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.

Victoria Police Proof of Concept Study - Body Worn Video and In Vehicle Video

February 2010
Victoria, British Columbia, Canada

Staff Sergeant Darren Laur (see also Darren Laur)
Constable Brendon LeBlanc
Constable Trevor Stephen
Constable Peter Lane
Debra Taylor

Mounties using their heads to video crime, deal with suspects

May 16, 2011
By Jim Bronskill, The Canadian Press

OTTAWA — The RCMP like to say they always get their man, and soon they might have video of him, too.

The national police force is studying the use of head-mounted video cameras to record confrontations with suspects.

The move follows RCMP field trials in Kelowna, B.C., and Moncton, N.B., last year in which the force tested — and later rejected — other video devices.

Included in the trials were the Taser Cam, an accessory for newer-model stun guns made by Taser International, supplier to the RCMP, and the Vidmic, an audio-video recorder that attaches to an officer's belt radio.

During the pilot, 132 Vidmic video clips were recorded and the Taser Cam was used twice, say RCMP documents obtained by The Canadian Press under the Access to Information Act. In addition, several still photos were taken with the Vidmic.

The RCMP records show the devices didn't quite meet the force's needs.

Members "expressed concerns" with the Taser Cam because it began recording only when the stun gun's safety switch was set to the armed position, says an August 2010 report on the field trials.

It meant that, in one Kelowna episode, "a significant amount of communication and negotiation" with a man who tried to harm himself and threatened police was not captured on video, notes the report.

In that case, the Taser was not fired.

"Had the situation ended differently, with the subject not complying, the efforts made by the members to de-escalate the situation would not have been recorded," the report says.

Because the Vidmic was mounted on the member's vest or jacket, it was not always pointed in the direction the member was looking, says the report.

Officers also had technical concerns with the Vidmic, including the fact it beeped every few seconds when the battery was low.

"It was noted this could have officer safety implications if the members were conducting a silent approach on foot to an incident."

As a result, late in the trial, the force began looking at a head-worn camera that slips over the ear and connects to a portable mini-computer on the belt.

Ten Axon devices, made by Arizona-based Taser International, were tested only in off-duty settings, such as training, because the video recordings were downloaded directly to a site in the United States, posing potential privacy concerns.

"The members immediately reported that the Axon camera resolved the issues and limitations they had noted with the Vidmic," say the RCMP notes.

Though officers found the mini-computer "quite bulky," the Axon "warranted a more in-depth review."

Based on feedback from officers, the RCMP began new research last month focusing on the head-mounted cameras, said Sgt. Pat Flood, an RCMP spokeswoman.

No field trial is yet underway, she said. But the internal RCMP memos say funding has been set aside in anticipation of the next trial, which might include other police forces.

"If a further pilot is approved, the recordings will be housed in Canada," say the notes. "There is also opportunity to bring other law enforcement agencies in on the expanded pilot project as the server can house their data separately."

At least two other Canadian police forces have tested body-worn video devices. A report on the Victoria police department's 2009 trial found the technology provided "the best evidence possible" and that the video could be used in court. It also said officers' awareness of their surroundings increased, while public hostility and aggressiveness decreased.

Police tout video as a means of documenting their side of the story when conflicting accounts of an altercation arise. However, civil libertarians have warned that police use of video raises important questions about the citizens' rights.

The British Columbia Civil Liberties Association has argued that it's no coincidence a number of videos police misconduct have come from the public, not police.

A vivid example is the case of Robert Dziekanski — who died in 2007 after being hit with an RCMP Taser at the Vancouver airport — an episode recorded by a fellow traveller carrying a video camera.

The RCMP report recommends that future study of video look at data storage and retention, cost, training and recertification, and privacy-related concerns.

Incompetence or Wilful Neglect?

by Dr. Michael Webster, Police Psychologist

Dr. Webster is a Canadian police psychologist with more than 30 years' experience in police crises and training. He has managed hostage-takings and kidnappings and trained or worked with Vancouver police, RCMP, Europol, the FBI and police in Mexico, Colombia and Australia.

Incompetence or Wilful Neglect?

In my opinion, the discussion around whether or not the RCMP should have deployed a TASER on an 11 year old child and under what conditions such an act would be permissible puts the cart before the horse. The fact is that those RCMP members who carry TASERs are carrying question marks on their duty belts. The weapon is uncertified and unregulated. It has never been evaluated by the Canadian Standards Association or any other electrical safety standards body anywhere in the world. Further, its health and safety effects have never been subjected to rigorous, independent and impartial research. I find it remarkable that RCMP decision makers and its insurers have not backed away from this weapon, especially in light of recent admissions by Taser International.

Is this incompetence or just wilful neglect?

The incident in Prince George recalls a number of historic issues around the TASER that have, never been addressed by RCMP management. In the 1990’s the RCMP considered using the TASER, and conducted pilot projects focused on gathering the requisite data upon which to make an informed decision. Looking back, the assistance of qualified specialists should have been sought. The resulting report was plagued by several major limitations including an incomplete review of the pertinent literature, an over-reliance on information supplied by Taser International, too much emphasis placed upon anecdotal information from police persons, and limited outside consultation. There was no consultation with national medical or mental health associations, or government agencies like Health Canada, which has a product safety lab.

Moreover, the Canadian public and its law enforcement community were misled by the Victoria police officer who wrote the “Independent Evaluation of Conducted Energy Weapons” in 2000. That report for the Canadian Police Research Centre (CPRC), was not independent. This officer accepted stock options from Taser International and was moonlighting as a TASER trainer, while tasked with what was supposed to be an impartial evaluation. He told the public that an abundance of medical research proved the safety of the weapon, and that it met safety standards set by the International Electrotechnical Commission and the Underwriters Laboratory. Neither of these statements was true. So the weapon entered Canada on the basis of a CPRC study best described as “amateurish”, and with misrepresentations supplied by a seriously compromised police officer. This same man, with his ongoing undisclosed financial relationship with the manufacturer, became manager of the joint CPRC/RCMP TASER Evaluation Project in 2002. It evaluated the effectiveness of TASERs in Canadian weather, but not their safety on human health. This now restricted report was used to justify the wider deployment of TASERs to police forces across Canada.

Is it incompetence or just wilful neglect that leads the RCMP to ignore this?

Taser International recently (2010.05.01) issued a new training manual for the X26 TASER. It includes a long list of alarming risks and warnings which contradicts its original safety claims and confirms what critics have been saying for over a decade. Here are only a few of these warnings. The company cautions that the weapon “has 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’ belief that the TASER can capture the heart and alter it’s rhythms in healthy adults. Obviously the risk is even higher when a Taser is used on a child.

Taser International abdicates responsibility for its own weapon 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 the public of its product’s safety before it went to market? Are you conducting research, analysis, and evaluation on the medications you use, or was this done by the drug company before they brought their product to the marketplace?

Is the RCMP’s lack of response to these unsettling admissions from Taser International incompetence or just wilful neglect?

If flawed pilot projects, huge data gaps, increasing deaths proximal to use, and warnings and risks attended the use of a particular drug, do you think the government would step in to protect its citizens? We are fast approaching the time when an autonomous federal government, free from RCMP influence (the Commissioner was appointed by the Prime Minister and holds Deputy Minister status), will need to step in and protect the welfare of its citizens from their own misguided and misinformed national police force. The inclusion of intermediate weapons like sound cannons, laser beams, and TASERs in the police tool box is a public policy issue. These decisions cannot be left to the police or the (so-called) public safety experts like Taser International. The police are scientifically unsophisticated and companies like Taser International are in the business of aggressively marketing their products. A public advisory board, set up by the federal government, complete with all the requisite experts is necessary to assess both the costs and the benefits of the latest technological offerings.

And if the government fails to protect its citizens in this manner is it incompetence or just wilful neglect?

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.

EDITORIAL: Anti-Taser critic worthy of praise

May 24, 2009
THE GUELPH MERCURY

No doubt some members of the Guelph Police Service and perhaps the Guelph Police Services Board feel otherwise, but outspoken police Taser-use critic Patti Gillman should be lauded for obliging both organizations to have a second look at something that troubles her.

Gillman, whose watchdog work and advocacy stems from the death of her brother following an arrest that saw him repeatedly shocked with Tasers, in Vancouver, is agitated over a private business started by a Guelph police officer.

The business, the Canadian Centre of the Prevention of In-Custody Deaths Inc., came to upset Gillman in part for its many similarities to an American company. The American company, Institute for the Prevention of In-Custody Deaths, has links and a business history with Taser International. Gillman appropriately considered it awry if the Canadian firm had like connections with Taser and wanted that explored.

Similar queries made by her of another Canadian police service led to that agency revising its conflict-of-interest policies.

She has no evidence of any inequitable issues related to the Guelph officer's company. Nor has any been established. But the basis for her feeling the need to call for a review of it are clear. The businesses sound alike. They engage in the same work -- training front-line emergency service workers in how to handle certain crisis situations. Their logos almost mirror each other. The founding Guelph officer has allowed publicly he had some co-operation on the startup of his business from its American peer. Further, both groups actively teach about excited delirium -- an alleged psychological and physiological state that has been politicized through its links to Taser-funded research and promotion.

We should want citizens to fairly question public agencies and agencies with public connections on their accountability and their transparency. Gillman did just so in this matter. And, the Guelph Police Services Board has added to the due diligence on this file because of her efforts.

Some will regard her as having wasted her energy and those of Guelph Police stakeholders. Others should regard this as active and responsible citizenship.

The death of Howard Hyde

For some time now, I have been in contact here and there with the family of Howard Hyde, who died in Halifax, Nova Scotia on November 22, 2007 at the age of 45. Howard was tasered by Halifax Regional Police at least twice and he died 30 hours later. His death was ruled accidental. The official cause of death was 'excited delirium due to paranoid schizophrenia.'

Howard's sister Joanna and her husband Hunter unexpectedly found themselves on the very difficult but well-travelled road they now share with all of the families who have lost a loved one so needlessly. At this time, Howard's family is entering into the fatality inquiry process, hoping to finally get closer to the truth about what happened to Howard. It was recently reported that at least part of the inquiry, to be held in Halifax, will be broadcast live via webcast this summer.

Recently, Hunter wrote a very eloquent message to me with his thoughts around Howard's death and tasers in general. With Hunter's permission, I post his thoughts here.

I will try to give you my feelings about the instrument of control (aka t.a.s.e.r.) used by police officers against the citizenry of our country.

Firstly I will give you some biographical background as I try to explain how my thinking has evolved over the last while. I have been a family physician for well over forty years and during the bulk of that time I have worked closely with police forces. I was a police surgeon for some three years in my native Scotland, dealing with everything from drunk drivers to rape and murder.

In 1968 I emigrated to Southern Ontario and was a coroner for ten years. Because the town I lived in (Tilbury) was bisected by the county line, I did both counties and consequently I was very busy and closely involved with the Ontario Provincial Police. I then moved to my present job in Nova Scotia where I was a Medical Examiner for about twenty years and thus closely involved with the RCMP.

This background did give me a great deal of understanding of the difficulties of policing. Fortunately I never professionally encountered taser use as the police I knew did not have it and most certainly did not need it.

To my discredit, I paid little attention to the use of the taser in the subduing of rowdy and difficult "criminals," even when it was occurring in my own Province. This was due to a decision made a few years ago to eschew reading newspapers and listening to broadcast news, my reasoning being that if I did not know what our political class was up to my blood pressure would remain in the normal range and I would live longer and happier.

The case of Mr Dziekanski did manage to penetrate my bubble in October of 2007. Just over one month later it all became personal with the death of my brother-in-law, Howard Hyde, some thirty hours after being tasered. Our source of information in this death was for a very long time the news media.

I, of course, started to research the subject of "death proximal to restraint" because of a faint memory I had of such deaths in mental hospitals. Google took me to the Centre for Canadian Police Research, and conveniently gave me Sergeant Darren Laur's paper on the taser, restraint and sudden death. It also gave me the briefest of email exchange with Dr. Christine Hall. I bought their story being, of course, unaware of their connection with Taser International. I dutifully regurgitated the facts in this document to the Media and anyone else who asked me about tasers and death.

Time went by and my wife and I realized that the Province of Nova Scotia was not about to give us any information about Howard's death any time soon. Neither, apparently, was the RCMP who investigated his death for the Medical Examiner's office. They were also to investigate the conduct of their brother organization, the Halifax Regional Police. The RCMP did a masterly job of telling us nothing at all. We obtained Howard's medical records, the record of his very brief court appearance -- probably lasting only about one or two minutes --- and gave a few interviews and thus hopefully helped the Province to reach the decision that it was in its best interest to hold a Public Inquiry.

During this time my thinking about tasers and the concept of "excited delirium" continued to evolve. Watching the horror that took place in Vancouver Airport shook my long held belief that policemen were mostly honourable and could be trusted. By now I was paying attention to the news and I realized that there seemed to be an epidemic of incidents in Canada requiring the "deployment" of a taser. There also was an obvious death rate proximal to taser use. That such a death rate exists has now been reluctantly admitted by the RCMP, although not by the manufacturer of this weapon. It occurs to me that if the taser were a medical device for which alternatives existed, and such a death rate were noted, it would be abandoned.

That something very sinister happens to the metabolism of people who die soon after being tasered and restrained is, of course, obvious. By giving this metabolic calamity a name, "excited delirium", those parties involved in these deaths shift the blame onto the deceased. The main symptom which seems to be mandatory in making this diagnostic call is death. There are others of course, such as agitation, erratic behaviour and most of all, failure to obey a police officer. Now psychotic and drug produced delirium has been around for a very long time and it does have a death rate. The death is almost exclusively due to accident and misadventure while in this toxic state and does not usually take place if the individual is treated properly. Coursing 50,000 volts through that person's body does not constitute proper treatment.

Now Taser International and police associations will protest that there is no evidence that being exposed to that kind of current kills, and that if the person dies he/she must have had "excited delirium". The convenience of this diagnosis is obvious. There is also no convincing evidence that tasering, particularly when multiple, does not cause death. Taser International et al will say that many of their employees, workers, etc. have been exposed to a taser jolt and have nicely survived. To convince me that this type of electrical injury is completely safe would require an unethical and very risky experiment. Let us take a few dozen or so taser enthusiasts and keep them awake for 4 or 5 nights while being exercised to the point of exhaustion and then treat them appropriately. I would expect a death rate of zero. Now repeat the experiment but this time expose them to a few jolts of a taser weapon. If the death rate is still zero I may now concede that the weapon is possibly safe. I doubt however that the rate would be zero. Obviously such an experiment would never pass an ethics committee and there would perhaps be a shortage of volunteers.

I have seen the video of Howard's tasering many times now. It still has the capacity to fill me with abhorrence that we are prepared to countenance such a barbaric tool. I now understand his fear and his confusion that fellow humans would behave in such a manner and that it would be legal. Joanna heard the soundtrack this morning for the first time and I am sure that it will haunt her.

The inquiry will be a very difficult time, but it must be borne if it will contribute to a total ban on taser use in Canada. Of course it should not take this inquiry nor another single death for this ban to occur. I fear that more families will undergo the pain of such deaths before the obvious solution happens. It is just as much a tragedy when a police officer is killed, but I have yet to see it convincingly shown that a taser would have prevented such an event. If it had I am sure that we would have heard about it in no uncertain fashion.

I have some difficulty in organizing my thoughts on this subject without a kind of rage taking over me.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

A letter I sent today.

Dear Chair and Members of the Guelph Police Services Board,

I am writing to you today, further to Thana Dharmarajah's April 25, 2009 Guelph Mercury article entitled Too Close for Comfort? and the editorial entitled A private firm, but a public flap which said: "The Guelph Police Services Board discussed this month a suggestion that it should review whether the officer might have a conflict of interest through running his private company. But the matter was dropped when Guelph Police Chief Rob Davis informed the panel the subject poses no such concerns." I would suggest to you, the members of the Guelph Police Services Board, that you reconsider whether this subject indeed does pose some significant concerns.

In August 2005, in a complaint which I submitted to the Office of the Police Complaints Commissioner for British Columbia, I outlined my concerns about Victoria Police Sergeant Darren Laur, who strongly endorsed tasers and played a pivotal role in their introduction into Canadian policing, but had been shown to have financial ties to Taser International. It should be noted that, like Constable Mulder, Sergeant Laur DID have the approval of the Victoria Chief of Police to operate his private company. And, in fact, during the five months following my complaint to the OPCC, the Victoria Police Chief sought to have my complaint dismissed, because he personally felt there was no recognized default having been committed by Sergeant Laur. I continued to insist and the OPCC agreed that, pursuant to the BC Police Act, he was obligated to properly characterize and process the complaint. And so in January 2006, the Chair of the Victoria Police Board directed the Chief of Police to conduct an investigation.

The ensuing investigation, which was completed in August 2007, undertook to review the issues respecting conflict of interest and police officers, including a review of existing policies and practices and legal opinions from several jurisdictions both in Canada and elsewhere. During the course of the investigation, it was determined that the Chief of Police was a witness and, as such, his role as Discipline Authority was designated to the Chief of Police of the Port Moody (BC) Police Department.

A very thorough investigation concluded that the Victoria Police Department's policies dealing with conflict of interest issues were inadequate and that there did in fact exist a perceived or apparent conflict of interest in this case. A number of significant policy-change recommendations were made to the Victoria Police Board, which the Board in turn strongly supported. Those recommendations have now been implemented into a new and comprehensive Conflict of Interest policy that will give the public more confidence and should greatly reduce the number of instances where the off-duty interests of police officers would conflict with their roles and responsibilities to the police departments with whom they are employed.

The Office of the Police Complaints Commissioner for British Columbia, in its final review of the investigation, noted that the types of policy changes as a result of the investigation were worthy of other police departments to take note of and recommended that consideration be given to amending the BC Police Act to include a section dealing with conflicts of interest. The new Victoria Chief of Police, Bill Naughton, said "it [conflict of interest] is a common, but largely unexamined, area of concern in North American policing. This is not a Victoria issue alone, this runs across Canada, and as far as I know we're the only agency across Canada trying to take a serious look at this issue."

Fast forward to Constable Mulder's Canadian Centre for the Prevention of In-Custody Deaths and its "First Annual Excited Delirium Conference."

A February 13, 2009 article in the Toronto Star said: "The Mounties [RCMP] have also dropped the term "excited delirium" - a phrase that has no medical foundation, and was criticized earlier by the Commons Committee [on Public Safety and National Security], the RCMP's public complaints commissioner, independent consultants and civil liberties groups."

I suggest that all members of the Guelph Police Services carefully review the following media reports:

A two-part NPR (National Public Radio USA) investigative report from February 2007:
Part I - Death by Excited Delirium: Diagnosis or Coverup?
Part II - Tasers Implicated in Excited Delirium Deaths

Taser's Delirium Defense: How lawyers used junk science to explain away stun-gun deaths, Mother Jones, March-April 2009

Tasers in medicine - an irreverent call for proposals, Canadian Medical Association Journal, May 2008.

Police ethics adviser quits over sponsors - Concerns over role of companies like Taser International in funding lavish conferences were rebuffed, Globe and Mail, April 8, 2009

Finally, I urge you to visit http://www.excited-delirium.com/. The website's owner has uncovered many connections between Taser International, their lawyer Michael Brave, and the American Institute for the Prevention of In-Custody Death and those who would promote excited delirium as a convenient cause for taser-associated deaths. The dash (-) in the website's address is critical because of the many similarly-named websites registered by Mr. Brave that include the words excited and delirium in the name.

And please keep in mind that so-called "excited delirium" has NOT been the common denominator in the at-least 405 deaths that have occurred proximal to the taser. Tasers ARE the ONE AND ONLY common denominator.

Notwithstanding the significant controversy surrounding tasers and excited delirium, and regardless of whether Constable Mulder has been or ever will be compensated directly or indirectly in ANY way by Taser International or the (American) Institute for the Prevention of In-Custody Death or any other related organization or person, the facts which include (but are not limited to) his company bearing such a striking resemblance to the IPICD (which has so clearly been linked to Taser International), his "firm benefiting from some cooperation between the Canadian Centre and the IPICD regarding initial startup concerns and general business practices," and Taser International's use of excited delirium as a LEGAL DEFENCE to contradict its weapon's role in in-custody death lawsuits MUST be enough to prompt your Board to further investigate whether a conflict exists and whether the Guelph Police Service would want to be linked in any way to this controversy.

I do have a copy of the Victoria Police Department's new Conflict of Interest policy; however, while the policy has received Board approval, I understand that it may not yet have been delivered to the department's members and so I am unable to share it with you at this time. If you contact the Victoria Police Board directly, they may be willing to do so. And I would be more than willing to provide further background information to you, should you require it.

I look forward to a written reply from the Guelph Police Services Board at your earliest possible convenience.

Sincerely,


Patti Gillman
Owner of TNT - Truth ... not tasers

Too close for comfort?

April 25, 2009
Thana Dharmarajah, Guelph Mercury

An outspoken Taser use critic wants the Guelph Police Services Board to examine its conflict-of-interest polices because of a private company started by a city police officer.

Patti Gillman, a Belleville resident and creator of the Truth Not Tasers blog, said she's concerned about a firm started by Guelph Police Const. Gary Mulder because the company bears similarities to a like-sounding American firm with corporate links to Taser International.

Mulder's firm is called the Canadian Centre for the Prevention of In-Custody Deaths Inc. The American firm Gillman is comparing it to is the Institute for the Prevention of In-Custody Deaths.

Mulder denies any link between his company and the U.S. firm or Taser International. He has been cleared of any conflict of interest in this endeavour by Guelph's chief of police and the Guelph Police Services Board.

Both of the Prevention of In-Custody Deaths companies offer front-line police officers and others training in recognizing potentially dangerous in-custody circumstances and in offering strategies to attempt to reduce the risk of fatalities in such cases.

Likewise both also tout the existence of a condition called excited delirium and offer training on recognizing it and how it should be handled if it's suspected.

Excited delirium is a controversial label that describes an alleged state of mind and body in individuals where they have been described as being in a delirious state, with extreme strength and incoherent speech.

It has been frequently cited by some police sources as a medical condition of subjects encountered who were subsequently shocked by Tasers.

It is not, however, listed in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders of the American Psychiatric Association, a guide for professional psychologists and psychiatrists.

Gillman -- whose anti-Taser advocacy developed after the death of her brother Robert Bagnell in 2004 after he received at least two electrical shocks from police Tasers -- is among those voices in the debate that questions the existence of excited delirium.

"It only seems to be cited when someone has been Tasered," Gillman said.

She said she is troubled by an excited delirium conference being staged next month by Mulder's company -- a two-day Niagara Falls event that will see a workshop led by a founder of the Institute for the Prevention of In-Custody Deaths.

John Peters, the American firm's founder who is to appear at the Canadian company's event, started his firm with a corporate lawyer for Taser.

Attempts to arrange an interview with Peters weren't successful.

But Taser International spokesperson Steve Tuttle confirmed it gave setup grants to Peters' firm and has paid for Peters to speak about excited delirium and to do training about the subject at its Arizona headquarters as well as at various U.S. law-enforcement agencies.

Mulder said he wasn't aware of Peters previously receiving Taser International funding to speak about excited delirium and that isn't the case this time.

He said he will pay Peters and other speakers personally for their full speaking fees and recoup that expense from conference registration revenue. Tuttle confirmed Taser International isn't funding Peters to speak in Niagara Falls.

The conference will feature a session called Conducted Energy Devices: Are They Safe Options?

But Mulder said Taser International isn't sponsoring anything at the conference and no company will be advertising at it.

Further, Mulder said his company has never received funding from either Taser International or the Institute for the Prevention of In-Custody Deaths.

In an email this week, he said his firm benefited from "some co-operation between the Canadian Centre and IPICD, Inc. regarding initial startup concerns and general business practices."

But in the same message, he added: "I can assure you that the Canadian Centre ultimately operates independently from the Institute for the Prevention of In-Custody Deaths, Inc. or any other company."

Tuttle confirmed Taser International has no links or past funding relationship with Mulder or his firm.

"It's honestly and truly not my intention to have any association with Taser at all," Mulder said. "I am 100 per cent the owner (of this company). I have complete control over the company."

Guelph Police Chief Rob Davis said he doesn't see Mulder's personal business as a conflict of interest. Mulder signed a contract with the Guelph Police Service that his company wouldn't have any affiliation with it. "I'm satisfied that he's followed the proper protocol," Davis said.

As for the conference, Davis said he sees nothing wrong with Mulder educating others about the knowledge the officer has obtained in his policing career.

Mulder is an 18-year police veteran and has been assigned to the Guelph Police Service's training unit as a certified use of force instructor since 2003.

After fielding inquiries related to this story, Guelph Police Services Board chair Dave Clark asked at this month's board meeting whether the firm followed all Police Services Act requirements.

Davis responded at that session that it did and the matter was left at that.

Mulder said he believes in excited delirium and that he wants to educate emergency personnel about behaviours associated with it so they can act as a team when they encounter it.

"It's something that happens very fast and deteriorates very quickly and everybody's abilities and actions are being questioned," he said. "What I want to do is to provide the information so people can be informed to make the best decision under duress."

Gillman said the fact that Mulder is actively drawing attention privately to a condition that has gone "hand in hand" with Tasers in so many cases warrants a thorough police board review.

She said she is pondering a written request to that effect to the board.

In 2005, she complained to the Victoria Police Department about the involvement of one of its officers with Taser International. The officer had done a variety of paid work for Taser during the period of his employment with that police service. The department began modifying its conflict-of-interest policies after she raised that matter.

Gillman's brother died after an encounter with Vancouver police in June 2004. The 44-year-old was the subject of a 911 call to the downtown hotel where he lived and had smashed things in a common washroom.

A 2007 inquest jury found that being Tasered played no role in his death. It concluded his death resulted from "restraint associated cardiac arrest" arising from cocaine intoxication and psychosis. The jury offered no recommendations.

Gillman has said publicly she wants a moratorium on Taser use until there is more independent research on their use and possible connection to deaths that have followed their deployment.

A very long, very strange trip indeed gets EVEN STRANGER

PLEASE FOLLOW ALONG VERY CAREFULLY

HOW DID WE GET FROM HERE:

Taser expert backs ban on cops' private deals
December 12, 2007
Rob Shaw, Times Colonist

A Victoria police expert in Tasers, whose involvement with the company that manufactured the devices sparked a conflict-of-interest investigation, says he backs a department proposal to ban officers from doing personal business with weapons manufacturers. Sgt. Darren Laur, reacting to reports questioning his association with Taser International Inc., and its effect on subsequent reviews of the device, said he had the full support of the Victoria department to work with the company.

Still, he agrees that creating new guidelines, as the Victoria force plans to do, would help "separate perception and reality on these conflict-of-interest issues, because it can cloud the water," he said.Laur's involvement with Taser began in 1999, when the company paid him as the Victoria department's use-of-force expert to travel to Arizona to train as a master instructor. Rival company Tasertron had also paid him to travel to train in California in 1998. His training, and a 1999 report he wrote about the devices, made him Canada's foremost expert on Tasers. He is widely credited with introducing the devices to Canadian police, and the Victoria police became the first department to try, and then adopt, Tasers into regular use.Laur also runs his own company, Personal Protection Systems Inc., which Taser paid a total of $498.07 US to travel to Alaska and Oregon to teach Taser use in 2000. Laur's company, which he owns with his wife, went on to design a Taser holster. Taser International purchased the design for $5,076.25 US in stock in 2001. Laur cashed the stock in 2003, for an undisclosed amount.Each situation was approved by the serving police chief, said Laur. "I've always fully disclosed that, and I've always been very sensitive to the conflict-of-interest issues," he said yesterday.

Nonetheless, an internal review of Laur's ties to Taser said he had projected an "apparent and perceived conflict of interest."

The review, which concluded five months ago, was sparked by a a public complaint from Ontario resident Patti Gillman in 2005. Gillman's brother, Robert Bagnell, died in 2004 when Vancouver police hit him with a Taser during an altercation. After his death, Vancouver police asked their Victoria counterparts to conduct an independent review of Taser safety. Laur was appointed to the review panel, although he said he focused only on medical issues and not Taser use because of his ties to the manufacturer. The final report contained a disclosure of Laur's business with Taser. Gillman hired a lawyer and filed a complaint.

Victoria police Insp. Cory Bond's subsequent internal investigation concluded Laur was not technically in conflict because he fully disclosed his dealings with Taser, had sold his stock nine months before the report, and received department approval for all his actions. However, Bond also wrote there "remains a reasonable perception" that he "might have been affected by his prior financial interest in Taser." In retrospect, the department should not have put him on the review panel, she said. The B.C. Office of the Police Complaints Commissioner, which reviews internal investigations, agreed with her report.Despite the findings, acting police chief Bill Naughton said Laur has been "upfront and straightforward from the very get-go and I think suggestions he has been otherwise are incorrect."

Gillman said she is not pleased with the investigation. "I would like to see police and weapon manufacturers held at complete arms length from each other," she said yesterday.

As a result of the complaint, Victoria police have proposed a step towards such an arrangement.The department wants to ban officers from doing personal business with weapons manufacturers as part of a pending overhaul in its conflict-of-interest policies. Under the rules, officers who train with weapons companies as part of their duties would not be able to profit by creating a private business and becoming trainers for the weapons company.

Weapons companies often pay for officers to attend their own training seminars, hoping it will encourage a police force to buy their products, such as Tasers, bean-bag guns, incapacitating sprays or other items. It is a common, but largely unexamined, area of concern in North American policing, said Naughton.

"This is not a Victoria issue alone, this runs across Canada, and as far as I know we're the only agency across Canada trying to take a serious look at this issue," said Naughton.

The conflict-of-interest rules will also force Victoria officers to fully disclose the private businesses they run outside of policing, their stock holdings and any business ties that could be conflicts. The guidelines are being reviewed by department lawyers before becoming official policy, said Naughton.

Meanwhile, Laur said he thinks people are trying to put blame on his Taser reviews because of recent deaths that occurred after Tasers were used on suspects.

TO HERE:

From http://www.excited-delirium.com/
Thursday, August 21, 2008

IPICD (Institute for the Prevention of Deaths in Custody), LAAW, Micheal Brave & "Excited Delirium"
IPICD (aka Institute for the Prevention of Deaths in Custody) is sponsored by LAAW.LAAW is basically lawyer Micheal Brave. Mr. Brave has registered at least two Internet domain names with 'excited delirium' in the URL. These domain names are redirected to point to IPICD. And thus the circle is complete:...IPICD <> LAAW = lawyer Brave <> "Excited Delirium" URLs <> IPICD...So, what does this have to do with Taser?Taser's chief litigation lawyer is (or was?) a certain lawyer named Mr. Micheal Brave, Esq. etc. You're either in on it, or you're being played like a trumpet.

It should also be noted here that Michael Brave is also the whois owner of the Electronic Control Devices: Legal Resources website.

TO HERE:

From the Toronto Star
February 13, 2009

"The Mounties have also dropped the term "excited delirium" – a phrase that had no medical foundation, and was criticized earlier by the Commons committee, the RCMP's public complaints commissioner, independent consultants and civil liberty groups."

TO HERE:

Taser's Delirium Defense
How lawyers used junk science to explain away stun-gun deaths.
From Mother Jones
March/April 2009

I highly recommend you read the entire article by clicking on the above link.

"… But the company [Taser International] is remarkably tight with America's foremost ED training and advocacy business. The Institute for the Prevention of In-Custody Deaths (ipicd) was cofounded by police trainer John Peters and an old acquaintance, Michael Brave, Taser's national litigation counsel ...

... In 2005, Peters filed corporate papers for the ipicd listing himself and Brave as the founding directors. Within six months, the institute was leading eight-hour sessions at Taser's Scottsdale, Arizona, compound, teaching cops to recognize ED and often touting Tasers as the most effective tool for subduing agitated individuals. In the first two years, Brave estimated in a deposition, Taser paid $70,000 to $80,000 for the sessions. To date, Peters says, the ipicd has certified some 10,000 officers worldwide as in-custody death prevention instructors.

Taser also pays the way for Peters and ipicd instructor David Berman to speak at outside conferences, directs business Peters' way, and helps plug the ipicd's annual conference in Las Vegas, where past presenters have included Taser-backed researchers and employees. A flyer for last October's three-day shindig, which drew 250 attendees, promised the "historic" opportunity to help form a "general consensus about excited delirium that will then be published in leading medical, legal, and law enforcement journals." As an expert witness for Taser, Peters charges $5,000 plus $2,750 per day; in 2007, he was paid about $42,000.

Peters sees nothing inappropriate about his Taser connections. "We are not aligned with them at all," he says, although "we did not distinguish ourselves enough" at the start. (Brave, now listed as an inactive director, says he remains a legal adviser at ipicd.) In any case, the institute will continue in its quest to entrench ED as a medical and psychological diagnosis, Peters says, "to quiet these folks" who don't believe it exists.

These folks include Heston attorney John Burton, who, not surprisingly, finds the ipicd/Taser bond problematic. "These guys want to help the police stop killing people, and they're trying to build a liability defense for when they do," he says. "The two things are in direct conflict." "

ONLY TO END UP HERE:

First Annual Excited Delirium Conference

Canadian Centre for the Prevention of In-Custody Deaths, Inc.

PRESIDENT: CONSTABLE GARY MULDER, GUELPH POLICE SERVICE

A few of the speakers at the conference:

DR. JOHN PETERS JR., PHD.INSTITUTE FOR THE PREVENTION OF IN-CUSTODY DEATHS, INC. (see Mother Jones above) (see also, from February 2007, the two-part National Public Radio investigative report here: Part I - Death by Excited Delirium: Diagnosis or Coverup? and Part II - Tasers Implicated in Excited Delirium Deaths)
Chris Lawrence, a trainer with the Ontario Police College (Canadian excited delirium "expert" and coroner's inquest witness)
Dr. Christine Hall, big-time taser fan and Canadian excited/agitated delirium proponent, employed by "Vancouver Island Research", has an e-mail address at the Canadian Police Research Centre as follows: chris.hall@cprc.org - see Public risk from tasers: Unacceptably high or low enough to accept? (Canadian Journal of Emergency Medicine, January 2009) and "expert" witness at MANY Canadian coroner's inquests, including that of my brother Robert Bagnell.

The Canadian Centre is proud to be hosting its First Annual Excited Delirium Conference. "Are You Prepared?" brings together North America's preeminent leaders on this topic. This 2 day conference will provide those in attendance, regardless of their knowledge base, a greater understanding of what is required when faced with a potentially deadly situation. From first contact by police, fire and EMS requirements, this conference will prepare those emergency services with the ability to recognize and act accordingly. Not only will this conference educate the "first responders," it is designed to inform the Emergency Physicians on best practices based on solid research and scientific findings. The goal of our conference is to simply promote teamwork and early recogition of a medical emergency which has manifested itself into a difficult and rapidly deteriorating situation.

"ONE OF THE BIGGEST CHALLENGES POLICE OFFICERS AND EMERGENCY PERSONNEL FACE IS HOW TO HANDLE INDIVIDUALS ACTING IN VIOLENT, ERRATIC AND BIZARRE WAYS – OFTEN REFERRED TO AS EXCITED DELIRIUM. SUDDEN DEATHS HAVE OCCURRED, PUTTING THE ACTIONS OF ALL INVOLVED AND THEIR AGENCIES UNDER AN INTENSE PUBLIC MICROSCOPE. THIS EVENT BRINGS NORTH AMERICA’S PREEMINENT LEADERS TOGETHER FOR A COMPELLING 2 DAY DISCUSSION ON THE TOPIC OF EXCITED DELIRIUM."

Canadian Centre for the Prevention of In-Custody Deaths, Inc.

MY COMPANY
The Canadian Centre for the Prevention of In-Custody Deaths, Inc. is a new company founded by president Gary Mulder. Gary brings with him a wealth of knowledge, experience and a long list of contacts known throughout North America for sudden, "In-Custody Deaths" including those described as "Excited Delirium." A current and sworn Ontario police officer in his 18th year, Gary is currently a certified Use of Force Instructor with a foundation in Tactics and Rescue. As a trainer for the past seven years, Gary has attended numerous training courses and has organized several successful conferences on the topic of Excited Delirium, as well as other police related topics.

MY GOAL
My goal is to provide transparent, unbiased information and education to any relevant stakeholder so that they might be able to make informed decisions in critical situations while they protect everyone involved.

MY MISSION
To Provide Honest, Ethical and Factual Information.

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

A search for this incorporated "Canadian" centre at Industry Canada and Sedar returned no results for this "Canadian Centre for the Prevention of In-Custody Deaths Inc."

A whois search for the company's website http://www.ccpicd.com/ did return the following:

Domain Name : ccpicd.com
Registrant:Canadian Centre for the Prevention of In-Custody Deaths Inc.627 Arkell RoadRR#2Guelph, ON N1H6H8CADomain name: CCPICD.COMAdministrative Contact:Mulder, Gary 627 Arkell RoadRR#2Guelph, ON N1H6H8CA519.241.6080Technical Contact:Administrator, DNS 5915 Airport RoadSuite 1100Mississauga, ON L4V 1T1CA+1.8008530954 Fax: +1.8009799587Registrar of Record: TUCOWS, INC.Record last updated on 12-Mar-2009.Record expires on 05-Dec-2009.Record created on 05-Dec-2008.Registrar Domain Name Help Center:http://domainhelp.tucows.comDomain servers in listed order:ns2.officelive.comns1.officelive.com

Editorial: MORE THAN A PERCEPTION

August 15, 2008
Globe and Mail

If anyone still needs a reason why the police can't be trusted to be objective about the safety of tasers, consider that the manufacturer of the electric stun gun is a major financial backer of a Canadian police chiefs conference this month. Taser International is a platinum sponsor, which means it gave $25,000. Banners will praise its name. Delegate kits will sing of its wonders.

Imagine that Health Canada were to hold a conference sponsored by the manufacturer of a controversial drug currently under review. There would be outrage. How could the body that reviews drug safety accept money from drug manufacturers? It would not be done.

Yet that is similar to what the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police is doing. It is currently reviewing taser safety. If that review concludes that tasers are more dangerous than previously thought, police forces across Canada would have no choice but to make drastic changes to their taser policies. At the moment, those policies generally allow police to use tasers even where no major threat of physical harm exists. The policies couldn't exist in their present form if the police accepted that tasers can kill people. In spite of the 22 deaths in the past five years in Canada that followed police taser use, police forces still teach their members that tasers don't kill. (That teaching, in the face of those deaths, is reason enough not to trust the police to be objective about tasers.)

The coziness between Taser International and the police stinks. One of the authors of a 2005 study on tasers by the Canadian Police Research Centre (the research arm of the police chiefs) was Sergeant Darren Laur of the Victoria Police, who had received several payments from Taser International since 1999, including stock options for a holstering system he helped design for the taser. And over at least the past five years, the company has been a sponsor of many police chiefs' conferences, and contributed an estimated $100,000, according to Peter Cuthbert, the association's executive director. This relationship fuels public cynicism about the police.

Mr. Cuthbert doesn't deny that the public believes police are in a conflict of interest. "Oh, there's a perception there," he says. But "nobody says you have to buy that product from them."

This conflict of interest is not only perceived; it's real and direct. While the police chiefs don't directly determine policy for individual chiefs or police forces, and have no power to impose their views on anyone, in practice their research provides the foundation for taser policies around Canada.

That foundation has been fatally eroded. The police chiefs' blatant coziness with the manufacturer of the electric stun guns makes clear that elected representatives and other civilian authorities, and not the police themselves, need to redraw taser-use policies around the country.

Public sold a phony story on taser safety, use

May 21, 2008
PAUL WILLCOCKS, Special to The [Prince George] Citizen

VICTORIA -- Two things have jumped out from the provincial inquiry into Taser use.

First, the public has been misled at best, lied to at worst, about the safety of Tasers and the way they would be used.

And second, that civilian oversight of police is a myth in B.C. Government's claims that it sets policy on Taser use and most other police activities are empty.

I was an advocate for Tasers after a pilot project here in Victoria in 1999. They were pitched as a great tool that could make things safer for police and public.

At the end of a six-month trial, one of the officers enthusiastically cited examples from the nine times the Taser was used zap someone.

One case involved a naked, crazed man coming at officers with a long metal spike and deer antlers. If the Taser hadn't been available, he might have been shot. Another involved a deranged man determined to leap up the window in his 12th-floor apartment. Police tasered him in the nick of time. (The officer who provided the examples and pushed to have the weapon approved received stock options from Taser International two years later for his work on a holster design.)

The police convinced me the weapon offered a safer alternative than other options in some cases. The claims were always about taking down armed attackers or dealing at a safe distance with suicidal or dangerous people, something not possible with pepper spray.

More importantly, they convinced then attorney general Ujjal Dosanjh. But Dosanjh told the inquiry this month he was misled about the way police would use Tasers.

Kevin Begg, assistant deputy minister in the Solicitor General's Ministry, referred to "slippage" in Taser use. Instead of taking the time to de-escalate a situation, police are just zapping people who don't co-operate. Begg isn't an armchair quarterback; he was an RCMP officer for 23 years. And he, too, was an initial supporter, describing the Taser as "a very valuable alternative to shooting someone with a firearm" when the pilot project was launched.

But that's now how the Taser has been used. The provincial inquiry was ordered after the death of Robert Dzienkanski at Vancouver's airport. Video evidence showed police made no effort to defuse the situation.

Earlier this month police zapped an 82-year-old man, who needs oxygen just to walk, as he lay in a Kamloops hospital bed. He was delusional because he couldn't catch his breath and refused to drop a knife with a three-inch blade. But he wasn't enough of a danger to prevent an RCMP officer from approaching close enough to press the Taser against his stomach and zap him three times.

And Vancouver's transit police have tasered people, including fare evaders, for being "non-compliant." That policy, changed last week, highlights the underlying problem.

As the death toll mounted, B.C.'s Police Complaints Commissioner did a review of Taser use and recommended clear limits. People had to be "actively resisting" officers before they could be hit with the electric charge. The Solicitor General's Ministry claimed the new policy was in place. But all it did was send a one-page letter to police chiefs. As the transit police confirmed, the policy was widely and blatantly ignored. (Transit police even ignored a call to testify at the public inquiry until Solicitor General John van Dongen ordered the force to appear.)

Anyway, the policy is irrelevant for most British Columbians. About 70 per cent of them are policed by some 8,000 RCMP officers. The force does not accept any civilian oversight and refuses to allow the provincial government to set policies.

The Taser is still a potentially valuable tool. But seven people have died in B.C. after being the weapon was used on them; more than 300 in North America. Police continue to insist there is no risk, and use it accordingly. Many continue to reject the notion of civilian control or oversight.

It's a dangerous combination.

Footnote: Taser International continues to insist the only risk from using the weapon is that the victim might fall and be injured and tells police to use it on that basis. This week, two cardiologists told the inquiry the stun guns could "almost certainly" cause heart attacks.

Canadian researchers dispute taser safety

May 7, 2008
CTV British Columbia

Canadian medical researchers are disputing the theory that stun guns do not cause irregular heart rhythms that are sometimes fatal.

Tests had shown that Taser shock could cause fibrillation -- a very rapid, irregular contraction of muscles fibers -- in any muscle, except the heart.

"Bottom line is we think that assumption is incorrect," said Dr. Paul Dorian, a medical researcher from the University of Toronto. "Under certain circumstances, the Taser electrical discharges can, in fact, cause the heart muscle to beat and to beat very fast."

Dorian and his team shocked six pigs with stun guns looking for signs of ventricular fibrillation (VF) and other adverse heart effects. The results echo a recent Chicago study, where prolonged stun gun shocks caused VF.

Two pigs died in the Chicago study. One pig died of VF in Dorian's study and the other five pigs showed cardiac disturbance.

When it occurs in humans, VF can be lethal, Dorian said.

"When this rapid irregular heart rhythm occurs, the heart doesn't beat effectively," Dorian told CTV News. "No blood is pumped from it, and the victim, unless they get CPR and gets an electrical shock to the heart, will die within 10 minutes."

In response to the Toronto study, manufacturer Taser International said it will present results from three cardiac studies of its own later this month at the Heart Rhythm Conference in San Francisco, California.

"Taser International is dismayed by attempts to present this information as something it is not," the company said in a statement.

"I can understand if they're dismayed," Dorian said. "I'm dismayed as well. Dismayed that we have a technology that potentially can cause harm."

When Victoria police conducted Canada's first Taser trials in 1999, VF was the medical problem they were most concerned about.

But no one was considering the adverse effects of another medical condition caused when muscles are shocked and contract too quickly. High levels of acidity, or low levels of alkalinity in the body fluids, including the blood, can cause acidosis.

"The problem with acidosis is that the organs don't function properly when the acids are present in the blood," Dorian said.

Inspector Darren Laur, who spearheaded the Victoria Taser trial, told CTV News in an email that VF was the only medical concern of their research.

"I was not involved in any studies surrounding acidosis," he wrote.

Ken Stethem, a use-of-force expert from Washington, D.C. said acidosis, which worsens if victims are stunned repeatedly, needs to be considered in the Taser debate.

"These devices being used and backed up by policies that don't limit the number of stuns of the length of the exposure times -- it's hard to believe how that would support public safety," Stethem said.

The officer who is in charge of the Taser program for the Victoria police department told a public inquiry Tuesday that he's uncertain if Tasers cause death.

"I think I would be negligent as a police trainer if I stood up here and said they don't cause death," Constable Mike Massine told inquiry commissioner Thomas Braidwood, a retired B.C. Court of Appeal judge who is conducting the first public inquiry into the controversial use of Tasers.

"I don't know if they do. I don't know if they don't," the officer added. "Maybe there is a correlation, I don't know. I hope when we find out what it is, I hope we find that silver bullet."

Massine said putting a moratorium on Tasers would cause a knee jerk reaction, adding stun guns are a necessary tool for officers facing violent suspects.

The inquiry, which started Monday in Vancouver, is scheduled to continue until May 23.

With a report from CTV British Columbia's Peter Grainger

Taser moratorium needed, committee told

April 5, 2008
Posted at Cameron Ward

Cameron Ward appeared before a House of Commons Committee Friday, urging it to recommend a moratorium on TASER use until rigorous independent scientific research has been conducted into the manufacturer's claims that the weapons do not kill people. Mr. Ward presented the committee with a list of the names of 336 North Americans who have died after being shocked by the TASER's 50,000 volt electrical output.

In response to a member's question, forensic pathologist Dr. John Butt confirmed that autopsies cannot detect the effect that TASER electricity may have on a human body.

Here is the summary of Mr. Ward's presentation:

For the reasons summarized below, I urge you to act in the public interest and make a recommendation that there be an immediate moratorium on the deployment of TASER weapons, so further unnecessary deaths like those of Robert Bagnell and Robert Dziekanski can be prevented.

According to media accounts, at least 336 North Americans have died since September 28, 1999 after being subjected to TASER shock(s). A copy of my list of these fatal incidents is enclosed. There have now been at least 20 reported deaths in Canada, including six here in the Province of British Columbia, with the most recent being that of Mr. Dziekanski on October 14, 2007 at Vancouver International Airport in Richmond.

TASER use is obviously very controversial. Police departments in Chicago, Illinois and Birmingham, Alabama have reportedly discontinued their use of the weapons due to safety concerns. Amnesty International, the American Civil Liberties Union, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People and the Southern Christian Leadership Conference are some of the public interest advocacy groups that have been outspoken in their criticism of the weapons. However, the principal manufacturer, TASER International Inc. , has been very effective in persuading the law enforcement community that its products are safe, despite a significant body of evidence to the contrary .

Simply put, many people, including many experts, cannot accept that the deaths of at least 336 people after being subjected to the TASER’s 50,000 volt electrical output are purely coincidental. The manufacturer and many members of the law enforcement community have adopted the position that “excited delirium” causes the deaths, due to “psychiatric illness or the over use of street drugs, primarily methamphetamine or cocaine”, not the electrical trauma associated with the TASER. In my view, there simply has been insufficient independent research and study into these fatalities to reach any valid conclusions. If “excited delirium” is a “potentially fatal medical condition”, as the manufacturer asserts, one would expect that deaths would occur with similar frequency in incidents that did not involve law enforcement or in situations where TASER weapons had not been used. That is apparently not the case, as I have not yet seen any studies to that effect.

Although TASER International Inc. has commissioned some limited testing on animals, extensive independent testing of the lethality of the devices has apparently never been done in Canada, and was certainly not done before TASER weapons were first distributed to Canadian law enforcement personnel. Furthermore, although other electrical restraint devices like electric fences or cattle prods are subjected to Canadian Standards Association (CSA) testing and certification before distribution, the TASER weapons apparently are not.

You are undoubtedly aware of the TASER Technology Review Final Report prepared by members of the Victoria Police Department at the behest of the Police Complaint Commissioner of British Columbia. In my view, this report was clearly not independent as one of the principal authors, one Inspector Darren Laur, had earlier received payments and stock options from TASER International Inc. for his services to the company. The report failed to make the obvious recommendation, that is, that TASER use be discontinued until the health effects of the weapon are better understood.

There may be a place in the police use of force continuum for TASER technology. However, TASER use should be suspended until rigorous independent scientific research has been performed to properly assess the public safety risk. Unless that happens, more people will die like Mr. Dziekanski did, inexplicably and unnecessarily.

Taser CEO grilled by public safety committee

January 31, 2008
OMAR EL AKKAD, Globe and Mail

OTTAWA — With his company under intense scrutiny following a high-profile death, and with a potentially lucrative Canadian business deal on the horizon, the CEO of Taser International vigorously defended his company's signature stun gun on Parliament Hill yesterday.

Appearing for nearly two hours before the House Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, Tom Smith, chairman and CEO of Arizona-based Taser, maintained that his company's product saves lives and that there is "no other device with as much accountability."

The committee's study of tasers, and in turn Mr. Smith's appearance, were in large part prompted by the case of Robert Dziekanski, the Polish immigrant who died last October after RCMP officers tasered him at Vancouver International Airport.

While Mr. Smith said he couldn't comment on the specifics of the Dziekanski incident because of the many separate investigations into the matter, he faced tough questions from MPs about everything from Taser's legal bills to the potential lethality of its devices. However, none of the MPs called for an outright ban on the devices, and some said they believe the stun gun can be a useful tool for police officers.

Some of the most difficult questions came from Liberal MP Ujjal Dosanjh, who was attorney-general of British Columbia around the time that Victoria police became the first force in the country to try tasers.

Mr. Dosanjh asked Mr. Smith whether he was suggesting that tasers played absolutely no role in the 300 or so North American deaths that occurred after the device's use in the past few years. Mr. Smith said the use of tasers was deemed a contributing factor in only about 30 of the cases.

It was during subsequent questioning about Taser International's financial relationship with Canadian police officers that Mr. Smith revealed the company had paid two Canadian officers for services.

One of those officers, Darren Laur of the Victoria police, was compensated with Taser stock after designing a holster for the device. However, it was not publicly known that a second officer was paid until yesterday's hearing. After the session, Mr. Smith said he believes the second officer was from a Montreal police force and was paid to provide taser training in Europe because he could speak French.

Yesterday marked Mr. Smith's second Canadian public appearance this month. Two weeks ago, the Taser CEO was in Toronto, fielding questions at police headquarters. The Toronto Police Services Board is considering a request by Chief Bill Blair to spend about $8.6-million to equip and train every front-line officer with a taser.

A research analyst covering Taser International said a resulting purchase may be worth more than $3-million in revenue for the company. However, it is unclear when, or if, the deal will go ahead.

Outside yesterday's meeting, Mr. Dosanjh said he'd like to see government funding for an independent study to look at the risks to those hit by tasers.

When he was B.C. attorney-general in the late 1990s, Mr. Dosanjh said, he was under the impression that, when the device first came to the province, it would be used only as the second-last option before firearms and used only sparingly.

Asked whether, knowing what he knows about the devices today, he would have had a different reaction to the introduction of tasers in B.C., Mr. Dosanjh said he's not inclined to take the weapons away from police officers outright. Still, he said, his reaction to their introduction may have been very different.

"There's definitely a question mark," he said.