Sunday, October 30, 2005
Self-imposed recommendations for police use of stun guns are not the same as industry leadership and assistance
After a well-known advocacy group added its weight to the stun gun debate in October, officials met before the month was out and drafted stun gun use recommendations. But recommendations fall short of what those who use these weapons need: new safety regulations with teeth and leadership from stun gun manufacturers.
In the beginning, use of electroshock technology in the form of stun guns was a response to a market that wanted reliable, less-lethal weapons. Since then, the stun gun industry’s zeal to continue making a profit has led many to question whether safety—the whole reason for less-lethal technology—remains as the industry’s primary goal. Count me among those with questions.
On Oct. 7, The Associated Press and others ran articles on an American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) report. The ACLU expressed concern about the safety hazards unregulated stun gun use may pose. Of the law enforcement agencies that the ACLU surveyed, only four were found to regulate the number of times an officer is allowed to use a stun gun on a suspect during one incident.
Less-lethal technology is not the same as non-lethal technology. We can always expect a handful of people to die from stun guns, and anyone who calls for perfection is grandstanding. But organizations make a good point when they call for official rules to govern these weapons’ use and decrease deaths to a bare minimum. Any technology with ‘lethal’ in its name, no matter how characterized, demands the attention of regulators.
According to reports, Department of Justice officials and more than four dozen police agencies attended a conference of the Police Executive Research Forum last week and discussed stun gun policy. An Associated Press article later reported that, on Oct. 19, the attendees announced 50 recommendations for proper use of stun guns from the industry’s largest manufacturer.
Stun gun safety deserves more than lip service from manufacturers. But lip service is all we seem to hear from some of the major producers. This is why law enforcement organizations end up making grand overtures, like last week’s, to protect the reputation of police departments—but they shouldn’t have to. The industry should take the lead.
Some stun gun manufacturers essentially use peer-pressure. They promise safety. Police departments see peers using the weapons and, at least partially in the interest of appearing responsible, buy and use the weapons themselves. But we rarely hear a peep from these companies when questionable incidents then occur. Producers of these weapons seem to leave police departments holding the bag.
This industry needs to deliver on safety, not just on orders for stun guns. If they don’t, legislators facing mounting public and media pressure will eventually draft regulations of their own. Nobody wants that.
After a well-known advocacy group added its weight to the stun gun debate in October, officials met before the month was out and drafted stun gun use recommendations. But recommendations fall short of what those who use these weapons need: new safety regulations with teeth and leadership from stun gun manufacturers.
In the beginning, use of electroshock technology in the form of stun guns was a response to a market that wanted reliable, less-lethal weapons. Since then, the stun gun industry’s zeal to continue making a profit has led many to question whether safety—the whole reason for less-lethal technology—remains as the industry’s primary goal. Count me among those with questions.
On Oct. 7, The Associated Press and others ran articles on an American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) report. The ACLU expressed concern about the safety hazards unregulated stun gun use may pose. Of the law enforcement agencies that the ACLU surveyed, only four were found to regulate the number of times an officer is allowed to use a stun gun on a suspect during one incident.
Less-lethal technology is not the same as non-lethal technology. We can always expect a handful of people to die from stun guns, and anyone who calls for perfection is grandstanding. But organizations make a good point when they call for official rules to govern these weapons’ use and decrease deaths to a bare minimum. Any technology with ‘lethal’ in its name, no matter how characterized, demands the attention of regulators.
According to reports, Department of Justice officials and more than four dozen police agencies attended a conference of the Police Executive Research Forum last week and discussed stun gun policy. An Associated Press article later reported that, on Oct. 19, the attendees announced 50 recommendations for proper use of stun guns from the industry’s largest manufacturer.
Stun gun safety deserves more than lip service from manufacturers. But lip service is all we seem to hear from some of the major producers. This is why law enforcement organizations end up making grand overtures, like last week’s, to protect the reputation of police departments—but they shouldn’t have to. The industry should take the lead.
Some stun gun manufacturers essentially use peer-pressure. They promise safety. Police departments see peers using the weapons and, at least partially in the interest of appearing responsible, buy and use the weapons themselves. But we rarely hear a peep from these companies when questionable incidents then occur. Producers of these weapons seem to leave police departments holding the bag.
This industry needs to deliver on safety, not just on orders for stun guns. If they don’t, legislators facing mounting public and media pressure will eventually draft regulations of their own. Nobody wants that.
More competition in the stun gun marketplace may improve the accuracy of debate over these weapons’ safety
As one stun gun company weathers questions about possible connections to accidental deaths, a rising player has announced production of a rival weapon that features safety-minded technology. Any stun gun company that can gain the public’s trust will eventually rule this market space, and more competition may improve the accuracy of debate over stun guns’ safety.
Use of stun guns in place of firearms can save lives. But proper engineering and training are keys to the promise of safety, the very market force that precipitated the invention of this technology in the first place. When it comes to the issue of safety, some stun gun companies seem to be doing a better job than are others.
On Oct. 10, Stinger Systems, Inc., a Tampa, Fla.–based company, announced volume production of its own stun gun. As quoted in Stinger’s press release, Robert Gruder, CEO, claimed his company’s weapon “allows an officer to maintain control during the entire arrest process by having a manual trigger,” a feature that apparently sets Stinger’s weapon apart from other stun gun manufacturers’ products. Also according to Stinger’s release, “a nationwide network of trainers is already in place.”
I think a well-designed weapon wins only half the battle. A robust, safety-minded training program for officials who use stun guns is the missing link. It remains to be seen how Stinger’s network of trainers will fare in imparting the respect that use of these weapons demands. Stun guns are ‘less-lethal’ weapons, not ‘non-lethal.’ The risk of death is always present, albeit greatly minimized in comparison to a firearm’s.
Highly publicized events this past year have thrown the safety of a leading manufacturer’s stun guns into question. A number of states bar the weapons: Hawaii, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island and Wisconsin.
On Oct. 11, The Associated Press ran widely reported news that the online auctioneer eBay Inc. “will block the sale and shipment of stun guns and other illegal weapons to New York residents.” According to the news, out-of-state “eBay sellers are believed to have sold” a number of TASER products to New York State–based buyers. The New York attorney general led an investigation last year.
Recently, a television news broadcast reported that police in Nashville, Tenn., had used a stun gun to subdue a man trying to slit his own wrists. TASER International, Inc. issued a news release about the Nashville event on Oct. 13.
It is telling when a large, established corporation that enjoys daily media coverage across the country resorts to publicizing reported news about the kind of technology it manufactures. Presumably, the hope may be to promote further coverage of a positive event to offset a barrage of negative news coverage about the company’s products. But the obvious question is why would any well-known company do this? To some, the move can look like desperation.
It’s understandable why human rights organization such as Amnesty International would question the use of stun guns. At every turn, some companies in this market space seem to argue against further safety precautions for these weapons.
Large forces seem to be at play.
News reports fuel the perception that stun gun safety is a polarizing issue. Many stories seem to portray two diametrically opposed camps: those that endorse unbridled stun gun use and those that would call for complete abandonment of the technology. The reality is more complex. Dissolution of a monopoly in the industry might change dynamics considerably.
As one stun gun company weathers questions about possible connections to accidental deaths, a rising player has announced production of a rival weapon that features safety-minded technology. Any stun gun company that can gain the public’s trust will eventually rule this market space, and more competition may improve the accuracy of debate over stun guns’ safety.
Use of stun guns in place of firearms can save lives. But proper engineering and training are keys to the promise of safety, the very market force that precipitated the invention of this technology in the first place. When it comes to the issue of safety, some stun gun companies seem to be doing a better job than are others.
On Oct. 10, Stinger Systems, Inc., a Tampa, Fla.–based company, announced volume production of its own stun gun. As quoted in Stinger’s press release, Robert Gruder, CEO, claimed his company’s weapon “allows an officer to maintain control during the entire arrest process by having a manual trigger,” a feature that apparently sets Stinger’s weapon apart from other stun gun manufacturers’ products. Also according to Stinger’s release, “a nationwide network of trainers is already in place.”
I think a well-designed weapon wins only half the battle. A robust, safety-minded training program for officials who use stun guns is the missing link. It remains to be seen how Stinger’s network of trainers will fare in imparting the respect that use of these weapons demands. Stun guns are ‘less-lethal’ weapons, not ‘non-lethal.’ The risk of death is always present, albeit greatly minimized in comparison to a firearm’s.
Highly publicized events this past year have thrown the safety of a leading manufacturer’s stun guns into question. A number of states bar the weapons: Hawaii, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island and Wisconsin.
On Oct. 11, The Associated Press ran widely reported news that the online auctioneer eBay Inc. “will block the sale and shipment of stun guns and other illegal weapons to New York residents.” According to the news, out-of-state “eBay sellers are believed to have sold” a number of TASER products to New York State–based buyers. The New York attorney general led an investigation last year.
Recently, a television news broadcast reported that police in Nashville, Tenn., had used a stun gun to subdue a man trying to slit his own wrists. TASER International, Inc. issued a news release about the Nashville event on Oct. 13.
It is telling when a large, established corporation that enjoys daily media coverage across the country resorts to publicizing reported news about the kind of technology it manufactures. Presumably, the hope may be to promote further coverage of a positive event to offset a barrage of negative news coverage about the company’s products. But the obvious question is why would any well-known company do this? To some, the move can look like desperation.
It’s understandable why human rights organization such as Amnesty International would question the use of stun guns. At every turn, some companies in this market space seem to argue against further safety precautions for these weapons.
Large forces seem to be at play.
News reports fuel the perception that stun gun safety is a polarizing issue. Many stories seem to portray two diametrically opposed camps: those that endorse unbridled stun gun use and those that would call for complete abandonment of the technology. The reality is more complex. Dissolution of a monopoly in the industry might change dynamics considerably.
Monday, October 03, 2005
The stun gun market needs accountability and competition
Less-lethal technology needs to be a part of law enforcement’s future. But the high-profile attention certain stun gun manufacturers attract through what some see as questionable business practices unfairly threatens the further adoption of all less-lethal technology.
A broadening government investigation threatens a major stun gun manufacturer, whose weapons’ safety is attracting increasing debate among law enforcement officials and the general public. Other manufacturers should embrace the stun gun market’s current state of flux as an opportunity to increase their market shares before the window of opportunity closes. Companies such as Stinger Systems and Law Enforcement Associates Corp. have received attention for their stun gun–related products this past year.
On Sept. 28, BusinessWeek reported that a current Securities & Exchange Commission investigation into TASER International, Inc. has become formal and widened. According to the article, SEC authorities are looking into “possible stock manipulation by outside parties.” The story also touches on a dip in law enforcement agencies’ orders.
By continuing along its current path, the stun gun industry may inflict irreversible damage upon itself and severely handicap any manufacturer’s credibility in the marketplace. To wrest control of this recently robust market, others in the stun gun industry who face fewer problems and manufacturer possibly safer stun guns must launch aggressive campaigns in short order.
Recent stories in the Charlotte Observer and The Arizona Republic report on coroner and medical examiner findings that have tied electroshock from a large manufacturer’s stun guns to the deaths of at least two people.
The controversy surrounding one large company is becoming the unofficial face of the entire stun gun industry, and this is a shame. Stun gun technology, done right, can be safe. The rest of the industry needs to communicate, on a massive scale, their commitment to responsible stun gun technology.
According to the Arizona attorney general, as quoted in a Sept. 28 article in The Arizona Republic, TASER International, Inc. is making changes to its marketing practices.
Any effort to be safer with stun guns is welcome, but it may be a case of "too little, too late" for some. It’s no wonder human rights organizations such as Amnesty International and others have been so critical of the stun gun industry.
Less-lethal technology needs to be a part of law enforcement’s future. But the high-profile attention certain stun gun manufacturers attract through what some see as questionable business practices unfairly threatens the further adoption of all less-lethal technology.
A broadening government investigation threatens a major stun gun manufacturer, whose weapons’ safety is attracting increasing debate among law enforcement officials and the general public. Other manufacturers should embrace the stun gun market’s current state of flux as an opportunity to increase their market shares before the window of opportunity closes. Companies such as Stinger Systems and Law Enforcement Associates Corp. have received attention for their stun gun–related products this past year.
On Sept. 28, BusinessWeek reported that a current Securities & Exchange Commission investigation into TASER International, Inc. has become formal and widened. According to the article, SEC authorities are looking into “possible stock manipulation by outside parties.” The story also touches on a dip in law enforcement agencies’ orders.
By continuing along its current path, the stun gun industry may inflict irreversible damage upon itself and severely handicap any manufacturer’s credibility in the marketplace. To wrest control of this recently robust market, others in the stun gun industry who face fewer problems and manufacturer possibly safer stun guns must launch aggressive campaigns in short order.
Recent stories in the Charlotte Observer and The Arizona Republic report on coroner and medical examiner findings that have tied electroshock from a large manufacturer’s stun guns to the deaths of at least two people.
The controversy surrounding one large company is becoming the unofficial face of the entire stun gun industry, and this is a shame. Stun gun technology, done right, can be safe. The rest of the industry needs to communicate, on a massive scale, their commitment to responsible stun gun technology.
According to the Arizona attorney general, as quoted in a Sept. 28 article in The Arizona Republic, TASER International, Inc. is making changes to its marketing practices.
Any effort to be safer with stun guns is welcome, but it may be a case of "too little, too late" for some. It’s no wonder human rights organizations such as Amnesty International and others have been so critical of the stun gun industry.
