File under: WTF?
Vancouver (Canadian Press) - ... During arguments in B.C. Supreme Court, Judge Robert Sewell asked Taser's lawyer David Neave why the company's presence at the hearings in 2008 wasn't enough. ... Neave responded by saying the company still had no reason to believe Braidwood would reach the conclusions he did, leaving Taser with no opportunity to properly respond. ... [LINK]
You may have to read that a couple more times to get it.
He's saying they didn't anticipate Braidwood's conclusions about taser safety claims... ...and so they failed to prepare an adequate defense.
Word of the day: "Disingenuous"
I'm no lawyer, but that "Lack-of-Defense" defense is not something that is typically accepted.
And it'd be shocking if Neave doesn't know that...
So I'm suspicious that they're laying the ground work for a sobbing "We had NO idea tasers can sometimes kill" strategic defense to the larger issue of liability.
Crazy times...
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comments from Taser International Inc. or their sock-puppets will not be published, but will be investigated. If you have a good pro-taser argument, then go start your own blog (they are free). Comments are moderated. And Google now automatically filters out comment spam.