Taser

A Taser /ˈteɪzər/ is an electroshock weapon sold by Axon, formerly TASER International.[1] It fires two small barbed darts intended to puncture the skin and remain attached to the target, at 180 feet (55 m) per second. Their range extends from 15 feet (4.57 m) for non-law enforcement Tasers to 35 feet (10.67 m) for police officer Tasers. The darts are connected to the main unit by thin insulated copper wire and deliver a modulated electric current designed to disrupt voluntary control of muscles, causing "neuromuscular incapacitation". The effects of a Taser device may only be localized pain or strong involuntary long muscle contractions, based on the mode of use and connectivity of the darts.[2][3]

For the record producer, see Tazer (musician). For the band, see Tazers. For other uses, see Taser (disambiguation).
A TASER device, with cartridge removed, making an electric arc between its two electrodes
Police issue X26 TASER device with cartridge installed
Raysun X-1, a multi-purpose handheld weapon that is not made by Axon but is often informally referred to as a Taser

The term Taser was initially "TASER", abbreviating "Thomas A. Swift Electronic Rifle" after the 1911 novel Tom Swift and His Electric Rifle, and has been trademarked as a brand name of Axon, but has become informally used to refer generically to similar devices.

The Taser device is marketed as less-lethal, since the possibility of serious injury or death exists whenever the weapon is deployed.[4] At least 49 people died in 2018 after being shocked by police with a Taser.

The first Taser conducted energy weapon was introduced in 1993[5] as a less-lethal force option for police to use to subdue fleeing, belligerent, or potentially dangerous people, who would have otherwise been subjected to more lethal force options such as firearms. According to a 2010 study titled "Police Use of Force, TASERs and Other Less-Lethal Weapons", over 15,000 law enforcement and military agencies around the world used tasers as part of their use of force continuum. There has been some controversy attending its use on children, and as to whether it constitutes a form of torture.

A 2009 report by the Police Executive Research Forum in the United States found that police officer injuries dropped by 76% in large law enforcement agencies that deployed taser devices in the first decade of the 21st century compared with those that did not use them at all.[6] TASER International and its CEO Rick Smith have claimed that unspecified "police surveys" show that the device has "saved 75,000 lives through 2011".[7][8] A more recent academic study suggested police use of conducted electrical weapons in the United States was less risky to police officers than hands-on tactics, and showed officer injury rates equal to use of chemical sprays such as oleoresin capsicum. However, when police combined conducted electrical weapons with use of other weapons, officers were four or five times more likely to be injured than when using a baton or chemical spray.[9]

History

Jack Cover, a NASA researcher, began developing the first Taser in 1969.[10] By 1974, Cover had completed the device, which he named Thomas A. Swift Electronic Rifle, or TASER[11] using a loose acronym of the title of the book Tom Swift and His Electric Rifle, a book written by the Stratemeyer Syndicate under the pseudonym Victor Appleton and featuring Cover's childhood hero, Tom Swift.[12][13]

The first Taser model that was offered for sale, called the TASER Public Defender used gunpowder as its propellant, which led the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms to classify it as a firearm in 1976.[14][15].

Former TASER International CEO Patrick Smith testified in a TASER-related lawsuit that the catalyst for the development of the device was the "shooting death of two of his high school acquaintances" by a "guy with a legally licensed gun who lost his temper".[16] In 1993, Rick Smith and his brother Thomas founded the original company, TASER,[17] and began to investigate what they called "safer use of force option[s] for citizens and law enforcement". At their Scottsdale, Arizona, facilities, the brothers worked with Cover to develop a "non-firearm TASER electronic control device".[18] The 1994 Air TASER Model 34000 conducted energy device had an "anti-felon identification (AFID) system" to prevent the likelihood that the device would be used by criminals; upon use, it released many small pieces of paper containing the serial number of the TASER device. The U.S. firearms regulator, the ATF, stated that the Air TASER conducted energy device was not a firearm.

In 1999, TASER International developed an "ergonomically handgun-shaped device called the Advanced TASER M-series systems", which used a "patented neuromuscular incapacitation (NMI) technology". In May 2003, TASER International released a new weapon called the TASER X26 conducted energy device, which used "shaped pulse technology". On July 27, 2009, TASER International released a new type of TASER device called the X3, which can fire three shots before reloading. It holds three new type cartridges, which are much thinner than the previous model.[19] On April 5, 2017, TASER announced that it was rebranding itself as Axon to reflect its expanded business into body cameras and software. In 2018, TASER 7 conducted energy device was released, the seventh generation of TASER devices from Axon.[20]

Function
The M-26 TASER, the United States military version of a commercial TASER

A TASER device fires two small dart-like electrodes, which stay connected to the main unit by thin insulated copper wire as they are propelled by small compressed nitrogen charges.[21][22] The cartridge contains a pair of electrodes and propellant for a single shot (or three shots in the X3 model) and is replaced after each use. Once fired the probes travel at 180 feet (55 meters) per second, spread one foot (30 centimeters) apart for every seven feet (2.1 meters) they travel, and must land at least four inches (10 centimeters) apart from each another to complete the circuit and channel an electric pulse into his or her body.[23] They deliver a modulated electric current designed to disrupt voluntary control of muscles, causing "neuromuscular incapacitation". The effects of a TASER device may only be localized pain or strong involuntary long muscle contractions, based on the mode of use and connectivity of the darts.[24][25] The TASER device is marketed as less-lethal, since the possibility of serious injury or death exists whenever the weapon is deployed.[4]

There are a number of cartridges designated by range, with the maximum at 35 feet (10.67 m).[22] Cartridges available to non-law enforcement consumers are limited to 15 feet (4.57 m).[26] Practically speaking, police officers must generally be within 15 to 25 feet in order to use a Taser, though the X26's probes can travel as far as 35 feet (10.67 m).[27][28]

The electrodes are pointed to penetrate clothing, and barbed to prevent removal once in place. The original TASER device probes unspool the wire from the cartridge that causes a yaw effect before the dart stabilizes,[29] which made it difficult to penetrate thick clothing, but newer versions (X26, C2) use a "shaped pulse" that increases effectiveness in the presence of barriers.[30]

The TASER 7 conducted energy device is a two-shot device with increased reliability over legacy products. The conductive wires spool from the dart when the TASER 7 conducted energy device is fired, instead of spooling from the TASER cartridge which increases stability while in flight and therefore increases accuracy. The spiral darts fly straighter and faster with nearly twice the kinetic energy for better connection to the target and penetration through thicker clothing.[31] The body of the dart breaks away to allow for containment at tough angles.[32] TASER 7 has a 93% increased probe spread at close range, where 85% of deployments occur, according to agency reports. Rapid arc technology with adaptive cross-connection helps enable full incapacitation even at close range.[33] TASER 7 wirelessly connects to the Axon network, allowing for easier updates and inventory management.[34]

A TASER device may provide a safety benefit to police officers.[35] The use of a TASER device has a greater deployment range than batons, pepper spray, or empty hand techniques. This allows police to maintain a greater distance. A study of use-of-force incidents by the Calgary Police Service conducted by the Canadian Police Research Centre found that the use of the TASER device resulted in fewer injuries than the use of batons or empty hand techniques. The study found that only pepper spray was a safer intervention option.[36]

Models

Axon currently has three models of TASER conducted electrical weapons (CEWs) available for law enforcement use.  

The TASER X2 device is a two-shot TASER CEW with a warning arc and dual lasers.[37]  

The TASER X26P device is a single-shot TASER CEW that is the smallest, most compact SMART WEAPON of all three AXON models.[38]  

The TASER 7 device is the newest of all three CEWs. It is a two-shot device with spiral darts that spool from the dart allowing the probes to fly straighter. The TASER 7 device's rapid arc technology with adaptive cross connections allows for full incapacitation. The TASER 7 CEW connects wirelessly to the Axon network of software that includes inventory management capabilities using Axon Evidence.[39]

Lethality
Main article: Taser safety issues

The TASER device is a less-lethal, not non-lethal, weapon. Sharp metal projectiles and electricity are in use, so misuse or abuse of the weapon increases the likelihood that serious injury or death may occur. In addition, the manufacturer has identified other risk factors that may increase the risks of use. Children, pregnant women, the elderly, and very thin individuals are considered at higher risk. Persons with known medical problems, such as heart disease, history of seizure, or have a pacemaker are also at greater risk. Axon also warns that repeated, extended, or continuous exposure to the weapon is not safe. Because of this, the Police Executive Research Forum says that total exposure should not exceed 15 seconds.[40]

There are other circumstances that pose higher secondary risks of serious injury or death, including: [4]

  • Uncontrolled falls or subjects falling from elevated positions
  • Persons running on hard or rough surfaces, like asphalt
  • Persons operating machinery or conveyance (cars, motorcycles, bikes, skateboards)
  • Places where explosive or flammable substances are present

Fulton County, Georgia District Attorney Paul Howard Jr. said in 2020 that “under Georgia law, a taser is considered as a deadly weapon.”[41][42][43] A 2012 study published in the American Heart Association's journal Circulation found that Tasers can cause "ventricular arrhythmias, sudden cardiac arrest and even death."[44] In 2014, NAACP State Conference President Scot X. Esdaile and the Connecticut NAACP argued that Tasers cause lethal results.[45] Reuters reported that more than 1,000 people shocked with a Taser by police died through the end of 2018, nearly all of them since the early 2000s.[46] At least 49 people died in 2018 after being shocked by police with a Taser.[47]

Drive Stun capability

Some TASER device models, particularly those used by police departments, also have a "Drive Stun" capability, where the TASER device is held against the target without firing the projectiles, and is intended to cause pain without incapacitating the target. "Drive Stun" is "the process of using the EMD (Electro Muscular Disruption) weapon as a pain compliance technique. This is done by activating the TASER [device] and placing it against an individual's body. This can be done without an air cartridge in place or after an air cartridge has been deployed."[48]

Guidelines released in 2011 by the U.S. Department of Justice recommend that use of Drive Stun as a pain compliance technique be avoided.[49] The guidelines were issued by a joint committee of the Police Executive Research Forum and the U.S. Department of Justice Office of Community Oriented Policing Services. The guidelines state "Using the CEW to achieve pain compliance may have limited effectiveness and, when used repeatedly, may even exacerbate the situation by inducing rage in the subject".

A study of U.S. police and sheriff departments found that 29.6% of the jurisdictions allowed the use of Drive Stun for gaining compliance in a passive resistance arrest scenario, with no physical contact between the officer and the subject. For a scenario that also includes non-violent physical contact, this number is 65.2%.[50]

A Las Vegas police document says "The Drive Stun causes significant localized pain in the area touched by the TASER [CEW], but does not have a significant effect on the central nervous system. The Drive Stun does not incapacitate a subject but may assist in taking a subject into custody."[51] The UCLA TASER device incident[52] and the University of Florida TASER device incident[53] involved university police officers using their TASER device's "Drive Stun" capability (referred to as a "contact tase" in the University of Florida Offense Report).

Amnesty International has expressed particular concern about Drive Stun, noting that "the potential to use TASERs in drive-stun mode—where they are used as 'pain compliance' tools when individuals are already effectively in custody—and the capacity to inflict multiple and prolonged shocks, renders the weapons inherently open to abuse".[54]

Users

According to a 2010 study titled "Police Use of Force, TASERs and Other Less-Lethal Weapons",[55] over 15,000 law enforcement and military agencies around the world used TASER devices as part of their use of force continuum. The study was conducted by the United States Department of Justice. Just as the number of agencies deploying TASER conducted energy weapons has continued to increase each year, so too the number of TASER device related "incidents" between law enforcement officers and suspects has been on the rise.

Although there has been a history of controversy regarding the ethical use of TASER devices, studies similar to the one conducted by the U.S. Department of Justice have shown TASER device use actually provides many positive benefits to police officers and even to the suspects they encounter. A study of the Houston Police Department found the number of workers comp claims by officers has declined by as much as 93% due to deploying TASER devices as a means of non lethal force. Suspect injuries have also been impacted by TASER device use, trimming the percentage of suspect injuries by as much as 60%. Another study conducted in 2009 by Wake Forest University confirmed data from the Houston study. The Wake Forest study found 99.75% of suspects who had been subjected to TASER device use had no significant injuries.

Use of TASER conducted energy weapons by the Seattle Police Department, one of the largest police forces in the Northwestern United States, has been shown to reduce the odds of suspect injury by 48%. Data gathered from other agencies confirmed a decline in suspect injuries due to TASER device deployment. In Orlando, Florida, and Austin, Texas, studies found that suspect injuries were 50% and 30% lower respectively after TASER device use was adopted. Officer injuries have been impacted by TASER device use as well. The same studies found that in most agencies officer injuries were greatly reduced after TASER conducted energy weapons were introduced as part of each particular organizations use of force continuum.

Although more recent studies have uncovered vast amounts of data that supports the positive benefits of TASER device usage in law enforcement, there is also data that suggests TASER device usage has negatively impacted some individual police officers as well. The study conducted in 2010 by the United States Department of Justice found that some officers may rely too heavily upon activating (deploying) a TASER device during suspect encounters. The study refers to this negative trait in some police officers as "lazy cop" syndrome. Further research is being conducted to determine what triggers some officers to rely too heavily upon TASER device use or deploy a TASER device too early in an encounter.

Controlled taser demonstration by the North Dakota Air National Guard. The center person is being shocked through his back while being held to prevent falling injuries.

As the technology continues to evolve, TASER conducted energy weapons are becoming more advanced "smart weapons." The officers and agencies who deploy them have opportunities to receive specialized training to hone their skills at deploying these emerging technologies. Axon offers law enforcement agencies around the world the opportunity to receive hands-on training in their training academy, led by TASER device experts. The TASER Training Academy[56] offers courses including training in TASER device tactics, weapon maintenance, data reporting, and "smart use" training.

In another related field advancement, Noel Sharkey reported in the Wall Street Journal (December 2015) that police in North Dakota were cleared to operate drone aircraft equipped with tear gas and TASER CEWs.[57]

Excited delirium syndrome
Main article: Excited delirium
See also: Taser safety issues

Some of the deaths associated with TASER devices have been given a diagnosis of excited delirium, a term for a phenomenon that manifests as a combination of delirium, psychomotor agitation, anxiety, hallucinations, speech disturbances, disorientation, violent and bizarre behavior, insensitivity to pain, elevated body temperature, and increased strength.[58][59] Excited delirium is associated with sudden death (usually via cardiac or respiratory arrest), particularly following the use of physical control measures, including police restraint and TASER devices.[58][59] Excited delirium most commonly arises in male subjects with a history of serious mental illness or acute or chronic drug abuse, particularly stimulant drugs such as cocaine.[58][60] Alcohol withdrawal or head trauma may also contribute to the condition.[61]

The diagnosis of excited delirium has been controversial.[62][63] Excited delirium has been listed as a cause of death by some medical examiners for several years,[64][65] mainly as a diagnosis of exclusion established on autopsy.[58] Additionally, academic discussion of excited delirium has been largely confined to forensic science literature, providing limited documentation about patients that survive the condition.[58] These circumstances have led some civil liberties groups to question the cause of death diagnosis, claiming that excited delirium has been used to "excuse and exonerate" law enforcement authorities following the death of detained subjects, a possible "conspiracy or cover-up for brutality" when restraining agitated individuals.[58][62][63] Also contributing to the controversy is the role of TASER device use in excited delirium deaths.[60][66]

Excited delirium is not found in the current version of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders; however. the term "excited delirium" has been accepted by the National Association of Medical Examiners and the American College of Emergency Physicians, who argued in a 2009 white paper that "excited delirium" may be described by several codes within the ICD-9.[58] The American College of Emergency Physicians "rejects the theory" that excited delirium is an "invented syndrome" used to excuse or cover-up the use of excessive force by law enforcement.[67]

Use on children

There has been considerable controversy over the use of TASER devices on children and in schools. In 2004, the parents of a 6-year-old boy in Miami sued the police department for firing a TASER device at their child. The police said the boy was threatening to injure his own leg with a shard of glass, and said that using the device was the safest option to prevent the boy from injuring himself. Nevertheless, the boy's mother told CNN that the three officers involved probably found it easier not to reason with her child. Also in 2004, a 12-year-old girl skipping school and drinking alcohol was tased in Miami-Dade while she was running from police and started to run into traffic. The TASER device was successfully deployed to stop her from being hit by cars or causing an automobile accident.[68] In March 2008, an 11-year-old girl was subdued with a TASER device.[69] In March 2009, a 15-year-old boy died from alcohol-induced excited delirium[70] in Michigan after being tased.[71]

Police claim that the use of TASER conducted energy weapons on smaller subjects and elderly subjects is safer than alternative methods of subduing suspects, alleging that striking them or falling on them will cause much more injury than a TASER device, because the device is designed to only cause the contraction of muscles. Critics counter that TASER devices may interact with pre-existing medical complications such as medications, and may even contribute to someone's death as a result. Critics also suggest that using a TASER conducted electrical weapon on a minor, particularly a young child, is effectively cruel and abusive punishment, or unnecessary.[72][73][74][75]

Use in torture

A report from a meeting of the United Nations Committee Against Torture states that "The Committee was worried that the use of TASER X26 weapons, provoking extreme pain, constituted a form of torture, and that in certain cases it could also cause death, as shown by several reliable studies and by certain cases that had happened after practical use."[76][77] Amnesty International has also raised extensive concerns about the use of other electro-shock devices by American police and in American prisons, as they can be (and according to Amnesty International, sometimes are) used to inflict cruel pain on individuals. Maurice Cunningham of South Carolina, while an inmate at the Lancaster County Detention Center,[78][79] was subjected to continuous shock for 2 minutes 49 seconds, which a medical examiner said caused cardiac arrhythmia and his subsequent death. He was 29 years old and had no alcohol or drugs in his system.[80]

In response to the claims that the pain inflicted by the use of the TASER device could potentially constitute torture, Tom Smith, the Chairman of the TASER Board, stated that the U.N. is "out of touch" with the needs of modern policing and asserted that "Pepper spray goes on for hours and hours, hitting someone with a baton breaks limbs, shooting someone with a firearm causes permanent damage, even punching and kicking—the intent of those tools is to inflict pain, ... with the TASER device, the intent is not to inflict pain; it's to end the confrontation. When it's over, it's over."[81]

Legality
Further information: Electroshock weapon § Legality
gollark: It could accidentally send the wrong thing or explode or something.
gollark: Or do something else.
gollark: Yes, since the other end could randomly crash too.
gollark: Yes, and in order.
gollark: > WebSocket runs over TCP, so on that level @EJP 's answer applies. WebSocket can be "intercepted" by intermediaries (like WS proxies): those are allowed to reorder WebSocket control frames (i.e. WS pings/pongs), but not message frames when no WebSocket extension is in place. If there is a neogiated extension in place that in principle allows reordering, then an intermediary may only do so if it understands the extension and the reordering rules that apply.

See also

References
  1. TASER X26 Archived September 27, 2014, at the Wayback Machine
  2. "Neuromuscular Incapacitation (NMI)", TASER International, published March 12, 2007. Retrieved May 19, 2007 Archived April 13, 2008, at the Wayback Machine
  3. International Association of Chiefs of Police, Electro Muscular Disruption Technology: A Nine-Step Strategy for Effective Deployment Archived December 10, 2013, at the Wayback Machine, 2005
  4. "TASER CEW Use Guidelines" (pdf). Axon. April 5, 2017. Retrieved January 3, 2019.
  5. "Axon Leadership | Axon". www.axon.com. Retrieved April 3, 2020.
  6. Taylor, Bruce (September 2009). "Comparing safety outcomes in police use-of-force cases for law enforcement agencies that have deployed Conducted Energy Devices and a matched comparison group that have not: A quasi-experimental evaluation" (PDF). National Institute of Justice.
  7. Roberts, Daniel. "A new life for Taser, this time with less controversy". Fortune. Retrieved September 14, 2011.
  8. "Taser.org".
  9. Paoline, Eugene A.; Terrill, William; Ingram, Jason R. (June 2012). "Police Use of Force and Officer Injuries: Comparing Conducted Energy Devices (CEDs) to Hands- and Weapon-Based Tactics". Police Quarterly. 15 (2): 115–136. doi:10.1177/1098611112442807.
  10. Langton, Jerry (December 1, 2007). "The dark lure of `pain compliance'". Toronto Star. Retrieved December 1, 2007.
  11. "History of Taser". sun-sentinel.com. Retrieved April 3, 2020.
  12. Cornwell, Rupert (March 2, 2009). "Jack Cover: Inventor of the Taser stun gun". The Independent. Retrieved November 14, 2019.
  13. Lartey, Jamiles (November 30, 2015). "Where did the word 'Taser' come from? A century-old racist science fiction novel". The Guardian. Retrieved November 14, 2019.
  14. Talvi, Silja J. A. (November 13, 2006). "Stunning Revelations". In These Times. Retrieved December 17, 2006.
  15. "Jurisdiction over the Taser Public Defender (#236)" (PDF). U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission. March 22, 1976. Archived from the original (PDF) on September 10, 2008. Retrieved July 23, 2008.
  16. "Taser chief gives jurors demonstration of stun-gun blast in court". CourtTV.com. Archived from the original on January 9, 2009. Retrieved October 14, 2009.
  17. "Axon Leadership | Axon". www.axon.com. Retrieved April 3, 2020.
  18. "Corporate History". Taser.com. February 5, 2007. Archived from the original on September 29, 2009. Retrieved October 14, 2009.
  19. "TASER International Launches Revolutionary New Multi-Shot TASER Device With Precision Shaped Pulse Technology". TASER International. July 27, 2009. Archived from the original on June 19, 2020. Retrieved June 19, 2020.
  20. "Taser 7 OG TItle | Axon". www.axon.com. Retrieved April 3, 2020.
  21. Personal Defense Products: TASER® X26c™ Archived February 8, 2015, at the Wayback Machine, TASER site. Retrieved July 16, 2013.
  22. TASER® Cartridges: Replacement Cartridge for X26, M26, X2 & X3 Archived March 28, 2015, at the Wayback Machine, TASER site. Retrieved July 16, 2013.
  24. "Neuromuscular Incapacitation (NMI)", Taser International, published March 12, 2007. Retrieved May 19, 2007 Archived April 13, 2008, at the Wayback Machine
  25. International Association of Chiefs of Police, Electro Muscular Disruption Technology: A Nine-Step Strategy for Effective Deployment Archived December 10, 2013, at the Wayback Machine, 2005
  26. TASER Cartridges (Consumers) Archived September 2, 2009, at the Wayback Machine, TASER site. Retrieved December 15, 2007.
  29. "Axon's TASER 7 could be a game changer for LE". PoliceOne. Retrieved April 3, 2020.
  30. "Shaped Pulse Technology". Taser International. April 27, 2007. Archived from the original on May 26, 2007. Retrieved March 29, 2009.
  31. "Enforce Tac: Axon's New TASER 7 Makes Debut". www.monch.com. Retrieved April 3, 2020.
  32. "Taser 7 OG TItle | Axon". www.axon.com. Retrieved April 3, 2020.
  33. "Taser 7 OG TItle | Axon". www.axon.com. Retrieved April 3, 2020.
  34. "History of Taser". sun-sentinel.com. Retrieved April 3, 2020.
  35. Hans Wimberly (July 2019). "Safety Benefits of Tasers for Police Officers". GearsAdviser.com.
  36. "Police batons more dangerous than Tasers: Study". Archived from the original on January 5, 2016.
  37. "TASER X2 | Axon". www.axon.com. Retrieved April 3, 2020.
  38. "TASER X26P | Axon". www.axon.com. Retrieved April 3, 2020.
  39. "Taser 7 OG TItle | Axon". www.axon.com. Retrieved April 3, 2020.
  40. Lee, Timothy (November 14, 2017). "Family of man who dies after Taser incident gets $5.5 million verdict". Retrieved January 3, 2019.
  48. Law Enforcement Advisory Committee (Summer 2005). "Less Lethal Weapons: Model Policy and Procedure for Public Safety Officers" (PDF). Michigan Municipal Risk Management Authority. Archived from the original (PDF) on August 20, 2008. Retrieved May 12, 2009. Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  49. A Joint Project of PERF and COPS (April 2011). "2011 Electronic Control Weapon Guidelines". United States Department of Justice. Archived from the original (PDF) on October 17, 2011. Retrieved October 7, 2011. Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  50. Michael R. Smith, J.D., Robert J. Kaminski, Geoffrey P. Alpert, Lorie A. Fridell, John MacDonald, Bruce Kubu (July 2010). "A Multi-Method Evaluation of Police Use of Force Outcomes". National Institute of Justice. Archived from the original (PDF) on April 1, 2012. Retrieved October 10, 2011. Cite journal requires |journal= (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  51. Use of the Taser, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department
  52. Merrick Bobb; Matthew Barge; Camelia Naguib (August 2007). "A Bad Night at Powell Library: The Events of November 14, 2006" (PDF). Police Assessment Resource Center. Retrieved April 14, 2016. Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  53. "University of Florida Police Department offense report" (PDF). CNN. October 18, 2007. Retrieved April 14, 2016.
  54. "Amnesty International's concerns about Tasers". Amnesty.ca. Archived from the original on July 17, 2009. Retrieved October 14, 2009.
  55. U.S. Department of Justice (May 31, 2011), Police Use of Force, Tasers and Other Less-Lethal Weapons (PDF), CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform
  56. "Training, Courses, Practical Knowledge". TASER. Retrieved June 20, 2016.
  57. Noel Sharkey (December 10, 2015), Autonomous Weaponized Robots: Not Just Science Fiction, Wall Street Journal
  58. "White Paper Report on Excited Delirium Syndrome" Archived October 11, 2010, at the Wayback Machine, ACEP Excited Delirium Task Force, American College of Emergency Physicians, September 10, 2009
  59. Grant JR, Southall PE, Mealey J, Scott SR, Fowler DR (March 2009). "Excited delirium deaths in custody: past and present". Am J Forensic Med Pathol. 30 (1): 1–5. doi:10.1097/PAF.0b013e31818738a0. PMID 19237843.
  60. Ruth SoRelle (October 2010). "ExDS Protocol Puts Clout in EMS Hands". Emergency Medicine News. 32 (10): 1, 32. doi:10.1097/01.EEM.0000389817.48608.e4.
  61. Samuel E, Williams RB, Ferrell RB (2009). "Excited delirium: Consideration of selected medical and psychiatric issues". Neuropsychiatr Dis Treat. 5: 61–6. doi:10.2147/ndt.s2883. PMC 2695211. PMID 19557101.
  62. "Death by Excited Delirium: Diagnosis or Coverup?". NPR. Retrieved February 26, 2007. You may not have heard of it, but police departments and medical examiners are using a new term to explain why some people suddenly die in police custody. It's a controversial diagnosis called excited delirium. But the question for many civil liberties groups is, does it really exist?
  63. "Excited Delirium: Police Brutality vs. Sheer Insanity". ABC News. March 2, 2007. Retrieved March 13, 2007. Police and defense attorneys are squaring off over a medical condition so rare and controversial it can't be found in any medical dictionary—excited delirium. Victims share a host of symptoms and similarities. They tend to be overweight males, high on drugs, and display extremely erratic and violent behavior. But victims also share something else in common. The disorder seems to manifest itself when people are under stress, particularly when in police custody, and is often diagnosed only after the victims die.
  64. "Suspects' deaths blamed on 'excited delirium', critics dispute rare syndrome usually diagnosed when police are involved". NBC News. Retrieved April 29, 2007. Excited delirium is defined as a condition in which the heart races wildly—often because of drug use or mental illness—and finally gives out. Medical examiners nationwide are increasingly citing the condition when suspects die in police custody. But some doctors say the rare syndrome is being overdiagnosed, and some civil rights groups question whether it exists at all.
  65. "Excited delirium, not Taser, behind death of N.S. man: medical examiner". The Canadian Press. September 17, 2008. Retrieved October 13, 2008. Medical examiner Dr. Matthew Bowes concluded that Hyde died of excited delirium due to paranoid schizophrenia. He said Hyde's coronary artery disease, obesity and the restraint used by police during a struggle were all factors in his death. ... In a government news release, excited delirium is described as a disorder characterized by extreme agitation, violent and bizarre behaviour, insensitivity to pain, elevated body temperature, and superhuman strength. It says not all of these characterizations are always present in someone with the disorder.
  66. "Tasers Implicated in Excited Delirium Deaths". NPR. Retrieved April 29, 2007. The medical diagnosis called excited delirium is the subject of intense debate among doctors, law-enforcement officers and civil libertarians. They don't even all agree on whether the condition exists. But to Senior Cpl. Herb Cotner of the Dallas Police Department, there's no question that it's real.
  67. Mark L. DeBard, MD (November 2009). "Identifying New Disease as Excited Delirium Syndrome Rejects Idea that Police Brutality Causes Deaths". Emergency Medicine News. 31 (11): 3, 5. doi:10.1097/01.EEM.0000340950.69012.8d. The report has some political implications, too, because it rejects the theory that ExDS is an invented syndrome being used to cover up or excuse the use of force or even brutality by law enforcement officers when someone dies in their custody. It rejects the idea that specific forms of restraint in and of themselves are what cause deaths in ExDS patients. Instead, ExDS is a potentially fatal disease in which all forms of physiologic stress, from physical and noxious chemical to electrical conductive weapons (commonly called Tasers), can tip the balance of a condition on the edge of being fatal. It recognizes that some form of the use of force is often necessary to control agitation in the face of delirium, but that it should be the minimal amount necessary to achieve patient control and ensure public safety, and be followed immediately by medical intervention.
  68. CNN, Susan Candiotti, contributor. Police review policy after Tasers used on kids November 15, 2004
  69. "Officials: Deputy Shocks Girl, 11, With Taser At Elementary School". Local6.com. March 27, 2008. Archived from the original on December 11, 2008. Retrieved October 14, 2009.
  70. "Judge awards $1 million in Brett Elder wrongful death suit against Bay City, police".
  71. Associated Press (March 23, 2009). "Michigan 15-year-old Dies After Police Tase Him". Cbsnews.com. Retrieved October 14, 2009.
  72. Kansas Students Speak Out Against Tasers In Schools April 6, 2006
  73. Teen dies after being shot by stun gun Archived February 21, 2008, at the Wayback Machine November 1, 2006
  74. "Tasers Implicated in Excited Delirium Deaths". NPR, February 27, 2007
  75. "More UK police to get stun guns". BBC News. May 16, 2007. Retrieved November 17, 2011.
  76. Committee against Torture Concludes Thirty-Ninth Session, press release, United Nations Office at Geneva, November 23, 2007. Retrieved November 26, 2007. Archived May 28, 2008, at the Wayback Machine
  77. "Tasers a form of torture, says UN". The Daily Telegraph (Sydney). AFP. November 24, 2007. Retrieved November 17, 2011.
  78. "Taser Blamed for Inmate's Death". United Press International. September 28, 2005. Retrieved November 8, 2008.
  79. "Officers used tasers, baton on inmate". Associated Press. July 28, 2005. Archived from the original on November 6, 2009. Retrieved November 8, 2008.
  80. Amnesty International's continuing concerns about Taser use Archived November 30, 2007, at the Wayback Machine 2006
  81. "UN 'out of touch' on torture: Taser boss". Australian Broadcasting Corporation. November 28, 2007. Retrieved June 12, 2008.
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.