There is no factual information that indicates that a TASER caused an injury.
That's what Chief Markland was quoted as saying in the Headline article of the Laconia Sun:
"Chief says no Gilford officer has been injured by Taser"
The article went on to say:
Markland reacted much more sharply to a posting by activist Doug Lambert on his blog GilfordGrok this weekend where he stated that "a Gilford police officer was somewhat seriously injured while certifying for the use of a TASER by a TASER" and asked "why the cover up?" In reply the chief said "I'm not acknowledging his (Lambert's) charges except to say that they are false, baseless and insulting."
Well, when I read the story, I was struck by nuances in the article. Not really any outright denials (read the story for yourself) but an impression could made that nothing happened. Sort of a non-denial denial.
As it turns out, in denial. Being puzzled, I went to the the last Selectmens' meeting, Sun in hand, and asked if someone had indeed been injured in or around TASERS. Heck, why not ask the Town's leaders? Our new Town Administrator, Scott Dunn, said he'd get me an answer.
And so he has, via the Town Attorney (emphasis mine):
“the town has an obligation to disclose the details of the incident that led to the possible injury, without revealing the name of the officer. Events since the incident with respect to the officer’s progress, duty and medical condition are private matters and should not be disclosed.”
Accordingly, I can confirm that a police officer was recently injured and that the injury occurred while participating in a TASER training exercise.
I do appreciate his response! It kinda leads credence to what Doug had in his post. It also kinda goes against the nuances in the Sun's Headline article:
"...false, baseless and insulting...."
Two vs. One. It is voting time, right? Who's right? Seems like one was demanding an apology; should it now be another (gee, I love nuances...)?
Oh, I guess I still have questions as I again am detecting "careful parsing" of words and phrases:
- What is the nature of the injury (without revealing his current progress, duty, or present medical condition)? Spinal, limb, neurological, muscle, other?
- Was being tased the root cause of the injury? Other?
- If so, is the injury solely due to the tasing, or was the injury a result of a secondary event (Example - as a result of being tased, did he do a face plant onto the corner of the table in front of him)?
- Will this increase the cost of our liability insurance in any way? Cost of health insurance?
- What specific laws or regulations (Federal, state, or local) govern the above statement (note: just saying HIPAA doesn't really answer the question).
Why do I ask? Simple - if the town may be on the hook for substantial hospitalization or rehabilitation expenses, I would imagine that it should be a budgetary item open for discussion.
The article mentioned a Safety Committee - will that be a publicly noticed meeting?
