Most of us may think of the ‘stun gun’ as a relatively safe alternative for law enforcement to detain rebellious suspects in the field. A stun gun is known to deliver a high voltage electric shock designed to immobilize a victim temporarily. However, in a Santa Cruz courtroom, attorney Dana Scruggs feels otherwise as he defends his client Steve Butler who was the victim of a stun gun fired back in 2006 and will need medical care for the rest of his life as a result of his sudden cardiac arrest suffered after the shock was delivered by the officers ‘TASER’ gun. Depending on how you look at it, it seems both sides have support for their claim. According to Amnesty International and the Mercury News article, more than 350 people have died after being a victim of a stun gun shock between 2001 and 2008. However, in a study with over 4,000 uses of electronic control devices or ‘stun guns’ a review funded by the US Department of Justice it found these instances of harm to be extremely uncommon with no link to cardiac arrest issues like in cases such as Mr. Butler’s.
TASER International’s defense claims that Mr. Butler had prior heart conditions and was also under the strong influence of alcohol at the time of the incident. Mr. Butler is also accused of having traces of marijuana in his body. The question remains, would the use of the TASER gun had a less violent affect on Mr. Butler had these symptoms not been present at the time the shock was delivered? Are stun guns, if used correctly, the safest alternative to modern force that is undoubtedly needed throughout police departments across the United States today?
0 comments:
Post a Comment