Home Food Court rules for officer who shot deaf boy with stun gun

Court rules for officer who shot deaf boy with stun gun

[ad_1]

A Connecticut police officer who shot a 12-year-old deaf boy with a stun gun at his school acted reasonably and cannot be sued by the boy’s parents for alleged excessive force because of government immunity, a federal appeals court ruled on Friday.

The 2nd US Circuit Court of Appeals in New York decided in favor of now-retired West Hartford officer Paul Gionfriddo, who appealed a lower court judge’s denial of his request to dismiss the claims against him in the parents’ lawsuit. The appeals court overturned the lower court and ordered it to issue a judgment for Gionfriddo.

Gionfriddo and another officer responded to the American School for the Deaf in West Hartford in April 2013 when school officials reported the boy had assaulted a teacher during a dispute over a takeout food order. School officials say the boy hit the teacher with a stick and rocks outside the school.

Police said they ordered the boy to drop a large rock and warned him they would use a stun gun if he didn’t. Teachers at the school translated the officers’ commands and warnings in sign language to the boy, who police say ignored officers’ orders.

Lawyers for Gionfriddo did not immediately return messages seeking comment Friday.

Gionfriddo shot the boy once with stun gun wires and administered electroshock for five seconds, but officers couldn’t get the boy handcuffed, police said. With the wires still stuck in the student, Gionfriddo deployed a second electroshock that allowed officers to get the handcuffs on, officials said.

The boy, known only as “A.M.” in court documents, claimed he was defending himself after a teacher assaulted him. He also denied receiving and understanding the teachers’ sign language interpretations of the police commands.

“Officer Gionfriddo … had a reasonable basis to believe that A.M. posed a threat to himself or the other staff members,” a three-judge panel of the appeals court wrote. “Officer Gionfriddo had a reasonable basis to believe that his instructions and warnings were being conveyed to A.M. and that A.M. was ignoring them.”

Andrew Rozynski and Eric Baum, New York-based lawyers for the boy’s parents, said in a statement that Friday’s ruling “could set a dangerous precedent that gives police officers the opportunity to use excessive force without accountability for their actions.”

Rozynski said they were considering whether to appeal the ruling and noted they still have pending claims in state court against Gionfriddo and the town of West Hartford.

[ad_2]

Source link

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

Enter Captcha Here : *

Reload Image

Must Read

Why everyone is talking about energy storage | MNN

Ever since governments started getting serious about developing renewable energy, naysayers have been arguing that it's a pipe dream — after all, the...

Give charities free ad space on your smartphone’s lock screen with Screen Donor

This app gives free ad space to deserving charities and NGOs on one of our tech-centric culture's most commonly seen screens - our...

Tropicana 100% Juice 3-Flavor Fruit Blend Variety Pack, 10 Fl Oz, Bottles, (Pack of 24)

Price: (as of - Details) Now you can enjoy the refreshing taste of Tropicana’s Fruit Medley, Pineapple Peach Mango and Strawberry Orange Juice...

Cell phones and screens are keeping your kid awake

For children and teens, using cell phones, tablets and computers at night is associated with losing sleep time and sleep quality, new research...
Support