Ravenwood - 02/15/05 07:15 AM
"Keep in mind that the development and adoption of [TASERS] was intended to be an alternative to lethal force. Instead, they seem to be being used at cattle prods." -- Ravenwood, June 24, 2004.
Sometimes I hate it when I'm right.
With only two high school boys standing between him and the teachers, [Police Officer Michael] Branch pulled out his Taser, broke it down to stun gun mode and shocked the two boys with one-second bursts of electricity. [...]TASERS are meant to be an alternative to lethal force. Apparently Officer Branch feels that his only other choice was to shoot this young man (who was in his way) with his sidearm."You just shocked me! Why did you do that?" was what Oyelowo said he yelled at Branch.
Branch replied: "You were in the way," according to Oyelowo.
Keep in mind that TASERS are potentially lethal and have killed dozens of people. Their use should be extremely limited.
Educational privatization is looking better and better everyday, isn't it?
Posted by: Dan Newbanks at February 15, 2005 2:23 PMWould lethal force be justified in responding to a taser attack?
Posted by: Reader at February 16, 2005 2:53 PMIt should fall under self defense against the police/government, which is justified in some cases. You would probably have to show (in your courtroom defense, because you would surely be charged) that the taser attack was unprovoked and illegal. That would probably be difficult to do, considering the TASER's reputation as "harmless".
Consider this: When the ATF attacked the Branch Davidian's church in Waco, several people were tried for murder because they shot back at police. If memory serves me correctly, they were eventually acquitted because it was deemed that the ATF attack was illegal.
You would have to make a similar case, which is difficult because of the "less than lethal" nature of the TASER.
Posted by: Ravenwood at February 16, 2005 3:05 PM(c) Ravenwood and Associates, 1990 - 2014
