(In the interest of keeping abreast of this issue, I think the ACLU statement provides a valuable piece of the puzzle.  For that reason, I am straying from our usual disinclination to front page press releases, verbatim.

– promoted by Sue Prent)

ACLU-VT statement link, here.

Taser Shooting A Tragedy

One of the things the ACLU-VT has said consistently about Tasers is that they shouldn’t be used unless deadly force is justified. The death of a Thetford man after being shot with a Taser by Vermont State Police officers is a tragedy that demonstrates why we think this is important. A person is dead. An autopsy will determine the exact cause of death.

Tasers are not safe weapons. They are called “less lethal,” according to the manufacturer, Taser International. They are capable of causing death and serious bodily injury. They should only be used on a limited number of people, the barbs should not be shot at someone’s chest because of the risk of causing heart problems (we understand the Thetford victim was shot in the chest), and other risks incidental to the actual Tasing (such as a person crumpling and falling from the pain of the 50,000-volt shock and suffering injuries) must be considered before Tasers are used.

Between 2001 and 2009 “… there have been more than 400 deaths following police Taser shootings in the United States and 26 in Canada. Medical examiners have ruled that a Taser was a cause, contributing factor, or could not be ruled out in more than 30 of those deaths.” That’s according to an Oct. 21, 2009 article in the Arizona Republic, a newspaper that has followed closely the manufacturer’s success in selling the weapons to police departments, and the track record of the weapons.

The Thetford incident may also demonstrate why Tasers should not be used by police unless all officers have received ongoing, up-to-date training, and rigorous policies are in place for Taser use. These policies should not be cookie-cutter policies produced by insurance carriers, but policies that provide sound, informed police guidance and protection for the public. People can die if policies aren’t sound, and rigorously followed. Lawsuits are inevitable.

A Montpelier Taser Study Committee – formed by the city council when police there wanted to arm officers with Tasers – determined that the weapon is of limited use if the warnings issued by the manufacturer are followed.

It reached this conclusion by looking first at the warnings. Those warnings include that:

Tasers should only be used on “a very limited group of people” (not on people who are “physically infirm, elderly, or pregnant; suffering from drug effects, alcohol effects, or cardiac disease; in mental health distress; and suffering one of a long list of pre-existing conditions”).

Tasers should not be shot at someone’s chest, because of the risk of causing an “adverse cardiac event.” They should also not be shot at someone’s head, throat, eyes, and any pre-existing injury areas.

Taser use creates other risks, including serious injury or death, to people “who could fall and hit their heads, are on an elevated area, are restrained, are anywhere near a knife, are in motion, or are in water.”

“When all the cautions, prohibitions and limitations are accounted for,” the report concluded, “it is apparent that a Taser may only be discharged against a healthy, sober, rational, and clear-headed nonelderly adult who is not pregnant, running, nor in a dangerous environment, and that the device must be capable of being reliably aimed at the abdomen or the back.”

Complicating all this, the report noted, “is the fact that Tasers have a high potential for erroneous deployment, with the possibility of tragic consequences. That is because an officer in the field, managing difficult circumstances, simply cannot know enough to know if it is safe to use a Taser.” Further is “the fact that the probes from a Taser cannot be aimed as precisely as a gun or pepperball launcher, because the Taser probes move further apart as the distance they fly increases, at the rate of one foot for every seven feet of travel. This difficulty in accurate aiming means it is exceedingly difficult in the field to avoid hitting the prohibited areas of the body.”

Police officers face difficult situations every day. It’s the public’s job to make sure officers are fully trained and well-managed, and that they discharge their duties as responsibly as possible so public safety, for everyone, can be maintained.

The ACLU’s sympathies go out to the family of the victim, his friends, and acquaintances. We, like others, await the results of the investigation into this tragic incident.

Links to the Montpelier Taser Study Committee report, as well as other resources, can be found on the ACLU Web site at http://acluvt.org/issues/tasers/index.php