WELCOME to TRUTH ... not TASERS

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

Monday, July 19, 2004

Ontario death raises questions about stun guns

July 19, 2004
CTV News

An inquest has been called into the death of a man who died in Mississauga, Ont. after a confrontation with police.

The province's Special Investigations Unit will investigate whether a Taser stun gun was involved and may have led to the death. The chief coroner's office says an inquest is mandatory when someone dies in police custody.

Jerry Knight, a 29-year-old former boxer, died Saturday after a run-in with police at the White Knight Motel in Mississauga, west of Toronto. Police were called to the scene after receiving a report a man was throwing and breaking things in the motel's front office.

When police arrived, a violent confrontation broke out. SIU spokeswoman Rose Bliss says Knight was likely struck with a Taser.

Knight was transported by paramedics to hospital, where he was pronounced dead.
An autopsy was performed Monday but officials weren't able to identify a cause of death.

On Monday, human rights group Amnesty International Canada urged police across the country to stop using Tasers until an independent, public investigation could be done.

"We've campaigned as an organization for years to get the use of Tasers suspended until there is an independent and rigorous evaluation of their impact and medical effects," spokesman John Tackaberry told the New Brunswick Telegraph-Journal.

He said his group has linked Tasers to the deaths of two men in B.C. in 2003.

Taser guns are carried by many police forces across the country. They are designed to be a non-lethal way to subdue a suspect by discharging up to 50,000 volts of electricity.

Toronto police's Emergency Task Force has been using Taser guns for three-and-a-half years. They say there have been 240 deployments on record, and no problems.

"We find them very valuable," says Sgt. Roger Gibson. "They allow us to use less force to resolve issues. We can resolve most calls faster and there are no lasting effects."

There have been four deaths involving Tasers in Canada; this is the first in Ontario.

Taser International Inc., the maker of the stun gun device, says it is aware of Knight's death, and will be watching closely for the autopsy results.

On Sunday, several newspaper reports linked Taser guns to deaths.

An investigation by the New York Times found that 50 people in the U.S. had died since 2001 after being shocked with a Taser. At least six associated-Taser deaths were reported in June alone, the paper says.

It also took note of a Canadian study in 1989 that found Tasers induced heart attacks in pigs with pacemakers.

The Arizona Republic newspaper also published a report this weekend linking at least five deaths to Tasers.

Taser International rejected the report. It specifically took aim at a claim in the report that police in the field don't take the full five-second dose when training with the Taser.

It also points out that while there were nine deaths between May and June 2004 in incidents where Tasers were used, "there were at least 29 additional unexpected in-custody deaths during roughly this same time period where the Taser was not used."

"The more Taser weapons deployed, the more lives will be saved," the company says in a statement.

Stun-gun company planning to monitor autopsy

July 19, 2004
ERIN CONWAY-SMITH

An autopsy, scheduled for today, of a Brampton man who died after a weekend confrontation with Peel police will be closely monitored by the U.S. company that manufactures a controversial stun gun used in the melee.

Jerry Knight, 29, died early Saturday after police responded to a disturbance call from the owner of the White Knight Motel on Dixie Road in Mississauga.

Mr. Knight was said to be throwing and breaking things in the front office of the motel. When Peel Regional Police arrived on the scene, a violent confrontation broke out and a Taser was used to subdue the man.

Paramedics transported Mr. Knight, a former semi-professional boxer, to Peel Memorial Hospital in Brampton, where he was pronounced dead. His death is being probed by members of the provincial Special Investigations Unit.

SIU spokeswoman Rose Bliss said that one officer has been designated as a subject of the investigation.

An autopsy, scheduled to be performed yesterday at the Centre of Forensic Sciences, was postponed until today because family members wanted to hold a prayer service for Mr. Knight.

He used to box for a club in Brampton, Ont., but was said to be training with a newly formed club in Newmarket, Ont.

A spokesman for Tasers International Inc., the Arizona-based company that manufactures the device that fires electrical charges, said the company is aware of the incident involving Mr. Knight and will be closely watching media reports for autopsy results.

A front-page story in yesterday's New York Times investigated the safety record of Tasers, which are used by police across Canada and the United States. The lengthy story said that 50 people in the U.S. have died since 2001 after being shocked by a Taser.

"We will stand by, as we always have, behind the safety of the product," Taser spokesman Steve Tuttle said in an interview yesterday.

Mr. Tuttle said the company maintains that deaths which occur when Tasers are used are not the result of the device, but rather, because of other factors, such as drug overdoses.

Sunday, July 18, 2004

Claims for Taser safety based on pig, dog tests

July 18, 2004
Alex Berenson, New York Times

Taser safety claim questioned

July 18, 2004
Robert Anglen, The Arizona Republic

When presented with cases linking Tasers to deaths, [Taser Chief Executive Officer Rick] Smith says the medical examiners got it wrong and dismisses their reports.

As police use of tasers rises, questions over safety increase

July 18, 2004
Alex Berenson, The New York Times

AZARETH, Pa. — As the sun set on June 24, something snapped in Kris J. Lieberman, an unemployed landscaper who lived a few miles from this quiet town. For 45 minutes, he crawled deliriously around a pasture here, moaning and pounding his head against the weedy ground.

Eventually the police arrived, carrying a Taser M26, an electric gun increasingly popular with law enforcement officers nationwide. The gun fires electrified barbs up to 21 feet, hitting suspects with a disabling charge.

The officers told Mr. Lieberman, 32, to calm down. He lunged at them instead. They fired their Taser twice. He fought briefly, collapsed and died.

Mr. Lieberman joined a growing number of people, now at least 50, including 6 in June alone, who have died since 2001 after being shocked. Taser International, which makes several versions of the guns, says its weapons are not lethal, even for people with heart conditions or pacemakers. The deaths resulted from drug overdoses or other factors and would have occurred anyway, the company says.

But Taser has scant evidence for that claim. The company's primary safety studies on the M26, which is far more powerful than other stun guns, consist of tests on a single pig in 1996 and on five dogs in 1999. Company-paid researchers, not independent scientists, conducted the studies, which were never published in a peer-reviewed journal. Taser has no full-time medical director and has never created computer models to simulate the effect of its shocks, which are difficult to test in human clinical trials for ethical reasons.

What is more, aside from a continuing Defense Department study, the results of which have not been released, no federal or state agencies have studied the safety, or effectiveness, of Tasers, which fall between two federal agencies and are essentially unregulated. Nor has any federal agency studied the deaths to determine what caused them. In at least two cases, local medical examiners have said Tasers were partly responsible. In many cases, autopsies are continuing or reports are unavailable.

The few independent studies that have examined the Taser have found that the weapon's safety is unproven at best. The most comprehensive report, by the British government in 2002, concluded "the high-power Tasers cannot be classed, in the vernacular, as `safe.' " Britain has not approved Tasers for general police use.

A 1989 Canadian study found that stun guns induced heart attacks in pigs with pacemakers. A 1999 study by the Department of Justice on an electrical weapon much weaker than the Taser found that it might cause cardiac arrest in people with heart conditions. In reviewing other electrical devices, the Food and Drug Administration has found that a charge half as large as that of the M26 can be dangerous to the heart.

While Taser says that the M26 is not dangerous, it now devotes most of its marketing efforts to the X26, a less powerful weapon it introduced last year. Both weapons are selling briskly. About 100,000 officers nationally now have Tasers, 20 times the number in 2000, and most carry the M26. Taser, whose guns are legal for civilian use in most states, hopes to expand its potential market with a new consumer version of the X26 later this summer.

For Taser, which owns the weapon's trademark and is the only company now making the guns, the growth has been a bonanza. Its stock has soared. Its executives and directors, including a former New York police commissioner, Bernard B. Kerik, have taken advantage, selling $60 million in shares since November.

Patrick Smith, Taser's chief executive, said the guns are safe. "We tell people that this has never caused a death, and in my heart and soul I believe that's true," Mr. Smith said.

Taser did not need to disclose the British results to American police departments, he said. "The Brits are extremely conservative," he said. "To me, this is sort of boilerplate, the fine print." In addition to Taser's animal trials, thousands of police volunteers have received shocks without harm, Mr. Smith said.

But the hits that police officers receive from the M26 in their Taser training have little in common with the shocks given to suspects. In training, volunteers usually receive a single shock of a half-second or less. In the field, Tasers automatically fire for five seconds. If an officer holds down the trigger, a Taser will discharge longer. And suspects are often hit repeatedly.

Over all, Taser has significantly overstated the weapon's safety, say biomedical engineers who separately examined the company's research at the request of The New York Times. None of the engineers have any financial stake in the company or any connection with Taser; The Times did not pay them.

Relatively small electric shocks can kill people whose hearts are weakened by disease or cocaine use, said John Wikswo, a Vanderbilt University biomedical engineer. But no one knows whether the Taser's current crosses the threshold for those people, Dr. Wikswo said.

"Their testing scheme has not included the possibility that there is a subset of the population that is exquisitely sensitive," Dr. Wikswo said. "That alone means they have not done adequate testing."

Mr. Smith said Taser would eventually run more tests. "In a perfect world, I'd love to have studies on all this stuff, but animal studies are controversial, expensive," he said. "You've got to do the reasonable amount of testing." Comparing Taser's tests with the studies conducted by makers of medical devices like pacemakers is unfair, he said.

Dr. Andrew Podgorski, a Canadian electrical engineer who conducted the 1989 study, said he was certain that Tasers were dangerous for people with pacemakers. More research is needed to determine if other people are vulnerable, he said.

"I would urge the U.S. government to conduct those studies," Dr. Podgorski said. "Shocking a couple of pigs and dogs doesn't prove anything."

In More Officers' Hands

Many police officers defend the Taser, saying the weapon helps them avoid using deadly force and lowers the risk of injury to officers. Tasers let police officers subdue suspects without wrestling with or hitting them, said David Klinger, a former police officer and a criminology professor at the University of Missouri at St. Louis. And Tasers are surely safer than firearms.

"I think it is appropriate for deployment in the field," Mr. Klinger said. "You trust this guy or gal with a gun, you should be able to trust them with a less lethal device."

But human rights groups say the police may be overusing the Taser. Because the gun leaves only light marks, and because Taser markets it as nonlethal, officers often use it on unruly suspects, not just as an alternative to deadly force, said Dr. William F. Schulz, the executive director of Amnesty International USA. In recent incidents, officers have shocked a 9-year-old girl in Arizona and a 66-year-old woman in Kansas City.

"We think there should be controlled, systematic independent medical studies," Dr. Schulz said. "We would like to see these weapons suspended until these questions are answered."

A study by the Orange County, Fla., sheriff's office showed that officers used pepper spray and batons much less after getting the guns. But the use of Tasers more than made up for that drop, and the department's overall use of force increased 58 percent from 2000 to 2003. Last week, several police departments in Orange County agreed to restrict the use of Tasers to situations where suspects are actively resisting officers. The sheriff's office is not part of the agreement and says it is still studying the matter.

State and federal agencies do not keep tabs on Taser use, so no one knows how many times officers have fired the weapon. Officers have reported close to 5,000 uses of the M26 to Taser, but the company says the actual number is much higher.

Little evidence supports the theory that Tasers reduce police shootings or work better than other alternatives to guns, like pepper spray. Because of their limited range, Tasers are best in situations where an officer using a Taser is covered by another with a firearm, officers say.

A 2002 company study found that nearly 85 percent of people shocked with Tasers were unarmed. Fewer than 5 percent were carrying guns.

In Phoenix, which has equipped all its officers with Tasers, police shootings fell by half last year. Taser trumpets that statistic on its Web site. But last year's drop appears to be an anomaly. This year, shootings are running at a record pace, according to the Phoenix police department.

A 2002 study in Greene County, Mo., found that Tasers were only marginally more effective than pepper spray at restraining suspects. Pepper spray worked in 91 percent of cases, while the Taser had a 94 percent success rate.

The largest police departments have been slow to embrace the Taser. The New York Police Department owns only a handful of Tasers, which are used by specialized units and supervisors, a spokesman said.

'Gold in Those Hills'

The M26 was introduced only five years ago, but the technology is much older. John Cover, an Arizona inventor, created the Taser in 1969. Its name stands for "Thomas A. Swift Electric Rifle," an allusion to the Tom Swift series of science fiction novels.

Engineers have known for generations that relatively small electric currents cause painful and uncontrollable muscle contractions. Tasers operate on that principle, firing barbs that are connected by wire to the gun and flood the body with current. The gun can deliver its shock even if the barbs do not break the skin because its current can jump through two inches of clothing.

Weak currents are not inherently dangerous if they stop in a few minutes. But stronger shocks can disrupt the electrical circuitry of the heart. That condition, ventricular fibrillation, causes cardiac arrest in seconds and death in minutes, unless the heart is defibrillated with an even larger shock.

The exact current needed to cause fibrillation depends on technical factors like the current's shape and frequency, as well as the heart's condition, said James Eason, a biomedical engineering professor at Washington and Lee University. But because fibrillation is so dangerous, scientists can conduct only limited human trials. They must estimate the threshold of fibrillation from animal trials and computer models.

Still, the broad parameters for fibrillation are known, and the first Taser from Mr. Cover had a large safety margin. In 1975 the Consumer Product Safety Commission concluded that weapon, which was 11 percent as powerful as the M26, probably would not harm healthy humans.

Then, in March 1976, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms claimed it had jurisdiction over the weapons because gunpowder propelled their barbs. The firearms bureau essentially outlawed them for civilian use; no federal safety standard was ever created.

But the original Tasers were bulky and often ineffective. For almost two decades, they remained a niche product used by a few police departments.

That began to change after 1993, when Mr. Smith and his brother Thomas created a company to market electric weapons to civilians. Patrick Smith, who had just graduated from the University of Chicago business school, saw enormous potential for an alternative to firearms.

"I just figured I'm going to go to out to Arizona, and I'm going to scratch and sniff and dig, and figure there's going to be gold in those hills," Mr. Smith said in an interview.

In January 1995, the Smiths introduced their first electric gun, which was powered by compressed nitrogen. As a result, the weapon was not regulated by the firearms bureau and could be sold to civilians.

For the next several years, the company struggled, as concerns over the gun's power kept sales slow. By 1999, the company, now known as Taser International, was near bankruptcy, with only $50,000 in the bank and $2.7 million in debt.

"It was pretty humiliating," he said. "We had completely wiped out my parents financially."

Testing

Hoping to stay afloat, the company introduced the Advanced Taser M26 in December 1999. The weapon closely resembled a handgun, a feature many police officers liked, and was very powerful.

According to Taser, the gun produced 26 watts of power, four times the power of the earlier model. A field test in 2001 by the Canadian police showed that the M26 was even stronger, with an output of 39 watts.

(Stun gun power is usually gauged in watts, a measure of electrical energy, even though the biological effects of electricity are more closely related to current strength, measured in amperes. Electrical engineers often compare the flow of electricity to a river: amperes are like the river's speed, while watts are the amount of water flowing by each second. As watts increase, amperes rise, but more slowly.)

Taser's sales rose as officers learned about the new gun. At meetings with police officers, company representatives encouraged them to receive a half-second shock to feel the weapon's power for themselves. "These guys would leave just absolutely evangelical about the product because we would just drop them all," Mr. Smith said.

In its marketing, the company touted the safety of the M26, saying it had been extensively tested.

But Taser had performed only two animal studies before introducing the M26.

In 1996, Taser hired Robert Stratbucker, a Nebraska doctor and farmer, to test the weapon. Dr. Stratbucker, who is now Taser's part-time medical director, shocked a pig 48 times with shocks as large as those from the M26. The pig suffered no heart damage.

Three years later, the company hired Dr. Stratbucker and Dr. Wayne McDaniel, an electrical engineer, for an animal test at the University of Missouri. The scientists shocked five anesthetized dogs about 200 times with the M26. The dogs did not suffer cardiac arrest, although one animal had changes in its heartbeat, according to a report.

Taser has repeatedly said the studies proved that the M26 was safe. But the biomedical engineers who reviewed the gun's safety for The Times said Taser should have conducted far more research.

"I don't think there has been a definitive study saying that yes it can contribute to death or no it cannot," said Dr. Raymond Ideker, an electrophysiologist and a professor in the cardiology division at the University of Alabama at Birmingham. Taser must test more animals and vary the shocks they receive to find the gun's safety margin, Dr. Ideker said.

In addition, while Taser claims that its Missouri study proves that the gun is safe for people who have used cocaine, it never tested animals dosed with cocaine. Because cocaine substantially increases heart attack risk, and Tasers are used on people who have taken cocaine, that omission is a serious flaw, said Dr. Wikswo of Vanderbilt.

The company should also examine risks other than fibrillation, some scientists say.

Dr. Terrence Allen, a former medical examiner in Los Angeles who examined cases in the late 1980's when people died after being shocked with earlier-model Tasers, said he was sure the weapons could be lethal. Taser is misrepresenting the medical evidence, said Dr. Allen, who has consulted for people who have sued the company.

Dr. Mark W. Kroll, a Taser director and the chief technology officer of St. Jude Medical, one of the largest pacemaker manufacturers, said Taser had adequately tested its weapons and they were safe. External pacemakers deliver much larger charges and do not cause fibrillation, he said.

Dr. Ideker countered that pacemakers and Tasers could not be easily compared, because the Taser's shock is very short and powerful, while a pacemaker delivers its charge over a much longer period.

Although Taser has performed only rudimentary studies of the M26, it has more closely studied the X26, the gun it introduced last year. In a 2003 study at the University of Missouri, Taser found that a shock roughly 20 times that of the X26 caused a healthy, anesthetized 85-pound pig to fibrillate.

Mr. Smith cites the 2003 Missouri study as proof that all Tasers have a safety margin of 20-to-1 or more. But the new gun puts out a charge only one-fourth as large as the older model, a fact Taser does not generally advertise.

The study said nothing about the M26, or about hearts stressed by disease, drugs or physical activity. "I think another test is warranted," Dr. Ideker said.

Taser did not test the older gun, which is associated with nearly all the deaths, because "we believed that the M26's safety record and prior testing speaks for itself," Mr. Smith said. "Could it be done? Absolutely. There's time and expense involved."

The X26 has become Taser's biggest seller, based mainly on the company's claims that it is even stronger than the M26 despite its small size and lower power. The company says the new gun enables electrical current to enter the body more efficiently.

No independent agency has tested the guns side by side, and in Taser's patent on the M26, Mr. Smith himself argued that weaker guns were often ineffective because they do not deliver enough current to incapacitate suspects. But neither deaths nor concerns about effectiveness have dampened police support and investor enthusiasm for Taser International. Stock analysts predict Taser will have $15 million in profits on sales of $60 million in 2004. Investors have bid up the company's shares 60-fold since last February, giving Taser a value of $1.2 billion.

The Smith brothers and their father, Phillips, have sold $46 million in Taser shares since November, according to federal filings. They still own $130 million worth of shares. Other Taser executives and directors have sold $14 million in stock. Mr. Kerik, the former New York police commissioner and a director, has sold $900,000 in stock. Mr. Kroll of St. Jude Medical has sold $1.7 million.

"It's been great," Patrick Smith said of the company's recent success. But making money is not his main goal, he said. "If we could get a Taser on every officer's belt,'' he said, " it would save hundreds of lives or thousands of lives a year."

Deaths and Questions

Meanwhile, the number of Taser-associated deaths is rising. In June alone, at least six people died, the most ever in one month: Eric B. Christmas, James A. Cobb, Jacob J. Lair, Anthony C. Oliver, Jerry W. Pickens and Mr. Lieberman.

The circumstances of the deaths vary widely. Among the six, Mr. Pickens was the only one hit with the X26.

Mr. Cobb fought for several minutes after being shocked, which suggests that fibrillation could not have caused his death. Some of the other men collapsed immediately, according to news reports and witnesses. Some of the men were fighting with the police when officers shot them. Others simply refused to obey orders.

Mr. Pickens was one. On June 4, in Bridge City, La., the police were summoned to help calm him after an argument with his 18-year-old son, Taylor Pickens. Jerry Pickens confronted the police in the family's front yard.

"My dad, he had been drinking, and he was kind of hostile toward the police,'' Taylor said. "He kept trying to go back inside the house, and they said, 'If you're going to go back into the house we're going to Taser you.' " Mr. Pickens who was unarmed, began to walk inside, Taylor said.

"They counted down three, and then they shot him in the back," Taylor said. "My dad stiffened up, and fell back." Mr. Pickens hit his head on a cement walkway and began foaming at the mouth, Taylor said.

Sharon Landis, Taylor's mother and Mr. Pickens's wife, said officers did not need to shock her husband. "They could have pepper-sprayed him, they could have grabbed him," she said. "He's 55 years old, and these are big burly cops."

Mr. Pickens was pronounced brain-dead that day and removed from life support three days later, Ms. Landis said.

Toxicologic tests on Mr. Pickens are being conducted, said Gayle Day of the Jefferson Parish coroner's office. A spokesman for the sheriff's office said he could not comment on a continuing investigation. Mr. Smith said he could not comment on Mr. Pickens's death.

Three weeks later, Kris Lieberman died in Pennsylvania. The officers who shocked him were the only witnesses to his death, which the Pennsylvania State Police are investigating. But Mr. Lieberman's parents said the state police told them that their son was shocked twice and collapsed afterward. [Stan Coopersmith, chief of the Bushkill Township Police, whose officers responded to the call, said he could not comment on the incident until the state police finish their investigation.] But Taser said that the police chief had told the company that Mr. Lieberman fought briefly after the shocks and that an automatic defibrillator used by the officers indicated Mr. Lieberman was not fibrillating when he collapsed.

"I would suspect the autopsy will find a cause of death that does not include the Taser," Mr. Smith said.

Mr. Lieberman's parents say that he was troubled but that he did not use drugs. Police officers searched Mr. Lieberman's home after the shooting and did not find drugs, his parents say. Toxicologic tests are pending, the Northampton County Coroner said.

Mr. Lieberman's father, Richard, a plain-spoken farmer, said he had not decided whether to hire a lawyer. He simply wants to know if the gun caused his son's death. "If he was the problem, we have to accept it," Mr. Lieberman said. "If they were the problem, they have to accept it."

Eric Dash contributed reporting from New York for this article.

Monday, June 21, 2004

Dead in Custody

June 21, 2004
Dee Hon, TheTyee

TYEE SPECIAL REPORT Did Vancouver police fail to save Roman Andreichikov's life? Or did they have a hand in killing him? The mystery may centre on a factor called 'excited delirium'.

"I can't breathe."

Those, says a friend who watched in horror, were Roman Andreichikov's last words as he lay pinned to the floor of his Granville Street apartment.

Three Vancouver police officers had piled themselves atop his body while another one stood by his side. One officer pushed Andreichikov's head down against the floor. Two officers bent Andreichikov's legs at the knees while they used their body weight to drive his ankles into his back.

"If you're mumbling, you're still breathing," was one officer's reply, reportedly. Moments earlier, one of the officers holding Andreichikov's legs had shot him with a Taser - an electric stun gun that overwhelmed his nervous system with 50,000 volts of electricity. With his body in convulsions, the officers took hold of Andreichikov and bound his hands with cuffs. Then thirty seconds after Andreichikov gasped his final words, he drew his last breath.

Roman Andreichikov died May 1, 2004 at the age of 25. Nobody yet knows for sure what caused Andreichikov's death. But the fact that he was a brawny personal trainer, that he was Tasered, and that he was incoherently high on drugs places him at the centre of a complex controversy over how police should apply force to make arrests.

Taser use by Canadian police forces has been decried by Amnesty International. Also, the positioning and restraint imposed by the officers just before Andreichikov's death is coming under concerned scrutiny across North America, with some researchers seeing links to a pattern of deaths in custody.

Was it the cocaine in his body that killed Andreichikov? He had been using crack cocaine for several days and his irrational behaviour led his friend to call for an ambulance. Or did the police play a part in ending Andreichikov's life?

ADVERTISEMENT

Finding the answer becomes especially pressing in Vancouver where many mentally ill people reside, and where the population of crack and methamphetamine users is growing, causing police to resort more and more often to the techniques used to subdue Andreichikov, the Taser and aggressive physical restraint.

Andreichikov's grief-stricken mother Diana is desperate to know why her son died. "He wasn't a criminal," she says. "Roman never hurt anyone in his life."

The Vancouver Police Department isn't talking about the case while its major crime unit investigates what happened. The coroner's office automatically reviews every in-custody death, but it may take more than a year to complete its findings. Andreichikov's autopsy and toxicology reports have yet to hit the coroner's desk. Nor would the department answer more general requests.

The Tyee asked for the VPD's written protocols for using Tasers and for dealing with mentally disturbed people, as well as related coursework required of officers. The department's spokesperson said the VDP was unable "at this time" to provide such information to The Tyee.

Taser concerns

Every year in B.C., a handful of people die in police custody. Some years the number is a dozen. Some years it's less. Of those unfortunate few, perhaps two or three of them per year would have died much like Andreichikov did -- shortly after struggling with police and being put in restraints. Sometimes the deceased were high on cocaine, methamphetamines, or some other stimulant when they died. Sometimes they were psychotic due to a mental disorder like schizophrenia. In other cases, they die stone sober.

Two British Columbians -- Terry Hanna and Clayton Willey -- died in separate incidents last year after being Tasered and subdued by RCMP officers. Their cases are still under review but have added fuel to a growing firestorm over police use of Tasers. Amnesty International called on the Canadian government and others to suspend police use of Tasers until further review. Several police forces in the United States have already holstered their Tasers after public outrage sparked by a number of in-custody deaths. The manufacturer, Taser International, says the total number of deaths after Taser use now approaches 50. The company points out, however, that every autopsy report to date has listed a cause of death other than the Taser. None of the reports have found the weapon to be a contributing factor. Taser spokesperson Steve Tuttle says the weapons don't have nearly the power required to damage someone's heart.

Hospital defibrillators generate 150 to 400 Joules of energy per pulse. The Taser generates a maximum of 1.76 Joules per pulse."You do the math," Tuttle says. "We are nowhere near the threshold that would cause cardiac tissue to be affected." Even if Tasers contributed to in-custody deaths, the numbers wouldn't account for all the people who have died in restraints or shortly thereafter - a total estimated to be in the thousands.

'In-custody death syndrome'

Deaths of people after restraint have been documented beyond B.C.'s borders: Ontario, The United States, Great Britain, Iraq. And people aren't just dying in police restraints. Children and teenagers have died after being pinned down by caregivers in group homes. Seniors have died in care homes after being restrained to furniture. Whether the deaths occur on the street, in jail cells, in group homes, seniors' facilities or in mental institutions, the death toll keeps mounting.

A study by the Harvard Center for Risk Analysis estimates that between 50 to 150 people die in American health facilities each year shortly after being restrained. That's 500 to 1500 in the past decade. Other researchers estimate a similar number of people die after police restraint.

What's killing these people - and may have killed Andreichikov - is known by names like in-custody death syndrome or police custody death syndrome. Most commonly, it's called either positional asphyxia, or agitated/excited delirium. Sometimes autopsies reveal the victims died from hypoxia - a lack of oxygen to the brain. Whatever force or restraints they experienced before they died kept them from being able to breathe. Hog-tie restraints, prone restraints and body-pressure to the back, chest, neck or abdomen have all proven potentially fatal. An Iraqi prisoner in the custody of U.S. navy commandos died last April from positional asphyxia.

'Excited delirium' a factor?

When a person is killed by positional asphyxia, it's usually clear who did it. But when a person's heart stops beating before he or she stops breathing, they call it excited delirium and the blame game becomes more complex. Do police or caregivers contribute to such deaths when they restrain the victims, do they merely fail to stop the fatal effects of psychosis?

Anthany Dawson died August 1999, after a violent struggle with Victoria police. Prior to his arrest, he had been seen lying on his back in the middle of a road screaming and hitting the pavement with his fists. He was mentally ill and psychotic. Five police fought to gain control of Dawson. Afterwards, they strapped him face-down to an ambulance stretcher where he struggled against the straps. He soon lapsed into a coma and died two days later in hospital.

The police complaint commissioner's report on the Dawson case cited the work of San Francisco assistant medical examiner Steve Karch.

In Karch's opinion, people who die from excited delirium are doomed regardless of what police do. The victims are delirious, adrenaline jacks up their heart rate, their hearts fail and they die. Such people are merely the victims of their own drug use. "If death occurs while the officers are trying to restrain the victim, the police will be assumed to be responsible," Karch says.

But other researchers note that every excited delirium death is preceded by a forceful struggle with police. A study published in the Canadian Medical Association Journal examined the deaths of 21 people due to excited delirium in Ontario. In all 21 cases, the deceased were forcefully restrained in a prone position, sometimes with pressure placed on the neck. Twelve of them (57 percent of the total) had a psychiatric disorder. Only a minority of them - eight out of 21 (38 percent) - had cocaine in their system.

In other words, while other factors may vary, the use of forceful takedowns remains a constant element in excited delirium deaths. Larger American studies have corroborated these findings.

Coroner: potentially lethal combo

Vancouver coroner Sandy Barabe believes stimulant drugs and forceful restraint can combine for lethal effect. You panic automatically when you're squeezed so you can't breathe. Catecholamines - your body's fight or flight hormones - kick in to help you battle for air. Thatadrenaline surge spikes your heart and makes it race. "When someone is restrained or fighting - that's a well-known, documented phenomenon that causes cardiac arrest," Barabe says.

Psychotic episodes due to illness or stimulant drugs like cocaine raise the heart rate too - and for a prolonged period of time. Experts believe the combined stresses of psychosis and fighting asphyxiation can overwhelm the heart's ability to function."It's because you crank the system," Barabe explains. "It's like being in the maximum stress state and prolonging it."

Cocaine and methamphetamine use is rising. Mental institution closures throughout North America have put far more mentally ill people back into the community. Even rising diabetes rates mean more people acting strangely because of missed insulin shots.

"Police officers are more than ever being called on to deal with these situations," says the Justice Institute of B.C.'s www.jibc.bc.ca/ deputy director of police training, Mike Trump.

But police officers aren't mental health professionals. "We are not training police officers to be psychologists," Trump says. Police are taught to handle the situations as best they can.

Taking control of the delirious

So what's a police officer to do when taking a delirious person into custody? Use-of-force expert Sgt. Kelly Keith says a forceful takedown is never the primary option, regardless of a suspect's mental state. Keith trains police recruits at the Justice Institute. He says effective communication - an officer's command of "mental judo" - is always the first weapon of choice.

But Keith says while police are trained to be aware of excited delirium, the issue only becomes of concern after the officers have used taken measures - forceful or otherwise -to gain control of the person.

"You're not going to say, 'he may suffer from excited delirium, so we're going to use this force option because of this,'" Keith says. "That isn't going to happen. Control of the suspect has to be our first concern. "Police are trained to make sure their detainees can breathe and to watch for warning signs after they've been restrained. But is that too late a time to be worrying about the person's health?

Lawyer Phil Rankin is representing the Andreichikovs to help the family search for answers. He feels Vancouver police showed no concern for Roman's health and blames them for his death.

"They killed him. It's that simple," Rankin says. "They didn't come there to kill him. But they came like stupid cops always do to everything. They always use force where brains would work."

'Great guy' with big muscles

Rahim Hadani watched his best friend die in the hands of police that day. He was the one who made the fateful call to 911. Hadani remembers Roman as a fun-loving, easy-going guy with big muscles and an even bigger heart. The two of them saw each other almost every day whenever Hadani wasn't out of town on business. They loved to work out at the gym, ride motorcycles together and go out for spicy Thai lunches. "He was a great guy," Hadani looks back fondly, "a really great guy."

But Andreichikov was not himself the day he died. Hadani returned from a trip to Toronto to find his friend pacing through the apartment picking his skin and mumbling incoherently. Hadani knew his friend recently started smoking crack again after quitting two years before. Hadani didn't share his friend's habit, but he wasn't concerned it was a problem."It didn't bother me as long he kept his life in control," Hadani says. If Andreichikov got high one day, he never let it keep him from getting up the next morning to go to work."He wanted to get off it again, but he didn't get that far," Hadani says sadly.

Hadani tried to calm his friend down for an hour and tried to get him to go to bed. After Andreichikov threatened to jump from the fourth-floor balcony a couple of times, Hadani called for an ambulance. By the time someone buzzed the apartment, Hadani had Andreichikov seated on the couch where he sat holding the couch's arm and rocking. Hadani answered the door, but it was the police, and not the paramedics. They told Hadani it was standard procedure.

Andreichikov's last minutes

Four officers entered the apartment single file behind another officer who targeted Andreichikov with the Taser's aiming laser. After a short conversation during which police questioned Andreichikov about his last name and date of birth, the officers asked Andreichikov to scoot off the couch and lie face-down on the floor. He did as he was told.

Andreichikov was a big man. As he laid face-down on the ground, his own body weight may have pushed against his torso making it hard for him to breathe. Researchers say this can be common for heavier people. For whatever reason, Andreichikov flipped over on his back after ten seconds lying prone.

Hadani says his friend was incoherent but calm during time the police where there. "If the cops gave me the cuffs, I would have done it," Hadani recalls. But when Andreichikov flipped himself over the police reacted, firing the Taser probes into his leg. With that, Andreichikov began the final moments of his life.

Friday, December 05, 2003

Saskatoon city police add tasers to weapons arsenal

December 5, 2003
Rod Nickel, The StarPhoenix

Saskatoon police officers are preparing to add stun guns to their arsenal, as well as semi-automatic firearms aimed at better equipping them for situations like the Columbine High School shooting.

Both the non-lethal Taser stun guns and single-shot carbines are scheduled to become standard equipment in patrol cars by 2006.

Police will continue to carry Glock .40-calibre pistols in their holsters.

City administration has budgeted $62,000 to buy 34 Tasers for police in 2005 and $92,000 to buy an equal number of single-shot weapons to be mounted in cars in 2006.

"The (Taser) technology that's out there is very effective as long as it's deployed properly," said Saskatoon Police Service spokesperson Insp. Lorne Constantinoff.

City police are currently equipped with a baton, pepper spray and firearm. Spray doesn't work on everyone and requires proximity of no further than two metres.

The Taser has a range of six metres.

An officer aims it like a firearm, firing two hooks with a single shot. The hooks, connected to the Taser by a thin wire, dig into the skin of the human target and discharge a 50,000-volt current, causing the person to lose muscle control.

The shock leaves the person feeling dazed for a few minutes, but police say there are no long-term effects.

The decision of when to use a Taser is a judgment call, Constantinoff said, but generally it's appropriate when lethal force isn't warranted and other measures are ineffective or unsafe.

For example, an officer might fire a Taser at a subject threatening him or her with a knife, he said.

The Taser should not be used on a subject who's armed with a gun, because the shock causes muscles to jerk.

"Any tool when it comes to the use of force, to give the officer another option other than lethal force is a good tool," said city police association vice-president Dave Haye.

The police service already owns two Tasers, stored by emergency response team members, who haven't put them to use other than for training.

Saskatoon police stepped up their study of Tasers at the prompting of a coroner's jury looking into the 2001 death of Keldon McMillan. Police shot McMillan in a field south of Wakaw after a high-speed chase and the man's threats to shoot officers.

City police have since become involved in no shootings.

There has been only one firearm shooting by Saskatchewan RCMP officers in the three years since they began carrying Tasers, but shootings are rare anyway, said RCMP spokesperson Heather Russell.

Almost one-third of Saskatchewan RCMP officers are trained to use Tasers, although there are only 60 in use. The RCMP emergency response team and riot squad use half of them, with the remainder spread around busy detachments like Saskatoon, Regina, Battlefords and Yorkton.

RCMP use Tasers to subdue suspects or prisoners in cell blocks or aircraft, Russell said.

City police are also anticipating new car-mounted firearms. Currently, marked city police cars are equipped with pump-action shotguns that fire a spray of pellets. The guns are 20 years old and not ideal for reacting to situations like the 1999 Columbine shooting in Colorado, where two high school students killed 12 classmates and a teacher in a shooting rampage.

In that type of incident, police want to target just the threat, not innocent people nearby who could be hit by the pellet spray.

The new firearm will still look like and function like a rifle, but it will be semi-automatic, eliminating the step of pumping the weapon slide between shots, and fire single shots.

"It would be more surgical," Constantinoff said.

Tuesday, July 01, 2003

Excited delirium: Does it exist?

July-September 2003
Mary Paquette, Perspectives in Psychiatric Care

Each year, a small number of people die suddenly while being restrained. Most of these deaths are associated with individuals who were restrained while being taken into custody during a violent police encounter. Other sudden restraint deaths involve people in detention or residential treatment programs who were restrained during violent encounters while also under the influence of psychiatric medications.

There is a great deal of confusion about the cause and circumstances surrounding restraint-related sudden deaths. What is known is that there is a higher rate of sudden death during restraint encounters. Medical authorities typically have had extreme difficulty in identifying the cause of death by autopsy alone.

The "in-custody" death syndrome was first used to describe unexplained deaths when there was no apparent cause other than a police arrest. Research revealed that these individuals exhibited a form of behavioral disturbance that went beyond the distressed state that police normally face (Connor, 2003). The features of this extreme state, referred to as "excited delirium," include agitation, excitability, paranoia, aggression, great strength, and numbness to pain. When confronted or frightened, these delirious individuals can become oppositional, defiant, angry, paranoid, and aggressive.

There are many known causes of an acute behavioral disturbance (e.g., brain tumors, infection, heat exhaustion, thyroid disease, illegal drugs, psychiatric medications), but excited delirium is a largely unknown medical condition. Excited delirium was originally coined by medical researchers to describe the extreme end of a continuum of drug abuse effects such as cocaine-induced excited delirium (Ruttenber, McAnally, & WetH, 1999). Even though the American Medical Association does not recognize this diagnosis as a medical or psychiatric condition, the National Association of Medical Examiners has recognized it for more than a decade (Costello, 2003). It is used by medical examiners in most major cities. Thus, there is a great deal of controversy regarding the use of this syndrome to explain sudden death while restrained.

Opponents of excited delirium theory say they have never seen any proof that someone can be excited to death. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People fear that the condition is being exploited and used as a medical scapegoat for police abuse (Costello, 2003). They believe most of these people do not die from drugs or some mysterious syndrome but from confrontation, abuse, and inappropriate use of force and restraint during a violent encounter that should have been avoided. They theorize that the cause is due to the psychological stress of being confronted with aggression that results in further physiological reactions (e.g., adrenaline release, increased heart rate, temperature, strength), leading to death. The fact that many of these deaths happen during or soon after restraint clearly implies police abuse. The ACLU believes that most Incustody deaths are the result of excessive force and improper restraint techniques such as hog tying and the use of pepper spray. Many police departments have banned hog tying, which has been blamed for deaths due to positional asphyxia.

Proponents of excited delirium (e.g., medical examiners, police) argue that people who die of the excited delirium death syndrome while restrained are not the victims of incompetence or brutality (Benner & Isaacs, 1996), but rather victims of their own long-term cocaine and amphetamine abuse, which can trigger this fatal syndrome. According to medical examiners, the force of restraining a weakened individual has nothing to do with the death. Some researches believe that the real cause of death is a long-term use of cocaine, which causes heart disease (Ruttenber et al., 1999). Being high on stimulants and being paranoid lead to delirium and a heightened heart rate, often accompanied by a rise in body temperature.

Researchers believe there is a genetic fault that impairs the brain's ability to increase the number of drug receptors in the brain, which helps pump dopamine and other excess hormones out of the brain. Therefore, drug use results in a dangerously high level of hormones in the amygdala, which brings on the delirium and aggression. Antipsychotic medications may have the same effects as stimulants for those susceptible to excited delirium. Since the 1960s, psychiatrists have documented cases of patients who took large amounts of antipsychotic medication, suddenly became manic and aggressive, and later died, usually after being restrained (Costello, 2003).

What is the impact of this issue on advanced practice psychiatric nurses? As a matter of law, any person who chooses to restrain someone may be charged and found responsible regardless of intended or unintended impact, for this reason alone, the decision to use for ce and restraints should be necessary, reasonable, valid, and used only as a last resort. There are justified and unjustified uses of force and restraint, and nurses need to question whether force and restraint are truly necessary and not used prematurely.

Connor (2003) gives several recommendations for healthcare workers to minimize the occurrence of excited delirium and sudden death in the hospital and treatment centers:

1. Carefully screen and monitor people who have recently started a trial of medication, especially medication that has serious side effects and interaction effects.

2. Learn how to recognize the initial symptoms of delirium.

3. Obtain immediate medical consultation, evaluation, and attention for any person who may suffer from delirium.

4. Contain behavior rather than restrain behavior when the patient is not a danger to self or others.

5. Avoid the use offeree if at all possible and, if needed, use the lowest level of force and method of restraint that would not cause aspiration.

6. Use communication tactics that may calm the individual before using tactics that represent confrontation.

7. Educate others (particularly the police) as to the symptoms, causes, and identification of excited delirium.

Amphetamine morbidity has taken on epidemic proportions, which increases drug-related emergencies. This means there will be an increased need for police to handle such incidents, and therefore an increase in sudden in-custody deaths. More research is needed to determine who is most at risk for excited delirium. One of our highest priorities needs to be educating police officers on how to approach individuals who are demonstrating an acute behavioral disturbance that is not criminal in nature, but a psychiatric condition that requires special care.

References

Benner, A.W., & Isaacs, M. (1996). Excited delirium: A two-fold problem. Retrieved June 1, 2003, from www.zarc.com/english/other/other_sprays /reports /excited_delirium.html.

Connor, M. (2003). Excited delirium, restraint asphyxia, positional asphyxia and "in-custody death" syndromes. Retrieved june 1, 2003, from www.educationoptions.org / programs / articles / SuddenDeath.htm.

Costello, D. (2003, April 21 ). Excited delirium as a cause of death. Los Angeles Times, pp. 1A, 4A.

Ruttenber, A.J., McAnally, H.B., & Wetli, C.V. (1999). Cocaine-associated rhabdomyolsis and excited delirium: Different stages of the same syndrome. American Journal of Forensic Medical Pathology, 2, 120-127.

Mary Paquette, PhD, APRN, BC

Monday, July 15, 2002

Ontario police forces getting stun guns

July 15, 2002
Canadian Press

OTTAWA -- Ontario's police forces are getting stun guns, the province's public-safety minister announced Monday. Bob Runciman said tests of the Taser guns over the last year by officers in Ottawa and Toronto have demonstrated the weapon is effective.

"We took a long, hard look at the Taser before deciding to allow all police services to use it," Runciman told a news conference at Ottawa's city police headquarters.

"Field tests conducted by the Ottawa-Carleton Regional Police Service and the Toronto Police Service showed the Taser is highly effective in both urban and rural communities."

Runciman said the stun guns are not intended to replace other weapons.

"They are not a panacea. They do not provide a solution for every difficult situation officers may face," he said.
"But they are an important tool and our government is committed to providing police services with the best tools to do their jobs."

Taser is an acronym for Thomas A. Swift Electrical Rifle, according to the company that manufactures the guns.

Once fired, they use a pulsating, 50,000-volt electrical current that's delivered through two probes. The current overpowers the body's normal electrical signals in the nervous system.

Despite the high voltage, they don't cause permanent damage, say police.

"They work at such low amperage, they do not affect the beating of the heart," said Metro Toronto Police Sgt. Don Cole.

The guns were also tested in Victoria and have already been approved for use across British Columbia.

The Mounties use them, too, as well as police forces in several American states.

A version of the gun was also made available to pilots in the cockpits of United Airlines flights following the events of Sept. 11.

For now, their use in Ontario will be limited to emergency tactical units. But that could be expanded, possibly to include them as part of the arsenal carried in regular police cruisers.

"That would be a broader decision," said Runciman. "We'd want to have consultation on that if we wanted to broaden it, to say for example, in all of the police patrol cars across the province.

"There's training issues involved. There's a whole range of issues that would have to be addressed."

Police services will have to apply for funding to purchase the guns through the proceeds of crime fund or other avenues, said Runciman.

Tasers approved for use in Ontario

July 15, 2002
CBC News

Ontario's police forces will be allowed to use stun guns. The province's Public Safety Minister Bob Runciman says tests of the Taser guns by officers in Ottawa and Toronto show the weapons are effective. The guns use an electrical current delivered through two probes to overpower the body's electrical signals in the nervous system.

Police say they don't cause permanent damage.

In Ontario, only emergency tactical units will be using them. The guns were also tested in Victoria and have already been approved for use across British Columbia. The RCMP use them, too, as well as police forces in several American states.

Monday, March 19, 2001

Edmonton Police Want Use of Tasers Approved

March 19, 2001
David Carrigg, Vancouver Courier

Wednesday, January 24, 2001

Montreal police to use taser guns

January 24, 2001
CBC News

The Montreal police is trying out taser guns for a six-month period. The police force has three right now and more could be added if the trial period proves successful. So far, however, the taser has proven no match for our Canadian winters.
With two Montreal police officers on either side of him, officer Anthony Manolakos volunteers to show reporters how the Taser works.

The taser sends a 50,000 volt shock through the system which interrupts the electrical impulses the brain sends to the muscles, temporarily immobilizing the person.

Montreal police spokesperson André Durocher equates it to pepper spray, which is considered a medium-strength weapon.

"You have various levels that range from simple police presence to, at the other end of it, the firearm," Durocher says. "So it's in between. It's non-lethal force."

Durocher says the Taser will probably be used most during police operations involving the mentally ill, drunk or suicidal persons.

So far, it's been used only once: about three weeks ago, police used the taser to try to apprehend a man who had barricaded himself in his house for several hours.

Durocher admits the operation was not a success.

"It (had an) affect, but not as effectively as we'd wanted to, because the batteries were weakened. And we found out it was due to the batteries that had gotten cold," he says.

Durocher says the police department has since spoken to the American manufacturers of the Taser and modifications have been made to the weapon.

Saturday, December 02, 2000

Toronto tactical squad to test stun guns

December 2, 2000
Chris Eby, National Post

Electric stun guns have been added to the arsenal of Toronto police as the force searches for alternatives to using lethal force in violent confrontations. Tasers -- stun guns that fire a metal dart charged with a paralyzing electric current -- are already credited with saving lives in other parts of Canada. The Ontario government yesterday approved a four-month pilot project with the Taser used exclusively by the Toronto force's tactical unit.

"This is going to save lives; I know for a fact it has in Victoria and it has in Edmonton," said Toronto police Sergeant Doug Walker, who heads the tactical unit's training section. There are field studies underway by city police in Edmonton and Ottawa and in six RCMP detachments and two special units in Alberta, B.C. and Saskatchewan. The Victoria City Police Department has already included the devices in their "less-lethal" inventory (pepper spray, tear gas, bean-bag guns), with the blessing of both provincial politicians and civil libertarians.

The Taser works by firing a metal probe propelled by wires from distances of up to 6.5 metres that breaks the skin and zaps the target with 50,000 volts of electricity, over-riding the person's neuromuscular system, making muscle contractions impossible.

In the 20 years North American law enforcement agencies have used Tasers, no deaths have been directly linked to the devices. And, according to a recent medical study conducted by the University of Ottawa Heart Institute, the electrical shock does not interfere with heart rhythm or pace makers.

There is also no medical evidence to date of any lasting effects. The shock lasts a mailer of seconds and recovery is virtually instantaneous. Police say the devices are invaluable in situations where officers are confronted by violent suspects who are mentally disturbed or in a drug induced rage. The limitations are that they can only be used up to certain distances and the dart may not always pierce heavy coats or clothing. Environmental factors may also play a role. The locations of the RCMP field study are deliberate in that the officers are seeing if the stun guns work in freezing-cold temperatures (High Level, Alta.) and rainy, humid climates (Surrey, B.C.).

The results of both the RCMP Ottawa, and Edmonton police studies are expected in January.

Yesterday, the media were given a live demonstration of the effects of Tasers at the Emergency Task Force barracks in Toronto, where the squad's commander, Superintendent Wayne Oldham, volunteered to be stunned. With a probe already attached to his chest, Supt. Oldham charged an officer with a rubber knife, simulating a violent confrontation. After being zapped the six-foot tall, 220-pound man cried out in pain and crumpled to the ground.

"It was painful ... electric pulses going through your whole body. I just fell down, I couldn't take another half a step," Supt. Oldham said immediately afterwards, his face red and his brow wet with perspiration. "I didn't think it would be that bad."

Patti Whitten, a tactical paramedic, also allowed herself to be zapped and after collapsing in a heap, gasping, described the feeling as like being "hit with a sledgehammer."

Sunday, October 01, 2000

Taser Technology Research Paper

September 2000
Author: Sgt. Darren Laur, former Taser Shareholder

Wednesday, May 24, 2000

Ottawa police test new weapon

May 24, 2000
CBC News

The Ottawa-Carleton police will be testing out a new weapon they say could save lives. It's a taser gun, designed to immobilize a person with a zap of 50,000 volts. To prove that it works, and that it's safe, police used it on each other and a few volunteers from the media.

The taser works by firing two tiny darts, each trails a copper wire. When they hit someone, the circuit is complete and 50,000 volts surge through the person's body. It makes the person lose control of their muscles, causing them to fall to their knees. This allows a police officer to gain control of the offending party.

"Basically we're looking for an option to bring a person under control without having to resort to lethal options," says Police Chief Vince Bevan.

Pepper spray is now in every officer's belt, but to be effective it has to go directly into a person's eyes.

The bean bag gun was considered a non-lethal way of bringing down a person, until three years ago when Ottawa police killed a deranged man with it. Constable John McDonald says, "This technology would have been perfect in this incident."

The tasers will only be in the hands of the tactical team during a six-month trial. It has the blessing of Ontario's solicitor general.

"The ministry itself is interested in making sure police officers have the equipment they need to fulfill their duties, and in this case we're interested in testing a new less-than-lethal-force option," says Steven Byrd.

It's hoped the tasers will be a deterrent more often than they are used. Chief Bevan says, "People should be warned: we have them and we won't hesitate to use them."

As with all non-lethal weapons, the benefits of the taser ultimately depend on how and when it's used.

Most people accept that it's better to be shot by a taser than by a police gun. The B.C. Civil Liberties Association welcomed the taser's deployment in that province for just that reason.

But some research suggests that the very non-lethality of weapons like the taser encourages police to use them in scuffles and demonstrations when, in the old days, no weapon would have been used at all.

Friday, October 01, 1999

More Powerful, But Still Less-Lethal by Sgt. Darren Laur

This article was published in the October 1999 issue of Law Enforcement Technology.

More Powerful, But Still Less-Lethal

By Sgt. Darren Laur, former Taser shareholder
Victoria Police Department

The past 30 years have seen significant advancements in the area of less-lethal weapons. Back in the 1960's, there were very few options for law enforcement beyond lethal force. Today, there are many less lethal options and new tools being introduced every year. About a year ago, I undertook a program to evaluate less-lethal weapons for use in the city of Victoria, Canada. After quite a bit of research, I decided to evaluate TASER¨ technology - the less-lethal weapons which shoot out two probes up to a distance of 15 feet, and use an electrical impulse to stun the target. Most people remember TASERs from the Rodney King incident, where the weapon unfortunately did not keep King down.

As I conducted my research, I found that there were many myths about the TASER. In fact, Canadian law had prohibited these less-lethal weapons until recently based upon some of these misconceptions. However, during the course of my department's six month field study, I found TASER technology to be a valuable tool - one which saved several lives during our deployment. Lives which may not have been saved using any other tool currently available. Since I published the results of my department's field test, many law enforcement agencies in Canada are now showing real interest in TASER technology as well.

During the last phase of my research, one of the manufacturers of TASER¨ technology systems - TASER International in Scottsdale, AZ - showed me their next generation weapon system which they have called the "ADVANCED TASER M-26", a less lethal weapon which will be unveiled at the 1999 IACP show in North Carolina. This weapon, the first in a new class of Electro-Muscular Disruption Weapons (EMD), is different from any other less-lethal weapon in one key respect: this system is the only less-lethal weapon I've tested, which will stop a focused, goal oriented attacker. And it's the only one that has stopped me.

One of the challenges facing less-lethal weapons historically, is that they all primarily rely upon a psychological impact to achieve maximum effect. Whether it's the pain from a chemical spray, the impact of a kinetic round, or the stun effect from a TASER, none of the current technology actually debilitates a subject 100% of the time.

To test the hypothesis that these weapons work largely on a psychological basis, I designed a test where I separated two groups of 5 volunteers each in different rooms. One group was shown a video where a person was hit with 5 Watt TASER technology (the same type that are currently in use by law enforcement) and the person fell immediately to the ground. After viewing the video, this group of individuals each volunteered to be hit with the 5 Watt system. Every one of these individuals dropped to the ground just like they had seen the subject in the video do. The second group was also shown a video of a person being hit with a 5 Watt system - except this time the subject was mentally focused and was able to remain standing despite the electrical stimulation. After viewing the video, each person in the group was subjected to the 5 Watt output. Every one of the volunteers was able to stand and function (although they were impaired to differing degrees) despite the fact they were being subjected to the TASER current.

Clearly, this test supports the hypothesis that the effects of the traditional 5 Watt TASER technology are primarily psychological in nature. The stimulation of the electrical output creates a tremendous amount of disturbance in the nervous system (just ask anyone who's tried it!) - enough to cause most people to drop to the ground. However, subjects could be taught to overcome these sensations. Similar tests have been conducted on pepper sprays by well known self-defense expert Phil Messina - who found that focused and goal oriented individuals were able to function and continue attacks despite extreme pain and discomfort.

The result here is not to say that these devices are not useful tools - pepper sprays, CS/CN, TASER technology and other less-lethals have saved thousands of lives over the years. However, the effects of these systems are effectively distraction or pain oriented and rely upon a psychological impact - hence the problems sometime encountered where these less-lethals simply don't seem to affect certain individuals, particularly those under the influence of various narcotics, or those suffering from certain types of emotional and psychological instabilities.

The problem of immediate stopping power does not apply only to less-lethal weapons. At a recent use of force conference in Calgary Alberta Canada , Dr. Alexis Artwohl, who is a police psychologist and the author of a book entitled " Deadly Force Encounters", gave a presentation on the results of FBI analysis of fatal shooting incidents. According to Dr. Artwohl and the FBI, an individual who sustains a fatal shot directly to the heart or aorta may have enough oxygen in the brain and skeletal muscles to continue aggressive behaviour for approximately 14 seconds. Hence, after receiving a fatal gun shot wound, a suspect can return fire or stab an officer for another 14 seconds - enough time to do a lot of damage. If an individual is highly agitated, combative, focused and goal oriented there is only one thing that will reliably stop him immediately: a bullet shot to the central nervous system which will immediately eliminate the command and control of the body. I believe there is now a second method for central nervous system override: the ADVANCED TASER, a new 26 Watt Electro-Muscular Disruption (EMD) Weapon.

I have personally tested the weapon on 10 volunteers in the course of my evaluation, all of whom were chosen from the elite of Canadian law enforcement trainers. The effects were immediate and overwhelming - all subjects were completely incapacitated in less than 1Ú2 second. In fact, when I was hit with the unit, I took a shot to the right leg. My entire body went rigid as the energy pulsed into my leg. Even my arms seemed to be dramatically affected.

I have always personally believed that the only way to reliably stop a deadly force threat immediately, is a shot with a bullet to the central nervous system. Based upon my own personal experiences, I believe the ADVANCED TASER M26 EMD comes extremely close to the same effect, but from a less-lethal perspective.

As with anything, there are trade-offs with the M26. The fact that this is a new technology means that it does not have the benefit of years and years of field use and background data. The medical information behind the M26 supports that it is still well within electrical safety limits. But we are currently working in Canada to obtain further input from medical experts. I also understand that TASER International is conducting further medical studies for publication when the product launches. If these bio-medical studies come back with positive results, as I suspect they will, the ADVANCED TASER M26 should be a less lethal weapon system that all law enforcement agencies should have a definite look at.

The design of the weapon also has positive and negative attributes. The product was designed to function exactly like a firearm - it even looks a like a semi-automatic hand gun. This offers a definite advantage for officers who are trained in firearms: they can use the same muscle motion and memory as they train for their side arms, thereby increasing the reliability and accuracy of the weapon in high stress scenarios. Conversely, there is a risk that the unit could be mistaken for lethal force, causing an unnecessary force escalation. From what I understand, the company will be shipping yellow coloration kits with each unit so that the unit can be brightly coloured to differentiate it from lethal force - similar to the colour schemes used on less-lethal shotguns in many departments. I am waiting to see the final unit to see if this approach will be effective.

More Powerful, But Still Less-Lethal (5 of 5)

Some people may wonder if we truly need that much stopping power in a less-lethal system. But, imagine what would have happened (or actually what would not have happened) had the less-lethal weapon been more effective in the Rodney King scenario. It has been argued that the failure of the TASER¨ to keep King down lead to the over-reaction of the officers on scene. The results cost the city of Los Angeles dearly in every conceivable way. And it tarnished the relationship between law enforcement and communities across North America.

Imagine if the NYPD had been able to subdue Gary Busch with a less-lethal weapon a few weeks ago. Gary Busch was a disturbed person who assaulted officers with a hammer. Officers deployed less-lethals, but Busch did not respond and the officers had no option but to escalate to lethal force. While an assault with a hammer is clearly a deadly force situation, had the less-lethal force been more effective, the whole situation could potentially have been avoided, saving Busch's life and millions of dollars from NYPD's litigation budget which could be productively employed putting more officers on the street.

I am a firm believer that police will always need lethal force options. However, less-lethal force must continue to improve if law enforcement is to effectively meet the challenges of the next century, now only two months away. We've come a long way in the last 30 years. It will be interesting to see where we are 30 years from now.

Darren Laur is the Control Tactics Co-ordinator for the Victoria Police Department in Canada. Sgt. Laur is an active duty law enforcement officer and expert in less-lethal weapons. To contact the author, email: personalprotection@shaw.ca

Monday, September 01, 1997

Shock Value - U.S. stun devices pose human-rights risk

September 1997
Shock Value
By Anne-Marie Cusac
September 1997

Amnesty International lists the United States in the same class as Algeria and China in a March 1997 report. All three countries appear under a section titled, “Recent Cases of the Use of Electroshock Weapons for Torture or Ill-Treatment.”

A decade ago, the United States did not often show up as a culprit in Amnesty reports. But lately, the United States has become a leading manufacturer and exporter of pushbutton electricshock devices, which Amnesty claims are unsafe and are ending up in the hands of torturers. Of the 100 companies listed in the report, forty-two are U.S.-based. According to Amnesty, countries that have received stun weapons exported from the United States in the last decade include Yemen, Panama, Saudi Arabia, Mexico, Argentina, the Philippines, the United Arab Emirates, Ecuador, Cyprus, and Thailand.

One company the report cites is ArianneInternational of Palm Beach Gardens, Florida, which makes the “Myotron”--a compact version of the stun gun “available in pearl, black, or white,” a salesperson tells me over the telephone. The company advertises the device as “small enough to carry on a big key ring and flat enough to carry in a shirt pocket. It’s five times more powerful than the best police stun gun.” A related device, the “Myotron-TM Venu,” is marketed especially to women.

Other prominent U.S.-based manufacturers of stun weaponry include Stun Tech of Cleveland, Ohio, known for its stun guns, stun shields, and especially its stun belts; Nova Products, Inc., of Cookeville, Tennessee, maker of tasers, along with other electronic devices; and Safe Defense Co., of Greenville, North Carolina, which, according to the company’s president, markets its stun guns to the general public through variety stores, “gun shops, pawn shops, uniform stores, and flea markets.”

Another company that makes an appearance in the Amnesty report is B-West Imports, Inc., of Tucson, Arizona, which in 1995 joined a South African company called Paralyzer Protection. B-West brings in Paralyzer shock batons and shields that deliver a charge of between 80,000 and 120,000 volts.

A B-West advertising brochure claims, “The Paralyzer stun baton is the result of a unique process developed by German scientists and doctors. The extensive testing done by the Department of Medicine at the University of Dusseldorf resulted in the correlation of volts, amps, and frequency to render a would-be assailant helpless without any damage to skin, eyes, or internal organs.”

Amnesty takes issue with that account. “The professor has since told Amnesty International that he was not specifically involved in developing the ‘Paralyzer’ range of stun guns and batons, but simply tested a particular stun device for another company in March 1985, the results of which cannot be applied directly to other stun devices,” the report states.

The report also devotes considerable attention to Tasertron, of Corona, California, the first company to manufacture the taser--a weapon that shoots two wires attached to darts with metal hooks from as far away as thirty feet. When the hooks catch in a victim’s skin or clothing, the device delivers a debilitating shock. Los Angeles police officers used the device against Rodney King in 1991.

A version of the weapon, the Air Taser, launches “two small probes attached to fifteen feet of TASER wire” through the air, according to the manufacturer, Air Taser, Inc., of Scottsdale, Arizona. Because the device uses air instead of gunpowder to power the shot, it is not regulated by the gun-control laws that apply to other tasers, which are banned for sale to consumers. The company has multiple Internet sites, complete with visuals. One image shows a small woman in high heels and a short skirt shocking a much larger man in a black knit cap. A jagged charge travels from her hand to his chest, where it creates a small explosion. “The AIR TASER sends powerful T-Waves™ through the wires (and up to two cumulative inches of clothing) into the body of the assailant, jamming his nervous system and incapacitating him,” proclaims the ad.

Air Taser also markets a new product it calls the Auto Taser. “Imagine an automotive defense system that fights back,” the company says. “Any attempt to touch the AUTO TASER zaps the thief with an unforgettable, yet non-lethal 5,900 milliwatt electron pulse. A thief can’t steal what he can’t touch.” The accompanying photograph shows a dark parking lot. A man reaches through a car window and lightning runs up his arm to his shoulder. He is grimacing and is falling backwards.

Air Taser claims its corporate mission is “to raise mankind above violent behavior by developing products which enable people to protect themselves without causing injury or death to another human being.”

But these devices also prove quite handy for people who want to commit crimes. In Britain, a country that prohibits handguns, stun weapons became a favorite tool of muggers until the government banned them.

Amnesty International and the American Civil Liberties Union both claim the devices are unsafe and may actually encourage sadistic acts by police officers and prison guards. “Stun belts offer enormous possibilities for abuse and the infliction of gratuitous pain,” says Jenni Gainsborough of the ACLU’s National Prison Project. She adds that because use of the belt leaves little physical evidence, this increases “the likelihood of sadistic, but hard-to-prove, misuse of weapons.”

“It’s possible to use anything for torture, but it’s a little easier to use our devices,” admits John McDermit, head of Nova Products.

In 1991, Terence Allen, a specialist in forensic pathology who served as deputy medical examiner for both the Los Angeles and San Francisco coroner’s offices, linked the taser to fatalities. “The taser contributed to at least these nine deaths,” Allen wrote in the Journal of Forensic Sciences. “It seems only logical that a device capable of depolarizing skeletal muscle can also depolarize heart muscle and cause fibrillation under certain circumstances.”

With electrical current, Allen tells me, “the chance of death increases with each use. This may have been a factor in Los Angeles. Some of the people who died there had been shocked as many as seven times.”

Warns Allen: “I think what you’re going to see is more deaths” from stun weapons.

As a result of his own work in forensic pathology, Allen is convinced that stun devices are already being abused in U.S. police stations and prisons. Some authorities, he says, can’t resist exploiting the power they have over people in their custody to “force them to lose control of their muscles.”

Allen describes a seventeen-year-old boy in Los Angeles who was accused of stealing. “They used a stun gun to extract a confession from him,” he says. “He had burns that exactly fit the probes.”

Allen is referring to the case of Jaime Ramirez. Before dawn on November 30, 1986, officers William Lustig and Robert Rodriguez stopped Ramirez, who was carrying a sack full of stereo parts, according to the Los Angeles Times. The two officers shocked the boy repeatedly with a stun gun in an attempt to force him to confess to stealing the equipment.

Ramirez sued the city. He testified that Lustig “told me that if I didn’t tell the truth, he was going to burn me,” reported the Los Angeles Times. Both officers then used the stun gun on Ramirez. “I felt like I was being burned,” the Los Angeles Times quoted Ramirez as saying. “I could not keep my legs still. . . . I was feeling the pressure in my heart. I could not breathe freely.” The two officers lost their jobs. Both were convicted and served time behind bars. The city of Los Angeles settled with Ramirez for $300,000.

Los Angeles is not the only American city where police officers abuse people with electroshock weapons. Phoenix, Arizona, is home to Sheriff Joe Arpaio, author of America’s Toughest Sheriff: How We Can Win the War Against Crime. But, under Arpaio’s charge, the Maricopa County Jails have come under some harsh criticism. In March 1996, the Department of Justice’s civil-rights division filed a report on the jails that strongly condemns “the fact that all jail guards carry stun guns. The easy availability of these weapons,” the Department of Justice examiner concluded, “has contributed to the excessive use of force.”

Guards at the Maricopa County Jails have been known to use the stun gun against an inmate “simply to see its effect,” the report states. It also cites “use of a stun device on a prisoner’s testicles while in a restraint chair.”

The Maricopa County Jail disputes nearly every charge in the Department of Justice report. They are “allegations by prisoners, unsubstantiated remarks,” says Lisa Allen, coordinator of communications for the sheriff’s office. The county complains that the Department of Justice report does not provide inmate names, dates, or times of the alleged incidents. But in fact, the report draws on videotapes and jail documents in addition to prisoner testimony.

“I’ve seen the photos. I’ve talked with inmates. I’ve seen the letters. I have dates. I have times,” says Nick Hentoff, a criminal and civil-rights attorney in Phoenix who says he has represented clients in “about a dozen suits ” against the Maricopa County Jails involving stun weapons. He says the county jails “have countless videos that show it.” Hentoff’s client, Bart David, currently has a lawsuit pending against the county. He claims that guards at one of the jails shocked him in the testicles.

In 1996, the Phoenix New Times, a newsweekly, reported the death of jail inmate Scott Norberg at the Maricopa County Jails. Norberg died while fighting with officers who were attempting to confine him in a restraining chair while strapping a towel around his mouth “to keep him from spitting.”

During the struggle, jailers shocked Norberg multiple times with stun guns. Inmates who witnessed Norberg’s death estimated that he had been shocked between eight and twenty times. Guards estimated the number of shocks at between two and six. “An examination of Norberg’s corpse commissioned by Norberg’s family puts the number at twenty-one,” wrote New Times reporter Tony Ortega.

Although the medical examiner ruled the death an accident, “at least one detention officer . . . contradicts the scenario that Norberg suddenly went limp,” wrote Ortega. “In fact, she claims she tried to tell the guards that they were suffocating Norberg, who had literally turned purple. She says an officer snapped back at her, ‘Who gives a fuck?’”

“Their policy is stun first, ask questions later,” says Hentoff. He claims to have seen “dozens of pictures” of jail inmates with stun burns. “You’ll see two little marks close together like vampire bites on their bodies,” says Hentoff. “Those are the stun-gun marks.”

In a letter released on August 3, 1997, Amnesty International detailed several more recent incidents of mistreatment at the Maricopa County Jails, including an inmate who “allegedly sustained broken teeth and spine and knee injuries after being kicked and beaten and stunned repeatedly with a stun gun.” After the beating, the prisoner alleges, he was confined for five hours in a restraining chair.

A second inmate fell asleep during processing in a central-intake room. “A stun gun was allegedly used to wake him up,” says Amnesty. The prisoner claims he was then thrown against a wall.

Ortega talked to a nurse in July who spilled the beans on her co-workers at the Maricopa County Jails. She told him many guards “seem to delight in treating inmates badly.” One time, “she saw a detention officer bring a man suffering from abdominal pain into a clinic,” Ortega reported. “The man refused to say what was wrong with him, so the detention officer zapped the patient with a stun gun to make him talk. ‘None of us could believe it,’ she says.”

Amnesty International claims the Commerce Department is not limiting sales of electronic devices overseas. “The United States will say it opposes torture, and it’s a party to the convention against torture,” says Brian Wood of Amnesty International. “However, as each month goes by, more and more of these electric-shock weapons are exported, and information is withheld about where, exactly, they’re sent to. This is unacceptable, especially since Amnesty first raised this issue with the U.S. government over a decade ago.”

Although Amnesty has asked the United States to guarantee that it will not knowingly export electroshock devices to torturing states, the Clinton Administration has yet to agree to slow the brisk U.S. trade in stun devices. In response to Amnesty’s campaign, over the past few months governments in Germany, Belgium, and the United Kingdom have announced that they will tighten prohibitions on the trade in stun weapons.

Though electric torture is on the rise worldwide, the U.S. Commerce Department does not group electroshock weapons with torture items, whose export it restricts. Instead, it classifies such devices as police equipment, which makes them easily exportable. The stun belt is considered offensive (as opposed to defensive) police equipment, so it still must receive a license before export to most countries. But, as Michael Lelyveld reported last year in The Journal of Commerce, manufacturers in NATO countries import stun devices as general merchandise and the U.S. Commerce Department does not track them.

“The lack of official data raises the possibility that this country may be the world’s biggest source of such products,” wrote Lelyveld. “But without tighter regulation, it is impossible to know.”

One NATO country that uses electronic weapons for torture is Turkey. Amnesty’s report cites the case of Mediha Curabaz, a twenty-five-year-old nurse. Police detained her on the street in 1991 and took her to the political branch of the Adana police headquarters. “They were making baseless accusations about people I work with and about people from the Adana Nurse’s Association, on whose committee I serve,” the Amnesty report quotes Curabaz as saying. “They asked me to support their allegations. . . . When I refused, they beat me furiously all over, took me in the room used for hanging people up by their arms or legs, and gave me electric shocks through my fingers, sexual organs, and nipples, saying degrading things about my body. They said, ‘You will certainly do what we say if we give you the electric truncheon.’ They thrust the electric truncheon violently into my sexual organs, and I felt a pain as if I was being drilled there with an electric drill.”

NATO countries can also provide an easy route for manufacturers intent on shipping their devices to other torturing states. “It begs the question, should the United States export them at all?” says Lelyveld.

Would the United States, under any circumstances, ever allow the export of the stun belt, for instance, to a torturing state? “I would not feel comfortable saying ‘never under any circumstances,’” says a Commerce Department spokesperson.

The U.S. Government itself is a big user of stun devices, especially stun guns, electroshock batons, and electric shields. In June 1996, Amnesty International asked the U.S. Bureau of Prisons to suspend use of the electroshock belt--citing the possibility of physical danger to inmates and the potential for misuse. The agency has not complied.

Amnesty International has come down particularly hard on the state of Wisconsin--which has a place of prominence in the March report for its plan to use the stun belt on chain gangs. That plan has now gone into effect. Wisconsin’s new chain gang started work at Fox Lake prison on June 2. The state has conducted no studies on the use of the belt on chain-gang members, even though physical work and summer heat could contribute to a dangerous level of stress on an inmate’s heart if he were shocked.

The first inmate to wear the belt on the Wisconsin chain gang was seventeen-year-old Clark Krueger. Though Krueger is a minor, he is doing time as an adult. But he is still subject to anti-smoking laws that apply to minors. And Krueger likes to smoke. He has been caught with cigarettes five times, enough to earn him 180 days in the segregation unit or a stint on the chain gang, according to Mary Neuman, the administrative captain at Fox Lake in charge of supervising the new work crews. Clark opted for the chain gang.

The state’s use of the belt on a minor is of special concern to Amnesty. Brian Wood calls it a “violation of the international convention on the rights of the child.”

When Fox Lake guards objected to the state’s plan to dress all members of the crew in stun belts, the Department of Corrections asked the prison to place the belt on at least one inmate at a time. Now the guards in charge of the gang are “moving it from one inmate to another from one day to the next,” says Gerald Berge, the warden at Fox Lake.

When I visit the prison, Berge tells me the prisoners are at work off prison grounds, at a cemetery in the city of Fox Lake. I follow Berge’s car down several miles of rural roads. It is a bright, windy July day--the first cool afternoon in a week. The graveyard lies next to a marsh and a curving river. Some of the headstones in the graveyard are more than 100 years old.

We watch as an inmate shifts a gravestone forward. A second worker dumps gravel behind the marker to prop it up. The inmates wear standard-issue green clothing and bright yellow vests. Each has twenty-five-inch leg restraints with padded cuffs around the ankles. They are chained to themselves, not each other. It is impossible to tell which inmate wears the stun belt under his clothes. Mary Neuman says that, for security reasons, she can’t let me know who has it on.

Two guards advise the work crew. A third stands back and watches, a rifle slung over his shoulder.

I am surprised. Wasn’t the stun belt supposed to make supervision with guns unnecessary?
Even if the entire work crew were to wear the stun belt, a guard with a gun would watch over them, says Berge. “The statute says one of the guards will be armed.”

When it comes to the stun belt, Berge is no cheerleader. “I would not feel comfortable having inmates out here all in stun belts without restraints,” he says.

“I think, frankly, the stun belt is more appropriate for transport,” Berge goes on. “We don’t have experience with inmates in stun belts working. It’s hard to endorse that.”

I ask Berge if he would feel comfortable if the crew were wearing only individual leg chains, and no belt. “Yes,” he says. Is he concerned about possible injury? “Not really,” he says. Then he qualifies the point. “If we had an inmate who had a cardiac condition that we were not aware of, that’s where the danger would be.”

After a few minutes of conversation, Neuman brings over inmate Earl Simington, who has agreed to talk with me about his experience on the chain gang. Simington is typical of the inmates assigned to the crew--someone let out on parole, who, as Neuman puts it, “didn’t get the message” and has landed back in prison. He is currently serving a thirty-month sentence.

“I have three misdemeanors and one felony on my record, and I’ll be twenty-seven at the end of July,” says Simington. He tells me his felony conviction was for possession of fifteen grams of marijuana.

Simington volunteered for the new chain gang because he was bored. “It’s not for the pay,” he tells me (inmates on the chain gang make between twenty and thirty cents per hour, according to Berge). “It makes my time go faster.”

Before he started work on the chain gang, the prison required Simington to sign a form giving officers permission to make him wear the belt and to shock him with it if he misbehaves.

He then practiced working outside cutting grass while wearing the belt. Simington is most concerned about the belt’s weight, and the discomfort from wearing it in the heat. The belt has a good heft, he tells me. He says if it were mandatory daily wear, he wouldn’t volunteer for the chain gang. “No one will want to be out there” if they have to wear it, he says.

Simington can’t remember seeing any medical information on the form he signed. “I was never told, except, ‘you may lose your bodily functions,’” he says. “I don’t know if there are any long-term effects or damage or anything like that. I would want to find out if there are bad sideeffects. I don’t know how long it’s been studied on people.”

Simington believes he has signed away his rights when it comes to the device. “When I signed that waiver form, that was saying, hey, you volunteered,” he says. “If you get hurt you can’t bring repercussions if it’s because of your behavior.”

Simington says the stun belt is too much. “We’re already doing time. We’re already chained. What more?”

Manufacturers of electroshock weapons continue to wave aside allegations that use of their devices is dangerous and may constitute a gross violation of human rights. And they are making innovations on some old favorites. A new stun weapon that may soon arrive at a police department near you: electroshock razor wire, specially designed for surrounding demonstrators who get out of hand.

Project Censored: United States Companies are World Leaders in the Manufacture of Torture Devices for Internal Use and Export

Source: THE PROGRESSIVE
Title: "Shock Value: U.S. Stun Devices Pose Human-Rights Risk"
Date: September 1997
Author: Anne-Marie Cusac

Mainstream Media Coverage:
Chicago Tribune, 3/4/97, page 5, Zone N
Washington Times, 3/4/97, page 16A

Project Censored's
Top Ten Censored Stories of 1997

#FIVE: In its March 1997 report entitled "Recent Cases of the Use of Electroshock Weapons for Torture or Ill-Treatment," Amnesty International lists 100 companies worldwide that produce and sell instruments of torture. Forty-two of these firms are in the United States. This places the U.S. as the leader in the manufacture of stun guns, stun belts, cattle probe-like devices, and other equipment which can cause devastating pain in the hands of torturers.

According to the Amnesty International report, the following are some of the American companies currently engaged in the production and sale of such weapons: Arianne International of Palm Beach Gardens, Florida; B-west Imports Inc., of Tucson, Arizona; and Taserton, of Corona, California. Arianne International makes the "Myotron," a compact version of the stun gun. B-West joined with Paralyzer Protection, a South African company, to produce shock batons that deliver a charge of between 80,000 and 120,000 volts. Taserton was the first company to manufacture the taser, a product which shoots two wires attached to darts with metal hooks. When these hooks catch a victim's skin or clothing, the device delivers a debilitating shock. Los Angeles police officers used the device against Rodney King in 1991.

These weapons are currently in use in the U.S. and are being exported to countries all over the world. The U.S. government is a large purchaser of stun devices, especially stun guns, electroshock batons, and electric shields. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and Amnesty both claim the devices are unsafe and may encourage sadistic acts by police officers and prison guards, both here and abroad. "Stun belts offer enormous possibilities for abuse and the infliction of gratuitous pain," says Jenni Gainsbourough of the ACLU's National Prison Project. She adds that because use of the belt leaves little physical evidence, this increases the likelihood of sadistic, but hard-to-prove, misuse of these weapons. In June 1996, Amnesty International asked the Bureau of Prisons to suspend the use of electroshock belt, citing the possibility of physical danger to inmates and the potential for misuse.

Terence Allen, a specialist in forensic pathology who served as deputy medical examiner for both Los Angeles and San Francisco coroner's offices, in 1991 linked the taser to fatalities. With electrical current, Allen says, the chance of death increases with each use. Allen warns, "I think what you are going to see is more deaths from stun weapons."

Manufacturers of electroshock weapons continue to denounce allegations that use of their devices is dangerous and may constitute a gross violation of human rights. Instead, they are making more advanced innovations. A new stun weapon may soon be added to police arsenals, the electroshock razor wire, specially designed for surrounding demonstrators who get out of hand.

Student Researchers: Carolyn Williams, Susan Allen
Faculty Evaluator: Dan Haytin, Ph.D.