Wednesday, September 21, 2005
Update
My last post, titled "Misuse of Stun Guns Continues and Throws Their Safety into Question," contained an error regarding the operation of a product by one of the manufacturers mentioned. According to a TASER International, Inc. spokesperson who contacted StunGun.com:
“When the TASER™ electronic control device is fired, it can be turned off at any time, even during the automatic five-second cycle, by turning the safety to the ‘off’ position. The purpose of the automatic timing is to preclude inadvertent early shut off, but the operator has full control and can turn the device off at any time.”
I welcome the notification. Even so, uninterrupted five-second (or even longer) stun durations have led to a considerable debate on safety. Reports, proven or unproven, of injury and even death have followed stuns of long, continuous durations or of excessive repetition. Manufacturers’ attention to safety in this regard is paramount.
Well-known human rights groups and others continue in their relentless demands for further testing of less-lethal technology. Their calls remain for explanations of product features and of manufacturers’ attention to safety.
My last post, titled "Misuse of Stun Guns Continues and Throws Their Safety into Question," contained an error regarding the operation of a product by one of the manufacturers mentioned. According to a TASER International, Inc. spokesperson who contacted StunGun.com:
“When the TASER™ electronic control device is fired, it can be turned off at any time, even during the automatic five-second cycle, by turning the safety to the ‘off’ position. The purpose of the automatic timing is to preclude inadvertent early shut off, but the operator has full control and can turn the device off at any time.”
I welcome the notification. Even so, uninterrupted five-second (or even longer) stun durations have led to a considerable debate on safety. Reports, proven or unproven, of injury and even death have followed stuns of long, continuous durations or of excessive repetition. Manufacturers’ attention to safety in this regard is paramount.
Well-known human rights groups and others continue in their relentless demands for further testing of less-lethal technology. Their calls remain for explanations of product features and of manufacturers’ attention to safety.
Monday, September 19, 2005
Misuse of stun guns continues and throws their safety into question
News reports and litigious developments have called into question the safety of a major stun gun manufacturer’s product, and human rights groups continue to ask tough questions. Less-lethal technology is good, and we should all strive to employ it in place of firearms whenever possible. We also need to make sure the less-lethal weapons live up to their name. Safer alternatives from other companies may exist, and their use along with stricter guidelines for law enforcement’s use of the weapons may go a long way to dispel fears.
Public statements from Amnesty International seem to support the idea of less-lethal weapon technology as a sensible alternative to lethal force. The well-known human rights organization has also repeatedly called for better usage guidelines and pointed, specifically, to the dubious safety of Taser International’s stun gun.
Other stun gun manufacturers claim that key design feature differences make their weapons safer than Taser’s. For example, police who fire a Taser must wait through a timed five-second cycle before they can shut off the stun. Stinger Systems, a rival manufacturer, markets a stun gun with a manual trigger. According to the company’s CEO, Robert Gruder, this gives police an important level of control over their use of the weapon, allowing them to stop the “stun” before the electrical shock might otherwise kill someone.
On Sept. 8, The Associated Press reported on a rift between Taser and a human rights group whose leader has referred to the Taser as a “murder weapon.” The Southern Christian Leadership Conference plans a march in November to protest last year’s incident involving Frederick Williams, a man who received repeated shocks from a Taser shortly before dying. Critics point out that Taser continues to rely on safety experiments that test the company’s weapon solely on perfectly healthy subjects.
Litigation looms as well for Arizona-based Taser. A Sept. 13 Associated Press story reported that Lee Games, a senior citizen from Gresham, Ore., who suffers from hypertension, is suing the manufacturer over safety and the city over excessive use of force. On Sept. 18, The Herald reported that a lawyer well known in South Carolina has come to the aid of a 76-year-old woman, Margaret Kimbrell, who police shot with a stun gun last year during an incident at the assisted living complex where she lives.
When the stun gun industry provides technology of questionable safety and law enforcement makes up the rules as they go, we swing the door wide-open for litigation and controversy. In a way, the stun gun industry and law enforcement are getting exactly what they deserve with the latest headaches. As sales continue, opposition will grow steadily louder until someone with authority responds in a way that acknowledges critics’ legitimate concerns.
The prospect of reconciliation for all sides in the stun gun debate exists. The industry must take the lead. A humble, coordinated effort to reach out to and embrace all constituencies could lead to the accord everyone is looking for.
News reports and litigious developments have called into question the safety of a major stun gun manufacturer’s product, and human rights groups continue to ask tough questions. Less-lethal technology is good, and we should all strive to employ it in place of firearms whenever possible. We also need to make sure the less-lethal weapons live up to their name. Safer alternatives from other companies may exist, and their use along with stricter guidelines for law enforcement’s use of the weapons may go a long way to dispel fears.
Public statements from Amnesty International seem to support the idea of less-lethal weapon technology as a sensible alternative to lethal force. The well-known human rights organization has also repeatedly called for better usage guidelines and pointed, specifically, to the dubious safety of Taser International’s stun gun.
Other stun gun manufacturers claim that key design feature differences make their weapons safer than Taser’s. For example, police who fire a Taser must wait through a timed five-second cycle before they can shut off the stun. Stinger Systems, a rival manufacturer, markets a stun gun with a manual trigger. According to the company’s CEO, Robert Gruder, this gives police an important level of control over their use of the weapon, allowing them to stop the “stun” before the electrical shock might otherwise kill someone.
On Sept. 8, The Associated Press reported on a rift between Taser and a human rights group whose leader has referred to the Taser as a “murder weapon.” The Southern Christian Leadership Conference plans a march in November to protest last year’s incident involving Frederick Williams, a man who received repeated shocks from a Taser shortly before dying. Critics point out that Taser continues to rely on safety experiments that test the company’s weapon solely on perfectly healthy subjects.
Litigation looms as well for Arizona-based Taser. A Sept. 13 Associated Press story reported that Lee Games, a senior citizen from Gresham, Ore., who suffers from hypertension, is suing the manufacturer over safety and the city over excessive use of force. On Sept. 18, The Herald reported that a lawyer well known in South Carolina has come to the aid of a 76-year-old woman, Margaret Kimbrell, who police shot with a stun gun last year during an incident at the assisted living complex where she lives.
When the stun gun industry provides technology of questionable safety and law enforcement makes up the rules as they go, we swing the door wide-open for litigation and controversy. In a way, the stun gun industry and law enforcement are getting exactly what they deserve with the latest headaches. As sales continue, opposition will grow steadily louder until someone with authority responds in a way that acknowledges critics’ legitimate concerns.
The prospect of reconciliation for all sides in the stun gun debate exists. The industry must take the lead. A humble, coordinated effort to reach out to and embrace all constituencies could lead to the accord everyone is looking for.
Sunday, September 11, 2005
Law enforcement's attitude may drive development of safer stun gun technology and usage guidelines
Underreported developments in the industry suggest that a demand is brewing for safer stun guns. This is the natural evolution of a market that owes itself to the quest for a weapon less lethal than a firearm.
It’s already happening. The stun gun’s target markets are reaching out for a weapon that they perceive lives up to the ‘less-lethal’ label. But entrenched stockholder interest may mean we won’t see these developments in the news for a while.
A press release in late August announced the Correctional Emergency Response Team (CERT) Tactical Network’s anticipated approval of Tampa, Fla.–based Stinger Systems, Inc.’s stun gun. The release quoted members of CERT comparing Stinger’s weapon favorably to the Taser, the market-leading weapon by Tucson, Ariz.–based Taser International.
Endorsement by CERT of Stinger’s weapon is significant. The organization’s obvious interest in responsible guidelines for the use of stun guns that are apparently safer than the market leader’s is heartening. It suggests that the law enforcement community’s response to the promise of stun guns will follow advice I have been advocating for quite some time: responsible use of the weapons.
While CERT, a law enforcement–minded organization, has endorsed a stun gun by one of Taser’s rivals, reports indicated that police officers from five states are in the process of suing Taser for injuries. According to The Associated Press, the lawsuits allege that Taser encouraged “officers to get shocked during training” and hide “information on injuries to about a dozen other injured officers."
Stun gun manufacturers must be careful. The market is ready for a ‘less-lethal’ weapon that lives up to the notion, but the potential for backlash is palpable. To get anywhere in this market, a stun gun company must ride the wave of safety. Stonewalling, strong-arming, smoke, and mirrors will all backfire.
Underreported developments in the industry suggest that a demand is brewing for safer stun guns. This is the natural evolution of a market that owes itself to the quest for a weapon less lethal than a firearm.
It’s already happening. The stun gun’s target markets are reaching out for a weapon that they perceive lives up to the ‘less-lethal’ label. But entrenched stockholder interest may mean we won’t see these developments in the news for a while.
A press release in late August announced the Correctional Emergency Response Team (CERT) Tactical Network’s anticipated approval of Tampa, Fla.–based Stinger Systems, Inc.’s stun gun. The release quoted members of CERT comparing Stinger’s weapon favorably to the Taser, the market-leading weapon by Tucson, Ariz.–based Taser International.
Endorsement by CERT of Stinger’s weapon is significant. The organization’s obvious interest in responsible guidelines for the use of stun guns that are apparently safer than the market leader’s is heartening. It suggests that the law enforcement community’s response to the promise of stun guns will follow advice I have been advocating for quite some time: responsible use of the weapons.
While CERT, a law enforcement–minded organization, has endorsed a stun gun by one of Taser’s rivals, reports indicated that police officers from five states are in the process of suing Taser for injuries. According to The Associated Press, the lawsuits allege that Taser encouraged “officers to get shocked during training” and hide “information on injuries to about a dozen other injured officers."
Stun gun manufacturers must be careful. The market is ready for a ‘less-lethal’ weapon that lives up to the notion, but the potential for backlash is palpable. To get anywhere in this market, a stun gun company must ride the wave of safety. Stonewalling, strong-arming, smoke, and mirrors will all backfire.
