The New Exchange » Weapon Confusion and Civil Liability

Common Sense · 4/15/2015 9:18 am

This can happen to both "Professional" (full time) and Reserve (volunteer) officers.

Weapon Confusion and Civil Liability

http://www.aele.org/law/2012all06/2012-06MLJ101.pdf

List of Taser confusion instances*

The following is a description of nine cases involving the mistaken use of a handgun by officers who intended to
use their Taser, occurring between 2001 and 2009.

March 2001. A Sacramento, CA police officer intended to fire an M26 Taser at a resisting handcuffed suspect in the back seat of a police car. Instead, he drew and fired his handgun, wounding the suspect.
(Strong-side leg holster, strong-hand draw).

September 2002. A Rochester, MN police officer intended to fire an M26Taser at a resisting suspect. Instead, he drew and fired his handgun, wounding the suspect.
(Strong-side cargo pocket, strong-hand draw).

October 2002. A Madera, CA police officer intended to fire an M26 Taser at a resisting handcuffed suspect in the back seat who was attempting to kick out the window of the police car. Instead, she drew and fired her handgun, killing the suspect.
(Strong-side leg holster, strong-hand draw).

October 2003. A Somerset County, MD deputy sheriff intended to fire an M26 Taserat a fleeing warrant suspect. I
nstead, he drew and fired his handgun, wounding the
suspect.
(Strong-side leg holster, strong-hand draw).

May 2004. A Mesa, AZ police officer intended to fire an M26 Taser at a resisting suspect. Instead, he drew and fired his handgun, wounding the suspect.
(Strong-handcross-draw)

September 2005. A Victoria, BC constable intended to fire an X26 Taser at a resisting suspect. Instead, he drew and fired his handgun, wounding the suspect.
(Strong-side cargo pocket, strong-hand draw

June 2006. A Kitsap County, WA deputy sheriff intended to fire an M26 Taser at asuspect. Instead, she drew and fired her handgun, wounding the suspect.
(Strong-side holster, strong-hand draw)

April 2008. A Nicholasville, KY police officer intended to fire an M26 Taser at a suspect. Instead, he drew and fired his handgun, wounding the suspect.
(Strong-handcross-draw)

January 2009. A BART police officer in Oakland, CA intended to fire an X26 Taser at a resisting suspect who was prone and refused to give up his arm for handcuffing.
Instead, he drew and fired his handgun, killing the suspect.
(Strong-hand cross-draw)

Compiled by Capt. Greg Meyer, LAPD Police Academy (Ret.).

Goose · 4/15/2015 9:24 am

So, clear this up for me.
Do you think that an undercover op with a dangerous criminal is an appropriate assignment for a 73 year old volunteer reservist?
Is that your point?

I wonder how many actual police officers are still on active doing, doing dangerous assignments like this at age 73.

Also, there are some suggestions that this guy "bought" his way onto the police force thru donations.
Did he have periodical performance evaluations?

Or, are you arguing that, in dangerous situations even professionals can make mistakes?
I can go along with that. All the more reason, IMO, to keep the amateurs out of these situations.

tennyson · 4/15/2015 9:32 am

And the takeaway from this should be that there should never be an civil liability ? You certainly could use this premise to defend the recent case of the 73 year old, but although I expect he may not get sentenced himself, I am NOT so sure that the police department itself is off the hook from a civil suit (nor should they be in this case at least as I see it). It certainly will be interesting to see how this plays out legally. I guess my main concern is that (as pointed out above) there are certainly cases where younger and theoretically better mental and physical adults that wind up doing the same thing, but (and this is just my opinion), when looking at people who are volunteers, I believe the best action is to NOT involve them in these type of operations. We will see how the general public here and nationally react to this as I am sure that what you have just posted will certainly come up as this case progresses.

Just Fred · 4/15/2015 9:43 am

Do you think that an undercover op with a dangerous criminal is an appropriate assignment for a 73 year old volunteer reservist?

Good question. Let's turn this into a poll if we could. I'll start by casting a "no" vote. Who else wants to voice a "yes" or "no" vote? The question is straight forward, simple, and doesn't require anything but an 'up' or 'down' vote.

tennyson · 4/15/2015 9:45 am

I would certainly go for the "NO".

Goose · 4/15/2015 9:46 am

I vote "No".

Common Sense · 4/15/2015 10:18 am

I think it’s up to each individual state or department to decide who is involved in Law Enforcement activities or functions. Is there a state law that governs who can be involved or is it dept. policy?

Right now there is a feeding frenzy with all kinds of stories flying around. Why not let this play out in court. As the court case works its way through all the facts will come out. Then with all the facts in hand they can decide if something needs to be changed in policies/procedures! Seems reasonable?

The posting shows that this can happen to full time or reserve officers!

Goose · 4/15/2015 10:24 am

I am not sure that any court case will answer the question of what appropriate assignments are for volunteer reserve officers. Although if a civil action occurs and finds that he had no performance reviews etc, it will spell trouble for that office.

The posting show's that these tragic mistakes can happen to active police officers, that is true.
To my mind that just proves that some aspects of policing are dangerous, complicated, and involve split second judgments based upon experience and training.
In my opinion that is a very strong argument for not putting volunteers in such situations.

Common Sense · 4/15/2015 10:34 am

Police depts. and Sheriff’s depts. across the country use reserve officers every day!
And it’s not going away. Just a fact today.

Goose · 4/15/2015 10:52 am

Common Sense wrote:
Police depts. and Sheriff’s depts. across the country use reserve officers every day!
And it’s not going away. Just a fact today.

I haven't seen any comments here suggesting that we do away with reserve officers.
But there are a lot of questions about how they are being used, assigned, evaluated, etc.
And those questions aren't going away either.

Index
» National News
» Weapon Confusion and Civil Liability

4/15/2015 9:18 am #1

Weapon Confusion and Civil Liability

4/15/2015 9:24 am #2

Re: Weapon Confusion and Civil Liability

4/15/2015 9:32 am #3

Re: Weapon Confusion and Civil Liability

4/15/2015 9:43 am #4

Re: Weapon Confusion and Civil Liability

4/15/2015 9:45 am #5

Re: Weapon Confusion and Civil Liability

4/15/2015 9:46 am #6

Re: Weapon Confusion and Civil Liability

4/15/2015 10:18 am #7

Re: Weapon Confusion and Civil Liability

4/15/2015 10:24 am #8

Re: Weapon Confusion and Civil Liability

4/15/2015 10:34 am #9

Re: Weapon Confusion and Civil Liability

4/15/2015 10:52 am #10

Re: Weapon Confusion and Civil Liability

Common Sense wrote:

Index
» National News
» Weapon Confusion and Civil Liability

Board footera