-------------------------------------------------------------------------
True Stella Awards #36: 30 July 2003
www.StellaAwards.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------


A Stunning Situation
by Randy Cassingham


Madera, Calif., police officer Marcy Noriega had arrested Everardo
Torres, 24, and had him handcuffed in the back of her police cruiser.
The
charge was not too extreme: he was arrested "on suspicion of resisting
and delaying police" as they tried to quiet down a noisy party.


Torres, however, was far from cooperative. As he sat in the back of
the police car he kicked at the windows. Officer Noriega decided to
subdue him with her Taser, which fires two metal pins attached to wires
and then charges them with current to "stun" the target.


Amazingly, instead of pulling and shooting Torres with her Taser,
Noriega says she accidentally drew her service handgun and shot him. The
bullet ripped through his heart, liver and right kidney, ensuring his
death.


The District Attorney ruled the shooting accidental and did not file
charges against officer Noriega, but the city admitted liability in the
shooting and offered Torres' family a $350,000 settlement. In response,
the family filed a claim for $10 million. When the city rejected the
claim, the family filed a wrongful death suit in federal court.


Such is not what Stella Awards are made of, however -- complaining
that a professionally trained police officer mistook her firearm for a
non-lethal stun gun to shoot someone in her custody is not frivolous.
Rather, it's what the city said next: officer Noriega isn't at fault for
killing Torres! Not the way she and the city see things, anyway. While
they admit they were "partially responsible for the loss" of Torres'
life, she and the city of Madera have filed suit against Taser
International Inc., the manufacturer of the non-lethal weapon.


The lawsuit says Taser is responsible because the company's training
procedures do not adequately teach police officers the difference
between
the Taser and their own handguns. The company, the suit says, "provided
related training and representations in such a manner so as to cause any
reasonable police officer to mistakenly draw and fire a handgun instead
of the Taser device."


Got that? "Any reasonable police officer" could pull the wrong gun and
kill a suspect they merely mean to stun! Considering the thousands of
police officers in the USA, and how long Tasers have been on the market
-- coupled with the dubious "fact" that "any reasonable police officer"
is likely "to mistakenly draw and fire a handgun instead of the Taser
device" -- there must be hundreds of cases of just that happening,
right?


Wrong. In their research, Madera's lawyers found just two previous
cases of such mistakes, though both times the unfortunate victims
survived. "Once we found the two other incidents, we made [a] change" in
Madera police procedure, advising officers not to carry their Taser on
the same side of their belts as their handguns, says the city's lawyer.
(Remember! The gun on left to stun, the one on the right to kill. Got
it?)


The suit says Taser was "aware" its training methods were flawed, and
had "a duty" to inform police departments of the risk that a trained
professional might grab the wrong gun. The suit asks that Taser pay
whatever amount the Torres family wins from their wrongful death
lawsuit.


Cops have incredibly stressful, important jobs. To get that job done
they're given astounding powers, up to and including killing citizens
who
are threatening others. With those powers come similarly awesome
responsibilities, such as carefully preserving suspects' rights and
knowing when -- and how -- to use the various weapons at their disposal.
For Madera and officer Noriega to stand up in public to say "any
reasonable police officer" doesn't know the difference between a non-
lethal weapon and a handgun is an insult to every professional peace
officer -- and an abdication of the responsibility that has been placed
on them. Torres was likely not a choirboy, but his death is a tragic
accident, and shouldn't be treated as an opportunity for the city to try
to pin the blame on an equipment supplier.



SOURCE:
1) "Madera Sues Taser Maker", The Fresno Bee, 29 July 2003
http://StellaAwards.com/cgi-bin/redirect3.pl?36a

Great, now we have to worry about police shooting us and they can claim they
only meant to stun us with a taser.


"Gunner" wrote in message
...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
True Stella Awards #36: 30 July 2003
www.StellaAwards.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------


A Stunning Situation
by Randy Cassingham


Madera, Calif., police officer Marcy Noriega had arrested Everardo
Torres, 24, and had him handcuffed in the back of her police cruiser.
The
charge was not too extreme: he was arrested "on suspicion of resisting
and delaying police" as they tried to quiet down a noisy party.


Torres, however, was far from cooperative. As he sat in the back of
the police car he kicked at the windows. Officer Noriega decided to
subdue him with her Taser, which fires two metal pins attached to wires
and then charges them with current to "stun" the target.


Amazingly, instead of pulling and shooting Torres with her Taser,
Noriega says she accidentally drew her service handgun and shot him. The
bullet ripped through his heart, liver and right kidney, ensuring his
death.


The District Attorney ruled the shooting accidental and did not file
charges against officer Noriega, but the city admitted liability in the
shooting and offered Torres' family a $350,000 settlement. In response,
the family filed a claim for $10 million. When the city rejected the
claim, the family filed a wrongful death suit in federal court.


Such is not what Stella Awards are made of, however -- complaining
that a professionally trained police officer mistook her firearm for a
non-lethal stun gun to shoot someone in her custody is not frivolous.
Rather, it's what the city said next: officer Noriega isn't at fault for
killing Torres! Not the way she and the city see things, anyway. While
they admit they were "partially responsible for the loss" of Torres'
life, she and the city of Madera have filed suit against Taser
International Inc., the manufacturer of the non-lethal weapon.


The lawsuit says Taser is responsible because the company's training
procedures do not adequately teach police officers the difference
between
the Taser and their own handguns. The company, the suit says, "provided
related training and representations in such a manner so as to cause any
reasonable police officer to mistakenly draw and fire a handgun instead
of the Taser device."


Got that? "Any reasonable police officer" could pull the wrong gun and
kill a suspect they merely mean to stun! Considering the thousands of
police officers in the USA, and how long Tasers have been on the market
-- coupled with the dubious "fact" that "any reasonable police officer"
is likely "to mistakenly draw and fire a handgun instead of the Taser
device" -- there must be hundreds of cases of just that happening,
right?


Wrong. In their research, Madera's lawyers found just two previous
cases of such mistakes, though both times the unfortunate victims
survived. "Once we found the two other incidents, we made [a] change" in
Madera police procedure, advising officers not to carry their Taser on
the same side of their belts as their handguns, says the city's lawyer.
(Remember! The gun on left to stun, the one on the right to kill. Got
it?)


The suit says Taser was "aware" its training methods were flawed, and
had "a duty" to inform police departments of the risk that a trained
professional might grab the wrong gun. The suit asks that Taser pay
whatever amount the Torres family wins from their wrongful death
lawsuit.


Cops have incredibly stressful, important jobs. To get that job done
they're given astounding powers, up to and including killing citizens
who
are threatening others. With those powers come similarly awesome
responsibilities, such as carefully preserving suspects' rights and
knowing when -- and how -- to use the various weapons at their disposal.
For Madera and officer Noriega to stand up in public to say "any
reasonable police officer" doesn't know the difference between a non-
lethal weapon and a handgun is an insult to every professional peace
officer -- and an abdication of the responsibility that has been placed
on them. Torres was likely not a choirboy, but his death is a tragic
accident, and shouldn't be treated as an opportunity for the city to try
to pin the blame on an equipment supplier.



SOURCE:
1) "Madera Sues Taser Maker", The Fresno Bee, 29 July 2003
http://StellaAwards.com/cgi-bin/redirect3.pl?36a

Yeah! Sad and all that. But if you aren't kicking the **** out the cops
window you don't have alot to worry about.

Bob Swinney
"mrbonaparte" wrote in message
news:kdwWa.33305$Ne.7732@fed1read03...
Great, now we have to worry about police shooting us and they can claim
they
only meant to stun us with a taser.


"Gunner" wrote in message
...

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
True Stella Awards #36: 30 July 2003
www.StellaAwards.com

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


A Stunning Situation
by Randy Cassingham


Madera, Calif., police officer Marcy Noriega had arrested Everardo
Torres, 24, and had him handcuffed in the back of her police cruiser.
The
charge was not too extreme: he was arrested "on suspicion of resisting
and delaying police" as they tried to quiet down a noisy party.


Torres, however, was far from cooperative. As he sat in the back of
the police car he kicked at the windows. Officer Noriega decided to
subdue him with her Taser, which fires two metal pins attached to wires
and then charges them with current to "stun" the target.


Amazingly, instead of pulling and shooting Torres with her Taser,
Noriega says she accidentally drew her service handgun and shot him. The
bullet ripped through his heart, liver and right kidney, ensuring his
death.


The District Attorney ruled the shooting accidental and did not file
charges against officer Noriega, but the city admitted liability in the
shooting and offered Torres' family a $350,000 settlement. In response,
the family filed a claim for $10 million. When the city rejected the
claim, the family filed a wrongful death suit in federal court.


Such is not what Stella Awards are made of, however -- complaining
that a professionally trained police officer mistook her firearm for a
non-lethal stun gun to shoot someone in her custody is not frivolous.
Rather, it's what the city said next: officer Noriega isn't at fault for
killing Torres! Not the way she and the city see things, anyway. While
they admit they were "partially responsible for the loss" of Torres'
life, she and the city of Madera have filed suit against Taser
International Inc., the manufacturer of the non-lethal weapon.


The lawsuit says Taser is responsible because the company's training
procedures do not adequately teach police officers the difference
between
the Taser and their own handguns. The company, the suit says, "provided
related training and representations in such a manner so as to cause any
reasonable police officer to mistakenly draw and fire a handgun instead
of the Taser device."


Got that? "Any reasonable police officer" could pull the wrong gun and
kill a suspect they merely mean to stun! Considering the thousands of
police officers in the USA, and how long Tasers have been on the market
-- coupled with the dubious "fact" that "any reasonable police officer"
is likely "to mistakenly draw and fire a handgun instead of the Taser
device" -- there must be hundreds of cases of just that happening,
right?


Wrong. In their research, Madera's lawyers found just two previous
cases of such mistakes, though both times the unfortunate victims
survived. "Once we found the two other incidents, we made [a] change" in
Madera police procedure, advising officers not to carry their Taser on
the same side of their belts as their handguns, says the city's lawyer.
(Remember! The gun on left to stun, the one on the right to kill. Got
it?)


The suit says Taser was "aware" its training methods were flawed, and
had "a duty" to inform police departments of the risk that a trained
professional might grab the wrong gun. The suit asks that Taser pay
whatever amount the Torres family wins from their wrongful death
lawsuit.


Cops have incredibly stressful, important jobs. To get that job done
they're given astounding powers, up to and including killing citizens
who
are threatening others. With those powers come similarly awesome
responsibilities, such as carefully preserving suspects' rights and
knowing when -- and how -- to use the various weapons at their disposal.
For Madera and officer Noriega to stand up in public to say "any
reasonable police officer" doesn't know the difference between a non-
lethal weapon and a handgun is an insult to every professional peace
officer -- and an abdication of the responsibility that has been placed
on them. Torres was likely not a choirboy, but his death is a tragic
accident, and shouldn't be treated as an opportunity for the city to try
to pin the blame on an equipment supplier.



SOURCE:
1) "Madera Sues Taser Maker", The Fresno Bee, 29 July 2003
http://StellaAwards.com/cgi-bin/redirect3.pl?36a

In article tUyWa.42812$uu5.4998@sccrnsc04, "Bob says...

Yeah! Sad and all that. But if you aren't kicking the **** out the cops
window you don't have alot to worry about.

Hmm. Bet he won't do that again.

Jim

==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

jim rozen wrote:

In article tUyWa.42812$uu5.4998@sccrnsc04, "Bob says...


Yeah! Sad and all that. But if you aren't kicking the **** out the cops
window you don't have alot to worry about.



Hmm. Bet he won't do that again.

Yeah the cops there are cutting down on first time repeat offenders.
Ken

You might think you have nothing to worry about ..

Last year (or earlier this year) in Maryland, a FBI agent shoot a passenger in a
car that they just pulled over. The passenger was reaching down to his side "as
if he was going for a gun". What he was really doing was releasing his seat
belt, and getting out of the car per the direction of another FBI agent.

The FBI was looking for a bank robbery that had been in the area. The
description was a man and woman in a red car. The guy shoot was guilty of
NOTHING.

IMHO, officer Marcy Noriega should never be aloud to carry a gun again. That
should be the price she pays. The FBI agent in the Maryland case had
questionable "shooting" in his past, though not as questionable as the one
above.

Vince



Bob Swinney wrote:

Yeah! Sad and all that. But if you aren't kicking the **** out the cops
window you don't have alot to worry about.

Bob Swinney
"mrbonaparte" wrote in message
news:kdwWa.33305$Ne.7732@fed1read03...
Great, now we have to worry about police shooting us and they can claim
they
only meant to stun us with a taser.


"Gunner" wrote in message
...

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
True Stella Awards #36: 30 July 2003
www.StellaAwards.com

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


A Stunning Situation
by Randy Cassingham


Madera, Calif., police officer Marcy Noriega had arrested Everardo
Torres, 24, and had him handcuffed in the back of her police cruiser.
The
charge was not too extreme: he was arrested "on suspicion of resisting
and delaying police" as they tried to quiet down a noisy party.


Torres, however, was far from cooperative. As he sat in the back of
the police car he kicked at the windows. Officer Noriega decided to
subdue him with her Taser, which fires two metal pins attached to wires
and then charges them with current to "stun" the target.


Amazingly, instead of pulling and shooting Torres with her Taser,
Noriega says she accidentally drew her service handgun and shot him. The
bullet ripped through his heart, liver and right kidney, ensuring his
death.


The District Attorney ruled the shooting accidental and did not file
charges against officer Noriega, but the city admitted liability in the
shooting and offered Torres' family a $350,000 settlement. In response,
the family filed a claim for $10 million. When the city rejected the
claim, the family filed a wrongful death suit in federal court.


Such is not what Stella Awards are made of, however -- complaining
that a professionally trained police officer mistook her firearm for a
non-lethal stun gun to shoot someone in her custody is not frivolous.
Rather, it's what the city said next: officer Noriega isn't at fault for
killing Torres! Not the way she and the city see things, anyway. While
they admit they were "partially responsible for the loss" of Torres'
life, she and the city of Madera have filed suit against Taser
International Inc., the manufacturer of the non-lethal weapon.


The lawsuit says Taser is responsible because the company's training
procedures do not adequately teach police officers the difference
between
the Taser and their own handguns. The company, the suit says, "provided
related training and representations in such a manner so as to cause any
reasonable police officer to mistakenly draw and fire a handgun instead
of the Taser device."


Got that? "Any reasonable police officer" could pull the wrong gun and
kill a suspect they merely mean to stun! Considering the thousands of
police officers in the USA, and how long Tasers have been on the market
-- coupled with the dubious "fact" that "any reasonable police officer"
is likely "to mistakenly draw and fire a handgun instead of the Taser
device" -- there must be hundreds of cases of just that happening,
right?


Wrong. In their research, Madera's lawyers found just two previous
cases of such mistakes, though both times the unfortunate victims
survived. "Once we found the two other incidents, we made [a] change" in
Madera police procedure, advising officers not to carry their Taser on
the same side of their belts as their handguns, says the city's lawyer.
(Remember! The gun on left to stun, the one on the right to kill. Got
it?)


The suit says Taser was "aware" its training methods were flawed, and
had "a duty" to inform police departments of the risk that a trained
professional might grab the wrong gun. The suit asks that Taser pay
whatever amount the Torres family wins from their wrongful death
lawsuit.


Cops have incredibly stressful, important jobs. To get that job done
they're given astounding powers, up to and including killing citizens
who
are threatening others. With those powers come similarly awesome
responsibilities, such as carefully preserving suspects' rights and
knowing when -- and how -- to use the various weapons at their disposal.
For Madera and officer Noriega to stand up in public to say "any
reasonable police officer" doesn't know the difference between a non-
lethal weapon and a handgun is an insult to every professional peace
officer -- and an abdication of the responsibility that has been placed
on them. Torres was likely not a choirboy, but his death is a tragic
accident, and shouldn't be treated as an opportunity for the city to try
to pin the blame on an equipment supplier.



SOURCE:
1) "Madera Sues Taser Maker", The Fresno Bee, 29 July 2003
http://StellaAwards.com/cgi-bin/redirect3.pl?36a

In article , Vince says...

The FBI was looking for a bank robbery that had been in the area. The
description was a man and woman in a red car. The guy shoot was guilty of
NOTHING.

The new york state troopers now have a rule that traffic stops
*must* be made with a marked car. The reason for this happened
a few years ago, when an unmarked trooper car tried to pull over
a driver on a remote parkway one night. The driver did not
pull over until a couple of marked cars with real light bars
also joined the chase.

The cops came out with weapons drawn, there was a young woman
in the car with a a baby in a car seat. That's all. Of course
the charged her with failure to obey, resisting arrest,
interfering with govermental operations. All the usual
crap charges.

Why didn't she pull over? Well there the story gets better,
there had been a series of imitation police cars pulling
traffic stops on the parkways at night, and the women were
raped and some were killed. They never caught the perp but
there was some reason to believe, based on the stories of the
ones who got away, that it might really have been an off
duty cop of some kind. So there was an ad campaign to remind
drivers to not pull over in remote areas, and to drive
instead to a lit, populated area. She was doing what the
state police advised her to do in that series of advertisments.

So she wound up looking down some gun barrels for her
attentiveness.

And the state troopers apparently got a chewing out, the
charges were all dismissed after it became apparent that
she did not want to file suit against the state, and Gov.
Pataki decided that maybe the men in blue cars should stop
behaving like secret undercover junior G-men.

Jim

==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

Ken Davey wrote:
"jim rozen" wrote in message
...

In article , Vince says...


The FBI was looking for a bank robbery that had been in the area. The
description was a man and woman in a red car. The guy shoot was guilty

of

NOTHING.

The new york state troopers now have a rule that traffic stops
*must* be made with a marked car. The reason for this happened
a few years ago, when an unmarked trooper car tried to pull over
a driver on a remote parkway one night. The driver did not
pull over until a couple of marked cars with real light bars
also joined the chase.

The cops came out with weapons drawn, there was a young woman
in the car with a a baby in a car seat. That's all. Of course
the charged her with failure to obey, resisting arrest,
interfering with govermental operations. All the usual
crap charges.

Why didn't she pull over? Well there the story gets better,
there had been a series of imitation police cars pulling
traffic stops on the parkways at night, and the women were
raped and some were killed. They never caught the perp but
there was some reason to believe, based on the stories of the
ones who got away, that it might really have been an off
duty cop of some kind. So there was an ad campaign to remind
drivers to not pull over in remote areas, and to drive
instead to a lit, populated area. She was doing what the
state police advised her to do in that series of advertisments.

So she wound up looking down some gun barrels for her
attentiveness.

And the state troopers apparently got a chewing out, the
charges were all dismissed after it became apparent that
she did not want to file suit against the state, and Gov.
Pataki decided that maybe the men in blue cars should stop
behaving like secret undercover junior G-men.

Jim

==========
My first reaction if an unmarked vehicle tries to pull me over in the middle
of the night *anywhere* is to first ignore it (it just might go away) or, if
it persisted, run it off the road, report the incident, and answer questions
later. Much better to claim panic than to be 'terminated' by some sicko.
Regards.
Ken.

Better to be tried by 12 than buried by 6.

On 1 Aug 2003 18:56:16 -0700, jim rozen
wrote:

In article , Vince says...

The FBI was looking for a bank robbery that had been in the area. The
description was a man and woman in a red car. The guy shoot was guilty of
NOTHING.

The new york state troopers now have a rule that traffic stops
*must* be made with a marked car. The reason for this happened
a few years ago, when an unmarked trooper car tried to pull over
a driver on a remote parkway one night. The driver did not
pull over until a couple of marked cars with real light bars
also joined the chase.

The cops came out with weapons drawn, there was a young woman
in the car with a a baby in a car seat. That's all. Of course
the charged her with failure to obey, resisting arrest,
interfering with govermental operations. All the usual
crap charges.

Why didn't she pull over? Well there the story gets better,
there had been a series of imitation police cars pulling
traffic stops on the parkways at night, and the women were
raped and some were killed. They never caught the perp but
there was some reason to believe, based on the stories of the
ones who got away, that it might really have been an off
duty cop of some kind. So there was an ad campaign to remind
drivers to not pull over in remote areas, and to drive
instead to a lit, populated area. She was doing what the
state police advised her to do in that series of advertisments.

So she wound up looking down some gun barrels for her
attentiveness.

And the state troopers apparently got a chewing out, the
charges were all dismissed after it became apparent that
she did not want to file suit against the state, and Gov.
Pataki decided that maybe the men in blue cars should stop
behaving like secret undercover junior G-men.

Jim

================================================= =
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
================================================= =
Many years ago, down the street from my shop, an over-zealous
motorcycle cop would set up a speed trap. He would park his bike on
the side street and hide behind the end of a privacy fence. As traffic
approached, this Magnum Force wannabe would jump out with his radar
gun in a squatting two-hand stance.

The first time it happened to me I got a major shot of adrenalin. I
was proud of my ability to quickly determine friend or foe. But after
some thought, I decided I had been slow. I should have ducked down
behind the dash, maybe veered off the road and possibly run over him
bike and all. I believe I could have argued that successfully before a
jury.

andy asberry wrote:

Many years ago, down the street from my shop, an over-zealous
motorcycle cop would set up a speed trap. He would park his bike on
the side street and hide behind the end of a privacy fence. As traffic
approached, this Magnum Force wannabe would jump out with his radar
gun in a squatting two-hand stance.

The first time it happened to me I got a major shot of adrenalin. I
was proud of my ability to quickly determine friend or foe. But after
some thought, I decided I had been slow. I should have ducked down
behind the dash, maybe veered off the road and possibly run over him
bike and all. I believe I could have argued that successfully before a
jury.

IIRC Road and Track magazine printed a report of something similar
taking place about 20 years back.

A guy is cruising along at a pretty good pace in his Delta 88 and a
State trooper jumps out from behind a billboard with a radar gun
leveled. The guy dove under the dash and ran the "gunman" over. The
judge thought his actions were reasonable, given the circumstances.

So said the article, anyway.

Cheers
Trevor Jones