We often get inquiries regarding TASER safety and human rights issues. Today, we received an inquiry from Europe asking, “Do you have any recent publications or statements from Amnesty International where they have eased off from their ban and moratorium stances in their pre 2004 reports?”
William Schultz , former Amnesty Int'l Executive Director & Rick Smith, CEO of TASER in Debate TASER March 2005 at Claremont McKenna College, CA
That’s a good question as we have seen a transition of Amnesty International’s viewpoint regarding TASER ECDs. Here’s what I wrote back to the European inquiry:
The best I can do is to show you quotes from the latest releases from Amnesty Int’l in 2012. Many of the quotes ask for restrictions but note that AI is no longer requesting moratoriums as they did in the early 2000 era:
This is a subtle but important change from not accepting this life-saving technology versus accepting that TASER ECDs are here to stay. Howeveer, AI wants TASER ECDs to be used with good training, smart policies and with good oversight — just las we highly recommend that law enforcement agencies adhere to these principals.
The one issue that needs clarification is the continuing statement by AI that 90 percent of the subjects hit by a TASER device are unarmed. THAT IS TRUE & it SHOULD BE TRUE as TASER technology is not a replacement for deadly force. At most of the 17,000 law enforcement agencies in 107 countries, TASER ECDs are used at the same level of force as are pepper sprays (again against mostly unarmed individuals).
While it is understadable that Australian media rpnesod ion the same fashion as American media did a decade ago, it will take time and proof to refute the notion that TASER technology kills’ anyone. I am a Security Manager for an American University Medical Center Security Department (non-sworn) and we’ve enjoyed great success in our TASER program since 2004. We’ve had 34 actual deployments since then and many many more compliant subjects with display or presence only. (3 to 1) We’ve never had an injury to a subject that was tased, absolutely no deaths, no law suits. Officer injuries went to basically zero after employing TASER in 2004. People who die in Police custody usually do so after allot of physical exertion running, with heart disease (hidden), overdose of illegal substances cocaine, methamphetamine, and a long sustained physical fight with law enforcement. TASER merely stopped all the activity that would have attributed to a death had he continued violent aggression. There is a limit to what the human body can take physically before it shuts down. I would implore all the Australian citizenry to go to TASER’s website (taser.com) and read for yourself all the studies conducted, transparent articles written, coroner rulings, and the technical aspect of the electricity used by jamming the messages from the brain to the muscle group affected that allows control of a subject. The key to keeping YOUR Law Enforcement safe to keep YOU safe is to have an open mind, research for yourself what TASER is and is not, then make an informed opinion rather than jump in with the herd for a group think’ that TASER is causing all these deaths. I wish all Australian law enforcement the best of luck with their decision to keepsafe their Officers, and especially Commissioner Clarke who demonstrates the courage Australian’s are known for in stepping forward with a cooler head reminding everyone not to put the cart before the horse, wait for the results, .. then voicing an informed opinion.