Dad of gas-soaked stun gun victim sues Pa. police

AP ^ | 031611 | AP

[Artemis Webb]

PITTSBURGH – The father of a Pennsylvania man who had soaked himself in gasoline during a domestic dispute is suing the Pennsylvania State Police because his son caught fire and died when a trooper used a stun gun to subdue him.

[tioga]

Suicide by cop. Very sad, but in the throes of an active police scene we now expect the cop to stop and debate whether he should use a taser? NOW, a cop will think of that....but then? I give him the benefit of the doubt.

[SampleMan]

Clearly, police need to politely ask people if they’ve soaked themselves in gasoline before deploying their stun guns in domestic crisis situations. This is a police-assisted Darwin.

1. Its hard to imagine that the smell of gasoline wasn't overpowering. Thus a clear signal to avoid sparks.

2. Crisis situation? Are you sure about that? What was the crisis? That the guy had poured gasoline on himself?

Brains are always required in police work. This reminds me of all the stories I read of people calling police because someone has gone crazy and is threatening suicide. The police show up and shoot them. Problem solved.

[La Lydia]

The smell of gasoline may or may not be overpowering, depending on how close the policeman was to the nutcase and how long ago the drenching occurred. Unless the guy said, “I have drenched myself with gasoline, don’t stun me,” the policeman very well might not have known. Also, the police were called to a domestic dispute where the guy was apparently threatening his girlfriend. Maybe that’s not a crisis situation to you, some people think women deserve such treatment, but to the girlfriend and the policeman, it assuredly was. The policeman’s first obligation was to protect the woman who was being threatened. It’s always easy to second guess someone after fact, isn’t it?

[moovova]

If the guy had been an illegal immigrant facing off with Big Sis's Border Patrol, he'd still be alive today...because they would've shot him with a bean-bag gun.

[SampleMan]

Have you been exposed to much gasoline? A drop on my slacks when I'm filling the car and I reek all day.

If the gasoline had already dried, then he wouldn't have ignited. Only gas fumes burn. But the smell would have still been horrendous.

Maybe that’s not a crisis situation to you, some people think women deserve such treatment, but...

OK I'm done here. You have no argument so you accuse me of being a wife beater. I'm through with you.

[La Lydia]

I missed the part where they were both sitting in a car. I thought they were outside. I am so glad you stopped beating your wife!

[Sarajevo]

I can't think of too many circumstances where soaking yourself in gasoline would be a good career move.

Think: scabies and no Kwell is available.

BURN, you evil harbingers of the itch! Burn!

[jimt]

I am so glad you stopped beating your wife!

That comment sure doesn't match my past impression of you. And it's not remotely funny.

[Gena Bukin]

It’s too bad the policeman didn’t use his nightstick to beat this guy senseless just to protect him from himself.

Do cops even carry nightsticks anymore? I believe in many jurisdictions the stun gun replaced the traditional police baton.

Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

[La Lydia]

Oh dear. Don't hate me for my obscure references. Sorry, that was one of my old Lyndon Johnson quotes. Not everyone knows, I guess. Ask the question that assumes the worst:

Q. Mr. President, you are going out of the securities market and going into the Treasury bill financing. Do you know roughly how much that is going to affect the deficit?

THE PRESIDENT. We are not doing that. That is a "When are you going to stop beating your wife?" question. We haven't stopped beating it; we never did start. We are not going out of the securities market. We are going to be in it to the tune of some $50-odd billion, a portion of which will be taken by trust funds, as they always have been.

The President's News Conference, September 22, 1966; I wasn't even born. Subject matter rings true today.

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=27878#axzz1Gn6pfTP8

[Ramius]

Build a man a fire and he’s warm for a night, but set a man on fire and he’s warm for the rest of his life.

[rideharddiefast]

Some people just want to blame the police for every problem in the world. This time the police are at fault for stopping a wacko from beating a woman. The police probably stopped a far more tragic outcome by ridding the world of this nutcase.

[Cyber Liberty]

Clearly, police need to politely ask people if they’ve soaked themselves in gasoline before deploying their stun guns in domestic crisis situations.

LEOs seem to be pretty good at sniffing stuff out when it's alcohol or marijuana. Where were the vaunted olfactory powers of this cop when the guy reeked of gasoline?

[La Lydia]

See post number 32. Not mine.

[Cyber Liberty]

I think the death penalty is a little extreme. Tazing somebody who reeks of gasoline was not just idiotic, it was extremely dangerous to everybody nearby.

[HamiltonJay]

Sorry, not gonna agree with that one.

Yep the guy was an idiot for soaking himself in gas... the trooper was just as big if not more of an idiot for tazing him knowing he was soaked in gas. What the officer did was no different than if he had lit and tossed a match at the guy.

Yes, maybe in the heat of the moment he didn’t think, or maybe the trooper truly is a complete fool who didn’t think about the fact tazers will throw a spark.. but either way, end of the day there is no difference.

Yes, the victim was an idiot to douse himself in gas... but that doesn’t mean someone else deciding to ignite it has no culpability. I think its a pretty open and shut case, the officer is going to have a hard time arguing he was not trained in the use of the weapon, or that he could not know the weapon would throw a spark. He may have slept through that part of his training, but I am sure that the mandatory training he got with the weapon covered those facts.