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.
# posted by IDTheftSecurity.com @ 11:14 AM 
