Tasers under scrutiny after claims of death and injury (CNN)

[eppur_se_muova]

By Dan Simon and David Fitzpatrick, CNN Special Investigations Unit

Watsonville, California (CNN) -- Sitting at the kitchen table in his small house, Steven Butler has trouble even with a very simple question. He cannot tell you the day of the week or the month, and he has to have the help of a calendar to tell you the year.

"Once a moment is gone, it's gone," said his brother and caregiver, David Butler says in an interview to air on tonight's "Campbell Brown". "He can't remember any good times, birthday parties, Christmas, any event."

On October 7, 2006, Steven Butler, by his own admission, was drunk and disorderly. He refused an order from a police officer in his hometown to get off a city bus. The officer used his Taser ECD (officially, an "Electronic Control Device") three times.

According to doctors, Butler suffered immediate cardiac arrest. He was revived by emergency medical technicians who happened to be close by, but his attorneys say his brain was deprived of oxygen for as long as 18 minutes. He is now permanently disabled.

Butler and his family have filed a lawsuit -- not against the police, but against the maker of the weapon, Taser International.
***
more: http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/03/03/taser.cardiac.arrest/index.html?hpt=C1





More cutting-edge journalism from CNN, The World Leader in News.

[HBravo]

1. "by his own admission"

Tasers are currently the most available non-lethal tool for law enforcement. Years ago he may have been shot and maybe killed.

[hlthe2b]

3. or he might have responded to an officer drawing a gun....

Most people have not come to realize how deadly Tasers can be... Even while drunk, I'd guess he'd have recognized a raised gun and its risk.

[HBravo]

8. Todays Tasers look like guns.

Drunks have lost their ability to think clearly. A friend of mine, who no longer drinks, says that when he drinks he breaks out in handcuffs.

[eppur_se_muova]

4. Ah, those were the good old days. nt

[JoeyT]

10. Years ago

they'd have hosed him down with OC foam.

It's just as effective as a taser, doesn't kill or cause brain damage, and the foam kinds don't even cause problems for the people around the target.

[DCKit]

2. Better late than never. n/t

[Grand Taurean]

5. This non-lethal weaponry nonsense has to stop.

There is a risk associated with the use of any weapon.

[eppur_se_muova]

6. The SFPD chief uses the term "less-lethal weapon".

"We have referred to the Tasers for many years as a less-lethal weapon," he said. "In the San Francisco experience, which we have to concentrate on, I have not said once that this is a nonlethal device because I believe it can be a contributing factor in causing death."

Note this is from someone who wants to *introduce* Tasers, so he is not an opponent of Tasers per se.

[Grand Taurean]

7. Gascon is pro-taser.

I am not.

[truedelphi]

9. Thank you for continuing the taser discussion.

The SF Chronicle had an article sometime back (Two months ago, maybe) that revealed that the Ninth District Court has basically OUTLAWED the use of tasers, except in situations where a person is pulling a weapon on the police.

It was very interesting to read some of the decision's transcript. A person who had been injured by a taser sued and won.

He won because (in the opinion of the Court), not obeying the policeman to a "T" was not grounds for being tasered. (The police - these days they want to issue orders and the nano-second that they assume you are rebelling, they then taser you. Often, since tasers cause the person's nervous system to amp up, the person is basically convulsing - but the cops are still issuing orders, saying "Move." Or "Stand" or do such and such with your hands. Or show us your ID.

But because you are basically convulsing, you cannot comply. So then they taser some more.

Any one who is properly trained in the use of tasers knows this. But our polcie are being trained by SWAT and by Blackwater and other agents of the New World Order.

Among the rulings in this trial decision - Talking back to the police is not grounds for tasering.

The defending officer stated that he felt it wss his right to taser a person if he could assume by the behavior of the person that they were mentaly ill. the Court said in its decision that acting mentally ill does not give the police the right to feel they are in danger.