Tasers are one of those weapons with the perpetually unhelpful good news/bad news outcome. Sure, the officer didn’t draw his handgun and put a bullet into the guy’s center mass, which is never good news. But cops often treat Tasers, because they won’t necessarily kill, so casually that they are used when force isn’t justified, often for convenience rather than necessity. And then there’s the problem that sometimes they do kill, even as Axon, formerly known as Taser International until they had to change their name to shed the taint of early Taser abuse, blames it on contrived causes that aren’t its fault.
Two Wilson, Oklahoma, officers were convicted of second degree murder for tasering a guy to death. His crime was resisting their commands to let them arrest him after running around naked in the street.
The tasings themselves happened on July 4th of 2019 when officers Joshua Taylor and Brandon Dingham responded to a call about a naked man screaming and running down the street.
Officers tried to restrain him but he didn’t obey their commands.
They began tasing him but after nearly 4 minutes of tasing, it still wasn’t working.
Backup arrived and another officer put the deceased in a “sleep hold.” The medical examiner found the cause of death to be “attributed to a few things-his heart health and law enforcement’s use of electrical weapons and restraint.” And by “electrical weapons,” the officers were alleged to have used their Tasers more than 50 times.
Prosecutors said the repeated use of the Tasers, also known as stun guns, by the former officers, Brandon Dingman and Joshua Taylor, was “dangerous and unnecessary” during their encounter with Jared Lakey on July 4, 2019.
It was a “substantial factor” in the death of Mr. Lakey, 28, who stopped breathing and became unresponsive shortly after he was taken into custody by the officers, who were employed by the Wilson Police Department, court documents said. Mr. Lakey died two days later.
On the one hand, the physical condition of the deceased lent itself to making the deceased particularly vulnerable to harm from tasing, as the autopsy report stated he had an “enlarged heart and critical coronary artery disease.” Of course, the underlying physical condition is not an excuse for the improper use of a wapon.
The chief, Kevin Coley, testified that the officers had been attempting to cause neuromuscular incapacitation in Mr. Lakey but that he had kept moving around on the ground, the television station KXII reported. The chief could not be reached on Monday.
When Mr. Lakey would not comply with the officers’ commands, Mr. Taylor and Mr. Dingman used their Tasers a combined total of more than 50 times, “which greatly exceeded what would have been necessary or warranted by the attendant circumstances,” court records said.
Much as “neuromuscular incapacitation” is one of those delightful copspeak ways of making the conduct sound benign and uncriminal, the Taser didn’t work the first time and so they did it again. And again. And again.
Craig Ladd, the district attorney for the 20th Judicial District in Oklahoma, which includes Carter County, said on Monday that police officers were trained to limit Taser exposure to 15 seconds or less and to avoid simultaneously using their devices. But in the case of Mr. Lakey, he said, the electrical connection from the officers’ Tasers lasted 3 minutes and 14 seconds.
“They clearly failed to adhere to these safety guidelines,” Mr. Ladd said, adding that in Oklahoma, officers are only permitted to use the degree of force “reasonably necessary” under the circumstances.
The problem wasn’t that the deceased posed a threat of harm to the officers, or anyone else, but that he was non-compliant, refusing to put his hands behind his back as people running naked through the streets occasionally do. It may be likely that he was experiencing a psychotic episode and lacked the capacity to comply, but what were the two cops to do? So they tased and tased. And tased. Because Tasers are less-than-lethal, so how harmful and painful could it be?
But the officers weren’t fired for violating department policy concerning the use of Tasers. There is no evidence to suggest they had any personal beef with the deceased, or even knew who he was before responding to the call. And it remains unclear, as might raise a reasonable doubt, whether it was their tasering or the “sleep hold” that resulted in the heart attack the killed the Lakey.
Second degree murder in Oklahoma covers “depraved mind” murder and felony murder, raising many of the same concerns in this conviction as existed with the Chauvin conviction for murdering George Floyd. It’s unclear what theory was pursued, as the officers were also charged with battery.
For many, the fact that the two cops were convicted of Murder 2 won’t raise many concerns. Whether it’s karma or payback, the fact that cops got away with killing people without justification or consequences in so many cases will be sufficient to shrug and say, “it’s about time cops were held to account for their actions.” And, in a cosmic sense, it’s hard to argue to the contrary.
But as each case, each defendant, charged with a crime is entitled to individualized determination of guilt, no matter how much others in his occupation have gotten away with it in the past, the generic lack of tears for convicted cops misses the point. Did these two officers, whose use of force was clearly excessive and contrary to policy, commit murder? Was their tasing the proximate cause of death? Did their actions evince a depraved mind or two dumbass cops who kept tasing when it failed to paralyze Lakey so they could cuff him not out of any sort of malice but because they were just too callous to grasp the risk they were causing?
Much as these questions may not evoke much officer empathy, the use of murder prosecutions for cops whose training, intelligence and self-control is lacking raises serious issues that may well prevent officers from acting swiftly when needed to protect lives out of fear that the outcome will be life in prison. The excuse of “split-second decision making” is a grossly overused rationalization, but at the same time, it does happen and fear of prosecution for murder could well mean the difference between life and death.
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Wow. Two days in a row I can relate to how I want my grandchildren to be treated. If one of my five grandsons is acting in an irrational manner and might be armed (obviously not this case) and fails to obey commands, I can’t think of a better solution than being tased. Grappling with a policeman, running away and getting shot, charging an officer and getting shot, are all much more dangerous and possibly deadly. Like any confrontation whether miitary, law enforcement, or even heated discussion with a neighbor, weighing unreasonable force is not the controlling factor.
No disrespect intended to you or your grandchildren – mazel tov, by the way – but how does this relate to anything SHG raised in the post?
No offense taken. The point I was trying to make is that escalation of force is never purely a rational decision. I am not a law enforcement officer but have been in situations that escalated to violence pretty quickly. I would think that for police the options are
1. Rush the person hoping you do not get stabbed or shot
2. Try to force them to the ground and hope they are not armed or take your weapon
3. Get close enough to mace them if you have mace and hope you do not get stabbed
4. TASER them and handcuff them while they are stunned.
5. Shoot them and concoct the best reason why you did that (it never includes your fear)
Obviously, these are predicated on the imminent danger to officers or the public
The medical examiner found the cause of death to be “attributed to a few things-his heart health and law enforcement’s use of electrical weapons and restraint.” Sounds like mobile electric chairs to me. If you can’t bring the perp to the chair, bring the chair to him.
Too many officers think the Taser is a magic device and don’t have backup plans for when it doesn’t work. this isn’t the fault of Taser. In their training they specifically say no more than 15 seconds total and to have backup plans in case of failure. This one is on the agency’s training, not the device.
Some cops inform me that Taser’s 15 seconds are like the “use by” date on canned goods.
I taught for Taser for a decade. I always taught that officers would have to justify each exposure in court and that after 3 they should have a plan B, plan C, and plan D; because as good as the Taser is, it just does not work on everyone. The idea that if 1 exposure is good, several are better went away more than a decade ago, and if anyone still teaches that, they are on their own.
This is the “not all cops” argument. No doubt you were a wonderful training officer and taught cops not only the right circumstances and methods of using a Taser, but its limits as well. But not all trainers are as good as you, and not all departments are as diligent as yours, and not all cops are all that bright or well-intended. And the idea that if one is good, more are better is a common theme of human experience. Cops, if nothing else, are human.
You are sadly right. That is why I said it falls back on the department, not Taser (or Axon). If agencies don’t enforce the 3 exposure of 15 second rule, officers will figure our that that it is a suggestion, not a rule.
If you discipline for it when there isn’t harm, you prevent the situation that happened here. Because I’ll bet they have other multiple exposure, more that 15 second incidents where there were no injuries.
In the early days, Taser did everything it could to present its weapons as harmless and easy-peasy solutions to a wide berth of law enforcement needs when it desperately sought to get departments to buy a ton of ’em. They don’t get a pass now.
Surprising that screaming and running naked through the streets is even an offense in Oklahoma cities. Back in the days of the Indian Territory, Texas used to get rid of its lunatics by tying them up and exporting them to what is now Oklahoma. There are references in old BIA agency reports to this practice, which has since been discontinued. Texas doesn’t get rid of its lunatics anymore.
Before manifest destiny, it was New Jersey.
At least Lakey didn’t pull a Jason Jones and pour hand sanitizer over himself.
No. Just no.
“Did their actions evince a depraved mind or two dumbass cops who kept tasing when it failed to paralyze Lakey so they could cuff him not out of any sort of malice but because they were just too callous to grasp the risk they were causing?”
Isn’t callousness what is meant by depravity? It’s depraved indifference to human life, in the long form, isn’t it? What’s malice got to do with it?
At some point during that three minutes, they must have at least have some feeling of trepidation about whether there was a risk of killing this person. If their answer wasn’t “who cares?,” but, “this is less than lethal, it’ll be fine,” then why was it fine? At no point did the whole point of calling something “less than lethal” enter their minds? Why?
Rather than ask, you could make the effort to find out.
Law is hard. Have you considered reddit?
Done both. Rhetorical questions are obviously rhetorical.
“[T]oo callous to grasp the risk they were presenting” seems a lot like too indifferent to the risk to the safety of another. The issue is when that callousness becomes the total indifference to safety. Seems like a reasonable finder of fact could say that disregard was total at minute 3 yet you seem to disagree.
Where is the gap between the instruction and your own statement? Malice? Curious why that word appears regarding a depraved heart case. You acknowledge some indifference, a tiny bit of indifference…. yet still enough to make a person “unable to grasp the risk.”
If the very indifference (callousness) that might make a defendant’s actions depraved removes from him the ability to grasp the risk those actions presented, then no indifferent defendant can ever be depraved. That’s certainly novel.
Depraved mind murder is usually explained by analogy, such as shooting into a crowd of people without the intent to kill any particular individual, but doing something that is almost certain to cause death. That a cop is callous, meaning “insensitive to others,” falls substantially below that threshold.
Malice is commonly used as a distinction between conduct that’s worthy of criminal prosecution and that which was unintentional and thus unworthy. These are common words and concepts for lawyers, and this is a law blog, which is why it’s generally unnecessary to explain things that are so basic.
The crucial word you seem to have missed is “contemptuous”. You can’t just seize on one word and ignore the others. Contemptuous and reckless disregard. Mere indifference is not enough.
Could some sort if netting be developed to be thrown over a suspect? Maximum possible injury some broken bones in worst case. I’m sure that it not as easy as it sounds to me.
Or we could use a phaser instead of a taser, if only this was Star Trek.
Yes. Search for NetGun.
Better yet, let’s invent a new kind of Silly String that hardens immediately into a spiderweb-like substance, and then pass a law requiring cops to carry a can of Super Silly Spider String at all times. Or maybe we could breed radioactive spiders and then let them bite the police. Hopefully the police unions would be on board; after all it’s only a little spider bite. You’re not an anti-spider-biter are you?
This might seem like a simplistic view of the situation, but why couldn’t the cops have just sat back and watch the crazy guy until he ran out of steam or might hurt someone else? Why did they have to try to subdue him at all? We see this a lot on TV/movies too, the erstwhile cop talking the suicidal person off the roof. What is the harm, either way, of leaving these people alone? In the latter case, clear the area they might land in, but let them have at.
What they could or could not do isn’t relevant to whether it was murder. They could have waited, but being impatient doesn’t make them good cops, but also doesn’t make it murder.
“In the early days, Taser did everything it could to present its weapons as harmless and easy-peasy solutions…”
Absolutely, but many police chiefs and sheriffs were complicit. They invited TV stations to the training sessions, where the public learned that the darts will hit and immobilize a sober, submissive, stationary target 100% of the time. Then they’re surprised when the public expects the same for combative, drug-addled or enraged suspects. There are still agency leaders who show off their Tasers during National Night Out and other PR events, even offering community figures the chance to volunteer to get “tased” for the crowd’s amusement. They violate their own use-of-force policy that narrowly defines how it can be used, turning what is officially a weapon into a parlor trick.
A baton strike or two may well have been the better and more effective option.
But we can’t have that.
We’ll see what the third course of action looks like soon. Or maybe we already are.
A bit late to the show, but it’s hard to believe they got a conviction here. Seems like a mountain of reasonable doubt when a different cop dropped a sleeper hold on the victim. Terrible defense attorney, or just a good prosecutor?
Odd that nobody addressed this question until now. It’s almost as if that wasn’t the question raised by the post.