Deaths in police custody figures 'understated'

February 3, 2012

By Angus Stickler, BBC News

Official figures understate the number of people who die in custody after being restrained by police, a BBC investigation has found.

It discovered that anyone who dies following restraint without being formally arrested is excluded from death in custody figures.

Campaigners want an inquiry into how the the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) collates its figures.

The IPCC says its tight definitions allow it to track trends.

The findings were revealed in a joint investigation by BBC Radio 4's File on 4 and The Bureau of Investigative Journalism, which used Freedom of Information requests to ask the IPCC to reveal the names of individual cases detailed in its statistics.

The names relate to 86 people who died in police custody between 1998-9 and 2008-9 following the use of restraint.

Of these, 16 deaths were categorised by the IPCC as being directly "restraint-related".

'Skewing the results'


Families of those who have died have expressed disbelief that their loved ones have been excluded from death in custody figures.

What we will have to do is have a proper thorough inquiry into this matter”

Keith Vaz MP Home Affairs Select Committee

Rebekah Skews, whose former partner Simon Bosworth died after being restrained by police, said the figures "mean nothing".

"The figures that they are making available to the public aren't true figures, because to actually omit a case like Simon's, which so clearly involved restraint - they are skewing the results," she said.

Keith Vaz, chairman of the Commons Home Affairs Select Committee, said the findings were concerning.
"This is a highly sensitive area which deals with one of those parts of public policy that needs to be looked at very carefully," Mr Vaz told the BBC.

"What we will have to do is have a proper, thorough inquiry into this matter."

Mr Vaz said the IPCC had a crucial public role.

"It is the organisation that the police and the public turn to in order

to get a definitive account of what happened in respect of some of the most serious cases that there are."
Mr Bosworth, a property valuer from Peterborough, died after being restrained by the police in July 2008.
An inquest jury returned a narrative verdict.

Mr Bosworth suffered a fatal heart attack brought on by a combination of being restrained and his cocaine use and epilepsy.

Despite the fact the IPCC conducted its own investigation into Mr Bosworth's death, which cited restraint and struggling as part of the cause of death, his name is not included in its custody death figures.

Strict definition


Tom Bucke, head of analytical services at the IPCC, conceded that it was an important case.

But he defended the commission's position not to include the case in the figures because Mr Bosworth had not been formally arrested or detained.

Listen to the full report on File on 4 on BBC Radio 4 on Tuesday, 31 January at 20:00 GMT and Sunday 4 February at 17:00 GMT

• Listen via the Radio 4 website
• Download the File on 4 podcast
• Got a story? Contact the File on 4 team

Under the IPCC's strict definition, he was not officially in custody.

According to the IPCC, between 1998 and 2009 there were only 16 restraint-related deaths in custody.

The watchdog disclosed it has another list of deaths following police contact - those who had not been arrested or detained.

However the IPCC does not know how many of those were restraint-related deaths and is considering a new study of these cases.

The investigation carried out by Radio 4's File on 4 and the Bureau of Investigative Journalism into the official figures involved months spent cross-referencing the names on the IPCC list and other cases in the public domain.

The IPCC's definitive list of 16 deaths in police custody excludes one of this country's most high profile cases.
Roger Sylvester died in 1999 after being restrained by eight police officers in hospital.

He had been found naked and behaving strangely outside his home in Tottenham, north London.
An inquest ruled in 2003 that he was unlawfully killed, but this was quashed a year later by a High Court judge. No officers were charged.

But following the case, the Metropolitan Police reviewed and reorganised its restraint training.

'Led by evidence'

Deborah Coles, chief executive of Inquest, a charity which advises on contentious deaths and their investigation, said it was "absolutely astonishing" that Mr Sylvester's death was not on the list of 16.

Continue reading the main story

I know these cases, we've worked on these cases, and restraint was absolutely fundamental during the course of that inquest” - Deborah Coles Inquest

"I can't believe they haven't even got Roger Sylvester,"' she said.

"These are cases that Inquest have worked on and yet within this list, they don't seem to recognise these are restraint-related deaths.

"I find that absolutely astonishing because I know these cases, we've worked on these cases, and restraint was absolutely fundamental.

"I would question the IPCC as to how these figures were collated, and what care has gone into ensuring that they're properly representative of... the investigations, some of which they have been directly involved in."

The IPCC said Roger Sylvester's name had been excluded from the list again due to its tight definition of restraint-related death.

Tom Bucke of the IPCC said was restraint was a "key factor" in the case.

"However, we are led by the evidence and the medical evidence was disputed by a pathologist at the inquest and the final inquest verdict was an open verdict on Roger Sylvester's death, so under cause of death we reflect the open verdict and the dispute between the pathologist about that," he said.

"The reason we have such a tight definition for our different categories is to allow us to look at trends over time.

"If we had very loose categories and included lots of things in there which may or not fit in there or may fit in other categories, then we would lose the ability to say whether deaths were going up or down.

"It's obviously very important for everybody concerned to know whether deaths in custody are going up or not."

Deaths in Police Custody: Excited Delirium

Next On: Tuesday, 20:00 on BBC Radio 31 Jan 2012



SYNOPSIS

Inquests in England are increasingly hearing a new term to explain deaths in police custody: Excited Delirium. It's a diagnosis with origins in the United States, where it has been associated with consumption of massive doses of cocaine. People with ED are said to possess super-human strength and to be largely impervious to pain. They behave bizarrely, sometimes destructively. They often seem paranoid and frequently resist arrest. As police struggle to restrain them they overheat and die.

But critics -- including some British Pathologists -- point out that Excited Delirium is not recognised by the World Health Organisation and that there is a lack of valid research. Civil liberties organisations fear that the diagnosis might be employed to excuse improper use of restraint techniques by police.

For 'File on 4' Angus Stickler has travelled to the cocaine capital of the United States, Miami, where police and scientists are attempting to define and deal with the controversial condition.

And in England he speaks to families whose loved ones have died after being restrained by the police. Is Excited Delirium well-enough understood to be used by courts? And just how many people are dying while being restrained -- either in custody or while being arrested? Are the official figures reliable?


Producer: Andy Denwood.

BROADCAST
Tue 31 Jan 2012
20:00
BBC Radio 4

(There will be a transcript after the program)

Raoul Moat inquest: Amnesty International questions Taser use

September 24, 2011
Jamie Doward, The Guardian

Amnesty International has written to the coroner conducting the inquest into the death of Raoul Moat questioning how police came to fire a non-lethal weapon at him despite a Home Office study concluding it was inaccurate and unreliable.

The human rights group said it wanted to establish whether the officers who fired the experimental Xrep Taser were aware of research conducted on behalf of the Home Office Scientific Development Branch, the body that evaluates specialist equipment. The research found the weapon was unlikely to be effective and had a high risk of missing its target. Officers using the weapon shot at Moat twice. One round missed and the other appeared to strike him without effect.

Oliver Sprague, Amnesty's UK arms programme director, said: "It's alarming that officers chose to deploy a weapon whose testing data had shown it to be highly inaccurate and highly likely to fail. Lessons must be learned from this and no weapon should be deployed by any UK police force until it has been officially sanctioned by the Home Office."

The Moat inquest is expected to last a further four weeks.

Amnesty International UK: Response to death of man after being struck by taser in Cumbria

August 17, 2011

Amnesty International has today (17 August) reiterated its concern of the wider deployment of Tasers after a man living in Barrow, Cumbria died after he was struck by the weapon. Amnesty International spokesperson Eulette Ewart said: “While we’re not able to comment on the details of this specific tragic incident, Amnesty International has long been concerned at the wider deployment of the Taser across UK police forces. “Tasers are potentially lethal and therefore should only be used in a limited set of instances where there is a very real threat of loss of life. “Only officers who receive the highest standard of training on how and when to use Tasers should be armed with these weapons and there must be a high level of accountability whenever Tasers are used.” Notes to the Editor · In 2006, a 47-year-old man died after being shocked with a Taser. Brian Loan was believed to be the first person in the UK to die after being shocked with the electro-shock weapon. A Home Office post-mortem reportedly found that he had died of “natural causes”. · Last month an 82-year-old man was hospitalised for days after being Tasered in west London by a Metropolitan Police officer. The man was reported to have been arrested on suspicion of possession of an offensive weapon and criminal damage to a motor vehicle. · Police in the United States have carried Tasers for several years. Since 2001, Amnesty International has recorded the deaths of more than 450 people in the United States after they were struck with a Taser. In many instances, most of the deceased were unarmed and did not appear to present a serious threat when they were shocked, in some cases several times.

Man dies in the United Kingdom after Cumbria police taser him

August 16, 2011: Dale Burns, age unknown, Cumbria, United Kingdom

ENGLAND: IPCC finds police officers were right to use Taser on man having epilpetic fit

May 4, 2011
Manchester Evening News

A police watchdog has found that officers who used a Taser gun TWICE on a man who was having an epilpetic fit were right to do so.

But officials at the Independent Police Complaints Commission have now asked for a review of GMP's policy for dealing with people experiencing medical episodes after Howard Swarray was zapped at a Whalley Range gym.

Mr Swarray, 41, was working out at the Powerleague gym on Wilbraham Road when he suffered a seizure and collapsed.

Witnesses said that as he came round he began to struggle with staff and paramedics and police were called.

One officer was recorded en route as saying: "If he is getting aggressive I am sure 50,000 volts will stand him up."

When police arrived they unsuccessfully tried to handcuff Mr Swarray, who remembers nothing of the incident.

One officer then hit him on the arms and legs before his Taser-trained colleague, who had made the earlier comment, authorised himself to use the weapon, which is allowed under GMP policy.

He discharged it once and when it appeared to have no effect fired it again, this time in 'drive stun' mode.

Mr Swarray was then handcuffed but officers said he continued to act aggressively so they used 'various methods' to restrain him further, including bending his
toes back. Another officer stood on his legs.

Mr Swarray was then sedated with the horse tranquilliser ketamine and spent more than two weeks in hospital which included eight days in a drug-induced coma.

Eventually he was diagnosed with kidney failure.

A health expert told the IPCC that although a Taser could cause muscle damage it was most likely that Mr Swarray's condition was caused by physical exertion or resisting physical restraint.

Three ambulance staff were treated in hospital for bruises after the episode, which happened on 23 November 2009.

Mr Swarray submitted a complaint via his solicitor claiming the use of the Taser on him was innappropriate and that officers used excessive force.

But the IPCC investigation found that while some of the tactics used were 'questionable', 'no officers breached policies or procedures or comitted misconduct'.

Despite those findings the watchdog has asked the Association of Chief Police Officers to carry out a review into the tactics used for dealing with people experiencing serious medical episodes.

They have cited 'sufficient public concern' around incidents such as Mr Swarray's for doing so.

IPCC Commissioner Ms Naseem Malik said: "It is evident from our investigation that the officers involved were responding to an incident in which a man appeared to be violently resisting attempts to deliver medical treatment.

"Subsequent medical evidence shows Mr Swarray had been in the recovery stage of an epileptic seizure and not in control of his actions. However, although the initial report had suggested Mr Swarray was having a seizure, at the point the officers arrived to provide assistance it is evident the exact cause of Mr Swarray's behaviour had not been fully established.

"The fact is all of the actions taken by the officers were within their training and did not breach force policies. There is nothing within either ACPO or GMP policies that prevents the use of Taser against a person who has suffered an epileptic seizure.

"With hindsight actions such as giving commands and attempting compliance through pain to a person who was already known to be unresponsive were questionable. However the officers were considering options within their training and the officer who discharged the Taser believed he had no other option.

"The language used by the officer en route to the incident was inappropriate and suggested a certain mindset. However it is evident he then considered tactical options before deciding to use the Taser.

"However, while our investigation has found individual officers have acted correctly, the overriding concern remains that a medical condition exists that can prompt an individual to be in a totally disorientated state which can result in them being incredibly violent, yet the only option open to police officers in dealing with such an individual at present appears to be to deliver controlled violence.

"While I recognise that police need to protect the public and themselves against violent individuals, my concern is whether there is an alternative to the use of a Taser to deal with people whose violence arises from a medical condition such as epilepsy. For this reason the IPCC is writing to ACPO to suggest that, in conjunction with relevant charities or healthcare providers, they consider whether other, potentially less violent tactics could be used in these types of situations to ensure people suffering medical emergencies receive the right care and that frontline police officers have the relevant knowledge to assist them.”

Taser contract criticised by Home Affairs Committee MPs

March 7, 2011
BBC News

The way contracts to supply Tasers to police in England and Wales are awarded has been questioned by MPs on the Commons Home Affairs Committee.

They call it "unacceptable that there appears to be confusion" over which Tasers are allowed to be supplied.

The inquiry followed the revoking of the previous Taser supplier's licence after an "unauthorised" Taser was given to police during the Raoul Moat hunt.

The MPs are to include the issue in a wider upcoming inquiry into policing.

The Home Affairs Committee's report says it was "concerned" that following the revocation of Pro-Tect Systems Ltd's licence police forces "were close to running out of Taser cartridges".

It also says there appears to be "widespread confusion" about the rules governing the supply of Tasers to police, saying: "Not only did the company distribute an 'unauthorised' Taser to Northumbria Police, it had previously sold the same make of Taser to the National Police Improvement Agency."

The MPs also question the adequacy of having "a monopoly supplier business model in police procurement" and note that the new official Taser supplier consists of "more or less identical personnel operating in the same premises with a near-duplicate website" as the former distributor.

Next inquiry

The committee's chairman, Labour MP Keith Vaz, said: "The fact that the new supplier is so closely linked to the previous supplier raises serious questions about the authorisation and procurement processes.

"It is is unacceptable that there appears to be confusion in an area of policy that deals with a weapon that has been deployed over 6,000 times by police in this country.

"We will continue to monitor the situation and intend to further examine police procurement as a whole in our next inquiry."

The committee says Tasers have been deployed more than 6,000 times since 2004, although it was not fired in almost 70% of cases.

When the licence was revoked last year, Home Secretary Theresa May said the company, based in Daventry, Northamptonshire, had only been permitted to supply the X12 Tasers to its scientific development branch testing.

The firm also "breached rules governing the secure transport of the devices and ammunition", the Home Office said.

'Shotgun marriage' claim over new Taser firm

December 7, 2010
The Independent

Staff from the Taser firm stripped of its licence after its weapons were used in the stand-off with gunman Raoul Moat will be working for the new company set up as its sole replacement in the UK, Home Office officials said today.

Pro-Tect Systems will be replaced by start-up firm Tactical Safety Responses (TSR), which is based in the same area and will use some of the same staff as its Northampton-based predecessor.

But Graham Widdecombe, of the Home Office, denied MPs' suggestions it was a "shotgun marriage" to get a firm in place very quickly in an effort to avoid a shortage of Taser weapons and cartridges.

Earlier, Pro-Tect managing director Kevin Coles told the Commons Home Affairs Select Committee that his firm broke its licence when its late director of operations Peter Boatman, a former police officer, decided to take the X12 Tasers, which were still being tested by Government scientists, directly to police involved in the Moat manhunt.

Mr Widdecombe agreed the Home Office had withdrawn authorisation to Pro-Tect, then granted a new licence to another company based in the same area with some of the same employees of the previous firm that had been struck off.

Asked by committee chairman Keith Vaz if he thought that was acceptable, Mr Widdecombe said: "Well it's something we had to look into very very carefully and it's not something we did lightly."

He went on: "We did seek assurances that the principles of Pro-Tect wouldn't be involved in any way in the setting up of the new company and that there were procedures in place and that the lessons had been learned. We're adding additional conditions to their section five authority to ensure that one person acting alone cannot do something similar." He went on: "This is a newly-formed company. That's something we looked at very carefully to establish whether this was a new company or not, and to get assurances from them that the new arrangements were such as to avoid any similar situation."

Asked by committee member Steve McCabe why a completely different company was not chosen for a fresh start and a clean slate to avoid the impression "that everything was a bit cosy and collusive", Mr Widdecombe said no other UK firm had a business relationship with suppliers Taser International.

Mr McCabe added that with Taser International and now TSR both being monopoly
suppliers, "the one protection in the system is that you license it so that it's above board and we have some safeguards. And the only decision you can come to after what's happened is to go back to what sounds like a version of the original company and start again."

Mr Widdecombe replied: "We do understand the concerns of the committee.

"Discussions were held with Taser International and it was suggested they might want to look in the longer-term more widely."

Dog dies after being shot by taser

November 8, 2010
Telegraph

... Officers chased the American bulldog with poles as it ran off towards a High Street packed with shoppers. But they failed to calm it down and were forced to shoot it with a Taser gun, which can discharge 50,000-volts. The electric shock subdued the dog but it later died on the way to the vets, where it was due to be put down.

It is not known why the dog died on the way to the vets and there were no visible injuries when it arrived.

Taser shocker

October 25, 2010
By JOHN COLES, The Sun

TWO cops Tasered a man and punched him repeatedly in the head as dozens of horrified witnesses looked on.

The heavy-handed tactics came after they had already wrestled the man to the ground. While one officer pinned the man down with a knee on his neck, his colleague fired a Taser at the inside of the man's left thigh at point-blank range. The man yelled in agony before the other cop landed four punches in his face.

As around 30 people booed and jeered at the violent scenes, one of the officers shouted: "He's resisting arrest."

But marketing student Chris Parsons - who filmed the incident in Swansea, South Wales, on his mobile phone - said: "It was shocking and really over the top. The cops were just talking to him and then all of a sudden for no reason it just kicked off. They were being really heavy-handed and you can see from the film how they tried to Taser him once before dragging him across the floor and finally doing it. He was shouting, 'What are you doing to me?' And then the second cop hit him over and over in the head."

Chris, 21 - on a night out with pals in the city - added: "The only way they could justify what happened was if the man had been fighting them, but I didn't see any sign of that. I didn't hang around to see how it ended because they'd seen me filming and I wasn't taking any chances after what I'd just witnessed. You'd think they'd show a little more caution these days when everyone has got a phone and camera with them."

After viewing the footage, South Wales Police said: "We have had no formal complaints but we are aware of this incident and are reviewing the operational response. Due to the matter going to court, it would be inappropriate to comment further."

A 29-year-old man has been charged with criminal damage and released on bail.

Police close Taser probe after death

October 12, 2010
By Daniel Owens, Northampton Chronicle & Echo

AN investigation into the supply of controversial Taser stun guns has been closed, just days after the director of the company responsible was found dead at his home in Northampton following a suspected suicide.

Peter Boatman, the 57-year-old director of operations for Pro-Tect Systems, was found dead at his home in Reynard Way, Kingsthorpe only three days after the Home Office revoked the firm’s licence to import and sell Tasers. The weapons were used by officers from Northumbria Police in the stand-off with gunman Raoul Moat.

An investigation into the supply of the weapons was immediately launched by Northamptonshire Police following concerns terms of the licence had been breached.

But Operations Supt Sean Bell, of Protective Services Command; said in a statement yesterday: “Northamptonshire Police has concluded its investigation into the supply of X12 Taser guns and XREP ammunitions by Daventry-based Pro-Tect Systems Limited.

“The investigation identified that offences against the Firearms Act 1968 had been committed. However, taking into account all of the available evidence, including the recent tragic death of Operations Director Peter Boatman, we have concluded that it is not in the public interest to take any action against Pro-Tect Systems Limited and the investigation has now been closed.”

An inquest into Mr Boatman’s death was adjourned last week as post-mortem examinations were awaiting toxicology and histology tests.

The investigation came after it emerged that Pro-Tect Systems breached the terms of its licence by supplying X12 Tasers, which were still being tested by Government scientists, directly to police involved in the Moat manhunt.

Mr Boatman’s business partner said the former police officer was “destroyed” by the furore.

Pro-Tect’s managing director Kevin Coles said there was “no doubt” his colleague’s apparent suicide was linked to the probe.

He said: “He was a proud man and he felt ashamed at recent developments. He spent all his life involved in officer safety and what happened was a result of him being worried about the welfare of officers.”

Policeman will profit from Tasers

October 30, 2005
Ali Hussain and Gareth Walsh, The Sunday Times

THE American manufacturer of Taser, the controversial stun gun, gave the exclusive British distribution rights to a senior serving police officer who helped win Home Office approval for the weapon.

Inspector Peter Boatman had a 50% share in a company that sold Tasers at the same time as devising Britain’s first police training programme for the use of weapons.

Boatman was in charge of assessing the merits of Taser as head of operational training for Northamptonshire police and was regarded as an impartial expert on the weapon.

Since he left the force a little more than three years ago, his firm has provided 1,500 Tasers worth about £1m to 20 British police forces. It is the exclusive UK distributor for the US company, Taser International.

Disclosure of the apparent conflict of interest comes after Taser International, the US manufacturer, was accused of providing American police officers with share options potentially worth $1m.

The manufacturer is also being investigated over its safety claims. A Taser fires two barbed darts, felling a potential assailant with a 50,000 volt shock and causes the target’s muscles to go into uncontrollable spasm, allowing the police to capture him. The weapon, which costs up to £750, is intended to provide police with a “less lethal” option than a gun.

More than 100 deaths have been attributed to the use of Tasers in America.

Companies House records show that Boatman took a 50% stake in a start-up company, Pro-Tect Systems, in December 2000. He became a director of the firm on December 5 and resigned three weeks later, on December 27, but held on to his stake in the company.

In February 2001, Pro-Tect received the Taser contract for the UK. Within two months Boatman was acting as an adviser to the Home Office on whether to issue Tasers to British officers. He was “regarded as a national and international expert” on Tasers, Chris Fox, the former chief constable of Northamptonshire, said yesterday.

In December 2001, three months after the Home Office approved trial imports, Boatman publicly rebutted claims by Police Federation officers that Tasers could be dangerous. Boatman wrote “with sadness” to Police Review that “this technology is very effective — more than any other technique, device or equipment for establishing control over violent and dangerous subjects”.

He retired from the police on April 16, 2002. Two days later he was installed as chairman of Pro-Tect Systems. His fellow founding director and friend, Kevin Coles, had been running the firm in the meantime.

Despite the records at Companies House, Boatman insisted he had had no connection with Pro-Tect Systems before retiring from the police, and had “never been paid by Taser to do anything on their behalf”. Taser International said it was not aware that Boatman had a share in Pro-Tect Systems while still a serving police office Boatman put on a public demonstration of his confidence in the safety of Tasers by firing one at his wife, Stephanie, in a stunt staged in November 2004. He has said he believes the stun guns have never caused a fatality.

She fell to the ground screaming “like a pig” as her husband unleashed the full 50,000 volts into her back, Yet after the briefest of recovery times the 44-year-old mother got back to her feet. The Taser stun gun, it seemed, was crippling but safe.

The demonstration marked the culmination of a five-year campaign by Boatman to convince the British authorities that the Taser should be accepted as a standard piece of kit. The Home Office approved trials of the Taser in five police forces in April 2003 after it beat rivals in subduing violent offenders without killing them. It was cleared for national use in September 2004.

Last week senior officers said it should no longer be confined to the kind of threatening incidents where a normal firearm could be used.

Taser International, the manufacturer, last week reported a 38% annual drop in sales in the third quarter. It has been thrown on the defensive by court documents that detailed the share options it gave to police in American cities.Now the process by which the device won rapid acceptance in mainstream British policing has also come under scrutiny. Questions have been raised about the precise role played by Boatman.

Boatman, 52, who was entrusted by Northamptonshire police with researching “less lethal weapons”, first encountered Tasers at an exhibition held in Germany in 1999.

The following year, Boatman developed the first Taser training programme in Britain, which was adopted and further developed by Acpo. Boatman said he had advised Home Office scientists carrying out research into “less lethal” weapons.

Last week he confirmed that he played a key role in bringing Taser to the UK. “I was the one who initially looked at the Taser and indicated that I think (sic) it would be a workable option in the UK.” Asked directly whether he was being paid by Taser while he carried out police research into “less lethal” weaponry he replied: “Of course not. I wasn’t allowed to because I was a police officer . . . As a serving police officer that would have been unlawful, unethical and immoral.

“My driving force was I wanted to help introduce tactics and equipment into the UK to make both the police forces and the members of the public that they serve . . . safer.”

Confronted later with evidence that he held a 50% stake in the distribution firm while still a serving officer, he said: “Let me just say this and be very clear: I have no comment about anything you may wish to ask about. ” He declined to answer whether his stake had been declared to the Home Office, Acpo or his senior officers.

Last week the Home Office, Northamptonshire police and Fox — now president of Acpo — also declined to answer the question.

Steve Ward, a vice-president at Taser International, said he was unaware Boatman held the stake while a serving officer.

Other questions have emerged about the independence of the process that led the Home Office and police forces to endorse the stun guns.

Among research considered by the Home Office from police in other countries during trials was a report by Darren Laur, a Canadian officer. Laur and six other serving or former officers in north America are now accused of accepting valuable share options from Taser International.

Court documents released last month in Arizona — where Taser is based — contain a deposition by Tom Smith, the company’s president, that show that all seven served in cities that bought stun guns.

Taser says the officers were not in a position to influence any buying decisions. It also states that the options were granted after the orders were placed. The Home Office said it reached its decision on the basis of independent research.

Serious concerns are also emerging over the safety and reliability of the tests carried out on Taser devices, both in Britain and America. The Securities and Exchange Commission, the US financial watchdog, last month began a formal inquiry into Taser International’s safety claims.

The manufacturer says there is evidence for only one death as a direct result of Taser fire.

There are also concerns over the readiness of police to resort to using the weapons. In Britain an investigation is continuing after police fired a Taser at a man on a bus in Leeds who failed to answer a challenge six days after the July 7 London bombings. It was later alleged he failed to respond because he was in a diabetic coma.

Please click on the following link to see Steve Tuttle's response to my previous post.

Did Tasers Kill Raoul Moat? UK Taser Supplier Found Dead

Boss of supply firm for Raoul Moat shooting taser 'commits suicide' after losing licence

Hoping I might find a word or two of sympathy for the family of Mr. Boatman after this terrible tragedy, I instead stumbled upon the following message on TWITTER from Taser International's VP of Communications, Steve Tuttle, on the wonders of the XREP:

Great video on #TASER #XREP concerning Green Bay PD. Good summary of how it works: http://bit.ly/bwSuMp
9 minutes ago via web

http://twitter.com/SteveTASER
Name Stephen Tuttle
Location Scottsdale, AZ
Web http://www.TASER.com
Bio VP of Comms for TASER, chief spokesman, crisis mgr & risk mgmt.

***********************************************************************

October 1, 2010
By Andrew Hough, telegraph.co.uk

A former policeman, Peter Boatman, whose firm supplied the controversial long range tasers which were fired at gunman Raoul Moat has died in a suspected suicide.

The director of operations of the Pro-Tect Systems, which supplied four experimental X-12 tasers used during the police stand-off, was found dead on Friday morning.

It is understood he had killed himself. Police did not confirm how he died but said a taser was not involved.

The 57 year-old worked as an inspector for Northamptonshire Police before leaving the force in 2002 to become a 50 per cent partner in Pro-Tect Systems.

His company gained a lucrative Government contract making him the only legal supplier of tasers in Britain. His company sold more than 4,000 stun-guns to police and military forces.

But earlier this week, the Home Office revoked Pro-Tect's licence to import and sell Tasers after the firm breached its terms by supplying the tasers directly to police involved in the Moat manhunt.

Five police vans were seen attending the father-of-two's home in Kingsthorpe, Northampton.

Officers arrived at his house at lunchtime on Friday before cordoning off the area.

He is believed to have lived at the property with his wife Stephanie, also a director of Pro-Tect Systems, daughter Chloe, 30, and son Kiel. Police officers were said to be comforting his family at the large detached four-bedroomed home.

Four vehicles with personalised numberplates containing the letters TSR, short for taser, were outside the property.

Kevin Coles, the company's managing director, said he and his colleagues were "devastated" by the news.

"After recent events he wasn't the man he was. We're all just dreadfully sorry for (his wife) Steph and the family," he said.

A spokesman for the Daventry-based Pro-Tect Systems said Mr Boatman's death was "an incredibly sad loss".

The firm paid tribute to Mr Boatman who had showed "incredible passion in bringing a friendly and committed outlook to all he met".

"It is with great regret we announce the tragic death of our colleague and great friend Peter Boatman today," the spokesman said.

"At this point, it is inappropriate to comment on this terrible news apart from saying we are devastated and are sharing a state of severe shock and grief with Peter's family.

"Since Peter has been a part of out business he has shown incredible passion in bringing a friendly and committed outlook to all he met."

He added: "His death is an incredibly sad loss and we extend out deepest condolences and thoughts to his family and friends at this very difficult time.

"We share in Peter's family request for privacy so we can all come to terms with today's awful news and we hope you can respect this."

A neighbour Rob Fisher, 45, who works as a financial advisor, disclosed how hard Mr Boatman worked.

"It's a tragic thing. Running a business like he did can be very stressful. I feel for his family," he said.

"When I heard the news a couple of nights ago I thought 'how devastating' because he had been working so hard for his company.

"He always got up at 6am in the morning and came back home very late. Peter was very welcoming and introduced us to the neighbourhood."

He added: "Earlier this afternoon an ambulance turned up and police cars came screeching around the cul-de-sac blocking the entrance. It was obvious something tragic had happened."

Another neighbour, who refused to be named, added: "He was a wonderful person, who had a great sense of humour. He will be sorely missed."

A Northamptonshire Police spokeswoman said: "Officers were called to an address in Reynard Way, Kingsthorpe, at 1.09pm this afternoon, where the body of a 57-year-old man was discovered.

"We are not treating the death as suspicious and will be preparing a report for the coroner.

"The family do not wish to be contacted and members of the press are asked to respect their privacy."

Pro-Tect was facing possible action by Northamptonshire Police over the breach of the licence.

Speaking after the Home Office revoked the firm's licence on Tuesday, Superintendent Sean Bell, the force's head of operations, said: "We are now considering whether or not to take further action against Pro-Tect in connection with breaching the conditions of their licence."

Former police officer Mr Boatman was in charge of assessing the merits of Taser as head of operational training for the force.

Home Secretary Theresa May revoked the firm's licence to import and sell Tasers following an investigation into the use of the weapons at the end of one of Britain's biggest manhunts.

Pro-Tect breached its licence by supplying the X12 Tasers and XRep ammunition, which were still being tested by the Home Office, directly to two police forces, the Home Office said.

Armed police fired two Tasers at Moat in an "effort to stop him taking his own life" in the Riverside park area in Rothbury, Northumberland, in the early hours of July 10, an inquest at Newcastle Civic Centre was told.

The Tasers can deliver up to 20 seconds of electric shock in bullet-like capsules from a standard 12-gauge shotgun or a X12 Taser.

Mrs May revoked Pro-Tect's licence after inquiries revealed it supplied the Tasers, which should have only been supplied to the Home Office Science and Development Branch (HOSDB), directly to police.

The firm also breached the rules "governing the secure transport of the devices and ammunition", the Home Office said.

There was no suggestion any blame should be attached to the officers involved and the Home Office has stressed police could use any weapon they saw fit as long as its use was "lawful, reasonable and proportionate".

The stand-off with the steroid-addicted former nightclub doorman ended the seven-day manhunt which was triggered when Moat shot his former girlfriend, Samantha Stobbart, 22, killed her new boyfriend, Chris Brown, 29, and blinded Pc David Rathband, 42.

But the precise sequence of events regarding the discharge of the XRep Tasers in relation to Moat firing his sawn-off shotgun has not been established and is under investigation by the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC), the inquest into his death was told.

Steve Reynolds, of the IPCC, said: "The review of tactics will consider the deployment and use of the XRep Taser."

The Pro-Tect Systems spokesman said it could not comment while the IPCC investigation was going on.

Mr Boatman publicly denied claims that Tasers could be dangerous and showed his confidence of their safety by firing one at his wife, in November 2004.

She fell to the ground in agony as her husband shot the full 50,000 volts into her back but quickly recovered and stood back to her feet.

Taser company man 'kills himself'

October 1, 2010
BBC News

The director of operations of the firm which supplied the Tasers used during the stand-off with gunman Raoul Moat is understood to have killed himself.

Former police officer Peter Boatman, of the Daventry firm Pro-Tect, was found dead on Friday morning, his business partner said.

Earlier this week it emerged supplier Pro-Tect breached its licence by supplying X12 Tasers direct to police.

The Home Office confirmed the firm had had its licence revoked.

'Devastated'

Mr Boatman's business partner, Kevin Coles, told BBC News that Mr Boatman had been found dead.

He said he was "devastated" at the news.

He added that Mr Boatman was a "proud man" who had worked hard to protect the police and had felt "ashamed" at the recent developments.

He said the Home Office ban and the subsequent coverage had "destroyed" him.

Pro-Tect was accused of supplying a new Taser weapon to Northumbria Police during the Raoul Moat manhunt in breach of Home Office rules because the Taser had not been fully tested.

Mr Coles said Pete Boatman had only wanted to help police officers who were caught up in the hunt for Moat.

Northamptonshire Police, which was investigating the company, is preparing to issue a statement.

You're not properly licensed to use the malfunctioning, eye-scalding gun

"People aren't dying because of "excited delirium" as Taser International ridiculously claims. They're dying because their shitty guns cause people's hearts to explode."

September 30, 2010
Allison Kilkenny, Huffington Post

Raoul Moat, a 37-year-old man, was recently the target of a massive police manhunt in England after he shot three people with a sawn-off shotgun. After spending six days on the run, Moat was finally cornered by police. Hours of negotiations proceeded at the end of which Moat shot himself and later died at a hospital.

The salivating media followed every second of the tense pursuit with classy O.J.-style gusto. Journalist Johann Hari was particularly critical of the overzealous coverage, and especially how the media glorified Moat, describing him as having a "hulking physique," which of course is typical of a "notorious hard man." I dunno, ladies. Should we fear him or date him?

Details have now emerged that the police weren't properly licensed for the long-range X12 tasers they carried during the manhunt. At first, it seemed a minor detail in an extremely dramatic story, but now that some time has passed, reality is setting in. Police were carrying long-range tasers that haven't even been tested by scientists yet.

Well, what's the harm? An electrocuting gun is meant to electrocute. If it does that, great. If there's a little glitch, what's the worst that can happen?

*******************************
Taser shotgun firm shoots itself in foot

Paul Marks, chief technology correspondent

Controversy continues to dog a non-lethal weapon called the Taser shotgun.

The "X12" Taser shotgun is made by Taser International of Scottsdale, Arizona and fires a battery-packed 12-bore shell with forward-facing barbs that deliver a debilitating electric shock.
In August last year, New Scientist revealed research that showed an early version of the weapon was both difficult to aim accurately, putting victims' eyes at risk, and sometimes delivered a shock for more than five minutes, rather than 20 seconds.

Such issues were part of the reason that the Taser shotgun went into a programme of testingin the labs of the UK Home Office's Scientific Development Branch (HOSDB).

********************************

Of course, none of this concerns people when the weapon is used against someone violent like Moat. The man was clearly mentally ill (he'd attempted to seek psychiatric help before the shootings,) but he was prone to eruptions of anger, and served time in jail for assaulting a nine-year-old relative. Hardly a man who inspires sympathy.

But it's interesting that police are using tasers that haven't even been cleared properly by scientists. It should concern people who aren't gun-wielding psychopaths, and may one day be at the receiving end of 50,000 volts of state sanctioned torture for something little like getting mouthy with a police officer over a speeding ticket, telling a bad joke, or daring to exercise their First Amendment rights.

Home Secretary Theresa May announced she has revoked Pro-Tect's licence to supply tasers to police forces for breaching the rules including the transportation of ammunition. That's a good thing, and a good demonstration of how the state is supposed to work. A private company breached proper dispensing protocol, so the state regulates their contracts. No proper testing, no business.

I'm curious as to how this would be handled in the states where deregulation and allowing companies to do whatever the hell they want is all the craze right now. Have all the tasers currently being carried by U.S. officers been properly tested?

Tasers, when they function perfectly, are brutal weapons of torture. It seems like every week there's a new horrifying story in the news about yet another innocent victim who has been killed or injured by tasers. So imagine if these weapons malfunction to the point where they blind victims and inflict excruciating pain for more than five minutes.

A recent study at the University of California found that deaths in-custody actually rise sharply - nearly six times - during the first year a department uses tasers. These things aren't the soft, friendly version of policing. They're torture devices that kill people, and are particularly dangerous for the mentally ill, and individuals with heart problems. And they're being marketed by companies that aren't even properly testing them.

Way back in the day, when U.S. companies designed deadly products called cigarettes, they were asked to appear before Congress to explain why they should be allowed to kill Americans for profit. It may be time to bring back that tradition. People aren't dying because of "excited delirium" as Taser International ridiculously claims. They're dying because their shitty guns cause people's hearts to explode.

U.K. stops import of Tasers after illegal use

September 29, 2010
QMI Agency

British police are in need of a new Taser supplier after an illegal shotgun version of the popular stun gun was used to try to subdue a gunman in July.

The British government revoked Pro-Tect's licence to import Tasers because the government alleges the company illegally supplied the X12 shotgun-style Taser to a local police force.

The X12 -- which fires a barbed battery that delivers a debilitating electric shock -- was only supposed to be supplied the U.K. Home Office for testing.

"Faced with these breaches, the Home secretary has decided to revoke Pro-Tect's licence to supply Tasers," a spokesperson for the U.K. Home Office said in a statement.

The controversy began after Raoul Moat shot and killed himself after a six-hour standoff with police, during which he had been shot twice with Taser stun guns.

"Enquiries following the Raoul Moat operation revealed Pro-Tect breached its licence by supplying X12 Tasers direct to police that were only available for supply to the Home Office Science and Development branch," the spokesperson said.

"The enquiries carried out by Northamptonshire Police also revealed the company breached rules governing the secure transport of the devices and ammunition."

The U.K. minister for crime prevention wrote a letter that says the government is working to find a new importer to "ensure that police forces continue to have adequate Taser stocks."

Arizona-based Taser International manufactures the stun guns.

Tasers: Police must not be allowed to rely on 'discretion' to use unapproved weapons

29 September 2010
Amnesty International UK

Amnesty International has expressed grave concern that the Taser XREP projectile and X12 shot gun were used without having gone through the official weapons testing and approval process. The organisation expressed its concern following the recent revelation that the weapons distribution company – Pro-Tect Systems – had issued the police these weapons without Home Office authorisation. Pro-Tect Systems has since had its licence suspended.

Amnesty International’s Arms Programme Director Oliver Sprague said: “No new weapon or equipment should used by the police until it has passed a rigorous and transparent safety, testing and approvals process. The Taser XREP is far more powerful than the traditional Taser with a considerably longer 20-second shock cycle. As a projectile fired from a shot gun, there are serious concerns over its accuracy and reliability as well as the risk of causing unnecessary injury.”

Results from a 2008 independent assessment funded by safety testing authorities in the UK, the USA and Canada have found the XREP projectile to be inaccurate with a high failure rate.

Amnesty is urging the Home Office to review its decision to enable Chief Constables to authorise the use of any weapon as long as its use is "lawful, reasonable and proportionate", apparently even if these weapons have not been thoroughly tested or approved for use. At a minimum Amnesty believes that this should include testing the efficacy of the weapon, medical safety testing and evidence that its use is compatible with proportionate and lawful use of force, in line with international human rights standards.

Oliver Sprague continued: “The UK has in place some of the world’s toughest approvals and testing processes for new police weapons. What is the point of having such a robust system if Chief Constables are, it seems, able to bypass rigorous testing and approvals and deploy any weapon they see fit? Any new police weapons should only be considered following a needs and risk assessment that identifies a recognised gap in their capability that cannot be overcome in any other way.”

International standards on police use of force and weaponry encourage the development of ‘less lethal’ weapons, but also stipulate that any such weaponry should be very carefully evaluated and controlled.

These same standards also set requirements on how and when police officers should carry weapons, including the circumstances in which they can be used and comprehensive training and accountability policies and procedures. The decision to allow discretion for Chief Constables to deploy XREP or any similar emerging technologies in absence of rigorous testing and approvals process, including clear procedures set in place for how and when they can be used, is a clear breach of these international standards

Oliver Sprague added: “A weapon like the XREP should not be in the UK police force’s arsenal until it has gone through all the necessary checks and is shown to be safe to use. If and when such approval is given, the XREP should be given only to specialist firearms officers and used when there in an imminent threat to life.”

Firm that supplied Tasers used in Raoul Moat standoff loses licence

September 28, 2010
guardian.co.uk

The company that supplied the Taser guns used by police in their standoff with Raoul Moat has had its licence revoked, the Home Office said today.

The home secretary, Theresa May, withdrew the authority of Pro-Tect Systems to supply the weapons after it "breached its licence".

The company was licensed to supply the Tasers to the Home Office for testing but not to supply them to police. It also "breached rules governing the secure transport of the devices and ammunition," the Home Office said.

Northumbria police used an XRep Taser to bring to an end one of the biggest manhunts in British history in the early hours of 10 July.

Moat had shot his former girlfriend Samantha Stobbart, 22, killed Chris Brown, 29, and blinded police constable David Rathband, 42.

At Moat's inquest, the Home Office confirmed that the XRep Taser, which is fired from a 12-gauge shotgun, was not approved for use by forces in England and Wales and was "subject to testing by the HOSDB (Home Office scientific development branch)".

The Home Office stressed there was no wrongdoing on the part of police, who have the authority to use any weapon they see fit "as long as the use of force is lawful, reasonable and proportionate".

A spokesman said: "The process for approval of less lethal weapons is set out in a Home Office code of practice document on police use of firearms which chief constables must 'have regard to'."

The move means Pro-Tect Systems – the only supplier of Tasers in the UK – will no longer be allowed to import and sell Tasers. A company spokesperson said it could not comment while the IPCC investigation was going on.

But Moat's brother, Angus, has accused officers of using his brother as a "guinea pig". "They had not used them [XRep Tasers] before, and that was not the time or the place to conduct an experiment," he said.

The 40-year-old, of Shieldfield, in Newcastle – who is waiting for the results of a second post-mortem examination on his brother – added: "We have said all along we have concerns about the sequence of events that night.

"I am cautiously reassured by the Home Office that there is a legal dimension to this."

Raoul Moat stun gun cops 'not trained'

July 18, 2010
By Neville Thurlbeck, News of the World

POLICE marksmen who fired at Raoul Moat with a new shotgun Taser were given just TEN MINUTES training at the stand-off scene.

An armed police source with intimate knowledge of what happened in the final seconds said Moat - holding his shotgun under his chin - went into a muscular spasm as he was hit.

A review is now under way to see if this made him accidentally pull the trigger.

But the source insisted the use of the stun-guns was the only hope of ending the stand-off without bloodshed. He said: "The inspector gave the order to bring the XRep Tasers to the scene midway through the evening. They were only to be used as a last resort.

"None of the officers had seen one before or had received training. They were given verbal instructions. There was no time for a demonstration or practice.

"When it was clear there was no way he was going to give himself up, this was the only option left to us.

"We really don't know how anyone could criticise us. If this had been in London or Manchester, he would have been shot.

"We tried to capture him alive. With the Tasers and around 20 armed officers behind him ready to grab him, we though it might just be possible."

The XRep has a range of 100ft rather than the 21ft of the smaller version. It stuns the victim for longer - a full 20 seconds. Taser describes potential side-effects on their website including: "Involuntary strong muscle contractions."