State investigates fatal Taser incident

KARE 11 ^ | 01/17/2008 | KARE 11

[READINABLUESTATE]

State investigators on Thursday were looking into the circumstances surrounding the death of a Fridley man who died after troopers shot him with a Taser.

[READINABLUESTATE]

It seems there is a new Taser death every other day lately. I am starting to think these things should not really be classified as “non fatal”.

[Virginia Ridgerunner]

Lt. Mark Peterson of the State Patrol wouldn't describe the uncooperative behavior, the newspaper said. He didn't return telephone calls Wednesday or Thursday from The Associated Press seeking more information.

Yet another taser death, and the State Police's silence is ominous. My guess is that during the accident investigation the troopers were condescending to the guy (like most troopers are, in my experience), and the guy gave them some lip back, and then ZAPPPPP! He's dead.

[Wally_Kalbacken]

Officer should always ask the suspect:

1. Are you hypertensive?
2. Are you high on crack?
3. Have you used Methampetamines?

If the answer to all three is no, then the officer should as:

4. Do I have your permission to taze you?

[JLS]

A citizen dared not to cooperate with state authority so they killed him. That is certainly what the article sounds like.

[militant2]

And goodness knows that the mainstream media only reports the facts.......

Militant

[JLS]

And goodness knows that the mainstream media only reports the facts.......

So which facts do you doubt here:

1. Do you think the guy is not dead and this is ruse for him to become a secret agent of some kind?

2. Do you think the incident was not a traffic accident but rather something more was involved really it was an armed robbery reported as a traffic accident?

3. Do you think the guy was not really tased? Perhaps he was struck by lightening and the reporter hates the police and changed it to a tasing in the story?

These are about the 3 facts other than the identity of the fellow that are reported. So unless you doubt these facts, a citizen was driving to the airport, was involved in a traffic accident and the police killed him. Now maybe their will be a reason for tasing him better than did not cooperate. But it better be a good reason and much better than failed to cooperate in a situation one is under no obligation to cooperate to prevent homicide charges.

[1rudeboy]

Yet another taser death, and the State Police's silence is ominous.

What's so ominous about the silence?

[1rudeboy]

I think cops should go back to using nightsticks, but you should know where that would lead.

[passionfruit]

The article says he became uncooperative. It doesn’t say that he threatened the officers or that they feared for their lives. Five officers involved? Couldn’t they subdue him without killing him?

[em2vn]

A sharp Freeper previously used the term usually less than lethal. That makes a great difference as to how they should be allowed to be used.

[tsomer]

The article says he became uncooperative. It doesn’t say that he threatened the officers or that they feared for their lives

That's what the cop said. The victim wasn't able to give his side.

So he probably talked back. Do we really expect the cops to be doctors too, anticipating every little thing that can go wrong?

Had the schmuck stayed home, it wouldn't have happened.

Now we have a policeman is feeling real bad about this.

[Arthalion]

The article says he became uncooperative. It doesn’t say that he threatened the officers or that they feared for their lives.

Indeed. There are too many videos out there of cops tazing people just for asking questions, or for not reacting to their orders quickly enough, for these claims to simply be accepted at face value any longer.

IMHO, tazer use should be deemed equal to firearms usage for an officer. When an officer fires his gun in the line of duty, even if he doesn't hit anything, the officer is usually placed on leave while an investigation into the shooting is completed. If the investigation finds that the firearm use was justified, he can come back to work. If not, he gets punished. Same thing should go for tazers. I have no qualms with officers using one to save their lives or to bring a genuinely violent criminal under control, but far too many police simply use them as compliance devices. If they simply don't like what you're doing, they zap you until you comply.

[Virginia Ridgerunner]

Closing ranks, hoping the press will go away, until the (ahem) “investigation” quietly clears the five troopers in about six weeks, long after anyone other than the family will cease caring.

[1rudeboy]

Stories like this do not “go away,” investigations take time (and you can’t talk during).

[militant2]

Well, friend, I don’t dispute any of the “facts” as you just stated them. Your first response of “A citizen dared not to cooperate with state authority so they killed him.” implies something much more sinister and deliberate.

The author of the article clearly goes out of his way to make it look like the police are being uncooperative and not forthcoming with information about the nature of the victim’s behavior at the time of the incident, and then pulls in the grieving family to provide information to make it look like there is a cover-up (no history of heart problems, etc.). In lieu of a blatant accusation, the innuendo is clearly there.

A typical MSM tactic, designed to sensationalize the article and to imply that those evil policemen murdered that poor innocent boy for no real good reason!!

Don’t take it personally......

Militant

[BatGuano]

Don’t Tase me Bro’.

My apologies to all.

[JLS]

Homicide is homicide. You or I or police officers kill someone it is homocide. Whether this is a case of murder or involuntary manslaughter might take the tape to determine again unless they have a very good reason to have tased him. But police officers do not have an arbitrary right to tase or kill people driving to the airport or at traffic accidents. Unless someone was being taken into custody and resisted, this was likely a crime.

When one’s actions lead to the death of someone else sometimes it is justifiable, but often it is a crime. That they or me or you hoped we were not using deadly force does not matter. Sorry to have to correct your ignorance on this point, but don’t take it personally.

[militant2]

“Sorry to have to correct your ignorance on this point, but don’t take it personally.” Cute....nice diversion.

You make a lot of assumptions based on the limited information in the article. You use the terms “sometimes”, “likely” and “often”, without having knowledge of specific activities that occurred in this situation. You’ve already concluded that the police have committed a crime. Congrats, MSM.....you’ve swayed another citizen!

Sorry you felt you needed to get defensive, friend. This is supposed to be a forum that allows for all takes on the topics at hand.

Militant

[JLS]

This is supposed to be a forum that allows for all takes on the topics at hand.

Then why did you immediately resort to name calling concerning my response? Why did you continue name calling in your most recent response?

Do you not understand or accept that the police are subject to the same laws as the rest of us? Do you not accept that when government agents someone the government agents must explain what happened?