Taser Quote of the Week by Columbia police Chief Ken Burton

Columbia police Chief Ken Burton:

"When people are under the influence, the extended shock has shown to be a problem." [LINK]

"...problem..."

Without putting words into Chief Burton's mouth, I'm fairly certain that, by the word "problem", he means that people die. As in "DEAD".

What else could he be hinting at?

Herein lies a problem.

Taser International, while recommending minimal use, simultaneously and strenuously denies that repeated taser hits are in anyway dangerous. See their claim quoted here [LINK].

Their chief minion, "Dr." Mark Kroll (advisor, Board of Directors, head of their so-called "Medical Safety [cover-up?] Board"), has claimed that taser hits are similar to ping pong (table tennis) balls in that even endless electro-torture would be "safe"; "If one ping-pong ball hit to the head does not kill you, 1,000 probably cannot either." [LINK].

So, in addition to the "problem" mention by Chief Burton (taser deaths), there's also the little problem that the stun gun salesmen are fork-tongue scum that repeatedly deny the potential lethality of their product (while burying legal admissions deep within the Legal Warnings). Every honest and informed observer knows full-well that tasers are perfectly capable of causing or contributing to death. And yet the OEM denies it.

It's pure insanity to allow this discrepancy to remain unresolved. And that means holding the OEM to account for their deceptive marketing. You cannot 'agree to disagree', see [LINK].

More details on Taser's legal loss

Bloomberg has more details.

The compensatory damage verdict will be reduced by the jury's finding that Heston was 85 % responsible for his death, said family attorney John Burton. "That affects the compensatory damages, but not the punitives," he said in an interview. "I think Taser's going to have to rethink its litigation strategy and its warning policies," Burton said. The jury awarded $5 million in punitive damages to Heston's parents and $200,000 in punitives to his estate. [LINK]


Case: Heston v. City of Salinas, C 05-03658 JW, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California (San Jose)

Here is another interesting tidbit from earlier in the trial: [LINK] (.pdf)

Court upholds ruling: Tasers kill

Taser International "...knew its weapon could kill..."

A legal blow to the maker of Tasers as controversy grows over the weapon's safety.
Taser International lost its appeal Tuesday in the most costly case against the company to date. Last summer, a jury awarded the family of Darryl Turner, who died after being tasered, $10 million, ruling that TASER knew its weapon could kill and did not properly warn police.
On appeal, the U.S. District Court Western District of N. Carolina Charlotte Division ruled in favor of the plaintiff on all objections, but did rule the damage award “excessive" and reduced it in half to $5 million. "This is a huge victory for safety," said plaintiff attorney John Burton, "…and people concerned that this device is being given to police with false assurances of its safety." Burton added, "The judge viewed the evidence and said the jury was justified in its conclusion." Dr. Douglas Zipes, an electrophysiologist who testified for the plaintiff that Tasers could kill, said the reduction of the award was fair, and that the court's ruling "totally vindicates what we said, that Taser causes sudden death and the judge accepts that concept." There has been no comment yet from Taser International. ... MORE-> [LINK]

Podcast regarding Taser's legal butt-kicking

Interview with lawyer John Burton on his $6.2M legal victory over Taser International [LINK]

The above link leads to page where a download-able podcast can be found.

Note: file is .mp3 format and is fairly big: 27.2 MB.


For related background info: Search for 'Burton' on this blog [LINK]

Fort Worth Weekly: "Taser Gets Zapped"

Quote of the Week:

“That was a fully fabricated lie,” said Burton.

Referring to a statement issued by Taser International's long-nosed spokespuppet Steve Tuttle in relation to the taser-caused death of Darryl Turner. [LINK]

Liability flowed down to Taser

More on Heston v. City of Salinas.

His parents sued Taser, alleging failure to warn of the dangers of the weapon, and Salinas police officers, claiming excessive force. The jury "exonerated the police because they said the police didn't know repeated exposures could kill someone", Burton said. [LINK]

It's interesting how the liability has been totally flowed down to Taser and it is based on the flawed information coming from them.

Call it The Price of Propaganda.

In some of my previous posts, I have stated that the root cause of some of these incidents seems to be the (missing or mis-) information coming from Taser. It's nice to see that the legal system is moving to the same opinion.

You can bet that Taser will be named on every taser-associated lawsuit from now on. A precedent such as this can certainly result in a legal pile-on.

And to put things into perspective, this one judgment is worth about 1% of the total market capitalization for Taser. Just one judgment. 1% might sound small - but would you want to have 1% of your body mass sliced-off, with or without anesthetic?

More details from the winning team

This is worth copying in full.

Peter Williamson, Esq. :

We are extremely proud, along with our co-counsel, John Burton, to be the FIRST attorneys in the country to obtain a products liability verdict against TASER Intl., as a result of the wrongful death of Robert Heston.

We are thrilled to report that the facade of invincibility peddled for so long by TASER Intl., has finally begun to crumble. In the case of Heston v. TASER, Intel., et al., we were able to convince a jury in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (San Jose) that TASER knew about the potential risks of its M26 model due to prolonged discharges but failed to warn about such risks.

In order to do this, we took a slightly different approach which we hope will become more well known in the coming days and months. For over a year and a half, we reviewed all of the known research that was available concerning the physiological effects of TASER discharges. Much of that research has to do with direct electrical stimulation of the heart - one theory that many believe explains why people die suddenly while being subjected to TASER discharges. We rejected this theory because the state of the research, in our opinion, is mixed at best. Instead, we put forth another theory which is not as widely known but is supported by medical research - metabolic acidosis. Our position is quite simple. TASERs admittedly cause severe muscle contractions which cause the muscles to produce lactate or lactic acid. As the acidity of the blood continues to rise, pH drops. If pH drops to far too quickly, cardiac arrest can occur. This is well documented in the medical literature. In fact, we believe this is precisely what happened to Mr. Heston. It should also be noted that our jury rejected Excited Delirium as the cause of death (ED is nothing more than a way for police agencies to shift the blame for a person’s death away from their conduct and onto the victim)

Rick Smith, the CEO of TASER, issued a press release suggesting that the Heston jury reached its decision based on sympathy for the family. If so, how does he explain the 85% reduction of compensatory damages. Mr. Smith's statement is nothing more than spin from TASER. I was the only attorney to speak with some of the jurors after the trial. Their decision was well reasoned and based on a very solid understanding of the facts of our case. The jury was convinced that TASER knew about the risks of prolonged applications (Mr. Heston received 25 total discharges from 3 different devices) but did nothing to warn its customers. As the Jury Foreman put it, TASER could have easily sent warnings to its customers but choose not to do so. This explains the 5.2 million dollar punitive damage award.

As I told the Heston family after the verdict was announced, it is still possible for a David to beat a Goliath in a U.S. Court of Law. Once again, JUSTICE has prevailed.

[LINK]

Alternate version: [LINK]

They took the approach of not trying to attack the direct cardiac issue. One can't argue with success, and it does make a great deal of sense for a victim that was tasered 25 times. But this metabolic acidosis theory probably doesn't explain all the other taser-associated deaths where the victim was tasered 'only' once or twice and then died. Also, this incident involved the M26, not the (appears to be more dangerous low frequency and continuous 100% duty cycle) X26.

Note - there is absolutely nothing to prevent there being more than one explanation varying with circumstances. Time will tell.

Taser International settles with Steven Butler for $2.85 million

But this amount is under a confidentiality agreement, so don't tell anyone.

Mercury News [LINK]

SANTA CRUZ -- A Watsonville man permanently injured after he was shocked with a Taser nearly four years ago won a $2.85 million settlement against the stun-gun maker this summer, the first time Taser International has settled a product liability case, according to court documents. However, the company did not admit to any liability for the anoxic brain injury Steven Butler, 49, suffered after being shocked. Over objections by the company's attorneys, Judge Jeff Almquist declined Thursday to seal the court documents that divulge the dollar value of the agreement. Almquist said there's "therapeutic value" in leaving the court's business open to the public, even though those involved in the case signed a confidentiality agreement that forbids them from discussing the settlement. "The agreement seems to be the best that can be accomplished," Almquist said. Butler was drunk and off his psychiatric medication in October 2006 when he refused to get off a bus and a Watsonville police officer used a Taser X-26 electronic control device to subdue him. After being stunned, Butler went into cardiac arrest and stopped breathing. It took medical personnel 18 minutes to resuscitate him and, as a result, Butler suffered a debilitating brain injury. Butler has brain damage and no short-term memory; he also lost mobility and his motor skills decreased. He needs around-the-clock care and can't be left alone, according to court documents. His condition is stationary, meaning there's little chance Butler will recover, Almquist said in court.
Since the injury, Butler's brother, David, has been caring for him. Part of the settlement award will be put into a special-needs trust to provide the family with more than $4,700 a month to cover medical and other costs. The payment begins in September and is guaranteed for at least 20 years. "This resolution will allow the Butler family to comfortably care for Steve for the rest of his life," attorney Dana Scruggs, who represented the Butlers, wrote in court papers. Other money from the award will pay old medical bills and possibly purchase a home for Butler. A significant portion of the settlement will go to the family's attorneys, who spent more than 600 hours and $250,000 preparing the case for trial. During Thursday's hearing, Steven and David Butler sat together in the back of the courtroom. Outside of court, the brothers, thin men with matching mustaches, declined to talk about the resolution. Another of the family's attorneys, Nathan Benjamin, said "they're very happy to have this resolved." In a declaration filed by the court, Scruggs outlined the challenges in taking on the stun-gun company. Taser International claimed Butler had several pre-existing cardiac and health conditions that contributed to his injury. However, Scruggs said most of the scientific and medical research about the adverse effects of electric shock from a stun gun is directly or indirectly financed by the company. At the time of Butler's injury, the company had never lost a lawsuit. Attorney John Burton, who won a lawsuit against the city of Salinas and Taser International on behalf of the family of Robert C. Heston Jr., helped with case. Heston died after being stunned multiple times by a police officer armed with a Taser in February 2005. The Heston case, in 2008, marked the first time a stun-gun victim had won a product liability trial against Taser International. The legal team assembled for the Butler case compiled investigation, discovery, pleadings and research that filled 11 banker's boxes. They were prepared to go to trial in the spring, but the case was postponed and then settled.