Fort Lauderdale man, 48, dies after deputies use Taser

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

By Kevin Smith
Staff Writer
Posted June 12 2005

WEST PARK · A Fort Lauderdale man died Saturday night after sheriff's deputies shocked him with a Taser as they responded to a home invasion call.

The man, identified as Horace Owens, 48, is the seventh person in South Florida to have died after being shocked by a Taser since 2002.

Owens reportedly broke into a home in the 5400 block of Southwest 21st Street about 5:50 p.m. Saturday, surprising resident MacarthurHodges.

"I was sitting watching TV at the time, and he busted into the house," Hodges said. Owens ran from room to room, and Hodges called 911. "I was scared for my life. He was hollering as he ran, `Please don't let them kill me. Please don't let them kill me.'"

Hodges, who said he didn't see anyone chasing after Owens, went outside. Broward Sheriff's deputies arrived, entered the house, and were able to get Owens outside, where the struggle continued.

[AX10]

1. Link please?

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

3. Sorry... here 'tis.

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/broward/sfl-ctaser12jun12,0,6168739.story?track=mostemailedlink

[kentuck]

2. How many people have been shot with bullets during the last month?

It seems like I read every day of someone dying from being shot with a Tazer! Would someone take these "toy guns" away from these cops? Please?

[cestpaspossible]

4. Sounds like when he broke into the home he was just fleeing

the police... I wonder why the police were so afraid of him that they felt it necessary to kill him?

[Bluebear]

5. This seems to be an epedemic!

What is interesting is that these incidents get reported in the local media and there is no national linkage to what seems to be a daily occurance lately!

[Bouncy Ball]

13. You better SHUT UP BEFORE YOU GET THE ZAP!!!!

[Bluebear]

16. JEEEESUZ!!!

That zap was a winner!!!!

[Bouncy Ball]

17. WATCH OUT FOR **MY** FUCKING TASER!!!

:rofl:

It's so NOT a funny topic, but I have to inject some dark humor here or I'll tear my hair out, know what I mean?

[XanaDUer]

30. Christ-I just spat soda across my keyboard!

That is too funny!!!!!!

[jody]

6. Nothing in the article suggests a taser caused the death.

The article says,

QUOTE
The officers eventually used a Taser, but it apparently had little effect.

"He still was throwing them around. It didn't affect him at all," Hodges said.
UNQUOTE

He obviously was not affected by the Taser. It is quite possible that drugs caused his death.

The headline is misleading because it implies a taser caused the death but that is not supported by the article.

[cestpaspossible]

7. The headline happens to be true.

he did, in fact, die, after deputies used a taser on him. You seem to be suggesting that newspapers should not publish the truth if it makes the police sound bad... please clarify.

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

8. no,,,, the taser is our friend!

[jody]

10. Tasers are neither friend nor enemy, just another tool to be used by

law enforcement officers in performing their duty.

The article says the person was not affected by a taser shot and continued to resist capture. Would you have preferred the police used batons, clubs, or guns to subdue the person?

[converted_democrat]

12. Yes, that is what I would like them to use.

How many deaths have we had from those recently, in comparison to the taser?

[jody]

18. Amnesty reports that tasers played a role in 14 deaths.

TASERS: AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL BRIEFING, 20 May 2005
QUOTE
Amnesty has studied Taser use in the USA, where the devices are widely used. The organisation found:
Deaths: Over 100 people have died after being ‘Tasered’ in the USA. In at least 14 cases coroners have stated that the Taser played a role in the death.
UNQUOTE

The FBI's report "Law Enforcement Officers Killed & Assaulted, 2003" says 52 officers were killed by criminals and 57,841 others were assaulted.

In addition, 370 justifiable homicides by law enforcement personnel were reported for 2003, see Crime in the United States

[cestpaspossible]

21. I'm sure the families of the innocent victims are comforted by

the knowledge that their suffering is so rare.

[jody]

23. How many of the 14 deaths reported by Amnesty are of "innocent victims"?

Please give a source for your claim of innocence.

[cestpaspossible]

24. I presume them all to be innocent. That's the American way.

What's your way?

[jody]

26. It is quite possible that most or all of the 14 deaths were of people

who were violating the law. If excessive force was used, that is not an indication of innocence.

I'm sure that each death in which tasers were used was investigated. If any of those deaths were of innocent people as you claim, then the investigation would have made that conclusion.

Absent such reports, I believe findings of excessive force against someone violating the law is the more likely conclusion in the 14 deaths.

[cestpaspossible]

28. So you don't believe in the presumption of innocence?

I hope you are honest about this if you are ever called to jury duty.


The death penalty for anyone suspected of committing a crime seems rather severe to me...

[jody]

34. Now you know I didn't say that. I said "Absent such reports, I believe

findings of excessive force against someone violating the law is the more likely conclusion in the 14 deaths."

I wonder what you expect police to do if you ever have to call them for assistance against a criminal.

Oh I forgot, you assume a criminal who attacks you is innocent so you wouldn't call 911 for help.

[cestpaspossible]

36. You carefully avoiding stating it, however, you certainly are not granting

a presumption of innocence. Sorry to be so truthful, and all, but it is my nature.

[jody]

37. Please don't put words into my statements. I said precisely what I meant

to say, nothing more nor less.

[cestpaspossible]

41. Do you presume that the 14 people who died were innocent?

That will very simply answer the question of whether you grant them the presumption of innocence... do you presume them to be innocent?

[jody]

45. Please read my reply above again because you still don't know what

I said.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

49. You're sidestepping the question, aren't you?

[jody]

52. No, I've stated my position but thanks for playing. n/t

[Media_Lies_Daily]

56. You haven't stated it at all. Answer the question and quit dodging it.

[jody]

59. I'm not obligated to answer your childish questions. n/t

[Media_Lies_Daily]

65. It wasn't my question, but I thought it was a rather good one. Who...

...is being more childish...the one who posed the question in the first place, or the one who petulantly refuses to answer the question while being as insulting as possible?

[cestpaspossible]

57. Yeah, and we understand it, even if you find it embarassing

when it is stated plainly.

[jody]

62. I'm not embarrassed. I find your comments humorous and I'm sure

you'll sharpen your skills before you leave your teen age years.

[cestpaspossible]

66. OK, you're not embarassd by not presuming these 14 suspect to be innocent

congratulations.

Or do, you in fact presume them to be innocent? Am I wrong? Do you actually presume them to be innocent?

[jody]

68. I've already responded. n/t

[cestpaspossible]

71. Yeah you answered the question by saying you answered the question.

clever :eyes:

What was the answer, again?

[jody]

74. Enough already. Have a nice night. n/t

[cestpaspossible]

77. Do you presume the 14 suspects who died to be innocent?

just wondering

[Media_Lies_Daily]

78. I've noticed over the years of message-board debate that some....

...posters become personally abusive and insulting when backed into a corner consisting of their own distortions and half-truths. I do believe you've reached that point. How sad that you need to resort to such tactics on DU.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

44. Let's take a look at what was reported by Amnesty International....

Amnesty International Report Examines TASER Use by Law Enforcement
<http://www.mediaisland.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=337>

QUOTE:

In fact, the data shows that TASERs are used on unarmed suspects in 80% of the cases, for verbal non-compliance in 36%, and for cases involving "deadly assault" only 3% of the time.

Yes, that's right...only 3% of the cases have involved "deadly assault". 36% of the cases involved "verbal non-compliance"...what do you suppose that means, and why did it justify the use of a taser? And what of the other 41% of the cases where the taser was used for unspecified reasons?

[seabeyond]

84. when these kill whether the person is innocent or guilty, KILL

then you can no longer use it on a kid on a school bus for a fight. because the possibility of DEATH is there. this man running inot home may well be a bad guy and should be in jail. may have even needed gun, dont know, not the issue. the issue a TASER killed another person. that DEATH has to be taken seriously, so you dont use on a woman for a traffic violation because..............it KILLS

[seabeyond]

86. dupe

[Media_Lies_Daily]

39. Speaking of misleading, the quote you're using refers to the what....

...the CORONERS are reporting, and we all know who the coroners report to, don't we?

Here's another quote from the same report:

The report provides further documentation of a pattern in which medical examiners predictably attribute the official cause of death in a majority of TASER-related shootings to heart problems, drug overdose (usually involving cocaine, PCP, or Crystal Methamphetamine), or positional asphyxiation. Amnesty International believes all of these issues require immediate attention from independent medical experts.

And here's their lead-in paragraph:

(Washington, DC) – Amnesty International today released a report finding that the rampant proliferation of TASER electro-shock weapons among United States law enforcement agencies is contributing to widespread human rights abuses. The report details 74 TASER-related deaths that have occurred in the United States and Canada since June 2001, providing additional support for Amnesty International's long-standing call for a suspension of the use of the electro-shock weapons until it can be determined if they are killing people. Amnesty International USA will also release information documenting more than80 TASER-related deaths since 1999. The fact that more than 60 percent of these deaths have occurred in the last year (November 2003 to November 2004) significantly increases the urgency of this call.

Currently, as of April 1, 2005, more than 100 people have died as a result of taser usage by police officers.

[jody]

58. My statement was correct in the exchange context. n/t

[Media_Lies_Daily]

61. Even if the information in my post directly contradicted your response?

[jody]

64. But your statement did not contradict my quote. n/t

[Media_Lies_Daily]

73. That's your opinion...and not one backed by the contents of the....

...report authored by Amnesty International.

But keep trying...your responses are becoming more amusing with each post.

[jody]

75. Goodbye. n/t

[cestpaspossible]

79. Do you think not responding or engaging in dialogue is clever?

Why do you think that?

[Beel2112]

100. Ah, the hypocrisy.

"...we all know who the coroners report to, don't we?"

So after this nice long (and irrelevant to the original topic) exchange regarding the assumption of innocence, you're now assuming the coronors are guilty of corruption. :eyes:

[Beel2112]

101. Source?

"Currently, as of April 1, 2005, more than 100 people have died as a result of taser usage by police officers."

Again, not even Amnesty's report comes close to that number:

"Since 2001, more than 70 people are reported to have died in the USA and Canada after being struck by M26 or X26 tasers, with the numbers rising each year. While coroners have tended to attribute such deaths to other factors (such as drug intoxication), some medical experts question whether the taser shocks may exacerbate a risk of heart failure in cases where persons are agitated, under the influence of drugs, or have underlying health problems such as heart disease. In at least five recent cases, coroners have found the taser directly contributed to the death, along with other factors such as drug abuse and heart disease."

So tell me--did you just make that 100 number up?

[slaveplanet]

85. yes

Would you have preferred the police used batons, clubs, or guns to subdue the person?

[jody]

9. The headline led many who replied to the initial post to talk about

the dangers of tasers including deaths. Nothing in the article supports a conjecture that a taser caused the persons death.

Obviously we disagree on the headline but I still contend that it leads a casual reader to believe a taser caused the death.

[cestpaspossible]

15. I guess if you consider the truth to be misleading,

they should probably just censor all news reports of people dying after being the victim of police tasing.

[jody]

19. The truth is that no one knows whether a taser caused the person to die

later or something else caused the death.

You add to the hysteria by saying in the context of a thread discussing an article about police using a taser, "people dying after being the victim of police tasing". You statement is unsupported by the article for the specific incident.

[cestpaspossible]

20. Yeah, and of course no one has said it did either

all they did was publish the truthful statement that he died after the police used a taser on him. As you point out, that could have nothing to do with why he died, it is actually possible that, for example, he had an undiagnosed brain tumor or something, and it was a total coincidence that he died just after the police administered an electric shock to him.

[jody]

22. Read reply # 4 that said "I wonder why the police were so afraid of him

that they felt it necessary to kill him?"

At least one person jumped to the conclusion that the police killed him with a taser so your statement "Yeah, and of course no one has said it did either" is wrong.

[cestpaspossible]

25. Well if the police weren't afraid why did they use the taser on him?

they sound like a bunch of cowards

[jody]

29. The article does not say why police used a taser but it does say the

person continued to resist the officers after he was shot with a taser. From that single statement, one can conclude the taser was not an effective tool for subduing that person. That statement also suggests the taser was not a direct cause of the death.

[cestpaspossible]

32. I'm saying why - because they were cowards who chose brutality

over professionalism, imho.

I'm impressed by your medical opinion as to the cause of his death. I hope you will forward your findings to the coroner. :eyes:

[jody]

35. Your comments are laughable. With such strong convictions, you would

never call 911 for help against a criminal attacking you. You would be crushed if a police officer had to use deadly force to defend them self on your behalf.

[cestpaspossible]

38. Go ahead

call 911... you can trust the police...

[jody]

43. I'll call 911 after I've exercised my natural, inherent, inalienable right

to defend myself.

I know that SCOTUS has said police are not obligated to protect an individual unless that person is in custody.

Self defense is a personal choice and I'll use something a bit more effective than a taser which has a range of 15-20 feet.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

47. Good luck defending yourself in court after you've killed someone in...

...your own home. Chances are 50-50 these days that you won't go to jail.

[jody]

50. Sorry but in my state the odds are about 100% that the case will never go

to court if it was truly self defense.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

55. Do you by chance live in Texas?

[jody]

67. No, I believe you and I live in the same state. n/t

[Media_Lies_Daily]

81. Now THAT's disturbing to say the least...especially after the nasty....

...direction you took with a number of your responses.

[merh]

46. A thread for you to consider.

Being against the arming of officers with tasers is not anti-law enforcement. You appear to have a problem with respecting your fellow citizens constitutional rights - it is innocent until proven guilty. You also seem to fail to appreciate that cops have the duty to protect the accused as well as the innocent.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x3842146

Put the shoe on the other foot, I hope you aren't the victim of malicious prosecution and tasered when you are arrested. :hi:

[converted_democrat]

60. Merh. I swear your a saint.

Good post! You have so much more patience than I.

[merh]

70. That is what they count on, that they will wear you down and

then you will lose your cool and post something negative and that will get your posts deleted.

Don't play the emotion game, don't let them tell you whose side you are on. Being on the side of the police and the side of the constitution at the same time is possible. The police violating someone's rights is against the constitution and can be a federal crime. If they approve of that behaviour, they have chosen the wrong side.

Just maintain your perspective and don't let them rattle you. :pals:

And be sure to check out the thread! ;-)

[jody]

72. What is your point? You come in to an exchange and make ridiculous

assertions that are unrelated to the original post about a person dying while police were attempting to subdue him.

[cestpaspossible]

76. Perhaps you should try to think a little harder

about what the point might be.

[merh]

83. I have not made ridiculous assertions.

It would appear that you consider everyone arrested as criminals and that you approve punishment without a finding of guilt. Both concepts are against our constitution.

The other posters can argue with you about the legitimacy of the "death by taser" or the "death by other" possibilities.

Enjoy! ;-)

[Media_Lies_Daily]

27. You do realize that cover story is used quite a bit when someone....

...dies after being shocked by a taser, don't you?

Amnesty International Report Examines TASER Use by Law Enforcement
<http://www.mediaisland.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=337>

QUOTE:

The report provides further documentation of a pattern in which medical examiners predictably attribute the official cause of death in a majority of TASER-related shootings to heart problems, drug overdose (usually involving cocaine, PCP, or Crystal Methamphetamine), or positional asphyxiation. Amnesty International believes all of these issues require immediate attention from independent medical experts.

[Beel2112]

31. Jody, give it up...

I've been down this road. Between zealotry and Innumeracy, you can't win. But if you ever wanted proof-positive that this headline is in fact misleading I highly recommend this thread for a good laugh.

Long story short: people started citing "73 dead after being tasered" which was the headline, when the report itself cited eight (8, VIII) cases-throughout the US & Canada over a 5-year period-where "medical examiners said Tasers were a cause, a contributing factor or could not be ruled out in someone's death".

"It is quite possible that drugs caused his death."

Jody, don't be a fool--the headline states he died after being tasered. That is all the proof you need of a causal relationship between his death & the taser! :sarcasm:

[cestpaspossible]

33. Why is the truth somehow misleading?

I don't get it, should they lie, and say he died after NOT being tasered by the police? Would that be more accurate, somehow?

[jody]

40. Thanks for the observation. I was just enjoying myself for a few minutes.

:hi:

[cestpaspossible]

42. But really, why is the truth misleading?

If the newspaper publishes the truthful headline: "Fort Lauderdale man, 48, dies after deputies use Taser"

why is that misleading?

[jody]

48. Why did you conclude in #4 above that the police killed the person

when nothing in the article supports that conclusion?

[Media_Lies_Daily]

51. Right. Believe the media and the official police story. Great idea.

[Beel2112]

102. Yes, relying on conjecture is SO much better!

:eyes:

[cestpaspossible]

54. An offhand comment, maybe it's wrong. But why do you object to the truth

being stated in the headline?

[Beel2112]

53. Very simple...

Many people won't read beyond the headline (see the thread I linked to for evidence of this ;). Typically the headline should involve the critical details, which in this case is "man...dies...taser". Yes, the headline is technically true. But it would have also been true to write, "Fort Lauderdale man, 48, dies after deputies tell him to stop". Or "Fort Lauderdale man, 48, dies after running into house." Both technically true, but you know damn well being yelled at to stop didn't kill him. Had I read the latter, I'd have assumed this guy somehow managed to run head-first into a house and kill himself, or that something in the house killed him. Surely you see this.

[cestpaspossible]

63. Well if you pretend that there is no chance the taser caused his death,

then yeah, this headline would be equivalent to "Fort Lauderdale man, 48, dies after deputies tell him to stop" - but that would be a laughably dishonest pretense.

[Beel2112]

90. And that's why it's misleading...

It is possible that the Taser caused his death, but at this point that's nothing but speculation. And given the rate of deaths attributed to the Taser, there are far more likely causes. Here's a little experiment for you:

Taser claims 7,000 police departments now use the Taser.
Let's assume that each department uses a Taser only ONCE a year, or that there are ~7,000 uses of the Taser a year.
Amnesty claims that 103 people have been killed since 2001 because of the Taser; that's about 25 a year. (Note: I'm assuming all 103 were caused by the Taser.)

Now divide 25 by 7,000. It's 0.00357, or ~0.4%. This is about the most absolutely, positively worst-case scenario imaginable, and the fatality rate still can't even be rounded up to one-half of one percent.

EDIT: Using the 14 number from above, it drops to 3.5 deaths/year, which gives you a "kill rate" of 0.05% (3.5/7,000).

So yeah, I think it's misleading to point to the Taser in the headline, given that there's no indication it was the cause of death and that the likelihood of it being the cause of death is extremely low.

[cestpaspossible]

91. Yeah, but why is the truth misleading? If they had said,

"taser causes man's death", you'd have a valid point, but they didn't, and you don't.

[Beel2112]

93. Good lord....

Ah, the argument by doggedness.

If you honestly can't see that the headline leaves open the inference of a cause-effect relationship between the Taser & the death, you are beyond my help.

[cestpaspossible]

94. Well sure the truth could lead people to many conclusions

I don't see why that is a reason that the truth should be suppressed, however.

You are welcome to try and make that case, however...

[Beel2112]

95. No thanks...

"I don't see why that is a reason that the truth should be suppressed..."

This is an asinine strawman. Neither Jody or I have claimed it should be removed because it's "the truth". The argument is that there's no evidence that the Taser caused the death. Combined with the fact taht Tasers have an low probability of killing someone and thus the problem is is that putting "the truth" in the headline will cause a lot of people to draw the wrong conclusion.

EDIT: And if you need a good example of what I mean, take a look at what your friend MediaLiesDaily (and others) did over here:

"we find 73 deaths from the use of police tasers."--MLD
Now look at what the actual report says & compare it to the headline and what MLD & others said.

"You are welcome to try and make that case, however..."

FYI, if you're going to try to change the subject, it's best to be a little more subtle than that. ;)

[cestpaspossible]

96. The undisputedly truthful headline sums ups the story succintly

by stating the two most essential facts in the story.


What exactly is your objection to newspapers highlighting the most important facts about a story in the headline of that story?

[Beel2112]

97. Thanks for proving my point ...

...that the headline is misleading:

"...by stating the two most essential facts{my emphasis} in the story"

Essential Fact One: A man died.
Essential Fact Two: He was tasered.

I won't (because I can't ;) )debate point one. However, point two has a huge flaw--it could (and statistically speaking, most likely will) turn out to be that point number two is not only not essential, it may very well turn out to be irrelevant. Hence, the headline is misleading, at least until there is proof (or even evidence) that the taser caused the man's death.

:P

[cestpaspossible]

98. The truth is irrelevant? Why? that's the question I keep asking/

Why is it irrelevant for a newspaper to truthfully report the facts of a story? Why would it be preferable for the truth to be omitted?

Please respond.

[Beel2112]

99. Try sticking to the topic...

You truly are a master at changing the subject. I know you realize you just dug yourself a nice hole, but please--stop trying to switch the subject. Let's go over this one more time--slowly.

Me: "Typically the headline should involve the critical details, which in this case is "man...dies...taser"."
You: "{the headline} stat{es} the two most essential facts in the story"

So we're in agreement! The headline conveys the message that the Taser is somehow a very important piece of information to the story. The problem is, for the third time, that there is no evidence at this time that the Taser is important to this story. So the headline contains an "essential fact" {to use your words} that may not be at all important and statistically speaking, probably won't be. Yet one would not expect it to be there if it weren't important; thus it is in fact misleading. As I'm sure you're aware.

[cestpaspossible]

103. The topic is why do you object to the newspaper publishing the facts

of the story? why should they suppress the facts? Are you really saying the newspaper should hide facts from the public? Why?

[Beel2112]

104. No it's not; don't be ridiculous.

From the 3rd sentence of my first post in this thread: "But if you ever wanted proof-positive that this headline is in fact misleading..."

See, the point isn't I object to the truth being reported (as you surely are aware, given your hopeless attempt at switching the subject yet again). The problem is, as you yourself pointed out, by putting the "after being tasered" into the headline, it makes it appear that the taser is some "essential fact" to the story. As of right now, the "evidence" that the taser killed the guy is nothing but conjecture. Conjecture is hardly "essential fact", and doesn't belong in the headline.

Sorry, but you shot yourself in the foot on this one. ;)

[Occulus]

89. they don't like the implication it makes

I'm thinking someone might have some serious stock in either tasers, the companies that make such devices, or the industries providing the materials for making them, but that's just me and my too-tight :tinfoil: talking. Not necessarily the people on this thread, mind you, but the Usual Suspects.

I feel like a goose complaining the swan has a long neck...

Back on the point to the opposition of tasers in general, anytime a person dies prior to a judgement handed down by a judge or jury, they are supposed to be considered innocent. I'm not saying don't place them under arrest, I'm not saying don't put them into jail.... I am saying we shouldn't be doing anything intentional that could reasonably jeopardize their lives.

And before anyone asks me (sarcastically or not) if I think police should ban their use of guns, first allow me to present two sides to that: Amadou Diallo, and our Second Amendment.

Cheers.
:toast:

[cestpaspossible]

92. It'd be a shame if people looked at the facts & drew their own conclusions

I guess...


The idea that the newspaper should hide the fact that the police tasered him and then he died is outrageous, imho.

[Conservativesux]

11. This will keep happening as long as these devices dont cause the

kind of damage a handgun does.

Most people dont even remember the woman protester who was killed with a beanbag shot at her head. What happened to the officer that killed her?

Nothing!

This will be old news by tommorrow and forgotten by the next.

Welcome to BushAmerika, folks!

[Bouncy Ball]

14. You better stop that before you get the VOLTAGE!

[shanti]

69. robocop to the rescue!

"Drop the weapon. You have twenty seconds to comply." or you will be tazered. :eyes:

[HeeBGBz]

80. "Please don't let them kill me"

Guess he knew what was coming. Wonder why he was running.

[cestpaspossible]

82. Let's not investigate who he was running from or why.

The answer might be embarassing to someone.

[seabeyond]

87. this is another taser DEATH. guilty, warranted or not

it is a taser DEATH. this tells us these cannot be used on a kid in a school fight, a woman for a traffic violation. these deaths show this thing is killing people. police cannot use it unless the feel death is an acceptable outcome when pulling the taser out. no more ooops. when they pull the thing out to use, had better damn well be because they are protecting their life, that they are in a threatening circumstance, and not just being lazy, or wanting an easy way to subdue or because they can use a taser on someone to make em jump

[FreedomAngel82]

88. These things are so dangerous

I hate them.