WELCOME to TRUTH ... not TASERS

You may have arrived here via a direct link to a specific post. To see the most recent posts, click HERE.

Showing posts with label steven butler. Show all posts
Showing posts with label steven butler. Show all posts

Saturday, December 14, 2013

Why Taser is paying millions in secret 'suspect injury or death' settlements - when does 'less lethal' actually mean deadly?

December 13, 2013 - Matt Stroud, The Verge

On the day before Thanksgiving this year, international stun gun and cop-cam company Taser International, Inc. announced it had given up its fight in two major legal battles over "suspect injury or death." In a 275-word statement submitted to the US Securities and Exchange Commission, the company's chief financial officer said it would pay a total of $2.3 million in settlements to plaintiffs who had sued the company in product liability cases.

This was rare. Taser prides itself in fighting to the bitter end in any case alleging that its products do anything but save lives. Yet there it was in a financial disclosure — Taser backing down.

Taser brushed it off as a remnant of simpler times. According to the vaguely worded statement, enhanced "risk management procedures" and "revisions to product warnings" in 2009 corrected a legal vulnerability. The $2.3 million payouts would address the last lawsuits tied to that vulnerability; they would amount to housekeeping — cleaning up lingering messes that had remained on the company’s books since before 2009.

WHAT WERE THESE "RISK MANAGEMENT PROCEDURES"?

But what were these "risk management procedures"? What were these "revisions to product warnings"? What was the vulnerability? And what were these cases? Taser’s press liaison told The Verge that its SEC declaration "speaks for itself" — a clear indication that the company has no plans to say anything further about settlements unless it’s forced to.

But a little research helped to pin down procedural changes Taser made in September, 2009. And a public records search helped to narrow the possibilities down to four representative cases that may have been settled. Those cases have a few major factors in common: they involve a Taser shot at someone’s chest; they involve someone going into cardiac arrest; and they involve an accidental death.

For years, Taser has battled in court to show that its electronic control devices — its ECDs such as the X2 and the X26 — cannot kill. But if its recent settlements are any indication, the company may either be slowly backing away from that premise, or at least attempting to draw a line in time after which the company feels it's no longer liable for someone’s death.


CONTRIBUTING FACTORS

As bars were closing at about 2AM on April 19, 2008, 24-year-old Kevin Piskura was at a music venue about a block away from the Miami University campus in Oxford, Ohio. As the bar closed its doors and patrons exited, a fight broke out. Oxford Police were called. According to a civil complaint filed in 2010 by Piskura’s parents, an officer ordered Piskura to "step back or back away" from the fight. It’s not clear whether he did or not, but the officer soon pulled out a Taser ECD and shot Piskura in the chest. Piskura went into cardiac arrest; his heart stopped beating. He was taken to a nearby emergency room and soon life-flighted to a Cincinnati hospital where he died five days later. This past March, Piskura’s parents settled with the City of Oxford and the Oxford Police Department for $750,000. In October, Piskura’s parents suggested they were considering a settlement with Taser.

The Piskuras did not return calls from The Verge, and an attorney representing their case declined to comment. But Kevin Piskura’s death fits a pattern consistent to ongoing product liability cases involving Taser-related incidents in which someone was killed prior to September, 2009. The $2.3 million payouts likely stem from similar cases; these incidents occurred before Taser made its switch from "non-lethal" to "less lethal."

Regarding that: letters to medical journals and plenty of anecdotal evidence have suggested at least since 2005 that even healthy people could suffer cardiac arrest if shot near the heart with Taser’s "non-lethal" ECDs. By September, 2009, Taser changed its product warnings accordingly. Today, Taser’s ECDs are branded as "less lethal" instead of "non lethal," and its training materials warn that "exposure in the chest area near the heart … could lead to cardiac arrest."

Another ongoing cardiac arrest case against Taser involves Ryan Rich. A 33-year-old physician in Las Vegas, Rich went into cardiac arrest and died in January, 2008 after he was shot five times with an ECD, including once in the chest. That case is headed to trial in January.

A third case comes out of the Detroit suburb of Warren, Michigan, and will head to trial in May, 2014. It involves the 2009 death of 16-year-old, 5-feet-2-inch Robert Mitchell, who died in an abandoned house after being shot in the chest by a Warren police officer with a Taser ECD.

"TURNER COLLAPSED 37 SECONDS AFTER THE DEVICE WAS ACTIVATED."

Darryl Turner’s case is a fourth possibility. Turner was 17 years old in March 2008 when he got into an argument with his boss at the North Carolina Food Lion grocery where he worked as a cashier. According to a complaint later filed by Turner’s parents, the argument escalated to shouting and Turner’s boss eventually called 911. A police officer from the Charlotte Mecklenburg Police Department arrived and asked Turner to "calm down." When the teenager refused, the officer pointed his Taser ECD at Turner’s chest. Turner began to step toward the officer, so the officer "held down the Taser’s trigger, causing the device to continue emitting an electrical current, until Turner eventually collapsed 37 seconds after the device initially was activated." Paramedics soon arrived to find Turner handcuffed and unconscious. He was pronounced dead at the scene.

In an uncommon outcome, Turner’s family was awarded a massive payout in 2011. Taser appealed. In November of this year, an appeals court issued its opinion that Taser should remain liable for Turner’s death, but that the jury’s award needed to be reconsidered. "We have no doubt that Turner had significant value to his parents," the appeals court’s decision read. But the court couldn’t agree with a "reasonable level of certainty" that the boy’s life was worth $6.15 million. The parties are scheduled to head back to court in 2014 to haggle over that figure. Unless, that is, Taser has decided to cut its losses and settle out of court.
ON THE RECORD

Taser International is very good about keeping records. In addition to its Axon Flex on-body police camera that allows officers to record interactions with suspects, the company also collects data every time a Taser ECD is fired. But it’s up to police departments — and up to Taser International — to decide how much of that information is revealed publicly.

The company takes a similar approach in the courtroom.

Taser typically insists on keeping its legal settlements — such as those referenced in its recent $2.3 million payout — secret. Rarely are the terms made public. But it happens occasionally. One Northern California case involved a drunk man off his psychiatric meds who was shot with a Taser ECD after refusing to get off a bus. He went into cardiac arrest. An emergency crew was able to resuscitate him on scene, but after going 18 minutes without a breath, the man suffered a crippling brain injury. He would require a caregiver from that point forward.

After a long legal battle, Taser agreed to settle that case. As per usual, it demanded that the settlement agreement be kept secret. The defendants in the case agreed. But eventually it was revealed that the company had settled for $2.85 million. The settlement figure was only made public after a probate court judge made the unusual decision to disclose the dollar amount in open court.

THERE WAS, THE JUDGE SAID, "THERAPEUTIC VALUE" IN MAKING THE INFORMATION PUBLIC

A report from the San Jose Mercury News later explained the judge’s reasoning. There was, the judge said, "therapeutic value" in making the information public.

Whether or not a judge makes similar decisions about Taser’s recent settlements, it’s clear that the company has decided to settle cardiac arrest cases as quietly as possible because it has maintained for years that its weapons are effective, non-deadly alternatives to firearms. If too much attention focuses on Taser-related deaths, there’s a risk that police departments might choose to sidestep the controversy altogether and opt against Taser's products.

There’s a lot at stake on both sides. For Taser, its NASDAQ-traded stock value is on the line. And for those engaged in open legal battles over Taser-related deaths involving cardiac arrest and factors such as "excited delirium" ("a euphemism for ‘death by Taser’") — as well as those who may literally find themselves facing down a Taser ECD in the future — the value of an open settlement may amount to more than mere therapy. It could amount to life or death.

Friday, August 13, 2010

Man who suffered brain damage after being stunned wins $2.85M lawsuit from Taser

August 12, 2010
Jennnifer Squires, Mercury News

SANTA CRUZ -- A Watsonville man permanently injured after he was shocked with a Taser nearly four years ago won a $2.85 million settlement against the stun-gun maker this summer, the first time Taser International has settled a product liability case, according to court documents.

However, the company did not admit to any liability for the anoxic brain injury Steven Butler, 49, suffered after being shocked.

Over objections by the company's attorneys, Judge Jeff Almquist declined Thursday to seal the court documents that divulge the dollar value of the agreement.

Almquist said there's "therapeutic value" in leaving the court's business open to the public, even though those involved in the case signed a confidentiality agreement that forbids them from discussing the settlement.

"The agreement seems to be the best that can be accomplished," Almquist said.

Butler was drunk and off his psychiatric medication in October 2006 when he refused to get off a bus and a Watsonville police officer used a Taser X-26 electronic control device to subdue him. After being stunned, Butler went into cardiac arrest and stopped breathing. It took medical personnel 18 minutes to resuscitate him and, as a result, Butler suffered a debilitating brain injury.

Butler has brain damage and no short-term memory; he also lost mobility and his motor skills decreased. He needs around-the-clock care and can't be left alone, according to court documents.

His condition is stationary, meaning there's little chance Butler will recover, Almquist said in court.

Since the injury, Butler's brother, David, has been caring for him. Part of the settlement award will be put into a special-needs trust to provide the family with more than $4,700 a month to cover medical and other costs. The payment begins in September and is guaranteed for at least 20 years.

"This resolution will allow the Butler family to comfortably care for Steve for the rest of his life," attorney Dana Scruggs, who represented the Butlers, wrote in court papers.

Other money from the award will pay old medical bills and possibly purchase a home for Butler. A significant portion of the settlement will go to the family's attorneys, who spent more than 600 hours and $250,000 preparing the case for trial.

During Thursday's hearing, Steven and David Butler sat together in the back of the courtroom. Outside of court, the brothers, thin men with matching mustaches, declined to talk about the resolution.

Another of the family's attorneys, Nathan Benjamin, said "they're very happy to have this resolved." In a declaration filed by the court, Scruggs outlined the challenges in taking on the stun-gun company.

Taser International claimed Butler had several pre-existing cardiac and health conditions that contributed to his injury. However, Scruggs said most of the scientific and medical research about the adverse effects of electric shock from a stun gun is directly or indirectly financed by the company.

At the time of Butler's injury, the company had never lost a lawsuit.

Attorney John Burton, who won a lawsuit against the city of Salinas and Taser International on behalf of the family of Robert C. Heston Jr., helped with case. Heston died after being stunned multiple times by a police officer armed with a Taser in February 2005. The Heston case, in 2008, marked the first time a stun-gun victim had won a product liability trial against Taser International.

The legal team assembled for the Butler case compiled investigation, discovery, pleadings and research that filled 11 banker's boxes. They were prepared to go to trial in the spring, but the case was postponed and then settled.

Tuesday, March 16, 2010

Judge fines Taser International; case moves to trial

March 15, 2010
By Jennifer Squires, San Jose Mercury News

SANTA CRUZ - A Santa Cruz County Superior Court judge denied a motion by a stun-gun manufacturer to dismiss a civil lawsuit filed by a man who claims he suffered permanent injuries after being shocked by one of the weapons in 2006.

Monday, Judge Jeff Almquist turned down the request by TASER International that would have ended the case. Almquist also fined TASER International $15,000 for delaying the court process, according to court documents.

Watsonville resident Steve Butler, now 51, is seeking lifetime medical costs in the suit. The trial is set for Aug. 2.

Thursday, March 04, 2010

Tonight on CNN - Tasers under scrutiny after claims of death and injury

The giant south of the border awakens - slowly but surely ...

See an investigation into the potential health dangers of tasers on tonight's "Campbell Brown" on CNN tonight, 8 p.m. ET

By Dan Simon and David Fitzpatrick, CNN Special Investigations Unit

Watsonville, California (CNN) -- Sitting at the kitchen table in his small house, Steven Butler has trouble even with a very simple question. He cannot tell you the day of the week or the month, and he has to have the help of a calendar to tell you the year.

"Once a moment is gone, it's gone," said his brother and caregiver, David Butler says in an interview to air on tonight's "Campbell Brown". "He can't remember any good times, birthday parties, Christmas, any event."

On October 7, 2006, Steven Butler, by his own admission, was drunk and disorderly. He refused an order from a police officer in his hometown to get off a city bus. The officer used his Taser ECD (officially, an "Electronic Control Device") three times.

According to doctors, Butler suffered immediate cardiac arrest. He was revived by emergency medical technicians who happened to be close by, but his attorneys say his brain was deprived of oxygen for as long as 18 minutes. He is now permanently disabled.

Butler and his family have filed a lawsuit -- not against the police, but against the maker of the weapon, Taser International.

John Burton, a lawyer based in Pasadena, California, says he can prove that when the weapons are fired directly over the chest, they can cause and have caused cardiac arrest. In addition, Burton says he can prove Taser knew about that danger.

"Well, we can prove that by early 2006," said Burton, "but we suspect they had all the necessary data since 2005, since they were funding the study."

The study Burton mentions was published in early 2006 by the American College of Cardiology Foundation. Funded by Taser, it focused on pigs struck by Tasers, with the conclusions, according to the study, "generalized to humans."

The authors wrote that being hit by a Taser is unlikely to cause cardiac arrest, but nevertheless recommended Taser darts not be fired near the heart to "greatly reduce any concern for induction of ventricular arrhythmias."

Dr. Douglas Zipes, a cardiologist based outside Indianapolis, Indiana, plans to testify against Taser in any lawsuit regarding what happened to Butler. In plain English, he says, that recommendation is a clear warning.

"I think Taser has been disingenuous and certainly up to 2006 -- the case we are talking about -- Taser said in their educational materials that there was no cardiac risk whatsoever," Zipes said. "That Taser could not produce a heart problem, that there was no long lasting effect from Taser."

Medical experts say that if a person is hit by a Taser dart near the chest, one result is a dramatic increase in the subject's heartbeat -- from a resting 72 beats a minute to as many as 220 beats a minute for a short period of time. In its court filings, the company says the "peak-loaded" voltage from a Taser at impact ranges up to 40,000 volts but it's a 600-volt average for the duration of the firing.

In an e-mail, a spokesman for Taser said the company would not comment on any ongoing litigation. But in a court filing seeking to dismiss the Butler lawsuit, it said Taser devices "are repeatedly proven safe through testing, in human volunteers, in controlled, medically approved studies." There's no evidence, the company says, that being hit with a Taser causes cardiac arrest in humans.

But the company has significantly changed its recommendations for how Tasers should be used. Officers, it said, should no longer aim for the chest when using the device, instead targeting the arms, legs, buttocks.

Why the change?

A company document said "the answer has less to do with safety and more to do with effective risk management for law enforcement agencies."

In other words, say lawyers who have sued Taser, it means police are less likely to be sued if they avoid hitting subjects in the chest. In court papers, Taser says the risk of cardiac arrest is "extremely rare and would be rounded to near zero," but it adds: "However, law enforcement is left defending a lawsuit and disproving a negative, which is difficult to do."

"Out of one side of their mouth, they publish this warning, saying, 'Don't hit people in the chest if you can avoid it,'" said Dana Scruggs, an attorney representing Steven Butler. "And on the other side, in the lawsuit and in their public statements, they deny that their device can affect the human heart."

Nearly every big-city police department in the United States uses a Taser device. According to the company, more than 14,000 law enforcement agencies worldwide employ Tasers and more than 1.8 million people have had the weapon used on them since it was introduced into general law enforcement use in the 1990s. The human rights organization Amnesty International estimates more than 400 people have died as a result of Taser strikes.

Officially, it's not a gun. As an electronic control device, Tasers are not classified as a firearm. The devices are regulated by the Consumer Product Safety Commission.

"There's one thing that's undeniable -- that if I use my firearm, the chances are that you will suffer extreme injuries or death," said George Gascon, the newly installed police chief in San Francisco, California. "The chances are much greater of reducing injuries with a Taser."

San Francisco is one of three big-city police departments in the United States that don't use Tasers (The others are Detroit, Michigan, and Memphis, Tennessee). Gascon wants to change that. He supports use of the device but says to call it "nonlethal" is inaccurate.

"We have referred to the Tasers for many years as a less-lethal weapon," he said. "In the San Francisco experience, which we have to concentrate on, I have not said once that this is a nonlethal device because I believe it can be a contributing factor in causing death."

Read: Chief's Taser proposal rejected in San Francisco

Taser International is growing. Its latest earnings report says the firm made more than $100 million in profits last year by selling Tasers to both law enforcement and to individual consumers. And the company says even more police and sheriff's departments are lining up to purchase the weapon every day.

The company argues in Steven Butler's case that simply being in a stressful situation with police can bring on heart problems, and there's no link between being being hit with a Taser and the cardiac arrest.

For Steven Butler, greeting the mailman now is a highlight of his day. He doesn't dispute that he was drunk and disorderly when the officer tried to get him off the bus, but he and his family blame Taser for what happened to him. He says he's not frustrated or angry, just resigned to spending the rest of his life trying to remember what happened.

Wednesday, November 05, 2008

Tased and Confused

November 5, 2008
Written by Laurel Chesky, Good Times

A Watsonville family says a stun gun stopped Steve Butler’s heart, resulting in brain damage. Now they’re suing the manufacturer in what could be the first case of cardiac arrest caused directly by shocks from a Taser gun.

When Steve Butler stumbled onto the bus, the driver was less than thrilled. He didn’t want to deal with a drunk on the bus disturbing his driving, harassing or falling on passengers, perhaps barfing all over the seats and floor. So he called the police and sat tight. Within minutes, a Watsonville Police Department patrol car arrived. According to police reports, at 4:15 p.m. on Oct. 7, 2006, two officers stepped into the bus and found Butler slumped on the back seat.

“Hey, how you doing?” one of the officers asked Butler.

With slurred speech, Butler replied, “Are you here to ride the bus?”

“No,” the officer said.

“Sit down or get the fuck out!” Butler responded. “Sientes aqui!”

Butler jumped up and assumed a fighting stance. His fists were clenched and raised to shoulder level. He planted his leg apart, knees bent, and snarled at the officers. He took two steps toward them. One of the officers withdrew his Taser X26 stun gun from its holster. He told Butler to relax and ordered him to turn around and put his hands on his head.

“If you touch me,” Butler threatened, “I’ll fucking deck you!”

The second officer reached for Butler in an attempt to handcuff him. A scuffle ensued and the first officer shouted, “Taser, Taser, Taser!” and then pulled the trigger. Two probes charged with 50,000 volts of electricity pierced Butler’s chest. The struggle continued and the officers, unsure whether Butler was packing a weapon or not, took no chances. The officer with the Taser gun shocked Butler again and then a third time before he dropped to the bus floor.

When Butler didn’t make it home that night, his mother was frantic. (At 48, Butler lived with his parents.) Very early the next morning, she received a call from Watsonville Community Hospital saying that her son was there and in intensive care. She called David, one of her three sons, who headed straight to the hospital, where he found his brother comatose. Butler’s sister, Laura Plumlee, also went to the hospital.

Family members were not allowed to see him at first. “A nurse came out and said, ‘I can’t tell you anything. All I can tell you is that the police got him off the bus and he collapsed,’” Plumlee says. “I went to pieces, but my brothers were there for me.”

Soon the family was permitted to see him, two at a time. David and Plumlee went in together. They pulled back the bed sheet and looked over Butler’s body. They found two, pea-sized red burns on his chest, directly over his heart. David took pictures of the marks with his cell phone.

“David asked the nurse, ‘Did they tase him?’” Plumlee says. “She said, ‘I can’t lie to you. Yes, they did.’”

After the third Taser shock, Butler’s heart stopped. Police officers on the scene immediately carried him off the bus and called the paramedics. When the EMTs arrived, they used a defibrillator machine to jump-start Butler’s heart. After five attempts, his heart began beating on its own again.

It’s unclear how long Butler’s heart lay still. But one thing is certain: It was long enough to starve his head of oxygen and cause permanent brain damage. According to a Jan. 26, 2007 assessment conducted by a neurologist at Santa Cruz Medical Foundation, Butler suffers from “severe anoxic encephalopathy [brain degeneration due to lack of oxygen] status post cardiac arrest induced by a Taser gun.”

Butler had his share of problems before the Taser incident. He suffers from bipolar disorder, borderline paranoid schizophrenia and alcoholism. Before the brain damage, and when he took his medication, he worked as gardener. Sometimes he worked with the elderly at his mother’s church. When he refused to take his meds, as he occasionally did, he drank excessively and acted erratically.

His police record includes arrests for DUI, resisting arrest and battery to a peace officer. His most serious offense was armed robbery in Tulare, for which he spent six years in prison. (Butler claimed innocence and his brother, David, believes the court convicted the wrong man.) He had been in Tulare to take care of his grandmother after she suffered a stroke.

About a year and a half ago, Butler’s sister Laura Plumlee says, he was off his meds and stole a truck. “He was manic and psychotic, and he saw a truck with a Raiders stickers on it that had the keys in it,” Plumlee says. “He thought the truck was there for him, so took off in it.” Eventually he was caught and arrested, but the charges were dropped on the condition that he get back on his meds and observe a curfew at his parents’ home in Watsonville, Plumlee says.

But for all his drinking and bizarre antics, Butler’s brother, David, and sister say they never saw him act violently, even when he’d been drinking. “I’ve never, ever seen him violent,” Plumlee says. “Once he got upset with one of our brothers and he hit the fence. That’s the only time. He wouldn’t hurt a flea.”

According to police reports about the bus incident, Butler did not brandish a weapon, strike an officer or wage any serious threat to the officers’ safety. His family has a difficult time believing that two police officers couldn’t gain control of an extremely drunk, possibly stoned, 132-pound man without the use of electrical shock.

“They could have subdued him with pepper spray, they could have manhandled him,” says David, who is now Butler’s full-time caregiver and legal conservator. “At first I was blaming the police, but now I blame Taser because they arm these cops with these Taser guns and say they’re safe to use, that they won’t harm anybody. The police are not properly informed about the Tasers, I believe.”

Holding Taser Accountable

Shortly after the third shock with the Taser gun, Butler’s heart went into ventricular fibrillation (VF), a condition in which the heart beats out of sync and is unable to pump blood. Cardiac arrest followed, leading to the brain damage. The Butler family believes that the repeated shocks to the chest from the Taser gun interfered with the electrical signals within the heart that prompt it to beat at a regular rhythm, causing the VF. While the cause may seem obvious, the stun gun’s manufacturer, Taser International, Inc., maintains that its products do not cause VF or cardiac arrest.

Just shy of two years after the bus incident, Butler’s family filed a lawsuit against Taser International. David Butler filed a product liability suit against Taser in Santa Cruz County Superior Court on Sept. 17. David chose not to sue the Watsonville Police Department. He believes that police officers were acting under false information– that the Taser is safe.

The lawsuit contends that Taser falsely claimed that its product is not capable of causing cardiac arrest when, in fact, according to the lawsuit, it can and did. The suit charges that Taser failed to warn police of that danger.

“Taser International put this product on the market without it being tested,” says Dana Scruggs, one of the Butlers’ two attorneys. “They say that it’s non-lethal and safe, and they didn’t know whether that’s true or not.”

Because officers believe the Taser gun is harmless, Scruggs says, they tend to use it cavalierly. Taser, he says, should warn police that the device can cause heart failure.

Taser International is no stranger to lawsuits. Amnesty International reports more than 300 people have died at the hand of a Taser gun since 2001. The company has been sued more than 100 times over deaths and injuries. Armed with well-paid experts and company-sponsored research studies that confirm its products safety, Taser has been extremely successful at deflecting liability. About 70 of those lawsuits Taser has either won or settled out of court. More than 30 cases are still pending.

The company had never lost a case—until June, when a federal jury in San Jose awarded Betty Lou Heston of Salinas a $6.2 million judgment. Heston’s son, Robert Heston, died after Salinas police officers shocked him 25 times with Taser guns. At the time, he was, like many Taser victims, high on methamphetamine. The jury found Taser 15 percent responsible for Heston’s death. Heston himself, they concluded, was 85 percent responsible for his own demise. The Salinas Police Department was also named in the suit but the jury found it not liable.

The case is significant not only because it marks Taser’s first loss in civil court, but because the jury awarded Heston punitive damages—$5.2 million of the settlement—based on the manufacturer’s failure to warn police agencies that repeated Taser shocks can cause cardiac arrest. However, last month a federal judge dismissed the punitive damages.

In cases of in-custody deaths involving Taser guns, the company argues that their product is an innocent bystander in an inevitable outcome. A controversial diagnosis of “excited delirium,” Taser argues, caused the deaths. Excited delirium is a muddled concept used to explain why some people—who are often high on drugs or alcohol—die suddenly while in police custody. Symptoms are said to include extreme agitation, aggression, raised body temperature, violent behavior and incoherence. The suspect’s state may be exacerbated by the use of force, including a Taser gun, pepper spray and physical restraint, or a combination of those tactics, but the excited delirium is the cause of death, Taser argues. The American Medical Association and the Canadian Medical Association rejecs the excited delirium diagnosis, although some medical examiners have, in the past few years, begun using it as an official cause of death.

(Taser sometimes sues medical examiners who disagree. In May, a judge in Ohio ordered the removal of Taser’s name from three autopsy reports.)

Other cases involve victims who died from a Taser-induced fall, like the incident in Brooklyn in September where a New York Police Department officer tased a suicidal man standing on a third floor fire escape. The man fell to his death. Days later, the officer who ordered the tasing killed himself.

The Butler case, say the family’s attorneys, is the first case brought to civil court in which a victim suffered cardiac arrest as a direct result of being shocked with a Taser. Butler was very drunk at the time of the incident. His blood alcohol level was 3.5 (.08 is legally drunk in California). He had THC in his bloodstream, but no stimulants that would have caused his heart to race were found in his system. Although thin—at 5’11, he weighed just 132 pounds at the time—he was healthy and had no history of heart disease. In fact David says he was an avid cyclist and often rode his bike from Watsonville to Santa Cruz and back.

“Most of the previous cases against Taser have been multi-factorial,” says John Burton, the Butlers’ other attorney, who also represented the plaintiff in the Heston case. “Butler’s cardiac arrest was directly caused by Taser current. There is no question, based on the medical history in this case, that the Taser stopped his heart. … There’s no other reason that he would go into cardiac arrest.”

Taser International, however, contends that its products cannot directly cause cardiac arrest and that they have the science to back it up. “We do not discuss ongoing litigation or lawsuits,” Steve Tuttle, vice president of communications for Taser, wrote in an email to GT, “but we have a record of 74 cases, that we have either won or have been dismissed and/or given summary judgment in our favor concerning wrongful death and product liability cases and have had one loss to date.

“We know that our Taser technology protects lives throughout the world and that medical experts studying Taser devices have concluded that they are among the safer alternatives to subdue violent individuals who could harm law enforcement officers, innocent citizens or themselves compared to traditional use-of-force tools,” Tuttle continues. “We stand firm behind the safety of Taser technology and will rigorously and aggressively defend any lawsuit filed against or by the company vigorously.”

A Safer Alternative?

Taser International sprang to life in 1993 in Scottsdale, Ariz. at the hands of company founders and brothers Rick and Tom Smith, who vied to develop a non-lethal alternative to the handgun. They began marketing the Taser gun first to private citizens as a personal protection device and later to police departments, private security companies, prisons and the military. Taser touts that its products save the lives of police officers and suspects every day by giving officers a safe and effective alternative to guns. Since 1998, more than 359,000 Taser devices have been sold to law enforcement agencies. Taser is by far the leading manufacturer of electronic control devices, or stuns guns, in the U.S. and the world.

Taser guns are designed to allow police officers to incapacitate an unruly individual from 15 to 35 feet away. The gun shoots two small probes into the person’s muscle tissue at a speed of 160 feet per second. The probes are connected to the gun by two thin wires. An electrical signal travels through the wires and into the muscle, pulsing 20 times a second into the muscle for a recommended interval of five seconds (although officers can keep the current going much longer). The electric shock temporarily overrides the nervous system, causing immediate loss of muscular control. The person becomes rigid and immobile, giving police officers time to move in and handcuff the subject. If it doesn’t work the first time, the officer can repeat the electric shock multiple times.

Sergeant Michael Ridgway of the Watsonville Police Department (WPD) attests to the Taser gun’s safety. Ridgway has been trained and certified as a master Taser instructor by the company. He is the primary instructor for electronic controls devices at the WPD and has been tased several times himself in demonstrations. All Taser device training originates with the company.

Taser schooled Ridgway well on safety issues, he says. For example, he was taught to avoid tasing the very young or very old, pregnant women, people in water, or people standing on the edge of a building. (Taser’s warnings do not include “avoid tasing in the chest.” In fact, the legs and torso are preferred targets, according to Taser literature.)

“Outside of getting total compliance from a subject, there is no better tool than the Taser,” Ridgway says. “It minimizes the possibility of injury for everybody.”

He denies vehemently that a Taser shock can cause heart failure. “The Taser is powered by a three-volt lithium battery,” he says. “It’s not capable of generating enough power to affect the heart.”

However, Ridgway concedes, “I’m not a doctor. All I can do it regurgitate the statistics that are given to me by Taser. But to discredit information provided by Taser is to discredit the people that are most knowledgeable about Taser.”

What does Taser know about Taser? In press materials, Taser reports that the amount of electrical current delivered to the body by the Taser X26, the device used on Butler, equals .0021 amps, a tiny fraction of the power emitted by an average Christmas Tree light bulb (one amp) or a standard 110-volt wall socket (16 amps). The X26 runs on two lithium digital camera batteries.

The heart muscle thumps to the rhythm of electrical pulses generated by the heart’s sinoatrial node. Yet Taser insists that its products do not interfere with the heart’s electrical system. Numerous scientific studies back up that claim—200 of them are listed on Taser’s website.

Taser highlights most prominently a 2005 study published in Pacing and Clinical Electrophysiological acclaiming Taser’s cardiac harmlessness. The study stunned pigs of comparable human weight and tried to stop their hearts, concluding that it takes 28 times the power packed by a Taser gun to induce cardiac arrest in the pigs. (A 2006 pig study had opposite results. A team at a Chicago hospital stunned 11 pigs for 40 seconds, twice. Every one of them developed arrhythmia, or irregular heartbeat, a precursor to cardiac arrest.)

A study released this year by the Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society concluded that chance of VF caused by a Taser gun is one in 1.27 million. Another study, published in the Journal of Emergency Medicine in 2007, briefly shocked 105 volunteers with a Taser and monitored their hearts. While all of the volunteers experienced significant increases in heart rate immediately after the shock, it did not interfere with the rhythm of the heartbeat, indicating that the Taser does not cause VF.

“The worst that can happen is you put out an eye,” Ridgway says.

Growing Scrutiny of Stun Guns

The problem is, Taser International has never had to conclusively prove to the public that its product is safe and non-lethal. Electronic control devices are practically unregulated in the U.S. In 1994, the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms declared that the Taser gun in not a firearm and therefore not subject to federal regulations on firearms. Since the Taser is not a medical device, it’s not subject to the Federal Food and Drug Administration’s labyrinthine testing process.

But in light of growing concern over Taser-related deaths—and pressure from watchdog groups and anti-Taser activists—governments are starting to take a look at the Taser.

The death last year of a Polish immigrant after being tased by Royal Canadian Mounted Police in the Vancouver airport prompted the British Columbia provincial government to open an inquiry into the death. The inquiry, headed by Judge Thomas Braidwood, began in February and is scheduled to continue into 2009. The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) is also currently investigating Taser-related deaths. In its interim report, released in June, the DOJ offered a cautious exoneration. A final report is due next year.

“While exposure to conducted energy devices (CEDs) is not risk free, there is no conclusive medical evidence that indicates a high risk of serious injury or death from the direct effects of CEDs,” the DOJ report states. “The purported safety margins of CED deployment on normal healthy adults may not be applicable in small children, those with diseased hearts, the elderly, those who are pregnant and other at-risk individuals.”

And therein lies the rub, Taser critics charge. Little or no testing has been conducted on populations most likely to cross the path of a Taser–drug addicts and the mentally ill. Nor have researchers taken trigger-happy cops into account.

“These products are being sold by Taser to be used on people who are vulnerable to ventricular fibrillation,” says attorney Dana Scruggs. “They are used on people who are high on drugs and are being unreasonable and won’t obey commands. They’re not going to use a Taser on a guy with a gun or with someone who is being rational. So it’s not only possible but foreseeable that the Taser would be used on people high on drugs or alcohol or mentally ill. That’s the suspect they are marketing this to police for.”

Amnesty International (AI) contends that Tasers were widely deployed in the U.S. before the results of rigorous, independent and comprehensive testing of potential health risks. “While existing research has found the risk of adverse effects from Tasers in healthy adults generally low, studies have also pointed to the need for more understanding of the effects of such devices on those compromised by poor health, substance abuse or other factors,” the agency stated in a 2007 press release. The release went on to summarize a review of 290 suspects tasered by police. AI found that 92 of them were shocked between three and 21 times. One suspect was shocked continuously for 57 seconds. That sort of prolonged exposure, AI argues, has not been well studied.

Dr. Zian Tseng, a cardiologist at UCSF Medical Center, has been warning of the dangers of Taser guns for years. “There are vulnerable periods in the cardiac cycle when shock can cause dangerous arrhythmias,” Tseng says in a Jan. 5, 2005 San Francisco Chronicle article. “If you are shocking someone repeatedly, it becomes like Russian roulette. At some point you may hit a vulnerable period.” He went on to suggest that officers carrying Taser guns should also carry defibrillators in their cars.

In May of this year, Tseng told the Braidwood Commission that the research touted by Taser doesn’t take “real world” circumstances into consideration. “What’s not allowed in these theoretical calculations are worst-case scenarios,” he said. “Tolerability in healthy volunteers under optimal conditions does not mean safety.”

Tseng also told the commission that, following his comments to the press in 2005, Taser contacted him and asked him to reconsider his comments and offered him a research grant. He declined.

Lives Changed Forever

When Butler finally woke up after three days in a coma, his sister was by his bedside. Butler didn’t recognize her. He swore over and over again that she was not his sister. He didn’t remember that he had been married. He thought he was a firefighter (he’s not) and insisted that he be released from the hospital so he could get back to work. He couldn’t walk or feed himself, and he had developed incontinence, which to this day requires him to wear adult diapers to bed.

After a few days in Watsonville Community Hospital, he was transferred to Dominican Hospital’s rehabilitation center in Santa Cruz, where he learned to walk and feed himself again. He now lives with his parents, who are in their seventies and “devastated” by Butler’s condition, his brother, David, says. Butler’s long-term memory remains mostly in intact, but his short-term memory is shot. He can’t remember from one minute to the next. Despite treatment at the Cabrillo College Stroke and Acquired Disability Center five days a week, his prognosis is bleak. His doctors say he will unlikely regain any more memory.

David now serves as his caregiver seven days a week. As a full-time family caregiver, he draws a small stipend from the state. The brain damage affected Butler’s coordination, so he needs help getting in and out of bed and the shower. Plus, he has to be under constant supervision due to his lack of short-term memory. If he walked off down the street alone, he wouldn’t remember where he was a moment later.

“I’ve been with him every day since Oct. 7, 2006,” David says. “I care for him from the time he gets up to till the time he goes to bed.”

David takes Butler to his doctor’s appointments and to the stroke center, and he rations his brother’s cigarettes. Otherwise Butler would chain smoke because he can’t recall the last time he had one. Sometimes they go on outings, to the beach or a park. Once, David took his brother to Raging Waters. “We had fun, but as soon as we left the park, he forgot all about it,” David says.

And that’s what hurts the most—that the Butler family can’t share their day-to-day experiences with Steve because he can’t remember them. He’s had to relive the death of his grandparents again and again, each time he asks how they are. He can’t remember mundane facts—whether or not David is married or when the bamboo was planted in his parents’ front yard. He’ll often ask family members the same question over and over and over again.

“A couple of months ago he kept saying, ‘Arnold Schwarzenegger is our governor, huh?’ And I’d say yes,” Plumlee says. “‘But he’s not American,’ he’d say. ‘Well I guess that’s OK.’ Exactly 30 seconds later he would say the exact same thing, 20 or 30 times.”

His personality has changed, too. He’s somber and listless. He keeps his arms down and close to his body. “He’s like a zombie,” David says. “He has almost no emotions now, either. I never hear him laugh, except when we went on the water slide at Raging Waters.”

“I lost my brother,” Plumlee says. “I would have preferred they had hit him in the leg with a billy club. I would have even preferred that they had shot him in the foot. To me, the Taser is torture. It’s ruined his life, ruined his family’s life. He’ll never be the same.

“I hope out of the lawsuit they at least put a black-box warning on Tasers saying that they can kill you.” Plumlee says. “They say they’re safe and they’re not. We did fine without them before, and now too many people have died.”