Taser International safety guidelines say that if a person is exhibiting signs or behaviours that are associated with “Sudden In-Custody Death Syndrome” (such as extreme agitation, bizarre behavior, inappropriate nudity, imperviousness to pain, paranoia, exhaustive exertion) then police should still Taser them, but should consider getting them extra medical help.

- Now, despite the fact that “sudden in-custody death syndrome” sounds like an extremely convenient “sydrome” to emerge – if these people are at a higher risk of death to the normal population should we really be encouraging police to electrocute them? -

Overall, The Daily Telegraph says, police in NSW are drawing their Tasers more than once each day – although the guns are often used as a threat rather than being used to shoot the person.

I’ve been meaning to write about the new Taser directive for days, but this new publicity has finally pushed me to it.

If you thought Tasers were dangerous, wait until you see these new devices.

As New Scientist has previously reported, US government funded research has found that there are serious health risks to people who are hit with some of the new Tasers. The long-range Tasers were found to be able to deliver shocks for up to five minutes, rather than the standard 20 seconds.

As New Scientist says, Taser International has argued that they have changed the design of the long-range Tasers but there has been no independent testing.

But back to this “advice” that has been issued by Taser International: they claim that they have told police not to shoot at the chest simply to “minimise controversy for police officers and police departments”.

But if there is no connection between Tasers and heart attacks, why would there be any controversy?

Basically they are saying “don’t shoot someone near their heart because it might result that in a controversial outcome, but if it does result in that outcome it will of course be pure coincidence”.

Hmmm…

Considering that the chest is probably one of the easiest places to shoot a suspect (and I believe officers are trained to shoot that part of the body with firearms), I would be very very nervous if I was a police officer who was expected to use a Taser right now.

(Here is a link to the Taser directive. I was hesitant to put it up because it has stopped displaying correctly on my computer, but I thought I would just in case you have better luck).

“The possibility of Taser use causing or contributing to death is possible and cannot be ruled out,” the review warns.

Despite the fact that Taser International says that Tasers cannot kill – in fact, they have sued medical examiners in the US for finding that Tasers were the cause of death- they do tend to acknowledge that people who are experiencing “excited delirium” may have adverse reactions to being Tasered.

In the case of 39-year old Antonio Galeano, however, Taser international has insisted that, even though he was shot with the stun gun 28 times, it would not have killed him.

There is increasing evidence that Tasers have been linked to deaths across the world.

New Scientist recently reported a study which found that deaths in custody increased 6-fold in California in the year Tasers were introduced, while Amnesty International has an ongoing campaign against the machines.

In fact – because I am looking – most days I see news stories about someone dying after being shot with a Taser. I had originally intended to report these deaths on this blog, but the numbers are so large that I would have to post almost every day on this issue.

While some of these deaths may be coincidental, or (as is likely)  the Taser may only be a contributing factor rather than the whole cause of the death, it is high time that we as a society acknowledge that when we give a police officer a Taser we are giving them an extremely serious and potentially deadly weapon that should only be used in very dangerous situations.

Here is a link (pdf) to the report.

Answer: Use a taser, of course!

The Associated Press reported that police in Wyoming have said that they will not lay charges against police who used a taser to “subdue” a 76-year-old man who was driving an antique tractor down a road as part of a parade.

Police said the man ignored their directions to stop until they pulled in front of him.

“[Police chief] Sweet says an officer shocked Grose with a Taser, but that failed to subdue him,” the report said.

Police will also be over to pull-over taxis so they can issue fines to people drinking during their ride into the CBD. This comes on top of the police already having the power – without a court order – to ban people from the CBD for 24 hours. Bad news for work tomorrow if you work in the city but get too drunk at after-work drinks on a thursday night.

The question is, will these kinds of policies work to reduce problematic drinking in Australia? Having worked in a bar for six years, I can tell you that the answer, in my opinion, is a resounding “no”. This is a cultural problem that exists in among all groups – not just the young men who are obviously the targets of this type of legislation.

Futhermore, giving police more power to exact harsh punishment on any drunk idiot who annoys them is only going to lead to trouble -  as this story about a man who was tasered while walking away from police on Oxford Street, Sydney shows.

As I have previously reported on Crikey, Taser International has argued vigorously for the safety of Tasers and recently a doctor who has received a lot of funding from the company came to an Australian conference. According to this doctor, the answer to violence in hospital emergency rooms is to arm doctors and nurses with Tasers.

Not that Civil Tongues would ever question the authority if doctors who take funding from international arms companies, but one has to wonder exactly what question he was asking to get that answer.