The people in Zimmerman's sub-division paid out a settlement to the Martin family. Does that mean George Zimmerman was wrong? If Miami pays out to this guy's family then too bad for the citizens of Miami. They got robbed. The deployment of the taser to stop a person who has committed a crime is a legitimate use of the taser.
The type of crime that is committed is taken into account. How that "seizure" of the person and his/her effects takes place to make that detention or arrest is taken into account. The type of crime determines the "reasonableness" of the force that can be used. See Graham vs's Conner.
Tasers are used regularly according to you. You are not a statistics collector and you don't collect data in reference to the reasonableness of the force used.
You asked where does the probes location have to do with lethality? Studies have shown that when the current passes through the heart, it acts much like an AED would. It disrupts the electrical rhythm that powers the heart and causes a heart attack. This, combined with other factors causes death. I hope you read the warning that I retrieved from the Taser International website.
Your right, nothing in the "use of force" pyramid, wheel, or whatever your agency uses says that the taser cannot be deployed. Ultimately this is up to the law enforcement officer, when and if deployment can occur. If the incident falls into the guidelines that are provided by the Supreme court provided by the decisions in Tennessee Vs's Garner or Graham Vs's Conner. These guidelines were put into place so that tasers "which have been known to kill people and fall into a medium/high use of force category" would not be used against fleeing teenagers that committed the act of vandalism.
Deployment of your taser is a perfectly good reason to apprehend a fleeing felon. Not an individual wanted for a misdemeanor crime. By your account, you are attempting to articulate the use of high/medium level of use of force to apprehend a suspect of a minor misdemeanor.
Furthermore, the building he was spraying was a boarded up McDonalds building, and one could argue that without a victim you don't have a crime. If the building is in a severe state of disrepair, and the owners don't care, who's to say that the owners didn't give him permission to paint it? Who's to say that there is no owner and the building is in limbo, being fought over by several prospective investors, some who intend to demolish it? If this is the way the police are going to act, I just might go spray paint my house in the middle of the night and run around my property to see if a police officer will deploy a taser against me.
I don't come in and "make sh*t up." Once again, for all you know I am a taser instructor, a police officer/sheriff, a doctor/paramedic or an attorney/judge. I am aware of what the taser is, how it works and effects the human body, and why people die from the deployments. You obviously don't understand why the deployment location would cause death as you understand bare minimum's when it comes to human anatomy and what the taser does yourself.
Your correct the cop doesn't need to hit the person in the leg to "drop him." However, if the cop had shot the kid in the legs in this case, the current would have run through his legs affecting that portion of the body, and this deployment would have gone through the person's heart/chest region, putting him at greater risk for a heart attack. You are also correct in the regards that the person can be hit "anywhere" to drop him. However, to drop him, you also have to have significant contact by both probes or 1 probe and the device itself to complete the circuit. The warning that I posted in the link clearly states the reasons that individuals die or are at risk to die. One of the main reasons would be the fact that the closer that the probes are to the heart, the more likely the current is to run directly through the person's heart and cause a heart attack in lay mans terms. Other conditions that can contribute to this is physical exertion (in this case the guy was running away) and even medical issues like asthma, narcotics (like PCP, Cocaine, Meth).
Police are further cautioned not to use this device in certain situations, such as firing the taser at a subject at elevation, which resulted in the death of a New York man when the NYPD fired a taser and he fell to his death. The commander of that swat team I believe killed himself over the decision to allow a taser deployment against this individual who already wanted to kill himself. Pregnancy is another contraindication. Taser usage is also contraindicated when using oil based OC sprays as it might cause the subject of the force to catch fire. The list goes on....
To say that tasers can be used to deal with any situation, to effect any arrest for any reason is insane. Just ask the officers who deployed batons against Rodney King, a fleeing felon that was taken into custody and beaten with batons/ also considered high use of force. You can only use the force necessary to effect an arrest. Its not reasonable to use a taser against a suspect who is fleeing the scene of a vandalism to a vacant building. The individual has used no physical violence or threatened any violence against the officer. The individual fleeing was not armed. The individual fleeing did not use force against the officer.
Lets play what if for a second and say that the suspect got away but was hit by a car a short time later while fleeing from the officer. The officer would not be able to be held liable, because no special relationship exists between the suspect and officer (See Warren vs's DC, South vs's Maryland). However, in cases where a seizure of the individual results in the death of the citizen, or the arrested dies in custody, the officer can be held liable, because a special relationship existed between that detained/arrested individual and the officer. The officer had the duty to protect that individual from harm to himself, harm to others, and death.
The fact of the matter is, that deploy a taser against a non violent individual is not reasonable force. Chasing the kid on foot and tackling him is reasonable. Chasing him, catching up to him and grabbing him is reasonable, to apprehend him for arrest for the vandalism. Firing a taser, a beanbag round, a bullet, a baton, wooden shotgun baton round, using a vehicle to strike, or whatever else I didn't think of that could be used by the officer to apprehend the fleeing subject wanted for a MISDEMEANOR is unreasonable and may fall into the realm of excessive force.
Perhaps we can't go back and change the actions of this officer. Perhaps reading this though will help change the thinking that goes into another officer when they deploy force. Im not talking about situations where a subject is fighting with you, where you are trying to go home to your family at night, and you deploy your taser against a actively resisting, violent individual. What I am talking about is deploying tasers, batons, sprays against individuals who run for marijuana, for petty vandalisms, for a mouthy motorist, for someone who is peacefully protesting etc. I am telling you that if you deploy force against individuals like in this situation, its likely that you too will be held accountable in some sort of court system, because it does not fall into the guidelines provided to arrest a subject by SCOTUS.