Judge rules that police officer will remain fired for tazing and elderly nursing home resident to death.

Courthouse News

Firing Proper for Use of Taser on Addled Senior
By JEFF D. GORMAN

(CN) - A police officer who repeatedly Tasered a naked nursing home patient with Alzheimer's disease was properly fired, the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled.

Doug Martin, an officer in Peru, Ind., had been summoned to Miller's Merry Manor on June 17, 2012, after a nurse called 911 for help in transporting a patient who had hit his roommate, a nurse and a nursing assistant.

Martin and his partner, Officer Jeremy Brindle, entered the Alzheimer's ward to find 64-year-old James Howard sitting in a chair, wearing socks and nothing else. Howard refused the officers' command to lie on a gurney and advanced toward Brindle, who tried to handcuff Howard.

When Brindle lost control of one of Howard's wrists, Martin yelled "Taser" and deployed it on Howard's torso. Martin zapped Howard five times for a total of 31 seconds.

Howard's wife complained, and Martin was fired after a department investigation and a hearing before the city's Board of Public Works and Safety. The reasons for his termination were excessive force and conduct unbecoming an officer.

Martin took the case to the Miami Superior Court, which overturned Martin's firing, citing more than 100 "reasons that the decision should not be affirmed."

The city of Peru and its police department appealed the ruling, arguing that the trial court had substituted its opinion for that of the board.

In another reversal last week, the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled that Martin was properly fired, citing the testimony of Jon Jumper who trained Martin on the use of a Taser.

"Jumper testified that Martin had specifically been instructed - in the recertification presentation - on the increased risk of death or serious injury for exposure over 15 seconds, whether due to multiple applications or continuous cycling," Judge Lloyd Bailey wrote for a three-member panel.

"Intervals to achieve compliance were very short, with only a two-second interval between the third and fourth deployments. Moreover, it is noteworthy that Howard was handcuffed after the third Taser application," Bailey added
.
The panel chided the lower court for having "disregarded evidence favorable to (the board's) decision, credited the testimony of witnesses that the trial court did not personally hear, and misstated evidence regarding the scope of Martin's training. In short, the trial court reweighed the evidence and reassessed the credibility of witnesses."

------------------

Apparently there has been an increase in deaths that have resulted from improper use of tazers. Another article on police officers reprimanded for excessive use of tazers: http://www.columbiatribune.com/news/...db48cca4b.html

So the tasering would have been acceptable if stopped after 15 seconds?

So the tasering would have been acceptable if stopped after 15 seconds? Originally Posted by Jewish Lawyer

Yes dumbass. Can't you read? Probably does not help the Cops case to taser them after having handcuffed him...

Courthouse News





"Jumper testified that Martin had specifically been instructed - in the recertification presentation - on the increased risk of death or serious injury for exposure over 15 seconds, whether due to multiple applications or continuous cycling," Judge Lloyd Bailey wrote for a three-member panel.

"Intervals to achieve compliance were very short, with only a two-second interval between the third and fourth deployments. Moreover, it is noteworthy that Howard was handcuffed after the third Taser application," Bailey added
.
.html Originally Posted by Stan.Dupp

So the tasering would have been acceptable if stopped at 15 seconds? Originally Posted by Jewish Lawyer

According to his re-qual training as related by the Court (on appeal), apparently...

... there must be an opinion written somewhere, if not soon.

I'm glad some courts got involved in the decision making ....

.......................... the report seems a little fuzzy though ....

This is one of the training manuals for police tazers in PDF format. Very straight forward. It shows the do's and don'ts of using these tazers. It is not recommended to do more than 15 seconds at a time, and also says the officer must first verify if a person if capable of complying and should avoid giving conflicting commands, must give the person time to regain control of their body after a shock so they can comply with commands. It says do not use ECD for verbal abuse or belligerence, do not use ECD for punishment. It even says further down not to target anywhere near the heart or in the chest area as to avoid heart complications. You can read the whole thing here: Taser.com

Fired???? What about being charged with assault? An assault that ended in death during the performance of his "duties".

Manslaugher should be the minimum result of this jackasses actions. They should also review their training policy to see if they were properly trained in the use of the Taser.

JD, the reason I asked about the 15 seconds is because apparently everything that he did prior to exceeding the 15 seconds was by the book. Remember, he didn't go into that location looking for trouble - he was sent to do the hard job that the nurses and orderlies could not do. Yes, I think he went to far but firing is probably enough. He will have to live with what he did.

He will have to live with what he did. Originally Posted by Jewish Lawyer

And more than likely not rehired into a uniformed position.

JD, the reason I asked about the 15 seconds is because apparently everything that he did prior to exceeding the 15 seconds was by the book. Remember, he didn't go into that location looking for trouble - he was sent to do the hard job that the nurses and orderlies could not do. Yes, I think he went to far but firing is probably enough. He will have to live with what he did. Originally Posted by Jewish Lawyer

In what circumstances would tazering an already handcuffed suspect ever be justified? And not a criminal act?

In what circumstances would tazering an already handcuffed suspect ever be justified? And not a criminal act? Originally Posted by Chica Chaser

Your question "assumes" ...

.... the handcuffs were placed on the suspect with his hands behind his back ....

... doesn't it?

And I should probably say .... "his/her"

In what circumstances would tazering an already handcuffed suspect ever be justified? And not a criminal act? Originally Posted by Chica Chaser

If the handcuffed person were a liberal, then I think it would be justified so they could get their mind right.

If the handcuffed person were a liberal, then I think it would be justified so they could get their mind right. Originally Posted by Jewish Lawyer

Tazering won't work on a tea party member you have to have feelings for it to be effective.

If the handcuffed person were a liberal, then I think it would be justified so they could get their mind right. Originally Posted by Jewish Lawyer

If the handcuffed person were a liberal, then I think it would be justified so they could get their mind right. Originally Posted by Jewish Lawyer

You haven't left yet? WTF is the holdup?

Time to get on the friggin' program!