Taser policies slow to form on college campuses

August 15, 2011

Allie Grasgreen, USA TODAY

The death of an 18-year-old high school graduate after University of Cincinnati police used a Taser on him is likely to reopen an intense debate on whether or how the weapons should be allowed on college campuses. Yet since the last time that debate was had - following high-profile incidents at the University of California at Los Angeles and University of Florida in 2006 and 2007, respectively - it seems that not much has changed.

After investigating the incidents, those two universities, to be sure, revisited their own police department policies regarding how and when Tasers should be used. Both determined their officers acted appropriately, but UCLA issued new guidelines allowing Taser use only on "violent subjects," and Florida created a more formal, step-by-step confrontation approach that makes the weapons more of a last resort at public events.

At the macro level, perhaps because the weapons are rarely used, nothing really changed.

"I'm not sure if it's any different," said Anne P. Glavin, president-elect of the International Association of College Law Enforcement Administrators and chief of police and director of public services at California State University at Northridge. "It's considered in the profession to be a so-called less-lethal weapon. And the notion behind that is it provides an alternative to using deadly force."

But at the institutional level, policies have slowly have become less vague and less broad than they used to be, said Camelia Naguib, deputy director of the Police Assessment Resource Center (PARC).

"I think those incidents and a number of others [not at colleges] have really changed the way people are looking at policies," Naguib said. "They encouraged departments to more carefully look at circumstances under which use of Tasers is appropriate." There have been myriad reports on Taser deaths and safety, though not specifically in higher education. Even Taser International, the company that creates the original product, has itself released more safety guidelines over the years. For instance, officers now know to avoid aiming the weapon at a person's chest to reduce the risk of cardiac arrest.

Florida's new "tiered approach" mandates additional steps to subdue a disruptive individual before the police intervene. Linda Stump, director of the university's police department, said she didn't know whether more informal contact with the person before the officers approached would have altered the outcome of the notorious "Don't Tase me, bro" incident, in which officers forcibly removed a student from the microphone during a John Kerry speech. But under the new system, someone from the venue's staff would have approached the student first and asked him, non-forcibly, to leave, rather than the initial response being police escorts - and ultimately, use of a Taser when the student resisted their grasp. (That was, of course, after he uttered the quote that launched a thousand YouTube videos.)

At UCLA, police confronted an Iranian-American student who refused to show identification in the library. After handcuffing him, officers shocked him multiple times with a Taser, even when he appeared handcuffed and subdued, and critics complained about the use of force, though at the time the UCLA police department's policy allowed for Taser use for "pain compliance against passive resisters." Many of those angry about the use of a Taser suggested that the student's ethnicity influenced the way he was handled -- a charge denied by UCLA.

Eight months later, PARC concluded an outside investigation of the incident with a report recommending that UCLA make a number of changes to its use of force and Taser policies to align them with best practices. (Naguib said the best practices have not changed significantly since the recommendations were made, but today PARC would advise against pointing the Taser at the chest. Cincinnati's policy says police should aim for the back; the second-best option is the front torso, but officers should avoid the head and neck. The policy does not mention the chest, and police have not released details about where Everette Howard, the student who died at Cincinnati, was hit.)

The report does not, however, suggest that UCLA or other institutions abandon the Taser. "Mindful of the risk of injury or death, we nonetheless conclude that the Taser's benefits outweigh those risks as long as policies for use of this instrumentality are narrowly tailored and properly restrictive."

An initial review has found the Cincinnati police followed proper procedure, but the Ohio Bureau of Criminal Investigation is now conducting its own review. (The university released some records to Cincinnati.com, which said Howard "appeared to be very angry and agitated but not at anyone in particular," and that an officer could not understand what he was saying.)

Judging by PARC standards, Cincinnati police acted appropriately by reportedly warning Howard that the Taser could be deployed if he continued to advance toward them. The warning, which should always be issued when an officer is not in imminent danger, is an important step that had been removed from UCLA's rules when it revised its policy prior to the incident in the library, but has since been added back.

Best practices, PARC said, restrict Taser use to "violent, actively aggressive or imminently violent subjects, currently engaged in physical or active resistance, where the suspect has been given a warning and a reasonable opportunity to comply, and where milder uses of force could be reasonably judged as likely ineffective." Departments should also define those states of violence or aggression, so that when officers have to make snap judgments, they have something clear-cut to base them on, the report said.

Best practices go even further in making predetermined responses aligned with different levels of aggression. A "force options" or "force continuum" system provides "an explicit range of appropriate responses for each level of subject resistance or threat," PARC says.

Cincinnati's policy does contain such a feature, but whether the officers used it is less clear.

Local media reported that Cincinnati police said Howard "appeared agitated, angry, and had balled fists" while approaching officers, who had arrived at the residence hall after a 911 call reported an assault. Howard allegedly did not back off when they asked him to. Based on definitions from PARC and the Police Executive Research Forum, that would indicate either "passive or mild resistance" or "active physical resistance," if Howard could have defeated or significantly impeded an attempt to take him into custody. Based on Cincinnati's own policy, Howard's actions would fall under "Uncooperative: refusing to comply with commands." The appropriate officer response would be to exercise "Restraint Techniques" such as verbal commands or balance displacement, according to the policy; while Howard reportedly did not respond to verbal commands, Tasers are not listed as appropriate responses until the suspect's behavior escalates to "Resisting Officer": actions such as wrestling with an officer or pulling away.

"The central component of any constitutional use force policy is that officers only use the level of force that is reasonably necessary to safely resolve any given situation, taking into consideration the totality of the circumstances, including the suspect's actions, the risk of death or injury to officers and others, and the availability and efficacy of lesser force options," the report reads. Force continuums take table or chart form to help officers better visualize the appropriate action and when they might need to escalate or de-escalate their responses.

Because multiple shocks have been correlated with increased likelihood of death, PARC says repeated use of the Taser should be discouraged. But if officers must fire more than once, they should do so each time only after reassessing the situation and determining that the subject still poses a threat significant enough to fire again. Police stunned Howard once before he went into cardiac arrest. The coroner's office later announced Howard had been struck by a Taser and hospitalized, after he fell ill and became combative, once before, in 2010.

"In sum, cumulative research and the experience of law enforcement agencies that equip their officers with Tasers tends to suggest that the use of the Taser generally carries few health risks to subjects," the report concludes. "Indeed, many departments have found that it actually increases overall safety to subjects by reducing or making the use of injurious or deadly force less likely.

"Nonetheless, Tasers are not considered - by research, most law enforcement agencies or departments, and even Taser International - entirely risk-free. As such, departments should take care to monitor usage and to ensure that its use is restricted to those situations when it is the most appropriate force option."

EDITORIAL: Zap happy?

July 2, 2011
HOUSTON CHRONICLE

The Taser stun gun has proven to be an effective police alternative to the use of deadly force. Studies document its ability to reduce injuries to both officers and suspects in dozens of cities and counties where it has been deployed. But its safe use requires extensive training and adherence to guidelines to protect both user and target.

As the Chronicle's James Pinkerton reported last week, the use of stun guns by the Harris County Sheriff's Department has frequently diverged from national safety guidelines formulated by the Police Executive Research Forum (PERF) and the U.S. Department of Justice's National Institute of Justice. Among 621 incidents where Tasers were used by deputies to subdue people from 2009 through early June, Pinkerton documented numerous cases where the application of the 50,000-volt shocks countered the best practices recommendations.

According to the 2011 guidelines, officers should use a Taser for only one cycle, or five seconds, before evaluating whether more shots are needed. According to the DOJ-PERF document, use of one weapon for more than 15 seconds or multiple Taser stuns "may increase the risk of death or serious injury. Any subsequent applications should be independently justifiable, and the risk should be weighed."

In Harris County, deputies stunned 43 suspects three or more times. In 10 incidents, two or more officers used Tasers on a person at the same time. A DWI suspect was Tasered 24 times. In 2006 deputies stunned a mentally ill African-American man, 31-year-old Herman Barnes, 32 times. He subsequently died, and his survivors are suing the county. The Taser manufacturer was dropped from the suit because its training manual for officers included a warning against multiple stuns.

A 17-year-old auto-theft suspect was shocked six times, including a final jolt applied to his groin. That gets us to federal guideline 28: Personnel should not intentionally target sensitive areas (e.g., head, neck, genitalia).

Although the Taser manufacturer warns agencies to avoid applying shocks to the chest because of widespread, and unproven, claims that they can trigger heart attacks, deputies zapped at least 30 people in that area.

Whereas the guidelines advise the use of Tasers only when suspects are actively aggressive or resisting arrest, deputies stunned 79 suspects who were passive or verbally aggressive, including some who were fleeing. According to the guidelines, fleeing should not be the sole justification for stunning suspects, because of the risk of serious injury.

In spite of all these incidents where the use of Tasers seems questionable, only one county deputy has been disciplined, and in that 2005 case it was because the officer hadn't informed superiors that he had stunned a suspect.

Sheriff Adrian Garcia responded to Pinkerton's story by claiming that the department "gives grave consideration and attention" to the federal guidelines. He cited the acknowledgment in the federal report that guidelines are flexible and subject to modification in particular circumstances. There's a huge difference between Sheriff's Department deputies being flexible in specific circumstances and blatantly ignoring safety rules for Taser use outlined by both the federal government and equipment vendors.

Multiple stuns applied in numerous cases, including shocking a teenager's genital area, don't strike us as flexible law enforcement. Words like "inhumane" and "irresponsible" come to mind. The fact that no officer has even been reprimanded in these incidents is an indication that much tighter supervision of county Taser use is needed.

TASER guidelines updated for first time since 2005

April 22, 2011
Capt. Greg Meyer (ret.), Police One

The Police Executive Research Forum's 2005 guidelines were well-intentioned, but became contentious in litigation.

Back in 2005, the Police Executive Research Forum (PERF) published a set of TASER guidelines (then referred to as “Conducted Energy Devices,” or CEDs). Those guidelines were well-intentioned, but very contentious. Some of the 2005 guidelines recommended against CED use when it was called for, and encouraged CED use in situations where it was not. In litigation, the guidelines were quite contentious.

Since that time, years of TASER experience, updated medical research, and numerous court cases have resulted in broader knowledge about TASERs. Even after all that, TASER use is still a developing and controversial area among researchers, practitioners, the public, and the courts.

The 2005 PERF guidelines were badly in need of updating, and that has finally occurred following a meeting in Philadelphia last summer of police chiefs, medical experts, use-of-force experts, industry representatives, and others.

This morning (as this is written on April 8, 2011), PERF’s “2011 Electronic Control Weapon Guidelines,” were published in conjunction with the COPS office (i.e. the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, United States Department of Justice). In my opinion, the 2011 guidelines are a vast improvement.

[Full disclosure: I was one of many people who worked on the guidelines at the Philadelphia meeting and in subsequent editing sessions with PERF.]

From the document’s introductory material:

Since 2005, researchers have continued to conduct studies of ECWs, and thousands of police departments have gained real-world experience with them. As a result, the COPS Office asked PERF to update the 2005 guidelines, reflecting these developments. PERF conducted background research, including a survey of nearly 200 law enforcement agencies regarding ECW deployments, as well as interviews of police chiefs and other experts. PERF and the COPS Office then convened a conference in Philadelphia in August 2010 where 150 police executives, researchers, doctors, attorneys, and others discussed the use of ECWs in light of five years’ worth of experience in the field.

This publication is the result of those efforts, providing an updated and improved version of the initial guidelines to reflect the state of the field regarding ECWs. The 2011 guidelines also reflect a general consensus in policing that ECWs play an invaluable role in providing officers with another type of less-lethal weapon that can be effective in many situations, but they should not be seen as an all-purpose weapon that takes the place of de-escalation techniques and other options. In addition, ECWs have limitations, so officers must be prepared to switch to other strategies if an ECW is not producing the desired result.

Obviously, ECWs are a subject of wide interest to law enforcement since so many thousands of agencies use TASERs. Policy makers and trainers would benefit from reviewing the guidelines and analyzing their own policies and training protocols.

Not everyone will be satisfied with the guidelines, of course, and the ECW subject will remain somewhat contentious as we move forward. The courts in particular are still trying to sort out TASER issues, and that effort will continue for years as unique cases rise through the system. Still, if you lay the 2005 and the 2011 versions of the PERF guidelines side-by-side, I think it is obvious that significant improvement has occurred.

The 2011 guidelines document also contains a listing of selected medical research and legal that are pertinent to ECWs, as well as a listing of the participants at the Philadelphia meeting where the guidelines revision process began.

My personal view is that the 2011 Electronic Control Weapon Guidelines document from PERF and COPS is a good step forward in the history of these valuable tools which have saved many lives and prevented many injuries.

Here are the new Guidelines and the related Glossary of terms, and a link to the complete document. For some of the guidelines I have made personal comments [in brackets immediately below the relevant guideline].

Electronic Control Weapon Guidelines (PERF 2011)
Agency Policy

1. Agency personnel must always consider the totality of the circumstances when applying the guidelines. In certain situations, exigent circumstances may outweigh the recommendation of a specific guideline. Personnel should always be able to articulate the justification for going beyond agency policy or training.

2. Agencies should develop policies and training curricula for ECWs that are integrated with the agency’s overall use-of-force policy.

3. Agencies should work to share and disseminate information regarding their respective ECW policies and training to foster better cooperation and coordination during joint law enforcement responses or operations. When possible, agencies should enter into a memorandum of understanding to develop joint ECW policies, protocols, and training.

[Comment: Guideline 3 is particularly applicable to small agencies that routinely depend upon mutual aid from adjoining agencies.]

4. Agencies should consult with local medical personnel to develop appropriate police-medical protocols for medical evaluation and removal of ECW probes following subjects’ exposure to ECW application.

5. Agencies should consider adopting brightly colored ECWs (e.g., yellow), which may reduce the risk of escalating a force situation because they are plainly visible and thus decrease the possibility that a secondary unit will mistake the ECW for a firearm. (Note: Specialized units [e.g., SWAT units] may prefer dark-colored ECWs for tactical concealment purposes.)

6. Personnel should keep ECWs in a weak-side holster and should train to perform a weak-hand draw or cross-draw to reduce the possibility of accidentally drawing and/or firing a sidearm. Transitioning the ECW to the strong hand after drawing with the weak hand should be allowed.

[Comment: Dr. Bill Lewinski of the Force Science Research Center and I continue to suggest weak-side holsters and weak-hand draws. We concur that transition to the strong hand after the draw would be fine. We do NOT support strong-hand cross-draw of the TASER. Of the 9 known cases (so far) of accidentally drawing and shooting a firearm when TASER was intended, ALL of them involved strong-hand draws, and some of those (including the infamous Oakland BART case, where an officer was tried for murder and convicted of involuntary manslaughter last year) involved weapons confusion even though the TASER placement was strong-hand cross-draw. You can read more about such cases in my earlier BART articles and in the articles archive at Dr. Lewinski’s website, www.forcescience.org ]

7. If agencies permit personnel to use privately owned ECWs on duty, policy should dictate specifications, regulations, qualifications, etc. The privately owned ECWs should be registered with the agency.

Training
8. Before any agency personnel (e.g., officers, jail personnel, auxiliary/reserve officers, civilian staff) are armed with ECWs, they should receive all mandated training and achieve all qualification requirements.

9. Agencies should use scenario- and judgment-based training that recognizes the limitations of ECW application and the need for personnel to be prepared to transition to other force options as needed.

10. Agencies should not rely solely on training curriculum provided by an ECW manufacturer. When they do use the curriculum, agencies should ensure the manufacturer’s training does not contradict agency use-of-force policies and values. Agencies should ensure that their ECW curricula are integrated into their overall use-of-force training curriculum.

11. Agencies should be aware that exposure to ECW application during training could result in injury to personnel and is not recommended. Any agency that does include ECW application as part of training should not make it mandatory for certification, and should ensure that safety protocols are rigorously followed.

12. ECW recertification should occur at least annually and should consist of physical competency and weapon retention, agency policy including any changes, technology changes, and reviews of local and national trends in ECW use. Recertification should also include scenario-based training.

13. Personnel should be trained to use an ECW for one standard cycle (five seconds) and then evaluate the situation to determine if subsequent cycles are necessary. Training protocols should emphasize that multiple applications or continuous cycling of an ECW resulting in an exposure longer than 15 seconds (whether continuous or cumulative) may increase the risk of serious injury or death and should be avoided.

14. Training protocols should emphasize the risk of positional asphyxia, and thus officers should be trained to use a restraint technique that does not impair the subject’s respiration following an ECW application.

[Comment: Whether positional or other forms of restraint asphyxia are a cause of arrest-related deaths continues to be a subject of controversy among medical researchers. No matter what tools or tactics are used, arresting officers should attempt to ensure that a subject’s breathing is not compromised.]

15. Personnel should be trained that when a subject is armed with an ECW and attacks or threatens to attack a police officer who is alone, the officer must defend himself or herself or take actions to avoid becoming incapacitated and risking the possibility that the subject could gain control of the officer’s firearm. However, if multiple officers are present, a subject’s attack with an ECW against one officer should not in and of itself cause a deadly-force response by other officers.

[Comment: This critical subject should be included in scenario-based training exercises.]

16. Agencies’ policy and training should discourage the use of the drive stun mode as a pain compliance technique. The drive stun mode should be used only to supplement the probe mode to complete the incapacitation circuit, or as a countermeasure to gain separation between officers and the subject so that officers can consider another force option.

17. Personnel should be trained to attempt hands-on control tactics during ECW application, including handcuffing the subject during ECW application (i.e., handcuffing under power). Training should emphasize that personnel who touch a subject during ECW application will not receive exposure to the electrical charge, so long as caution is taken not to touch the subject along the circuit (i.e., between the locations of the two probes).

18. Command staff, supervisors, and investigators should receive ECW awareness training appropriate to the investigations they conduct and review.

19. If an agency uses more than one model of ECWs, training should emphasize the differences in the various models (e.g., duration of cycle, optimal probe spread).

20. In addition to providing an overview of ECWs, agencies should provide ECW awareness training to personnel who are not certified to carry the devices and emphasize their responsibilities. The training should also cover situations such as attempting to handcuff subjects during ECW application and transitioning to other force options.

Using the ECW
21. Personnel should use an ECW for one standard cycle (five seconds) and then evaluate the situation to determine if subsequent cycles are necessary. Personnel should consider that exposure to the ECW for longer than 15 seconds (whether due to multiple applications or continuous cycling) may increase the risk of death or serious injury. Any subsequent applications should be independently justifiable, and the risks should be weighed against other force options.

22. A warning should be given to a subject prior to activating the ECW unless doing so would place any person at risk. Warnings may be in the form of verbalization, display, laser painting, arcing, or a combination of these tactics.

23. When feasible, an announcement should be made to other personnel on the scene that an ECW is going to be activated.

24. Personnel should not intentionally activate more than one ECW at a time against a subject.

[Comment: There will be occasional high-threat levels where this needs to be done. If the next logical option is to shoot the person, for example, I would argue that if the dynamics of the situation permit, officers might shoot more than one ECW at the subject. See Guideline #1 regarding totality of circumstances.]

25. ECWs should be used only against subjects who are exhibiting active aggression or who are actively resisting in a manner that, in the officer’s judgment, is likely to result in injuries to themselves or others. ECWs should not be used against a passive subject.
26. Fleeing should not be the sole justification for using an ECW against a subject. Personnel should consider the severity of the offense, the subject’s threat level to others, and the risk of serious injury to the subject before deciding to use an ECW on a fleeing subject.

27. ECWs should not generally be used against pregnant women, elderly persons, young children, and visibly frail persons. Personnel should evaluate whether the use of the ECW is reasonable, based upon all circumstances, including the subject’s age and physical condition. In some cases, other control techniques may be more appropriate as determined by the subject’s threat level to others.

28. Personnel should not intentionally target sensitive areas (e.g., head, neck, genitalia).

29. ECWs should not be used on handcuffed subjects unless doing so is necessary to prevent them from causing serious bodily harm to themselves or others and if lesser attempts of control have been ineffective.

30. ECWs should not be used against subjects in physical control of a vehicle in motion (e.g., automobiles, trucks, motorcycles, ATVs, bicycles, scooters).

31. ECWs should not be used when a subject is in an elevated position where a fall may cause substantial injury or death.

32. ECWs should not be used in the known presence of combustible vapors and liquids or other flammable substances including alcohol-based Oleoresin Capsicum (O.C.) spray carriers. Agencies utilizing both ECWs and O.C. spray should use a non-combustible (e.g., water-based) spray.

33. ECWs can be effective against aggressive animals. Policies should indicate whether use against animals is permitted.

Medical Considerations
34. Personnel should be aware that there is a higher risk of sudden death in subjects under the influence of drugs and/or exhibiting symptoms associated with excited delirium.

[Comment: Let’s be clear, subjects in excited/agitated delirium are at higher risk of sudden death REGARDLESS of what police tool or tactic is employed, and regardless of whether police are even present.]

35. When possible, emergency medical personnel should be notified when officers respond to calls for service in which they anticipate an ECW application may be used against a subject.

[Comment: Especially with cases of subjects who appear to be in excited/agitated delirium, it is desirable to roll EMT before engaging the subject if tactical circumstances allow. It is also desirable to train dispatchers to recognize the symptoms of excited/agitated delirium (such as the proverbial “naked man” running in the street, shouting irrationally, breaking things, etc.) so that several officers, and supervisor, and EMT personnel can be sent to the scene at the same time. As the Institute for Prevention of In-Custody Death (www.ipicd.com) teaches that “Excited delirium is a medical emergency disguised as a police problem.” The objective is for the police to subdue the violent subject, then the EMTs administer a body-cooling sedative immediately in an effort to prevent an arrest-related death.]

36. All subjects who have been exposed to ECW application should receive a medical evaluation by emergency medical responders in the field or at a medical facility. Subjects who have been exposed to prolonged application (i.e., more than 15 seconds) should be transported to an emergency department for evaluation. Personnel conducting the medical evaluation should be made aware that the suspect has experienced ECW activation, so they can better evaluate the need for further medical treatment.

37. All subjects who have received an ECW application should be monitored regularly while in police custody even if they received medical care. Documentation of the ECW exposure should accompany the subject when transferred to jail personnel or until the subject is released from police custody.

38. ECW probes should be treated as a biohazard. Personnel should not remove ECW probes from a subject that have penetrated the skin unless they have been trained to do so. Only medical personnel should remove probes that have penetrated a subject’s sensitive areas or are difficult to remove.

Reporting and Accountability
39. ECWs should be regulated while personnel are off duty under rules similar to those for service firearms (including storage, transportation, use, etc.).

40. A supervisor should respond to all incident scenes where an ECW was activated.
[Comment: Hopefully your agency requires response by a supervisor to ANY reportable use of force, not just ECW.]

41. When possible, supervisors should anticipate on-scene officers’ use of ECWs and should respond to calls for service that have a high propensity for the use of an ECW.

42. A supervisor should conduct an initial review of each ECW activation, and every instance of ECW use, including unintentional activation, should be documented.

43. Agencies should initiate force investigations when any of the following factors is involved:

- A subject experiences a proximity death or serious injury following ECW application
- A subject experiences prolonged ECW application (longer than 15 seconds)
- The ECW appears to have been used in a punitive or abusive manner
- There appears to be a substantial deviation from ECW training or policy
- A subject in an at-risk category has been subjected to application (e.g., young children, individuals who are elderly/frail, pregnant women, and any other activation as determined by a supervisor)

[Comment: I believe there was a word left out due to an editing error, and that Guideline 43 should read, “Agencies should initiate enhanced force investigations . . .” for the listed factors. An “enhanced” force investigation ought to occur at higher than the field supervisory level.]

44. Every ECW-related enhanced force investigation (and when possible every preliminary investigation) should include:
— Interviews of the subject and all officers who discharged their ECWs
— Location and interviews of witnesses (including other officers)
— Forensic quality photographs (including a ruler to show distances) of subject and officer injuries
— Photographs of cartridges/probes
— Collection of ECW cartridges, probes, data downloads, car video, confetti tags
— Copies of the ECW data download
— Other information as indicated in Reporting and Accountability Guideline #50

45. When reviewing downloaded ECW data, supervisors and investigators should be aware that the total time of activation registered on an ECW may not reflect the actual duration of ECW application on a subject.

[Comment: “Activations do not always equal applications.” This is particularly true of drive stun applications, which tend to have an on-and-off result as the subject and officer moves about; for probe applications, if the subject pulls out a probe, or the probe otherwise becomes dislodged, the computer will register activation time where actual application was not occurring.]

46. ECW activations should be tracked in the agency’s early intervention system (EIS).

47. Agencies should periodically conduct random audits of ECW data downloads and reconcile use-of-force reports with recorded activations. Agencies should take necessary action as appropriate when inconsistencies are detected.

48. Audits should be conducted to verify that all personnel who carry ECWs have attended initial and recertification training.

49. Agencies should collect and analyze information to identify ECW trends. Agencies may include display, laser painting, and arcing of weapons to measure prevention/deterrence effectiveness. Agencies should periodically analyze ECW statistics and make them available to the public.

50. Agencies should collect the following information about ECW use:
— Date, time, location of incident
— The use of display, laser painting and/or arcing, and whether those tactics deterred a subject and gained compliance
— Identifying and descriptive information and investigative statements of the subject (including membership in an at-risk population), all personnel firing ECWs, and all witnesses
— The type and brand of ECW used
— The number of ECW activations, the duration of each cycle, the duration between activations, and (as best as can be determined) the duration that the subject received applications
— Level of aggression encountered
— Any weapons possessed by the subject
— The type of crime/incident the subject was involved in
— Determination of whether deadly force would have been justified
— The type of clothing worn by the subject
— The range at which the ECW was used
— The type of mode used (probe deployment or drive stun)
— The point of probe impact on a subject with the device in probe mode
— The point of impact on a subject with the device in drive stun mode
— Location of missed probe(s)
— Terrain and weather conditions during ECW use
— Lighting conditions
— The type of cartridge used
— Suspicion that subject was under the influence of drugs (specify if available)
— Medical care provided to the subject
— Any injuries incurred by personnel or the subject

Public Information and Community Relations
51. Law enforcement agencies should conduct neighborhood programs that focus on ECW
awareness training, which should be part of any citizen’s training academy program.

52. Agencies’ public information officers should receive extensive training on ECWs so they can better inform the media and the public about the weapon. Members of the media should be briefed on agencies’ policies and use of ECWs.

53. ECW awareness should extend to law enforcement partners such as local medical personnel, citizen review boards, medical examiners, mental health professionals, judges, and local prosecutors.

Glossary
Activation: Pulling the trigger of an ECW, causing arcing or probe discharge.

Active aggression: A threat or overt act of an assault (through physical or verbal means), coupled with the present ability to carry out the threat or assault, which reasonably indicates that an assault or injury to any person is imminent.

Active resistance: A subject’s physical actions to defeat an officer’s attempt at control and to avoid being taken into custody. Verbal statements alone do not constitute active resistance.

Anti-Felon Identification (AFID) tags. See confetti tags.
application. The actual contact and delivery of electrical impulse to the subject via probe discharge or drive stun.

Arcing: Pulling the trigger to activate an ECW without discharging the probes. This may be done as a warning to the subject or to test the ECW prior to deployment (sometimes referred to as a spark test).

Cartridge: A replaceable vessel that generally contains compressed gas, probes, connecting wires, and confetti tags.

Complete the circuit: When there is not adequate spread between probes attached to a subject, or one probe misses the subject or dislodges, the ECW may be used in drive stun mode to incapacitate the subject. This allows for the electrical pulse to travel between the attached probe(s) and the point where the front of the ECW makes contact with the subject. This tactic is sometimes referred to as a three-point contact.

Conducted Energy Device (CED): See Electronic Control Weapon (ECW).

Confetti tags: Small identifying cards expelled from an ECW cartridge when probes are discharged. Each confetti tag contains a serial number unique to the specific cartridge used. Confetti tags are sometimes referred to as Anti-Felon Identification (AFID) tags.

Cycle: The period during which electrical impulses are emitted from the ECW following activation. In most models, a standard cycle is 5 seconds for each activation. The duration of a cycle may be shortened by turning the ECW off but may be extended in certain models by continuing to pull the trigger.

Display: Drawing and exhibiting the ECW as part of a warning tactic, typically accompanied by appropriate verbalization.

Drive stun: Drive stun mode is possible whether or not the cartridge has been expended or removed from the ECW. (If the cartridge is not removed, the probes will enter the body.) This action requires pulling the trigger and placing the ECW in direct contact with the subject, causing the electric energy to enter the subject directly. Drive stun is frequently used as a non-incapacitating pain compliance technique. It may also be used to incapacitate the subject where at least one probe is attached to the subject’s body and the ECW contact will complete the circuit.

Duration: The aggregate time that the ECW is activated. It is important to note that the duration of activation may differ from the duration of time that a subject is subjected to the electrical impulse from the ECW.

Electronic Control Weapon (ECW). A weapon designed primarily to discharge electrical charges into a subject that will cause involuntary muscle contractions and override the subject’s voluntary motor responses. Originally called Conducted Energy Device (CED).

Excited delirium: State of extreme mental and physiological excitement, characterized by behaviors and symptoms such as extreme agitation, elevated body temperature (hyperthermia), watering eyes (epiphoria), hostility, exceptional strength, and endurance without fatigue.

Exigent circumstances: Circumstances that would cause a reasonable person to believe that prompt and unusual action is necessary to prevent physical injury to self or others.
firing. Discharging ECW probes at an intended target.

Fleeing: An active attempt by a person to avoid apprehension by a law enforcement officer through evasive actions while attempting to leave the scene.

Laser painting: The act of unholstering and pointing an ECW at a subject and activating the ECW’s laser dot to show that the weapon is aimed at the subject.

Less-lethal weapon: Any apprehension or restraint tool that, when used as designed and intended, is less likely to cause death or serious injury than a conventional police lethal weapon (e.g., firearm).

Neuromuscular incapacitation: The effect of the ECW on a subject when, through the application of an electrical pulse, the ECW dominates the motor nervous system by interfering with electrical signals sent to the skeletal muscles by the central nervous system.

Passive resistance: Physical actions that do not prevent the officer’s attempt to control, for example, a person who remains in a limp-prone position, passive demonstrators, etc.
positional asphyxia. Death that occurs when a subject’s body position interferes with breathing, either when the chest is restricted from expanding properly or when the position of the subject’s head obstructs the airway.

Probe discharge: Pulling the trigger to release the probes from the cartridge to make contact with the subject and achieve neuromuscular incapacitation.

Probe spread: The amount of distance between probes fired from an ECW.

Probes: Projectiles with wires contained in an ECW cartridge. When the ECW is discharged, probes are expelled from the ECW and penetrate the subject’s clothing and/or skin, allowing application of the electric impulse.

Proximity death: The death of a subject following exposure to an ECW.

Sensitive areas: An area of the subject’s body that may cause more serious injury to the subject if struck with an ECW probe (e.g., head, neck, genitalia)

Serious bodily harm: An injury to a person that, either at the time of the actual injury or at a later time, involves a substantial risk of death, serious permanent disfigurement, or protracted loss or impairment of any part or organ of the body, as well as any breaks, fractures, or burns of the third degree.

Three-point contact. See complete the circuit.

Portland police chief wants to know: How should his officers use their Tasers?

January 26, 2011
Maxine Berstein, The Oregonian

A motorist wanted on a felony warrant and driving a stolen vehicle suddenly bails out of the car and is about to scale a fence in a residential neighborhood. Should a pursuing Portland police officer use his Taser on the suspect to stop him?

Should an officer in the city's downtown who is trying to clear the entertainment district at club-closing time use a Taser against a man who is intoxicated and not following instructions, and then balls up his fists at officers?

Police Chief Mike Reese is seeking community input on what the criteria should be for officers to use their stun guns.

Portland's current policy -- which allows police to use a Taser when a person engages in, or displays the intent to engage in physical resistance -- is more permissive than other cities' and model guidelines.

Deputy City Attorney Dave Woboril says Portland's current guidelines are not precise enough and need to be improved to better guide officers. The review also comes in light of recent court opinions by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The federal appeals court ruled in late December that police can be held liable for using a stun gun against an unarmed person who poses no immediate threat.

Woboril is meeting with local citizen groups to gauge their opinions, and threw out the two scenarios to get people talking at a recent meeting of the Community and Police Relations Committee of Portland's Human Rights Commission.

"The Taser directive doesn't quite work for the Police Bureau," Woboril said.

Assistant Chief Larry O'Dea said the chief has asked for input to learn: "What are the community expectations?"

Tasers are considered a "less-lethal" weapon, designed to temporarily incapacitate or restrain a person when lethal force is not appropriate. In 2005, the bureau issued Tasers to all of its officers. They're used in two ways.

They can fire barbs attached to wires that transmit electricity to A suspect. Each press of the trigger activates the stun gun for one cycle, which typically lasts five seconds. If a second cycle is needed, the officer can pull the trigger again to send an additional wave of electricity through the probes attached to a suspect.

The Taser also can be used in a stun mode, where the gun is pressed directly against someone's skin to shock them.

In contrast to other municipalities, Portland's policy allows Taser use when the subject shows only the intent to resist police.

According to guidelines issued by the Police Executive Research Forum, a Taser should be used only on people who are actively resisting, being actively aggressive or to prevent the subject from harming themselves or others, according to a City of Portland audit.

Five of eight police agencies that city auditors studied have the stricter threshold, including Cincinnati, Colorado Springs (Colo.), Denver and San Diego police, and the Los Angeles County Sheriff's office.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Oregon doesn't think the Police Executive Research Forum's guidelines are tight enough, according to Dave Fidanque, executive director. The ACLU says police should only use Tasers if they encounter active physical resistance where there is a likelihood the situation will escalate to a need for deadly force. The Ashland Police Department is the only one in Oregon to adopt this stricter policy.

"This chief especially puts value on how our policies and procedures reflect what the community wants," bureau spokeswoman Lt. Kelli Sheffer said.

Anyone wanting to provide input about the proper use of Tasers by Portland police may contact the commander of the precinct where they live, and participate in their precinct advisory committee.

Portland has three precincts. The addresses and phone numbers are as follows:
North, 449 N.E. Emerson, 503-823-5700.
Central, 1111 S.W. 2nd Avenue, 503-823-0097.
East, 737 S.E. 106th Avenue 503-823-4800.

Chief Burton supports possible Taser tweaks

November 1, 2010
Brennan David, Columbia Daily Tribune

As policy on Taser use has evolved, Columbia police Chief Ken Burton believes the device itself also has room to improve.

In August, Burton participated in a Police Executive Research Forum event where more than 60 police chiefs from across the country discussed ways to improve Taser use. While PERF’s executive committee has yet to release new recommendations as a result of the meeting, participants discussed mechanical changes that could improve the safety of the device.

The length of time an officer can send an electrical current through a person was discussed, and Burton said he thinks changes should be made to the devices, manufactured by Taser International.

“When people are under the influence, the extended shock has shown to be a problem,” Burton said. “We have asked them to reduce the amount of times a trigger can be pulled so that it automatically shuts off.”

The Taser X26, which is used by 87 of 110 patrol officers in Columbia, requires 50,000 volts to deploy the probes and shoot them as far as 25 feet. Upon impact, 1,200 volts are transferred to the subject, according to Taser International.

When the trigger is pulled, the Taser sends the electrical current through its probes for a five-second cycle. Officers are trained to press and release the trigger, said Officer Jason Baillargeon, a Taser trainer for Columbia police. The officer should be attempting to place handcuffs on the suspect during the cycle, he said. The Taser will continue to deploy an electrical current if the trigger is held.

Burton said he would like the Taser to shut off after the device is used a certain number of times on a suspect, and the PERF executive committee has requested that Taser International examine possible implementation. Burton did not specify a number of times the trigger should be allowed to be pulled.

“In some instances, like when officers are in the heat of the moment, they involuntarily keep the trigger down,” Burton said.

People for a Taser-Free Columbia organizer Mary Hussmann cited studies that showed as much as 80,000 volts can be transferred during a Taser deployment.

“They’ve requested this before,” she said of the potential changes to Taser devices. “Nothing has happened. Nothing will happen.”

Although no deaths have been attributed solely to Tasers, the use of the device in conjunction with health issues has resulted in death. “Normally there is something else involved, like heart problems,” Boone County Sheriff Dwayne Carey said. “A lot of this is the operator. Take the Moberly case, for example. It’s not the Taser itself, it was the operator. But the example can be used the same way for a baton.”

In August 2008, Stanley Harlan, 23, died after being stunned multiple times by Moberly police. The city settled with Harlan’s family without admitting fault, and a special prosecutor determined the officers were not criminally liable.

Columbia voters will decide tomorrow whether Taser use should be permitted in Columbia. If Proposition 2 passes, it will create an ordinance making it illegal for any officer or resident to threaten to use or activate any conducted electrical devices in the city.

Tasers no longer 'nonlethal'

October 2, 2010
MATT McKINNEY, Star Tribune

David Smith was buried last week, the seventh person in the past seven years to have died in the metro area after being shot with a Taser.

While the investigation into the mid-September confrontation with police that led to Smith's death continues, a leading police research group and a major manufacturer of the devices are rolling out new safety measures nationally in response to the relatively small but troubling number of deaths linked to them.

And on Friday, Minneapolis police unveiled a new Taser policy that for the first time designates the device a potentially lethal weapon.

The manufacturer, Taser International, sent users a bulletin last year suggesting that they avoid shooting people near the heart.

And after lobbying by the Police Executive Research Forum (PERF), Taser International has agreed to offer by early next year a weapon that shocks for a maximum of five seconds with one trigger pull. Current models deliver voltage as long as the trigger is depressed.

"We think there's a time and a place for them," said Chuck Wexler, PERF's executive director. "They shouldn't be a substitute for talking through an issue with someone. And there's a limitation. There's a point at which we are convinced we have to go through another option."

Perhaps like no other device available to police, Tasers spark an extreme range of opinion.

When things go right, they put a quick end to standoffs that could have led to serious injuries to a suspect or officer. They save lives by preventing bad situations from spiraling out of control, and they save public money by preventing officer injuries, Minneapolis police spokesman Sgt. Bill Palmer said. "They're an effective tool," he said.

Yet in the rare cases when someone dies, the victim's family often wonders what role the device played.

Waiting for autopsy

Results of Smith's autopsy have not been made public by the Hennepin County medical examiner's office. The doctor overseeing the case was unavailable to comment.

A police search warrant seeking Smith's medical records includes a more thorough account of what happened when Smith was shot with a Taser at the downtown YMCA on Sept. 9. The police account says two officers were called to the Y at 30 S. 9th St. about 4 p.m. They had responded to a complaint that Smith had harassed a 13-year-old boy, the warrant says.

The officers noticed that he appeared unwell. They suspected he was either under the influence of something or having a mental health issue. Smith did not speak to the officers or even acknowledge their presence, the officers reported. When they tried to take him into custody, he fought, the warrant said.

He punched one officer in the face; the other officer's back was injured in the scuffle. The officers shot Smith with a Taser and handcuffed him, according to the warrant. Smith then lost consciousness. The officers called for an ambulance and began CPR. Smith, 28, died Sept. 17.

Smith's family said it wasn't like him to harass a 13-year-old. "That's not David's personality," said Larry Smith, an uncle. David had struggled with mental illness, according to his uncle, and after learning from the search warrant that police initially suspected David might be having a mental issue, Larry wondered if a different approach could have been taken.

"Let's call out a crisis team or counselors who could deal with it," he said.

New rules

On Friday, the Minneapolis Police Department unveiled a new Taser policy that characterizes the device as "less lethal," a change from "nonlethal." The change had been in the works for some time as the department sought to bring its policy in closer alignment with PERF guidelines.

The new policy also advises officers to use the stun gun for one five-second cycle and then reassess whether more stuns are needed, saying "... exposure to multiple applications of the [Taser] for longer than 15 seconds may increase the risk of serious injury or death."

Someone actively resisting arrest or exhibiting active aggression becomes a fair target for an officer's Taser, Palmer said. It can also be used to save lives -- to prevent people from killing themselves, for example. The new policy also tells officers to call out that they're about to use a Taser before firing one, the threat sometimes being enough to make people compliant.

"We want the least amount of force that can be used to be used," Palmer said.

Some 250 of the department's 850 officers carry stun guns, said Palmer. They were first introduced there in 2001.

Palmer was a patrol officer in 2000 when he and his partner shot and killed a mentally ill woman in her Uptown apartment after she stepped toward them with a knife. The incident led the department to equip officers with Tasers and to give officers additional training in handling mentally ill people, Palmer said.

Minneapolis police used stun guns 399 times in 2008, the most recent year for which statistics were available. In 59 of those cases the officer performed a "drive stun," meaning they held the device against someone's body; in the rest of the cases, the officer either shot the device's wired darts at the person or used darts and a drive stun together.

Federal study

A 2008 study by the federal government's National Institute of Justice found that stun guns can inflict serious and "potentially lethal" injury, though the study said such cases were rare.

The study examined two years' worth of records from six police departments, covering 962 uses of a Taser. In 99.7 percent of the cases, people were either not hurt or had only minor injuries, mostly skin punctures from the Taser's darts. Three people were seriously hurt: one had bruising on the brain, another had an epidural hematoma (blood between the skull and brain), and a third developed a condition in which muscle tissue was destroyed; the condition, rhabdomyolysis, has been linked to electrical injury, among other causes.

None of the three died, but the injuries in two cases were indirectly tied to being shot with a stun gun. The data in the third case were uncertain, according to the researchers.

Mark Anderson, head of the Barbara Schneider Foundation, a nonprofit group that works with police and others on mental health issues, said stun guns, used properly, can be a good way for police to end conflicts with the mentally ill.

"As an alternative to deadly force, it's wonderful," he said. "My concern is that if the Taser is used too early when in particular verbal deescalation can be used, that's really a problem."

In Philadelphia, cops talk shock about stun guns

August 6, 2010
By DANA DiFILIPPO
Philadelphia Daily News

In a Louisiana hospital last month, security guards Tasered the epileptic, suicidal nephew of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, triggering a seizure and a wave of public outcry over the use of stun guns in medical centers.

In Arizona, a young doctor died in 2008 after suffering a seizure while driving to work - and getting Tasered five times by a highway patrol officer who pulled him over for erratic driving.

And Philadelphia sports fans got even more notoriety - and city police, more criticism - after a cop Tasered a teenager who had leaped onto the field during a Phillies game in May.

With the use of stun guns more hotly debated than ever, crime-fighters from around the globe gathered in Philadelphia earlier this week for a two-day conference to tighten guidelines for the proper use of "controlled electronic devices."

The meeting was hosted by the Police Executive Research Forum, a nonprofit, independent police think-tank based in Washington. Philadelphia Police Commissioner Charles Ramsey is the group's elected president.

"We're looking at the whole issue of use of force: How do you handle people when you have to get control of them?" said Chuck Wexler, the group's executive director. "Our purpose is to do it in the most peaceful way to minimize injuries to that person and to the police officers."

The group already had 55 guidelines it developed five years ago at the U.S. Department of Justice's bidding. After this week's meeting, Wexler aims to have the tweaked guidelines completed by September.

Amnesty International has called for a moratorium on stun guns, saying police use them as tools of routine force rather than as an alternative to firearms. Since June 2001, more than 350 people have died in the United States after being shocked by police stun guns, according to the human-rights group.

But Wexler's group found that police departments that use stun guns have fewer injuries to suspects and officers than those that don't, according to a September 2009 study.

To use a stun gun in Philadelphia, police must complete crisis-intervention training, a five-day session on mental-health awareness and other issues, said Lt. Francis Healy, Ramsey's special adviser. About 700 Tasers now are deployed for use citywide.

"It's a great piece of equipment, but it has to be used appropriately so we don't have these public outcries of misuse and abuse," Healy said.

PERF CED Guidelines Executive Meeting

The Police Executive Research Forum (PERF), with support from the Office of Community Oriented Policing (COPS), is convening an executive-level meeting on August 3, 2010 to review and consider revisions to PERF’s 2005 Conducted Energy Device (CED) guidelines. While PERF’s 2005 CED guidelines are generally considered strong, we believe it is time to revisit the guidelines and update them as necessary to reflect the current CED research, the experience of police departments that have been using CEDs, and recent legal developments.

In recent years, many law enforcement agencies have reported success with increased deployment of CEDS, including a decline in overall injury rates among suspects and officers. Yet at the same time, there has been significant controversy about the safety of such devices. Quite a bit of research has been conducted by medical experts and professionals to attempt to assess the injury risks associated with the use of CEDs. Further developments have come with Taser International’s recent training bulletin changing its recommended area away from the chest and the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruling that a California officer’s use of a CED against a traffic violator was not reasonable when the officer believed the subject to be mentally disturbed but did not pose an immediate threat to the officer or bystanders.

The day-long meeting will be held in Philadelphia on August 3, 2010, for police chiefs and senior-level designees who can accurately represent their agencies’ positions and contribute to this policy-level discussion.

Meeting Details
When: August 3, 2010
Time: 8:00 am – 5:00 pm

Location for Executive Meeting
The Ritz-Carlton, Philadelphia
Ten Avenue of the Arts
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19102-2598
Phone: 215-523-8000

Please complete your meeting registration on-line at www.surveymonkey.com/s/perfced as soon as possible.

You are responsible for your travel and lodging expenses.

A limited number of rooms are available at the group rate of $153.00. Please contact The Ritz-Carlton directly no later than July 19, 2010 to make your room reservation. You can make your reservation by phone at 215-523-8000 or on-line at https://www.ritzcarlton.com/en/Properties/Philadelphia/Reservations/Default.htm.

You must provide the correct booking code in order to ensure that you receive the group rate. The booking code for this meeting is PRFPRFA. For questions or additional information, you can contact Molly Griswold at PERF at 202-454-8344 or e-mail mgriswold@policeforum.org.

Australian Police to attend US Taser conference

July 28, 2010
REID SEXTON, The Age
July 28, 2010

VICTORIA Police will next week attend a conference of American police chiefs to address growing concerns about the safety of Tasers.

The findings of the conference could have ramifications for the use of the stun guns in Victoria, where 30 are being trialled in Bendigo and Morwell.

The Police Executive Research Forum will meet in Philadelphia to review its guidelines around the use of stun guns after what the forum describes as ''significant controversy about the safety of such devices'' since its guidelines were last updated in 2005.

Advertisement: Story continues belowThe conference comes as The Age can reveal that a Taser was accidentally discharged at Bendigo police station earlier this month.

In 2008, a damning Amnesty International report into Taser use found the stun guns contributed to, or caused, at least 50 deaths in America in the seven years to August that year.

Superintendent Mick Williams, who will travel to Philadelphia on Saturday, said he was aware of the report and acknowledged that the weapons had been used irresponsibly overseas.

Superintendent Williams, said Victoria Police would learn from hearing other agencies' experiences with Tasers, and he was confident those mistakes would not be repeated here.

The 12-month trial in rural Victoria began this month, with a decision on whether they will be rolled out statewide expected after that. There has been no operational deployment of a Taser yet in the trial.

Stunning the public into submission

May 11, 2010
Heidi Boghosian, Huffington Post

Ask the pregnant woman who refused to sign a traffic ticket. She'll confirm: it's more convenient for police to discharge a Taser than to negotiate verbally or use other problem-solving strategies when dealing with the public. A 58-year-old homeless woman with a mental illness in Vermont will tell a similar story. Her crime was refusing to move from where she was standing outside a local convenience store.

Abuse of electroshock weapons is commonplace when individuals are slow to follow orders or "cop an attitude." The teenage baseball fan in Philadelphia learned this the painful way. Each time police discharge Tasers when no threat to human life exists, they breach norms for the use of force. Force should be used only where "strictly necessary" and in proportion to the threat posted, according to the United Nations Code of Conduct for Law Enforcement Officials. The Police Executive Research Forum advises that stun guns should only be directed at persons actively exhibiting aggression. And the UN Committee Against Torture has called use of the Taser X26 a form of torture because of the degree of pain the weapon inflicts.

In addition to being the state where the baseball fan was shocked, Pennsylvania hosted the debut of military sonic weapons against civilian protesters at the 2009 G-20 Summit. Known as Long Range Acoustic Devices (LRADs), these weapons have been used to disperse crowds in Iraq and repel pirates in the Gulf of Aden. They are more insidious than other so called less-lethal munitions because they leave no visible marks and can cause permanent hearing loss. While LRADs are relatively new in the United States, Tasers, rubber bullets and other potentially lethal weapons are altogether too readily used by law enforcement on civilians.

Statistics detailing the harm that Tasers cause might help curb their use. But accurate statistics do not exist. That is in part because medical examiners across the country are afraid of retribution by Taser International, the leading manufacturer of Tasers. The corporation has sued several medical examiners for listing their products as either contributing to or as being the official cause of death.

Coroners may, however, log deaths from Taser-related incidents in the National Association of Medical Examiners' "Death Registry" database in order to assist the National Institute of Justice identify deaths in which electric stun guns were used. This is just a start. The public should express outrage at the increasing use of electro-muscular disruption technology by law enforcement against civilians in any situation other than life-threatening ones.

San Francisco police chief Gascon gives up on arming officers with tasers

March 5, 2010
Jaxon Van Derbeken, San Francisco Chronicle

SAN FRANCISCO -- A day after the San Francisco Police Commission rejected his proposal to arm officers with Tasers, Chief George Gascón said Thursday he is giving up his push for the devices that he billed as a possible alternative to the use of deadly force.

The commission voted 4-3 just before midnight Wednesday not to give Gascón the go-ahead to develop guidelines under which officers could use the electronic stun guns, which would have been a first step toward adopting Tasers.

Opponents pointed to studies suggesting that the devices can kill people with heart conditions or even those who are otherwise healthy, and were skeptical of police promises that officers' use of Tasers would be sharply restricted.

In an interview Thursday, Gascón said he was "extremely disappointed" by the vote and would no longer press the matter.

"The majority of the commission has spoken loud and clear on this issue - they don't want to address it," Gascón said. "So we're going to just back off from it for the time being."

Chief researched incidents

Gascón, who had cited a study finding that as many as a third of 15 officer-involved shootings in a five-year period in San Francisco could have been avoided with Tasers, added: "Hopefully, there will not be any unfortunate incidents."

The Taser proposal was the first major policy initiative that Gascón had brought before the commission, which hired him on a unanimous vote last year on the recommendation of Mayor Gavin Newsom. Some of the commissioners who voted against the plan made it clear they felt the chief had overstepped his authority by not letting the panel be involved in vetting his idea.

Commissioner Petra DeJesus, one of three panel members appointed by the Board of Supervisors, said she refused to be a "rubber stamp" for the Police Department and Gascón, whom she accused of trying to circumvent a full review on whether the devices were safe to use on suspects.

DeJesus and the other commissioners appointed by the supervisors, Vincent Pan and Jim Hammer, joined Newsom appointee Yvonne Lee in rejecting Tasers.

Three backers on panel

All three votes in favor were cast by Newsom's other appointees - panel President Joe Marshall and Commissioners Thomas Mazzucco and David Onek.

During Wednesday's five-hour meeting, Gascón cited research by the Police Executive Research Forum think tank that found that police departments that adopted Tasers had dramatically lower rates of shootings and injuries than other departments.

But the commission also heard from two UCSF cardiology professors whose study of 50 police departments in California found that officer-involved shootings and deaths of suspects actually spiked during the first year of Taser deployment.

Other critics noted that roughly 400 people in the United States have died since 2001 after being hit with Tasers.

Hammer - who had attended a news conference Gascón held last week to push for Tasers - said Wednesday night that the UCSF study data had changed his mind.

He said almost half the department's 2,000 officers have not yet undergone training for dealing with mentally ill suspects, who he said were more likely to resist police orders and thus be hit with Tasers. Until those officers are trained, he said, he won't "rush into" adopting Tasers.

'He is the CEO'

Marshall, the panel's president, said he was bewildered by the vote.

"We brought him in there," Marshall said of Gascón. "He is the CEO, he runs the organization. He should be given the opportunity to try things."

Police union President Gary Delagnes called the commission's vote "political correctness run amok. Four people on the Police Commission obviously think that they know more than the experts in the field, more than the police chief.

"The next time someone in the city is killed, and it could have been prevented because of a use of Taser, the blood is on their hands," Delagnes said.

Gascón has cautioned that Tasers could not be used in lieu of guns in all situations, but he said he could easily envision situations where officers would use a Taser if given the choice. He said the commission's vote eliminated that possibility.

"What we're saying, is, 'You know what? We would rather you use a firearm and forget about the possibility of having this other option,' " Gascón said.

"I don't believe the commission is doing this to send any kind of personal message to me," he said. "But I think they are sending a message to the public and the organization at large. I'm not really sure what that message is.

"In the meantime, we've still got officers encountering situations out there with a tool bag that lacks all the tools that are available today."

Georgia: State doesn’t fund law for taser training

June 27, 2009
By Jeremy Redmon, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution

Georgia’s Legislature never funded a law it passed in 2006 that requires the state to train police on how and when to use stun guns, weapons families have blamed in the deaths of two Gwinnett County jail inmates.

For training, the state is instead referring local police departments to stun gun manufacturer Taser International.

The head of Georgia’s police training center says the state training would last at least eight hours longer and cover more than Taser’s lessons, including if and when officers should use stun guns on certain people such as pregnant women. Taser officials say they train police to use the weapons safely but leave it up to them to write policies on when and on whom they should be used.

At the same time, an increasing number of Atlanta area law enforcement agencies are equipping their officers with Tasers and adopting widely differing policies on when to use them. Some policies are stringent while others are less so.

“It would be best to have our own state training on that and to develop some sort of standardized policy with a recommendation of when to use a Taser and when not to,” said Frank Rotondo, executive director of the Georgia Association of Chiefs of Police.

Police promote stun guns as lifesavers that can help reduce injuries to officers and suspects. Critics, however, say the weapons are potentially lethal and can be easily abused since they sometimes leave no marks on suspects.

Police departments in Gwinnett and Fulton counties and in Alpharetta, Atlanta, Marietta and Sandy Springs use stun guns. Cobb County’s police department and sheriff’s office are planning to start using them this year. And DeKalb County’s police department is preparing to arm its officers with them this year after suspending their use in 2005, following the deaths of the two Gwinnett inmates.

When fired, some of the 50,000-volt stun guns have a range of up to 35 feet. They shoot barbed probes attached to wires that can shock a suspect for up to five seconds. The guns can also be pressed against suspects for a “drive stun.” The shock temporarily incapacitates suspects. Police officers who have voluntarily been stunned with the weapon say the pain is excruciating.

Burke Day, chairman of Georgia’s House Public Safety and Homeland Security Committee, said he sponsored the legislation in 2006 to show Georgia would not tolerate police misusing the weapons following the deaths of the Gwinnett inmates. The Legislature passed Day’s law with a provision that says the state would not be required to offer the training until it is funded. The Republican lawmaker said he doesn’t see a need for the state training now but is considering calling for a legislative study committee to review how police are using stun guns.

“If there were a red hot problem — because the state probably couldn’t afford to pay right now for the training — I would suggest a temporary moratorium on using” stun guns, said Day, Tybee Island’s former police commissioner.

A review of last year’s use-of-force reports from several Atlanta-area police departments shows that officers used stun guns successfully without seriously injuring or killing suspects.

But human rights activists continue to link the weapons to injuries and deaths across the country. Amnesty International USA, for example, claims it has identified 357 people who have died after being stunned with the weapons. Among them was Elier Carlos Rodriguez Escamilla, 27, who died in 2007 after scuffling with Gwinnett sheriff deputies. During the struggle, the Norcross man was shocked with a Taser at least once. Gwinnett’s medical examiner ruled his death was accidental and caused by a syndrome called “excited delirium.” A combination of cocaine, alcohol and physical exertion brought on during the scuffle were too much for his heart, Dr. Carol Terry said.

Taser spokeswoman Hilary Gibeaut said the number of deaths Amnesty International has linked to stun guns is inaccurate. She asserted officials have listed the weapons as a contributing factor in less than 50 deaths and as the cause in only two disputed cases.

“Taser International believes in good policies, training, guidelines, and accountability, which are paramount to have a successful Taser electronic control devices program to protect lives and avoid unwarranted injuries,” Gibeaut said in a statement. “Most would agree that Taser devices and other electronic control devices are safer than punches, kicks, swarms, baton strikes, canine bites, impact weapons or even rubber bullets.”

Several Atlanta area police officers interviewed for this article said the training they got from Taser was thorough. Officers pay the company $295 to attend a course that teaches them how to become Taser instructors who can return to their departments and train their colleagues.

To become instructors, the officers must complete an eight-hour online course and then spend an additional eight hours training with a Taser master instructor. The courses are offered in Georgia and at the company’s training academy in Arizona. At least one part of the training is optional: getting stunned with a Taser.

That would be mandatory in Georgia, however, if the state decides to fund its own training program, which could cost $1 million, said Dale Mann, director of the Georgia Public Safety Training Center. “You need to know what you are giving somebody else,” he said. He wants each officer to get at least 24 hours of training, compared to Taser’s 16-hour requirement.

Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley approved a law similar to Georgia’s last month; state officials are creating a training program there. Florida is now requiring officers to attend stun gun training based on state standards.

The Southern Christian Leadership Conference, which marched to the Gwinnett courthouse in 2005 after the deaths of inmates Frederick Williams and Ray Charles Austin, called the lack of state training in Georgia “outrageous.” The SCLC said Georgia should suspend the use of Taser stun guns until the state training is in place.

Meanwhile, some Atlanta area law enforcement agencies have adopted policies for using the weapons that do not mirror national standards. The Police Executive Research Forum, a national research organization created by police, for example, has issued guidelines for stun guns that say they should generally not be used on pregnant women, the elderly and young children unless there are urgent circumstances. Taser says in its product warnings that pregnant women and the elderly are “especially at risk.”

The research forum — which developed its guidelines with the help of more than 50 law enforcement agencies that use stun guns, as well as doctors, researchers and others — also says the weapons should not be used on handcuffed people, unless they are “actively resisting” or showing “active aggression.”

The Alpharetta Police Department’s policy is silent on whether to use stun guns on handcuffed suspects, pregnant women, children and the elderly. The Atlanta Police Department, which has assigned only seven Tasers to its SWAT team, has a policy that does not address using them on handcuffed or elderly people. The Gwinnett police and sheriff’s departments and the Fulton County Sheriff’s Office’s policies do not specifically address stunning handcuffed suspects, children or the elderly. Officials from these agencies, however, say they require their officers to document each time the weapons are fired so they can be monitored.

“As policy developers, we do not want to restrict the deputies from utilizing their discretion in determining the appropriate use of force needed based on their training,” the Fulton Sheriff’s Office said in a statement.

Taser International says more than 14,200 law enforcement and military agencies use its products in more than 45 countries. The Forsyth County Sheriff’s Office, however, has decided not to be among those agencies because of the lack of state training in Georgia.

“We train our people for everything else based on state requirements, so why not this?” said Forsyth Chief Deputy Robbie Hamrick. “We just want to make sure we are getting the best information and best training from someone other than the manufacturer.”

Hamrick added rhetorically: “Why don’t we let nobody but Smith & Wesson train you on how to shoot a gun?”


——————————————


How we got the story

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution started reporting on this article after Cobb County commissioners voted in April to authorize its Police Department to use confiscated crime money to buy Tasers for its officers. For this article, the AJC reviewed state laws and Atlanta-area police department policies and use-of-force reports and interviewed local police, state officials, human rights activists and representatives from Taser International Inc.

Oh good - another "independent" study

January 16, 2008

An "independent" study by the Police Executive Research Forum in the US, made up primarily of police chiefs, has concluded that more studies are necessary on the effect of Tasers on children and the elderly and that Tasers ultimately make it safer for police officers to do their jobs.

A study BY police, FOR police. Will it never end?