TASER: The Whole Story

October, 15, 2012
http://re-sergeance.net/2012/10/15/taser-the-whole-story/

Dear Zofia,

In memory of Robert and all those who have lost their lives proximal to a TASER.  A promise not forgotten.

Dr. Mike Webster’s Presentation to:
Special Committee to Inquire into the Use of Conducted Energy Weapons
and to Audit Selected Police Complaints
Monday, October 15, from 10:45 to 11:30 a.m.
Douglas Fir Committee Room, Room 226, Parliament Buildings.

Preamble

I would like to thank the committee for inviting me here today. I am a Registered Psychologist (in private practice) that has worked in the area of police psychology for over 30 years. I completed basic police training at the RCMP Training Academy (Depot Division) in 1988. I specialize in the area of crisis management and have experience in the application of force across a broad array of police tasks including: hostage/barricade incidents; kidnappings; incidents of public disorder; and crisis intervention. I have been instrumental in the creation and delivery of crisis intervention, crisis negotiation, and incident command courses from the Canadian Police College (Ottawa, Ontario) to the B.C. Police Academy (New Westminster, B.C.). I have been an adjunct lecturer at the FBI Training Academy. I have consulted internationally and with several law enforcement agencies including: Colombia, Mexico, Singapore, Brazil, the United Arab Emirates, Hungary, Iceland, Sweden, Australia, and Europol. I have consulted operationally at a variety of incidents including: the old BC Penitentiary (hostage takings); Waco, Texas; Gustafsen Lake, B.C.; Jordan, Montana; Ft. Davis, Texas; the G8; the G20; Apex Alpine; and numerous kidnappings from Iraq to Indonesia, and Kashmir to Colombia. I am familiar with both Use of Force Models; the RCMP’s Integrated Model of Incident Management and the National Use of Force Framework. I provided testimony at both phases of the Braidwood Commission of Inquiries.

I assume that your committee invited me here today to comment on my experience in the implementation of Justice Braidwood’s recommendations in the areas of crisis intervention and training; as I have noted, areas of specialty and experience for me. As I was not invited to be a part of that implementation process, I can only make general comment on what has been done by others. I am more than willing to answer any questions you may have in those areas of police work following my presentation. However, as it appears that electro-shock weapons (ESWs) are here to stay, and in order to assist in an informed discussion, and the formulation of future public policy, I would like to address in the meantime a couple of critical concerns. I believe your committee, and the public should be advised of not only recent TASER-related science but also some of the more pertinent contemporary and historical concerns associated with the TASER’s place in Canadian law enforcement. In providing this information I hope to prevent the next generation technology from being so easily accepted and under such compromised circumstances.

Presentation

The BC Government failed its citizens when TASER technology was introduced to the Province. As someone who is trained to construct, conduct, and be critical of research, I was taken aback last week to hear the Assistant Deputy Minister and Director of Police Services cavalierly gloss over the inadequate and flawed process used to approve the use of TASERs in this Province. Those who appreciate the scientific method prefer to regard that process as amateurish, at best, and replete with misrepresentations provided by what appears to have been a seriously compromised policeman/project manager. I would like to elaborate. There was not enough rigorous science applied by the manufacturer to guarantee the safety of the weapon. TASERs were anecdotally not scientifically developed. Universally, public officials failed to verify the safety claims being made by the company and its spokespersons. TASERs were rushed into service by decision makers and police in B.C. and throughout Canada in 1999. The weapon has caused problems for the public and the manufacturer. For example, TASER International is presently engaged in damage control by offering trade-ins to “recall” older, more powerful weapons. (Are you aware that the M-26 model is powered at 26-Watts, the next generation model the X-26 is lower powered, and the newest model the X2 will be even lower? This begs the question as to why the manufacturer would lower the power of the weapon without alerting law enforcement first and providing some explanation). It appears that with the lack of regular and rigorous peer reviewed independent measurement, no policeperson could be sure of the amount of current being emitted from the weapon at any given deployment; for unlike breathalysers, defibrillators, and radar guns, the police do not routinely measure the output of their TASERs.

The CBC had fifty randomly chosen police TASERs tested independently in a lab in Chicago in 2008. They discovered that not all TASERs perform in the same way, as reflected in their “output variance”. Electro-shock weapons manufacturers readily admit that the output of these devices can vary due to factors beyond their control.

According to the Canadian blog “Truth-Not-Tasers”, that has been tracking the death toll, approximately 750 people have died proximal to TASER use in North America since the higher-powered M-26 was introduced. The lower powered 5-Watt system was what was field tested in Canada, by the Victoria Police Department in 1999, in the “field study” mentioned by Mr. Pecknold. The policeman in charge initially said he had concerns about the new, soon-to-be-available higher powered 26-Watt weapons and that more research was needed before he could recommend them. Yet a few months later this was exactly the model of TASER that his police department purchased. In his final report (“An Independent Evaluation of Conducted Energy Weapons”) there was no evidence that the 26-Watt system had ever been subjected to any controlled research. Yet, the higher powered 26-Watt system is what our police services decided to buy and deploy. The medical safety studies promised by this policeman/project manager were never produced. Contrary to Mr. Pecknold’s statement of last week, the people of BC received no medical evidence assuring them of the safety of TASERs prior to them being brought into service.

Despite the glaring omissions of the 26-Watt system, and safety concerns about it in his final report, this same Victoria policeman wrote in both of his reports that TASERs had been “over-studied”. In fact, this was not true. It is widely known that TASER spent only $14,000 in research and development when it shocked a single pig in 1996 to develop the waveform and then 5 dogs in 1999 to further test the weapon. The results of these tests were not published, or reviewed, by third party peers. These results are not even included in TASER International’s own Medical Compendium.

The higher powered technology was never subjected to independent, impartial, rigorous research prior to being deployed throughout Canada. The policeman who claimed that TASERs were “medically safe”, not being scientifically or medically trained, was not qualified to make such a judgement.

This same policeman claimed that TASERs met electrical safety standards as set by the Underwriters Laboratory (UL) and the International Electro-technical Commission (IEC). (The Canadian Standards Association (CSA) was not mentioned). This policeman’s claim of electrical safety was untrue because the devices have never been tested by these safety standards bodies. You will note that TASERs do not bear certification marks from any of these organizations, as other electrical products sold, and used, in Canada must. The fact is, the Canadian public still has an untested, unregulated electrical device in the hands of police; this, in violation of the Electrical Safety Standards Act, that says no electrical devices are to be sold or used without a proper certification mark. The TASER carries no such mark, even though it emits electrical current into the body. Remarkably this policeman/project manager’s report, replete with what appear to be false claims, was vetted by TASER International and the CPRC; and neither saw fit to make any amendments. Today these claims are no longer made.

Although somewhat technical, it is well to recognize that the dangers lie in the peaks of the current, even though TASER International prefers to use “averages” in its description of the weapon’s electrical characteristics. It is medically uncontroversial that electrical currents between 70 – 100 milliamps can kill. Following TASER International’s original specification sheets, the peak currents of the M-26 and X-26 models are obscured in average calculations. These weapons, at peak current, that is 162 and 151 milliamps respectively, are powerful enough to kill as suggested by Commissioner Braidwood at the conclusion of his Commission of Inquiries. Moreover, according to the IEC-479 standard, shocks of 151 to 162 milliamps over five seconds can stimulate the heart adversely in 50% of the population that receives the shock. Today the electrical output of these weapons does not appear in the manufacturer’s product specification sheets.

This same Victoria Police Department member was then seconded to manage the joint (RCMP and CPRC) “Conducted Energy Weapons Evaluation Project”. It was not a study into health and safety effects, as one may have hoped, but simply a cataloging of the effects of the harsh Canadian winter on the functioning of the weapons.

It was later discovered and reported by the Vancouver Sun, that this policeman had an undisclosed financial relationship with TASER International. This was revealed when he testified at a wrongful death lawsuit in 2005. The family of Robert Bagnell was suing the Vancouver Police Department after Mr. Bagnell was shocked multiple times and died in the downtown east side.

The policeman in question was asked to testify as he had been brought over from Victoria by the Vancouver Police Department as an “independent” investigator into Mr. Bagnell’s death. When pressed by lawyer Cameron Ward, the policeman admitted he had done undisclosed freelance work for TASER International.

On the surface it appears that this policeman, at some point in 2000, tasked with evaluating the technology for BC (and ultimately the rest of Canada), was quietly being given stock in TASER International while he lead Master Taser Trainer Courses for the manufacturer with other police services. TASER International Chairman Tom Smith told a federal all-party subcommittee, looking into TASER stock options, and televised nation-wide on the Parliamentary channel, that stock options were given to this officer for designing a holster. (Ironically, the holster in question was for the M-26 model, the very weapon this officer claimed to be uncertain of). There are those, who understand the objectivity of the scientific method, who would describe the receipt of payment, in whole or in kind, from TASER International, while evaluating the safety of its products for the BC Government as a hopeless conflict of interest. Ujjal Dosanjh, who had given the Victoria Police Department permission to field test the 5-Watt system in 1999, told CTV News that he felt he had been deceived. He was concerned that the policeman, in question, had failed to disclose his relationship with TASER International and, worse still, that false claims were made in the various versions of his so-called “independent evaluation”. This policeman remains on the job today with the Victoria Police Department and has never been held accountable by decision makers for making these misrepresentations. Mr. Dosanjh has said that if he knew then what he knows now, he would never have given TASERs the go-ahead.

Also related to the absence of independent, scientific evidence, American authorities allowed TASERs to be deployed despite significant “data gaps”, and other concerns raised in three key US government reports. Canadian law enforcement was unaware of, or worse ignored, these over sights. One of these critical oversights involved not questioning, TASER International for placing a conformity mark on their M-26 brochure. This mark (i.e. CE) is used to indicate conformity with standards necessary for a product to enter the European Economic Area. The European Community did not have, nor even have today, any standard for electrical safety that would apply to the M26 ADVANCED TASER. In sum, there was a glaring lack of due diligence undertaken by authorities when these weapons were first introduced. As a result, approximately eight people have died in British Columbia proximal to their use.

Times Colonist reporter Rob Shaw has said that your Special Committee will be considering “the scientific research into the medical risks to persons against whom conducted energy weapons are deployed”. This is encouraging as there is much that even Commissioner Braidwood did not uncover. Not one Canadian government agency or department including Health Canada, Public Safety Canada or the RCMP bothered to verify TASER International’s medical and safety claims. The RCMP even used photo-copied TASER promotional information in its first TASER report in 2000.Remarkably, law enforcement in Canada is still able to use TASERs in “probe mode”, when there is no electrical safety standard for invasive shocks; that is, electrical current introduced below the skin.

One Vancouver journalist approached the IEC, the UL, and the CSA and learned that the standard they use to measure safety thresholds is for shocks on the skin, not subcutaneous shocks. All these laboratories assert that we know so little about the effects of electricity below the skin they could not, in good faith, certify these weapons with one of their safety marks; like you find on your electric shaver, toaster, or hair dryer.

Contrary to Dr. Lu’s assertion, last week before this committee, there has been important TASER related research since 2008. Regarding cardiac risks, a study published this year, in the Journal of Circulation, by Dr. Douglas P. Zipes, cardiologist and professor emeritus at Indiana University, clearly demonstrates that the electric shock delivered to the chest by a Taser can lead to cardiac arrest and sudden death. “This is no longer arguable”, said Dr. Byron Lee, a cardiologist and director of the electrophysiology laboratory at the University of California, San Francisco. “This is a scientific fact”. With respect, the question before your committee should now focus on whether the risk of sudden death from a TASER shock is low enough to warrant wide spread use of the weapon by police in British Columbia.

It seems at this point governments and/or police decision makers don’t really want to know, or admit, they made grave errors by not adequately verifying TASER International’s safety claims. Presently in the U.S., courts are being asked to consider for the first time, police use of TASERs. No longer are TASER cases based strictly upon product liability; the cases now before the courts are different. These cases challenge the police persons who deployed the weapon. The question, in light of current evidence, is now “when is electrical force excessive force?” Appellate Judge Mary Schroeder has noted, “One could argue that the use of painful, permanently scarring weaponry on non-threatening individuals, who were not trying to escape, should have been known to be excessive by an informed police officer”. This may give you some insight into the “major and consistent decrease” in TASER use mentioned by the Deputy Minister last week before this committee. It is only a matter of time before cases of this nature work their way into the Canadian legal experience.

In contrast to Dr. Lu’s statement that “. . . TASERs are generally shown to be relatively safe”, TASER International’s own Voluntary Exposure and Liability Release Form includes a long list of alarming known and possible side effects that contradict its original safety claims and confirms what critics have been saying for over a decade. Here are only a few of those known and possible side effects. The company cautions that the weapons ”. . . have not been scientifically tested on pregnant women, the infirm, the elderly, small children, and low body mass persons…the use on these individuals could increase the risk of death or serious injury”. The company goes on to admit that the TASER “. . . can produce physiologic or metabolic effects, which include changes in: acidosis, adrenergic states, blood pressure . . . heart rate and rhythm …”. With this statement TASER International confirms experts’ beliefs that the TASER can capture the heart and alter its rhythms in healthy adults. TASER International then goes on to shift the responsibility for their weapons onto the user by recommending that “…all TASER … users conduct their own research, analysis, and evaluation”. Wouldn’t you think a manufacturer would want to be able to assure its customers of its product’s safety before it went to, or even after it was on the market?

A final concern that should be of interest to this committee involves the TASER tester, “Verus One”, being put forward by the B.C. Police Services. Police Services has accepted a test protocol developed by Andy Adler of Carlton University, Ottawa’s MPB Electronics, and Datrends Systems of Richmond, B.C., despite the authors themselves admitting this protocol is far from comprehensive or independent.

The Verus One actually tests to determine whether an ESW is operating within TASER International’s specifications. The Verus One does not determine the electrical energy delivered into a subject. The 600 Ohms resistance value being used in the formula by the B.C. Police Services actually comes from TASER International’s chief engineer Max Nerheim via Adler et.al. According to a study by the American Heart Association (AHA) the resistance for a trans-thoracic shock could be as low as 25 Ohms. So the suggested 600 Ohms indicates a base resistance that would appear to be an artificially high value that does not necessarily reflect the reality of all subjects. When CBC did it’s testing in 2008 and found a 12 percent failure rate, it used a previous test protocol employing 250 Ohms of resistance, which it got from TASER International. The company has since recommended raising the resistance level to 600 Ohms but, I have found no literature from the manufacturer that has offered the scientific references or rationale for doing so.

Several significant considerations should be pointed out concerning the Verus One:

1. It does not determine electrical safety of ESWs

2. It only tests to determine whether ESWs are “in tolerance” or “out of tolerance”.

3. A test result of “in tolerance” does not indicate or imply that injury or death will not result from use of the tested ESW, or that the tested ESW will incapacitate a person against whom the ESW may be deployed.

4. It does not measure the electrical energy delivered into a body (i.e. invasive shocks).

5. It also does not disclose scientific references or rationale as to why 600 Ohms is identified as the measurement base vs. a range of resistances.

In closing it is worth mentioning that the IEC and the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) in the US are presently developing a standardized method of measurement for ESWs. This standard will result in the IEC 62792 ESW measurement method. Moreover, it is my understanding that no Canadian law enforcement agencies have even bothered to investigate, nor has Datrend disclosed the issue of Intellectual Property Rights regarding “Verus One”. This is significant as a lack of Intellectual Property Rights could cost Canadian law enforcement, and the Canadian taxpayer, a significant amount of money due to Intellectual Property and licensing issues. Based upon these concluding statements, I would strongly urge care and caution be exercised before purchasing any ESW analyzer.

Vermont Taser Death Investigation Stalls

September 13, 2012
By William Boardman, IVN

Vermont Taser Death Investigation Stalls

None of the officials involved in Vermont’s first taser death can explain why it’s almost three months since a Vermont State trooper tasered Macadam Mason, a 39-year-old epileptic artist who died almost immediately, and there’s still no completed autopsy report.

The same officials in two states, Vermont and New Hampshire, also failed to reveal last June that Taser International, the taser manufacturer, almost immediately intervened in the investigation, submitting guidance and background information for the Vermont State Police and the NH medical examiner’s office that was in the midst of performing Mason’s autopsy. That was June 21 and Taser’s involvement remained unknown to the public until reported September 9 by the Burlington Free Press.

Taser’s covert intervention into Mason’s taser-related death is part of apparently long-standing policy on the company’s part to intervene as early as possible to protect the Taser brand from bad publicity.

With some 500 taser-related American deaths since 2001, Taser has already changed its characterization of its 50,000 volt stun gun from “non-lethal” to “less lethal.”

Taser’s approach to taser deaths is to challenge anyone suggesting that taser was in any way to blame. Last July when OpEdNews.com ran a story headlined, “Taser Death In Vermont: Trooper Zaps Unarmed Epileptic Artist,” Stacey Todd of Taser International posted a comment asserting that: “It’s premature to describe Mr. Mason’s death as a ‘Taser death.’ To simply infer that the use of one police tool may be to be to blame for this man’s death is irresponsible as there are no facts to support that causal relationship.”

All reports of the event of June 20 are consistent, relating that when trooper David Schaeffer shot his taser at Macadam Mason, Mason dropped to the ground and never regained consciousness. He was taken to a hospital in NH where he was pronounced dead.

When asked, “do you think Mason would be dead even if no taser was used,” the Taser International spokesperson did not answer the question. Instead, Stacey Todd wrote that: “Until a medical expert, coroner or medical examiner, determines a cause of death it’s speculation to state that the Taser device caused Mr. Mason’s death.”

In fact, in three different cases in Ohio in 2005-06, when the Chief Medical examiner’s office in Summit County, Ohio, made exactly that determination, Taser International took the county to court. After a four-day trial in 2008, Ohio Judge Ted Schneiderman found for Taser on every item in the company’s complaint, as well as some items it had not requested, and ordered the medical examiner to re-write three separate death certificates.

The judge’s 13-page decision in May 2008 described three events that unambiguously included tasers and fatalities, as well other factors like extreme drug use, a badly slashed wrist, serious mental impairment, and obesity. These descriptions alone raise doubts about the taser use directly causing any of the three deaths, but tasers were indeed deployed just a matter of minutes before each of three men died, belying the judge’s conclusion that: “The Taser device had nothing to do with their deaths.” [emphasis added]

In Arizona, where Taser International is based in Scottsdale, the Arizona Republic newspaper of Phoenix covered the decision in a story that starts: “Taser International has fired a warning shot at medical examiners across the country. The Scottsdale-based stun gun manufacturer increasingly is targeting state and county medical examiners with lawsuits and lobbying efforts to reverse and prevent medical rulings that Tasers contributed to someone’s death.”

The medical examiner appealed the decision on seven separate issues, getting upheld on one and denied on the rest. In April 2009, the three-judge appeals court denied the medical examiner’s constitutional due process argument on the ground that it had not been raised in the original trial. The appeals court also reversed the trial judge for granting Taser items it had not requested.

In a pointed dissent, Judge Donna J. Carr argued that Taser International had no basis for bringing the suit in the first place “because it has not suffered an actual injury and because the interests it seeks to protect do not fall within the zone of interest to be protected by the statute.” The statute in question is concerned with preserving the integrity and finality of cause-of-death determinations.

Judge Carr went on to say that the cases the majority cited to support its position “involved persons with direct interests in the cause of death of the decedent, such as persons accused in the death, not corporations seeking to make a preemptive strike to preclude lawsuits from being filed against it.”

In Ohio, at least, “the controversy of medical examiners and Taser-related deaths” continued to make news in 2012 when WCPO-TV in Cincinnati looked into the taser-related death of a teenager that was ruled “unknown/undetermined” after he was tasered by a police officer. That ruling was challenged by the family’s attorney who said, “He’s a very clean and upstanding kid, very healthy kid…and the only thing that happened that night is he was tased and then he died and she’s saying this doesn’t matter, the Taser doesn’t matter…I don’t think so.”

WCPO also reported on a 2003 study by the Dept. of Defense that discussed the difficulty of assessing tasers as a cause-of-death, since electric shock leaves no tracks. Without direct evidence, medical examiners must rely on inference to assess the elements of a death, the same inferences that seemed so obvious to the Summit County medical examiner until Taser took her to court.

Asked if she had an opinion of the courts’ rulings, medical examiner Dr. Lisa J. Kohler said, “Yes.” She did not elaborate except to say, “I respectfully disagree with the original ruling. The death certificates reflect that disagreement in that they are unsigned.”

Whether any of these events have anything to do with the delay in Vermont getting Macadam Mason’s autopsy report from NH is anyone’s guess. Taser International has contacted at least some of the officials involved. The Vermont Attorney General’s office and the Vermont State Police won’t comment. The NH Medical Examiner’s office says that Taser hasn’t influenced them. The NH Attorney General’s office refers inquiries to the Vermont Attorney General and other NH officials refers autopsy questions to the Vermont State Police. The Vermont State Police won’t comment beyond saying that, when it gets the autopsy report, it will forward copies to the Attorney General and to the Orange County State’s Attorney Office, which has primary jurisdiction, since Mason died in Thetford in Orange County.

Purchase of Tasers for DPS questioned

December 10, 2011
JJ Hensley, The Arizona Republic

The Department of Public Safety set out to purchase 800 Tasers and accessories in 2009 for about $800,000.

But by the time the equipment was delivered, more than 13 months later, the purchase had grown to 1,000 newer-model Tasers and accessories at a cost of more than $1.9 million.

The DPS officer who requested the more expensive, newer model stun gun is a Taser senior master instructor, according to DPS. The instructor, Sgt. Bud Clark, did not have any paperwork on file noting his relationship with the Scottsdale manufacturer, as state law requires for procurement officers, said DPS spokesman Bart Graves.

"We are looking into why he didn't file that paperwork," Graves said.

Records show the department began taking steps to replace its officers' aging Tasers in the spring of 2009, initially getting approval for 500 units at an approximate cost of $400,000.

By the end of that summer, records show that DPS had received an estimate for 800 Tasers and accessories from a Prescott vendor for $880,000.

But the Taser model that DPS priced in the summer of 2009 was becoming increasingly obsolete, and in 2010, Clark requested that the agency amend the contract to cover a new model, the Taser X3.

The newer model was appealing because it included three cartridges that allow officers to simultaneously fire the electrodes at up to three people or fire three shots in more rapid succession.

"We had an 83 percent reduction in officer-injury rates when deploying the Taser. Sixty percent of our deployments do not capture the suspect on the first shot. Three shots will give the officer a better chance of striking on first deploy and further reducing officer injuries," according to a DPS statement on the purchase.

In December 2010, the agency took delivery of 1,000 Taser X3s at a price of about $1,600 each. DPS administrators also turned in more than 400 of the older model Tasers for a rebate of $75 each. The agency said those Tasers were broken.

The money to purchase the Tasers came to DPS through photo-enforcement citations thanks to a legislative measure that earmarked the funds for the purchase of ballistic vests, stun guns and other safety equipment, said Phil Case, DPS' chief financial officer.

"Normally, we wouldn't think of turning over our stock of anything that quickly," Case said. "In this case, we did because of that infusion of photo-enforcement money."

DPS is not the only Valley agency to upgrade its Tasers stock in the past year.

Chandler police will soon start turning over their stock of Tasers after the City Council last month approved the purchase of about 350 Tasers and accessories at a cost of about $470,000. Chandler police chose a different new-model Taser, which the department received for about $300 less each than the DPS models.

DPS Sgt. John Ortolano, president of the Arizona Fraternal Order of Police, said there were concerns about the X3 among officers who have used the device.

"The technology difference is day and night compared to the X26 but the biggest thing is (the X3) is a big bulky item. If you carry it on a drop-leg holster, it's like you strap a cinder block to your leg. Putting it on your duty belt is a better option, but then you start running into problems, because of the girth of the weapon, you have problems getting seat belts off and on," Ortolano said. "The thing is just so big that it's a problem."

Ortolano said the X2 model that Chandler ordered was smaller and more manageable and that it was well known that the smaller model would be available soon when DPS ordered the larger version.

DPS officers would have likely raised concerns about the bulk of the new Tasers had the product gone through the field testing that is common when the agency rolls out new products, Ortolano said.

Rifles were purchased out of the same fund that paid for the Tasers, and Ortolano said officers tested four brands before settling on the Colt tactical rifles they now use.

"Why didn't we buy 20 or 30 (Tasers) and get feedback instead of doing a huge purchase like this," Ortolano asked. "In this particular instance, a lot of people have a lot of questions as to why things appeared to be done differently."

Manufacturer study: Taser worked fine

December 2, 2011
Pat Bywater, Mead Tribune

MEADVILLE — The Taser a Meadville police officer was using when it struck a resident in the eye does not appear to have been malfunctioning, but investigators may never be able to independently determine where the officer had aimed the Taser.

Those details are the highlights of a report completed by the device’s manufacturer at the request of the City of Meadville. The report was released to The Meadville Tribune as part of a request made by the newspaper under the state’s Open Records Law.

The forensic report from Taser International Inc. dated Nov. 1 is the latest significant development in a case that has had several odd turns.

It all started at 6:15 p.m. Aug. 23 in a church parking lot at 1080 Market St. when Meadville police responded to a call indicating that Market Street resident Michael Mondo was creating a disturbance. The Tribune’s investigation revealed that during the days before the incident the police had been warned by local mental health authorities that Mondo was struggling with paranoid schizophrenia. The officers who responded to the call were aware of this and the Crawford County Mental Health Crisis Team was summoned to the scene by police when the call came in.

Before the crisis team arrived, however, one of the two officers at the scene, Sgt. Glen Peterson, a 32-year veteran of the force, elected to deploy his Taser to subdue Mondo. Meadville Police Chief David Stefanucci recently revealed to the Tribune that Peterson claims Mondo was told to stop moving at least twice but did not comply and kept moving. At that point, according to Stefanucci, Peterson said he aimed the Taser at Mondo’s “low center mass,” not his head.

The Taser shoots out barbs that hook on to a person’s skin or clothes. They are attached to the Taser with wires that carry an electric discharge that disables the person temporarily.

In the Aug. 23 incident, one of the Taser’s barbs impaled Mondo’s right eye, which he later lost after unsuccessful surgeries. Mondo, who disputes the claim that he was suffering from mental health issues the day of the incident, says he has suffered some memory loss after the incident and that his recollection of that day is sketchy. He said he recalls the officers appearing and one of them asking him if he had been drinking. His next memory is of after the Tasering.

The public would not learn of the incident for some time.

It appears that the report of the incident may have been excluded from the police paperwork typically made available to the media. A tipster contacted the Tribune and The Associated Press with information about the incident the week of Sept. 12 and Mondo was not charged with any wrongdoing in the incident until Sept. 14.

In the first media reports about the incident, which were published Sept. 17, The Associated Press indicated Meadville Police Chief David Stefanucci said he had no reports about the Tasering. However, when a subsequent Meadville Tribune open records request revealed evidence that as many as five reports had been filed within a week of the incident, Stefanucci told the Tribune in a story published Nov. 4 that he had been misquoted by The Associated Press, although he said he does not remember exactly what he said. Stefanucci said that he never sought a correction of the story because he did not want to try a potential court case in the media or make any comments that might influence such a case.

The Associated Press is declining comment until an investigation into the claim is complete.

Meanwhile, the city launched an effort to learn more about how the Taser ended up hitting Mondo in the eye. Police policy calls on officers to avoid aiming at the head, and in statements after the incident, Peterson claimed he did not aim at Mondo’s head. As a result, city officials wanted to determine if the Taser perhaps malfunctioned. Stefanucci revealed in a recent interview that he arranged to have the Taser tested by its Scottsdale, Ariz.-based maker.

Under an open records request, the Tribune obtained the Nov. 1 report of the tests, which were conducted Sept. 9. The testers concluded that the Taser appears to be working properly and that “there is no reason not to return the Taser ... to service.” In a subsequent interview with the Tribune, Stefanucci confirmed that the Taser is currently being used by Meadville police.

The Taser testers also reviewed the video automatically taken by the Taser whenever the weapon’s safety is put in the off position. From that video the testers could not determine where the weapon’s laser sight was aimed when it was deployed, or even if the laser was turned on. However, the testers suggested that they might not have been able to detect the laser point due to sunlight at the time of the incident and the quality of the Taser’s video camera.

In part, the report reads: “because the laser aiming device is a low power eye safe red laser, it may not have been visible during the incident. Inside a building or at night it appears bright, however, because it is a low power eye safe laser, it is difficult for the human eye to see the laser, even at very close distances, in sunlight. The ability of the Taser cam to pick up visible details of the laser is less than the human eye.”

In a subsequent interview, Stefanucci said all Meadville police Tasers are configured so that the laser pointer is engaged automatically whenever the device’s safety goes into the off position. He also pointed out that all Tasers are equipped with fixed aiming sights so that officers can aim correctly even when they cannot see the laser point.

Stefanucci said he and Meadville City Manager Joe Chriest discussed sending the Taser to be checked by a company other than its manufacturer, but neither of them were familiar with companies that do that kind of work. “We are looking into it,” said Chriest. “We will have to look at their reputations,” he said.

Mondo’s attorney, Terry Toomey of Meadville, did not criticize the city’s effort to have the Taser tested. “It would seem to me to be reasonable and appropriate to send the Taser to see that it was operational and working as appropriate,” Toomey said. As for sending it to be tested by a company other than Taser, “I’m not sure where else they would take it,” he responded.

Answer on Taser danger depends on who's asking

August 19, 2011
Frederik Joelving, Reuters

NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - A new study adds a cynical note to the highly charged debate over Tasers, the American-made stun gun that has made its way quickly into law enforcement across the globe.

As it turns out, people looking to settle arguments about the weapon's safety may not get much help from scientists.

That's because the answer they get from published studies seems to depend on who paid for the research, according to a report in the American Heart Journal.

Looking at 50 human or animal studies on Taser safety, researchers found that 23 of them had been funded by the manufacturer, Taser International, Inc, or done by scientists with financial ties to the company.

Twenty-two of those studies, or 96 percent, concluded the stun guns were safe or at least unlikely to be harmful. By contrast, only about half of the research not linked to Taser International reached that conclusion.

"When you read articles that are very favorable to the device, invariably you will see that one of authors is affiliated with the company making Tasers or sitting on the board," said Dr. Byron K. Lee, who worked on the new study.

"I'm not necessarily saying the research is done dishonestly and they lied and twisted their conclusions, it could very well be they designed their research to give favorable results," added Lee, a cardiologist at the University of California, San Francisco.

According to the Scottsdale, Arizona-based company, its weapon has conquered the market rapidly, and is now used by law enforcement agencies in 107 countries.

With a pull of the trigger, two darts fly out of the gun and lodge in the skin or clothes of the target. The darts set up a high-voltage electric circuit that causes both sensory nerves and motor nerves to go haywire. The result is excruciating pain and violent muscle spasms that immobilize even the feistiest suspect.

NOT SO HARMLESS?

But critics say the powerful jolts, which in rare cases have caused broken bones, could also hijack the heart, causing it to enter a deadly flutter called ventricular fibrillation.

They worry particularly about the cases in which police have used the Taser on children and the elderly, as well as mentally ill people and drug addicts, who may be more vulnerable.

To dispel those fears, scientists have conducted scores of experiments, including an outlandish Taser-funded study published last year, in which sheep were doped up on methamphetamine and then shocked with a Taser X26 gun.

But the studies can't seem to agree.

"Both sides have research to back their claims that the Taser is safe or unsafe," Lee told Reuters Health.

If you Taser very close to the heart, he said, you might trigger a fatal heart rhythm in some animals. But if you aim further away, or use different animals, you might not.

Of course, Lee added, it is also possible that independent scientists might be biased toward finding harm.

"It is much more interesting to say that there is something wrong here, that there are harms," he explained.

When asked if that could have happened in his own study, he acknowledged that the researchers who rated the 50 articles knew where the funding for each had come from. Still, he said he felt their assessments would hold up to scrutiny.

ACCUSATIONS OF BIAS

Steve Tuttle, vice president of communications for Taser International, told Reuters Health that there was no bias in Taser-funded studies.

In an email, Tuttle argued that in most cases, there are three degrees of separation between the scientists doing Taser-backed research and the company.

"The doctors are only paid their normal salary for the research and receive no extra compensation and no moneys from TASER," he said.

"It is worth noting that Dr. Lee has been a paid expert in litigation against TASER and this fact is not mentioned in the conflict of interest section of this report," Tuttle added.

While acknowledging this, Lee countered that it was more than a year ago and that the journal did not require disclosures that far back.

He also said that after he started doing Taser research in 2008, he had removed himself from the case and paid back all the moneys he'd received.

Debates about conflicts of interest and corporate funding biasing research are nothing new, and happen throughout the medical community.

For instance, a study from 1998 in the Journal of the American Medical Association found that scientists from the tobacco industry rated secondhand smoking harmless more than 90 percent of the time. Only 13 percent of researchers without industry ties came to that conclusion, however.

"When you come to a research question with predetermined bias because of funding that you get, you can very much design a study to further the company's interests," Lee said. "I think that is a very real danger of biomedical research."

His fix?

"The first step is to be aware of it, and then look really critically at the article's methods," Lee said.

Researchers Zap Industry-Funded Studies on Stun Gun Safety

May 16, 2011
Christine Young, Fair Warning

Plenty of studies suggest that the stun guns that police sometimes use to subdue suspects are safe. But a new analysis questions the credibility of at least some of that research.

That analysis, by cardiologists at the University of California, San Francisco, was based on a review of 50 published studies on Taser guns. According to a university news release, 23 of the studies either were financed by Taser International Inc., the leading maker of electrical stun guns, or were written by an author affiliated with the company.

The other 27 studies were conducted by independent researchers.

In findings delivered at a conference this month, the UC researchers said all but one of the manufacturer-backed studies said stun guns were either not harmful or not likely to be harmful. Yet among the independent assessments, only slightly more than half — 15 of the 27 studies — came to similar conclusions.

“When you look at the research, you find out a lot of the articles that are touted by police departments are funded by the company,” Dr. Byron Lee, an associate professor at the university and senior author of the study, told The New York Times.

The potential hazards of stun guns were demonstrated last week when a 43-year-old man died after being stun-gunned by deputies in Southern California’s San Bernardino County, according to the Los Angeles Times.

Deputies tried to stop the man after he allegedly ran a stop sign. Cindy Bachman, a sheriff’s department spokeswoman, said the suspect, who had no prior criminal record, had become “combative and uncooperative.” The victim’s father said he was told that his son was Tasered about eight times.

In 2009, five men in San Bernardino County and neighboring Riverside County died after being shot with stun guns, Inland News Today reports. In response, Taser issued an advisory that aiming the device at a suspect’s chest could cause an “adverse cardiac arrest.”

Truth, Not Tasers, a website that tracks stun guns deaths, says 19 people have died so far this year, and 65 were killed last year, in U.S. stun gun incidents.

UCSF doctor questions Taser studies

UCSF Heart Doctors Uncover Significant Bias in Taser® Safety Studies

OfficialTASER on Twitter:

OfficialTASER
@phxbizjournal #TASER studies repeated by independent orgs (UCSD & Wake Forest) validated results & directly refute any claim of bias.
2 hours ago Favorite Retweet Reply

OfficialTASER
@ucsf #TASER studies repeated by independent orgs (UCSD & Wake Forest, etc) validated our results & directly refute any claim of bias.
2 hours ago Favorite Retweet Reply

Of the 50 articles studied, 23 were funded by TASER International, Inc. or written by an author affiliated with the company. Nearly all (96 percent) of the TASER-supported articles concluded the devices were either “unlikely harmful” (26 percent) or “not harmful” (70 percent). In contrast, of the 27 studies not affiliated with TASER International, 55 percent found that TASERs are either “unlikely harmful” (29 percent) or “not harmful” (26 percent).

Louise Vance
louise.vance@ucsf.edu
415-502-6397

May 6, 2011

The ongoing controversy surrounding the safety of using TASER® electrical stun guns took a new turn today when a team of cardiologists at the University of California, San Francisco announced findings suggesting that much of the current TASER®-related safety research may be biased due to ties to the devices’ manufacturer, TASER International, Inc.

In a research abstract presented at the Heart Rhythm Society’s 32nd Annual Scientific Sessions at the Moscone Center in San Francisco, study author Peyman N. Azadani, MD, research associate at UCSF’s Department of Medicine, Division of Cardiac Electrophysiology, and senior author Byron K. Lee, MD, associate professor of medicine in UCSF’s cardiology division, set out to gauge the accuracy of 50 published studies on the potential dangers of using TASER® products. Lee directs the Electrophysiology Laboratories and Clinics in UCSF’s Cardiology Division, and first published research on the safety of law enforcement use of TASERs in 2009.

The new study’s authors report that among the product safety studies they analyzed, the likelihood of a study concluding TASER® devices are safe was 75 percent higher when the studies were either funded by the manufacturer or written by authors affiliated with the company, than when studies were conducted independently.

Azadani, Lee and three colleagues divided TASER® safety study outcomes into four categories: harmful, probably harmful, unlikely harmful and not harmful. Of the 50 articles studied, 23 were funded by TASER International, Inc. or written by an author affiliated with the company. Nearly all (96 percent) of the TASER-supported articles concluded the devices were either “unlikely harmful” (26 percent) or “not harmful” (70 percent). In contrast, of the 27 studies not affiliated with TASER International, 55 percent found that TASERs are either “unlikely harmful” (29 percent) or “not harmful” (26 percent).

TASERs are the most popular brand of electrical stun guns, used primarily by law enforcement agencies to incapacitate combative suspects. The devices, also marketed for home use, deliver electrical pulses that stimulate the nervous system and cause involuntary muscle contractions. Advocates of using such conductive energy devices, or CEDs, say that they are effective and cause only temporary physical symptoms. Critics and scientists have raised concerns about the potential dangers of using TASER® devices, particularly on pregnant women, the elderly and very young, and individuals with underlying medical conditions.

The UCSF-led research findings have been submitted for publication but are not yet published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. The study’s other authors are Zian H. Tseng, MD and Gregory M. Marcus, MD, both assistant professors of medicine at UCSF School of Medicine, Division of Cardiology, and Simon Ermakov, BA. The scientists conclude that when reading about TASERs, the public should consider the funding source and author affiliation when evaluating an article’s safety conclusions.

UCSF is a leading university dedicated to promoting health worldwide through advanced biomedical research, graduate-level education in the life sciences and health professions, and excellence in patient care.

Investigator Who Cleared Deputies Has Ties To Taser International - Attorney Has Worked In Past For Stun-Gun Maker

March 9, 2011
WLWT.COM

CINCINNATI -- After an independent investigator found no reason to charge three sheriff's deputies accused of using a stun gun to subdue a man undergoing diabetic shock during a traffic stop, some are questioning whether she was the right person for the job.

Hamilton County Prosecutor Joe Deters asked Los Angeles attorney Mildred O'Linn to independently review the arrest and use of force, and the results of this investigation were released Tuesday.

O'Linn said deputies John Haynes, Matthew Wissel and Ryan Wolf acted without criminal intent because they had probable cause to believe John Harmon, of Anderson Township, was driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs and because he failed to comply with their orders.

But Harmon's attorney said O'Linn's background was troubling, and he questioned whether she could be truly impartial in the case.

"When you find out that she is the attorney for Taser International and one of the issues here is misuse of a Taser, you wonder how biased she is and that is disturbing," said attorney Tim Burke.

The Hamilton County sheriff's deputies attempted to stop Harmon after they spotted him driving erratically Oct. 20, 2009, at about 1:15 a.m., but they said he instead continued driving erratically for about a mile and a half.

Harmon was forcibly removed from his vehicle after he ignored deputies' requests to get out of the car and shocked seven times with a Taser, and he was taken to a hospital and treated for a dislocated shoulder and diabetic shock.

O'Linn defended her investigation and said her previous work for Taser International played no role in this case.

"If I found what I believe was criminal conduct here I would not hesitate to tell Mr. Deters to prosecute the officers," she said.

However, O'Linn admitted to News 5's Amy Wagner that she had never found evidence of criminal conduct in a case involving police officer use of a Taser.

"I don't work for Taser, I do defense work for Taser," she said. "I'm not an employee of Taser."

Harmon said he was never contacted as part of the investigation, but O'Linn said his testimony wasn't necessary because she'd read his complaint.

Deters was unavailable for an interview, but he issued a statement saying he did not believe O'Linn had a conflict of interest in the case. O'Linn agreed.

"I wouldn't consider it a conflict ever," she said.

But Harmon and his attorney stand behind their claims that the investigation was tainted.

The Hamilton County Sheriff's Department investigated the matter previously and found the deputies acted improperly during the arrest, and all three were disciplined, along with their supervisor, Sgt. Barbara Stuckey.

Report clears RCMP of wrongdoing in death of man Tasered and pepper sprayed

January 25, 2011
Jim Bronskill, The Canadian Press

OTTAWA - The watchdog over the RCMP says Mounties acted appropriately in the arrest of a British Columbia man who was hit with pepper spray, a baton and Taser stun guns before dying five days later.

In an interim report, the Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP says officers "acted reasonably" in subduing Robert Knipstrom during the November 2007 incident in Chilliwack, B.C.

Constables called to the scene "exercised their use of force options in a manner consistent with the law and RCMP policy," says the November 2009 report by then-complaints commission chairman Paul Kennedy.

However, the complaints commission had several concerns about breaches of protocol in the subsequent police investigation.

"It is difficult for both the police and the public to critically examine violent encounters between the police and a member of the public," the report says.

The Canadian Press obtained the commission's initial report under the Access to Information Act. The RCMP has yet to respond to the findings. Once it does, the commission will issue a final report.

The events began Nov. 19, 2007, when Knipstrom was allegedly involved in a hit-and-run accident in Chilliwack, the report says. He continued on to an equipment rental centre to return a machine.

A witness to the accident, meanwhile, apparently followed Knipstrom to the store and called the RCMP. Upon their arrival at the shop, Knipstrom was behaving erratically. He brushed past one of the officers and adopted a boxer's stance with fists clenched.

A constable tried to restrain Knipstrom, who was "pushing, punching and lunging" at the officer, the report says. The constable used pepper spray, a Taser and his baton, while a second one hit Knipstrom with pepper spray and a Taser — reportedly to little or no effect.

Eventually, backup arrived and Knipstrom was restrained and handcuffed. He was taken to hospital in Chilliwack but lost consciousness and did not regain it before dying Nov. 24.

The arrest occurred just days after the November 2007 release of the now-infamous video of Robert Dziekanski being zapped with a Taser at the Vancouver airport. The Polish immigrant's death prompted intense scrutiny of the potent police weapons.

The officers who arrested Knipstrom appropriately requested and obtained medical treatment for him, the report says.

A team of Mounties — none of whom knew any of the three members involved in the arrest — looked into the incident, consistent with force policy at the time. Since the Knipstrom report was completed, the RCMP has instituted a policy of no longer investigating itself in cases of serious injury or death.

The complaints commission report says all relevant witnesses were interviewed. However, it expresses concern that an RCMP staff relations representative — the closest thing the force has to a union representative — was allowed to meet with officers before they made statements about the events.

In addition, early on in the probe, one of the constables involved in the arrest was assigned to interview the two main civilian witnesses, creating a conflict of interest.

The report also takes issue with the fact a number of interviews were conducted by another Mountie of the same or lower rank. It recommends that all interviews of members involved in serious incidents be conducted by officers of a higher rank to avoid the potential for intimidation of the investigator.

Still, the complaints commission says there was no evidence to support a prosecution of the officers, and it was reasonable for the RCMP not to submit a report to Crown counsel for review.

'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."

SHOCK TACTICS

November 15, 2010
Damien Murphy, Sydney Morning Herald

Incapacitation seems de rigueur at awards nights, but no one quite does nervous-system overload like stun gun purveyors. Breon Enterprises, the company that distributes the Taser in Australia, teamed up with Rotary to sponsor the inaugural NSW Police Officer of the Year Awards. Breon's director, George Hateley, a former Victoria Police tactical expert, and the NSW Police Commissioner, Andrew Scipione, were among those at the Shangri-La Hotel grand ballroom on Saturday where more than 130 officers were in the running for the title. Among them was a faceless man or woman listed cryptically as ''Manly undercover operations''. Fortunately, the officer was not required to come forward as the award went to Senior Constable Jason Brooks of Cabramatta for doubling the number of arrests associated with drugs in his local area command. The recent ARIAs are proof that awards nights do not require stun guns to be truly shocking, but Breon's participation is to be expected: the NSW government paid the company $10 million to supply 2200 of the controversial weapons to all front-line police, making Tasers nearly as ubiquitous as poker machines.

Defense rests its case in Taser death trial in Winnfield

I couldn't MAKE THIS STUFF UP if I tried!!!

One of today's "expert witnesses" in the manslaughter trail against former Winnfield, Louisiana Police Officer Scott Nugent was Dr. Jeffrey Ho. According to the publication, Mother Jones, Taser International pays Dr. Ho to conduct studies and testify — he got $70,000 during one 12-month stretch (see Mother Jones - Taser's Delirium Defense) - it's a fascinating read. According to sources, Dr. Ho got a ride to the Canadian Braidwood Inquiry, where he admitted he is not a heart specialist, in a Taser jet. Ho also admitted some of his research was co-authored by a former Taser employee who has no medical expertise. Ho is apparently a shareholder in Taser International and some of his research is funded by the company.

According to the news report that follows (see below), the expertise of today's other "expert witness", Dr. Charles Wetli, is sudden death caused by "sickle cell trait". In an article called "Is excited delirium killing coked-up, stun-gunned Miamians?" Dr. Wetli was described as the world's leading expert on excited delirium. Another article said that Wetli is paid to testify as an expert on the "excited delirium" syndrome in "four or five" cases each year, often to defend the police ... Wetli, who said he does not fully understand how excited delirium causes death, said he has cited it "once or twice a year," mostly in police custody deaths. So, in the case of Barron Pikes, it seems Dr. Wetli avoided the very controversial "excited delirium" defense in favour of the "sickle cell trait" defense. WTF??

And then we have the rest of the merry band of Taser-friendlies who have had input into this trial:

Jerry Glas, one of the attorneys defending former Winnfield Police Officer Scott Nugent against manSLAUGHTER, represents Taser International.

"Expert witness" Mark Kroll, Taser shareholder, serves on the corporate board of Taser and has been paid more than $800,000 over the past three years as he has been used as a witness in cases involving Tasers

"Expert witness" Hugh Calkins is a paid consultant for TASER International and sits on one of their Boards.

Taser International is apparently paying for their appearance at the trial.

Renowned New York City medical examiner Michael Baden testified that Pikes, 21, died from cardiac arrest suffered from the repeated Taser shocks. "He was healthy. He was Tasered. He died," Baden testified. "There was no other reason for his death."

*********************************
October 28, 2010
By Bret H. McCormick, The Town Talk

WINNFIELD — Scott Nugent’s defense team called its final two witnesses to the stand today, Oct. 28, and then rested its case as the former Winnfield police officer’s manslaughter trial nears its end.

Defense attorney Jerry Glas called two more experts in his attempt to paint reasonable doubt in the minds of jurors that Nugent’s repeated use of a Taser led to the Jan. 17, 2008, death of Barron “Scooter” Pikes.

Dr. Jeff Ho, an emergency medicine expert who studies the effects of Tasers on the human body, testified that he’d “never heard” the theory proposed by the prosecution’s star witness, forensic pathologist Michael Baden, who testified earlier that the Taser’s electrical current could have traveled through blood vessels to Pikes’ heart and caused cardiac arrest.

Forensic pathologist Charles Wetli, whose specialty is sudden death caused by sickle cell trait, also provided testimony that attempted to discredit Baden.

Wetli concluded that it wasn’t the “eight or nine” Taser drive stuns administered by Nugent that led Pikes’ death, but rather the fact that Pikes suffered from sickle cell trait.

The prosecution and defense will make their closing arguments beginning at 9 a.m. Friday, Oct. 29, in the Winn Parish Courthouse before Nugent’s fate is left in the hands of the jury. If convicted, he would face up to 40 years in prison.

Defense experts begin testimony in Taser death trial in Winnfield

Jerry Glas, one of the attorneys defending former Winnfield Police Officer Scott Nugent against manSLAUGHTER, represents Taser International.

"Expert witness" Mark Kroll, Taser shareholder, serves on the corporate board of Taser and has been paid more than $800,000 over the past three years as he has been used as a witness in cases involving Tasers

"Expert witness" Hugh Calkins is a paid consultant for TASER International and sits on one of their Boards.

Taser International is apparently paying for their appearance at the trial.

Renowned New York City medical examiner Michael Baden testified that Pikes, 21, died from cardiac arrest suffered from the repeated Taser shocks. "He was healthy. He was Tasered. He died," Baden testified. "There was no other reason for his death."


October 28, 2010
Bret H. McCormick, The Town Talk

WINNFIELD -- The defense team in the manslaughter trial of former Winnfield Police Officer Scott Nugent rolled out its first two expert witnesses Wednesday in an attempt to convince the jury that Nugent was not responsible for the death of Barron "Scooter" Pikes.

Nugent, 24, is accused by prosecutors of using a Taser on Pikes, also known as Barron Collins, "eight or nine times," which they say led to Pikes' death following his arrest on an outstanding felony drug warrant on Jan. 17, 2008.

The two expert witnesses -- one who took the stand in the Winn Parish Courthouse and the other who appeared via a videotaped deposition -- attempted to poke holes in the testimony of one of the prosecution's key witnesses.

That witness, renowned New York City medical examiner Michael Baden, testified earlier that Pikes, 21, died from cardiac arrest suffered from the repeated Taser shocks. "He was healthy. He was Tasered. He died," Baden testified. "There was no other reason for his death."

Mark Kroll, a biomedical engineering professor at the University of Minnesota whom the defense submitted as an expert in bioelectricity, and Dr. Hugh Calkins, a cardiology professor at Johns Hopkins University, both disputed Baden's theory.
Kroll and Calkins were the first two defense witnesses called by defense attorney Jerry Glas, a New Orleans attorney who also represents Taser International.

Dressed in a long-sleeve white shirt and black dress pants, Nugent sat stoically between his Pineville attorneys, George Higgins and Phillip Terrell, while Glas presented the defense's case.

Calkins particularly took Baden to task, saying his statement "was not consistent with anyone who has any knowledge of the Taser device." Calkins' deposition was recorded Monday night because he was unable to attend the trial.

The defense's two experts testified that research shows Tasers, particularly the TaserX26 model used by Nugent and the "drive stun" method of using the Taser directly against a suspect's body, cause pain but would not lead to the death of a 6-foot, 250-pound, 21-year-old like Pikes.

"It hurts, but there's zero negative effect on the body," Kroll said.

"That's what the drive stun does," Calkins said. "It doesn't cause arrhythmia. It causes discomfort."

Winn Parish chief prosecutor Steve Crews tried to punch holes in the experts' credibility by showing their close relationships with Taser International, which is paying for their appearance at the Nugent trial.

Both Kroll and Calkins have paid positions on Taser International boards, while Kroll has received nearly $800,000 in compensation over the past three years for his role on the board of directors and as a consultant for Taser.

Those relationships, Crews said, show "bias and prejudice" on the experts' part.
The experts said they haven't hidden their relationships with Taser International, but those relationships give them a unique perspective and knowledge on the effects of the devices.

Crews said Pikes' combination of sickle cell trait, an enlarged heart, high blood pressure from trying to escape arrest and being Tased eight or nine times over a 15-minute span formed a lethal combination that could have led to his death.

Calkins, however, said there is "no evidence" that Tasers can lead to someone's death because the electricity only causes blood pressure to rise "a trivial amount," and the electricity charge is "very superficial. "The Taser ECD (Electronic Control Device) played no role, did not cause or contribute to the death of Mr. Collins (Pikes)," Calkins said.

Judge John Joyce, who earlier in the day seated one of the two alternate jurors because one of the jurors was dismissed "due to unusual circumstances," recessed the trial early Wednesday afternoon as the defense's third witness was not in town yet.
The trial will continue at 9 a.m. today with more defense testimony, and the defense could rest its case as early as this afternoon.

WTF?

What the hell is up with Jerry Glas "who also represents Taser International" and Mark Kroll, who "serves on the corporate board of Taser and has been paid more than $800,000 over the past three years as he has been used as a witness in cases involving Tasers" being front and center at the MAN-SLAUGHTER trial of Former Winnfield Police Officer Scott Nugent????? Jerry Glas, as one of Nugent's attorneys and Mark Kroll as an "expert witness"?????? Mark Kroll, who's been known to say "If one ping-pong ball hit to the head does not kill you, 1,000 probably cannot either"?????

If it looks like a conflict of interest, smells like a conflict of interest, sounds like a conflict of interest, walks, talks and acts like a conflict of interest and GETS PAID like a conflict of interest, then it MUST BE a conflict of interest.

Justice must be seen to be done, to be done.

Bioelectricity expert in Winnfield manslaughter trial says Taser did not cause suspect's death

October 27, 2010
thetowntalk.com

WINNFIELD – The Taser shocks administered to Barron "Scooter" Pikes by police were not the cause of Pikes’ death, a bioelectricity expert testified today, Oct. 27, in a trial in Winnfield.

Former Winnfield Police Officer Scott Nugent, 24, is on trial for manslaughter. He is accused of using a Taser to cause Pikes’ death as Pikes, 21, was being arrested in 2008.

The bioelectricity expert, Mark Kroll of the University of Minnesota, testified for two hours today as the defense began presenting witnesses.

Kroll said the Taser X26 used on Pikes generates 2,000 times less electricity than a defibrillator and that the electric shocks “never came close to the heart” as Pikes was Tasered.

Kroll serves on the corporate board of Taser and has been paid more than $800,000 over the past three years as he has been used as a witness in cases involving Tasers. The prosecution said Kroll is biased.

Concerning a shock by the Taser, Kroll said, “It hurts, but there’s zero negative effect on the body.”

If convicted of manslaughter, Nugent could face up to 40 years in prison.

Expert testifies in Winnfield trial that Taser killed Pikes

... a day full of testimony and sometimes testy back and forth between one of Nugent's attorneys, Jerry Glas, who also represents Taser International, and one of the state's expert witnesses -- renowned medical examiner Michael Baden from New York City ... "He was healthy. He was Tasered. He died," Baden said. "There was no other reason for his death."

October 24, 2010
By Billy Gunn, The Town Talk

WINNFIELD -- Barron "Scooter" Pikes lay incoherent on the floor of the police station, eyes wide, mumbling, "I wanna go home," and "Somebody help me," with froth on his lips.

Winnfield Police officers, whom Pikes reportedly told he'd done crack cocaine and PCP, offered bad suggestions: "I wish we had a cart, we could put him in the hole," and "Somebody get a wheelbarrow."

Among the voices heard on a video of the scene talking to Pikes as he lay on the floor was Scott Nugent, who at the time was a police officer. Nugent is now a former police officer on trial for manslaughter in connection with Pikes' death.

"Get up, Barron, the ambulance is on the way. Come on, get up," said Nugent, who later drove the ambulance to Winn Medical Center while two paramedics tried to revive Pikes.

The suspect who officers thought was a drug addict too high for conversation and standing upright turned out to be a young man dying in front of their eyes.
What the trial of Nugent, 24, is about is whether Nugent's eight or nine shocks to Pikes with a Taser led to the 21-year-old felon's heart stopping.

Friday was the second day of testimony in Nugent's manslaughter trial in the death of Pikes, whom some in Winnfield called Barron Collins, the name of Pikes' father.
Pikes was wanted on a felony warrant when Nugent and other officers saw him just after lunch on Jan. 17, 2008, chased him and then handcuffed him. Nugent, in 14 to 15 minutes, used a Tasing technique called a "drive stun" eight or nine times as a way to get Pikes off the ground and into a police car.

Witnesses and lawyers said Pikes was afraid of going to jail.

The video, which defense attorneys wanted kept out of the trial, came almost at the end of a day full of testimony and sometimes testy back and forth between one of Nugent's attorneys, Jerry Glas, who also represents Taser International, and one of the state's expert witnesses -- renowned medical examiner Michael Baden from New York City.

Baden, who was featured in the HBO series "Autopsy," said there was no other way to explain a healthy young man dying of cardiac arrest than to rule it came from a Taser stun gun.

"He was healthy. He was Tasered. He died," Baden said. "There was no other reason for his death."

Glas tried to poke holes in Baden's reasoning -- and thereby try to set up reasonable doubt in the minds of 12 jurors and two alternates -- by saying the way the Taser works is administering pain with electricity in a localized area of the body not near the heart.

He said Baden's theory of Pikes' cardiac arrest about 15 minutes after the last Taser shock was unfounded. Baden at one point noted that Glas didn't have a medical degree.

Baden said that just because the stuns were not administered near the heart -- most of the shocks were on Pikes' back -- electricity can course through blood vessels to the heart, damaging it.

At one point, Judge John Joyce had to reprimand both men for a back-and-forth dialogue that was becoming uncivil.

Also testifying Friday was Alexandria cardiologist Harry Hawthorne, who said Pikes could have died from sickle cell disease. In an autopsy report, Youngsville forensics pathologist Joel Carney said Pikes had the sickle cell trait.

The trial resumes Monday in the Winn Parish Courthouse.

If convicted of manslaughter, Nugent could face up to 40 years in prison.

Talking about tasers

October 7, 2010
Emma Ryan, ABC News

Having listened to the public debate in the last several days about Tasers, it seems to me that Australians need to know more about these weapons.

Since their rollout across the country (which is happening in increments) whenever a police shooting or ‘Taser proximate’ death occurs (I’m being deliberately careful with my language here) we ask ‘why wasn’t there a Taser?’ or ‘are Tasers really safe?’

I think our confusion stems largely from the fact that the public, and even the police, are misinformed about the weapon, distracted by the manufacturer’s spin and presented with impenetrable detail about how Taser’s special electronic wave form cannot kill. There has been very little informed debate on the introduction and use of these weapons, which I believe should be restricted to specialist police because of their capacity to amplify police power beyond what ought to be acceptable in a liberal democracy.

A main focus of the spin around Tasers is that they are very safe and that medical and scientific research supports this. If people die following their use, manufacturers argue it must be something else that killed them (‘excited delirium’, drug toxicity, underlying heart trouble). For young, fit, healthy people, Tasers probably are relatively safe - but for a host of other people, many of whom might predictably come into contact with police regularly, Tasers are not so risk free.

In truth, we do not know much about the safety of Tasers. Not enough research has been done, and too much of what has been done is sponsored, directly or indirectly, by manufacturers.

Another misconception is that Tasers are a useful replacement for firearms. In fact only a relatively small percentage of ‘critical incidents’ lend themselves well to Taser use (suicide prevention being one of them). This is because Tasers fail, often enough for many jurisdictions’ policies to require police to be backed up by a firearm if considering Taser use against someone armed with an edged weapon or a gun. Tasers are simply not as reliable as a firearm in genuinely life threatening situations. While the officer in Sefton on Monday morning was lucky his two barbs made sufficient contact to stop the threat, he was presumably covered by his partner’s firearm in the event of Taser failure.

It seems to me that too much public debate about Taser use by police in Australia is clouded by favourable comparisons of Tasers to firearms. In a truly critical incident, they may well be a useful option, but the fact is that Tasers are used in Australia during mundane policing encounters, involving low levels of threat, with far greater frequency than critical incidents arise.

For instance, in WA in 2009 police drew their Tasers 1,013 times and their use of firearms increased following the introduction of Tasers. Certainly there are occasions when police avoid using firearms because they have recourse to Tasers, such as was the case on Tuesday morning. But more often, Tasers simply replace the use of batons or OC spray.

Evidence from the recent WA police review and Crime and Corruption Commission report highlight this. Police view Tasers as an ‘intermediate’ weapon. Their extensive use against unarmed people during the NSW trial also demonstrates this.

So while it is true that Tasers do have some capacity to ‘save lives’, albeit in very limited circumstances, it must be emphasised that they also have an equal (perhaps even greater) capacity to reinforce police power, along with its corollary, abuse of power. This notion is not so prominent in the debate and deserves much more consideration.

Police, understandably perhaps, prefer Tasers because they present significant advantages over other sublethals. They make suspect compliance easier to obtain, and reduce the strains of ‘the job’. When used correctly, they are less likely to cause injury than a baton (whilst presenting the opportunity to place more distance between police and suspects), and they present no risk of secondary exposure (which can occur when the wind blows capsicum spray back onto police or bystanders).

In Western Australia, Tasers are the ‘weapon of choice’ and so it seems clear that their purpose is not solely to reduce the use of lethal force - although this was certainly the premise upon which they have been introduced in Australian jurisdictions, often on the back of Coronial recommendations, and police union pressure about the importance of officer safety.

Despite such high ideals, the record shows that the majority of Taser ‘uses’ in Australia involve presentation or display only – there is usually no need to fire the weapon to achieve the desired end. Potentially, the same could be achieved with a firearm - although this would probably cause a furore.

Tasers are used in this way, I would argue, largely because of the widespread perception that Tasers cannot kill - and don’t ever say that they can, lest Taser International litigate, as they have successfully done in several US examples where medical examiners have included them as a cause or contributor to a death, and as they did the Canadian Braidwood Commission which followed the death of a polish man at Vancouver Airport. They lost that case – leaving the Commission’s finding, that Tasers can cause death under certain circumstances, to stand.

Without adequate product testing, we are left to test the safety margins of Tasers ‘in the field’. People don’t die during Taser’s research projects, but they do seem to die in the streets (in increasing numbers, now four in Australia and up to 513 in North America).

The facts about why people sometimes die after being Tasered are simply not known. Tasers leave little to no clues for pathologists, who therefore find it difficult to pinpoint cause of death in these cases. Our knowledge is just emerging around these issues. We know plenty about the reality of mission creep though. And while Tasers may have saved the officers lives on Tuesday morning, a firearm could have done the same thing, with far less capacity to slip down the ladder of disproportionate use of force, as Tasers are clearly doing.

Emma Ryan is an Assistant Lecturer in Criminology at Monash University. She is completing a doctoral thesis on sublethal weapons and policing in Australia.

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