Wouldn’t it be more accurate to say “Drug death” or “Medical condition death?”

Dr. Douglas Zipes recently had a case series publish in one of the American Heart Association’s journals called, Circulation. 

Zipes’ article is not a position paper by the American Heart Association.  A case study or even a case series should report interesting associations and novel curiosities of medicine based on uncontrolled and anecdotal observations.  His article provides observational data from a series of 8 cases provided to him in his disclosed role as a plaintiff’s expert during litigation of these cases.  He does not conclude that these cases reveal a fundamental flaw in the design of the devices.

STATEMENT:

• “The article is clearly self-serving as Dr. Zipes’ primary interest in this area is being a plaintiff’s expert witness who has been paid $1,200 per hour – more than $500,000 total to testify against police and TASER.”
• “One example of Dr Zipes’ bias is his omission of important facts that contradict his agenda.  For example in his case #4, video clearly showed that the officer missed the subject.  Scanning electron microscopy of the probes also confirmed that no current was delivered through the wires to the subject.  There are key facts that contradict the role of the TASER device in all of these cited cases, and Dr. Zipes has conveniently omitted all facts that contradict his opinion, but this case most clearly demonstrates his lack of objectivity and scientific rigor.”
• “There have been 3 million uses of TASER device worldwide with this case series reporting 8 of concern.  This article does not support a cause-effect association & fails to accurately evaluate the risks versus the benefits of the thousands of lives saved by police with TASER devices.”

TASER SAFETY: 

The American Medical Association issued a White (Position) Paper on TASER safety in June 2009 that states:

• “Most studies undertaken by law enforcement agencies (and others) indicate that deploying CEDs relative to other use-of-force options, such as pepper spray, physical force, police dogs, and batons, reduces injuries to officers and suspects and reduces the use of lethal force.”
• “Furthermore, no evidence of dysrhythmia or myocardial ischemia is apparent, even when the barbs are positioned on the thorax and cardiac apex.”

Clearly Dr. Zipes has a strong financial incentive based on his career as an expert witness, which might help explain why he disagrees with the findings of independent medical examiners with no pecuniary interest in these cases as well as the U.S. Department of Justice’s independent study that concluded: 

• “There is currently no medical evidence that CEDs pose a significant risk for induced cardiac dysrhythmia in humans when deployed reasonably.”
•  “The risks of cardiac arrhythmias or death remain low and make CEDs more favorable than other weapons.”

There are critical statements in this three-year study called, Study of Deaths Following Electro Muscular Disruption, in which a panel of experts examined why individuals died after exposure to a TASER device (aka CED) during encounters with law enforcement.  The panel, selected in collaboration with the College of American Pathologists, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the National Association of Medical Examiners, reviewed nearly 300 cases to determine whether CEDs contributed to or were the primary cause of death.

The panel found that while in some cases the possibility that the direct effects of a CED can be lethal cannot be excluded, the risk of death due to the electrical effects of a CED has not been conclusively demonstrated and that caution should be used when interpreting the inclusion of a CED on a death certificate or the classification of the manner of death as a homicide as an absolute indictment of the CED as the sole or primary reason for the death.

The panel found that from a medical perspective, law enforcement need not refrain from using CEDs, provided the devices are used in accordance with accepted national guidelines and appropriate policy.  The use of a CED on potentially at-risk individuals should be minimized or avoided unless the situation excludes other reasonable options.  It is critical to minimize or avoid multiple or prolonged activations of CEDs to subdue an individual.  However, there may be circumstances where this is required.

The panel members included a cardiologist, an emergency medicine doctor, five medical examiners, and a toxicologist. Consulting specialists were available to the panel as needed and included an anesthesiologist, clinical pathologist, epidemiologist, electrical engineer, neurologist, and psychiatrist.

Tweet

Coca-Cola Death

A tragic but interesting story was reported in the New Zealand media – , “Coca-Cola® Death.” We came across the story, “Cola Habit Behind Death of 30-year-old New Zealand Woman,” which immediately brought to mind the overwhelming number of, “TASER Death,” headlines we see all too often when in fact the TASER ECD is not found to be the cause of death.   While it does appear that the astonishing habit of Coca-Cola consumption caused this woman’s death, we can relate to the overall negative press this story is generating for one of America’s best known brands.

Coca-Cola must be feeling this poorly written headline intended to grab readers eyes is far from the facts of the case.  We can imagine Coca-Cola execs are reacting to a “Coca-Cola Death” headline in a similar fashion as when we see “TASER Death”  headlines.  These so called “TASER death” headlines are often premature & not based on facts but supposition yet they’re Tweeted, blogged, headlined, discussed, & eventually become the first few pages found by search engines.

Today a news story originally headlined, “Officers won’t be indicted in Taser death“ was corrected.  Why is it a “TASER death?”  The story clearly reports the cause of death is “‘excited delirium’” brought on by cocaine intoxication and a heart condition — and not the use of the Tasers.”  Despite this, the headline editor describes it as a “TASER Death.” 

The correction, by the way, is ridiculous, “Lancaster officer won’t be indicted in death that followed Tasering. “  The newspaper corrects the headline but insists on  including TASER but fails to mention the large amount of cocaine, marijuana and alcohol found in the toxicology. 

Perhaps these headline editors should try & grab readers attention with accurate headlines such as “Unhealthy Lifestyle Death” or “Cocaine Death.”

To begin, the tragic death of a Brazilian named Roberto Laudisio Curti in Australia story  continues its challenge with incorrect headlines.  For example, read the original headline:  “21-Year-Old Brazilian Tasered To Death By Australian Police.”  That’s incorrect, yes?  Nope.  The autopsy results & cause of death have not been concluded.  Headlines are meant to entice readers, so clearly this article won’t make the same mistake?  Nope.  The article states in an opening lead, “That’s right: Laudisio Curti was tasered to death.”  The story made no bones about it and firmly convinced readers that a cause of death is known.  Yet, this is not true & thus the news organization had to make correct these libelous statements on April 12.

The damage was done and if you had read the original article, you might have concluded that the TASER ECD was the cause of death.  You would most likely then form an opinion about this issue.  Your perceptions – not based on fact or science – then become your reality. 

Now imagine an opinion poll at the end of that original story that asks, “Should the New South Wales Police be held accountable for this death?” When you read the uncorrected version, do you think that those incorrect words had any influence on the poll?  It did.

Even in today’s Daily Telegraph, the media incorrectly states, “Officers positioned a mannequin of Mr Curti’s body… where the fatal stun gun shot was fired.”  The fatal stun gun shot?  So much for the cause of death not determined yet.  That came, “Police in Taser death re-enactment after Brazilian man Roberto Laudisio Curti died in Sydney’s CBD.” Note the  “TASER death” use in the headline & other hyperlinked stories on that samepage.  Interestingly, there’s also no mention of the pepper spray use.

Pepper Spray? Do a Google search with these key words & you get a lot of results in 26 days since Mr. Curti’s March 18 death:

• Curti + TASER + Killed: 416,000 results

In 386 days since the death of Dominic Chiodo on March 18, 2012, there have been very few stories relative to Mr. Curti.  Last week, this story, Coroners Court probes death of a man after he was sprayed with capsicum by police, provoked some research on comparing TASER vs pepper spray bias.  Note the results:

• Dominic Chiodo + Capsicum + Killed: 515 results  (using “pepper spray” vs. “capsicum” nets even less results: 246 results)

Why compare this to Dominic Chiodo? 

There are many similarities but what’s interesting is the bias when a death occurs involving a TASER ECD.  There is very little outcry when someone dies in custody when other products are used.  In fact, how many of you knew that police said they used pepper spray to try to subdue Mr. Curti?  Why aren’t the headlines “Pepper Spray Killed?” 

The interesting aspect to this comparison of these two similar situations is in the numbers:

“Curti” + “pepper spray” + “killed” gets 3,360 results vs 416,000 replacing “pepper spray” with “TASER.” 

So how did a story involving both pepper spray & TASER ECDs fail to mention the pepper spray in 99.9 percent of the stories?  How does the media continue to state TASER Kills when causes of death aren’t known?

This is certainly a case that makes you go, “Hmmmm.”

The story reports that the autopsy results have not been released to the public. If this is the case, the cause of death is not public knowledge.  It’s premature for this publication to describe this grim outcome as a “TASER death.” 

Once again the media implies that the TASER ECD was found to be causal before they have all the facts.  This seriously affects the perception of TASER, its products, & its use by law enforcement – doesn’t it?

What are your thoughts?
Tweet

We can only hope that people read beyond the headline & realize the media is merely speculating the causal relationship & that the cause of death has not been determined. 

UPDATE:  Check Google with the following search:  TASER Killed Curti and as of March 23, there are 5,980,000 results.  It will be six million despite this statement:

Tweet

We salute these agencies’ proactive measures informing their communities & providing the media information about the technology that isn’t always understood.  Providing this input educates communitities that often operate in a vacuum regarding ECDs & our on-officer cameras.  Any vacuum on TASER technology creates false perceptions that can be reality.  The proactive efforts by these agencies have resulted in many posititive stories as well as filled the vacuum with facts & science.

Law enforcement explains how a TASER technology works:

Ocean City Police Begin TASER Implementation – Ocean City PD, MD recently purchased TASER X2s for their officers.  Chief Bernadette DiPino. “We believe that having the availability of a TASER will not only reduce injuries of our officers and suspects, but will deter & reduce violent crime in Ocean City. This is a proactive & positive step in the evolution of our police department & we are thankful to have the opportunity & the support from the Ocean City community.”

Beyond the Badge – January 2012 – Edina PD, MN “How’s it work?” segment featured TASER ECDs.  Officer Kevin Rofidal demos the TASER X26.

Burnsville PD Uses On-Officer Camera Technology - Chief Bob Hawkins  discusses their TASER AXON program & shows actual in-field footage.  Some officers explain their experiences using AXON & the benefits of video evidence.  One officer even explains how the video was used to aid the fire department too.

Video technology is an established tool for law enforcement.  Dash cams & surveillance cameras have been readily accepted by both law enforcement & the public.  The value of video evidence is not questioned.  Video is an unbiased view of actual events.  The logical evolution of dash cams & TASER CAMs is on-officer cameras so law enforcement can begin video documentation of incidents from beginning to end.  This not only protects officers from unwarranted complaints but also protects the community from police brutality.  It’s a no-brainer, on-officer cameras are the future of law enforcement.

Tweet

A TASER ECD allows the user to keep some distance from the attacker and automatically delivers its Neuromuscular Incapacition effects for 30 seconds. Stun guns require direct continuous contact which can be challenging during an attack.

A stun gun only affects the nervous system (OUCH!) while a TASER ECD when deployed in probe mode affects the nervous system & the muscular system (OUCH & INCAPACITATION!).  Stun guns just hurt but a TASER ECD probe deployment has the ability to incapacitate.

“How a TASER ECD works” -yet another common question.  A C2 has a push button that triggers two probes to deploy by compressed nitrogen.  These two probes then make contact with skin or clothing, electrical impulses overpower sensory & motor nerves, and the attacker loses nueromuscular control.  While the person is incapacitated you have time to get to safety & call 911.

TASER versus Stun Gun

Remember, if you use it to prevent an attack in self-defense, you place the C2 on the ground and let it do the work for you.  TASER’s lifetime replacement guarantee kicks in if you use your C2 in self defense (don’t forget we need a police report).  Stay safe & protect life.

We’ve contacted KTLA but they’ve chosen to disregard our request for a headline correction & continue with their misleading headline.