Jury finds Taser accountable for man's death, awards $6m settlement to family

Oh Taser, your house of cards is about to come crumbling down, blown apart by the winds of US litigation and the righteous fury of your mostly innocent victims. Last Friday, a federal jury in San Jose, California found the stun-gun-maker responsible for the death of Robert Heston Jr., a 40-year-old man, and has awarded his family more than $6 million in damages. Sure, Heston had an enlarged heart due to long-term methamphetamine abuse, but it was the Taser shocks that sent him to a better place. Despite a 12 percent drop in stock value after the ruling, the company continues to pump the devices into the marketplace, but at the very least this should make folks pause before they start juicing people full of electricity... those things aren't toys you know.

[Via Wired]

[theapple @ Jun 11th 2008 3:58AM]

lol bad choice using a taser. I thought they were not meant to kill you.

[Shaocaholica @ Jun 11th 2008 4:15AM]

Depends on your heart condition. Read the story, the guy was a meth addict which made his heart weak.

I can think of a lot of things that can kill/injure a person with a weak heart that wouldn't ordinarily be considered lethal.

[zzz @ Jun 11th 2008 4:23AM]

There's nothing to get worked up about here, I'm pretty sure that the damages are going to get lowered by the U.S. Court of Appeals.

Oh wait, that's 9th Circuit. Taser is going to get fucked in the a*.

[PJK @ Jun 11th 2008 4:23AM]

The guy was getting the taser, or a beating with a nightstick. In the majority of cases the taser is safer and will cause less harm than the alternatives. The guy was high on meth at the time, and was apportioned 85% of the blame in his own death. Which means it was mostly suicide by cop, I'm guessing this will be appealed.

[Landon @ Jun 12th 2008 10:27AM]

@zzz

So you * @$$ but not the word before it? lol Nice....

[hiko36 @ Jun 11th 2008 8:46AM]

@zzz

You censor ass but not fuck???

[I LOVE THE CAPS LOCK KEY @ Jun 11th 2008 10:27AM]

@theapple

Bad choice to use a Taser? I suppose a gun would have been better.. At least with a Taser the odds of you dying are way low compared to the officer's .45Cal pistol.

[Cornelius @ Jun 11th 2008 11:14AM]

@zzz

You do realize that the 9th circuit court is the most overturned court in the nation.

[zzz @ Jun 11th 2008 5:42PM]

Oh, yeah, like it's going to end up in the Supreme Court. Dream on.

[Garst @ Jun 11th 2008 7:40PM]

Tasers still kill a hell of a lot less people than bullets. Remember guns don't kill people; bullets kill people. And let's face it, a lot more people would be mad if bullets were used instead of tasers.

[sentient.exe @ Jun 11th 2008 4:07AM]

$6m in meth would make for a helluva funeral party.

[eric @ Jun 11th 2008 6:19AM]

that'll cover enough meth to kill off the rest of his family.

Seriously, how does a dead meth head work out to 6 million? I'd say cremation and legal fees at the most.

[Matt @ Jun 11th 2008 8:23AM]

If anything I'd award Taser the $6mil for doing a public service.

I keed, I keed. But not really.

[Idlemind @ Jun 11th 2008 9:52AM]

How is his life worth $6million you ask?

Of course they are taking into account the many years of future earning-potential in addition to the countless family event no-shows they will miss out on. Not to mention the defense-fund fund raisers they cant have now....

[marty.com.au @ Jun 11th 2008 4:12AM]

wow thats shocking...

[craig#2 @ Jun 11th 2008 6:23AM]

NICE!

[droopy1592 @ Jun 11th 2008 8:23AM]

LOL!!!

[ehisforadam @ Jun 11th 2008 8:50AM]

I see what you did there.

[noxin @ Jun 11th 2008 4:18AM]

NRA caught with their pants down, i hope gun makers gets sued to hell.

[Shaocaholica @ Jun 11th 2008 4:22AM]

You're an idiot.

[Dylan @ Jun 11th 2008 4:33AM]

I second that notion.

[Jimbo @ Jun 11th 2008 4:43AM]

Well, to be fair, this is bad for the NRA. Because fewer Tasers means more shootings. More shootings is generally bad for gun rights advocates.

I'm not exactly glad that a methhead is dead, though if he sold the stuff he deserved it. This should have been ruled a suicide, since it's clear his enlarged heart was the real problem that got him killed, and he did that with his drugs.

But we don't have an eggshell skull defense, so Taser gets the blame.


Think about it: this is the first time a Taser has conclusively killed someone (though I'm sure it's not the actual first time). That's out of hundreds of thousands of uses, and the dead guy was a drug addict who had ruined his heart! The Taser seems like it's safer than a Tomato.

[Cameron Elliott @ Jun 11th 2008 5:18AM]

You mean like a tomato before the salmonella outbreak, or after the outbreak?

[Raytaka1222 @ Jun 11th 2008 8:13AM]

Epic fail reply. Close out your web browser and go sit in the corner and think about your comment.

[LinuxMacWindows Fanboy @ Jun 11th 2008 4:16AM]

some kid in the hallway in 7th grade (no joke!) a few years ago tasered me and my friend in the hallway. we thought it was funny...but it hurt like aids. it was like a whip smacking you. we didnt tell on him......but he still got expelled (some1 saw)

[blade417 @ Jun 11th 2008 8:28AM]

so... you have aids?

[marty.com.au @ Jun 11th 2008 4:16AM]

You could jump out and say BOO! to someone with a heart condition and kill them....

[LondonConsultant @ Jun 11th 2008 5:09AM]

And if I was using a loudspeaker at the time, an American lawyer would sue the loudspeaker company...

[danny @ Jun 11th 2008 4:21AM]

so who did the tazering?

[Paul @ Jun 11th 2008 11:09AM]

Seriously, do gun makers get sued when a gun kills someone? Why the hell should the people who make tasers get sued when a taser kills someone?

Who the hell pulled the trigger on the taser? Shouldnt they be the ones held responsible? Oh thats right, the evil taser company made them do it.

[Ronald @ Jun 11th 2008 3:09PM]

No but cops these days get taser crazy, they feel the need to taser someone just for talking too loud. yes is a better alternative than guns but they need to restrained from using it until is REALLY necessary.

[d840 @ Jun 11th 2008 4:39PM]

When the police were first issued tasers, they were only to be used IN PLACE OF their handguns. But then something changed. Now they taser protesters and unarmed civillians. Cops aren't allowed to pull guns on unarmed protesters, but they can use tasers on them???

And whoever pulled the trigger on that taser should be at least partially responsible, but it really depends on the circumstances. If the meth-head guy was coming at her (an assumption, yes, but statistically speaking most civillian taser users are female) with a knife, then tasing him would seem reasonable.

However, because people know guns can kill them, there is a huge intimidation factor there. If the one who did the tasering had pulled a gun on him instead, he might have stopped doing whatever it was that would get him tasered because he would know that he could die. Anyway, that's my $0.02

[keptin @ Jun 11th 2008 4:23AM]

If this becomes a problem for police, then I can't see any other option than going back to mace and firearms. I trust a taser not to kill someone more than I would an officer aiming for a non-lethal take down shot.

[Shaocaholica @ Jun 11th 2008 4:28AM]

"officer aiming for a non-lethal take down shot."

I'm pretty sure they don't ever do this.

[keptin @ Jun 11th 2008 4:45AM]

My mistake, to rephrase, I would rather they have the option of using a taser without the fear of being liable. If the company is to blame for taser deaths, it won't be very long until those using them will be blamed also (or will no longer have the option of using a taser). I think they save more lives in the long run, despite rare circumstances like this one.

[Daza @ Jun 11th 2008 6:20AM]

When police shoot they shoot for the largest part of your body, which is your torso. This of course has all sorts of vital organs such as the heart and lungs. I don't think cops ever try and shoot you in a non-lethal manner, because anywhere in the torso is going to be pretty bad.

[Jack @ Jun 11th 2008 6:36AM]

correct, centre of mass ftw

[David @ Jun 11th 2008 7:18AM]

That's what Keptin is saying - he trusts a taser not to kill more than he trusts a cop to fire a non-lethal shot

That cops rarely fire non-lethal leg shots etc. is implicit

[ehisforadam @ Jun 11th 2008 8:55AM]

To be fare, no weapon or shot is totally non-lethal, that's why they use "less lethal." If you shoot someone with a rubber bullet, they can still die, same with shooting a leg, you could hit a major artery. They fire at center mass because they have a better chance of taking someone down. If you shoot someone in the leg, they can still shoot a gun.

[RC @ Jun 11th 2008 4:46AM]

How does this even make sense? 15% responsible, $6 million. So...the guy's estate should pay the rest to the government? No? I'd say if they have to pay money for liability, it should be like $32 or something. The guy's life sounds pretty worthless to begin with.

[Btrain @ Jun 11th 2008 5:07AM]

for all those defending the taser, its not about how lethal it is relative to a gun, or a knife or even a pencil. Its about the portrayal of this weapon being unjustified. If you have been to the taser website, look at the ads and the marketing style. they sell them like ipods and candy. seriously, theyre not toys, theyve been shown to cause serious damage. and so many tragic cases have been because people abuse these things disregarding them as weapons. and more tasers doensnt neccessarily mean less shootings. guns will always be around and nobody is going to counter a gun without a gun. people need to be aware of realistic impact that these things bring.

[Jimbo @ Jun 11th 2008 5:59AM]

That's quite a non sequiter you're pulling.

Of course tasers mean fewer shootings, because not all shootings strictly involve criminals with guns.

A man runs at a cop, and he only has a pistol, and the man is probably going to get shot. If the cop has a taser, there's a strong chance the man will just be tasered. Similarly, batons involve enormous risk to the cop that tasers don't. Mace involves harm to the cop that the taser doesn't. Physically using your hands to restrain a crazy methhead involves risk of injury.

The Taser is not marketed as though it's as safe as an ipod, merely because they offer a Taser holster that plays MP3s or comes in pretty colors. The point of those steps is to obscure and conceal your weapon to make others comfortable or less likely to disarm you. It is a pretty safe item. You claim there are so many tragic cases... where are they? This is the first decision I've heard of, and it places the Taser at 15% responsible. That's not exactly a huge number of cases. Really, it's not even one case where a taser caused a death.

The real problem with tasers seems to be that people fear the police will use force (the taser) when they shouldn't have let the situation escalate at all. They are lazy and rely on it instead of being more patient. This is obviously a legit criticism, but it has far more to do with training and police reform than it has to do with an extremely well made way for a person (almost always a woman or elderly) to protect themselves in one of those gun control cities that is extremely dangerous to live in.

Tasers are really quite safe. Consider how many taser shocks have been administers with how many people have died as a result. And be honest and consider all the millions, yes, millions of people who were disarmed and disabled without being shot or clubbed or swarmed with brute force. It takes a lot less force to turn off your motor skills electrically than it takes to convince your enraged brain that your muscles can no longer withstand all the kicking and broken bones. The Taser has, without any doubt at all, saved many lives, saved many more injuries, etc.

What you really should be asking for is a new form of scrutiny and education for police in how to keep situations from escalating to the 'use force' stage. While Tasers are easy and safe enough that the now increased level of force usage has minimal costs, it's still very important to fix this problem that ultimately is the fault of the police culture, not a weapon (and indeed this problem started with mace, not Tasers).

Don't think I'm some shill for Taser: they are a stupid thing to purchase if you can get a firearm such as a shotgun or a pistol (pistols if you are willing to train... something you can't really do with a taser). You can get a great shotgun for less than a third the price, and it has great deterrence effect, lower liability since you will kill instead of cause suffering in, and it's much easier to use if you have basic understanding. Plus it's cooler.

[Jimbo @ Jun 11th 2008 6:01AM]

when I say,:" A man runs at a cop, and he only has a pistol," by 'he,' I mean the cop has a pistol and the man is unarmed.

[Twitchy @ Jun 11th 2008 6:19AM]

You also have to account for the proximity of engagement - using a Taser (the one that fires barbs which, to my understanding, is the most common Taser weapon issued) allows an officer to subdue someone whilst maintaining a safe distance, unlike when engaging with a night-stick or a torch (Am: Flashlight). As such, in the event of being forced to engage an individual armed with a weapon other than a firearm (such as a knife) the officer has the option to engage using a 'non-lethal' alternative, instead of a shotgun blast to the face.

[Your non sequiter [sic] @ Jun 11th 2008 7:59AM]

@Jimbo

If you are going to go high brow, you should probably spell it right:
Non sequitur

[Miguel @ Jun 11th 2008 9:25AM]

Btrain, funny you should mention the fact that they sell em like toys and ipods. The Taser MPH Holster "mixes music with security". "Play your favorite songs while on the go, with this combination TASER C2 Holster and easy-to-use music player. The 1 GB TASER MPH Holster offers you both security and music while on the go." the most odd description of a product I've ever read. They even have a shirt that reads.. "Don't Be Stupid. TASER Devices: A. Knock You on Your Ass! B. Hurt Like Hell! C. Annoy Criminals! D. Are Avoidable: Just Comply!". a weird marketing system for these devices if you ask me.

[prateeko @ Jun 11th 2008 5:30AM]

Anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of neuroscience knows tasers can't be good for you. Let's see, all of the body's communications operate on a delicate balance (mV) of electrical signals. Compare to the surge of electricity tazers give it's not too hard to see how this could be bad. Forgetting those who already have a heart problem, who is to say what we're going to see down the road for protesting hippies who've been tazed?

But the lawmakers and Tazer companies are right, surely passing a solid jolt through individuals who'd otherwise be easily subdued by canes (which only leave badass scars) by overzealous/power hungry morons under the guise of "non-lethal" can't be a bad idea, can it?

[Just zis guy, you know? @ Jun 11th 2008 9:45AM]

Anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of biomechanics knows getting beat with a nightstick can't be good for you. Let's see, all of the body's movements rely on a choreographed interplay of muscles and connective tissue to move rigid bones. Compare the force of a wooden or metal baton striking those tissues and bones, and it's not too hard to see how this could be bad. Forget those who are already handicapped, who is to say what we're going to see down the road for (insert group the original poster believes should be treated sympathetically) who've been nightsticked?

Anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of fluid dynamics knows getting shot with a bullet can't be good for you. Let's see, all of the body's organs operate on a delicate system of blood vessels to carry oxygen to and waste from them. Compare the loss of fluid and pressue when a bullet tears through major arteries, and it's not too hard to see how this could be bad. Forgetting those who are already hemophiliac, who is to say what we're going to see down the road for (insert group the original poster believes should be treated sympathetically) who've been shot?

[Eric @ Jun 11th 2008 11:29AM]

And that is what we call a bitch slapping. Which anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of...

[Ych99 @ Jun 11th 2008 5:33AM]

Ever since I read about the taser tests on pigs, I've been hoping this company would receive its just desserts.