I am writing in response to the recent editorial in support of the Eugene Police Department’s decision to purchase and use Taser stun guns (“Eugene police Taser program could reduce wrongful deaths” ODE May 4, 2007). These weapons are promoted as being non-lethal, but the facts do not support this.
According to Amnesty International and the American Civil Liberties Union, the number of people who have been killed by these weapons has been steadily increasing each year. Sixty-one people died in 2005 after being shocked by law enforcement Tasers. At least 152 people have died in the U.S. since 2001 after being shocked by the weapon.
Most of those who died had pre-existing medical conditions, were under the influence of drugs or medication, and/or were subjected to multiple or prolonged electro-shocks. Among Taser-related deaths in the past year, for example, 40 were shocked more than three times, and one person was shocked as many as 19 times. A majority of those who died went into cardiac or respiratory arrest at the scene, according to an Amnesty International Report, dated March 2006.
Taser stun guns fire 50,000 volts of electricity via two wires and a piercing dart. Tasers can also be applied close up as a “touch stun gun.” Persons shot with a Taser experience severe pain and a loss of muscle control, which causes them to collapse.
Police are understandably attracted to these weapons. They claim that they reduce injuries and save lives by giving officers an alternative to using firearms and batons. Taser International, the company that makes Taser guns, encourages liberal use of its weapon and promotes it as a non-lethal weapon that saves lives. Taser International grossly downplays safety concerns.
There has been little public scrutiny of this weapon, no consistent standards or guidelines on their use, and no independent medical research conducted on their safety. Both Amnesty and the ACLU support the development of non-lethal alternatives to firearms, and both believe that police officers should have the tools they need to do their jobs safely and effectively. However, Amnesty’s research has shown that police are using the weapons routinely rather than as a last resort, often to subdue unarmed, non-compliant individuals who do not pose a serious danger to themselves or others.
I welcome the Eugene Police Department’s thoughtful pilot program to review safety and proper use of this weapon. Providing our officers with better options other then the use of deadly force is something we can all support. However, in almost every case where Tasers might be used, there is no way to know if they would have been helpful in preventing death or causing death.
Karen Kennedy belongs to the Eugene chapter of Amnesty International