According to Wikipedia, “suicide by cop is a suicide method in which a suicidal deliberately acts in a threatening way, with the goal of provoking a lethal response from a law enforcement officer, such as being shot to death.” Tragically, those officers that are placed in those situations not only face media and public scrutiny, internal investigations, self-doubt, but they have to live the rest of their lives with the fact that they were involved in an incident where a life was taken to no fault of their own.

The main mission that co-founders Rick and Tom Smith had when starting TASER International in 1993 was to find a safer response to resistance. This mission is accomplished each time we read of similar lives saved by the use of a TASER ECD. To shed a little light on “who” we are, our staff at “Team TASER” is highly motivated and driven by these stories. Although we aren’t walking the beat or putting on a badge to protect and serve, it still makes us feel like we are, albeit a small, but important contributing cog in the law enforcement world. It’s a story like this that helps feel like we’re doing our part to make the world a little bit safer and doing our part to protect life.

We are human at TASER International. We read the controversial stories and sometimes you can feel overwhelmed that so many of the life-saving events are simply not covered or reported in any large extent despite thousands of lives that have been positively affected by the use of a TASER ECD. However, we as a company continue to produce products that help deter incidents that end in any death or serious injury, which allows us to continue to fulfill our number one mission: Protect life.

Although our technology is not a replacement for deadly force, we do know our TASER technology has been invaluable in more than 800,000 field use in situations — including the prevention of suicide by cop. It’s a good reminder today to see the positive impacts this technology makes each day at nearly 14,500 law enforcement agencies  in more than 40 countries.

Today, TASER brand electronic control devices (ECDs) are used by more than 14,000 law enforcement agencies in more than 45 countries worldwide. During the past decade, more than 1.5 million people have been hit with a TASER brand ECD, including an estimated 760,000 people in actual arrest proceedings by law enforcement. While a completely accurate number is hard to come by, it further is estimated that more than 50,000 people have avoided injury or had their lives saved because a TASER brand ECD was available and used by law enforcement.  

Despite the broad acceptance and amazing success of the TASER ECDs in reducing injuries and violence, there are still a number of critics and skeptics who are willing to ignore the data, ignore the scientific studies and ignore anecdotal evidence while calling for a moratorium on the use of TASER devices by law enforcement. Most commonly, these naysayers inaccurately site a “lack of independent” scientific and medical studies into the safety of TASER technology and TASER ECDs.

I have to believe that those making such a claim are just uninformed. Arguably, TASER brand ECDs and TASER technology is the most studied law enforcement tool ever. To date, and to the best of our knowledge, there have been more than 275 scientific, medical or governmental studies on ECDs. This includes a growing body of more than 120 scientific and medical studies involving human subjects. In all, approximately 70 percent of these studies are “independent” — having been performed without funding from TASER International.  

Some of the most recent studies to be presented at major medical conferences such as CardioRythm 2009 and in leading medical journals such as the American Journal of Emergency Medicine and the Annals of Emergency Medicine include groundbreaking work on the effects of prolonged or multiple exposures to a TASER device. The following is a sample of recent studies:

Can Prolonged TASER X26 Exposure or Continued Exertion Contribute to Sudden Cardiac Death Through Worsening Acidosis?

Ho, J.D., et al CardioRhythm, Hong Kong: Dept. of Emergency Medicine, Hennepin County Medical Center, Minneapolis, MN Dept. of Emergency Medicine, Lompoc Valley Medical Center, Lompoc, CA.

Conclusion: Acidosis is worse from continued exertion when compared to an ECD application. This does not support an association between TASER device applications and sudden death due to worsening acidosis. It does support a worsening acidosis from continued exertion.

Multiple Simultaneous Exposures of the TASER X26 in Human Volunteers

Ho, J.D., D.M. Dawes, and J.R. Miner 2009, CardioRhythm, Hong Kong: Dept. of Emergency Medicine, Hennepin County Medical Center, Minneapolis, MN Dept. of Emergency Medicine, Lompoc Valley Medical Center, Lompoc, CA.

Conclusions: Five second multiple (2-3), simultaneous exposures to an ECD device do not appear to have significant deleterious effects on the heart.

Presenting Rhythm in Sudden Deaths Temporally Proximate to Discharge of TASER Conducted Electrical Weapons (CEW)

Swerdlow C, Fishbein M, Chaman L, Lakkireddy D, Tchou P. Society for Academic Emergency Medicine. May 2009;16:1‐13.

Conclusions: In sudden deaths proximate to CEW discharge, immediate collapse is unusual, and ventricular fibrillation (VF) is an uncommon VF presenting rhythm. Within study limitations, including selection bias and the possibility that VF terminated before the presenting rhythm was recorded, these data do not support electrically induced VF as a common mechanism of these sudden deaths.

Prolonged TASER Use on Exhausted Humans Does Not Worsen Markers of Acidosis

Ho J, Dawes D, Bultman L, Moscati R, Janchar T, Miner J. American Journal of Emergency Medicine. 2009;27(4):413‐418.

Conclusion: Prolonged CEW application on exhausted humans was not associated with worsening change in pH or troponin. Decreases in pCO2 and potassium and a small increase in lactate were found. Worsening acidosis theories due to CEW use in this population are not supported by these data.

Safety and Injury Profile of Conducted Electrical Weapons Used by Law Enforcement Officers Against Criminal Suspects

William P. Bozeman, MD Annals of Emergency Medicine Jan 2009

Conclusion: To our knowledge, these findings represent the first large, independent, multicenter study of conducted electrical weapon injury epidemiology and suggest that more than 99 percent of subjects do not experience significant injuries after conducted electrical weapon use.

The Neuroendocrine Effects of the TASER X26®: A Brief Report 

Forensic Science International , Volume 183 , Issue 1 – 3 , Pages 14 – 19 D . Dawes , J . Ho , J . Miner

Conclusions: Our preliminary data suggests that physical exertion during custodial arrest may be the most activating of the human stress response, particularly the sympathetic–adrenal–medulla axis. This may suggest that techniques to limit the duration of this exertion may be the safest means to apprehend subjects, particularly those at high-risk for in-custody death. Conducted electrical weapons were not more activating of the human stress response than other uses of force.

A complete index of all known medical, scientific and governmental studies is available on the TASER International web site here.

I understand that there will probably always be some debate over the need and proper use of TASER electronic control devices. I believe such a debate to be healthy and valuable, but only if there is an acknowledgement of the vast body of scientific data and evidence that has been produced regarding the TASER technology.

New Jersey is the ONLY state in the nation where it is illegal for law enforcement to use TASER devices or other electronic control devices (ECDs) in protecting their communities. Prohibiting those who have sworn to protect and to serve from utilizing this life-saving technology is not only outdated thinking, but it puts both the officers and the communities at risk.  

Electronic weapons and stun guns have been prohibited for use by law enforcement and the general public in New Jersey since 1985 — nine years before TASER International was founded. The only other three states to totally prohibit law enforcement from using stun devices have already changed their laws to allow officers to carry electronic control devices — Massachusetts (2004), Michigan (2002), and Hawaii (2001).  

For more than three years, the Attorney General of New Jersey has considered allowing New Jersey law enforcement officers to use ECDs. Under New Jersey law, the Attorney General can grant permission for law enforcement to use these life-saving devices — yet she refuses.   

Two years ago, Attorney General Ann Milgram formed a committee to review and evaluate alternative law enforcement use of force options, including ECDs and stun guns. While the committee has made recommendations regarding certain “less-lethal” ammunition — such as rubber bullets and bean bag rounds — they have yet to make any recommendations on TASER brand devices or any other ECDs, leaving law enforcement agencies across New Jersey, who know the value of ECDs, wanting and waiting to deploy.

The time for action is now. The lack of movement by the Attorney General on this critical issue is not only endangering the safety of New Jersey officers, it may also have precluded New Jersey communities from taking advantage of the more than $2.8 billion in federal stimulus monies targeted for law enforcement and community policing technologies. The deadline for submitting applications to the U.S. Department of Justice Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant program is soon approaching. Without immediate action from the Attorney General, or the legislature, permitting the use of ECDs by law enforcement in New Jersey, cash-strapped communities will miss an unprecedented opportunity to apply for federal assistance for purchasing this revolutionary technology, without putting undue strain on already tight budgets.

The New Jersey State Senate is also considering the use of ECDs. S-182, a bill to authorize certain law enforcement officers and corrections officers to possess and use stun guns while on duty, has passed the Senate Law and Public Safety and Veteran’s Affairs Committee. However, the Senate has not taken further action on the legislation, citing a need for the Attorney General to finish her report on stun guns and ECDs. It’s time for either the legislature or the Attorney General to step up and be accountable on this important safety issue.

ECDs are saving lives, reducing injuries and saving precious taxpayer dollars in workman’s compensation and litigation in the communities across the United States patrolled by the nearly 14,000 law enforcement agencies that carry TASER devices — except in New Jersey!   

It is time that Attorney General Milgram and Senate President Richard Codey stop ducking the issue and act. Calls from law enforcement and the general public in New Jersey who agree may help persuade them to become leaders for a change. Their numbers are: 

Attorney General Ann Milgram: 609-292-4925

Senate President Richard Codey: 973-731-6770

New Jersey is a distinctive state with a unique beauty, heritage and people. Being the last state to prohibit the use of a technology proven to protect life is not a distinction worthy of this great state. Law enforcement officers in New Jersey deserve to have the benefits of electronic control devices, just like they do in all 49 other states in the nation. 

The right to select one’s own means of self-protection is something we affirm at TASER International. We believe it is important that people have choices when it comes to selecting a method with which to feel comfortable and safe —  regardless of whether or not an individual chooses to protect themselves with a TASER® C2™. For instance, I do not feel comfortable carrying a gun (although I would like to be trained in how to use one), but I do feel comfortable carrying my TASER C2. By the way, it’s pink.  

Since I work for TASER, I have had a lot of exposure to the device — I have deployed it, taken a full voluntary exposure including the probes (download the video of my TASER hit here), and even shocked myself once accidentally! I know exactly how it works, should I ever need to use it to protect myself. Since I know it’s effective, I feel comfortable choosing it as my means of self-protection. Sure, I have a big fiancé, but he’s not always with me and, even if he is, what would we do if someone assaults us? I don’t carry my TASER C2 around like a citizen-vigilante, hunting creepsters on street corners, but I do feel much safer walking to my car in the parking garage, or around the city at night. I grew up in a small town, I went to college in a small town, and now I live 3,000 miles away from my family. Having a TASER device makes me feel much safer since adjusting to post-college urban living.  

The right to select a means of self-protection is an issue that was hotly debated over the last two years in the Maryland State Legislature. Maryland legislators — rightfully concerned with the potential misuse of stun devices — began last year with legislation to prohibit an individual the right to own a TASER device or stun gun in the state. This year, following many months of persistent engagement and education on the subject, the Maryland Legislature passed what we believe is an effective regulatory bill addressing and affirming the citizen’s use of electronic control device technology.   

Elected officials have an obligation to promote public safety and regulate products that could potentially be dangerous. But as the Maryland Legislature rightfully concluded, the answer to effective electronic control device regulation is NOT to ban them. Rather, the Legislature chose to keep stun devices out of the hands of minors and those who have been convicted of a crime of violence. They also chose to promote some industry best practices.  

TASER International has refused to sell to persons under the age of eighteen and anyone who has been convicted of a felony. Since its inception, the company has also installed accountability systems in all its devices, such as owner registrations and the Anti-Felon Identification (AFID) tracking systems. Today, the TASER C2 even requires the owner to pass an identification verification check and a felony background check to activate the TASER C2. Thus, the device has built-in systems that deter those who would misuse the technology and protect those, like me, who wish to utilize it for personal safety.   

Working with industry experts, safety advocates and law enforcement, the Maryland Legislature passed responsible legislation — legislation which deters the misuse of the stun device, but allows for law-abiding citizens to protect themselves and their loved ones, as they choose, in a safe and effective manner.

Back in the beginning (1994), our very first sales were to consumers via direct orders, gun stores, catalogs and the Sharper Image. What you got back then was our first model, called the AIR TASER™ Model 34000. It looked something like this (again, back in 1994).

We’ve since sold more than 189,000 TASER brand devices to the general public in the United States and numerous countries around the world.   We are permitted to sell to consumers in 43 states (there are seven states and the District of Columbia that do not permit any type of stun devices for sale to the public).

One of the reasons that we are the market leader in consumer stun guns is because we are the only stun gun manufacturer that has added layer upon layer of accountability measures to deter misuse.  In a nutshell, it’s all about registration, verification and tracking. 

Since day one, our  sales to the public have successfully instituted a special safeguard that makes TASER technology a responsible personal safety tool — our Anti-Felon Identification (AFID) program.  The AFID program is based upon registration of TASER devices.  Every time a TASER cartridge is fired it disperses 20-30 serialized confetti that identifies the owner of the TASER device.  At tradeshows, and with the media, I often say, “It’s like leaving 20 to 30 business cards at the scene of a crime.”

Our newest consumer model, the TASER® C2™,  will not work after it is purchased out of the box until the device is activated with a unique code.  The code can only be obtained by passing two tests:  An identification verification test and a felony background check.  We’ve made this a fast, simple and thorough test that can be done online at a secure Web site or via a toll-free telephone number.

To learn more about our consumer TASER devices, click here.

Perhaps the most telling statistic: more than 5,200 agencies of the 13,900 deploying TASER devices have made the decision to fully deploy these ECDs.  This full deployment means that 5,200 agencies have provided TASER ECDs to all of their patrol officers.

This sea change in law enforcement is not unique to North America, as TASER devices are sold in more than 40 countries.

In addition, TASER International is the market leader in accountability as both the ADVANCED TASER® M26™ and TASER® X26™ include an innovative Dataport microchip that records the time and date of its uses in the field. This serves as a neutral audit system to verify an officer’s police report concerning any TASER deployment.  Moreover, our TASER CAM™ audio/visual recording system accessory is now on more than 30,000 TASER devices in law enforcement worldwide — the Las Vegas Police Department just announced that every one of its TASER devices will have one — providing enhanced accountability for law enforcement officers and the communities they serve.

TASER International… clearly the leader in electronic control devices.