Many years ago, a national news organization called me the “king of hyperbole.”  In reading this week a couple of accounts in the Charlotte Observer, I cannot help but think that I may have lost the crown.

“Police shelve Tasers for now after another suspect dies” declared one headline.  “Steve Tuttle… scoffed at such a number (of deaths)” claimed the editorial, “Tasers may have their place, but assess risk.”

“Shelve”?  “Scoffed”?  Hyperbole?

Shelving implies discontinuation of a program; but in reality, the Charlotte-Mecklenburg PD is temporarily suspending the use of their TASER electronic control devices (ECDs) so they can test the units & review policies.  This is a pragmatic, responsible & thoughtful action by the chief.

Scoffing means to show derisiveness or scorn.  Really?  We are discussing the cause of death of individuals & while there may be a difference of opinion, a death following the use of a TASER ECD is nothing at which to scoff.

So what number are we discussing & seemingly disagreeing over?  Amnesty International’s (AI) number for the number for TASER-related deaths since 2001.

In AI’s most recent report on TASER ECDs, “Less Than Lethal?  The Use of Stun Weapons In US Law Enforcement,” released in Dec 2008, AI acknowledges that it has conducted no medical studies & has done no direct evaluation of TASER ECDs.  They simply clip news story headlines from the media & look at other open source materials then published their so called “finding.”  The following is taken directly from AI’s report.

Pg 1:  “There has been ongoing controversy surrounding the potential lethality of CEDs, especially since the introduction in the past decade of more powerful new generation models.  Since June 2001, more than 330 people in the USA are reported to have died after being struck by police Tasers & 25 similar deaths have been reported in Canada. In most cases coroners have attributed the deaths to other causes, such as drug intoxication or ‘excited delirium,’ a term often used to describe someone who is in an agitated or highly disturbed state.  However, in at least 50 cases, coroners are reported to have listed the Taser as a cause or contributory factor in the death.  Medical examiners’ findings & the role of CEDs in deaths continue to be the subject of dispute.

Pg 3:  “Amnesty International’s review is not a scientific study, nor is the organization in a position to reach conclusions regarding the role of the Taser in each case.”

Pg 20:  “Between June 2001 & 31 August 2008, 334 people are reported to have died in the USA after being shot with a police CED. “Amnesty International does not suggest that Tasers necessarily caused or contributed to each of these deaths.”

Despite this admission, AI continues to promote a number for TASER-related deaths that is not only misleading & inaccurate, but also unsupported by medical or academic science.  Yet media sources continue to print this number without referencing Amnesty’s own admission that there is nothing scientific about finding.

A closer look at the scientific & medical evidence associated with the arrest-related deaths cited by AI indicates that in less than 50 incidents a TASER ECD has been listed by a medical examiner or coroner as a contributing factor or more likely couldn’t be ruled out in an arrest related death & in only a few disputed cases has a TASER ECD been listed as the “cause” of death.  In many of these cases, numerous causes, drug overdoses, pre-existing medical conditions, blunt trauma, & other factors have also been listed.  Clearly any arrest related death is of concern, but we have to look at science & facts.

A number of independent reviews & government studies, including medical studies in peer reviewed journals, have affirmed the safety & life-saving value of TASER technology as a safer, more effective response to resistance.  TASER stands confidently by the safety & effectiveness of its products through research, proven field results, risk management review, education & the lives that are protected by TASER ECDs.

There are no responses to resistance options that are entirely risk free, including ECDs. However, most would agree that TASER ECDs are safer than punches, kicks, swarms, baton strikes, K-9 bites, impact muntions, or rubber bullets. 

Over the past several years, the US Dept of Justice has reviewed many of the arrest-related deaths in which a TASER ECD has been listed by a medical examiner or coroner as a contributing factor or could not be ruled out.  In May 2011, the US DOJ’s Nat’l Institute of Justice (NIJ) released its final report afterf more than six years of study. (Laub, J. Study of Deaths Following Electro Muscular Disruption.  NIJ.  May 2011.)  Some of the key findings include:

“Unlike the risk of secondary injury due to falling or puncture, the risk of human death due directly or primarily to the electrical effects of CED application has not been conclusively demonstrated. However, there are anecdotal cases where no other significant risk factor for death is known.  Additionally, current research does not support a substantially increased risk of cardiac arrhythmia in field situations, even if the CED darts strike the front of the chest.  There are anecdotal cases where no other significant risk factor for death is known & where the temporal association provides weak circumstantial evidence of causation.  The panel reviewed studies on ventricular fibrillation with respect to dart placement, demonstration of ventricular fibrillation, pulseless ventricular tachycardia, pulseless electrical activity in animals, & anecdotal examples of capture in humans wearing cardiac pacemakers or defibrillators.  These studies suggest plausible but unproven mechanisms for unusual & rare cases of death due to a confluence of unlikely circumstances.”

“There is no conclusive medical evidence in the current body of research literature that indicates a high risk of serious injury or death to humans from the direct or indirect cardiovascular or metabolic effects of short-term CED exposure in healthy, normal, nonstressed, nonintoxicated persons.  Field experience with CED use indicates that short-term exposure is safe in the vast majority of cases.  The risk of death in a CED-related use-of-force incident is less than 0.25 percent, & it is reasonable to conclude that CEDs do not cause or contribute to death in the large majority of those cases.

“Law enforcement need not refrain from using CEDs to place uncooperative or combative subjects in custody, provided the devices are used in accordance with accepted national guidelines & appropriate use-of-force policy.  The current literature as a whole suggests that deployment of a CED has a margin of safety as great as or greater than most alternatives.”

The nature of arrest related deaths is extremely important.  Lives & public safety are at risk.  However, putting aside the emotion, we have to remember the old adage, “Just the facts, please.”

Speaking of the facts, current medical & safety studies can be found on TASER International’s web site.