Personal Injury Law

The Taser weapon intrigues me because in my practice I've seen it misused during the arrest. In one case it was used by law enforcement as a tool to punish. The police didn't like what the subject was saying and so even though he was handcuffed, not resisting arrest, just standing at attention running off with his mouth, the officer Tasered him just to show who was in control while punishing the arrestee. Many people today will say good let him learn to keep his mouth shut and to stay out of trouble. But that's wrong, both culturally and legally. Police are not empowered to punish. Their job is law enforcement. It is the Court's job to decide and then to mete out punishment.  So when law enforcement crosses the line a basic Constitutional principle is violated. If it were the Soviets or Chinese governments doing it many people would be outraged. American law enforcement should not be treated any different. Neither should the Canadian police forces. Separation of powers is a cornerstone of American power sharing. For one branch to know if another branch is crossing the line, details of how power is exercised is required. In this instance law enforcement is taking liberty with a Constitutional principle for which they have no right.

In a culture that under this Administration has progressed from "If you criticize us you're being un-American." to "The end justifies the means." the Taser has become the argument of choice for those believing both maxims. People of common sense must agree the Taser, like any weapon of law enforcement, if used improperly exceeds the legal bounds of legitimate law enforcement. Remember we are not at war with our own people.

I've looked at several of these cases and have been studying the results. I'm not impressed. According to their own report the jury remains out on whether or not this weapon of control causes lasting damage to a person's nervous system and if it is a cause of death to those arrested who have died while in custody. The rational for its use is it doesn't cause a mess. No blood so that must be good. Of course research does show several people have died while in custody after being Tasered. Certainly we should listen to the manufacturer when discussing the use and limits of this weapon. But anything the manufacturer says about safety or effectiveness should be closely examined due to the obvious conflict of interest that exists whenever stock options are a driving force behind reporting results. Canada has a reporting system that collects information critical to evaluating how the Taser is being used and whether it is safe for how it's used. Setting standards is a tough job requiring all available details. Not just those law enforcement wishes to disclose.

Interesting enough Taser International on its site has restricted access to this information making it available only to law enforcement. The general public can not obtain the company's evaluation materials. In a free society this information needs to be open to the general public who eventually make all decisions through open and honest elections. So with these principles to guide us one has to wonder why the reporting requirements are being skirted by some who appear to be doing an end run on objective reporting?

While the Royal Canadian Mounted Police use this weapon that delivers 50,000-volts to a person over 1,000 times per year they are not providing all of the information that Canadian law requires. I did a search on the RCMP site for "taser" and the results were less than one would expect of a professional police force trying to inspire confidence. There was more public information about the "Name the Puppy Contest 2008" then about their policy of Taser use. Like many professions that are trying to hide something they too have redefined the words being used to describe the activity; the Taser is referred to on the Canadian Police site as a "Conducted Energy Weapon". If you first understand what it's being called your job of locating the applicable information is a whole lot easier. After you locate the Operational Manual - Chapter 17.7 - Conducted Energy Weapon the use restrictions are explained.

CEW Challenge - 2. 1. CEW Challenge means the declaration issued by a member before using the CEW: "Police, stop or you will be hit with 50,000 volts of electricity!"

I have to say this about the "Challenge". If someone yelled at me that I was about to get hit with 50,000 volts of electricity my immediate thought would be to hit the deck to avoid the strike. That statement alone would get my attention.

As Taser use escalates, however, the RCMP has tightened the lid of secrecy. Dudley would not be proud. Tsk-Tsk!

"Information stripped from the forms includes details of several Taser cases the Mounties previously made public under the access law. In effect, the RCMP is reclassifying details of Taser use - including some telling facts that raised pointed questions about how often the stun guns are fired and why.

Analysis of the data between 2002 and 2005 showed that three out of four people Tasered were unarmed. Those responsible for disclosing reported information claim they are respecting privacy issues. But that is a hollow claim when the essential identifying information of those arrested (like name and address) are redacted from the reported information.

Dosanjh noted that names and addresses are already removed from the forms."

"The RCMP is a public police force. They are accountable to Canadians. "They have to provide that information so that people can judge for themselves whether or not their police force is acting appropriately."

The Mounties number 9,100 and carry 2,800 Tasers. Accountability is essential to determine just how well police forces are trained and whether they are following legitimate law enforcement standards. If the Taser is just more efficient then talking or is being used out of frustration and to punish anyone who fails to immediately submit to law enforcement demands then citizens and those in charge of the government should know the facts. Covering up the facts by failing to provide essential information will sooner or later lead to the use being struck down by the Courts as unconstitutional.

Public wariness about the weapons turned to full-blown anger last fall when amateur video showing the death of Robert Dziekanski was released. RCMP were called last October when the Polish immigrant became agitated at Vancouver International Airport after spending hours in a secure section while his mother tried in vain to contact him from the public side.

Although Dziekanski appears more confused than threatening on the video, the officers waited less than 30 seconds before they zapped the 40-year-old with a Taser and pinned him to the floor as he wailed in pain. Within minutes, he was dead.

Dziekanski was recorded as the 18th person in Canada to die after being hit by a Taser since police started carrying them in 2001. The tally has since risen to 19. Amnesty says at least 280 people have died in the United States following a Taser zap in the last seven years.

Dudley Do-Right would be ashamed of his Canadian brothers and sisters that make up the Canadian police force. Do your job and report as required. Doing anything less is a violation of the separation of powers. One has to wonder if the same end run is being made by American law enforcement agencies. I know in the case initially discussed Tasering a person in handcuffs was against written policies and procedures; but nothing happened to the offending officer. I suppose that's fine so long as it's not you being Tasered. For the police, our elected officials, lawyers and Judges it's not alright.

As any good lawyer knows the smallest of details can make an enormous difference in the conclusion reached. The police should do their job, leave detail in the reporting and allow those voted into office to do the job they were elected to do-right, just as Dudley would have you do.