The Police Executive Research Forum (PERF), with support from the Office of Community Oriented Policing (COPS), is convening an executive-level meeting on August 3, 2010 to review and consider revisions to PERF’s 2005 Conducted Energy Device (CED) guidelines. While PERF’s 2005 CED guidelines are generally considered strong, we believe it is time to revisit the guidelines and update them as necessary to reflect the current CED research, the experience of police departments that have been using CEDs, and recent legal developments. ...[via TNT]
Their next paragraph uses the key-phrases "injury rates" and "injury risks". This is a classic trick, a simple redirection of the readers attention, so that the concept of DEATH is subtly replaced with 'injury'.
(By the way, on the subject of injuries, inherent taser dart injuries are arbitrarily defined to be insignificant, but a sprained finger would be counted.)
Anyway, it disturbs me that PERF is using the deceptive language of Taser International. I'll assume that it is innocent cut-and-paste, but I suspect it might be an indication of something more.
If any PERF people happen to be reading this, here's your homework: Google "Braidwood Inquiry".
Taser International doesn't want you to know about those two reports.
UPDATE: They've been around for decades. No obvious connection to Taser International. Their 2005 guidelines [PDF] include an explicit statement (4.) that multiple repeated or continuous taser cycles appear to increase risk of DEATH. Many of the other recommendations are in direct contradiction to the false and misleading safety claims made by Taser International et al.
Where have these guys been hiding?
And why aren't plaintiffs' lawyers using these guidelines to win lawsuits?