Thread: Man dies during struggle with border agents at San Ysidro

Taser

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A Taser, with cartridge removed, making an electric arc between its two electrodes

A Taser or conducted electrical weapon (CEW)^[1] is an electroshock weapon sold by Taser International. It fires two small dart-like electrodes, which stay connected to the main unit by conductors, to deliver electrical current to disrupt voluntary control of muscles causing "neuromuscular incapacitation".^[2][3] Someone struck by a Taser experiences stimulation of his or her sensory nerves andmotor nerves, resulting in strong involuntary muscle contractions. Tasers do not rely only on pain compliance, except when used in 'drive stun' mode, and are thus preferred by some law enforcement over non-Taser stun guns and other electronic control weapons.^[4][5][6]

Tasers were introduced as non-lethal weapons to be used by police to subdue fleeing, belligerent, or potentially dangerous people, who would have otherwise been subjected to more lethal weapons such as firearms. A 2009 Police Executive Research Forum study said that officer injuries drop by 76% when a Taser is used.^[7]

However, while Taser CEO Rick Smith has stated that police surveys show that the device has saved 75,000 lives,^[7]there has been some controversy where Tasers have been implicated in instances of serious injury or death.^[8][9]

Although some other companies have produced similar devices (e.g., Raysun X1),^[10][11]their significance as of 2014 is still marginal.^{[citation needed]}

Contents

[hide]

• 1 History
• 2 Function
  
  • 2.1 Drive Stun
  • 2.2 Models
  • 2.3 Accessories
  
  
• 3 Users
  
  • 3.1 Legality
  
  
• 4 Safety concerns
• 5 Excited delirium
• 6 Use in schools and on children
• 7 Use in torture
• 8 See also
• 9 References
• 10 External links

History[edit]

Jack Cover, a NASA researcher, began developing the Taser in 1969.^[12] By 1974, Cover had completed the device, which he named after his childhood hero Tom Swift ("ThomasA. Swift's electric rifle").^[13] The Taser Public Defender used gunpowder as its propellant, which led the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms to classify it as a firearm in 1976.^[14][15]
Taser International CEO Patrick Smith has testified in a Taser-related lawsuit that the catalyst for the development of the device was the "shooting death of two of his high school acquaintances" by a "guy with a legally licensed gun who lost his temper".^[16] In 1993, Rick Smith and his brother Thomas began to investigate what they called "safer use of force option[s] for citizens and law enforcement". At their Scottsdale, Arizona, facilities, the brothers worked with the "...original Taser inventor, Jack Cover" to develop a "non-firearm Taser electronic control device".^[17] The 1994 Air Taser Model 34000 had an "anti-felon identification (AFID) system" to prevent the likelihood that the device would be used by criminals; upon use, it released many small pieces of paper containing the serial number of the Taser device. The U.S. firearms regulator, the ATF, stated that the Air Taser was not a firearm. In 1999, Taser International developed an "ergonomically handgun-shaped device called the Advanced Taser M-series systems" which used a "patented neuromuscular incapacitation (NMI) technology". In May 2003, Taser International released a new weapon called the Taser X26, which used "shaped pulse technology". On July 27, 2009 Taser International released a new type of Taser called the X3 which can fire three shots before it must be reloaded. It holds three new type cartridges, which are much thinner than the previous model.

Function[edit]

The Taser fires two small dart-like electrodes, which stay connected to the main unit by conductive wire as they are propelled by small compressed nitrogen charges.^[18][19] The air cartridge contains a pair of electrodes and propellant for a single shot and is replaced after each use. There are a number of cartridges designated by range, with the maximum at 35 feet (10.6 m).^[19] Cartridges available to non-law enforcement consumers are limited to 15 feet (4.5 m).^[20] The electrodes are pointed to penetrate clothing and barbed to prevent removal once in place. Earlier Taser models had difficulty in penetrating thick clothing, but newer versions (X26, C2) use a "shaped pulse" that increases effectiveness in the presence of barriers.^[21]

Tasers also provide a safety benefit to police officers as they have a greater deployment range than batons, pepper spray or empty hand techniques. This allows police to maintain a safe distance. A study of use-of-force incidents by the Calgary Police Service conducted by the Canadian Police Research Centre found that the use of Tasers resulted in fewer injuries than the use of batons or empty hand techniques. Only pepper spray was found to be a safer intervention option.^[22]

• 
  
  The M-26 Taser, the United States military version of a commercial Taser
• 
  
  Police issue X26 Taser with cartridge installed

Drive Stun [edit]

Some Taser models, particularly those used by police departments, also have a "Drive Stun" capability, where the Taser is held against the target without firing the projectiles, and is intended to cause pain without incapacitating the target.

"Drive Stun" is "the process of using the EMD (Electro Muscular Disruption) weapon [Taser] as a pain compliance technique. This is done by activating the Taser and placing it against an individual’s body. This can be done without an air cartridge in place or after an air cartridge has been deployed."^[23]

Guidelines released in 2011 in the U.S. recommend that use of Drive Stun as a pain compliance technique be avoided.^[24] The guidelines were issued by a joint committee of the Police Executive Research Forum and the U.S. Department of Justice Office of Community Oriented Policing Services. The guidelines state "Using the ECW to achieve pain compliance may have limited effectiveness and, when used repeatedly, may even exacerbate the situation by inducing rage in the subject."

A study of U.S. police and sheriff departments found that 29.6% of the jurisdictions allowed the use of Drive Stun for gaining compliance in a passive resistance arrest scenario, with no physical contact between the officer and the subject. For a scenario which also includes non-violent physical contact, this number is 65.2%.^[25]

A Las Vegas police document says "The Drive Stun causes significant localized pain in the area touched by the Taser, but does not have a significant effect on the central nervous system. The Drive Stun does not incapacitate a subject but may assist in taking a subject into custody."^[26] "Drive Stun" was used in the UCLA Taser incident and the University of Florida Taser incident (which popularized the widespread use of the phrase "Don't Tase me, bro!").

Amnesty International has expressed particular concern about Drive Stun, noting that "… the potential to use Tasers in drive-stun mode—where they are used as 'pain compliance' tools when individuals are already effectively in custody—and the capacity to inflict multiple and prolonged shocks, renders the weapons inherently open to abuse."^[27]

Models[edit]

There are two main police models, the M26 and X26.^{[citation needed]} Both come with accessories including a laser sight and optional mounted digital video camera that can record in low-light situations.^{[citation needed]} Taser International sells a civilian model called the C2.^{[citation needed]} On 27 July 2009, Taser introduced the X3, capable of firing three times without reload.^[28][29]

TASER X2 Defender

Accessories[edit]

The Taser Cam is a specialized device designed for the Taser X26 to record audio and video when the Taser's safety is disengaged. The cam is integrated into a battery pack and does not interfere with the Taser's existing function.^[30]

Users[edit]

Taser use in Phoenix increased from 71 incidents in 2002 to 164 incidents in 2003.^{[citation needed]} In Houston, however, police shootings did not decline after the deployment of thousands of Tasers.^[31]

According to the analysis of the first 900 police Taser incidents by the Houston Chronicle, no crime was being committed and no person was charged in 350 of those cases.^[31] In addition, it has been reported that the Houston Police Department has "shot, wounded, and killed as many people as before the widespread use of the stun guns" and has used Tasers in situations that would not warrant lethal or violent force, such as "traffic stops, disturbance and nuisance complaints, and reports of suspicious people."

In Portland, Oregon, meanwhile, police found that 25% to 30% of the situations in which a Taser was employed met the criteria for the use of deadly force.^[32]

In 2005, the American Civil Liberties Union stated that at least 148 people had died in the United States and Canada since 1999 after being shocked with Tasers by police officers,^[33] and Amnesty International stated that the number reached 500 in 2012.^[34]

A 2009 development has included marketing Tasers to the general public. A line of pink Tasers are specifically being marketed for women. The Taser website states "Who says safety can't be stylish?" in reference to its "latest designer TASER C2 colors" and patterns, which include leopard print patterns and a range of colors.^[35]

Legality[edit]

Argentina[edit]

In 2010, one court ruled against the use of five imported Tasers by the Buenos Aires local police, to comply with a claim from the "Human Rights Observatorium", that states that Tasers are considered an instrument of torture by NGOs and the Committee against Torture of the UN.^[36]

Australia[edit]

Possession, ownership and use of a stun gun (including Tasers) by civilians is considerably restricted, if not illegal in all States and Territories. The importation into Australia is restricted with permits being required.

Stun gun use in Australian law enforcement is as follows:

• Australian Federal Police and Australian Capital Territory: used only by officers attached to the Specialist Response Group, qualified general duties (patrol) Sergeants within ACT Policing and Aviation portfolios, and qualified members of Specialist Support Teams in regional offices.
• New South Wales: Used by general duties (patrol), supervisors/duty officers and specialist officers attached to the Tactical Operations Unit and Public Order and Riot Squad.
• Northern Territory: Used by both general duties (patrol) and the Territory Response Group.
• Queensland: Used by both general duties (patrol) and Special Emergency Response Team.
• South Australia: Used by all front line Police, STAR Group and Country Members in limited capacity.^[37]
• Tasmania: Used only by the Special Operations Group
• Victoria: Used by the Critical Incident Response Team and Special Operations Group. A year long trial at Bendigo and Morwell stations is also underway by general duties police.^[38]
• Western Australia: Used by both general duties (patrol) and the Tactical Response Group.

Austria[edit]

The use of stun guns including Tasers is allowed for police. Upon use of a Taser police must immediately call for an ambulance, the victim needs to be medically checked directly at the place of the shooting and the removal of the darts is only permitted by a medically trained person. From 2006 to 2012 Tasers were used 133 times: 127 against humans and six against dogs. About 1,000 police officers were permitted in 2012 to carry and use a Taser.^[39]

Brazil[edit]

Use of the Taser is legal for the police. Its use is widespread mainly in the Guardas Municipais (Municipal Guards), who receive professional training in the use of electro-conductive pistols. Tasers are also used by military police and specialized forces. There are laws allowing their use by private security companies, but such use is unusual because of the expense of maintaining a Taser compared with an ordinary gun.

Canada[edit]

According to previous interpretation of the Firearms Act, Tasers were considered to be "prohibited weapons" and could be used only by members of law-enforcement agencies after they were imported into the country under a special permit. The possession of restricted weapons must be licensed by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP)Canadian Firearms Program unless exempted by law.^[40] A 2008 review of the Firearms Act found that the act classifies "the Taser Public Defender and any variant or modified version of it" as "prohibited firearms". However, Canadian police forces typically treat Tasers as "prohibited weapons", inconsistent with the restrictions on firearms.^[41]
The direct source for this information comes from an independent report produced by Compliance Strategy Group^[42] for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. The report is called An Independent Review of the Adoption and Use of Conducted Energy Weapons by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.^[43] In the report that is available through access to information, the authors argued that the CEW was, for several years after its adoption by the RCMP, erroneously characterized as a prohibited "weapon" under the Criminal Code, as opposed to a prohibited "firearm". This misunderstanding was subsequently incorporated into the RCMP's operational policies and procedures as well as those of other police services in Canada. While the most recent RCMP operational manual, completed in 2007, correctly refers to the CEW as a prohibited firearm, a number of consequences of this error in classification remain to be dealt with by both the RCMP and other Canadian police services.^[44] Consequently, it could be argued the police in Canada may not have had the proper authority under their provincial policing Acts and Regulation to use the CEW in the first place. The point of unauthorized use by the police was also raised by Dirk Ryneveld, British Columbia's Police Complaint Commissioner at the Braidwood inquiry on June 25, 2008. Taser safety and issues have been extensively rehearsed and investigated after the Robert Dziekański Taser incident at Vancouver International Airport.^[45]

Czech Republic[edit]

Tasers are not only legal in the Czech Republic, but vulnerable groups like pensioners and women are encouraged by the police to carry them for self-defense.^[46]

Finland[edit]

In Finland possession of Taser is legal only for police officers. Police have been using Tasers since 2005. Nowadays there's a Taser in almost every patrol car.^[47][48]

France[edit]

Tasers are used by the French National Police and Gendarmerie. In September 2008, they were made available to local police by a government decree,^[49] but in September 2009, the Council of State reversed the decision judging that the specificities of the weapon required a stricter regulation and control.^[50] However, since the murder of a policewoman on duty, the Taser is in use again by local police forces in 2010.

Germany[edit]

The purchase, possession, and carrying of Tasers in Germany is prohibited since April 1, 2008 (gun control law: Anlage 2, Abschnitt 1, Nr. 1.3.6. WaffG). However Tasers are in use by police SWAT teams, Spezialeinsatzkommando, (SEK) and others, in 13 out of 16 German states.

Greece[edit]

The Greek police uses Tasers. Greek Police special forces used a Taser to end the hijacking of a Turkish Airlines A310 by a Turkish citizen at Athens International Airport in March 2003.^[51]

Hong Kong[edit]

Under Hong Kong laws, Chapter 238 Firearms and Ammunition Ordinance, "any portable device which is designed or adapted to stun or disable a person by means of an electric shock applied either with or without direct contact with that person" is considered as 'arms' and therefore, the importation, possession and exportation of Tasers require a license by the Hong Kong Police Force which would otherwise be illegal and carries penalties up to a fine of $100,000 and 14 years in jail.

Iceland[edit]

Use of Tasers is not prohibited in Iceland.

Ireland[edit]

Specialist units of Ireland's national police force (Garda Síochána) use the X26 model;Special Detective Unit, Emergency Response Unit and Regional Support Unit. Issuing Tasers to all members of the force (who are generally unarmed) is currently under consideration.^[52] Use of Tasers in Ireland by private individuals is prohibited.

Israel[edit]

Israeli police approved using Tasers. As of 16 February 2009, the first Tasers became available to police units.^[53]

Israeli Defense Force first usage
Tasers were first used by the Israeli Defense Force by the former special counter-terror unit Force 100 in 2004. The unit was disbanded in 2006.^[54] Tasers are expected to re-enter operational use by the Israeli Defense Forces in the near future.^[55]
As of August 18, 2013, the use of Tasers by Israeli police was temporarily suspended by Police Chief Yokhanan Danino; after such instruments were used repeatedly and excessively by police; against a person who allegedly was unarmed and who was not resisting a warranted arrest. But two weeks later the Taser was unsuspended.

Kenya[edit]

Tasers are not recognized under Kenyan law hence they are illegal.

Malaysia[edit]

Royal Malaysian Police are set to become the second in Southeast Asia police force afterSingapore Police Force to use the non-lethal Taser X26 stun guns. The force had taken delivery of 210 units of the stun guns, known as the X26 electronic control device, which cost RM2.1 million, last year they have yet to be distributed to personnel on the ground. Taser would be included under the Firearms Act 1960. The Taser X26 set bought by Malaysian police comes with a holster and uses a non-rechargeable lithium battery able to deliver 195 cartridge shots. Policemen going on rounds will be issued four cartridges. The force began toying with the idea of using Tasers in 2003 when they purchased 80 units of the M26, the X26's bulkier predecessor. This was not made public as it was part of a testing exercise. The Tasers were issued to policemen in Petaling Jaya, Dang Wangi in Kuala Lumpur and Johor Bahru.^[56]

New Zealand[edit]

A large-scale and generally well received trial by the New Zealand Police saw Tasers presented almost 800 times and fired over 100 times, but firing was "ineffective" about a third of the time.^[57] The Tasers had been "unintentionally discharged" more often than they had been used in the line of duty.
In October 2012, police said the Taser had been "very successful in de-escalating dangerous and potentially life-threatening situations". Since their introduction, Tasers had been presented 1320 times but only fired 212 times, resulting in 13 injuries.^[58]

Sweden[edit]

Tasers and other electronic control devices are considered firearms in Sweden and are banned for civilian use. The Swedish police had purchased a limited quantity of Tasers, and was about to initiate field trials when these were cancelled in 2005 after an ethics commission found that the need for (and risks of) such devices was not firmly established.^[59] The purchased Tasers were then donated to Finland, where field trials were initiated.

United Kingdom[edit]

See also: Police uniforms and equipment in the United Kingdom § Tasers
Tasers are considered to be "prohibited weapons" under the Firearms Act 1968 and possession is an offence.^[60] The maximum sentence for possession is ten years in prison and an unlimited fine.^[61]
Taser guns are now used by some British police as a "less lethal" weapon. It was also announced in July 2007, that the deployment of Taser by specially trained police units who are not firearms officers, but who are facing similar threats of violence, would be trialled in ten police forces.^[62] The 12-month trial commenced on 1 September 2007, and took place in the following forces: Avon & Somerset, Devon & Cornwall, Gwent, Lincolnshire,Merseyside, Metropolitan Police, Northamptonshire, Northumbria, North Wales and West Yorkshire.^[62]
Following the completion of the trial, the Home Secretary agreed on 24 November 2008 to allow chief police officers of all forces in England and Wales, from 1 December 2008, to extend Taser use to specially trained units in accordance with current Association of Chief Police Officers policy and guidance, which states that Taser can be used only where officers would be facing violence or threats of violence of such severity that they would need to use force to protect the public, themselves, and/or the subject(s).^[63]
Also, in Scotland Strathclyde Police agreed in February 2010 to arm 30 specially trained police officers using the Taser X26. The pilot would last three months and would be deployed in Glasgow City Centre and Rutherglen.^[64]
A fund for up to 10,000 additional Tasers is being made available for individual chief police officers to bid for Tasers based on their own operational requirements.^[63]

United States[edit]

Taser devices are not considered firearms by the United States government.^[65] They can be legally carried (concealed or open) without a permit in 45 states.^[66] They are forbidden for citizen use in the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey and Rhode Island,^[67] as well as certain cities and counties. Their use in Connecticut, Illinois, and Wisconsin^[68] is legal with restrictions.^[69]
Court cases in recent years have addressed the legality of Taser use by police officers. In Bryan v. MacPherson, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a Taser had been used in a way that constituted excessive force and hence a violation of the Fourth Amendment. In the later case Mattos v. Agarano,^[70] the same Court of Appeals found that in two situations involving Taser use, one in Drive Stun and one in dart mode, officers had used excessive force. According to an article in Police Chief magazine, this decision implies guidelines for the use of Tasers and other Electronic Control Devices in gaining compliance (in a setting where safety is not an issue), including that the officer must give warning before each application, and that the suspect must be capable of compliance, with enough time to consider a warning, and to recover from the extreme pain of any prior application of the Taser; nor should Tasers be used on children, the elderly, and women who are visibly pregnant or inform the officer of their pregnancy.^[71]
In 1991, a Taser supplied by Tasertron to the Los Angeles Police Department failed to subdue Rodney King—even after he was shocked twice with the device—causing officers to believe he was on PCP.^[72] Its lack of effectiveness was blamed on a possible battery problem.^[73]

Safety concerns[edit]

Main article: Taser safety issues

Excited delirium[edit]

Main article: Excited delirium
See also: Taser safety issues
Some of the deaths associated with Tasers are given a diagnosis of excited delirium, a term for a phenomenon that manifests as a combination of delirium, psychomotor agitation, anxiety, hallucinations, speech disturbances, disorientation, violent and bizarre behavior, insensitivity to pain, elevated body temperature, and increased strength.^[74][75]Excited delirium is associated with sudden death (usually via cardiac or respiratory arrest) particularly following the use of physical control measures, including police restraint and Tasers.^[74][75] Excited delirium most commonly arises in male subjects with a history of serious mental illness and/or acute or chronic drug abuse, particularly stimulant drugssuch as cocaine.^[74][76] Alcohol withdrawal or head trauma may also contribute to the condition.^[77]
The diagnosis of excited delirium has been controversial.^[78][79] Excited delirium has been listed as a cause of death by some medical examiners for several years,^[80][81] mainly as adiagnosis of exclusion established on autopsy.^[74] Additionally, academic discussion of excited delirium has been largely confined to forensic science literature, providing limited documentation about patients that survive the condition.^[74] These circumstances have led some civil liberties groups to question the cause of death diagnosis, claiming that excited delirium has been used to "excuse and exonerate" law enforcement authorities following the death of detained subjects, a possible "conspiracy or cover-up for brutality" when restraining agitated individuals.^[74][78][79] Also contributing to the controversy is the role of Taser use in excited delirium deaths.^[76][82]
Excited delirium is not found in the current version of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, however the term "excited delirium" has been accepted by theNational Association of Medical Examiners and the American College of Emergency Physicians, who argued in a 2009 white paper that "excited delirium" may be described by several codes within the ICD-9.^[74] The American College of Emergency Physicians "rejects the theory" that excited delirium is an "invented syndrome" used to excuse or cover-up the use of excessive force by law enforcement.^[83]

Use in schools and on children[edit]

Taser International asserts that the Taser is safe for use on anyone weighing 60 pounds (27 kg) or more.^{[citation needed]} Police officers that patrol schools, including grade schools, in several U.S. states (including Kansas, Minnesota, Kentucky, Virginia and Florida) have been carrying Tasers since the early 2000s. In 2004, the parents of a 6-year-old boy inMiami sued the police department for firing a Taser at their child. The police said the boy was threatening to injure his own leg with a shard of glass, and claimed that using the device was the only option to stop the boy from injuring himself. Nevertheless, the boy's mother told CNN that the three officers involved might have found it easier to reason with her child. Two weeks later, a 12-year-old girl skipping school was Tasered in Miami-Dade.^[84] In March 2008, an 11-year-old girl was shocked by a Taser.^[85] In March 2009, a 15-year-old boy died in Michigan after being Tasered.^[86]
Taser supporters suggest that the use in schools consists of merely switching on the device followed with threatening to use it, which can be effective in frightening violent or uncooperative students. This is the method, only if verbal reprimands have not succeeded.^{[citation needed]} Critics counter that Tasers may interact with pre-existing medical complications such as medications, and may even contribute to someone's death as a result. Critics also suggest that using a Taser on a minor, particularly a young child, is effectively cruel and abusive punishment, or unnecessary.^{[87][88][89][90]}

Use in torture[edit]

A report from a meeting of the United Nations Committee Against Torture states that "The Committee was worried that the use of Taser X26 weapons, provoking extreme pain, constituted a form of torture, and that in certain cases it could also cause death, as shown by several reliable studies and by certain cases that had happened after practical use."^[91][92] Amnesty International has also raised extensive concerns about the use of other electro-shock devices by American police and in American prisons, as they can be (and according to Amnesty International, sometimes are) used to inflict cruel pain on individuals. For example, Eric Hammock of Texas died in April 2005 after receiving more than 20 Taser shocks by Fort Worth police officers.^[93] Maurice Cunningham of South Carolina, while an inmate at the Lancaster County Detention Center,^[94][95] was subjected to continuous shock for 2 minutes 49 seconds, which a medical examiner said caused cardiac arrhythmia and his subsequent death. He was 29 years old and had no alcohol or drugs in his system.^[96]
In response to the claims that the pain inflicted by the use of the Taser could potentially constitute torture, Tom Smith, the Chairman of the Taser Board, has stated that the U.N. is "out of touch" with the needs of modern policing.

Pepper spray goes on for hours and hours, hitting someone with a baton breaks limbs, shooting someone with a firearm causes permanent damage, even punching and kicking—the intent of those tools is to inflict pain, ... with the Taser, the intent is not to inflict pain; it's to end the confrontation. When it's over, it's over.^[97]
—Taser Chairman Tom Smith

The American Civil Liberties Union has also raised concerns about their use,^{[citation needed]}as has the British human rights organization Resist Cardiac Arrest.^{[citation needed]}

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taser

Tasers were introduced as non-lethal weapons to be used by police to subdue fleeing, belligerent, or potentially dangerous people, who would have otherwise been subjected to more lethal weapons such as firearms. A 2009 Police Executive Research Forum study said that officer injuries drop by 76% when a Taser is used.^[7]

But the Taser was introduced as a "non-lethal weapon" as a fraud by Taser International, because they are lethal and known by Taser to be so, that's why they've killed over 500 people in the United States already. And anyone who wants to believe a "Police Executive Research Forum Study", I've got some ocean front property in Arizona for them. Sorry, JohnDoe, but Tasers are bad news promoted as a non-lethal weapon, when they are quite deadly causing cardiac arrest and fractured spines. Thus, they shouldn't be used as a non-lethal weapon and if you're going to use a lethal weapon, just follow the protocol for your guns.

Since many city, county, state and federal law enforcement agencies use Tasers

there must be a lot a politicians and law enforcement officers who disagree with you.

I think I'll go with their assessment since they are the professionals.

Originally Posted by JohnDoe2

Since many city, county, state and federal law enforcement agencies use Tasers

there must be a lot a politicians and law enforcement officers who disagree with you.

I think I'll go with their assessment since they are the professionals.

Oh, Okay.

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/tech/...n-danger_x.htm

Posted 12/29/2004 2:43 PM Updated 12/29/2004 2:56 PM

Officer's injury raises concern over Taser use

By Robert Anglen, The Arizona Republic


The makers of Taser electric stun guns say their claims of safety are backed by more than 100,000 police officers who have been shocked during training sessions without suffering a single serious injury.

		Farmington, Conn., police Sgt. Keith Zengel displays a taser gun that is in use by his department.
By Bob Child, AP

But a doctor working for Taser says a one-second burst from the stun gun was responsible for fracturing the back of a Maricopa County sheriff's deputy in 2002.

The doctor, in a memo obtained by The Arizona Republic, tells Taser that he evaluated former Deputy Samuel Powers and found the officer "sustained a T7 compression fracture as the result of the Taser incident."

Powers was the first person to file a product liability lawsuit against Scottsdale's Taser International, claiming that the shock during a mandatory training exercise forced him into medical retirement and has left him suffering permanent injuries.

He has been joined by other police officers around the country who are coming forward with lawsuits and complaints about injuries they attribute to being shocked with a Taser.

The injury reports appear to contradict Taser's principal assertion of safety and may undercut one of the company's most effective sales pitches. The doctor's memo surprises and concerns police training instructors from Miami to Portland who have shocked their own officers during training and say this could lead them to re-examine how Tasers are used.

The memo also raises questions about Taser's reports to its shareholders. In repeated filings to the Securities and Exchange Commission, Taser says that Powers is alleging that he "injured his shoulder" and makes no mention of the fracture.In his memo, Phoenix orthopedic surgeon Stephen Brown says an undiagnosed case of osteoporosis, a bone-weakening disease, left Powers vulnerable to the Taser shock.

"I think this patient had evidence for pre-existing osteoporosis, which is why, when he received the electrical impulse and resultant muscle contraction, he sustained a T7 compression fracture," the doctor says.

Brown's conclusion that osteoporosis contributed to Powers' injury may add to the list of health conditions that have been cited in several injuries and deaths following shocks from the 50,000-volt stun gun. Among those are heart conditions, mental delirium and drug intoxication.

Although medical examiners nationwide have linked Taser to 11 deaths, company officials claim the stun gun was not a factor and the people would have died whether or not they were shocked.

With Tasers being used by about 5,500 law enforcement agencies, including officers assigned to high school and college campuses, the question of safety is expanding.

Taser officials did not respond to multiple requests for interviews last week.

Police 'brainwashed'

Phoenix lawyers John Dillingham and Tom Wilmer, who represent Powers, say law enforcement agencies have been bombarded by safety assurances from Taser and are buying thousands of stun guns in the belief they have never caused an injury or death.

"This is not a problem with law enforcement. It's a problem with Taser," Dillingham says. "Police officers are brainwashed into thinking that the (stun) gun is safe. They are brainwashed into taking a hit during training and then to use it in the field anytime they want."

Powers, a 15-year veteran of the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office, says in his lawsuit that he was repeatedly told the stun did not pose any risks before he was shocked during a mandatory Taser certification training session.

A video that recorded the training shows Powers standing between two officers, who were supposed to keep him from falling down.

Electrodes are attached to his left ankle and right shoulder. The shock, which lasts no more than a second, causes Powers to yell in pain as his body contracts.

"Immediately upon being shocked, Powers suffered severe pain in his back. He could hardly breath," his lawsuit states. "Within minutes, he realized he had sustained (a) severe injury. He subsequently learned that the shock had caused his seventh thoracic vertebrae to be crushed."

Powers' suit was filed in July 2003 in Maricopa County Superior Court. It is scheduled to go to trial in June.
Taser lawyers say Powers should have refused to be shocked. They say he had previously been treated for two herniated disks and had been warned about the muscle contractions caused by Taser.

And before being shocked, lawyers say, Powers watched 12 other deputies experience the shock.

"He observed each deputy's body stiffen from involuntary muscle contractions caused by the Taser, fall to the ground in many instances, and scream out in pain," lawyers say in court filings. "Appreciating the risk and its magnitude, he nevertheless chose to assume that risk by receiving a sample exposure of the Taser."
To help its defense of Powers' suit, Taser lawyers hired Brown to perform an "independent medical examination" in September.

In his memo, Brown says he reviewed Powers' medical records dating back to 1997. He says X-rays taken of Powers several months before the Taser incident do not show any damage to the spine. X-rays taken after the incident confirmed the fracture resulted in a 50% reduction of one of the bones in the spinal column.
Brown's office says Taser lawyers have advised him not to comment on the case.

According to Internet medical directories, Brown has practiced in Arizona since 1979 and specializes in joint reconstructive surgery and treating sports-related injuries.

He received his medical degree from Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine in 1973 and began his orthopedic surgical training at Harvard.

Brown notes that Powers, now 46, has moved to Ohio and works as a field appraiser, inspecting and measuring building sites.

"I certainly do feel that (Powers) is not capable of being a police officer if it puts him at risk with very physical activities," Brown says in his memo. "However, I feel the primary reason why he cannot do this is because of his ongoing osteoporosis."

Brown says the compression fracture has healed and is unlikely to give Powers further problems.

"But given the nature of his osteoporosis, he runs the risk of further compression fractures with physical events," he says.

Even after Brown's memo outlined Powers' injuries, Taser continued reporting to shareholders that his lawsuit alleged a shoulder injury.

"We believe the plaintiff's claims are without merit and that this litigation will have no material adverse effect on our business," Taser said in a November report to the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Publicly traded companies are required to file quarterly reports so investors can evaluate the financial health and potential risks facing a company.

"As a regulator, I'm concerned when the public statements investors are relying on are misstated," says Marc Spitzer, chairman of the Arizona Corporation Commission, which regulates public utilities and corporations.

Shocks drive sales

Video images of police being shocked have become commonplace on television newscasts across the country. Taser encourages police officers, along with its employees, shareholders and members of the media to experience a sample shock from the stun gun.

In dozens of press releases and media interviews, the company has touted those shocks as evidence that the stun gun works.

"The field test is really what drives the sales," Taser Chief Executive Officer Rick Smith told The Republic in an interview this year. "That and the volunteering. When officers volunteer to be hit with it. .. they see and feel how effective it is, that is generally when we see it convert to sales."

In his suit, Powers claims Taser "implemented a marketing plan based on misinformation, overstatements, inaccuracies, half truths and false statements in an effort to bolster its claim that 'hits' from Taser weapons do not cause death or permanent injuries."

Taser International in the past required officers to experience an abbreviated shock before being allowed to carry the stun gun. In 2000, Taser policy shifted to a "strong recommendation" that students take a sample hit from the stun gun.

Taser's CEO says the shock helps officers to understand the power and potential of the weapon.

"We used to require it, but then we made a change," Smith said previously, explaining that various police unions worried about shocks becoming a condition of employment.

"From the company's perspective, it is important because (a shock) gets rid of the skepticism," he says. "From the agency's perspective, it is very important so that (officers) can articulate what they are doing to somebody else."

But only a day after Powers filed his suit in February, Taser blamed the Sheriff's Office for "unreasonably requiring" officers to be shocked.

"If there is evidence that the shock from the (Taser) caused any injuries or damages to the plaintiff," Taser lawyers said in a Feb. 24 court filing, "(Maricopa County Sheriff's Office) and/or Sheriff Joe Arpaio are at fault for unreasonably requiring the plaintiff to be shocked by the Taser. .. as part of its non-lethal weapons training."

A judge tossed out Taser's request to redirect the suit at the Sheriff's Office.

"It looks like a double standard," Arpaio said in an interview. "They are pushing this on me because we used their equipment."

At the time Powers was shocked, Arpaio says his office was following Taser's recommendation and required officers to be hit with a Taser. He says it is no longer a requirement, but an option.

Arpaio knew that Powers had been injured and filed suit against Taser. He says he has bought hundreds of the guns based on the company's claim that it has not caused a death or injury.

Arpaio was unaware of the memo from Taser's doctor until being contacted by a reporter. He says it will prompt him to call for an internal study of Taser safety.

"I'm going to look at the history of Tasers. I'll assign staff to do it," Arpaio says, adding that risks were easily overlooked until an officer got hurt.

The Phoenix Police Department, the first major metropolitan police department in the country to issue Tasers to all of its officers, strongly recommended that officers experience Taser shocks until 2002. That's when two officers suffered minor injuries.

Sgt. Randy Force, department spokesman, says one officer dislocated his shoulder and the other chipped a tooth, both from falls after being shocked.

Force, who says the Taser is one of the best tools law enforcement officers have at their disposal, points out that officers suffer injuries in all types of exercises. That includes firearms training, where officers have inadvertently shot themselves.

The department now prohibits officers from being shocked.

"We stopped doing it because we were putting people at risk," Force says. "It's one thing to be injured when you don't have an option. But we felt that we did have many options."

Safety issues expanded

Safety issues related to police training add to the concerns raised by other injuries and deaths following Taser shocks.

For years, Taser maintained that its stun guns never caused a death or serious injury. As proof, Taser officials said no medical examiner had ever cited the gun in an autopsy report.

But a Republic investigation this summer found that Taser never had the autopsy reports and didn't start collecting them until April.

Using computer searches, autopsy reports, police reports, media reports and Taser's own records, the newspaper has identified 84 deaths following police Taser strikes in the United States and Canada since 1999. (Related item: Deaths following Taser strikes)

Of those, 11 autopsy reports to date have linked deaths to the stun gun. Medical examiners cited Taser as a cause or contributing factor in eight deaths and could not rule it out as a cause in three others.
Taser officials dispute those autopsy reports, maintaining that medical examiners don't have the expertise to analyze Taser-related deaths.

Taser officials say the stun gun has saved thousands of lives, giving police the most technologically advanced weapon in decades. Officers agree and credit Tasers with reducing police shootings and injuries to suspects.
Even officers who claim to be injured by the stun gun don't dispute Taser's track record. But they say the company has glossed over potential problems.

"I am really appalled at how departments around the world are taking Taser blindly at their word that the (Taser) is safe, with only the scant testing done," says C. Samuel Babin, a Louisiana sheriff's deputy who is on medical leave with a condition he believes is Taser related.

"I couldn't imagine the (stun gun) passing the scrutiny of an FDA application if Taser was a drug company trying to get a new drug on the market."

Although Tasers were initially marketed as an alternative to deadly force, the stun guns have replaced batons, chemical spray and physical restraint as the weapon of choice for stopping suspects.

Police often use Tasers as a compliance tool against people who make threatening gestures, try to run away or don't obey commands.

A Taser looks and operates like a gun, except that it fires two steel barbs up to 21 feet. The barbs are attached to wires that deliver 5-second bursts of electricity.

Powers received only a fraction of the shock that most suspects experience on the street. He was shocked for one second while criminal suspects often receive multiple shocks lasting five seconds each.

Officers can re-cycle the gun and deliver repeated shocks by holding down the trigger. The cartridge housing the barbs can also be removed, allowing the gun to be used in a fashion similar to a cattle prod, which officers call a "drive-stun."

In Phoenix last year, almost half of the 377 people shot by police with a Taser were shocked more than once.

More injuries reported

Lawsuits, police journals, Internet Web sites, independent medical reports and Taser's own financial reports this year all contain stories about police injuries following Taser training exercises.

Despite Taser's repeated claim that no officer has been injured, the company's November report to the Securities and Exchange Commission outlines three additional lawsuits alleging injuries during Taser training.
Those alleged injuries include a muscle and nerve injury; an arm and shoulder injury; and a rotator cuff injury.
Taser follows the description of each lawsuit with a line saying the case is without merit and has been turned over to the company's insurance carrier.

"Powers' injury is not an isolated event," Dillingham says. "If you look into it nationwide, you will find ruptured disks, other fractures and injuries to other joints."

Babin, a 17-year law enforcement veteran in Slidell, La., says he heard from a dozen police officers after posting a message on a police magazine Web site asking officers about injuries.

"The most common injuries. .. were dislocations or spinal fractures, which would be consistent with the extreme jolt you experience," he says.

Babin says he wanted to hear from other officers after finding his arms and legs covered in bruises following a Taser shock in May.

Babin says another officer who attended his May 4 Taser training class suffered severe chest pains. He says doctors told the officer "the extreme shock began eating away skin tissue from the area around a previous surgery."

Babin says he still bears the scar of a Taser burn. After being shocked, he says, he developed an autoimmune condition that left his body attacking blood platelets. He says he was diagnosed with bone marrow disease that causes spontaneous bleeding and that doctors have been unable to rule out Taser as a cause.

"I really believe officers need to be made aware of the potential danger before subjecting (themselves) to the training," he says.

"Regardless of whether the training is mandatory, as in my case, no one cannot possibly make a voluntary and informed decision if Taser continues to stonewall the issue and the dangers go unheard."

Babin says the instructor and another police administrator "insisted the experience was safe."

Still, Babin doesn't dispute the benefits of Taser.

"There has been one consensus amongst all of us in law enforcement. All agree, despite injuries. .. that the Taser is a great tool," he says. "I think the current media attention has failed to consider that any force used by police could be and will be life-threatening."

Memo shocks trainers

But police training officers say they were not told about any significant officer injuries. None contacted about Powers' case were familiar with it. And they expressed concern over Brown's evaluation.

"I'm in disbelief," says Miami Police Sgt. Richard Gentry. "That's the first time I've heard anything like that. I will definitely be keeping my eyes open for that."

While it isn't required, Gentry says the department highly recommends officers experience the shock of a Taser.

"I have rode the five seconds twice, myself," he says. "We try to make training as real as possible."
Gentry credits the Taser as one of the most effective weapons ever. He believes that it is responsible for reducing police shootings and preventing officers from engaging in violent confrontations. He says the stun gun was used 250 times between January and November of this year, far more than any other type of force.
Gentry can't recall any officer being injured during Taser training. He says Brown's memo raises issues about pre-existing conditions and hidden problems. He says every officer goes through a physical exam as part of the hiring process, but that does not include tests for diseases such as osteoporosis.

"There is no question that if there is factual data out there, then it should be part of the discussion," he says, adding that he wants to know everything he can about any weapon his department asks officers to carry. "(Officers) are relying on us."

In Portland, Ore., where the department is set to issue Tasers to every officer, Sgt. Robert Day says the memo raises concerns.

"That's the first I've heard about," says Day, who spent months researching Tasers prior to the department's decision to buy the stun guns. "We have certainly not experienced anything like that."

He says until recently, every Taser operator has taken a shock, but as the department expands Taser use, about 30% of officers have opted out of the experience. He says Portland officers have not reported any medical problems.

Like Miami and other departments, Portland officers are required to go through a basic physical exam before being hired.

"I would really like more information on it," he says.

More at risk

Brown's evaluation raises the question about Taser's impact on people with osteoporosis and the possibility that many more people could be injured if shocked with a Taser.

The United States Surgeon General advises that osteoporosis affects one in two women and one in four men over age 50.

Osteoporosis is often thought of as a bone-weakening disease. It deteriorates bone tissue, leaving people at risk for fractures.

The National Osteoporosis Foundation in Washington D.C., estimates that 44 million Americans, or roughly 55% of all adults over the age of 50, have the disease.

"While osteoporosis is often thought of as an older person's disease, it can strike at any age," the non-profit foundation says on its Web site. "Osteoporosis is responsible for more than 1.5 million fractures annually."
The problem is most people don't know they have the disease until it is too late.

"Osteoporosis is often called the silent disease because bone loss occurs without symptoms," the foundation reports. "People may not know that they have osteoporosis unti

Brown notes in his memo that Powers was unaware that he had the disease until he underwent a bone density test in September 2002. The test was ordered by a doctor trying to treat the fracture following the Taser shock.

Portland police trainer Day says concerns about osteoporosis could reinvigorate the issues over Taser safety in general. He says those issues need to be weighed against the stun gun's benefits, which he believes are many.

He says he doesn't know if it will change the way Tasers are used, but there needs to be a full disclosure.
"I'm not just talking about officers. I'm thinking about citizens," he says. "There is obviously a risk there."

Tasers are lethal weapons because they cause cardiac arrest and thoracic compressions and have already killed more than 500 people in the US alone, not to mention the thousands who have been injured or damaged by them. So because they are lethal weapons being used in non-lethal situations against unarmed civilians who should have no weapon used on them at all, they should be banned.

That's my opinion based on the facts. But feel free to go with the "assessment" of professional politicians and brain-washed police officers.

http://rt.com/usa/taser-arrest-cardiac-fahy-361/

Taser International sued by man left with brain damage after being electrocuted

Published time: December 05, 2012 17:37
Edited time: December 05, 2012 21:37 Get short URL

Reuters/Bazuki Muhammad


Taser International is being forced to defend itself in court this week after a man filed a lawsuit against the electroshock gun company, claiming he went into cardiac arrest as a result of being shot in the chest by a Taser.

*Colin Fahy, who was 17 years old at the time of the incident, was shot in the chest with a Taser by police responding to a domestic disturbance complaint at his home in St. Louis. Police Officer Karen Menendez claims she used the Taser on Fahy, who was drunk and high, after he lunged at her and one other officer, according to a report by the St. Louis Post-Dispatch.

Menendez shot the gun twice, delivering one 25-second shock and one 5-second shot. Fahy went into cardiac arrest soon afterwards, which the plaintiff claims was a direct result of the stuns from the Taser.

“On December 7, 2007, St. Louis police officers used the X26 Taser on Fahy, causing him to go intro ventricular fibrillation and cardiac arrest,” read court documents signed by United States District Judge Catherine Perry in 2010.

After falling to the kitchen floor, the teenager was handcuffed by the officers. At this point he was blue in the face and unresponsive. Fahy was subsequently hospitalized, suffered cardiac arrest for 30 minutes and was on life support for weeks. The young man now suffers from permanent brain damage and struggles with short-term and working memory.

Taser International cautions law enforcement on the potential risks involved with shooting a person’s chest. But these warnings are new: on the day Fahy was shot with a Taser, no such warnings existed. Lawyers are expected to debate on whether such warnings would have made a difference on that December night.

William Dowd, one of Fahy’s lawyers, on Tuesday referenced a study that showed Taser shots to the chest could interfere with the heart’s rhythm.

Fahy is seeking claims against Taser International for design defect, strict liability – failure to warn, negligent failure to warn, negligent design defect, and negligently supplying a dangerous instrumentality for supplier’s business purposes.

The company has also come under increased scrutiny this year for its potential harm to victims. A June 4 video by the California Highway Patrol shows police using a Taser three times on 50-year-old Angela Jones, who subsequently became unconscious, lost her pulse and had suffered cardiac arrest.

In April, the New York Times reported a study that shows the electrical shocks delivered by Tasers “can lead to cardiac arrest and sudden death”. The study analyzed records from the cases of eight people who suffered cardiac arrest after being shocked by the Taser X26 – the same weapon that shocked Fahy. Seven of those people died.

The study claims Tasers can sometimes set off irregular heart rhythms that cause cardiac arrest.

“This is a scientific fact. The national debate should now center on whether the risk of sudden death with Tasers is low enough to warrant widespread use by law enforcement,” Dr. Byron Lee, a cardiologist and director of the electrophysiology laboratory at the University of California, San Francisco, told the Times.

John Jerry Glas, a lawyer representing Taser International in this week’s trial, said no such risks were known in 2007. Glas also said the studies that were referenced in court said it would take 15 times the normal Taser charge to affect the heart enough to potentially cause cardiac arrest.

Experts representing the company will argue that Fahy’s handcuffing in an already-panicked state could have led to the subsequent health complications, according to the report by the St. Louis Post-Dispatch.

___________________________

Facts support stun-gun use as a means to save lives


By Paul O'Connell

Do you think Tasers belong in police arsenals?

On behalf of the Broward Police Chiefs Association, I write to express our disappointment in your continuing coverage of the tragic death which occurred last February in Coconut Creek. Despite your negative press on stun-gun use, these defensive tools remain an effective non-lethal tool which saves lives and significantly reduces injury to police officers and suspects alike.

Without joining you in the muddy waters of conflicting interests such as profit, the rule of law and the ongoing internal affairs investigation, it might be best to call a “time out” to allow the legal process to play out. In the meantime, allow us to take this opportunity to provide the public with some facts without an agenda attached to it.

There have been over 2.3 million field deployments of the stun gun, and there have been over 1,9 million voluntary training exposures using a stun gun. Of the over 4 million uses of the stun gun it was listed as the primary “cause of death” in only seven deployments.

This is not to say that suspects have not died after a stun gun was deployed, but the device was not the primary cause of death. The top five causes of those other deaths were cocaine in the decedent’s body, excited delirium, cardiac arrhythmia, a combination of narcotics in the decedent’s body and methamphetamine in the decedent’s body. Those were important facts to withhold from the public.

Here are some other facts to consider: A 2009 Police Executive Research Forum (PERF) study found that there was a 76 percent reduction in injuries to police officers who used a stun gun as a non-lethal tool when compared to officers that do not use a stun gun. Supporting the common sense conclusion that when this non-lethal use of force is deployed as opposed to a firearm, there was a 40 percent reduction in suspect injuries in which a police officer properly deployed the stun gun when compared to agencies which do not use a stun gun.

Moreover, a 2011 study conducted by National Institute of Justice determined “that there is no conclusive medical evidence in the current body of research literature that indicates a high risk of serious injury or death to humans from direct or in-direct cardiovascular or metabolic effects of short-term CED exposure in healthy, non-stressed, non-intoxicated persons.”

The facts are clear. Balanced and reasoned analysis based upon facts and study demonstrates irrefutably that stun guns save lives and reduce the number and severity of injuries to police officer and suspects. We can all agree that responsible deployment and use of the stun gun is worthy of both internal and external review to ensure standards are maintained for all police officers who use this vital non-lethal tool. We can also agree that all human life has value. It matters not that it is the life of a brown, black or white person; a person who is straight or gay, fat or thin, short or tall. All human life has value.

Rather than throwing darts from the sidelines at the police profession, why not join us in our struggle to right the ship? Together we can start by asking our governor and the Florida Legislature to take a long, hard look at the FDLE Commission on Police Standards and Training, which just recently chose to abandon its duty to review felony cases involving disciplined police officers in which an arbitrator, with no law enforcement background, elected to return to duty a “bad apple.”

The commission has been abdicating its duty and obligation to these “hand-picked” arbitrators. What was in place to protect the public from bad cops has been lost to politics. This would be an important first step in raising the bar of the police profession.
Will you join us?

Paul O’Connell is chief of the Wilton Manors Police Department and president of the Broward County Police Chiefs Association.

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/opinion/...331-story.html

Originally Posted by Judy

But the Taser was introduced as a "non-lethal weapon" as a fraud by Taser International, because they are lethal and known by Taser to be so, that's why they've killed over 500 people in the United States already. And anyone who wants to believe a "Police Executive Research Forum Study", I've got some ocean front property in Arizona for them. Sorry, JohnDoe, but Tasers are bad news promoted as a non-lethal weapon, when they are quite deadly causing cardiac arrest and fractured spines. Thus, they shouldn't be used as a non-lethal weapon and if you're going to use a lethal weapon, just follow the protocol for your guns.

The alternative to a stun gun is a baton or firearm. Personally, I'd choose to be hit with a stun gun vice the alternatives. A crack over the head with a baton can be deadly, plus the police officer must be close to employ it (placing his own life in danger). Being shot with a firearm is the last line of defense and is most certainly considered a deadly weapon. Don't police officers lives matter? Shouldn't they be able to utilize the best weapon available to them for their own protection?

Originally Posted by MW

The alternative to a stun gun is a baton or firearm. Personally, I'd choose to be hit with a stun gun vice the alternatives. A crack over the head with a baton can be deadly, plus the police officer must be close to employ it (placing his own life in danger). Being shot with a firearm is the last line of defense and is most certainly considered a deadly weapon. Don't police officers lives matter? Shouldn't they be able to utilize the best weapon available to them for their own protection?

Yes, police officers lives matter, but they do not matter more than civilians. No, they should not be able to utilize a weapon of any kind against unarmed civilians. And any article written by a member of law enforcement who is still referring to the Taser as a "non-lethal" weapon isn't worth the bytes it took to post it. Sorry! I researched this issue years ago when an unarmed a woman died after a Tasing by TSA officials at the Phoenix Airport, and police officers used a Taser on a woman in a wheel-chair 17 times who died from the Tasings, and a 7 year old in a Florida school, and a 13 year old in another town in Florida going to a friends house, and an unarmed 17 year kid walking out of a Food Lion in Charlotte who died from police Tasing, and on and on and on.

Tasers aren't being used against armed criminals, they're being used against innocent civilians, children, women, sick people, and blacks. So, no, police officers have no business with these weapons using them against civilians. Tasers haven't saved any lives, they've cost lives, over 540 so far in the US alone, and so far no one is even bothering to count the injuries and damage to those who survived a Tasing.

Americans need to wake up and smell the crap being dumped on them. And police officers using Tasers when no weapon should be used at all, is a one-way road to a police state with very dire consequences for every person in our country, including citizens.

Police officers are important and yes their lives matter like everyone else's, but this notion that their lives matter more is just plain wrong. If they're afraid of the civilians they're paid to serve and protect, then they're in the wrong line of work and need to go bag groceries or drive a fork-lift somewhere.

Jury finds Charlotte police officer liable for Taser death

Posted: Aug 28, 2014 1:18 PM EST Updated: Sep 27, 2014 1:18 PM EST



(Source: MGN Online)CHARLOTTE, NC (Michael Gordon/The Charlotte Observer) -

A federal jury decided on Thursday that a Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department officer used excessive force in the 2011 death of a man who died after being twice shocked by the police officer's Taser.

The federal civil court verdict came in the second day of deliberations by the five women and three men who had to determine whether CMPD Officer Michael Forbes used excessive force in the death of La-Reko Williams.

Williams' parents, Temako McCarthy and Anthony Williams, filed a wrongful death lawsuit against the officer, asking for $3.5 million in damages.

The lawsuit accused Forbes of causing the death of 21-year-old Williams the night of July 20, 2011, when the police officer responded to call about a fight at a light-rail station.

The jurors showed signs of having difficulty reaching a decision.

A little more than two hours into their deliberations on Wednesday, the jurors sent the judge a note asking for more information about "objectionable reasonableness," a legal cornerstone in court cases involving police response.

Basically, that legal standard means the jury had to decide whether Forbes, given what he faced that night, responded as other "reasonable" officers would have done. (The Supreme Court decision establishing the standard originated from a Charlotte case in the mid-1980s.)

After talking with attorneys on both sides, the judge told the jurors to reconsider his instructions from Monday. At the plaintiff's request, he also included his comments on a citizen's right to be free from excessive police force.

Then, shortly before 5 p.m., jurors came back to ask the judge another question. They next told the judge they could not reach a verdict, one of the family's attorneys told the Observer.

The judge then sent the eight back to the jury room to resume their work. After about 90 minutes, he released them for the night. The jurors returned to work Thursday morning and delivered their verdict at lunchtime.

The fatal standoff between Forbes and Williams three years ago lasted little more than a minute.

The officer answered a 911 call that night at the Woodlawn light-rail station in Charlotte about a fight between a man and a woman. Testimony in the weeklong trial identified the couple as Williams and Destiny Franklin, his girlfriend at the time.

The judge gave Forbes immunity for the first shot from his Taser, which Forbes says took place after Williams tried to leave the scene, ignored the officer's orders and shoved him twice.

The attorneys for Williams' parents say their son was nearly helpless from the first Taser shock when Forbes fired the second.

Williams' heart stopped beating soon afterward.

Forbes testified that he fired the second shock because he felt threatened by Williams, who the officer claimed was trying to get to his feet.

The officer, who wore his uniform to court each day, was not charged with a crime and remains on the force.

During the trial, both sides went to great lengths to frame the pivotal second shock for the jury.

On Monday, Forbes teamed with an assistant city attorney to re-create his struggle with Williams. Later, a family attorney cross-examined the police officer for a few minutes while sitting on the floor of the courtroom, mimicking Williams' position at the time of the second shock.

Williams died the day after a jury awarded a $10 million judgment in a fatal use of a Taser by police on a Charlotte teenager in 2009. On appeal, the amount was first reduced then set aside.

Nationwide, more than 550 people have died after being shocked with a Taser. The weapons are designed to be nonlethal alternatives to guns, intended to incapacitate suspects without seriously injuring them. Taser International, which originally was a defendant in the case but was dropped before trial, says the device has saved thousands of lives.

A 2012 study found that the electric barbs can set off irregular heart rhythms, leading to cardiac arrest.

After Williams' death, CMPD Chief Rodney Monroe pulled the police department's entire Taser arsenal off the street. Later that year, the City Council spent almost $2 million acquiring safer models, and CMPD officers were told to aim their Tasers below the chest.

http://www.wbtv.com/story/26395276/j...or-taser-death

After Williams' death, CMPD Chief Rodney Monroe pulled the police department's entire Taser arsenal off the street. Later that year, the City Council spent almost $2 million acquiring safer models, and CMPD officers were told to aim their Tasers below the chest.

Professional CMPD Chief Rodney Monroe pulled the entire Taser arsenal, because after killing at least 2 innocent people in his city on his watch, his conscience had had enough of this crap of lies by Taser International. But then the professional politicians obviously on the take with donations from Taser said "oh no we need Tasers, just a different model and tell everyone to shoot below the chest" and the idiots hand over another $2 million bucks to the sociopaths who invented this barbaric lethal weapon.

I'm sorry but this is the not the America most of US believe in. We are not a police state, and there is no cause at all for innocent unarmed people to be Tased with a weapon that without question can cause cardiac arrest and thoracic compression which is fractures/breaks of the spine. No, no, no. If you use Tasers then you must follow the same protocol as you would for a gun, not a "non-lethal" protocol, because Tasers are NOT "non-lethal", they're lethal as hell and there are now at least 550 deaths to prove it, studies produced by the American Heart Association on cardiac arrest and articles in the Journal of American Medical Association that proves the thoracic compression, the latter is written by a doctor at the Baptist Hospital here in North Carolina for the purpose of doing x-rays and MRI's on all Taser victims to check for broken spines because Tasers cause that.

The reason you're disabled from a Tasing is because it stopped your heart. That's the whole design of the Taser to stop your heart which stops your body. Most people's hearts can restart after a few seconds, but many can't, especially if they're Tased more than once, which they usually are.

If police officers were properly informed about the Taser and its consequences on the victims, I don't think most would want to use them. I don't believe most police officers want to kill unarmed civilians simply because they didn't understand or follow their "instructions". I hope they don't in any event. But they're brainwashed by Taser, by professional politicians on the take with Taser and their own Chiefs in many cases who in more cases than we would like to admit want the power of a police state where civilians live in fear of their police. That's not what this country is about and I hope at the end of the day enough Americans wake up to the fact that unless the reins are pulled in on some of these things, a fearful weak and stupid nation is what we'll end up being. There are many signs already that this is what we are becoming, and I hope that attitude can be reversed sooner rather than later before it's too late and too far gone to fix it.

Given the choice of being shot by a 9mm or a stun gun

I'll opt for the stun gun every time.

(Unless I want suicide by cop. Then I'll take the 9mm.)