about the case; rather about your source and link.

Do you *really* want to direct traffic to Bloomberg.com? Every hit on that site accrues information "trust" and directs advertising cash into the pocket of what has proved to be one of the most anti-gun clowns out there. He's already stinking rich, he's already hubris-level politically powerful. Why give him any more?

Leave a comment