"The TASER is the only weapon the police have that doesn't rely on pain compliance," Ashley says. Batons, beanbag rounds and rubber bullets can be used as nonlethal law enforcement tools, but they are only effective if a suspect ultimately surrenders. Although such weapons are often referred to as "less lethal," Ashley disagrees with this characterization. "Nothing is risk-free," he says, adding, "A TASER is not less lethal, it's nonlethal."
There are hitches. For instance, TASERs will not work properly in situations where the probes get caught in a target's clothing too far from the body to deliver a jolt, only one probe makes contact or the wires connecting the probes to the gun are damaged. "We need that tool that will absolutely incapacitate someone for 10–to–15 seconds without longterm effect," Ashley says. "TASER gets us closer to that than any other weapon has."
An investigation into the mid-October death of Robert Dziekanski, 40, at Vancouver International Airport after Royal Canadian Mounted Police used a TASER to subdue him will either confirm or contradict Ashley's view. Investigations are also underway into the deaths a month later of Robert Knipstrom, 36, in Chilliwack, British Columbia, and Howard Hyde, 45, in Dartmouth, Nova Scotia, after they were TASERed.
The technology on which current TASER weaponry is based was created in the 1970s by physicist John H. "Jack" Cover, a former director of science and engineering for the space division of aircraft maker North American Aviation (which Boeing bought in 1996). Cover's invention, however, required the use of gunpowder to discharge its probes and was considered a firearm. Cover named his invention "TASER" after a fictional weapon in Victor Appleton's 1911 adventure book Tom Swift and His Electric Rifle.
TASER International's first widely used product—the AIR TASER Model 34000, which ran on a nine-volt battery—hit the market in late 1994. When the trigger on the 34000 was pressed, it would administer a charge for 30 seconds during which the shooter could place the device on the ground and get a safe distance away from the person receiving the jolt, says Steve Tuttle, the company's vice president of communications.
For the Advanced TASER M26 that debuted in 1999, the company tweaked the number of pulses per second and their duration in order to achieve a higher level of muscle incapacitation. The goal was to do a better job of stopping individuals aggressive enough to overcome the previous model's charge, which Tuttle says stopped 84 percent of people. The M26, which ran on eight AA batteries, also recorded the time and date each time it was fired as a means of curbing misuse.
The X26 followed in 2003 and was 60 percent lighter and smaller than its predecessor, in part because it ran on two lithium ion camera batteries. In addition to having two LED lights to illuminate a target, the X26 also featured a new waveform that, Tuttle says, more efficiently delivered a shock to the body. Whereas the range of earlier TASERs was 15 feet (4.6 meters), the X26's probes could travel as far as 35 feet (10.5 meters).
The next generation TASER—the eXtended Range Electronic Projectile (XREP)—is being designed to fire wireless probes as far as 65 feet (20 meters) from a half-ounce (14-gram) cartridge that fits into any standard 12-gauge shotgun. TASER plans to start training instructors in the XREP's use by the middle of next year. Another new weapon under development is the Shockwave, which Tuttle refers to as "an area-denial system" that simultaneously fires six TASER cartridges up to 25 feet. Scheduled for availability late next year, the Shockwave is designed to be used by military and Homeland Security personnel at airports, checkpoints and other open spaces.
See what we're tweeting about
10 Comments
Add CommentThe most used present alternative to the TASER type of weapon, for subduing an agressive person, is the bullet, designed to kill. While it is regretable that a TASERed person might die, it is preferable to the gun. So what is all the fuss about. Certainly, and obviously, TASER safety should be improved. We need safe, non-aggressive weapons.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is one of the most intentionally biased articles I have read here in a very long time. The author chose to accept everything the manufacturer and thier paid representative said without challenge and without checking the veracity of the "facts" they spouted.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHad they bothered to perform competent journalism they would have found recent studies in respected scientific journals that used well controlled experiments that definitively show that tasers can, and do, kill.
Here are links to several of them.
http://www.jtrauma.com/pt/re/jtrauma/abstract.00005373-200709000-00014.htm;jsessionid=HVKTJsGzcbdGs0L2LMnJJqh7TpZWKrKLn8j1k9JqvP6jcGnslJj5!-1601909834!181195629!8091!-1?index=1&database=ppvovft&results=1&count=10&searchid=1&nav=search
http://www.engr.wisc.edu/bme/faculty/webster_john/EB2006Final.pdf
http://www.certops.com/certops/news/Oct060508.html
What's with the numbers in this article? 100 milliamps (0.1 amps) is potentially lethal. 3 amps @ 50,000 volts sounds pretty deadly to me.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJames,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI appreciate your response to my article. While I do rely on information from Taser International and a source who is obviously a believer in the technology (Ashley), I also briefly cited the Heart Rhythm Society's report and mentioned the stir that Canadian politicians are causing to review Taser use. While Ashley advocates use of Tasers in law enforcement, he also admits that it's impossible to determine how each individual will react.
As you might have guessed, it was my idea to address the three recent deaths in Canada (that one certainly didn't come from Taser). Unfortunately, the medical examiner's reports in all three cases has been inconclusive so far, so there's not much more of a connection I can make, other than to state that all three men died after being Tasered.
It's pretty difficult to draw any conclusions from the first report you cited because it addresses how EIDs affected anesthetized pigs. I have no doubt that a Taser is a dangerous weapon, but I don't think I could have cited any material from the Swine Model study. The second study you sent appears to draw its conclusions from the Swine Model study. The third link you cited is truly an example of how Tasers can be abused, but it's pretty intuitive. I don't think anyone (not even Taser) would argue that you could easily kill someone by Tasering them for nearly three minutes.
My goal wasn't to defend or attack Taser but rather to address the technology, how it works, and where it's going, in the context of the tragic events that transpired in Canada.
Thanks again for your comments
Larry
The fact remains that neither Taser nor anyone else has actually performed a scientifically valid study of the safety of tasers on humans. No studies of persons under duress, no studies of the effects of multiple shocks in a short period of time, no studies with drugs in their systems....no studies that mimic how tasers are used on the street.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe literature is replete with cases where tasers are listed as the cause of death or contributing cause of death as well as several cases where Taser is reported to have attempted to exert undue pressure to get coroners to remove tasers as a cause of death.
James, apparently you haven't tried at ALL to find any tests of the TASER system. Tests of people with substances on board, multiple shocks in a short time, it's ALL been done.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTry writing taser and asking for thier medical compendium.
Multiple shocks are rare on the street, just for your information, and if you want duress, and by that, I think you mean stress, try standing in front of a person you KNOW is going to shoot you with a TASER, like the several hundred THOUSANDS of people who've taken a voluntary exposure.
as for the studies you cite, try reading more than just the extract.
i've built and worked with high voltage devices for years and i know that 2.1 milliamps at 50000 volts is not lethal in the 7 second period that a taser is active unless it is abused. 133 bursts at 105 watts (.0021 amps at 50000 volts) over a seven second period at .0001 seconds per burst equates to .0133 seconds of shock and a total of 1.3965 jouls of energy. so, you have 105 watts running through you for a total of .0133 seconds spread out among 7 seconds with 133 bursts. remember though, each time the current changes direction, your muscles will twitch and yes, that includes your heart but that's not how they incapacitate people. imagine a mechanical clock that is shaken, the gears will become temporarily misaligned and once the shaking stops, they're all out of sequence until the clock is reset. fortunately, our brains "reset" themselves for lack of better words. although what i said implies harmlessness, each shock is traumatizing and the person will never be quite the
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this--
Edited by ibfartin at 02/21/2008 3:07 AM
...continued (ran out of space) same with the memory of the incident. ok, THE DANGEROUS PARTS: you're playing with someone's peripheral nervous system which is attached to what? the central nervous system! and who knows what could already be malfunctioning in there, someone could be prone to seizures with interference others like meth addicts might have aluminum deposits in random parts of their brains, who knows what that can short out since there's no telling where the deposits could be. also, if someone is strung out on heroin or crack, they're body is running in a far from normal state, a stoner or a drunk could be zapped and hardly anything will happen unless the drunk has a coronary blockage from all that sugar in his beer! someone on meth is already so far above their threshold that i think they would be the first to be killed by a taser. enough about the drugs, old people, people with lupus, pacemakers or multiple sclerosis will obviously be affected differently and stress would also play a roll here too. anyway, i don't want to turn this into a whole article, i'm going to bed now.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this--
Edited by ibfartin at 02/21/2008 2:52 AM
by the way, although each .0001 second pulse is 105 watts, that's over 7 seconds take 105x(7/0133). that's how much power it draws from the battery. putting the battery on your tongue would do more harm plain powerwise, condensation and alternation is how they scramble things. ok, for real this time, i'm going to bed.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this--
Edited by ibfartin at 02/21/2008 3:09 AM
Let's not forget two things: 1) the alternative would be to shoot the individual with a conventional firearm (i.e. 9mm) which, without a long scientific study cited, I think we can all agree would be quite a bit more likely to do substantially more damage with greater after effects and 2) if you aren't doing anything to put yourself in a position to have the police shoot you with anything in the first place , you really don't have much to worry about. Sorry, third point, and again without citing any studies, almost every police agency in the US which authorizes its agents to carry less-lethal or non-lethal weapons, they must first be certified in their use by having them used on them by another member of that police service. I have not been tased because military law enforcement does not carry the TASER but I have been sprayed with law enforcement OC spray and that type of training really cements the gravity of their actions in the mind of the individual preparing to use these types of weapons. Plus it hasnt killed any of the cops that have been held down by their fellow officers and had the bejeezus tased out of them.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this