San Francisco Bay View » Expert: Stun guns are far from being a ‘nonlethal’ alternative to bulletsSeptember 7, 2018
Why East Palo Alto Should Just Say No ToTasers......
To: EPA City Council et al:
Dear City City Council Members:
Back in August of 2018, I send out two different articles on Tasers:
1: The award winning 7 part series on the deadly impact of Tasers ( 1042 deaths and counting) published by Reuters ( August
2017-Feb 2018).
2. A detailed piece on the risk of death and injury, and the potential financial ruin for cities- from Taser litigation, titled:
No excuse for Tasers in our Jails, by attorneys Richard Konda and Aram James.
3. Today, I’m sending you a short interview titled: Expert-Stun guns are far from being a nonlethal alternative to bullets.In
addition to the interview conducted by Paul Kleyman of Aram James, read and pay particular attention to a link to a 2004 Houston
Chronicle report -re the hugely disproportionate use of deadly Tasers- on young African-American males. Please also review the
article linked to in the interview- by the Stanford Criminal Justice Clinic- that raises substantial doubts re the safety of
Tasers.
Best regards,
Aram James
P.S. As previously promised, I will continue to send out additional relevant articles re Tasers as your city continues to debate
use of this very deadly weapon.
http://sfbayview.com/2015/12/expert-stun-guns-are-far-from-being-a-nonlethal-alternative-to-bullets/
[http://sfbayview.com/2015/12/expert-stun-guns-are-far-from-being-a-nonlethal-alternative-to-bullets/]
EXPERT: STUN GUNS ARE FAR FROM BEING A ‘NONLETHAL’ ALTERNATIVE TO BULLETS
December 22, 2015by Paul Kleyman [http://newamericamedia.org/author/paul-kleyman/]
San Francisco – In the wake of public outcry over the latest police shooting, of Mario Woods, an unarmed African American, San
Francisco Police Chief Greg Suhr has revived his previous call to equip his officers with electronic stun guns, also called
electronic control weapons (ECWs). With similar cases in Chicago, New York and Miami, New America Media’s Paul Kleyman interviewed
Aram James, a leading opponent of ECWs, about their risks.
A police officer holds a Taser, also known as a stun gun or ECW.
[https://i0.wp.com/sfbayview.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/Taser-in-officers-hand.jpg?resize=400%2C223]
[http://sfbayview.com/?attachment_id=59828]A police officer holds a Taser, also known as a stun gun or ECW.
James, a former public defender in Santa Clara County, south of San Francisco, spent over 25 years in the public defender system.
Now in private law practice, he is a consultant and advocate opposing the use of Tasers. Following are excerpts from the
interview.
Paul Kleyman: You’ve been critical of arguments that ECWs are a nonlethal or less lethal alternative to guns. What are the myths
you’ve raised regarding Tasers?
Aram James: That Tasers save lives is the first myth. That’s a lie. That Tasers can be used as a substitute for deadly force –
that’s not true; that’s not accurate. A 2011 Department of Justice (DOJ) report [http://tinyurl.com/nrrwk8s]found that over 200
Americans have died after being shocked by Tasers, and the advocacy group Truth Not Tasers [http://tinyurl.com/h6dnm6e] has
documented over 900 deaths from them since 2004.
They are the most likely of the intermediate-force weapons, which Tasers were designed as, to kill. Other intermediate-force
weapons would be pepper spray, batons, take-downs, verbal commands, canines etc.
THEY ARE THE MOST LIKELY OF THE INTERMEDIATE-FORCE WEAPONS, WHICH TASERS WERE DESIGNED AS, TO KILL.
Paul Kleyman: That same DOJ report says several police departments have seen reduced injuries by using ECWs as a “less lethal”
weapon. What’s your response?
Aram James: The issue is appropriate use. People have said, “Well, Mr. James, wouldn’t you rather be shot by a Taser than a gun?”
And I say, of course, but that’s a red herring.
If you have a knife or gun, I’m not going to use a Taser to stop you. At that point a police officer needs to have a gun.
Alternatively, it’s the most lethal intermediate weapon to use with people who are unarmed. A recent study by the Stanford
Criminal Defense Clinic [http://tinyurl.com/oxesy9p] makes it very clear that research on Tasers undercuts arguments for adopting
them.
IT’S THE MOST LETHAL INTERMEDIATE WEAPON TO USE WITH PEOPLE WHO ARE UNARMED.
If you talk to law enforcement officers who know Tasers, you don’t take a Taser to a gunfight. Tasers are effective about 70
percent of the time in dart mode and 60 percent of the time directly applied to the body.
So, if I have a knife or a gun in a range close enough to use it against a police officer, you absolutely do not use a Taser. The
training is shoot center mass to kill.
Paul Kleyman: So who are police using ECWs on?
Aram James: A 2014 study from the Nebraska ACLU [http://watchdog.org/165997/taser-guns/] said that three quarters of Taser blasts
they included were used on vulnerable populations. Over and over again studies have shown that disproportionately Tasers are used
on young African Americans, Hispanics, the mentally ill, elders and other groups at high risk for injury. Documented cases there
included a 9-year-old boy and a 63-year-old man who was confused.
In 2005, the Houston Chronicle reported [http://tinyurl.com/nl24w8b]that local police officers used Tasers on minorities 87
percent of the time. The paper followed up [http://tinyurl.com/h2m4znf] two years later with an analysis of over 1,000 incidents,
showing almost all were unarmed. And Houston police used Tasers over 120 times on people with mental illness.
In Riviera Beach, Florida, on July 8, 2013, Tony Brown fell and hit his head, putting him on life support, after police shot him
with a Taser. – Photo: Palm Beach Post
[https://i2.wp.com/sfbayview.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/Tony-Brown-head-caved-in-from-fall-after-police-Taser-shot-Riviera-Beach-FL-070813-by-Palm-Beach-Post.jpg?resize=400%2C196]
[http://sfbayview.com/?attachment_id=59829]In Riviera Beach, Florida, on July 8, 2013, Tony Brown fell and hit his head, putting
him on life support, after police shot him with a Taser. – Photo: Palm Beach Post
Studies also show that many of the most serious injuries or deaths have occurred when officers inappropriately tased someone
repeatedly or with a continuous charge.
Paul Kleyman: How did you get involved with this issue?
Aram James: I first got involved in 2003, with the Coalition for Justice and Accountability in San Jose. It came into existence
shortly after the murder of a mentally-ill San Jose citizen, Cau Bich Tran. Police shot her in her kitchen seconds after they
entered and saw her holding what turned out to be a vegetable peeler.
Members of the coalition, including me, initially supported the use of Tasers, believing they’d save lives, having bought the
propaganda and the deceptive ad campaign put out by the major manufacturer, Taser International.
But we learned that’s simply not true. The company has also lost lawsuits stemming from injuries or deaths when police used
Tasers, also believing their claims.
Paul Kleyman: How are Tasers used in police training?
Aram James: Exposure to Taser blasts used to be a mandatory part of ECW training. But the [nonprofit] Police Executive Research
Forum came out with a model policy a few years ago, saying there’s too much injury to use Tasers in training situations with
officers.
And the U.S. military has done the same. Their “Electronic Control Weapon Guideline” states, “Agencies should be aware that
exposure to ECW application during training could result in injury to personnel and is not recommended.”
So my question is, if law enforcement knows ECWs are too risky to use even in very controlled training circumstances, why the heck
would they want to use it on unarmed citizens in uncontrolled street situations?
The question I would put to [Police Chief] Greg Suhr is, are you willing to use these on your own officers in controlled settings
to show that they’re safe? If he’s telling the truth, he’s going to say, “No, we’re not going to do that.”
IF LAW ENFORCEMENT KNOWS ECWS ARE TOO RISKY TO USE EVEN IN VERY CONTROLLED TRAINING CIRCUMSTANCES, WHY THE HECK WOULD THEY WANT TO
USE IT ON UNARMED CITIZENS IN UNCONTROLLED STREET SITUATIONS?
Bottom line: They’re not safe to use on unarmed people, and they’re not safe for police to use against armed suspects.
Paul Kleyman: What are appropriate uses of ECWs?
Aram James: None in my view. The alternative, more community police, is the key. When police officers are walking the beat and
know people in their communities and their vulnerabilities, they’re much less likely to use force in those circumstances.
Community policing, crisis intervention training – a lot of departments have a small percentage of their officers who have been
properly trained in crisis interventions. Getting police out of their cars into the communities, walking the beat, riding their
bicycles, walking the neighborhood – there’s plenty there to look at in terms of how we can do community policing in a much more
effective and constitutional fashion.
Paul Kleyman, director of the Ethnic Elders Newsbeat at New America Media, spent 20 years as editor of Aging Today, the newspaper
of the American Society on Aging. He can be reached on Facebook [https://www.facebook.com/paul.kleyman]. This story first appeared
on New America Media [http://newamericamedia.org/2015/12/expert-stun-guns-far-from-nonlethal-alternative-to-police-bullets.php].
Sent from my iPhone
