Taser ban shot down

November 3, 2010
Brennan David, Columbia Daily Tribune

Columbia voters overwhelmingly said “no” yesterday to a proposition that would have banned Taser use within city limits.

With 32,006 votes tallied, 77 percent voted against Proposition 2, which would have created an ordinance making it a Class A misdemeanor for any law enforcement agency or individual to threaten to use or activate any conducted electrical device within city limits. The proposition only won in two central Columbia precincts.

“This is a valuable tool for officers to have and for people in terms of self-defense,” said Columbia Police Chief Ken Burton. “I’ve said it throughout this election: The use of force by an officer is never pretty. I think the voters listened.”

People for a Taser-Free Columbia spokeswoman Catherine Parke said this morning the campaign helped to educate the Columbia electorate on Taser use. “This election makes people say we need to be actively alert,” she said. Police “must give us the information we have the right to have. This is about how they are serving the public trust in regard to public safety.”

The origin of Proposition 2 can be traced to People for a Taser-Free Columbia’s difficulty in obtaining police reports and court documents concerning Taser use. Mary Hussmann, petition organizer, has said previously that Tasers in Columbia should be banned because Columbia residents cannot prove the devices are safe without the police reports and court documents they covet.

Missouri Open Meetings and Records Law allows a fee for the collection of such reports and fees, but the organization argues those items should be free.

“I have always felt we are transparent. I can’t help if there are expenses,” Burton said. “I don’t think it is fair when they ask for something and request the cost to be waived. It’s the law. They should be willing to pay for that.”

Hussmann has previously said the Columbia Police Department hides behind the Open Meetings and Records Law. Burton said last night his department has never refused anyone.

“Most of their argument” with us “is who is going to pay for it,” he said of past requests by the organization.

Parke said it is “puzzling” how many people voted against Proposition 2. “Either it was not a compelling argument, or it wasn’t heard,” she said of manufacturer Taser International’s caution to avoid deploying the Taser to the chest area, a caution that was a staple of the Proposition 2 campaign. “Everyone agreed safety was the issue in this election.”

Although Burton said he didn’t feel the ballot issue was a referendum of Columbia police Taser use, the agency was the only one specifically mentioned in the petition language.

Sgt. John Gordon, a Columbia police Taser instructor and organizer of the Columbia Police Officer Association’s campaign against Proposition 2, said he is pleased with the support his organization received from the community. The work of a police officer is often scrutinized, he said, and can be thankless at times.

“The association has been placed under a microscope for the past three years,” Gordon said. “Hopefully, this is a shift in support toward us. We can’t say thank you enough.”

Chief Burton supports possible Taser tweaks

November 1, 2010
Brennan David, Columbia Daily Tribune

As policy on Taser use has evolved, Columbia police Chief Ken Burton believes the device itself also has room to improve.

In August, Burton participated in a Police Executive Research Forum event where more than 60 police chiefs from across the country discussed ways to improve Taser use. While PERF’s executive committee has yet to release new recommendations as a result of the meeting, participants discussed mechanical changes that could improve the safety of the device.

The length of time an officer can send an electrical current through a person was discussed, and Burton said he thinks changes should be made to the devices, manufactured by Taser International.

“When people are under the influence, the extended shock has shown to be a problem,” Burton said. “We have asked them to reduce the amount of times a trigger can be pulled so that it automatically shuts off.”

The Taser X26, which is used by 87 of 110 patrol officers in Columbia, requires 50,000 volts to deploy the probes and shoot them as far as 25 feet. Upon impact, 1,200 volts are transferred to the subject, according to Taser International.

When the trigger is pulled, the Taser sends the electrical current through its probes for a five-second cycle. Officers are trained to press and release the trigger, said Officer Jason Baillargeon, a Taser trainer for Columbia police. The officer should be attempting to place handcuffs on the suspect during the cycle, he said. The Taser will continue to deploy an electrical current if the trigger is held.

Burton said he would like the Taser to shut off after the device is used a certain number of times on a suspect, and the PERF executive committee has requested that Taser International examine possible implementation. Burton did not specify a number of times the trigger should be allowed to be pulled.

“In some instances, like when officers are in the heat of the moment, they involuntarily keep the trigger down,” Burton said.

People for a Taser-Free Columbia organizer Mary Hussmann cited studies that showed as much as 80,000 volts can be transferred during a Taser deployment.

“They’ve requested this before,” she said of the potential changes to Taser devices. “Nothing has happened. Nothing will happen.”

Although no deaths have been attributed solely to Tasers, the use of the device in conjunction with health issues has resulted in death. “Normally there is something else involved, like heart problems,” Boone County Sheriff Dwayne Carey said. “A lot of this is the operator. Take the Moberly case, for example. It’s not the Taser itself, it was the operator. But the example can be used the same way for a baton.”

In August 2008, Stanley Harlan, 23, died after being stunned multiple times by Moberly police. The city settled with Harlan’s family without admitting fault, and a special prosecutor determined the officers were not criminally liable.

Columbia voters will decide tomorrow whether Taser use should be permitted in Columbia. If Proposition 2 passes, it will create an ordinance making it illegal for any officer or resident to threaten to use or activate any conducted electrical devices in the city.

Groups debate potential dangers of Tasers

October 31, 2010
Dan Claxton, Missourian

COLUMBIA — With the contentious vote on the prohibition of Taser use in Columbia only days away, experts continue to argue the relative danger of the devices.

Police officials contend that Tasers, when used properly, pose little risk to those they are used against. Opponents say the devices are unreliable and that many factors can make them dangerous.

Detective Jerry Staten is a former Texas police detective that now appears as an expert witness and consultant in Taser-related lawsuits.

Staten said that Tasers deployed correctly are safe. “They are specifically designed to reduce the likelihood of causing serious injury or death,” he said.

That sentiment is echoed by Las Vegas, N.M., Police Chief Garry Gold, who said, “Any mechanical tool is as good as its user. It’s just a tool of choice.”

In June, Gold decided to stop using Tasers in his department. He said the decision wasn’t because of any danger posed by Tasers. Rather, he cited complaints about officers misusing the devices, the growing threat of litigation and the expense of renewing his department’s accreditation.

But Gold said he supports the use of Tasers by law enforcement. “There’s a lot of pros and cons; it’s just dependent on the needs of a particular city,” he said.

Marjorie Lundquist disagrees. An expert on the effects of electricity and radiation on the human body, Lundquist said Tasers too often can be lethal, even though in certain circumstances they can be used without ill effect.

She cited several factors that must be present to keep the risk of serious physical injury from a Taser low:

■It must be administered only on physically fit young adults in good health who are free from drugs, who have no recognized genetic disease and who have not been engaged in vigorous physical activity in the five minutes immediately preceding the Taser shock.
■It must be used only against people whose limbs are not fettered or immobilized in any way.
■The shock should last for no more than five seconds.
Lundquist considers Tasers “very dangerous weapons” because there are many variables involved that police can’t see.

Lundquist said sickle cell trait is one genetic condition that makes Tasers potentially lethal. The trait is most commonly found in people of African ancestry. Lundquist said that even one shock from a Taser can induce a sickle cell crisis, which can be fatal.

Lundquist conducted an extensive study of Taser incidents resulting in death, and found that the more applications of Taser shocks, the greater the likelihood of death.

“My data indicate that it is risky for a person to be shocked more than once," Lundquist said. "And I have concluded that for some people, even one Taser shock is too many."

Lundquist said that when people are shocked with a Taser after being handcuffed, the risk of death increases dramatically because muscle contractions under those conditions are inhibited.

“When a muscle is forced to contract but is physically unable to shorten in length, the only thing that can happen is that the muscle tissue tears,” Lundquist said, adding that it could potentially cause kidney or heart damage, which could lead to death.

The Columbia Police Department recently adopted a set of 52 guidelines for the use of Tasers that includes a prohibition on using Tasers on handcuffed subjects, unless the subject is resisting or showing active aggression.

Lundquist said a major danger in electric shocks is the chemical changes they cause in the body. “What makes Taser shocks most dangerous is the lactic acid that they cause to be released into the blood. This can partially deplete the blood of oxygen,” she said.

Staten argues that it’s all about judgment. “There’s a problem out there with the use of the equipment," he said. "There’s not a problem with the equipment.”

Gold said his department is switching to a less-lethal weapon – the pepperball gun. This weapon fires balls of a pepper-based irritant that burst on impact, allowing an officer to pepper-spray a subject from a distance.

Gold said he believes the pepperball technology is “the next mechanical weapon of choice” that will be used by law enforcement agencies.

Voters in Columbia will decide on Tuesday whether both law enforcement and private individuals will be denied the use but not the possession of Tasers within the city limits. A yes vote will prohibit its use; a no vote will result in no change to the current laws.

A question of safety - Columbia voters to decide fate of taser use

The company [Taser International] for the first time issued a warning to users to avoid deploying Taser probes into the chest area. “They want to sell the product, but they are still finding out the effects,” Parke said. “The truth is that they do not know the effects of the Taser. Until they can ensure it is not an uncertain weapon, then we should stop using it.”

October 24, 2010
Brennan David, Columbia Daily Tribune

Are Columbia residents safer when police deploy a Taser than when an officer has to get into an all-out brawl with someone resisting arrest?

Those are questions voters might consider Nov. 2 when they decide whether the use of conducted electrical devices, or CEDs, should be banned in the city. The issue comes to voters after a grass-roots organization and the city couldn’t reach common ground when it comes to the safety of Taser use.

People for a Taser-Free Columbia — the group seeking the ban — and those who support Tasers as a law enforcement tool each have data and anecdotal evidence to support their cases.

On the pro-Taser side, there are stories of aggressive suspects and violent situations that have been curtailed when police displayed or deployed a Taser. In those cases, the Taser is a safer choice because officers don’t have to wrestle with suspects to take them into custody, Columbia police training Sgt. John Worden said.

On the flip side, CED incidents gone wrong have raised eyebrows, including in two Mid-Missouri cases. In 2008, Columbia police tased Phillip McDuffy while he was on a bridge over Interstate 70. McDuffy — who’d earlier threatened to jump from the bridge — suffered two broken arms and a skull fracture and eventually reached a $300,000 cash settlement with the city. That same year, a 23-year-old Moberly man, Stanley Harlan, died after a struggle with police that included several Taser deployments. The city of Moberly agreed last year to pay $2.4 million to his survivors.

With some Taser deployments contributing to injuries or death, coalition organizer Mary Hussmann said she hopes Columbia residents realize CEDs are unpredictable.

After more than three years of discussion, one common denominator has surfaced: Both sides are committed to public safety, but each has a different idea of what constitutes a safe, lawful arrest.

■
If Proposition 2 passes, it will create an ordinance making it illegal for any Columbia police officer, assistant law enforcement officer or resident to threaten to use or activate any CED within the city limits. That includes, but is not limited to, Tasers, stun guns, stun belts or shock sticks.

A violation of the ordinance would be a Class A misdemeanor that could result in up to a one-year prison sentence.

The ordinance would affect personal CED owners: They, too, would be prohibited from using or threatening to use Tasers within city limits. However, individuals would still be able to own, sell or purchase Tasers. The law would be similar to the municipal ordinance on the books that allows residents to own a gun but not brandish or use it in the city limits. Because people would still be allowed to own Tasers, the ordinance would not conflict with the Second Amendment.

If voters approve Proposition 2, Columbia will join a handful of states and cities with bans or restrictions on Tasers and stun guns. Along the East Coast, New York, New Jersey and Massachusetts have Taser bans. Some states, including Indiana and North Dakota, require individuals to obtain a license to carry Tasers or stun guns, and in other states, only law enforcement officers are allowed to possess them.

People for a Taser-Free Columbia argues that CEDs have caused unacceptable physical and psychological pain and that thousands of injuries and hundreds of deaths across the country have occurred after Taser use. The group also objects to the fact officers are allowed to use CEDs against children and the mentally ill, elderly and disabled “merely to obtain compliance.”

Although no death in the United States has been attributed solely to Taser use, supporters of the ban think it’s too risky to deploy a CED on a subject without knowing the person’s medical history. Substance abuse or other health factors combined with a CED deployment can be deadly, according to a U.S. Department of Justice report from June 2008.

Supporters of the ban also believe the device is cruel and is used to punish subjects resisting arrest, Hussmann said.

Columbia police say otherwise.

“We don’t want to hurt anybody, but we have a job to get done,” Worden said. “The public expects us to get it done with a justifiable and reasonable use of force. … If we thought this was unsafe, we wouldn’t subject our officers and citizens to it.”

Taser instructor Officer Jason Baillargeon said the Taser X26 requires 50,000 volts to deploy the probes and shoot them as far as 25 feet. Upon impact, only 1,200 volts are transferred to the subject, he said.

Hussmann counters that officers don’t know how many volts they transfer to the subject. She said she has seen several reports that claim as much as 80,000 volts can be transferred.

The amount depends on a number of factors, Columbia police Chief Ken Burton said Tuesday at a Columbia/Boone County League of Women Voters forum.

“No police use of force is completely reliable and completely predictable,” he said. “Every contact in which a police officer is required to use force in the course of their duties has several variables, one of which is the size of the officer. The size of the suspect. The mental state of the suspect. The physical condition of the officer and suspect are all variables that are completely out of our control. … The use of force by police is never a pretty thing.”

■
Between Nov. 15 and May 15, Columbia police deployed a Taser 12 of the 27 times officers displayed the device. In three of those cases, officers also combined deployment with a drive stun — when the gun itself is placed against the skin or clothing of a subject. Although internal investigations into officers’ conduct in these cases are incomplete, no injuries were recorded as a result of the Taser use.

During that same six-month period, 30 arrests involved physical strikes or “other” force. “Other” is a Columbia police category to classify any form of use that results in injury to the suspect. Of those arrests, seven resulted in injury to the subject or officer, police records show.

One suspect was allegedly high on PCP, and his arrest required a prolonged struggle that resulted in a concussion, abrasions and bruises to the officer, records show. In another case, a burglary suspect suffered a separated shoulder after he was tackled while resisting arrest.

Residents can expect more of those types of incidents if Proposition 2 is approved because officers would have to resort to strikes and other uses of force, police say.

“Rotator-cuff injuries, broken arms and fingers, ligament and tendon damage, lacerations, back injuries, broken noses, teeth and jaw are injuries that can occur,” Worden said. “You are wrestling a person into custody. If you can think about how you would get hurt in a fight, those things will happen.”

In 2009, Columbia police made 154,591 citizen contacts and 6,833 in-custody arrests, according to a year-end report. Only one baton use was recorded for the entire year; pepper spray was more common, with 85 uses. There were 46 strikes and 11 uses categorized as “other.”

The Taser was deployed or displayed 59 times for the year, 21 of which involved actual deployment. Officers were found to have acted properly in all cases. The 2009 report did not document injuries.

Columbia police began using CEDs in 2005, which, at the time, sparked some interest from the public. But more eyebrows rose when the Columbia City Council approved buying 44 additional Tasers with a $33,000 U.S. Department of Justice grant in 2008. The department had 38 CEDs when that grant was approved.

Hussmann said several concerned residents organized The Coalition to Control Tasers in response to the purchase because little was known about the devices. A justice department report released that year said there was no conclusive evidence indicating a high risk of serious injury or death from the direct effects of CED exposure but acknowledged the device is not risk-free.

“CED technology may be a contributor to ‘stress’ when stress is an issue related to cause of death determination,” the report concluded. “All aspects of an altercation (including verbal altercation, physical struggle or physical restraint) constitute stress that may represent a heightened risk in individuals who have pre-existing cardiac or other significant disease.”

The newly founded organization wanted reports of Columbia police incidents to determine whether CEDs were being properly used and whether they were safe.

But obtaining those reports was difficult, Hussmann said, because police wanted to charge hundreds of dollars to produce those records. The Missouri Sunshine Law allows such fees for public records.

In some cases, records were closed because charges were dropped or never issued on suspects who were tased. Those cases are especially of interest, though, because they might flag instances in which police did not follow protocol, Hussmann said.

“The real essence of what is happening with Tasers is in the details and circumstances of when they are being used,” Hussmann said. “A lot of tasing is not in the public view. The only way to get that is to come up with hundreds of dollars.”

With more officers carrying CEDs — 87 of 110 patrol officers have them — and the difficulty in obtaining CED records, the not-for-profit People for a Taser Free Columbia organized.

Also contributing to the group’s concerns was an October 2009 warning from Taser International, spokeswoman Catherine Parke said. The company for the first time issued a warning to users to avoid deploying Taser probes into the chest area.

“They want to sell the product, but they are still finding out the effects,” Parke said. “The truth is that they do not know the effects of the Taser. Until they can ensure it is not an uncertain weapon, then we should stop using it.”

Columbia police have adopted the guideline.

“Taser is recommending that this is better,” Baillargeon said. “I’m not sure why they changed the policy. Remember, this is not a ‘no shoot,’ but an area that should be avoided.”

People for a Taser Free Columbia eventually gathered more than 4,000 signatures of registered Columbia voters and requested that the city council approve the petition as an ordinance. The council denied that request, instead sending it to the Nov. 2 ballot.

During the same period, Taser policies within the Columbia Police Department were evolving as more information about the device became available. Initially, Columbia police used guidelines provided by Taser International, Worden said. Eventually, they began to adopt Police Executive Research Forum, or PERF, guidelines to distance the department from the manufacturer’s guidelines, which some considered biased.

“Our Taser policy has probably changed more and more than any other policy we have over the last two or three years,” Worden said. “We have gone from a very heavy Taser International policy to one that is PERF guideline-heavy.”

Despite solid policies, though, Worden acknowledged that officers will make mistakes.

■
Columbia police officers aren’t the only ones who would be affected if Proposition 2 is approved.

The Boone County Sheriff’s Department also would have to revisit its Taser use. Fifty-eight Boone County employees are certified to carry Tasers during patrol and other law enforcement activities that often bring deputies into the city limits to make arrests or follow up on investigations, Sheriff Dwayne Carey said. Deputies also are responsible for serving a significant number of court orders and ex partes within the city limits.

“I call it the fertile circle of Columbia,” Carey said. “It is not uncommon for part of a road to be in the county and the other half in the city. We would be asking a deputy in a high-stress situation trying to decide what use of force will stop the threat then have to think, ‘Am I in the city or county?’ ”

The Boone County Jail also is in the city limits and would fall within the requirements of the proposed Taser ordinance. CEDs were introduced to the jail in 2004, with three Tasers in service, according to jail statistics. Today, there are 11 Tasers at the jail.

Jail Chief Warren Brewer said most Taser use in the jail is in response to physical force that does not rise to the point of deadly force.

“Most individuals that are tased are in a situation where they are being combative or violently self-abusive,” Brewer said. “We have a 20-1 ratio. The last thing we want is for a firearm to get into the hands of 20 to 25 inmates.”

Prisoners have apparently caught on, and just seeing the device is enough to calm some situations. Records show Taser probe deployments have been cut in half since 2004; there were 18 deployments that year and nine last year. On the flip side, jailers have displayed the weapon six times this year, compared to zero times in 2004.

“Some individuals that might have been subject to use before of them don’t want to mess with them anymore,” Brewer said. “If necessary, they voluntarily comply. Word gets around.”

Brewer did not categorize the device as necessary for jailers — they got by for years without them. But the concrete and steel jail environment makes for a dangerous wrestling ring, he said.

The Missouri State Highway Patrol and the University of Missouri Police Department often assist Columbia police but do not carry Tasers or other CEDs. MU police Capt. Brian Weimer said the cost of CEDs, their upkeep and training are the biggest reasons for not investing.

The state highway patrol is also satisfied with the equipment and tools troopers already have at their disposal. Only the highway patrol’s gaming division and SWAT team use CEDs, spokesman Capt. Tim Hull said.

“Our gaming division uses them because of the close proximity of people in a casino setting. Pepper spray couldn’t be used in those situations,” Hull said. “Our SWAT team uses them for the obvious reasons, but road officers are not assigned Tasers because we have too many other options.”

Hull said those options include the baton and OC spray, also known as pepper spray. He also said the issuance of thousands of Tasers, their upkeep and the continued training would be a much more daunting task for the highway patrol than for a police force of 200 officers.

Taser use by the highway patrol would require legislative approval.

The proposed Taser ban in Columbia has drawn opposition from various city leaders and groups. Mayor Bob McDavid has publicly expressed concern about taking a tool away from police. The Columbia Chamber of Commerce this month announced its opposition to the ban, citing the need for a safe community to draw visitors and businesses.

Keep Columbia Safe also opposes the ban. That’s the group responsible for the April election victory to place cameras in downtown Columbia. Organizer Karen Taylor said CEDs are tools that aid law enforcement.

Keep Columbia Safe says ‘no’ on Taser ban

October 20, 2010
Columbia Daily Tribune

Grass-roots organization Keep Columbia Safe has announced its opposition to a city ban on the use of Tasers and other conducted electrical devices, or CEDs.

Columbia voters will decide Nov. 2 whether CED use should be allowed within city limits. Keep Columbia Safe, which led a successful effort earlier this year to allow the placement of downtown surveillance cameras, is encouraging voters not to support the ban proposed in Proposition 2.

Passage of Proposition 2 would make it illegal for law enforcement or any other individuals to threaten to use or activate any CED. The ordinance would ban Tasers, stun guns, stun belts and shock sticks within city limits.

The measure originated with a petition drive by the local coalition People for a Taser-Free Columbia.

“We believe Columbia police officers and other public safety professionals deserve the best tools available as they do their duty in difficult, and often dangerous, situations,” said Karen Taylor, Keep Columbia Safe organizer.

Keep Columbia Safe will host a Taser education forum at 5 p.m. next Wednesday at the Columbia Chamber of Commerce, 300 S. Providence Road. Boone County Sheriff Dwayne Carey will speak.

Use of Tasers undermines trust in police

August 22, 2010
BY KEN GREEN, Columbia Daily Tribune

It was disappointing but not surprising that the Columbia City Council rejected the Taser-Free initiative as an ordinance and left the matter to voters in the Nov. 2 election.

By law, citizens have the final say on what weapons police use. Columbia Police Chief Ken Burton correctly said in a Tribune article: “I understand where we get our authority to use force, and that is from the citizens.”

We appreciate the work of our police force, and we thank the officers for their service. The Taser-Free Columbia campaign hopes to restore to our officers the citizens’ trust, which has been compromised by police use of the Taser. And we do respect, as the mayor said, “the officer’s right and the family’s right for the officer to come home safely.”

Other residents of Columbia, however, also deserve to come home safely. After being shot with a Taser for 31 seconds, a 23-year-old Moberly man died in front of his family. How many Taser-injured people make it home, forever changed, to a family forever changed? The excessive force of excruciating pain caused by the Taser affects people and their friends and families, causing outrage, fear, hatred and lack of cooperation — attitudes toward our police that are spreading throughout our community.

What really brings day-by-day safety to our police is the confidence and support of the community and its families toward officers they feel can be trusted to be fair, to use only reasonable force and, only if necessary, to have the good of our community and its residents at heart. Taser use degrades community confidence and trust in police.

Unfortunately, before voting, council members did not address the issues of Taser unreliability and liability.

As we have learned more about Tasers and other conducted electrical devices, the question is: How will any amount of additional training, or better rules and strict adherence to those rules, or more transparency, adequately control the Taser when the weapon itself so easily lends itself to abusive use, has poor quality control, lacks standards, is unreliable and is therefore unsafe? A friend and former policeman who trains officers in weapon use shared with me: “Tasers tempt and enable many officers to discard their broader force-continuum responsibilities instead of using conflict resolution and other less dangerous conventional forms of defusing a situation.”

Tasers are not firearms. There are no mandated state or federal requirements for training or use of these weapons, so every community is on its own in deciding whether or how to allow conducted electrical devices. At the grass roots, people are discovering their flaws and dangers.

Last year, the Memphis, Tenn., city council banned Taser use. This year, San Francisco’s police commission voted “no” to Taser use by officers after hearing several researchers and advocates warn against their lethal and legal risks. And recently the Las Vegas, N.M., police chief decided to put away Tasers after seeing police departments across the country face lawsuits over their use. “Hearing all of the litigation behind it, we just decided to not go with it,” he said.

Litigation is happening here in Columbia and Mid-Missouri as well. Our city has already settled a Taser case for $300,000. And two other potentially million-dollar Columbia Taser cases — Derrick v. Giger & Logan and Marine v. Laforest — are in process. The civil court awarded $2.4 million to the Harlan family in Moberly, where the medical examiner ruled the death of Stanley Harlan a homicide. Potential ripe grounds for additional Columbia lawsuits involve people who were tased and, subsequently, were not charged with crimes.

A federal court recently ruled, in Bryan v. McPherson, that the excruciating pain caused by the Taser in itself constitutes excessive force. The court is reviewing whether an officer’s “qualified immunity” in Taser lawsuits should be eliminated.

We must realize every time the Taser is drawn, litigation against Columbia and even against individual officers and individual members of the city council is possible. The Taser-Free campaign is not about neutering officers’ use of an effective force continuum. It’s about helping the police return to a safer force continuum and giving them back the respect of the community.

When officers pull a Taser, they are to warn: “Taser! Taser! Taser!” Should not the Taser warning we hear be, “Lawsuit! Lawsuit! Lawsuit!”?

Columbia’s annual autumn growth spurt brings thousands of new U.S. and foreign students, as well as new employees who will call this city home. We don’t want these populations to begin avoiding Columbia because of highly publicized police use of excessive force and litigation. It is in the urgent interest of newcomers and of everyone to join the groundswell of consciousness about Columbia police use of force and the relationship between police and the public, including the many dangers of Taser use.

Written in 1829, Sir Robert Peel’s brilliant “Nine Principles of Policing” still provides a moral compass for the ethical relationship between police and the public. Peel stresses that citizens should be responsible for eliminating situations that foment crime and that the police, as citizens, focus on the safety of the whole community. His seventh principle says, in part: “Police, at all times, should maintain a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and the public are the police.”

We the People for Taser-Free Columbia ask Columbia voters to examine this issue and vote “yes” on the CED/Taser-Free ordinance on Nov. 2.

Ken Green is a member of People for Taser-Free Columbia.

Anti-Taser group meets petition goal

July 21, 2010
Columbia Daily Tribune

People for a Taser-Free Columbia, a group that wants to ban the use of Tasers and other conducted electrical devices, has gathered the required number of signatures for its initiative petition.

“There are a good amount of people that believe we’d be a better city without the use of the conductive electrical devices,” said Mary Hussmann, a volunteer and spokeswoman for the group.

Hussmann said her group began canvassing for signatures in April. In June, the group turned in more than 4,000 signatures, above the minimum 3,667 required to make the ballot.

However, City Clerk Sheela Amin later notified them that they were almost 500 short because many signatures belonged to residents of Boone County, not registered city of Columbia voters.

For the past few weeks, volunteers returned to work, gathered about 900 more signatures. Amin said the amount of valid signatures in that batch can’t be determined because she told the county clerk to stop reviewing them once they had hit the required number needed — about 490 signatures.

An ordinance that would ban the use of conducted electrical devices will now go before the Columbia City Council. If rejected, it would be put on the November ballot.

This page has been revised to reflect the following correction:

SECOND THOUGHTS: Thursday, July 22, 2010

A headline on a story yesterday about People for a Taser-Free Columbia incorrectly said the initiative banning conducted electrical devices would be on the fall ballot. The measure first will go to the Columbia City Council. If rejected by the council, it would be put on the November ballot.

Petition to ban Tasers approved for Columbia, Missouri City Council consideration

July 21, 2010
BY Erin McNeill, Columbia Missourian

COLUMBIA — It is now up to the City Council to decide the fate of an ordinance banning the use of Tasers in Columbia.

City Clerk Sheela Amin notified People for a Taser-Free Columbia on Monday that their petition had met the requirement of at least 3,667 registered voter signatures and can now be presented as an ordinance to the City Council for consideration.

The ordinance would ban the use or threat to use of Tasers and any Conducted Electrical Devices.

The first submission of the petition on June 2 came up short by 494 signatures because not everyone who signed it was a registered voter. A second submission of 900 additional signatures July 6 brought the petition up to the minimum requirement.

According to a news release, the Taser-Free campaign believes the use of Tasers and CEDs should be banned due to their unpredictability and unreliability. The release also cites "thousands of injuries and hundreds of deaths (that) have occurred in conjunction with or after tasing" as evidence of the potential danger of these devices.

Catherine Parke, a member of People for a Taser-Free Columbia, said the unpredictability of these devices is a danger to both those who operate them and those on the receiving end of a shock.

In October 2009, Taser International, a company that manufactures Tasers for law enforcement, military and personal protection use, issued a new warning cautioning users to avoid targeting the chest area with their devices, as it could cause damage to the target's heart.

Parke believes this is just one more reason Tasers pose an unnecessary risk and should be banned.

"If the corporation that makes, markets and sells (Tasers) is still figuring out what they do, they shouldn't be used in our community," she said.

The City Council will now have the opportunity to review and vote on the ordinance. The first reading of the ordinance is scheduled for the Aug. 2 Council meeting. The second reading and vote are scheduled for Aug. 16.

If the Council does not pass the ordinance, it would be put on the ballot for the Nov. 2 election, and Columbia residents will have the final say.

Anti-Taser group's petition drive helps make Columbia great

Thursday, June 3, 2010
BY George Kennedy, The Missourian

The right to petition our government for redress of grievances is one of the five freedoms guaranteed by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. So when I read in the Missourian that a band of activists planned to exercise that right Wednesday, I tagged along. It’s always inspiring to see the First Amendment in action.

Sixteen of the People for a Taser-Free Columbia gathered in the lobby of City Hall, briefly explained their purpose to the assembled journalists and proceeded upstairs to deposit their petitions with the city clerk. Their number included three children and several well-known greybeards. Among the latter were mayoral candidate Sid Sullivan, bookseller and civil libertarian Ken Greene, and retired professor and frequent essayist Gene Robertson.

Driving force Mary Hussmann had planned to hold the media event outside, by the new Keys to the City sculpture, but the rain pushed us indoors. The sculpture (which sure looks more like a keyhole than a key) would have made a nice background for the cameras. I couldn’t help thinking of its metaphorical significance.

The kind of civic activism personified by the People for a Taser-Free Columbia surely is, and long has been, a key to what’s best about Columbia. You don’t have to agree with the goal of a petition drive to admire those sufficiently committed to a cause to hit the streets, accost perfect strangers and collect signatures. It was a petition launched by students more than 30 years ago that gave us for a time our unique status as the only city with its own deposit ordinance. It was a petition drive that abolished that ordinance. Most recently, a petition drive led to the vote that will place surveillance cameras downtown.

Many petition drives these days, of course, rely on the efforts of paid solicitors. That’s true, for instance, of the drive to do away with the Missouri Plan of selecting judges. There’s big money behind that campaign. Not so with the anti-Taser campaign.

When I asked, Mary assured me that “nobody got so much as a cup of coffee” for circulating these petitions. That makes even more impressive the 4,000-plus signatures submitted this week. Just to make sure they have the required minimum of 3,667, the People plan to continue collecting during the 30 days the clerk has to examine those already turned in.

The Taser-Free Columbia membershave no illusions about the likelihood that our newly reconstituted City Council will approve the ordinance that would make it a Class A misdemeanor "for any Columbia Police Officer or any assisting law enforcement personnel or any other individual to threaten to use or to fire/activate any CED (Conducted Electrical Device), including, but not limited to a Taser, stun gun, stun belt, or shock stick, against any person within the city limits of Columbia, Missouri."

As happened with the downtown camera campaign, once the council rejects the ordinance, it will go on the ballot. The target is the Nov. 2 general election.

I remain unpersuaded of the merits of the Taser-free argument. As long as cops require weapons, this one seems to me preferable to the club or the firearm. On the other hand, there is a depressing record, even here, of Taser use that appears unreasonable and that has produced real harm. Keeping them out of untrained or ill-intentioned hands is clearly desirable. The anti-Taser folks are convinced that effective regulation is impossible.

This is a public policy debate worth having. Whether we agree with them or not, the People for a Taser-Free Columbia deserve our respect. And, as always, the First Amendment deserves our veneration.

Anti-Taser group gathers 1,000 names

April 16, 2010
Columbia Tribune

People for a Taser-Free Columbia have gathered more than 1,000 signatures during the first two weeks of the grass-roots organization’s petition drive.

The group’s goal is to rid Columbia of the threat and use of conducted energy devices by residents and law enforcement officials through a referendum to be placed on the November ballot. Yesterday, volunteer Mary Hussmann said the group has collected an unofficial tally of more than 1,000 signatures since April 1.

The total number of signatures required for the petition will be determined by the official total of voters in the April 6 mayoral election, which has not yet been certified by the Boone County clerk’s office. Volunteers will be required to gather 20 percent of that total, which Hussmann said she estimates will be about 3,700 signatures.

The group is shooting for 4,000 signatures, she said, and hopes the election results will be certified sometime next week. Keep Columbia Safe was required to gather 2,579 signatures to place its downtown camera referendum on the April ballot.

Boone County Clerk Wendy Noren could not be reached for comment.