Canadian commission: TASERs okay, but inconsistent use is "troubling"

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

This article was published in Scientific American’s former blog network and reflects the views of the author, not necessarily those of Scientific American



On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Nearly two years following Robert Dziekanski's death at Vancouver International Airport after being shot by Royal Canadian Police with a TASER, a commission investigating Canadian law enforcement's use of such "conducted energy weapons" supports their continued use, as long as this accompanies an overhaul of how and when these weapons are used. (Dziekanski's 2007 encounter with police can be viewed on YouTube.)

The Braidwood Study Commission, led by retired judge Thomas Braidwood, last month reported a "troubling lack of consistency" in how law enforcement uses TASERs and how well these weapons perform. (Canadian law enforcement in British Columbia, where Dziekanski, 40, was killed, is allowed to use only conducted energy weapons made by TASER International, Inc.)

TASERs, which represent the lion's share of all electronic-control devices used by law enforcement, work by either pressing the device's two (sometimes three) metal probes into a person's skin (causing intense pain in the surrounding muscles) or shooting these barbed probes so that they hook unto a person's clothing or skin and release electricity into the body, causing neuromuscular incapacitation. Generally, the victim feels as though "he is in a full-body charley horse," but does not lose consciousness, Steven Ashley, a former deputy sheriff in Livingston County, Mich., who retired from the force in 1989 and is now a law enforcement consultant, told Scientific American shortly after Dziekanski’s death. "They short-circuit the electrical signals in the body," he added.

The TASER X26, for example, emits 19 electrical pulses per second over five seconds, each pulse lasting approximately 100 microseconds (100 millionths of a second) with a peak output current of 3 amperes, according to TASER. However, a 2008 Canadian Broadcasting Corporation-commissioned analysis of 44 weapons found that four of them had peak currents at least 47 percent higher than 3 amps, according to that commission's report.

Although the officer jolted Dziekanski five times in total, medical examiners determined his death was not "directly caused by the Taser," the Toronto Star reported in December 2008.

Braidwood acknowledged a TASER's capacity, even in healthy adults, can "cause heart arrhythmia, which can lead to ventricular tachycardia and/or fibrillation, which if not treated immediately, can cause death."

However, Braidwood concluded that, generally, "our society is better off with these weapons in use than without them" and offered his support for their continued use as long as "significant changes" are made in when, and the way in which, the weapons are used.
Image ©iStockphoto.com/ SFB Photographics Inc.

Larry Greenemeier is the associate editor of technology for Scientific American, covering a variety of tech-related topics, including biotech, computers, military tech, nanotech and robots.

More by Larry Greenemeier

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe