industryterm:electronic control device

  • How They Did It: Reuters’ Database of #Taser Deaths
    https://gijn.org/2017/10/02/how-they-did-it-reuters-massive-database-of-taser-deaths

    In a sweeping investigation, a team of Reuters reporters, editors and data analysts raised serious questions about the claim of Taser’s manufacturer that no one has died directly from the device’s shock. Reviewing the results of hundreds of autopsies, filing hundreds of public records requests and other painstaking open-source research made the investigation possible.

    “For example, we might have a news story that mentioned a death, but we wouldn’t have the person’s identity or it would be unclear whether a Taser was involved, so we’d use police records to flesh out the facts and determine whether the case met the criteria we’d set for cases we were including in our database. Once a case was confirmed to meet our criteria, we’d move it to a master spreadsheet and it would be assigned to a reporter for further investigation.

    “We used a similar process to sort through legal databases, such as Westlaw, Lexis and Pacer. Again, we’d use the broadest possible search parameters to identify any lawsuit involving Tasers (in addition to using ‘Taser’ as a key word, we also used various iterations of the more generic phrases used to describe these weapons, such as ‘electronic control device’).

    “This process returned thousands of court records, and we went through every one of them to see if it qualified as a Taser-related wrongful death suit (we decided early in the project to focus only on fatalities and opted not to tally injury cases, because the universe simply would have been too large to manage). Reviewing the lawsuits was an enormously time-consuming and painstaking process.

    “Our search for lawsuits served two functions: not only was it the basis for our assessment of the litigation burden associated with fatal police incidents involving Tasers, it also turned up scores of deaths that got no coverage from local news media. So if we’d used only news reports as a way to track down fatal incidents involving Tasers, we would have missed a lot of them. This was particularly true in more rural areas or in big cities where a fatal police incident, in itself, might not get covered in local news accounts.”

    • Shock Tactics
      https://www.reuters.com/investigates/section/usa-taser

      Reuters documented 1,005 incidents in the United States in which people died after police stunned them with Tasers, nearly all since the early 2000s – the most thorough accounting to date of fatal encounters involving the paralyzing stun guns.

      Many of the casualties are among society’s vulnerable. A quarter of the people who died, like Schrock, were suffering from a mental health breakdown or neurological disorder. In nine of every 10 incidents, the deceased was unarmed. More than 100 of the fatal encounters began with a 911 call for help during a medical emergency.

  • Federal Jury Awards $10 Million Against TASER International for Teenager’s Death — CHARLOTTE, N.C., July 19, 2011 /PRNewswire/ —
    http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/federal-jury-awards-10-million-against-taser-international-for-teenagers

    Attorneys John Burton and Peter M. Williamson announce that at 2:30 p.m. EDT today, a federal court jury returned a verdict for wrongful death in the amount of $10,000,000.00 against TASER International Inc., for the wrongful death of 17-year-old Darryl Turner, who collapsed and died in a Charlotte, North Carolina supermarket on March 20, 2008, following shocks to the chest from a TASER Model X26 electronic control device.

    The jury found that TASER negligently failed to warn that discharging its X26 model ECD into the chest of a subject near the heart poses a substantial risk of cardiac arrest to persons against whom the device is deployed. The plaintiffs are the parents, Devoid Turner and Tammy Lou Fontenot.

    The Mecklenburg County medical examiner, Thomas D. Owens, M.D., found no drugs in Turner’s system, and reported his heart to be disease free. Accordingly, Dr. Owens attributed death to “agitated state, stress and use of conducted energy device (TASER).”

    After the verdict was announced, John Burton, lead counsel for the plaintiffs, explained the importance of the verdict: “TASER has been irresponsible in representing the safety of its products. Hopefully, this verdict will sound the alarm to police officers around the world that firing these weapons into the chests of people should be avoided. No other family should have to endure the tragedy that the Fontenot family has experienced.”

    The lawsuit is Fontenot v. TASER International, Inc., United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, Charlotte Division, Case No. 3:10-CV-125. The jury consisted of five women and three men. United States District Judge Robert Conrad presided.