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