Round 1: Maxmars v Zaimless: The Taser, Should It Be Banned? , page 1

Nicely stated! I of course, am necessarily going to have to confront some of your assertions, but generally speaking, you’re not making this easy for me. I have to face two important challenges; the first the paradigm of self-defense by would be victims of assault, and second, the successful efforts by the industrial interests to create an appearance of acceptable safety. The former is much more difficult than the latter, as I am sure you already know.

But let me start by answering the questions you put forth.

1) If you were being attacked in some manner and you needed a weapon to stop the person, would you rather have a Taser or a gun?

Sincerely, I would choose the gun. I base the choice on my opinion that the threat of a firearm is much more likely to be recognized by a would-be assailant than a Taser. Also, if I am in a position where force is the only reasonable response, I accept that such force should be of unquestionable stopping power.

2) If your daughter were being attacked would you rather her have a knife, Taser, or pepper spray?

Knowing my daughter’s physical limitations, and of course, caring for her safety even over my own, I would prefer a flamethrower. Of the given choices I am uncertain to choose between pepper spray and a Taser, because frankly, I am not clear on the effectiveness of pepper spray to repel a physical assault. If it is the kind that postal carriers used to get, intended to repel violent animals, I would go that way.

3) If you had been attacked and the police had to go after the person would you rather have them shoot the criminal or Taser them?

Assuming I had to rely on the Police to protect me from an ongoing assault I would not want to be collaterally shocked by the Taser (does that happen?), of course, taking a bullet (accidentally) as collateral damage is no more appealing and certainly more likely to kill me. I suppose the Taser would have to be my ‘choice’ as given, but either way my life is at risk. Knowing police are trained to deal with such situations, I think they would be best suited to decide how to subdue the assailant.

I agree with the assertion regarding increasing incidents of death is not the whole picture. I propose the banning Tasers because they are potentially lethal weapons with unpredictable results for the victim.

To make that assertion more robust I will have to call on information that may be surprising to some, and perhaps expected to others. I will try to summarize them allowing you to ask for expansion if you deem it necessary or questionable.

In March of 2005, in “Tasers: A Reassessment” the Coalition for Justice and Accountability summed up the apprehension derived from the use of Tasers thusly;

“The Coalition for Justice and Accountability initially supported the use of Tasers, as an alternative to deadly force. Consequently, the Coalition expected to see a reduction in police use of deadly force. Instead we watched sadly as the number of officer-involved shootings spiked to near record levels - after a steady five-year decline – at the same time that police were shooting Tasers 10 times more than they used to shoot guns.”

Further, and more damning still;

“Taser International's questionable safety claims have been the source of most of their notoriety. The New York Times pointed out that the company's testing consists of tests on a single pig in 1996 and on five dogs in 1999. Company-paid researchers, not independent scientists, conducted the studies, which were never published in a peer-reviewed journal...no federal or state agencies have studied the safety, or effectiveness, of Tasers...Nor has any federal agency studied the deaths to determine what caused them....The few independent studies that have examined the Taser have found that the weapon's safety is unproven at best. The most comprehensive report, by the British government in 2002, concluded "the high-power Tasers cannot be classed, in the vernacular, as `safe.' " .

It was at this point that a new public relations effort began; thus appeared the able and willing Bill Bozeman, MD, Director, EMS/Pre-hospital Research, Medical Director, Forsyth County Tactical Medicine. I point out that ‘Tactical’ medicine is a salient term we will see appearing further on.

Per a report by Dr. Stephen Juan of The Register, “In 2006, Dr. Bozeman reportedly estimated the chance of dying after being shot by a Taser or stun gun as about one in 870 in the September 2005 issue of the Annals of Emergency Medicine. Within the article Dr Bozeman acknowledges that such an estimate is based on very little data. Nevertheless, medical studies suggest that more, not fewer deaths could result from the introduction of Tasers. Some worry that more deaths could occur since police may be more likely to use Tasers on a suspect thinking they are safer than handguns…

Instead, Tasers and stun guns are known to cause a suspect to suffer cardiac arrest, respiratory failure, malfunction of pace-makers, damaged eyes, injury to the central nervous system, and death. The death of an innocent fetus can occur as well as Tasers and stun guns can cause a miscarriage when used on a pregnant woman. Police would find it difficult, if not impossible to know if a female suspect is pregnant.”

In October 8th 2007 FOX News reports “Study Suggests Use of Tasers by Law Enforcement Agencies Is Safe” PRIOR to the release of the study. They reported that Bozeman said results from previous studies were limited by the use of animal models and of healthy police volunteers in training settings, not criminal suspects in real-world conditions.
Source: www.foxnews.com...

The very next day, the report is publicized, “‘Largest ever’ study finds Tasers safe”

The rebuttals were quick and severely under reported;

The study was presented at the American College of Emergency Physicians' Scientific Assembly in Seattle on October 8th, 2007, but many notable ‘experts’ were left with more questions than answers, one source reports..,

…Nationally recognized Taser expert Aram James of the Coalition for Justice and Accountability (CJA) says, “The study concludes -- without supporting data -- that Tasers reduce injuries to both police and the individuals Tasered. But the authors offer no systematic data to support this conclusion.” James says that actually the study's own data belies their own conclusion of safety. The abstract reported 23% of 597 subjects received some sort of injury. “Nearly 1 in 4, hardly support for the proposition that Tasers are safe -- and when coupled with 293 Taser related deaths, a statistic conveniently ignored by the authors of this study, the conclusion that Tasers are safe is not only not true but in fact a lie of deadly proportions.”

Richard Konda, Executive Director of the Asian Law Alliance and CJA co-founder, says the study ignores the reality that some populations are at higher risk when Tased. “The study fails to mention the effect of Tasers on vulnerable populations, such as pregnant women, the elderly, the mentally ill, and those under the influence of drugs, who are far more likely to suffer serious injuries and even death as a result of being Tasered.” Konda, who's organization is supporting a ban of Tasers, says the evidence of the deadly effects of Tasers is already being acknowledged by law enforcement communities. He says, “Medical remedies to prevent death are being developed because Tasers kill. In Miami emergency medical technicians are spraying a sedative in the noses of Tasers victims or inject them with iced saline solutions. These protocols lead us to only one conclusion – that Tasers are deadly weapons and must be banned.”
…
James says the reason why the study does not appear to be independent is because it was, essentially, a law enforcement report, and points to several red flags. “First, it was conducted at six law enforcement agencies across the country, interestingly enough not disclosed. Why the secrecy? Secondly, the underlying police reports and any accompanying medical records were reviewed by ‘tactical physicians' who are closely connected to a law enforcement agenda. Finally, not mentioned anywhere in the press release related to this study is the companion piece put out by the Wake Forest Physicians Group. In a study dated September 4, 2007 -- the same doctors credited with the above study -- reported on a police officer who after volunteering to receive a 5 second Taser exposure, under very controlled circumstance, was Tased for 5 seconds and suffered a very serious and apparently permanently debilitating thoracic compression fracture. So much for Tasers being a low risk of injury weapon, if they’re unsafe for the cops they’re unsafe for us!”

source:
siliconvalleydebug.com...

Essentially I contend that the research done to date has been far from exhaustive, and there is reason to believe it is questionably biased. There is no independently published establishing a disconnection between Tasers and lethal outcome. In fact just recently, in June of this year a federal jury found that Taser International was liable for a persons’ death due to their own failure to adequately portray the dangers of the weapon.

Amnesty International reported “The degree of tolerable risk involving Tasers, as with all weapons and restraint devices, must be weighed against the threat posed. It is self-evident that Tasers are less injurious than firearms where officers are confronted with a serious threat that could escalate to deadly force. However, the vast majority of people who have died after being struck by Tasers have been unarmed men who did not pose a threat of death or serious injury when they were electro-shocked. In many cases, they did not appear to have posed any significant threat at all”.

Of 291 reported deaths, AI has so far identified only 25 individuals who were reportedly armed with any sort of weapon when they were electro-shocked; such weapons did not include firearms.

AI acknowledged that there may be “stand-off” situations where Tasers in dart-firing mode could effectively be used as an alternative to firearms to save lives. However, the potential to use Tasers in drive-stun mode (where they are often used as “pain compliance” tools when individuals are already effectively in custody), and the capacity to inflict severe pain through multiple and prolonged shocks, renders the weapons inherently open to abuse.”

Later they continue “[Dr Bozeman’s] study says nothing about the misuse of Tasers or about the appropriateness of the use of Tasers in cases where death has followed Taser use. It does not appear to have measured specifically against possible risk factors (such as such as exposure to multiple or prolonged shocks, especially if combined with other restraints) or tested the effects of Tasers on specific groups, such as those intoxicated, agitated or with underlying heart disease.”

I think this essentially substantiates the fallacy of the notion that Tasers are safe and non-lethal because Taser International, the Police Force, and their associates all say so.

To summarize, Tasers are not adequately certified to be the non-lethal weapon they claim it is. Police using such weapons as a crutch to hasten and simplify the control of an uncooperative or agitated citizen is an unnecessary risk to the ‘suspect’. It is too easy to ignore the root cause of the Tasers use, which is as a weapon of pain induced coercion and incapacitation. The number of variables leading to a suspects’ death are too many and require specialized medical knowledge to reduce the possibility of catastrophic outcome. Such knowledge is outside the scope of peace-keepers and thus they should not use this weapon.

In light of all this, civilian use of the weapon must follow suit. Banning until such time as the technology is properly evaluated is necessary. Commercial interests should not detract from the responsibility to ensure that safety of the community, even of the accused.

During this argument you quoted … It does not say that they died because of the Taser. … it makes no direct statement such as ' the Taser killed my (fill in the blank)'…

It does not say they died because of the Taser because, at the time, they had been legally blocked from making that assertion, since all the tools of corporate law have been brought to bear protecting the manufacturer of this misrepresented weapon. Their argument hands us the logic that the ‘contributing factors’ of the so-called “excited delirium”, drugs in the suspects system, or unknown medical conditions, are the ‘cause’ of death, an empty theory that seeks to circumvent the presence of the Taser in the equation. Most of us have seen this tactic used before, tobacco, faulty mechanical devices, and poorly-tested pharmaceuticals. In the courtroom they had succeeded in using all the tools they have been granted as corporate citizens to eliminate their liability until recently, (June 2008 Heston v. City of Salinas, et al., N.D. Cal. Case No. C 05-03658 JW,).

In fact, Taser International, Inc. had asked the court to dismiss the claims of the Heston family, contending that (1) Robert Heston’s death was not reasonably foreseeable, (2) its product is not inherently dangerous, and (3) it had no duty to warn of the dangers of its product.
I draw attention to number 3. ”.. it had no duty to warn of the dangers of its product.”
Is it any wonder they are still trying to squirm away from liability?

The jury found that TASER International knew or should have known that its [Taser] was dangerous because prolonged exposures to the device poses a substantial risk of cardiac arrest to persons against whom the device is deployed. The jury also found that TASER International failed to adequately warn purchasers of its device of the risks associated with its use.

It seems evident to me that the retroactive elimination of Tasers as ‘cause of death’ by coroners across the country are telling of the influences being brought to bear in the matter.

You also posted in your argument that the Coalition for Justice and Accountability initially supported the use of Tasers, as an alternative to deadly force….

I have difficulty accepting that an organization devoted to the oversight of public policy and the results of police practices would engage in biased and inflammatory reporting, which would be a departure from its reputation. To pursue an analytical overview of the report citations and data would consume too much space, and leaves me with no alternative other than to rely on the following excerpts from the report (which many may have already read, please forgive the repetition.)

Allow me to reiterate: Tasers were marketed as a non-lethal alternative to firearm use; its use was to have the effect of increasing safety while reducing police shootings.

Taser International claims that Tasers ''Reduce Officer Shootings''
Wrong - dead wrong.
Since Tasers were fully deployed in San Jose we've actually seen the number of officer-involved shootings dramatically spike to near record levels - after a steady five-year decline!

Granted this is not specific, but I think the inference is reasonable that there was no unusual spike in crime reflected during the CJA study.

You have stated that the Taser can cause a suspect many different 'side effects'. …

I did not intend to imply that Taser had side effects. I was explaining what happens to a human body when electric current is forced through it. I will share another excerpt relating to this fact that Taser so desperately sought to obfuscate in its own study..,

… Walter Skuggevig, a research engineer at UL for 41 years who has done extensive study into electric shock injury, disputes the application of the study to Tasers: “For them to say that Taser is safe based on that line, I don't accept that.... It doesn't apply to that kind of product [Tasers]”

UL, which was unaware that its research was used in Taser literature, emphatically disclaimed the implication that Tasers were UL-approved. UL spokesman Paul Baker said: “We certainly don't want to give the impression that we put our label on this, that we certify this. We do not.”
…
Director for ACLU of Northern California, pointed out that the company's own training manual undermines its claim that Tasers are safe and non-lethal, since it “indicates that people with certain medical conditions should not volunteer to be shot with a Taser and that Taser use on people with certain 'individual susceptibilities' may result in death.”
…
In fact, medical evidence shows that heightened levels of adrenaline increase the risk that a Taser shock will disrupt heart rhythms and lead to cardiac arrest. …”

In a report by Ross….

Dr. Ross’ pro-law-enforcement agenda is known to me. Perhaps we should both agree and recognize the challenge we both face when attempting to extract truth from potentially biased sources. Your decision to include the publication of the Potomac Institute fails to note that this organization’s evident focus is the public policy of weapons development and successful applications of technology to war and urban pacification; as can be evidenced within their mission statement:

… we develop meaningful policy options and ensure their implementation at the intersection of business and government. The Institute’s current endeavors have required the formation of special efforts in:
• Terrorism and asymmetry;
• Emerging threats and opportunities;
• National health policies;
• Science and technology forecasting; and
• National security.

((Emphasis mine))

Despite their pro-corporate framework, the executive summary of the report you cite closes with the following bullet point:

We strongly recommend that additional research be conducted at the organism, organ, tissue, and cell levels. The mortality figures cited could conceivably reflect inaccuracies in reporting or perhaps there are other factors, such as efficient and effective medical care availability. Moreover, the vast majority of targeted individuals have been relatively young males. The community needs to understand the specific effects of varying electrical wave forms on relevant organic matter of all body types in the immediate time frame of stun application, and in the downstream time course as well, to include possible psychiatric and other non-lethal effects.

Institutes such as these provide the surface of lofty altruistic and egalitarian goals, but in the end most are aware they are simply corporate think-tanks used to forge policy consistent with their own goals – in this case, to enable the sale of policing technology, unhindered by public sentiment.

If we are going to make a statement that the Taser is not safe to use, then what is safe to use, apparently nothing.

I disagree. Tasers were misrepresented as safe, and therefore should be eliminated from the arsenal of available ‘non-lethal’ weapons, but it does not mean that ‘nothing’ is safe. I think that nothing is safer than a well-trained police officer, accountable for his or her actions, and dedicated to keeping the peace for the community. If we could count on police being given tools that were not prone to instantaneously initiate a chain of physiological events which could lead to death… that would be safer… But most importantly, if the Taser were, in actuality, a non-lethal weapon, then THAT would be safe.

.. When looking at the youtube videos of Taser incidents, …not one person was acting innocent and coy saying. 'Please don't shoot me with the Taser'.

I suspect we could gather videos displaying both sides of the coin, in equal abundance. But in all the examples you cite, I can see no reason to accept – out of hand – that the result should include the possibility of death for the suspect. Yes, their resistance, although mostly passive, is contrary to the police officer’s instructions, but I think the police have been made too comfortable with the fantasy that it’s OK to zap someone, because it’s perfectly “safe.”

I conclusion, I will summarize my contention that Tasers must be banned.

Tasers have caused far too many severe injuries and unintended deaths to be considered a viable non-lethal weapon. Current public perception is so confused on this matter as a direct result of the extensive leeway granted to the manufacturer in making claims that it is safe. The power of marketing coupled with legal maneuvers shows that even as the citizen is exposed to increasing danger, the excuse can be made to justify it by evoking the fear factor. Until someone you know or care for gets seriously hurt, or worse, at the whim of a police officer who wanted a particular encounter to end…’ now.’

The fact that the device is enthusiastically espoused by law enforcement agencies is clearly offset by their own policies regarding their use. Most police training operations, as well as the DoD, will no longer allow training to include subjecting trainees to Tasing, citing the risk of potential serious injury and or death.

Electricity, as a weapon, is an indiscriminate force, which cannot be controlled once unleashed. The evidence reappears frequently and in increasingly that victims of its use suffer from consequences that are disproportionate to the level of the offense. Police are not entirely to blame for this development; they are indoctrinated to believe that there are no real dangers in Tasing a suspect. Yet the direct application of pain to a ‘suspect’ belies the fact that the individual in question has not yet been convicted of any crime, and their only ‘offense’ is challenging the officers will.

The officers cannot be expected to realize that the individual might have a circumstantial condition that renders the use of a Taser into a very real mortal threat. “Death” should not be an acceptable consequence for confronting a police officer with objections, or challenging their intent to detain you. To compel compliance with a police officer’s request rarely requires the individual to be assaulted. The introduction of Tasers has facilitated and increased such assaults by an order of magnitude. As the frequency increases, so does the likelihood of death and injury.

The Taser is a weapon which was released to market before it was ready. It has killed hundreds, if not thousands around the world. Could the Taser save lives? Certainly, but no more so than the gun, or baton, or pepper spray, all of which are already in use. Is the added risk contributing to a decrease in police violence? No, quite the contrary, statistics clearly demonstrate the increasing use of Tasers, where no weapon use was called for at all. It is clear the Taser must be banned until such time as the technology can live up to the claim that it is a safe, non-lethal tool.

[edit on 25-8-2008 by MemoryShock]