Facts re: Butler vs. TASER International
Posted by Deborah
Fact Sheet for March 5, 2010 CNN Web site excerpt
Topic: CNN story regarding a lawsuit against TASER International, Inc. (TASER) and allegations concerning TASER® Electronic Control Device (ECD) Safety
On March 4, 2010, CNN ran a story on its Web site related to the Steven Butler vs. TASER International lawsuit. The plaintiff’s attorney and one of his key experts are featured in the story making allegations against TASER about TASER ECD safety. The purpose of this document is to provide factual information about the key issues alleged by plaintiff in this news story.
Synopsis:
Mr. Butler had a pre-existing heart condition known to have high risk of cardiac arrest.
Mr. Butler had a blood alcohol level of 0.35 percent – measured at the Emergency Room after the event (this is a toxic level with known risk of death).
Mr. Butler was prescribed mental illness medication labeled with an alcohol warning and which also may exacerbate heart conditions.
Mr. Butler received three discharges to chest with TASER X26 ECD, collapsed, and was later revived with alleged brain injury.
Key facts:
• On October 7, 2006, police responded to a call of an intoxicated [blood alcohol level of 0.35 percent and THC (marijuana) in the bloodstream)] individual on a city bus. The officers encountered a seriously intoxicated male subject who they had probable cause to arrest, who refused officers’ requests to leave the bus, took a fighting stance, pulled away from officers’ attempts at handcuffing, and threatened the officers with physical assault.
• Officers tried to talk with him but he refused to cooperate. Officers tried to restrain him physically but he resisted. Officers deployed the TASER X26 ECD, which struck Mr. Butler in the chest and abdomen. There were three trigger pulls [5; 8; and 5-second cycles], which incapacitated Mr. Butler. After the final discharge, Mr. Butler became non-responsive. EMS was quickly on scene, CPR was started, and he was found to be in cardiac arrest. He was resuscitated with several drugs and several applications of a cardiac defibrillator. It is alleged that he sustained a brain injury during the time period in which he was in cardiac arrest.
• Plaintiff’s experts allege that the TASER X26 ECD was the cause of the cardiac arrest and are seeking money damages against TASER.
• There are several other key factors not included in the CNN Web site excerpt story:
- A review of Mr. Butler’s medical records years before the incident and immediately after the incident showed that he had a pre-existing cardiac condition that places an individual at risk of sudden cardiac arrest and frequently results in having an implanted defibrillator surgically implanted to treat this high risk. The specifics of this condition cannot be publicly released at this time.
- Mr. Butler was also prescribed and had been taking for many years the drug Zyprexa, which is not to be mixed with alcohol, and which is reported to also increase the risk of cardiac arrest.
- At the emergency room after the event in question, Mr. Butler’s blood alcohol level was measured at 0.35 percent. This indicates that at some point during the incident, his blood alcohol level was likely even higher, approaching 0.40 percent. Blood alcohol levels in these ranges are known to have the following effects: Severe CNS depression, unconsciousness, and/or possible death. Toxicology results also showed that he had THC (marijuana) in his system.
Numerous medical professionals have closely examined this case and have concluded that Mr. Butler’s cardiac arrest was caused by his pre-existing cardiac condition, exacerbated by acute upon chronic alcohol abuse, agitated state, and other factors.
This case illustrates the challenges described in our training bulletin issued on September 30, 2009 advising a revision of the preferred target zones to avoid intentionally targeting the chest. The several “non-ECD” factors in this case that alone could have caused a cardiac arrest event are absent from the public controversy about this event.
Another allegation that needs to be addressed is that the plaintiff’s attorney alleges that a 2006 pig study “proved” that a TASER ECD can cause cardiac arrest in humans. This is false. The results of that study read as follows: “Standard NMI discharges [] did not cause VF (ventricular fibrillation) at any of the 5 locations before or after cocaine infusion.” Also, “Our study showed that VF could not be induced using the standard 5 second TASER discharge applied to a pig’s body surface even at the most sensitive area tested.”
Far from “proving” that TASER ECDs cause VF in humans, the 2006 pig study showed a significant safety margin in smaller animals than humans; animals which are more sensitive to electrically induced VF. This 2006 pig study did validate that those safety margins increase as darts are located further from the heart region, and also found that the presence of cocaine did not increase risk, rather it actually increased the overall safety margin.
Two recent human studies from researchers funded by the U.S. Department of Justice found the following:
In a combined experience of 4,058 consecutively monitored CEW (Conducted Energy Weapons or ECD) field uses with an electrical shock delivered, serious injuries are clearly rare, and there are no cases in any of the reports suggesting sudden cardiac death related to the TASER ECD.1 Also, Dr. Bozeman, the author of the study has stated, “From a public health/epidemiologic perspective the use of conducted electrical weapons is similar to that of automobile air bags, which are also known to pose a small risk of serious injury and even death in rare cases, but are clearly responsible for marked overall reductions in injurie2
“CEW exposure produced no detectable dysrhythmias and a statistically significant increase in heart rate. Overall, TASER CEW exposure appears to be safe and well tolerated from a cardiovascular standpoint in this population. This study increases the cumulative human subject experience of CEW exposure with continuous ECG monitoring and includes 28 full 5-second exposures.”3
Extrapolating from pig data, another plaintiff oriented expert, Dr. John Webster, has opined that the risk of VF from a TASER ECD discharge in the field is approximately 0.0000061, which equates to a risk of 1 in 160,000 discharges. This risk is far below any documented risk with alternative use of force options.
1 Bozeman WP, Hauda WE, 2nd, Heck JJ, Graham DD, Jr., Martin BP, Winslow JE, Safety and Injury Profile of Conducted Electrical Weapons Used by Law Enforcement Officers Against Criminal Suspects, Ann Emerg Med. Jan 21 2009.
2 Bozeman, WP, Annals of Emerg Med, Nov 2009.
3 W P Bozeman, D G Barnes, Jr, J E Winslow, III, J C Johnson, III, C H Phillips, and R Alson, Immediate cardiovascular effects of the TASER X26 conducted electrical weapon, Emerg. Med. J. 2009; 26(8): p. 567-570; http://emj.bmj.com/cgi/content/abstract/26/8/567?ct=ct.
4 J M MacDonald, R J Kaminski, and M R Smith, The Effect of Less-Lethal Weapons on Injuries in Police Use-of-Force Events, American Journal of Public Health, Dec 2009 Vol 99, No 12 p. 2268-2274.
Summary: TASER ECDs are not risk free. To be clear, TASER is not claiming that the risk of inducing VF in a human is zero. Estimates are that this risk is very low, less than 1 in 100,000 applications. The extremely low risks of serious injury or death can be further reduced by avoiding firing ECDs at subjects who may fall from elevated heights and by following the preferred targeting zones per current training. Studies consistently indicate that ECDs have among the lowest risk of injury of any modern force option and field results consistently show that agencies that deploy TASER ECDs experience significant reductions in force-related injuries.
Weapons cannot be evaluated from a perspective of zero risk. Every “use of force” carries high risk of injury or death and are all considered dangerous events for both law enforcement and the people resisting arrest. All uses of force need be evaluated from a perspective of comparative risk and risk-reduction.
According to a recent study in the American Journal of Public Health, “Given the findings from this study, as well as those from previously published research, law enforcement agencies should encourage the use of OC spray or CEDs [Conducted Energy Devices] in place of impact weapons and should consider authorizing their use as a replacement for hands-on force tactics against physically resistant suspects.… Injuries from police use-of-force incidents continue to be a public health problem affecting tens of thousands of civilians and police officers in the United States each year. Our findings suggest that the incidence of these injuries can be reduced substantially when police officers use CEDs and OC spray responsibly and in lieu of physical force to control physically resistant suspects.”4
TASER remains committed to improving public safety and reducing the risks involved in use of force incidents and personal safety. We strive to continually update our products and training to provide the safest options available to protect human life.