On September 2, 2010, Pierce County, Washington Sheriff’s department killed a 27-year-old man using a Taser.  He received the death sentence by electrocution because he was reportedly causing a disturbance at an apartment complex.2  

On August 18, 2010, a 50-year-old man being held in custody in a California jail was Tasered to death by deputies.  Martin Harrison was in custody for drunk driving.  The police who used this device to kill this man claim that the second Tasering was done after Harrison attacked the deputy who had Tasered him initially.  No reason was given why the first use was initiated.3   

The use of the Taser is condemned as torture by the UN Committee Against Torture, and the Taser has been used indiscriminately as a device of torture by police in certain jurisdictions, without probable cause or procedural safeguards.

On August 23, 2010, a 31-year-old father of four was Tasered to death by the Washtenaw County, Michigan police during a drug bust.   According to police, they administered the death sentence by high voltage electrocution when Stanley Jackson “resisted arrest.”  Jackson was a former high school running back and had no known medical problems.4  According to the report, several Michigan residents have died after being shot by police Taser guns.  A 16-year-old boy died last year after being Tasered by sheriff’s deputies in Warren, Michigan, and the Bloomfield Township police Tasered a driver to death last fall.5

The Taser – a weapon that can fire up to 50,000 volts used now by police in thousand police departments throughout the United States, in Canada and the United Kingdom to incapacitate a person - is a lethal device which has killed civilians in the US, most of whom were in custody. 

Police are using Tasers, devices touted as being non-lethal, to torture suspects in cases where the suspect has not been arrested, or in cases where the suspect is already in custody and used with the claim that the suspect was “resisting arrest.”6  In one case, the police Tasered a man to death while the suspect was handcuffed and down on the ground, administering two shocks after the man had already died.

Baron Pikes, a 21-year-old man, was Tasered nine times by a police officer in January in Winnfield, Louisiana. He had stopped twitching after seven, according to a coroner’s report. Soon afterward, Pikes was dead.  The Coroner said that Pike was already handcuffed and on the ground when first hit with the Taser.  Apparently, the suspect was being disobedient in failing to get up when ordered, so the police repeatedly tortured him with electrocution until he died, and then electrocuted the corpse thereafter.7

Taser International, the manufacturer of the electrocution device, was required to place 18 new warnings on the device and to retract the use of the phrase “non-lethal” in it marketing campaigns, as a result of an investigation by the attorney general of Arizona.  As of 2005, 22 states started actions against Taser products and some states have introduced background checks and other restrictions on the private ownership of these devices.8

In November, 2007, the UN Committee against Torture declared the use of the Taser to be a form of torture, saying that “the use of these weapons causes acute pain, constituting a form of torture,” and that “in certain cases, they can even cause death, as has been shown by reliable studies and recent real-life events.”  This statement was issued by a committee of 10 within the UN agency.  The agency says that the use of the Taser “can have a grave physical and mental impact on those targeted.”9

The agency cited as examples three men, all in their early 20s, who were reported to have died in the US that week, following the death of a 40-year-old man at the Vancouver, British Columbia airport who had been Tasered by Canadian police.  His death was the third in Canada in a five week period from the use of Tasers.

Although Taser International claims that deaths have been shown by “medical science and forensic analysis” to be “attributable to other factors and not the low-energy electrical discharge of the Taser,” the proper analysis is proximate cause and supervening illegality.  For instance, a robber who at gun point causes the heart attack of an elderly victim is nonetheless guilty of felony murder, so an analysis under direct and proximate cause is warranted concerning the deaths of individuals who were living the minute before they were Tasered to death.  But for the use of the Taser, the individuals would still be living. 

Amnesty International claimed in 2007 that there had been 156 deaths caused by police using the Taser in the United States.  7,000 police departments used the device in the US.  Amnesty’s claim and the U.N. report are sufficient notice to police departments that the devices are in fact lethal to warrant the assignment of liability to both the officers deploying the device in the field and the departments themselves on the basis of foreseeable knowledge.

DecaLogos International condemns the use of the Taser by police departments without regimens similar to the controls placed on the use of firearms, as the Taser has been shown to be a lethal weapon.  Fundamental Human Rights require that the police use only commensurate force in the making of an arrest, and that the use of such force be strictly monitored by supervisors within the force. 

The Taser is now being deployed as a weapon of torture and death by rogue police and police departments, all of which need to be held accountable in the courts of this nation for the damages they have caused. 

1.  Associated Press, Sultan man dead after Taser shock in Gold Bar, Originally published Sunday, September 5, Seattle Times.  http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2012817485_apwataserdeath.html T
2. The Associated Press, 5 killed in a week in Wash. police encounters, Seattle Times, Originally published Saturday, September 4, 2010 at 2:55 PM. http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2012812557_apwapoliceshootingswash2ndldwritethru.html?prmid=obinsource. 
3. The Associated Press, Man dies after being shocked by Taser in jail, 08/18/2010 05:24:41 PM PDT http://www.contracostatimes.com/california/ci_15820212?nclick_check=1 
4. Eartha Jane Melzer, Man dies after Taser shots from Washtenaw County police, Michigan Messenger, 8/23/10 2:47 PM, http://michiganmessenger.com/41226/man-dies-after-taser-shots-from-washtenaw-county-police 
5. Id. 
6. See the Affidavit of Justin Bell, copy by request. 
7. Drew Griffin and David Fitzpatrick, Man dies after cop hits him with Taser 9 times, CNN, updated 8:09 p.m. EDT, Tue July 22, 2008, http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/07/22/taser.death/index.html 
8. James Sturcke, Rosalind Ryan, Police stun-gun may be lethal, firm admits, Monday 3 October 2005 11.29 BST, http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2005/oct/03/ukcrime.jamessturcke 
9. Correspondents in Geneva, Tasers a form of torture, says UN, November 24, 2007 4:44PM, The Daily Telegraph

   http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/breaking-news/tasers-a-form-of-torture-says-un/story-e6freuz9-1225758523986?from=public_rss

    

    

Specifically, DecaLogos notes that the Public Works Protection Act, as applied in emergency and non-emergency situations, is violative on the following grounds:

• the enforcement of the act is arbitrary and capricious;
• the enforcement of the act does not provide for due process;
• the act destroys the presumption of innocence;
• the act tramples the right to speak freely;
• the act tramples the right to freely associate;
• the act tramples the right to address the government with grievances;
• the act tramples the right to Habeas Corpus;
• the act tramples the right to confront your accusers;
• the act tramples the right to cross-examine testimony;
• the act tramples the rules of evidence in determing the veracity of the evidence presented;
• the act tramples the sovereignty of Ontario and Canada, providing for the arbitrary employment of law enforcement personnel, without regard to citizenship or residency.

Ontario’s Public Works Protection Act is a weapon of tyranny in violation of Canada’s Charter of Rights, and of internationally recognized Human and Civil Rights.  The Act should be immediately repealed, and the Province should be enjoined from using or enforcing the Act under any circumstances.

See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1kZwps4CPwc

Definitions

1.In this Act,

“guard” means a guard appointed under this Act; (“gardien”)

“highway” means a common or public highway or a part thereof, and includes any street, bridge and any other structure incidental thereto and any part thereof; (“voie publique”)

“public work” includes,

(a) any railway, canal, highway, bridge, power works including all property used for the generation, transformation, transmission, distribution or supply of hydraulic or electrical power, gas works, water works, public utility or other work, owned, operated or carried on by the Government of Ontario or by any board or commission thereof, or by any municipal corporation, public utility commission or by private enterprises,

(b) any provincial and any municipal public building, and

(c) any other building, place or work designated a public work by the Lieutenant Governor in Council. (“ouvrage public”) R.S.O. 1990, c. P.55, s. 1.

Guards, appointment

2.(1)For the purpose of protecting a public work, guards may be appointed by,

(a) the Solicitor General;

(b) the Commissioner of the Ontario Provincial Police Force;

(c) any inspector of the Ontario Provincial Police Force;

(d) the head or deputy head of the municipal council or the chief of police of the municipality in which the public work is located, or the person acting in the place or stead of the head or deputy head;

(e) the chair or other person who is the head of a board, commission or other body owning or having charge of the public work, or the person acting in the place or stead of the chair or other person.

Powers of guard

(2)Every person appointed as a guard under this section has for the purposes of this Act the powers of a peace officer.

Duties of guard

(3)Subject to the regulations and to any special direction of the Solicitor General or the Commissioner of the Ontario Provincial Police Force, every guard shall obey all directions of the person appointing him or her, any inspector of the Ontario Provincial Police Force, the chief of police of the municipality in which is located the public work that he or she is protecting, and the person who is in charge of the protecting of the public work.

Breach of duty of guard

(4)Every guard who,

(a) neglects or refuses to obey a direction that he or she is required to obey under subsection (3);

(b) fails in any manner to carry out his or her duties as guard;

(c) leaves the location to which he or she is assigned as guard or ceases to act as guard without leave of any of the persons mentioned in subsection (3); or

(d) otherwise conducts himself or herself in a manner not consistent with his or her duties as guard,

is guilty of an offence and on conviction is liable to a fine of not more than $500 or to imprisonment for a term of not more than two months, or to both. R.S.O. 1990, c. P.55, s. 2.

Powers of guard or peace officer

3.A guard or peace officer,

(a) may require any person entering or attempting to enter any public work or any approach thereto to furnish his or her name and address, to identify himself or herself and to state the purpose for which he or she desires to enter the public work, in writing or otherwise;

(b) may search, without warrant, any person entering or attempting to enter a public work or a vehicle in the charge or under the control of any such person or which has recently been or is suspected of having been in the charge or under the control of any such person or in which any such person is a passenger; and

(c) may refuse permission to any person to enter a public work and use such force as is necessary to prevent any such person from so entering. R.S.O. 1990, c. P.55, s. 3.

Statement under oath to be conclusive evidence

4.For the purposes of this Act, the statement under oath of an officer or employee of the government, board, commission, municipal or other corporation or other person owning, operating or having control of a public work, as to the boundaries of the public work is conclusive evidence thereof. R.S.O. 1990, c. P.55, s. 4.

Refusal to obey guard, etc.

5.(1)Every person who neglects or refuses to comply with a request or direction made under this Act by a guard or peace officer, and every person found upon a public work or any approach thereto without lawful authority, the proof whereof lies on him or her, is guilty of an offence and on conviction is liable to a fine of not more than $500 or to imprisonment for a term of not more than two months, or to both.

Arrest

(2)A guard or peace officer may arrest, without warrant, any person who neglects or refuses to comply with a request or direction of a guard or peace officer, or who is found upon or attempting to enter a public work without lawful authority. R.S.O. 1990, c. P.55, s. 5.

Regulations

6.The Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations,

(a) providing for the organization, co-ordination, supervision, discipline and control of guards;

(b) defining the areas that constitute approaches to public works, either generally or with regard to a particular public work;

(c) respecting any matter necessary or advisable to carry out effectively the intent and purpose of this Act. R.S.O. 1990, c. P.55, s. 6.

Having just recently returned from S’derot, Israel, I can personally attest to seeing hundreds of spent Kasam’s at the police station, seeing the markings of where the missiles have hit in S’derot, visiting caterpillar shaped bomb shelters in children’s playgrounds, and witnessing evidence of the 8,000 rocket strikes perpetrated against the village of S’derot by Hamas in Gaza since Gaza was given over to Hamas five years ago.  Until the hypocrites from the media report on this issue completely and objectively, they need to keep their mouth shut about the rights of IHH members on the “flotilla.” 

In the meantime, Galid Shalit remains kidnapped in an ongoing act of terrorism by those who have been taught that the human beings living in the village next to them are sons of monkeys and pigs, and are deserving of nothing but slaughter.  Even Abbas has recognized that the second intifada was a mistake, but because of the brainwashing and hatred taught by the leadership of the Trans-Jordanians, Egyptians, and Bedouins living in Israel, the ongoing acts of terrorism continue. 

Let us be clear: The people living in Gaza lied when they promised the Israelis peace in exchange for land.  Instead of peace, Galid Shalit was taken captive, and Hamas has been emboldened to launch random acts of terror against innocent citizens in Israeli villages without provocation.  The compromised media has said nothing.  Consider the story of two little Israeli children living in S’derot who, upon hearing the siren, had 15 seconds to make it to a bomb shelter.  The oldest - the five year old girl - knew they couldn’t make it, so she laid down on top of her three year old brother.  He survived as a result - she didn’t. 

Instead of condemning Hamas consistent with its position on the list of international terrorist groups at war with the United States, O-ba-ma has instead directly funded the importation of Hamas members to the United States. 

Decalogos condemns the funding of Hamas in any form, and urges members of Congress to review and stop all funding for Hamas and the agents of terror in Gaza.  This issue must be cleared first before any international investigation of the “flotilla” incident is even raised.

The right to worship the one true God
The right to hold God as superior to all other moral authority.
The right to be free from worshipping man-made things.
The right to speak without misusing the name of our God.

The right to life

The right to be free from being murdered;

The right to be free from false gossip about us;
The right to be free from perjury directed at us;
The right to be free from false accusations about us;
The right to be free from false defamatory or libelous statements about us;

The right to liberty
The right to worship the one true God
The right to be free from worshipping man-made things.
The right to speak without misusing the name of our God.
The right to work six out of seven days
The right to take one day in seven off from work;
The right to give our employees one day in seven off from work;

The right to property
The right to be free from the theft of our property;
The right to be free from the theft of our houses;
The right to be free from the theft of our marriages;
The right to be free from the theft of our employees;
The right to be free from the theft of our means of production;
The right to be free from the theft of our families;

The right to be free from the theft of everything else that rightfully belongs to us;
The right to marriage and family
The right to be free from adultery;
The right to honor our mothers;
The right to honor our fathers;

The right to self-defense
The right to be free from interference with our houses;
The right to be free from interference with our spouses;
The right to be free from interference with our employees;
The right to be free from interference with our means of production;
The right to be free from interference with anything that rightfully belongs to us;

The right to life is derived exclusively from the command of God saying Thou shalt not murder.  There is no other source for a right to life, as rights – to be rights – must be of super-natural ordinance.  If a government can grant the “right” it can surely revoke such a grant, which by definition is not a right, but a government-granted privilege.

Embryonic stem cell research is the frontline of the abortion battleground, because if the American public will tolerate the cultivation of human life to be used for purposes of scientific research which terminates that very life, they should have no difficulty with allowing babies who survive abortion to die on the table, or partial-birth abortion, which takes the life of a viable baby.

Embryonic stem cell research is a gross failure.  Proponents of the research believe the cells could one day be used to treat debilitating diseases including diabetes, Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s and to reverse spinal-cord injuries.   This is a first class load of bull.  Why didn’t they throw in cancer and heart disease?

The truth is, embryonic stem cells have proven the least viable in all stem cell research, being eclipsed by umbilical stem cells and even adult stem cells.   Further, the whole “promise” of stem cell research appears to be not much more than the creation of laboratory cancer, because none of the cells created are capable of forming tissue.  The problem?  Laminen.

Apparently, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) doesn’t have any problem with terminating human life in favor of scientific research, as it green-lighted the first trial of embryonic stem cells for spinal cord injuries days after Obama took office.  Under this doctrine, the government gets to choose which life to save and which life to terminate.  Right now, the government is picking innocent life, conceived but awaiting birth.  When that fails, look for this same government to terminate the life of those with spinal cord injuries on the same moral ground.

Obama called the decision to terminate one human life in favor of a specious chance at scientific research to help another human life a “false choice between sound science and moral values,” Obama said during the signing ceremony.  What sound science?  Apparently, Obama shared a science class with Al Gore.  Embryonic stem cell research today offers nothing – zippo, zilch, nada – over adult or umbilical stem cell research.  In fact, it has demonstrated less viability than the alternatives that do not have to terminate life to obtain a result.

Not-a-scientist Obama goes on to say that “In this case, I believe the two are not inconsistent. As a person of faith, I believe we are called to care for each other and work to ease human suffering. I believe we have been given the capacity and will to pursue this research – and the humanity and conscience to do so responsibly.”  First, Mr. Obama has not told us the entity or thing in which he has such faith.  Apparently, he has faith in “science” – “science” in this country being another name for an exclusive social club of God haters engaged in funding schemes that to date have failed to cure cancer, to stop heart disease, or to cure the common cold for 6,000th year in a row.

Ultimately, Obama does not see any indicia of human life in a fetus.  His health care plan will soon demonstrate that he doesn’t see any indicia of human life in people over 65 either, and by the time he is through, the group will be expanded to reach the sick, the crippled, the disabled, the mentally handicapped, the obese, and those that are simply not attractive.  That is what failing rationed health care does – kill people.  Obama believes that “humanity” requires we take one human life to possibly (and that is possibly with a capital “P”) ease someone’s suffering, whose life will be terminated prematurely anyway, once rationed health care is put in place.

Another group of “scientists” at Chicago said that they are “relieved that politics would no longer interfere with science,” following Obama’s approval to kill embryos in the name of potential research.   Stalin said the same thing about the success of the gulags.  At least “politics” didn’t get in the way of these Dr. Frankensteins and Dr. Mengeles who are no longer willing to raid graveyards for the recently buried to do their “research.”

Some of these ghouls are now claiming that there exists a quasi-constitutional separation of science and state.  Why not?  The Obama administration has consistently proven that the plain language of the constitution is merely a metaphor for the desires of the voting public, who can overrule plain language by the dictates of a simple majority, or a well-placed web page.

DecaLogos International condemns this abomination that would terminate human life in the name of science as a gross violation of the right to life as intended by the Creator.

Stephen Pidgeon