Did Taser maker do proper study?

May 17, 2012
Julie O'Neill, joneil@wcpo.com

CINCINNATI - The 9 News I-Team continues to investigate the potential lethality of the weapon sold to law enforcement agencies across the Tri-State and around the globe as a non-lethal force option.

The original Taser was invented in 1969, but it was 30 years later Taser International introduced new Taser technology to provide "a quantum leap" in stopping power.

Since the widespread use of that Taser in 2001, at least 500 people have died following Taser stuns according to Amnesty International.

Only around 60 of those cases were definitively linked to the Taser by medical examiners.

In July 2011, a jury awarded the family of a 17-year-old $10 million, saying a Taser stun killed him, however the manufacturer failed to properly warn police the Taser could affect the heart.

In March 2012, a judge lowered the award to $5 million, but upheld the verdict.

Attorney John Burton tried the case.

"This is a device that...the power of which was boosted by four times when the Smith brothers acquired it and then sold directly by Taser International to police departments with no intervening government vetting and no peer reviewed medical testing or studies published, simply a product to make money for this company," said Burton.

Electrophysiologist Dr. Douglas Zipes testified in the trial on behalf of the victim's family, and this month his research that Tasers can cause cardiac arrest and death was published in the American Heart Association's premier journal.

"I think Taser's testing of the safety of their devices is woefully inadequate, both in animals and in humans," said Dr. Zipes.

A review of the Taser by the Department of Defense in 2002 said "Development of the Taser appears to be based on serendipitous findings and trial and error, as opposed to well-defined scientific investigation."

The reviewers gave "a limited but favorable endorsement" for military use.

Three years later in 2005, a suit filed by Taser International's own shareholders, accused the company of spending only $14,000 on safety research in 1999 and 2000 prior to putting the higher powered Taser on the market.

Taser settled the shareholder suit for $21 million.

Taser CEO Rick Smith says it's not true that the company spent only $14,000 in initial safety research, because he says Taser's original medical researcher, Dr. Robert Stratbucker, worked for the company for years.

However when asked by the I-Team whether he compensated Dr. Stratbucker with stock instead of pay, Smith said that was true.

"You know when you're a small company and you don't have cash you gotta pay people with whatever you got," said Smith.

Now a multi-million dollar company, Smith says the Taser over the years has been more studied than any other non-lethal weapon, many of the studies funded by his company.

But a September article in the American Heart Journal reported that "studies funded by Taser and/or written by an author affiliated with the company are substantially more likely to conclude that Tasers are safe...18 times higher odds."

9 News contacted Taser International earlier this week asking for any peer-reviewed and published safety research done on the higher powered Taser prior to its market launch, and the company has not responded.

Taser has pointed to a study released in May 2011 by the Department of Justice on deaths following Taser stuns. That report states "there is currently no medical evidence that CED's (Tasers) pose a significant risk for induced cardiac dysrhythmia in humans when deployed reasonably."

Nowhere in the report is the word "reasonably" defined.

The Cincinnati Police Department announced last week it is now revising its policy on the deployment of Tasers, specifically looking at the placement of the darts, following the published research of Dr. Zipes.

Research shows the Taser has saved lives and reduced injuries to officers and subjects, but the death of 18-year-old Everette Howard of North College Hill after a Taser was used on him in August 2011 on the University of Cincinnati campus has raised concerns of public safety, as well as liability for officers and taxpayers.

The Hamilton County Coroner's office still hasn't ruled on Howard's cause of death.

Letter from a Concerned Canuck

In response to this November 18th report: "Cop sues taser after riding the lightning" I received the following letter from "Concerned Canuck":

Questions- so many questions. Judging from the news of this lawsuit against Taser International, it would seem some police are finally waking up to the real risks, after dozens have suffered life-altering injuries after 'riding the lightning'? Or worse, the Tucson PD officer last week, who suffered a fatal massive heart attack a day after a Taser training exercise?

More questions- Will it take the Taser-related death of a child, a celebrity or another cop, before someone, anyone in government somewhere, agrees that a federal investigation is warranted to clear the air on how such a now legally defined 'deadly weapon' (defined as such by a recent ninth circuit court decision in North Carolina) could be introduced as a 'non-lethal police tool'. Why was the lethality not recognized by anyone a decade ago when Tasers were foisted on us by eager and in some cases compensated cops?

C'mon now - 700 people are dead after being 'tased'. Taser International's numbers game of comparing the percentage of fatalities to the number of uses, doesn't mean a thing to the families who have lost loved ones. All they know is their loved one, who was alive one minute, was dead the next. Taser's lawyers and the company's allies in the Justice, Science and Medical communities have almost always thrown it back on the victims, blaming them for bringing such unfortunate outcomes upon themselves. They cite quite rightly that many had previous health problems, were drunk, high on drugs, had mental illnesses or ran away too vigorously from their Taser-toting pursuers. Some probably were violent. But did all 700 fall into this category of the truly violent? Robert Dziekanski didn't. He was a confused but compliant traveller, newly arrived in Vancouver, who was felled by an RCMP Taser and then multi-stunned while being held down by four burly officers. Nor did Darryl Turner-- a healthy teenager in Charlotte, NC-- who was shocked twice for having a temper tantrum at his workplace. His family was awarded $10-million dollars last summer. This award came after a jury of average citizens agreed Taser International made fatal mistakes by not warning law enforcement of the real risks, after numerous opportunities to do the right thing and own up to their errors.

The company motto about 'saving life' didn't ring true for the 700.

At the heart of the Turner case is the jaw-dropping revelation that in 2006, company execs were informed by their own research scientist that a fit young volunteer suffered cardiac arrest during a training exercise. Luckily a defribrillator was on-hand and the volunteer was saved. But it proved cardiac capture was indeed possible. But instead of warning its police customers or the public of this shocking occurrence, Taser International kept silent and continued selling its products. A warning to avoid chest shots didn't come until late 2009, buried in a training bulletin. That is nearly FOUR YEARS that Taser knew of the cardiac risks, but they FAILED TO WARN. Canadian media were the first to discover and report this news about the risks of chest shots- although Taser reacted by saying they were just trying to "avoid the controversy" whenever there was an unexplained death during a Taser incident. The company had inside information- that cardiac capture was possible- but they didn't admit this. Not yet.

It was May 2010, when Taser finally released a much longer list of risks and warnings - in the fine print of another training bulletin. However there was no mention to law enforcement that the company had known since 2006 of the potential cardiac dangers. No doubt Taser International issued this list in anticipation of the Turner case coming to trial. Now when citizens are injured or die after being tased by police, the product liability belongs to law enforcement and its employers, and not where it should lie- with the manufacturer.

The Turner family was awarded the $10-million, because of Taser International's FAILURE TO WARN. Police would be well advised to read the publically-avaliable judgement in detail. As a matter of course, Taser is appealing. It is one of dozens of company-crippling wrongful death lawsuits lined up against the company. What other choice does Taser International actually have when facing such steep multi-million dollar losses? They either settle for undisclosed amounts or they appeal. It is the same thing the company is doing by counter-suing this now crippled cop, whose doctors say his back was broken from the force of a Taser shock during training. One can hear Taser's lawyers now -- perhaps the officer had a pre-existing condition of osteoporosis, which is responsible for the injuries - but not the Taser? And for God's sake, why didn't the officer read the latest waiver before he signed it, where the risks of injury and death are plainly but finely printed for all to see?

In Montpelier, Vermont, officials there appear to be aware of the rising liability risks. A prescient City Manager and a sensible Police Chief have decided that arming their officers was NOT worth losing the trust of their citizens. Was it wisened worry of the possiblity of paying out huge damages if there was any proven police misuse? And misuse is bound to happen when many officers are still convinced Tasers are "safe to use on any attacker", as the company's early promotional material stated. Much of this same propaganda made its way into the first police evaluations of the higher 26-watt technology a decade ago- and was treated as truth.

Perhaps some police were knowing collaborators, but I'd like to think most were hapless victims. So many took it: Taser hook-Taser line-and-suspect sinker. The first clue should have been the skimpy science of testing of one pig in 1996, five dogs in 1999 and several hundred young police recruits who were given half-second zaps with taped leads rather than darts with the full five second stun. Sadly law enforcement brass never bothered to verify the manufacturer's safety claims or questioned the electrical theory of operation, when Taser made the drastic leap from 5-watt weapons to 26-watt ones. Now after 700 deaths, Taser International states in the fine print of its manuals and waivers, that police are responsible for their own research! What kind of upside-down Bizarro-World are we living in, where a device that allows dangerously high current to enter the human body and is associated with hundreds of deaths, expects its customers do its own research? The pharmaceutical companies wouldn't dare do that, so why is Taser getting a free pass?

Perhaps Taser International will be brought to its senses, or at least brought back into court when its shareholders launch another class action suit for failure to disclose all known safety risks? A dozen complainants shared a $21-million dollar out-of-court settlement in 2005, to buy the silence of this small group of compassionate shareholders . In the court documents of this case, seven former employees signed affadavits and testified there were so many 'returns' - defective units being sent back - because thousands of Tasers weren't operating properly or not at all, triggers were sticking with some staying on, etc. There were SO many returns they had to rent extra warehouse space to store them all. The witnesses claimed the bodies of these returns were cut open, the defective high-voltage boards were taken out and placed into new bodies with new serial numbers - and sold out the front door as new product.

No one has ever attempted to investigate Taser for any of this, because no one in law enforcement or the Justice department is paying attention or cares to. Taser called the accusations absurd but settled with the shareholders anyway; what is absurd is paying out $21-million dollars to a dozen complainants in what has to be one of the highest nuisance suit payouts in legal history.

Given the number of deaths and injuries, one wonders if any of these defective units being re-sold as 'new' were recycled into other police departments, where some of these 700 "unintended consequences" or dozens of "training injuries" occurred? There is no way of knowing for sure, because police do not measure the output of each Taser upon receipt from the company. SO there is no benchmark for product quality or reliability set from the start. There is no way of charting degradation over time. Which means there is no way of knowing the shelf life of Tasers. How will that be determined without proper measurement?

Since Taser International has shouldered the liability risks onto police- and those who employ them- municipalities, provinces, states, and federal bodies should consider the sense of seeing these untested, unregulated weapons measured regularly. That was one of the recommendations of the Braidwood Inquiry. So far no police agencies anywhere in North America have heeded this sage advice. The RCMP has supposedly tested its fleet of 36-hundred or so BUT many of them performed outside of the safety allowables set by Taser International. But what is the peak output/body current of the Tasers involved in the 700 deaths? Who knows? Again- there are just too many unanswered questions.

A proper Justice Department investigation of how all this occurred without proper checks & balances, is needed. The many questions demand answers. There needs to be accountability for the 700 and their families. Congressional hearings might be the only way to illuminate more of the truth about how Tasers were introduced without proper oversight and substantiated by rigorous, independent research. If we're stuck with the lethal Taser, it really should only be used in the rarest of circumstances, just below the firearm, NOT as a mere compliance tool. Regular measurement using a recognized electrical safety standard would go a long way too, in insuring this Russian Roulette-style of law enforcement is kept to a duller roar.

Concerned Canuck.

Sentiment : Strong Sell

Strong sentiments on the Yahoo Finance TASR message board yesterday:

SFPD Chief admits tasers can kill
25-Feb-11 12:47 pm
LONG to GONE

Some of you may continue to believe everything you have been told about the safety of tasers but I have now reached my limit. The last time I saw the liti-gators circling like this it was with asbestos.

That product was not well researched, the management ignored and buried warnings from their researchers and the management tried to "settle & seal" so their shareholders would not find out the truth. Once they did, it was an end game so long that you still see advertisements today for legal action that are asbestos related.

This was a very nice way for their management to bury the deceit, deception and non-disclosures of the true liabilities of the product.

For years we have been told that ECDs, "Don't affect the heart and cannot kill."

I believed it until now.

If you are a LONG and still believe that tasers cannot casue death, then I would suggest that you look at the statement made by the acting San Francisco Police Chief, Jeff Godown. He actually admitted that tasers can kill!

Interview: Jeff Godown on the Use of Tasers

I would then suggest that you contact Training@TASER.com and ask them to send you their latest exposure/liability release form that all officers have to sign.

After EVERYTHING that we have been fed by this executive management team about "product safety" this is disgusting!

It actually states that, "The Electronic Control Device (ECD) can produce physiologic or metabolic effects which include, but are not limited to, changes in: . . . heart rate and rhythm . . .!"

What ?!?!?!

This management team has gone out of their way, for years, to convince us and the public that this was not true! They have spent millions of our money covering up and paying off settlements as a result of all of these false claims! Now, even law enforcement knows this was a lie!

These guys have already settled one shareholder suit ($21M in 2007). AND THAT WAS WITH OUR MONEY! Anyone care to wager on how long it will be before another one is filed?

How much longer does management really think that they can keep this from everyone? Law enforcement officers are now admitting the truth and lawyers obviously already know it. And the victims families are the ones that really have to live with these consequences. Now that law enforcement agencies and the management have acknowledged these facts, what is to stop them from all piling on to our investments?

I would really like to know why are we just now finding this out?

They disclose this information to law enforcement officers in fine print and to liti-gators and victims behind closed doors, but not their own shareholders?

If you REALLY want to get a great laugh, contact CEO Patrick Smith and ask him about a paper he presented at the NDIA III Conference in 1998. He said during that presentation that this technology “does not affect the heart." Right!

So, which is it? Did they not do the research on their technology? Did they simply make false statements? Or, maybe, heart fibers in humans have evolved over the last 13 years so that this technology now effects the heart rhythm. But WHEN did they now this that this technology captured cardiac rhythm?

We really deserve a response.

I can see that in the future tasers will only be used in limited scenarios, because, as SFPD Chief Godown so eloquently put it, tasers "can kill.”

I cannot help but think that this will affect profitability in the future. Increased awareness of the truth will, inevitably, lead to reduced use and fewer cartridge sales.

It will also lead to MORE liti-gators going after whatever value remains.

Good luck to you all! I am GONE!

Sentiment : Strong Sell

Policeman will profit from Tasers

October 30, 2005
Ali Hussain and Gareth Walsh, The Sunday Times

THE American manufacturer of Taser, the controversial stun gun, gave the exclusive British distribution rights to a senior serving police officer who helped win Home Office approval for the weapon.

Inspector Peter Boatman had a 50% share in a company that sold Tasers at the same time as devising Britain’s first police training programme for the use of weapons.

Boatman was in charge of assessing the merits of Taser as head of operational training for Northamptonshire police and was regarded as an impartial expert on the weapon.

Since he left the force a little more than three years ago, his firm has provided 1,500 Tasers worth about £1m to 20 British police forces. It is the exclusive UK distributor for the US company, Taser International.

Disclosure of the apparent conflict of interest comes after Taser International, the US manufacturer, was accused of providing American police officers with share options potentially worth $1m.

The manufacturer is also being investigated over its safety claims. A Taser fires two barbed darts, felling a potential assailant with a 50,000 volt shock and causes the target’s muscles to go into uncontrollable spasm, allowing the police to capture him. The weapon, which costs up to £750, is intended to provide police with a “less lethal” option than a gun.

More than 100 deaths have been attributed to the use of Tasers in America.

Companies House records show that Boatman took a 50% stake in a start-up company, Pro-Tect Systems, in December 2000. He became a director of the firm on December 5 and resigned three weeks later, on December 27, but held on to his stake in the company.

In February 2001, Pro-Tect received the Taser contract for the UK. Within two months Boatman was acting as an adviser to the Home Office on whether to issue Tasers to British officers. He was “regarded as a national and international expert” on Tasers, Chris Fox, the former chief constable of Northamptonshire, said yesterday.

In December 2001, three months after the Home Office approved trial imports, Boatman publicly rebutted claims by Police Federation officers that Tasers could be dangerous. Boatman wrote “with sadness” to Police Review that “this technology is very effective — more than any other technique, device or equipment for establishing control over violent and dangerous subjects”.

He retired from the police on April 16, 2002. Two days later he was installed as chairman of Pro-Tect Systems. His fellow founding director and friend, Kevin Coles, had been running the firm in the meantime.

Despite the records at Companies House, Boatman insisted he had had no connection with Pro-Tect Systems before retiring from the police, and had “never been paid by Taser to do anything on their behalf”. Taser International said it was not aware that Boatman had a share in Pro-Tect Systems while still a serving police office Boatman put on a public demonstration of his confidence in the safety of Tasers by firing one at his wife, Stephanie, in a stunt staged in November 2004. He has said he believes the stun guns have never caused a fatality.

She fell to the ground screaming “like a pig” as her husband unleashed the full 50,000 volts into her back, Yet after the briefest of recovery times the 44-year-old mother got back to her feet. The Taser stun gun, it seemed, was crippling but safe.

The demonstration marked the culmination of a five-year campaign by Boatman to convince the British authorities that the Taser should be accepted as a standard piece of kit. The Home Office approved trials of the Taser in five police forces in April 2003 after it beat rivals in subduing violent offenders without killing them. It was cleared for national use in September 2004.

Last week senior officers said it should no longer be confined to the kind of threatening incidents where a normal firearm could be used.

Taser International, the manufacturer, last week reported a 38% annual drop in sales in the third quarter. It has been thrown on the defensive by court documents that detailed the share options it gave to police in American cities.Now the process by which the device won rapid acceptance in mainstream British policing has also come under scrutiny. Questions have been raised about the precise role played by Boatman.

Boatman, 52, who was entrusted by Northamptonshire police with researching “less lethal weapons”, first encountered Tasers at an exhibition held in Germany in 1999.

The following year, Boatman developed the first Taser training programme in Britain, which was adopted and further developed by Acpo. Boatman said he had advised Home Office scientists carrying out research into “less lethal” weapons.

Last week he confirmed that he played a key role in bringing Taser to the UK. “I was the one who initially looked at the Taser and indicated that I think (sic) it would be a workable option in the UK.” Asked directly whether he was being paid by Taser while he carried out police research into “less lethal” weaponry he replied: “Of course not. I wasn’t allowed to because I was a police officer . . . As a serving police officer that would have been unlawful, unethical and immoral.

“My driving force was I wanted to help introduce tactics and equipment into the UK to make both the police forces and the members of the public that they serve . . . safer.”

Confronted later with evidence that he held a 50% stake in the distribution firm while still a serving officer, he said: “Let me just say this and be very clear: I have no comment about anything you may wish to ask about. ” He declined to answer whether his stake had been declared to the Home Office, Acpo or his senior officers.

Last week the Home Office, Northamptonshire police and Fox — now president of Acpo — also declined to answer the question.

Steve Ward, a vice-president at Taser International, said he was unaware Boatman held the stake while a serving officer.

Other questions have emerged about the independence of the process that led the Home Office and police forces to endorse the stun guns.

Among research considered by the Home Office from police in other countries during trials was a report by Darren Laur, a Canadian officer. Laur and six other serving or former officers in north America are now accused of accepting valuable share options from Taser International.

Court documents released last month in Arizona — where Taser is based — contain a deposition by Tom Smith, the company’s president, that show that all seven served in cities that bought stun guns.

Taser says the officers were not in a position to influence any buying decisions. It also states that the options were granted after the orders were placed. The Home Office said it reached its decision on the basis of independent research.

Serious concerns are also emerging over the safety and reliability of the tests carried out on Taser devices, both in Britain and America. The Securities and Exchange Commission, the US financial watchdog, last month began a formal inquiry into Taser International’s safety claims.

The manufacturer says there is evidence for only one death as a direct result of Taser fire.

There are also concerns over the readiness of police to resort to using the weapons. In Britain an investigation is continuing after police fired a Taser at a man on a bus in Leeds who failed to answer a challenge six days after the July 7 London bombings. It was later alleged he failed to respond because he was in a diabetic coma.

Please click on the following link to see Steve Tuttle's response to my previous post.

Did Tasers Kill Raoul Moat? UK Taser Supplier Found Dead

Boss of supply firm for Raoul Moat shooting taser 'commits suicide' after losing licence

Hoping I might find a word or two of sympathy for the family of Mr. Boatman after this terrible tragedy, I instead stumbled upon the following message on TWITTER from Taser International's VP of Communications, Steve Tuttle, on the wonders of the XREP:

Great video on #TASER #XREP concerning Green Bay PD. Good summary of how it works: http://bit.ly/bwSuMp
9 minutes ago via web

http://twitter.com/SteveTASER
Name Stephen Tuttle
Location Scottsdale, AZ
Web http://www.TASER.com
Bio VP of Comms for TASER, chief spokesman, crisis mgr & risk mgmt.

***********************************************************************

October 1, 2010
By Andrew Hough, telegraph.co.uk

A former policeman, Peter Boatman, whose firm supplied the controversial long range tasers which were fired at gunman Raoul Moat has died in a suspected suicide.

The director of operations of the Pro-Tect Systems, which supplied four experimental X-12 tasers used during the police stand-off, was found dead on Friday morning.

It is understood he had killed himself. Police did not confirm how he died but said a taser was not involved.

The 57 year-old worked as an inspector for Northamptonshire Police before leaving the force in 2002 to become a 50 per cent partner in Pro-Tect Systems.

His company gained a lucrative Government contract making him the only legal supplier of tasers in Britain. His company sold more than 4,000 stun-guns to police and military forces.

But earlier this week, the Home Office revoked Pro-Tect's licence to import and sell Tasers after the firm breached its terms by supplying the tasers directly to police involved in the Moat manhunt.

Five police vans were seen attending the father-of-two's home in Kingsthorpe, Northampton.

Officers arrived at his house at lunchtime on Friday before cordoning off the area.

He is believed to have lived at the property with his wife Stephanie, also a director of Pro-Tect Systems, daughter Chloe, 30, and son Kiel. Police officers were said to be comforting his family at the large detached four-bedroomed home.

Four vehicles with personalised numberplates containing the letters TSR, short for taser, were outside the property.

Kevin Coles, the company's managing director, said he and his colleagues were "devastated" by the news.

"After recent events he wasn't the man he was. We're all just dreadfully sorry for (his wife) Steph and the family," he said.

A spokesman for the Daventry-based Pro-Tect Systems said Mr Boatman's death was "an incredibly sad loss".

The firm paid tribute to Mr Boatman who had showed "incredible passion in bringing a friendly and committed outlook to all he met".

"It is with great regret we announce the tragic death of our colleague and great friend Peter Boatman today," the spokesman said.

"At this point, it is inappropriate to comment on this terrible news apart from saying we are devastated and are sharing a state of severe shock and grief with Peter's family.

"Since Peter has been a part of out business he has shown incredible passion in bringing a friendly and committed outlook to all he met."

He added: "His death is an incredibly sad loss and we extend out deepest condolences and thoughts to his family and friends at this very difficult time.

"We share in Peter's family request for privacy so we can all come to terms with today's awful news and we hope you can respect this."

A neighbour Rob Fisher, 45, who works as a financial advisor, disclosed how hard Mr Boatman worked.

"It's a tragic thing. Running a business like he did can be very stressful. I feel for his family," he said.

"When I heard the news a couple of nights ago I thought 'how devastating' because he had been working so hard for his company.

"He always got up at 6am in the morning and came back home very late. Peter was very welcoming and introduced us to the neighbourhood."

He added: "Earlier this afternoon an ambulance turned up and police cars came screeching around the cul-de-sac blocking the entrance. It was obvious something tragic had happened."

Another neighbour, who refused to be named, added: "He was a wonderful person, who had a great sense of humour. He will be sorely missed."

A Northamptonshire Police spokeswoman said: "Officers were called to an address in Reynard Way, Kingsthorpe, at 1.09pm this afternoon, where the body of a 57-year-old man was discovered.

"We are not treating the death as suspicious and will be preparing a report for the coroner.

"The family do not wish to be contacted and members of the press are asked to respect their privacy."

Pro-Tect was facing possible action by Northamptonshire Police over the breach of the licence.

Speaking after the Home Office revoked the firm's licence on Tuesday, Superintendent Sean Bell, the force's head of operations, said: "We are now considering whether or not to take further action against Pro-Tect in connection with breaching the conditions of their licence."

Former police officer Mr Boatman was in charge of assessing the merits of Taser as head of operational training for the force.

Home Secretary Theresa May revoked the firm's licence to import and sell Tasers following an investigation into the use of the weapons at the end of one of Britain's biggest manhunts.

Pro-Tect breached its licence by supplying the X12 Tasers and XRep ammunition, which were still being tested by the Home Office, directly to two police forces, the Home Office said.

Armed police fired two Tasers at Moat in an "effort to stop him taking his own life" in the Riverside park area in Rothbury, Northumberland, in the early hours of July 10, an inquest at Newcastle Civic Centre was told.

The Tasers can deliver up to 20 seconds of electric shock in bullet-like capsules from a standard 12-gauge shotgun or a X12 Taser.

Mrs May revoked Pro-Tect's licence after inquiries revealed it supplied the Tasers, which should have only been supplied to the Home Office Science and Development Branch (HOSDB), directly to police.

The firm also breached the rules "governing the secure transport of the devices and ammunition", the Home Office said.

There was no suggestion any blame should be attached to the officers involved and the Home Office has stressed police could use any weapon they saw fit as long as its use was "lawful, reasonable and proportionate".

The stand-off with the steroid-addicted former nightclub doorman ended the seven-day manhunt which was triggered when Moat shot his former girlfriend, Samantha Stobbart, 22, killed her new boyfriend, Chris Brown, 29, and blinded Pc David Rathband, 42.

But the precise sequence of events regarding the discharge of the XRep Tasers in relation to Moat firing his sawn-off shotgun has not been established and is under investigation by the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC), the inquest into his death was told.

Steve Reynolds, of the IPCC, said: "The review of tactics will consider the deployment and use of the XRep Taser."

The Pro-Tect Systems spokesman said it could not comment while the IPCC investigation was going on.

Mr Boatman publicly denied claims that Tasers could be dangerous and showed his confidence of their safety by firing one at his wife, in November 2004.

She fell to the ground in agony as her husband shot the full 50,000 volts into her back but quickly recovered and stood back to her feet.

Taser Wars: Stocks, Lies and Audiotapes

September 28, 2010
Sharon Weinberger, AOL News

Nonlethal weapons aren't normally considered a cutthroat business area, but documents filed in a lawsuit over the Taser stun gun suggest the stakes were high enough to set off an industrial espionage scheme worthy of Boris Badenov and Natasha Fatale.

The often-convoluted -- and at times comical -- back-and-forth is described in court filings related to a 2009 lawsuit.

Taser International, which sells the eponymous stun gun, sued James McNulty, an engineer and attorney, and Stinger Systems, another stun gun manufacturer. Among other allegations, Taser accuses McNulty and Stinger of trying to manipulate the price of Taser's stock.

The Taser stun gun is a nonlethal device that uses an electrical current to incapacitate its victim. Taser International markets several variants, including a popular law enforcement model that works by shooting two darts attached to wires.

McNulty, a longtime nemesis of the world's largest stun gun manufacturer, denies Taser's charges. He also has a few of his own accusations. In a recent court filing, McNulty claims Taser International concocted a scheme to have another stun gun entrepreneur make secret recordings in an effort to implicate him in the alleged scheme.

According to court documents, which include internal company e-mails detailing the plan, Taser directed Paul Feldman, then-president of the Raleigh, N.C.-based Law Enforcement Associates, to record more than half a dozen audio recordings of McNulty.

Law Enforcement Associates specialized in covert audio- and video-recording devices, according to the company's website. It was also at one point trying to enter the stun gun business.

Feldman, according to a statement filed by John Chudy, agreed to make the recordings because he believed Taser would invest in Law Enforcement Associates; a promise Feldman later felt Taser did not fulfill. Chudy, who had worked with Feldman's company on a stun gun, said Feldman had related the recording-for-investment story in a rambling phone confession about the ill-fated scheme.

McNulty first learned of the secret audio recording from other employees at Feldman's company, according to court documents. McNulty often provided them with generous Christmas gifts, like Movado watches. They warned him that Feldman was in touch with Taser and secretly recording him.

The engineer's dealings with stun guns predate Taser International; McNulty worked with John Culver, the original creator of the Taser, who later licensed the stun gun technology to Taser International. "I was a member of John Culver's research staff," McNulty told AOL News in an interview.

Over the years, however, McNulty has emerged as an uber-nemesis of the company, which has been a stock market darling for many years because of its rapid growth in the law-enforcement market. Taser International and McNulty have since engaged in a series of lawsuits and countersuits.

For both sides the legal battle appears to have become personal. In his court filings, McNulty refers to Taser's "crap sham stock" and accuses Feldman, who made the secret recordings, of "reptilian behavior."

For Taser, this sort of language is part of the problem.

"TASER seeks monetary damages and injunctive relief because of the defendants' ongoing plot to damage TASER through fraudulent and misleading press releases, defamatory 'whisper campaigns' to potential customers and investors of TASER, and the Defendants' use of lawsuits for marketing purposes, rather than as a vehicle for seeking relief from the Court," Steve Tuttle, the Taser spokesman, wrote to AOL News.

Taser's most public legal tangles have been with victims of its stun gun device. They have sued the company for wrongful death or injury, claims that the company has so far successfully defeated in the courts. But alongside those lawsuits over the safety of the Taser has been a series of legal battles, like the current one, fought with other makers of stun guns over patents and business practices.

The current allegations of secret recordings may be only the latest twist in the company's protracted legal battles, but it's a claim that Taser, in formal questioning, originally denied. "Taser did not develop or initiate a plan to make audio recordings of McNulty's conversation with with Mr. Feldman," Taser responded to one interrogatory.

Taser e-mails that Feldman obtained and submitted to the court tell a different story. Those e-mails appear to show Rick Smith, the CEO of Taser International, urging Feldman to get McNulty to implicate himself in plans to ruin Taser.

"Draw him out to boast of past misdeeds," Smith instructs Feldman in one e-mail.

"We can without doubt get the audio you want," Feldman replies to another e-mail.

McNulty referred questions about the litigation to court documents.

In a statement to AOL News, Taser spokesman Tuttle repeated the company's argument -- also made in court documents -- that Feldman acted of his own accord, and Taser only became involved in the recordings at a later date. "Mr. Feldman ... has testified, unequivocally in his recent deposition, that he did not record any conversations with Mr. McNulty at TASER's direction," Tuttle wrote in an e-mail.

Feldman, when reached by AOL News at home, declined to comment.

In his court filings, McNulty questions the legality of the audio recordings in Taser's possession, pointing out that some of the covertly made recordings may have violated wiretap laws, which differ from state to state. Whether legal or not, the e-mails about the recording paint a portrait of Taser as a company willing to resort to elaborate private espionage.

Taser CEO Smith in one e-mail writes the phrase, "SCRIPT OUTLINE," and goes on to describe how Feldman should solicit information from McNulty, including coaching Feldman to claim he was "afraid" of Taser. In an e-mail to Taser's general counsel, Doug Klint, Smith proceeds to outline what he thinks should be Feldman's question areas, including finding out information on journalists McNulty may be speaking to.

"Who else has he collaborated with, or caused to take action against TASER (media, analysts, etc.)," Smith wrote as part of the instructions for Feldman, according to the e-mail filed in the court documents.

Apparently audio recordings may not have been the only thing Taser was after. In another document submitted by McNulty, the general counsel asks Feldman whether he could be outfitted with a pinhole camera. "We would love to get the guy on video," Klint writes.

The message concludes with the signature line: "Protect the lives that matter most to you with the new TASER C2 Personal Protector."

In the meantime, the war between McNulty and Taser doesn't look like it'll end anytime soon. McNulty announced Monday in a press release that, as part of that lawsuit, he was countersuing with a new claim against Taser. He says the company was infringing on his patents for a new weapon that works using wireless ammunition shells, rather than darts attached to wires.

Wireless technology, McNulty says, could render the current generation of stun guns obsolete.

Taser Is Sued by Inventor James McNulty for Patent Infringement

September 27, 2010
PR Newswire

ONE OF WORLD'S LARGEST AEROSPACE MANUFACTURERS MAY HAVE FINANCIAL INTEREST IN SUIT.

LAS VEGAS, Sept. 27 /PRNewswire/ -- Inventor James McNulty, a senior member of the Society of Manufacturing Engineers, who was a member of the research staff of the late TASER inventor John "Jack" Cover and instrumental in development of the early law enforcement model TASERS™, today announced that he has sued Taser International, Inc. (Nasdaq: TASR) for patent infringement for its nascent production of wireless TASER shells, that can be discharged from conventional firearms (federal case docket no. 2:09-cv-00289-KJD-PAL). The suit claims that Taser sells the shells in violation of McNulty's "5,831,199" and "6,877,434" patents. The suit seeks an injunction against further sales, compensatory, exemplary (punitive) and enhanced damages and attorney's fees. A case filing lists the aerospace giant BAE Systems, Ltd., manufacturer of the Harrier Jump Jet, and its affiliate Defense Technology Corporation as entities that may have a direct financial interest in the successful outcome of McNulty's case.

Documents produced in the suit and other public filings show that affiliates of a number of the world's 10 largest defense contractors are potential competitors of Taser for any substantial military markets that may develop for less lethal electronic shock weapons.

Documents produced in the suit show that one affiliate has already developed in competition with Taser's X12™ and X RAIL™ a combination weapon, that fires ammunition cartridges that can also be interchangeably fired from and sold as replacement ammunition for Taser's X26 and M26 stun pistols, and that the affiliate has already manufactured stocks of thousands of the ammunition rounds.

McNulty, a 27 year participant in the industry commented, "Documents already produced in the case show that this competitive ammunition technology has application in the law enforcement market for TASERS™ and TASER™ ammunition. Securities and Exchange Commission filings show that resale of ammunition for the over 359,000 M26 and X26 stun pistols, which have been sold by Taser to the law enforcement market, is a significant source of revenue for the company. In its last reported quarter ending June 30, 2010, Taser's ammunition cartridge sales accounted for over 25% of its total business. Taser has no basic patents that prevent any other company from manufacturing and selling competing ammunition for the X26 and M26 products.

The prospect in my opinion is that Taser shall fight for ever smaller shares of competitively diminishing law enforcement and military markets for projectile stun guns and ammunition and against interest of such behemoth enterprises. Taser's Securities and Exchange Commission filings show that many of Taser's assets are plant and equipment, intellectual property and inventory for manufacture and sale of its current line of stun pistols and ammo. The value of these types of assets can quickly vaporize with advent of new competitive electronic control device technologies. I shall vigorously protect my advanced IP in this field for its licensees/prospective licensees."

Is taser the perfect stock? 3/10 - keep searching

September 24, 2010
By Dan Caplinger, Motley Fool

Everyone would love to find the perfect stock. But will you ever really find a stock that gives you everything you could possibly want?

One thing's for sure: If you don't look, you'll never find truly great investments. So let's first take a look at what you'd want to see from a perfect stock, and then decide if TASER (Nasdaq: TASR) fits the bill.

The quest for perfection
When you're looking for great stocks, you have to do your due diligence. It's not enough to rely on a single measure, because a stock that looks great based on one factor may turn out to be horrible in other ways. The best stocks, however, excel in many different areas, which all come together to make up a very attractive picture.

Some of the most basic yet important things to look for in a stock are:

•Growth. Expanding businesses show healthy revenue growth. While past growth is no guarantee that revenue will keep rising, it's certainly a better sign than a stagnant top line.

•Margins. Higher sales don't mean anything if a company can't turn them into profits. Strong margins ensure a company is able to turn revenue into profit.

•Balance sheet. Debt-laden companies have banks and bondholders competing with shareholders for management's attention. Companies with strong balance sheets don't have to worry about the distraction of debt.

•Money-making opportunities. Companies need to be able to turn their resources into profitable business opportunities. Return on equity helps measure how well a company is finding those opportunities.

•Valuation. You can't afford to pay too much for even the best companies. Earnings multiples are simple, but using normalized figures gives you a sense of how valuation fits into a longer-term context.

•Dividends. Investors are demanding tangible proof of profits, and there's nothing more tangible than getting a check every three months. Companies with solid dividends and strong commitments to increasing payouts treat shareholders well.
With those factors in mind, let's take a closer look at TASER.

Factor
What We Want to See
Actual
Pass or Fail?

Growth
5-Year Annual Revenue Growth > 15%
10.3%
fail

1-Year Revenue Growth > 12%
5.3%
fail

Margins
Gross Margin > 35%
58.5%
pass

Net Margin > 15%
(0.7%)
fail

Balance Sheet
Debt to Equity < 50%
0.0%
pass

Current Ratio > 1.3
6.87
pass

Opportunities
Return on Equity > 15%
(0.6%)
fail

Valuation
Normalized P/E < 20
NM
fail

Dividends
Current Yield > 2%
0.0%
fail

5-Year Dividend Growth > 10%
0.0%
fail

Total Score
3 out of 10

Source: Capital IQ, a division of Standard and Poor's. NM = not meaningful; TASER has a net loss over the past 12 months. Total score = number of passes.

A score of 3 isn't even good, let alone perfect. But TASER has seen a once-promising business turn into disappointment, as big profits in 2007 turned out to be a one-time phenomenon. The failure is particularly disappointing in light of how other self-defense-related businesses have performed financially. Olin Corp. (NYSE: OLN) has seen its Winchester ammunition business soar, quadrupling its profits since 2006. Even as Sturm Ruger (NYSE: RGR) and Smith & Wesson (Nasdaq: SWHC) gained investor attention and boosted share prices in the past year and a half with their sales of more aggressive self-defense alternatives to stun guns, TASER couldn't generate profits, and shares fell steadily .

What TASER has going for it is a clean balance sheet and decent gross margins. But until the company can figure out how to be profitable, it doesn't look like a good bet for investors.

Keep searching
No stock is a sure thing, but some stocks are a lot closer to perfect than others. By looking for the perfect stock, you'll go a long way toward improving your investing prowess and learning how to separate out the best investments from the rest.

Traders Abandon Ship on Shares of Taser International, Shares Down 2.1% (TASR)

July 8, 2010
SmarTrend

Taser International (NASDAQ:TASR) is one of today's worst performing low-priced stocks, down 2.1% to $3.71 on 0.2x average daily volume. Approximately 321,000 shares have traded hands today vs. 30-day average volume of 1.3 million shares.
High volume often signals a change in trends. Shares of Taser International are currently trading below their 50-day moving average (MA) of $4.36 and below their 200-day MA of $5.05.

SmarTrend scans for speculative low-price stocks under $5 for reversals in trends. A large price movement may signal continuation or reversal of a trend.

Taser International is in SmarTrend's Aerospace/Defense industry and this industry is currently in a Downtrend. An industry trend that matches the stock's trend helps to add conviction to the stock's Downtrend and price prediction.

SmarTrend is bearish on shares of Taser International and our subscribers were alerted to sell on March 29, 2010 at $5.99. The stock has fallen 38.1% since the alert was issued.

Sluggish Sales: Taser International sees new opportunities in wildlife control

June 12, 2010
by John Yantis, The Arizona Republic

Sluggish sales at Scottsdale-based Taser International have the company targeting a new market for its stun guns: wildlife.

Taser and the Alaska Department of Fish and Game are testing the guns on distressed or aggressive wayward animals, including moose, bears and deer. Officials say the devices are successful because animals recover more quickly from an electric shock than the more traditional darts containing narcotics.

But animal-rights activists question the stun guns' safety and say the Tasers cause the animals overwhelming pain. Instead, they argue that loud noises such as horns and whistles can be used to run animals off.

They suggest pepper spray for personal safety and installing fencing or applying pepper-based repellents to keep animals away. Lastly, they say the state should require bear-proof enclosures around restaurant trash bins and make it illegal to feed wildlife.

"In extreme nuisance-wildlife cases, large wild animals (without young) can be live-trapped and relocated," the group People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals said in an e-mail. "The safest and most humane way to deal with unwanted wild animals is to leave them alone. With a little time, they will move on. With a little thought, these issues can be resolved without resorting to high voltage."

Taser is familiar with controversy. For years, it has used an aggressive strategy for fighting product-liability and wrongful-death lawsuits over the use of its law-enforcement stun guns.

A sour economy has the company experiencing lower sales recently because of slow demand for its guns, particularly overseas. In April, Taser reported it lost $492,605, or 1 cent per share, in the fourth quarter on revenue of $23.8 million. Taser attributed the 3 percent decline in revenue to a slowdown in international sales that offset modest increases in the U.S.

Taser CEO Rick Smith said then that the company continues to work on diversifying through new software products, such as its Protector cellphone-monitoring system, which parents can use to see who their kids call or text. The company also recently began offering its first multishot stun gun and a video-recording device for police officers, as well as stun guns for personal safety.

Taser is hopeful the wildlife research that it began with Alaska four years ago will help drive orders in a new area.

"With four years of hard work, this now establishes some really solid research," said Steve Tuttle, a Taser spokesman. "We've never really had an agency of this size formally accept it after testing like this."

Tasers have a range of 35 feet and cost $800.

Local animal-control agencies in the past used the guns sporadically for aggressive dogs, moose and deer. They usually deploy them so they can subdue the animals, harness them and move them to safety.

"You'd be shocked how many deer will jump through windows of homes up in Michigan and Canada," Tuttle said, adding that moose tangled up in fences also present problems in some areas. "Nobody will go near these animals, but if they can control them, they'll use a Taser."

The guns are proving to be a viable option for wildlife managers when dealing with angry and confused animals, said Larry Lewis, an Alaska Fish and Game wildlife technician.

"We're finding there doesn't appear to be any deleterious long-term effects to the animals that are subjected to an electronic-control device if it's done properly," Lewis said.

Last winter, he and a supervisor received a call about a yearling male moose with a galvanized chicken feeder stuck over its head. The animal had put is nose down through the top of the feeder and couldn't see well. The situation was bad enough that Lewis shot the moose with a Taser to knock it down. His boss ran over, pulled the feeder off and checked for injuries. Seeing none, he came back to Lewis, who turned off the stun gun.

"The animal got up and ran off," Lewis said. "We didn't have to use drugs. There's always an inherent risk anytime we dart animals. Some of these drugs are very dangerous to work with."

Other methods that can be used to subdue animals include rubber bullets, pepper spray, bean-bag rounds and regular firearms.

The American Veterinary Medical Association has a formal policy against using Tasers, saying they can be lethal and should not be used on cats or other small animals.

When using tranquilizing guns, a large dose of medication is shot from a long distance into the animals with a .22-caliber shell, and it has to hit a specific spot, said Andrew Hinz, Taser director of technical services. He said there is a 60 percent to 70 percent mortality rate when using the guns with large doses of medication.

By deploying a Taser, wildlife managers are able to subdue the animals for up to 15 seconds, approach them and hand-inject the sedative into a specific location. The result, he said, is less impact on the animal's physiology. Hinz couldn't provide a comparable Taser mortality rate. But he said a Wake Forest University study, funded by the National Institute of Justice, showed a low rate of serious injury with a Taser device compared with other uses of force.

He said big moose and brown bears pay little attention to rubber bullets.

The company is receiving calls from wildlife officials from several states in the Midwest and West, where the stun guns could be useful against black bears and elk. He also expects a market to develop in Canada.

"Even ranchers in Montana, where they have their steers, they're looking at the safety of actually using this device," he said.

Lewis has taken calls from as far away as Africa, Britain and the Yukon Territory.

He recently presented his research to peers who attended a workshop in Alberta on the conflicts between humans and bears.

"I went in there fully expecting to be accosted and run out on a rail over this use," he said. "I was really pleasantly surprised. Even the people that I thought would be totally opposed to it actually embraced it and said, 'We think this is great. If an animal's life is saved, we're 100 percent for it.' "

Lewis and the Alaska state veterinarian carry Tasers full time. A select group of area biologists and conservation staff was recently trained to use them, Lewis said. He added that they may one day be used in animal-handing facilities, including zoos, stockyards and research facilities.

"We look at the electronic-control devices as another option for people to use in the field," he said. "It's another tool on the tool belt, basically. I still carry firearms and still use rubber baton and bean-bag rounds and all these other tools that we use, but Taser is now part of our arsenal."

Cruel and Deadly Experiments Conducted at Hennepin County Medical Center Likely Violated Law

For Immediate Release:
April 14, 2010

Contact:
Justin Goodman 757-622-7382

Minneapolis -- After learning about inhumane and ineffective Taser experiments that were conducted at Hennepin County Medical Center on methamphetamine-dosed sheep--experiments that were partially funded by Taser International--PETA has fired off a complaint to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) calling for an immediate investigation into the experiments, which the group believes may have violated federal animal protection laws. A review of USDA records has revealed that Hennepin County Medical Center appears not to be licensed to conduct animal experiments on sheep and other regulated animals, as is required by law, and that the experiments apparently did not undergo proper ethical and scientific review. As a result, the experiments could be in violation of the Animal Welfare Act.

"Sheep don't do drugs and don't resist arrest--and they aren't good stand-ins for humans who do," says Kathy Guillermo, vice president of PETA's Laboratory Investigations Department. "Taser is apparently so dead set on proving that stun guns aren't dangerous, it's willing to subject sheep to deadly and irrelevant experiments that may violate the law to do it."

In the study, 16 sheep were restrained, dosed with methamphetamines and shocked with a Taser device for up to 40 seconds at a time. At the end of the study, the animals were killed. The study's authors include Taser's medical director, Jeffrey Ho, and Donald Dawes, a physician who advises Taser. Both of the men own shares in the company.

PETA, medical experts, and the authors of the new study themselves have noted that the results of animal studies on the cardiac effects of Taser shocks do not translate to humans and have frequently contradicted results from human studies. This is largely due to the fundamental biological differences between species and the fact that there is a vast difference between tasering humans on the street and tasering animals in a laboratory. Superior, human-relevant data on the effects of tasering are collected via post-tasering medical monitoring and tests on human volunteers.

Worker affidavits allege Taser problems

December 9, 2008
CTV - ctvbc.ca

CTV News has obtained court documents that suggest thousands of Tasers may be defective. The documents are the words of insiders -- factory workers at the Arizona plant which makes the controversial devices.

The workers expressed concern about the stun-guns firing excessive electrical charges in affidavits signed for a 2005 lawsuit.

The lawsuit was brought against Taser International by its own shareholders, who were concerned the company had not disclosed safety deficiencies.

Some former Taser workers at the Scottsdale factory believed some of the weapons should not have been shipped out from the factory, and alleged that there was a serious lack of quality control in the factory.

One employee expressed concern in a signed statement about how the Tasers were firing inconsistently, stating "sometimes it [a Taser unit] would go really, really fast and sometimes real slow, sometimes it wouldn't do it at all and sometimes it wouldn't quit."

Another employee claimed defective units were shipped, but did not know how many because "Taser failed to closely weed out bad product."

According to the court documents, as many as 6,000 weapons were returned in one month alone because of alleged defects.

The former employees also claimed defective Tasers that had been returned were sawn open, the high voltage circuit boards were removed and "simply put in new casings with new serial numbers and sent out again without the flaws actually being rectified."

Taser settled the lawsuit for $20 million.

In Canada, Liberal public safety critic Ujjal Dosanjh expressed his opinion that the employee allegations are alarming

"If they weren't true, they wouldn't be settling for $20 million dollars with the claimants, with their own shareholders," said Dosanjh.

"If these allegations are correct, the manufacturer has been selling retreaded weapons in a sense, as original and brand new."

This comes as B.C.'s Solicitor General announced that B.C. municipal police forces will pull the plug on all Tasers acquired before 2006 over concerns they may generate shocks higher than the manufacturer specifies.

John van Dongen said Tuesday that municipal chiefs of police unanimously agreed to the remove the older shock weapons from service after testing showed the voltage sometimes exceeded the weapon specs.

B.C. Corrections, the provincial sheriff's service and transit police will also stop using the pre-2006 Tasers and van Dongen said RCMP, too, have called older Tasers in for immediate testing.

Earlier, concerns had led the RCMP to order testing for 24 older Tasers.

Quebec's justice minister ordered certain models of the Taser off that province's streets.

With a report from CTV British Columbia's Peter Grainger

Gannett papers shocked by taser’s claims

December 5, 2008
By Shahien Nasiripour, Centre for Investigative Reporting

Taser International Inc., the world’s largest stun-gun manufacturer, allegedly made false statements to the Securities and Exchange Commission concerning an agreement with two of the nation’s largest newspapers, according to the newspapers’ representatives and documents obtained by the Center for Investigative Reporting.

The statements stem from the 2006 settlement of Taser’s libel suit against Gannett Co., Inc, the parent corporation of the two newspapers—USA Today and the Arizona Republic. Taser claimed in two SEC filings that the newspapers “would review articles regarding the Taser device with us prior to publication”—an extraordinary breach of journalistic standards. Taser’s general counsel initially stated the claim to Wall Street analysts in an earnings conference call, adding that it was “in order to ensure accuracy.”

The newspapers, which were unaware of Taser's claim until their lawyer was contacted recently by CIR, deny ever making such an agreement, and have demanded that Taser formally correct the record. Initially, Taser was reluctant to amend its statements and the newspapers were considering further action, according to interviews with parties on both sides. Representatives of Taser and Gannett are currently in discussions to settle the dispute. The SEC declined to comment on the allegations.

The Scottsdale, Ariz.-based stun-gun maker and its hometown paper have had a contentious history, resulting from the Republic’s detailed reporting, from 2004-2006, about the company and the safety concerns of its flagship product, which is used by more than 13,000 law enforcement, correctional, and military agencies around the world.

Its sister Gannett paper, USA Today, has also angered Taser, particularly after publishing a June 2005 story and graphic that significantly overstated the electrical output of Taser’s X26-model stun gun. Taser contacted the newspaper and the story was corrected the next day of publication.

But a few weeks later Taser sued, claiming that the Republic and USA Today “engaged in the ongoing publication of misleading articles related to the safety of Taser products, resulting in substantial economic damages to us, our customers and our shareholders.” Taser claimed the newspapers’ stories cost company shareholders more than one billion dollars in lost value.

Maricopa County (Ariz.) Superior Court Judge Paul J. McMurdie rejected Taser’s claims in granting Gannett’s motion for summary judgment. In his Jan. 25, 2006 ruling, he awarded McLean, Va.-based Gannett attorneys’ fees after finding one of the claims “clearly unjustified.” About three weeks later, the two sides asked the court to formally dismiss Taser’s claims—and with it Taser’s right to an appeal—while Gannett withdrew its claim to attorneys’ fees, court records show.

“It was a total victory,” said David Bodney, Gannett’s attorney in the case. But that’s not how Taser reported it to the SEC, or to Wall Street analysts who covered the company.

In a Feb. 22, 2006 conference call with financial analysts, Douglas Klint, Taser’s general counsel and executive vice president, said: “Our lawsuit against Gannett Company Incorporated was dismissed with the understanding that, in the future, the USA Today and the Arizona Republic newspapers would review their Taser stories with the company prior to publishing in order to ensure accuracy,” according to a transcript of the call.

The next month, in its Form 10-K filing, Taser wrote: “the parties entered into a stipulation for dismissal with the understanding that the USA Today and the Arizona Republic would review articles regarding the Taser device with us prior to publication.” That statement was repeated in the company’s May 18, 2006 quarterly report to the SEC.

Only one Wall Street analyst who was a participant in the February conference call, Matthew McKay, formerly of Jefferies & Co., responded to an interview request. McKay said the statement in question influenced his coverage. He concluded that the settlement terms appeared to benefit Taser and represented “a big-time opportunity” for investors.

Current San Francisco Chronicle editor Ward Bushee, the Republic’s editor at the time of the settlement, and Randy Lovely, the Republic’s current editor, said they were unaware of Taser’s statements until asked about them recently by CIR, and denied that any such agreement ever existed.

“Taser's assertion in the SEC filing is completely false,” Lovely said. “The Arizona Republic would never allow a source to review a story prior to publication. To do so would completely violate our journalist principles and standards of independence. The Republic has aggressively reported on Taser during the past few years, and we stand behind the full scope and accuracy of our stories.”

Taser counsel Klint initially defended the statements in an interview with CIR, pointing to a letter about the settlement from Bodney which states that the newspapers and Taser agreed to “endeavor to communicate and interact with one another in a professional manner…In turn, Taser will make its executives or public relations personnel available for comment.”

Klint said the word “comment” implies that the company would review stories prior to publication. “How in the world can we comment on a story without them reviewing the story with us?” he reasons. “We can’t comment on something we can’t review.”

“That’s preposterous,” countered Bodney:

His interpretation of that statement is inaccurate. There’s a vast difference between a reporter calling the subject of an allegation for comment … and giving the subject of the allegation a right to review the story prior to publication. Unfortunately, Taser’s statement to the SEC gives the impression that USA Today and the Arizona Republic gave Taser the right to review stories about them prior to publication. It’s inaccurate and misleading…. What [Taser] promised to investors and the SEC—that’s the last thing we would have promised them, especially since we settled the lawsuit with the expectation that we’d hear nothing further from them about it.

Bodney said he pushed for a quick dismissal of the case in part to stop Taser’s attempt to get access to “all documents referring or relating to Taser” used by Republic reporters during the newspaper’s investigation of the company.

Klint said Taser has not been pre-reviewing the newspapers’ articles prior to publication. But he defended Taser’s interpretation of the settlement, saying the company accurately paraphrased the language spelling out the settlement terms:

[For the newspapers] to characterize it as a total fabrication is really a misstatement… We probably should have said we were going to have the opportunity to review [the stories] and provide comment … Could we have gone into more detail? Absolutely. Did we have to? No, we didn’t.

Taser had been the subject of numerous articles published from 2004 to 2006 in newspapers around the country that questioned the company's safety claims about its stun guns and the independence and thoroughness of its medical and scientific testing. Taser claimed its weapons were nonlethal, but newspapers—particularly the Republic—were reporting that medical examiners were increasingly linking police in-custody deaths with shocks from Taser stun guns. Taser denounced the news media coverage.

In July 2004 the Republic published an article that reported medical examiners had linked Tasers with at least five deaths. In March 2005 the newspaper reported that a forensic engineer was warning police departments that Tasers could kill, and that several law enforcement agencies had halted Taser deployments, citing safety concerns.

Taser denounced the news media coverage.

In a September 2005 news release challenging an impending Republic report that Taser gave stock options to police officers who then promoted Taser stun guns, Taser CEO Rick Smith referred to a "history of biased and misleading reporting" by the newspaper. He said, "I am personally incensed that the Arizona Republic plans to target Taser International with yet another biased report, alleging misconduct where none exists."

In announcing the lawsuit against the newspapers, Taser CEO Rick Smith said in a news release: "Over the course of this biased campaign, more than one billion dollars of shareholder value has been erased. Further, we have reason to believe that some law enforcement agencies delayed deploying Taser devices based on this false and misleading information. These delays or cancelled deployments may have resulted in officers resorting to other, potentially more dangerous force options, thereby causing unnecessary injuries or even loss of life due to these irresponsible reports."

Indeed, Taser's stock price nosedived during the period of the Republic's most critical reports. From July 16, 2004—the Friday before the paper's first critical investigative feature—to July 1, 2005—the day the lawsuit was announced—Taser's stock price dropped 50 percent. By comparison, the Standard & Poor's 500-stock index was up more than seven percent during the same period, and the Nasdaq—the market Taser shares trade on—was up nearly six percent.

Taser’s statements to the SEC have been called into question in the past. In January 2005, the SEC began an informal inquiry into Taser’s safety claims; that same week, the Arizona Attorney General’s office said it, too, was looking into those claims. The SEC inquiry expanded into an official investigation, but no action was taken. The attorney general’s inquiry ended after Taser agreed to modify its marketing language.

In January 2005, Taser shareholders, citing numerous news reports from around the country, launched a class-action suit against the company, alleging they had been misled about the safety of Taser’s products. The suit eventually was settled for nearly $22 million, of which Taser’s portion was about $18 million, with the company’s insurance carrier covering the rest.

In August 2007, Bloomberg News reported that the company had settled at least ten product-liability lawsuits alleging personal injury—lawsuits that Taser had claimed, in news releases and in its SEC filings, to have won through a court dismissal or judgment in its favor. The company now acknowledges these settlements clearly in its filings.

False statements to the SEC about material facts which are likely to influence investors could result in sanctions, civil lawsuits by shareholders who suffered losses due to the alleged misrepresentation, or criminal action if regulators determine that the misstatements were intended to mislead investors, according to Jesse M. Fried, a law professor at the University of California, Berkeley, and co-director of the Berkeley Center for Law, Business and the Economy.

“When you’re dealing with SEC issues, the standard is material misstatement,” Klint notes. “There’s absolutely no way this is a material misstatement.”

Fried says it’s unlikely any formal action by regulators would result in this instance. He said a reasonable investor wouldn’t base his decision to buy or sell Taser stock on the company’s right to review newspaper articles prior to publication, and, in any case, reviewing articles doesn’t necessarily guarantee the right to veto publication.

But former Jeffries & Co. analyst McKay, whose coverage of Taser from 2005 until earlier this year helped investors decide whether to buy or sell Taser International stock, said news of the purported settlement presented an “opportunity” for investors.

McKay, who participated in the 2006 conference call with Klint, acknowledged that the critical news media coverage of Taser and its products had hurt company sales and its stock price, and that with news of the settlement, the critical coverage “…was an issue that was going to come off the table. One less negative thing you'd have to deal with regarding the company.”

“I thought, all right, you’ve got some bad news out there that has impacted the share price in a negative way,” McKay said in a recent interview. “As a stock analyst, here was an opportunity to jump in and make my clients money. [USA Today and the Republic] didn’t have the facts right, and as a result the valuation of the company was off,” he said. “To me, it was a big-time opportunity.”

McKay, who believed “there was good being done by Taser” in saving lives, said Taser felt “that USA Today and the Arizona Republic just wanted to write negative stories about Taser, that they wanted to make it as sensational as they possibly could. It’s why they were so defensive with the media,” he said.

Bob Steele, a journalism values scholar at the Poynter Institute and journalism ethics professor at DePauw University, explained why pre-publication review of stories could violate the trust readers have that coverage is credible:

If a news organization were to have such a formal legal agreement with a company it’s covering, then that news organization’s past, present and future coverage of that company would be suspect. The readers would have every right to wonder if the newspaper had pulled punches when it came to reporting truthful, meaningful information. There would be questions of whether the newspaper bowed to the wishes or pressures of the subject of the story to back off a certain element or change the tone. One could easily wonder if the story could be tainted.

McKay applied the concept to his work as an analyst covering Taser, noting, “For me, I knew there was no way in hell they'd review anything I wrote prior to it being published. I really don’t want [USA Today and the Republic] reviewing articles with the company because the news gets tainted. It becomes biased. I don’t want that either. I just want the media reviewing with Taser how the device works and making sure they get those facts correct.”

A version of this story initially ran at cjr.org, the Web site of the Columbia Journalism Review. Shahien Nasiripour is a reporting fellow at the Center for Investigative Reporting.

Truth ... not tasers in the financial spotlight

I was pleased to learn this evening (thanks Excited-Delirium) that my blog made it onto the Google Finance TASER International, Inc. page under the Blog Post listing (right side of the page). Taser shares are in the toilet, trading at 5.02 (or -0.02 (-0.40%)).

Not only is this blog listed (today) in the #1 spot, but the lyrics to my mom's new "song," Taser Me Baby, are prominently featured. Could a recording contract be next?!

Taser lower on charges from California jury

June 9, 2008
Jennifer Schonberger, smallcapinvestor.com

Shares of Taser International, Inc. (Nasdaq:TASR) are lower in pre-market trading after a California jury penalized the stun-gun maker Saturday for contributing to the death of Robert Heston in February 2005. The jury charged the Scottsdale, Ariz.-based firm with roughly $1 million in compensatory damages and $5.2 million in punitive damages, stating that Taser’s ECD contributed 15% to the death of Mr. Heston.

Shares fell 7.2%, or $0.50, to $6.40 in pre-market trading.

Doubts on taser China sales

March 26, 2008
Associated Press - Forbes.com

NEW YORK - Shares of stun-gun maker Taser International were little changed Wednesday after an analyst threw cold water on what he described as a false rumor of Taser sales to the Chinese government.

The Scottsdale, Ariz., company's stock rose 3.4 percent Tuesday. Merriman Curhan Ford analyst Eric Wold said reports circulated that China would order Taser products to deal with Tibet-related protests and security for the upcoming summer Olympics. But Wold thinks those sales are prohibited by U.S. law.

The sale of military technology to China and Iran is illegal, he said. Wold believes Taser products would be considered military technology, and he said the company's representatives backed his view.

Taser International (nasdaq: TASR - news - people ) Inc. shares rose 6 cents to $10.21.

Taser International Director Bruce R. Culver exercises options for 25,000 shares

March 4, 2008
Associated Press

NEW YORK - A director of Taser International Inc. exercised options for 25,000 shares of common stock, according to a Securities and Exchange Commission filing Monday. In a Form 4 filed with the SEC, Bruce R. Culver reported he exercised options for 38 cents each and then sold them the same day for $11.72 each. Insiders file Form 4s with the SEC to report transactions in their companies' shares. Open market purchases and sales must be reported within two business days of the transaction. Taser International is based in Scottsdale, Arizona.

Is TASER telling the truth?

July 31, 2006
Tim Beyers, The Motley Fool

This report represents one of the many elements to the taser story that keeps me here. Although this particular report was published in July 2006, it bears repeating for those who may be new to this.

Another article published on August 2, 2007 sheds more light on this strange phenomenon of truth-shifting.

Taser settled 10 of 52 cases it told investors were "dismissed"

August 2, 2007
Margaret Cronin Fisk and Jon Steinman, Bloomberg

"Taser stock has climbed 51 percent in the past two years as it issued press releases on rulings in its favor. The shares have risen an average of 2 percent, and as much as 11 percent, on the day of the announcements. Lawsuits and other allegations that the weapons were unsafe pummeled the company's shares in 2005, when they fell 78 percent."

Taser General Counsel Doug Klint said he considers it a "win" when, for example, the company settles for $10,000 rather than pays $250,000 to litigate a case.