Lawsuit Over Arizona Man’s Taser Death In Utah Settled

December 31, 2012

  • December 31, 2012 at 2:05 pm
    paul says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 5
    Thumb down 0

    i wonder if the cop tried to subdue him before using the taser. or maybe he didn’t want to wrestle a naked body? unfortunate event.

  • December 31, 2012 at 2:27 pm
    Water Bug says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 4
    Thumb down 1

    It is an unfortunate event. An alternative would have been to let the man run out into traffic and get aquashed. I admit I’m curious as to what medication he pulled over to take. In a matter of seconds he went beserk and ultimately had to be restrained. Should he have been driving in the first place ? Again, it’s sad to hear of his demise but he brought it on himself and the taxpayers have to pay the tab.

    • January 4, 2013 at 2:15 pm
      Geo says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 0
      Thumb down 0

      The wife was driving

  • December 31, 2012 at 2:34 pm
    Jon says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 3
    Thumb down 9

    In no way, shape, or form is it in any training manual that a taser should be aimed at the left chest (over the heart) of a target.

    While the article doesn’t go into specifics about what interactions were going on between the victim and the cop–1) he negligently discharged the taser (into the upper chest/heart area) and 2) he had alternate methods for subdual in his toolkit that would not run the risk of death. Cops receive significant training in unarmed and armed (police baton) restraining techniques.

    • December 31, 2012 at 2:48 pm
      Just another opinion says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 9
      Thumb down 3

      No Jon, they point and shoot. Too bad the prongs are attached to lead wires that do not travel in a perfectly straight line nor do those wires follow verbal instructions nor does the “bad guy” stand still to be shocked.
      Does the article give specifics of what everybody was doing and why? No. But assuming the officer was “negligently discharging” an alternative and less than lethal weapon? C’mon. And your prferred option is the baton? A metal rod to beat the suspect over the head with? Really?

      • January 1, 2013 at 4:04 pm
        Jon says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 1
        Thumb down 6

        Your ignorance of the topic is showing.

        Perhaps you shouldn’t state a fact as truth without any knowledge of the subject matter?

        With the limited range of a taser, it is absolutely a weapon that can be aimed.

        And a baton is used for more than hitting someone.

        • January 3, 2013 at 2:57 pm
          maqui says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 9
          Thumb down 2

          Ignorance of the topic is showing Jon, but only yours.
          20 years of law enforcement speaking here, and you are the typical armchair quarterback who doesn’t have a clue, because you would never do the job and have no knowledge of what the training is.
          We ARE trained to point and shoot at pelvic, thighs, or back area, but the chest is sometimes necessary or unintentional. If you think we aim for the leg to stop them from walking or aim for all areas far from the heart and head, you must also think we are supposed to shoot the gun out of their hands or just “wing” someone with our guns. Too much T.V old friend, Old T.V.
          As stated, the suspect seldome refuses to remain still, and aim is limited, they are nothing like shooting a straight trajectory projectile. As a matter of fact, the purpose of the taser is to subdue without losing the reactionary gap and engaging in physical combat, in which the officer will sometimes lose. If the officer got too close and the deranged person ends up overpowering the weaker officer and taking their weapon, you would be there to blame the officer. It’s why the tool is given, and comes before the baton in the Use of Force Continuum (UOFC) to subdue without engaging in rolling-around in a wrestle mania. Pressure point tactics, arm-bars, and hip-throws are mostly for television. You pay your police agencies to utilize the smallest available use of force measure available, from the Use of Force Continuum (google it). It is in every department policy manual.
          The taser immobilizes the person, to reduce risk of injury or death to the officer, suspect, and citizens, from a DISTANCE.
          Fairly, it is unfortunate and regretable however, that some persons die from them.

          • January 3, 2013 at 3:04 pm
            maqui says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 5
            Thumb down 1

            And furthermore, experience and training also tells us that a delusional or chemically impaired person is often unlikely to respond to the pain compliance techniques (batons & judo chops), but electircal shock response is the effective and involuntary response needed.

          • January 3, 2013 at 4:05 pm
            Jon says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 0
            Thumb down 9

            I have over 27 years of combat training. Unarmed, armed, and ranged. I have worked and trained beside military and law enforcement personnel and talked “shop” with them extensively.

            So yeah–”armchair”…not so much. I like the blatant assumption, though–makes you look real credible.

            Your unfortunate use of straw man arguments really does not make your point, maqui. I never outright stated, or intimated, all of the “hollywood” type effects you’re trying to put into my mouth. Please desist.

            You’ll specifically note that I stated that aiming at the chest is specifically prohibited *in the training manual.* It’s right on the company’s website.

            And I’m sorry–but if the officer had trouble avoiding the chest of an unarmed naked man–then he wasn’t trained enough.

            As for the “hip throws, joint locks” etc? Maybe it’s location specific. My LEO friends and training partners practice, and use, nonviolent means of restraint–using their batons, as well as unarmed, more frequently than your experience seems to suggest you do.

            It still comes down (as is presented in the article) that an officer used a weapon against an unarmed, naked person, when not under (again, as far as the article presents itself) the direct threat of physical harm, that caused the death of the unarmed, naked man.

            So again, given the information that we have to work with to date–I remain convinced the officer acted inappropriately and the suit is valid.

          • January 3, 2013 at 4:07 pm
            Jon says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 0
            Thumb down 0

            And “Judo Chops?”

            Really?

            You’re getting a bit childish…

  • January 3, 2013 at 4:46 pm
    maqui says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 8
    Thumb down 2

    Look at the website closer, in the memo that accompanies the bullitin, or look at the training memo that they publish to the users that states “officers can still shoot the guns at a suspect’s chest, if needed”, but only “recommend” aiming for the alternative areas when possible.
    Neither of us were there, nor did we see any video. “Talking Shop” is exactly the armchair quarterbacking I cited, done by cop-chronies that opine what they would have done, or what should have been done, when they weren’t there, but can state an officer acted “inappropriately”. Based on what? Shop talk by those that don’t know what their talking about. Being armed of course is considered when choosing a level of force, but not being armed, in no way, is exclusive. If you were aware of injury claims to officers and lawsuits filed by suspects for injuries incident to arrest, you would understand how the Taser has taken place in a position lateral to and before impact weapons and hard-handed techniques, to avoid injury to all parties, expecially deranged persons who don’t respond to soft/hard hand techniques and pain compliance. Why don’t you close in on a fully nude person in public and lay hands on him/her?
    If the suspect were armed, the use of force would have escalated to firearm. Perhaps then an officer is required to taze the weapon out of the suspect’s hand? You are taking a level of force out of the continuum, and expecting the officer to remain one reactionary level below that of the situation. It is the opposite. Only those that are trained in the continuum and use of force laws know this, not the guys down at the garage of fire station listening to the scanner and blogging online about what the officer did wrong.
    Did you look up the Use of Force Continuum I cite as fact?
    Having absolutely no law enforcement experience beyond shop-talking and whatever “combat” or Tae Kwon Do experience you are referencing, you have the luxery of second guessing this officer’s use of force application, and refer to me as presumtive? Your failure to acknowledge the rules and policies established by case law and implemented by most all departments, accented by using none of the industry verbiage negates the need for presumption on my part.

    • January 3, 2013 at 4:53 pm
      maqui says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 6
      Thumb down 2

      yes, judo-chops is silly. you missed the sarcasm. It’s as silly a concept as expecting an officer to skip a level of force as they are trained to so he/she can try a more passive and kinder approach to taking custody of a deranged person who is resisting, so as not to be accused of brutality.

    • January 3, 2013 at 5:19 pm
      Jon says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 0
      Thumb down 6

      Okay: talking shop in regards to combat training is not “sitting around.” It is discussing probable scenarios and developing tactics of response, and then testing, practicing, and implementing those responses over and over until they are refined and autonomic, or discarded as just not workable.

      Frankly, you’re inability to even comprehend what I’m discussing either presumes you *were* a cop–perhaps in the 70′s and 80′s, and didn’t know any better.

      As a point of information: Tae Kwon Do is mostly a sport, and not a combative art. Ugh.

      And as a matter of fact, I did look up “continuum of force” Not surprisingly, the officer skipped a step: “empty hand submission.”

      Oops? Did you forget about that when you were citing your fact?

      So, as I understand it: Continuum of force:

      Level 1: Presence (IE, the uniformed PO is there.)
      Level 2: Verbal Commands
      Level 3: Empty hand submission techniques
      Level 4: Non-lethal force (Baton, pepper spray, taser, etc) Which begs the question–why not use pepper spray first?
      Level 5: Lethal response

      And yet again, with the ridulous hyperbole and straw man arguments on your part. It does make it hard to have a civil discussion…

      Re: judo chops: I disagree. You were being insulting and derogatory, not sarcastic. If your intention was sarcasm (which, you should hopefully know, does not translate well in a text format) you failed utterly.

  • January 3, 2013 at 6:23 pm
    maqui says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 8
    Thumb down 0

    -Empty hand, yes it is on the same level of the hard-handed that I cited, you must have missed it. Look, it’s right next to it. Specifically for those that don’t know, it’s guiding, grabbing, pushing, and punching and kicking (tasing comes before a baton strike to the knee or punch to the face, I’ll bet you didn’t know that).

    -You presume the officer is required to exhaust each step before moving on to the next???? Ahh, there’s part of the problem. There’s that presumption creeping in again.
    We are trained, and do, skip a step, Often. Sounds like you didn’t know that either. Do you truly need scenarios explained to you in which an officer skips levels of force (insert incident of naked guy, high or crazy on the edge of the road, ignoring verbal commands here, or guy answers the front door with a bat over his head). This is where the officer makes a judgement call during what the Attorney General ruled in this case to be a “tense, uncertain and rapidly unfolding situation in a manner consistent with” the officer’s training, and unfortunately also where those that don’t know get to “armchair quarterback” him after he does. Seems you know more than all the police, and the Attorney General of that jurisdiction know.

    - As I stated, YOU go put your hands on a naked crazy guy whos is resisting on the edge of the highway. Use your combat training to prevent this naked guy from stepping in front of other motorists on the highway, who are going to swerve & crash into the vehicles on the shoulder (you have seen the videos, right?). Quick, T.J. Hooker, swoop him at the ankles with a thrown P.R. 24 nightstick, (Not carried by most anymore, you may have known that).

    -Pepper spray is a pain compliance and eye irritant tool that also causes death, like tasers can kill those with bad hearts, capsaicin based pepper sprays can kill those with breathing/asthma conditions. Many departments have abandoned pepper spray for Tasers, some departments keep both, and some change their minds. Pain compliance tools like pepper spray and hard (and soft) handed control techniques often do not work on impaired, deranged, or simply tolerent/stong persons. This should have come up in your many shop-talk discussions.
    Time for disclosure, I’m a little skepticle of Tasers myself, but I’m honestly undecided. What my position is…there is nothing indicating this officer acted inappropriately or outside of what he is trained to do, as you stated and you are wrong to say, when you aren’t qualified to know. And you risk damaging or hurting persons when you make unqualified judgements about how they handled a difficult situation that you have not, for whatever your reasons, tried doing.

    -I’m not sure what you base the grandiose Cyberbole and Aunt Sally strawman references (Brit?), but you are off on my qualifications and experience. I worked the streets as a police officer in a medium sized city and now work for the prosecutors office in preparing criminal cases every day.

    What interesting and unique perspectives you’ve shared. I’m very refreshed and look forward to your next perspectives with great anticipation and enthusiasm. Your vast combat training would be an interesting..

    Or we could just be done.

    • January 3, 2013 at 6:35 pm
      maqui says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 7
      Thumb down 0

      oops, I neglected the time-frame part, I was an officer for nearly 15 years, until only recently (5 years).

      Cheers Mate!

    • January 4, 2013 at 9:29 am
      Jon says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 0
      Thumb down 9

      You’re right–we’re done.

      It’s impossible to have a civil discussion with someone who is intentionally antagonistic and derogatory.

      Happy trolling!

      • January 4, 2013 at 10:27 am
        maqui says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 9
        Thumb down 1

        No it’s not, just harder when you don’t know what your talking about.

        • January 4, 2013 at 10:36 am
          Jon says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 0
          Thumb down 9

          I know exactly what I’m talking about. You choose to ignore it.

          If, for example, I was to communicate to you in the way you have been to me on this thread my response would be something like this:

          “Tell you what, maqui–since you’re a cop, you’re reall only good for covering up for your buddies who screw up, and at eating doughnuts. Got any good doughnut suggestions?”

          That’s essentially how rude you’ve been. But that’s okay, I don’t expect you to understand it.

    • January 4, 2013 at 11:01 am
      Jon says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 0
      Thumb down 3

      Oh, and because you’re clearly ignorant of what happened on the event here is the news article:

      “Thompson and Excell responded to the scene. In an episode that lasted just 42 seconds, Thompson drew his Taser as he approached Cardall and ordered him to get on the ground. Cardall immediately raised his hands into the air and, as Thompson continued to order him to get on the ground, Cardall pleaded with him to not shoot.

      At one point, Cardall got down on one knee in the gravel but stood back up and took a step toward Thompson, who fired his Taser. Cardall fell back onto the ground. Thompson shot Cardall a second time after he made a slight movement while lying prone alongside the road. Both Taser barbs struck Cardall’s chest over his heart.

      The officers then rolled Cardall over and cuffed him. A third officer who arrived on the scene noticed Cardall did not appear to be breathing normally, at which point Excell checked and found Cardall had no pulse. Neither Thompson nor Excell provided aid to Cardall”

      The article is here: http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/55538549-78/cardall-taser-police-thompson.html.csp

      Please continue to defend the actions of this officer. Who shot a prone man in the heart with a taser–a second time, which no doubt caused the fatality.

      • January 4, 2013 at 1:30 pm
        maqui says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 6
        Thumb down 0

        Aside from your repeated whining about how rude sarcasm hurts your feelings,
        Which part of your story is the inappropriate use of force part? Oh, wait… You have link for a newspaper aricle from another state which cites what the petitioners in a suit against the city allege!
        Forward this off to the AG’s office quick. Surely if they had this evidence, they wouldn’t have ruled the use of force as lawful and justifiable. I hope Utah law and the department’s use-of-force policy is ignored by them, as well as you. Well done, Matlock [rude sarcasm].

        Note: These are not my buddies, they are OUR buddies, remember all that shop talk and hanging out during your combat missions at the salvation army? [just sarcasm].



Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

More News
More News Features