Ray Samuels: A Police Chief and Leader Who Championed Rights For All

While I never had the pleasure of meeting Ray Samuels, who unfortunately died in February 2012, I have long admired him in a big way for his willingness to take a stance against tasers, even as a high ranking law enforcement official (former chief of police, Newark, California). I have likewise never personally met Aram James, who wrote this wonderful tribute to Ray, but we've been in touch with each other for many years and I call him a friend. The world could sure use a few more like Ray and Aram!


Ray Samuels: A Police Chief and Leader Who Championed Rights For All
Silicon Valley De-Bug • Profile
Aram James • March 7, 2012

Ray Samuels, former Newark Police Chief, passed away recently at the age of 58. Aram James, a civil rights organizer and former public defender, found a friend and trusted ally in Samuels through their common campaign against the Tasers, and shares his memories of the man he calls both a friend and inspiration.

First and foremost Ray Samuels was my dear friend—his sudden and unexpected passing has saddened me to the core (Ray died on February 17, 2012.) I think what stands-out most for me about Ray Samuels are his humble qualities – his decency as a human being, his lust for life and learning and his insatiable curiosity about other human beings. Ray always had a desire to be a problem solver, and he had no arrogance or pretense. His routine instinct was always to look out for the other guy first.

When Ray retired as the Police Chief of Newark California in August of 2008, we had only known each other for a little more than a year and half, but our friendship already seemed strong and special. When Ray announced his retirement as police chief, he invited me to attend his retirement party at a small restaurant overlooking the water/bay in his hometown, the historic and charming Benicia, California.

As soon as Ray spotted me he seemed slightly surprised that I was attending the event by myself. Ray then took me from table to table introducing me to a mostly law enforcement crowd. At each table he went out of his way to let the folks know that I was a retired public defender—and he seemed proud of this fact. When we finished the introductions Ray quickly decided that I should sit right across from him at the head table. In Ray’s own way he decided it was important to take care of me first, to make me feel comfortable at this mostly law enforcement event. Needless to say, I had a great evening.

Even though Ray Samuels never stepped through the doors of De-Bug/ACJP Albert Cobarrubias Justice Project — he was a friend and inspiration for our organizing efforts, particularly in our campaign/battle to ban Tasers. His words and wise counsel over the years that I knew him extended well beyond our battle against Tasers, and became an overall understanding of how to best work towards ensuring police accountability and a more equitable criminal justice system. I wasn’t the only one at De-Bug/ACJP touched by Ray’s wisdom and commitment to justice. In a letter to Ray while trying to learn more about use of force issues, Raj Jayadev wrote, “Please know your very honorable stance against Tasers, and the intelligent arguments against their use has helped tremendously as we try to carry the torch here in San Jose.”

Ray Samuels’ words and concept development regarding the risks posed by Tasers were frequently reflected back to the community by the ACJP team in numerous community talks and presentations, press conferences, TV interviews, radio call ins, in addition to articles written jointly and separately by Raj Jayadev and Aram James i.e., Did Court Deal Fatal Blow to Tasers for Police? (New America Media—posted Jan 7, 2010).

Yes, our friend Ray Samuels defied -- across the board -- the often negative and frequently legitimately held stereotypes maintained by those in the community who must interact with our police in a less than mutually respectful environment.

Ray inspired by his words, his credibility, and his courage to speak the truth as he saw it -- even if it ran contrary to the strongly held views and conventions of his colleagues in his profession (policing). Ray embodied and nurtured a wider angle view of policing and police practices then not just most police officers -- but of the majority of institutional participants in the criminal justice system. His wisdom and articulation of the issues was not just supported by theory but by decades of practice in the hardscrabble of law enforcement. Ray sought out the facts, not to support his world view but as an investigator seeking to discover the bigger truth. And Ray had the writing skills of an artist and a poet to back up his points.

Case in point, in the beginning of 2007 I contacted –cold called-- then chief of the Newark California Police Department, Ray Samuel after reading his comments regarding the controversial weapon Tasers. Here are his words:

“What scared me about the weapon is that you can deploy it absolutely within the manufacturer’s recommendations and there is still the possibility of an unintended reaction. I can’t imagine a worse circumstance than to have a death attributed to a Taser in a situation that didn’t justify lethal force.”

At the time I read Ray’s words in the press I was preparing to speak to the Palo Alto Taser Task Force assembled to make a recommendation to the Palo Alto City Council regarding whether to purchase Tasers for all members of the Palo Alto Police Department. I thought, why not take a chance and try to contact him? Maybe a conversation with Ray Samuels would give me a fuller understanding of the Taser issue.

After my initial phone conversation it became clear that Ray Samuels had a gold mine of information on the Taser controversy at the tip of his tongue. As we talked, it was evident to me that anything he had to say regarding the risks that Tasers posed to the health and safety of the community would be seen as 10 times, if not 100 times, more credible on the subject then anything I -- a retired former public defender, whose public perception was one of a radical police critic activist -- might offer.

Prior to my presentation to the Taser Task force on March 27, 2007 there had been at least three prior task force meetings, with all of the formal presenters being strongly pro-Taser, and mostly speakers from either the Palo Alto Police department or other local police agencies.

At those meetings I spoke during the oral communications portion of the meeting re Ray Samuels’ view that Tasers were dangerous and constituted too high a risk to justify their introduction into the already weapon heavy arsenal of the PAPD.

On the date of the March 13, 2007 Taser Task Force meeting, then Palo Alto Police Chief Lynne Johnson commented that she had talked to Ray Samuels at a recent statewide police chief’s conference, and that Ray Samuels was now leaning towards introducing Tasers in the city of Newark, California. Having discussed the issue on the phone with Ray on several recent occasions, I was in a state of disbelief regarding Lynne Johnson’s statement. My distinct impression was that Ray would not so quickly have changed his view.

Shortly after the March 13,2011 meeting I contacted Ray Samuels by phone and he assured me he had not changed his position—and the he was not in fact “leaning towards Tasers,” as Police Chief Lynne Johnson had represented.

I asked Ray if he would write a letter outlining his current position on Tasers, so I could present his letter as part of my presentation to the Taser Task Force. Given chief Johnson’s misrepresentation of Ray’s position, I felt it was important that I have a written statement of Ray’s current position to avoid any possible ambiguity.

Ray’s letter, it turns out, was my David against the City’s Goliath.

When I finally had my opportunity to give my presentation to the Taser Task Force, I used Ray’s late arriving letter (the day before the presentation), as the centerpiece of my quickly reorganized presentation.

(See Ray's letter here:   http://truthnottasers.blogspot.com/2007/07/anti-taser-letter-from-newark-police.html )

Once I read the letter to the Taser Task Force, the reaction was one of disbelief and denial –after weeks of pro-Taser propaganda Ray’s fact based letter simply turned the Task Force member’s world view upside down-- they were in a state of shock, unwilling and unable to absorb the straight talk outlined in his letter. Rather than ask substantive questions re his positions, they attempted to attack both my and Ray’s credibility. Did I have Ray’s permission to read the letter to the Taser force? Was the letter really prepared for the Taser Task Force? Why wasn’t Ray at the meeting to answer questions about his letter?

In the end, the Taser Task Force voted 7-2 in favor of recommending to the city council that the Palo Alto Police be allowed to purchase Tasers. The two individuals who voted in opposition to Tasers did so in large part -- if not exclusively -- on the basis of the letter Ray had written. In fact, one member of the Taser Task Force actually drove to Newark to consult personally with Ray.

On May 7, 2007 the city council ultimately voted 5-4 in favor of bringing Tasers to Palo Alto. Ray made himself available to any member of the city council who wanted to discuss his letter and his views on Tasers. The then mayor of Palo Alto called Ray on the day of the vote and had a discussion about Tasers. The mayor was ultimately one of the 4 votes in opposition to Tasers. Ray’s amazing and precise articulation of the dangers of Tasers, outlined in his letter, almost single handedly prevented the introduction of Tasers into the city of Palo Alto.

Reflecting back, at my friendship with Ray, his words may best express why I feel so honored to have had Ray Samuels for a friend and why I will so dearly miss him. Here is what he wrote in an e-mail exchange with Raj Jayadev after I had introduced them to each other in September of 2010.

“With regard to Aram, the two of us have developed a relationship over the last four years that I cherish. We often disagree on issues, but we have the utmost respect for one another and acknowledge that surrounding ourselves with people that agree does nothing toward our goal of being lifelong learners. Nor does it do anything to validate the causes we believe in.”

Ray’s friendship will be with me forever. His advocacy for human rights such as through the opposition to the death penalty and the opposition to Tasers, his call for openness in police misconduct proceedings, and all of his other causes, will continue to be moved forward by others as part of his legacy. He broke barriers with his extraordinary articulation of the issues and his willingness to so freely share his view with others.

Did Court Deal Fatal Blow to Tasers for Police?

January 10, 2010
New America Media, Commentary, Raj Jayadev and Aram James

In what is being heralded as a landmark decision, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently declared that police officers could be held liable for using a Taser without proper cause. And in making their determination, the court also set new legal parameters on how law enforcement is to use Tasers, stating, "The objective facts must indicate that the suspect poses an immediate threat to the officer or a member of the public." The federal finding substantially changes the landscape of Taser usage, and may signal the end of Tasers for law enforcement agencies who are now more vulnerable to civil and criminal action then ever before.

The decision, which has already caused law enforcement agencies to re-evaluate their Taser policies, stems from a case involving a Coronado police officer, Brian McPherson, who tased unarmed 21-year-old Carl Bryan during a traffic stop for a seatbelt infraction in Southern California. After being pulled over, Bryan was standing outside of his vehicle, wearing only boxer shorts and tennis shoes. He was 20 to 25 feet from the officer, and when tased, fell face first to the ground, fractured four teeth, and had to get the Taser prongs removed with a scalpel. Bryan went on to sue the Coronado Police Department, and the federal appellate court was making a determination if McPherson had immunity to the lawsuit as an officer. The court ruled in favor of Bryan.

And while any regulation on Taser use is a move forward from the status quo, which repeatedly has left civilians tased for innocuous circumstances, and the decision acknowledges some of the inherent dangers of the weapon, it falls short in a most critical way. The instruction is based on a false premise that Tasers “fall into the category of non-lethal force” as stated in Judge Wardlaw’s written opinion. By denying the lethality of Tasers, the court mistakenly treats Tasers as an intermediary weapon, like a baton, when it should be treated as a deadly weapon, like a firearm.

According to Amnesty International, there have been more than 350 deaths due to Tasers. In San Jose, which was the first city to arm every one of its officers with the weapon in 2004, there have been six Taser-involved deaths, more than a death a year since its inception. Currently, the city is facing a $20 million lawsuit from the family of one of the more recent victims, Steve Salinas. The unarmed Salinas was tased to death in his motel room in 2007. Like Bryan, Salinas’s ultimate tasing originated from a minor starting point: police were called to the scene due to allegedly loud noises emanating from the room. Salinas, who was naked at the time, died in the room shortly after the police arrived.

The growing body count attributed to Tasers refutes the commonly accepted advertisement from its leading manufacturer, Taser International, that Tasers are a non-lethal option for officers. Furthermore, the unreliability of the weapon to bring down its target makes it dangerous even for officers who may be in a situation requiring deadly force. According to a San Jose Mercury News study of the San Jose Police Department use of Tasers in 2007, Tasers in dart mode are only effective 70 percent of the time in bringing down their target, and in stun mode only 60 percent of the time.

The Taser consequently is left in a state of limbo. Its capacity to unintentionally kill leaves it too dangerous to use in non-lethal circumstances, say when an officer would use an intermediate weapon, such as pepper-spray or a control hold. Yet, due to its unpredictability to subdue a target, using a Taser would not be a gamble an officer would want to bet on if his or her life were in jeopardy.

The Bryan case, where the subject is unarmed and charged with a minor infraction or misdemeanor, is more the rule then the exception according to recent studies. In a Houston Chronicle study of Taser use by the Houston Police Department in a two-year span, officers deployed the weapon more than 1,000 times, but in 95 percent of those cases the subject was unarmed. The study also found that more than 50 percent of the Taser incidents escalated from relatively common police calls, such as traffic stops, disturbance and nuisance complaints. In more than a third of the incidents, no crime was charged or prosecuted.

In October 2009, in a tacit admission of the inherent dangers of Tasers, Taser International began telling police agencies to avoid firing the devices at suspects' chests. In a revision of their usage manual, they write, "Should sudden cardiac arrest occur in a scenario involving a Taser discharge to the chest area, it would place the law enforcement agency, the officer, and Taser International in the difficult situation of trying to ascertain what role, if any, (the device) could have played.”

It was a tactic reminiscent of the tobacco industry putting warning labels on cigarette packs. The action does not change the harm of the product, but rather is intended to create a layer of insulation from civil action.

In June 2008, a jury in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California ordered Taser International to pay $6.2 million in damages to the family of Robert C. Heston. Heston, of Salinas, Calif., had died after being hit by Tasers by Salinas police officers. Shortly after the decision, Taser International stocks plummeted, hitting its lowest numbers in a year. The jury, however, did not fault the police department, finding that Taser International did not instruct the officers properly on how to use the weapon. Having lost a major civil action, and knowing that other lawsuits would follow, Taser International scrambled to fend off civil action by deploying a revised usage policy.

But it is impossible to create a safe policy for an inherently unsafe weapon, just as it is impossible for the tobacco industry to create a safe way to smoke cigarettes.

And criticism has even come from the law enforcement community itself. Ray Samuels, former Newark police chief, turned down the offer to bring Tasers into his city in 2005. In explaining his position, which he has gone on to share with other city administrations that are considering the weapon, he wrote, "What scared me about the weapon is that you can deploy it absolutely within the manufacturer's recommendations and there is still the possibility of an unintended reaction. I can't imagine a worse circumstance than to have a death attributed to a Taser in a situation that didn't justify lethal force."

The decision of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals should send a clear message to the police and the cities that they work for that civil action is now a reality every time the Taser is drawn.

Raj Jayadev is director of Silicon Valley Debug. Aram James is a retired Santa Clara County public defender and a co-founder of San Jose’s De-Bug Legal Advocacy Clinic.

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.

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.

Judge, Jury & Electrocutioner

Here is the latest art/law collaboration between former California public defender and well-known anti-taser activist Aram James and renowned political graphic artist Doug Minkler.

The message is LOUD and CLEAR.

To see a larger version, click on the image. If you would like to order a poster, please contact Doug Minkler at the e-mail address on his website.

July 2, 2007 - TASERS SAVE LIVES - THE BIG LIE
Earlier this year, I received an extraordinary poster in the mail from my new friends in California, former deputy public defender Aram James and renowned political graphic artist Doug Minkler. This large silkscreen poster was a collaboration between Doug, the artist, and Aram, the wordsmith. I was very moved by the powerful way in which they portrayed the message: Tasers Save Lives - The Big Lie. They were kind enough to send more than one copy and I was over the moon about being able to share one with Cameron Ward on returning to Vancouver in May. Cameron's awe mirrored my own.

To see a larger version of the poster, click on the image shown.

I was thrilled to learn this weekend that Tasers Save Lives - The Big Lie was selected as one of only 137 posters, from over 2,200 submitted from 56 countries, to be given a full page display in a catalog published by the International Poster Competition. This competition, held from May 12 to June 24, 2007, is part of the International Poster and Graphic Arts Festival of Chaumont (France).

I am honoured to own one. If you would like to order a poster, please contact Doug Minkler at the e-mail address on his website. You can also download a small copy of the poster for free from the same place.

San Jose march today opposes police use of tasers

September 11, 2007
Bay City News Service

San Jose community members will hold a rally and march today in an effort to halt the San Jose Police Department's use of Tasers, event organizers have announced. The rally will kick off in front of the Santa Clara County district attorney's office at 70 W. Hedding St. at 5 p.m. with speeches by family members of victims who have been allegedly Tasered by San Jose police officers. Participants will then head to the San Jose Police Department and call on officers to turn in their Tasers. The event will end with a live demonstration of the effects of Taser use and the release of 268 balloons, representing each officer-involved, Taser-related death throughout the country since 2001, according to event organizers. There have been five Taser-involved deaths involving San Jose police officers since 2004, organizers said.

State of shock

August 22, 2007
Steve Palopoli, Metro Active, Silicon Valley (California)

"To use it [the taser] in a deadly force situation implicates officer safety, and it's not safe for the cops to use it on unarmed individuals. So when is it safe?" asks Aram James [retired public defender and Palo Alto resident who campaigns against tasers and helped found the Coalition for Justice and Accountability in 2003]. Nor does he think better training is a viable solution. "Even with the best of training, the result is no different," he says. "You can't draft a safe policy for an unsafe device."

"My position personally is that they should be banned, and the coalition's position is that they should be banned," says James. "But at the minimum there should be a moratorium until there is independent testing to determine whether they can be used safely on unarmed citizens and vulnerable populations."

The national stories about stupid taser tricks aren't going away, taser-related lawsuits keep piling up and more people than ever are demanding answers that so far law enforcement has been unwilling to provide.

San Jose has had its share of taser-related incidents, most recently the May 25 death of Steve Salinas, who died after being tased while naked and unarmed outside a motel room.

Salinas' daughter Noreen has experienced the lack of transparency in such incidents firsthand. She's still waiting for key information about the circumstances surrounding her father's death, though she's been told autopsy results will be released this month. She's been frustrated at every stage of the discovery process, with toxicology reports shipped to Pennsylvania and what she feels is a longer than necessary wait for the department to collect reports from the officers involved.

"It's just absurd," she says. "They're holding back a lot of information they shouldn't be. If they're so confident," she asks, "then why are people dying?"

Anti-taser letter from Newark, California Chief of Police

What follows is a letter from Ray Samuels, Chief of Police of Newark, California to the City of Palo Alto Taser Task Force. Click on the link above to watch a video of the presentation of this letter earlier this year to the Taser Task Force. In the end, Palo Alto city council approved the use of tasers in a very narrow vote - 5 to 4 - but ONLY in situations where lethal force would otherwise be allowed. Thank you to Chief Samuels and Aram James for permission to post this important viewpoint.

The Newark Police Department has been plagued in recent years by an increasing number of assaults on police officers. These assaults are often extremely violent and have resulted in officer injuries. The department is constantly looking for ways to reduce the risk of injury to the officers and the community they protect. Advances in less lethal technology are of significant interest to the department. In the recent past we have made a variety of less lethal devices available to officers including the flexible baton (bean bag) and rapid fire OC distribution weapons. Electro-muscular disruption (EMD) technology is also of interest to the department. The purpose of this document is to share with you my thoughts related to the use of conducted energy devices by the Newark Police Department.

Before I do that, I believe it is appropriate to provide you with some information related to my professional and educational background. I have been a police officer for more than 32 years working in three different Bay Area agencies. I have worked in many uniformed and non-uniformed assignments as an officer, supervisor and manager; however my primary focus prior to my appointment to police chief was in the area of police misconduct/internal affairs investigations. I have an undergraduate degree from Golden Gate University and a graduate degree from San Diego State University. I am a graduate of the state of California Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training Command College, the FBI National Academy, and the Senior Management Institute for Police, Boston, MA. Specific to less-lethal technology, I have twice attended symposiums on the topic sponsored by the United States Department of Justice. Most recently, I attended a symposium in Arlington, Virginia on April 4-5, 2005, which focused exclusively on conducted energy devices.

My interest in conducted energy devices has allowed me to assist other agencies refine their policies related to their use before the model policies drafted by the Police Executive Research Forum and the International Association of Chiefs of Police were available. That said, I want to make it clear that it is not my intention to directly or indirectly criticize or influence the policy of other law enforcement agencies. My jurisdiction is limited to the city of Newark, CA. Police Department. I fully understand that any use of force by law enforcement involves risk. It is the responsibility of the chief of police to manage that risk, and in doing so, the balance can result in differing views amongst reasonable people. I strive to stay abreast of all of the information available on the subject and anxiously await the latest independent scientific research into EMD technology. That said, I am steadfast in my refusal to modify my position on conducted energy devices primarily because the risk of unintended death is too high. I say primarily, because there are a host of conditions that breed a multitude of other concerns. For the purposes of this writing, I will assume these other concerns are mitigated with a fully developed use of force policy coupled with aggressive monitoring of all force applications by police employees.

For a conducted energy device to be useful, the threshold for use cannot be on a par with the threshold for the use of deadly force. And, in fact, it is almost universally agreed that these devices represent an unacceptable substitute for deadly force when deadly force is necessary and justified. Yet, the risk of death when a conducted energy device is applied properly and in accordance with the aforementioned model policies is too high. Some proponents argue that the risk of death from a conducted energy device is no higher than the risk associated with all other uses of force by the police. While I have not conducted research to support or deny this assertion, I am aware that the collection of use of force data is not uniform throughout the United States. In fact, many agencies only collect data in cases involving significant applications of force, if at all. Therefore, I suggest that this statement cannot be supported on a national level and I am unaware of any reports comparing the death rate in all police use of force cases to that of conducted energy devices.

In conclusion, I view the evolution of conducted energy devices and their use much the same as I view the evolution of the carotid restraint. Both had been around for a long period of time and both saw a dramatic upsurge in use as the number of violent assaults on officers increased. With increased use, law enforcement personnel and medical practitioners recognized a substantially higher risk of death, particularly when used on persons that have a predisposition to cardiac arrhythmias arising from alcohol or drug use, pre-existing heart disease or other genetic factors. It is interesting that more than a decade ago, most law enforcement agencies outlawed the use of the carotid restraint or placed it use on a level equivalent to the application of deadly force.

A Change in Focus

I thought it would be easy to announce police departments adding tasers to their arsenal (see below). However, this is happening on a daily (even hourly!) basis in the United States and I can't possibly keep up with it, unless I quit my day job and send my children out to play in the traffic! I've been at this for less than a week and the daily developments are overwhelming!

From this day forward, I will focus on egregious uses of tasers as they are reported. And I will continue to make every effort to add other pertinent information, both historical (I still have much to add) and as it happens.

Suffice it to say that if tasers aren't already in use where you live, they will soon be coming to your town or a town near you, unless you make an organized and concerted effort to prevent that from happening. Even then, it's:

David versus Goliath. Recently, in the City of Palo Alto, California, a taser task force was mandated to review the issue and make recommendations to city council in response to the police chief's request to introduce tasers to the community. A highly organized group of people, including former deputy public defender Aram James, made incredible efforts to educate city council and the task force on the potential dangers of the weapon, in hopes that they would not approve the roll out of tasers in their city.

In the end, council approved the use of tasers in a very narrow vote - 5 to 4 - but ONLY in situations where lethal force would otherwise be allowed. Had Aram James et al not made the effort, the Chief of Police would have handily won the day and police there would have been given the right of way to use tasers as they saw fit.