This one's a little closer to home than some, which doesn't make it more important than the Guantanamo and terrorism cases. But does at least indicate that there might someday be some decent legal doctrine prohibiting police officers from torturing American citizens whenever they want to coerce them into instant compliance:
Taser International Inc., the largest stun-gun maker, lost a $6.2 million jury verdict over the death of a California man who died after police shot him multiple times with the weapon. The defeat is the first for Taser in a product- liability claim.
A San Jose, California, jury yesterday said Taser had failed to warn police in Salinas, California, that prolonged exposure to electric shock from the device could cause a risk of cardiac arrest. The jury awarded $1 million in compensatory damages and $5.2 million in punitive damages to the estate of Robert Heston, 40, and his parents. The jury cleared the police officers of any liability.
His parents sued Taser, alleging failure to warn of the dangers of the weapon, and Salinas police officers, claiming excessive force. The jury “exonerated the police because they said the police didn’t know repeated exposures could kill someone,” Burton said.
I've written a ton on tasers and for those who don't read this blog often, let me just issue the standard disclaimer that I understand that the police have hard jobs and that there are times when a taser can be a useful alternative to deadly force. These product liability cases like that mentioned above deal with the physical dangers that tasering presents to people who may have health conditions that make a taser deadly or suffer from repeated tasering.
But the principle is actually bigger than this. Police around the country are using these things indiscriminately and the result is that cops are commonly zapping citizens with 50,000 volts pretty much any time they feel like it. Because it doesn't leave permanent damage, people think there's no harm in it. (This tracks with the John Yoo definitions of torture in which psychological torture is benign and the pain must be equal to the pain of organ failure or death.)
In a free country, the authorities should not have the right to inflict pain on citizens unless they are under threat of violence themselves. Self defense, period. Nowadays it's tase first and ask questions later, no requirement that they even perceive themselves to be in any danger. It's a "control" device:
There are numerous other accounts recorded on video and elsewhere in which police are tasering people to get them to instantly comply with their orders. There are also cases where the subject says something the cop doesn't like or fails to respond quickly enough. We've seen many cases in which the police seem to be using the taser for convenience --- they don't want to take the time to assess the situation, talk to the person or otherwise use time tested policing techniques to defuse the situation. Instead, they pull out the taser and after a dull warning (if that), they drop the person to the ground screaming and writhing in pain, often more than once, telling them that if they "say another word" they'll get it again.
That is un-American. There is nothing in our constitution that says authorities have the right to intentionally inflict pain simply because a citizen is uncooperative. Indeed, we are explicitly given the right to demand that the authorities have good reason to detain us, search our property and arrest us. Torturing citizens for no other reason than looking at a policeman sideways wasn't specifically contemplated in the constitution, but it is pretty obvious that it would be considered a big no-no. They outlawed cruel punishment for convicted criminals, after all. Doing it to citizens with no due process stands our entire system on its head.
It's sad that it takes "product liability" cases to do anything about this. It should be a clear cut civil liberties case. But right now this appears to to be the best we can do.