Tasered-teen case raises new questions for MPs

January 30, 2008
BRODIE FENLON, Globe and Mail

Troubling new questions are being raised about the police use of tasers just as a House of Commons committee hears Wednesday from one of the inventors of the controversial stun guns.

Top of mind for many MPs will be the acquittal Tuesday of a 17-year-old Halifax girl who was charged last year with assaulting police and resisting arrest after she was tasered in her bedroom during a confrontation with three officers.

Politicians will also be interested in a Chicago study unearthed by CBC News which reportedly found the weapon may not be as safe as the manufacturer claims.

Tom Smith, co-founder of Arizona-based Taser International Inc. and chairman of the company, appeared before the Commons public safety committee Wednesday afternoon.

His testimony follows a provincial court decision Tuesday in which a Halifax judge had harsh words for the city's police service for stunning a teenager when she resisted arrest inside her home. “The spectacle of a 17-year-old girl being tasered in her bedroom is a very disturbing and disconcerting one,” Judge Anne Derrick said.

The arrest happened last February in Dartmouth after the girl's mother asked police to remove the teen from their home. Two male officers and a female officer confronted the girl in her bedroom. When they tried to arrest her for breaching the peace, she fought back. Two officers struggled with the teen while a third hit her once with the taser. Judge Derrick said the police had no legal grounds to arrest her, because there had been no breach of the peace, said Megan Longley, a legal aid lawyer who represented the teen.

“I still am astounded that ... three-full grown police officers cannot find some way to deal with a 17-year-old girl apart from using a taser,” Ms. Longley said, noting her client was unarmed at the time and has no criminal record. “It certainly highlights for me the need for specific policies on taser use,” she said.

The girl, who is now 18 and can't be named under the Youth Criminal Justice Act, told reporters outside court she intends to file a complaint against the Halifax Police service and is considering a lawsuit. “I just don't understand why I was tasered because I'm not a criminal,” she said.

Halifax Regional Police Const. Jeff Carr, spokesperson for the service, said he couldn't comment on the arrest or the tasering. However, he said police are taking a close look at the evidence presented at trial and are in discussions with the Crown about an appeal of the judge's decision. Const. Carr also noted that the media did not cover the trial, only the decision, and would not have heard all the evidence.

Mike Taylor, president of the Nova Scotia Criminal Lawyers' Association, agreed that the case raises serious questions about when and why police officers use tasers. “To me, the taser is the last line before the gun is drawn. It's supposed to take the place of that,” said Mr. Taylor, a former Calgary police officer. “It's just completely ludicrous that they would taser a 17-year-old because she was being non-compliant when there was no weapon,” he told globeandmail.com. Mr. Taylor said his view on the necessity of the taser as a police tool has been shaken recently by some high-profile arrests and deaths. He said he welcomes the committee hearing in Ottawa. “There has to be something done in a formal fashion, because some internal report from a police force is not going to satisfy the public at large that the police are being monitored appropriately in the use of the taser.”

CBC News reported Wednesday on a study by a team of doctors and scientists at the trauma centre in Chicago's Cook County hospital that found 11 pigs stunned twice with tasers were left with heart rhythm problems. Two of the animals died from cardiac arrest, one three minutes after being shocked, CBC reported.

Taser tied to 'independent' study that backs stun gun

May 21, 2005
Robert Anglen, The Arizona Republic

Taser International was deeply involved in a Department of Defense study that company officials touted to police departments and investors as "independent" proof of the stun gun's safety, according to government documents and e-mails obtained by The Arizona Republic and interviews with military officials.

This information is surfacing at a time when the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and the Arizona attorney general are pursuing inquiries into safety claims that the Scottsdale firm has made.

The stun guns are being used by more than 7,000 law enforcement agencies in the United States, but a series of deaths and injuries associated with the devices have raised safety concerns.

E-mails that military officials exchanged also reveal for the first time that they asked Taser to tone down public statements about the study. In addition, they urged the company to commission an independent study rather than rely on the Defense study.

The Air Force conducted the study for the Defense Department to assess the risks and effectiveness of Tasers so the military could decide whether to buy them.

Since October, Taser officials have contended that the company had no involvement in the Defense study, which helped fuel a sharp rise in the company's stock price last year.

Bulk of research

But information obtained by The Republic shows that Taser officials not only participated in three panels to determine the scope of the study, analyze data and review findings, it also provided the bulk of research material used in the study.

"Were they (Taser) totally disconnected (from the study)? The answer is no. They were not disconnected," said Larry Farlow, a spokesman for the Air Force Research Laboratory in Texas that oversaw the study.

Taser critics - civil rights lawyers, human rights activists and government officials - contend that there is insufficient evidence to support the company's assertions that the stun gun is safe. They have called for independent research.

Taser has repeatedly characterized research that its own employees or consultants helped conduct or write as independent. The company has also paid training fees and given valuable stock options to police officers involved in decisions to purchase the stun guns.

In an interview earlier this month, Steve Tuttle, Taser's vice president of communications, maintained the company's position that the Defense Department study was independent. He acknowledged that Taser employees had some involvement in the study but insisted that that did not influence the findings.

Taser officials have described the Defense research as "a major independent safety study." But Air Force researchers said the study was not meant to be a comprehensive review of stun-gun science or safety, and they made no findings on the device's safety.

Touting findings early on

Taser trumpeted results of the study long before the actual report came out on April 1. In an October news release, Taser Chief Executive Officer Rick Smith said, "This comprehensive independent study further supports the safety of Taser" and "reaffirms the lifesaving value of Taser technology."

That announcement had an immediate impact on Taser stock: It shot up 60 percent during the next month. Taser executives and board members sold 1.28 million shares for $68 million in November.

Since then, the stock has dropped dramatically as a series of deaths caused cities nationwide to reconsider purchases of Tasers and to delay deployments.

An ongoing investigation by The Republic has found that medical examiners have cited Tasers in 15 deaths across the country. They called it a cause of death in three cases, a contributing factor in nine cases and said the stun gun couldn't be ruled out as a cause of death in three cases.

Taser maintains that its stun guns have never caused a death.

Taser involvement

When the Defense Department first released its study, it made no mention of who was involved in the study.

Another version obtained by The Republic shows that Taser's CEO, director of technical services, general counsel, medical director, chief instructor, electrical engineer and vice president of communications were involved in various panels over five months.

The report also shows that companies doing business with Taser, including General Dynamics, were heavily involved in the study and, along with Taser executives, sat on a final "Independent External Review Panel" to examine all the findings.

Farlow, the spokesman for the Air Force Research Laboratory, said his office, not Taser, made the decision to strike the names from the final report in order to protect the privacy of researchers and scientists.

A separate panel of medical and scientific experts that did not include Taser employees wrote the final report.

Tuttle, the Taser spokesman, said the company's involvement does not minimize the report's significance or its independence.

"This was all pre-planning stuff," he said. "We didn't do the study itself." He added that government rules require manufacturers to be involved in such reviews of their products. "If you are going to do a study of Milk Duds . . . you are going to have to talk to the (makers) of Milk Duds."

But, according to the Air Force, Taser provided most of the data used in the study, which was supposed to look at the "effectiveness" of Tasers in order to provide guidance for officials in charge of purchasing non-lethal weapons.

Information gaps

Although researchers determined the stun guns were "generally effective for their intended use," researchers found significant "data gaps" in the information Taser provided, Farlow said.

Chief among those gaps: enough information to determine whether Tasers can cause seizures or induce ventricular fibrillation, the sudden irregular heartbeat characterized by a heart attack.

In addition, Taser apparently did not provide some information about injuries involving the stun gun. For example, researchers said in the study that "no reports were identified that describe bone fractures resulting from the rapid induction of strong muscle contraction" caused by the stun gun.

At the time that Taser officials were sitting on the panel, they had already been served legal notice that a Maricopa County sheriff's deputy was going to sue the company over a fractured back that he reportedly suffered when shocked with a Taser during a training exercise.

Former Deputy Samuel Powers was the first to file a product liability lawsuit against Taser; his case is scheduled to go to trial in June. A doctor hired by Taser last year concluded that a one-second burst from a Taser was responsible for Powers' injury.

Since then, several police officers from departments across the country have come forward with allegations of bone fractures that they blame on Taser shocks.

The study concluded that Tasers may cause several unintended side effects, "albeit with estimated low probabilities of occurrence." It also said the need to "rely on a database of case reports compiled by manufacturers also generates uncertainty in the results."

Farlow pointed out that the Defense study made no conclusions about the stun gun's safety.

When asked about Taser's characterization of the research as a "major, independent safety study," Farlow said: "The simple answer is consider the source. . . . The press and public relations folks are doing their jobs."

E-mail correspondence

Despite the fact that the Air Force lab's study made no findings on safety, the government officials who commissioned the study allowed Taser to issue a news release saying that the Defense Department considered "Tasers generally safe and effective."

E-mails show that although these officials were concerned about Taser's characterization of the study, their desire to support Taser prevailed.

"I've expressed my personal view to (Taser) that the company might want to take a different approach to their (public affairs) efforts" and "i.e., tone it down," wrote Capt. Daniel McSweeney, spokesman for the Joint Non-Lethal Weapons Directorate, a Pentagon office that recommended purchasing Tasers for the armed services.

"My opinion is that they probably want to commission an independent (human effects) study, in which a variety of stakeholders participate," McSweeney said in a January e-mail from his office in Quantico, Va. "To settle this issue once and for all."

Dave DuBay, a Taser vice president, confirmed that McSweeney asked the company to temper its statements. He said McSweeney felt Taser is sometimes "too passionate in defense" of its stun guns. DuBay also confirmed that McSweeney asked Taser to commission its own independent study.

But DuBay said the government's study was independent and questioned whether the public would perceive a Taser-sponsored study to be independent.

Despite McSweeney's concerns, he still recommended backing Taser.

McSweeney's rationale

"My rationale is that Taser is, in effect, some kind of partner to us, since we purchase and field their systems," he wrote in the same e-mail. "Not supporting them can hurt us in the public's eye."

At issue in the e-mails were requests from Taser asking the government to put out a news release declaring the stun guns safe.

The e-mails were written after reports in the New York Times and other media raised questions over Taser's claims about the Defense study and if researchers actually found the stun guns safe.

In an interview this week, McSweeney confirmed that he told Taser officials they should "tone it down" and conduct their own independent study.

"I was referencing not just to the (study) but other things I have been privy to," he said, adding that Taser has been at the center of several controversial issues. "Given the ongoing questions regarding the health effects of Taser, it would behoove Taser to do an independent study."

McSweeney acknowledged that the Defense study was not comprehensive but called it an "excellent first step" and said that more studies are under way. He said that non-lethal weapons are needed in military zones and that the study served "an urgent need" by providing a foundation for the Defense Department.

Claims Over Tasers' Safety Are Challenged

November 26, 2004
Alex Berenson, The New York Times

Taser International, whose electrical guns are used by thousands of police departments nationwide, says that a federal study endorses the safety of its guns, but the laboratory that conducted the research disagrees.

Taser said last month that the government study, whose full results have not yet been released, found that its guns were safe. Since that statement, the company's stock has soared and its executives and directors have sold $68 million in shares, about 5 percent of Taser's stock and nearly half their holdings.

But the Air Force laboratory that conducted the study now says that it actually found that the guns could be dangerous and that more data was needed to evaluate their risks. The guns "may cause several unintended effects, albeit with low probabilities of occurrence," the laboratory said last week in a statement released after a symposium on Tasers, as the company's guns are known, and other weapons intended to incapacitate people without killing them.

Taser said Wednesday that it stood behind its October statement.

Other data presented at the symposium raised questions about one of Taser's key claims about the effectiveness of its newest and most expensive weapon.

Tasers are pistol-shaped weapons that fire electrified darts up to 21 feet, shocking suspects with a painful charge. More than 5,500 police departments and prisons now use Tasers, compared with only a handful five years ago.

Many police officers say that Tasers give them a way to restrain dangerous suspects without using firearms or fighting with them. But civil liberties groups say police often use Tasers on people who are merely unruly or disobedient, not dangerous. Recently, police officers in Miami shocked a 6-year-old boy and a 12-year-old girl in separate incidents, prompting widespread criticism.

"The evidence suggests that far from being used to avoid lethal force, many police forces are using Tasers as a routine force option," said Curt Goering, senior deputy executive director of Amnesty International. "The way these weapons are being used in some circumstances could constitute torture or ill treatment."

Amnesty has called for police departments to stop using the guns pending an independent inquiry into their safety. The group will release a report next week documenting police abuse of Tasers, Mr. Goering said.

The growing use of Tasers is disconcerting because their risks have not been properly studied, biomedical engineers say. More than 70 people have died since 2001 after being shocked with Tasers, mainly from heart or respiratory failure.

Taser International says the deaths resulted from drug overdoses or other factors and would have occurred anyway. But coroners have linked several deaths to the weapons, and independent scientists who are authorities on electricity and the heart say that the company may be significantly underestimating the weapon's risks, especially in people who have used drugs or have heart disease.

Taser has performed only minimal research on the health effects of its weapons. Its primary safety studies on the M26, its most powerful gun, consist of tests on a single pig in 1996 and on five dogs in 1999. The company has resisted calls for more tests, saying that it is comfortable with the research it has conducted.

Tasers are largely unregulated and have never been studied for their safety or effectiveness by the Consumer Product Safety Commission or the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. But for two years the Defense Department has studied Tasers as part of military research into weapons designed to be effective without being deadly.

In a press release on Oct. 18, Taser said that the military study had found its guns "generally effective without significant risk of unintended consequences."

Rick Smith, the chief executive of Taser, called the study "the latest chapter in a series of comprehensive medical and scientific studies which conclude that Taser technology is safe and effective."

Taser's stock, which closed at $37.47 on Oct. 15, the last trading day before the study was released, rose 60 percent over the next month and peaked at $60.85 on Nov. 15. During the week ended Nov. 12, Taser executives and directors sold 1.28 million shares for $68 million. The company's stock closed Wednesday at $50.51, down 89 cents.

But neither Taser nor the military released the full study, only an excerpt. The full study remains confidential, military officials say. But last week, after the symposium on less-deadly weapons in Winston-Salem, N.C., the Air Force laboratory that conducted the study said that it had not found Tasers were safe.

The guns "may cause several unintended effects, albeit with estimated low probabilities of occurrence," the laboratory said. "Available laboratory data are too limited to adequately quantify possible risks of ventricular fibrillation or seizures, particularly in susceptible populations."

Ventricular fibrillation is a disturbance of the electrical circuitry of the heart that causes cardiac arrest in seconds and death in minutes. Taser says that its weapons do not produce enough current to cause ventricular fibrillation, but scientists who are authoritative on fibrillation say that the company has not done enough research to know whether that contention is accurate.

Taser said Wednesday that the military had reviewed and approved its October statement before the company released it.

An Air Force scientist presented data at the symposium last week showing that repeated Taser shocks caused pigs to become acidotic - a dangerous condition in which the pH of the blood drops. A 1999 study by the Justice Department suggested that "deaths following Tasers' use may be due to acidosis."

People who have been hit repeatedly by Tasers should receive medical monitoring, said Dr. James Jauchem, the Air Force scientist. A spokeswoman for the Air Force said Wednesday that Dr. Jauchem was on vacation for Thanksgiving and not available for additional comments.

Dr. Jauchem also presented data calling into question the company's assertion that the Taser X26, its newest gun, is especially effective even though it fires a smaller charge than the company's older weapon, the M26. Taser has said that the X26 fires a special kind of electric pulse that works better than traditional stun guns.

But Dr. Jauchem said the shape of the X26's electric pulse had only a minor effect on the amount of muscle contraction it produced.

Taser falls on New York Times report

November 26, 2004
By Jim Jelter, CBS MarketWatch.com

SAN FRANCISCO (CBS.MW) -- Shares of stun-gun maker Taser International tumbled Friday, hit by a New York Times report that raised new safety concerns about the company's main product line. The article in the New York Times, citing unpublished results of Air Force Research Laboratory tests, adds to a growing body of complaints over the use and safety of Taser's stun guns. According to the paper, the Air Force said at a symposium last week that Taser stun guns may be dangerous and require further testing. The Air Force's comments fly in the face of a recent federal study that called Taser's products "generally safe and effective." Company executives could not be reached for comment. Scottsdale, Ariz.-based Taser markets its guns as nonlethal self-protection devices, with law enforcement agencies and security companies making up its biggest customer base. According to the company, its products send a nonlethal jolt of electricity to subdue the target body. But there has been a rash of complaints in recent months blaming Taser stun guns for accidental injuries, raising the specter of debilitating lawsuits. Taser shares have shed about 13 percent of their value in just the past two weeks.