The most prestigious law school admissions discussion board in the world.
|
 |
 
|
Legal Q: Is A Taser Considered Deadly Force, To Make Response w Deadly Force OK?
Poast new message in this thread
Date: June 14th, 2020 2:13 AM Author: Cerise Parlour Nowag (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4560050&forum_id=2#40413345) |
 |
Date: June 14th, 2020 7:47 AM Author: Fear-inspiring Curious Forum Round Eye This is obviously not a legal analysis but any fight with a cop potentially can turn into a fight for the cop's gun.
If you resist arrest and in the process do something that could incapacitate the cop, you have forfeited your right to live. |
|
Date: June 14th, 2020 1:37 PM Author: Cerise Parlour Nowag the standard in legal analysis is more than "could incapacitate" tho (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4560050&forum_id=2#40414773) |
|
Date: June 14th, 2020 9:34 PM Author: dull library tazer is nonlethal when cops use it on you, and lethal when you try to use it on them (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4560050&forum_id=2#40417538) |
|
Date: June 15th, 2020 3:30 AM Author: Pearl kitty (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4560050&forum_id=2#40419234) |
|
Date: June 15th, 2020 3:34 AM Author: brass bespoke sweet tailpipe weed whacker (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4560050&forum_id=2#40419240) |
Date: June 14th, 2020 2:18 AM Author: Frozen house police squad not the right question, i don't think.
i believe the question is whether the person would have a reasonable fear of death or great bodily injury.
seems to me that a scenario that leaves the cop incapacitated, especially where there has already been a showing of violence by the suspect, has always been thought to be an appropriate time to use deadly force. |
|
Date: June 14th, 2020 2:20 AM Author: Cerise Parlour Nowag yeah that's what i'm asking. reasonable fear of great bodily injury or death didnt fit in thread title.
does someone pointing a taser at you justify responding with deadly force?
edit: i see ur edit |
|
Date: June 14th, 2020 2:21 AM Author: wonderful obsidian philosopher-king Low IQ shtick? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4560050&forum_id=2#40413361) |
|
Date: June 14th, 2020 2:22 AM Author: Frozen house police squad i added to my answer.
one thing i'm not sure of is whether the taser could be fired again. cuz i guess if he's fired the taser, and it didn't hit its mark, AND it can't be fired again, then maybe you shouldn't be shooting him.
|
|
Date: June 14th, 2020 2:25 AM Author: Cerise Parlour Nowag i now see ur answer. as a matter of law, is the cop allowed to use deadly force to prevent himself from being temporarily incapacitated? playing devil's advocate, if he knew the suspect was just going to run away and she said he was just going to run away, is there any reasonable belief that the cop could face death or GBI? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4560050&forum_id=2#40413368) |
|
Date: June 14th, 2020 2:29 AM Author: wonderful obsidian philosopher-king Perp could take cop's weapon while incapacitated and who knows what else. Perp had already acted violently toward cop. I can't believe this is even a debate. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4560050&forum_id=2#40413377) |
|
Date: June 14th, 2020 2:32 AM Author: Cerise Parlour Nowag the question is the general legal framework involving *a suspect* using a taser and then *a cop* using deadly force. we're trying to lock down the legal principles -- whether deadly force is acceptable as a matter of law, whether it's a jury question, what would give the cop a reasonable basis to fear death. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4560050&forum_id=2#40413383) |
|
Date: June 14th, 2020 2:41 AM Author: Frozen house police squad Now that you mention it, I'm surprised that I don't know whether this has ever been addressed specifically by the courts before.
|
|
Date: June 14th, 2020 2:43 AM Author: Cerise Parlour Nowag this seems like the sort of case where there actually could be criminal appellate law on point (or at least analogous appellate law). (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4560050&forum_id=2#40413401) |
|
Date: June 14th, 2020 2:46 AM Author: wonderful obsidian philosopher-king Youre being too narrow. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4560050&forum_id=2#40413410) |
|
Date: June 14th, 2020 2:30 AM Author: aquamarine boltzmann halford You have to be kidding (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4560050&forum_id=2#40413380) |
|
Date: June 14th, 2020 1:44 PM Author: Honey-headed pontificating hall I think the projectile can only be fired once, but multiple zaps are possible. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4560050&forum_id=2#40414819) |
|
Date: June 14th, 2020 7:03 PM Author: hateful reading party (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4560050&forum_id=2#40416679) |
|
Date: June 14th, 2020 2:20 AM Author: Histrionic Step-uncle's House Messiness Dude who hates cops here. If I was on the jury, I’d sleep through the trial and vote to acquit.
It’s obviously a clean kill. |
|
Date: June 14th, 2020 2:44 AM Author: Provocative scarlet black woman tasers can kill ppl
also if cop got tased, guy coulda taken his gun |
|
Date: June 14th, 2020 2:45 AM Author: wonderful obsidian philosopher-king (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4560050&forum_id=2#40413408) |
|
Date: June 14th, 2020 2:51 AM Author: Cerise Parlour Nowag 1) jury seems out on whether tasers actually kill people -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taser_safety_issues#%22Non-lethal%22_designation -- "Amnesty International has documented over 500 deaths that occurred after the use of Tasers.[23] Police sources question whether the Taser was the actual cause of death in those cases, as many of the deaths occurred in people with serious medical conditions and/or severe drug intoxication, often to the point of excited delirium"
2) yes, i get that guy could have taken his gun. "could have" isn't the standard though. the standard seems to be whether the officer had a reasonable belief that the nig would take his gun and shoot him |
|
Date: June 14th, 2020 2:56 AM Author: wonderful obsidian philosopher-king He already took his other weapon lol The biggest counter argument against reasonable belief is there was apparently a secnd officer on scene I think believing perp take the tased cop's gun in that scenario is less reasonable |
|
Date: June 14th, 2020 3:01 AM Author: Cerise Parlour Nowag good point re the second officer.
but why should the cop be penalized in that he can't use self-defense measures that he'd ordinarily be able to use because a second officer is around? |
|
Date: June 14th, 2020 3:05 AM Author: wonderful obsidian philosopher-king Because presence of second cop affcts whether a particular self defense measure was reasonable. Can't operate in a vacuum. Very fact specific. How far away was second cop? I still think tasers in and of themselves can be deadly, |
|
Date: June 14th, 2020 3:12 AM Author: Cerise Parlour Nowag i see your point.
but ur essentially forcing the cop to make a split second decision and analyze how the presence of the second cop would affect his need to engage in self defense. it's already a hard enough split second decision to decide whether to self defense is justified, and making the cop take into account where his partner is makes it even harder. i hate cops, but i feel like it's a tough ask for the cop to think all this thru in a split second. |
|
Date: June 14th, 2020 3:14 AM Author: wonderful obsidian philosopher-king I dont disagree. The cop probably had no idea how close or far away the second officer was in that moment, and you have to look at it from his perspective. I think before the current year, this wouldnt be prosectuted. Who knows now. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4560050&forum_id=2#40413456) |
|
Date: June 14th, 2020 3:19 AM Author: Cerise Parlour Nowag separate q: i'm curious whether there are police protocols about what to do if a perp snatches your taser, or points a taser (yours or otherwise) at you. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4560050&forum_id=2#40413459) |
|
Date: June 14th, 2020 5:28 AM Author: flatulent plaza gunner Pretty much all cop protocols are “light em up.” (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4560050&forum_id=2#40413528) |
|
Date: June 14th, 2020 6:59 PM Author: Disturbing sex offender Day-drunk so figure I might as well head in here.
To preface, I'm an avowed shitlib. I absolutely think use of some force was justified here. But there's a difference between force, and lethal force. The dude was drunk and running away. Aim for the legs and I'd be fine with it. There's no need for "take him out" when "take him down" would suffice. |
|
Date: June 14th, 2020 7:02 PM Author: heady domesticated locale If you use a firearm, you use it try to kill. No other option. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4560050&forum_id=2#40416675) |
|
Date: June 14th, 2020 7:02 PM Author: Disturbing sex offender Uh, no. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4560050&forum_id=2#40416678) |
|
Date: June 15th, 2020 3:42 AM Author: brass bespoke sweet tailpipe weed whacker dude i'm as lib as it gets on this board and it's pretty widely accepted that "aim for the leg" is retarded and untenable (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4560050&forum_id=2#40419245) |
|
Date: June 14th, 2020 6:43 PM Author: heady domesticated locale That's why the standard is reasonableness. Most people wouldn't say the cop acted unreasonably, and nobody in the world would say he acted unreasonably beyond a reasonable doubt. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4560050&forum_id=2#40416589) |
|
Date: June 14th, 2020 2:59 AM Author: Charismatic university No, sleeping in your car right before going to your daughters 8th birthday party and taking her skating is not a reason to kill a black man.
https://mobile.twitter.com/KristenClarkeJD/status/1271987657556590598 |
|
Date: June 14th, 2020 3:06 AM Author: wonderful obsidian philosopher-king Seems like an honest take there (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4560050&forum_id=2#40413444) |
|
Date: June 14th, 2020 3:43 AM Author: charcoal chapel Was he going straight there after he slept it off in the Wendy’s drive thru? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4560050&forum_id=2#40413474) |
|
Date: June 14th, 2020 10:57 AM Author: aquamarine boltzmann halford I'm not an expert but I really don't think cops should shoot a man for sleeping in his car (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4560050&forum_id=2#40414103) |
|
Date: June 14th, 2020 9:24 PM Author: cerebral menage sneaky criminal Lmao at the shitlib dishonesty here. On top of everything else, including ignoring the fighting and taking the cop's taser, she says he was sleeping in the parking lot, which most people have done, and not that he passed out in the fucking drive through lane. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4560050&forum_id=2#40417475) |
|
Date: June 14th, 2020 9:39 PM Author: Cerise Parlour Nowag that's their playbook (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4560050&forum_id=2#40417575) |
|
Date: June 14th, 2020 5:27 AM Author: flatulent plaza gunner Tennessee v. Garner was wrongly decided. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4560050&forum_id=2#40413527) |
|
Date: June 14th, 2020 1:40 PM Author: Cerise Parlour Nowag is it relevant that this is a civil case, not a crim case against the officer? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4560050&forum_id=2#40414792) |
|
Date: June 15th, 2020 3:31 AM Author: Appetizing rigpig it's relevant as to section 1983 liability. most jurisdictions have modeled officer use of lethal force provisions to track garner. doesn't like to me like georgia is one of them. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4560050&forum_id=2#40419236) |
|
Date: June 14th, 2020 10:55 AM Author: misunderstood self-absorbed skinny woman Suspect showed a willingness to fight with cops, steal their weapons and fire them on the cops. Don't think it's a stretch that the cops could reasonably fear he may incapacitate them with the taser and take their gun and use that on them. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4560050&forum_id=2#40414100) |
|
Date: June 14th, 2020 7:02 PM Author: Disturbing sex offender Sure, which is why force is totally reasonable here. But there's a delta between "force" and "lethal force". Nobody in their right mind would say the cops should just shrug and let him go; the question is whether they get to kill him. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4560050&forum_id=2#40416676) |
|
Date: June 14th, 2020 7:05 PM Author: misunderstood self-absorbed skinny woman seems reasonable to me to use deadly force in that situation (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4560050&forum_id=2#40416683) |
|
Date: June 14th, 2020 7:07 PM Author: Disturbing sex offender Agree to disagree here, but that's what juries are for. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4560050&forum_id=2#40416698) |
|
Date: June 14th, 2020 7:12 PM Author: Bull headed ape he's not going to get charged. what other force can a cop use against someone is who able to and willing to incapacitate a cop? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4560050&forum_id=2#40416728) |
|
Date: June 14th, 2020 9:01 PM Author: Cerise Parlour Nowag the only non-deadly force option would have been the taser, but nig took his taser already! (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4560050&forum_id=2#40417335) |
|
Date: June 14th, 2020 9:14 PM Author: Buck-toothed contagious quadroon ceo Let him get away. File a report. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4560050&forum_id=2#40417405) |
|
Date: June 14th, 2020 9:17 PM Author: Cerise Parlour Nowag reasonable chance he may kill u tho (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4560050&forum_id=2#40417426) |
|
Date: June 15th, 2020 3:40 AM Author: brass bespoke sweet tailpipe weed whacker you better be able to prove at trial that that particular taser was capable of firing, capable of incapacitating the officer, and that an untrained guy running full speed for what he feels is his life can turn around and fire over his shoulder and have any reasonable chance of "incapacitating" a cop also running at full speed. don't forget to factor in wind, humidity, etc. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4560050&forum_id=2#40419242) |
|
Date: June 14th, 2020 10:57 AM Author: Violent son of senegal pisswyrm “Legal” is irrelevant
From now on we go by black people feels |
|
Date: June 14th, 2020 7:04 PM Author: Disturbing sex offender Also, cons trying desperately here to thread the needle between "a taser is not deadly when the police use it" and "someone else with a taser could be deadly". (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4560050&forum_id=2#40416682) |
|
Date: June 14th, 2020 7:12 PM Author: Bull headed ape also the second cop tried to taser the keed and either missed or it didn't work.
This is tangentially why cops should change use of force protocols to not draw so easily (though this case was 100% justified).
If you have a cop draw on someone who is just walking towards them, the cop has no way to compel compliance other than shooting. |
|
Date: June 14th, 2020 7:20 PM Author: Chestnut mediation base Seems double-edged for cops to try to set precedent that tasers are deadly force?
obviously in normal times a cop would never be charged or disciplined for this but now? lol |
|
Date: June 14th, 2020 7:35 PM Author: misunderstood self-absorbed skinny woman 'tasers are deadly force' is a loser argument but you dont need to reach that to find the officer's conduct to be justified here (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4560050&forum_id=2#40416849) |
|
Date: June 14th, 2020 9:06 PM Author: Cerise Parlour Nowag cr.
|
|
Date: June 14th, 2020 9:09 PM Author: Olive concupiscible internal respiration corn cake LOL no. Cops say they can use tasers against unarmed people specifically because they're NOT deadly. I'm sure the Cop's lawyer will say some bullshit like "well mur hur, the black man didn't know how to use the taser so it was deadly in his hands because he could have shot my client in the nuts." But no reasonable person is going to buy that shit. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4560050&forum_id=2#40417372) |
|
Date: June 14th, 2020 9:11 PM Author: aquamarine boltzmann halford Don't think it matters bro. If he was running towards him with a knockout syringe he could also shoot him (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4560050&forum_id=2#40417389) |
|
Date: June 14th, 2020 9:10 PM Author: Zombie-like regret sound barrier Is this the standard though? Sure if it was straight self defense between civilians but aren't there different standards for a cop discharging his weapon in the line of duty? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4560050&forum_id=2#40417378) |
|
Date: June 14th, 2020 9:26 PM Author: Cerise Parlour Nowag i dunno. is there a special self-defense standard for an officer, beyond what a reasonable officer would fear in that situation? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4560050&forum_id=2#40417489) |
|
Date: June 14th, 2020 9:30 PM Author: Zombie-like regret sound barrier Or if he reasonably is trying to stop the guy from causing harm to the public. Or maybe the gun was appropriately used not with the intent to kill but to apprehend and the fact that it resulted in a death is inconsequential. I'm talking out of my ass right now. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4560050&forum_id=2#40417515) |
|
Date: June 14th, 2020 9:33 PM Author: Cerise Parlour Nowag sure, defense of others is the parallel of self-defense. on these facts tho, it's hard to see how anyone else the cop could reasonably been protecting besides himself and the other cop. this wasnt a madman on the loose shooting up random shit.
a gun is used as deadly force, not to apprehend. it's either ok to shoot or it's not. |
|
Date: June 14th, 2020 10:26 PM Author: Appetizing rigpig https://scholarship.law.slu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1029&context=plr
See page 138. If that’s still Georgia law, would seem like there’s a good argument that the suspect posed an immediate risk of bodily harm. I think arguments that the taser itself is deadly or that the risk of harm all told was grave would probably be pretty weak. |
|
Date: June 15th, 2020 1:58 AM Author: Honey-headed pontificating hall "when the officer reasonably believes that the suspect poses an immediate threat of physical violence to the officer or others; or when there is probable cause to believe that the suspect has committed a crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm."
So we all agree that the use of force was permissible here, right? |
|
Date: June 15th, 2020 2:56 AM Author: Appetizing rigpig "when the officer reasonably believes that the suspect poses an immediate threat of physical violence to the officer or others"
i think this is far broader than most state jurisdictions and _garner_ (civil case, but many states crafted their criminal officer use of lethal force and defense of self/other provisions to track). plain language reading under georgia law i suspect officer should escape liability. whether the officer assault constitutes some kind of inherently dangerous felony (what the second bit of language is getting at, i think) is less clear to me. i'd have to read the two or three most apposite cases. |
|
Date: June 15th, 2020 2:42 PM Author: Honey-headed pontificating hall That's a long way to write "yes." (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4560050&forum_id=2#40422163) |
|
Date: June 14th, 2020 9:38 PM Author: Appetizing rigpig Either one of the cops could have shot the suspect DD during the initial melee on the ground and maybe a second or two after without issue. I don’t think the backwards effort to taser blast is going to save this cop from a murder charge, absent some clever work on the facts and reasonable doubt from his attorney at trial. And I’d be shocked if an appellate court overturned a guilty verdict on the theory that under the circumstances of the attempt to arrest and give chase (which may be largely undisputed in light of the video evidence), the objective prong of the defense of self/others affirmative defense was met (or otherwise fits within _Garner_).
[actually Georgia’s self-defense statute appears more capacious than _Garner_]. |
|
Date: June 15th, 2020 2:00 AM Author: Bull headed ape backwards effort to taser blast is meaningless? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4560050&forum_id=2#40419110) |
|
Date: June 15th, 2020 2:01 AM Author: Honey-headed pontificating hall The cops are supposed to evaluate his aim in a couple tenths of a second while literally running and know that it was going to suck. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4560050&forum_id=2#40419112) |
|
Date: June 15th, 2020 2:47 AM Author: Appetizing rigpig objectively speaking under the circumstances present, doesn't seem like a grave risk--if you allow the suspect (who is already a considerable distance ahead) to continue to flee, what's the harm apt to be? it's a fluid situation, so if the fleeing suspect decides to turn back and charge, obviously the analysis can change (even in the state the suspect/perp was in, not too likely). there would be probably at least two officers back and ready to draw if anything like that happened. as i said earlier in this thread, either officer would've been at liberty to cap perp during the initial struggle on the ground and immediately after, before the retreat dissipated the risk. as i also noted earlier in this thread, i'm not aware of the closest section 1983 analogues (i'm sure there are taser cases in some jurisdictions but presumably generally in close quarters where there's a substantial risk of officer incapacitation), so i'm not sure whether there would be civil liability, and the self-defense provisions applicable to georgia police officers look broad enough that criminal liability seems unlikely (unless the judge declines to find a preponderance of the evidence favoring the defense pre-trial, and the jury reverse nullifies--if my read of georgia law is right, the officer is apt to present the defense to the judge pre-trial on a preponderance standard, and if not it would go to the jury on a reasonable doubt standard as to requisite intent).
anyway, it shouldn't be grist for a race war; acting as though perp did "nothing wrong" is stupendously stupid; acting like this is something beyond a perhaps criminally culpable mistake (and the liability in that context can be high when you aim to kill) that we'd seek to deter specifically and generally with the "right" liability rules and training is also stupid. |
|
Date: June 15th, 2020 2:54 AM Author: Honey-headed pontificating hall "doesn't seem like a grave risk--if you allow the suspect (who is already a considerable distance ahead) to continue to flee, what's the harm apt to be?"
He asked about the shot that actually happened. You're raising an irrelevant hypothetical. No one seriously doubts the police had a right to chase Brooks. The issue is the appropriateness of firing a gun at a violent person who first turned and fired a taser. |
|
Date: June 15th, 2020 3:01 AM Author: Appetizing rigpig no, i'm talking about the actual facts. perp half turned and missed and continued to flee all the while. unless i somehow didn't see what "really" happened in the clip, the officer fired when it was already apparent to the officer that perp missed with the tase volley and was continuing to flee. some have claimed that such tasers can't even fire more than once--if that's true (and i have myself don't know), it's even clearer that the officer could've simply relented. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4560050&forum_id=2#40419203) |
|
Date: June 15th, 2020 3:49 AM Author: Honey-headed pontificating hall "when it was already apparent to the officer"
In my video editing software, I get about 1.2 seconds between Brooks's first shot and the cop's first shot. Human reaction time to simple auditory clues is about 0.25 seconds. And it takes time to actually pull a trigger, probably about that long. So the cop had 0.7 seconds while running to make a decision. Tell me what analysis you think should happen in those 0.7 seconds that would make it "apparent to the officer." |
|
Date: June 15th, 2020 3:59 AM Author: Appetizing rigpig given the officer is apt to have a thorough background knowledge of the difference between a taser and a e.g. revolver, requiring the officer to make a reasonable split-second decision doesn't seem unfair to me--at least, it seems like the least bad option (you do have to take timing into account, but it's certainly not the law--even as a descriptive rather than prescriptive manner--that any decision made by a police officer to apply lethal force to some potential threat within a split second is justified). that said, as i've already noted, the relevant extant criminal law in georgia appears to be extremely officer friendly. it probably shouldn't be to the extent it is, but i expect the officer in this very case to benefit from it. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4560050&forum_id=2#40419254) |
|
Date: June 15th, 2020 3:28 AM Author: brass bespoke sweet tailpipe weed whacker fine. this one is justified, and qualified immunity is waived henceforth anytime anyone is injured or killed by a pisspants cop tazing someone. i'll take that trade. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4560050&forum_id=2#40419231) |
|
Date: June 15th, 2020 3:50 AM Author: Honey-headed pontificating hall Ok. I've never been a defender of qualified immunity. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4560050&forum_id=2#40419252) |
|
Date: June 15th, 2020 3:34 AM Author: Talented market water buffalo lol spaceporn (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4560050&forum_id=2#40419241) |
|
Date: June 15th, 2020 2:49 PM Author: charcoal chapel Atlanta prosecutors have already said use of taser = person should fear for their life.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wsbtv.com/news/local/atlanta/attorney-says-da-rushed-charge-officers-involved-tasing-college-students/Y3RHMIZ2ZNCC7HA723UGEKQS54/%3foutputType=amp |
|
Date: June 15th, 2020 3:02 PM Author: crawly stag film Not reading this thread. Serious bodily injury.
At least in civil cases, probably cause to great death or bodily injury to others is also a defense. Tenn. v. Garner. |