Good Lawyers in Injury Divorce DUI

I really don’t know when the Taser gun started being a standard issue item for police officers. I know that the Taser was invented in 1969. According to Wikipedia, they were introduced in police work as a less lethal alternative to guns.

Well, maybe. It seems that in the news we hear more and more about people dying from being shot by police with Taser guns.

One news report about one of three men in Canada who have recently died as a result of being shot with an electroshock weapon said over and over that he was resisting arrest and that the cops had to shoot him with the Taser weapon in order to subdue him.

So, now police can legally kill you if you resist arrest?

I remember in my study of torts in school there is an “eggshell skull rule.” It means that you take the victim, or plaintiff, as they come. That means that if you knock someone down and they happen to die because their head falls off or because of some other condition they had that you didn’t know about, it’s still your fault. Basically, if you cause much greater damage to a person through your negligence or intentional acts because of some unforeseen condition that they have, it makes no difference, you are still liable for whatever happens.

However, I think this must not apply to police actions. The way they use the Taser left and right, without knowing if someone could have a heart problem or some other medical condition seems quite reckless, but I have not yet heard of a successful lawsuit against the police for use of the Taser. Perhaps it’s just too early yet.

Does anyone know if police officers have special protection from the eggshell skull rule? If not, I would think that we will begin to see lawsuits about the use of the Taser and the deaths that have resulted from its use. Time will tell.

I think that some lawsuits and perhaps some stiff punitive damage awards might not be a bad thing if it slows down this liberal and seemingly indiscriminate use of the Taser gun.

In Ohio, a pregnant woman who was on the ground was shot with a Taser gun by a police officer because she refused to answer his questions and resisted being handcuffed.

The woman had arrived at the police station with her 1-year-old son in tow and asked the police to take custody of the child because she was tired of dealing with his father. When questioned, she refused to answer and just tried to leave with her child. The officer decided to detain her because he says that he feared that letting her leave with the child could have put the boy in danger.

So, as the officer grabbed her, she resisted him and ended up on the floor and resisted being handcuffed. She was wearing a winter coat, so the cop didn’t realize she was pregnant and pulled out his trusty Taser and shot her with it.

This officer remains on duty as the FBI investigates the case to determine if excessive police force was used. The police department says that they are also investigating the incident.

Meanwhile, the condition of the woman and her unborn child are unknown.

Here is the video: Pregnant Woman Tasered

I guess the question should be: Is there anyone who does NOT want to smack OJ Simpson?

I want to beat him about the head with a hot cast iron skillet. Not because he brutally murdered two people, got away with it and then wrote a book about how he did it. He deserves far worse for that crime, but the justice system failed.

It’s this latest armed robbery thing. Not the fact that I believe he is guilty of the 12 charges against him, and not even the latest smug shot.

Here’s why I just want to pound him into the ground. Have you seen him in court?

He doesn’t say a word, and he doesn’t have to say anything. All the eye rolling and huffing and puffing is far more than enough.

At the four day preliminary hearing he didn’t just sit and listen to the testimony like a sane defendant might. There was a lot of pulling faces, shifting around, the previously mentioned eye rolling and heavy breathing and sighing.

And that’s why, right now, I feel in the mood for some violence against OJ.

What if someone were selling you a necklace, and the necklace was pretty enough that you would buy it anyway but the seller told you it also happened to come with a sweet little diamond that would make the necklace sparkle even more? And what if later on, just by chance, you found out that the diamond what just a chunk of glass?

I call that a material misrepresentation.

Well, something similar just happened to me and it cost me $1,295.00.

In July, I bought a new car. I had picked out the one that I wanted online after talking with a salesperson to clarify the trade-in deal that the dealership was offering. When I got to the dealership it was pretty much a bait and switch, what they told me on the phone was not true and I could not get the same car that I had picked out from their inventory for the price I had expected. Instead, to get the great trade-in value for my old car I had to pick a car from their “savings zone” selection of cars.

I needed a car and I was already there, so I looked through their “savings zone” selections and found a car that I liked. It had a lot of extras piled on that I never would have asked for, but they were already on the car and were part of the deal.

As the sales person was showing me the car, one of the selling points that he used was that the car had chrome trim on the interior. While that is not something I would have ordered if I had been building my own car, it did dress up the interior and it was not like I could reject it since it was already on the car. The price tag on the invoice for this chrome trim was $1,295.00.

So, on Halloween, a piece of the “chrome” trim just fell off. As I picked it up I realized that it was not chrome, it is plastic and on the back were three pieces of double sided tape that had been holding it on.

Over the next couple of days I pulled out my invoice for the car and made sure that it actually said chrome on the paperwork and not “chrome tone” or some other language indicating that it wasn’t actually chrome. Nope. The paperwork says that I was charged $1,295 for chrome detailing on the interior.

So I called the dealership and after a little bit of a runaround I spoke with the guy who sold me the car. He said that if I came in they would reattach the fake chrome piece for me, but there would be no rebate, refund or concessions made to make up for the fact that I paid $1,295 for some cheap plastic that is, in fact, taped onto the car.

I feel ripped off. So I mentioned it to a friend of mine who happens to be a lawyer, and even if she weren’t, she’s very smart. She suggested that I look into the BBB and the Attorney General’s Consumer Protection Office. I looked to see if the dealership had any outstanding complaints and they do not. They are a member of the BBB though. So I filed a complaint with the BBB and we’ll see how it goes.

I know that I probably can not be the first person to complain about this dealership. So I’m thinking that they will most likely work with me to settle the issue. If they had unsettled complaints against them it would show up on the records, I think.

So here we go. I’ve filed the complaint and the ball is in their court now. I will keep you posted on how it goes. If I get no satisfaction I can always file a complaint with the Attorney General’s Consumer Protection Office, and I may do that anyway. The only reason I haven’t yet is because they want to have copies of your documentation and I don’t have scanned copies to send them yet. I do have all of the documentation though, so that may be a task for tomorrow.