'Excited delirium,' not TASER, killed Brian Cardall

June 26, 2009
By Mark Kroll

I sit on the scientific and medical advisory board for TASER International and wish to comment on the column "Police search for a defense in death" by Rebecca Walsh ( Tribune, June 21).

Commenting on the tragic death of Brian Cardall, Walsh states that the TASER Electronic Control Device was "zapping Cardall full of 50,000 volts" and implies that it contributed to his death.

The actual pulse voltage delivered by the TASER X26 is 600 volts and that is in very short pulses.

This 100-fold exaggeration is provided by Amnesty International material. This anti-police activist group has long used exaggeration and innuendo against TASER ECDs as a significant fundraising tool.

It is helpful to discuss the most common electronic control devices -- electric fences. The TASER X26 ECD satisfies the Underwriters Laboratory electric fence standards and puts out only 40 percent of the output allowed. If the TASER ECD were actually dangerous, the ranchers in your readership would have to remove their electric fences lest they risk electrocuting the next person that walks into one.

Walsh scoffs at the deadly condition known as "excited delirium" syndrome. She states, "Promoted by a retired Texas medical examiner, excited delirium is not accepted by either the American Medical Association or the American Psychological Association." This represents another of the statements of Amnesty International.

Your readers can see what the AMA actually says about excited delirium by going to their website.

"Excited delirium" is a widely accepted entity in forensic pathology and is cited by medical examiners to explain the sudden in-custody deaths of individuals who are combative and in a highly agitated state.

Excited delirium is broadly defined as a state of agitation, excitability, paranoia, aggression and apparent immunity to pain, often associated with stimulant use and certain psychiatric disorders.

The signs and symptoms typically ascribed to "excited delirium" include bizarre or violent behavior, hyperactivity, hyperthermia, confusion, great strength, sweating and removal of clothing, and imperviousness to pain.

Excited delirium deaths have been reported in the medical literature for over 150 years. The exact term is found in medical textbooks beginning in the 1800s.

The fundamentals of an excited delirium death are not that difficult to understand. Our bodies have limits to exertion. If we were to run rapidly we would eventually tire and slow down or stop because our brain recognizes signals of overexertion such as acid in our blood. If we were to continue -- because our brain ignored such signals -- we would exert ourselves until we died. The body has limits for a reason. If these limits are sufficiently exceeded we will die.

Walsh adds, "Brian Cardall is missing key symptoms of excited delirium: He had no cocaine in his system. He was not massive or obese."

If your readers read the AMA statement on excited delirium, they'll see that these criteria are actually not required.

Our thoughts and prayers should be with the Cardall family that is suffering from their sudden loss. It does them a great disservice to repeat exaggerations and innuendo from the fundraising material of an activist anti-police group to incorrectly imply that police officers killed their son.

Mark Kroll teaches in the biomedical engineering department at the University of Minnesota.

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

Comment by Excited Frauds: 6/26/2009 3:35:00 AM

Taser Spokes-Puppet, Mark Kroll, knows his medically invalid Taser Propaganda quite well. "Excited Delirium" was first used by the director of an insane asylum in the 1800's, and the gentleman was regarded as a QUACK.

As Mark knows, no one has ever been diagnosed as having died of "Excited Delirium" without 2 factors being present: 1.) A law enforcement officer 2.) A method of restraint being used or abused.

That makes "Excited Delirium" one of medicines MIRACLES! A "medical condition" which only occurs in the presence of a police officer or jail guard, who is trying to control a person with a method of restraint. And those taser shockers are often the restraint being used, although hand-cuffs and hog-ties also appear, as well as an officer putting his weight on the person.

Ask yourself this question: "If excitedly delirius persons are on a One Way Path to Certain Death, why aren't at least 25% or 50% of these persons dying BEFORE the taser or hog-tie is used? Why aren't excitedly delirius people dying when the officer yells "Taser! Taser! Taser!" once in a while?

The ANSWER is that the simple presence of the law enforcement officer can not trigger a "medical condition", and if it could, suspects should be dying WITHOUT the restraint or taser being applied.

There is a principle of Logic called Occam's Razor, which roughly says that usually the explanation using the fewest variables will be the correct explanation.

What killed Brian is quite simple ~ he was agitated for a period of time, then confronted and assaulted by a peace officer using a Taser and he died ~ Occam says the Taser killed him, as it should, since the Taser barbs were lodged below his skin and across his heart, which is a muscle and is directly affected by a Taser "electro-muscular control device". The Taser worked perfectly to control Brian's most important muscle - his HEART, and it went into fibrillation, eventually leading to his death.

Comment by Excited Frauds: 6/26/2009 7:39:00 AM

Mark Kroll mentions Underwriters Labs and Electric Fences ......"The TASER X26 ECD satisfies the Underwriters Laboratory electric fence standards and puts out only 40 percent of the output allowed.

"Sorry, Mark, but that is a LIE in sheep's clothing. Tasers have NEVER been submitted or reviewed for electrical safety by Underwriter's Labs. In fact, Tasers can't be used in the rain, because they will short-circuit. They aren't even "water-proof".

Mark's company - Taser International - was WARNED by "UL", in a letter, to Cease using its name or logo, in any Taser marketing material, since UL had never been asked to test Taser electrical properties or safety.

Mark knows this, yet he uses the "UL" name to make it seem that Tasers are safe, and UL agrees. Early Tasers were sold to law enforcement, using marketing materials which fraudulently mentioned "UL" Standards, to make foolish cops believe they are "UL Safe". That was a Taser LIE, and UL threatened Legal Action, if the stun gun maker didn't remove ALL references to their Labs.

The fact that Mark Kroll would use the "electric fencing" comparison, shows how shallow and deceptive he is.

Mark holds no medical degrees. He's not a medical doctor.

I suspect that Mark Kroll knows full well that Tasers can kill, and he even knows the medical path to Taser electrocutions.

Why don't you request UL to test your dangerous devices, Mark? Are you afraid of the results? Why don't you ask the FDA to approve your Taser "medical device", since it works just like those FDA Approved heart devices you are associated with?

Sadly, in many situations Tasers can induce irregular heart rhythms, especially when the Taser barbs puncture the skin across the heart. That's when they are deadliest.

"Excited Delirium" doesn't pass the Laugh Test. It is Junk Medical Science, used to hide police and Taser International responsibility in unfortunate, but too common, Taser electrocutions.

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

See also: Electrical Standards (March 4, 2005 - Arizona Republic) which said, in part:

Underwriters Laboratories, which has certified billions of consumer goods for electrical safety, says the graph that Taser is using does not reflect any study of the stun gun's safety. UL spokesman Paul Baker says the graph is supposed to apply to an electric fence. "We take issue with that data in relation to Taser," he said. "Underwriters Lab does not agree with Taser." The graph is based on a decades-old study that measured how much current passing through an electric fence it would take to induce ventricular fibrillation. Baker said he is surprised that Taser is still using the graph since the lab publicly stated last month that it has no bearing on the stun gun. As for the IEC standards, Ruggieri sits on the committee charged with developing and maintaining those standards. He has also helped write standards for Underwriters Laboratories. He said the standards Taser cites do not address repeating pulses used by the stun gun.

Taser makers, users should reassess the device's safety

June 16, 2009
The Salt Lake Tribune

As a kid, Brian Cardall already had a bucket list -- dozens of "to dos." He wanted to be an Eagle Scout. Go on a mission. Get married in the temple. He planned to hike the Inca Trail and climb Mount McKinley.

It's safe to say: Cardall never got a chance to check all of them off. A week ago, he died after a Hurricane police officer jolted him with 50,000 volts of electricity.

Monday, family and friends, professors and students gathered at a Millcreek Stake Center to remember a young father and scientist cut down on a barren southern Utah highway.

He composed music, painted brilliant redrock hoodoos, wrote poetry. He balanced art with an agile, biologist's mind, collecting all manner of slimy specimens he crammed into his mom's fridge (with one nasty dinnertime surprise after she mistakenly cooked his research). His brother David envied his mountain man beard. He was always there to pull the fish off the line for his sister Jane.

"We will all feel that void. It will never be filled," said Carol Cardall Burgoyne, his older sister. "He had a profound impact on each of us."

Cardall's funeral was not about the way he died. But his muddled encounter with law enforcement in southern Utah -- the inexplicable waste and needless grief of it all -- hung over the mourners.

His father, KSL Editorial Director Duane Cardall, made allusions to the crucifixion of Jesus Christ, another naked man "being treated ill by officers of the law."

The family and police dispute what happened when Brian Cardall's wife Anna called 911. Cardall, who was recently diagnosed as bipolar, became disoriented on the drive home to Flagstaff, Ariz. His wife said he had "full-blown lost it," stopped the car, took off his clothes and started walking on the road. Worried he would be hit by another car, she called police. Officers repeatedly told him to get on the ground. Then, one witness says, Cardall stepped toward them and an officer pulled his Taser. Cardall, 32, died almost instantly.

Hurricane's attorney, Peter Stirba, says the officer used his Taser appropriately. The family says the city has selectively edited the transcript; they plan to release recordings later.

"It is our hope as a family that we can follow the savior's example and hold no animosity, nor vindictiveness," Duane Cardall said Monday. "That doesn't suggest that there doesn't need to be accountability."

I feel for the officer. He has to live with the knowledge that his "non-lethal" weapon of convenience killed a brilliant young man with a young daughter, another on the way, and the prospect of a promising career as a teacher.

Ten years ago, police would have tackled Cardall and wrestled him to the ground. But now, Tasers are much more convenient, less messy. They've been used on grandmothers and autistic teenagers alike. UCLA police shocked a student who refused to leave the campus library. In Florida, officers zapped a student who wouldn't stop asking Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry questions. A Utah Highway Patrol trooper pulled his electrocution-in-a-can a few years ago when a motorist argued about a speeding ticket.

Manufacturers have convinced U.S. law enforcement that Tasers are a harmless gadget just short of a gun. And while that may be true for most people who get zapped, the exceptions are piling up. Amnesty International estimates at least 300 people have been killed by Tasers since 1999.

"Tasers are being used as tools of routine force rather than as weapons of last resort," the human rights group says.

Maybe it's time Utah law enforcement started questioning the Taser manufacturers' propaganda -- so another Brian Cardall doesn't have to die.

Letter to the editor from Julian Fantino: Police have right to speak out about Tasers

What a silly letter, Mr. Fantino! Next you'll be sticking out your tongue, with your hands on your hips, yelling "I KNOW YOU ARE...BUT WHAT AM I?" Isn't this conduct unbecoming of Ontario's top police officer?

If YOU and the rest of your old-boy's club at the CACP/CPA were to have taken the trouble to DO YOUR HOMEWORK before the recent news conference to which you refer, then you and they might have in fact been able to, as you say, "articulate well researched, factually based and reasonable conclusions", for example, about the # of times tasers have proven to be NOT so less-lethal.

It's time for you, as the Commissioner of the Ontario Provincial Police, to stop wasting dwindling Ontario taxpayer dollars on such drivel and get started on your HOMEWORK because this just may come up again. And, just as you refused to do the media's homework, I'm not going to do yours, but I WILL give you a "hint" - Robert Dziekanski, Robert C. Heston, Henry O. Bryant, Kevin Piskura, and the list goes on ... if you spend even just a few moments either browsing through this website or Googling taser+cause of death and/or taser+contributing factor, you will be amazed to see that the taser has been identified as the CAUSE of death or a CONTRIBUTING FACTOR of death in many cases.

Once you have all completed your homework, then the next time you open your mouth on this subject intending to sound intelligent, you *might* actually be accused of conduct more becoming of someone in your position.

Oh, and my fellow blogger Excited-Delirium had this to add:

Fantino needs to pull the Taser Spokespuppet arm out of his ass. He's spounting obsolete nonsense.

Even Taser International has been forced to limit the geographical scope of these outrageous claims - they used to claim worldwide coverage until the inevitable leakage of escaped statistics caught up with them. Recently they claimed Canada, until the Dziekanski autopsy report listed the taser as a cause of death.

Tasers have been linked (by coroners) to about 69 deaths so far (including Mr. Dziekanski's). And this is just in the cases studied, where the researchers were able to obtain the autopsy reports. It's running 37% of the taser-death cases studied.

Tasers have been identified as a contributing CAUSE of death in many autopsy reports. Not to mention that most people would agree that "contributed to" means exactly the same thing as "partially caused".

Taser International has been found partially liable for at least one death. It won't be the last.

Even the RCMP now has acknowledged that tasers carry a "risk of death" ESPECIALLY if the subject is agitated. And there is nothing taken out of context about that clear admission.

This attitude is clear and compelling evidence that a moratorium is REQUIRED to allow time for such misleading rubbish propaganda to be removed from Police Leadership - one way or the other.


Julian Fantino responds to FANTINO'S ACT GROWS TIRESOME

Editor:

At the outset I wish to express my sense of personal pride to have Mr. Den Tandt compare me to Don Cherry, who I regard as a modern day Canadian icon.

I suppose that in the views of the author, those of us who have come to this country as immigrants, who have honourably served the apprentice of becoming Canadian citizens and who in my case have dedicated some 40 years to public service should be unceremoniously dismissed as an increasing embarrassment simply because it appears that I don't happen to fit the stereotypical views held by some that I am not entitled to express my views and do so about a subject I have intimate knowledge and experience.

Unlike the author, I am not confused, lost in the weeds or otherwise puffed up about a minute quantity of instantly acquired knowledge regarding the relevance and true value of Conducted Energy Weapons (Tasers) in modern-day policing. Nor would I ever attack the author on a personal level asking that his employer fire him for being devoid of journalistic integrity about a profession he seems to know very little about. I am, however very comfortable knowing as I do that I happen to have all the right enemies! I am also not deterred about standing up for what I believe and feel that as a Canadian citizen I am well entitled to express my views, speak the truth, state facts and dispel the kind of misinformation to which the public has been exposed about the Tasers, now further amplified by the author.

If the author were to have taken the trouble to be present at the recent news conference at which representatives of both the Association of Chiefs of Police and the Canadian Police Association articulated well researched, factually based and reasonable conclusions about the importance of Tasers as a less lethal force option available to police officers in the execution of their mandated duties, he might have understood far better the context and the relevance of the position taken by two professional associations that are truly representative of most police officers working in police agencies across the country.

Regardless of the uninformed views of some, including the author, and no matter the personal cheap shots on his part, the irrefutable bottom line is that there have been no studies, no research, no factual evidence to date that prove that the use of a Taser by a police officers in the lawful execution of their duty has ever been found to have been the direct cause of a fatality. Admittedly, the use of any force option by a police officer including the Taser as with all other use of force equipment; must be lawful, there must be proper policies in place along with appropriate training and accountability. We said all that and want to move forward towards a national model for the use of Tasers.

As much as public debate about significant public and officer safety issues is helpful, what is not helpful is personal attacks and the ssemination of misinformation, mischaracterization and uninformed rhetoric about the police use of Tasers that seems to be masqueraded as the legitimate freedom of the press. If the writer can, as he should, feel that he has the constitutional entitlement to free speech, he also needs to realize that my rights and those of police officers in this country are no less and he needs to come to terms with the fact that when we picked up our badge to serve the citizens of Canada, we did not at the same time surrender our rights to speak and be heard about issues that not only impact on our safety as police officers, but equally so on the safety of all Canadians.

Julian Fantino Commissioner Ontario Provincial Police

Dutch police to use "stroomstootwapen" in trial period

Here's our Dutch lesson for today: A taser by any other name is still potentially lethal. But, in Dutch, it almost sounds like a toy: "stroomstootwapen."

"The Taser is to be used as an alternative to firearms." Gee, where have we heard THAT before?! Here's a new term for the next Dutch dictionary - according to Yahoo! Babel Fish translation, "usage creep" in Dutch is "gebruiks kruipen."

"The manufacturer of the electroshock gun denied that the shocks are lethal. Jelle Egas, a spokesperson for the Dutch Council of Police Chiefs, said that a dog bite or a bean bag shot causes more injuries." Hey, according to the manufacturer, the taser is safer than TYLENOL. Funny how I can't find any record of 367+ people dropping dead from Tylenol! Looks like the Dutch police have bought the propaganda - lock, stock and barrel.

August 12, 2008
xinhuanet.com

BRUSSELS, Aug. 12 (Xinhua) -- Special Dutch police teams will use electroshock weapons by the brand name "Taser" for a trial period of one year, Dutch papers reported Tuesday.

The Taser gun disables its targets by giving them a 50,000-volt electric shock. Six police squads and a military police team will take part in the trial which starts around New Year's Eve.

Dutch Interior Minister Guusje Ter Horst will decide whether the electroshock guns will become part of the regular equipment of the special squads after the trial period.

The Taser is to be used as an alternative to firearms. It fires two hooks connected to the Taser gun by leads which temporarily paralyze a victim within eight meters of the shooting, making it much easier to arrest aggressive suspects. The Taser gun has been in use in the United States for years, but has received a lot of criticism. Amnesty International has reported that 200 individuals worldwide were killed after one or several electro-shocks had been administered.

The manufacturer of the electroshock gun denied that the shocks are lethal. Jelle Egas, a spokesperson for the Dutch Council of Police Chiefs, said that a dog bite or a bean bag shot causes more injuries.

The Dutch police chiefs have been urging for the procurement of electroshock guns since 2006. "A lot of research has been conducted in America, England and Canada. We have studied these reports and now want to test the guns," said a spokesperson of the Interior Ministry.

The facts about tasers — and the lies

By Rob Wipond

Police adore Tasers. Medical researchers and coroners have become cozy with the manufacturer. Taser International has been threatening legal action against Canadian media. Whose claims can we trust?

Shortly after the horrifying, videotaped death of Robert Dziekanski at Vancouver Airport tore through our public consciousness, another frightening thing happened. The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police leaped up and gave Tasers a ringing public endorsement.

It was the most crass act the association could have committed, reminiscent of how the National Rifle Association parachutes gun proponents into the post-mortems of mass shootings.

“Forgive us if we sound biased,” announced association president Gord Tomlinson to the press.

But should we forgive them?

Well, there is one crucial aspect to the police side of this story that’s so far been underdiscussed.

Years of cutbacks by conservative-leaning governments to health care, welfare, assistance programs, and housing have created a volatile social milieu, particularly for people experiencing intense psychological or addictions-related crises. And police are now left alone as the front line responders to an increasing number of explosions of anxiety and frustration at overcrowded boarding houses, underfunded social service agencies, short-staffed care facilities, downtown streets and, sometimes, even homes and airports. (For more insight on this issue, see also this deputation to Toronto police by Canadian rights activist and survivor of forced psychiatric treatment Don Weitz.)

In 2005, Movie Monday showed Crisis Call by Canadian Laura Sky, a thoughtful documentary that had gathered interviews with police officers about this growing nation-wide phenomenon. Three area police officers answered questions after the showing, and overall it became clear that our police, mainly trained to handle criminals, dislike having to fill this gap in our social safety net, and are feeling increasingly overwhelmed and ill-trained for the role.

Victoria’s Sgt. Grant Hamilton confirms that “the majority” of police interventions today involve alcohol, drugs or mental health issues. “When no one else can come,” he adds, “you call the police. We’re the only ones who can always come.”

Though reluctant to comment on the broader political issues, Hamilton points to the significant impact on police of lack of housing alone and states, “We definitely want a solution.”

All of this could explain, in part, the rough, hurried way the RCMP treated Dziekanski. His situation seemed to require an interpreter, border staff who weren’t bogged down in the minutiae of ridiculously expanded anti-terrorism responsibilities, or maybe a crisis interventionist or just a responsible security guard. But to four heavily armed police officers, Dziekanski was just another time-sucking irritant.

All of which also begins to explain why quickie-takedown Tasers have become so popular, misused and vehemently defended by police.

WIDESPREAD IMPROPER USE

Since 1999, thousands of North American police forces have been arming with Tasers, and deployments are rising steadily. Municipal police in BC’s Lower Mainland used Tasers 152 times in 2006, up from 97 in 2005. With some controls in place, Victoria police Taser deployments remained steady, at 79 in 2005 and 74 in 2006 (though these numbers don’t distinguish between actual uses and merely drawing the Taser).

Conservative calculations link 300 North American deaths to Tasers, 20 in Canada.

Maybe most Taser uses are appropriate. Nevertheless, abuse of Tasers is obviously rampant. From Halifax to Victoria, Nunavut to Miami, six year olds, retirees, and even unarmed people in wheelchairs have been Tasered.

Particularly telling is the number of minor infractions that, somehow, escalate into violent conflicts. Amnesty International’s report on Canadian Taserings includes a speeding infraction, a suspected unpaid cab fair, a man refusing to leave a bar, and a man with cerebral palsy being evicted. Police searching an Edmonton hotel used Tasers to rouse sleeping suspects. A distressed 82-year old Victoria man was Tasered trying to escape Beacon Hill Villa. (The Villa itself is now under investigation for elder abuse.)

These aren’t the types of situations which we would ordinarily expect to cause officers to fear for theirs or anyone’s lives. And in the past, such situations were not typically associated with police shootings. So what’s going on? The chair of the Toronto Police Services Board recently expressed worry that “the Taser could lead to lazy policing”, and indeed, these accounts suggest police may become bolder, less patient and more provocative themselves when they have Tasers at hand.

Even when suspects are under control, Tasers are frequently used: An Ottawa protester passively resisting arrest was Tasered. An impaired driver resisted being fingerprinted and was Tasered three times. A jaywalker returned to talk, but refused to sit down, and was Tasered twice. A Halifax woman was shocked three times while handcuffed in a jail cell.

Far from saving lives, such situations are clearly more about what the UN Committee Against Torture has condemned as using Tasers for “pain compliance”. Indeed, while much attention has focused on Taser safety, Amnesty International has pointed out that equally concerning is the way Tasers give police a portable, easy-to-use manner to inflict terrible pain without leaving appreciable marks. (Public Taser demonstrations usually inflict split-second jolts, but in the field Tasers fire for five seconds, and can fire longer and repeatedly. By most accounts, the pain is excruciating. ) (Note: Here’s a police training video that looks at least a little more realistic…)

Yet our governments and police apparently don’t see a serious problem, and so far aren’t demanding or instituting fundamental changes to how Tasers are handled. Still more internal “reviews” are coming, but there’s been no commitment to a comprehensive, independent evaluation.

Instead, most North American police have become so attached to Tasers, they’re manipulating the political landscape and misleading public perception.

SEMANTIC SWINDLES

From the beginning, police have presented Tasers as a “nonlethal alternative to deadly force that saves lives”. How could any reasonable person not embrace that?

Unfortunately, every word of that statement is misleading.

When Victoria police wrote their “Final Report” on Tasers in 2005 for the Police Complaint Commissioner, they themselves lamented that the term “nonlethal” had “inadvertently” created “unrealistic” expectations in the public. They recommended Tasers be described as “lower lethality” weapons.

That description hasn’t caught on.

Meanwhile, claims about “saving lives” bloat absurdly.

Const. Mike Massine, who co-authored Victoria’s report, told the Canadian Press in November he would’ve had to kill several people but for the Taser. It’s hard to question such personal, anecdotal evidence. But police reps cobbled together these statements from officers and in 2004 told the CBC Tasers had saved 4,000 Canadian lives since 1999. (CBC updated that web page in 2007 and, somewhat ironically, kept the same figure. Here’s the original CBC page from 2004 thanks to Archive.org’s WayBackMachine.) At that point, such claims appear for what they are: pro-Taser propaganda. If true, that would mean without Tasers our police would’ve engaged in annual slaughters twenty or thirty times Canada’s historical rate for police shootings, making them bigger homicidal maniacs than all of our murderers combined. (Our suicide rates haven’t changed, so police weren’t saving those lives, either.)

As for Tasers being “an alternative to lethal force”, that was corrected during the 2005 inquest into the shooting death of Saanich’s Majencio Camaso. Use-of-force expert Const. Wayne Unger said Tasering the unstable man would have been inappropriate, unless the attending officer had been backed up by someone with a firearm. Similarly, Massine recently explained to CP, “I had somebody watching my back with a pistol. [A Taser] works in concert with lethal force. It’s never intended to replace it.”

Essentially, unless there’s still time, space and opportunity to turn to lethal force if need be, police aren’t supposed to use finicky, fallible Tasers.

So then, are Tasers an alternative to lethal force in life-threatening situations, or an alternative to try, along with patience, physical restraint and batons, before a situation becomes truly life-threatening? Police answer differently depending on whether they’re justifying their Taserings or their shootings.

This December, the RCMP Complaint Commissioner’s report confirmed such “usage creep” meant police were far too often using the Taser “earlier than reasonable” in situations that weren’t even “combative” let alone life-threatening for anyone.

Though he too still feels Tasers save lives, Victoria’s Sgt. Hamilton also confirms, “The Taser was never intended as a replacement to lethal force.” He instead describes a scenario where a knife-waving man ignores police commands. “Can we let that person walk away?” Depending on “very fluid” situational factors, Hamilton says, like relative size of a police officer to a suspect, officer skill level, or presence of different weapons, a Taser might become a helpful option in the use-of-force continuum.

Hamilton’s argument helps bring some focus and forthrightness to the whole Taser debate, but such honesty is still too rare. More often, for example, police have even been turning to bald cover-ups to protect the Taser’s reputation. The video of Dziekanski’s death showed the RCMP lied brazenly about how much they tried to calm Dziekanski and how dangerous he was. After Robert Bagnell died in 2004, Vancouver police didn’t even tell their own investigating detective they’d Tasered the heavily-drugged and disoriented man. The detective learned it from witnesses later, and then for weeks police hid the fact from the public and Bagnell’s family.

Certainly, shootings in some cities have become slightly less common after Tasers were introduced. Yet have Tasers made it more common for police to accidentally kill people they had no intention, or need, to kill?

POLICE AND CORONERS LINKED TO COMPANY

According to police and manufacturer Taser International, Tasers have been “contributing factors” and “linked” to deaths, but have virtually never caused a death. (Taser International sent “legal demand letters” to 60 Canadian news outlets insisting on corrections to statements “blaming the Taser” for Dziekanski’s death.)

However, many medical studies and field safety reviews were either funded by Taser International, or involved police and people who’ve been on Taser International’s payroll, and it’s on such literature that many coroners base their conclusions about cause of death.

These intertwining relationships between police, coroners and Taser International run deep. BC’s chief coroner was the Surrey RCMP superintendent until 2001. Victoria’s Sgt. Darren Laur held stock in Taser International and professionally trained other agencies in Taser use until a few months before he began work on the VPD’s Taser evaluation. Ontario’s deputy chief coroner has been accepting all-expenses-paid trips from Taser International to give speeches about excited delirium, the mystery “disease” that supposedly causes many Taser victims to die.

Growing awareness of these tight relationships has prompted our federal government to promise an investigation into Taser International’s links to Canadian officials. In the meantime, this “common ground” with coroners and police has been helping the company win a running gun battle of lawsuits from Taser victims and their families. In return, according to the Globe and Mail, the company assists governments and police in their own legal defenses.

And what happens if you’re not “on side”? In 2005, Cook County’s Medical Examiner declared that a police Tasering had in fact caused the death of a Chicago man. Taser International lobbied for a judicial review and its hired experts publicly attacked the coroner’s credibility.

Forensic Engineer James Ruggieri published a study suggesting Tasers in real circumstances could give more dangerously intense shocks than the manufacturer states. (See an interesting article about it all part-way down here.) The company called Ruggieri a “high school drop-out” who couldn’t do basic math. Yet Taser International’s own 2003 medical review had concluded that, due to “physiological variables”, it was “impossible to accurately calculate” how much electrical shock a Taser would deliver into a human body. Similarly, the most recent inquest into the Bagnell case featured expert testimony that Tasers can administer shocks many times the manufacturer’s specs.

And that’s just the beginning of the medical unknowns.

MISSING MEDICAL RESEARCH

In police Taser reviews, negative findings may be downplayed or disappear. For example, the Canadian government’s own investigation of “stun guns” in 1990 found the weapons deadly and recommended banning them. Lead scientist Andrew Podgorski still speaks out against Tasers (more from Podgorski here.) However, his study isn’t discussed in the VPD’s report.

Overall, Tasers appear to be relatively safe when used on healthy, relaxed people. But how many times are Tasers being used on healthy, relaxed people?

That summarizes the glaring, suspicious gap in the medical research.

We already know prolonged, multiple shocks from Tasers are dangerous. But how deadly is even one Taser shock for people undergoing heart stress already? This at-risk group would include people taking most recreational drugs, withdrawing from drugs, taking psychiatric medications with heart-related side effects, experiencing high levels of adrenaline-stress, or who are just unhealthy.

Basically, this at-risk group would include practically everyone most likely to be Tasered. Furthermore, it’s known electrical shocks could interact with these other risk factors to induce cardiac arrest much later.

Unfortunately, most Taser studies have considered electrical shock alone as a possible cause of immediate cardiac arrest. Even the VPD’s report lamented this dearth of research into “such potentially relevant factors as drug ingestion and the elevated heart rate provoked by physical struggle”. The authors hoped two upcoming studies would address these gaps.

In 2006, the University of Wisconsin released one of those studies. It concluded Tasers could very occasionally cause cardiac arrests, even in healthy humans, if the barbs land close to the heart.

Taser International called Webster’s study flawed.

This December, the British government released the other widely anticipated study. It boldly announced Tasers wouldn’t likely cause immediate heart attacks. On the final page, the scientists quietly qualify their findings, though, by noting that they didn’t consider some factors which could make heart attacks more likely, “such as illicit drug intoxication, alcohol abuse, pre-existing heart disease”, prescription drug use, or physical stress.

Evidently, it’s another useless study that’s nevertheless been useful for police and Taser International-the company promptly linked to it from their website’s front page. It’s helping them market their more powerful, wireless, shotgun Tasers to governments, and some sleek pistol models to women.

Reposted here with permission of the author. Copyright by Rob Wipond.

Study raises concerns over Tasers' safety

Feb 13, 2006
Robert Anglen, Arizona Republic

A study measuring electric shocks from a Taser stun gun found that it was 39 times more powerful than the manufacturer claimed, raising new questions about the weapon's safety.

The study, published last month 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.

"The findings show the energy delivered by the weapon to be considerably understated by the manufacturer," the Journal study said. "These findings place the weapon well into the lethal category."

Officials with Scottsdale-based Taser International Inc. condemned the findings, saying they are exaggerated, erroneous and "beyond the laws of physics."

They pointed to a test conducted last week in response to the Journal article. A lab hired by Taser found that the weapon produced power that was significantly less than what the Journal study found and met all specifications.

Taser contends that the author of the Journal study, electrical engineer James Ruggieri, does not have the technical expertise to make conclusions about stun guns. Taser is suing Ruggieri for defamation over his claims in a presentation and testimony in a wrongful-death case last year that Tasers can cause fatal heart rhythms.

In a separate finding, the Army also concluded last year that Tasers could cause ventricular fibrillation, the irregular heart rhythm characteristic of a heart attack.

A memorandum from the Aberdeen Proving Grounds in Maryland, where the Army develops, tests and evaluates weapons, said, "Seizures and ventricular fibrillation can be induced by the electric current."

At issue was whether soldiers should be shocked with the stun guns during training exercises, as Taser recommends.

The Army's occupational health sciences director determined that Taser is an effective weapon but added in the February 2005 memo that "the practice of using these weapons on U.S. Army military and civilian forces in training is not recommended, given the potential risks."

Taser for years has maintained that its stun guns have never caused a death or serious injury. Company officials say the guns save lives, reduce injury and save millions of dollars in legal costs because they prevent deadly confrontations.

But since 1999, more than 167 people have died after police Taser strikes in the United States and Canada. Of those, medical examiners have cited Tasers in 27 deaths, saying that they were a cause of death in five cases, a contributing factor in 17 cases and could not be ruled out in five cases.

Several law enforcement agencies have filed lawsuits accusing Taser of misleading them about the stun gun's safety and claim that the company failed to conduct adequate tests before selling the weapon. Some police departments have delayed or halted Taser purchases because of safety concerns.

Taser denies these claims and says its record of safety is bolstered by dozens of medical and university studies and by the company's experts.

Law enforcement officials and testing experts agree that there is no widely accepted standard for measuring Tasers. Studies have shown various results.

In May, for example, an international testing laboratory hired by Canadian authorities initially reported that two stun guns were significantly more powerful than the manufacturer specified. The guns also fired at different levels of power.

The stun guns were used on a man who died after being shocked by Vancouver, British Columbia, police in 2004.

Taser challenged the test last week, and the laboratory backed off its results. Officials with the lab, Intertek ETL Semko, said testing protocols provided by the police differed from those of the stun-gun manufacturer. As a result, Intertek said the tests could not be relied upon.

Bruce Brown, deputy commissioner of a British Columbia agency investigating the police role in the Vancouver death, said his agency wants to enlist Canada's National Police Research Center to conduct a rigorous study of the stun gun's power.

"We've sent people to the moon, so there has got to be a way to come up with a peer-reviewed (standard)," he said.

The 50,000-volt Taser works by shooting two darts up to 25 feet. The darts are connected to wires that deliver a burst of electricity that is designed to instantly immobilize a suspect. The gun also can be used as a handheld device, without the darts, by touching two metal probes directly against a person's body in what police call a "drive stun."

The shock from a Taser is measured in electric pulses. Tasers typically used by police deliver 15 to 19 pulses a second in a five-second interval, although the gun will continue firing without interruption as long as the trigger is held down.

Tasers operate at 50,000 volts, but Taser says the stun guns do not pose an electrical safety risk because the pulse's current is too low and its duration too short to affect internal organs, including the heart.

Ruggieri's study found that the Taser's pulse was more powerful and longer than the gun's specifications indicate. Ruggieri studied a Taser M-18, which is nearly identical to the Taser M-26 used by police except it has less power.

Taser specifies that the M-18 produces 10 pulses a second at 1.76 watts per pulse. Ruggieri said his tests showed the Taser produced 14 pulses a second at 50 watts per pulse.

Ruggieri said it took him months of research to conduct and complete the tests.

He said he relied on Taser's research and previous stun-gun studies to create a verifiable methodology for testing the Taser.

His findings are based on how electric current penetrates the body.When established electrical standards were applied to the stun gun's electrical discharge, Ruggieri said the current could be fatal. He said measurements of the electric current showed that, according to electric safety standards, the gun had a 50 percent risk of causing ventricular fibrillation.

Taser Vice President Steve Tuttle called the claim "ludicrous" and said it is "clearly refuted by the fact that well over 100,000 human volunteers have been exposed to the Taser discharge without fatality."

Taser maintains that skin tissue blocks electric current and is equivalent to 1,000 ohms of resistance.

But Ruggieri said skin tissue breaks down as electricity is applied, decreasing resistance and increasing the impact of the shocks on the human body.

"This creates a runaway effect of increasing current with decreasing resistance," Ruggieri said.

An independent electrical engineer who reviewed the Journal study at the request of The Arizona Republic said Ruggieri's conclusions were credible and based on scientific principles.

Robert Nabours, who has degrees in electrical engineering from Stanford and the University of Arizona, said scientific and medical evidence support Ruggieri's claims that skin tissue breaks down when subjected to electric pulses. Among the evidence are findings from Harvard and Massachusetts Institute of Technology doctors.

Ruggieri focused on the Taser in its "drive stun" mode. He said measurements of the current found that the power was about 39 times greater than the manufacturer's specifications. Taking into account the lowered resistance of skin tissue, Ruggieri said the stun gun generated 704 watts of power as opposed to 18 watts.

Ruggieri contends that one of Taser's main claims of safety, that the duration of the electric pulse is too short to cause injury, could not be proven. He said his tests of the current showed that duration of the pulse also increases as resistance drops.

The lab hired by Taser, Exponent of Phoenix, could not replicate Ruggieri's results. Exponent, which has offices throughout the country, is a consulting firm that employs scientific and engineering experts who, like members of the National Academy of Forensic Engineers, often serve as expert witnesses in court cases.

Exponent electrical engineer Ashish Arora said Ruggieri reported 17 times more power than the Taser he tested. Arora said that in his tests, the power of the stun gun measured at or below specifications.

Arora said the pulses Ruggieri measured could also not be verified, even when resistance was dropped. He said that caused concern.

He said he would have expected some similarity in the results. But he said the tests results "were completely different."

There were differences between Exponent's and Ruggieri's tests, both involving how the gun was charged and how the current was measured.

Ruggieri said he used a battery specified by the manufacturer to mirror a real-world setting. He changed the battery after each jolt to ensure that the power did not degenerate. Exponent used a power supply to charge the battery.

Ruggieri said a power source could limit the amount of power going into the gun in a way that a battery would not.

Ruggieri also measured the output using two high-voltage meters attached to each of the Taser probes, which he said gave more-accurate readings.

Exponent used a single meter. Arora said the single probe and battery wouldn't change the results.

Taser has repeatedly attacked Ruggieri's credibility since he made a presentation critical of the stun guns to the American Academy of Forensic Sciences in February 2005. Taser claimed his presentation was based on "junk science" and "propaganda" and that his conclusions have been disputed by numerous government, university and medical studies.

Some of Ruggieri's claims were independently verified, including his assertion that Taser had misapplied Underwriters Laboratories standards in suggesting the stun gun could not cause ventricular fibrillation.

Taser sued Ruggieri in November, several months after he announced the Journal findings at an engineering conference in Chicago.

In a news release last year, Taser described Ruggieri as a high school dropout with no medical training.

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.

Taser officials challenged the academy journal, calling it an "obscure bulletin," saying none of the peer reviewers was qualified to assess the findings.

"That unfortunately allowed Mr. Ruggieri to utilize inappropriate science and flawed mathematics in attempts to support his unsupportable conclusions," Taser's Tuttle said.

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.

In an interview last week, Ruggieri said Taser has launched personal attacks to distract from the real issue.

"This isn't about me. It's about the findings, the study," he said.