Saturday, January 14, 2006
Law Enforcement May Pick Up the Slack of Responsibility for Stun Gun Safety
New, self-imposed stun gun use guidelines for the Salt Lake City Police Department signaled a possible trend. The combination of bad press, pressure from activist groups, and lack of leadership from stun gun industry players such as Taser International, Inc. has left a vacuum. To fill the void, law enforcement departments may end up taking more responsibility, themselves, for their officers’ use of new forms of less-lethal technology.
Someone who actually uses or develops stun gun technology needs not only to teach responsible stun gun use, but to communicate an interest in exercising safety. That someone is turning out to be law enforcement, the way things are going. We may be witnessing, with Salt Lake City’s actions, momentum for such a movement.
On Jan. 4 The Salt Lake Tribune reported changes to the city police department’s self-imposed rules for officers’ use of the largest stun gun manufacturer’s weapon. The article went on to report dissatisfaction with the extent of this move. According to the article, the American Civil Liberties Union and Amnesty International had asked the city to draft a policy allowing stun gun use “only in lieu of deadly force.”
Salt Lake City’s mayor reportedly rejected these activist groups’ requests in favor of a policy that allows police stun gun use when a “dangerous or violent subject aggressively resists or attempts to flee.” His decision was a departure from earlier guidelines that allowed use when a subject was violent in merely a verbal sense.
Stun gun use guidelines like those they’ve implemented in Salt Lake City this week represent a compromise. While some groups may see anything but the strictest of guidelines as a cause for alarm, what this industry needs on all sides is an ear for compromise. More important, officials anywhere in positions to inspire change must exercise their power for the common good.
We all need to recognize that stun guns can be dangerous. Yet they are also, properly designed, a promising alternative to firearms.
Plenty of groups, including those pushing for better-defined stun gun policy, realize the nuances of stun gun safety. Often, articles that follow developments in the stun gun industry fail to report on the opinions these diverse groups share, instead focusing on provocative statements. The result is a juggernaut of an argument that fuels a stun gun debate but not a solution.
Stinger Systems, Inc., a Tampa, Fla.–based firm, reportedly makes stun guns that may be safer than the largest manufacturer’s. Articles late last year indicated that Stinger even cut a deal to provide stun guns to the sheriff’s department in Arizona’s Maricopa County, close to the industry leader’s headquarters. Other stun gun players, such as Youngsville, NC–based Law Enforcement Associates Corp. (LEA), also have vied for attention.
A number of companies in this market space seem to communicate strong interest in safety, an issue that continues to dog the largest player. One way to alter the course of the stun gun debate would be for the media to refrain from reporting disparagingly on the competition that is indeed out there.
New, self-imposed stun gun use guidelines for the Salt Lake City Police Department signaled a possible trend. The combination of bad press, pressure from activist groups, and lack of leadership from stun gun industry players such as Taser International, Inc. has left a vacuum. To fill the void, law enforcement departments may end up taking more responsibility, themselves, for their officers’ use of new forms of less-lethal technology.
Someone who actually uses or develops stun gun technology needs not only to teach responsible stun gun use, but to communicate an interest in exercising safety. That someone is turning out to be law enforcement, the way things are going. We may be witnessing, with Salt Lake City’s actions, momentum for such a movement.
On Jan. 4 The Salt Lake Tribune reported changes to the city police department’s self-imposed rules for officers’ use of the largest stun gun manufacturer’s weapon. The article went on to report dissatisfaction with the extent of this move. According to the article, the American Civil Liberties Union and Amnesty International had asked the city to draft a policy allowing stun gun use “only in lieu of deadly force.”
Salt Lake City’s mayor reportedly rejected these activist groups’ requests in favor of a policy that allows police stun gun use when a “dangerous or violent subject aggressively resists or attempts to flee.” His decision was a departure from earlier guidelines that allowed use when a subject was violent in merely a verbal sense.
Stun gun use guidelines like those they’ve implemented in Salt Lake City this week represent a compromise. While some groups may see anything but the strictest of guidelines as a cause for alarm, what this industry needs on all sides is an ear for compromise. More important, officials anywhere in positions to inspire change must exercise their power for the common good.
We all need to recognize that stun guns can be dangerous. Yet they are also, properly designed, a promising alternative to firearms.
Plenty of groups, including those pushing for better-defined stun gun policy, realize the nuances of stun gun safety. Often, articles that follow developments in the stun gun industry fail to report on the opinions these diverse groups share, instead focusing on provocative statements. The result is a juggernaut of an argument that fuels a stun gun debate but not a solution.
Stinger Systems, Inc., a Tampa, Fla.–based firm, reportedly makes stun guns that may be safer than the largest manufacturer’s. Articles late last year indicated that Stinger even cut a deal to provide stun guns to the sheriff’s department in Arizona’s Maricopa County, close to the industry leader’s headquarters. Other stun gun players, such as Youngsville, NC–based Law Enforcement Associates Corp. (LEA), also have vied for attention.
A number of companies in this market space seem to communicate strong interest in safety, an issue that continues to dog the largest player. One way to alter the course of the stun gun debate would be for the media to refrain from reporting disparagingly on the competition that is indeed out there.
Favorable Developments in the Less-Lethal Weapons Market Cap off a Year Otherwise Rife with Difficult Challenges for Stun Gun Technology
Developments late in 2005 provided a notable counterpoint to the year's bad news. They helped to rehabilitate the leading maker’s image and will probably prove critical to the industry’s survival. At the same time, I encourage the competition that continues to challenge the market leader.
Last year cast stun gun technology in an unfavorable light. Much criticism and litigation has been a reaction to the conduct of one manufacturer that many consider irresponsible. This has been detrimental to the future of all stun gun technology, not just the largest maker’s.
The latest, good news about the largest maker bodes well for the entire industry, but it’s never good for an entire industry’s future to be beholden to one company’s reputation.
On Dec. 21, MSNBC.com reported that court in Texas had dropped a wrongful death suit against Taser International Inc. According to the article, this suit was the eighth of its kind to be dropped this year, which began with Taser’s weapon in a major Hollywood movie before the stock embarked on a rollercoaster ride and questionable deaths began to concern critics and monopolize news about stun gun technology.
In Novermber, reports suggested that NASDAQ was to consider a delisting of the stun gun maker after delays in receiving a quarterly report. But a Dec. 23 article from The Motley Fool indicated that the situation had been resolved. The same article also reported that Arizona’s Attorney General’s office had concluded an inquiry into the company.
It was a dramatic one-two punch of good luck for a company that has been against the ropes for a while. We’ll see if the firm’s good fortune lasts. Last year ended on a high note for less-lethal technology, too, and the past week’s news could simply be a peak on the rollercoaster ride we’ve seen all this year. It remains to be seen whether we’re witnessing a turning point, once and for all, for the largest manufacturer of stun guns.
The year also saw competitors such as Stinger Systems, Inc. and Law Enforcement Associates Corp. (LEA) grabbing some spotlight. Right in the largest manufacturer’s own backyard, Stinger, a Tampa, Fla.–based firm, reportedly cut a deal to provide stun guns to the sheriff’s department in Arizona’s Maricopa County. And earlier in the year, LEA’s own president deliberately subjected himself to a shock from his company’s stun gun to prove the safety of the manufacturer’s weapon.
A Stinger press release in late 2005 announced the appointment of a new chief financial officer at the firm. Triangle Business Journal reported on Dec. 23 that Youngsville, NC–based LEA is currently courting a potential stun gun partner.
We still have one major player in the stun gun market, and with that company’s well-publicized vindication this past week, we have a stun gun market that still has a future. But more competition—which critics seemingly discourage and marginalize sarcastically—will help this market’s investors avoid sitting on the edges of their seats every time bad things happen to the industry’s 800-pound gorilla.
Developments late in 2005 provided a notable counterpoint to the year's bad news. They helped to rehabilitate the leading maker’s image and will probably prove critical to the industry’s survival. At the same time, I encourage the competition that continues to challenge the market leader.
Last year cast stun gun technology in an unfavorable light. Much criticism and litigation has been a reaction to the conduct of one manufacturer that many consider irresponsible. This has been detrimental to the future of all stun gun technology, not just the largest maker’s.
The latest, good news about the largest maker bodes well for the entire industry, but it’s never good for an entire industry’s future to be beholden to one company’s reputation.
On Dec. 21, MSNBC.com reported that court in Texas had dropped a wrongful death suit against Taser International Inc. According to the article, this suit was the eighth of its kind to be dropped this year, which began with Taser’s weapon in a major Hollywood movie before the stock embarked on a rollercoaster ride and questionable deaths began to concern critics and monopolize news about stun gun technology.
In Novermber, reports suggested that NASDAQ was to consider a delisting of the stun gun maker after delays in receiving a quarterly report. But a Dec. 23 article from The Motley Fool indicated that the situation had been resolved. The same article also reported that Arizona’s Attorney General’s office had concluded an inquiry into the company.
It was a dramatic one-two punch of good luck for a company that has been against the ropes for a while. We’ll see if the firm’s good fortune lasts. Last year ended on a high note for less-lethal technology, too, and the past week’s news could simply be a peak on the rollercoaster ride we’ve seen all this year. It remains to be seen whether we’re witnessing a turning point, once and for all, for the largest manufacturer of stun guns.
The year also saw competitors such as Stinger Systems, Inc. and Law Enforcement Associates Corp. (LEA) grabbing some spotlight. Right in the largest manufacturer’s own backyard, Stinger, a Tampa, Fla.–based firm, reportedly cut a deal to provide stun guns to the sheriff’s department in Arizona’s Maricopa County. And earlier in the year, LEA’s own president deliberately subjected himself to a shock from his company’s stun gun to prove the safety of the manufacturer’s weapon.
A Stinger press release in late 2005 announced the appointment of a new chief financial officer at the firm. Triangle Business Journal reported on Dec. 23 that Youngsville, NC–based LEA is currently courting a potential stun gun partner.
We still have one major player in the stun gun market, and with that company’s well-publicized vindication this past week, we have a stun gun market that still has a future. But more competition—which critics seemingly discourage and marginalize sarcastically—will help this market’s investors avoid sitting on the edges of their seats every time bad things happen to the industry’s 800-pound gorilla.
Opportunity for Rehabilitation of Less-Lethal Technology’s Reputation Exists Even as Problems Mount for the Industry
Reports in early December of last year said a rival less-lethal weapon maker was in talks to become the stun gun manufacturer of choice for Arizona’s Maricopa County Sheriff's Office. This is right in the industry's largest manufacturer's backyard. Reports about a possible stock delisting for Taser International Inc. cast the development in an interesting light.
The Arizona Republic and reported that Joe Arpaio, sheriff of Arizona’s Maricopa County, reportedly began to test stun guns from another manufacturer, Stinger Systems Inc., a company that touts safety as one of its product’s defining features. Writers at Web sites such as The Motley Fool weighed in on the situation.
Also according to wire service reports that ran on “ABC News,” CNN, the New York Post, and elsewhere, Taser International Inc. had received a letter from the NASDAQ Stock Market. Articles claimed that the stun gun manufacturer’s stock may have been subject to delisting because of the company’s delays in filing a quarterly report; and that the Scottsdale, Ariz.–based company planned to attend a hearing on the issue. Since, the company's stock listing has been relisted.
You have to wonder how often this sort of thing happens as a matter of course. Were the publicized plans to appeal merely savvy public relations in response to bad news, or was the company really in a bind? The question is critical, and the answer would reveal a lot about the the stun gun industry's circumstances.
A number of industry pundits have questioned whether other stun gun manufacturers have the clout on other stock markets to truly compete. If the NASDAQ delisting comes to pass, many people may end up going back to the drawing board.
Many of the same wire stories that reported the possible NASDAQ delisting also repeated an oft-cited Amnesty International statement that 129 deaths are related to stun guns. Human rights groups such as Amnesty, the American Civil Liberties Union, and the Southern Christian Leadership Conference have all either issued statements or taken action in response to safety concerns over stun gun use.
On Nov. 28, The Miami Herald reported that a 35-year-old woman in Fort Myers, Fla., died shortly after showing no visible effects from the direct shot of a stun gun. The same day, CourtTV reported that a former Maricopa County deputy, Samuel Powers, has filed a liability case against Taser International. He alleges that a shock from the company’s weapon in July of 2002 ended his 15-year career there.
Circumstances in the stun gun industry right now are ripe for a major market shake-up. The market really needs a stirring—and a positive one. More competition will keep this market honest, and well-publicized honesty is the only thing that will regain the public’s and investors’ trust when it comes to less-lethal technology. That public trust has been severely damaged by many months’ worth of concerns over safety and profitability.
Reports in early December of last year said a rival less-lethal weapon maker was in talks to become the stun gun manufacturer of choice for Arizona’s Maricopa County Sheriff's Office. This is right in the industry's largest manufacturer's backyard. Reports about a possible stock delisting for Taser International Inc. cast the development in an interesting light.
The Arizona Republic and reported that Joe Arpaio, sheriff of Arizona’s Maricopa County, reportedly began to test stun guns from another manufacturer, Stinger Systems Inc., a company that touts safety as one of its product’s defining features. Writers at Web sites such as The Motley Fool weighed in on the situation.
Also according to wire service reports that ran on “ABC News,” CNN, the New York Post, and elsewhere, Taser International Inc. had received a letter from the NASDAQ Stock Market. Articles claimed that the stun gun manufacturer’s stock may have been subject to delisting because of the company’s delays in filing a quarterly report; and that the Scottsdale, Ariz.–based company planned to attend a hearing on the issue. Since, the company's stock listing has been relisted.
You have to wonder how often this sort of thing happens as a matter of course. Were the publicized plans to appeal merely savvy public relations in response to bad news, or was the company really in a bind? The question is critical, and the answer would reveal a lot about the the stun gun industry's circumstances.
A number of industry pundits have questioned whether other stun gun manufacturers have the clout on other stock markets to truly compete. If the NASDAQ delisting comes to pass, many people may end up going back to the drawing board.
Many of the same wire stories that reported the possible NASDAQ delisting also repeated an oft-cited Amnesty International statement that 129 deaths are related to stun guns. Human rights groups such as Amnesty, the American Civil Liberties Union, and the Southern Christian Leadership Conference have all either issued statements or taken action in response to safety concerns over stun gun use.
On Nov. 28, The Miami Herald reported that a 35-year-old woman in Fort Myers, Fla., died shortly after showing no visible effects from the direct shot of a stun gun. The same day, CourtTV reported that a former Maricopa County deputy, Samuel Powers, has filed a liability case against Taser International. He alleges that a shock from the company’s weapon in July of 2002 ended his 15-year career there.
Circumstances in the stun gun industry right now are ripe for a major market shake-up. The market really needs a stirring—and a positive one. More competition will keep this market honest, and well-publicized honesty is the only thing that will regain the public’s and investors’ trust when it comes to less-lethal technology. That public trust has been severely damaged by many months’ worth of concerns over safety and profitability.
