IDS 804

Taser: An Effective Tool

James R. Myers

INTRODUCTION
Since the beginning of modern policing, a common need among law enforcement
was an effective method to enforce the law when criminals, many of whom are often
dangerous, become non-compliant with officers . The use of force by the police is a
constant source of interest among the public, media, scholars, and criminal justice
professionals. The ability to use physical control over citizens allows the police to
operate successfully and it is the defining feature of the police (Bittner, 1970; Dunham &
Alpert, 2005). In recent history, the introduction of new technologies has impacted police
operations and the citizens they have been sworn to protect . These new technologies
have changed the manner in which police departments operate and the relationship
between residents, suspects, and even officers within their own departments . Among
the technologies viewed as particularly beneficial by police officers is the development
of less lethal weapons (Best and Worst, 2003).
In an attempt to lessen injuries to officers and suspects and/or the use of lethal
force during confrontations, a new non-lethal tool was introduced to law enforcement in
the late 1990s. The tool was called an electric stun gun or neuromuscular
incapacitation device, most commonly referred to as a Taser but also known as
conducted electrical weapons (CEW), Electronic Control Devices (ECD) or conducted
energy devices (CEDs). According to a 2005 report, more than 7,000 of the
approximately 18,000 law enforcement agencies in the United States use Tasers
(Government Accountability Office [GAO], 2005).

Law enforcement agencies have welcomed the Taser and have endorsed studies
suggesting Tasers are a safe and effective less than lethal weapon which also deters
crime. Opponents, including several civil rights groups and some medical professionals
have issued reports citing safety concerns over Taser use . The civil rights groups have
called on the police to either discontinue Taser use or limit the use of Tasers to deadly
force encounters. Some medical professionals have suggested that Taser use is linked
to in-custody deaths and particularly due to the disruption of a persons metabolic or
cardiac systems.
Regardless of the effect of the Taser on metabolic and cardiac systems, officers
still have to be aware that Tasers can cause death on a secondary level . There have
been numerous instances where subjects died after being taken into custody as a result
from a fall after being shot with a Taser. Officers did not use proper judgment or follow
training guidelines when deploying their Taser and shot subjects in situations that were
dangerous to the subject in regards to a physical injury not necessarily the electrical
current of the Taser.
Currently, there remains a significant void in some areas of Taser research. This
has created a patchwork of Taser regulation and policy throughout the United States .
The uncertainty surrounding the exact effects of the Taser had caused a distrust of the
police and opened the door the increased liability and litigation .

Regardless of the controversy surrounding the Taser and its use, the benefits of
Taser use outweigh the associated risks when deployed appropriately.
Prior to the introduction of the Taser, police have used batons, pepper spray,
physical force and firearms when dealing with non-compliant subjects . The use of the
baton is often viewed as an excessive use of force and its use became even more
highly scrutinized after the videotaped beating of Rodney King by a group of officers
from the Los Angeles Police Department. The use of pepper spray or physical force
often increases the possibility of injury to the involved officer(s), due to a number of
factors, many of which are beyond the officers control . Firearms are intended to be
used as a last resort in most use of force incidents as they often cause death . These
concerns led to the development and widespread use of less lethal weapons, as law
enforcement has yet to find the perfect tool to respond to combative and/or noncompliant subjects. Regardless of the weapon, there is likely always going to be a
mixed public opinion regarding the methods or tools used by the police even though
many scholars agree that the incidence of use of force by the police is very low (Garner,
Maxwell, & Heraux, 2002).
TASER International in Scottsdale, Arizona produces and markets the most
popular brand of these devices. The Taser ejects two barbs, also called probes from a
distance of up to 35 feet from a subject. These probes are attached to a thin copper
wire, which delivers a high-frequency, high-voltage and low-amp current used to
incapacitate the subject. The probes and wires are contained within a disposable

cartridge, which allows the same Taser device to essentially be used hundreds of times .
The Taser is powered by a single sealed long life lithium battery, which produces 50,000
volts of a specially designed electrical current. The current cost of the most popular
Taser model, the X26 is around $600 and the device has a life span of approximately
five years. This has made the Taser a cost-effective choice for most law enforcement
agencies (TASER Inc., 1).
The Tasers electrical current causes strong involuntary muscle contractions
which renders a subject momentarily incapacitated . When deployed, officers often do
not have to get physical with a suspect, which decreases injuries to both parties, and
many times can be used to gain control of a suspect before things escalate into a lethal
force situation. Currently, the Taser is the best solution available for law enforcement to
combat the challenge of less than lethal encounters . It has been deemed a safe and
effective tool for both the officer and the suspect by the manufacturer . (TASER Inc., 1)
There are numerous reasons why law enforcement chose to deploy the Taser, to
include increased safety for both the officer and the civilian, a decrease in the number of
significant injuries to both the officer and the civilian and a decrease in the use of
firearms during situations which today could still be classified as lethal . The Taser also
has a system that increases officer accountability for its proper use .
Often, crimes are committed in the vicinity of the general public . This greatly
increases the risk of civilian safety, particularly if an officer would need to use a firearm .

Tasers can often be safely deployed in these situations, as an alternative to the use of
the firearm and thus greatly decreases the potential liabilities for the officer . Research
has also shown that the use of firearms by police officers has decreased since the
introduction of Tasers on patrol, thereby savings lives . Taser gives officers another
choice in some situations that are classified as lethal . An example that is commonly
cited among law enforcement peers is a man threatening suicide with a knife from a
safe distance. Prior to the introduction of the Taser, an officer would have no choice but
to use his firearm in the event that man should charge at them . In Phoenix, police
report that a year after issuing Tasers to all patrol officers, police shootings dropped
54%, from 28 (deaths) in 2002 to 13 (deaths) last year, the lowest total since 1990
(Anglen 2004).
Another benefit of the Taser is the decrease in officer involved injuries . The M26
Taser was first deployed by the Orange County Sheriffs Office in 2001 . By 2002, the
Deputy injuries had fallen by 80%. (Taser International Certification Lesson Plan, 2000)
This is a common trend seen among many law enforcement agencies, as officers no
longer have to goes hands on with a non-compliant or combative suspect . The
noticeable decrease in officer involved injuries has also had a significant financial
impact to for the involved communities. According to data from a study funded by
TASER International, The City of Houston Texas has saved an estimated $2,126,200 in
workers compensation claims made by officers since the Taser was deployed there
("Taser protect lives,").

Tasers are equipped with a micro-computer chip that is designed to record

information pertinent to the Tasers deployment. Each time the Taser is fired, a record is
made of the date, time, outside temperature, duration and number of cycles
administered by the involved officer. In addition, each Taser cartridge also has unique
identifiers that allow the deployment to be traced . The information is known to both
TASER International and an administrator within the officers agency. This type of
system has led to increased accountability for all parties involved and also assists the
medical profession by providing valuable data regarding the Tasers use .
The most compelling argument that I can make regarding the benefits of Taser
use outweighing the risks simply deals with the infrequent occurrence of a suspect
sustaining a significant injury or death when compared to the number of times the Taser
is deployed. As a supervisor for a mid-size law enforcement agency, I am tasked with
investigating all use of force incidents. My agency has successfully deployed the Taser
over 100 times since 2003 with no serious injuries or deaths . Nationally, statistics
among law enforcement agencies show similar outcomes . When a comparison
between the total numbers of Taser deployments is made against suspects who died or
who sustained a significant injury after having the Taser deployed on them, the
percentage of successful deployments is over 99% . (TASER Inc., 1)
Unfortunately, even though the Taser has been marketed as a safer alternative to
physically subduing suspects and prisoners, it has also been linked with several incustody deaths. Upon researching the Tasers link to in-custody deaths, a significant

amount of information was available. The articles reviewed showed that Taser use
continues to be a controversial topic. Some articles made claims that the Taser is a
torture device, while others praised the Tasers development . It is apparent from the
articles that there is a varying opinion of the safety of Taser use . Research on both
sides of the argument has led to valid concerns and increased conflict between law
enforcement officials, medical professionals and civil rights groups .
In 2005, a Northern California ACLU group published a study which called for
increased regulation of the Taser and recommended the Taser only be used in lifethreatening situations. (ACLUNC, 2005). Between 2004 and 2006, two separate
reports were released by Amnesty International . These reports cited various safety
issues related to the use of the Taser and demanded fair and impartial research be
conducted on Taser use. Like the ACLU, they also requested the police suspend their
use of Tasers or strictly limit their use to deadly force situations as defined under
international standards (Amnesty Intl, 2006) . In the 2006 report, Amnesty International
reported since June 2001, more than 150 people have died in the USA after being
shocked by a Taser (Amnesty Intl, 2006).
The most significant argument against the use of the Taser has been the inferred
correlation by some medical professionals between Taser use and in-custody deaths .
The authors of Relation of Taser (electrical Stun Gun) Deployment to Increase in InCustody Sudden Deaths sought to determine the effect of Taser deployment by law
enforcement agencies on rates of (1) in-custody sudden deaths in absence of lethal

force, (2) lethal force (officer firearm related) deaths (LFDs), (3) serious officer injuries
(OIs) requiring emergency room visits (Lee, Vittinghoff, Whiteman, Park, Lau, Tseng,
2009). This article was written from a medical point of view as some of the authors are
doctors, and the article was published in The American Journal of Cardiology . They
wanted to see if the use of the Taser was in fact a safer alternative in regards to
decreasing injuries and deaths from suspect and prisoner confrontations or if it was
actually killing more people than it was saving . Since the Taser delivers an electrical
current to the subject when deployed using the probes, there is a question as to its
safety in relation to a persons heart and the possible disruption of the hearts electrical
current. This study was intended to be a complete analysis of the medical issues related
to Taser use.
Even though the authors came from a medical background, they did no direct
observation of subjects before, during or after the Taser was deployed on them . They
instead made inquiries to individual police and sheriffs departments in California and
discovered that 126 departments had recently deployed Tasers . Surveys were sent to
those 126 departments as well as the ten largest departments outside of California .
They sought data for the year Taser was first deployed at each department and the
incidence of in-custody sudden deaths in the absence of lethal force in the 5 years
before and 5 years after Taser deployment. (Lee, Vittinghoff, Whiteman, Park, Lau,
Tseng, 2009). They did include some information regarding previous research as to
cardiac and physiological effects of Tasers but stated that information was inconclusive .

A few pathologists have listed Tasers as the actual cause of death, even though
a lack of definite medical research exists and a consensus opinion among medical
examiners is absent. Another possible explanation for sudden in-custody deaths has
been a syndrome most often referred to as excited delirium (Stratton, Rogers, Brickett &
Gruzinski, 2001). Excited delirium is typically related to the use of stimulant based drugs
such as cocaine, crack cocaine, PCP, amphetamine or the stronger street version,
methamphetamine.
Excited delirium occurs with a sudden onset, with symptoms of bizarre and/or
aggressive behavior, shouting, paranoia, panic, violence toward others, unexpected
physical strength, and hyperthermia ("Excited delirium,") . Subjects with excited delirium
will typically show signs sudden paranoia and their behavior will frequently change
between being highly agitated and calm . A police presence often times causes the
subjects level of paranoia and/or violence to escalate . The police response to this type
of situation usually leads to a struggle between the officers involved and the subject,
with many officers noting that some subjects exhibit almost superhuman strength . A
Taser deployment in these types of calls is quite common and is usually done so before
any physical confrontation occurs.
Even if the Taser deployment is successful, it still takes a considerable effort on
the part of the involved officers to subdue the subject and apply handcuffs and/or leg
restraints. Typically, within just a few minutes after being taken into custody, the subject
loses consciousness and vital signs are absent. In law enforcement training related to

10

excited delirium, hyperthermia is frequently cited as a possible indicator that death may
be imminent, as the subjects core body temperature will exceed 105 degrees (Wetli,
Mash & Karch, 1996)
I would argue that the research conducted into the correlation between Taser use
and in-custody death has thus far been very limited . There is still a significant amount of
information that is not known about the Taser, partly due to the recent increase in Taser
deployment and the complexities associated with the timing of the suspects death . In
2004, it was reported that at least 50 people nationwide have died after being hit with a
Taser, although it could not be determined in many cases if the electric probe was a
direct cause of death (Kacoha, 2004). As previously mentioned, by 2006 that number
had grown to over 150. During my research, I was unable to find a single instance
where a suspect died immediately or within just a few minutes after Taser deployment .
In most cases, the subjects death occurred well afterwards .
TASER International has also vehemently defended their device as being safe .
According to data collected by TASER, there have been over 2 million Taser
deployments on humans since inception and there has not been one instance where
the Taser has been determined to be the single direct cause of death (TASER Inc ., 1).
In addition, a study funded by the U.S. Department of Justice and conducted by Wake
Forest University in 2009 found that the 99.75% of the time, subjects suffered no
significant injury as a result of the Taser being deployed against them (Bozeman, 2009)
In spite of this, TASER has spent more than $4.5 million in the past five years for

11

medical research of its products (TASER Inc., 1). TASERs web site is filled with
documentation from a number of recognized and scholarly sources supporting their
position and they go a step further by providing a list and/or web links to over 270
published research papers citing the safety and usage of the Taser device .
In 2009, TASER even received support from an unexpected source, the
American Medical Association (AMA). A report published by the AMA found that when
used appropriately, Tasers can save lives by giving officers another option when faced
with an encounter that would otherwise have called for the use of deadly force .
While Tasers can help law enforcement officers, proper use must be ensured
through specific guidelines, rigorous training and an accountability system, said AMA
Board Member Joseph Annis, M.D. There should also be a standardized approach to
the medical evaluation of subjects exposed to Tasers ("AMA adopts new," 2009) .
Another 2009 study conducted by the Police Executive Research Forum (PERF)
found that the deployment of the Taser is associated with a 70-percent reduction in the
chances of an officer being injured compared to police agencies that dont deploy
Tasers. In addition, the odds of a suspect being injured are reduced by more than 40
percent when a comparison is made between police agencies that do and do not
deploy Tasers (Taylor, Woods, et al, et al, et al, et al, et al, et al & et al, 2009) . This
study found consistently strong evidence to show that use of the Taser by police
agencies increases the safety of both suspects and officers .

12

Law enforcement is a very dynamic and rapidly changing career field that is
burdened with both responsibility and liability. Considering this, constant and court
defensible training is very important. TASER provides consistent and time sensitive
training for all of the devices they manufacture, along with thorough guidelines related to
the use of the Taser. For instance, TASER recommends that the Taser device not be
deployed against certain individuals who might have secondary factors which could
expose them to a greater risk of injury. One example of this is women who are pregnant
or anyone at risk from a fall from an elevated surface.
TASER does not write policies in reference to the use of the Taser . Instead they
suggest individual agencies make their own policy decisions based upon the published
guidelines related to the use and capabilities of the Taser . Although this slightly lowers
TASER Internationals liability, it has created an issue between some neighboring law
enforcement agencies, as the use of the Taser might fall in a different place on their
respective use of force continuums. For instance, my agency considers the use of the
Taser one step below that of deadly force, meaning that I must attempt to go hands on
with a subject prior to deploying the Taser. While other agencies might place it one step
above verbal commands, meaning that officers do not have to even attempt to put
hands on a subject that is combative or resistive .

13

CONCLUSION
Tasers are a good tool for law enforcement, as long as they are used
appropriately, within a persons constitutional rights and within the policies and
procedures of the individual officers departments . In spite of many critics, including
some in the medical field and a few notable civil rights groups, The National Institute of
Justice in-custody death study conducted in June of 2011 states,
While exposure to conducted energy devices (CEDs) is not risk free, there is no
conclusive medical evidence that indicates a high risk of serious injury or death from the
direct effects of CEDs. Field experience with CED use indicates that exposure is safe
in the vast majority of cases. Therefore, law enforcement agencies need not refrain
from deploying CEDs, provided the devices are used in accordance with accepted
national guidelines (NIJ, 2011).
Basically, what the NIJ study states is that the Taser is not the killer that some
have labeled it. It is a useful tool when used in the proper context . One single five
second cycle Taser exposure is deemed generally safe when applied to healthy
individuals according to 23 prospective human experimental studies and numerous
volunteer exposures (Pasquier, Carron, Vallotton, Yersin, 2011). It is when subjects
show signs of excited delirium, are intoxicated, have obvious medical issues, or are
exposed to multiple or prolonged shocks due to officer overuse of the Taser to gain
compliance does the use of a Taser become questionable.

14

There are medical issues, though, that subjects may have that are unknown to
police that can cause serious medical emergencies once they have been exposed to
the Taser. In those cases, police should not be liable if they acted in good faith and use
the Taser appropriately according to excepted procedures . Of course, there are always
those officers who are going to go too far. Some are going to abuse the Taser like there
are those who will abuse any force tool, and there are those who will overuse it due to
lack of training or over reliance on the Taser. In the end, it comes down to good
training, nationally excepted policies and procedures, and appropriate use among the
officers who are using the tool. The Taser should be evaluated on the grounds that
every other type of force is evaluated. It is a sad fact that people die in police custody,
but the tools that police use, the Taser included, are not the cause of death in the vast
majority of cases. Officers need a diverse tool box to deal with all the different people
they come into contact with. If those who came into contact with police always
complied, followed the rules and were never intoxicated with drugs or alcohol the need
for the Taser. Since people have fought with police, and used drugs and alcohol, since
the beginning of time it is only fair that police have the necessary tools to fight back .
The Taser is one non-lethal type of force used to gain compliance without both officers
and subjects sustaining injuries.
Law enforcement should continue to be mindful when deploying Tasers by
following the guidelines set forth by the manufacturer and agency policies designed to

15

decrease potential liabilities. They should also implement training that makes clear the
risks and benefits involved with Taser use. Based upon the research and findings of
numerous credible sources, the benefits of Taser use outweigh the associated risks .

16

References
American Civil Liberties Union of N. California., Stun Gun Fallacy: How the lack of Taser
regulation endangers lives. 15 (2005) Retrieved from
http://www.aclunc.org/issues/criminal_justice/police_practices/asset_upload_file389_52
42.pdf.
AMA adopts new public health policies at annual meeting . (2009, June 16). Retrieved
from http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/news/news/new-public-health-policies .page
Amnesty International. (2006). Continuing concerns about Taser use (Publication No.
AMR 51/030/2006). Retrieved from
http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/AMR51/030/2006/en/4426adc4-fa0c-11ddb1b0-c961f7df9c35/amr510302006en.pdf
Anglen, Robert. (2004, July 18). Taser safety claim questioned. The Arizona Republic.
Retrieved July 15, 2004, from http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/0718tasermain18-html
Best and worst technologies: Law enforcement products from 1953-2003 . (2003). Law
and Order (Special Issue), 26-32.
Bittner, E. (1970). The functions of the police in modern society: A review of background
factors, current practices, and possible role models . Cambridge, MA: Oelgeschlager,
Gunn & Hain.
Bozeman, W., et al. Safety and Injury Profile of Conducted Energy Weapons Used by
Law Enforcement Officers against Criminal Suspects, Annals of Emergency Medicine,
2009.
Dunham, R. G., & Alpert, G. P. (2005). Critical issues in policing (5th Ed.). Long Grove,
IL: Waveland.
Excited delirium. (n.d.), Retrieved from http://exciteddelirium.org/indexwhatisED2.html
Garner, J. H., Maxwell, C. D., & Heraux, C. G. (2002). Characteristics associated with
the prevalence and severity of force used by the police . Justice Quarterly, 19, 705-746.
Government Accountability Office. (2005). Use of Tasers by select law enforcement
agencies (Publication No. GAO-05-464). Retrieved 4, 2010, from
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d05464.pdf

17

Kacoha, Margie. (2004, July 22). Police back Tasers despite concerns [Electronic
Version]. Palm Beach Daily News.
Lee, Brian K, MD, Bittinghoff, Eric, PhD, Whiteman, Dean, BS, Park, Minna, Lau, Linda
L, BS, Tseng, Zian H, MD (2009). Relation of Taser (Electrical Stun Gun) Deployment to
Increase in In-Custody Sudden Deaths. The American Journal of Cardiology. vol. 3,
issue 6, pgs. 877-880
NIJ In-custody Death Study: The impact of use of conducted energy devices . (2011,
March 29). Retrieved from http://www.nij.gov/topics/technology/less- lethal/incustodydeaths.htm
Pasquier, Mathieu, Carron, Pierre-Nicolas, Vallotton, Laurent, Yersin, Bertrand (2011).
Electronic Control Device Exposure: A Review of Morbidity and Mortality. Annals of
Emergency Medicine. (58)2, 178-188.
Stratton SJ, Rogers C, Brickett K, Gruzinski G. Factors associated with sudden death of
individuals requiring restraint for excited delirium . American Journal of Emergency
Medicine 2001; 19:18791.
Taser International. (2000). Certification lesson plan (10th edition). Scottsdale, Arizona:
Author.
Taser Inc. (1, January 12). Taser x26 ecd. Retrieved from
http://www.taser.com/products/law-enforcement/taser-x26-ecd
Taser protect lives. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.taser.com/products/lawenforcement
Taylor, B., Woods, D., et al, , et al, , et al, , et al, , et al, , et al, , & et al, (2009) .
Retrieved from Police Executive Research Forum website:
http://www.policeforum.org/library/use-of-force/CED outcomes.pdf
Wetli CV, Mash D, Karch SB. Cocaine-associated agitated delirium and the
neuroleptic malignant syndrome. American Journal of Emergency Medicine 1996;
14:4258. Review.