Should Private Security application of Taser Weapons be more restricted?

Technology has made huge leaps forward in the last hundred years; computers with live internet access reside in our cell phones. Changes in technology have transformed the way we do things; this growth in technology is also true for private security companies. The mission of private security has not changed but the tools have. One of the new tools, which are making a huge gain in popularity, is the Taser. This relatively new weapon has gained a lot of media attention and is flooded with controversy. This weapon is marketed as a less-lethal device and most law enforcement agencies allow their officers to use it as such. Some agencies like the American Civil Liberties Union believe that the Taser can be lethal and its use should be more restricted.

I plan to explore the following questions: What are Taser weapons? Where do Taser weapons fit in the force continuum? How many have died or suffered serious injury from the use of Taser weapons by law enforcement? Are there other comparable weapons to Tasers, are they safer? Should more regulations be imposed on the use of Tasers by private security?

A Taser is a pistol-shaped device that uses compressed air to launch two barb-tipped darts at a person or animal. These darts are connected to the device by thin wires and upon contact with a person or animal the device delivers 50,000 volts of electricity. The electricity is delivered in pulses. The intent of these electronic pulses is to affect an “immediate loss of the person’s neuromuscular control and the ability to perform coordinated action for the duration on the impulse.” (Taser International) Tasers are made solely by Taser International in Arizona and according to them, Tasers differ from stun guns in that a stun gun uses electricity to inflict pain on the person’s skin, where a Taser not only inflicts pain, but also effects neuromuscular control between the two barbs.

The California Penal Code does not contain a definition for Taser, but there are a few mentions of Taser weapons. The only references to “taser” in the code state that they are different than a “stun gun.” “’Stun gun’ as used in this chapter shall include any item, except a taser. . .” (CA, §12650 PC) I also performed an electronic search of the United States Code of Federal Regulations and found only one reference to Tasers in that they were not allowed on Army bases. After talking with a Taser International representative, I found that Tasers are still a relatively new item and most States have yet to make laws governing them. A few states have passed laws governing the use of Tasers. In New Jersey, it is illegal for a law enforcement officer or a private citizen to carry or own as Taser-type device (NJ, § 2C:39-1).

There is debate on where Tasers fit into the common Use of Force Continuum. Taser International markets their devices as “a safer use of force option than traditional non-lethal tools.” “More than 85% of police agencies have placed the application of the TASER in the confrontational context of a Resistant (Active) Subject.” This means that most law enforcement agencies place this weapon somewhere within compliance techniques (pepper spray) and below defensive tactics (baton). From conversations with a few Southern California police officers from different agencies, it was found that this is the common local policy. Some groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) believe that that Tasers are injuring and possibly even deadly. These groups want Taser and similar devices to be placed higher on the Use of Force Continuum and their use to be made more restricted.

The ACLU released a Taser study in 2005 in which is stated, “However, while the Taser is less deadly than a traditional firearm, it is hardly the non-lethal weapon its manufacturer promotes. . .” The report also states that at least 148 people have died after being “hit” with a Taser. The ACLU of Northern California demands, “The California Legislature should pass a law that allows Tasers to be used solely as an alternative to deadly force.” In January 2006, Taser International released a study titled Deadly Rhetoric to argue against the ACLU study. In Deadly Rhetoric the company explains that the deaths were not the fault of the Taser use, but other factors such as drug overdose.

Both the ACLU and Taser International are obviously bias in their reporting of Taser lethality so although the information contained in both reports is interesting, it may be intentionally deceiving. In February 2005 Peter Bronson of the Cincinnati Enquirer published an article about Tasers in retaliation to a news report of 80 Taser related deaths, “Tasers were a contributing cause of death three times, and were not ruled out three times.” Bronson also stated, “Tasers are used about 100,000 times a year by 6000 police departments. That’s five “possible” deaths in about half-million Taser uses.” The theme behind Bronson’s article is that the news media makes big headlines about Taser-related deaths, but the facts do not support the claims. His ending statement is “The science fiction is in the ‘deadly Tasers’ headlines that are short on science and long on fiction.”

Amnesty International states that 103 people in the United States have died after being “hit” with a Taser device. Gordon Dillow of the Orange County Register wrote an article addressing this in June 2005. “And even Amnesty International says only 103 people died after being TASERed, not necessarily as a direct result of being TASERed. In the vast majority of those cases, autopsies have shown that the TASER shot was not the cause of death.” It is explained by Dillow that in almost all of the 103 deaths the suspect was high on alcohol or drugs.

A peer reviewed study of stun guns and Tasers was preformed by Raymond Fish and Leslie Geddes. In this study it was determined that electrical stimulation of the heart was extremely unlikely in the normal use of Tasers. Normal use was defined as the barbs striking the skin. The study followed the history of 218 patients seen at an emergency room after being shot by a Taser and was compared to 22 patients who where shot with a police .38 caliber firearm. The study showed that none of the Taser victims has serious long-term effects, and half of those with bullet wounds did. The study also follows 16 deaths associated with the use of Taser devices. This study concludes, “The deaths that have followed taser use have occurred in people who were out of control and who had taken potentially fatal drugs. In such cases it is quite possible that the deaths would have occurred whether or not the taser was used.” (Fish and Geddes)

In another peer reviewed article published in Academic Emergency Medicine a study of deaths after Taser use was conducted. The study covered 227 Taser uses by law enforcement in Multnomah County, Oregon. Of the 227 uses 27 (28%) sustained minor secondary injuries like scrapes or bruises. No deaths were reported. The report states the following: “Conclusion: The M26 appears to be a safe and effective non lethal weapon in this case series.” (The M26 is the most popular Taser device in current use by law enforcement).

Through all of my research I could not find one case where a Taser device was ruled as a single cause of death. I did find that most Taser related injuries were caused from the victim falling to the ground while being “tasered.” Because Taser devices launch barb-tipped darts it is easy to assume that being hit in the eye or other sensitive spot could cause permanent injury. Is there another device available to law enforcement that is more safe and guaranteed to be less-lethal to the subject as well as the officer?

The list of less-lethal tools available to law enforcement is growing. Currently available are chemical sprays of various compositions, batons of various types, PepperBall devices, and shoulder fired less-lethal munitions. Batons are used to strike the suspect with enough force to gain compliance, so every successful use of a baton results in the suspect getting injured; in some cases the suspect gets broken bones. Also the officer has to be physically close to the suspect to use a baton. PepperBall devices use compressed air to fire hard .68 caliber projectiles, which are filled with a synthetic form of pepper spray, at a distance up to 60 feet. (PepperBall Technologies, Inc.) PepperBalls can either be fired directly at the suspect, and cause injury in the form of large bruising, or it can be fired near the suspect releasing the chemical payload upon the suspect. Currently PepperBall devices are large, cumbersome. Large and cumbersome equipment is a disadvantage because it is going to be left in the patrol car, not carried by the officer. There are many shoulder fired impact munitions most cause serious injury when used and like PepperBall, most are too large to carry by the officer. Pepper sprays can be carried by the individual officer and are widely used by American law enforcement.

There are two major criticisms of pepper spray. One is that it has an area effect; that is when used the entire area feels some effect of the chemical agent. There have been some recent developments to reduce this, but none so far are completely effective. Another problem with pepper spray is that it does not work all of the time. A study conducted by the Orange County Sheriff’s Office in Florida found pepper spray to be ineffective in 12% of deployments. This study also concluded that chemical agents have caused 63 deaths in the past 20 years. Most pepper sprays are useful from 2 – 12 feet; Tasers are useful from 0 – 35 feet.

The goal of a less-lethal device is to give a law enforcement officer a level of force that is safe for the officer and not likely to cause death to the suspect. Some less-lethal devices are guaranteed to cause injury to the suspect, as is the case with batons. Others are not as likely to injure, but require pre-staging (Pepperball, FN303) and are not always available when needed. Pepper spray does not require pre-staging, but does not always work and has effects on bystanders (cross-contamination).

There is a less-lethal device that is about the size of a handgun and, like pepper spray, can be available for instant use by the officer, this device is the Taser. Unlike pepper spray Tasers can be used at a safer distance of up to 35 feet. The Taser only affects the target (no cross-contamination). The Taser has proven to be unlikely to cause injury. The media is quick to highlight deaths of suspects after being tasered and in some limited special cases Tasers have been found to have been a contributing factor in death. However, in all of these cases the suspect was under the influence of drugs or alcohol and was exhibiting violent behavior before being tasered. If you think about it, there had to be a reason for an officer to use a Taser in the first place.

I conducted an informal web-based survey about Tasers and verified that the results were independent by IP address. There were 72 responses to the survey all of which were over 18 years of age. 29% of respondents were students and 31% were in law enforcement. Of those who responded 88% stated that peace officers should be allowed to use Tasers. Only 8% responded that peace officers should not. It is my conclusion that the majority of the public feels safe with the law enforcement use of Tasers, so why not security?

There are thousands of Tasers already in use by law enforcement and we have found that there have been no suspect deaths were a Taser was the sole cause. We have also found the Taser is unlikely to cause injury. Because of the low chance of injury Tasers should occupy a level of force less than that of batons, but above control holds. I do not see a reason to further regulate this possible life-saving tool for private security.

Comments

[Toxic Reverend]

This was sent
To;
Francesca Grifo
Senior Scientist and Director of
Scientific Integrity Program
Rebeca Bell
Union Concerned Scientists
Integrity in Science
"Political Interference in Science"
www.ucsusa.org/scientific_integrity/

Excerpt from the attached e-mail / news story;

Akron- Summit County Medical Examiner Lisa Kohler must
delete any reference that Tasers contributed to the deaths
of three men, a Summit County Common Pleas judge ordered
Friday.

The deaths of Dennis Hyde and Richard Holcomb, who were on
drugs and in an agitated state when police shot them with
Tasers, should be ruled accidental, visiting Judge Ted
Schneiderman wrote in his ruling. Any reference to homicide
or "electrical pulse stimulation" should be
deleted from death certificates and autopsy reports, he
said.

End of excerpt.

Please review the attached.

TR

Taser references deleted from medical examination

Tue May 6, 2008 3:25 pm (PDT) Summit County judge orders Taser references deleted
from medical examiner's rulings
Karen Farkas
Saturday, May 03,2008
Plain Dealer
http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Judge_orders_all_references_to_Taser_0504.html

Akron- Summit County Medical Examiner Lisa Kohler must
delete any reference that Tasers contributed to the deaths
of three men, a Summit County Common Pleas judge ordered
Friday.

The deaths of Dennis Hyde and Richard Holcomb, who were on
drugs and in an agitated state when police shot them with
Tasers, should be ruled accidental, visiting Judge Ted
Schneiderman wrote in his ruling. Any reference to homicide
or "electrical pulse stimulation" should be
deleted from death certificates and autopsy reports, he
said.

The order to change the ruling in the death of the third
man, Mark McCullaugh, could be more far-reaching.

McCullaugh, who had a history of psychiatric illness, died
in Summit County Jail on Aug. 20, 2006, during a struggle
with deputies who used Tasers and pepper spray. Five
sheriff's deputies were indicted in his death.

Schneiderman ordered Kohler to rule McCullaugh's death
undetermined and delete any references to homicide and the
death possibly being caused by asphyxia, beatings or other
factors.

That pleased Sheriff Drew Alexander. The deputies, three
charged with reckless homicide and two with felonious
assault, are on unpaid leave.

"This supports my initial beliefs that my employees
acted appropriately," Alexander said in a statement.

Schneiderman's order regarding McCullaugh goes far
beyond the focus of the case, said John Manley, of the
prosecutor's office, who represented Kohler.

"The purpose of the hearing represented a singular and
very narrow issue on whether or not the successful
deployment of the Taser Model X26 could contribute in any
way to the cause of death," Manley said. He may appeal.

Kohler's rulings were controversial because few
coroners have said the Taser was a factor in deaths. Other
coroners typically cite other contributing factors, such as
drug use, heart disease and cardiac arrhythmia due to
illegal drug use.

Hyde, 30, died Jan. 5, 2005, during a struggle with Akron
police. Three officers used Tasers. Hyde, of Hartville, had
broken into a house through a window. He was on
methamphetamine and suffered blood loss from cuts from the
window.

Holcomb, 18, of Akron, died May 28, 2005, after he attacked
a Springfield Township officer in a field. She shot him four
times with her Taser. Kohler ruled Holcomb was also in a
psychosis from using methamphetamine and Ecstasy.

Taser International maintains the weapon is not a factor if
police use it and the suspect later dies. Numerous experts
testified on its behalf at the four-day hearing in April.

"Taser International believed from the beginning that
these determinations of cause of death must be supported by
facts, medical research and scientific evidence,"
spokesman Steve Tuttle said in a prepared statement Friday.

As of mid-April, 68 wrongful-death or injury lawsuits have
been dismissed or judgments entered in favor of Taser,
according to the company. The company has not lost any
product-liability lawsuits.

"It was an interesting case and an uphill
battle," said Manley. "Taser is quite a force to
be reckoned with and does everything to protect their golden
egg, which is the Model X26."

To reach this Plain Dealer reporter:
kfarkas @ plaind.com, 216-999-5079

[mesha Monge-Irizarry]

You failed to mention Raser death of Children, children, autistics, and the sufferers of a host of other mental health ailments ?

If Tasers death only occur among actove substance users...

How come crazed Cops on Anabolic Steroids do not instantly die alongside their victims, yet another casualty of "excited Delirium" ?

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/E_SUCKS/
Stop Steroid Use by Cops
(20% law enforcement officers nationwide admit to steroid use sometimes duting theur career)