October 19, 2011
Robert A. Baker / The Post-Standard

Syracuse, NY -- Police in Syracuse and seven other police departments in New York are overusing and misusing Tasers and are inadequately trained in the use of the stun guns, the New York Civil Liberties Union said in a report to be released today.

Officers are using Tasers on people who are not a threat, targeting vulnerable areas of the body, administering excessive numbers of shocks and excessively long shocks, failing to give prior warnings, and using Tasers on vulnerable populations and a disproportionate number of people of color, the report states.

“If you look at Syracuse’s Taser policy, like most of the policies we reviewed, it does not comport with what experts say is appropriate use of Tasers,” Corey Stoughton, the report’s author, said.

The report calls for agencies to expand training beyond Taser International guidelines and for New York state to regulate and monitor Taser training and the use of force policies in departments statewide.

Syracuse Police Chief Frank Fowler declined to comment until he’s had a chance to read the report, which was embargoed until today.

The report, called “Taking Tasers Seriously: The Need for Better Regulation of Stun Guns in New York,” was based on 851 Taser-use reports filed by eight police departments across the state from 2005 to 2009. The departments are Syracuse, Albany, Glens Falls, Greece, Guilderland, Nassau County, Rochester and Saratoga Springs. The report, which The Post-Standard has received a copy of, will be released at 11 a.m. today.

The departments were picked for their size and each department has a liberties union office in the area, a spokeswoman said. The NYCLU also looked at the use-of-force policies and the Taser training procedures in the eight departments as well as the Monroe County Sheriff’s Office and the Suffolk County Police Department.

There are 350 law enforcement agencies that carry Tasers in New York, the report says. Two-hundred people, including a Central New York man, have died after being stunned by a Taser, according a U.S. Department of Justice statistic cited by the report. Tasers deliver up to 50,000 volts of electricity, either from probes that are shot from the gun or by placing the device directly against the skin of the target.

The report cited two Syracuse incident as examples of inappropriate Taser use:

•In 2009, a 15-year-old boy was hit by a Taser probe fired by a Syracuse police officer in an attempt to break up a fight at Fowler High School. The officer was aiming for another student. The NYCLU is representing the boy and his mother in a federal suit against the Syracuse Police Department. The family could not be reached for comment.

•A mentally ill man who was shocked at least a dozen times by three Syracuse officers using Tasers. Charges were never filed against the man, the NYCLU said. The NYCLU report calls the incident “particularly disturbing.”

According to Syracuse Police Department Taser-use reports on the incident, police were called a “mental complaint” Aug. 5, 2006, in the city. The 6-foot 2-inch, 260-pound, 53-year-old man refused officers’ orders to get on the floor. One officer noted that the man was “highly agitated” and “became combative” after a first use of the Taser had no effect. The report does not identify the man or say where the incident took place.

In the reports, the three officers gave their estimates on how many times they each used their Tasers: five to six times, three to six times and four to five times. After the Tasers were used, the man was admitted to a psychiatric hospital, the report states.

Although the advocacy group did not study cases involving the Onondaga Sheriff’s Office and the now-defunct Clay Police Department, incidents involving those agencies are singled out:

•The death in March 2008 of Christopher H. Jackson, who was pronounced dead after he was hit by a Taser used by a Clay police officer inside Jackson’s home in Norstar Apartments in Clay.

•The January 2009 use of a Taser on a mother in the town of Salina by Onondaga County sheriff’s Deputy Sean Andrews after the woman was pulled over in a traffic stop. The deputy pulled the woman from her van and used a Taser on her in front of her children. The incident made national news and the county settled a resulting lawsuit for $75,000.

The two cases were pulled from news stories because they are examples of the points the NYCLU is trying to make, Stoughten said.

In reviewing the Taser-use reports statewide, one statistic stood out, Stoughton said.

“Sixty percent of the reports had not documented information for using the Taser,” said Stoughton, a senior staff attorney with the NYCLU. “That’s crazy.”

Instead of being used as a non-lethal weapon of last resort, “you’re seeing Tasers being used as a pain compliance tool for people who are passively resisting or are restrained,” Stoughton said.

In Syracuse, 56 percent of the people involved in a Taser incident with Syracuse police were black. That is disproportionately high considering blacks make up 25 percent of the city’s population, the NYCLU said.

In Albany, where blacks make up 28 percent of the population, 68 percent of the people who were shocked were black. In Rochester, 48 percent of the people who were shocked were black. Blacks comprise 38 percent of that city’s population.

Each time a Taser is used, departments document the incident in a Taser-use form. While those forms are compiled, the NYCLU found “almost no police departments surveyed” required a review of the data to assess their Taser programs.

The Syracuse and Greece police departments “actively interfere with attempts to provide sufficient information” through the forms they use to report Taser use, the NYCLU said.

The form the Syracuse department uses to report Taser incidences has little room for officers to describe the incident, the NYCLU said. And, when the officers have room, they often neglect to justify why multiple cycles of Tasers on individuals were justified.

The report calls for greater oversight by the state on the use of Tasers and Taser training of police.

Misuse of stun guns is linked directly to inadequate use-of-force policies and inadequate training on the use of Tasers, according to the report. Most departments rely solely on training materials prepared by the manufacturer, Taser International, to train police, the report states.

“The training Taser International provides is, literally, how to operate the weapon,” Stoughton said. “It doesn’t cover appropriate use or the dangers of multiple and prolonged shocks.”

The U.S. Department of Justice and the Police Executive Research Forum both warn departments that they should not rely solely on the Taser training manual, “but it appears that’s what we do in New York State,” Stoughton said.

Taser stun guns: life-saving deterrent or lethal weapon?

July 11, 2010
Mark Townsend and Owen Bowcott, The Guardian

Human rights groups claim weapon police say they fired on Raoul Moat is responsible for hundreds of deaths in US alone.

Raoul Moat's death seems likely to challenge several aspects of British policing, most obviously the use of the Taser stun gun when a suspect is armed.

Tasers have consistently divided opinion: human rights groups claim they are "potentially lethal" and responsible for hundreds of deaths in the US alone; the Association of Chief Police Officers supports them, as having a significant deterrent effect.

The UK police remain one of the few services in the world that do not regularly carry firearms. Dangerous people can instead be subdued with a bolt from a Taser, designed to make them collapse.

Tasers fire two electric barbs up to 35 feet and deliver a disabling, 50,000-volt shock, which can penetrate clothing up to two inches thick. Their expansion over the past seven years has been impressive. Ministers announced that 10,000 Tasers would be issued to specially trained officers during the summer of 2008.

Yet the police remain acutely sensitive to public doubts. The Independent Police Complaints Commission recently introduced rules making officers forward all complaints about Tasers to the police watchdog.

Few will forget watching the chief constable of North Wales, Richard Brunstrom, screaming "bloody hell" in a 2007 video as he was stung by a Taser. Brunstorm managed 1.5 seconds. "That was long enough, thanks," he said.

Senior officers are keen to maintain that their use is only sanctioned in extreme situations, although new rules do allow Tasers to be used in less serious incidents if officers are facing violence.

Who ordered the weapons to be fired in Moat's case is far from evident. Perhaps the better question is why. A plausible scenario would be that those present thought Moat was about to kill himself. The Tasers could, in fact, have saved Moat's life.

Northumbria police, though, refuse to answer questions about when exactly the Tasers were used or why. A spokesman said: We are not discussing anything to do with Tasers."

A US police expert, Lieutenant Todd Faulkner, said earlier this year that the Taser should never be deployed during "a dynamic, deadly force situation", a description applicable to that facing officers surrounding Moat last Friday.

Last year the manufacturer, Taser International, warned against firing the weapons at anyone's chest area because of "the controversy about whether or not" they might cause harm.

Lawyers refute Taser firm’s inquiry challenge

July 10, 2010
By TAMSYN BURGMANN The Canadian Press

VANCOUVER — Taser International’s legal challenge of the Braidwood commission is not only baseless, but an abuse of process, a provincial government lawyer told a B.C. Supreme Court judge Friday.

Lawyer Craig Jones said the petition by Taser was such a "waste of precious judicial resources" that he may be making the unusual request for the court to award legal costs to the provincial government.

The weapons maker is "manipulating the courts" by saying its stun gun holds no risk of death in Canada, while asserting the reverse in the United States, Jones said in a written submission to the judge.

Earlier in the week, government lawyers pointed to a Taser training bulletin that recommends users aim the device away from the heart to "avoid the remote potential risk of cardiac effect."

But Taser countered that it has never admitted the weapons are dangerous, and that the phrase was simply inserted to prevent potential lawsuits.

Jones alleges the Arizona-based company changes its position to suit its local litigation needs.

"The Braidwood Report is making life difficult for Taser — it finds itself legally compelled to admit to risks it continues to deny in other contexts," the submission states.

"If it can get the report quashed on technical grounds related to procedural fairness its litigation strategy internationally will be advanced and its marketing efforts protected."

Taser is petitioning B.C. Supreme Court to throw out the portion of Commissioner Thomas Braidwood’s report about the safety of the stun guns.

The retired judge concluded the weapons can kill.

The public inquiry was called in the months after Robert Dziekanski was repeatedly jolted by an RCMP Taser and died on the floor of the Vancouver airport.

Braidwood commission lawyers refute Taser challenge

July 9, 2010
The Canadian Press

VANCOUVER — Lawyers for the B.C. government say weapon's maker Taser International's legal action against its commission is baseless and an abuse of process.

In a written submission to the court, government lawyer Craig Jones, says Taser is "manipulating the courts" by saying its stun gun holds no risk of death in Canada, while asserting the reverse in the United States.

Taser wants a B.C. Supreme Court judge throw out the part of Commissioner Thomas Braidwood's report that concludes the weapons can kill.

Braidwood's inquiry was called in the months after Robert Dziekanski was jolted by an RCMP Taser and died on the floor of the Vancouver airport.

Lawyers for the Arizona-based company and province wrapped their arguments Friday before Judge Robert Sewell, who reserved his ruling without giving a date for his decision.

Taser maker denies weapon poses risk for the heart

Taser International says a training document that appears to suggest its weapons pose a risk to the heart has been taken out of context.

The document was raised by B.C. government lawyers during Taser's legal challenge of a public inquiry report that suggested the weapons can kill.

A lawyer for the provincial attorney general says the training bulletin, issued two months after the report, amounts to an admission by Taser that its weapons pose a small risk -- effectively confirming what commissioner Thomas Braidwood concluded.
But in an affidavit filed with the court, co-founder Rick Smith says the bulletin was only designed to protect the company from potential lawsuits.

Smith says it was not an admission Tasers can affect the heart, despite the fact that the document recommends officers aim away from the heart because of a "remote potential risk of cardiac effect."

Taser wants the B.C. Supreme Court to throw out parts of a report released last year from the first set of hearings prompted by Robert Dziekanski's death at Vancouver's airport.

Manufacturer's 'fine print' on Taser's risks backs Braidwood

July 8, 2010
Keith Fraser, The Province

A B. C. government lawyer argued in court Wednesday that a training directive by Taser International undermines the company's argument that the Braidwood inquiry reached a faulty conclusion about the lethality of Tasers.

Craig Jones, representing the attorney-general's ministry, told B.C. Supreme Court Justice Robert Sewell that the September 2009 directive contains information that is in line with Braidwood's conclusion that the risk of Tasers causing death is low -- but nonetheless does exist.

"If you accept the risk of death by cardiac effect . . . then you agree with what Commissioner Braidwood found," Jones said.

Taser International Inc. "looked at the hard evidence and they came to exactly the same conclusion [as Braidwood]," he said.

The directive, released just two months after Braidwood's first report, is entitled "TASER Training Bulletin 15.0, Medical Research Update and Revised Warnings."

Jones said the bulletin went even farther than Braidwood in recommending how it should be deployed against human beings. "Aiming away from the heart was not among the commissioner's recommendations, though he recognized its value in training situations."

The government lawyer questioned why Taser is pressing its case if it doesn't disagree with the commissioner.

"It's hard to say why. Perhaps it is because Commissioner Braidwood's views were clear, plainspoken and widely and prominently disseminated, where Taser's own indistinguishable conclusion . . . is tucked away among fine print," Jones said.

The Taser admission renders the petition "futile" and thus unsuitable for judicial review, he argued.

Patrick McGowan, a lawyer for the commissioner, told the judge his role was "somewhat limited" but that he had lengthy submissions to make.

He argued that Taser's claims were based on a history of events that was "somewhat misconstrued" and "incomplete" and "the court is left with a potentially distorted and misleading context."

McGowan is expected to continue his submissions today. Taser International has filed a petition seeking to quash the findings in the Braidwood report. Earlier this week, the company's lawyer argued in court that its reputation was harmed by the Braidwood report and that its bottom line was negatively impacted.

Thomas Braidwood, a former judge, conducted two commissions of inquiry after the October 2007 death of Polish immigrant Robert Dziekanski at Vancouver International Airport.

Dziekanski died shortly after being Tasered five times by RCMP.

Inquiry only confirmed Taser's own warnings about weapon's risk, British Columbia argues

July 7, 2010
James Keller, Vancouver — The Canadian Press
The Globe and Mail

A public inquiry report that concluded a Taser jolt carries a small risk of death is entirely supported by the evidence and is actually confirmed by the “fine print” the company now attaches to its weapons, the B.C. government argued Tuesday as it defended the inquiry's findings in court.

Taser International is challenging the first report into the death of Robert Dziekanski, arguing commissioner Thomas Braidwood treated the company unfairly and then reached conclusions that weren't supported by the facts.

But a lawyer for B.C.’s attorney-general told a judge Tuesday the conclusion that a shock from a Taser has the capacity to affect the heart is confirmed by a training bulletin issued by the company last September — two months after the report's release.

The document, which received wide media coverage and prompted police forces across Canada to adjust their policies, recommended the devices be aimed away from the heart to “avoid the remote potential risk of cardiac effect.”

“This is what Taser says in the fine print,” B.C. government lawyer Craig Jones told a B.C. Supreme Court judge.

“And I'll show you that it's virtually identical to what commissioner Braidwood said. The difference is that commissioner Braidwood said it in plain spoken language and broadcast [it] more loudly.”

Mr. Braidwood's report, released last year, was the first of two from a public inquiry called after Mr. Dziekanski's death in October 2007, when he was confronted by RCMP officers at Vancouver's airport and stunned several times with a Taser.

Mr. Braidwood heard presentations in 2008 during several weeks of hearings examining the use of Tasers in B.C. and their safety.

In the end, he concluded a jolt from a Taser has the capacity to kill a person by causing a fatal heart arrhythmia, particularly when the weapon is used multiple times.

The report prompted Taser to ask a court to throw out all of Mr. Braidwood's findings about the safety of the stun guns and his subsequent recommendations, claiming the retired judge ignored dozens of medical studies provided by the company.

Taser also argues it should have had greater participation in the hearings and had a chance to review Mr. Braidwood's findings and respond before they were made public.

On Tuesday, Mr. Jones only spent a few minutes speaking to the judge before court finished for the day, but in written submissions, he rejected all of Taser's arguments.

Taser failed to prove Mr. Braidwood ignored any of the company's evidence, wrote Mr. Jones, and Taser's extensive participation was over and above what it was entitled to.

“The courtesies and accommodations extended to Taser — which was, in sheer volume of submissions, easily the most-prominent presenter — were extraordinary,” wrote Mr. Jones .

“For Taser to now [claim it wasn't afforded enough rights] seems not only wildly inappropriate legally speaking, but also incongruous with all the facts Taser itself asserts.”

Earlier in the day, the judge in the case asked Taser why its extensive involvement in the hearings wasn't enough to defend the stun gun.

Judge Robert Sewell noted the company's co-founder and several of its own experts appeared before the hearings in 2008, and they would have known other presenters had told Mr. Braidwood that Tasers pose safety risks.

“The petitioner in this case was well aware that one of the subject matters of the inquiry was the safety of Tasers, and, in fact, the petitioner in this case was given ample opportunity to appear before the commission and make submissions with respect to that question,” Judge Sewell told Taser lawyer David Neave.

“Wasn't he [Taser co-founder Thomas Smith] aware that presenters had made presentations to the commissioner that there was some indication [that Tasers could cause death]?”

The company couldn't have predicted Mr. Braidwood would conclude Tasers could be fatal because, Mr. Neave replied, none of the evidence presented at the inquiry supported that finding.

“Taser had no basis to believe that the commissioner would reach those findings,” said Mr. Neave. “Taser was entitled to notice.”

Taser claims the report has hurt its business around the world, citing it as the reason the company lost a multimillion-dollar contract in Africa earlier this year.

Mr. Braidwood's second report, examining Mr. Dziekanski's death in detail, was released last month.

That document chided the four RCMP officers involved in the man's death for using too much force and concluded the multiple Taser stuns likely played the greatest role in his death.

EDITORIAL: Taser International shooting itself in the foot

July 7, 2010
Victoria Times Colonist

Taser International's fight to suppress the Braidwood inquiry findings helps explain why the stun guns' implementation went so badly in Canada. The company is in denial. Taser International has been determined to battle -- through public relations and the courts -- any suggestion the devices can cause death. That is despite some 26 deaths in Canada after people have been tasered and more than 400 around the world. Despite an Amnesty International report that found Taser shocks caused or contributed to at least 50 deaths in the U.S. between 2001 and 2008. Despite the United Nations committee against torture finding that the stun guns could, in some cases, cause death.

And despite the company's advice to police forces last year not to taser people in the chest. The change "avoids the controversy about whether ECDs do or do not affect the human heart," it said, referring to electronic control devices.

The controversy appears to be largely in the company's mind. A cardiologist testified at the Braidwood inquiry that the stun guns could induce potentially fatal cardiac arrhythmia. (He also testified that when he reported his findings, Taser International asked him to reconsider his media statements and offered research funding.)

Taser International is arguing the Braidwood inquiry findings that the devices can cause death or serious injury failed to consider all the evidence. The company should have had a chance to review the inquiry report in advance, it maintains.

The evidence suggests it is wrong to insist the devices are completely safe. Taser International's refusal to acknowledge the risk has created trouble for the company and police forces that accepted the claims. Officers made decisions on Taser use based on the belief there was no risk. That led to inappropriate use, injuries, death and damage to respect for the police forces.

Acknowledging the reality would not mean an end to police Taser use. The devices remain valuable tools.

Any use of force by police involves risks. Tasers, used with proper guidelines, are a valuable alternative to firearms and a legitimate way to increase officer safety.

But Taser International's continued insistence on the devices' complete safety is wrong and destructive.

Canadian inquiry's Taser warning defended in court

July 6, 2010
Allan Dowd, Reuters

VANCOUVER (Reuters) - TASER International Inc issued the same safety warning about its stun guns as did a British Columbia inquiry, government lawyers said on Tuesday in urging a court to reject the company's bid to quash the findings.

The inquiry was launched after a Polish immigrant died in Vancouver's airport in 2007 after police shot him with a stun gun multiple times. The exact cause of his death has not been determined.

The inquiry's report warned that the weapons could be lethal, but Taser disputed the finding and said it had ignored evidence.

The U.S.-based company, however, included the safety warning in a product bulletin to police three months after inquiry commissioner Thomas Braidwood issued his report, provincial lawyer Craig Jones told the B.C. Supreme Court.

"The difference, I suppose, is that commissioner Braidwood did it in plain language, and it was broadcast more widely," Jones told British Columbia Supreme Court Judge Robert Sewell.

Taser's attorney told the court in Vancouver earlier on Tuesday that Braidwood's report had caused concern with customers around the world and it was hurting potential sales.

The guns, also known as conducted energy weapons, are designed to disable a target with a jolt of up to 50,000 volts of electricity. They are marketed largely to police but can also be bought by the public in the United States.

The weapon's supporters say it is a needed alternative to firearms, but critics say not enough independent safety testing has been done on the potential for the jolt to cause a human heart to suddenly fail.

Braidwood's report declined to order a ban or moratorium on the weapon, but it recommended police restrict when and how it was deployed until more medical studies were done.

Taser's 2009 bulletin also recommended police shoot the weapon's electricity-deploying darts at a person's back rather the chest, and avoid aiming for near the heart, government lawyers said.

Taser participated in the provincial inquiry and supplied witnesses, but it has told the court its right to fairness was violated when it was not allowed to challenge the findings before they were made public.

Government attorneys told the court Taser did not have any special rights in the case, adding that if its reputation had been damaged it was because of "scientific reality" and not because of the inquiry's actions.

Tame the Taser

June 26, 2010
By: Marilyn Baker, Winnipeg Free Press

Taser International is now advising customers not to aim at the "chest area" when zapping people.

Apparently you are supposed to aim lower. Yikes.

Maybe they're worried that the fallout from the Braidwood inquiry into the death of Robert Dziekanski will slow their sales a little. Mr. Dziekanski was Tasered five times moments before he died at the Vancouver airport in 2007.

More likely they're worried that one of these days a lawsuit from a bereaved relative will finally stick, and, somewhere on this continent, some judge will finally decide that, yes, Tasers kill. I won't hold my breath though. The company reportedly spends more on litigation than it makes in profit, and last year boasted that it had won its 100th dismissal of a liability lawsuit.

Someone should tell their lawyers that they still offer an item called Practice Target in the Accessories section of their website which shows the chest as the bull's-eye (US$6.95).

Speaking of their website, it's the very model of a modern Internet shopping site. There are choices for women (picture of young mother with adorable daughter) and law enforcement people, shopping carts to fill, twitters, blogs, even testimonials!

Their marketing is very good, as is demand for their products. In fact, according to their latest investor relations information, share prices have increased.

So, why the sudden reluctance for customers to aim at the chest? Until this recent acknowledgment that tasers can be dangerous, Taser International has been anything but squeamish about using this weapon.

They insist that when "used properly" (they provide a free training DVD), their weapons are low risk.

Amnesty International disagrees. They claim that 334 people have died in the United States following a tTaser zap (2001-2008). In Canada, a CBC report lists, by name, the 26 people who have died proximal to taser use since 2003.

But Taser International insists that a case can be made that without tasers more citizen deaths at the hands of the police might have occurred.

I would like to see evidence to support this proposition. But we may never know. According to former RCMP complaints commissioner Paul Kennedy, the RCMP have engaged in "systemic under-reporting" of taser use.

I am concerned that our police are using Tasers more often and multiple times on the same victim. They were to be used where the only alternative was deadly force, but are now being used on people who are "non-compliant."

Kevin Bogg, assistant deputy minister to the solicitor general ministry for B.C., has stated that "I am very concerned about 'slippage' in taser use, where it is being increasingly used in lower risk situations."

Also, Tasers cause intense pain. Whether death ensues or not, the victim experiences extreme agony. The United Nations has labelled the use of Tasers as torture.

Phase I of the Braidwood inquiry concluded that Tasers can kill. It contains several recommendations, including that Tasers be used only the most dangerous of assaultive Criminal Code behaviours, and that victims of a Tasering get immediate medical attention.

The Phase II report, released June 18, deals specifically with Robert Dziekanski's death and concludes that the RCMP use of the Taser was "shameful" and not justified.

Within an hour of the release of the Phase II report, the RCMP issued an unconditional apology to Mr. Dziekanski's mother for their role in the death of her son.

But Taser International also played a role. Unfortunately, the company does not accept that their stun gun can cause cardiac arrest. According to Rick Guilbault, Taser's VP of Training and Education, the carefully crafted message about avoiding the chest area, "where practical," is "risk mitigation, pure and simple."

I hope that Taser International will face the reality that their weapons do real harm and will revise its corporate and marketing culture.

I doubt it though. I wouldn't be surprised to see a backlash from them on the latest Braidwood report. They have a history of aggressive legal action in defending their products from liability.

This is a very complex issue. Tasers may well be an important part of the arsenal needed to fight crime. But our police need far more restraints, support, guidance and training than are presently given.

Commissioner Braidwood said, "I can't help but think that if the Taser was not there, they perhaps would have reverted to their former skills." Such skills include de-escalating situations and calming people down, not harming them.

I hope that the Braidwood recommendations are implemented by all police forces. Then perhaps Robert Dziekanski will not have died in vain.

EDITORIAL: Mounties' rule should apply here

May 7, 2010
Winnipeg Free Press

A decision by RCMP to restrict the use of Tasers to situations in a person is harming or about to hurt someone is a reasonable response to the worrisome creep in usage of the weapon. The stun gun no longer deserves the reputation nor the manufacturer's assurances that it is safe to use on just about everyone.

The use of force policy has been changed by the national police force to make it clear that a Taser is to be used only when an officer or someone else is under threat of physical harm. This tightens up an increasingly relaxed approach that saw the stun gun, the use of which fell between the baton and the firearm, become the favoured police weapon in confrontations. It allowed officers to restrain or gain compliance of individuals who may physically resist, resulting in injury. But the inquiry into the Taser-related death in 2007 of Polish traveller Robert Dzienkanski concluded that this operating procedure is risky, and medical evidence was growing that a stun gun could cause or contribute to death.

Bowing to the evidence, Taser's manufacturer last year revised its operating manual, instructing that the gun's probes be fired to hit the lower torso, avoiding the chest. Animal studies have shown that the electric shock across a heart could affect its function.

The Winnipeg Police Service has adopted some of the advice of inquiry commissioner Thomas Braidwood, but the force rejected adopting the Mountie's rule to restrict use of the Taser to people causing or about to cause bodily harm. Officers often must react instantly to dynamic circumstances and narrowing the use of force policy further was seen as too tightly tying the hands of police.

Statistics to 2008 indicated that the Winnipeg police were not part of the national trend of Taser usage creep. But the wording of the WPS's policy gives officers wider discretion in using a Taser, which can be used on those who are "actively aggressive or violent," according to a spokesman. The term "aggressive" is open to interpretation. It could describe someone who is verbally hostile or thrashing about, or someone with a weapon advancing on an officer or another person. In contrast, the Mounties' new standard restricts the stun gun's use to someone who is "causing bodily harm" or will "imminently" lash out.

The RCMP and other municipal forces have moved to tighten training and policies on Tasers, recognizing the risk that is carried by the massive jolt delivered to a person's body. Winnipeg police policy ought to reflect that, too.

Letter to the President of the United States

To: President Barack Obama
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Ave.
Washington, DC, USA 20500

Subject 21st Century Electronic Lynching

Mr. President,

This letter was written to express the protests of concerned Individuals, Civil Rights Organizations and activists who complain that our civil rights have been so eroded that it is now acceptable Police policy to use cruel and unusual punishment on a Citizen without due process of law. We the undersigned Citizens, Citizen Groups and Civil Rights Organizations, protest that the 4th, 8th, and 14th amendments of the constitution are being systematically violated by Police Officers using electronic torture devices on Citizens and non-Citizens.

Representatives of the company that manufacturers electronic torture devices lied to Police Officials when they told them that the devices had been tested and were found to be non-lethal. They bragged instead about the excruciating agony and terror caused by their use. It is impossible for the manufacturer to have tested these electronic torture devices with electrodes shot at different depths under a victims skin, and in all possible places on the human body, and for the extended times experienced in the field, also they could not have tested the devices on victims with various medical, physical and mental conditions. Had this happened there would have been many deaths of the test subjects. Instead, the company in effect used Police Officers as lab assistants and the public as lab rats for their tests, then they harvest Para-Medic and Medical Examiners Reports all for free. They scammed an all too willing law enforcement community with half truths and outright lies. The best estimate that we can find to date indicates that thousands of victims have suffered cruel and unusual punishment and 476 victims were tortured and died after being electrocuted with an electronic torture device in the US and Canada. Medical records prove many victims suffer neurological damages after being electrocuted with an electronic torture device by a Police Officer.

Michael Patrick Jacobs Jr., a bipolar 24-year-old black youth, who needed medical attention was tortured for 54 seconds with 50,000 volt electrodes shot into his neck and chest. He was not a criminal. His 21st Century Electronic Lynching was declared a homicide by the Tarrant County, Tx. Medical Examiner. After his taser torture death the taser manufacturer sent bulletins to all Police departments to direct Officers not to shoot a victim in the chest area to avoid causing cardiac arrest. This was after 12 years of vehemently denying that tasers could be lethal and after 424 prior taser related torture deaths. The inaccuracy of the devices gives Police Officers little control over where they will be shot into the flesh of a victim so each use is playing Russian Roulette with a victims life.

Mr. President, there is no more cruel and unusual punishment than being slowly electrocuted with 50,000 volts of electricity delivered under the skin. Please take the time to count down 54 seconds to understand just how long Michael Jacobs and thousands of others have suffered the agony of electrocution. The Nebraska Supreme Court ruled in 2009 that the 4 seconds of agony suffered by a convicted felon, before death occurred in the electric chair, was cruel and unusual punishment, and unconstitutional. Electrocution has been abandoned as a means of execution. Michael Jacobs who was convicted of nothing, cruelly and senselessly suffered the agony of being electrocuted with over 20 times the voltage (and pain) used in the electric chair, with a 50,000 volt barb shot into his neck and chest, for 13.5 times longer than a convicted criminal had to suffer in the chair before death happened. He suffered 54 seconds of agony before his young healthy heart was caused to fail. He is survived by two Fatherless Children and a grieving Mother and Father who blame themselves for calling for help to medicate their son and got him tased, tortured to death instead. Michael Patrick Jacobs Sr. wishes the Police had shot his son in the leg instead of torturing to him death. He said "at least he would still be alive." Google his name for the full story.

The complete Michael Patrick Jacobs Junior test is readily available to anyone who doubts that being tased for 54 seconds is cruel and unusual punishment and torture. Ft Worth, Texas has a Police Officer that is expert in administering it.

The 9th District Court made the ruling this past September that a taser could only be used when an Officer's life or the life of someone else was in danger. Police Officers train and by instinct do not use a taser in a life threatening situation, they use a lethal weapon just as they trained for and always have. This is backed by FBI records and we agree that a Police Officer is justified in using lethal force in defense of his life or to prevent harm of an innocent life. That said, any time a Government Official intentionally takes a citizen's life that act must be investigated and evaluated as to it's constitutional validity. In the 9th District Court ruling, the Judge declared that the use of electronic torture devices (tasers) causes severe pain and terror. By the very definition, severe pain and terror constitutes cruel and unusual punishment. The United Nations declared that the use of a taser against a victim is "a potentially lethal form of torture".

After the famous case of the Polish immigrant who was tortured to death in a Vancouver, British Columbia airport for failing to comply with police orders, the Canadian government made the ruling that tasers could only be used in life threatening situations. Again Police Officers do not use tasers in life threatening situations. On the news this evening a Police Officer shot a Pit Bull that was attacking him. He didn't use his taser.

The use of water boarding on terrorists was condemned by you, and high ranking members of The Democratic Party, as torture while it was being done on George Bush's watch and water-boarding produces no physical pain and is mild compared to electrocution with 50,000 volts of electricity under the skin. Our troops are sacrificing their lives every day for the avowed purpose of eliminating the use of torture and terror by our enemies while torture and terror is being inflicted on our own Citizens daily by Police Officers, without due process of law. No one is fighting for these tortured, terrorized Citizens. 41 percent of the torture deaths resulting from taser use in 2009 were black men and boys.

Mr. President, an 84 year old Grandmother and 10 year old children have been tortured with a taser by Police. One little 10 year old child was taser tortured in her home by an Arkansas Police officer because she refused to take a shower before bed time. Tear down this wall and end this terrible atrocity. 84 year old Grandmothers should not be made to live in fear and cringe each time they see a Police Officer. Be the President that is remembered in history as the President that ended barbaric torture and terror in the USA. Set the standard for all the world and issue an executive order outlawing the use of torture of any kind and especially electrical torture. Outlaw the possession, manufacture, sale, and/or use of electrical torture devices in the USA by anyone, including Police Officers, our Military and the CIA here and abroad. Return the dignity and respect to this Nation that we once had.

Signed
Kyev Tatum SCLC President
Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC) Texas
sclctarrantcounty@yahoo.com
kyevtatum@yahoo.com

Signed
Hector Carrillo LULAC District Director
League of United Latin American Citizens
hcarrillo29@hotmail.com

Signed
Deryl Muhammad--Representative
Nation of Islam
derylmuhammad@yahoo.com

Signed
Drew X
Chairman New Black Panther Party
drewx2003@yahoo.com

Signed
Tom Franklin
Pastor New Mt. Calvary Baptist Church
The Taser-Torture-Death Memorial Site
frenklinart@aol.com

Signed
Marcus Hardin SCLC Texas
Strategist, Researcher, Historian
mhardin104@aol.com
http://truthnottasers.blogspot.com/

Signed
Friendship Rock Missionary Baptist
A. Scott Harper
asharper35@yahoo.com

Signed
Eddie Griffin (BASG)
eddiegriffin_basg@yahoo.com
http://eddiegriffinbasg.blogspot.com/

Signed
Julie Walker
Prevent Dangerous Harm Inc.
jwalker@preventdangerousharm.com
www.preventdangerousharm.com

Taser killed Canadian teen Michael Langan - family sues Taser International

March 27, 2010
By Gabrielle Giroday, Winnipeg Free Press

The family of a Winnipeg teen who died after police stunned him with a Taser in July 2008 plans to sue the weapon-maker after an autopsy linked his death to the weapon, the family's lawyer said.

Autopsy results obtained by the Winnipeg Free Press say Michael Brian Langan, 17, died after police shocked him twice with a Taser in a city back lane in July 2008.

Police and witnesses said officers chased Langan down the lane after he broke into a car, and then shocked him after he refused to drop the knife he was brandishing.

The autopsy report says Langan's death was caused by a heart arrhythmia brought on by the Taser shocks.

The report indicates two darts hit Langan above his collarbone and on the left side of his chest.

Contributing to the death was a heart abnormality Langan had, as well as running from the police before he was shocked, says the report.

After Langan's death, his mother called on police to suspend their use of stun guns, saying she believed the Taser was connected to her son's death.

"This confirms it. There's no question about that," said lawyer Jay Prober, who represents Sharon Shymko, Langan's mother.

The report indicates Langan had injuries on his scalp, trunk and arms and legs as well as a high volume of alcohol in his system. The teenager also had marijuana in his system, the report says.

Prober said the family is planning a lawsuit that would "especially" target Taser International, the Arizona-based manufacturer of the stun guns Winnipeg police carry.

He said the family will also seek government funding to have counsel at the inquest into Langan's death.

"They don't have money," said Prober.

Taser International, which did not have access to Langan's autopsy report, issued the following comment Friday:

"TASER stands behind the safety of its products but it is our policy not to comment on a tragic death without having been provided any factual documentation whatsoever. We do know that TASER devices save lives and reduce injuries to officers and suspects," said the statement.

Dr. Thambirajah Balanchandra, Manitoba's medical examiner, said he has not called an inquest into the death yet because he is awaiting word from Manitoba Justice and the Winnipeg Police Service on whether criminal charges will be laid. Under the province's Fatality Inquiries Act, an inquest is called in all cases in which someone dies in an incident involving on-duty police.

"We're obviously waiting anxiously for dates (for the inquest) to be set," said Prober.

A spokesperson for Manitoba Justice said it has not received a request for funding yet from the Langan family.

"Should the family request funding when the inquest is called by the Chief Medical Examiner, their request will be considered in light of the policy currently being developed," she said.

The spokesperson said, in a prepared statement, the government supports the use of stun guns by police. "We believe that officers should have access to the best equipment possible in order to keep themselves and Manitoba communities safe.''

Prober said Langan's family still has questions about the teen's death which could be answered at the inquest.

"We know what the cause of death was, but what prompted the police to use the Taser in these circumstances?" said Prober.

"Was it one of those Tasers that emitted a stronger shock than it was supposed to?"

In October 2009, Taser International sent out a directive to people using stun guns to avoid targeting the chest area. Instead, the company encouraged them to stun the "lower centre of mass (below the chest) for the front of the body, and below the neck for the back."

"Should sudden cardiac arrest occur in an arrest situation involving a TASER electronic control device (ECD) discharge to the chest area -- plaintiff attorneys will likely file an excessive use of force claim against the law enforcement agency and officer and try to allege that the (stun gun) played a role in the arrest related death by causing ventricular fibrillation (VF), an arrhythmia that can be fatal without intervention," said a Taser release.

"The available research does not support this and demonstrates that while it may not be possible to say that (a stun gun) could never affect the heart under any circumstances, the risk of VF is extremely rare and would be rounded to near zero."

The Winnipeg Police Service also recalled 50 older models of the stun guns in December 2008, along with other police agencies in the country.

The move came after CBC News and Radio-Canada tested some X26 Tasers made before 2005 and found some delivered more electricity than promised.

Police told the Free Press in December 2008 there was no indication one of the recalled weapons was connected to Langan's death, but the possibility was being investigated.

Family of teen killed by Taser shock sues gun maker - Suit accuses Taser of failing to tell officers about danger of using device near chests

March 17, 2010
By Cleve R. Wootson Jr., Charlotte Observer

The family of a teenager killed after he was shocked with a Taser by a police officer in 2008 is suing the company that makes the electronic stun gun.

The civil suit, filed in federal court on Tuesday, says Taser International didn't warn its customers that the weapon could be lethal if deployed near the chest, which happened in Darryl Wayne Turner's case.

The suit, which does not list a specific monetary amount, says Turner's death could have been prevented if Taser International had also instructed police departments using the device to keep defibrillators nearby.

Turner, 17, died March 20, 2008, after a confrontation with police at a Food Lion store on Prosperity Church Road where Turner had worked.

After mediation, Officer Jerry Dawson was suspended for five days without pay and required to undergo additional training. The city of Charlotte paid $625,000 to Turner's family in August 2009, though the city didn't admit wrongdoing.

It was the largest police-related claim the city had paid out in nearly a decade, and the family's attorney, Ron Harris, indicated then that there could be additional litigation.

Tuesday's suit against Taser points to a 2006 study funded by the company that concluded that users should avoid discharging the Taser in the chest area. The suit alleges that company didn't warn its users to avoid shocking people in the chest.

"There was a wealth of information, from our perspective, available to Taser that indicated that there was an inherent problem related to deploying the Taser to the chest area," Harris said. "Despite the wealth of information available, they failed to warn their customers and those using the Tasers of the dangers."

Taser International could not be reached for comment Tuesday night.

Tasers use compressed nitrogen to shoot two tethered needlelike probes that penetrate skin and deliver an electric shock. The weapon is designed to subdue a person temporarily. CMPD has used the devices since 2004, including in the March 2008 incident involving Turner.

According to court documents, police were called after the store manager asked Turner to leave and he refused. Store surveillance video showed Turner at the customer service desk, knocking over a display and throwing an umbrella. He then moved closer to a store manager and employee, at one point raising his arm and pointing at the manager.

Later, the soundless video shows Officer Dawson entering the store with a Taser in his hand. Dawson approached Turner with the Taser pointed at him. Turner took a step toward the officer, and police say that's when Dawson fired the Taser. Turner continued to walk past the officer with the Taser probes in his chest.

Police later determined that Dawson violated department policy by holding the Taser's trigger for about 37 seconds, until Turner fell to the ground. Turner died from cardiac arrest.

An autopsy showed the teenager's heart was pumping so fast and chaotically from the stress of the confrontation and the Taser shot that it stopped pumping blood properly.

According to the CMPD report on the incident, a review board "determined that the initial decision to discharge the Taser was within our procedures, but the prolonged use of the Taser was not."

Judge fines Taser International; case moves to trial

March 15, 2010
By Jennifer Squires, San Jose Mercury News

SANTA CRUZ - A Santa Cruz County Superior Court judge denied a motion by a stun-gun manufacturer to dismiss a civil lawsuit filed by a man who claims he suffered permanent injuries after being shocked by one of the weapons in 2006.

Monday, Judge Jeff Almquist turned down the request by TASER International that would have ended the case. Almquist also fined TASER International $15,000 for delaying the court process, according to court documents.

Watsonville resident Steve Butler, now 51, is seeking lifetime medical costs in the suit. The trial is set for Aug. 2.

Taser International is so screwed ...

See excited-delirium

Tonight on CNN - Tasers under scrutiny after claims of death and injury

The giant south of the border awakens - slowly but surely ...

See an investigation into the potential health dangers of tasers on tonight's "Campbell Brown" on CNN tonight, 8 p.m. ET

By Dan Simon and David Fitzpatrick, CNN Special Investigations Unit

Watsonville, California (CNN) -- Sitting at the kitchen table in his small house, Steven Butler has trouble even with a very simple question. He cannot tell you the day of the week or the month, and he has to have the help of a calendar to tell you the year.

"Once a moment is gone, it's gone," said his brother and caregiver, David Butler says in an interview to air on tonight's "Campbell Brown". "He can't remember any good times, birthday parties, Christmas, any event."

On October 7, 2006, Steven Butler, by his own admission, was drunk and disorderly. He refused an order from a police officer in his hometown to get off a city bus. The officer used his Taser ECD (officially, an "Electronic Control Device") three times.

According to doctors, Butler suffered immediate cardiac arrest. He was revived by emergency medical technicians who happened to be close by, but his attorneys say his brain was deprived of oxygen for as long as 18 minutes. He is now permanently disabled.

Butler and his family have filed a lawsuit -- not against the police, but against the maker of the weapon, Taser International.

John Burton, a lawyer based in Pasadena, California, says he can prove that when the weapons are fired directly over the chest, they can cause and have caused cardiac arrest. In addition, Burton says he can prove Taser knew about that danger.

"Well, we can prove that by early 2006," said Burton, "but we suspect they had all the necessary data since 2005, since they were funding the study."

The study Burton mentions was published in early 2006 by the American College of Cardiology Foundation. Funded by Taser, it focused on pigs struck by Tasers, with the conclusions, according to the study, "generalized to humans."

The authors wrote that being hit by a Taser is unlikely to cause cardiac arrest, but nevertheless recommended Taser darts not be fired near the heart to "greatly reduce any concern for induction of ventricular arrhythmias."

Dr. Douglas Zipes, a cardiologist based outside Indianapolis, Indiana, plans to testify against Taser in any lawsuit regarding what happened to Butler. In plain English, he says, that recommendation is a clear warning.

"I think Taser has been disingenuous and certainly up to 2006 -- the case we are talking about -- Taser said in their educational materials that there was no cardiac risk whatsoever," Zipes said. "That Taser could not produce a heart problem, that there was no long lasting effect from Taser."

Medical experts say that if a person is hit by a Taser dart near the chest, one result is a dramatic increase in the subject's heartbeat -- from a resting 72 beats a minute to as many as 220 beats a minute for a short period of time. In its court filings, the company says the "peak-loaded" voltage from a Taser at impact ranges up to 40,000 volts but it's a 600-volt average for the duration of the firing.

In an e-mail, a spokesman for Taser said the company would not comment on any ongoing litigation. But in a court filing seeking to dismiss the Butler lawsuit, it said Taser devices "are repeatedly proven safe through testing, in human volunteers, in controlled, medically approved studies." There's no evidence, the company says, that being hit with a Taser causes cardiac arrest in humans.

But the company has significantly changed its recommendations for how Tasers should be used. Officers, it said, should no longer aim for the chest when using the device, instead targeting the arms, legs, buttocks.

Why the change?

A company document said "the answer has less to do with safety and more to do with effective risk management for law enforcement agencies."

In other words, say lawyers who have sued Taser, it means police are less likely to be sued if they avoid hitting subjects in the chest. In court papers, Taser says the risk of cardiac arrest is "extremely rare and would be rounded to near zero," but it adds: "However, law enforcement is left defending a lawsuit and disproving a negative, which is difficult to do."

"Out of one side of their mouth, they publish this warning, saying, 'Don't hit people in the chest if you can avoid it,'" said Dana Scruggs, an attorney representing Steven Butler. "And on the other side, in the lawsuit and in their public statements, they deny that their device can affect the human heart."

Nearly every big-city police department in the United States uses a Taser device. According to the company, more than 14,000 law enforcement agencies worldwide employ Tasers and more than 1.8 million people have had the weapon used on them since it was introduced into general law enforcement use in the 1990s. The human rights organization Amnesty International estimates more than 400 people have died as a result of Taser strikes.

Officially, it's not a gun. As an electronic control device, Tasers are not classified as a firearm. The devices are regulated by the Consumer Product Safety Commission.

"There's one thing that's undeniable -- that if I use my firearm, the chances are that you will suffer extreme injuries or death," said George Gascon, the newly installed police chief in San Francisco, California. "The chances are much greater of reducing injuries with a Taser."

San Francisco is one of three big-city police departments in the United States that don't use Tasers (The others are Detroit, Michigan, and Memphis, Tennessee). Gascon wants to change that. He supports use of the device but says to call it "nonlethal" is inaccurate.

"We have referred to the Tasers for many years as a less-lethal weapon," he said. "In the San Francisco experience, which we have to concentrate on, I have not said once that this is a nonlethal device because I believe it can be a contributing factor in causing death."

Read: Chief's Taser proposal rejected in San Francisco

Taser International is growing. Its latest earnings report says the firm made more than $100 million in profits last year by selling Tasers to both law enforcement and to individual consumers. And the company says even more police and sheriff's departments are lining up to purchase the weapon every day.

The company argues in Steven Butler's case that simply being in a stressful situation with police can bring on heart problems, and there's no link between being being hit with a Taser and the cardiac arrest.

For Steven Butler, greeting the mailman now is a highlight of his day. He doesn't dispute that he was drunk and disorderly when the officer tried to get him off the bus, but he and his family blame Taser for what happened to him. He says he's not frustrated or angry, just resigned to spending the rest of his life trying to remember what happened.

RCMP drafts wide-ranging changes to Taser policy following critical reports

February 15, 2010
By Jim Bronskill (Canadian Press)

OTTAWA — The RCMP plans a sweeping overhaul of its Taser policy following recommendations from inquiries prompted by the death of Polish immigrant Robert Dziekanski.

An internal briefing note obtained by The Canadian Press says the Mounties' policy centre on use of force recommends four dozen specific changes on stun gun use.

The note prepared for RCMP Commissioner William Elliott states that the force's review involved examination of two reports sparked by the death of Dziekanski, recent changes to Taser policy in Alberta and discussions within the national police force.

"Once the final (Taser) policy is approved, there will be an immediate impact on operations and training which will have to reflect the policy changes," says the November note, released under the Access to Information Act.

The briefing note states that although there has been preliminary consultation within the force and with partner agencies, "further consultations will be required in order to finalize the draft policy before being submitted to the commissioner for final approval."

Dziekanski, who hoped to join his mother in British Columbia, died in October 2007 after being hit with a Mountie Taser at the Vancouver airport. A video of the confrontation taken by a fellow air passenger, in which a confused, sweaty Dziekanski is zapped repeatedly, was seen by millions of people - triggering public outrage and a fundamental re-examination of stun gun use.

Over the last eight years, Tasers have become an increasingly common tool in the arsenal of police services.

Law-enforcement agencies say the tools, which can be shot from a distance or used in up-close touch-stun mode, are often a preferable alternative to pepper spray or batons when dealing with violent suspects.

Critics say police are using the powerful devices to make merely unco-operative people comply with orders even when they don't pose a threat to officers or bystanders.

Elliott maintains that the Taser is a useful tool for RCMP officers when used properly.

After looking into the Dziekanski case, Paul Kennedy, then-chairman of the Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP, said use of the Taser was "premature and inappropriate." He called on the Mounties to further clarify for their members and the public when a stun gun should be fired.

Former judge Thomas Braidwood, who led a B.C. public inquiry on Taser use, said while the guns can kill or gravely injure people, they can also be a valuable option for officers.

In an initial report, Braidwood said police should use a Taser only when someone is causing harm to another or there's a possibility they will imminently do so.

The B.C. government ordered all police in the province to severely restrict stun gun use, but the RCMP said it needed time to review Braidwood's report.

The RCMP briefing note to Elliott says a policy "revision document is being finalized for review by the commissioner that contains 48 specific recommended (Taser) policy changes."

Sgt. Greg Cox, an RCMP spokesman, said discussions on the new draft policy continue, adding he could not discuss details at this point.

Federal and provincial governments are working on national standards for Taser use, and it's not immediately clear how the latest RCMP revisions would tie in to such a cross-country policy.

The last major changes to the RCMP's national Taser policy took effect in February of last year.

However, there have been some revisions.

Following a bulletin from Arizona-based manufacturer Taser International, the RCMP last October issued an advisory that officers should try to avoid aiming a Taser at a person's chest. The company denied the bulletin was an admission the weapons could trigger heart problems, only that limiting the target zone would help "avoid any potential controversy on this topic."

The RCMP also began training officers last year on a revised system for dealing with incidents involving suspects.

The step-by-step system guides officers in their dealings with people from the point they arrive on the scene to possible use of force, including physical contact and weapons such as the Taser or a conventional firearm.

Did Court Deal Fatal Blow to Tasers for Police?

January 10, 2010
New America Media, Commentary, Raj Jayadev and Aram James

In what is being heralded as a landmark decision, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently declared that police officers could be held liable for using a Taser without proper cause. And in making their determination, the court also set new legal parameters on how law enforcement is to use Tasers, stating, "The objective facts must indicate that the suspect poses an immediate threat to the officer or a member of the public." The federal finding substantially changes the landscape of Taser usage, and may signal the end of Tasers for law enforcement agencies who are now more vulnerable to civil and criminal action then ever before.

The decision, which has already caused law enforcement agencies to re-evaluate their Taser policies, stems from a case involving a Coronado police officer, Brian McPherson, who tased unarmed 21-year-old Carl Bryan during a traffic stop for a seatbelt infraction in Southern California. After being pulled over, Bryan was standing outside of his vehicle, wearing only boxer shorts and tennis shoes. He was 20 to 25 feet from the officer, and when tased, fell face first to the ground, fractured four teeth, and had to get the Taser prongs removed with a scalpel. Bryan went on to sue the Coronado Police Department, and the federal appellate court was making a determination if McPherson had immunity to the lawsuit as an officer. The court ruled in favor of Bryan.

And while any regulation on Taser use is a move forward from the status quo, which repeatedly has left civilians tased for innocuous circumstances, and the decision acknowledges some of the inherent dangers of the weapon, it falls short in a most critical way. The instruction is based on a false premise that Tasers “fall into the category of non-lethal force” as stated in Judge Wardlaw’s written opinion. By denying the lethality of Tasers, the court mistakenly treats Tasers as an intermediary weapon, like a baton, when it should be treated as a deadly weapon, like a firearm.

According to Amnesty International, there have been more than 350 deaths due to Tasers. In San Jose, which was the first city to arm every one of its officers with the weapon in 2004, there have been six Taser-involved deaths, more than a death a year since its inception. Currently, the city is facing a $20 million lawsuit from the family of one of the more recent victims, Steve Salinas. The unarmed Salinas was tased to death in his motel room in 2007. Like Bryan, Salinas’s ultimate tasing originated from a minor starting point: police were called to the scene due to allegedly loud noises emanating from the room. Salinas, who was naked at the time, died in the room shortly after the police arrived.

The growing body count attributed to Tasers refutes the commonly accepted advertisement from its leading manufacturer, Taser International, that Tasers are a non-lethal option for officers. Furthermore, the unreliability of the weapon to bring down its target makes it dangerous even for officers who may be in a situation requiring deadly force. According to a San Jose Mercury News study of the San Jose Police Department use of Tasers in 2007, Tasers in dart mode are only effective 70 percent of the time in bringing down their target, and in stun mode only 60 percent of the time.

The Taser consequently is left in a state of limbo. Its capacity to unintentionally kill leaves it too dangerous to use in non-lethal circumstances, say when an officer would use an intermediate weapon, such as pepper-spray or a control hold. Yet, due to its unpredictability to subdue a target, using a Taser would not be a gamble an officer would want to bet on if his or her life were in jeopardy.

The Bryan case, where the subject is unarmed and charged with a minor infraction or misdemeanor, is more the rule then the exception according to recent studies. In a Houston Chronicle study of Taser use by the Houston Police Department in a two-year span, officers deployed the weapon more than 1,000 times, but in 95 percent of those cases the subject was unarmed. The study also found that more than 50 percent of the Taser incidents escalated from relatively common police calls, such as traffic stops, disturbance and nuisance complaints. In more than a third of the incidents, no crime was charged or prosecuted.

In October 2009, in a tacit admission of the inherent dangers of Tasers, Taser International began telling police agencies to avoid firing the devices at suspects' chests. In a revision of their usage manual, they write, "Should sudden cardiac arrest occur in a scenario involving a Taser discharge to the chest area, it would place the law enforcement agency, the officer, and Taser International in the difficult situation of trying to ascertain what role, if any, (the device) could have played.”

It was a tactic reminiscent of the tobacco industry putting warning labels on cigarette packs. The action does not change the harm of the product, but rather is intended to create a layer of insulation from civil action.

In June 2008, a jury in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California ordered Taser International to pay $6.2 million in damages to the family of Robert C. Heston. Heston, of Salinas, Calif., had died after being hit by Tasers by Salinas police officers. Shortly after the decision, Taser International stocks plummeted, hitting its lowest numbers in a year. The jury, however, did not fault the police department, finding that Taser International did not instruct the officers properly on how to use the weapon. Having lost a major civil action, and knowing that other lawsuits would follow, Taser International scrambled to fend off civil action by deploying a revised usage policy.

But it is impossible to create a safe policy for an inherently unsafe weapon, just as it is impossible for the tobacco industry to create a safe way to smoke cigarettes.

And criticism has even come from the law enforcement community itself. Ray Samuels, former Newark police chief, turned down the offer to bring Tasers into his city in 2005. In explaining his position, which he has gone on to share with other city administrations that are considering the weapon, he wrote, "What scared me about the weapon is that you can deploy it absolutely within the manufacturer's recommendations and there is still the possibility of an unintended reaction. I can't imagine a worse circumstance than to have a death attributed to a Taser in a situation that didn't justify lethal force."

The decision of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals should send a clear message to the police and the cities that they work for that civil action is now a reality every time the Taser is drawn.

Raj Jayadev is director of Silicon Valley Debug. Aram James is a retired Santa Clara County public defender and a co-founder of San Jose’s De-Bug Legal Advocacy Clinic.

Tasers should be banned: STU prof

Criminology professor Michael Boudreau says recent events should set off alarm bells for law enforcement

FREDERICTON - The writing may be on the wall for taser use in Canada, says a criminology professor at St. Thomas University.

Michael Boudreau said if the findings of The Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP, which examined the use of an RCMP taser against Robert Dziekanski at Vancouver's airport in 2007, doesn't lead to the abandonment of the weapon, then it's here to stay.

"It (the writing) should have been on the wall a long time ago," Boudreau said yesterday. "If these two incidents don't lead to the abolition of tasers then, unfortunately, nothing will."

Earlier this week, chairman Paul Kennedy released the commission's report into the circumstances of Dziekanski's death.

The findings criticized practically all aspects of the RCMP officers' response to Dziekanski, who was extremely agitated at the time, as well as their actions afterwards.

The report found that the force's use of a taser against the Polish immigrant was "inappropriate" and the explanations of the four officers involved were not credible.

RCMP were called to the airport after the non-English speaking Dziekanski, who had arrived from Poland nearly 10 hours earlier, began throwing furniture in the international arrivals area. He died after being stunned five times with the taser weapon.

Boudreau said Kennedy's report, combined with another from taser International, which warned police not to fire the weapon at the chest area, should set off the alarm bells needed for final action.

"It highlights that tasers are not an effective weapon for defusing a situation," he said. "I think he made that quite plain and quite clear in his report. Even though he did not necessarily call for it -- (but) if you read between the lines -- it's time to stop using the tasers across the board, whether it's RCMP or local forces. They have just proved to be a very unreliable and dangerous weapon."

But Tim Quigley, a former assistant commissioner with J Division RCMP in Fredericton, disagrees.

He believes tasers can still be an effective tool when it comes to police work.

"It is clearly something that has to be heavily regulated and there has got to be strict policies," Quigley said. "When used properly they can be an alternative to lethal force, like firearms."

The former assistant commissioner said there is always a possibility of overreacting, such as doing too much or going too far, but that does not mean there is no place for tasers in police work.

"There have been some terrible incidents, some tragedies but they've been used successfully and appropriately used and, I think, to a positive end, in thousands and thousands of cases," Quigley said. "I think it is important to focus on that, as well."

Roy Berlinquette, another former assistant commissioner at J Division said he believes there is still room for the taser in a police officer's tool kit.

But, he cautioned, there has to be controls and proper training for those who use it.

"You give someone a loaded revolver, you got to make sure that they're trained to use it and they have to be accountable for its use," he said. "It's got to be used responsibly."

* With files from Canadian Press.