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

San Francisco Police Commission votes to allow department to study use of Tasers

February 24, 2011
Bay City News

The San Francisco Police Commission voted 6-1 Wednesday night to allow the Police Department to look into the use of Tasers by officers, nearly a year after shooting down a similar proposal.

The decision came after a lively six-hour debate regarding the conducted energy devices, widely known as Tasers.

Last March, the commission voted 4-3 against a proposal by then-Police Chief George Gascon to study the use of Tasers by the department.

Three new members have been appointed to the commission since then, and interim Police Chief Jeff Godown, who took over as The City’s top cop when Gascon was named district attorney last month, was hopeful that the commission’s new makeup would result in a different approach to the Taser issue.

In the commission chambers, the Police Department reenacted a typical scenario that would require the use of a Taser, while other officers recounted dangerous incidents in which the devices could have helped take suspects into custody.

An opposing presentation, organized by Commissioner Angela Chan, had several experts outline the dangers of the less-than-lethal devices, which provide an electrical charge that they said can still cause serious injury or death and are frequently used unnecessarily.

Godown said the department would take a “thoughtful approach” to studying the use of Tasers and agreed to return to the commission to report its findings within 90 days.

Police Cmdr. David Mahoney, who led the police presentation in favor of the devices, said that Tasers “are not a replacement for a firearm,” but are “simply another tool in the toolbox” that officers can use when confronted with dangerous situations.

San Francisco Sheriff Michael Hennessey said the Sheriff’s Department has been using Tasers since 2002 and has “found them to be very effective.”

Cristine Soto DeBerry, representing Mayor Ed Lee, said the mayor also supported allowing the Police Department to study the issue.

San Francisco Police Commission braces for another Taser debate

February 22, 2011
Rebecca Bowe, San Francisco Bay Guardian

The San Francisco Police Department, police commissioners, and community advocates are gearing up for another debate about whether or not SFPD officers should carry and use Tasers. The hearing will be held at tomorrow’s Feb. 23 police commission meeting.

Interim Police Chief Jeff Godown -- carrying forward a plan that originated with his predecessor, former police chief George Gascon -- called for a hearing on the Taser proposal, according to a Police Commission spokesperson. If it wins approval, the SFPD will begin conducting research to develop training and policy guidelines for the SFPD to implement Tasers. The issue has ignited fierce debate in the past, and resistance is likely to be revived on this go-round.

Last year, the commission rejected Gascon’s proposal to add Tasers to police officers’ use-of-force options. Now, Commissioner Angela Chan, who was appointed last year by the San Francisco Board of Supervisors after the proposal had been defeated, is emerging as a voice of dissent.

Chan submitted a handful of reports published by American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), Amnesty International, and other sources critical of Tasers for commissioners to review prior to the meeting. She’s also preparing a 45-minute presentation highlighting concerns about the weapons.

The SFPD will give its own 45-minute presentation to try and convince commissioners that it should be allowed to move forward with the plan this time. “It’s another tool for officers to use when encountering violent persons,” noted Sgt. Andray Chak, a police spokesperson.

Chak said it was too soon to provide any details about whether the Taser proposal would take the form of a pilot program, or be implemented all at once. He did not have specific information about how training would be developed, how the department planned to solicit input from various communities, or how long the department expected to be working on a draft policy if the police commission granted approval. Chak did note that if the SFPD moves forward, it may host town hall meetings about Tasers.

The Feb. 23 police commission meeting is likely to bring vociferous community opposition. The Coalition on Homelessness (COH) and a number of other community-based organizations are encouraging people to attend the meeting and speak during public comment.

In a letter submitted to the police commission, Asian and Southeast Asian Societies, Causa Justa (Just Cause), The Harvey Milk LGBT Democratic Club, COH, and other community advocates point out that Tasers have been declared a form of torture by a UN torture panel, and cite a University of Calfornia San Francisco study finding that police shootings more than doubled in the first full year of Taser implementation.

The community organizations also pointed out that Tasers are manufactured in Scottsdale, Ariz. -- and San Francisco is still boycotting Arizona for enacting SB 1070, a bill that has drawn widespread criticism for encouraging racial profiling. Meanwhile, in a lean budget year, the cost of implementing Tasers is estimated at around $2 million, according to the letter.

Despite being turned down last time, the department has revived its Taser proposal in the wake of two officer-involved shootings early this year, including one that struck a mentally ill, wheelchair-bound man who was brandishing a knife. That case came under scrutiny after it was caught on a phone camera and posted to YouTube.

Following that incident, Gascon suggested that the outcome may have been different if officers had the option of deploying Tasers.

Yet Allen Hopper, police practices director at the ACLU, questions the idea that deploying a Taser would have been the correct response in that circumstance -- especially in light of a recent Police Commission vote to strengthen SFPD practices when encountering people with mental illness. The Commission recently directed the SFPD to establish a Crisis Intervention Team (CIT), based on a policing model that emphasizes deescalation. Yet Hopper says deploying a Taser would achieve just the opposite.

"We think it's putting the cart before the horse to give the police Tasers before they put that plan into effect," Hopper said. People with mental-health problems, he added, are more likely to be on strong medication, or prone to excited emotional states and rapid heart rates -- all of which could place them at a higher risk for serious injury or even death if struck with a Taser.

Counted among a class of weapons called conducted energy devices, Tasers deliver a painful electric jolt when deployed, temporarily immobilizing a subject by disrupting the central nervous system and causing involuntary muscle contractions. While they tend to be hailed by law enforcement as non-lethal alternatives to firearms, human-rights organizations have criticized Tasers because accidental deaths have been linked to their use. According to a report by Amnesty International, more than 330 people were reported to have died in the last decade after being struck by police Tasers. While not all of those deaths were directly attributed to the Tasers in coroners' reports, many of the people who died were found to be in "excited states of delirium" or under the influence of illegal drugs or prescription medications when they were Tasered.

Police taser debate to resume in San Francisco

February 22, 2011
C.W. Nevius, San Francisco Chronicle

Everybody has an opinion about Tasers. And when the Police Commission once again opens discussion on Wednesday night, we're probably going to hear plenty of them - loudly.

Angela Chan is new to the commission, but she's already tired of the rhetoric.

"This heated, yes-no debate where you have people yelling, 'I want Tasers,' and someone else is yelling, 'I don't want Tasers,' is not helpful," she said. "I'm hoping we can have a more thoughtful, substantive discussion."

Good luck. Things always seem to start out in a reasonable tone and then go off the rails.

So before the smoke and confusion fill the room, let's stick with the central premise: A Taser is a good idea because it is an option between a police baton and a firearm. That's an idea that makes perfect sense.

Even most of the critics agree with that. But they tend to bring in other considerations.

"Maybe Tasers are the answer; maybe they are not," said Commissioner Petra DeJesus, who voted against them a year ago. "But is this the time for them?"

DeJesus worries about the cost to a city in a budget crisis. Chan has concerns about effectiveness. And at least one other member of the commission wanted to wait until he heard where Mayor Ed Lee stood on Tasers.

For the record, Lee backs Tasers for the Police Department - sort of.

"Mayor Lee supports researching Tasers," said spokeswoman Christine Falvey. "He wants to explore possible alternatives to lethal force, and Tasers are potentially a good option."

A year ago, the commission rejected a Taser proposal that would have researched guidelines for use. In other words, the commission voted, 4-3, to not even look into the idea.

That can't happen this time.

The good news is that three new members have joined the commission - Chan, Jamie Slaughter, and Carol Kingsley - so a fresh look is likely.

Chan will probably vote against Tasers, but she has certainly looked into the issue.

"I have tried to find as many experts as possible," she said.

The problem is that the experts can't agree. Chan cites the Braidwood Inquiry, a Canadian study of "conducted energy weapons." She says the report shows that in police departments with Tasers, "officer-involved shootings are not down, victim shootings are not down, and lawsuits are not down."

However, there's also data in the same report that supports the use of Tasers, provided strict training and guidelines are followed.

Proponents of Tasers, like commission President Tom Mazzucco, will reference the nationally recognized Police Executive Research Forum, whose report shows dramatically lower numbers for officer-involved shootings when departments can use a Taser. That agency's executive director, Chuck Wexler, will speak to the commission.

"Look," says Mazzucco, "the use of force is never pretty. I wish there was some magical device that would just freeze the person in his tracks. There's not. So I'd just like to see the commission open it up to a pilot program and see what works."

The Taser discussion comes just as the commission unanimously approved crisis intervention training to deal with the mentally ill. Someone is bound to ask why Tasers are needed if the training works.

"Crisis intervention with the mentally ill is a totally separate issue from Tasers," said interim Police Chief Jeff Godown. "Last year one of our sergeants was thrown through a plate glass window. That's what we are talking about."

Statistics will be flying Wednesday, and conflicting testimony and data are expected. But that doesn't change the central point:

Tasers are far from perfect, but they are the best alternative available.

"Confronted with a violent, dangerous suspect," said Police Officers Association Vice President Kevin Martin, "Would the commission prefer to see lethal force or nonlethal force? They can't have it both ways."

San Francisco police seeking to revisit Taser debate

January 30, 2011
TERRY COLLINS, Associated Press
San Francisco Chronicle

In the wake of at least three recent officer-related shootings — including the video-recorded wounding of a knife-wielding man in a wheelchair — the San Francisco Police Department is reviving efforts to equip officers with less-lethal electric stun guns.

It comes nearly a year after the Police Commission narrowly rejected the department's proposal to even explore using the devices commonly known as Tasers, citing safety and liability concerns.

Interim Chief Jeff Godown and a team of experts will try again in February to persuade the seven-member commission to grant permission to the department to study bringing in Tasers possibly by early next year.

"I hope we give a stellar presentation to the commission, allow the public to have comment and allow us to go out and do research," Godown said last week.

Use-of-force experts say that a solid case made by the department could win over a commission with several new members citing Tasers as an alternative to deadly force. Critics acknowledge that Tasers are less lethal than guns but say they still pose a health risk, including death.

Amnesty International estimates that about 400 people have died from being shocked with a stun gun. Steve Tuttle, a spokesman for Taser International Inc., said those numbers are misleading. He said medical examiners have said Tasers contributed to fewer than 50 of those deaths.

More than 12,000 law enforcement agencies across the country use Tasers, Tuttle said.

Critics may also cite recent legal rulings involving the use of Tasers.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in December that police must have reasonable grounds for using stun guns. The San Francisco-based court said a Southern California officer used excessive force in firing a stun gun to subdue an unarmed motorist for not wearing a seat belt during a 2005 traffic stop.

Nearly every major city police department in the U.S. uses stun guns. San Francisco is among a handful of cities, including Detroit and Memphis, that do not.

San Francisco's Taser initiative was rekindled earlier this month by then-police chief George Gascon after two officer-involved shootings within a week involving men with knives.

He said officers were justified in shooting a man in a wheelchair who had been slashing car tires with a knife before he stabbed an officer Jan 4. He suffered nonfatal wounds when police shot him.

Gascon, who is now San Francisco's district attorney, said that shooting — which was caught on cell phone video, aired on the Internet and made national headlines — could have had a different outcome if officers were equipped with Tasers.

"A Taser more than likely would have ended this scenario probably at the earlier stages, but we don't have them," Gascon said.

On Dec. 29, officers fatally shot a man who was carrying a knife when they responded to an alleged stabbing of a teenage girl at the man's residence. The man was later described as having a history of mental illness.

David Harris, a law professor at the University of Pittsburgh who studies Tasers, believes that San Francisco police, if the Taser initiative is approved, should create a very detailed policy, training and oversight.

"It's an educational process and San Francisco has a long history of citizen involvement with police affairs," Harris said. "These things are not toys."

Kelli Evans, associate director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California, who testified last year against Gascon's Taser proposal, said: "Tasers only make sense in a narrow category of high-risk incidents in police departments with stringent training, adequate safeguards, strong accountability systems and a high degree of transparency. San Francisco isn't there yet."

She also wants police to resume officer training for dealing with mentally ill suspects. Police say their training program, suspended last summer, is being revamped.

In seeking permission to use Tasers, Gascon cited a recent study of officer-involved shootings in San Francisco over five years, which indicated that up to one-third of all incidents could have been avoided if Tasers were used.

"I underestimated the political environment that I was operating under," Gascon recently told reporters about the commission rejecting his request last year.

Police Commission President Thomas Mazzucco, who said he is undecided after voting for Tasers last year, said there are compelling arguments on both sides.

"Everybody needs to take a deep breath and see what works for the citizens and the officers," Mazzucco said.

Gary Delagnes, president of the San Francisco Police Officers Association, said officers strongly support the use of stun guns as another useful tool.

"They've been long overdue. We thought we had them last year, but the some members of the commission were able to knock it down," Delagnes said. "We hope to prevail this time around."

Steve Ijames, a retired police officer from Missouri and expert in non-lethal tactics, believes Tasers are more effective than bean bag shots or pepper spray, especially among suspects who are highly tolerant to pain.

Ijames, who has trained law enforcement officers in more than 35 countries, also recommends police departments use Tasers with tiny video cameras attached to grip of the gun for more accountability.

The camera is activated as soon as the officer takes the Taser out of the holster and turns off the safety.

"It just shuts people's mouths about what actually happened," Ijames said. "It removes all doubt."

Column by BART Police Chief Kenton Rainey

July 16, 2010

The following is an op-ed column by BART Police Chief Kenton Rainey that was published July 3 in the Contra Costa Times.

By Kenton Rainey
BART Chief of Police

Today marks the end of my second full week as the new BART Chief of Police. I wish I could report that it was pretty uneventful, but I cannot.

The majority of my time has been occupied with coordinating with my law enforcement peers in preparation for possible civil unrest in connection with the Mehserle trial. A large percentage of the remainder of my time has been spent addressing questions about why one of our police officers used his Taser against a suspect who was resisting arrest after being contacted for fare evasion.

The obvious answer for anyone interested in why the officer felt compelled that he had to arrest this suspect is that the aforementioned behavior is against the law, and we are paid to enforce the law no matter how minor. More importantly, however, it's not normal for a 35-year-old man to engage in fare evasion or for him to aggressively and physically resist a uniformed officer who is engaged in the lawful performance of his duty. Bottom line, it's because of this suspect's behavior that there's an issue.

Often, we find that individuals who engage in this type of behavior are no strangers to law enforcement. That's why it was no surprise to learn that the suspect's criminal history includes arrests and/or contacts for battery on a police officer, auto theft, domestic violence, reckless driving, giving false identification to an officer, trespassing and fare evasion.

If we are going to maintain a safe, secure and customer-service friendly transit system, it's important for BART police to enforce minor quality of life crimes like fare evasion. We often ask the men and women of our law enforcement agencies to exercise their discretion when performing their public safety duties on our behalf under the most adverse conditions. They regularly go about their daily routines knowing that their split second decisions are subject to being hotly debated for days, weeks, and months.

With that said, this does not excuse officers who behave intentionally or unintentionally in a manner that is not consistent with BART Police Department operating procedures. That's why we have processes and systems in place to review all incidents involving the use of force. Therefore, we should all step back and let that process occur regarding this incident. Once completed, you have my pledge as the BART Chief of Police that if we have done something wrong, we will admit it, take the necessary steps to fix it and move forward together making our transit system and communities safer.

Finally, one of our elected officials who expressed her opposition to Taser usage has been subjected to personal criticism because of her views. This is both unfair and undemocratic. In a free society the police are entrusted with awesome power that must be open to scrutiny, criticism and citizen oversight if we are going to maintain the public trust. Therefore, not only should we expect this debate to occur, we should welcome it.

San Francisco police chief Gascon gives up on arming officers with tasers

March 5, 2010
Jaxon Van Derbeken, San Francisco Chronicle

SAN FRANCISCO -- A day after the San Francisco Police Commission rejected his proposal to arm officers with Tasers, Chief George Gascón said Thursday he is giving up his push for the devices that he billed as a possible alternative to the use of deadly force.

The commission voted 4-3 just before midnight Wednesday not to give Gascón the go-ahead to develop guidelines under which officers could use the electronic stun guns, which would have been a first step toward adopting Tasers.

Opponents pointed to studies suggesting that the devices can kill people with heart conditions or even those who are otherwise healthy, and were skeptical of police promises that officers' use of Tasers would be sharply restricted.

In an interview Thursday, Gascón said he was "extremely disappointed" by the vote and would no longer press the matter.

"The majority of the commission has spoken loud and clear on this issue - they don't want to address it," Gascón said. "So we're going to just back off from it for the time being."

Chief researched incidents

Gascón, who had cited a study finding that as many as a third of 15 officer-involved shootings in a five-year period in San Francisco could have been avoided with Tasers, added: "Hopefully, there will not be any unfortunate incidents."

The Taser proposal was the first major policy initiative that Gascón had brought before the commission, which hired him on a unanimous vote last year on the recommendation of Mayor Gavin Newsom. Some of the commissioners who voted against the plan made it clear they felt the chief had overstepped his authority by not letting the panel be involved in vetting his idea.

Commissioner Petra DeJesus, one of three panel members appointed by the Board of Supervisors, said she refused to be a "rubber stamp" for the Police Department and Gascón, whom she accused of trying to circumvent a full review on whether the devices were safe to use on suspects.

DeJesus and the other commissioners appointed by the supervisors, Vincent Pan and Jim Hammer, joined Newsom appointee Yvonne Lee in rejecting Tasers.

Three backers on panel

All three votes in favor were cast by Newsom's other appointees - panel President Joe Marshall and Commissioners Thomas Mazzucco and David Onek.

During Wednesday's five-hour meeting, Gascón cited research by the Police Executive Research Forum think tank that found that police departments that adopted Tasers had dramatically lower rates of shootings and injuries than other departments.

But the commission also heard from two UCSF cardiology professors whose study of 50 police departments in California found that officer-involved shootings and deaths of suspects actually spiked during the first year of Taser deployment.

Other critics noted that roughly 400 people in the United States have died since 2001 after being hit with Tasers.

Hammer - who had attended a news conference Gascón held last week to push for Tasers - said Wednesday night that the UCSF study data had changed his mind.

He said almost half the department's 2,000 officers have not yet undergone training for dealing with mentally ill suspects, who he said were more likely to resist police orders and thus be hit with Tasers. Until those officers are trained, he said, he won't "rush into" adopting Tasers.

'He is the CEO'

Marshall, the panel's president, said he was bewildered by the vote.

"We brought him in there," Marshall said of Gascón. "He is the CEO, he runs the organization. He should be given the opportunity to try things."

Police union President Gary Delagnes called the commission's vote "political correctness run amok. Four people on the Police Commission obviously think that they know more than the experts in the field, more than the police chief.

"The next time someone in the city is killed, and it could have been prevented because of a use of Taser, the blood is on their hands," Delagnes said.

Gascón has cautioned that Tasers could not be used in lieu of guns in all situations, but he said he could easily envision situations where officers would use a Taser if given the choice. He said the commission's vote eliminated that possibility.

"What we're saying, is, 'You know what? We would rather you use a firearm and forget about the possibility of having this other option,' " Gascón said.

"I don't believe the commission is doing this to send any kind of personal message to me," he said. "But I think they are sending a message to the public and the organization at large. I'm not really sure what that message is.

"In the meantime, we've still got officers encountering situations out there with a tool bag that lacks all the tools that are available today."

Tonight on CNN - Tasers under scrutiny after claims of death and injury

The giant south of the border awakens - slowly but surely ...

See an investigation into the potential health dangers of tasers on tonight's "Campbell Brown" on CNN tonight, 8 p.m. ET

By Dan Simon and David Fitzpatrick, CNN Special Investigations Unit

Watsonville, California (CNN) -- Sitting at the kitchen table in his small house, Steven Butler has trouble even with a very simple question. He cannot tell you the day of the week or the month, and he has to have the help of a calendar to tell you the year.

"Once a moment is gone, it's gone," said his brother and caregiver, David Butler says in an interview to air on tonight's "Campbell Brown". "He can't remember any good times, birthday parties, Christmas, any event."

On October 7, 2006, Steven Butler, by his own admission, was drunk and disorderly. He refused an order from a police officer in his hometown to get off a city bus. The officer used his Taser ECD (officially, an "Electronic Control Device") three times.

According to doctors, Butler suffered immediate cardiac arrest. He was revived by emergency medical technicians who happened to be close by, but his attorneys say his brain was deprived of oxygen for as long as 18 minutes. He is now permanently disabled.

Butler and his family have filed a lawsuit -- not against the police, but against the maker of the weapon, Taser International.

John Burton, a lawyer based in Pasadena, California, says he can prove that when the weapons are fired directly over the chest, they can cause and have caused cardiac arrest. In addition, Burton says he can prove Taser knew about that danger.

"Well, we can prove that by early 2006," said Burton, "but we suspect they had all the necessary data since 2005, since they were funding the study."

The study Burton mentions was published in early 2006 by the American College of Cardiology Foundation. Funded by Taser, it focused on pigs struck by Tasers, with the conclusions, according to the study, "generalized to humans."

The authors wrote that being hit by a Taser is unlikely to cause cardiac arrest, but nevertheless recommended Taser darts not be fired near the heart to "greatly reduce any concern for induction of ventricular arrhythmias."

Dr. Douglas Zipes, a cardiologist based outside Indianapolis, Indiana, plans to testify against Taser in any lawsuit regarding what happened to Butler. In plain English, he says, that recommendation is a clear warning.

"I think Taser has been disingenuous and certainly up to 2006 -- the case we are talking about -- Taser said in their educational materials that there was no cardiac risk whatsoever," Zipes said. "That Taser could not produce a heart problem, that there was no long lasting effect from Taser."

Medical experts say that if a person is hit by a Taser dart near the chest, one result is a dramatic increase in the subject's heartbeat -- from a resting 72 beats a minute to as many as 220 beats a minute for a short period of time. In its court filings, the company says the "peak-loaded" voltage from a Taser at impact ranges up to 40,000 volts but it's a 600-volt average for the duration of the firing.

In an e-mail, a spokesman for Taser said the company would not comment on any ongoing litigation. But in a court filing seeking to dismiss the Butler lawsuit, it said Taser devices "are repeatedly proven safe through testing, in human volunteers, in controlled, medically approved studies." There's no evidence, the company says, that being hit with a Taser causes cardiac arrest in humans.

But the company has significantly changed its recommendations for how Tasers should be used. Officers, it said, should no longer aim for the chest when using the device, instead targeting the arms, legs, buttocks.

Why the change?

A company document said "the answer has less to do with safety and more to do with effective risk management for law enforcement agencies."

In other words, say lawyers who have sued Taser, it means police are less likely to be sued if they avoid hitting subjects in the chest. In court papers, Taser says the risk of cardiac arrest is "extremely rare and would be rounded to near zero," but it adds: "However, law enforcement is left defending a lawsuit and disproving a negative, which is difficult to do."

"Out of one side of their mouth, they publish this warning, saying, 'Don't hit people in the chest if you can avoid it,'" said Dana Scruggs, an attorney representing Steven Butler. "And on the other side, in the lawsuit and in their public statements, they deny that their device can affect the human heart."

Nearly every big-city police department in the United States uses a Taser device. According to the company, more than 14,000 law enforcement agencies worldwide employ Tasers and more than 1.8 million people have had the weapon used on them since it was introduced into general law enforcement use in the 1990s. The human rights organization Amnesty International estimates more than 400 people have died as a result of Taser strikes.

Officially, it's not a gun. As an electronic control device, Tasers are not classified as a firearm. The devices are regulated by the Consumer Product Safety Commission.

"There's one thing that's undeniable -- that if I use my firearm, the chances are that you will suffer extreme injuries or death," said George Gascon, the newly installed police chief in San Francisco, California. "The chances are much greater of reducing injuries with a Taser."

San Francisco is one of three big-city police departments in the United States that don't use Tasers (The others are Detroit, Michigan, and Memphis, Tennessee). Gascon wants to change that. He supports use of the device but says to call it "nonlethal" is inaccurate.

"We have referred to the Tasers for many years as a less-lethal weapon," he said. "In the San Francisco experience, which we have to concentrate on, I have not said once that this is a nonlethal device because I believe it can be a contributing factor in causing death."

Read: Chief's Taser proposal rejected in San Francisco

Taser International is growing. Its latest earnings report says the firm made more than $100 million in profits last year by selling Tasers to both law enforcement and to individual consumers. And the company says even more police and sheriff's departments are lining up to purchase the weapon every day.

The company argues in Steven Butler's case that simply being in a stressful situation with police can bring on heart problems, and there's no link between being being hit with a Taser and the cardiac arrest.

For Steven Butler, greeting the mailman now is a highlight of his day. He doesn't dispute that he was drunk and disorderly when the officer tried to get him off the bus, but he and his family blame Taser for what happened to him. He says he's not frustrated or angry, just resigned to spending the rest of his life trying to remember what happened.

San Francisco Police Chief's proposal for Tasers rejected

March 4, 2010
San Francisco Chronicle

The San Francisco Police Commission late Wednesday voted down a proposal by police Chief George Gascon to explore the use of Tasers by the department.

The 4-3 vote denying Gascon that option was accompanied by disagreement among some commissioners about what the agenda item they were voting on actually meant.

The item would authorize Gascon to develop changes to the police department's general order to include the use of conducted energy devices, widely known as Tasers, and to develop policies and training practices to go along with that order.

While Gascon and some commissioners said this merely meant giving him permission to draft a Taser policy that would then later have to be approved by the commission at a future hearing, Commissioner Petra DeJesus, who said she opposes the introduction of Tasers, described it as "vague and ambiguous."

"It's putting Tasers in, it's putting them in tonight," she said.

Commissioner David Onek disagreed.

"We are not voting to approve Tasers tonight," Onek said. He said the vote was to ask the chief to draft a policy about Tasers "and to bring it back to us, where then we would vote for it, or not vote for it."

Onek said he would only approve Taser use for the department under a "very, very, very restrictive" policy introduced by Gascon.

"I think that he deserves the deference to come up with a plan," Onek said.

An apparently exasperated Gascon acknowledged that the agenda item could have been written more clearly, and said he could have begun drafting a Taser policy before bringing it to the commission, but did not do so "out of an abundance of caution."

Gascon added that it was well within the commission's ability to amend the item, but no amendment was offered.

In the end, commissioners Joe Marshall, Thomas Mazzucco and Onek voted for the proposal, and commissioners DeJesus, Vincent Pan, Yvonne Lee and Jim Hammer voted against.

Hammer, who was widely regarded as the swing vote on the commission and who attended a news conference held by Gascon last week in support of Tasers, said tonight, "I remain in favor of changing our use of force policy. I remain in favor of adding something to that, and that may be Tasers."

But the issue needed a "full vetting," Hammer said.

"I will not rush into this tonight," he said.

The commission gave nearly five hours of debate to the issue Wednesday night - mainly from advocates warning of the potential dangers of Taser use - and another several hours two weeks ago, where testimony centered on arguments for their implementation.

The devices, which deliver a powerful electric shock, rendering a person temporarily without muscle control, are controversial. They have been implicated as a contributing factor in some deaths and serious injuries during arrests by police. Opponents also say they are unregulated by any governmental agency.

Gascon has said Tasers represent a "less lethal" addition to the department's arsenal that would decrease the number of injuries and fatalities for both officers and suspects. He has also said that his officers would receive "very in-depth, Fourth Amendment training" on their use, and they would only be employed against aggressive, violent suspects.

Hammer expressed particular concern about the rights of mentally ill suspects who engage in violent encounters with police. Encounters with armed suspects intending to commit "suicide-by-cop" often end with officers defending themselves with a firearm and killing the suspects, police say. In some of those cases, Tasers would present a potentially non-lethal option, they argue.

Hammer did allow room for an "incredibly limited policy that could walk that fine line between reducing deaths and injuries, and not intentionally killing people who don't deserve to die."

Many of Wednesday night's speakers opposed to Tasers also argued community and civil rights groups, as well as mental health advocates, had not been part of the discussion leading up to the vote.

"If we vote this down tonight, then the policy dies," Mazzucco cautioned his fellow commissioners before the vote.

It remained unclear following the vote whether Taser use by the San Francisco Police Department could be revisited in the near future.

"I don't know," said Gascon as he left the hearing room.

SAN FRANCISCO POLICE COMMISSION WON'T ALLOW TASERS

March 4, 2010
KCBS

SAN FRANCISCO (KCBS) -- The San Francisco Police Commission has voted not to allow police officers in the city to have Tasers. In a hearing late Wednesday night, the commission struck down the proposal by a 4-3 vote.

The proposal was backed by San Francisco Police Chief George Gascon and several officer groups, including the Police Officers Association.

Gascon had called for the commission to allow for the use of Tasers, saying it could help save lives.

Gascon called for a study of officer-involved shootings in the city and it found that a third of the 15 incidents over a five-year period might have been avoided had officers been equipped with tasers.

The commission heard from both sides during Wednesday’s hearing, including from members of the American Civil Liberties Union and UCSF researcher Zian Tseng, who cited a major increase in deaths during the first year use of Tasers in California.

Tseng could not say if Tasers played a role in those deaths.

San Francisco, Detroit and Memphis are the only big U.S. police departments who do not use Tasers.

San Francisco Police Commission warned on Taser risks

March 4, 2010
Jaxon Van Derbeken, San Francisco Chronicle

Researchers and experts warned the San Francisco Police Commission on Wednesday about the lethal risk of Tasers and urged the panel either to strongly limit or reject their use in dealing with unruly suspects.

The seven-member panel, which had already heard a number of experts speak in favor of Tasers as a way to reduce deaths and injuries, was expected to vote late Wednesday on whether to draw up a policy for their use by the San Francisco Police Department.

But Zian Tseng, a UCSF researcher, cited a sixfold increase in deaths in custody during the first year of their use in 50 Taser-fielding agencies surveyed in California. He could not say if Tasers had a role in any of those deaths. Tseng also noted that officer-involved shootings went up as well, but those shootings and in-custody deaths dropped back to previous levels following the first year of Taser use.

"There is a risk, but there's a smart way of using the Tasers," he said. He cautioned that officers should not fire at the chest or multiple times and that they need to keep heart defibrillators at hand to revive suspects. Dr. Byron Lee, a UCSF cardiology professor, warned against "usage creep" by officers, who are more inclined to use a Taser as they see how easily the device stops suspects. "That's where the risk happens, where you don't realize these are potentially lethal and they are used in a haphazard manner."

Most cities use Tasers

San Francisco is one of only a few major cities in the United States whose officers are not equipped with the weapons, which incapacitate suspects by stunning them with an electrical charge.

The seven-member commission, made up of four mayoral appointments and three members appointed by the Board of Supervisors, was considering Chief George Gascón's request to equip officers with Tasers. On Feb. 17, the panel decided unanimously to delay a decision so it could study Taser research after voting 4-3 against moving forward immediately.

After becoming chief in July, Gascón commissioned a study of officer-involved shootings in San Francisco over five years that found that as many as one-third could have been avoided had police been able to use Tasers.

Critics, however, cite studies that indicate a possible connection between the stun guns and the risk of sudden heart attack in people hit with them. They note that manufacturer Taser International warned police last year not to fire the devices at suspects' chests, after one of the company's scientific advisers concluded that at least one fatal heart attack in an otherwise healthy person had been caused by the device.

John Burton, a lawyer who won a $5 million judgment against Taser International in the case of a man who died after being Tased by a police officer in Salinas, urged the commissions to reject Tasers as "very dangerous" and largely untested and unregulated.

"Departments are relying on training and representations of the manufacturer, which has a built-in conflict of interest," he said, adding that Taser had "covered up a real health risk."

Burton said the company has known since 2005 that the devices could stop the hearts of animals and, later, humans, but failed to warn officers until late last year about not firing at the chest and against multiple uses.

"This is a company that simply refuses to sell its product with advice about how it could be used most safely" he said, adding that the "hidden dangers" outweigh the utility of the device.

ACLU weighs in

Kelli Evans, associate director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California, urged the panel to reject the proposal as ill conceived and premature. "The first step is to back up," Evans said. "You've got the cart before the horse."

She said the department should first reach out to community groups, particularly mental health experts, before the matter goes to the commission.

"What needs to happen is a community dialogue - does this really make sense in San Francisco right now?" she said, suggesting that the community distrusts the police and the department's use-of-force tracking.

Evans said Memphis has developed an alternative to using Tasers, creating a mental health response team rather than use the device on mentally ill suspects. She said that if the city does deploy Tasers, it is "important not to do it carte blanche."

But 38-year SFPD veteran Vince Repetto, who joined a contingent of officers waiting to speak in favor of Tasers, said before the meeting that the Taser proposal is literally "a life-or-death decision."

"It's not if, but when, a Taser is used to stop a knife-wielding suspect and a life is saved," he said. "Then you will see the results of your decision. Let us hope that same suspect is not shot dead because an officer lacked a valuable option to deadly force."

Roughly 400 people in the United States have died since 2001 after being hit with stun guns, but Taser and its proponents, including Gascón, say most had existing heart conditions or had been using drugs.

An important vote

It appeared the Police Commission's decision could hang on the vote of commissioner Jim Hammer, a former San Francisco prosecutor who was among the majority voting against immediately drawing up a policy Feb. 17. He said then that he supported a delay so fellow commissioners could ponder the issue.

Hammer signaled before the meeting Wednesday that he supported giving Tasers to officers, but only if rules are put in place restricting their use to extreme circumstances.

Gascón presses case for Tasers

February 25, 2010
Jaxon Van Derbeken, Chronicle Staff Writer

SAN FRANCISCO -- San Francisco Police Chief George Gascón challenged the city's Police Commission on Wednesday to approve Tasers, saying it was inexcusable and "negligent" to deny officers a less-lethal means of dealing with dangerous suspects.

San Francisco is one of the few major U.S. cities that does not arm its officers with the stun guns. Last week, the commission balked at Gascón's proposal to develop a protocol for equipping officers with the devices, with four of the seven members rejecting the idea and the entire panel agreeing to reconsider the matter next Wednesday.

The department has touted an internal study that found that one-third of officer-involved shootings over five years might have been avoided with stun guns. But some commissioners voiced concern about the safety of Tasers, and others said they needed time to review research about suspects who have died after being stunned with the devices.

Gascón, saying he had received numerous supportive phone calls and e-mails after the proposal stalled, summoned three members of the commission to a news conference Wednesday to make his case.

"This is the right tool, at the right time," Gascón said. "It is not a perfect tool. ... It is not nonlethal. We understand that occasionally, the Taser has been found to be a contributing factor in the death of someone during an altercation with police."

But he said in many of those cases, "you have people who are extremely fragile. People who probably, if you were to ask them to run around the block, they would probably suffer cardiac arrest.

"So it's somewhat disingenuous to simply say that Tasers caused this," he said.

Gascón noted that in 2009, 107 officer injuries cost the city an estimated $2.25 million in workers compensation. He said equipping officers with Tasers would reduce the number of injuries, save some suspects' lives and save the city money it now spends on litigation over shootings.

"This is a very critical issue for this community - and we need this community to speak out and speak out loud and clearly on this issue," Gascón said. "It is unexcusable, it's negligent for us not to have the ability to equip our police officers with Tasers."

He said the department will develop a "thoughtful policy" on the devices that will allow officers to use them only when dealing with aggressive, combative suspects.

Three police commissioners, Joe Marshall, Jim Hammer and Thomas Mazzucco, attended the news conference.

Hammer's presence was especially significant, because he voted against the Taser proposal last week. On Wednesday, he said he supported giving Tasers to officers and had voted against the proposal only to give other commissioners time to think it over.

"I do support the chief moving forward with this," Hammer said. He said the chief should come to the panel with "a careful, smart" deployment policy within 60 days, not the 90 days called for in the commission resolution that failed last week.

San Francisco Chief stunned by Taser gridlock

"Gary Delagnes, head of the Police Officers Association, said Thursday that he is worried that anti-Taser groups will gather their forces and pack the seven-member commission's meeting March 3. Wednesday night, he said, may have been the chief's best chance to get the panel to agree to Tasers."

February 19, 2010
Lance Iversen, San Francisco Chronicle

The San Francisco Police Commission heard hours of testimony Wednesday night about the many benefits -- with a little about the drawbacks -- of Tasers. In the end, the panel decided to wait at least two weeks before deciding whether to start the process of arming officers with the stun guns.

Chief George Gascón called the delay "unconscionable," given what he called the clear benefits both to officers and suspects of giving police an alternative to firearms.

Commissioner Yvonne Lee said she simply wanted more time for the chief to ask the community about the wisdom of adopting Tasers. Two other commissioners, Petra DeJesus and Vincent Pan, said they needed time to look at studies about the risks involved. Besides, Pan said, he felt "blindsided" that the item had been added to the commission's agenda over a holiday weekend.

Gascón wanted to know what specifically he should ask the community and what could be gleaned from reviewing the studies in two weeks.

Commissioner James Hammer, who appeared to be inclined to equip officers with Tasers, nonetheless voted to delay the issue. He said that if Lee needed two weeks, that was fine by him. Besides, he said, everyone could use the time to consider all the issues.

Gary Delagnes, head of the Police Officers Association, said Thursday that he is worried that anti-Taser groups will gather their forces and pack the seven-member commission's meeting March 3. Wednesday night, he said, may have been the chief's best chance to get the panel to agree to Tasers.

Gascón's puzzlement showed. "I think we're quite frankly doing a disservice to ourselves by continuing to play that process-driven game," he told the commission.

Commission delays Gascón’s Taser policy

February 18, 2010
Brent Begin, Examiner Staff Writer

The SFPD will have to keep waiting for a decision on Tasers.

After hours of testimony and questions at the Police Commission Wednesday night about the safety of Tasers, and five years after another failed attempt to implement them in San Francisco, the seven-member civilian body decided to delay a vote on their use.

An affirmative vote would have allowed police Chief George Gascón only to develop a policy to bring back to the Police Commission in about 90 days for a second approval. The matter will come up again in two weeks.

Experts back San Francisco police chief on use of Tasers

San Francisco, Detroit and Memphis are the only big U.S. cities whose police departments do not use Tasers. It is so EASY to find so-called "EXPERTS" to extol the virtues of this weapon that - no matter what any bought and paid-for expert says - has the potential to kill. It is unfortunate that, either critics of taser use in San Francisco didn't organize themselves (and I include myself in that) or the reporter bought the party line - hook, (thin blue) line and sinker.

The "train may have left the station" in SF. Detroit and Memphis - this is your wake-up call.

Jaxon Van Derbeken, Chronicle Staff Writer
Thursday, February 18, 2010

SAN FRANCISCO -- The San Francisco Police Commission heard a litany of expert testimony Wednesday to support the police chief's proposal that the department's officers be equipped with electronic stun guns.

Chief George Gascón has pushed for Tasers, stun guns that disrupt a target's muscle control, and ordered a study of officer-involved shootings shortly after coming on the job in late July. That study, released earlier this year, concluded that one-third of 15 officer-involved shootings over a five-year period might have been avoided had officers had the devices.

San Francisco, Detroit and Memphis are the only big U.S. cities whose police departments do not use Tasers.

Gascón said before the meeting that a policy on Taser use as a "less lethal" option would take 90 days to develop and that deployment could take a year or more. Officials with the Police Executive Research Forum who studied seven departments that used Tasers and six that did not found a 78 percent drop in officer injuries and a 40 percent drop in suspect injuries with the deployment of the devices. They stressed that the weapons must be tightly controlled with strict training.

Critics of Tasers, however, argued that they are not the nonlethal weapons the maker advertises. A specialist from the Los Angeles-area American Civil Liberties Union has noted that research is lacking on the use of the Taser's role in 400 in-custody deaths since 2001.

However, another ACLU official told the commission that Tasers are highly effective and humane. Scott Greenwood, a civil rights lawyer and a general counsel for the ACLU in Ohio, said Tasers have been vital in improving the use-of-force records of Cincinnati police, which went from 18 police-involved shootings one year to zero the next.

He noted that departments across the country slashed shootings by half or to zero in just the first year of implementation, cutting injuries to officers. "Every jurisdiction has had a double-digit drop," he said.

Greenwood also said SFPD's policies and practices make it "late to the game" when it comes to Taser use.

"The train here has really left the station as far as throughout the country," Greenwood said, adding that the SFPD's policy resembles the practices used 25 years ago in East Coast departments and its officers "lack a full tool kit."

He faulted the department's policies, which leave officers little choice between verbal orders and opening fire.

"This shouldn't even be a close question," he said. "You should approve his (Gascón's) request tonight for all the right reasons."

San Francisco Sheriff Mike Hennessey noted that his agency has used a Taser 12 times over the last eight years and that merely pointing the device's laser guide light at suspects has caused them to say, "OK, I give up." The Sheriff's Department uses the device both in the jail and in serving warrants.

"The Taser can be a deterrent in many situations when a person realizes they are about to be Tased," he said. "I find it has been a very effective tool."

He said the only drawback is expense, including training and the $35 cost per cartridge.