Canadian condolences to the family of Tucson PD officer Henry Fung who died of an apparent heart attack on Tuesday this week, one day after he reportedly "volunteered" to take a taser jolt on Monday for "training" purposes.

The medical examiner must STRONGLY recommend that the taser(s) used on Henry Fung be measured for 'output variance'. As we have learned in Canada, not all tasers perform the same way. Many have tested way outside the safety allowables set by Taser International. The medical examiner (and all the doctors in the world) CANNOT rule out the taser until the shock from the weapon itself has been definitively ruled out. Proper measurement is required.

On CBS News last week, Taser International said that proving the taser did NOT play a role in a person's death is an UNPROVABLE supposition. There's your starting point. Click here: http://bit.ly/tT8iYq

It's notable that no one has reported the duration and number of stuns Officer Fung recieved. Usually when a citizen dies after being shocked by a Taser, he or she is blamed, because they had so-called "excited delirium", were on drugs or had a previous medical history (doesn't everyone have a previous medical history??).

Taser International has been warning about multiple and prolonged stuns only in recent years even though, at the beginning, they told police, policy-makers and the public that the taser was "safe to use on any assailant".

That is NOT what they're saying now. One must wonder if Officer Fung was given an opportunity to read the fine print of the latest Volunteer Waiver Taser International put out.

Read closely and it is ALL there: Tasers CAN CAUSE dangerous and deadly metabolic and cardiac changes. Several "suspects" have died MANY HOURS after taser shocks because of changes brought on by acidosis, which causes the muscles surrounding the heart to fail.

The city of Tucson cannot accept the "averages" Taser International spouts -- according to the original spec sheets, the true PEAK OUTPUT of Tasers varies between 151 and 162 milliamps, when "working properly". Any first year med student can tell you that shocks between 30 to 100 milliamps can KILL. Add to that, the invasive nature of a taser used in 'probe mode' - resistance under the skin is next to NIL.

And another shocking revelation: there are NO electrical safety standards for shocks UNDER the skin. Check with the Underwriters Laboratory, the IEC or Canadian Standards Association and you will quickly confirm this fact.

Taser International has some SERIOUS explaining to do. And you can be sure that their damage control machine is in full swing. I follow the company on TWITTER and they are a company which normally posts several TWEETS per day. They've been ominously silent since the day police officer Henry Fung died.

The Department of Justice ought to investigate how this technology was approved without enough rigorous science being applied.

One pig in 1996 and five dogs in 1999 and no true human trials until years after initial sales, should be alarming to all citizens.

Maker of Taser stun guns used by Syracuse police reacts to NYCLU report

October 19, 2011
Robert A. Baker / The Post-Standard

Syracuse, NY -- Taser International, the maker of stun guns used by Syracuse police and other police agencies in the state, reacted to several points made by the New York Civil Liberties Union in a report released today on Taser use in the state.

The NYCLU studied Taser-use reports from Syracuse and seven other police departments in the state and found that police departments are “consistently misusing and overusing Tasers” and faults an absence of sound policies, training and guidelines in the use of Tasers.

In a release today, Syracuse police said they have yet to read the report, which became available to the public at 11 a.m. today.

“The Syracuse Police Department will have no comment on this report until we are provided with an official copy of the report and we have had time to thoroughly read and examine the information contained in this report,” the release said.

Taser International, which also had not received a copy of the report, reacted to what was published this morning in The Post-Standard.

One point was on the number of deaths quoted in the report. More than 200 people died after being shocked by Tasers, according a Department of Justice figure quoted in the published report.

Tasers were listed by authorities as the cause or contributing cause in only 12 of those cases, Steve Tuttle, vice president of communication for the Arizona-based manufacturer of stun guns, said today. And of those 12 deaths, the majority were from injuries suffered in a fall after being stunned.

The report said only 15 percent of the incidents reviewed involved a subject who was armed or thought to be armed, which, the NYCLU said, “shatter the illusion that Tasers are primarily used as an alternative to deadly force on armed or otherwise dangerous subjects.

Tuttle said that he was surprised that the number was so high. Nationally, he said, the number is closer to 10 percent. The vast majority of subjects who are hit by Tasers should be unarmed, he said.

“You don’t bring a knife to a gunfight,” Tuttle said. “You don’t replace firearms with Tasers.”

Taser International does not train police departments on the use of the Taser, Tuttle said.

“We don’t train users, we train certified teachers,” Tuttle said.

The departments send officers to train with Taser International to become teachers in their own departments, but Tuttle said.

“It’s up to the police departments to train their officers,” Tuttle said.

Each department may have different standards for defining use of force, which includes when to use a Taser device, he said.

“We can’t teach officers use of force. We are not experts in the use of force,” Tuttle said. “We show them safe operation.”

"If they are suggesting good training and good policies are part of Taser training, they are correct," Tuttle said.

As far as people of color being stunned in greater proportion than white people, Tuttle said that number must be compared to the arrest rate of each community studied.

“Is there a higher proportion being arrested?” he asked. If there is, he said, it stands to reason that a high proportion would be stunned as well.

Study urges police to be cautious with stun guns

May 27, 2011
Dave Collins, Associated Press

HARTFORD, Conn. (AP) — Police officers using stun guns should avoid shooting suspects multiple times or for prolonged periods to reduce the risk of potential injury or death, according to a new U.S. Justice Department study prompted by hundreds of police-involved deaths across the country.

Coroners and other medical experts on the study panel concluded that while the effects of prolonged and repeated stun gun use on the body are not fully understood, most deaths officially attributed to Tasers and similar devices are from multiple or lengthy discharges of the weapons.

The panel reviewed nearly 300 cases in which people died from 1999 to 2005 after police shot them with stun guns, but found that most of the deaths were caused by underlying health problems and other issues. Of those cases, the experts examined 22 in which the use of stun guns was listed as an official cause of death.

The study released Tuesday by the department's research arm, the National Institute of Justice, concludes that it's appropriate for officers to use stun guns to subdue unruly or uncooperative suspects, as long as police adhere to "accepted national guidelines and appropriate use-of-force policy." It also makes several recommendations, including medical screenings for all people shot with stun guns.

The experts also noted that evidence shows the risk of death from a stun gun related incident is less than 0.25 percent, and there's no conclusive evidence that stun guns cause permanent health problems.

"What this study suggests is, indeed, less-than-lethal technologies ... can be effectively used by law enforcement," said John Laub, director of the National Institute of Justice.

Justice Department officials said the study began more than six years ago after Amnesty International and other groups blamed many death of suspects in police custody on stun gun. Both Amnesty International and the United Nations Committee Against Torture have called the use of stuns guns a form of torture in some cases.

More than 12,000 law enforcement agencies nationwide had issued about 260,000 stun guns to officers as of spring of last year, the study said. Of the more than 600 arrest-related deaths in the U.S. each year, there are very few cases in which stun guns are cited the cause or contributory factor, the report said.

Officials at Taser International, the maker of the leading stun guns, said Thursday that there are no peer-reviewed medical studies that have found that prolonged or repeated use of Tasers cause death. In 2009, however, the company advised Taser users to try to avoid shooting people in the chest, because of a very low risk of a health problem.

Alvaro Garzon, a 46-year-old drug and alcohol addiction counselor from New Haven, said the study's cautions about firing stun guns multiple times make sense. Garzon has filed a brutality complaint with New Haven police saying a city officer shot him with a stun gun four times last year during a domestic disturbance call.

"After two times it should be enough," Garzon said in Spanish on Thursday while his daughter, Lina, interpreted for him. "You don't feel good after the second shot. I felt like I was burning inside."

Garzon, who was accepted into a probation program on a charge of assault on a police officer, said he was treated at a hospital for lung problems, and he continues to suffer from the trauma. The status of Garzon's police complaint wasn't immediately clear Thursday night.

Police across the country have faced heated criticism for stun gun deaths.

Connecticut state police are investigating the May 1 death of 26-year-old Marcus Brown, who authorities say was shot with a stun gun by Waterbury police while he was in the back of a police cruiser and handcuffed. Brown's family is calling for federal authorities to investigate; the official cause of death is still pending.

Waterbury police say Brown, who was about 5 feet 6 inches tall and 125 pounds, became combative. The officer who shot Brown, Adrian Sanchez, had been placed on administrative duty under normal procedures.

Earlier this month, Connecticut state police released an investigation report that showed how Middletown police last year shot 35-year-old Efrain Carrion 34 times with stun guns to subdue him while responding to a report that he was despondent and violent. Carrion died later that day.

The medical examiner concluded Carrion died of "excited delirium," a cause of death not recognized by many medical groups but one the Justice Department says is well documented. Several officers were cleared of wrongdoing in the incident.

Last year, a jury in Louisiana acquitted former Winnfield officer Scott Nugent, who was accused of shooting handcuffed suspect Baron Pikes eight times with a Taser gun and charged with manslaughter. Pikes later died.

In 2006, police in Green Cove Springs, Fla., shot a 56-year-old woman in a wheelchair 10 times with a stun gun and she died. Police say Emily Marie Delafield was swinging knives and a hammer at relative and police, and officers had tried to talk her into dropping the weapons before they were forced to subdue her. The officers' actions were found to be justified.

Lt. J. Paul Vance, a spokesman for Connecticut state police, said police officers never want to get into a situation where they're forced to fire Tasers or other weapons.

"Certainly you're looking for voluntary compliance from a suspect ... but unfortunately that's not always achievable," Vance said.

TASER guidelines updated for first time since 2005

April 22, 2011
Capt. Greg Meyer (ret.), Police One

The Police Executive Research Forum's 2005 guidelines were well-intentioned, but became contentious in litigation.

Back in 2005, the Police Executive Research Forum (PERF) published a set of TASER guidelines (then referred to as “Conducted Energy Devices,” or CEDs). Those guidelines were well-intentioned, but very contentious. Some of the 2005 guidelines recommended against CED use when it was called for, and encouraged CED use in situations where it was not. In litigation, the guidelines were quite contentious.

Since that time, years of TASER experience, updated medical research, and numerous court cases have resulted in broader knowledge about TASERs. Even after all that, TASER use is still a developing and controversial area among researchers, practitioners, the public, and the courts.

The 2005 PERF guidelines were badly in need of updating, and that has finally occurred following a meeting in Philadelphia last summer of police chiefs, medical experts, use-of-force experts, industry representatives, and others.

This morning (as this is written on April 8, 2011), PERF’s “2011 Electronic Control Weapon Guidelines,” were published in conjunction with the COPS office (i.e. the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, United States Department of Justice). In my opinion, the 2011 guidelines are a vast improvement.

[Full disclosure: I was one of many people who worked on the guidelines at the Philadelphia meeting and in subsequent editing sessions with PERF.]

From the document’s introductory material:

Since 2005, researchers have continued to conduct studies of ECWs, and thousands of police departments have gained real-world experience with them. As a result, the COPS Office asked PERF to update the 2005 guidelines, reflecting these developments. PERF conducted background research, including a survey of nearly 200 law enforcement agencies regarding ECW deployments, as well as interviews of police chiefs and other experts. PERF and the COPS Office then convened a conference in Philadelphia in August 2010 where 150 police executives, researchers, doctors, attorneys, and others discussed the use of ECWs in light of five years’ worth of experience in the field.

This publication is the result of those efforts, providing an updated and improved version of the initial guidelines to reflect the state of the field regarding ECWs. The 2011 guidelines also reflect a general consensus in policing that ECWs play an invaluable role in providing officers with another type of less-lethal weapon that can be effective in many situations, but they should not be seen as an all-purpose weapon that takes the place of de-escalation techniques and other options. In addition, ECWs have limitations, so officers must be prepared to switch to other strategies if an ECW is not producing the desired result.

Obviously, ECWs are a subject of wide interest to law enforcement since so many thousands of agencies use TASERs. Policy makers and trainers would benefit from reviewing the guidelines and analyzing their own policies and training protocols.

Not everyone will be satisfied with the guidelines, of course, and the ECW subject will remain somewhat contentious as we move forward. The courts in particular are still trying to sort out TASER issues, and that effort will continue for years as unique cases rise through the system. Still, if you lay the 2005 and the 2011 versions of the PERF guidelines side-by-side, I think it is obvious that significant improvement has occurred.

The 2011 guidelines document also contains a listing of selected medical research and legal that are pertinent to ECWs, as well as a listing of the participants at the Philadelphia meeting where the guidelines revision process began.

My personal view is that the 2011 Electronic Control Weapon Guidelines document from PERF and COPS is a good step forward in the history of these valuable tools which have saved many lives and prevented many injuries.

Here are the new Guidelines and the related Glossary of terms, and a link to the complete document. For some of the guidelines I have made personal comments [in brackets immediately below the relevant guideline].

Electronic Control Weapon Guidelines (PERF 2011)
Agency Policy

1. Agency personnel must always consider the totality of the circumstances when applying the guidelines. In certain situations, exigent circumstances may outweigh the recommendation of a specific guideline. Personnel should always be able to articulate the justification for going beyond agency policy or training.

2. Agencies should develop policies and training curricula for ECWs that are integrated with the agency’s overall use-of-force policy.

3. Agencies should work to share and disseminate information regarding their respective ECW policies and training to foster better cooperation and coordination during joint law enforcement responses or operations. When possible, agencies should enter into a memorandum of understanding to develop joint ECW policies, protocols, and training.

[Comment: Guideline 3 is particularly applicable to small agencies that routinely depend upon mutual aid from adjoining agencies.]

4. Agencies should consult with local medical personnel to develop appropriate police-medical protocols for medical evaluation and removal of ECW probes following subjects’ exposure to ECW application.

5. Agencies should consider adopting brightly colored ECWs (e.g., yellow), which may reduce the risk of escalating a force situation because they are plainly visible and thus decrease the possibility that a secondary unit will mistake the ECW for a firearm. (Note: Specialized units [e.g., SWAT units] may prefer dark-colored ECWs for tactical concealment purposes.)

6. Personnel should keep ECWs in a weak-side holster and should train to perform a weak-hand draw or cross-draw to reduce the possibility of accidentally drawing and/or firing a sidearm. Transitioning the ECW to the strong hand after drawing with the weak hand should be allowed.

[Comment: Dr. Bill Lewinski of the Force Science Research Center and I continue to suggest weak-side holsters and weak-hand draws. We concur that transition to the strong hand after the draw would be fine. We do NOT support strong-hand cross-draw of the TASER. Of the 9 known cases (so far) of accidentally drawing and shooting a firearm when TASER was intended, ALL of them involved strong-hand draws, and some of those (including the infamous Oakland BART case, where an officer was tried for murder and convicted of involuntary manslaughter last year) involved weapons confusion even though the TASER placement was strong-hand cross-draw. You can read more about such cases in my earlier BART articles and in the articles archive at Dr. Lewinski’s website, www.forcescience.org ]

7. If agencies permit personnel to use privately owned ECWs on duty, policy should dictate specifications, regulations, qualifications, etc. The privately owned ECWs should be registered with the agency.

Training
8. Before any agency personnel (e.g., officers, jail personnel, auxiliary/reserve officers, civilian staff) are armed with ECWs, they should receive all mandated training and achieve all qualification requirements.

9. Agencies should use scenario- and judgment-based training that recognizes the limitations of ECW application and the need for personnel to be prepared to transition to other force options as needed.

10. Agencies should not rely solely on training curriculum provided by an ECW manufacturer. When they do use the curriculum, agencies should ensure the manufacturer’s training does not contradict agency use-of-force policies and values. Agencies should ensure that their ECW curricula are integrated into their overall use-of-force training curriculum.

11. Agencies should be aware that exposure to ECW application during training could result in injury to personnel and is not recommended. Any agency that does include ECW application as part of training should not make it mandatory for certification, and should ensure that safety protocols are rigorously followed.

12. ECW recertification should occur at least annually and should consist of physical competency and weapon retention, agency policy including any changes, technology changes, and reviews of local and national trends in ECW use. Recertification should also include scenario-based training.

13. Personnel should be trained to use an ECW for one standard cycle (five seconds) and then evaluate the situation to determine if subsequent cycles are necessary. Training protocols should emphasize that multiple applications or continuous cycling of an ECW resulting in an exposure longer than 15 seconds (whether continuous or cumulative) may increase the risk of serious injury or death and should be avoided.

14. Training protocols should emphasize the risk of positional asphyxia, and thus officers should be trained to use a restraint technique that does not impair the subject’s respiration following an ECW application.

[Comment: Whether positional or other forms of restraint asphyxia are a cause of arrest-related deaths continues to be a subject of controversy among medical researchers. No matter what tools or tactics are used, arresting officers should attempt to ensure that a subject’s breathing is not compromised.]

15. Personnel should be trained that when a subject is armed with an ECW and attacks or threatens to attack a police officer who is alone, the officer must defend himself or herself or take actions to avoid becoming incapacitated and risking the possibility that the subject could gain control of the officer’s firearm. However, if multiple officers are present, a subject’s attack with an ECW against one officer should not in and of itself cause a deadly-force response by other officers.

[Comment: This critical subject should be included in scenario-based training exercises.]

16. Agencies’ policy and training should discourage the use of the drive stun mode as a pain compliance technique. The drive stun mode should be used only to supplement the probe mode to complete the incapacitation circuit, or as a countermeasure to gain separation between officers and the subject so that officers can consider another force option.

17. Personnel should be trained to attempt hands-on control tactics during ECW application, including handcuffing the subject during ECW application (i.e., handcuffing under power). Training should emphasize that personnel who touch a subject during ECW application will not receive exposure to the electrical charge, so long as caution is taken not to touch the subject along the circuit (i.e., between the locations of the two probes).

18. Command staff, supervisors, and investigators should receive ECW awareness training appropriate to the investigations they conduct and review.

19. If an agency uses more than one model of ECWs, training should emphasize the differences in the various models (e.g., duration of cycle, optimal probe spread).

20. In addition to providing an overview of ECWs, agencies should provide ECW awareness training to personnel who are not certified to carry the devices and emphasize their responsibilities. The training should also cover situations such as attempting to handcuff subjects during ECW application and transitioning to other force options.

Using the ECW
21. Personnel should use an ECW for one standard cycle (five seconds) and then evaluate the situation to determine if subsequent cycles are necessary. Personnel should consider that exposure to the ECW for longer than 15 seconds (whether due to multiple applications or continuous cycling) may increase the risk of death or serious injury. Any subsequent applications should be independently justifiable, and the risks should be weighed against other force options.

22. A warning should be given to a subject prior to activating the ECW unless doing so would place any person at risk. Warnings may be in the form of verbalization, display, laser painting, arcing, or a combination of these tactics.

23. When feasible, an announcement should be made to other personnel on the scene that an ECW is going to be activated.

24. Personnel should not intentionally activate more than one ECW at a time against a subject.

[Comment: There will be occasional high-threat levels where this needs to be done. If the next logical option is to shoot the person, for example, I would argue that if the dynamics of the situation permit, officers might shoot more than one ECW at the subject. See Guideline #1 regarding totality of circumstances.]

25. ECWs should be used only against subjects who are exhibiting active aggression or who are actively resisting in a manner that, in the officer’s judgment, is likely to result in injuries to themselves or others. ECWs should not be used against a passive subject.
26. Fleeing should not be the sole justification for using an ECW against a subject. Personnel should consider the severity of the offense, the subject’s threat level to others, and the risk of serious injury to the subject before deciding to use an ECW on a fleeing subject.

27. ECWs should not generally be used against pregnant women, elderly persons, young children, and visibly frail persons. Personnel should evaluate whether the use of the ECW is reasonable, based upon all circumstances, including the subject’s age and physical condition. In some cases, other control techniques may be more appropriate as determined by the subject’s threat level to others.

28. Personnel should not intentionally target sensitive areas (e.g., head, neck, genitalia).

29. ECWs should not be used on handcuffed subjects unless doing so is necessary to prevent them from causing serious bodily harm to themselves or others and if lesser attempts of control have been ineffective.

30. ECWs should not be used against subjects in physical control of a vehicle in motion (e.g., automobiles, trucks, motorcycles, ATVs, bicycles, scooters).

31. ECWs should not be used when a subject is in an elevated position where a fall may cause substantial injury or death.

32. ECWs should not be used in the known presence of combustible vapors and liquids or other flammable substances including alcohol-based Oleoresin Capsicum (O.C.) spray carriers. Agencies utilizing both ECWs and O.C. spray should use a non-combustible (e.g., water-based) spray.

33. ECWs can be effective against aggressive animals. Policies should indicate whether use against animals is permitted.

Medical Considerations
34. Personnel should be aware that there is a higher risk of sudden death in subjects under the influence of drugs and/or exhibiting symptoms associated with excited delirium.

[Comment: Let’s be clear, subjects in excited/agitated delirium are at higher risk of sudden death REGARDLESS of what police tool or tactic is employed, and regardless of whether police are even present.]

35. When possible, emergency medical personnel should be notified when officers respond to calls for service in which they anticipate an ECW application may be used against a subject.

[Comment: Especially with cases of subjects who appear to be in excited/agitated delirium, it is desirable to roll EMT before engaging the subject if tactical circumstances allow. It is also desirable to train dispatchers to recognize the symptoms of excited/agitated delirium (such as the proverbial “naked man” running in the street, shouting irrationally, breaking things, etc.) so that several officers, and supervisor, and EMT personnel can be sent to the scene at the same time. As the Institute for Prevention of In-Custody Death (www.ipicd.com) teaches that “Excited delirium is a medical emergency disguised as a police problem.” The objective is for the police to subdue the violent subject, then the EMTs administer a body-cooling sedative immediately in an effort to prevent an arrest-related death.]

36. All subjects who have been exposed to ECW application should receive a medical evaluation by emergency medical responders in the field or at a medical facility. Subjects who have been exposed to prolonged application (i.e., more than 15 seconds) should be transported to an emergency department for evaluation. Personnel conducting the medical evaluation should be made aware that the suspect has experienced ECW activation, so they can better evaluate the need for further medical treatment.

37. All subjects who have received an ECW application should be monitored regularly while in police custody even if they received medical care. Documentation of the ECW exposure should accompany the subject when transferred to jail personnel or until the subject is released from police custody.

38. ECW probes should be treated as a biohazard. Personnel should not remove ECW probes from a subject that have penetrated the skin unless they have been trained to do so. Only medical personnel should remove probes that have penetrated a subject’s sensitive areas or are difficult to remove.

Reporting and Accountability
39. ECWs should be regulated while personnel are off duty under rules similar to those for service firearms (including storage, transportation, use, etc.).

40. A supervisor should respond to all incident scenes where an ECW was activated.
[Comment: Hopefully your agency requires response by a supervisor to ANY reportable use of force, not just ECW.]

41. When possible, supervisors should anticipate on-scene officers’ use of ECWs and should respond to calls for service that have a high propensity for the use of an ECW.

42. A supervisor should conduct an initial review of each ECW activation, and every instance of ECW use, including unintentional activation, should be documented.

43. Agencies should initiate force investigations when any of the following factors is involved:

- A subject experiences a proximity death or serious injury following ECW application
- A subject experiences prolonged ECW application (longer than 15 seconds)
- The ECW appears to have been used in a punitive or abusive manner
- There appears to be a substantial deviation from ECW training or policy
- A subject in an at-risk category has been subjected to application (e.g., young children, individuals who are elderly/frail, pregnant women, and any other activation as determined by a supervisor)

[Comment: I believe there was a word left out due to an editing error, and that Guideline 43 should read, “Agencies should initiate enhanced force investigations . . .” for the listed factors. An “enhanced” force investigation ought to occur at higher than the field supervisory level.]

44. Every ECW-related enhanced force investigation (and when possible every preliminary investigation) should include:
— Interviews of the subject and all officers who discharged their ECWs
— Location and interviews of witnesses (including other officers)
— Forensic quality photographs (including a ruler to show distances) of subject and officer injuries
— Photographs of cartridges/probes
— Collection of ECW cartridges, probes, data downloads, car video, confetti tags
— Copies of the ECW data download
— Other information as indicated in Reporting and Accountability Guideline #50

45. When reviewing downloaded ECW data, supervisors and investigators should be aware that the total time of activation registered on an ECW may not reflect the actual duration of ECW application on a subject.

[Comment: “Activations do not always equal applications.” This is particularly true of drive stun applications, which tend to have an on-and-off result as the subject and officer moves about; for probe applications, if the subject pulls out a probe, or the probe otherwise becomes dislodged, the computer will register activation time where actual application was not occurring.]

46. ECW activations should be tracked in the agency’s early intervention system (EIS).

47. Agencies should periodically conduct random audits of ECW data downloads and reconcile use-of-force reports with recorded activations. Agencies should take necessary action as appropriate when inconsistencies are detected.

48. Audits should be conducted to verify that all personnel who carry ECWs have attended initial and recertification training.

49. Agencies should collect and analyze information to identify ECW trends. Agencies may include display, laser painting, and arcing of weapons to measure prevention/deterrence effectiveness. Agencies should periodically analyze ECW statistics and make them available to the public.

50. Agencies should collect the following information about ECW use:
— Date, time, location of incident
— The use of display, laser painting and/or arcing, and whether those tactics deterred a subject and gained compliance
— Identifying and descriptive information and investigative statements of the subject (including membership in an at-risk population), all personnel firing ECWs, and all witnesses
— The type and brand of ECW used
— The number of ECW activations, the duration of each cycle, the duration between activations, and (as best as can be determined) the duration that the subject received applications
— Level of aggression encountered
— Any weapons possessed by the subject
— The type of crime/incident the subject was involved in
— Determination of whether deadly force would have been justified
— The type of clothing worn by the subject
— The range at which the ECW was used
— The type of mode used (probe deployment or drive stun)
— The point of probe impact on a subject with the device in probe mode
— The point of impact on a subject with the device in drive stun mode
— Location of missed probe(s)
— Terrain and weather conditions during ECW use
— Lighting conditions
— The type of cartridge used
— Suspicion that subject was under the influence of drugs (specify if available)
— Medical care provided to the subject
— Any injuries incurred by personnel or the subject

Public Information and Community Relations
51. Law enforcement agencies should conduct neighborhood programs that focus on ECW
awareness training, which should be part of any citizen’s training academy program.

52. Agencies’ public information officers should receive extensive training on ECWs so they can better inform the media and the public about the weapon. Members of the media should be briefed on agencies’ policies and use of ECWs.

53. ECW awareness should extend to law enforcement partners such as local medical personnel, citizen review boards, medical examiners, mental health professionals, judges, and local prosecutors.

Glossary
Activation: Pulling the trigger of an ECW, causing arcing or probe discharge.

Active aggression: A threat or overt act of an assault (through physical or verbal means), coupled with the present ability to carry out the threat or assault, which reasonably indicates that an assault or injury to any person is imminent.

Active resistance: A subject’s physical actions to defeat an officer’s attempt at control and to avoid being taken into custody. Verbal statements alone do not constitute active resistance.

Anti-Felon Identification (AFID) tags. See confetti tags.
application. The actual contact and delivery of electrical impulse to the subject via probe discharge or drive stun.

Arcing: Pulling the trigger to activate an ECW without discharging the probes. This may be done as a warning to the subject or to test the ECW prior to deployment (sometimes referred to as a spark test).

Cartridge: A replaceable vessel that generally contains compressed gas, probes, connecting wires, and confetti tags.

Complete the circuit: When there is not adequate spread between probes attached to a subject, or one probe misses the subject or dislodges, the ECW may be used in drive stun mode to incapacitate the subject. This allows for the electrical pulse to travel between the attached probe(s) and the point where the front of the ECW makes contact with the subject. This tactic is sometimes referred to as a three-point contact.

Conducted Energy Device (CED): See Electronic Control Weapon (ECW).

Confetti tags: Small identifying cards expelled from an ECW cartridge when probes are discharged. Each confetti tag contains a serial number unique to the specific cartridge used. Confetti tags are sometimes referred to as Anti-Felon Identification (AFID) tags.

Cycle: The period during which electrical impulses are emitted from the ECW following activation. In most models, a standard cycle is 5 seconds for each activation. The duration of a cycle may be shortened by turning the ECW off but may be extended in certain models by continuing to pull the trigger.

Display: Drawing and exhibiting the ECW as part of a warning tactic, typically accompanied by appropriate verbalization.

Drive stun: Drive stun mode is possible whether or not the cartridge has been expended or removed from the ECW. (If the cartridge is not removed, the probes will enter the body.) This action requires pulling the trigger and placing the ECW in direct contact with the subject, causing the electric energy to enter the subject directly. Drive stun is frequently used as a non-incapacitating pain compliance technique. It may also be used to incapacitate the subject where at least one probe is attached to the subject’s body and the ECW contact will complete the circuit.

Duration: The aggregate time that the ECW is activated. It is important to note that the duration of activation may differ from the duration of time that a subject is subjected to the electrical impulse from the ECW.

Electronic Control Weapon (ECW). A weapon designed primarily to discharge electrical charges into a subject that will cause involuntary muscle contractions and override the subject’s voluntary motor responses. Originally called Conducted Energy Device (CED).

Excited delirium: State of extreme mental and physiological excitement, characterized by behaviors and symptoms such as extreme agitation, elevated body temperature (hyperthermia), watering eyes (epiphoria), hostility, exceptional strength, and endurance without fatigue.

Exigent circumstances: Circumstances that would cause a reasonable person to believe that prompt and unusual action is necessary to prevent physical injury to self or others.
firing. Discharging ECW probes at an intended target.

Fleeing: An active attempt by a person to avoid apprehension by a law enforcement officer through evasive actions while attempting to leave the scene.

Laser painting: The act of unholstering and pointing an ECW at a subject and activating the ECW’s laser dot to show that the weapon is aimed at the subject.

Less-lethal weapon: Any apprehension or restraint tool that, when used as designed and intended, is less likely to cause death or serious injury than a conventional police lethal weapon (e.g., firearm).

Neuromuscular incapacitation: The effect of the ECW on a subject when, through the application of an electrical pulse, the ECW dominates the motor nervous system by interfering with electrical signals sent to the skeletal muscles by the central nervous system.

Passive resistance: Physical actions that do not prevent the officer’s attempt to control, for example, a person who remains in a limp-prone position, passive demonstrators, etc.
positional asphyxia. Death that occurs when a subject’s body position interferes with breathing, either when the chest is restricted from expanding properly or when the position of the subject’s head obstructs the airway.

Probe discharge: Pulling the trigger to release the probes from the cartridge to make contact with the subject and achieve neuromuscular incapacitation.

Probe spread: The amount of distance between probes fired from an ECW.

Probes: Projectiles with wires contained in an ECW cartridge. When the ECW is discharged, probes are expelled from the ECW and penetrate the subject’s clothing and/or skin, allowing application of the electric impulse.

Proximity death: The death of a subject following exposure to an ECW.

Sensitive areas: An area of the subject’s body that may cause more serious injury to the subject if struck with an ECW probe (e.g., head, neck, genitalia)

Serious bodily harm: An injury to a person that, either at the time of the actual injury or at a later time, involves a substantial risk of death, serious permanent disfigurement, or protracted loss or impairment of any part or organ of the body, as well as any breaks, fractures, or burns of the third degree.

Three-point contact. See complete the circuit.

Tasers: Deadly or useful devices?

November 1, 2009
Jerry Mitchell, Clarion Ledger

Hundreds of Americans, including several in Mississippi, have died after being shocked with high-voltage stun guns touted as a nonlethal way to subdue suspects.

But world-renowned pathologist Michael Baden of New York City warns these high-voltage devices "can be a deadly weapon - just like a gun."

Since 2001, more than 351 people have died after being shocked with stun guns, according to information gathered by Amnesty International. The group has called for these weapons to be restricted or suspended until further research can be done.

As recently as June, officials from Taser International, the largest manufacturer of these stun guns, declared the Taser incapable of causing death, saying just because the devices were used on people who later died doesn't prove the Tasers caused the deaths.

But earlier this month, Taser officials advised law enforcement officers for the first time to avoid shooting the weapons at a suspect's chest because of the controversy over whether they affect the heart.

The company has never said Tasers are risk-free, said Taser spokesman Steve Tuttle. "But we've found the Taser is the safer response to resistance when compared to traditional use of force, such as batons, nightsticks, punches and kicks."

Yet at least five people have died in Mississippi after law enforcement officers used Tasers on the suspects reportedly resisting arrest or causing a disturbance.

Tuttle notes in these and other such cases authorities have concluded the devices weren't to blame.

In a number of wrongful death lawsuits, pathologists testifying on behalf of Taser have said people died of "excited delirium" - a term popularized in the 1980s to explain sudden deaths associated with cocaine.

A 2006 report co-published by the Justice Department described this state as one of extreme excitement and agitation, hostility and exceptional strength, along with a life-threatening rise in body temperature.

Tuttle cited a case involving a man in Philadelphia who was naked and high when he was shocked with a Taser. The man later died. "He was overheating, overdosing on cocaine," he said.

But last year, Taser lost its first case at trial when a California jury ordered the company to pay the family of Robert Heston $1 million in actual damages and $5.2 million in punitive damages after Salinas police shocked him multiple times with the weapon on Feb. 20, 2005.

The jury cleared the officers of any liability and concluded Heston, who was high on meth, was 85 percent responsible for his own death. That means Taser will have to pay 15 percent of the $1 million but all the punitive damages.

Baden said to accept the Taser industry's contention these more than 351 deaths "are really the result of excited delirium that occurs independent of Taser use and coincidentally at the same time as Taser use requires the willing suspension of disbelief. Many of my colleagues do accept this contention. I do not."

Excited delirium isn't recognized by the medical community in general or the psychiatric community in particular, he said. "It is a diagnosis that remains limited to deaths in official custody."

He recently examined a case in which 21-year-old Baron Pikes was stunned by a Taser after he tried to run from police in Winnfield, La., in January 2008. Pikes' death was ruled a homicide, and then-officer Scott Nugent is charged with manslaughter.

Baden concluded Pikes' death "was directly caused by the cumulative effects of approximately nine 50,000-volt electroshocks from a conductive electric weapon administered during an approximately 30-minute time period after he had been handcuffed."

According to the coroner's report, Pikes stopped twitching after the seventh time he was shocked.

Winnfield police said Taser officials had told them multiple shocks didn't affect a person.

Tuttle said that while "Taser International stands behind the safety of its life-saving technology," there needs to be "clear use-of-force policies, stringent oversight and recurrent certified training."

Lamar County Sheriff Danny Rigel, who has equipped all 41 of his deputies with Tasers, said proper training is critical. "It's a tool. You don't just give a gun to an officer and say, 'Go fight crime.'"

Rigel keeps four Taser instructors on his staff.

Training includes getting shocked - something he said he also went through. "It lets you know what the effects are," Rigel said.

Tasers now record the time, date and duration of the use of the device, Tuttle said.

Mississippi has seen cases where authorities tortured people with stun guns.

In April, William and Jeffrey Rogers - a father and son who were Tippah County sheriff's deputies - went to federal prison for shocking inmate Jimmy Hunsucker Jr. repeatedly with a Taser.

Hunsucker, who had been arrested on a DUI charge in June 2007, had allegedly cursed and threatened deputies. Deputies used the Taser on him until he lost control of his bowels.

In another case in February 2006, 40-year-old suspect Jessie Lee Williams Jr. was beaten to death in the booking room of the Harrison County jail. Several burns caused by a Taser were found on his body, according to testimony.

Former jailer Ryan Teel is serving a life sentence in federal prison for charges related to Williams' killing.

Seven states have banned the weapons, but in Mississippi civilians can obtain one without a permit or background check.

"To the extent it has become a potentially deadly device, I think it's something the Legislature may look at placing restrictions on," said state Rep. Percy Watson, D-Hattiesburg.

Justice Department officials have warned against multiple shocks by the Taser but found "no conclusive medical evidence within the state of current research that indicates a high risk of serious injury or death from the direct effects of (Taser) exposure."

Tuttle pointed to several studies showing the use of Tasers reduced the number of the shootings by officers.

Rigel said he can vouch for the fact the devices save lives.

"I know of three different instances where we prevented 'suicide-by-cop,'" said Rigel, who took office in 2004. "We were able to take each subject into custody with no harm to him."

Tasers have reduced the number of brutality claims as well as workers' compensation claims, too, Rigel said, "because you don't have to fight people to take them into custody."

Police Department to adopt all police forum standards on Tasers

April 7, 2009
BY Jonathan Randles, Missourian

COLUMBIA — The Columbia Police Department will adopt all 52 of the Police Executive Research Forum's Taser policy guidelines, Police Chief Kenneth Burton announced in a news release Monday evening.

The forum is a research group for police chiefs and administrators funded by the U.S. Department of Justice. The 52 standards, which the department released in 2005, are an attempt to standardize police department Taser policy nationally.

The Coalition to Control Tasers has been asking the Columbia Police Department to adopt all 52 policy guidelines since the beginning of March.

"The guidelines are comprehensive, but they in no way hinder our ability to utilize Tasers as a justifiable force option at the Columbia Police Department," Burton said in the release. He could not be reached for comment Monday night.

According to the release, formal policy changes and officer training will begin no later than May 1.

The announcement is one of Burton's first official mandates since he was sworn into office on March 30. At that ceremony, Burton said he would emphasize community policing and good customer service during his tenure as chief.

The police forum's standards would not only provide stricter guidelines for Taser use but would also improve internal oversight, training and medical care for people shot with a Taser. The new standards cover issues not adequately addressed in the former department policy, said Ed Berg, a member of the Committee to Control Tasers.

"By implementing the PERF standards, the citizens of Columbia will be safer and the police will be better served knowing when and where not to use the Taser," Berg said.

At a March 2 City Council meeting, then-Interim Police Chief Tom Dresner presented a report that admitted the department had used a Taser inappropriately within the last six months — the first time the department had ever admitted improper use of the weapon.

At the same meeting, the coalition presented council members with a 32-page report that compared the Police Department's Taser policy with the forum's standards. The coalition's analysis determined that the department was using about 18 of the 52 standards at the time, Berg said.

One of the major concerns the coalition had was the lack of a clear policy on providing medical treatment from medical professionals to people shot with Tasers. Under the forum's guidelines, the department would now have to contact emergency responders whenever the police respond to a call where they believe a Taser might be used. A medical professional would also be required to provide a physical evaluation and to continue monitoring the health of anyone who has been shot by a Taser.

By providing medical attention, the city and Police Department might see greater protection from civil lawsuits, Berg said.

According to previous Missourian reports, on July 25, Columbia police shot Phillip Lee McDuffy, 45, who was threatening to kill himself, with a Taser after 90 minutes of negotiating, causing him to fall off the Providence Road overpass above Interstate 70.

On Dec. 16, McDuffy's lawyer sent a $500,000 settlement offer to the city.

The coalition is attempting to raise awareness of Taser safety and make it a statewide issue. On Monday, members of the coalition went to Jefferson City to lobby Missouri's General Assembly to pass two pieces of legislation that, among other things, would create a statewide task force to investigate Taser safety, coalition member Mary Hussmann said.

The family of Stanley Harlan — the 23-year-old man who was killed after Moberly police repeatedly used a Taser on him during a traffic stop in August — were lobbying in the state capitol as well.

The coalition hopes to continue discussing the safety of Tasers until the state establishes a task force to investigate Taser use by police agencies. The coalition's trip to the capital Monday was a positive step in that direction, Hussmann said.

There's been "a lot of the chatter at the grass-roots level, but now its actually getting to the legislature," Hussmann said.

RCMP Commissioner misled Canadians on Taser use policy

March 26, 2009
Liberal.ca

OTTAWA – The Commissioner of the RCMP must explain why he misled Canadians on the RCMP’s Taser use policy, said Liberal Public Safety Critic Mark Holland today.

“The Commissioner misled Canadians when he told them that the RCMP had changed their policy to make Taser use more restrictive,” said Mr. Holland. “In fact, the RCMP’s policy has been weakened.”

On February 12th, RCMP Commissioner William Elliott told the Public Safety and National Security Committee that the RCMP had followed recommendations laid out in the committee’s June 2008 report on Tasers, which called for their restricted use.

But in a CBC report last night, it was learned that far from restricting the use of Tasers, the RCMP actually removed specific provisions that prohibit officers from discharging their Tasers more than once on an individual. In addition, a provision was also removed that required officers to issue a warning to suspects before they fire their Tasers.

In the CBC report, the RCMP claims that this revised policy reflects new studies that have shown that it is safe to use Tasers multiple times. However, of the two studies upon which they base their new policy, one did not look into the effects of multiple deployments and the other was commissioned by Taser International, the company that makes the stun guns.

The RCMP chose to ignore a comprehensive report published by the United States Department of Justice revealing that many deaths are associated with repeated discharges of Tasers, the medical risks are unknown, and that caution is urged in using multiple activations, according to the CBC.

Mr. Holland said he will be bringing a motion before the House of Commons to immediately recall Commissioner Elliott before the committee to explain himself.

“We have some disconcerting contradictions of fact here,” he said. “The Commissioner owes it to Canadians to come back to the committee and clear this up immediately. It is a matter of public safety and trust and we deserve the truth.”

US Study: 2,002 suspects died in police custody over 3 years

I don't know where the Justice Department's Bureau of Justice Statistics got their information, but this much at least is dead wrong: "Arrest-related deaths involving tasers or other conducted-energy devices are rising, although overall numbers are low. From 2003-2005, there were 36 such deaths total, with a jump from 3 cases in 2003 to 24 in 2005."

Take a look at the List of the Dead and you will see that there were 68 taser-related deaths in the United States in 2005 alone! And at least 134 Americans died between 2003-2005.

Of course the numbers are "low" when you're not playing with a full deck!!

March 12, 2009
BY HOPE YEN, South Florida Times

WASHINGTON (AP) – More than 2,000 criminal suspects died in police custody over a three-year period, half of them killed by officers as they scuffled or attempted to flee, the government said Thursday.

The study by the Justice Department's Bureau of Justice Statistics is the first nationwide compilation of the reasons behind arrest-related deaths in the wake of high-profile police assaults or killings involving Abner Louima and Amadou Diallo in New York in the late 1990s.

The review found 55 percent of the 2,002 arrest-related deaths from 2003 through 2005 were due to homicide by state and local law enforcement officers. Alcohol and drug intoxication caused 13 percent of the deaths, followed by suicides at 12 percent, accidental injury at 7 percent and illness or natural causes, 6 percent. The causes of the deaths for the remaining 7 percent were unknown.

The highly populated states of California, Texas and Florida led the pack for both police killings and overall arrest-related deaths. Georgia, Maryland and Montana were not included in the study because they did not submit data.

Most of those who died in custody were men (96 percent) between the ages of 18 and 44 (77 percent). Approximately 44 percent were white; 32 percent black; 20 percent Hispanic; and 4 percent were of other or multiple races.

“Keep in mind we have 2,000 deaths out of almost 40 million arrests over three years, so that tells you by their nature they are very unusual cases,” said Christopher J. Mumola, who wrote the study.

“Still, they do need to be looked at to determine whether police training can be better or practices can be better,” he said.

State laws and police department policy typically let officers use deadly force to defend themselves or others from the threat of death or serious injury. Deadly force also is allowed to prevent the escape of a suspect in a violent felony who poses an immediate threat to others.

The Justice Department study released Thursday suggests that most of the police killings would be considered justified, although it does not make that final determination. About 80 percent of the cases involved criminal suspects who reportedly brandished a weapon “to threaten or assault” the arresting officers.

Another 17 percent involved suspects who allegedly grabbed, hit or fought with police. More than one-third of the police killings, or about 36 percent, involved a suspect who tried to flee or otherwise escape arrest.

The report was compiled at the request of Congress in 2000 after the 1997 struggle between New York police and Louima, a black security guard who left the precinct house bleeding after officers jammed a broken broomstick into his mouth and rectum. A few years later, two police shootings of unarmed black men followed, including Diallo, who was shot at 41 times – and hit by 19 of the bullets – after he reached into his pocket for a wallet.

Since then, following police sensitivity training, New York has seen a few killings involving suspects and officers, including last year's shooting of Sean Bell, an unarmed black bridegroom-to-be whom police say they believed was reaching for a gun.

New York now ranks sixth nationwide in the number of police killings, behind Arizona and Illinois, according to Thursday's report.

Other findings:

• Among law enforcement, 380 officers were killed in the line of duty over the three-year period and 174,760 were reportedly assaulted, according to FBI data. Most of the deaths were accidental (221), while 159 were homicides.

• Blacks were disproportionately represented in arrest-related deaths due to alcohol or drug intoxication (41 percent vs. 33 percent for whites); accidental injury (42 percent vs. 37 percent for whites); and unknown causes (46 percent vs. 39 percent for whites).

Mumola said it was unclear why blacks tended to be victims for accidental injuries, which often involve fatalities in the course of a police car chase; or intoxication, which involve overdoses or drunkenness.

• Arrest-related deaths involving tasers or other conducted-energy devices are rising, although overall numbers are low. From 2003-2005, there were 36 such deaths total, with a jump from 3 cases in 2003 to 24 in 2005.

• About half of arrest-related suicides (51 percent) involved attempted arrests for violent crimes. Whites were disproportionately represented in those deaths (57 percent), six times the percent of blacks (14 percent). Hispanics accounted for 26 percent of the cases, and 3 percent involved other or multiple races.

The human rights group Amnesty International USA praised the Justice Department for compiling the study and expressed concern in particular with the use of tasers. The group says it's worried that police departments are starting to use tasers more routinely rather than in cases of serious danger. It is calling for a comprehensive, independent medical study of taser risks.

“Tasers could be a far cry from the non-lethal weapons that they're purported to be,” said Larry Cox, executive director of AIUSA.

Adoption of stun guns spikes the risk of in-custody death in the first year

January 30, 2009
Michael O'Riordan, Heartwire

San Francisco, CA - The rate of in-custody sudden death increases more than sixfold in the first year after the adoption of electrical stun guns in police and sheriff departments, a new study has shown [1]. Moreover, in this first year, the use of the stun guns, the most popular of which is Taser (Taser International, Scottsdale, AZ) did not reduce the rate of firearm-related deaths, despite the devices being marketed as an alternative for reducing the use of lethal force.

"We speculate that early liberal use of Tasers may have contributed to these findings, possibly escalating some confrontations to the point where firearms were necessary," write Dr Byron Lee (University of California, San Francisco) and colleagues in a report published online January 21, 2009 in the American Journal of Cardiology.

The subsequent decrease in sudden deaths and firearm-related deaths to levels before the adoption of the stun guns likely reflects the recognition of the adverse consequences of the Taser, according to researchers, leading to an adjustment of their use or changes in techniques.

"These deaths come back to baseline in the years two to five," senior investigator Dr Zian Tseng (University of California, San Francisco) told heartwire. "That finding is supportive of the fact that the Taser might be causing excess mortality in the first year. As police learn to use the weapon, as they start to recognize that there might adverse outcomes with the gun, they would no doubt adjust their techniques or change their policies. It suggests that this excess mortality is preventable."

Commenting on the study for heartwire, Dr Hugh Calkins (Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD) said the use of stun guns in the law-enforcement community is an important issue, one that needs to be studied further. However, he is critical of the conclusions reached by Lee and colleagues, stating that more than 13 000 police departments worldwide are using the technology, and many of these departments independently tested their safety and effectiveness.

"If you look at the Taser device in particular, it's been about 10 years since it was first introduced, and in those 10 years, it's been subject to intense and critical scrutiny by every law-enforcement body that adopts it," he said. "If this were really causing people to die, if it were not having a favorable impact, it wouldn't be so widely adopted."

Taser use in California

Electrical stun guns, also known as neuromuscular incapacitating devices, are controversial alternatives for subduing prisoners and suspects in police custody. Existing data, the researchers note, are inconclusive on the cardiac and physiologic effects of stun guns. Those with concerns about their use, including Amnesty International, say that the devices could cause ventricular tachyarrhythmias in real-world conditions where police suspects may be under heightened physiological, pharmacological, and environmental stress.

In an attempt to gain a better understanding of the safety of devices in the real world, the researchers surveyed 126 police and sheriff departments in California cities, of which only 50 replied with sufficient data on the rates of death before and after the adoption of stun guns. They requested information on the rates of in-custody deaths in the absence of lethal force, firearm-related deaths, and officer injuries requiring emergency-department visits. Annual arrest data per city was obtained from the California Department of Justice.

The researchers obtained data for the five years prior to deployment of Tasers and in the following five years in which they were used. In the first year after Tasers were introduced to the departments, the risk of in-custody sudden death was 5.96 per 100 000 arrests, a sixfold increase over the five years prior, when Tasers weren't used. In years two to five after deployment, however, the in-custody death rate declined to 1.44 per 100 000 arrests, a number that was not significantly different when compared with the predeployment period.

Among 37 departments that provided sufficient data, the rate of firearm-related deaths increased from 6.66 per 100 000 arrests in the years before Tasers were used to 14.1 per 100 000 arrests in the first year of deployment. This rate declined to 9.1 per 100 000 between years two and five, a rate not statistically different from rates observed in the five-year period before Tasers were used.

"Based on this study, further epidemiologic research on the effect of Taser deployment on real-world outcomes is warranted," write the researchers. "Transparency by law enforcement agencies with regard to Taser use and in-custody sudden-death outcomes is critical for future studies by independent investigators."

Lee, who has provided expert medical testimony in two legal cases against Taser, told heartwire that he was surprised by the findings and that he had initially thought the group was likely to publish a negative paper, especially since in-custody deaths predate the use of electrical stun guns. Tseng added that the study was not designed to answer the question of whether the Taser causes death but rather to look at what happens when it is introduced in a real-world setting.

Safer than other weapons

Calkins, who serves on the medical advisory board of Taser International, noted that only 50 departments of the 126 surveyed provided data on in-custody deaths, and only 40 of these departments provided data in the first year after the Taser was deployed. The absence of responses in this first year of deployment—there were data from 47 departments in the year prior to deployment and 50 responses in year two—could have skewed the findings to show an increase in in-custody deaths. The survey also did not determine whether the Taser had been deployed in subjects who died. Other cities, including Cincinnati, OH, and Phoenix, AZ, have used the Taser and shown that it decreases the use of lethal-force deaths and reduces officer and suspect injuries without increasing the risk of in-custody deaths, said Calkins.

Dr Jared Strote (University of Washington Medical Center, Seattle), who was not part of the study, told heartwire that the findings by Lee et all were interesting but, like Calkins, pointed out the study was observational in nature and hindered by missing data. Along with Dr H Range Hutson (Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA), he has recently studied the use of Tasers over five years with Seattle police department and found no deaths within the first 24 hours of Taser use and a low number of injuries.

"In general, I think they are a safer weapon than many of the other weapons police officers have, and in many circumstances they have the potential to save suspects' and bystanders' lives, as well as the lives of police officers," said Strote. "But I think there are certainly some individuals who are being restrained for whom safety of Tasers is really unclear."

Strote added that the jury is still out on the physiological impact of the Taser.

Calkins told heartwire that there have been approximately 300 in-custody deaths with 650 000 applications of the Taser, but the time sequence of these deaths is not consistent with a ventricular arrhythmia during all of these deaths. Patients who die as a result of ventricular fibrillation caused by the Taser would die within the first minute, and not several hours later in custody, as is often the case, he said. A recent US Department of Justice-sponsored study of more than 1200 subjects who were Tasered found the weapon to be safe, with just three subjects reporting significant injuries [2]. Two subjects died in police custody, but the stun gun was not deemed by medical examiners to be cause or contribute to the death.

Calkins serves on the medical advisory board of Taser International and is compensated for his work. Lee has provided expert medical testimony on behalf of the plaintiffs in two lawsuits filed against Taser and received compensation for his work. Tseng and Strote report no conflicts of interest.

Justice department's taser report underscores need for strict limits on use, says Amnesty International

June 25, 2008

WASHINGTON - June 25 - The National Institute of Justice (NIJ) interim report on stun devices underscores Amnesty International’s concerns about the safety of the weapons, the human rights organization said today.

“The U.S. government itself has now recognized that at least 300 people have died after Tasers were used against them,” said Dalia Hashad, director of Amnesty International USA’s domestic human rights program. “Justice Department concerns bolster what Amnesty International has been saying for years – more data is needed. When police use Tasers on vulnerable populations, the true impact is simply unknown. This is a cause for alarm.”

While the NIJ report found no conclusive evidence of a high risk of death or injury from the direct effects of conducted energy devices (CEDs), it acknowledged that “many aspects of the safety of CED technology are not well-known, especially when used on populations other than normal, healthy adults.” It noted that the safety margins of CED use on healthy adults may not be applicable among children, the elderly, pregnant women, people with heart disease and those who show signs of “excited delirium.” The NIJ recommended that police officers avoid the use of CEDs against these populations unless the situation excludes other options.

The NIJ report also stated that many of the deaths are associated with prolonged or repeated CED discharges, and called on law enforcement officers to exercise caution in using multiple activations.

“There is still an open question surrounding more than 300 deaths, and this cannot be taken lightly,” said Hashad. “These devices, by their very nature, are prone to abuse. In too many cases, they have been inappropriately used as a weapon of first resort. The extreme potential for abuse is something the Justice Department has not yet addressed in this report.”

Some 12,000 U.S. law enforcement agencies currently deploy Tasers or similar devices. The Justice Department study was commissioned in 2006 following reports of more than 150 deaths of individuals subdued by police CEDs. Since June 2001, Amnesty International has recorded more than 300 deaths in the United States after exposure to CEDs during arrest situations. Amnesty International (AI) maintains that police departments should cease using CEDs or limit their use strictly to situations where there is an imminent threat of death or serious injury.

Canadian uproar over Tasers mirrors U.S., with several recent deaths

November 26, 2007
The Canadian Press

WASHINGTON - When Florida student Andrew Meyer was stunned with a Taser gun this fall at a campus session with Senator John Kerry, the dramatic video footage made all the networks. And it re-ignited debate in the United States about the use and dangers of the brand-name guns that zap people with high-voltage electric shocks.

Now, with the deaths of four Americans who were tased in the last 10 days, there are new demands to ban them. All told, there have been six deaths in the United States since Robert Dziekanski died last month at Vancouver Airport in a highly contentious case that's provoked a national debate about the weapons in Canada.

That concern is mirrored south of the border. "People are paying attention," said Jason Disterhoft at Amnesty International U.S.A. "It seems like people are worried and rightly so."

If the issue has resurfaced as a top-of-mind for U.S. government officials, rights groups and cops, it has been prominent here for the last few years. Amnesty has consistently raised concern about the use of Tasers in routine law enforcement situations or as a weapon of first resort. The group has been calling on police departments to suspend use of Tasers or at least limit them to situations involving the threat of death or serious injury. Tasing someone who is not violent and poses no threat to himself or others constitutes cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment, says Amnesty.

The United Nations Committee Against Torture singled out Tasers at a Geneva conference last Friday, agreeing that the most popular model caused so much pain that using it "constituted a form of torture." "At the least, we'd like to see law enforcement use it only when lethal force is the only alternative," said Disterhoft.

Meyer, for instance, was still posing questions to Kerry after his time ran out and he resisted attempts by university police to remove him. After yelling out: "Don't tase me, bro," he got a blast from the stun gun as he lay on the ground, with one arm handcuffed. Two of the policemen were placed on paid administrative leave and Meyer agreed to 18 months of probation to avoid criminal charges of resisting arrest.

In Utah, an officer recently tased a driver who refused to sign a speeding ticket. A patrol car's dashboard camera caught it on tape and the incident became popular on YouTube. The officer is under investigation, accused of being too quick to pull out the Taser.

Other recent U.S. cases have been far more grave, including the death Nov. 18 of 20-year-old Jarrel Grey, who died in Frederick, Md., after a sheriff's deputy tried to break up a late-night brawl.

Black leaders are calling for a ban on Tasers, at least until there's a clear policy on how they're used by cops. That's something police want as well, saying it's not right to send officers out to make split second decisions without proper guidelines and training.

Those vary significantly across the country among some 12,000 police departments that use Tasers.

"My sense is there is no cogent policy nationwide," said Rich Roberts at the International Union of Police Associations in Sarasota, Fla., which is developing a research project on Tasers. "I'm afraid the same thing may apply to training. My fear is too many departments may be (explaining) the technology and that's it." What cops need to know, said Roberts, is exactly where the Taser belongs in the "force continuum," so it will be used appropriately. But it should "absolutely" be part of the police arsenal, along with pepper spray, batons and guns, he said.

Since it isn't classified as a firearm, it's exempt from federal firearms requirement and regulations. There's still no agreement in the United States on whether Tasers, wihich release 50,000 volts of electricity, can actually kill or whether the victims had pre-existing conditions.

The manufacturer, Taser International of Scottsdale, Ariz., concedes on its website that the technology is not risk-free but the company says no deaths have been definitively linked to the product.

Dziekanski is recorded as the 18th person in Canada to die in recent years after being hit by a Taser, while Amnesty says 280 people have died since July 2001 in the United States, where the devices can also be used by civilians in many states. That works out to roughly the same rate of deaths per capita in both countries.

"Nobody really knows exactly why these people are dying," Amnesty executive director Larry Cox told CBS News. "It may be because they have a heart condition. It may be because they're on drugs. It may be because of some other factor that we don't know about. The important thing is, they are dying after they are Tasered. That cannot be denied, no matter how you spin the language."

Last month, Wake Forest University released an independent study of injuries associated with Tasers, saying they're relatively harmless and pose minimal risks. Dr. William Bozeman, a lead researcher, added the device isn't a "magical sort of thing that can't hurt anybody ever."

The U.S. Justice Department is expected to release a major report on Tasers next year. And some government officials are already hoping to replace it. The Homeland Security Department, for instance, is looking at creating a new non-lethal weapon called the LED Incapacitator.

It would use high-intensity light-emitting diodes to temporarily blind people and make them dizzy.

Wake Forest Study Ignores the Elephant in the Room: 295 Dead and Counting

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: OCTOBER 15, 2007
Contact: Aram James-415.370.5056/Richard Konda-408.287.9710/Raj Jayadev-408.757.5875

Taser Experts and Civil Rights Leaders Say Study is Disconnected from Reality

SAN JOSE, CA -- The recent study on Tasers led by Wake Forest University Medical School gives a false sense of safety to a proven dangerous, and at times lethal, weapon. Community leaders and civil rights advocates are condemning the study as insufficient, misleading, and not truly independent of law enforcement bias.

The study, presented at the American College of Emergency Physicians' Scientific Assembly in Seattle on October 8th,2007 has been touted by Taser advocates as evidence of safety, yet further examination of the study leaves more questions than answers.

Nationally recognized Taser expert Aram James of the Coalition for Justice and Accountability (CJA) says, “The study concludes -- without supporting data -- that Tasers reduce injuries to both police and the individuals Tasered. But the authors, offer no systematic data to support this conclusion.” James says that actually the study’s own data belies their own conclusion of safety. The abstract reported 23% of 597 subjects received some sort of injury. “Nearly 1 in 4, hardly support for the proposition that Tasers are safe -- and when coupled with 293 taser related deaths, a statistic conveniently ignored by the authors of this study, the conclusion that Tasers are safe is not only not true but in fact a lie of deadly proportions.”

Richard Konda, Executive Director of the Asian Law Alliance and CJA co-founder, says the study ignores the reality that some populations are at higher risk when Tased. “The study fails to mention the effect of Tasers on vulnerable populations, such as pregnant women, the elderly, the mentally ill, and those under the influence of drugs, who are far more likely to suffer serious injuries and even death as a result of being Tasered.” Konda, whose organization is supporting a ban of Tasers, says the evidence of the deadly effects of Tasers is already being acknowledged by law enforcement communities. He says, “Medical remedies to prevent death are being developed because Tasers kill. In Miami emergency medical technicians are spraying a sedative in the noses of Tasers victims or injecting them with iced saline solutions. These protocols lead us to only one conclusion – that Tasers are deadly weapons and must be banned.”

Indeed, Noreen Salinas, eldest daughter of Steve Salinas, who died after being repeatedly Tased by San Jose Police, is appalled by the study’s disconnect from the real life impacts of Tasers on families. “How can anyone try to make a claim that Tasers are safe, when it has taken a father from his daughters, a son from his mother?” The Santa Clara County Coroner’s office have cited Taser discharge as a potential contributing factor to the death of Steve Salinas.

James says the reason why the study does not appear to be independent is because it was, essentially, a law enforcement report, and points to several red flags. “First, it was conducted at six law enforcement agencies across the country, interestingly enough not disclosed. Why the secrecy? Secondly, the underlying police reports and any accompanying medical records were reviewed by ‘tactical physicians’ who are closely connected to a law enforcement agenda. Finally, not mentioned anywhere in the press release related to this study is the companion piece put out by the Wake Forest Physicians Group. In a study dated September 4, 2007 -- the same doctors credited with the above study -- reported on a police officer who after volunteering to receive a 5 second Taser exposure, under very controlled circumstance, was Tased for 5 seconds and suffered a very serious and apparently permanently debilitating thoracic compression fracture. Why was this piece buried by the good doctors? So much for Tasers being a low risk of injury weapon. If they are unsafe for the cops they are unsafe for us!”

James, CJA, along with other civil rights advocates, is demanding a truly independent study, and is calling for law enforcement agencies to shelve Tasers until an authentic and comprehensive investigation of its use is conducted.

Tasers safe? New study sparks more debate

October 8, 2007
ABC News

Dr. Corey Slovis, professor and chairman of emergency medicine at Vanderbilt University, says other recent research suggests that the weapons may be dangerous for some.

"I think that Tasers in normal subjects are safe," he says, "but I am concerned that emerging evidence may show that they may change the underlying heart rhythm of individuals who do not have a normal conduction system -- such as those using cocaine, those who are dehydrated, agitated, hypoxic or those taking anti-psychotics."

While Slovis says he once concurred with the conclusions presented in the current research regarding Taser safety, he now harbors some concerns, many of which stem from recent research on pigs.

In the research Slovis cites, the heart activity of the pigs was studied as they were being zapped with a Taser. What this study showed was that the heart rates of the animals jumped to more than 130 beats per minute at the time they were shocked -- a finding that leads Slovis to wonder whether the same kind of dangerous, racing rhythm occurs in human hearts as well.

"Tasers save lives, but Tasers are not perfectly safe," he says. "A Taser should not be used unless force is absolutely necessary. I am no longer convinced that Tasers are blameless."

If there is any point on which all agree, it is that Tasers are weapons -- ones that should be used only in appropriate situations. "These are not 100 percent safe," study investigator Dr. William Bozeman says. "These are weapons and must be treated as such."

Critics question findings in new study on taser use

October 8, 2007
Terry McSweeney, ABC News

"There was nothing about the interaction between taser use and someone under the influence of drugs and alcohol drug use or mental illness. I thought the study was inadequate in reviewing what everybody has been calling for which is more research in that very area in terms of the interaction between tasers and vulnerable populations," said Aram James, former public defender.

Thoracic Compression Fractures as a Result of Shock From a Conducted Energy Weapon: A Case Report

Annals of Emergency Medicine (formerly known as the Journal of the American College of Emergency Physicians)
James E. Winslow MD, MPH, William P. Bozeman MD, Michael C. Fortner MD and Roy L. Alson PhD, MD, Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, NC

"In this case report we describe for the first time thoracic spine compression fractures resulting from a conducted energy weapon discharge. Physicians who may care for patients who have been exposed to a conducted energy weapon discharge should be aware of this as a possible complication."

Address for correspondence: James E. Winslow, MD, MPH, Department of Emergency Medicine, Wake Forest University Health Sciences, Medical Center Boulevard, Winston-Salem, NC 27157-1089; 336-716-1740, fax 336-716-1705, jwinslow@wfubmc.edu

Less-lethal technology: research on conducted energy devices

The US National Institute of Justice, an agency of the US Department of Justice, has commissioned a new study to learn more about the effects of conducted energy devices, which are commonly called "stun guns." As the number of law enforcement agencies using stun guns has increased, the number of deaths reported to be associated with this less-lethal technology also has increased. NIJ has commissioned the study, titled "In-custody Deaths due to Conducted Energy Devices," to investigate whether the technology can contribute to or cause death and, if so, in what ways.

Other Current NIJ Research on Conducted Energy DevicesEffects of

TASER on Human Blood

Assessment of HEMI Devices in Trainees

Establishment of Interdisciplinary Working Group

Verifying Reported Effectiveness of Conducted Energy Devices in Reducing Deaths and

Injuries and a Review of Less-lethal Technology Operational Needs

Model Electric Current Through the Human Body From Less-lethal Conducted Energy Devices

Injuries Produced by Law Enforcement Use of Less-lethal Weapons: A Prospective Multicenter Trial

Enhancing Local and State Law Enforcement’s Understanding and Use of Emerging Technology

Human Effects Center of Excellence

Analysis of Airport Security Measures and the Role of Less-Lethal Weapons

Can taser directly cause ventricular fibrillation?

"Conclusions: It is possible to cause ventricular fibrillation in pigs using a taser EMD device. From these data we can now proceed to investigate the probability of taser induced VF in humans."

Shock from taser blamed for spine fractures

September 5, 2007
South Bend Tribune, Indiana

A police officer who volunteered to be Tasered suffered back spasms so severe his spine was fractured, an emergency medicine journal reports. The injury was the first of its kind ever reported in medical literature, journal authors said.

Police officer suffers spine fractures at taser demonstration

September 4, 2007
American College of Emergency Physicians

Feds Probe Stun Gun Deaths

June 14, 2006
CBS News

With over 180 deaths in recent years among suspects subdued with stun guns, the government is taking a closer look into their use.

The review by the Justice Department, which will initially involve 30 such cases, follows the rapid growth in deployment of stun guns as a nonlethal alternative to bullet-firing weapons. The department's research arm, the National Institute of Justice, said there have been 184 such deaths since 1986, the overwhelming majority since 2000. Amnesty International, which has called for a moratorium on stun gun use, says there have been roughly 160 deaths in the past five years.

The study will not look at whether the use of stun guns was appropriate, John Morgan, the institute's assistant director, said Wednesday. Instead, researchers will make medical assessments of the 30 cases, which include deaths that were attributed to a stun gun and some in which authorities could not determine whether a stun gun caused or contributed to a death, he said.

Two deaths occurred in 1986, one in 1990 and the rest since 2000, Morgan added.

In the remaining 154 cases, stun guns were ruled out as a factor in the deaths, but the study could eventually include those deaths as well, he said, saying the review could take up to two years.

“We hope this will help improve less-lethal technology generally,” Morgan said. “If we find a particular operating characteristic is contributing to a problem, we hope that will be way to improve that technology.”

Taser International of Scottsdale, Ariz., the largest maker of stun guns, said that the devices have saved more than 9,000 lives because police officers have been able to the weapon instead of handguns that fire bullets. Tasers deliver a 50,000-volt jolt through two barbed darts that can penetrate clothing.

“Given that the NIJ conducted a similar study on pepper spray which effectively ended the debate regarding its safety, we are hopeful this study will lead to the same outcome regarding electro-muscular disruption devices,” Taser vice president Steve Tuttle said.

Dalia Hashad, director of Amnesty's USA Program, said the study is a good first step. “We've been asking the federal government for the last six years to take seriously that people are dying after being shot by this weapon,” Hashad said.

A government study last year said more than 7,000 of the nation's 18,000 police agencies used Tasers, up from 1,000 in 2001.

Many of those who died were high on drugs, mentally ill or otherwise agitated, according to an Amnesty International report released in March. Many deaths in the past year occurred after victims were hit by Tasers at least three times and, in some cases, for prolonged periods, the report said.

Some police agencies have tightened their rules on stun-gun use following Taser-related deaths.

One goal of the new study is to get a better understanding of how the body reacts when hit by electricity from the devices.

Researchers will include medical examiners, pathologists, cardiologists and other experts, said Dr. Robert Hunsaker, president of the National Association of Medical Examiners and co-chairman of the group that is designing the study.

The International Association of Chiefs of Police, which has called for careful monitoring of stun gun use, also will be part of the review.