Pubdate: Tue, 23 Aug 2005
Source: Globe and Mail (Canada)
Copyright: 2005, The Globe and Mail Company
Contact:  http://www.globeandmail.ca/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/168
Author: Stephen Thorne, Canadian Press

BENEFITS OF TASERS OUTWEIGH RISKS, REPORT FOR POLICE CHIEFS CONCLUDES

OTTAWA -- The advantages of tasers and other so-called "conducted energy 
devices" used by police far outweigh the risks, despite a lack of 
definitive research on the subject, concludes a report for Canadian police 
chiefs.

Although there have been reports of deaths, no evidence exists that shows 
the devices -- known in police parlance as CEDs -- alone are to blame, says 
the study by the Canadian Police Research Centre which was released yesterday.

The devices are "effective law-enforcement tools that are safe in the vast 
majority of cases," says the study, which includes opinions from police and 
medical professionals.

"It has become evident that the emergence of CEDs as a use-of-force option 
for police services has been a substantial benefit," it says.

"Proper training and use of CEDs have reduced the risk of harm to both 
police officers and suspects. There is no question that the use of CEDs 
can, and has, saved many lives."

The devices, which can deliver a 50,000-volt shock as they subdue 
aggressive people, have become increasingly popular with North American 
law-enforcement agencies.

But controversy exists over whether they are being used properly. The 
human-rights group Amnesty International last November identified at least 
70 incidents in which people died in police custody across North America 
after being shocked by tasers or similar devices.

The new study was presented at the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police 
annual meeting. It acknowledges that there are "no known, scientifically 
tested, independently verified and globally accepted CED safety parameters."

But it indicates there were likely mitigating circumstances in most, if not 
all, cases in which suspects died after being zapped by the devices. It 
says the risk of heart attack or damage from the devices is "very low."

"Definitive research or evidence does not exist that implicates a causal 
relationship between the use of CEDs and death," it says. "Existing studies 
indicate that the risk of cardiac harm to subjects from a CED is very low."

The report says excited delirium, while not a universally recognized 
medical condition, may explain why so many deaths have been associated with 
use of the devices.

The condition, in which sufferers are often incoherent, violent or 
unco-operative, is usually caused by drugs or psychiatric illness. It has 
previously been associated with deaths in custody, or "in-custody- death 
syndrome."

The report says multiple use of tasers and similar devices, and their 
impact on respiration and other physical effects, could also play a role in 
the deaths.

"Police officers should recognize that acutely agitated persons are 
suffering from a medical emergency and that emergency medical services 
involvement is warranted as early as possible in the restraint process."

Deaths occurred in restraint situations before the devices were used and 
they will continue long after any further research sheds more light on the 
situation, said Inspector Darren Laur, a co-author of the report.

"On average, every year in Canada, we have between 10 and 15 sudden and 
unexpected deaths proximal to restraint where a taser isn't used," Insp. 
Laur said at a news conference. "In the United States, there are between 50 
and 150.

"This has been an issue since policing became a profession. . . . I truly 
believe that these types of deaths will continue to take place even if we 
invent the Star Trek phaser that you place on 'stun.' "

The report emphasizes that the devices have never been intended solely as 
an alternative for lethal force, and it says their use in most non-lethal 
incidents has been appropriate.

It suggests that police forces develop incident-reporting procedures and 
databases tailored specifically to the devices.

"It would be unwise and counterproductive for any police service or 
government body to develop policies and procedures that explicitly specify 
in what kinds of circumstances a CED may or may not be used," it says.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Beth