Man Under the Influence Dies After Arrest in Boyle Heights (Tazered)

[951-Riverside]

Direct from the LAPD blog:

Los Angeles: An intoxicated man causing a disturbance died after his arrest early Monday in the Boyle Heights area of Los Angeles.

On September 4, 2006, shortly before 1:00 a.m., officers from Hollenbeck Area Station were sent to a residence in the 3300 block of Whittier Boulevard after receiving reports of a disturbance. When police arrived, they found a man, later identified as Jesus Mejia, 31, in an agitated, combative state. Judging from the suspect's excessive perspiration, glazed eyes and apparently heightened physical strength, officers deduced that Mejia was under the influence of narcotics. Mejia refused to comply with officers' instructions.

Police Officer Victor Arellano, 43, was one of several officers who responded to the back-up call. He administered the Taser as fellow officers subdued Mejia with their body weight.

Once in the police car, Mejia developed difficulty breathing. Paramedics from the Los Angeles City Fire Department rushed him to Los Angeles County USC Medical Center, where he failed to respond to treatment and died.

http://lapdblog.typepad.com/lapd_blog/2006/09/man_under_the_i.html

[AX10]

1. K & R! There are substansive studies showing that Tasers are "safe"...

but one must remember that weapons are not designed to be safe. That is why Taser Int and the police are full of shit when they make this claim.

[Kagemusha]

2. I respect the studies but, your words imply that Taser's meant as a weapon

I don't understand where that claim comes from. The claim that the Taser is a weapon and therefore, because it's a weapon, it's not designed to be safe. I've never heard it marketed as a weapon in any sense a normal person would use.

If the Taser kills someone, it's a defect, not the intended design.

[Mabus]

3. Taser Int. says their tasers are weapons in their literature

TASER® electronic control devices are weapons designed to incapacitate a person from a safe distance
while reducing the likelihood of serious injuries or death. Though they have been found to be a safer and
more effective alternative when used as directed to other traditional use of force tools and techniques, it is
important to remember that the very nature of use of force and physical incapacitation involves a degree of
risk that someone will get hurt or may even be killed due to physical exertion, unforeseen circumstances, and
individual susceptibilities.

from the PDFs Citizen Product Warnings and Law Enforcement Product Warnings

[Kagemusha]

4. Hmm. Did they always say this, or is this new?

Hey, if it's new, it was badly needed because of an absence of adequate warnings... and education to police...

[Mabus]

5. You could check the links I went to the trouble to look up

and answer the question yourself. :shrug: I looked up the information because I remembered that one of the CLEs I attended a few years ago kept referring to tasers as weapons. But in answer to your question, I'm not an expert on past or present taser literature. All I know is what they currently have posted on their website in the guides for citizen users and for law enforcement users (see the previous post with the links provided).

Although if you really want to know I suppose you could call Taser International and ask them yourself. For litigation purposes I'm sure they keep copies of all the information they have included with their products in the past. I'm sure the contact info is located on their website.

[Kagemusha]

6. Well I'm not interested in suing them.

The problem I have in how AX10's comment was written goes beyond not having been confident that the Taser was always marketed as a weapon. (I'm aware that at any rate, police education on this issue was woefully inadequate even though the warning you posted is exactly what any cadet should hear about the matter.)

It's that just because we call something a weapon does not mean it is purposefully designed to be unsafe. Or, we'd be simply have to reject the mere speaking of the term "non-lethal weapon" for all time. (And maybe we should, but that's beyond the scope of a random message board thread.) Taser's warning can be read this way: the Taser was designed to stop individuals with non-lethal force; this is an inherently unsafe task with many variables; the Taser is not perfect enough to overcome all such variables, and for that reason, needs to be treated as any other use of force (good example: nightsticks), which is to say, with care and not as a first resort.

Now, knowing that some people are going to be killed by these things, is it worth using them? I'm not a good judge - I'm not in law enforcement or an expert. I'd have to know what the alternatives are and how likely they are to kill and injure under the same circumstances (rather than the ideal circumstance, which is not to have to use force at all)...

Edit: My original reply to the thread's first reply had me tripping over my words a bit. I shouldn't have said I respected the studies that say the Taser is "safe". I know the original testing by Taser before FDA approval was a bad joke. I don't know about later tests but regard the deaths that have resulted as a result of police action to be a "field test" of sorts. No one should claim the Taser is 100% safe. Not even the Taser corp does.

[Mabus]

8. Taser's patent says it is a weapon

An excerpt from the Description of the Drawings portion of the issued patent for Taser International's Hand-held stun gun for incapacitating a human target a.k.a. a "taser."

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-adv.htm&r=8&p=1&f=G&l=50&d=PTXT&S1=taser.ASNM.&OS=an/taser&RS=AN/taser

DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

These and other further and more specific objects and advantages of the invention will be apparent to those skilled in the art from the following detailed description thereof, take in conjunction with the drawings, in which:

FIG. 1 illustrates a dart weapon constructed in accordance with the principles of the invention;

FIG. 2 is a block flow diagram of components of the dart weapon of FIG. 1 illustrating the mode of operation thereof; and,

FIG. 3 is a block flow diagram illustrating an alternate embodiment of the invention.

FIG. 4 represents a chart comparing the pulse width in microseconds and the RMS current in milliamps of the inventive stun gun to the pulse width and output current levels of prior art stun guns.

And, Taser International's first press release from 2001 announcing their IPO, says, in part: TASER International, Inc. develops, assembles and markets less-lethal, conducted energy weapons primarily for use in the law enforcement and corrections market. Over 400 police departments in the United States have made initial purchases of the Company's products and 15 police departments, including San Diego, Sacramento and Albuquerque, have purchased the Company's products for every patrol officer.

If that's not enough, TASER "is actually an acronym for the Tom A. Swift Electronic Rifle, named for a sci-fi character admired by John Cover, who first developed the modern Taser in the late 1960s and early 1970s." http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/201819_taserhistory01.html

Earlier in the same article quoted directly above

It began as a search for a device that could stop an aggressive assailant without killing.

Now Taser International, based in Scottsdale, Ariz., is a multimillion-dollar company providing Tasers to thousands of law enforcement agencies across the country and military units around the world.

***

Taser International founders Rick and Tom Smith began thinking about the device after they tried to buy their mother a firearm for self-defense, and she refused to take it.

Since Taser Int.'s original market was the law enforcement community I think it is a safe bet that it was marketed as an alternative weapon. Whether or not they implicitly marketed it as a weapon to the law enforcement community is immaterial because the taser was invented for use as a weapon and named for a scifi character's rifle. The founders of Taser Int. basically founded the company because they were worried about their mother's safety and wanted to provide her a method of self-defense.

Beyond all of this, a weapon, by its very definition is something used in confrontations against another person. Weapons can be words or an object. In other words, if a person uses a word(s) or an object(s) against another to subdue, injure or otherwise cause them harm then they have used a weapon. In comparison, a remark made in jest but taken wrongly by another doesn't have the prerequisite of the intention of causing injury nor does the accidental firing of a gun that kills someone. Is a gun a weapon when it is stored in a box? Or does it become a weapon when it is used against someone?

[Kagemusha]

10. I guess you didn't notice my saying it's besides the point.

I know the police at one time were getting marketing that basically presented it as a safe weapon (though there is no such thing); that marketing has since been corrected under pressure. Not the point, in Sept. 2006. It would have been in Sept. 2004.

It's whether the damned thing should be used or not.

[Mabus]

11. Your original post questioned whether "Taser's meant as a weapon"

You started off saying, "I don't understand where that claim comes from. The claim that the Taser is a weapon and therefore, because it's a weapon, it's not designed to be safe. I've never heard it marketed as a weapon in any sense a normal person would use.

If the Taser kills someone, it's a defect, not the intended design."

I responded to the first portion of your post, in particular the statement I've never heard it marketed as a weapon in any sense a normal person would use, by clarifying that Taser International's marketing material clearly identifies the taser as a weapon.

Your response to my reply was a query "Hmm. Did they always say this, or is this new?" and "Hey, if it's new, it was badly needed because of an absence of adequate warnings... and education to police..." From that response I took it that you were still asking about how it was marketed and I said you could probably find the earlier marketing info on their website.

Next you responded with statements like "The problem I have in how AX10's comment was written goes beyond not having been confident that the Taser was always marketed as a weapon." and "It's that just because we call something a weapon does not mean it is purposefully designed to be unsafe" to which I responded with information about its past, how it was patented and to whom it was originally marketed. My intention in my reply to you was to highlight that the taser is a weapon that is inherently unsafe to at least one of the parties involved, hence the use of the words "subdue, injure or otherwise cause (them) harm". If it was unsafe to the user it wouldn't be a weapon, instead it would be an instrument likely to cause personal harm to the user. Personally I don't think it would have much of a market if it was likely that each time it was used it would cause the user to be injured or otherwise harmed. Call me silly but I just don't think there is much of a market for a product whose outcome for the user would end in the likely infliction of personal harm. In other words, whose safety are we talking about, the user of the product or the target? I think a reasonable person would conclude that the product has to be safe for the user or it wouldn't be on the market and that the talk about the safety of tasers concerns the likely effects of the taser's target and whether or not it is likely or unlikely to result in the death or serious bodily injury of that target.

This brings me to the difference between the terms "non-lethal force" and "lethal force". There is a big difference and it rests primarily with the likely result of the force utilized. Non-lethal force is generally recognized as using a method of force that is unlikely to result in death while lethal force is likely to result in death or serious bodily injury. For example a gun used by someone for the purpose of killing a rabid animal is using a weapon in such a way that the likely result is the death of the animal. If they are using a tranquilizer gun for the purpose of subduing an animal for removal from one area to another it is non-lethal force because they are 1) not intending to kill the animal but instead are using a non-lethal method and 2) that the method used is unlikely to cause either death or serious bodily injury to the animal. In other words, when a person uses lethal force it is likely that the result is death, when they use non-lethal force it means the likely result is submission or incapacitation of the target.

If I look at your new point, that tasers shouldn't be used because they are likely to cause death then that's a whole new kettle of fish. That's where the studies come in. I don't know what the studies say, who conducted the studies or what their cut-off is for the difference between "likely" or "unlikely" to cause death. But, if the taser is tested on people and the majority of them die then it is inherently unsafe. But if the taser is tested on people and a small percentage have adverse reactions that result in death should the taser be recognized as something "likely" to cause death? It depends. Do the studies show that particular ethnic populations are more likely to die if tasers are used on them? If so, then should people who use tasers against those person that are clearly identified as members of that ethnic population? I'd hope not. What if death is more likely to result if the target has been drinking? Should people, in a confrontational situation, have to stop and start asking questions of an intended target as to their alcohol consumption if there are no obvious signs that the person has been drinking? I also don't know how easy it is to ascertain from just looking at a person how vulnerable they are to adverse effects from something like a taser. So, the bottom line is that the makers of the taser are playing the odds the same way the pharmaceutical companies do. Pharmaceutical companies are allowed to market drugs although the consumption of their drug has been fatal or has caused serious injury to some people who have taken it. They play the percentages to make money.

The question for the company is, "what is our liability?", which is the same question any company looks at when it markets something like the taser. Taser's first defense will always be that they've provided adequate warnings and that the ultimate responsibility for any adverse outcome of the use of their product is the individual that used it. The company has "covered" themselves by the disclaimer I posted earlier which clearly says "TASER® electronic control devices are weapons designed to incapacitate a person from a safe distance while reducing the likelihood of serious injuries or death." They use the legalese to say that they intend their product to be used as a non-lethal force. The disclaimer continues "Though they have been found to be a safer and more effective alternative when used as directed to other traditional use of force tools and techniques, it is important to remember that the very nature of use of force and physical incapacitation involves a degree of risk that someone will get hurt or may even be killed due to physical exertion, unforeseen circumstances, and individual susceptibilities." This is their CYA. They are indicating that their product is not perfect and that there are times when their intended non-lethal product will result in death or serious injury.

This brings me back to the last sentence you wrote "It's whether the damned thing should be used or not." In my opinion it comes down to this, is it a reasonable alternative for someone to use under those particular circumstances? If it the choice between using a taser or a sawed-off shotgun to subdue an unarmed, peaceful protester then I don't see why it should be used. If it the choice between using a taser or a sawed-off shotgun to subdue a fleeing, violent offender than I would choose the taser. The real question is "what are the reasonable alternatives under the circumstances that are available?". Frankly, in this era where the RW has pushed fear so much there's not a lot that is going to happen in regards to this subject. The media and the entertainment industries don't help. They make a lot of money pushing fear and morality tales (where the the adversary gets their just rewards).

The conditions under which non-lethal force (things like tasers, bean bag guns and pepper spray) are used are intense ones where the person who uses the non-lethal force does so because they don't have other alternatives at their disposal. Unfortunately people have died because of non-lethal methods like tasers, bean bag guns and pepper spray. We live in a society where the alternatives and options are limited and each of the non-lethal methods can cause death in some circumstances.

Before I went to law school I worked for an attorney whose first case after I started working for him involved the issue of lethal force. The case involved a young man who was contemplating suicide. He was depressed so he went on a drinking binge, took a knife from the kitchen and locked himself in his bedroom. His parents called the police and told them they thought their son was going to commit suicide. The police went to the house and ordered him to unlock his door. When he refused they picked the lock and opened the door themselves. The officers thought he made a threatening gesture with the knife and they shot him six times - twice through the heart - and killed him. What are the chances he would be alive today if the officers had used a taser instead of their Sig Sauers to subdue him? I'd venture to guess the chances he would be alive to day are a lot better if they had used a taser instead of their guns. Additionally, from what I saw of the local PD's training records for the officers involved for the previous five years, there were few opportunities for my local PD to get training on subduing a suspect with a knife. In fact, the training materials said something like "a suspect can travel over twenty feet before an officer can remove his gun from his holster" type of stuff. There also was, if I recall correctly, just two classes in five years that taught officers how do respond to suicide calls (and they fell under the heading of domestic violence) and neither of the officers involved took that class. In fact, classes were concentrated on subjects concerning organized gangs (mostly to fulfill requirements for federal funding) and what circumstances would trigger "search and seizure" questions & how to protect yourself from legal liabilities. My "favorite" seminar was the one about Jamacian gangs and satanism. To my knowledge, here in Kansas, the training must have worked because I don't think we have a lot of problems with drive-by hexes being performed by Jamacian gangs even today some ten years later.

fwiw, I don't think tasers are as safe as the manufacturer would like us to believe. I also think the bigger problem lies with our police departments and how they are trained. Today, training seems to be geared more for continuing the so-called war on drugs (probable cause during traffic stops, looking for it during domestic cases or as motivations for other crimes) so they can qualify for state/federal grant money and less geared to investigating and solving crimes like burglary, murder, rape, bad checks, consumer fraud and property crimes.

[Kagemusha]

7. Hmm, I misspoke, actually.

I somehow misread and thought that you were referring to studies that show the Taser not to be "safe". Just a mistake on my part. I know Taser *was* claiming studies showed that the Taser itself was safe.. but um, that's not how the disclaimer posted later in this thread reads in the present day.

The better issue being whether not being 100% safe is justification for treating the device as an evil tool never to be used. I don't know about that because I have to wonder if the alternatives are better, or safer, or what.

[Jed Dilligan]

9. Unless the study samples included people on

massive amounts of crank, I doubt they're that meaningful.

[AX10]

12. kick