PAGE 1 Over the last couple of weeks, a training bulletin has set off a controversy throughout the law enforcement community.  This controversy came to light at the Legal & Liability Risk Management Institute when it was learned that a [...]

PAGE 9 It is undisputed, however, that at some point shortly before Mr. Thomson was killed, he was aiming the gun in the direction of the officers. Both Deputies Morrical and Shire perceived Mr. Thomson's conduct as physically threatening to [...]

PAGE 8 A second case, Robinette v. Barnes, involving a canine bite and hold which led to a death is also instructive.i  The court outlined the facts of the case as follows: “Shortly after midnight on July 10, 1984, the ‘K-9’ team [...]

PAGE 7 The jury’s finding in Heston raised the issue of TASER™ International’s liability exposure where it is claimed that there was a failure to warn end users of potential dangers: “With respect to Defendant TASER™, the Jury found that [...]

PAGE 6 PRODUCT LIABILITY As apparent from Heston, the legal dilemma from a products liability perspective is different than the law enforcement liability under the Constitution.  The jeopardy that a manufacturer may face for failing to warn the end users of dangers [...]

PAGE 5 In this case, appellee has conceded that when Oliver struggled to free himself from Officer Burk in the street, he at least arguably placed himself and Officer Burk in some danger, and therefore, under the rationale of Draper, the [...]

PAGE 4 Oliver did not speak before Officer Fiorino pulled out her TASER™ gun and asked Oliver what the problem was. Oliver responded to Fiorino's questions, saying "they're shooting at me" several times, and pointing across the street. Fiorino told [...]

PAGE 3 Deputy Rackard asked [Buckley] several times to stand up. [Buckley] did not do so. The deputy then attempted to lift [Buckley] to his feet; but [Buckley] remained limp and did not stand. After repeatedly and plainly warning [Buckley] [...]