Man dies in Connecticut after being shot with stun gun

Source: Reuters

Man dies in Connecticut after being shot with stun gun
NEW YORK | Sun May 1, 2011 3:28pm EDT

NEW YORK (Reuters) - A man died in police custody early on Sunday in Connecticut after he was shot with a stun gun in the back of a squad car, authorities said.

The incident began just after midnight in the lobby of St. Mary's Hospital in Waterbury, when police received a report of a man creating a disturbance.

Waterbury police said they arrested the man and placed him in the back of a police cruiser. He continued to be combative and was shot with a Taser stun gun, police said.

He became unresponsive and was taken into the hospital, where he died after attempts to resuscitate him failed, police said.



Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/05/01/us-crime-stungun-idUSTRE7402LS20110501?rpc=401&feedType=RSS&feedName=domesticNews&rpc=401

Why not just shoot the bastard? Oh yeah, all that blood and guts all over the back seat.

The are referred as less-than-lethal weapons. Also Taser international came out with a disclaimer for its user not to shoot someone in the chest.

I'm sure you copied the headline correctly from Reuters - their subtle
spin is nauseating, though.

using stun guns? They've used them on children, pregnant women, disabled people, old people, etc. I can think of a few extreme situations where a stun gun would be appropriate and life-saving, but it appears that many police officers are poorly trained and just use it whenever it suits them.

...devices.

And their training does in fact stress that they are not for this purpose. Unfortuantely the relative safety of the device (particularly over a gun) is also heavily featured.

Out in the field this translates into too many cops thinking a taser for him the uncooperative crim, beats the hell out of a kick in the guts or a wrenched back for me the good guy. A few do it out of true sadism, but most of the time it's simply convenience and basic human laziness which we are ALL sometimes prey too. And sometimes it's a boil over of job related frustration, seeing one too many dead or battered spouse or kid being loaded into an ambulance; watching a grinning and gesturing punk walk because of a misstyped date on a warrant; that niggling back injury flaring up in a struggle; a dog poo induced excursion from vertical to horizontal mid-chase.


Note I'm only defining the problem, not attempting to excuse it in any way.

and I can see Tasers as reasonable crime fighting tools, if used appropriately. It appears that there are officers who use them like you say "as compliance devices". Use on elderly women or young children shows very poor judgment, not to mention it makes those officers look downright wimpy.

:sarcasm:

man's family, I'd sue until I owned that state. Enough!

they should go back to a .38.

So many things wrong with this sentence. The man was shot by a stun gun; in the back? The man is a squad car? He is a squad car and was shot in the back part of it.

I assume this is supposed to read; "shot with a stun gun while in the back of a squad car."

Just saying.

and this is what I got.

http://blogs.kansascity.com/crime_scene/files/amnesty_international_156_deaths_in_u.S.%20after%20Taser%20use%20by%20police.pdf

Couldn't find the date, but it's WAY too many~

If he was IN THE BACK OF THE SQUAD CAR, then they already had him contained.
The way to the front seat is barred, and the doors don't open from the inside.

They were obviously using the stun gun to "punish" (i.e. torture) him.

Or he might have been spitting on the cops.


I've seen episodes of "Cops" where the former has happened and the police have to intervene to keep the person from hurting themselves. I imagine the spitting is a bio-hazard issue. After all, the cops don't know what diseases the guy may have as he's spraying spit everywhere.

It's possible the cops were just getting too frisky with their "less-lethal" toys. They seem to be convinced a Taser is in fact a phaser (from "Star Trek") set on "light stun". Just give somebody a quick zap when they get unruly, right? Right?

It's also possible they were trying to keep a man from hurting himself or from catching an infectious disease.

just wondering.

:shrug:

and in regards to keeping him from hurting himself. mission accomplished.

And when I see the police toss some drunk guy in the back of a cruiser and he keeps slamming his head into a glass window, that's reason enough to try to restrain him further before he hurts himself.

I'm not defending anybody, just pointing out possibilities. I suspect the grand jury will have to sort through these stuff as well.

I think stun guns should be made illegal.