Chicago study calls Taser's safety claims into question (TASER INTERNATIONAL saving lives every day)

[jody]

Chicago study calls Taser's safety claims into question

The team of doctors and scientists at the trauma centre in Chicago's Cook County hospital stunned 11 pigs with Taser guns in 2006, hitting their chests with 40-second jolts of electricity, pausing for 10 to 15 seconds, then hitting them for 40 more seconds.

When the jolts ended, every animal was left with heart rhythm problems, the researchers said. Two of the animals died from cardiac arrest, one three minutes after receiving a shock.

* * * * * * * * * * * *

According to Taser International's website, "independent medical and scientific experts have determined Taser devices to be among the safest use-of-force options available."

* * * * * * * * * * * *

Smith said studies done on humans have shown Tasers don't pose a serious health threat.

Volunteer Warnings, Risks, Liability Release and Covenant Not to Sue by "TASER INTERNATIONAL saving lives every day"

Avoid Known Pre-Existing Injury Areas. When practical, avoid deploying a TASER device at a known location of pre-existing injury (e.g., avoid targeting the back for persons with known pre-existing back injuries, avoid targeting the chest area on persons with a known history of previous heart attacks, etc.). These injuries may be provoked by such deployment.

* * * * * * * * * * * *

Deployment Health Risks
Continuous Exposure Risks. When practical, avoid prolonged or continuous exposure(s) to the TASER device's electrical discharge. In some circumstances, in susceptible people, it is conceivable that the stress and exertion of extensive repeated, prolonged, or continuous application(s) of the TASER device may contribute to cumulative exhaustion, stress, and associated medical risk(s).

Other Conditions. Unrelated to TASER exposure, conditions such as excited delirium, severe exhaustion, drug intoxication or chronic drug abuse, and/or over-exertion from physical struggle may result in serious injury or death.

Breathing Impairment. Extended or repeated TASER device exposures should be avoided where practical. Although existing studies on conscious human volunteers indicate subjects continue to breathe during extended TASER device applications, it is conceivable that the muscle contractions may impair a subject's ability to breathe. In tests conducted on anesthetized pigs repeated TASER device applications did cause cessation of breathing during TASER device discharges, although it is unclear what impact the anesthesia or other factors may have had on the test results. Accordingly, it is advisable to use expedient physical restraint in conjunction with the TASER device to minimize the overall duration of stress, exertion, and potential breathing impairment particularly on individuals exhibiting symptoms of excited delirium and/or exhaustion. However, it should be noted that certain subjects in a state of excited delirium may exhibit superhuman strength and despite efforts for expedient restraint, these subjects sometimes cannot be restrained without a significant and profound struggle.

Vagal Response. Some individuals may experience an exaggerated response to a TASER device exposure, or threatened TASER device exposure, which may result in a person fainting.

Permanent Vision Loss. If a TASER probe becomes embedded in an eye, it could result in permanent loss of vision.

Seizure Risks. Repetitive stimuli such as flashing lights or electrical stimuli can induce seizures in some individuals. This risk is heightened if electrical stimuli or current passes through the head region.

* * * * * * * * * * * *

HEALTH RISKS
Response to Exposure. The TASER device can cause temporary discomfort, pain, stress, and panic, which may be injurious to some people.

Muscle Contraction-Related Risks. The TASER device can cause strong muscle contractions that may result in physical exertion or athletic type injuries. In certain instances this may be serious for some people, such as those with pre-existing conditions and/or special susceptibilities. This may also occur in instances where a person has an unusual and/or unanticipated response to the TASER device deployment and/or discharge.

Secondary Injury Risks. TASER-induced strong muscle contractions usually render a subject temporarily unable to control his or her psychomotor movements. This may result in secondary injuries such as those due to falls. This loss of control, or inability to catch oneself, can in special circumstances increase the risk(s) of serious injury or death. Persons who are physically infirm or pregnant are among those who may be at higher risk. Also, persons who could fall on a sharp object (such as persons holding a knife or other edged weapon) or suffer impact injuries to their head or other sensitive area in a fall could also be at a higher risk. Other persons at higher risk include: those located on elevated or unstable platforms (e.g., trees, roofs, ladders, ledges, cranes, loading docks), operating a vehicle or machinery, or those who are running. Persons located in water may drown if their ability to move is restricted.

Strain Injury Risks. It is possible that the injury types may include, but are not limited to, strain-type injuries such as hernias, ruptures, dislocations, tears, or other injuries to soft tissue, organs, muscles, tendons, ligaments, nerves, and joints. Fractures to bones, including vertebrae, may occur. These injuries may be more likely to occur in people with pre-existing injuries or conditions such as pregnancy, osteoporosis, osteopenia, spinal injuries, diverticulitis, or in persons having previous muscle, disc, ligament, joint, or tendon damage. It is believed that the risk of these injuries is comparable to or less than the risk(s) from vigorous physical exertion, such as weight training, wrestling, or other intense athletic endeavors.

Scarring. Use of a TASER device, especially in drive (or touch) stun mode, can cause marks, friction abrasions, and/or scarring that may be permanent depending on individual susceptibilities or circumstances surrounding TASER device use and exposure.
Laser Beam Eye Damage. The TASER device incorporates a laser aiming aid. Laser beams can cause eye damage. Avoid intentionally aiming at the eye(s) of a person or animal.

[ManiacJoe]

1. It should not surprise anyone

that 40 seconds of electricity sent through a body would result in abnormal heart rhythms.

[sir pball]

2. Not saying..

..that tasers should be used at the drop of a hat, BUT, if they're put in their proper place on the force continuum (above pepper spray, maybe even above batons, one step below firearms) I really don't have that much of a problem with them. Yes, they are potentially lethal, and using them as the next step above verbal commands is recklessly negligent at best and outright criminal at worst, if things have escalated far enough I'd rather see somebody tased instead of SHOT.

[Indy Lurker]

3. No one claims Tasers are completely safe

They are sold as being SAFER that being beaten or shot.

80 seconds of tasering is quite a lot, I think that would be considered excessive force by most.

Anytime a tool is used to apply force against an individual, there is potential for abuse, whether it's a with a baton, firearm, pepper spray, or Taser.


When someone is beat to death, we don't blame the baton, likewise, the taser should not be blamed if it is used inappropriately.


The key is to place the Taser where it belongs on the use of force scale, which IMO would be after pepper spray, and before firearm.

[lepus]

4. In my humble opinion

They should be banned.

LEO are far more willing to use them then they are lethal force because they are considered safe. The problem arises is that they use them in situations that they are not warranted because they are considered safe.

I would consider them useful for LEO, but the level of abuse for them is way too high.

[HiDemGunOwner]

6. Should batons be banned? What about MACE?

Both have caused fatalities, so should we ban them as well? It seems to be an interesting argument posed by those that would wish to ban Tasers, since we are in a forum where most would be against gun bans based on the longstanding arguments that it's not the "tool" but the user who is responsible for the correct use. Why is this tool any different than guns?

[jody]

7. "Why is this tool any different than guns?" IMO no different and LEO should view tasers like guns

not as a non-lethal tool slightly more powerful than mace or batons.

Some of the reported incidents of taser use that resulted in death later were situations in which guns were not appropriate but mace/batons or the non-lethal taser were. That of course is based on the independent studies funded by Taser Intl. and cited in its marketing brochures.

Although coroners have typically ruled out tasers as the cause of death, anecdotal evidence is mounting that tasers cold have been a contributing factor.

Taser Intl. admits that its taser has been tested only on healthy subjects, not subjects with assorted medical problems like most of the victims who died later after they had been tased.

[HiDemGunOwner]

9. I think we had this discussion before, but

Jody,

I think we discussed this before and came to differing conclusions. There has been a great deal of research on Tasers in regards to cardiac issues and with the exception of the ones cited here, (I haven't read the study so will assume that there MAY be some issue) all have been negative. And, while there have been some abuses by LEOs, most uses (based on statistics of Taser use) seem to be appropriate. So, I am again unsure what the issue is: Taser has not marketed their device as "non-lethal" but as "less-lethal." If used appropriately in the escalation of force, what's the real issue with using the Taser even if there is a small risk of adverse effects? Even if you placed the Taser on the very highest rung of the escalation continum, with the firearm the next step, the next "tool" to come out of the belt is the firearm. What do you think the risk/benefit ratio is with that "tool" compared to the Taser? And if you remove the Taser would you then be asking LEO to jump to lethal force when at least with the Taser there would be an intermedary step before utilizing that deadly force?

Respectfully,

[jody]

10. I was once a 100% supporter of LEO's using Tasers until I discovered that Tasers had only been

tested on healthy subjects because Taser Intl. excluded anyone with a hint of medical problems, see Volunteer Warnings, Risks, Liability Release and Covenant Not to Sue by "TASER INTERNATIONAL saving lives every day"

That issue was raised by question to the co-founder of Arizona-based Taser International Inc. and the questioner observed "Everything that I see that you do in your studies is basically physically fit, gung-ho military types saying, 'Go ahead, taser me.' You don't know my health history, you don't know who I am, I'm Joe Average on the street."

See DU thread http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x154627
The link to the source is no longer active.

I support LEOs using tasers on any suspect who fits the profile of subjects used to test tasers. I'm confident under those circumstances, a taser is a non-lethal arm except for the rare fatality.

I do not support LEOs using tasers on any suspect who does not fit the profile of subjects used to test tasers. Until proven otherwise, IMO the prudent policy under those conditions is to assume a taser is a lethal arm.

[HiDemGunOwner]

11. But, there's a problem with your contention

Testing of any device, Taser included, on "unhealthy" subjects would be irresponsible. Hence the animal studies. I understand from briefly scanning the article you presented that there was some damage to the myocardium, but other studies have shown the opposite. Unfortunately, as with medications, sometime the risk is not as low as initially assumed during the testing phases. If it turns out there is a risk above what was originally determined during FDA testing of the Tasers, then certainly the use of same may need to be modified. But the problem with scientific studies are that they are sometimes contradictory. We'll have to wait to see what ultimately develops. I understand that you think until then that Tasers should only be used on "healthy" individuals. I tend to disagree, mostly in part because escalation of force would likely dictate use of a firearm at that point. We know what effect that would have on someone, "healthy" or not. Just my opinion.

[jody]

12. Agree, I'm only stating my opinion but I'm willing to change if scientific studies show that using

tasers on suspects with various types of medical infirmities does not change the scenario.

As I understand current LEO policies, LEOs use tasers believing they are non-lethal for all suspects when in fact scientific studies have concluded only that tasers are non-lethal for healthy studies.

Do you disagree with my assertion?

[HiDemGunOwner]

13. Yes, I disagree

From talking to the local police (who had Tasers, then had them removed due to some of the same concerns you express, and now they have been re-issued to officers)describing their training on the devices and from reading various types of literature on the subject, I have never been told (or read) that LEOs believe the Taser is a "non-lethal" device anymore than they think their batons are "non-lethal." They are termed "less-lethal" interventions and specific guidelines are given for things like repeated discharges with the knowledge that some population sub-sets may indeed be more suseptible to injury or worse. For the sake of argument, lets say Tasers have a 2% chance of death on use in a random sample of those LEOs are attempting to take into custody. If you use the device you then accept the risk that in 2% of the cases there may be a fatality. OK, now remove the Taser as an option. Now an LEO is forced to escalate to a firearm to gain control. What do you think the percentage of death is if the firearm is used. I don't know, but suspect the rate would be considerablly higher than the fictional 2% in the example. It is, at least to me, a consideration of the relative risks of each "tool" in the LEO's belt. Will any intervention be 100% safe? I doubt it. Handcuffs have been implicated in positional asphyxia in some police custody cases, yet I doubt that anyone would argue that their use needs to be restricted to "healthy" individuals.
As far as testing, as stated earlier, all testing on those with medical conditions would almost certainly have to be done on animal models (which I believe have been done to some extent; one I recall was with pigs and cocaine, which ironically enough seemed to confer some measure of protection against cardiac dysrhythmias, much to the surprise of researchers) and even these studies would not guarentee the results you seek on "non-lethal" determinations "for all suspects." Such a strict measure for use (100% safe all of the time for everyone) would render most, if not all devices, unacceptable.

[jody]

14. So we disagree still. My position is studies have concluded tasers are non-lethal on healthy

subjects but not unhealthy subjects.

As I understand your position, you contend LEOs should use tasers on unhealthy subjects assuming tasers are non-lethal when in fact no studies support such use.

Have I misrepresented your position?

[HiDemGunOwner]

15. I suppose that is one way of looking at it.

I don't think we should saddle our LEOs with the burden of having to determine who is "healthy" enough for application of any intervention on the use of force continuum. As someone with an extensive medical background, I can say that even under the best of circumstances it is sometimes difficult to make such determinations. I cannot imagine having to make such a determination at 0200, on a cold rainy night, during a traffic stop, when the driver suddenly advances, and continues to advance on the officer, despite warning by the officer making the stop. In this, and many other situations, I think it inappropriate to expect our LEOs to make a decision in milliseconds about who is "healthy" and who is not, when we in the emergency department, looking at the same individual couldn't make the same determination without a complete physical and medical workup.

Again, I believe studies have been done, granted on animal models, to anticipate possible problems with use on individuals with various medical conditions. So, I guess an accurate reflection on my position would be more like:

I support the judicious use of Tasers by trained LEOs on appropriate (meaning behavior based criteria - i.e. resisting, fighting, threatening suicide, etc.) individuals, according to established training and use protocols. The minimum amount of force necessary to gain control of the subject shall be used and this would include restricting the number of shocks to only those necessary to gain compliance. The device would not be used on those individuals involved in civil disobedience-type actions or simply non-violent resistance unless the subject were to act in a threatening manner during the course of the interaction. This use would not be restricted to any particular sub-set of the population except as may be deemed necessary upon further study and evidence which would identify exception categories.

This position is based on all available research to date that indicates Tasers do not pose a threat to the most common medical conditions likely to be encountered by LEOs forced to utilize the Taser. And, once again, I am not (and I don't believe Taser is either) advocating that the devices are "non-lethal" but rather "less-lethal." It is a small, but very important distinction.

I hope that explains things...I recognize we may not agree, so unless there is something I can clarify for you, I'll just accept the fact that I am unlikely to sway you and vise versa. Although I enjoy the discussion, I think we could both divert some of that energy to debating the gun-control crowd. Nice talking to you. See you on the boards.

[jody]

16. Have a great day. n/t

[sir pball]

18. Speaking of batons

Since they're an unchanged copy of a traditional martial arts weapon, they have the potential to be incredibly effective and much safer than a taser in any situation except a firearms threat, where the risk of injury or death from a taser becomes perfectly acceptable IMHO. If verbal noncompliance justifies force, simple pressure will cause plenty of totally harmless pain, if the "bad guy" becomes combative, there might be a broken arm but certainly not a heart attack, even a knife can be handily smashed out of the hand with a baton. Two are even better, you can take on a sword-wielding maniac with ease (hello UK! :))

The problem is that (I'm sure in no small part because of budgetary constraints), there's virtually no training in their proper use. If departments would offer a solid weeklong course and strongly encourage proper application, I think taser use and deaths would decrease significantly. Just my $0.02 though..

[jody]

19. I wouldn't by choice take a taser to a gun fight. n/t

[sir pball]

20. Oh, absolutely not

But in a multiple-officer situation I'd rather see one cop try and use a taser first, while covered by firearms-wielding backup. I mean, tasing is definitely not a pleasant nor safe experience but it's gotta beat being shot.

[jody]

5. See DU "'Tough questions for executive' from Taser International"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x154627

[SteveM]

17. Just a parenthetical note on this subject...

When I was a mechanic years ago, I noticed on some VW/Audi vehicles with early generation electronic ignition four cylinder engines a warning that electrical shock from the secondary portion of the ignition system (plugs, plug wires, distributor cap posts) was potentially lethal. I believe the voltage on these systems was approximately 50K. I got popped by them and suffered injury from my arm recoiling into the hood or fender! Much worse than the old breaker point types. I haven't seen these warnings since.

[east texas lib]

8. As always...

Marketing claims differ somewhat from reality (your results may vary). And be glad you're
not a PIG!:hi: