hmmmm.... this arizona bill says that people people who make stun-gun ie: tazer and cops who use stun-guns dont have to be liable for their actions. i guess means when government rulers, and the police who protect them f*ck up they are not liable for their mistakes. Original Article Legislature OKs bill to shield stun-gun makers Matthew Benson The Arizona Republic May. 2, 2006 12:00 AM State lawmakers approved a measure Monday that would help shield the manufacturers of law enforcement equipment, including stun guns, from lawsuits. The measure, Senate Bill 1072, would apply to any weapon or safety equipment used by police, but opponents say it is designed to provide a degree of legal immunity to Taser International Inc., the Scottsdale-based maker of stun guns. The company is the target of federal and state investigations over its claims about it product safety, and its stun guns have been cited as a cause of death in a handful of cases in the United States and Canada since 1999 Sen. Paula Aboud referred to the measure, which passed the Senate on a 22-6 vote and now heads to the governor, as "special-interest legislation for the benefit of Taser." "I just don't believe in legislation for the benefit of one company, group or whatever," Aboud, D-Tucson, said. Not so, sponsor Rep. Russell Pearce, R-Mesa, said. He said the bill offers "very modest protection" from frivolous lawsuits for police and the companies that supply them. "I don't want to run out of business those same folks who are working to save lives," Pearce said. The measure, a "strike-everything bill" that took the place of an unrelated bill, would be invoked in cases in which a court finds that a plaintiff had been harmed with police equipment while committing, attempting to commit or fleeing a felony crime. In those instances, the court would presume that the victim or police officer had acted reasonably in protecting themselves or others, as had the state or local government that had hired and trained the officer. The manufacturer of the equipment that caused the injury would be presumed not to be negligent as long as its product met industry and government safety standards. It's the fourth time this session that Arizona lawmakers have considered legal protection for manufacturers of police equipment. But critics and advocates alike agree this latest attempt is a compromise measure, making it more difficult for plaintiffs to win lawsuits but not impossible. Sen. Bill Brotherton, D-Phoenix, opposed earlier efforts but voted in favor of SB 1072. The measure makes it "somewhat more difficult" to pursue companies such as Taser through the courts, he said, though it's a far cry from an earlier attempt that offered "basically blanket immunity." Janice Goldstein, executive director of the Arizona Trial Lawyers Association, said her organization has not taken a position on the bill, though it, too, strongly opposed similar bills . While the bill approved Monday raises the bar for litigants to win court judgments, she said, "it still allows anyone injured to have their day in court." Reporter Amanda J. Crawford contributed to this article.