The death of Roberto Laudisio is another tragic addition to the list of Taser related deaths in this country. Amnesty International has calculated that at least 500 people in the United States have died since 2001 after being shocked with Tasers, either during their arrest or while in jail.
But just as the NSW State Coroner is calling for a review of the relevant NSW Police Standard Operating Procedures and associated training relating to the use of Tasers, so too should there be comprehensive independent research into the safety of the product itself.
The Taser was invented by Jack Cover, a NASA researcher, and named after the Thomas A. Swift Electric Rifle, a futuristic weapon in one of Tom Swift’s novels. It was later developed, and continues to be sold, by Taser International.
NSW Police use Taser International’s Taser Model X26. In a peer reviewed article in ‘Circulation’, the American Heart Association’s journal, Dr Douglas Zipe looked at eight cases involving the X26 and concluded that the Taser Model X26 discharge can cause cardiac arrest by capturing the cardiac rhythm at very rapid rates and precipitating ventricular tachycardia or ventricular fibrillation, as shown in animal testing and human reports. The concern is the waveform X26 uses, which more easily “captures” the heart beat.
Tasers can be deployed in either dart mode or drive-stun mode. In dart mode an electrical pulse of 50,000 volts is delivered to the body causing involuntary muscle contractions on the body mass between the two barbs. In drive-stun mode the taser is pressed against the body, causing a painful current to run through the specific body area to which the taser is applied but not causing neuromuscular incapacitation
This year Aaron Sussman, Chief Executive Officer of UCLA Law Review, wrote ‘Shocking the Conscience: What Police Tasers and Weapons Technology Reveal About Excessive Force Law’ which revealed that:
‘There is broad agreement that the available data on taser effects, regarding both the physical effects and the sensation of being tasered, is lacking. Further much of the data available comes from studies funded by or closely connected to Taser International, casting doubt on the studies’ neutrality. This is particularly problematic in light of claims by Taser International’s shareholders that the company has “wildly mischaracterised” the dangers posed by its products…. Further research is needed on the effects of deploying a taser in drive-stun mode versus in dart mode. Dart mode may appear more severe because it uses penetrating barbs and results in neuromuscular incapacitation, facts which have led many police agencies to classify it as a higher level of force. However, some experts assert that dart mode is more likely to be reasonable force because it may be safer and more effective than drive-stun mode… while having initially found drive-stun mode to be lower force than dart mode in its original Brooks v City of Seattle opinion, upon en banc rehearing, the court declined to designate drive-stun at a specific level of force.’
The Coroner’s report reveals that Roberto Laudisio was drive-stunned seven times within 51 seconds.
A jury in the 2008 US District Court product liability case of Heston v TASER International was convinced that the use of Taser Model M25 caused metabolic acidosis, a condition in which lactic acid, produced during physical exertion, accumulates more quickly than the body can expel it, which raises the risk of heart attack. It’s interesting that a warning was given in the November 2011 ‘TASER X26 Handheld Electronic Control Device Warnings, Instructions, and Information: Law Enforcement’ about the risk of taser use causing metabolic acidosis.
But the warnings don’t stop there. The X26 comes with a warning that:
‘Law enforcement personnel are called upon to deal with individuals in crisis who are often physiologically or metabolically compromised and may be susceptible to arrest-related death (“ARD”). The factors that may increase susceptibility for an ARD have not been fully characterised but may include: a hypersympathetic state, autonomic dysregulation, capture myopathy, hyperthermia, altered electrolytes, severe acidosis, cardiac arrest, drug or alcohol effects (toxic withdrawal or sensitisation to arrhythmias), alterations in brain function (agitated or excited delirium), cardiac disease, pulmonary disease, sickle cell disease, and other pathological conditions. These risks may exist prior to, during, or after law enforcement intervention or ECD use, and the subject may already be at risk of death or serious injury as a result of pre-existing conditions, individual susceptibility, or other factors. In a physiologically or metabolically compromised person any physiologic or metabolic change may cause or contribute to death or serious injury. Follow your agency’s Guidance when dealing with physiologically or metabolically compromised persons.’
For Roberto Laudisio and the young officers involved, the “agency’s Guidance” seems to have been sadly lacking. Will police instructors ever be able to train police officers to reliably spot potential susceptibilities and forego taser use in order to avoid arrest-related deaths?
The X26 warnings are “not based solely on the conclusions or findings of current medical or scientific literature. Rather, there are numerous factors that are considered in developing these warnings and some of those factors are more conservative than purely scientifically known, established, or confirmed principles or knowledge”; yes, factors like trying to avoid having to pay damages when people are killed or injured by their highly dangerous products. Yet even with the problems that have emerged, the NSW Police Force is now reportedly trialling the new double barrell Taser, X2!
The fact of the matter is that there hasn’t been anywhere near enough independent, objective research into taser safety and risks to justify these weapons being put into the hands of inadequately trained police officers with a discretion to use them on members of the public. We’ve already seen what happens when things go wrong, and deaths and injuries inevitably will continue until, at the very least, the physiological consequences of using them are objectively assessed and proper training and strict ‘safe use’ protocols, as to both circumstances and intensity of use, are independently established and rigidly enforced.