Canadian condolences to the family of Tucson PD officer Henry Fung who died of an apparent heart attack on Tuesday this week, one day after he reportedly "volunteered" to take a taser jolt on Monday for "training" purposes.

The medical examiner must STRONGLY recommend that the taser(s) used on Henry Fung be measured for 'output variance'. As we have learned in Canada, not all tasers perform the same way. Many have tested way outside the safety allowables set by Taser International. The medical examiner (and all the doctors in the world) CANNOT rule out the taser until the shock from the weapon itself has been definitively ruled out. Proper measurement is required.

On CBS News last week, Taser International said that proving the taser did NOT play a role in a person's death is an UNPROVABLE supposition. There's your starting point. Click here: http://bit.ly/tT8iYq

It's notable that no one has reported the duration and number of stuns Officer Fung recieved. Usually when a citizen dies after being shocked by a Taser, he or she is blamed, because they had so-called "excited delirium", were on drugs or had a previous medical history (doesn't everyone have a previous medical history??).

Taser International has been warning about multiple and prolonged stuns only in recent years even though, at the beginning, they told police, policy-makers and the public that the taser was "safe to use on any assailant".

That is NOT what they're saying now. One must wonder if Officer Fung was given an opportunity to read the fine print of the latest Volunteer Waiver Taser International put out.

Read closely and it is ALL there: Tasers CAN CAUSE dangerous and deadly metabolic and cardiac changes. Several "suspects" have died MANY HOURS after taser shocks because of changes brought on by acidosis, which causes the muscles surrounding the heart to fail.

The city of Tucson cannot accept the "averages" Taser International spouts -- according to the original spec sheets, the true PEAK OUTPUT of Tasers varies between 151 and 162 milliamps, when "working properly". Any first year med student can tell you that shocks between 30 to 100 milliamps can KILL. Add to that, the invasive nature of a taser used in 'probe mode' - resistance under the skin is next to NIL.

And another shocking revelation: there are NO electrical safety standards for shocks UNDER the skin. Check with the Underwriters Laboratory, the IEC or Canadian Standards Association and you will quickly confirm this fact.

Taser International has some SERIOUS explaining to do. And you can be sure that their damage control machine is in full swing. I follow the company on TWITTER and they are a company which normally posts several TWEETS per day. They've been ominously silent since the day police officer Henry Fung died.

The Department of Justice ought to investigate how this technology was approved without enough rigorous science being applied.

One pig in 1996 and five dogs in 1999 and no true human trials until years after initial sales, should be alarming to all citizens.

Cop sues Taser after riding the lighting

See also Taser shreds injury reports

November 18, 2011

Andy Butler, a Dallas police officer, filed a lawsuit against Taser International after being willingly zapped with over 50,000 volts of electricity during a Dallas Police Department training session.

The “ride,” which being tasered is often referred to, is what Butler blames for fracturing his back and leaving two metal plates in his neck.
For Butler it has been a “ride” he will never forget.

"I don't think any responsible person would have made that decision, knowing what I know now," Butler tells KDAF.

The 2009 incident required Butler to have surgery to repair three herniated discs in his neck, where one was forcing pressure on his spinal cord. Apparently Butler’s back muscles constricted so tight with the jolt that it crushed his vertebrae.

Butler, now under constant pain, has become a part of a rising number of law enforcement officers across America who are suing Taser International. According to the lawsuits, Taser has fallen short of effectively warning officers and their departments about the dangers of being tasered.

"Taser has known since 2004 that every time an officer is tasered, he is at risk of serious injury or even death," Butler's attorney, Mark Haney, tells KDAF.

Although Dallas PD does not require cops to be tasered, some in law enforcement say its all but a necessity.

"It seemed like a rite of passage, that everybody had to do it," Butler said. Butler admitted that peer pressure also played a significant role in experiencing “five seconds of pure pain.”

Butler adds the waiver he signed from Taser alluded to possible "physical exertion or athletic-type injuries” but failed to mention anything of this magnitude.

“They hint around about it, but they don't just come out and say that 20-40 officers have been injured and these are the kinds of risks you pose, if the department allows officers to be tasered," Butler’s attorney tells reporters.

Now the stun gun maker is counter-suing Butler, claiming he should have known the risks.

In a recent deposition for Butler's lawsuit, the CEO of Taser, Rick Smith, testified that instruction manuals disclose that ten officers have been injured while in Taser training. Smith admitted in his testimony that Taser never made an attempt to have the department put an end to Tasering its officers in training.

According to Taser's website, over 559,000 devices have been sold to more than 16,000 law enforcement and military agencies.

"That is a weapon we use on the public. If we think it is unsafe and harms officers, then I couldn't reasonably deploy those weapons against the public," says Deputy Chief Floyd Simpson, who is the head of the department's policy on Taser training.

Taser still stands by their products and credit the device for saving countless lives by providing police with a nonlethal option when dealing with uncontrollable criminals.

“I’m not saying there’s not a place in the law enforcement for a less-than-lethal option. I think a Taser is better than a 9 mm every time. But police officers need to understand these consequences and limit the risks in training,” Haney adds.

Sudden death of Tucson officer shock to family, friends

November 17, 2011
Tammy Vo, TUCSON (KGUN9-TV)

Officer Henry Fung seemed like a perfectly healthy 43-year-old Tucson officer until he collapsed on Tuesday afternoon while visiting his mother at an assisted living facility. He passed away on Wednesday.

"I'm very surprised. He does Taekwondo, kickboxing and works out all the time. It's shocking that he would suffer from a massive heart attack" said his brother John. "He loved his life, especially his wife, her three girls and his son Brandon who is five months old. He also loved being a police officer".

Officer Fung began his career with Tucson Police as a crime scene specialist in 2005. From there, he became a sworn officer working the downtown division.

On Fung's Facebook page on Monday, he wrote about being tased for police training that day and how intense the experience was. 9 On Your Side wanted to know if his death is connected to the taser training?

"In subsequent conversations we had with his attending physicians and cardiologists, that had no bearing on what the eventual outcome was" said Assistant Police Chief, Brett Kline. The Pima County Medical Examiner's Office also confirms that the taser incident has no relation to Fung's death and that Fung may have suffered from some sort of heart condition which led to the attack.

Sgt. John Strader from the Tucson Police Officer's Association told KGUN 9 "He's someone who cared a great deal about his co-workers and his community. Everyone agrees that Officer Fung was always smiling".

The officer's brother says that Henry Fung loved being a father, especially to his son who was born this past Father's Day. "It's so sad that he won't get to see his father or grow up with him".

What will John Fung tell his nephew about his father? "That he was a loving family man, courageous and accomplished his goals by doing what he wanted to do".

Friends have set up a bank account to help the Fung family. If you would like to donate, the account is at Wells Fargo Bank under the name: Blossom Fung.

Tuscon PD officer, 43, dies of heart attack 1 day after being tased

As far as I know, Henry Fung is the first police officer to die after being tasered. Many have been seriously injured, but this is the first police officer (that I'm aware of) who has died. He volunteered to take a taser shot during training on Monday, died of a heart attack on Tuesday.  Officer Fung becomes the 699th person to die in North America after being tasered.

TUCSON - A six-year veteran of the Tucson Police Department in his 40's died of a heart attack yesterday - TPD says he was tased during training Monday, but multiple doctors say that did not contribute to his death.

Henry Fung, 43, died after a heart attack while off-duty yesterday, Tucson Police officials confirmed to News 4 Tucson. They say he volunteered to be shot with a TASER during training on Monday.

TPD officials also say that multiple physicians at local area hospitals confirmed to them that the TASER did not contribute to his death

Maker of Taser stun guns used by Syracuse police reacts to NYCLU report

October 19, 2011
Robert A. Baker / The Post-Standard

Syracuse, NY -- Taser International, the maker of stun guns used by Syracuse police and other police agencies in the state, reacted to several points made by the New York Civil Liberties Union in a report released today on Taser use in the state.

The NYCLU studied Taser-use reports from Syracuse and seven other police departments in the state and found that police departments are “consistently misusing and overusing Tasers” and faults an absence of sound policies, training and guidelines in the use of Tasers.

In a release today, Syracuse police said they have yet to read the report, which became available to the public at 11 a.m. today.

“The Syracuse Police Department will have no comment on this report until we are provided with an official copy of the report and we have had time to thoroughly read and examine the information contained in this report,” the release said.

Taser International, which also had not received a copy of the report, reacted to what was published this morning in The Post-Standard.

One point was on the number of deaths quoted in the report. More than 200 people died after being shocked by Tasers, according a Department of Justice figure quoted in the published report.

Tasers were listed by authorities as the cause or contributing cause in only 12 of those cases, Steve Tuttle, vice president of communication for the Arizona-based manufacturer of stun guns, said today. And of those 12 deaths, the majority were from injuries suffered in a fall after being stunned.

The report said only 15 percent of the incidents reviewed involved a subject who was armed or thought to be armed, which, the NYCLU said, “shatter the illusion that Tasers are primarily used as an alternative to deadly force on armed or otherwise dangerous subjects.

Tuttle said that he was surprised that the number was so high. Nationally, he said, the number is closer to 10 percent. The vast majority of subjects who are hit by Tasers should be unarmed, he said.

“You don’t bring a knife to a gunfight,” Tuttle said. “You don’t replace firearms with Tasers.”

Taser International does not train police departments on the use of the Taser, Tuttle said.

“We don’t train users, we train certified teachers,” Tuttle said.

The departments send officers to train with Taser International to become teachers in their own departments, but Tuttle said.

“It’s up to the police departments to train their officers,” Tuttle said.

Each department may have different standards for defining use of force, which includes when to use a Taser device, he said.

“We can’t teach officers use of force. We are not experts in the use of force,” Tuttle said. “We show them safe operation.”

"If they are suggesting good training and good policies are part of Taser training, they are correct," Tuttle said.

As far as people of color being stunned in greater proportion than white people, Tuttle said that number must be compared to the arrest rate of each community studied.

“Is there a higher proportion being arrested?” he asked. If there is, he said, it stands to reason that a high proportion would be stunned as well.

October 19, 2011
Robert A. Baker / The Post-Standard

Syracuse, NY -- Police in Syracuse and seven other police departments in New York are overusing and misusing Tasers and are inadequately trained in the use of the stun guns, the New York Civil Liberties Union said in a report to be released today.

Officers are using Tasers on people who are not a threat, targeting vulnerable areas of the body, administering excessive numbers of shocks and excessively long shocks, failing to give prior warnings, and using Tasers on vulnerable populations and a disproportionate number of people of color, the report states.

“If you look at Syracuse’s Taser policy, like most of the policies we reviewed, it does not comport with what experts say is appropriate use of Tasers,” Corey Stoughton, the report’s author, said.

The report calls for agencies to expand training beyond Taser International guidelines and for New York state to regulate and monitor Taser training and the use of force policies in departments statewide.

Syracuse Police Chief Frank Fowler declined to comment until he’s had a chance to read the report, which was embargoed until today.

The report, called “Taking Tasers Seriously: The Need for Better Regulation of Stun Guns in New York,” was based on 851 Taser-use reports filed by eight police departments across the state from 2005 to 2009. The departments are Syracuse, Albany, Glens Falls, Greece, Guilderland, Nassau County, Rochester and Saratoga Springs. The report, which The Post-Standard has received a copy of, will be released at 11 a.m. today.

The departments were picked for their size and each department has a liberties union office in the area, a spokeswoman said. The NYCLU also looked at the use-of-force policies and the Taser training procedures in the eight departments as well as the Monroe County Sheriff’s Office and the Suffolk County Police Department.

There are 350 law enforcement agencies that carry Tasers in New York, the report says. Two-hundred people, including a Central New York man, have died after being stunned by a Taser, according a U.S. Department of Justice statistic cited by the report. Tasers deliver up to 50,000 volts of electricity, either from probes that are shot from the gun or by placing the device directly against the skin of the target.

The report cited two Syracuse incident as examples of inappropriate Taser use:

•In 2009, a 15-year-old boy was hit by a Taser probe fired by a Syracuse police officer in an attempt to break up a fight at Fowler High School. The officer was aiming for another student. The NYCLU is representing the boy and his mother in a federal suit against the Syracuse Police Department. The family could not be reached for comment.

•A mentally ill man who was shocked at least a dozen times by three Syracuse officers using Tasers. Charges were never filed against the man, the NYCLU said. The NYCLU report calls the incident “particularly disturbing.”

According to Syracuse Police Department Taser-use reports on the incident, police were called a “mental complaint” Aug. 5, 2006, in the city. The 6-foot 2-inch, 260-pound, 53-year-old man refused officers’ orders to get on the floor. One officer noted that the man was “highly agitated” and “became combative” after a first use of the Taser had no effect. The report does not identify the man or say where the incident took place.

In the reports, the three officers gave their estimates on how many times they each used their Tasers: five to six times, three to six times and four to five times. After the Tasers were used, the man was admitted to a psychiatric hospital, the report states.

Although the advocacy group did not study cases involving the Onondaga Sheriff’s Office and the now-defunct Clay Police Department, incidents involving those agencies are singled out:

•The death in March 2008 of Christopher H. Jackson, who was pronounced dead after he was hit by a Taser used by a Clay police officer inside Jackson’s home in Norstar Apartments in Clay.

•The January 2009 use of a Taser on a mother in the town of Salina by Onondaga County sheriff’s Deputy Sean Andrews after the woman was pulled over in a traffic stop. The deputy pulled the woman from her van and used a Taser on her in front of her children. The incident made national news and the county settled a resulting lawsuit for $75,000.

The two cases were pulled from news stories because they are examples of the points the NYCLU is trying to make, Stoughten said.

In reviewing the Taser-use reports statewide, one statistic stood out, Stoughton said.

“Sixty percent of the reports had not documented information for using the Taser,” said Stoughton, a senior staff attorney with the NYCLU. “That’s crazy.”

Instead of being used as a non-lethal weapon of last resort, “you’re seeing Tasers being used as a pain compliance tool for people who are passively resisting or are restrained,” Stoughton said.

In Syracuse, 56 percent of the people involved in a Taser incident with Syracuse police were black. That is disproportionately high considering blacks make up 25 percent of the city’s population, the NYCLU said.

In Albany, where blacks make up 28 percent of the population, 68 percent of the people who were shocked were black. In Rochester, 48 percent of the people who were shocked were black. Blacks comprise 38 percent of that city’s population.

Each time a Taser is used, departments document the incident in a Taser-use form. While those forms are compiled, the NYCLU found “almost no police departments surveyed” required a review of the data to assess their Taser programs.

The Syracuse and Greece police departments “actively interfere with attempts to provide sufficient information” through the forms they use to report Taser use, the NYCLU said.

The form the Syracuse department uses to report Taser incidences has little room for officers to describe the incident, the NYCLU said. And, when the officers have room, they often neglect to justify why multiple cycles of Tasers on individuals were justified.

The report calls for greater oversight by the state on the use of Tasers and Taser training of police.

Misuse of stun guns is linked directly to inadequate use-of-force policies and inadequate training on the use of Tasers, according to the report. Most departments rely solely on training materials prepared by the manufacturer, Taser International, to train police, the report states.

“The training Taser International provides is, literally, how to operate the weapon,” Stoughton said. “It doesn’t cover appropriate use or the dangers of multiple and prolonged shocks.”

The U.S. Department of Justice and the Police Executive Research Forum both warn departments that they should not rely solely on the Taser training manual, “but it appears that’s what we do in New York State,” Stoughton said.

Dallas officer is among several suing Taser, alleging injuries during training

January 19, 2011
By JASON TRAHAN, Dallas Morning News

A Dallas police officer has filed the latest in a string of lawsuits around the country that claim jolts of electricity received during Taser training caused fractured backs and other severe injuries.

The makers of the popular stun gun, however, say that their products are safe and credit them with saving lives by providing officers with a nonlethal option to guns when confronting unruly criminals.

Dallas police Officer Andrew Butler’s lawsuit, filed Jan. 6 against Taser International, is thought to be the first of its kind in Texas. He alleges Taser did not fully disclose the risks associated with being shot with the device in the academy to his police trainers. The city of Dallas is not a defendant.

“I love my department. I love being a cop. But I dodged a bullet,” said Butler, who was able to return to patrol after he had surgery to replace a fractured vertebra. “I can’t live with having knowledge that this can harm an officer and not do something.”

The dangers of Tasers have been known for years. In Dallas, the deaths of at least two drug-addled suspects who were stunned during arrests have been connected in part to shocks from the devices.

But in recent years, police officers around the country have begun filing lawsuits claiming they were hurt when taking a Taser shot. The stun guns are regularly used on recruits in training at many police academies.

“That has been the secret injury that Taser doesn’t like to talk about,” said Robert Haslam, a Fort Worth attorney who is chairman of the American Association for Justice’s Taser Litigation Group.

Several dozen lawsuits by police officers have been filed, but only one has gone to trial. Taser prevailed in that 2005 Arizona case because the officer had a pre-existing back condition, said John Dillingham, the Phoenix attorney who represented the injured former Maricopa County sheriff’s deputy. Dillingham said the half-dozen other cases of injured officers which he’s handled have been dismissed, but he declined to talk about settlement agreements.

“There’s no reason for an officer to take a hit in training,” Dillingham said. “The only reason to demonstrate it is that it works and it’s safe. You don’t need to get shocked to know that.”

Taser has a long history of aggressively fighting legal claims that its devices cause injury or death. When asked about Butler’s suit, spokesman Steve Tuttle said the company does not comment on pending litigation.

“We continue to stand by the independent peer reviewed medical studies that have shown that the Taser electronic control devices are generally safe and effective,” he said.

The company has sold 514,000 devices to more than 15,800 law enforcement and military agencies, Tuttle said. Half of the about 2.3 million times that Tasers have been used were in training environments and other voluntary situations, according to the company.

Some departments require rookies to experience the device before they are allowed to carry it, but others let officers decide for themselves whether they want to take the “ride,” as the 50,000-volt zap is sometimes called.

In Dallas, being stunned is optional, but peer pressure in the hyper macho environment of police training often leaves few bystanders, people familiar with the training say. Fort Worth police require rookies to get zapped, but have logged no injuries, officials there said.

“If Taser were honest with the officers about the incidents of injury, I don’t think that officers would be so willing to get this,” said Mark Haney, Butler’s attorney.

“I’m not saying there’s not a place in the law enforcement for a less-than-lethal option,” said Haney, who also serves as a municipal judge in Pantego. “I think a Taser is better than a 9 mm every time. But police officers need to understand these consequences and limit the risks in training.”

Dallas police Assistant Chief Floyd Simpson, who supervises training, said that he was unaware of cases in which officers around the country had alleged they were hurt by Tasers. He said he would review information in Butler’s case, but had no immediate plans to stop officers from taking voluntary zaps in training.

“I don’t support it or disclaim it, but the philosophy is, you get Tased so you understand what happens physiologically, and so you can testify if need be. But there is no requirement to take the shot. However, in the classes, there’s always a willing participant.”

Prohibiting officers from taking a zap in the academy would put the department in an odd situation where officers routinely use the device on the public, but are not allowed to experience it firsthand, Simpson said.

“All I can say is, we haven’t had an issue doing what we do. I think our trainers are very prudent and are aware of the weapon and its capabilities. Can someone get hurt? Sure,” he said. “But we haven’t had a real big problem with that in Dallas.”

He added, though, that it is possible to have effective training without having officers feel the device’s voltage firsthand. “We get trained with firearms, but I don’t think that anyone has an expectation that officers get shot in order to use it.”

Butler served as a Dallas police officer from 1997 to 2000, but quit to start a family. He re-entered the Dallas police academy as a rookie, and was in Taser training in 2009. He and others in the class signed waivers before they were shocked with the device.

A video of Butler’s training session shows several officers, men and women, volunteering to be stunned. When it was Butler’s turn, an instructor used the device on his lower back. A pair of officers on either side lowered him to the ground as the electricity flowed.

Seconds after the shock was over, Butler, fueled by adrenaline, sprang to his feet, but within hours, the former Marine could barely move his back or arm.

Butler and his attorney say he later had to have surgery to repair fractured vertebrae that were crushed when his back muscles contorted from the Taser shock.

He now has metal plates in his spine, but is back on patrol. “The Taser is a great tool,” he said. “But I’ll never get one of those shocks again. The value is not worth the risk.”

Even Taser’s adversaries in court recognize they have use in police work.

“The number of police officer injuries has been relative low in proportion to the number of Tasers in use,” said Peter Williamson, the California attorney who was part of the legal team that in 2008 was the first in the nation to win a product liability verdict against Taser on behalf of a man who died after he was stunned by police in California.

“But our concern is that the officers be properly apprised of the risks of the devices so they can make informed decisions about how to use them.”

Dallas PD Trainee Goes a TASER Too Far

January 11, 2011
Andrea Grimes, Dallas Observer

A Dallas Police Department officer filed suit last week against Taser International, alleging that during training exercises, he was Tased to the point of breaking his back. According to court documents, Andrew Keith Butler received a five-second Tasing from the electronic stun guns during a January 2009 training session, and as a result, Butler's "muscles contracted uncontrollably causing him to suffer injuries, including a compression fracture of his back caused by the muscle contractions."

Court documents allege negligence on behalf of Taser International, which the suit says had reason to believe the application of its products could cause serious injury, but that the company misrepresented the danger to the DPD trainees:
"Prior to Plaintiff's injuries Defendant was aware that numerous police officers had been injured in Taser training as a result of having the Taser applied to the officers including knowledge of compression fracture injuries arising from muscle contractions similar to Plaintiff's injuries. The nature and extent of these type injuries during Taser training and the possible risks of fracture injuries arising from the application of the Taser was misrepresented in the Taser training of Defendant."

Butler, who is in his 30s, is seeking damages for "conscious physical pain and suffering" as well as physical impairment, disfigurement, lost wages and medical care. Butler's lawyer, Mark Haney out of Fort Worth, says his client's injury came directly from the Taser-induced muscle contractions in Butler's back and that Butler will have "problems in the long term." Butler has already undergone surgery, Haney tells Unfair Park, and "has made as good a recovery as he is going to make."

Haney says that Butler (along with other cops suffering from similar injuries) submitted to the Tasing voluntarily because certified Taser trainers made the eletroshock seem "harmless."

Read the full complaint HERE.

(Ontario) Police rarely use stun guns

December 10, 2010
SCOTT DUNN, SUN TIMES

Special Investigations Unit director Ian Scott's view that a stun gun killed a Collingwood man may cause officers to think twice about using them, one local police chief said.

But Saugeen Shores Police Chief Dan Rivett said Thursday in an interview that doesn't mean police should stop using conducted energy weapons when called for.

The stun gun death of an agitated, schizophrenic man by a Collingwood police officer is the latest incident in which concerns about police use of these devices have been raised.

This time though, it was the SIU director who said he thinks the stun gun caused Aron Firman's death.

Firman, 27, died after being Tasered by Collingwood OPP June 24 outside a group home in Collingwood.

SIU director Ian Scott concluded this week the use of the Taser "was not excessive, notwithstanding the fact that it caused Mr. Firman's demise."

No charges were justified against the officer, Scott found, because the officer's training shouldn't have led him to expect the device would kill.

Ontario's chief forensic pathologist, Michael Pollanen, attributed Firman's death to "cardiac arrhythmia precipitated by electronic control device deployment in an agitated man." He had underlying health issues which may have predisposed him to arrhythmia, Pollanen found.

The victim's father has called for Tasers to be re-classified as "potentially lethal weapons."

Sgt. Pierre Chamberland, an OPP corporate spokesman in Orillia, said the SIU finding will prompt a review of all policies related to deploying a Taser, as required under the Police Services Act. But they're still being used now. He wouldn't say how often the OPP use their Tasers, saying it's an "operational matter, we don't release that." He also said whether using handcuffs or guns, "we are trained with the fact that with any use of force there is an inherent risk of serious injury or death."

No Saugeen Shores officers have ever fired their conducted energy weapons since they were issued them in 2007. But Rivett says they still have their place. "Sure, does it make you give pause and think twice? Absolutely it does. But that in turn could put you in jeopardy or a member of the public," he said. He hopes the Collingwood death of a man won't cause his officers to hesitate when they shouldn't, he said. "That's a real concern. So there's a very delicate balance there that police officers are put into every day."

Training and guidelines set out when a Taser may be used, one step short of employing deadly force with a firearm, he said.

Owen Sound police sergeants continue to use Tasers, under escalating use-of-force guidelines too. "We haven't changed our policy and they're still in use in Owen Sound," Deputy-Chief Bill Sornberger said Wednesday in an interview. So far this year, Tasers have been drawn eight times and fired twice in the city, he said.

He declined to comment on any possible implications of the SIU conclusion that a stun gun shock killed Firman. Sornberger said he wanted to read more about the circumstances and information from the SIU before commenting further.

Grey County OPP officers who are qualified to use stun guns do so "extremely infrequently," said Bob Mahlberg, the detachment commander in Chatsworth. He didn't have the statistics available to say how often and said a freedom of information request could be filed. The devices, which cause muscles to involuntarily contract, are used to gain immediate control of someone, where other options were ineffective or precluded, he said. "From what I have heard so far, there is no change in policy. We are aware of the (SIU) decision. We are aware of the comments made by the director of the SIU," Mahlberg said.

Grey County OPP Const. Steve Starr said conducted energy weapons are not used frequently but they can be used successfully. He cited a man at a group home recently who struck another man with a fire poker in the presence of police who was taken into custody without incident after being stunned.

Mahlberg said a police officer is always responsible for the amount of force used on an individual, whether he or she employs physical force or use-of-force equipment. "It's required under the criminal code and we are only allowed to use as much force as is reasonably necessary to do our job."

Major recommendations from inquiry report into death of Howard Hyde

December 8, 2010
Charlottetown Guardian

HALIFAX - Major recommendations contained in the Nova Scotia fatality inquiry report into the death of Howard Hyde:

Stun guns should not be applied to people in a state of agitation due to an emotional or psychological disturbance except as a last resort once it has been determined that crisis intervention and de-escalation techniques have not worked.

The province's Justice Department should overhaul the manual it uses for stun gun training to significantly reduce, if not eliminate, the reliance on Taser International resource materials.

Crisis intervention training should be provided to all correctional officers at the Central Nova Scotia Correctional Facility.

Video surveillance cameras should be installed in health care segregation cells to ensure that correctional officers are able to more readily identify that a prisoner is in crisis.

Training should improve for front-line police officers, correctional officers and physicians on a variety of fronts, from note-taking to the preparation of health information transfer forms.

The province's justice minister should conduct an annual review on the implementation of these recommendations.

Sheriff's Office, feds agree to new Taser rules

When the U.S. Justice Department announced its inquiry into the Orange County Sheriff's Office use of stun guns in 2007, it was a first of its kind review.

October 13, 2010
By Walter Pacheco, Orlando Sentinel

After a three-year Department of Justice probe into the Orange County Sheriff's Office use of Tasers, an agreement has been reached that calls for Sheriff Jerry Demings to implement more than a dozen new policies for Taser stun gun use by his deputies.

The DOJ agreement with the Sheriff's Office, which was formalized in September, lists 19 policy, training and accountability provisions that include new procedures and amendments to their current rules on Taser use.

They include:

*The Sheriff's Office must develop a policy requiring that deputies give a verbal warning before deploying a Taser.

*It must alert medical personnel before deploying Tasers at subjects suspected of being under an extreme state of mental and physiological excitement.

*It must develop a policy that prohibits the use of Tasers on passive subjects, those in handcuffs or otherwise restrained.

*Tasers cannot be used in a "punitive or reckless manner," such as using it to awaken a person or as a "prod."

*Only one deputy can deploy a Taser at a time.

The report also shows tweaks to some of the Sheriff's Office existing training and accountability procedures.

When the U.S. Justice Department announced its inquiry into the Orange County Sheriff's Office use of stun guns in 2007, it was a first of its kind review.

The changes to the Sheriff's Office policies on Taser use stemmed from that federal investigation, into "an alleged pattern or practice of excessive force" by sheriff's personnel, according to a 2008 report from the DOJ's Civil Rights Division.

That report included 35 recommendations which have been folded into the recently-crafted agreement.

In the 2008 report the DOJ had warned the Sheriff's Office against using Tasers on someone under the influence of drugs or showing signs of extreme agitation, bizarre or violent behavior and imperviousness to pain, among other symptoms — known as "excited delirium."

It also advised the Sheriff's Office not to stun suspects who are restrained or in handcuffs, or to stun them more than once, which increases the chances of harm.

Those two recommendations are included in the final agreement.

Critics of Tasers contend they are dangerous, particularly when used on suspects who use drugs or suffer from heart problems.

The stun guns have been controversial since Taser International started selling its product to thousands of law-enforcement agencies across the United States in 1999.

The devices, which deliver electrical jolts of 1,200 to 5,000 volts, have been connected to more than 70 deaths across the country, including five who died after being stunned by Orange County deputies.

Several incidents involving the deployment of stun guns placed the Sheriff's Office under scrutiny:

*José Aníbal Amaro, 45, died in Oct. 1, 2008 after deputies shocked him three times with a Taser. Reports show he was foaming at the mouth and running in and out of traffic.

*A deputy sheriff on Oct. 13, 2008 stunned a man who was threatening to jump off a 25-foot embankment onto State Road 408. The deputy, who was standing in a fire-rescue bucket truck, caught the man after shocking him.

*John Mattiuzzi, an out-of-state filmmaker, was stunned twice and struck with a baton on Sept. 21, 2008 after taking pictures of a crime scene with his phone. Police warned him twice to move back, then chased and subdued him after he ran from officers.

*A deputy sheriff working as a resource officer at Moss Park Middle School stunned an unruly 11-year-old girl injuring her nose, after she swung at the deputy in March 2008.

Officials at the American Civil Liberties Union of Florida also had launched their own inquiry of Taser use by the Sheriff's Office, but the results of that probe are not known.

Riverside County (California) sheriff rejects Taser criticism and declines to act on jury recommendations

September 22, 2010
By SARAH BURGE, The Press-Enterprise

Riverside County sheriff's officials, in their formal response to two grand jury reports from late June, have dismissed most of jurors' criticisms and declined to act on most of its recommendations.

The grand jury reports focused on the department's use of stun guns and its handling of harassment complaints by employees at the Lake Elsinore station.

Neither the grand jury reports, nor the Sheriff's Department responses delved into details about the incidents that prompted the grand jury investigations.

One report suggested that deputies might be overusing Tasers and recommended a review of training procedures and written policies to ensure the devices are used properly.

In one incident, a deputy shocked the same person eight times in less than a minute, the report said. A log showing the number, duration and time of day of the Taser shocks was attached to the grand jury report.

Undersheriff Colleen Walker said Tuesday that she did not know which Taser incident the report referred to. She said the department deploys Tasers about 11 times each month and that the grand jury report did not provide enough information to determine which incident the attached Taser deployment log was from.

"We don't know what they were looking at when they crafted their opinions," Walker said.

Sheriff's officials said in July that the Taser deployment records cited in the grand jury report do not give a complete picture of the incident, such as the effectiveness of the shocks and the level of resistance the deputy encountered.

Sheriff's officials said in their written response that they will not change department policy to restrict the number and duration of Taser shocks allowed.

Such a restriction would "result in an unacceptable compromise to public safety," sheriff's officials wrote. Deputies often become involved in violent, unpredictable confrontations and strict limits could prevent them from responding appropriately when there are extenuating circumstances, they wrote.

The response also said the department already conducts the kind of Taser training and detailed reviews of Taser incidents recommended by the grand jury.

Chiefs criticize Iowa's top police trainer

September 19, 2010
CLARK KAUFFMAN, Des Moines Register

... One police chief has complained that Westfall exposed Iowa's police departments and sheriffs' offices to financial liability by using an uncertified Taser instructor ... In May, Arnolds Park Police Chief Alan Krueger complained to the governor that a Taser-instruction class led by Westfall was a "debacle" and a waste of taxpayer money. Krueger said the class was only half as long as promised and covered the same ground as a separate class officers had to attend the next day ... He wrote: "It appears the only one that benefited was the Iowa Law Enforcement Academy as they were able to charge the cities and counties an extra $100 per attendee." ... Krueger also complained that no one at the academy apologized to Iowa's police chiefs and sheriffs for exposing them to serious financial liability by allegedly using an uncertified Taser instructor ...

Krueger wasn't the only Iowa police chief to complain about Westfall's instruction in Taser usage. In May, Estherville Police Chief Eric Milburn wrote to Westfall and said the officer he sent to the class reported that it was repetitive, redundant and contradictory to accepted training methods. "Your administrative policies, decisions and administrative rules are consistently and continuingly causing conflict between the academy and the Iowa law enforcement community," Milburn wrote. Milburn copied the governor's office on his letter, and also complained to Krukow. "My confidence in the academy is pretty much at an all-time low," Milburn wrote. Culver's staff met with Westfall, who responded to Milburn with a letter assuring him she would continue to work with Iowa officers to provide the best service the academy could offer. In July, Sheriff Warren Wethington of Cedar County complained to Culver that there appeared to be a "severe lack of confidence and respect with Director Westfall."

One of Wethington's deputies, Orville Randolph, complained to the academy council that Westfall "failed to even show up for a class" in one instance, and that her instruction was "rambling and incoherent."

He added, "In my 21 years of experience at the Cedar County Sheriff's Office, I have never seen such open contempt and disrespect for the Iowa Law Enforcement Academy. I believe it is because of only Penny Westfall and it is time for new leadership at the Iowa Law Enforcement Academy, and it needs to be done NOW."

Westfall told the Register that some of the recent complaints are based on a misunderstanding regarding Hansen's certification as a Taser instructor.

Over the past 14 months, some Iowa officers attended Taser classes taught by Hansen at a time when Hansen was not certified by Taser International. When the company sent out a letter advising police agencies that anyone who attended the classes would not be certified by the company, some police chiefs and sheriffs felt cheated and complained they were being exposed to additional liability by the academy.

Westfall wrote to the Register that a Taser-certified instructor was present for the classes taught by Hansen and the officers who attended those classes were later able to take an online course and become certified by the company.

State records show Hansen's teaching methods were being questioned as far back as 2006.

Three years ago, Taser International faulted Hansen for failing to follow the company's approved lesson plan, and it recommended that Hansen refrain from teaching any additional classes on the Taser. According to the company's vice president of training, Rich Guilbault, Hansen was apologetic and promised to do better.

But the company concluded in 2008 that Hansen was teaching an unauthorized, abbreviated course on Taser use, and asked him to refrain from teaching any more Taser classes. According to the company, Hansen didn't respond.

Earlier this year, Guilbault wrote to Westfall and expressed his concerns.

"As I understand it, Mr. Hansen has arranged it so he is the only person who can certify Taser instructors in the state of Iowa," Guilbault wrote. "I find this information, if true, disturbing in itself as it indicates he is more concerned with his own authority than with the welfare of the officers of Iowa."

Although he declined to answer any questions from the Register, Hansen said in a statement: "I've never instructed a class I was not properly certified and trained in. I hope and pray that my legacy will be that I sincerely cared for every officer that I've ever taught."

Palo Alto police change Taser policy

September 9, 2010
Gennady Sheyner, Palo Alto Online

Recent incidents in which Palo Alto police officers fired their Tasers at suspects would have violated the city's new policy for deployment of the controversial stun guns, Independent Police Auditor Michael Gennaco concluded in his new report.

The report details five recent incidents of Taser use, including one in which an officer fired a Taser at a "young" burglary suspect who tried to run away from the officer. Some of these Taser deployments would have been appropriate under the previous department policy, which permits Taser use when suspects are "actively resisting," which includes such actions as "tensing" or "bracing" to resist arrest. The new policy creates a stricter standard and requires that the suspect "pose an immediate threat of physical injury before firing a Taser is appropriate."

In the case of the unnamed "young man," the officer who fired the Taser appears to have violated even the original, less strict, policy. The officer fired the weapon after the young man ignored an officer's order that he stop and began to run away. The officer missed, but the unnamed suspect, hearing the sound of the Taser, stopped running, lied down on the ground and allowed police to handcuff him. He had a small knife and a screwdriver in his pocket and was arrested for possession of burglary tools, according to the auditor's report.

Though a police supervisor initially determined that the officer's use of the Taser fell within the Department's policy, Police Chief Dennis Burns had "misgivings" about the incident and ordered a new review, which concluded that the officer failed to comply with the existing policy because the officer had minimal evidence at the time about the suspect's intent to burglarize and because the suspect's flight did not constitute "exigent circumstances" or "active resistance or active aggression." The auditor agreed with the review's findings and the officer was forced to undergo new training and receive counseling.

In other cases, officers appeared to have followed the department's previous Taser policy (which was in effect at the time of the incidents) but would not have been in compliance with the revised policy. In one case, officers tried to handcuff a male suspect who appeared "angry, intoxicated and agitated" and who became "verbally confrontational" with the officer. Two officers grabbed the man's hands and bent him forward; a third officer, under direction from his supervisor, fired a Taser at the man's back.

Though the supervisor said the suspect in this case was "actively resisting" by "tensing" during the arrest, both Gennaco and managers in the department had "significant concerns" about this Taser incident. They concluded that the Taser deployment was "minimally within the original policy" but would have been in violation of the new policy.

Gennaco reached a similar conclusion in another case, in which a suspect hit a police patrol vehicle with his car, ran a red light and hit three parked cars and a light post before stopping his car. He then tried to run away, but other officers soon apprehended him. The officer whose car was hit caught up to the suspect while the other officers were handcuffing him. Though one hand was already in a handcuff, the suspect's "muscles tightened" while officers were trying to secure his left arm. The officer whose car was hit then fired a Taser at the suspect, who was then arrested without further incident.

After reviewing the incident, the department and Gennaco concluded that "had this Taser deployment been undertaken under the new revised policy, the application would have been out of policy."

Gennaco wrote that the police department's revised policy also provides guidance on "multiple cycling" of the Taser. Under the new policy, an officer must reevaluate the circumstances and consider whether the suspect still poses an "immediate threat" before a Taser is fired for a second time.

"The new policy restricts use of Taser to more appropriate situations that are consistent with recent legal opinions," Gennaco wrote. "Now that the revised policy has been issued, the Department has begun to provide the necessary training to familiarize officers with the new requirements."

The report also mentions an incident in which an officer's firing of the Taser appeared to be "timely, appropriate and in compliance with the Department's policy, then and now." This case involved two brothers, one of whom the police knew had a history of mental illness (his mother told the police he was "possibly violent, suicidal and delusional"). After leaving his vehicle, the older brother approached a female officer and "raised his arms over his head." The female officer pulled his hands down and other officers moved in to try to restrain the older brother, who began to wrestle with them.

At this point, the female officer fired a Taser at the older brother's back, but the darts "made insufficient contact and were ineffectual." The younger brother joined the fray but was quickly pulled away by an officer. Other officers arrived and tried to place the older brother into the police vehicle but could not do so. Ultimately, paramedics and firefighters arrived, secured the older brother to a gurney and took him to a hospital in an ambulance.

Gennaco said he reviewed tapes of the entire incident from beginning to end and was "impressed by the officer's calm professionalism during the incident and their patience in dealing with a mentally disturbed individual."

Expert: Mehserle made right call to use taser

June 27, 2010
Demian Bulwa, San Francisco Chronicle

A use-of-force expert hired to defend Johannes Mehserle at his murder trial testified today that the former BART officer was justified in using a Taser shock weapon to subdue train rider Oscar Grant because Grant was fighting Mehserle's efforts to handcuff him.

Mehserle, 28, said last week that he meant to deploy his Taser on Grant, but accidentally pulled out his pistol and fired a single shot into the 22-year-old Hayward resident's back at Fruitvale Station in Oakland on Jan. 1, 2009.

In calling retired Los Angeles police Capt. Greg Meyer to the stand, the defense sought to varnish Mehserle's testimony last Thursday and Friday.

But Meyer, who indicated he was paid at least $44,000, was also put through a bruising cross-examination by Alameda County prosecutor David Stein - a session that lasted longer than his direct examination by defense attorney Michael Rains.

Meyer, who often defends police officers over their use of force, said he had not reviewed some evidence that Stein considers vital, and that he did not have a mastery of some of the case's central facts.

Meyer also said he had been closely involved in the aftermath of the Rodney King case, and that he had concluded that the officers who beat King did not use excessive force. Rather, he said, the officers had acted in accordance with faulty training and policies.

At one point, Meyer referred to Grant as "the defendant in this case" before Stein corrected him.

Under questioning by Rains, Meyer said Grant was properly arrested by former BART Officer Anthony Pirone for resisting officers. It was Pirone who ordered Mehserle to handcuff Grant.

According to witnesses, Grant had been in a fight on a Dublin-Pleasanton train. His arrest, Meyer said, was justifiable because he tried to avoid Pirone - the first officer on the scene - by ducking back into the train, and because at one point he stood up after being told to sit down.

Pressed by Stein, though, Meyer said that if a person were arrested for standing after being told to sit, that would be a "cheap arrest."

Meyer said his review of video footage of the shooting convinced him that Grant resisted Mehserle's efforts to handcuff him by keeping his right hand underneath him as he lay on his chest and by using "evasive movements - twisting, turning."

A decision to use a Taser on Grant would have been a good one, Meyer said, because it would have caused lesser injuries than a gun or a baton, and it wouldn't have inflamed the emotions of onlookers.

Meyer also said the Taser training BART gave Mehserle a month before the shooting was deficient because officers were not put in role-playing situations that "got their adrenaline up" and were not asked to make split-second choices between different weapons.

Meyer said he had reviewed other cases in which officers have claimed they confused their gun and Taser, and that in each case the officers wore the Tasers in a way that necessitated a strong-hand - or gun-hand - draw from a holster. That's how Mehserle was wearing his Taser on the night of the shooting.

Meyer said police officers should only draw Tasers with their weak hands to avoid confusion. Stein asked Meyer, who has long given advice to the company that makes the Taser, whether he had said the same thing to the firm's officials.

Yes, Meyer said, "On Saturday."

Trainer: Mehserle was warned of Taser blunders

June 23, 2010
Demian Bulwa, San Francisco Chronicle

A month before he shot and killed Oscar Grant, former BART police Officer Johannes Mehserle was given Taser training that stressed the importance of not confusing the shock weapon with a gun - and was even told of cases in which police had reported shooting people by making such a mistake.

That was the testimony today of Stewart Lehman, a BART police officer who helped train Mehserle to use Tasers on Dec. 3, 2008.

Lehman was called as a defense witness for Mehserle, who is charged with murdering Grant while trying to arrest him Jan. 1, 2009, at Fruitvale Station in Oakland.

Defense attorney Michael Rains is trying to show that Mehserle intended to shock Grant with a Taser while handcuffing him after a fight on a train. Prosecutor David Stein says the Taser story is a fabrication and that Mehserle intentionally shot Grant in the back after losing control of his emotions.

In his questioning of Lehman, Rains suggested that the Taser training given to Mehserle and other BART officers had been inadequate because officers were allowed to fire the stun gun just once over the course of six hours. Lehman said the training met standards set by a state oversight agency.

Once they were armed with the stun guns, officers were allowed to choose where to carry them. However, Lehman said, a right-handed officer such as Mehserle was not allowed to position the Taser next to the gun on the right hip unless he aimed the weapon's handle in the opposite direction, making only a left-handed draw possible.

"The intent of that was to avoid the weapons confusion issue," Lehman said.

The jury also learned that officers in Madera, Sacramento and Rochester, N.Y., had reported shooting people by mixing up a Taser and a gun.

Stein, in his cross-examination, had Lehman demonstrate the difference between pulling a Taser and a gun from a holster. He gave Lehman the duty belt that Mehserle had used, then had him stand up and draw Mehserle's yellow Taser X26.

The night he killed Grant, Mehserle wore his Taser just to the left of his belt buckle, with the holster configured for a right-handed draw.

To pull the Taser in the courtroom demonstration, Lehman had to unsnap a button with his right thumb. Then, with the same thumb, he rolled forward a plastic hood over the Taser before pulling the weapon.

Earlier, Stein showed jurors how Mehserle would have had to pull his Sig Sauer P226 pistol. The gun holster requires an officer to roll forward a hood with the thumb of his gun hand, then use the same thumb to push back a lever that frees up the firearm.

Another Nail in the Coffin of TASER

OHCHR-UNOG
Committee against Torture
8-14 Avenue de la Paix
1211 Geneva 10, Switzerland
Telephone Number (41-22) 917-9000
Fax Number (41-22) 917-9006
E-mail to urgent-action@ohchr.org

Another Nail in the Coffin of TASER
By Eddie Griffin
Wednesday, May 19, 2010

When the Fort Worth City Council voted on Tuesday to accept a $2 million settlement in the Taser related death of Michael Jacobs Jr., they cast down their eyes and droop their heads in painful sorrow of this salt in the wound. They wanted to say as little as possible to stir the winds. She was a City eager to heal and move on.

Yet the City would not concede liability into the young man’s death. Maybe, to do so, would expose her to more similar lawsuits. After all, there have been five taser related deaths in the past five years. For to be culpable in one, infers guilt in the other.

Fort Worth Councilwoman Kathleen Hicks spoke for the City and for the community, declaring now to be the time to begin the healing process.

An exhausted pastor, Kyev Tatum, who has led the mass public awareness campaign which gained national and international attention, sighed with some relief that this part of the battle against tasers was over. Tomorrow, he would take up the matter of the Arlington Police Department and its plan to purchase 300 more stun guns. By no means, for him, was the war over.

Pastor Tatum was drawn into the taser controversy when the Jacobs family called out for help. The Fort Worth Police Department had electrocuted the son of Charlotte and Michael Sr., with a 50,000-volt taser, and nobody was saying anything, not even a word of regret or sympathy. There was no explanation from the police department as to why the officer engaged the weapon for a full 54 seconds upon a young man with mental problems. And, no city leader was willing to condemn the officer without all the facts.

The City was silent and complacent and its populous impervious. Michael Jacobs, Jr. was on his way to becoming just another silent statistic in a string of taser related deaths.

Tatum organized a local chapter of the Southern Leadership Conference (SCLC) and pulled together coalition of other civil rights organizations, including NAACP, LULAC, ACLU, and community activists. The community coalition called for an investigation, and to make the results public.

The medical examiner, upon finding no contributory causes such as drugs or alcohol in Jacobs’ system, declared his death a homicide. But the police department refused to dismiss the officer, and the grand jury refused to indict. There was no recourse except to seek redress by civil suit; otherwise, no one would be accountable for the death of an innocent, mentally challenged young man.

The $2 million settlement is a small penance to pay for a human life, though the largest in city history, but it may pave the way for reconciliation. The Fort Worth Police Department plans to meet with Pastor Tatum and other ministers to “begin the healing process”, and discuss strategies for better policing in the community. There will continue to be disagreement, however, on the usefulness of tasers and their lethality.

There is an axiom here: As the death count rises, the cost of using tasers will go up.

Although the manufacturer of the weapon, TASER International, has been sued over 100 times, it remains largely unscathed. They sell the instruments based upon its claim of non-lethality, and leave municipalities to pay the cost of wrongful deaths.

“Tasers are not only deadly”, Tatum declares. “They are torture.”

Officer Stephanie Phillips did not know that when she continuously engaged the trigger of her taser that 50,000 volts of electricity continued to course through the body of Michael Jacobs Jr., and that she was inadvertently frying him alive, from the inside out. No one ever told her the weapon was lethal. She was never trained to “disengage” the electrodes before electrocuting the subject. Maybe this is why the Tarrant County grand jury declined to indict her. And, she did not violate department policies by using her own discretion to deploy.

Hindsight is 20/20, and many people wish that certain events could be undone. Had the officer known the deadliness of the weapon, she would have ceased engagement. This being the premise, a Star-Telegram editorial emphasized “better training” as a resolution to taser death.

Not so. Teaching an officer how to use discretion in the field, when deploying the weapon, is no guarantee against abuse, nor does it mitigate the fact that the taser itself is an implement of torture. But proving torture, on the other hand, is much harder than proving the cause of death. By its very definition, a torturous act must be one that horrifies the social consciousness of humanity. And yet we, as a nation, have been conditioned into accepting the Conducted Energy Devices (CEDs) as non-lethal and harmless.

We discount the fact that they have been used on pregnant women such as Valreca Redden and claimed the life of the 6-month unborn child of Hannah Rogers-Grippi, that they have been used on senior citizens in their 70s and 80s, against the wheel-chair bound and mentally ill, and that the death count in the U.S.A. and Canada now stands at 481.

What is more, there is now mounting evidence that tasers cause serious and permanent injuries. A young victim is tasered over a minor incident, falls flat on his face, unable to catch himself, and breaks out his front teeth. He sues and wins. And, it has been reported, that those who have been tasered and survived, have “never been the same” since, having suffered neurological brain damages.

These are the risks, and no one is without fair warning.

[Post Note- The U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice is soliciting "Alternatives to Conducted Energy Less-Lethal Devices", to wit Tasers (R)]

The handwriting is on the wall: The days of tasers are coming to an end.


http://eddiegriffinbasg.blogspot.com/2010/05/another-nail-in-coffin-of-taser.html

EDITORIAL: San Jose (California) needs clear policy on use of force by police

March 3, 2010
Mercury News Editorial

The decision not to indict the San Jose police officers involved in the videotaped beating of college student Phuong Ho last September was no surprise. But the vehemence of District Attorney Dolores Carr's defense of the officers Wednesday was unexpected and disappointing.

Carr went out of her way to discredit Ho, noting he had been in trouble once before — a fact irrelevant to this case — and pointing out that the city's police manual nowhere says officers should use the lowest level of force necessary to subdue a suspect. The clear implication was that police conduct in this case not only was legal but acceptable.

It was not. Now it's up to Police Chief Rob Davis to make that clear.

What happened to Ho may not have been a crime; the law gives wide latitude to officers subduing suspects. But it was wrong. Davis implied as much when he saw the video last year, calling it "deeply disturbing." He said at the time that officers were supposed to use the "lowest amount of force" needed to make an arrest.

In fact, while two use-of-force experts Carr's office consulted on the Ho incident said the officers committed no crime, a third concluded that they had used excessive force.

On Wednesday, Davis said he couldn't discuss the case because his internal affairs unit is investigating whether the officers violated department policies. But he said the police manual, while not explicitly requiring the lowest level of force, makes it clear that the force used must be reasonable. Officers' training, he said, also makes that plain. But officers themselves seem less certain of the policy.

Police were called to Ho's apartment Sept. 3 after he got into an altercation with a roommate. The beating happened in a hallway, when Ho tried to follow officers into his room. They said he resisted arrest; he said he dropped his glasses and bent over to pick them up when the beating and Tasing began. A roommate captured it all in a cell phone video, which is online at www.mercurynews.com.

At a time when community groups were already raising questions about police conduct, the video struck a nerve, particularly with some Asian-Americans upset by the earlier police shooting of a mentally ill Vietnamese man who had attacked officers.

The Mercury News' Sean Webby has reported extensively on an unusual San Jose pattern of arrests for resisting arrest when no other major charge is involved — indicating that minor incidents seem to escalate to physical confrontation. When defendants fight the charge, it is often dropped or reduced. Charges against Ho were dropped last month, when Carr's office decided no jury seeing the beating video would convict him.

The video makes Ho's case unusual. Without it, he might well have been convicted and deported. But it presents an opportunity for Davis to clarify his expectations of officers when force must be used. We hope he does that when the internal investigation is complete.

Ho's beating may look fine to the district attorney, but it's not conduct that San Jose residents expect from their often-exemplary police department.

RCMP drafts wide-ranging changes to Taser policy following critical reports

February 15, 2010
By Jim Bronskill (Canadian Press)

OTTAWA — The RCMP plans a sweeping overhaul of its Taser policy following recommendations from inquiries prompted by the death of Polish immigrant Robert Dziekanski.

An internal briefing note obtained by The Canadian Press says the Mounties' policy centre on use of force recommends four dozen specific changes on stun gun use.

The note prepared for RCMP Commissioner William Elliott states that the force's review involved examination of two reports sparked by the death of Dziekanski, recent changes to Taser policy in Alberta and discussions within the national police force.

"Once the final (Taser) policy is approved, there will be an immediate impact on operations and training which will have to reflect the policy changes," says the November note, released under the Access to Information Act.

The briefing note states that although there has been preliminary consultation within the force and with partner agencies, "further consultations will be required in order to finalize the draft policy before being submitted to the commissioner for final approval."

Dziekanski, who hoped to join his mother in British Columbia, died in October 2007 after being hit with a Mountie Taser at the Vancouver airport. A video of the confrontation taken by a fellow air passenger, in which a confused, sweaty Dziekanski is zapped repeatedly, was seen by millions of people - triggering public outrage and a fundamental re-examination of stun gun use.

Over the last eight years, Tasers have become an increasingly common tool in the arsenal of police services.

Law-enforcement agencies say the tools, which can be shot from a distance or used in up-close touch-stun mode, are often a preferable alternative to pepper spray or batons when dealing with violent suspects.

Critics say police are using the powerful devices to make merely unco-operative people comply with orders even when they don't pose a threat to officers or bystanders.

Elliott maintains that the Taser is a useful tool for RCMP officers when used properly.

After looking into the Dziekanski case, Paul Kennedy, then-chairman of the Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP, said use of the Taser was "premature and inappropriate." He called on the Mounties to further clarify for their members and the public when a stun gun should be fired.

Former judge Thomas Braidwood, who led a B.C. public inquiry on Taser use, said while the guns can kill or gravely injure people, they can also be a valuable option for officers.

In an initial report, Braidwood said police should use a Taser only when someone is causing harm to another or there's a possibility they will imminently do so.

The B.C. government ordered all police in the province to severely restrict stun gun use, but the RCMP said it needed time to review Braidwood's report.

The RCMP briefing note to Elliott says a policy "revision document is being finalized for review by the commissioner that contains 48 specific recommended (Taser) policy changes."

Sgt. Greg Cox, an RCMP spokesman, said discussions on the new draft policy continue, adding he could not discuss details at this point.

Federal and provincial governments are working on national standards for Taser use, and it's not immediately clear how the latest RCMP revisions would tie in to such a cross-country policy.

The last major changes to the RCMP's national Taser policy took effect in February of last year.

However, there have been some revisions.

Following a bulletin from Arizona-based manufacturer Taser International, the RCMP last October issued an advisory that officers should try to avoid aiming a Taser at a person's chest. The company denied the bulletin was an admission the weapons could trigger heart problems, only that limiting the target zone would help "avoid any potential controversy on this topic."

The RCMP also began training officers last year on a revised system for dealing with incidents involving suspects.

The step-by-step system guides officers in their dealings with people from the point they arrive on the scene to possible use of force, including physical contact and weapons such as the Taser or a conventional firearm.

Police rethinking Taser use on mentally ill, inquiry told

December 1, 2009
The Canadian Press/CBC

The Halifax police service is training its officers to better defuse volatile situations involving mentally ill individuals so they don't have to resort to using stun guns, a fatality inquiry was told Tuesday.

Sgt. Dean Stienburg, who trains police on the use of force, said the department is trying to equip officers with the skills to detect signs of mental illness and to de-escalate situations before having to deploy stun guns.

He said the force has changed its policies on mental health training since Howard Hyde, a 45-year-old with a long history of paranoid schizophrenia, died in custody 30 hours after being shocked with a Taser by police.

"What we're focusing on now is when is it appropriate to use this device," he told the inquiry.

"What we're trying to do is raise awareness and how to recognize subtle clues … that the person needs assistance."

The inquiry is looking at how police officers and others in the justice system treated Hyde, who was off his medications and had been acting erratically leading up to his death.

Stienburg said police routinely adapt their training on mental health and the use of stun guns as research yields new information on the best use of the devices.

He said the force will change training guidelines next year to include emphasis on so-called empty-hand controls — or those that don't involve restraint devices — to restrain a person and avoid using a stun gun.

It also plans to train dispatchers to recognize signs of mental health disorders when a 911 call is made and to deploy Emergency Health Services in such cases.

Police not experts on psychological disorders
Stienburg said the force expects to instruct officers that people displaying signs of excited delirium should be treated as medical emergencies in need of immediate attention.

Some signs of the condition are profuse sweating, extreme strength, delusions and being impervious to pain — some of which Hyde displayed at the time.

The revisions by police come two years after Hyde was arrested following a complaint of a domestic assault. He was taken to police headquarters, where he was stunned with a Taser after becoming agitated as officers tried to fingerprint him.

He died the following day at the Central Nova Scotia Correctional Facility in Burnside. The medical examiner ruled the cause of death as excited delirium, linked to schizophrenia.

Stienburg said the force has also been training officers since 2008 in the use of verbal techniques designed to defuse a possibly volatile situation with someone experiencing a mental health crisis.

"We're on the right track with the training we're delivering," he said.

But he cautioned that research around the use of force on people with mental health disorders is an evolving issue and officers are not experts on recognizing psychological disorders.

"This is a health issue," he said. "We're not going to be able to fix this problem. … We're thrust into it."