WELCOME to TRUTH ... not TASERS

You may have arrived here via a direct link to a specific post. To see the most recent posts, click HERE.

Showing posts with label mark 63 trident. Show all posts
Showing posts with label mark 63 trident. Show all posts

Tuesday, August 23, 2011

Student death by Taser raises questions for campus security

VERY INTERESTING COMMENT FROM "CONCERNED CANADIAN" FOLLOWING THIS ARTICLE!!

August 9, 2011
Whit Richardson, Security Director News

With campus security departments preparing for the imminent return of students, the recent news of a student’s death after being Tased by a campus security officer at the University of Cincinnati may force a re-examination of policies dictating when Tasers should and shouldn’t be used.

Here’s what happened: UC police officers were responding to an early morning 911 call that reported an assault at a dorm when they encountered an agitated 18-year-old student who wouldn’t back off after being asked multiple times, according to an article from the Cincinnati Enquirer. The student was shot with a Taser stun gun and died of a heart attack, according to the newspaper. UC police have temporarily stopped using Tasers as a result, the newspaper reported.

The newspaper’s report also discusses the liabilities surrounding the use of Tasers and a new weapon being deployed by law enforcement officials: the Mark 63 Trident device from Virginia-based Aegis.

This may be an issue worth a deeper examination by Security Director News. What do you think?

Concerned Canadian says:

August 23rd, 2011 at 6:33 pm

Unfortunately, no police agencies have any ‘black box’ testers to regularly test for output irregularities of Tasers. ‘Output variance’ was proven by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) News several years ago — and subsequent government testing reveals numerous weapons perform outside of the safety allowables set by the manufacturers. In British Columbia (Canada), 80% of the M26 models failed; the older devices were eventually shelved across the country. Whenever there is a death proximal to a Taser, it is imperative for a third party to measure the device, to do so accurately with a proper electrical safety standard brought to bear. Medical Examiners cannot rule out a Taser as a contributing factor without proper measurement being done first to ensure it is performing within the manufacturer’s specifications. This is rarely done.

‘Excited Delirium’ is often cited as the cause-of-death, yet this is not a diagnosis that is recognized by either the American Medical Association or its Canadian counterpart. It is a very wide, diverse list of symptoms, which came from a certain Dr. Bell at the Boston Sanatorium For the Insane in the1840’s. They were still using leeches and doing blood-letting back then—but this is where ED was first observed in several dozen patients in as many years. It would be interesting to know who introduced the term to police. You never hear about Excited Delirium until a Taser-related death occurs.

Also of grave concern(and something that must be haunting Taser International in the two major product liability lawsuits it has lost – and the dozens it has settled out of court) is there is no electrical safety standard for shocks IN the body. The electrical safety standard bodies UL, IEC and CSA will tell you, they have never tested Tasers or Conducted Energy Weapons in general — nor would they- because up until the Mark 63, all devices have been INVASIVE, allowing electrical current to pierce the skin, entering the body and passing through it. The Ul says not enough is known about the actual mechanism of shocks, the ‘paths’ such current takes within the body and the physiological effects and/or damage inside the body, where resistance is negligible. No one has ever done any body density mapping to see what damage such current can do. No company testing was ever done to predict effects due to age, weight, gender, ethnicity, mood, electrolyte levels, adrenaline in the system, salt content in the blood, dart placement, dart size, dart depth, number + duration of stuns, etc. The real question is how the devices were approved without anyone in government in either the U-S or Canada,verifying the manufacturer’s safety claims.

Tasers are implicated as either the cause or contributing factor in 682 deaths in North America since they were deployed just over a decade ago. Amnesty International hasn’t updated the numbers but the blog TRUTH NOT TASERS HAS been logging the deaths, regularly and accurately, based on media reports. There is now an average of two deaths per week in the U-S. Yet since the Braidwood Inquiry recommended a tightening of CEW use by Canadian police, there hasn’t been one single death. The weapons are not to be used as compliance tools in Canada – only in truly life threatening situations. In other words, Tasers are now treated as deadly weapons, not cattle prods.

These remain untested, unregulated electrical devices. They do not bear certification marks like every other electrical product sold or used in Canada and the U-S. Police in Canada are in violation of the Electrical Safety Standards Act. Because of this, the liabilities could be huge. Now the manufacturer has abdicated legal responsibility with its long list of risks and warnings, hanging law enforcement out to dry when someone dies. All you need to read is the fine print of Training Bulletin # 17 and the latest Volunteer Waiver, which tells the whole story. In a decade, we have gone from non-lethal to less-lethal… and now an admittance the devices are LETHAL. Has human physiology changed in that ten years? Or the design of the device? No – the only change is the manufacturer’s opinion of the safety of its products. What should insurers, shareholders and forward-thinking police officers make of all this,now that the Braidwood Inquiry, the U-S Courts and Taser International itself are in agreement that Tasers KILL? This is not what anyone was told a decade ago, when the promotional material maintained the devices were “safe to use on any attacker”?

Individuals in government and law enforcement in both countries either dropped the ball- or worse, co-operated— in allowing a weapon to be deployed prematurely without enough scientific scrutiny to ensure the manufacturer’s medical & safety claims were true. The promise of public safety was broken. And people continue to die.

Concerned Canadian

Monday, August 08, 2011

Death raises Taser safety questions - High school grad died after being stunned by police officer

August 8, 2011
Cincinnati.com

University of Cincinnati officials said Monday the university has asked the Ohio Bureau of Criminal Identification and Investigation to review the circumstances surrounding Everette Howard's death during a campus incident over the weekend.

Howard, 18, died about 2:30 a.m. Saturday after an officer Tased him.

The university's assistant police chief, Jeff Corcoran, said the student approached officers in a dorm hallway, and appeared agitated and angry. Officers ordered Howard to back off, but he refused, Corcoran said. Howard was then hit once by an officer's stun gun.

Afterward, Howard appeared incoherent, according to UC police. He went into cardiac arrest after paramedics arrived and was pronounced dead at University Hospital.

UC has not yet released an incident report.

Hamilton County Coroner Anant Bhati, who is investigating the death, said the teen was shocked with a stun gun once before, and rushed to a hospital.

North College Hill police said Monday that Howard was Tased in January 2009 by an officer at North College Hill High School after he fell ill and became combative.

Once medics got him into an ambulance, they realized he had low blood sugar. A relative said Monday Howard did not suffer from diabetes.

Howard had thrown up the night before and hadn't eaten because he was trying to lose weight to wrestle in a lower weight class, according to the police report.

UC police have temporarily stopped their use of electroshock Taser stun guns.

"Initial review by UC Police suggests that all departmental policies and procedures were followed appropriately," UC's Senior Vice President of Finance & Administration Robert Ambach said in a statement. "The tragic outcome, however, resulting in the death of a young man, calls for extraordinary and objective measures to ensure that the collected facts are independently arrived at and beyond reproach" he said in explaining the decision to involve the Ohio BCI. Howard's parents said they have retained a lawyer but declined to name their attorney. They declined to speak further, saying their focus must now be on burying their son.

Howard was an honor roll student and football player nearing graduation from UC's Upward Bound program, which helps prepare high school students from low-income families for college. He had enrolled this fall in sports and exercise science at the University of the Cumberlands in Williamsburg, Ky., where he earned a scholarship and planned to join the wrestling and football team.

Family members want more information about what happened and insist the police version of the story conflicts with Howard's character and upbringing.

"My cousin was not in a fight. He was trying to break up a fight," said Stephanie Brown, 40, of Montgomery. "It's devastating. He had a promising future. He had a full scholarship. Why would he put that in jeopardy?"

At least two local suburban police agencies - Colerain Township and Fairfax - stopped using Tasers in the past year over safety and liability concerns in favor of a new tool.

Larger departments such as Cincinnati police and sheriff's offices in Hamilton and Butler counties continue using Tasers. Officials have credited them with helping to reduce fatal police incidents. Cincinnati police began using Tasers after the Nov. 30, 2003, death of Nathaniel Jones in police custody. The 41-year-old man's violent struggle with officers ended when his heart stopped. Jones had cocaine, PCP and methanol in his system.

Cincinnati defense attorney Mike Allen predicts the UC case cause more police agencies to drop the use of Tasers.

The device administers 50,000 volts that usually temporarily immobilize a person's muscles so officers can gain control of the subject. They have a range of 35 feet.

Critics argue that Tasers, while considered non-lethal weapons, too often have a deadly outcome. Since 2001, Amnesty International has recorded more than 340 deaths in North America following police use of Tasers.

Since 2009, Taser's manufacturer, Arizona-based Taser International, has warned law enforcement agencies to avoid stunning suspects in the upper chest, a way of alleviating concerns the weapon's volt shock could affect the heart.

"I see the tide turning," said Allen, a former UC police officer and board of trustee. Allen was also a Cincinnati police officer, Hamilton County Municipal Court judge and Hamilton County Prosecutor before starting his law firm downtown.

Colerain Township and Fairfax officers use the new "Mark 63 Trident" device. Manufactured by Virginia-based Aegis, the device essentially is several weapons rolled into one with high intensity light, pepper spray and a stun gun, although the electrical prongs on the front do not shoot out and enter the body, said Colerain Township Police Chief Dan Meloy.

Colerain officers are completing training on the device this week.

Fairfax Chief Rick Patterson suspended use of Tasers in September over safety concerns.

"I do not know the facts of the UC case so I will not comment on the UC case,'' Patterson said. "I just feel that I didn't want that liability out there for myself, my department and my officers."

Last month a jury handed down a $10-million judgment against Taser International, finding the company and its device partially responsible for the death of 17-year-old Darryl Turner after police in Charlotte, N.C., used a Taser device on him during an altercation at a grocery store in 2008.

Taser officials expressed their condolences to the Turner family, but insist their device was not responsible for his death. Taser plans to appeal the court decision.

A spokesman for Taser did not return a call Monday for comment on the UC case.