Tasers: What Science and Medicine Have To Say !!!

D

Darren Laur

New member
Taser’s
What does Science and Medicine Have To Say To Date



First, my name is Darren Laur and presently I am an Acting Inspector seconded to the Canadian Police Research Center (CPRC) as the Project Manager for our national Conducted Energy Weapon (Taser) / Excited Delirium Project here in Canada. I was also one on the lead investigators seconded to the British Columbia Office Of The Police Complaint Commissioner, that also looked into the safety concerns surrounding Taser technology (http://www.opcc.bc.ca/Reports/2005 reports expense claims/TASER Final Report June 14th 2005.pdf ) The CPRC was tasked last year by the Canadian Association Of Police Chiefs to conduct an investigation, in co-operation with the BC Team, to conduct a comprehensive international review to confirm the state of current knowledge regarding safety of Conducted Energy Weapons, and to make recommendations specific to:

· Safety concerns

· Use and Contraindications / limitations

· Training

· Further Research


To conduct the research into this technology, we followed a specific protocol that included:

· Gather as much of the medical and scientific literature as possible which included:
§ Vendor sponsored testing
§ Independent Testing
§ On going Research

· We also surrounded ourselves with a medical advisory panel which included:
§ Cardiac Electrical Physiologists
§ Forensic Pathologists
§ Emergency Room Physicians
§ Dr of Pharmacy
§ Neurologist
§ Forensic Psychiatrist
§ Exercise Physiologist
§ Medical Geneticist
§ ALS Paramedics
§ Epidemiologist

· We also worked with Investigative teams in the United Kingdom and the United States who were conducting similar Taser safety reviews


As police officers, we are experts in the area of evidence gathering, WE ARE NOT doctors and therefore, specific to safety issues and medical contra-indications, we recognized very quickly that only the medical and scientific community could make comment specific to the medical implications of this technology. Each one of the above noted medical experts were important to our investigation to date, because each one held a piece of the puzzle that “MAY” explain and help us to understand why people are dying suddenly and unexpectedly proximal to Taser use. Working with these doctors I quickly learned that medicine is not holistic, but rather very Balkanized. A Cardiac Doc does not necessarily consult with a Forensic Pathologist; an Emergency Room Physician does not necessarily consult with an Exercise Physiologist. Having said this however, once we were able to bring this diverse group of medical experts together, the puzzle began to take form.

To date, July 21, 2005, our team has identified 151 deaths proximal to the use of a Conducted Energy weapon since the late 1980’s when Taser’s were first being used by the law enforcement community. 13 of these deaths have taken place here in Canada. In 8 coroner’s inquests to date here in Canada, none have found that the Taser was responsible for the death (we are still waiting on 5 more inquests). In the USA, we were able to locate 9 cases where pathologists cited the Taser as a “cause” or “contributing factor.

To put these deaths into perspective, in Canada there are an average of 10-15 sudden and unexpected deaths proximal to police restraint every year where a firearm or Taser was not used. In the United States this number ranges from between 50-150. In the 1970’s many of these deaths were being attributed to Neck Restraints, in the 1980-90’s the deaths were being attributed to OC sprays, and now in the new millennium these deaths are being attributed to Taser. Sudden and unexpected death proximal to police restraint has been an unfortunate reality since policing became a profession. It is also important to note that deaths, very similar to what we are seeing in law enforcement, are also being experienced in places such as psychiatric care facilities where Taser’s or OC is not used. What became very apparent to our team was the fact it was not necessarily the force option causing these deaths, but rather the underlying medical condition known as Excited Delirium.

Please refer to my paper on Excited Delirium located at:

http://www.cprc.org/index.cfm?sector=news&page=read&newsid=6







VENDOR RESEARCH


Although any vendor’s research has to be treated with a grain of salt, our team did believe that there was one research study, known as the PACE Report, that did meet the criteria of external medical peer review.

The PACE report was released in early 2005 and was conducted by Dr Wayne McDaniel (University of Missouri-Columbia). Unfortunately Dr Stratbucker, Taser International’s lead medical consultant was also involved in this research and it is because of this fact, that it took some criticism over its true independence. What is IMPORTANT to note however, was that before it was published in the PACE supplement, it was externally and independently peer reviewed.

The PACE report utilized anesthetized swine (pigs) and the X26 Taser, that was applied for a full five-second cycle in an attempt to cause ventricular fibrillation. It is important to note from an ethics standpoint, such testing cannot be conducted on humans thus the reason for using swine. In the lowest weighted pig (66lbs) they needed to turn the current from a X-26 fifteen times its normal output before any kind of fibrillation was medically noted. In the highest weighted pig (257 lbs) the researchers needed to turn the current from the X-26 forty-two times its normal output before any kind of fibrillation was medically noted


INDEPENDENT RESEARCH:

Our team located over 20 independent medical and scientific research papers, discussion papers, and articles specific to Taser technology. Many supported the hypothesis that Taser’s are safe from a cardiac standpoint in “normal” subjects, but some did raise questions specific to Taser interaction with street drug consumption. Some of the more relevant research includes:


Joint Non-Lethal Weapons Human Effects Center Of Excellence (HECO Report 2004)

The HECO report was a US Department of Defence Sponsored study, that like the PACE report, has taken some criticism due to the fact that Taser International representatives also played a small role to HECO as a consultant to their product.

HECO, much like the BC Team, utilized both medical and scientific experts to conduct an external review of research that had been conducted to date; in other words, they did not conduct any new research. HECO reported :

· Experimental data is too limited to evaluate probabilities to “susceptible” populations (drug induced)

· The Taser “may” cause some contra-indicators albeit with estimated low probabilities of occurrence. (fall injuries, seizures, probe hit to the eyes)

· Ventricular fibrillation is not expected to occur in otherwise “healthy” population


Again, the HECO study was fairly supportive of the Taser being safe from a cardiac standpoint, but did raise some questions specific to those under the influence of drugs.



BRITISH HOME OFFICE (DOMILL 2005)

If there is one thing that British Policing has over us in North America, is the fact that they independently scientifically and medically peer review and test all force options that are used by British officers before they are issued and used on the street. We have corresponded on several occasions with the British team, who we believe have shown investigative diligence, and truly independent medical study of current Taser technology.

The DOMILL report specifically looked at Ventricular Fibrillation issues surrounding Taser, and utilized Guinea-pig hearts which are much more susceptible to electrical current. In their peer-reviewed research, DOMILL found a safety margin greater than 70 fold from the M26 Taser before ventricular fibrillation was caused. The DOMILL report supported both the HECO and PACE report findings specific to ventricular fibrillation issues.

The DOMILL study went even further in so far as it also looked at the medical effect of drugs of abuse on cardiac function combined with Taser application. Drugs tested included: Ecstasy, PCP, Cocaine, Methamphetamine, and Marijuana. DOMILL reported that specific to these drugs of abuse they all have the potential to contribute to cardiac related morbidity NO MATTER what force option used. This MUST be stressed again…….. when people are high on these drugs IT DOES NOT MATTER what force option is used, OC, Baton, Hands on Control, Taser, the stress of the restraint process makes one more susceptible to a cardiac event.





SOCIETY OF ACADEMIC EMERGENCY MEDICINE 2005:


This was a medical prospective study conducted by Dr Chan et al. In this research study they utilized 24 healthy human male volunteers who they hooked up to a continuous ECG machine. The research team recorded heart issues before, during, and after a five second application from an X-26. The results of this study found that there were no significant cardiac dysrhythmias identified in this study. Again this study supported the findings (specific to cardiac issues) of DOMILL, HECO, and PACE.



Part II to Follow
 
Last edited:
Part II

LETHALITY OF TASERS AMERICAN ACADEMY OF FORENSIC SCIENCE 2005:


In early 2005 a gentleman by the name of James Ruggieri presented to the American Academy of Forensic Science Conference on the issue of Taser safety. Mr Ruggieri, who purports himself to be an electrical engineer (note: there are some questions being asked as to his post secondary qualifications in the field of electrical engineering) stated that it was his belief that Taser could cause “delayed” ventricular fibrillation (VF) and this explained why people are dying proximal to Taser use. This is an important point to make, because all medical and scientific experts that we spoke to specific to electricity and VF stated that there is NO SUCH THING as “delayed” VF, and emphasized the fact that if a person was going to die from electrical current, they would do so right at the time and not seconds, minutes, hours, or days after.

Because of his belief that Taser’s could cause delayed VF (again something that is not supported by the medical or scientific community), I directly spoke with Ruggieri and asked him if he could share with me any peer reviewed medical literature specific to delayed VF, to which he advised that he could not do so due to the fact that he was presently being used as an expert in several civil cases against Taser International, the manufacturer of both the M and X 26.

Mr Ruggieri did however encourage me to purchase a book written by Patrick Reilly (a biomedical engineer) called, “Applied Bioelectricity” as he based most of his opinion on Patrick Reilly’s work. I took Mr Ruggieri’s recommendation, but instead of purchasing Mr Reilly’s book, I personally contacted Patrick Reilly. As a result of this discussion, I provided Patrick Reilly with Mr Ruggieri’s presentation from the AAFS conference which is available on-line. After our discussions, and based upon the review of Mr Ruggieri’s presentation, Patrick Reilly provided our team with a letter (which can be found in full in the appendix of the BC report). An important excerpt from that letter stated:

“ from the information you provided me in addition to the set of slides, it appears that some inappropriate conclusions have been circulated relative to the information in Mr Ruggieri’s slides”


Again, both the scientific and medical experts who specialize in electrical contra-indications to the body have stated that the “theory” of delayed VF is not supported in science or medicine. (Contained in the BC report is a letter from a highly regarded Cardiac Electrical Physiologist that supports this medically based opinion)



ON GOING RESEARCH:


Presently, there are three outstanding medical research projects that the readers should be aware of:


UNIVERSITY OF WISONSIN (National Institute of Justice Sponsored)

This study is being conducted by Dr Webster and is a prospective study that is again using swine. Recently this research study has been taking some criticism from the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) as well as the media due to the fact that Dr Stratbucker was also participating in this research project. It should be noted however that Dr Stratbucker has now removed himself. Dr Webster’s research will be able to map where Taser current is going in the body and how much of the current is getting to the heart. Dr Webster’s work will not be reported out until the end of 2006. It should also be noted that both the BC Team and the CPRC attended the U of W and met with Dr Webster and his team during the development of his research protocol. Some of our recommendations were included in his research project.


UNIVERSITY OF WAKE FOREST (National Institute of Justice Sponsored)

This is a medical prospective study that will look at injuries specific to all lower lethality weapons including Taser’s. Again this research project will no t report out until the end of 2006


CANADIAN POLICE RESEARCH CENTER (CPRC)

Proceeding with a prospective medical epidemiological study into Excited Delirium. This research project will include 11 major centers across Canada, and will be the first of its kind, specific to Excited Delirium, in the world. Once up and running, this study will have a time line between 18-24 months
MEDICAL CONTRA – INDICATIONS SPECIFC TO CEW’s


Although much of the above noted vendor and independent research supports the cardiac safety issues surrounding the use of Taser’s, our team has identified several medical contra-indications with this weapon system:




REPIRATORY IMPAIRMENT:


Our team has identified that depending upon probe spread to the upper body, breathing can and will be impaired during the five second cycle of either and M or X 26. This was also supported in the HECO report.

This respiratory impairment issues is important, especially if an officer is continually cycling the weapon for 15-20 seconds. Why???? , because if the weapon is cycling for 15-20 seconds, then the person that is receiving the Taser energy will likely not be able to breath for that length of time. Breathing becomes a medical issue specific to blood pH. (rather than trying to explain the medical issue in full within this document, please refer to the full BC interim and final report)


METABOLIC ACIDOSIS:

Much of the work that has been conducted specific to metabolic acidosis has been done by Dr Jauchem (United States Air Force). Although Dr Jauchem’s work, again using pigs, was specific to a 3 minute ( Five seconds on five seconds off) on of our medical experts have stated that any kind of metabolic acidosis that can not be corrected and continues to drop pH could become a cardiac event. To what degree can a 3-4 five second cycle effect metabolic acidosis and pH is speculative at this point in time, but enough of flag to be aware of. (again please refer to the BC Final report and my paper on Excited Delirium for a full explanation)



Because of both the breathing issue and the metabolic acidosis issue (which are interconnected) a recommendation that we have made is:


“ Multiple CEW applications, particularly continuous cycling of a CEW for periods exceeding 15-20 seconds. “MAY” increase the risk to the subject and should be avoided where “practical”

Having made this recommendation however, there may be situations where more than 3-4 five second applications are “reasonable” and “practical”. Especially for those officers who work alone, with little or no back up.

In our research to date, we have found that less than 20% of all Taser usages required more than 1 five-second application. We also identified of that 20% officers were likely hesitant to restrain during the initial five second energizing phase. It is because of this fact that we also recommended that where tactically reasonable to do so, the best time to control is during the first or second energizing phase. This is a change in most training ethos, but one that we feel can be safely done in most situations which will reduce the number of multiple Taser applications. Remember the Taser is the control process and NOT the restraint process.
 
Part III

SEIZURES:

The HECO report suggested that both the M and X 26 have electrical outputs that exceed the seizure threshold. For this threshold to be obtained however, one if not both dart will be required to hit the head. Headshots are not taught in training, but do and have taken place in the field during dynamic applications of CEW’s. HECO stated that it was their opinion that such seizure activity has a .7% chance of taking place in the field, and therefore would likely be a rarity. It has come to the attention of our team however, that there have been two such reported cases of seizures during Taser training. Our team is looking further into these reported cases. We have also identified many field applications where during dynamic applications; one of the darts hit a subject without any seizure activity.



LONG TERM SCARING:

Depending upon time duration and skin type, second-degree electrical burns from CEW applications “may” cause permanent scarring. The writer has personally seen permanent scars the size of dimes on police officer that have gone through Taser training.



BODY WEIGHT / PREGNANCY/ CHILDREN/ ELDERLY:

Based upon the PACE report as well as medical and scientific fact, the smaller and lighter the person, the more susceptible to electrical current they will be. However, PACE found that at 66lbs there was a safety factor of VF or 15:1, at 257lbs there was a safety factor of 42:1. HECO using regression equations plotting to extrapolate the PACE report to humans found at 10lbs safety factor of 2.4x, at 120lbs 13x, and at 280lbs 24x.

Specific to pregnancy, there has been NO medically peer reviewed testing of Taser sensitivity. There has been one reported case in the literature where a woman who was 12 weeks pregnant miscarried 7 days after being exposed to a CEW. It should be noted however that this woman was a heavy methamphetamine user and at autopsy the fetus has large amount of Meth in the tox screen. Taser International conducted one unpublished study using pregnant pigs which they reported was negative, but again this is a vendor sponsored study that has NOT been published or peer reviewed. In our research we also identified several incidents where a CEW was applied to a pregnant woman in the field, and none reported any kind of medical contra-indications to mother or baby

Specific to body weight, pregnancy, children, and the elderly we made the following recommendations based upon current medical opinion to date:
“ Blanket prohibitions against CEW’s use on specific groups can be counter productive. The reasonableness of any force option will always be determined by situational factors. Our responsibility as a police community is to give officers the information to make the best possible decision based upon facts and circumstances faced at the time of a Taser Use”


Although we found many policies that had specific prohibitions against the above mentioned groups (which in my opinion are not based upon science and medicine, but rather public opinion and pressure), there may be times where it is very reasonable to use a Taser when compared to the other options available to a police officer; baton, OC, Punch, Kick, Bean Bag, Arwen, firearm. I would argue that the medical contra-indications of these weapons are far greater than those posed by the Taser. If a department does prohibit the use of a Taser on a pregnant woman, but an officer does so anyway due to the fact that it is more humane than hitting the woman with a baton or shooting her with a firearm, although justified legally, he is now open to breach of policy and civil repercussions. Is this a situation that we want to place our officers into????????? Such prohibitions are unreasonable in my opinion, and truly impair an officer’s ability to control and restrain with as little force as is reasonable.



OTHER IDENTIFIED CONCERNS:


There is no doubt that based upon our scientific and medical investigation to date, we have found that the current training that is being provided to many law enforcement and correctional agencies is vendor driven. Because of this fact, we found that many training programs contained vendor language that cannot be supported by the medical and scientific community. Some examples include:

· T-wave: A T-Wave is an actual cycle found in a heart rhythm
· Muscular Disruption Units: again a vendor specific term that is not recognized by the independent medical and scientific community
· Signature marks: vendor term for what the medical community calls first or second degree electrical burns


Because of this fact, the BC Team created Instructor level Course Training Standards (CTS) and Lesson plans (LP) for CEW’s that is vendor neutral, and congruent with the scientific and medical research to date. We have also created Instructor Level CTS/LP’s for Excited Delirium and Modified Restraint due to the nexus that these two topics have with CEW’s. The CPRC will be delivering these training programs nationally across Canada starting this fall.

In the BC interim and final report we also made recommendations specific to:

· Taser Reporting and Policy
· Force Options Context
· Evidence continuity issues proximal to a death or serious injury when a Taser is used
· Media and public relations
· Equipment issues
· Excited Delirium



Specific to the CPRC national CEW report that will be released in late August at the CACP conference, we will be building on the BC Report specific to:

· Medical Research to date
· Excited Delirium
· Policy
· CEW independent testing (the CPRC will have the ability to test CEW’s to ensure that they fall within manufacturer specifications)
· Sudden and unexpected death investigation protocol


The CPRC report will be made available on the CPRC web page (www.cprc.org) when released in late August.



CONCLUSION:

We believe that we have shown due diligence and medical and scientific process in the both the BC report, and the upcoming CPRC final report specific to CEW’s. Any force options used by police have their strengths, weaknesses, and medical contra-indications and as a result we MUST provide our officers, management staff, and the public with information that is based not upon heated public opinion, rumor, innuendo, and cloudy science, but rather factual information that is based upon sound independent scientific and medical research. The Taser is not a panacea that possesses no risk, but rather a viable force option that does possess a higher success rate than any other lower lethality weapon presently available to law enforcement, with some associate risks that can be managed. Proximity of a weapon to death does not necessarily equal causation. Unfortunately, many laypersons, and even some medical professional who are not aware of the research mentioned in this article, have used the 151 sudden and unexpected deaths proximal to a Taser use to say that CEW’s are responsible for these deaths, and should be either removed from the law enforcement arsenal or restricted to deadly force situations only. Based upon the medical and scientific research to date, I would argue that this thought process is flawed. To those who don’t agree, please provide me with the independent peer reviewed medical and scientific literature or studies that state otherwise. To date, I, as well as our medical team, have not found one such study.


If the reader has any further questions about our research or training please do not hesitate to give me a call.




Inspector Darren Laur
laurd@police.victoria.bc.ca
1-250-995-7221



BC REPORT:

http://www.opcc.bc.ca/OPCC Home Page.htm




CPRC WEB PAGE:


http://www.cprc.org/




EXCITED DELIRIUM PAPER:

http://www.cprc.org/index.cfm?sector=news&page=read&newsid=6
 
Thanks Rich

The information can go along way in assisiting an officer or department who are facing a death proximal to a Taser use.

Darren
 
MeekandMild:

Thus the reason for my posting. There is soooooooooo much dis-information on this technology, which is not based on sound science and medicine. Contrary to popular belief, there is a body of independant research that has been conducted on CEW's as well as sudden and unexpected death proximal to restraint, with several more coming down the pipe.

Darren
 
Proven results

Cincinnati Police Dept- deployed 1/04

Officer Injuries- down 70%

Citizen Complaints- down 50%

Suspect Injuries- down 40%

Officer Assualts- down 70%

Other use of Force- down 50%

Phoenix Police Department- deployed 12/03

Suspect Injuries- down 67%

Officer Involved Shootings- down 54%

Orange County Florida Sheriff's Office- deployed 12/00

Officer Injuries- down 80%

Lethal Force Incidents- down 78%

Worker Comp Claims- down 80%
 
TBO-
Oh, OK.
You took your statistics from the marketing literature of the manufacturer.
Good enough for me. For a minute there, I thought they kinda sniffed of a source with a vested interest. :D Silly me.
Rich
 
What, they just made up those numbers then, eh?

Obtaining compliance with a simple zap sure seems a lot less likely to involve suspect or officer injuries than going to the mat with an extended Monadnock.
 
There is soooooooooo much dis-information on this technology, which is not based on sound science and medicine.
Click to expand...
I didn't post any more links, but it seems like a lot of the more reputable and valid appearing interent references have your name attached, in the same way John Lott is associated with US gun mortality studies. I wonder though, could you give us a list of other authorities (or dedicated amateurs) in the field of study?

What, they just made up those numbers then, eh?
Click to expand...
mvpel, you've got to ask yourself a couple of questions, like what other changes occured in the subject police departments during the same time frame and where was the raw data. :confused: I recalled an interesting industry study done in the 1950's about how well asbestos cigarette filters purified the smoke...then I recalled all the many ways the Brits have camoflaged their crime statistics through the years. I'd rather have independent researchers like Darren. :rolleyes:

Seriously though, all the numbers you quoted could be the result of policy changes entirely unrelated to taser use. You know you can find similar numbers in the mental health field related to seclusion and restraint related deaths and the reason is that other non interventional techniques were developed, not tasers, merely better methods of talking to the customers.
 
Sorry Rich, but gotta call you on that one. The stats are compiled from reports voluntarily completed for each use and sent in to Taser. You can ask any of the agency heads (particularly Sheriff Beary from Orange County, FL) and they will gladly vouch for the #'s. BTW, Taser Intl. estimates that only 10 % of the uses are reported to them, so the actual #'s are probably much higher.
 
SCCop-
Understand from whence I come with this. My post-grad training is in Public Health....Johns Hopkins, I'm proud to say (not as puff, but as credential....their Statistics and Epidemiology programs are unrivaled worldwide).

When it comes to disease, injury or sociologic phenomena, we were taught the difference between parallel trends vs cause and effect. That's why Darren's work is so impressive; and why I tend to be skeptical of conclusions when the raw data is being massaged and summarized by a party with a vested interest in a specific conclusion.

To wit, provide me the raw data and I can pretty much make an argument that breast feeding leads to marijuana use. Darren can attest to the frequency of that type of junk science, I'm certain.

Once again, I'm not at all against issuance of Tasers to LEO. I believe they do save lives when used in proper context. But I have to giggle when I see people move toward the position that the more they're used the more lives are being saved. See the nuance of difference there?
Rich
 
"The stats are compiled from reports voluntarily completed for each use and sent in to Taser."

This is self selected (sometimes called ‘punctured’) data and can be very dangerous to use. It is not that the data reported is in error, but (even by the manufacturer's site) the data may be only ~10% of the actual uses.
A great deal of the bad science has the name of Taser on it. Physicians speculating about ‘skin effect’ with ZERO knowledge do not engender a lot of faith in the electrical knowledge of the person making it. The comment should never have been made, let alone published.
Talking about the ‘wavelength’ of the pulses used matching or not matching a biological waveform is another red warning light. The period of the pulses and waveform are probably what was meant, but bad science is bad science. Someone is spouting crap.
The understanding of how the nervous system generates the actual signals is pretty well known. The behavior of electricity is pretty well known.
The interaction between currents between random locations on the human body and possible side effects is not very well known. Lightning kills some, knocks others unconscious and others escape with hardly a scratch. Sometimes all from the same strike.
Taser is being disingenuous by describing the average current as in the low milliamp range, when they know that the peak current is as high as 18 amps (from papers on the Taser site).
While pigs may be suitable test animals, the distribution of body fat and muscle is going to have a significant effect on the current path. No studies have been shown that verify that the animal model correlates with current flow and sensitivity to electrical stimulation when compared to a human.
Using non-consenting folks to test is just as bad as running the tests on consenting ones.
Establishing safety by random trials in the field is not exactly a well conceived test methodology.
 
I didn't post any more links, but it seems like a lot of the more reputable and valid appearing interent references have your name attached, in the same way John Lott is associated with US gun mortality studies. I wonder though, could you give us a list of other authorities (or dedicated amateurs) in the field of study?
Click to expand...

Here in Canada, other Law Enforcement authorities would include:

Cst Shawna Goodkey

Cst Mike Massine

Inspector Bill Naughton

Chris Lawrence


Again I am not a doctor or scientist, but rather just a cop who is working very closely with medical and scintific experts. I would suggest that this symbiotic relationship will likely continue specific to all lower lethality weapons



This is self selected (sometimes called ‘punctured’) data and can be very dangerous to use. It is not that the data reported is in error, but (even by the manufacturer's site) the data may be only ~10% of the actual uses.
Click to expand...


This is a very important point to understand. In fact, we had one officer physically process over 4500 use of force reports that were supplied to us by TI, and surprise, surprise we found huge inconsistencies and duplication which made the information of little value to the research project !!!!!


Physicians speculating about ‘skin effect’ with ZERO knowledge do not engender a lot of faith in the electrical knowledge of the person making it. The comment should never have been made, let alone published.
Click to expand...


Agreed 100%


While pigs may be suitable test animals, the distribution of body fat and muscle is going to have a significant effect on the current path.
Click to expand...

Although much of the taser literature states that current will travel the path of least resistance (ie between the two probe points) this is in fact not 100% truthful. We know that some of the current will "bleed" off from between the two probe points and go elsewhere in the body. How much we do not know YET, but Dr Webster's reseach at the U of W will be able to map this for us.


No studies have been shown that verify that the animal model correlates with current flow and sensitivity to electrical stimulation when compared to a human.
Click to expand...

Agreed to a point, but that is why science has been able to extrapolate pig studies (as best as scietifically possible) over to humans using a widely accepted process known as "regression equations plotting"

Establishing safety by random trials in the field is not exactly a well conceived test methodology.
Click to expand...

But this is what the U of Wake Forest will be doing (for all Lower lethality weapons) that will be peer reviewed.


When it comes to disease, injury or sociologic phenomena, we were taught the difference between parallel trends vs cause and effect. That's why Darren's work is so impressive; and why I tend to be skeptical of conclusions when the raw data is being massaged and summarized by a party with a vested interest in a specific conclusion.
Click to expand...


Exactly !!!!!!!!! However I too could be considers to be a "party with a vested interest in a specific conclusion", due to the fact that:

1) I am a police officer

2) I introduced Taser technology into Canada

But this conflict is balanced by the fact that the scientists and Doctors that we have used have NO vested interest and WANT to understand the truth as best as they ethically can, specific to the medical contra-indications of this weapon system. I, like many, believed the science behind CEW's when this weapon system first became really popular in the late 1990's. Although up here in Canada we had some external medical review of the literature to that point in time, most of it was Vendor Based and therefore open to heavy criticism. My thoughts specific to the safety issues surrounding CEW's have now changed !!!!!! Although a "safer" weapon when compaired to other force options, it too has some medical contra-indications that we all need to be aware of !!!!!!! To say that a CEW is safe and has no negative cause and effect would be untrue, but yet I still hear department trainers stating this fact, and this is why the information in our study is soooooooo important !!! Opinions change based upon sound knowledge and sciencific/medical scrutiny, I know mine have !!!!


Once again, I'm not at all against issuance of Tasers to LEO. I believe they do save lives when used in proper context. But I have to giggle when I see people move toward the position that the more they're used the more lives are being saved. See the nuance of difference there?
Click to expand...

Agreed !!!!!! There is no doubt that Taser has saved lives and will continue to save lives , BUT one has too be very careful about extrapolating the number of actual lives saved from the data available.



Again, I believe that CEW's are an effective and "safer" tool that police departments should consider. This weapon system, when tempered with appropriate training that is based upon the "best" science to date, will:

1) save lives

2) reduce injuries to officers

3) reduce injuries to subjects


Unfortunately, deaths proximal to Taser use will continue to grow in number, but this is also true NO MATTER what FORCE OPTION used and is not specific to the Taser itself !!!!! ( Click for more details: EXCITED DELIRIUM PAPER:
http://www.cprc.org/index.cfm?secto...e=read&newsid=6 )

Darren
 
More Tasers = saved lives and less injuries is not a blind statistic. I say this not from research but from good ol' fashioned street experience. If others could see the results that I've seen (and save their own skin the way I have) then most would have a much more favorable view. It has kept many of my situations from escalating to force levels nearly guaranteed to cause injury. Taser use is not pleasant. Neither is batons, oc spray, or a flist fight. However, a taser is much quicker and, like it or not, less likely to cause injury. Not because Taser Intl. says so, but because I (along with other agencies that use them) have seen it. Some people will never like it. Some people don't approve of the police ever using any force. Lord knows the ACLU won't be happy until the police are only armed with NERF footballs. Don't take my word for it. Find cops you know who carry them and ask them. Ask them what kind of difference it makes and ask them how many injuries they've seen them cause. Just my .02c.
 
I agree that the devices are far safer in the vast majority of applications than the alternatives.
The poor science and claims by the manufacturer has probably clouded the issue. The risk needs to be accurately assessed so the devices can be placed I the force continuum at a correct rank. It is not zero, but is obviously less lethal than firearms. It is probably more dangerous than various physical compulsion methods (bent fingers, twisting arms, etc.), but further research is indeed required to place the tool correctly.
I have performed research in the effects of electromagnetic radiation on humans (mostly high power transmitters such as radars) and on the electrical currents induced in the human body by these exposures. Some of the highest power radar equipment (typically jammers) can produce effects that are astounding. Flashes of light are perceived by being in the pulse power fields of this equipment at short range. The exact mechanism, remains open, but the leading theory is triggered discharge of neurons within the central nervous system.
An assumption exists that the only way for electricity to produce permanent damage is by thermal effects. This may not be valid, since lightning victims and power line workers that have received non-lethal high voltage shocks sometimes report neuro-muscular problems that appear to persist and are not closely tied to areas showing thermal damage.
I would commend you for continuing to try and determine were these devices belong in the overall force continuum instead of solely relying on the assurances of the manufacturer.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top