To the more than 10,000 law enforcement agencies who use them, Taser-style stun guns probably seem like a godsend — a quick jolt of electricity and even the brawniest and most berserk criminal can be brought to the ground. No guns, no deaths and no permanent damage.
Or so Taser International, the weapon’s manufacturer, would have you believe.
However, a CrunchGear investigation paints a different picture. Not only have at least 167 people died after being Tasered, according to The Arizona Republic (although the number of these deaths that can be directly attributed to the weapons is disputed), but there appears to be an aggressive effort by the company to silence critics and to control data and, on occasion, manipulate statistics with the intent of preserving an illusion of safety surrounding its products.
What follows is a column, and is opinion. All statements of fact have been attributed to sources. I have to say this because Taser is a highly litigious company that does not take kindly to criticism, as you shall see.
Not surprisingly, Taser executives are adamant about the safety of its products — ask one and they’ll likely bring up the “hundreds” of Taser shots they’ve taken themselves over the years.
In fact, Taser is so proactive in painting the image of its products as safe that it offers to shoot anybody who approaches the company’s booths at trade shows — an offer that ABC News reporter Amanda Congdon took up at CES this year in one of the show’s most memorable moments (an act that Jon Stewart called “Look-at-me-reporter-crap”).
And the company is quick to tout the devices’ law enforcement benefits. “The field results are extraordinary and dramatic,” says Steve Tuttle, Taser International’s vice president of communications. “We’re reducing officer-related shootings. Here in Phoenix there was a 54-percent drop in officer-related shootings that Phoenix reported as a direct result of Taser technology.”
This would be great, if it weren’t a spin on the facts. A quick call to the Phoenix Police Department revealed this statistic to be highly misleading.
“Tasers were deployed to everybody in the department beginning in 2003,” says Dave Kelly, a Phoenix Police Department lieutenant who works in officer training. “We went from 24 officer-related shootings in 2002 to 12 in 2003. But we didn’t stay there. In 2004, we had 20. It really bounces back and forth. Can we attribute any drop to the implementation of the Taser? I’m not comfortable saying we can.”
However, for the sake of balance it must be noted that Kelly, as well as other law enforcement officials I spoke to, say Tasers have an important place in law enforcement when responsibly implemented. Of course, it is only logical that having access to a weapon less lethal than a gun would prevent deaths. This statistical manipulation, though, appears emblematic of how the company handles data related to the safety and effects of its devices.
Double-blind
I come from a family of scientists and was raised to believe that the peer-reviewed system of verifying and disseminating scientific data is the best we have. From a personal standpoint, the most offensive actions from the company are undoubtedly its practice of suing medical examiners as well as researchers who have published peer-reviewed reports critical of Taser’s products. Not only does this violate the good faith of the scientific community, but it has a chilling effect on research — discouraging scientists from even touching related studies out of fear of retaliation. This was confirmed by a number of scientists who refused to speak to me on the record regarding Taser out of fear of reprisals.
Taser’s lawsuits include cases against medical examiners in Indiana and Ohio who cited Taser-induced electrical shocks as the cause of death. But perhaps most striking is the case of James Ruggieri. In early 2006, Ruggieri published an article in the peer-reviewed Journal of the National Academy of Forensic Engineers. The study, “one of the few scientific studies of Taser’s electric jolt in which the company did not participate,” as The Arizona Republic put it, concluded that Tasers were far more powerful than the company acknowledged and that the devices are capable of causing fatal heart rhythms.
Not taking the criticism lightly, the company sued Ruggieri for defamation, claiming he lacked the expertise to make such judgments, even though his story passed through the rigors of the peer-review screening process.
“They are ruling with a very heavy hand all the data,” says one researcher who requested anonymity on the subject, again out of fear of retaliation. “An immediate red flag in the scientific community is ‘who is funding the source.’ I’m not aware of that many independent studies on the safety of Tasers — most of the research is from people who are somehow associated with the company.”
While the number of completely independent studies on the dangers of Tasers is limited, some of the ones that do exist suggest they are anything but harmless — particularly in regards to their effects on the heart and the nervous system.
For example, in addition to Ruggieri’s study, a recent study conducted by scientists in Toronto on pigs showed that Taser shots to the chest can interfere with heart rhythms in a way that causes instant death. (To avoid such results, if somebody must get shocked, Dr. Zian Tseng, MD, an assistant professor of medicine at the University of California-San Francisco, suggests law enforcement aim for the limbs or back, so as to avoid effecting the heart. And, if possible, he suggests Taser-issued officers carry defibrillators in the trunks of their cars in order to respond to any unexpected cardiac issues.)
And then there are the effects of Tasers on the human brain and nervous system. Although there is very little research on this, studies have been conducted examining the effects of electrical shocks that are virtually identical to the ones delivered by Tasers. These studies suggest such shocks can cause serious, and potentialy long-term, damage to cognition and the central nervous system.
“For the most part, the only information that’s available is promotional information provided by the company,” says Neil Pliskin, Ph.D. director of neuropsychology and professor of clinical psychiatry and neurology at the University of Illinois at Chicago. “Some electrically injured patients are at risk for other types of insults to their brain and central nervous system, and it would seem to be incumbent on the scientific community and those who are interested in the effects of electrical shock to look at this issue. Any risk of electrical shock could theoretically be applied in consideration of Tasers, although until scientific information comes out either in support or against it, it would just be speculative. The problem is that studies still need to be done. But lets put it this way: If it was me invited to go over and get shocked at their booth, I’d probably decline it.”
Better Than a Gunshot
Even Taser’s harshest critics acknowledge that being shocked is highly preferable to a gunshot. The problem seems to be that in its proactive presentation of the products as nearly-harmless — through a combination of suing critics (effectively silencing potential critics), controlling relevant research, and offering Taser shocks to anybody who passes by its booths at conventions — the public perception of Tasers becomes one of a device that is entirely non-lethal, making their misuse inevitable. Just ask Mustafa Tabatabainejad.
RELATED: Tasers: A Shock To The System (PC Magazine)
UPDATE – TASER’s Mark W. Kroll [BIO] responds in an email:
The infamous Ruggieri clearly does not count as he is a high-school
dropout fired by the Coast Guard where he had been hired by falsely
claiming to be an engineer. His junk science manuscript, “Lethality of
TASERs” was rejected by the reviewers for the Journal of Forensic
Science so he has never had a peer-reviewed article. Ruggieiri got a
friend to do a photocopy “publication” of an amusing piece which
claimed, among other things, that cardiomyopathy patients could die
from the static shock of walking across carpet or combing their hair.
He also apparently solved the energy problem by getting 704 watts out
of a TASER device powered by a 30 watt pack of 8 AA cells. One glance
at this piece will disabuse anyone of the fantasy that it was ever peer
reviewed.
Kroll also asserts that TASER has never sued a peer-reviewed researcher.
Regarding Canadian’s March 20th posting of Taser-related in-custody deaths, I have the name and age for number 249 on your list: David Mendoza, age 42. I obtained this information by writing to the West Covina Police Department and politely requesting it. (I would be pleased to see an update to your list of these deaths, so I can cross-check it with my own list.)
By the way, I have recently become aware of an in-custody death in the USA that is associated with a “stun gun” that is NOT a Taser! So it appears that the only reason the Taser is overwhelmingly associated with such deaths is because of its VERY high penetration of the law enforcement market, NOT because it possesses unique characteristics. In other words, it appears that “stun guns” of ALL kinds pose a risk of death.
Lynn, you are probably wondering what I have done regarding the death of Keith Eugene Kallstrom. The answer is “nothing yet” for two reasons: The next thing I need to do is order copies of the law enforcement reports on him, which will cost me money, and I simply can’t afford to continue paying for copies of these law enforcement reports out of my own pocket any longer. I need to find a sponsor or funding source that will cover this cost. The other reason I haven’t proceeded is that I have been kept extremely busy, and so haven’t had time to do much.
This is why I have focussed on reviewing and organizing the information I do have, and trying to fill in gaps (like getting the names of “unknown” people). – Marjorie
Came upon these postings when trying to do some research in regard to a Taser being used on a minor (one day after his 16th B-day). We live in Coronado, CA, a island off San Diego that is generally known for its resort / Mayberry-type setting. Our son along with another buddy and two girls (all minors) were walking down the “main street” toward the waterfront when confronted by three-to-four recently returned sailors who made leud and crude remarkes to the girls as the group passed. My son decides to verbally intervene by challenging the sailors as to why they were making such statments to 16 year old girls. From what was explained to me by the kids and a police officer was that our son caught their (police) attention because of the wailing animated arm movements. Anyway, the police did a u-turn, the sailors went back into the bar, and my son and his buddy were corraled by the police and detained for questioning. The police officer actually handcuffed our son and had the two kids sitting on the curb when my son — being scared to death and having never been in any trouble (striaght As), decides to run. When attempting to run he slips and falls on wet grass, one of the officers trys to grab him and blocks his way, my son runs into the officer then trys to run further when the officer tasered him. Our son sustained a knot to the back of his head (3/4″ protrusion), a gapping wound to the chin requiring sutures, scraps over both arms, hands, and legs, along withnthree loose teeth and bruising on both knee regions — all due to their strong-arm approach and tasering. The police brought him to the hospital and called us to pick him up from there. At the hospital we requested that staff photograph every wound and perform a CAT scan on his head to detect any possibleorganic injuries (none detected). After all this writing, my question to anyone who is familiar with these things, are the police in anyway, shgape, or form, right in what they did to our son? By the way, when I got to the ER and asked the officer why he felt compelled to shoot our son, his immediate response was: “Sir , excuse me, we did not shoot your son, we tasered him.” I responded: “That truly is a load of crap, you used a taser gun on our son, he was shot. . .”
We need to talk. I can answer your questions. We live in Coronado and we’ve been through the same nightmare. Email back to this same site and tell me where and when we can talk. I promise you I will be there and I have the answers you seek.
Sorry we could not get back to you sooner but it was suggested that we not make any comment(s) until Anders went through and completed the “Coronado diversion” program without admisssion — which he did. Now we are ready to re-contact the law firm that you suggested. Give me a call or email when you have time.
Bill
I have information and some questions regarding the post about Coronado police department. Please contact me at (619) 233-1525.
Thanks for this article.
It seems there are many here who wish to silent you too. The Taser’s respondant Mark W. Kroll should verify his sources. His reply only shows contempt but not a single ounce of consideration for others opinion nor for the truth, and this is precisely what we could object to Taser.
Recently a UN committee expressed concerns regarding the Taser saying that is looks like a torture gun.
About Ruggieri’s credentials, one should read the following article:
yourlawyer.com/articles/read/11338
“Ruggieri said he left high school to attend college in New York. He later obtained a master’s degree in computer science from the University of Phoenix.
Ruggieri’s resume shows that he is a professional engineer with licenses in five states. He said he has investigated electrical accidents for federal agencies and helped write electrical safety standards for top electrical laboratories and commissions.
(His) study, published … in the peer-reviewed Journal of the National Academy of Forensic Engineers, concluded that the shocks are powerful enough to cause fatal heart rhythms. It is one of the few scientific studies of Taser’s electric jolt in which the company did not participate.
Journal Editor Marvin Specter said the academy is affiliated with the National Society of Professional Engineers and is made up of experts in several engineering disciplines.
The Journal lists a technical review committee for Ruggieri’s study that includes 20 engineers, including one well-known Taser consultant. The reviewers’ identities are confidential and have not been released, Specter said.
Specter said Ruggieri’s paper went through a rigorous peer-review process before being published in the biannual journal”
So…this basicly concludes with the fact that tazers corrupt the police. I think that we shoudn’t allow them to use something they cannot master or demonstrate resonable justification for the use.
For those interested, there is another website out there put up by a group in Chicago doing animal research on TASERS. This appears to be truly independent research.
http://cookcountytrauma1.googlepages.com/home
Tasers, their use and misuse, is a fairly complicated topic. Not least because of the huge propaganda machine at work. It is quite simply impossible to discuss this issue in any meaningful way in a small comment box like this. All you’ll get is endless arguments back and forth and they inevitably end up repeating in a circular manner. For that reason, I’ve created a weblog where I have sufficient space to carefully analyze the argument, lay-out the facts and figures, and so on.
Assuming you have the time (several hours), please review my blog:
Link= http://www.Excited-Delirium.com
I’m sure that even the most rabid taser fan-boy will find something that they would have to admit makes them stop to think.
If you like and agree with the blog, then please pass the link around. One person can’t do this alone. Also, if you’re capable, please take a back-up copy of my entire blog (www.Excited-Delirium.com) and post it up on-line elsewhere. I’d like to see some back-up copies scattered around.
The use of taser’s are effective with proper use only. Their are 2 draw backs with the inproper use of the product.
(1) If the product is used for an extended period of time of 6 to 8 seconds, give or take. It causes a surge of adrenaline. In which case making it useless, no matter what the intent is as far as temporarily disabling a person. Only making it more difficult to restrain the person at hand and pushing the potential risks of injuries through the roof for every person involved. Just in case you question this informatation look at the Military. Soldiers are not armed with tasers during peace time missions. Even with riots on the brink or other hostile situations that police officers encounter on a day to day basis. Hand to Hand Combat is used first to restrain the more aggressive persons involved. Then they adjust according to. First hint, the government doesn’t employ the product it must mot efficient. Man up and get your shit straight. Focus on training and stop being lazy period.
(2) Think about what was said earlier and think about things such as rollercosters or any other entertainment that causes an adrenaline rush. What is among the first things brought to attention besides being of age or size for the ride. (WARNING IF YOU HAVE HEART PROBLEMS DO NOT GET ON RIDE) or (WARNING IF YOU HAVE HEART PROBLEMS THIS RIDE IS NOT ADVISED). Just a thought for the slow people to think about when they think they want to voice their opinion on shit they know nothing about. Use commin since and life might be a bit easier.
wow some of this is good but other is bull
tasers are very harmful in schools and in general they were made to injur and then they started to kill its an expairment gone wrong.
theres no more to that
Giving “peace” officers portable torture devices is a great idea, because the safety of civilians and the community is nothing next to that of a police officer. Thank you for putting our lives on the line to keep yourselves safe. Your job should be easy and have no risks at all. No one should be able to resist you and you should be able to dole out pain whenever you want for whatever reason you want. Protect and serve yourself!
Now that the sarcasm is out of the way.
Tasers are by no means a replacement for a gun. The fact that they still have guns is evidence of this. Tasers aren’t even being used to replace guns. They exist to force compliance. The effect is the same as beating someone into submission, with less of a mess or effort.
I think every civillian should be issued a taser. See how the police would appreciate that. I know Taser would love to sell all those cartriges.
If you doubt that tasers can kill, then please google the taser’s “Curious Temporal Asymmetry”.