Talking about tasers

October 7, 2010
Emma Ryan, ABC News

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Australia: Police work on national Taser guidelines after Sydney death

October 7, 2010 (where it's tomorrow already down-under)
The Australian

NATIONAL rules for the safer use of Taser stun-guns are being drawn up by state and territory police commissioners.

The federal government is pushing for a standard approach to policing with the electro-shock weapon, which was linked to the death of a Sydney man this week.

Home Affairs Minister Brendan O'Connor said yesterday the Australian New Zealand Policing Advisory Agency was drawing up national guidelines for Taser use, to present to the nation's police ministers early next year.

"The Gillard government is keen to ensure that the highest standards are achieved and that all jurisdictions agree to work together to achieve nationally consistent standards on the use of electronic shock devices," he said.

Police unions, too, are drawing up their own version of national guidelines to present to their police commissioners.

Police Federation of Australia chief executive Mark Burgess said national rules would protect the public as well as police. "You won't have conflicting issues from state to state," he said yesterday.

Australia's police forces have purchased nearly 7000 Tasers -- which can deliver a 50,000-volt shock -- in the past three years.

But rules over their use vary dramatically from state to state, with only Western Australia, Queensland, NSW and the Northern Territory issuing them to frontline police.

The use of Tasers is restricted to specialist police units in Victoria, Tasmania and the ACT.

In South Australia, the weapon is being rolled out with one for each police car.

Mr Burgess said all frontline police should have access to Tasers, to use under threat of "serious violence". He said they should not be restricted to life-or-death situations.

"It's about when someone is threatened, be it a police officer or a bystander or a person about to inflict self-harm," he said. "Do people expect police to get punched up first before they use these things? They shouldn't have to."

Australian Council of Civil Liberties president Terry O'Gorman called for national rules to prevent police abusing the use of Tasers.

"State and territory police use and misuse it, and there's no federal oversight," he said. "Police ministers will go national when they want to increase their powers, and now it's time for national controls to be introduced to prevent the growing misuse of Tasers."

Analysis: Taser-related deaths in US accelerating

September 5,2010
Daniel Tencer, The Raw Story

The rate of deaths in Taser-related incidents is rising as police forces ncreasingly adapt the conducted energy weapons, a Raw Story analysis finds.

A 2008 report (PDF) from Amnesty International found 351 Taser-related deaths in the US between June, 2001 and August, 2008, a rate of just slightly above four deaths per month.

A database of Taser-related deaths maintained at the African-American issues blog Electronic Village counts 96 deaths related to the use of Tasers since January, 2009.

Assuming the statistics are correct, that indicates the death rate has increased to an average of five per month.

Electronic Village counts the 96th Taser-linked death as being that of Adam Colliers, a 25-year-old resident of Snohomish County, Washington, who was reportedly "running up and down" a street and causing a disturbance when he was Tased by two officers. He stopped breathing shortly afterwards, and was pronounced dead in hospital a short while later.

It was the second Taser-related death, and the fifth death in a police encounter, in the Seattle area over the past week.

Truth Not Tasers, which maintains an extensive list of deaths linked to conducted energy weapons going back to the 1980s, says Colliers is the 507th person in the US to die in incidents linked to the weapons.

Electronic Village reports that Tasers "are now deployed in law enforcement agencies in 29 of the 33 largest US cities."

But, the blog notes, "the tide may be turning."

As taser-related deaths and injuries have continued to rise (as well as the amount of Taser litigation), many departments are starting to abandon the weapon in favor of other means of suspect control. Currently, Memphis, Tennessee, San Francisco, California, and Las Vegas, Nevada have opted to ban the use of tasers by law enforcement. Additionally, a federal court has ruled (PDF) that the pain inflicted by the taser gun constitutes excessive force by law enforcement. The courts don't want police to electrocute people with their tasers unless they pose an immediate threat.

Amnesty International notes that efforts to determine the lethality of Tasers are being frustrated by the weapon's manufacturer, Taser International.

"Medical studies so far on the effects of Tasers have either been limited in scope or unduly influenced by the weapons' primary manufacturer," the group states.

"Given the unresolved safety concerns, Amnesty International recommends that police departments either suspend the use of Tasers and stun guns pending further safety research or limit their use to situations where officers would otherwise be justified in resorting to firearms," Amnesty says.

Australia: Target unarmed most of the time Tasers used in controversial trial

July 9, 2010
DYLAN WELCH, Sydney Morning Herald

Only one-third of people stunned or threatened with Tasers by NSW police were armed at the time during a controversial 2008 trial of the weapon.

When he announced the trial the Police Commissioner, Andrew Scipione, said the weapon would be a valuable replacement to the use of lethal force by police, but data obtained under Freedom of Information shows that most of the time Tasers were used the target was unarmed.

The new statistics come as Greens MP Sylvia Hale, in a letter to the Minister for Police, Michael Daley, called for an inquiry into the trial and resultant cover-up and for Mr Scipione to stand aside.

She based her letter upon documents obtained by the Herald in an investigation into a Taser trial between 2008-2009 that was designed to assuage community concern about the weapon.

"I recognise that ministers are very dependent upon advice provided by senior public servants when adopting significant public policy initiatives," Ms Hale wrote. "It is imperative, therefore, that that advice be accurate, timely, and evidence-based. Regrettably, the documents released, albeit very reluctantly, to the Herald indicate that Commissioner Scipione's advice failed to satisfy those criteria."

Tasers were introduced to NSW police in 2001 but were used only about 50 times by two specialist units until the 2008 trial, when sergeants and inspectors at each of the 80 police commands were given access.

Today 8000 police officers are trained to use the weapon. Since its introduction, 26 officers have been disciplined for not following police operating procedures, and the NSW Ombudsman has received 14 complaints.

Senior police have defended the continued use of the weapon, saying it is a vital policing tool; and the trial, saying it was broadly "successful".

The Herald can also reveal that in five cases a Taser was drawn from its holster because the target was described as a Pacific Islander and considered too big to be arrested by other means, according to internal trial documents.

In none of those cases were the targets, or persons of interest (POIs) as described by police, armed with a weapon. "Police called to location as male was aggressive with hospital staff and is a 180cm and 130 kilogram Pacific Islander. Upon Taser being drawn POI complied with police direction," one brief record of an incident in October 2008 states.

Despite the statements by Mr Scipione that the weapon was an important alternative to lethal force, the target has a weapon in only a third of all 397 cases where the Taser was drawn from its holster.

In the other 263 cases police used the Taser to threaten or stun people who had no weapon. In the majority of those people threatened police with unarmed violence. But in a small number of cases, there was no violence or threatening behaviour at all, according to the documents. In one case a man had a Taser aimed at him after he was the subject of a noise complaint. In another a man was threatened with the weapon after he resisted arrest when police discovered him and a woman having sex in a parked car.

In a January 2009 police were chasing two men who had been involved in an "altercation" when the men stopped and "confronted" the officers.

"One male refused to comply with police direction to show his hands," a brief description stated. "The Taser was deployed and the male was arrested and charged."

American police accused of using a Taser on an 86-year-old, bed-ridden grandmother

June 27, 2010
By Mail Foreign Service

American police have been accused of tasering an 86-year-old bed-ridden grandmother.
Lonnie Tinsley called the emergency services to his home in El Reno, Oklahoma, when he became concerned that his grandma Lona Vernon had failed to take her medication.
But instead of a medical technician, he claims at least a dozen armed police officers answered his call.

Police in El Reno, Oklahoma, have been accused of tasering an 86-year-old grandmother
When Mrs Vernon ordered the police from her house, officer Thomas Duran allegedly decided she was being 'aggressive' and gave the order: 'Taser her.'

Her alarmed garndson, is then said to have replied: 'Don't taze my granny!'

According to a lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court, Tinsley’s 'obstructive' behaviour prompted the police to threaten him with their tasers.

He was then was assaulted, removed from the room, thrown to the floor, handcuffed, and detained in a police car.

At this point, the heroes in blue turned their attention to Lona.

According to officer Duran’s official report, Mrs Vernon had taken an 'aggressive posture' in her hospital bed.

In order to ensure 'officer safety', one of his men 'stepped on her oxygen hose until she began to suffer oxygen deprivation'.

Another of the officers then shot her with a taser, but the connection wasn’t solid.
A second fired his taser, 'striking her to the left of the midline of her upper chest, and applied high voltage, causing burns to her chest, extreme pain', and unconsciousness.

Lona was then handcuffed with sufficient ruthlessness to tear the soft flesh of her forearms, causing her to bleed.

After her wounds were treated at a local hospital, Lona was confined for six days in the psychiatric ward at the insistence of the El Reno Police Department.

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.

EDITORIAL: Belated RCMP stun gun rules

May 6, 2010
Editorial
The Toronto Star

Are police reaching for their stun guns too often? Baseball fans in Philadelphia, the “city of brotherly love,” think so. They roundly booed a cop who stunned Steve Consalvi after the 17-year-old dashed onto the field Monday waving a club fan towel.

Public concern about “usage creep” isn’t limited to the United States. Canadians were appalled when Robert Dziekanski died at the Vancouver airport in 2007 after the Royal Canadian Mounted Police stunned him repeatedly. And there have been other ugly incidents.

Given all this, RCMP Commissioner William Elliott did well to tighten the rules this week.

From now on the Mounties will use stun guns only if a person is “causing bodily harm” or if there are “reasonable grounds” to fear that he or she “will imminently” cause harm, the force says. This is a welcome narrowing of the rules, though it stops short of requiring a severe threat to life and limb. The previous, overly permissive rules set the bar at any “threat to officer or public safety.”

The new rules also require officers to issue a verbal warning first, when feasible. They caution officers generally to restrict jolts to 5 seconds or less and to avoid multiple jolts. And they point out that the stun gun is “not intended as a restraint device.”

With these changes the RCMP finally has a policy that reflects its own view that stun guns put some people “at a high risk of death.” Other police forces should pay heed.

Ontario Community Safety Minister Rick Bartolucci recently felt compelled to remind police that, “where possible,” the 50,000-volt weapons ought not to be used on the elderly, pregnant women, young children, and people in handcuffs, among others.

Welcome as the new RCMP rules are, Elliott is a late convert to prudence. As the Star noted in an editorial last year, on his watch the force brought in new rules on Feb. 3, 2009 that watered down aspects of a previous, tougher policy. The requirement to shout a warning was dropped. So were rules against multiple jolts and restricting jolts to 15-20 seconds.

Whatever caused the change of heart, it’s a good thing that the older, tougher rules have been reintroduced, and improved upon.

Mounties restrict Taser use

May 5, 2010
Jim Bronskill, The Canadian Press

OTTAWA — The Mounties say that from now on they will fire stun guns at people only when those people are hurting someone or clearly about to do so.

Accused of relying too heavily on Tasers, the RCMP introduced new policies Tuesday to restrict their use to nipping violent confrontations in the bud.

The revamped operational manual says officers should limit Taser use to incidents in which a person is "causing bodily harm" or will "imminently" lash out.

Bob Paulson, an assistant RCMP commissioner, said the threshold is more specific than the previous one, defined as "a threat to officer or public safety."

"We feel that this is more precise," he said in an interview.

The directive mirrors a recommendation from former judge Thomas Braidwood, head of a B.C. public inquiry on Taser use prompted by the death of airline passenger Robert Dziekanski.

The RCMP changes come in response to the B.C. inquiry, new Alberta guidelines and persistent criticism from human-rights advocates that the Taser was often being used to make people obey police commands, not to defuse the most serious threats.

The new RCMP policy says that when possible, Mounties should warn suspects they are about to be zapped.

The policy continues to advise that multiple firings of the Taser may be hazardous. It also reinstates direction that officers must not use the stun gun for more than five seconds on a person and should avoid multiple stuns unless truly necessary.

It also calls for better records on Taser use and more testing to make sure the devices are operating correctly.

The RCMP now issues quarterly reports on Taser use but they lag a year behind.

"It’s not timely enough," said Paulson. "It’s not acceptable and we’re going to improve that."

The RCMP watchdog, which has sharply criticized the force’s stun-gun policies, welcomed the announcement as a "significant improvement."

Restricting Taser use to the "clearly defined threshold" of bodily harm should help reduce the risk of "usage creep" — the tendency to stun people as a convenient means of making them comply, said Ian McPhail, interim chair of the Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP.

Revealed: The shocking truth about Tasers

March 7, 2010
Jason Bennetto, Mail Online

The smartly dressed sales executive travelling on the number 96 bus across Leeds didn't notice his body descending into a state of severe hypoglycaemia.

He didn't have time to ask his fellow passengers for help, or press the bell. Instead he slumped back in his seat in a diabetic coma, his head lolling from side to side.

This was why he wore a special tag and chain around his neck: it advertised his diabetes. His mother and father, both retired GPs, had encouraged their son to wear it ever since he had started having to take insulin 20 years earlier.

Nicholas Gaubert had been looking forward to a drink with friends in the suburb of Headingley after work. Instead he was critically ill, unconscious on the top deck of a bus continuing its route north through the early evening rush-hour traffic.

Some 40 minutes later, it terminated at the Holt Park depot and the driver checked his vehicle. He was used to turfing drunks off the night bus at weekends, but it was Wednesday and the man apparently fast asleep on the top deck was far from dishevelled.

On another evening, the driver may have reacted differently, but the timing tonight was bad for Gaubert: just six days after the July 7, 2005 London bombings and one week before the fatal shooting of the Brazilian Jean Charles de Menezes by police firearms officers. Paranoia and suspicion, especially on public transport, were rife. And Gaubert had a rucksack.

So the driver kept his distance and shouted at him to wake up and leave. When Gaubert failed to stir, the driver climbed off the bus and told his superiors, who cleared the depot and called the police.

The nearby Asda supermarket was evacuated and an armed unit was called. Eight firearms officers were sent; three entered the bus. The white male didn't look like a textbook terrorist and the bus was empty and far from the city centre.

But he was sweating profusely, wouldn't respond to their shouted orders and they couldn't see his hands, so an officer pulled his X26 Taser stun gun out of its holster, flicked on the 50,000-volt electric gun's red dot laser sighter and pointed it at him. It was the first time a West Yorkshire officer had deployed a Taser.

The man was well within the 21ft range so, when he still failed to respond, the officer shouted a final warning and squeezed the trigger.

Two 20mm-long metal barbs attached to plastic-coated copper wires shot instantly and noiselessly from the barrel. The barbs penetrated Gaubert's cotton shirt and embedded themselves in his skin.

For five seconds there was a crackling noise as the electricity shot down the wires and discharged into his body. Gaubert's body went into uncontrollable muscle spasms and he fell from his seat.

He landed face down on the floor with one hand under his body. The police shouted again for him to show his hands but he still didn't move; so the officer pulled the trigger for a second time.

Another wave of electricity surged down the copper wires and tore into him. (At the subsequent inquiry, the officers would claim they had to stun Gaubert again to make sure it was safe to approach him).

Finally they got hold of him, put on handcuffs and put him into the back of a police van - which is when he regained consciousness and was able to shout that he needed urgent medical attention. He was taken to Leeds General Infirmary.

'I shudder to think what could have happened if I hadn't come round,' says Gaubert. 'They would have put me in a cell and I would probably have died. I was in a diabetic coma, and all they were bothered about was whether I was going to blow up an empty, stationary bus.

'I showed no aggression - I was unconscious and unable to respond to their demands. I think they just saw it as an opportunity to try out their toys.'

Gaubert has since become what is believed to be the first person in the UK to obtain compensation for being shot with a Taser.

West Yorkshire Police has confirmed that it made an out-of-court settlement - thought to be tens of thousands of pounds - and an apology, after a civil action brought against them.

No such apology was received by the 89-year-old war veteran who last year became the oldest person in the UK to be stunned with a Taser.

Three weeks before this incident, the retired carpenter had gone into a residential home for the elderly in Llandudno, North Wales. But the confused man, who has not been named, was determined to return to his family home, just a few minutes' walk away.

As the sun rose on a chilly Saturday morning in January he climbed out of a window at the care home and wandered the empty residential streets clutching a shard of glass. At 6.30am a police officer knocked him to the ground with a 50,000-volt Taser charge.

North Wales police later said their officers feared he would commit suicide using the broken glass. But the pensioner's sister-in-law told Live: 'He was frightened to death and was hiding behind cars. He told us that he held a piece of glass to his throat because he was afraid of the police - he wanted to keep them away.

'He said afterwards: "I would never have cut my throat." And that when he was hit by the Taser the pain was terrible.

'He fell to the floor and was handcuffed. It's awful that the police should end up shooting an old gentleman of his age.'

His daughter-in-law adds: 'They treated him like an animal. They should have talked him out of it. That's what they would have done in the past: talked to him, not shot him.' The family complained, but the Independent Police Complaints Commission backed the decision to use the Taser.

In most cases it is enough for an officer to draw the Taser out of its holster or to point the laser red dot at the offender to gain control.

On other occasions officers intimidate a target by switching on the electricity so the end of the weapon sparks - known as 'arcing'.

But Tasers were fired, or as police chiefs prefer to call it 'deployed', 1,765 times between April 2004 and June 2009. Stun gun officers have a less PC term for firing their weapon - they call it 'sparking up'.

Since being introduced in April 2004 Tasers have been used in more than 5,400 incidents in England and Wales.

The number of people being targeted is increasing all the time, and their use can now only rise further since the decision in 2008 by then Home Secretary Jacqui Smith to fund an extra 10,000 Taser guns.

Up to 30,000 front-line officers will be armed with the new weapons. Some forces will only let fully trained officers use them, but many will give them to officers after 18 hours' training.

Amnesty International says 334 people in the US died between 2001 and 2008 after the stun guns were used on them. Taser International, the Arizona-based manufacturer, dismisses these findings.

A spokesman claims: 'In only a couple of disputed cases has a Taser been listed as the "cause" of death.'

Nonetheless, Taser International issued guidelines last October warning police to avoid shooting a suspect in the chest 'where possible', and acknowledging the heart-attack risk from stun guns, although they still claim the danger is 'extremely low'.

But perhaps of greater concern than increased numbers of X26 guns is the expectation that the police will soon be armed with a new long-range model. The more powerful weapon can immobilise a suspect for 20 seconds from 100ft away and is being tested by Home Office scientists.

The eXtended Range Electronic Projectile (XREP), the size of a shotgun cartridge, is designed to pierce the target's skin and then deliver a 500-volt shock from its battery-powered circuits (the lesser voltage makes no difference to the pain and paralysing effect). Senior officers believe the XREP could be used in riots and other serious public order confrontations.

The Home Office says the new weapon is still under consideration, but a police source told Live: 'It is not a question of if, but when we get the go-ahead on this. This is an extremely useful bit of kit.'

The XREP round has three fins that pop out as it rotates through the air to increase its accuracy. It is fronted by four barbs designed to pierce clothing and skin, securing the projectile to the target's body. Six more electrodes fan out at point of impact, distributing the shock over a greater body area than the X26.

It can be fired from any 12-gauge shotgun, but Taser has developed a custom-designed shotgun, in conjunction with American firearms company Mossberg.

It uses 'ammunition key' technology to prevent accidentally using normal shotgun cartridges, and comes with a distinctive yellow stock and forearm. There is also a special mount that allows a Taser X26 to be attached to the underside of the barrel, so police could carry both weapons at the same time.

The possibility of this very different kind of Taser weapon coming into widespread use has provoked great concern among human rights organisations.

Oliver Sprague, the UK's Arms Programme Director of Amnesty International, says: 'Because it's a projectile weapon it's much more likely to cause injury and damage if it hits someone in the face or head.'

He adds: 'The key concern, however, is instead of Tasers being used in genuinely life-threatening cases, you start to see it creep into mainstream policing. It is disturbing to consider that a Taser could be in the hands of every police officer in a matter of years.'

'I'm walking down a long room in the dark. I know there's a violent thug lurking somewhere in the shadows; I've been warned. It's nerve-racking, even though I'm armed with a Taser.

'Suddenly a huge man wearing a motorcycle helmet leaps out in front of me. He starts slamming a baseball bat on the ground and shouting threats. My heart goes into overdrive.

'I manage to pull my stun gun out of its holster and turn it on, all without electrocuting myself. The red target dot is pointed at the centre of the hooligan's chest, and I shout a warning. I'm ignored. So I pull the trigger.

'What happens next reminds me of firing an old-fashioned spud gun; there is hardly any resistance or noise. The lightweight weapon looks and feels like an item from Lego's Star Wars range, but the comparisons with child's play end there.

'The metal prongs shoot out too fast to see. Amazingly, they are on target and lodge into my target's chest. For five seconds there's a crackling noise as the electricity flows and I yell 'Taser! Taser! Taser!'

The burst of 50,000 volts is automatically sent down the wires, but this shock can be repeated at the pull of the trigger. The Taser can also be held against a person and the electric charge activated. This is known by officers as a 'drive-stun'.

Because this is a Metropolitan Police Taser refresher training day in west London, my would-be assailant, who is now lying flat on his back, is heavily padded and wearing a protective vest.

Pulling the trigger felt like a no-brainer, but in real life most encounters involving Tasers are nowhere near as straightforward, and require officers to think fast under pressure.

Critics do acknowledge that, when used properly, the Taser provides the police with an invaluable addition to their arsenal.

The weapon has undoubtedly saved lives, prevented hundreds of serious injuries to both the police and suspects and reduced the number of times officers have had to open fire with more deadly conventional handguns and semi-automatic rifles. They have also proved an effective deterrent against violent offenders.

Sergeant Andy Harding is the Met's Territorial Support Group's lead Taser instructor and a national police stun gun adviser.

He says, 'A few years ago you would have had doors being splintered, hand-to-hand fighting, and people getting injured.

'The huge difference now is that you don't need to get up close and personal. People are aware of what a Taser can do and are terrified of the red dot.'

But while the Metropolitan Police's TSG public order unit has won plaudits from around the world for their Taser training and deployment, there is growing concern that other British police forces and squads are far less stringent when it comes to using the weapons.

National police guidelines state that a Taser should only be used in situations where an officer is 'facing violence or threats of violence of such severity that they would need to use force to protect the public, themselves or the subject.'

There also appear to be alarming differences between police forces as to how guidelines are interpreted. You might think London's Metropolitan Police, as the biggest force in England and Wales, should logically be the 'Taser capital' of Britain. But the title goes to a force 250 miles north - Northumbria.

Despite having only 4,100 officers (compared with the Met's 32,600) Northumbria comes top of the Taser league table, having used a Taser 797 times from April 2004 to June 2009, compared with 751 by the Met.

Third place goes to West Yorkshire with 378. Comparisons with other forces further highlight this Taser postcode lottery. For example, in Merseyside, whose police force is slightly bigger than Northumbria, Tasers have only been used 80 times since April 2004.

And as Live has discovered, not only are they being used more often, but increasingly police forces are deploying them against children.

Records obtained using Freedom of Information requests show that the police in England and Wales fired or threaten to fire Tasers against at least 142 under-18s in the 20 months up to the end of August 2009.

The youngest case disclosed involved a 12-year-old boy who was threatened with a Taser after West Mercia police were called to a school in Kidderminster in February 2008. The boy had threatened staff with a pair of scissors. After officers with Tasers were deployed he surrendered his weapon and was arrested.

Northumbria officers used Tasers against under-18s 33 times, including stunning four 16-year-olds and a 15-year-old, in the 20 months up to August 2009.

This compares with 24 incidents in the Met during the same period. North Wales Police Tasered three 16-year-olds in the first eight months of 2009; the force will reveal only that the incidents involved boys 'threatening self harm'.

In another incident in North Wales in February 2008 an officer Tasered a 15 year-old boy who was smashing up furniture at his home in Gwynedd.

Experts warn against Taser use on children because of the risk of a heart attack. The Government advisory body, the Defence Scientific Advisory Council, notes 'children and adults of small stature [are] at potentially greater risk from the cardiac effects of Taser currents than normal adults of average or large statue.'

National police guidance stresses that officers should be 'vigilant' in considering whether to stun a child or small person.

But a Home Office spokeswoman counters: 'The latest statement from independent medical advisors states that the risk of death or serious injury from the use of Tasers is very low.'

America, by virtue of its numbers and longer experience, has the most extreme anecdotes about Tasers. One of the most disturbing incidents took place last November, after local police were called to a home in Ozark, near Little Rock, Arkansas, to investigate a reported domestic-disturbance.

According to the report by Sheriff Dustin Bradshaw, when he arrived, a ten-year-old girl was curled up on the floor and screaming.

The officer wrote in his official report: 'Her mother told me to "Tase" her if I needed to.' The officer tried to take the girl, who has emotional problems, into custody. But she was 'violently kicking and verbally combative' and kicked him in the groin.

So Sheriff Bradshaw delivered 'a very brief drive stun to her back,' his report said. The girl's father didn't approve of his daughter being shocked with 50,000 volts.

Anthony Medlock told a local newspaper: 'My daughter doesn't deserve to be Tasered.' No disciplinary action is to be taken against the officer after his boss defended his action.

Liberal Democrat shadow home secretary Chris Huhne believes the UK should learn from the US experience of Tasers.

He says: 'Given the serious concerns about the safety of Tasers, which have killed more than 300 people in the US, they should not be used on children.

'Ministers should not be putting Tasers in the hands of any more police officers until they really know how dangerous they are. A full inquiry into their use must be conducted before they are rolled out any further.'

Not all forces agree with the decision to arm nonspecialist officers. Sussex Police and the Metropolitan Police are among those which are refusing to extend the use of Tasers to the rank and file. Northumbria Police, however, defends its use of the weapons.

Assistant Chief Constable Steve Ashman says, 'Far from endangering the public I would contest that such usage of this tool has resulted in less risk to the public and police officers alike.'

This positive view is not one shared by Nicholas Gaubert, who accused police of using him for 'target practice' when they stunned him twice while he was unconscious in a diabetic coma.

Gaubert's solicitor Ifti Manzoor is equally scathing: 'The question remains - why didn't it cross the police's mind that this man might be ill? Instead they opted to hit an innocent man with 50,000 volts. My client believes he is fortunate to still be alive.'

With increasing numbers of guns, the danger of them being used as a first resort and the potential arrival of a powerful new weapon, fears will only grow that too often the response appears to be to stun first, ask questions later.

San Francisco Police Commission warned on Taser risks

March 4, 2010
Jaxon Van Derbeken, San Francisco Chronicle

Researchers and experts warned the San Francisco Police Commission on Wednesday about the lethal risk of Tasers and urged the panel either to strongly limit or reject their use in dealing with unruly suspects.

The seven-member panel, which had already heard a number of experts speak in favor of Tasers as a way to reduce deaths and injuries, was expected to vote late Wednesday on whether to draw up a policy for their use by the San Francisco Police Department.

But Zian Tseng, a UCSF researcher, cited a sixfold increase in deaths in custody during the first year of their use in 50 Taser-fielding agencies surveyed in California. He could not say if Tasers had a role in any of those deaths. Tseng also noted that officer-involved shootings went up as well, but those shootings and in-custody deaths dropped back to previous levels following the first year of Taser use.

"There is a risk, but there's a smart way of using the Tasers," he said. He cautioned that officers should not fire at the chest or multiple times and that they need to keep heart defibrillators at hand to revive suspects. Dr. Byron Lee, a UCSF cardiology professor, warned against "usage creep" by officers, who are more inclined to use a Taser as they see how easily the device stops suspects. "That's where the risk happens, where you don't realize these are potentially lethal and they are used in a haphazard manner."

Most cities use Tasers

San Francisco is one of only a few major cities in the United States whose officers are not equipped with the weapons, which incapacitate suspects by stunning them with an electrical charge.

The seven-member commission, made up of four mayoral appointments and three members appointed by the Board of Supervisors, was considering Chief George Gascón's request to equip officers with Tasers. On Feb. 17, the panel decided unanimously to delay a decision so it could study Taser research after voting 4-3 against moving forward immediately.

After becoming chief in July, Gascón commissioned a study of officer-involved shootings in San Francisco over five years that found that as many as one-third could have been avoided had police been able to use Tasers.

Critics, however, cite studies that indicate a possible connection between the stun guns and the risk of sudden heart attack in people hit with them. They note that manufacturer Taser International warned police last year not to fire the devices at suspects' chests, after one of the company's scientific advisers concluded that at least one fatal heart attack in an otherwise healthy person had been caused by the device.

John Burton, a lawyer who won a $5 million judgment against Taser International in the case of a man who died after being Tased by a police officer in Salinas, urged the commissions to reject Tasers as "very dangerous" and largely untested and unregulated.

"Departments are relying on training and representations of the manufacturer, which has a built-in conflict of interest," he said, adding that Taser had "covered up a real health risk."

Burton said the company has known since 2005 that the devices could stop the hearts of animals and, later, humans, but failed to warn officers until late last year about not firing at the chest and against multiple uses.

"This is a company that simply refuses to sell its product with advice about how it could be used most safely" he said, adding that the "hidden dangers" outweigh the utility of the device.

ACLU weighs in

Kelli Evans, associate director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California, urged the panel to reject the proposal as ill conceived and premature. "The first step is to back up," Evans said. "You've got the cart before the horse."

She said the department should first reach out to community groups, particularly mental health experts, before the matter goes to the commission.

"What needs to happen is a community dialogue - does this really make sense in San Francisco right now?" she said, suggesting that the community distrusts the police and the department's use-of-force tracking.

Evans said Memphis has developed an alternative to using Tasers, creating a mental health response team rather than use the device on mentally ill suspects. She said that if the city does deploy Tasers, it is "important not to do it carte blanche."

But 38-year SFPD veteran Vince Repetto, who joined a contingent of officers waiting to speak in favor of Tasers, said before the meeting that the Taser proposal is literally "a life-or-death decision."

"It's not if, but when, a Taser is used to stop a knife-wielding suspect and a life is saved," he said. "Then you will see the results of your decision. Let us hope that same suspect is not shot dead because an officer lacked a valuable option to deadly force."

Roughly 400 people in the United States have died since 2001 after being hit with stun guns, but Taser and its proponents, including Gascón, say most had existing heart conditions or had been using drugs.

An important vote

It appeared the Police Commission's decision could hang on the vote of commissioner Jim Hammer, a former San Francisco prosecutor who was among the majority voting against immediately drawing up a policy Feb. 17. He said then that he supported a delay so fellow commissioners could ponder the issue.

Hammer signaled before the meeting Wednesday that he supported giving Tasers to officers, but only if rules are put in place restricting their use to extreme circumstances.

NZ Complaints Authority To Talk To Police About Taser Data

February 17, 2010
guide2.co.nz

Police Minister Judith Collins is not convinced there is a need for mandatory reporting of all taser use by police to the Independent Police Conduct Authority.

Ms Collins said police were trained properly in their use and had to follow guidelines.

Unlike other countries New Zealand police tasers had automatic sound and vision recording every time they were used to monitor behaviour, Ms Collins said.

Authority chairwoman Justice Lowell Goddard today told Parliament's law and order select committee that police did provide data about taser use but there was no requirement for them to do so.

She said a memorandum of agreement could be a way of improving that.

"I think we need to do that by agreement with police because I would not have jurisdiction to demand that they advise me every time they discharge a taser -- it would be done under a memorandum of agreement, but I think it's a matter probably we should discuss with police, so that we are able to say `yes we are monitoring this'."

However she said the authority's focus was on how they were used, rather than the fact they were in use.

Tasers were used in 124 incidents during 2009 and on nine occasions they were discharged.

There had been no complaints since July 2008 but there were three before then. Tasers were introduced in 2008.

Ms Collins said there already was mandatory reporting of all incidents causing death and serious harm, in addition anyone could complain if they felt a taser had been used or presented in an appropriate way.

Green MP Keith Locke said it would be good if every incident involving tasers was reported and not just cases when they were fired.

Mr Locke said the roll-out from 32 tasers in New Zealand to 680 presented a danger of over-use and the way to control that was to have a full reporting system.

He said the Canadian equivalent of the authority found when tasers became embedded in the police system there was inappropriate use of them to try to get compliance in violent situations.

With the increasing presence of tasers in New Zealand there could be a creep towards misuse.

"We don't want the public unnecessarily threatened by over-use of the taser."

AUSTRALIA: Tasers face ban after findings they can kill

"Fears that Tasers would be used as a compliance tool may have come to fruition around Australia."

September 3, 2009
The The Australian

THE controversial Taser stun guns may be scrapped in Queensland after a review warned that the weapons could kill and could not be modified to prevent a repeat of the death of a man this year when he was shot 28 times with the 50,000-volt device.

The joint Crime and Misconduct Commission-police review, launched after the June heart-attack death of north Queensland man Antonio Galeano, has ordered an overhaul of police training and operational policy, requiring the stun guns to be used only when there is a "risk of serious injury".

The review, to be released today and obtained exclusively by The Australian, marks the first time an Australian authority has recognised the possibility the stun guns can injure or kill, especially when fired repeatedly at a person.

"The possibility of Taser use causing or contributing to death is possible and cannot be ruled out," the review warns.

The Arizona-based manufacturers have repeatedly denied the weapons can kill.

The report is expected to influence the nationwide rollout of Tasers, amid mounting evidence the weapons are being used by police as an everyday compliance tool and not as a non-lethal substitute for a standard gun in high-risk situations.

Sources have told The Australian a coronial investigation has concluded that amphetamine addict Galeano, 39, was deliberately shot 28 times, each time for a duration of up to five seconds, after he confronted police with a steel bar at his unit in Brandon, south of Townsville.

It was initially claimed the stun gun might have malfunctioned or that there was a glitch with the built-in computer system recording the number and duration of shots from the weapon.

But investigators will allege the policeman repeatedly Tasered Galeano, who dropped the metal bar after the first few shots, while he lay unarmed and writhing on the floor.

He died minutes later while still in handcuffs.

Civil liberties lawyers called for a criminal investigation into the death of Galeano in June, when The Australian revealed he had been shot 28 times.

Until then, police had claimed he had been shot only two or three times.

It will be announced today that the freeze on the rollout of Tasers to 3000 general duties officers -- ordered after the death of Galeano -- will be maintained while police move to implement the recommendations of the review.

Meanwhile, the 1200 Tasers with the Queensland police force will remain in operation. But the use of Tasers is under threat, with the CMC recommending they be modified so a single shot lasts no longer than five seconds, and that a limit be put on the numbers of times the weapon can be fired.

Police have been told by the manufacturer that "at this stage, this is not feasible with the Taser X26" -- the $15,000-a-piece weapon being used in Queensland and around Australia.

The review recommends that Queensland Police fit an automatic video device on the weapons, which records every time the Taser is pulled from its holster.

Queensland police last year refused to buy the weapons with the optional "Tasercam" because of the cost.

Civil liberties lawyer Scott McDougall, director of the Caxton Legal Centre, said police should be forced to table in parliament every deployment of the stun guns in Queensland.

He said an independent medical study should be conducted on the weapons, and a freeze on their use should be implemented until the findings were released.

"We have clients who were Tasered who were not offering any resistance to police," he said.

"Fears that Tasers would be used as a compliance tool may have come to fruition around Australia."

Shocking: Taser producer files suit against Inquiry recommendations

August 18, 2009
By Am Johal, rabble

Taser International seems to have a greater interest in moving product than it does in improving the safety of its devices or acknowledging the role of its patented devices in killing people. In its haste to file legal challenges, the company is trying to silence its critics and create its own regulatory policy regime.

The question is, will governments, courts and the international human rights system stand up to this rogue corporation?

In a bizarre, American-style legal and public relations intervention, Taser International filed a lawsuit last week against the recommendations of the Braidwood Inquiry.

Taser International is using hardball American public relations tactics to grow its company, despite clear evidence of human rights implications associated with use of their device. Much of this is happening with the full support of Canadian and American policing agencies. The Canadian media's failure to criticize Taser International on these matters effectively is a reflection of Canada's underdeveloped public sphere.

The 18-month inquiry, completed in July 2009, concluded that tasers can cause death in specific circumstances, particularly to those with underlying health conditions and when there are multiple uses of the weapon on the same person. The inquiry was initiated after the high profile death of Robert Dziekanski at the Vancouver Airport, where he was approached by four RCMP officers and tasered repeatedly.

On Friday, David Neave, an attorney for Taser International in Canada said, "We provided ... more than 170 studies, periodicals (and) reports with respect to the safety of the device and use-of-force questions. All of that information clearly indicates that when the device is used properly there is not cardiac effect. For reasons unknown to us, that information did not wind its way into the report."

According to Taser International, the taser is used by 350,000 police officers in over 12,750 offices in 45 countries. The weapon has been deployed in the field approximately 547,000 times. Another 680,000 human volunteers have been exposed to the taser, largely during police training.

Justice Braidwood and the inquiry wrote a 556-page report over an 18-month period. For the manufacturer of conducted energy weapons to conclude that certain information was not included is nothing more than a public relations intervention.

By using American-style legal intervention in Canada over delicate public policy matters, Taser International is pursuing an offensive strategy that dehumanizes the victims -- those who have died as a result of the weapon being approved without rigorous, independent studies to verify its safety. Taser International, by using legal maneuvers, is also attempting to place a chill on critics of the device.

Taser International recently announced the release of a new model of taser that can fire multiple shots even though multiple uses have been implicated in deaths. Taser International has also released personal tasers in the United States that can be bought in hot pink or leopard print. In Canada, the taser is a prohibited weapon, but is unregulated and sold on the retail market in the U.S.

In June 2008, Taser International lost its first product liability claim in the United States. Taser was forced to pay $6.2 million related to the death of a California man who was hit multiple times by police.

At the time, Doug Klint, vice president and general counsel of Taser International, said, "Certainly, this was a tragedy for the [Robert Heston] family as well as for the officers involved. We however do not feel the verdict is supported by the facts including the testimony of the world-class experts who testified on our behalf with scientific and medical evidence. Our commitment to continue to defend our life-saving products and to support law enforcement remains unchanged."

Since 2001, there have been over 300 deaths in the U.S. associated with taser use and 25 in Canada. A significant number of those deaths involved either prolonged use of the taser or multiple uses. In over 20 of these cases, coroners have listed tasers as a contributing factor in the deaths. Only about 10 per cent of the deaths involved individuals who were carrying weapons.

Last year, Dalia Hashad, director of Amnesty International's domestic human rights program said, "Science paid for by Taser International should not be trusted. There is an open scientific question on the safety of this device. They are an unknown quantity in many areas and need to be studied further before they are unleashed on the public. We have to start talking about whether force is necessary or not in specific questions, rather than whether a gun or a Taser should be deployed."

An RCMP led study found that 'usage creep' of the device was widespread and altered its process for using the device higher up its 'use of force' spectrum.

Justice Braidwood was appointed the sole commissioner under B.C.'s Public Inquiry Act. The Braidwood Inquiry found that if tasers do contribute to death, the most likely cause is ventricular fibrillation likely caused by the weapon's electrical current leading to "a chaotic rhythm of the heart's two ventricles." In this state, the heart can beat 200-300 beats per minute, the individual can lose consciousness in 5-10 minutes and die within 10 minutes.

It is also possible that the taser can induce spasms in the muscles of respiration that can interfere with an individual's ability to breathe.

There are still outstanding questions and a lack of evidence to prove that tasers are safe weapons. The hundreds of people who have died after being tasered around North America should give obvious cause for concern.

Unfortunately, for some corporations like Taser International, the bottom line has a greater value than human rights.

Most importantly, the legal action by Taser International should not be used as a pretext to prolong the implementation of recommendations related to taser use, both provincially and nationally. Nor should it be used by policing agencies to advance a policy agenda on tasers that does not meet the test of the public interest.

Am Johal is a rabble columnist and the founder and Chair of the Impact on Communities Coalition.

BRITAIN: Police use of Tasers on increase

August 17, 2009

The number of times Tasers were used by police in England and Wales has risen, Home Office figures show.

The stun guns were used 250 times in the first quarter of 2009, up from 187 in the previous three months.

They were discharged 62 times between January and March, compared with 35 in the last three months of 2008.

In Northern Ireland, Tasers were used 51 times between January 2008 and April 2009 and were discharged on eight separate occasions.

The Home Office figures are the first published since all police forces in England and Wales were authorised to give Tasers to non-firearms officers who are specially-trained to use the devices.

This followed a 12-month trial in 10 forces last year.

Specially trained units have now used Tasers 1,098 times since the trial began in September 2007. They were discharged 190 times.

Policing, Crime and Security Minister David Hanson MP said he was "determined to give police all the tools they need to crack down on violent crime".

He added: "Tasers are a vital tool for our frontline officers and that is why we allowed forces to issue them to specially-trained units.

"They are making a real difference on our streets and helping to keep both the public and our police officers safe.

"Tasers have helped defuse dangerous situations where people could have been seriously injured or even killed. And often just the threat of the device is enough.

"On many occasions, drawing or aiming a Taser has proved enough of a deterrent."

Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman Tom Brake said the devices should be "for a few specially trained officers, not standard issue".

He said: "The government has put large numbers of Tasers in the hands of police officers without any debate.

"Given the increase in Taser use and the fact they have killed hundreds of people in the United States, we must have a full public debate before we slip any further down the slope to fully armed US-style policing."

Norfolk (England) police defend use of Taser guns

This is OUTRAGEOUS!!!! The Norfolk police's argument to justify their refusal to release the number of tasers in their arsenal is absurd and the rest of their statements add up to dangerous propaganda.

Here in Canada, we call the phenomenon of increased taser deployments "usage creep." This is all pretty new in England and the police there have a lot to learn about taser transparency ... they won't make any friends in the public with this attitude. As the fellow quoted says: "... if they use them more it could even increase gun crime, because people will feel they need more to protect themselves against the police."

Indeed.

April 29, 2009
LUCY BOLTON, Norwich Evening News

Norfolk police today defended the use of controversial Taser guns, after new figures revealed officers were being sent out with them three times as frequently as just two years ago.

But police refused to reveal how many Taser guns they possess, rejecting a Freedom Of Information request on the grounds the release of that information would be “inappropriate”.

Used as a weapon by officers to deal with violent or armed people, Tasers are now becoming a more frequent tool in tackling crime.

In 2008/09 Tasers were deployed - which means sent out with an officer when investigating a crime - 405 times and discharged 11 times, compared to 2007/08 when they were deployed 167 times and discharged nine times. In 2006/07 they were deployed only 134 times and discharged twice.

Tasers are a pistol-like device which uses an electrical current to stop a person in their tracks by causing their muscles to contract uncontrollably.

The device uses compressed air to fire two electric shots at the person for five seconds with a 50,000-volt charge.

Norfolk police chiefs today justified the increased use of Tasers as an “effective tool designed to diffuse high risk situations for dealing with violent people.”

Used by specially trained firearms officers, the force started using the controversial guns in 2005 and has just been issued with an extra 75 by the Home Office, costing £1,000 each, a Freedom of Information request revealed.

But the force refused to reveal how many of the devices they have in total. A spokesman said the force had decided it was not in the public interest to release that information, despite acknowledging the ongoing debate about Taser use.

A spokeswoman said: “The information could be interpreted so widely, as is evidenced by previous reports and articles, that it would be detrimental to public engagement in policing issues rather than make a positive contribution.

“Of significant concern is the potential for those intent on committing crime to use this information to determine that Norfolk is a county where they are less likely to encounter the use of Tasers, thereby encouraging them to commit crime in the county, or more likely to encounter the use of Tasers, thus encouraging them to arm themselves.”

Deputy Chief Constable Ian Learmonth said: “Our priority is to support officers working on the front line and the Taser is an effective tool designed to diffuse high risk situations and for dealing with violent people.

“Trials have shown that effective use of the Taser ultimately reduces the risk to officers, offenders and members of the public.”

Mark Buckby, 50, was stunned by one of the guns when police raided the Romany pub in Colman Road last year. He was arrested but charges were later dropped.

Mr Bucky, from South Park Avenue, said: “Taser guns should only be used in response to situations where people are armed. I think that if they use them more it could even increase gun crime, because people will feel they need more to protect themselves against the police.”

Have you had a taser gun used on you? Call Lucy Bolton on 01603 772429 or email lucy.bolton@archant.co.uk

EDITORIAL: Police stun guns need a high bar

February 25, 2009
Toronto Star

Robert Dziekanski was jolted five times by a police stun gun and is dead. Amnesty International says 25 people have died in Canada after being stunned. In other cases police have reportedly jolted an unco-operative teenage girl in a jail cell, an elderly heart patient in hospital and a senior who tried to dodge a parking ticket.

Yet Canada's police are trying to wave off concern that the weapons are being used too freely. In Ottawa yesterday, the Canadian Police Association and the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police issued a "position document" that amounted to a bold defence of current use.

"Tasers save lives," said CPA President Charles Momy, insisting they are "a tool we must have." The two groups called 50,000-volt stun guns "a valuable use-of-force option" that all police officers should be authorized to use when there is "an imminent need for control." And they pointed out there is no research proving stun guns kill.

This pushback should set alarms ringing in Ottawa and in every provincial capital. Far from rethinking stun guns, the police seem to be intent on expanding their use.

Yet not two weeks ago Royal Canadian Mounted Police Commissioner William Elliott told a committee of Parliament that police who use stun guns on agitated or delirious people expose them to "the risk of death." Elliott has rightly told his officers to use stun guns only "where it is necessary to do so in circumstances of threats to officer or public safety." Some would raise the bar further, by requiring that threats be "severe."

Much less limiting was the police view released yesterday that stun guns can be used whenever there is an "imminent need for control."

Judging from these differences, police policy seems to vary from force to force.

No one suggests that Canada's police are out of control. They took more than 3 million calls in 2007, and arrested 176,000 people. Stun guns were used in only a small fraction of cases. Even so, deaths and abuses have been reported, and unarmed people have been zapped.

Concerned Canadians deserve more than a breezy assurance by the police that the world of stun gun use is unfolding as it should.

What's needed is a tough, commonly accepted standard that bars "usage creep" by limiting stun guns to instances where officers and the public are at serious risk and where no lesser form of restraint is practical. And multiple jolts must be discouraged.

We also need careful monitoring to ensure stun guns are used responsibly. And we need credible, independent research into the physical threat they pose.

Tasers not harmless

February 25, 2009
By TOM BRODBECK, Winnipeg Sun

Canada's two largest police groups admitted on Parliament Hill yesterday that cops have used Taser guns too often and that they should cut down on the number of times they zap people with them.

It's a startling admission.

The Canadian Chiefs of police and the Canadian Police Association held a joint news conference in Ottawa, mostly to defend the use of the controversial weapons, but also to concede they've been abused.

The admission comes on the heels of a new RCMP policy this month that states Tasers should only be used when officers or the public are at risk.

What amazes me is that Tasers were ever authorized to be used for anything less than that in the first place, especially given the number of other intermediary weapons available to officers, including pepper spray and batons.

The problem with Tasers is they were launched under the false understanding that they're essentially harmless, which we now know isn't entirely true.

We know it's difficult to directly link Tasers to Taser-related deaths. But we also know there have been hundreds of deaths immediately following the use of a Taser. There's a certain level of cause and effect that simply can't be ignored. The fact the RCMP and the country's two largest police groups are now admitting that Tasers have been used too often confirms that the weapons -- under certain circumstances -- are potentially deadly.

Otherwise, they would not have issued that edict.

The real question is how police agencies were ever convinced that they could use Tasers as routine tools to quell unco-operative suspects. There was obviously a lack of due diligence in both testing and deployment protocol before these things hit the streets. And the result was that some cops believed they could use the "harmless" weapons to soften up suspects to make an easier arrest.

The high-profile case of Robert Dziekanski who died after being zapped with a Taser at Vancouver's airport serves as the perfect example.

The video of the incident clearly shows Dziekanski was unarmed -- except for a stapler he was holding -- and was not lunging towards any officer, nor posing a threat to any member of the public. He should have been dealt with diplomatically as long as possible and an intermediary weapon, such as a Taser, should have only been used if an officer's safety were truly in jeopardy.

The flip side to this story is that the two police organizations who spoke about Tasers yesterday are also right in that Tasers do save lives. Just because Tasers have been misused doesn't mean they should be banned. They are very useful intermediary weapons that can succeed in subduing a violent suspect where, say, pepper spray fails.

Instead of jumping from pepper spray to a service pistol -- which is far more likely to kill -- Tasers can be useful intermediary alternatives. Which means it's not the weapon itself that's a problem, but how it's used and what use-of-force protocols are in place to guide officers.

Obviously Tasers should never be used unless officers or the public are at risk. I'm surprised that wasn't a given during initial deployment of this weapon. However, rather than ban or scale back on their distribution to officers, they should be expanded with new, restricted protocols on their use. It would definitely save lives.

Police admit Tasers have been misused

February 24, 2009
The Canadian Press

OTTAWA — Canada's main police associations have launched a vigorous defence of Tasers and declared that every officer in the country should be authorized to carry one.

But they also admit that officers have used Tasers too often, stunned peaceful suspects, and not been transparent enough in reporting how they've used the weapon.

The Canadian Police Association and the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police held a news conference Tuesday to outline a 13-point position paper on conducted energy weapons.

They spent almost the whole event defending the devices, and lashed out at claims they're potentially deadly. They cited two cases where Tasers might actually have stopped people from killing themselves.

Ontario Provincial Police chief Julian Fantino taunted Taser critics, saying they'd never walked in an officer's shoes and probably couldn't even pass a basic training course.

"Tasers save lives and that's the bottom line," Fantino said. "We decided it was time to set the record straight."

But the message remained muddled.

Police alluded to multiple studies that disputed Tasers' capacity to kill - but couldn't name a single research paper they'd consulted when pressed repeatedly for specific citations.

At the end of the news conference, officers acknowledged that Tasers had been used too often. And they conceded that the weapon has been used in cases where suspects presented no threat.

"Everybody is basically coming around to the point where they've agreed that there has to be some active resistance on people's behalf," said Tom Kaye, vice-president of the association of police chiefs.

"It's got to be some kind of assaultive, combative behaviour. There's got to be some threat to the officers or some threat to the public ... I'm not saying that's always been the case."

He added that the weapon may have been used to force peaceful suspects to comply - and that such use by officers was "not correct."

To help officers use the weapons more responsibly, the associations' position paper calls for better training and for government-mandated guidelines on Taser use, training, and transparent reporting.

At least 20 people have died in Canada after being Tasered. A public inquiry is under way in the death of Polish immigrant Robert Dziekanski.

The RCMP announced this month that it has changed its policy because of the dangers - including risk of death - associated with the use of Tasers.

The Mounties have restricted their use to cases involving threats to officers or public safety. The new rules clearly set out that Mounties can't zap suspects for simple resistance or refusing to co-operate.

RCMP Commissioner William Elliott said: "The RCMP's revised policy underscores that there are risks associated with the deployment of the device and emphasizes that those risks include the risk of death, particularly for agitated individuals."

The new RCMP policy - that Tasers should only be used to prevent urgent threats - dovetails with the guidelines described Tuesday by the national police associations.

But the associations said Elliott's observation that Tasers can kill had been twisted out of context. They said 150 studies have failed to find a link between Tasers and deaths.

However, they repeatedly refused to say which studies they had consulted before developing their Taser policy.

"Do your own homework," Fantino shot back when asked to cite a single study. "There's 150 studies worldwide."

However, a 2006 study in Illinois in which pigs were Tasered resulted in every single one of the animals suffering from a heart defect or dying.

A team of doctors at Chicago's Cook County hospital stunned 11 pigs, hitting their chests with a pair of 40-second jolts with a brief pause in between. Two of the pigs died from cardiac arrest, and all the other animals ended up with heart problems.

Police officials Tuesday suggested that deaths linked to Tasers could have other factors at play, like drug use or what they called "in-custody death syndrome."

The RCMP recently removed from its operational manual the term "excited delirium" - a term for unexplained deaths in police custody that has been panned by medical associations and civil libertarians.

Amnesty International has decried an information vacuum surrounding Tasers, and wants their use limited until it sees satisfactory studies on their potential impact.

The human rights group says it's not necessarily against Tasers, but added the police officers' performance Tuesday was counter-productive.

"(The Taser) has a legitimate purpose," Amnesty's Hilary Homes said.

"But at the same time we don't know enough about it to judge where its risk really lies. In that context, mixed messages really aren't helpful at all ... I'm not sure that the current dialogue is really helping."

NDP Leader Jack Layton also offered a similar view of Tasers. He did not criticize their use, but also complained about an information vacuum.

"We're concerned that the (police) report doesn't underline the possible dangers of these Tasers enough," Layton said.

"I think we have to have input from all of the different sources and our concern is that there can be consequences from Taser use that can be pretty worrying, pretty scary."

Taser use by Massachussetts police soars in recent years

February 22, 2009
By Associated Press/Boston Herald

The use of Tasers by police in Massachusetts has soared in recent years.

The Boston Globe reports police used Tasers in 229 incidents between September 2007 and September 2008. That’s a fourfold increase from three years ago.

Fall River police reported 45 Tasers incidents last year, the most in the state, at one point firing the weapon 11 times to subdue a man his family described as mentally ill.

Police say Tasers, which deliver a five second, 50,000-volt shock, are an effective, non-lethal way to subdue violent suspects.

Amnesty International said at least 334 people across the United States died after police used Tasers on them since 2001. The human rights group said it’s difficult to know if the Tasers caused the deaths.