In Boulder, Colorado, two men arguing over a parking spot drew tasers and shot each other. Restaurant owner Harvey Epstein of Mamacitas was charged in the incident with fellow taser-slinger Casey M. Dane, the supervisor for Colorado Security Services.
This could make for a more interesting tort case than criminal case. It appears that Epstein was upset that Dane’s people had put a a metal boot on a van parked behind Mamacitas, belonging to the restaurant. The security company said that it was on property belonging to one of its customers. Epstein disagreed and showed up with bolt cutters and a taser.
Dane said that Epstein threatened him with the bolt cutters and Epstein said that Dane threatened to shoot him. That’s when the tasers came out.
Under the common law, you cannot protect property with force calculated to cause serious bodily injury or death. You can use such force to protect your own life — so long as it is not excessive.
If the fight was over the van, it would go badly for Epstein — if he was the first to draw. Yet, Epstein is already claiming self-defense, which would increase the range of permissible actions. The fact that Epstein appeared with bolt cutters could work against him if he did not call the police. Should be interesting to watch.
For the full story, click here.
Both of our would-be gunslingers best take heed of the $6.2 million verdict against Taser International in San Jose, California. Seems that Taser never warned the police that repeated exposure to the effects of tasers could kill suspects. The late Robert Heston found out the hard way and his family took exception. Taser now has 6.2 million reasons to change their corporate minds, and our latter-day Wyatt Earps may now have a law suit.
I can hear the gears for next year’s Torts exam grinding… or maybe “battery packs humming” would be a better metaphor…