TASER® Non-Lethal Systems: Reducing Injuries and Saving Lives

Executive Summary

TASER® saves lives every day. TASER International is confident in the life saving value of TASER technology and is pleased to provide the enclosed summary of comprehensive TASER research and analysis. 1. TASER technology saves lives every day. Numerous medical and police studies have shown that TASER systems dramatically reduce injuries to both officers and suspects, and the use of TASER technology is proven to reduce the number of police shootings and use of lethal force. To date, TASER International estimates over 6,000 lives have been saved by the use of TASER technology. 2. TASER is among safest, most effective use-of-force options. Medical and police studies, as well as AI themselves, have shown that TASER technology is among the safest choices available to halt violent situations that pose a safety risk to an officer, suspect or innocent citizens. Local law enforcement agencies determine individual use of force policy. The ACLU and AI position that a TASER should only be used by a police officer as a direct response to deadly force is a position that will lead to greater injuries and deaths to both police and suspects. Police officers on scene are best able, highly trained and equipped to determine the proper use of force required based on the totality of circumstances in response to any given situation. Numerous independent medical and law enforcement studies have re-affirmed the life saving and injury reduction value of TASER technology. 3. There is no significant relationship between the use of TASER devices and in-custody deaths. Recent reported in-custody deaths are consistent with incidents where TASER devices are not used. Medical experts frequently cite drug use or pre-existing conditions as causes of death after media reports have jumped to premature, and erroneous conclusions as to the possible contribution of the TASER. Of the few cases, out of tens of thousands of life-saving deployments, where a TASER device has been cited as a possible contributing factor to an in-custody death, medical experts have disputed the findings of the medical examiner. 4. TASER International supports independent reviews of TASER devices and supports the continued study of the use of TASER technology. The TASER devices are among the most extensively researched and studied non-lethal technologies Available. Medical experts studying TASER system have found it to be one of the safest use-of-force options. Various boards of medical experts, as well as studies in the United States, United Kingdom, Switzerland, Canada, Australia and other nations, confirm the life-saving value and safety of TASER technology. 5. The U.N. Code of Conduct for Law Enforcement Officials factually supports that the TASER system should be used before other physical force options. Use of the TASER is strongly supported by internationally accepted standards that law enforcement officers should strive to minimize injury and damage to subjects and to preserve human life. The TASER has been shown in repeated field studies to be the among the least injurious force options for both the officer using force and the resistant subject. The level of expected injury to the subject is the only quantifiable measure of level of force.

Page 1 of 413

TASER® Non-Lethal Systems: Reducing Injuries and Saving Lives

This document clarifies various issues raised by Amnesty International (AI) in its report on the use of TASERs published on November 30, 2004. TASER International is confident in the life saving value of TASER technology and is pleased to provide the enclosed summary of comprehensive TASER technology research and analysis. 1. TASER technology saves lives every day. Suggestion made by AI that the TASER should only be used as an alternative to deadly force is an expression of their belief that police should not use force unless necessary. Most experts would agree that the lowest level of reasonable force is that level which provides the most effective control while maintaining the lowest propensity for injury. By this standard, the TASER system should be placed on the force continuum with other tactics with a low propensity for injury, not on a level with lethal firearms. A study of TASER technology by the Los Angeles Police Department found TASER technology to have the lowest injury rate of any force option. Figure 1 below shows the relative injury rate to both officers and suspects for different types of force used at the Los Angeles Police Department.1 Figure 1.

80%

16%

78%

36%

78%

20%

60%

21%

45%

11%

29%

18%

5%

29%

0% 0%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

Flas

hlig

ht

Pun

ch

Bat

on

Mis

c. b

ody

forc

e Kic

k

Sw

arm

Che

mic

al

Spr

ay

TAS

ER

Force Type

Comparison of InjuriesTASER Technology Reduces Injuries

SuspectInjured

OfficerInjured /Affected

Note that the TASER non-lethal weapon significantly reduced the number of injuries to both officers and suspects – to zero in both cases. From a purely quantitative point of view, it is clear that the TASER system represents a lower risk of injury for both the officer and the suspect than more prevalent blunt impact techniques such as flashlight strikes, punches, and baton strikes. Corroborating the results of the Los Angeles Police Department above, field studies at various other police agencies have affirmed the positive effect TASER brand devices are having on police officer and citizen safety:

• The Phoenix Police Department (with over 1,500 TASER X26 devices for all patrol officers) found that the injury rate to suspects fell by 67% department wide after they began deploying the

1 http://home.earthlink.net/~gregmeyer/injury.html data for the Tasertron TE model unit, not the M26. However, field experience with the M26 and X26 yield comparable results.

Page 2 of 413

TASER. The number of lethal force incidents dropped by 54% after department-wide deployment of TASER devices. Exhibit 1

• The Cincinnati Police Department (with over 1,100 TASER X26 devices for all patrol officers)

found that suspect injuries fell by 40% with the introduction of the TASER at a low level on their force continuum similar to the level of pepper spray. At the same time, police officer assaults and injuries both declined by 70%. Citizen complaints and non-TASER use of force both fell by 50%. Exhibit 2

• The Denver Police Department found that suspect injury rates fell by 89% at the Denver Police

Department since they began deploying the TASER within their current policy guidelines.2 DENVER POLICE DEPARTMENT TASER DATA3 Suspect Injury Rate Officer Injury Rate Successful TASER Use 10% 0% All Other Force Options 70% 20%

• The Orange County Sheriff’s Office found that TASER devices significantly reduced officer

injuries, suspect injuries, and lethal force incidents. In the year 2000, the Orange County Sheriff’s Office in Florida had 14 incidents where officers deployed lethal firearms. After deploying the TASER system, the number of shootings fell to zero in 2002. Over the same time period, the injury rate to officers fell from 120 before the TASER program to only 24 – an 80% drop in the injury rate. In the recent report, AI asserts that overall use of force increased 37% in Orange County following TASER deployment. The Orange County Sheriff’s Office TASER coordinator, Sgt. Paul Hopkins, reports that while overall use of force reports increased, it was precisely because of the careful regulations on TASER use. In the past, use of force incidents involving physical force, baton strikes, or other close quarter techniques were frequently not reported unless either the officer or the subject sustained an injury. However, with the TASER and its dataport audit capability, deputies were required to file a report for every incident involving TASER usage. Accordingly, there was likely not a significant increase in actual force incidents, but that the reporting consistency increased significantly with TASER use. Exhibit 3

• The Austin Police Department found that excessive force complaints fell by half while injuries to

police and civilians have dropped by 30% since introducing the TASER. Suspect injuries fell to 302 through November 2004 (annual rate of 329) compared to an annual rate of 574 injuries annually from 1998 to 2003 – a 43% drop. Similarly, police officer injuries declined to 177 through November (annual rate of 193) down from a rate of 325 per year – a 41% decline. Austin Police Chief Knee relates, “I can’t tell you how important TASERS have been. They’re the reason fewer officers have been injured, and they’re the reason fewer citizens have been injured.” Exhibit 4

• The Cape Coral Police Department in Florida found that the Taser has reduced injuries to

officers by 93%, and to suspects by 68%. Further, the report identified 5 incidents where the situation could have escalated to deadly force without the TASER, and 3 incidents that where “deadly force was inevitable if the officers did not have the Air-Taser as an option.” Exhibit 5

• The Granite City, Illinois Police Department was at risk of being uninsurable due to high

worker compensation costs for officers injured on duty. The TASER was introduced as part of a multi-faceted risk management program. The two years before the TASER was introduced, the police department’s worker’s compensation expenses were $454,192 and $740,172. The two years after the TASER program was introduced, injuries on duty plummeted and worker’s compensation expense fell to $0.00 (for 2003 and through 9/17/2004). Exhibit 6

• The Topeka, Kansas Police Department found officer injuries decreased by 46 percent and

suspect injuries decreased by 41 percent following the introduction of TASERS. Exhibit 7

2 Phoenix and Denver police department statistics. 3 Correspondence from Denver Police Department to TASER International, Inc.

Page 3 of 413

• The London (UK) Metropolitan Police Authority found that The Taser has “proved to be an

extremely effective item of policing equipment. On almost every occasion that it has been “used” it has provided a positive outcome to a violent incident allowing officers an alternative option to that of reverting to conventional firearms.” Also, “The trial guidelines dictated that Tasers are only deployed alongside conventional firearms and in circumstances in which it is judged appropriate for firearms officers to carry firearms. Many of those involved in the trial – senior as well as operational officers – considered that this restriction meant that opportunities to use Taser to resolve violent or potentially violent incidents that did not meet the criteria for firearms deployment had been missed.” Exhibit 8

In fact, over 685 specific incidents have been reported to TASER International wherein the use of the TASER non-lethal weapon saved a subject’s life, either by preventing a likely escalation to lethal force or by preventing the subject from committing suicide.4 A brief description of each of these life-saving incidents is attached in Exhibit 9.

Statistical analysis supports that approximately 1 out of 10 force reports are submitted to the TASER International on line use of force database. Accordingly, a reasonable and conservative estimate is that over 6,000 lives have been saved with TASER energy weapons. AI correctly points out that TASER technology is currently deployed in the United Kingdom only in cases where the use of police firearms has been authorized, or officers self arm due to the circumstances. However, the social and political environment in the United Kingdom is very different. Historically, police officers in the United Kingdom are generally unarmed. As use of force options in the UK, police officers carry one of a variety of batons and incapacitant sprays (CS or synthetic pepper). Any use of these options remains very sensitive and continues to be scrutinized in detail by the Independent Police Complaints Commission.

The social environment regarding police use of force options is very conservative and there is intense scrutiny in the United Kingdom on any policy or equipment changes. The introduction of the TASER in the United Kingdom has been a monumental change, one that has been undertaken cautiously and with great sensitivity over the past five years. The initial stage enabled the TASER to be deployed only as an additional option in deadly force situations. However, TASER International believes this policy will change with time as British society adjusts to the benefits of having police officers armed with more effective, safer non-lethal weapons than their traditional batons. In fact, review of TASER use by ACPO “considered that this restriction meant that opportunities to user Taser to resolve violent or potentially violent incidents that did not meet the criteria for firearms deployment had been missed.”

It is also interesting to note that in a recent public attitude survey, 92% of the British public supported the introduction of TASER technology for use by their police officers. The Independent Police Complaints Commission also strongly supported the Taser introduction. Because they are not constrained by such intense political pressure, police department policies in the United States better represent the expert opinion of law enforcement experts. NOT ONE OF THE 6,000 + AGENCIES DEPLOYS TASER DEVICES AT LETHAL FORCE LEVELS. Use of force policy is unique to each police agency. However, as shown in Figure 2 below, a recent survey conducted of the more than 6,000 agencies deploying the TASER in North America showed that 86% of agencies had the TASER on a similar force level with pepper spray:

4 TASER International, Inc. Field Use Database.

Page 4 of 413

Figure 2.

In summary, one must consider the TASER system in the context of all available force options when determining the right policy for each given agency. The use of force experts within the each law enforcement agency should be charged with determining the right policy – not TASER International, nor the Amnesty International. 2. Independent reports find TASER is among safest, most effective use-of-force options. Numerous independent and / or peer reviewed reports have found TASER to be among the least injurious force options.

• U.S. Department of Defense Joint Non-Lethal Weapons Program, Air Force Research

Laboratory Human Effects Center of Excellence. This peer reviewed research effort included 20 Medical (MD) or Research (PhD) Researchers from a dozen academic, government, and private institutions. Executive summary: Exhibit 10

Key Conclusions:

o “Analyses provided by law enforcement agencies indicate that increased use of the TASER M26 or the TASER X26 has decreased the overall injury rate of both police officers and suspects in conflict situations when compared to alternatives along the use-of-force continuum.”

o “This report concludes that EMI (TASER) is likely not the primary causative factor in reported fatalities.”

• United Kingdom study from DOMILL Sub Committee / Home Office: Exhibit 11

o “The risk of life-threatening or serious injuries from the M26 TASER is very low.”

• Office of the Police Complaint Commissioner, British Columbia, TASER Technology Review & Interim Recommendations: Exhibit 12

o “Our analysis of the field usages and the medical literature suggests appropriate use of the TASER presents an acceptable level of risk to subjects being controlled.”

• Orange County, Florida Independent TASER Task Force

Page 5 of 413

o “It is my belief that TASER is now associated with excited delirium, because that’s how they’re bringing them down. But there’s really no evidence that they’re causing any of the deaths…I believe these individuals would have died with or without being shot with a TASER.” Exhibit 13

-Dr. Jan Garavaglia, Orange Osceola Medical Examiner

• The ADVANCED TASER: A Medical Review, by Dr. Anthony Bleetman, Consultant in Accident and Emergency Medicine Birmingham Heartlands Hospital, UK, April, 2003 Exhibit 14

o “I do not believe that any of the deaths described in subjects who had been 'TASERed' during their arrest can be conclusively linked to the use of these devices. It seems to me that these individuals shared acknowledged and well-established risk factors of more 'routine' deaths in custody. Namely, young males, with an association with drug abuse who had exhibited bizarre behavior or who had shown signs of excited delirium just prior to arrest. There is also no convincing evidence that 'TASERed' subjects have a higher than average risk of developing major cardiac or other serious complications.”

• TASER X-26 Safety Analysis, The Alfred Hospital, Australia Exhibit 15

o “From an electrical safety viewpoint, the device presents an acceptable risk when used by trained law enforcement officers in accordance with the manufacturer’s directions for use.”

• ADVANCED TASER M26 Safety Analysis, The Alfred Hospital, Australia Exhibit 16

o “From an electrical safety viewpoint, the device presents an acceptable risk when used by trained law enforcement officers in accordance with the manufacturer’s directions for use.”

• ADVANCED TASER M26 Analysis, Carlton University, Canada Exhibit 17

o “In summary, I can recommend the adoption of the ADVANCED TASER M26 as a properly engineered and useful alternative to more lethal ways of controlling violent subjects.”

• Assessing the Cardiac Rhythm Safety of Thoracic Applications of TASERS, by Dr.

Wayne McDaniel, University of Missouri, et al Exhibit 18 o “We conclude that the probability of inducing ventricular fibrillation with thoracic

application of a TASER X26 in this human-sized model to be very small… We found a weight dependency to the Safety Factor, which ranged from 15X for an animal that weighed 30 kg to 42X for an animal that weighed 117 Kg.”

There is some confusion with the terms “non-lethal” and “less-lethal.” In fact, these two terms describe exactly the same concept. The term “less-lethal” is widely used in law enforcement communities, whereas “non-lethal” is the accepted terminology at the United States Department of Defense (DOD), in much of the international community, and in the general public.

U.S. Department of Defense definition of non-lethal:

U.S. DOD policy defines non-lethal weapons as "weapon systems that are explicitly designed and primarily employed so as to incapacitate personnel or materiel, while minimizing fatalities, permanent injury to personnel, and undesired damage to property and the environment. . ." It is important to note that DOD policy does not require or expect non-lethal weapons "to have a zero probability of producing fatalities or permanent injuries." Rather, non-lethal weapons are intended to significantly reduce the probability of such fatalities or injuries as compared with traditional military weapons which achieve their effects through the physical destruction of targets. - Joint Concept for Non-lethal Weapons United States Marine Corps

Page 6 of 413

In years past, TASER International had adapted our terminology to each marketplace, referring to our weapons as “less-lethal” in the U.S. law enforcement market, and “non-lethal” in the military market and with the general public. TASER International has since standardized the term “non-lethal” as supported by U.S. DOD policy. Consistent with this philosophy, TASER International clearly advises students in our certified instructor course programs that TASER technology is not risk-free. Indeed, there is no use of force that is completely without risk. TASER International advises instructor trainees that the exposure to the TASER is similar to an athletic exertion, and carries a similar degree of risk as participating in an athletic event. TASER International advises instructor trainees with pre-existing medical conditions to consider whether they should volunteer for exposure. In approximately 100,000 volunteer applications, only a handful of injuries were reported. These potential injuries include back injuries from muscular contractions, joint injuries such as a torn rotator cuff, and other injuries similar to those sustained in athletic exertions. TASER International has compared this injury rate to the published NCAA injury rate for collegiate athletics and has found that the injury rate for volunteer exposure to the TASER is lower than for engaging in most collegiate sporting activities – but nowhere does TASER International claim the risk of injury is zero. TASER International also advises certified instructors of situations due to the environment or exigent circumstances where TASER usage can be particularly dangerous. For example, special circumstances include individuals who have covered themselves in flammable liquids such as gasoline, or individuals who are located in high places where the fall could lead to serious or deadly injuries. However, our warnings should not be taken out of context to assert undue risk or danger. 3. There is no significant relationship between the use of the TASER devices and in-custody deaths. AI notes there have been an increased number of in-custody deaths following TASER technology use. However, this can be explained and anticipated purely in the overall growing increased use of TASER energy weapons. Moreover, they are used in situations where a fatal outcome is predetermined independent of the TASER. According to the U.S. Drug Abuse Warning Network5, there were 21,683 deaths from drug induced causes in 2002, of which at least 61.6% were caused directly by the drug overdose (this number excludes car accidents, interactions with known medical disorders, etc. – purely drug caused deaths).6 Accordingly, there are approximately 11,766 deaths each year in the U.S. that are attributed directly to drug abuse. Some of the predominant early symptoms of toxic drug abuse include:

• Excited delirium - a state wherein the subject exhibits irrational, violent, aggressive behavior • Hyperthermia – elevations in body temperature which frequently lead the individual to take their

clothes off, even in colder and often sub-freezing temperatures It is, therefore, inevitable that police officers will be called to scenes to deal with individuals who have already consumed toxic doses of illegal (or legal) drugs. These officers are charged to protect other citizens and property from the dangerous and violent behavior associated with excited delirium in the early stages of the chemical reactions from a drug overdose that may inevitably lead to the death of the subject. In fact, during a 58 day period from May to July, 2004, there were 29 documented unexpected deaths in police custody where a TASER was not used. Exhibit 19

5 US Drug Abuse Warning Network http://dawninfo.samhsa.gov. 6 Drug Abuse Warning Network Annual Medical Examiner Data 1999, Office of Applied Studies, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. www.samhsa.gov.

Page 7 of 413

Further, it is highly likely that chemical irritants or blunt impact weapons will not affect these individuals due to the mental state wherein they are not affected by traditional pain compliance techniques. Therefore, law enforcement can use the TASER energy weapons in the majority of these situations, as it is the most effective non-lethal weapon against motivated, pain tolerant subjects. Therefore, it should be clearly anticipated that TASER technology would be employed on significant numbers of the 11,000+ drug related fatalities each year.

If a subject has ingested toxic levels of narcotics, the application of the TASER electrical current will NOT stop the ongoing biochemical reactions that will lead to his death.

Therefore, it is simply not reasonable to draw a causal relationship between the use of TASER energy weapons and a drug related fatality.

There exists no convincing evidence directly implicating TASER weaponry in deaths of subjects in over 25 years' experience in America. Risk factors for death in ‘TASERed’ subjects appear to be no different from known risk factors for death in custody (drugs, exhaustion, bizarre behaviour leading to arrest etc). - Dr. Anthony Bleetman Consultant in Accident and Emergency Medicine Birmingham Heartlands Hospital, UK

In nearly all cases, the TASER has not been listed as a cause or contributing factor in the death

• Majority of deaths ruled drug related including “excited delirium” • Most occurred during transport or at hospital • Most involved subjects demonstrating extremely erratic and bizarre behavior • Most have occurred hours to days after actual TASER device applications • Electricity is instantly dissipated as heat and does not linger in the body • In three autopsies to date, TASER devices have been listed as a possible contributing factor in

the death, although these findings have been disputed by independent medical experts • TASER is listed with other factors that, by themselves, could explain in-custody deaths

o Example of cited cause of death: “Acute methamphetamine intoxication with associated (probable) cardiac arrhythmia while engaged in physical struggle with law enforcement officers involving ‘TASER gun’, ‘pepper spray’, and restraints.”

While there have been a limited number of cases where the TASER was listed by a medical examiner among several causes of death, it is important to note that these cases have been disputed by independent medical experts. 4. TASER International supports independent reviews of TASER devices and supports the continued study of the use of TASER technology. The TASER X26 (and M26) has been the subject of an extensive, independent medical review by the Human Effects Center of Excellence (HECOE) funded by the U.S. DOD. This study involved 20 medical and research doctors representing a dozen different government, education, and private institutions. The DOD has purchased and fielded over 1,500 TASER X26 systems, clearly indicating the safety review, although not publicly released in full, yielded favorable results. The TASER X26 has also been reviewed independently by the Alfred Hospital in Melbourne, Australia, Switzerland's Police Technical Commission, United Kingdom's Defence Science and Technology Laboratory, and the United Kingdom Subcommittee on the Medical Implications of Less Lethal Weapons. An estimated 100,000 volunteers have been subjected to the TASER M26 or X26, with no deaths occurring. AI asserts that the police volunteers “sometimes only receive a single burst of a half second or less.” In fact, the significant majority of volunteers experience the full five-second burst, as did the

Page 8 of 413

volunteer during the recent presentation to the San Francisco police commission. Assertions that longer shocks will pose a greater danger are contradicted by published electrical safety studies. Note the graph below, which shows that the threshold for cardiac fibrillation does decrease with longer shocks when looking at shocks from 1 to 5 seconds in duration. However, if the subject has not fibrillated within 5 seconds, longer durations do not appear to lower the threshold further. Figure 3. Relationship between VF threshold and Time (number of 60 Hz Cycles)7

Questions have also been raised as to the potential for dangerous interactions with illegal narcotics and TASER usage. TASER International has performed several limited tests with TASER electrical output in the presence of several drugs and did not observe any dangerous effects. Further, the only published study on the effects of cocaine on the electrical threshold for the induction of cardiac fibrillation actually found that cocaine made it more difficult to fibrillate the heart – not less.8 While this study was conducted with 60 Hz alternating current, not TASER-type pulses, it contradicts the notion that cocaine would inherently increase the risks associated with TASER use. In our use of force database 70% of 5,471 subjects were under the influence of alcohol, another drug, or an emotional disturbance. Accordingly, it is exactly these subjects where TASER technology is proving most effective in bringing dangerous situations under control. Many of the situations resolved by TASER technology include subjects that are classified by medical experts as in a state of excited delirium. Excited delirium is a state in which a person is in a psychotic and extremely agitated state. Mentally the subject is unable to focus and process any rational thought or focus his/her attention to any one thing. Physically the organs within the subject are functioning at such an excited rate that they begin to shut down. These two factors occurring at the same time cause a person to act erratically enough that they become a danger to themselves and to the public. This is typically where law enforcement comes into contact with the person. One of the greatest risk factors for persons exhibiting bizarre and violent behavior (a state of “excited delirium) is metabolic acidosis. In lay-person terms, metabolic acidosis is a state where an individual engages in physical exertion beyond the capability of their own body. When this happens, the person’s respiratory system cannot keep up with the production of CO2 in the blood stream, the blood pH drops, becoming acidic. At extreme levels the subject goes into cardiac arrest.

“Stimulant drugs such as cocaine may promote further metabolic acidosis and impair normal

7 Roy, O.Z., G.C. Park, and J.R. Scott (1977). Intracardiac catheter fibrillation thresholds as a function of the duration of 60-Hz current and electrode area. IEEE Trans. Biomed. End. BME-24(5):430-435. 8 Pharmacotherapy 1996 May-Jun; 16(3):429-37, The Effect of Cocaine on Ventricular Fibrillation Threshold in the Normal Canine Heart. Tisdale JE, Shimoyama H, Sabbah HN, Webb CR.

Page 9 of 413

behavioral regulatory responses. Restrictive positioning of combative patients may impede appropriate respiratory compensation for this academia.”9

“Emergency medicine physicians recently reported cases of profound metabolic acidosis in cardiac arrest associated with use of restraints. In a sample of patients who died—most, but not all of whom had been under the influence of cocaine—the recorded blood pH was 6.25 compared to normal pH range of 7.35 – 7.45. The common variable was extreme exertion from either fleeing or fighting vigorously while being subdued.”10

Fatal metabolic acidosis is not caused by a short-term exertion, but continued exertion beyond respiratory capability. The primary cause in these cases is the prolonged struggle as these individuals fight against police attempting to restrain them. There are reported cases where a single individual in a state of excited delirium engages in a strenuous fight against multiple police officers over a period of tens of minutes. Even for professional boxers, a round of three minutes is sufficient to induce fatigue. For an out-of-shape individual with poor cardiovascular health, fighting with multiple police officers for 15 minutes is an unsustainable exertion. In determining the TASER device’s application in one of these cases, the use of the TASER device needs to be compared to the alternative courses of action available. An individual in a state of excited delirium will generally not comply with verbal commands. They will not comply based on the pain induced from blunt force impact such as baton strikes. Nor will they comply from the pain induced from pepper sprays. Further, the use of pepper sprays may inhibit respiration due to the coughing, choking, and swelling of the airways associated with them. The table below compares the effects of the available options for police to deal with violent subjects: Primary options for restraining violent subjects Tactic Effect Physical Restraint / Baton Strikes

Subject is subjected to increased risk of physical injury, and is likely to resist. Increases physical exertion, exacerbating metabolic activity and hence exacerbating acidosis

Pepper Spray Subject is likely to become more agitated and more aggressive, and may be less able to breathe properly. Both effects exacerbate acidosis

TASER Subject is exposed to temporary increased exertion due to TASER induced muscle contractions in 5 second increments, but is more likely to be safely subdued, ending physical resistance

Virtually any TASER system trained police officer will opine that the TASER technology is the option likely to bring the suspect under control in the shortest period of time. Hence, while the TASER system does briefly cause muscular exertion, it is frequently a superior option to allowing the subject to continue his uncontrolled exertion for an extended period of time. In fact, in a recent paper on the topic of cocaine induced excited delirium, “ED staff may be severely injured by a wild, combative patient intoxicated with cocaine. Talk down therapy, which may be effective with hallucinogens, is not useful for cocaine-induced psychosis. Such patients must be restrained and given IV benzodiazepines.”11 Accordingly, it would appear early intervention with the TASER device enhances the chance of survival of the subject by stopping the dangerous behavior and getting the subject under control more expeditiously. 9 Hick, John L., M.D., Smith, Stephen W., M.D., et al, Metabolic acidosis in Restraint-associated Cardiac Arrest: A Case Series, Academic Emergency Medicine, March 1999, Vol. 6, No. 3. 10 Canadian Psychiatric Association, “Adverse Effects Associated with Physical Restraint,” available at: http://www.cpa-apc.org/Publications/Archives/CJP/2003/june/mohr.asp. 11 Rosen: Emergency Medicine: Concepts and Clinical Practice, 4th ed. Copyright 1998 Mosby-Year Book, Inc.”

Page 10 of 413

“From a control/restraint/safety perspective, the quicker control can be established the better. It may be that the longer the physical confrontation goes on with a subject experiencing Excited Delirium, the higher the risk of an in custody death.”

- Sgt. Darren Laur, Victoria Police Department Excited Delirium and its Correlation to Sudden and Unexpected Death Proximal to Restraint: A Review of the Current and Relevant Medical Literature. Exhibit 20

It is simply not possible to simulate every possible human condition. However, based upon the field experience to date, the TASER has an unparalleled safety record. Law enforcement and medical experts agree TASER technology is among the safest force alternatives available today. It bears note that the current safety questions being raised about the TASER parallel similar questions raised about the safety of pepper spray raised by the ACLU and Amnesty International in 1990’s. In a report titled, “Pepper Spray Update: More Fatalities, More Questions,” the ACLU identified 26 deaths involving pepper spray in the state of California alone in a 30 month period. In the conclusion of the report, the ACLU recommended that, “The DOJ develop emergency restrictions on pepper spray to minimize exposure of people who may be at increased risk—including drug users, asthmatics, the mentally ill and people with preexisting heart or respiratory disease.” Unfortunately, drug users, the mentally ill, and people in poor health resulting from chronic drug use or other conditions represent a significant portion of the population confronting law enforcement officers. These individuals are inherently at risk of life threatening crises regardless of the techniques and tactics used by law enforcement. It is therefore both unfortunate and predictable that any new tool intended for use by police in restraining violent suspects will be used in situations involving the tragic death of high-risk subjects regardless of which techniques and tools are utilized. 5. The U.N. Code of Conduct for Law Enforcement Officials factually supports that the TASER system should be used before other physical force options. According to their published reports, Amnesty International campaigns for the following goals:12

• policing to be based on an absolute minimum use of force, • for police officers to be given detailed instruction on their obligations under international human

rights standards, • and for careful monitoring by governments of the activities of the law enforcement agencies they

employ, whether these are state police forces or private security firms. We agree with the above three goals, and will demonstrate how non-lethal TASER systems are completely congruent with this mantra. AI GOAL #1: “Policing to be based on an absolute minimum use of force” If “minimum use of force” is defined as that level of force that is least likely to cause injury or lasting harm, then this goal can be assessed using a quantification of injury results for existing police implements. From a purely quantitative point of view, it is clear that the TASER system represents a lower risk of injury for both the officer and the suspect than more prevalent blunt impact techniques such as flashlight strikes, punches, and baton strikes. Further, as AI points out, these implements are freely available and readily manufactured locally in any country in the world. Hence, we must conclude that if AI is successful in preventing safer, less injurious law enforcement tools such as the TASER from being used in any given country:

AI’s policy would lead to dramatically higher injury rates to subjects of police force

12 Pain Merchants, p. 38

Page 11 of 413

In addition to reducing injuries, TASERS save lives. In fact, over 685 specific incidents have been reported to TASER International, Inc. wherein the use of the TASER system saved a subject’s life in Exhibit 9, either by preventing a likely escalation to lethal force or by preventing the subject from committing suicide.13

CASE EXAMPLE: Preventing Suicides Westminster, Colorado, 2001: An emotionally disturbed 13-year-old girl had barricaded herself in the bathroom of her family’s residence. She was actively mutilating her wrists with two butcher knives. When police arrived, they forced entry into to the bathroom. The young girl raised the knives over her head, and charged police screaming, “Kill me! Kill me!” One officer deployed the TASER M26, which immediately incapacitated the girl, who was taken to a hospital for treatment. All officers on the scene concurred, “without the TASER, we would have had to use lethal force.”

Statistical analysis supports that approximately 1 out of 10 force reports are submitted to the TASER International Database. Accordingly, a reasonable and conservative estimate is that over 6,850 lives have been saved with TASER devices.

AI’s proposed ban on TASER devices use could lead to thousands of avoidable deaths in the future.

In addition to improving the safety of subjects who must be subjected to police force, the TASER device also improves the safety of police officers. Nowhere in AI’s proposed policy initiatives is the question of officer safety ever addressed. However, government agencies that employ law enforcement officers have a legal and ethical obligation to protect the health and safety of its officers as well as that of the general public. The Orange County Sheriff’s Office in Florida has seen their injury rate to deputies drop by 80% since deploying the TASER system. Simply put, the deputies are no longer being drawn into physical fights, but are using the TASER devices to safely subdue aggressive, violent subjects from a distance – thereby reducing injuries to both officer and suspect.

AI’s proposed ban on TASER technology use would cause a significant increase (approx. 5 fold) in police officer injuries during forcible encounters

The TASER systems have shown to a level of statistical certainty to be the least injurious force option for both the officer using force and the resistant subject. The level of expected injury to the subject is the only quantifiable measure of level of force. Therefore,

A policy that “policing be based on an absolute minimum use of force” factually mandates that the TASER system should be used before all other physical force options.

Unfortunately, for reasons that are unknown to us, AI has taken the position that the TASER devices should be banned for use, a position that is completely antithetical to their stated goal of reducing force levels. AI GOAL #2: “for police officers to be given detailed instruction on their obligations under international human rights standards,”

13 TASER International, Inc. Field Use Database

Source: “TASER Works, so its use increases,” Ripple, Amy C., Orlando Sentinel, July 29, 2002

Page 12 of 413

TASER International has one of the most extensive training programs in the industry. Every police department in the United States (and abroad) that deploys our TASER technology has implemented a significant training regimen based upon TASER International, Inc.'s 16-hour instructor program. We fully support Amnesty International’s call for police officer training. AI GOAL #3: “for careful monitoring by governments of the activities of the law enforcement agencies they employ, whether these are state police forces or private security firms” TASER systems offer tools for monitoring that are unmatched by any other system – lethal or non-lethal. First, every TASER cartridge is individually serial numbered. When the cartridge is fired, it disperses 20 to 30 micro-identification tags on the scene where it is discharged. Police agencies can assign cartridges to individual officers by serial number, and use this data to monitor which officer has deployed a TASER at any given location. Second, TASER energy weapons have on-board computer systems that have a “dataport” feature. The dataport stores the time and date of every discharge of the weapon for the last 585 to 1,500 firings depending on the weapon model. This data can be downloaded easily to a computer to monitor the activity of individual officers – a powerful deterrent to abusive behavior. The dataport has been used successfully on many occasions to help reconstruct how many times and when officers have discharged their TASER systems in the field. It further provides a checks and balance on use of force report.

No other weapon offers anything close to the monitoring capabilities of the TASER energy weapons

We have spent significant time and resources developing the micro-tagging and dataport systems because we, too, feel that management oversight of individual officers is an important element in police force management. Further, TASER International is developing an audio-video recording device (the new VDPM coming in 2005) that will add a full multi-media use of force audit tool for documenting TASER uses.

Page 13 of 413

Independent Perspectives on TASER

“Less-than-lethal force applied properly works well. It's a step in the right direction." - Leo DiValentino, president of the National Alliance for the Mentally Ill in El Paso

“Louisville police could have used TASERs instead of fatally shooting James Edward Taylor.” - Janice Carter, President of the Louisville Chapter of the NAACP (Taylor, an African American, was handcuffed but wielding a box-cutter style knife at the time)

“I think it's a good tool. I think it will save lives. We should have more of them on the street." - Jamal, executive director of the Somali Justice Advocacy Center

“I'm impressed [with the TASER]." - Anna Mae Hogan, National Alliance for the Mentally Ill

“It gives us another alternative before we have to hurt people." - Lt. Randy Listrom, Topeka Police Department

“The TASER X26 is the only instrument to revolutionize an aspect of policing in the past 35 years. It is anticipated that using the TASER X26 will alleviate the need for traditional methods of use of force and result in a significant reduction of injuries to the citizens and police officers of Cincinnati." - Colonel Thomas H. Streicher, Jr., Police Chief of Cincinnati

“Deadly force is the last thing we want to use. I like the idea of hitting them with a TASER, putting them down and arresting them without anybody getting hurt. If we save one life by using it, then I think it will be money well spent.” - Sheriff Harry Lee, Jefferson Parish Sheriff’s Office, LA

“The TASER X26 is the next step up the technological ladder of non-lethal weapons that reduces officer injuries and suspect injuries.” - Deputy Chief Frank Graff, Jefferson Parish Sheriff’s Office, LA

“The TASER X26 is the next step up the technological ladder of non-lethal weapons that reduces officer injuries and suspect injuries.” - Jefferson Parish Sheriff’s Office Deputy Chief Frank Graff.

“The key is there’s no lasting injury involved. We have been pressing our sister organizations to take a similar stand.” - Richard Dolman, Provincial British Columbia Schizophrenia Society board member and founding

member of the Police Metal Health Committee of the BDC Assn. of Chiefs of Police which voted to support the TASER as a less lethal option for police dealing with the mentally ill.

“From a use of force standpoint, I feel a TASER can accomplish everything that a chemical spray or impact weapon can without causing the physical trauma that normally accompanies those less-lethal instruments. We're very impressed with the product and believe it will provide DPS officers with a 21st century tool to supplement the other weapons they carry to protect the public and themselves.” - Lt. Dean Nyhart, Arizona DPS commander of the advanced training section

“The use of alternative methods of control such as the use of the TASER Gun may be one option to lethal force.” - Michele Colussi, Provincial President of the British Columbia Schizophrenia Society

“We think this is good for the police officers, the men and women in the field, and the men and women and children in the community-for the safety of everyone.”

Page 14 of 413

- Albuquerque City Council Member Tim Kline, retired Albuquerque Police Dept.

“I think more non-lethal devices will become the focal point of policing in the coming years, and we are starting out at the front of the pack.” - Chief Albert Najera, Sacramento Police Department

“The whole point is for police to have more options to end a confrontation without further injury to the officer or the suspect.” - John Firman, Director of Research for the International Association of Chiefs of Police

“The addition of another non-lethal weapon to every officer’s arsenal is a good move. The bottom line is it could save lives.” - Don Casimere, Director of Sacramento’s Office of Police Accountability

“I’ve seen cases where officers have shot a suspect with a knife. With a TASER, they have another option. I think this is a super alternative. It helps us stay safe, to accomplish our mission, and has minimal impact on the suspect.” - Chief Jim Billings, Pueblo Police Department

“Any time we have a tool that could help us resolve a situation with less force, it is going to help us. The TASERs can help us diffuse a situation before it escalates to the use of lethal force.” - Sgt. Bill Patten, Oklahoma City Police Department

“It gives us another intermediate tool to use without getting into a level of force where we’re going to cause permanent or disabling injury to somebody or risk ourselves.” - Constable Dave Henderson, Red Deer Police Department

“It’s a more humane way to deal with violent suspects. We can minimize the injury to a violent suspect and minimize the injury to the deputy.” - Training Director Chuck Habernehl, Volusia County Sheriff’s Office

Page 15 of 413