Ever so quietly in a Thanksgiving Day news story Vermont State gives notice of an out of court settlement and payout in a taser related incident from 2006.The $40,000 settlement is called “frankly ,a business decision” to avoid risk of trial .
The Vermont Attorney General’s Office has paid $40,000 to settle a lawsuit brought by a man who claims he was Tasered in 2006 by state police as he was having a seizure that was mistaken as an attempt to resist arrest.
State police deny wrongdoing, state assistant attorney general J.J. Tyzbir told the Valley News. He said he agreed to the settlement to avoid the risk of trial, where a jury could have awarded more money.
“We still believe Mr. Fairbrother was not actually in the throes of a seizure,” Tyzbir said. “We believe Mr. Fairbrother was actually trying to evade the officers and was resisting them and was noncompliant. But whenever you go to trial, you risk not getting a favorable outcome. This was, frankly, a business decision.”
A wise business decision might include continued review of the Taser policy as local police continue to equip themselves with the Tasers.
This October the Taser Company issued a training bulletin warning that 50,000 volt tasering could cause an “adverse cardiac event” when shot in the chest. Avoiding the chest, face and neck is now strongly advised .Suggested shot placements currently include back abdomen and thighs.
A Vermont State Attorney General Taser policy report of 2008 in its conclusion suggests room for further review of their safety.
There remain questions about the safety of the taser’s use in certain
situations and on certain categories of subjects. These
questions are particularly important in situations when
multiple tases or extended continuous tasings of a subject
are inflicted and when subjects are manifesting a condition
called “excited delirium”. Continued study of the safety and
health effects of tasers is warranted.
also posted on Green Mountain Daily
No comments:
Post a Comment