Letter from a Concerned Canuck

In response to this November 21st report: Caught on tape: Officers using tasers I received the following letter to FOX 8 Cleveland from "Concerned Canuck":

FORCED to use Tasers? The police choose to use the weapons when and how they do. In your edited examples, you showed unarmed, non-combative citizens being repeatedly shocked with a weapon the U-S Courts have decided is "deadly". One man was even hand-cuffed.

I write to you as a concerned Canadian citizen who has examined this issue extensively for many years. Please check the recent ninth circuit court decision in North Carolina, where the judges unanimously agreed Tasers are, by legal definition, "Deadly Weapons". Should police be using such a weapon on a handcuffed or unarmed suspect?

And now the manufacturer of this 'non-lethal police tool' has itself admitted its devices can cause dangerous metabolic and cardiac changes, which can lead to death, especially among vulnerable populations. It warns police not to use multiple or prolonged stuns. It warns police to avoid chest shots.

If you check the fine print of the latest training manual for the X26 model you'll discover, like I did, that there is a very long list of risks and warnings that was not there a decade ago, when police first purchased Tasers. The company said then that their devices were "safe to use on any assailant". That is not what they are saying now.

Has human physiology changed in ten years? Has the technology changed? NO-the only change seems to be the manufacturer's opinion of its own products. This admittance in the waiver should be all you need to see --to tell you the truth -- that Tasers were deployed prematurely without enough scientific scrutiny by any government on either side of our shared border —and now the legal responsibility is being thrown over to law enforcement. Police failed us too, with a lack of due diligence, because they never verified the initial safety claims made by Taser International.

Also of great concern is the fact that these electrical devices are not measured regularly in any police detachments across North America. This is -- ahem-- shocking, when you consider that according to Truth-Not-Tasers.Com, which has kept a death toll based on media accounts, 700 citizens have died after being 'tased', including a Tuscon police officer last week. Officer Fung was a healthy man who suffered a massive heart attack, a day after being 'tased' in a training exercise. I wonder if he bothered to read the fine print of the waiver? Did he sign it? And will his cop buddies agree so readily to being 'tased'?

A few other things your reporter might like to dig into -- shocks between 30 to 100 milliamps can kill. Yet Tasers have peak outputs of 151 to 162 milliamps. Don't be fooled by Taser's use of 'averages', as the danger is in the peaks. And despite taser's assurances that the there is consistent current being emitted, our national public broadcaster, the CBC, proved there is 'output variance'. They found in a random test, using Taser's own test protocol, that 12-percent of the weapons performed above the safety allowables set by the company.

Neither the UL, IEC or CSA have ever measured the Taser, nor would they, they say, because one of the modes of use of the weapon utilizes invasive probes which emit current INTO the body, where resistance is next to nil. Check with the UL -- they will tell you there is no electrical safety standard yet developed for internal shocks, just external shocks, where skin resistance provides a barrier.

The lack of safety standards for non-lethal technologies is why NIST - the National Institute of Standards & Technology - is working with other scientists to develop a proper measurement protocol. But there will have to be TWO TEST PROTOCOLS for the TWO MODES OF USE: drive stun and the more dangerous dart/probe mode.

It took a major Public Inquiry in British Columbia to do it, but Canadian police have raised the Taser in the use-of-force continuum, to just below the firearm, only to be used as a last resort, in truly violent, life-threatening situations. Americans have to decide too — is it okay for police to continue to use the taser so cavalierly? Lakewood’s police chief told you this is exactly what the taser is for, “allowing us to have somebody compliant … without actually having to put hands on, wrestle or fight with them.” Should a deadly weapon be used to gain compliance? There have been too many "unintended consequences", but deaths will continue if police use the Taser the way they have.

Concerned Canuck

Incompetence or Wilful Neglect?

by Dr. Michael Webster, Police Psychologist

Dr. Webster is a Canadian police psychologist with more than 30 years' experience in police crises and training. He has managed hostage-takings and kidnappings and trained or worked with Vancouver police, RCMP, Europol, the FBI and police in Mexico, Colombia and Australia.

Incompetence or Wilful Neglect?

In my opinion, the discussion around whether or not the RCMP should have deployed a TASER on an 11 year old child and under what conditions such an act would be permissible puts the cart before the horse. The fact is that those RCMP members who carry TASERs are carrying question marks on their duty belts. The weapon is uncertified and unregulated. It has never been evaluated by the Canadian Standards Association or any other electrical safety standards body anywhere in the world. Further, its health and safety effects have never been subjected to rigorous, independent and impartial research. I find it remarkable that RCMP decision makers and its insurers have not backed away from this weapon, especially in light of recent admissions by Taser International.

Is this incompetence or just wilful neglect?

The incident in Prince George recalls a number of historic issues around the TASER that have, never been addressed by RCMP management. In the 1990’s the RCMP considered using the TASER, and conducted pilot projects focused on gathering the requisite data upon which to make an informed decision. Looking back, the assistance of qualified specialists should have been sought. The resulting report was plagued by several major limitations including an incomplete review of the pertinent literature, an over-reliance on information supplied by Taser International, too much emphasis placed upon anecdotal information from police persons, and limited outside consultation. There was no consultation with national medical or mental health associations, or government agencies like Health Canada, which has a product safety lab.

Moreover, the Canadian public and its law enforcement community were misled by the Victoria police officer who wrote the “Independent Evaluation of Conducted Energy Weapons” in 2000. That report for the Canadian Police Research Centre (CPRC), was not independent. This officer accepted stock options from Taser International and was moonlighting as a TASER trainer, while tasked with what was supposed to be an impartial evaluation. He told the public that an abundance of medical research proved the safety of the weapon, and that it met safety standards set by the International Electrotechnical Commission and the Underwriters Laboratory. Neither of these statements was true. So the weapon entered Canada on the basis of a CPRC study best described as “amateurish”, and with misrepresentations supplied by a seriously compromised police officer. This same man, with his ongoing undisclosed financial relationship with the manufacturer, became manager of the joint CPRC/RCMP TASER Evaluation Project in 2002. It evaluated the effectiveness of TASERs in Canadian weather, but not their safety on human health. This now restricted report was used to justify the wider deployment of TASERs to police forces across Canada.

Is it incompetence or just wilful neglect that leads the RCMP to ignore this?

Taser International recently (2010.05.01) issued a new training manual for the X26 TASER. It includes a long list of alarming risks and warnings which contradicts its original safety claims and confirms what critics have been saying for over a decade. Here are only a few of these warnings. The company cautions that the weapon “has not been scientifically tested on pregnant women, the infirm, the elderly, small children, and low body mass persons . . . the use on these individuals could increase the risk of death or serious injury”. The company goes on to admit that the TASER “can produce physiologic or metabolic effects, which include changes in: acidosis, adrenergic states, blood pressure . . . heart rate and rhythm . . .” With this statement Taser International confirms experts’ belief that the TASER can capture the heart and alter it’s rhythms in healthy adults. Obviously the risk is even higher when a Taser is used on a child.

Taser International abdicates responsibility for its own weapon by recommending that “all TASER . . . users conduct their own research, analysis, and evaluation”. Wouldn’t you think a manufacturer would want to be able to assure the public of its product’s safety before it went to market? Are you conducting research, analysis, and evaluation on the medications you use, or was this done by the drug company before they brought their product to the marketplace?

Is the RCMP’s lack of response to these unsettling admissions from Taser International incompetence or just wilful neglect?

If flawed pilot projects, huge data gaps, increasing deaths proximal to use, and warnings and risks attended the use of a particular drug, do you think the government would step in to protect its citizens? We are fast approaching the time when an autonomous federal government, free from RCMP influence (the Commissioner was appointed by the Prime Minister and holds Deputy Minister status), will need to step in and protect the welfare of its citizens from their own misguided and misinformed national police force. The inclusion of intermediate weapons like sound cannons, laser beams, and TASERs in the police tool box is a public policy issue. These decisions cannot be left to the police or the (so-called) public safety experts like Taser International. The police are scientifically unsophisticated and companies like Taser International are in the business of aggressively marketing their products. A public advisory board, set up by the federal government, complete with all the requisite experts is necessary to assess both the costs and the benefits of the latest technological offerings.

And if the government fails to protect its citizens in this manner is it incompetence or just wilful neglect?

'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.

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.

Electrical standards

March 4, 2005
Robert Anglen, Arizona Republic

The issue: Electrical standards

RUGGIERI: Electrical standards and codes misapplied

Ruggieri says Taser has misapplied electrical codes and standards to suggest the Taser is safer than it really is. He says Taser uses a graphic chart to suggest that Underwriters Laboratories, a non-profit agency that certifies products for electrical safety, has certified Taser. Taser claims the graph shows the stun gun is far below the threshold of ventricular fibrillation.

He points out that a Consumer Product Safety Commission in 1976 studied a much weaker version of the stun gun than police use today and found that the threshold of ventricular fibrillation lowers with repeating pulses of electricity used by the stun gun.

Ruggieri says he was unable to replicate Taser's findings using any of the standards that Taser cites. Ruggieri says that rather than rely on the wrong standards, he has relied on scientific and medical research.

TASER'S POSITION: Expert's findings are "ludicrous"

Taser says Ruggieri's findings are "ludicrous," maintaining that there would be thousands of cases of ventricular fibrillation if his findings were accurate. Officials accuse Ruggieri of misapplying the electrical standards.

Taser points to the graph, saying the Taser pulse is 10 times below the threshold for ventricular fibrillation set by UL and by the Electro-technical Commission standards. The graph was developed by a private research firm and has been touted in Taser marketing material.

Taser says Ruggieri erred in considering the power of the stun gun, making it seem more powerful than it actually is.

Taser officials also say Ruggieri intentionally applied the wrong IEC standard to increase the negative findings against Taser.

INDEPENDENT ANALYSIS: Lab: Taser used wrong study

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.