Tasers are "...safe and effective..."

Taser International claims that tasers are "...safe and effective..." They also claim that tasers operate in a manner that directly affects the muscles and that the mechanism does not relay on pain, and is therefore effective on subjects even if they're high on drugs and resistant to pain.

So, are these claims true? Or just the sort of BS that spouts from deceptive salesmen?

CBC News - ...Scott said he used his Taser once, but with no effect. Another officer deployed his Taser, but again, Grimolfson was not subdued. 'He could feel nothing.' Scott told the inquiry he struck Grimolfson twice in the jaw. Scott deployed a stun gun on Grimolfson a third time. "Nothing was working," Scott said. "He could feel nothing." ...

Police were able to handcuff Grimolfson and put a spit mask on him, but then Grimolfson stopped struggling and ceased breathing. Scott took off the handcuffs and Grimolfson's tongue flopped out as he removed the spit mask. Scott could only detect a faint pulse and started doing chest compressions. Paramedics rushed Grimolfson to hospital where he was declared dead. ... [LINK]

'Effective'? Not the first time. Not the second time. Not the third time. 1, 2, 3 - Do you see a trend here?

'Effective on drug users'? Apparently not so much.

'Does not rely upon pain; directly affect the muscles'? Yeah, right...

How are the claims holding up? Do you see a trend here?


So how about the claim that 'tasers-R-safe'?

Mr. Grimolfson was tasered_and_died.

If he was a drug addict, then (by definition) he'd probably taken drugs many times before. But on this day he was tasered_and_died, in that order, and reportedly in quick succession. (Note: Another report [LINK] claims a "roughly five minutes" time gap, but that doesn't match the above report.)

Given that the official cause of death was assigned to the meaningless and unhelpful phrase excited delirium, then perhaps the official cause of death might be considered to be under suspicion.

It's simply not rational to give the taser a free pass because the manufacturer claims that it's "...safe and effective..."

--

Please note that I'm not so much concerned with the actions of these particular officers on this particular day.

The question I'm concerned with is the subject of this entire blog...

Are tasers as safe (and effective) as has been repeatedly claimed by Taser International?

Apparently not.

UK Most Wanted Raoul Moat shot with taser, and then kills himself with shotgun

(Welcome UK Readers. This blog about tasers has nearly 2000 posts on the subject of tasers, and the many false claims made by Taser International. Canada has been slowly dismantling the "tasers-R-safe" and "taser are effective" claims that have resulted in over-reliance on tasers, and huge problems including unnecessary death.)

UPDATE 1: See The Telegraph (UK) [LINK]. Everything being reported most-easily explained by my hypothesis of how it unfolded. But others are apparently unwilling to make the logical and obvious leap to map it out as I've described. Mark my words and we'll see...

UPDATE 2 - Two, not one, tasers were fired and yet he still managed to use his shotgun to kill himself. [LINK] Time to review the promises-to-truth ratio of Taser marketing.

Another [DOUBLE] entry for the Taser International FAIL-blog.

Sky News - Police have confirmed they shot Raoul Moat, 37, with a taser stun gun (UPDATE: XREP [LINK], twice) during last night's stand-off with Britain's most wanted man. [LINK] [ALSO]

News reports indicate that Moat killed himself with a shotgun.

So assuming that the police didn't fire the taser at Moat after he was already dead, then is it reasonable to assume that the police attempted to use the taser but it was, apparently, ineffective (twice)?

Furthermore, is it reasonable to assume that the attempt to use the ineffective taser might have actually prompted Moat into ending the standoff by killing himself?

The above sequence seems to be the simplest explanation that matches the reported facts.

(Others have pointed out the possibility of involuntary taser-caused muscle reactions pulling the trigger. That's certainly possible, but perhaps less likely.

UPDATE 3: Or is it? [LINK])

If so, then from a 'Taser-Use Policy' point of view, these news reports indicate a massive FAIL for depending on the unpredictable taser given such circumstances.

To be clear, I'm not overly-disturbed by Moat ending his own life - tragic, but he was the author of his own destiny; plus-or-minus other factors... ("steroid addict" [LINK]).


But it is EXTREMELY important to mark down a massive Taser-Use Policy "FAIL" if the use of the taser was, 1) ineffective (twice?), and 2) led directly to, or even allowed, gunfire.


Police weapons that are so consistently unreliable (some reports have the rate of ineffectivity as high as 30%) are dangerous in so many ways, to everyone in the vicinity.

Remember: Taser International claims that tasers are ...safe and effective.... I bet that they won't be issuing a glowing press release about how their product didn't accomplish anything as promised by the marketing.

Effective?

(Safe?)

And WTF is this? [Star]

On the lack of regulation of the taser (ECD) industry

This was originally posted as a comment on the Truth...Not Tasers blog. [LINK]

The following version has been gently edited, and extended.


Let's talk about taser (ECD) electrical safety standards, the lack of them, and the results.

In 1999, Taser International introduced the M26 "Advanced" taser. It had a waveform that was high frequency and very low duty cycle. At the time, Taser International claimed it was safe BECAUSE the electrical output was high frequency and low duty cycle. The monthly taser-associated death rate was less than one per month.

But Taser International continued to fiddle. In 2003, they introduced the X26 taser. They didn't give it a name, but the "X26 Hubris" would be appropriate. This taser model added a harmless-looking little DC pulse to the waveform, and all indications are that even the head of their Medical Safety committee, a man with a PhD in EE, failed to remember his EE 101. He has repeatedly and explicitly claimed that the output still has "short pulses" and a low duty cycle.

In fact, the harmless-looking DC pulse occurs at 19 Hz and is therefore low frequency and continuous 100% duty cycle. The waveform is no longer just high frequency and very low duty cycle as was the case with the 1999-era M26. They've walked away from the two waveform characteristics that they had previously claimed were the reason it was safe with the previous model.

The government regulators did not react to this change because there are no government regulators with responsibility over taser standards. And there are no standards.

The monthly taser associated death rate shows a near step-function increase from less than one taser-associated death per month to about 7 per month starting coincident with the introduction of the newer X26 model in mid-2003.

Looking for references? Here is one to get you started: [LINK].

In fact, the Canadian reports appear to indicate that, even during years when the older M26 taser model was actually being used three times more often than the newer X26 taser, the taser deaths in Canada during that period were reportedly exclusively associated with the X26.

If this preliminary observation from mismatched data sets can be confirmed by the regulators, then it may be critical evidence of the different risks between the M26 and X26 tasers. Oh damn, there are no government regulators.

If Taser International has this info, you can bet that they'll have shredded it by now. If the police have this info, they're keeping it to themselves. The available on-line database does not mention the M26 vs. X26 taser model used. I wonder why? But data gathered by taser critics shows a disturbing X26 bias.

And now, in late-2009, Taser International has just introduced the new X3. It emits about 40% less electrical charge than the X26. And they seem to be keeping the waveform shape and frequency spectrum under wraps. I've poked around and I haven't found the info yet. I'm sure the government regulators would have some questions about the 40% reduction after all the taser deaths with previous model. Oh damn, zero regulatory involvement.

And their new XREP projectile includes an explicit and intentional "Hand Trap" feature that violates their own guidance (revision 1) issued 30 September 2009. They've changed the guidance to avoid having to explain about the arms and hands. I'm sure that the regulators review such life and death critical documents for accuracy and consistency. Oh damn, zero government oversight.

Wild West. Yee Haw.

The lack of government oversight of this one-company industry is as startling as it is inexplicable. The direct result of this hands-off approach has been corporate behaviour that should make any keen observer incandescent with rage.

Nobody noticed that they expunged the RMS current values (about 160 mA) from the data sheets, leaving only the misleading 2 mA "average" value. The inherent claim that the "effective" current is the average is insane nonsense. Comparing the actual effects makes it clear that the effective current is much closer to the RMS value than the "average".

Nobody seems to have noticed that there seems to be a statistical surplus of taser chest hits in those victims that died. Many thousands of trainees were tasered in the back with only a few major injuries reported. But the real world has had police told that "tasers are safe" and they've been firing them into the chest and people die.

And now they advise "avoiding the chest" and make the preposterous claim that this guidance (which carries an extremely high cost to them), is just to help their customers "avoid controversy". What a crock...

If this industry (company) were subjected to even a small fraction of the Federal regulatory oversight imposed on every other company, they'd probably be shut down.

The utter abdication of the governments in their fundamental role to protect the public, not just "criminals" but also those having mental heath emergencies right down to average citizens facing police that, in some cases, are demanding more respect than they've earned... ...this abdication is inexplicable and dangerous. People do not deserve to face a risk of death unless their behaviour escalates to the thresholds defined by Judge Braidwood. All of this overuse, misuse, and abuse stems from the false claim from Taser International that tasers are inherently safe with respect to internal risk factors such as, for example, cardiac effects.

This industry, their potentially-deadly products, their ever-changing story, their manipulative relationships with medical examiners, their fiddling with the "science", their too-nuanced twisting of language, their defective training, all of it. This blog contains dozens and dozens of examples of them playing the system.

It all needs governmental oversight.

Now.

"Safe and Effective"

Proponents often describe tasers as "safe and effective".

Here's an example of "effective"...

Brunswick County: 'Taser failed to stop man before he was shot...' - "After giving a warning, Hardee shot Walters with a Taser, but Walters removed the Taser’s electronic probes and continued advancing toward the deputy, according to the statement." [LINK]

So "effective" sometimes means completely ineffective. This is not the only example.

I wonder what they mean by "safe"?

Which part of "safe and effective" am I missing?

Taser International has described their tasers as "...safe and effective..."

There's a bit of a debate about the safe part. Maybe you've heard...

Now, what about the effective part?

Houston Chronicle (17 May 2010) - ...Officer E. Garza shocked Jeffrey Marlon Peterson, 37, with a taser, but it appeared to have no affect. A second officer, D. Alexander, who arrived after the traffic stop, also used her taser on Peterson, but he again appeared unaffected. ...Peterson ran to his pickup and got a handgun, which he pointed at Garza. ... [LINK]

So the first taser has no affect.

The second taser also has no affect.

How is the claim that tasers are "effective" holding up?

The end result is that the police are left staring down the barrel of a real gun.

Both officers told Peterson to drop the gun, but he refused... Garza fired at least once, hitting him. Peterson ... is in critical condition, but is expected to survive. He is charged with aggravated assault against a public servant. The officers at the scene were not injured.

Thank God. No thanks to The Church of Taser.

Draw your own conclusions about their marketing claims...

Q: How many amps in a police taser?

A: "2.1 mA."

--

The above answer is a vast oversimplification and is thus misleading.

There are two tasers in common use by officers. The M26 was introduced in 1999, and the X26 was introduced in 2003. There are others, such as the XREP projectile, and the X3 released in 2009.

There are several ways to measure complex waveforms. The "2.1 mA" mentioned above is the Average. In general, electrical engineers do not use simple averages, even if rectified, because they most often provide a misleading number.

It's fair to state that Averages in this context are the mark of a newbie, or someone with something to hide. They're that misleading.

The most common method of measuring complex waveforms is something called RMS (root mean square). For example, the voltage in your house is probably 120 or 240 volts RMS. This concept is explained in first year EE courses. All reputable brand digital meters in common use by EEs provide the RMS function.

Both the M26 and X26 are about 150 to 160 mA when measured using RMS.

This 150+ mA range might raise eyebrows, because it's clearly a number that is well above the safe limits of around 30 mA.

Part of the safety claim made by the manufacturer is that the output waveform consists of very short pulses (100us) of high frequency (50kHz), and these two waveform characteristics provides an increased level of safety margin.

Problem is... the X26 waveform has a DC pulse after the arc phase. This DC pulse is low frequency (19 Hz) and continuous 100% duty cycle. So the X26 taser is clearly less safe than the older M26 (even the manufacturer's own expert confirmed this fact). I believe that their in-house experts forgot about Fourier transforms and neglected to account for this DC pulse. They continued to proclaim "short pulses" well past 2003.

So the real question being asked is: What's the Effective current?

By the effects, the taser's Effective current is well above "2.1 mA". The taser usually does much more than just a harmless tickle. As I said, "2.1 mA" is misleading. The implicit claim that the Effective is the Average is simply preposterous.

The Effective current is self-evidently well above the level of excruciating pain (way above and beyond). It's also obviously well above the level where muscle lock-up occurs (that's the whole point). And there's growing evidence that the effective current might be enough to sometimes affect the heart (this is the very next step on the scale, right next to muscle lock-up).

The manufacturer claims that the waveform has special (magical?) characteristics to ensure safety. This seems unlikely since the M26 and X26 waveforms are so different. And there's a newer X3 model that reportedly emits about 40% less charge than the X26. So that claim is falling apart for numerous reasons (inconsistent, obviously preposterous).

It's worth noting that the taser-associated death rate was much less than one per month up until 2003. Starting in 2003, strangely coincident with the introduction of the X26 taser, the taser "associated" death rate ramped up to about 7 per month and has been at about that rate ever since.

It's also worth noting that the taser, assuming it did kill, would leave no explicit postmortem clues. So some folks would be able to invoke alternate explanations such as "excited delirium" to explain the deaths. They could enforce this by means of lawsuits against coroners that dare to find the taser a cause of death.

The whole issue is extremely complicated and there's a lot of history.

But the claim that the taser current is "2.1 mA" is very very wrong.

Stun guns can be a ‘wonderful [and potentially deadly] weapon’

Well here is an article at The Waterloo Record [LINK] that manages to fumble the entire taser issue.

The article provides an uncritical, almost fawning, waste of column-inches to promote those narrow, often hypothetical and sometimes completely imaginary, law enforcement situations where a taser could potentially be safe and effective and useful and justifiable - amazing in its relative rarity - all at the same time.

The obvious contradictions are ignored by the writer to a degree that amounts to journalistic malpractice.

For example: the story related "The individual burst passed me..." And then relates how the suspect was tasered in the back (exactly as recommend by the maker of these potentially-deadly weapons).

First of all, shouldn't the quote be written using the word "past" as opposed to "passed"?

Anyway... Does a fleeing suspect, running away, fleeing the scene, shot in the back with the taser, does this meet the criteria that would be described as "violent"? On its face, it doesn't really seem like it.

Meanwhile, Taser International's spokespuppy Steve Tuttle is quoted in this article as saying that studies have found that tasers are a reasonable means to "subdue violent individuals" [emphasis added since everyone appears to miss it...].

The author of this article fails to note that the suspect in the example given, this being probably the very best example they could recall, was not reported as being a violent individual. In fact, the act of "bursting passed" (sic) is clear cut and obvious evidence of a desire to run away.

The author also fails to pick-up on Mr. Turtle's insane geographical limitation [LINK] on the purported safety of tasers. He said they've not yet been formally linked to any death "in Canada". But investigators have found that in about 150 autopsy reports reviewed (for taser-associated deaths), the taser was listed as a cause of death or a contributing factor in about fifty.

Don't read that as "50", read it as "about one-third" of the taser-associated death autopsy reports that were reviewed. There is nothing to suggest that those 150 reports, extracted from about 450 taser-associated deaths, are not a representative random selection.

And this is just what has leaked through the 'iron curtain' that Taser International has erected around the issue of tasers and death. They promote "excited delirium" [LINK][LINK], they sue medical examiners [LINK][LINK], they wine and dine coroners [LINK], they plug up the pipelines of science with studies that have such obvious flaws that even laymen can spot them [LINK].

They misrepresent reports, for example the NIJ study [LINK][LINK][LINK][LINK][LINK][LINK] that found that there wasn't a "high risk", but expressed concerns about most of the population and noted that there seemed to be a correlation between repeated taserings and death (exactly as noted by Prof. Savard [LINK]).

The consensus of the informed and honest [LINK] is that tasers are perfectly capable of causing death, and they must - at the very least - be restricted to the narrow circumstances and rigorous controls as have been recommended by the Braidwood Inquiry [LINK].

The article linked above provides a clear example of the sort of subtle pro-taser propaganda being foisted on the public by Taser International, with supporting roles played by fan-boy police and unthinking journalists.

It's not enough to simply allow the spokespuppet his column-inches. Those column-inches should come with a price. And that price is that the reporter makes the effort to investigate the validity of his statements. A well-written article quotes the spokesman, and then critically examines those statements. If the spokesman is revealed to be providing misleading information, then that bad PR is the price they'll pay for trying to play the system.


[NOTE about "LINKS" - This blog has more than 1400 posts already, so most points of detail have already been repeatedly examined in previous posts. Therefore, links to external sources to support independent fact-checking are now most often made via previous posts on this same blog. Those previous posts typically provide much more detail on any particular detailed aspect of the larger taser issue. To reach external sources for fact-checking you may have to follow the links through the previous posts. You might wish to read those previous posts as you pass through to learn more about those additional details. In other words, if you're a journalist researching the issue of tasers: don't be lazy and whine that my links are mostly "internal". Click again. Do some research using this blog as a guide to further information and hopefully as an example of how to be s skeptic. And please don't write one-side puff-pieces for Taser International's PR department; this is a serious life-and-death issue.]

A call for IEEE Spectrum to retract Kroll's incorrect claims about taser safety

How a Taser Works
The stun gun shocks without killing--but how safe is it? Two experts take a look

IEEE Spectrum magazine - December 2007 [LINK]

By Mark W. Kroll [LINK][LINK], Patrick Tchou

[technical errors highlighted]

...about 1 percent of what's needed to cause the heart of the typical male to fibrillate. So the Taser's average current is far from the danger zone for healthy human hearts. ...a Taser's 100-us pulses are such a small fraction of the heart's chronaxie... ...you wind up with a pretty large margin of safety.

Compare and contrast the above wildly-inaccurate claims with what was released on May 1st, 2010:

Taser International admits that tasers can kill [LINK]


The basic technical mistakes are:

1) Assuming that "average" waveform currents are applicable when in fact the correct measurement would be 'effective'. Nobody knows exactly what the effective current is, but it seems likely to be in the range of about 30 to 50 mA considering the effects. The RMS current is about 150 mA, that's clearly not right either (a bit too high). But the "average" of about 2mA is also clearly not the correct measure (duh-obviously too low, considering the effects). See [LINK].See also [LINK].

2) Forgetting Fourier and failing to consider that the DC pulse after the arc phase is low frequency and thus those spectral components are continuous 100% duty cycle [LINK]. So the incorrectly-assumed chronaxie safety factor disappears for all low frequency spectral components. Even mentioning "chronaxie" without addressing the DC pulse is an obvious oversight. Again, nobody knows exactly what percentage of the current is low frequency and what percentage is high frequency. But this blogger was (as far as I know) the first to point out that the "experts" at Taser International appear to have slept through the Fourier class during EE 101.

These errors are really quite elementary.

And these errors perfectly explain the apparent discrepancy between what Kroll et al erroneously believed (that tasers were cardiac safe by a wide margin), and the cold hard fact that they aren't as safe as was claimed.

I don't mind dumb errors, but when combined with hubris... 

*** An URGENT call to IEEE Spectrum ***

This above referenced article, especially the section written by Dr. Mark Kroll where he argued that tasers are essentially cardiac-safe, should be formally retracted, or somehow marked as "taser safety claims now known to be incorrect".

Taser International, in their latest training bulletin released 1 May 2010 [LINK], has abandoned their long-standing position that tasers are essentially inherently safe. They now formally acknowledge that tasers can significantly affect the heart if a dart happens to land too close. They also now acknowledge that tasers may cause acidosis. And they acknowledge that these are potentially lethal impacts.

The position taken by Kroll in this article was wrong at the time, and has now been contradicted by the position recently adopted by Taser International themselves. Again, see [LINK].

Because of the human-safety aspect to those false claims of taser safety, it is essential that this article be formally acknowledged as being wrong in those areas where Kroll argued (incorrectly) that tasers are essentially cardiac-safe.

This situation represents an important test for the editors and management of IEEE Spectrum to demonstrate the basic ethics that are such an important part of engineering where it intersects with human safety.

Safety claims now revealed to have been incorrect MUST be formally corrected.

Emile Therien calls for taser electrical safety standards

CTV B.C. - ... Emile Therien, past president of the Canada Safety Council, says the government is leaving itself open to huge liabilities because electrical safety standards for Tasers are being ignored. ... [LINK]

My comment left at TNT [LINK]. This comment just touches the surface of this topic; it has been explored in far more detail in previous posts.


There are methods of measuring complex waveforms. The industry standard method is RMS, just like the 120 volts RMS found in your home. Using averages, even 'rectified averages' is the mark of a newbie or someone with something to hide. The M26 and X26 taser are both about 2mA by the misleading average, but are about 150 to 160 mA by RMS.

The real question is what is the 'Effective' value. To claim that the Effective value is the average is a preposterous claim. It is such an outrageous claim that it must be difficult for Taser International's Kroll to maintain a straight face while making it.

Clearly, by the effects, the Effective current is much higher than the Average. It's also clearly above the point where it causes pain, clearly above the point where it locks-up muscles, and is therefore right at the point where it could affect the heart (let alone the other taser death mechanisms). And disturbed cardiac patterns could lead to a slightly delayed death.

Kroll et al make claims that the taser waveform has 'magical' properties that ensure safety. But the X26 waveform is significantly different than the M26 (no details of X3 yet...).

The M26 is about 18A peak, high frequency, and very short duty cycle. The newer, more dangerous, X26 is about 3A peak, includes more dangerous low frequency that is continuous 100% duty cycle. Even Taser International's own bought-and-paid-for 'expert' acknowledged that the X26 is more dangerous.

And the X26 certainly appears to be involved in more deaths PER DEPLOYMENT than the M26.

I doubt that there's much overlap between 'safe' and 'effective'.

Taser QotD: "It didn't seem to work as good as they say it does in training."

The Australian [LINK]

Senior Constable Craig Myles yesterday told an inquest that even after using the electronic stun device repeatedly on Antonio Galeano, the 39-year-old was still difficult to control. The officer said he later questioned the effectiveness of the Taser. "(I told other officers) the Taser is not the be-all and end-all," Constable Myles told the Townsville court. "It didn't seem to work as good as they say it does in training."

Taser International has repeatedly claimed that the taser is "...safe and effective." Of course, they say a lot of things that turn out to be false and misleading.

The taser failed to effectively control Mr. Galeano.

The taser was used repeatedly and Mr. Galeano, who had lived 39 years up to that point, was dead within minutes.

Safe and effective MY ASS.

Family of Michael Patrick Jacobs Jr., who was tasered to death, sues Taser International

Family of Man in Taser Death Suing Manufacturer
Manufacturer maintains its device is safe

The family of a man who died after police used a Taser to subdue him is suing the device's manufacturer and distributor for negligence. An officer shocked Michael Patrick Jacobs Jr., 24, for 49 seconds and then again for 5 seconds in April 2009 in front of his parents' home during a disturbance call. His death was ruled a homicide. [LINK]

The crux of this case is that Taser International is not likely to have any reliable and trustworthy evidence that demonstrates that tasers are safe when applied for extended durations. In spite of this, the 'Brain Trust' that runs Taser International designed the tasers with hubris-triggers that permit, and even encourage, taser deployments of unlimited duration.

The plaintiffs lawyers are likely to slap the defense witlesses about the head with a copy of "Dr." Mark W. Kroll's (the 'W' apparently stands for "We are not medical experts" [LINK]) infamous 'Ping Pong' paper [must read!!] where he boldly predicted that 'if one taser hit don't kill ya, then a thousand taser hits ain't gonna kill ya neither.'

This so-called paper was PROMINENTLY DISPLAYED on Taser International's webpage for I-have-no-idea how many years under the heading "CARDIAC SAFETY". And then it was QUIETLY pulled. Keyword QUIETLY. That quiet slinking away is itself key evidence. The false paper was not formally withdrawn, it was simply deleted.

Another detail worth noting is that Taser International has reportedly finally agreed to a PERF request to modify the design of the taser so that endless Moth+Light deployments are not encouraged by the flawed design of the weapon's infinite duration taser-to-death trigger.

Taser International spokespuppet Steven Tuttle, in a liability-enhancing denial, actually said that the company ... stands by independent, peer-reviewed medical studies that show the device to be generally safe and effective.

They have no studies that reliably prove that extended duration taser deployments are "safe". In fact, they have had plenty of evidence to the contrary.

Everyone noticed that extended taser deployments were correlated with death - NIJ. Prof. Savard. Common sense. Everyone.

"Taser was ineffective", man shot dead

Taser International claims that tasers are "...safe and effective..."

Deputy Michael Medina, an eight-year HCSO veteran, deployed his Taser at the suspect [Charles Roy, 37] to try and subdue him, but the Taser was ineffective. At some point during the struggle, the suspect managed to take the Taser from the deputy. Deputy Medina, fearing for his safety, discharged his weapon striking the suspect once. ["shot and killed"]... [LINK]

So much for reliable effectiveness. Tasers are CLEARLY not always effective. This has been proven time and time again.

So what about safety? And by this I mean not only direct cardiac safety, but also the indirect safety of those that naively depend upon their weapons for protection.

This failure of a taser to be effective put the officer's life in danger and directly led to the sequence of events that ended with death of the suspect.

FAIL.

Any advertising is good advertising, eh?

Nice semi-advertising, light-weight, puff-piece on Taser International at The Economist. [LINK]

It's good free advertising.

Too bad about the comments: [LINK]

Even with the mention of the "controversy", this article is a bit of a puff-piece. Allow me to be specific.

"The device’s success has been electrifying. In the 15 years since it first came on the market..."

First, the M26 taser was introduced in 1999, and the X26 taser was introduced in 2003. The company touted the M26 as safe "because" the output waveform was high frequency and very low duty cycle. But the X26 taser waveform contains a DC pulse after the arc phase. This DC pulse repeats at 19 Hz and is thus more dangerous low frequency and is continuous 100% duty cycle. This makes the X26 taser significantly more dangerous than the older M26.

The monthly taser "associated" death rate shows a clear ramp up from just several per YEAR to a running average of SEVEN per MONTH starting in, guess when... ...2003. It's an extraordinary outbreak of taser associated deaths (often a.k.a. "excited delirium") starting coincident with the introduction of the X26 taser in 2003.

Mr. Smith is quoted as saying of the XREP "...it won’t kill you." Funny, they said the exact same thing about the X26 taser that has been firmly linked to numerous deaths, and suspected in hundreds more (it leaves no postmortem evidence). The US AMA concluded that tasers can kill, "directly or indirectly". The huge $4M Braidwood Inquiry in Canada (which heard from Taser International) concluded that tasers can kill, through a variety of mechanisms, even with healthy adults. The Maryland Attorney General recently issued a report that concluded that Taser International has "significantly" understated the risk of taser use.

The XREP contains a feature, the Hand Trap, that encourages the subject to grab the device and thereby be more-fully shocked via his hand. This intentional design feature directly contradicts the recent advice given by Taser International to "avoid aiming at the chest" to avoid trans cardiac paths. The arm (especially the left) being the worst case of such a path.

Regarding their new X3: They've never admitted that the X26 was a huge mistake, forgetting Fourier transforms and accidentally dropping two key safety features, but it's worth highlighting that the new X3 reportedly emits about 40% less electrical charge than the X26.

With respect to the [taser associated] death toll, standing at 450+, [primarily associated with] the X26 taser.

1) The device leaves little postmortem clues. None that anyone has identified as being reliable.
2) Taser International has sued Coroners that dare to find the taser as a cause. It's been described as a "chill" on free and honest findings.
3) They promote (*) "excited delirium" as an alternate explanation for the taser associated deaths.

[* Their own lawyer, Micheal Brave, has registered dozens of Internet domain names with the words "excited" and "delirium" in the URLs. He has then pointed these URLs to an outfit that is studying "in-custody" (strangely: only in-custody) deaths via "excited delirium".]

In spite of these efforts, a review of 150 autopsy reports found about one-third had mentioned the taser as a cause or contributor to the death. I don't see any reason why this one-third ratio cannot be extrapolated to the entire 450. And it can only be a low-ball ratio given the factors mentioned above.

We have several cases where healthy young men were tasered and died essentially immediately. Even the famous Dziekanski cases at Vancouver, an incident that rocked Canada to its foundation, was a death by "cardiac arrest" perfectly coincident with the application of the taser for 5 cycles and 31 seconds.

Prof Savard has noted a linear correlation in the real world risk of death with the length of the taser application. More taser duration, more risk of death. The NIJ noted the same unexplained trend.

I've notice the taser's 'Curious Temporal Asymmetry' in that the taser associated deaths occur at a vastly higher rate in the seconds to minutes AFTER the deployment than in the seconds to minutes after the taser is drawn but BEFORE it is fired. You essentially NEVER read about a person dropping dead at the verbal warning before the taser hit.

It's also been noted that the taser associated death rate PER DEPLOYMENT with the X26 taser appears to be much higher than with the older (safer?) M26. In Canada the complete data is being withheld, but overlapping data sets indicate that there was a period of several years (2004...) when the M26 was still being used by the RCMP THREE TIMES more often than the newer X26, but ALL deaths in Canada (where the information is available) were associated with the X26. My question is: Where's the data to support this simple sanity check of their claims of safety?

At this point, the taser debate newbies chime in with such nonsense as:

"It's better than being shot with a gun! Duh!"

In fact, in many jurisdictions the taser is used at a rate about one-hundred times (100x) higher than the historical rate of police gun fire. This is obviously a round number, but it's a good round number.

This issue is that, exactly as concluded by the Maryland Attorney General, Taser International has significantly understated the risks.

This raises an issue with procurement of these devices. What are they buying?

The vendor explicitly claims (and maintains the deception) that tasers are "non-lethal", to quote Mr. Smith "...it won’t kill you...". Sometimes they use the term "less-than-lethal", but one wag quipped that term should be corrected to "less-than-OR-EQUAL-TO-lethal".

But the UN, the US AMA, the ACLU, the Canadian RCMP, the various inquiries, and even some researchers that Taser International likes to selectively quote - they all acknowledge that tasers can kill.

Is it legal for government departments to procure items where there is no common understanding of the prime characteristic? This is not just basic contract law, it is very very dangerous territory and can have real-world negative impacts.

Other recent news is that the 9th Circuit Court with jurisdiction over the western states has just explicitly ruled that a perfectly-typical taser deployment was a violation of the subject's constitutional rights. They explicitly ruled that the taser needs to be moved to the very top of the "non-lethal" (sic) list. They characterize the taser as "the most intrusive form of force" that they have ever encountered.

Taser International has characterized this ruling as essentially insignificant. Their spokes-puppets are spreading lies about the record of the 9th Court (it's not "the most overturned" by any reasonable measure). Meanwhile, legal experts and scholars have universally concluded it is a very significant ruling.

Hopefully this ruling is the begining of the end for the overuse, misuse and abuse of tasers, all committed by officers that have been fully trained and certified by Taser International's vertically integrated propaganda and law enforcement infiltration scheme.

In front of a Canadian House of Commons committee (SECU), the other Smith brother testified that Taser International does not provide draft Taser Use Policy. Meanwhile a survey by ACLU-NC found that 95% of jurisdictions were using policy provided by Taser International.

In Canada, the CBC (public media) undertook a survey of tasers in field use. They found that about 10% were out of tolerance. Various jurisdictions across Canada followed up and they all found a failure rate of about 10-12%. One or more units were emitting MORE output than specified. Most were underpowered.

Underpowered tasers are characterized as "failing safe" by Taser International. In fact, during a stand-off, escalating a non-violent situation relying on an ineffective tasers can lead directly to a death by shooting when the taser fails to be effective. In theory, it could also lead to the death of the officer putting his faith in it. There's no such thing as failing safe with weapons. The stungun salesmen aren't always being completely honest.

I could, quite literally, go on all day.

My blog at Excited-Delirium (don't forget the dash) now has 1500 posts on the subject. Everything is linked back to sources to facilitate independent fact checking. My own ideas and opinions are based upon these facts. My interest in the subject is purely as an interested citizen of Canada - I was outraged by the death of Mr. Dziekanski and several others in quick succession in late-2007 which is when I started the blog.

My blog also links to other blogs providing reliable coverage of the taser-related news.

If you want balance, then head on over to the company's website. Don't miss their 'Cardiac Safety' webpage where their in-house expert compares a 5-second taser hit to being hit with a ping-pong (table tennis) ball. Seriously.

Happy New Year.

PS: Local storage of officer-captured video would potentially be much cheaper. Uploading several GB per day PER OFFICER to some remote underground lair seems like a ploy to convert an equipment purchase into a 'service" with associated monthly fees. The phrase 'better, faster, cheaper' seems to apply to the local storage option, and 'worse, slower, more dear' to their money-making scheme.

"...beam the recordings instantly back to the higher-ups at headquarters..."

That must be an optional extra. The existing system described a docking station back at base. "Beaming" the video "instantly" is not part of the basic feature set presently on offer. And it would obviously require 3G/4G hardware and MORE monthly fees.

Ineffective taser (3 times) - deputy killed with own gun

GREELEY, Colo. -- Hundreds of men and women, many in uniform, gathered in Greeley Monday to remember a Weld County deputy killed in the line of duty last week. A memorial service for Sam Brownlee was being held on the University of Northern Colorado campus in Greeley. At the end of a high-speed chase Tuesday, the 43-year-old Brownlee was grappling with an accused car thief who fought through three attempts to subdue him with a Taser stun gun, investigators said. Somehow 20-year-old Ruben Reyes was able to grab Brownlee's gun and shoot him three times before another officer shot and killed Reyes... [LINK]

Taser was ineffective once.
Taser was ineffective twice.
Taser was ineffective thrice.
Perp grabs deputy's gun and kills him with it.
Perp is then killed by another deputy (with a gun).

It seems to me that the ineffective taser (and the over-selling deception that accompany it) lead to an escalation that resulted in two deaths.

The stun gun salesmen told us that tasers are "...safe and effective...". They have much to answer for; especially concerning their deception about the rate of ineffective deployments. See this post [LINK]. As usual their bald-faced deception endangers lives. And now an officer (and a perp) are dead.

--

My condolences to the family and friends of Deputy Brownlee.

This shouldn't have happened.

This needn't have happened.

Taser International's gift to the world...

Chicago Sun-Times [LINK]
Chicago Tribune [LINK]

Summary:

Chicago Police ...responded to a domestic disturbance ...found a man (Alvin Nash, 44) holding a knife to his own throat... Officers ordered him to drop the knife, and a taser was deployed when he did not comply. He was not affected by the taser. He simply pulled the wires out. Because the taser was ineffective, the subject was then able to move and subsequently held the knife against the neck of a woman, reportedly his wife. Strike one against taser.

Officers again ordered him to drop the knife. When he failed to comply again an officer discharged a taser for a second time. Again, the taser did not affect the subject. He again pulled the wires out with his hands. Strike two.

The man then lunged at officers with the knife, prompting an officer to fire his weapon, fatally wounding him. Strike three.

Just like the immediately-previous post [LINK], the taser as a weapon is proving to be ineffective and unreliable. And this lack of effectivity is endangering the lives of everyone involved: the police, bystanders and victims, and even the subject.

The outcome in this incident is the worst imaginable, with a taser-induced detour towards an outcome that might have been even worse.

What's going on with all the ineffective tasers?

I have read that certain tasers (such as the X26) can be loaded with new software via their overpriced battery packs.

Pure speculation: I wonder if Taser International has released new software to turn down the power output in order to improve the inherent cardiac safety; and now we're discovering that there's no overlap between "safe" and "effective".

I've got no evidence on this possibility, but it's something that the Federal Regulators can add to their list of things to check when they finally take an interest in the ECW Industry of essentially one.

Imagine that - The Federal Government announces a moratorium on tasers

Effective immediately, the Federal Government is imposing a total moratorium (*) on use of any and all Electronic Control Weapons (Tasers) manufactured by Taser International, Inc. The moratorium includes the M26 Advanced, the X26, the X3, all Shockwave systems, and the XREP projectile. This moratorium will be in effect for at least three years while the safety claims made by the manufacturer are studied.


* Note: The above is pure fiction. In other words, it is not true at this time. The above is intended to invoke an emotional reaction in some readers that may be useful in understanding the point of this post.


There's something that I just clearly noticed for the first time today.

I noticed that many police officers are very frightened that someone is going to “take their tasers away”.


FOR EXAMPLE – Someone dares to suggest that perhaps school children shouldn’t be tasered just for laughs (not really a controversial position, is it?). And suddenly the comment debate is populated by self-professed law enforcement personnel preaching the manifold benefits of tasers. [LINK]

FOR EXAMPLE - Someone dares to suggest that perhaps the claims of utter safety are actually not completely true, and that perhaps the taser should be treated as a serious weapon, as opposed to a toy (not really a controversial position, is it?). And suddenly the phones lines light up with police officers calling in with all the stale arguments about how tasers are replacing guns and saving lives. [LINK]

It would be funny except that the resultant irrationality spills over into the on-going debate.


Why do these police officers feel compelled to take these irrational positions?

My guess is that police officers are not only frightened to death for their own safety, many of them are also extremely frightened that they'll be forced to kill another human being.

I know that seems perfectly obvious in hindsight, but it's not often explicitly mentioned in terms of being an actual nightmare-level fear. They rarely speak of it in those terms.

And because they've been indoctrinated by the propaganda-based taser training, they honestly believe that tasers provide an alternate form of force that is "perfectly safe" (as they've been "trained").

Therefore they're scared that if their tasers are "taken away", they'll be forced to kill someone.

This is their nightmare.

And this is why they so vigorously and irrationally defend tasers.


Problem is... ...their approach is counter-productive. Not only to their goals of keeping the taser option available to them, but also to the universal goal of saving lives.


If they defend every taser deployment, even those that are clearly stupid, then they're destroying their own credibility.

FOR EXAMPLE - Those two other callers to the Nick Dial interview. They came across as idiots that weren't even on the same page. Even the talk show host shut them down. And then Mr. Dial had to explain his utterly-reasonable position on taser policy again.


Here are my common sense suggestions for those that want to keep their tasers:

1) Stop providing unlimited and unwavering support for tasers, including obvious cases of overuse, misuse and abuse. If a police office deploys a taser in a non-violent encounter, then do not defend him. Either be highly critical, or silent.

2) Avail yourself of the latest information from sources other than the manufacturer, and stop parroting the old nonsense about how perfectly safe tasers are.

3) Bring yourself up-to-date with where the debate presently is. Stop dragging up old 'strawman' arguments that were already stale in 2008.

4) Acknowledge that tasers are dangerous and potentially-deadly weapons, and they should only be used in violent confrontations.

5) Admit that the manufacturer has significantly understated the risks of taser use. Admit that many in the law enforcement community have been played like dime-store trumpets by the slick-talking stungun salesmen.

6) Agree that most Taser Use Policies requires a significant tightening up.


To be honest, the prospect of a government-mandated moratorium is extremely unlikely.

Much more likely is that the false claims of safety, the "significant" understatement of the risks of taser use, their 'Cardiac Safety' webpage that compares taser hits to being hit with a ping-pong ball, their numerous contradictory claims, etc. ...All these factors are vastly more likely (than a moratorium) to result in Taser International being successfully sued into the next galaxy.

By actively discouraging overuse of tasers, you (as a law enforcement officer) can directly cut back on the number of taser-associated deaths. See this graph [LINK] for how things are going in Canada. Note how taser-associated deaths in Canada have ramped sharply down almost-perfectly coincident with the new rules arising from the Braidwood Inquiry and other policy direction.


If tasers were only ever used to "save lives", then I would not have bothered to start this blog.

Taser QotW: "Clearly, police officers should not consider Tasers to be wholly nonlethal"

Star-Telegram (17 May 2010) - Fort Worth's $2 million Taser settlement says a lot

Police officer Stephanie Phillips held the trigger for 49 seconds, later saying she was unaware that the Taser would continue to discharge its electric current if she did not release the trigger... As Michael Patrick Jacobs Jr. lay face-down on the ground during those 49 seconds, the officers yelled at him to put his hands behind his back. But people can't move while they're being shocked with a Taser; the device is designed to induce muscular incapacitation. Because Jacobs didn't comply, Phillips ... released the trigger for one second and then pulled it again. The second shock lasted five seconds. Jacobs stopped breathing and was pronounced dead a short time later at John Peter Smith Hospital. ...

Clearly, police officers should not consider Tasers to be wholly nonlethal. ...

The medical examiner ruled Jacobs' death a homicide... [LINK]

The claims made by Taser International and their minion-in-chief, "Dr." Mark Kroll, that tasers are safe and that tasers cannot possibly affect the heart lie shattered on the ground.

BTW - Is their insane Cardiac Safety webpage still up? That's the web page where "Dr." (apparently not a medical doctor) Mark Kroll compares the safety of repeated taser hits to being hit with a ping pong ball.

Will somebody puhleeze put Mr. Kroll on the stand and slap him about the head with a printed copy of that drivel that he wrote. That web page would make an ideal weapon during any taser-death lawsuit.

While he's sitting there, ask him about 100us pulses of 19 Hz, ...and Fourier.

Four months after Jacobs' death, Taser International issued a bulletin advising its customers to avoid shooting darts from the device into a subject's chest "when possible." ... Taser strongly stands by the safety of its product. The bulletin, the company said, "has less to do with safety [understatement of the decade] and more to do with effective risk management for law enforcement agencies." ...

Translation: If you use a Taser and things go wrong, the person you use it on could die. You could be sued, and you could lose a lot of money. In Fort Worth's case, that amount appears to be $2 million. [ibid]

Charming... (it continues...)

Globe and Mail - December 11, 2007

Perhaps no one is more responsible for tasers coming to Canada than [Sgt.] Darren Laur. The veteran Victoria police officer played a pivotal role in a 1998 pilot program that led to his force adopting the weapons permanently.

A subsequent research [*] paper he wrote - which concluded that tasers were safe and effective - laid the groundwork for the devices' spread to police departments across the country.

[* If it is the paper I saw, it is not actually a 'research' paper, but more like a 'review' paper. And, to be fair, others were involved as well. If that's the paper they're referring to.]

...

"I do consider Sgt. Laur to have been in an apparent and perceived conflict of interest by reason of having held a financial interest in TASER through his stock options," the investigator, Inspector Cory Bond, wrote in her report. ...

Sigh...

Link= Copy of Globe and Mail article

[Copyright Notice - Fair Use is claimed for the above small extract for purposes of education, discussion of an important public-policy issue, criticism, and so on. The complete article is available for purchase from The Globe and Mail.]

Set your phasers on 'ineffective'

Taser Doesn't Phase Dog on Attack - Police eventually had to shoot the 120-pound Rottweiler/Pit Bull [LINK]

The only reason I mention this sort of incident is that Taser International continues to promote their stun gun weapons as generally "Safe and Effective". Well obviously they're not always effective. There are plenty of news items where the taser is not effective.

And if they're wrong on that half of the double-barreled claim, then maybe the bit about "safe" is equally invalid.

Coincidental Pulmonary Resuscitation

Same old same old...

Police use Taser on man, then give CPR - Chief says man is surviving the incident, but doesn't know his condition - The officer then used a Taser. He said he didn’t know where the Taser struck the man, who police believe to be in his 50s. Officers cuffed the man and realized he wasn’t responsive and began CPR and called an ambulance... [LINK]

"Just a coincidence. Nothing to see here. Move along now."


Update: The 58-year-old man, reportedly from South Carolina, was removed from life support and died on Friday. [LINK]

According to the reports:

Corpus Christi, TX - Officers Ross Murray and Daryl Anderson arrived on the scene and Murray used a Taser, hitting the man in the lower back. The man appeared unaffected by the 50,000-volt stun gun, Green said, adding that police aren’t sure if the probe even penetrated the several layers of clothes the man was wearing. Murray then placed the Taser on the man’s shoulder blade and shocked him... The man continued to be combative, Green said.

First, the taser uses 50,000 volts and long pointy darts in order to be able to establish a conductive ionized path even through clothing. If the taser is not reliable in Texas in November, then what chance would it have in (for example) Michigan in February? It really seems that they're dealing cards from both sides of the deck. They claim that the taser is a useful and effective tool, and then when someone dies they claim '...it probably didn't even make contact this time.'

For the time being, let's assume it made contact into the subject's lower back. Was this with the darts? Was the next taser hit into the shoulder creating a three point contact (darts still wired in, then add a direct connection)? If so, then the taser current may have flowed from the area around the shoulders down to the lower back. It's not clear that this sort of deployment is necessarily inherently safe simply because it was directed into the back. Further details might provide more indication.

And note that the delay in the man's death has almost zero logical implications as to the cause. Yes, it may provide a clue as to the mechanism of death, but the death started at the point of arrest and is therefore connected to what happened at that time. In that sense, the delay provides no evidence of non-causality.