California Security News

How to build your own Net Gun

Step-by-step instructions of building your own fugitive catching net gun!
Build A Net Gun - More DIY How To Projects

CBC News report finds Tasers are unreliable

The CBC and Radio Canada have delivered a report where they tested 41 X26 Taser units pulled from random Police stations, and the results aren't likely to reassure anyone. US-based testing lab National Technical Systems acquired the Taser units out of 7 random police stations across the nation, and fired each at least six times. What happened? Well, four of them threw off a current "significantly" higher than a Taser is supposed to, including some that were 50 percent higher than normal, while three didn't fire at all. Taser International couldn't provide someone for the CBC to interview, but did provide a written statement.

Taser Internationals official statement: "Taser International has reviewed the testing results from the National Technology Systems study various Taser X26 electronic control devices as provided by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. The results from the testing are generally consistent with the specifications provided by Taser International and which would be expected from such tests...."

Security Patches Photo Album

Our blog now has a photo album containing security patches from different California companies.  If you have a patch that we can add, please email Ryan.

Here is the link: Security Patches Photo Album

Police Batons, What Type is Best for Duty Use?

I was just communicating with a friend about which baton to purchase for duty use as a security officer.  I decided that I can further voice my opinions and baton reviews here for more people to ignore.  Hopefully this is a start of private security product reviews that I will to expand upon in future posts.

First a small look into my background and why I feel I am entitled to share my opinion about police batons:  I have had training in baton use while in the US Navy, at the Riverside County Sheriffs and the San Francisco Police Academy.  I am a certified baton instructor from ASP and Monadnock.  I am also a certified master baton instructor from G-tek.  Most importantly I have carried and used different batons while on duty to defend myself and in one case defend another security officer.

BSIS used to regulate the type of baton you could carry.  BSIS did away with this requirement and now only requires that you are certified in baton use and carry a permit with you while on duty.  There are two main baton designs, the straight baton and the side handle.  I have seen other baton designs such as the Handler 12 and the Rapid Rotation Baton, but these are not that popular for private security use.

The straight stick baton

The straight stick is self explanatory; it’s the oldest and simplest baton design.  They are often made of hardwood, but in modern times are available in other materials such as aluminum, acrylic, or plastic.  The major benefit of these batons is low cost; I have seen wooden straight stick batons on sale for less than $10.  Another benefit is that the tactics required to use this type of baton are simple and easy to use in combat.  Use of a straight stick is reliant upon gross motor skills and the officer only has to commit to memory certain no-strike zones.  Remember a baton can be considered a deadly weapon if used as such.

The side handle baton (PR-24)

The side handle baton was introduced to the American law enforcement community in 1958 by a former US Marine.  The side handle baton is a baton with a handle attached at a 90-degree angle near the gripping end.  The concept for the side handle baton was borrowed from the ancient Okinawans who used a similar side-handle stick called the tonfa.  One of the first and largest suppliers of these batons was Monadnock and the model was the PR-24.  The model number stuck and is now used to reference most side handle batons.

There are advantages of the side handle baton over the straight baton:  Some officers may be able to deliver a strike of greater power when used in conjunction with certain techniques.  There are a far greater number of defensive maneuvers and take-downs that may be used.  If the side handle baton is dropped, it shouldn’t roll around on the floor and end up a tripping hazard.

I recommend the straight baton over the side handle for one main reason, the techniques and tactics to use the side handle are complex and hard to remember without regular practice.  Do you remember the last time you practiced with your baton against an aggressor?  In my experience when the adrenaline is pumping and the fight is on, the side handle baton gets used more often like a club.  This is exactly what got the LA police officers in trouble during the Rodney King beating.  Another disadvantage is the extra bulk on the duty belt.  There are collapsible PR-24 batons of good quality, but only decrease about six inches of baton length and are not much help in reducing bulk.

A note on collapsible straight batons

A collapsible baton is easier for an officer to carry and to sit in a car wearing it. This is contrasted with non-collapsible batons, which the Officer may, as a measure of convenience, often resort to removing from his or her belt when seating themselves in a vehicle.  What good is a baton if it’s left in the car when you need it?  The main problem with most collapsible batons is the light weight of the baton.  This translates to less power during impact.  Don’t get me wrong, these steel batons sting like a mo-fo, but they lack the impact power of a traditional straight stick.  Because of this lack of power the officer may have to make multiple strikes to gain compliance.  There are some new collapsible batons introduced to the market that are thicker and heaver than the popular ASP and Monadnock models.

I hope to post detailed product reviews in the future.  If you have an opinion please feel free to email me or leave a comment on the blog.  Thanks and stay safe!

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.

PepperBall for Private Security?

There is a large list of less-lethal technologies available for use. Not all are best suited for private security work and some are just not sold to non-law enforcement types. I want to explain my opinion on one less-lethal tool, PepperBall. I want to go over the benefits, drawbacks, and the legality of California private use of this tool.

PepperBall Technologies, Inc. makes and sells a few different types of PepperBall launchers. The launchers all use compressed air to fire a .68” plastic sphere filled with different compounds. The spheres are target accurate to 60 feet and can be filled with PAVA powder, water, paint, and scented powder. PAVA is basically a chemically produced OC powder. PepperBall has the patent on .68” plastic spheres filled with powdered irritant, so if you find someone else selling it, they were manufactured by PepperBall. (I will list some other products that use this technology later.)

Some of the PepperBall launchers are basically modified Tipmann paintball launchers. The only real modification from the PepperBall version of these launchers is that more air is allowed to be used to fire the projectile at approximately 300 to 350 fps; the standard paintball launcher fires at just under 300 fps. The most common of these launchers in the SA-200 which is no longer made by Tipmann and is being replaced by the Custom Carbine. All these launchers have a gravity fed magazine of over 150 projectiles and will fire as fast as you can pull the trigger. They are target accurate to 60 feet with the powder filled projectiles. The water and paint filled projectiles are less accurate then the powder filled. All types of projectiles can be fired up to 150 feet for area saturation.

The SA-200, Custom Carbine, and the electronically fired TAC-700 are all large weapons. Because of the size of these launchers you would not want to carry them around all day and would most likely have them pre-staged in your car or office. This limits their use for private security. I find it hard to think of a situation where a private security officer would be justified to leave a hostile situation to retrieve a less-lethal launcher and then return to utilize it. I can think of only a few scenarios and one would be area denial.

PepperBall makes two smaller launchers that can be carried by a security officer all day, the SA-10 and the FlashLauncher. The SA-10 is larger, shaped like a gun, and has a 10 round gravity fed magazine. The FlashLauncher is shaped like a large flashlight and has a 5 round spring loaded magazine. The FlashLauncher also has an 80 lumen rechargeable light and is useful in this regard. Both of these launchers use CO2 to launch the projectile, but unlike the SA-10 the FlashLauncher can be loaded and ready to fire for extended periods. If you charge the SA-10 with CO2 it will leak the gas slowly and will render it useless in a few hours.

What about the legality of these tools? Well because the launchers can be loaded with different projectiles the rules change. If they are loaded with the PAVA projectiles you have to consider the rules for OC spray, which are very restrictive for private persons. California PC 12403.7, “…tear gas weapons are used solely for self-defense purposes…” If you use any other projectile to strike an adversary then have to consider the rules of impact weapons. However unlike a baton impact weapon, PepperBall is considered non-lethal. Just as a mater of fact if you heard from the media that a woman was killed in Chicago with PepperBall, that story was untrue. She did die, but was hit with a FN-303 which uses a faster, heaver, fin stabilized, liquid filled round.

I asked California BSIS what they thought about PepperBall use by private security, this is what I received back: "All your guards are required to have is proof that they have taken a class, approved by the Bureau, in the carrying and use of pepper spray…

We do not have any authority regarding the use of these devises. However, I would advise you to check with your local law enforcement and our local municipalities to see if the have an ordinance in place that addresses the use of a PepperBall devise.”

I know of three California PPO’s who currently utilize PepperBall devices and two have already have used them in the field. I have not yet heard of any use-of-force or legality issues with the use of PepperBall by private security.

I think PepperBall is a good tool for private security as it allows an officer to deploy non-lethal force a long distances. Pepper spray is only effective to about 10 feet, Tasers to about 18 feet and PepperBall to about 60 feet. While the distance from Tasers is good, the cost (approx. $24 per shot) is expensive. A typical PepperBall projectile is about $2, if you buy in bulk. I think the FlashLauncher makes the most sense as a tool because it can be loaded indefinitely, ready to use and has a built in flashlight.

Some other manufactures are making launchers for PepperBall projectiles. They also sell PAVA projectiles, but remember that PepperBall holds the patent and these projectiles are supplied by PepperBall. Veritas Tactical www.veritastactical.com and Rap-4 rap4.com/paintball/os/rap4-less-lethal-c-406.html are two good suppliers. PepperBall Technolgies, Inc. website is www.pepperball.com

If you have any questions, comments, or have some information to share please email me.

Can't Taze Me Bro,.. really you can't

Point Blank is a maker of very popular body armor and has announced that it has teamed-up with G² Consulting to market a line of electroshock weapon protection systems.  Thats right, stuff that a Taser won't work through. The protective material can be applied to officers’ garments and equipment such as body armor, shirts, jackets, training suits, gloves, and hats.  Click here for a video