No, just those who are catatonic.
"Even if the woman was wrong to drive ..."
Whoa! Stop right there! IF she was wrong to drive? Are you saying there's some doubt about whether this woman was capable of driving?
And what's with the "even if"? It's the "even if" that brought about the problem to begin with.
AFAIC, all bets are off once this woman got behind the wheel in that condition -- she has no excuse, none, to drive impaired. Drunk or hypoglycemic, she could have killed someone.
Oh get real, Diabetes is controllable and people with it shouldn't be excluded from driving. Besides that people walk around not knowing they have it until something happens, this woman possible never had it before the accident. Still no excuse to taser an accident victim.
I would guess that the gal did not have her problem until after she was on the road, and did not attempt to drive after her problems occurred. I would give her the benefit of doubt. You would assume she took the wheel in her coma, to justify her treatment.
Those who have access to his personnel records and his union brothers, should pay the judgment, not the taxpayers. Since the public has no access to the personal files, the public is not the employer.
"AFAIC, all bets are off once this woman got behind the wheel in that condition -- she has no excuse, none, to drive impaired. Drunk or hypoglycemic, she could have killed someone."
Damn, good thing you weren't there, you might have just shot her.
Do you know anything about diabetes (not a flip question). Even if one tests blood sugar just before driving, one can find oneself in a hypoglycemic state ("a low") shortly thereafter. Pushing the sugars too high can be just as bad.
You might as well say that anyone who has a heart condition (or a heart) should be banned from driving - because they might have a heart attack and end up driving in a catatonic state. I'll turn my driver's license in after you do.