Excessive and lethal force? Amnesty International report on Taser abuse

author: Amnesty International

Amnesty International releases a comprehensive report about their concerns about deaths and ill-treatment involving police use of tasers in the U.S.

miami taser cop

Introduction and summary

"I asked Borden to lift up his foot to remove the shorts, but he was being combative and refused. I dry stunned Borden in the lower abdominal area … We got Borden into the booking area. Borden was still combative and uncooperative. I dried [sic] stunned Borden in the buttocks area…" After the final shock, the officer "noticed that Borden was no longer responsive and his face was discoloured." (extract from officer’s statement on James Borden, a mentally disturbed man being booked into an Indiana jail.)(1)

James Borden was arrested in a disoriented state in November 2003 and died shortly after the administration of the last of six electro-shocks, delivered while his hands were reportedly cuffed behind his back. The medical examiner released a statement listing cause of death as a heart attack, drug intoxication and electrical shock. James Borden is one of thousands of individuals shocked with stun devices by US law enforcement agents each year as a growing number of agencies move to adopt such weapons.

More than 5,000 US law enforcement agencies are currently deploying tasers, dart-firing electro-shock weapons designed to cause instant incapacitation by delivering a 50,000 volt shock. Tasers are hand-held electronic stun guns which fire two barbed darts up to a distance of 21 feet, which remain attached to the gun by wires. The fish-hook like darts are designed to penetrate up to two inches of the target’s clothing or skin and deliver a high-voltage, low amperage, electro-shock along insulated copper wires. Although they were first introduced in the 1970s, the take-up rate for tasers has increased enormously in recent years, with the marketing of powerful "new generation" models such as the M26 Advanced Taser and the Taser X26. Both fire darts which strike the subject from a distance or, as in James Borden’s case, can be applied directly to the skin as a stun gun.

The manufacturers and law enforcement agencies deploying tasers maintain that they are a safer alternative to many conventional weapons in controlling dangerous or combative individuals. Some police departments claim that injuries to officers and suspects, as well as deaths from police firearms, have fallen since their introduction.

Amnesty International acknowledges the importance of developing non-lethal or "less than lethal" force options to decrease the risk of death or injury inherent in the use of firearms or other impact weapons such as batons. However, the use of stun technology in law enforcement raises a number of concerns for the protection of human rights. Portable and easy to use, with the capacity to inflict severe pain at the push of a button without leaving substantial marks, electro-shock weapons are particularly open to abuse by unscrupulous officials, as the organization has documented in numerous cases around the world.(2)
Although US law enforcement agencies stress that training and in-built product safeguards (such as chips which can record the time and date of each taser firing) minimize the potential for abuse, Amnesty International believes that these safeguards do not go far enough. There have been disturbing reports of inappropriate or abusive use of tasers in various US jurisdictions, sometimes involving repeated cycles of electro-shocks.

There is also evidence to suggest that, far from being used to avoid lethal force, many US police agencies are deploying tasers as a routine force option to subdue non-compliant or disturbed individuals who do not pose a serious danger to themselves or others. In some departments, tasers have become the most prevalent force tool. They have been used against unruly schoolchildren; unarmed mentally disturbed or intoxicated individuals; suspects fleeing minor crime scenes and people who argue with police or fail to comply immediately with a command. Cases described in this report include the stunning of a 15-year-old schoolgirl in Florida, following a dispute on a bus, and a 13- year-old girl in Arizona, who threw a book in a public library.

In many such instances, the use of electro-shock weapons appears to have violated international standards prohibiting torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment as well as standards set out under the United Nations (UN) Code of Conduct for Law Enforcement Officials and the Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials. These require that force should be used as a last resort and that officers must apply only the minimum amount of force necessary to obtain a lawful objective. They also provide that all use of force must be proportionate to the threat posed as well as designed to avoid unwarranted pain or injury.

International standards encourage the development of non-lethal incapacitating weapons for law enforcement "for use in appropriate situations, with a view to increasingly restraining the application of means capable of causing death or injury to persons" but state that such weapons must be "carefully evaluated" and their use "carefully controlled".(3) Amnesty International believes that this standard has not been met with regard to tasers, despite their increasing use across the country.

Amnesty International is further concerned by the growing number of fatalities involving police tasers. Since 2001, more than 70 people are reported to have died in the USA and Canada after being struck by M26 or X26 tasers, with the numbers rising each year. While coroners have tended to attribute such deaths to other factors (such as drug intoxication), some medical experts question whether the taser shocks may exacerbate a risk of heart failure in cases where persons are agitated, under the influence of drugs, or have underlying health problems such as heart disease. In at least five recent cases, coroners have found the taser directly contributed to the death, along with other factors such as drug abuse and heart disease. As discussed below, the death toll heightens Amnesty International’s concern about the safety of stun weapons and the lack of rigorous, independent testing as to their medical effects.

This report includes a review by Amnesty International of information on 74 taser-involved deaths, based on a range of sources, including autopsy reports in 21 cases. Most of those who died were unarmed men who, while displaying disturbed or combative behaviour, did not appear to present a serious threat to the lives or safety of others. Yet many were subjected to extreme levels of force, including repeated taser discharges and in some cases dangerous restraint techniques such as "hogtying" (shackling an individual by the wrists and ankles behind their back). The cases raise serious concern about the overall levels of force deployed by some police agencies as well the safety of tasers.

Tasers have been described by many police departments as "filling a niche" on the force scale.(4) However, Amnesty International is concerned that deployment of tasers, rather than minimizing the use of force, may dangerously extend the boundaries of what are considered "acceptable" levels of force. While the organization concedes that there may be limited circumstances under which tasers might be considered an alternative to deadly force, there is evidence to suggest that measures such as stricter controls and training on the use of force and firearms can be more effective in reducing unnecessary deaths or injuries (see below, page 9).

In its recommendations, contained at the end of the report, Amnesty International is reiterating its call on federal, state and local authorities and law enforcement agencies to suspend all transfers and use of electro-shock weapons, pending an urgent rigorous, independent and impartial inquiry into their use and effects.

Where US law enforcement agencies refuse to suspend tasers, the organization is recommending that their use of tasers is strictly limited to situations where the alternative under international standards would be deadly force, with detailed reporting and monitoring procedures.

1. GENERAL CONCERNS ABOUT TASER USE

1.2. Background on Taser Use

"I have always stated that the only way to guarantee a knockdown of a human being is to shoot them in the central nervous system with a bullet. In my opinion the ADVANCED TASER comes extremely close to doing the same thing, but from a less-lethal perspective." Sgt Darren Laur, Control Tactics Coordinator, Victoria Police Department, Canada, writing in a review article, published in the October 1999 issue of Law Enforcement Technology.

"It just takes your legs out. It’s like a jackhammer going Kaboom, Kaboom, Kaboom!" Sgt Burt Robinson Chandler, Police SWAT team, Arizona, describing the M26 Advanced Taser on website of security equipment company, Security Planet Corp.

Named after the hero of a popular science fiction series,(5) tasers were originally developed by a California-based company in the 1970s. The Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) became the first major agency to introduce them in 1974. (The videotape of the LAPD beating of Rodney King in March 1991 shows an officer holding a taser gun he had fired at King, trying to keep the wires from getting tangled as King rolled on the ground from police baton blows.) Tasers have been promoted as having advantages over other non-lethal weapons as they can be applied at a distance (avoiding injury to officers) and, unlike chemical sprays, are not affected by wind and do not risk contaminating officers or bystanders. However, the earlier taser models were not always effective, especially in the case of individuals who were highly agitated or under the influence of drugs such as phenylcyclohexyl piperidine (PCP).(6) During the 1990s, companies started to develop more powerful prototypes of the taser and other stun weapons.

Thousands of US law enforcement agencies now deploy the M26 Advanced Taser, which are several times more powerful than the original version used by the LAPD and other agencies in the 1970s and 1980s. The M26 is one of a new generation of tasers developed by Taser International, an Arizona-based company, and was introduced for operational use in late 1999. It operates on 26 watts of electrical output (compared to 5-7 watts of earlier models) and discharges pulsed energy to deliver a 50,000 volt shock designed to override the subject’s central nervous system, causing uncontrollable contraction of the muscle tissue and instant collapse.(7) In May 2003, Taser International introduced a new model, the Taser X26, which is 60% smaller and lighter than the M26 but has the same voltage and, according to the manufacturer, an incapacitating effect which is 5% greater than the M26.(8) Both fire two probes up to a distance of 21 feet and are programmed to be activated in five-second bursts of electricity, although, as shown below, the electrical charge can be prolonged beyond five seconds if the officer’s finger remains depressed on the trigger. The shocks can also be repeated so long as both probes remain attached to the subject. The darts are fired by an air cartridge which has to be reloaded if a second firing is required. Both models have laser sights, for accurate targeting (and avoiding hitting vulnerable spots such as eyes or face). They also have a built-in memory option to record the time and date of each firing (see below for more on this).

Both the M26 and the X26 can also be used without the air cartridge, as "touch" stun guns, to apply electric shocks directly to the subject at close range. The duration of the cycle in stun gun mode is the same as in the dart projectile mode.

According to the literature, the new generation tasers are designed "…to incapacitate dangerous, combative, or high risk subjects that may be impervious to other less-lethal means, regardless of pain tolerance, drug use, or body size". They have been described as "the only less-lethal weapon that can stop a truly focused, aggressive subject" and as "specifically designed to stop even elite, aggressive, focused combatants".(9)

In meetings with Amnesty International, Taser International has stressed that, unlike earlier models, the M26 and X26 tasers are not designed to stop a target through infliction of pain but work by causing instant immobilization through muscle contraction. According to the company they are one of the few non-lethal weapons effective in causing incapacitation without physiological injury. They have pointed out that any pain involved is transient, with no after-effects. However, officers subjected to even a fraction of the normal taser discharge during training have reported feeling acute pain:

The Olympian

Mobile Register

The Associated Press

The Kalazazoo Gazette

Officers were initially exposed during training to only a fraction of the normal taser discharge of five seconds, yet still testified to experiencing considerable pain. Amnesty International understands that it is now recommended that officers are subjected to a five-second shock, although at least one department no longer allows officers to be tasered at all during training, following complaints from officers.(10) While the pain is short-lived, this would not necessarily apply in the case of someone subjected to repeated or prolonged jolts of the taser darts or stun gun (see below). Amnesty International has been told by an expert who has experienced shocks from both models that the X26 model is even more painful than the M26.

Unlike the dart-firing probes, the touch stun function only acts on a small part of the body, and causes pain and debilitation rather than total incapacitation. A Taser International training manual states that "If only the stun mode is used, the M26 becomes a pain compliance technique…"(11) The advice given in the manual for "stun mode areas" is to "aggressively drive M26 into:

Carotid/brachial stun area(12)
Groin
Common Peronial(13)."

Although, as stated above, the M26 and X26 tasers are programmed to set off an automatic five-second electrical charge, this happens if an officer pulls the trigger and releases it. The electrical charge can be prolonged beyond five seconds if the officer keeps his finger depressed on the trigger. A Taser International training manual states that "holding the trigger continuously beyond the 5 second cycle will continue the electrical cycle until the trigger is released". The following testimony was given by a police training officer at an inquest into the death of William Lomax, who had a taser in stun gun mode applied repeatedly to his neck in jolts lasting up to eight seconds each:

1. 3 Deployment of tasers in the USA: life saver or routine force tool?

More than 5,000 law enforcement and correctional agencies in 49 US states are currently reported to be deploying or testing taser equipment, with the take-up rate continuing to grow, reportedly by around 170 police agencies a month. Several US states which formerly banned all stun weapons have recently changed their laws to allow local and state police to deploy tasers.(15) In some states they are deployed by police on university campuses and they have also been used in schools (see below).

Tasers have also been purchased by the US army, including for use in Iraq. (16) The US Air Force also reportedly deploys tasers aboard aircraft carrying suspected al-Qa’ida members to Guant�namo Bay, Cuba.(17) While few details have been provided about the use of tasers by US military forces, one of the units deploying them in Iraq in 2003 was the 800th Military Police Brigade, accused of grave abuses in Abu Ghraib prison.(18)

New generation tasers have also been purchased, or are undergoing testing, by police or military forces in other countries, including, reportedly, Argentina, Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Israel, Malaysia, Mexico, Spain, Turkey, the United Arab Emirates and the UK.(19)

Tasers have also been authorized for use by the general public. Forty-three US states are reported to place few or no restrictions on possession of stun weapons by members of the public for private use.(20) While promoted as self-defence tools, for private users, they are easily open to abuse, without the controls or monitoring that apply to law enforcement use. Amnesty International cites several cases, below, in which parents have been prosecuted for child cruelty after using stun weapons to discipline their children. Stun weapons have also been reportedly used during the commission of crimes, or as instruments of torture or abuse, including of women by abusive partners or former partners.

Amnesty International is opposed to the sale of stun weapons for private use, given the difficulty in ensuring adequate standards of monitoring and control and the potential for abuse behind closed doors. While police officers undergo training and are subject to regulations governing the use of force, no such controls exist for the private sector. Unlike firearms, there are no licensing requirements in the USA for private use of tasers.(21)

The latest model for private use in the USA is the Taser X26c Citizen Defense System, which was introduced for sale on-line through Taser International in September 2004. According to company literature, the Taser X26c, which can also be used as a stun gun, has a 15 feet stand-off capability and "operates at a slightly lower output than the law enforcement Taser X26". Disturbingly, it also operates "with an extended duration of up to 30 seconds per discharge".(22)

In the UK, modern tasers have since 2003 been deployed by a number of police departments under the same strict guidelines as apply to firearms. They are allowed to be used only by authorized firearms officers, are kept in the firearms box and are issued only in appropriate situations where officers are faced with a threat of deadly force and the only other option would be use of a conventional firearm.

In the USA, tasers are authorized for use in much broader circumstances, as discussed below. Nevertheless, they are promoted in the USA, as elsewhere, as an important tool in saving lives and reducing the need for lethal force. Under international standards, lethal force may only be used by officers in self-defence or the defence of others when there is an imminent threat of death or serious injury, and "only when less extreme measures are insufficient to achieve these objectives".(23)

Taser International has repeatedly emphasized in statements and literature how taser use has saved lives. For example, in July 2004, the company issued a statement citing a case in which a woman advancing on officers with an eight-inch knife had been successfully disarmed with a taser rather than shot with a firearm and another case where a suicidal man threatening to cut his own throat was similarly disarmed without injury. The company stated that it had received "over 500 similar reports where officers have used the TASER to save a life", estimating that the true figure was likely to exceed 5,000 cases.(24) Claims that tasers save lives may, however, include incidents involving intervention at an earlier stage than a situation posing an imminent threat of death or serious injury. Taser International states in a lesson plan for US law enforcement agencies that:

Some police departments have reported a significant fall in police shootings following the introduction of tasers. In February 2004, the Phoenix Police Department, Arizona, announced that officer-involved shootings had fallen by 54% from 28 in 2002 to 13 in 2003, with fatal shootings down from 13 to 9 during the same period, the lowest number since 1990. Phoenix Mayor Phil Gordon said "I am proud that Phoenix is the first city in the nation to equip all of our police officers with tasers. We are committed to providing our officers with the latest technology, support and equipment that they need in order to protect them and the community."(26) A Taser International brochure reported that use of firearms and impact weapons by Orange County (Florida) sheriff’s deputies fell by 80% following the introduction of the Advanced Taser in 2000, "reducing injuries and saving lives".(27)

Reports of a fall in police shootings in the cities of Seattle and Miami have similarly been attributed, at least in part, to the introduction of tasers. Both police departments reported no fatal police shootings for the first time more than a decade in the year tasers were introduced – in Miami’s case there were no police shootings, fatal or otherwise, for the first time in 14 years.(28) Other departments have reported on specific instances where officers have used tasers instead of firearms to disarm suicidal or mentally ill individuals armed with weapons such as knives, although reports of officers using tasers when confronted with people with guns appear to be much rarer.

Amnesty International welcomes any reduction in the use of lethal force. However, claims that tasers have led to a fall in police shootings need to be put into perspective, given that shootings constitute only a small percentage of all police use of force. In contrast, taser usage has increased dramatically, becoming the most prevalent force option in some departments. While police shootings in Phoenix fell from 28 to 13 in 2003, tasers were used that year in 354 use-of-force incidents, far more than would be needed to avoid a resort to lethal force.

Use of non-lethal weapons may be only one factor leading to a fall in police shootings and other serious force. In Miami, for example, the fall in officer-involved shootings may be due in part to greater oversight following several high profile prosecutions of Miami police officers for civil rights violations involving wrongful shootings and an ongoing federal Justice Department investigation into an alleged pattern of excessive force.(29)

Representatives of Taser International who met with Amnesty International in July 2004 said there had been a significant reduction in injuries to suspects and officers following the introduction of tasers, according to police reports of operational use across the USA. The company noted that many other types of force, such as use of batons or police dogs resulted in higher injury levels than the taser. It was stressed that a reduction in injuries was likely to be more pronounced where tasers were used below the level justifying lethal force as all use of physical force, including light hands-on force, could result in some bodily injury.

However, as shown below, many departments allow officers to use tasers in situations that would not justify the use of batons or other impact weapons liable to cause serious injury. Reports suggest that, in some departments, tasers are used by officers primarily as a substitute for pepper or chemical sprays, which may themselves be considered a relatively low-level force option. Amnesty International has frequently raised concern about alleged misuse of pepper spray by law enforcement officers, including its use in situations that do not merit this degree of force.(30) The organization suggests that, rather than substituting electro-shock weapons for pepper spray or other force options, better training and restraint in the use of force would be a more appropriate strategy in many situations.

Indeed, improved policies, training and oversight have been shown to be critical factors in reducing police shootings and injuries to suspects or officers. Such measures are likely to have a more significant impact overall than use of alternative weapons. In San Jose, California, for example, the police department obtained its first sizeable batch of new tasers in 2002, a year in which police shootings fell to zero. However, police shootings in San Jose had been falling since 1999, a development attributed in large part to better training on the use of force; the introduction of a Crisis Intervention Team (CIT) to defuse potentially dangerous situations involving disturbed individuals; and an independent auditor to monitor the department. Improved use-of-force policies, investigations and training led to a fall in police shootings and dog bite injuries in Washington, DC, where the Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) was once notorious for its high rate of officer-involved-shootings and injuries to suspects from police canines.(31) Other departments, including the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) and the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department (LASD), have noted similar trends.(32)

In fact, in San Jose, police shootings started to rise again after the introduction of tasers (which were issued to all patrol officers in May 2004), reaching a five-year high in 2004. (33) Their effectiveness in resolving use-of-force situations has been questioned by the San Jose Independent Police Auditor, who announced a review of the department’s taser use in September 2004, following concern about two incidents in which police shot disturbed individuals after tasers failed to subdue them.(34) One case concerned a mentally disturbed man who became agitated after being asked to stop smoking in a coffee shop and allegedly threw a chair at officers. He was shot after the taser failed to subdue him. Questions have been raised as to whether other force tactics might have been more safely deployed in such a situation.

1. 4 Low on the force scale

Although described by the manufacturer as a suitable tool for "aggressive, focused combatants", the taser appears to be a relatively low level force option in many US police departments. A survey by Amnesty International of more than 30 US police departments (including 20 of the largest city or county agencies) indicates that tasers are typically placed in the mid-range of the force scale, below batons or impact weapons rather than at, or just below, lethal force. (35) Some departments place the entry level for tasers at an even lower level, after verbal commands and light hands-on force.

For example, a number of law enforcement agencies allow tasers to be used against "passive resisters" – people who refuse to comply with police commands but do not interfere with an officer and pose no physical threat.(36) Others authorize tasers at an entry level of "defensive resistance", typically defined as "physical actions which attempt to prevent officer’s control but do not attempt to harm the officer".(37) The Miramar Police Department, Florida, told Amnesty International (in response to concerns raised about the stunning of a schoolgirl during a minor disturbance) that tasers were available "prior to the use of intermediate weapons" such as batons. A Philadelphia Police Department directive states that tasers may be used, among other scenarios, to "overcome resistance to arrest". Indianapolis police told Amnesty International that the entry level at which tasers could be used was "at any point force is needed".(38) While many departments authorize tasers at the level of "active physical resistance", according to a number of policies Amnesty International has seen, this can be in the form of "bracing or tensing" or "attempts to push or pull away". These scenarios hardly depict the "combative" or "aggressive" individuals described in promotional literature.

Amnesty International believes that electro-shock weapons, which have a powerful impact on the body and can cause acute pain, should never be considered a "low" or "intermediate" force option. However, a review of reported cases suggests that some departments are deploying tasers in routine arrest situations, at the first sign of resistance or in the face of relatively minor resistance. Incidents include cases of people under the influence of alcohol or drugs who failed to comply promptly with commands, people who "mouthed off" at officers and people engaged in minor acts of public disturbance. The use of electro-shock weapons in such circumstances appear to breach international standards set out under the UN Code of Conduct for Law Enforcement Officials and the Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms. These require that force should be used only as a last resort, in proportion to the threat posed and the legitimate objective to be achieved.(39)

Training materials on tasers suggest that they are safe to use against a wide age range and that repeated shocks pose no additional risks. Confidence in such claims may explain why there are reports of tasers being used against elderly people and children, and of people being subjected to multiple shocks. Tasers have also been used to subdue unarmed mentally ill or disturbed individuals who were not committing a crime or posing a threat of serious injury. Given the pain and the psychological impact or fear caused by being stunned or threatened with an electro-shock weapon, the use or threat of tasers in these and other cases, even without physical injury, may constitute torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.

The USA has ratified the UN Convention against Torture and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), both of which prohibit torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. The UN Human Rights Committee, the expert body which monitors compliance with the ICCPR, states that "the aim of the provisions of article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights is to protect both the dignity and the physical and mental integrity of the individual". The Committee emphasises that the prohibition of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment in article 7 "relates not only to acts that cause physical pain but also to acts that cause mental suffering to the victim."(40)

The following accounts, based on press articles, police reports and other sources, illustrate Amnesty International’s concerns about the way tasers have been used in various US jurisdictions.

Florida
Local police agencies in Florida were among the first to adopt the new generation tasers on a wide scale. Twelve (nearly one in five) of the recent US taser-related deaths discussed under Chapter 2 occurred in Florida, with four in Orange County alone. In addition to those cases, Florida police have reportedly used tasers to subdue:

a man who refused to be fingerprinted and wrestled and shoved officers (Pembroke Pines Police Department, Broward County)
a woman who interrupted a seminar at a country club and pushed officers away, shouting that they were "sick with demons" (Pembroke Pines Police Department)
a man who refused to discard the drink he was drinking in a park and refused to turn round and be handcuffed (Orange County Sheriff’s Office)
a woman who, ordered out of a pool for swimming naked and once dressed, refused repeated commands to turn round and put her hands behind her back. (Orange County Sheriff’s Office)
a 15-year-old schoolgirl, who was tasered and pepper sprayed after arguing with officers after she and other children were put off a bus during a disturbance. (Miramar Police Department, Broward County)
a 14-year-old schoolgirl who was tasered after fighting with a school "resource officer" in a classroom. The officer first used the taser as a "stun gun" applying it directly to her chest; when she continued to struggle he deployed the "air cartridge" twice before she was handcuffed. (Putnam County Sheriff’s Office)(41)

In May 2004, the city of Melbourne, Brevard County, Florida, announced a review of police taser use after reports that officers had fired two tasers simultaneously at an unarmed 23-year-old man who had turned his back on officers when they called at his house to investigate a neighbour’s complaint about loud rap music. He was allegedly jolted multiple times, causing acute pain. A study of police incident reports conducted by a local newspaper found that Melbourne police had used tasers against 75 people in 18 months, most of whom were unarmed.(42) They included

a 14-year-old boy who had allegedly broken a window and tried to run away;
a 50-year-old man who refused to give police his date of birth during a disturbance at a picnic;
a woman jolted at least five times with a taser as an officer held her down.

In most or all of the cases cited above, the use of force was found to be in accordance with departmental policies. In the case of the 14-year-old tasered in the classroom, the Putnam County Sheriff’s Office informed Amnesty International that "use of the taser in this instance is in accordance with agency policy", noting that the girl in question, who weighed 221 1bs (100 Kg), had a history of assaultive behaviour at the school. While recognizing the challenges posed by such behaviour, Amnesty International remains concerned at the use of an electro-shock weapon against a disturbed, unarmed teenager.

In July 2004, it was announced that eleven police agencies in Orange County, Florida, had agreed to restrict their use of tasers following a year-long review which suggested that some officers were too quick to resort to their weapons. Before the restrictions were imposed, officers were permitted to shock anyone who prevented an officer "from taking lawful action", including people engaged in "passive resistance": those who disobeyed an officer’s verbal command without engaging in any threat or act of physical harm. The new rules allow officers to stun only people who show "active resistance". However, tasers can still be used well below the "lethal force" level, including under such broad circumstances as "preventing an officer from making an arrest". Some US police agencies may continue to allow tasers to be used at the level of "passive resistance". Records from the Orange County Sheriff’s Department, Florida (the largest county police agency), showed that the agency used tasers in 180 cases in which individuals were engaged in "passive resistance" from 2001 to October 2003, although this policy was reportedly under review.(43)

Colorado
A study by the Denver Post in May 2004 found that the Denver Police Department, Colorado, commonly used tasers against people who refused to submit to handcuffing or who walked or ran away from police officers. In 90% of cases the subjects were unarmed, and most were cited for minor offences. While in some cases tasers had been used to stop dangerous suspects and disarm the suicidal, they were more often used to force people to obey police commands and to shortcut confrontations. The study found that officers had tasered at least sixteen people who were already handcuffed, and sixteen juveniles (details of the latter cases were unavailable due to their age).(44) Most such usage was found to be within the official policy.

The Denver Police Department is one of more than 100 law enforcement agencies in Colorado to have adopted tasers and, by August 2003, had purchased enough X26 and M26 tasers to have one in every patrol car.

The Denver Post study was prompted by concerns raised by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Colorado about inappropriate and abusive use of tasers by a number of local police and county agencies, including two cases where suspects died.(45) In several cases police subjected people to repeated shocks, sometimes while they were already restrained; other cases included people abused in local jails (see below). In many instances the accounts were corroborated by police reports. One of the cases taken up by the ACLU was that of a man who died after being tasered at least five times by Glendale police officers as he lay supine on the floor of his room in a drug-induced stupor (see Glenn Leyba case, chapter 2 below). Other cases involving the Glendale Police Department included the following:

A man who was drunk and verbally abusive was tasered in the back for struggling while police applied handcuffs as he lay on the ground. He was given another jolt of electricity when he continued to resist as police walked him to a patrol car.
Police tried to arrest a man for allegedly assaulting his girlfriend in the street. The man ran away and an officer followed him slowly in her police vehicle and told him to "Stop running or I am going to Tase you", before reaching out of her vehicle, while steering it with one hand, and firing the taser at him. The man fell to the ground and was tasered again when he tried to stand up.
A man escorted from a restaurant by police officers was touch stunned in the leg for "refusing to obey verbal commands".

In September 2004, the Denver Police Department’s Chief of Police, Gerry Whitman, announced that he had changed the department’s use-of-force policy to allow officers to use a taser only on suspects exhibiting "active aggression" or "aggravated active aggression". Previously, about 20% of the department’s taser incidents involved police responses to the lower standard of "defensive resistance" by a suspect. Under the department’s policy, "active aggression" is defined as an assault or imminent assault, while "aggravated active aggression" constitutes more serious violence that could, in some cases, justify deadly force.

However, a report published by the Denver Post on 20 September 2004 found that policies among Colorado law enforcement agencies varied widely and that in some jurisdictions police continued to "shock suspects who do little more than mouth off, pull an arm away from a handcuff, run or refuse to obey an officer’s orders quickly". In three local departments – Longmont, Pueblo and Glendale – police had used tasers at a rate, on average, nearly four times greater than in Denver. The article cited cases in which suspects were subjected to repeated jolts or shocked while they were handcuffed. In one case, Commerce City Police Department officers used a taser on an allegedly drunken man seven times as they tried to take him to a detoxification centre; six of the electro-shocks were administered while he was in handcuffs. Of more than 500 cases reviewed by the Post from 15 local police agencies, only two were deemed by the departments concerned to have been inappropriate.

Portland, Oregon
An investigation by a weekly journal, Willamette Week (WW), into taser use by the Portland Police Department, Oregon, published in February 2004, reported that, over a 19 month period, officers had deployed tasers in more than 400 cases, including on 25 people who were already in handcuffs.(46) The WW report, which was based on a review of police incident reports, stated that "numerous potentially lethal situations" had been averted using the taser, including suicidal individuals trying to force the police to kill them.(47) However, the WW also reported on incidents in which tasers were used against people who were not a serious threat but were merely verbally abusive or failed to comply with police commands. According to the newspaper, Oregon police had tasered people "after stopping them for non-violent offenses, such as littering and jaywalking, selling plastic flowers without a license, and failing to go away when told to". Police also used tasers on two 71-year-olds, one a woman who was blind in one eye, and the other a man who was trying to restrain a knife-wielding woman. The elderly man was shot with the taser after dropping onto his hands and knees instead of lying flat on the floor, as ordered by police. (See under Lawsuits, below, for details of the 71-year-old woman).

The paper also reported on the case of 20-year-old Dontae Marks, a bystander who protested when police tried to arrest a friend for being drunk outside a night-club. Police reportedly pointed a taser at Marks’ chest when he refused an order to leave, then tasered him in the back as he walked away shouting an obscenity. Six officers then reportedly grappled with him in a struggle in which Marks was pepper-sprayed and touch-stunned at least ten times while lying face-down on the ground. He was reported to have sustained 13 taser burn marks across his back, neck, buttocks and the rear of his legs. He was later acquitted on charges of affray and has filed a lawsuit. According to the WW report, an internal police review found the taser use to be justified.

Dontae Marks’ attorney is quoted as saying "They went straight for the Taser because it was quick and easy for them. He was doing what they wanted him to do, but because they didn’t believe him, they tased him. And that’s what blew the situation up." The following incidents were also cited in the article. All were reportedly found to be within police departmental policy.

An 18-year-old was tasered when he told police responding to an under-age drinking party to "get the f…out of my house". He was tasered again when, after complying with an order to put his hands up, his hands started to drop.
A driver pulled over on a bridge, angry that his car was being towed away for lack of insurance, was tased after repeatedly complaining and turning his head and body towards an officer.
A woman who fell asleep in her parked car was tasered when officers woke her up when they opened her car door and, according to the police report, she glared at them and reached for her pocket. According to the WW review, police reports were inconsistent as to whether or not she was warned before the taser was used.

The Portland Police Department subsequently reviewed its taser use, finding that out of 595 uses since a pilot project began in July 2002, only one had been ruled out of policy.(48) In May 2004, Portland Police Chief Derrick Foxworth reported to the city commissioners that the department would introduce stricter policies and training on taser use. The new policies would reportedly continue to allow officers to use tasers against handcuffed suspects but would instruct officers to consider other methods of control before stunning children, pregnant women and the elderly. At the time of writing, plans were underway to expand the deployment of tasers in the Portland Police Department, by issuing one to every patrol officer.

Chandler, Arizona
The Chandler Police Department, Arizona, is one of several agencies to have compiled detailed statistics about its taser use in a publicly available report.(49) The report documented 86 uses of the taser from April through December 2003, 42 of which involved police firing darts at suspects. In 17 cases the taser was used in touch stun mode and in five cases both the probe deployment and touch stun mode were used.(50) There were also 24 incidents in which the taser was used in Display Mode only. 97% of dart or stun deployments were in response to "active physical resistance" or higher on the force scale. "Active physical resistance" is defined in departmental policy as "acts of fleeing or escaping" or "suspect attempts to resist arrest without assaulting officer".

The report included a summary of each incident. Most of the incidents involved unarmed suspects who were reportedly engaged in aggressive or disorderly behaviour, and were resisting arrest; many occurred after or during a police chase. A breakdown of taser usage by "call type" (incident to which the police responded) showed that most police responses were to reports of domestic violence (19% of cases), followed by "suicide attempt" (13%). Others ranged from minor offenses to burglary. There is no indication that any of the incidents were found to violate the Chandler Police Department policy. The reports included use of tasers to subdue:

a female driver of a stolen vehicle being followed by police who, after she crashed the car and fled on foot and was caught by officers, "would not comply with verbal commands and made a move towards her waistband".
A trespassing suspect who was tasered when he "resisted being handcuffed".
a female suspect who had broken into her grandfather’s apartment and was tasered when she "attempted to walk away from the officer" and "pulled away" when he tried to stop her. The taser was applied five additional times before other officers arrived on the scene.
a burglary suspect hiding in an attic when he "refused to comply with commands".
a suspect who, stopped for driving with a suspended license, ran away from police.
an autistic teenager after he assaulted his mother and wrestled an officer to the ground.
a man standing on the sidewalk yelling and screaming at the sky. He was threatened with the taser if he did not comply with police commands to be quiet. He refused to comply and the taser was then deployed. The taser was effective but "as the subject began to get up, the taser was cycled a second time".
A thirteen-year-old girl was tasered in a public library after she threw a book at someone and was "yelling obscenities". The case summary states: "The juvenile continued to be verbally disruptive and resisted when officers attempted to place her under arrest. The Taser was displayed and threatened. The juvenile continued to resist by curling into a ball. As the juvenile was preparing to kick at the officer, she was touch-stunned in the middle of her back". (51)

The Chandler Police Department study reported on 17 instances in which the taser was used solely as a touch stun gun. In most of the cases, it appears to have been used in order to gain compliance and included the following cases:

An "out-of-control" high school student "continued to resist in the patrol car". The Taser was used on the leg as a touch stun to gain compliance.
A suspect was stopped for "driving under the influence" and refused to comply with commands to place his hands behind his back to be handcuffed. The taser was displayed and he started to comply but placed his hands against his chest. The taser was then used in touch stun mode.
During another arrest for "illegal consumption of alcohol", the "suspect resisted and the Taser was used in touch stun mode to gain compliance".
The stun gun was used to gain compliance from a suspect in custody who was refusing to have blood drawn as per a court order. The taser was used a total of four times against the suspect.

Seattle, Washington
The Seattle Police Department (SPD) has issued two reports reviewing the first three years of the department’s use of the M26 Advanced Taser: from January 2001 through December 2003. (52) During this period, the department recorded 428 taser applications. The SPD reported that tasers were used in a "wide variety of incidents", with "violent crimes and drug/alcohol incidents" together comprising nearly 40% of the situations in which tasers have been used. In only 23% of cases were the taser subjects armed, mostly with knives. Nearly two-thirds of taser subjects (65%) were impaired, often severely, by alcohol, drugs or a mental illness or delusion. The reports cite instances in which lives were saved through police use of tasers against armed, mentally impaired, individuals. In other cases the subjects did not appear to have engaged in life-threatening behaviour, but were combative or disturbed. Some of the incidents appear relatively minor. Interestingly, the proportion of dart deployments fell in relation to touch stun use over the three-year period. By the end of the third year, tasers had been deployed in dart projectile mode in 53% of incidents (compared to 56% in 2002 and 60% in 2001) and in touch stun mode in 34% of cases.

According to the above data, in 14% of cases tasers were deployed against subjects aged 20 or younger, and included at least one minor. This was a case in which an intoxicated male was observed near the fraternity houses of a university district, stumbling and walking into a lamp post. The report’s summary of the case states: "when contacted, the subject refused to stop or cooperate, became extremely belligerent and verbally abusive, and then attempted to flee. After several commands to stop, the officer deployed a taser, which gained the subject’s compliance".(53)

The SPD provided a racial break-down of individuals subjected to tasers through to May 2004, which showed that 45% of subjects were African American and 42% Caucasian.

In a report published in April 2004, the Office of Professional Accountability Review Board: OPARB, the police complaints oversight body for the SPD, recommended that "SPD Taser policy be refined to provide more detailed guidance and training delimiting officer discretion in light of growing Taser experience". The recommendation followed a critical review in the OPARB’s annual report of two complaints involving police taser use. In one complaint, a young African-American male (described as "a domestic violence assault suspect") alleged that he was tasered 14 times – a claim disputed by the officer who said he had tasered the suspect "only" four times. The OPARB questioned the police finding that the complaint was "unfounded", noting that, despite the disparity in testimony, the complainant was "undisputably tasered multiple times", an issue which it said raised questions about appropriate use. The other complaint included a claim that a suspect was tasered simultaneously by two officers in touch stun mode while lying handcuffed on the ground. The OPARB criticized the decision of the police department’s Office of Professional Accountability to exonerate the officers without determining clearly how many times the complainant (who had photographic evidence of burn marks) had been tasered.(54) The SPD said it would review the OPARB recommendation and their policy and training.

In September 2004, a 17-year-old teenager zapped with a taser four times on the back of the neck during a traffic stop received $25,000 in damages in settlement of a claim that Seattle police used had used excessive force and improper procedures. The incident happened in July 2003, when the youth, then aged 16, was riding in a car which was pulled over for a faulty headlight. The police report said he appeared to make furtive movements in the back seat. He was tasered when police searched him outside the car and, according to officers, he struggled and resisted. His attorney has reported that scars were still visible on the back of his neck one year later. In agreeing to an out-of-court settlement, the City of Seattle did not admit wrongdoing on the part of the police, but ordered the officer who had used the taser to receive additional training.(55)

Kansas City, Missouri
In June 2004, a Kansas City police officer electro-shocked an unarmed 66-year-old African American woman in her home, as she resisted being issued with a ticket for honking her car horn at police. The incident started when Louise Jones honked her horn while parking behind a police car. The police officers, who were responding to an unrelated disturbance in the street, returned to Ms Jones’ house and tried to issue her with a ticket for unlawful use of her horn. She protested and a tussle ensued, during which an officer shocked her twice with his taser.

Kansas City Police Department’s policy, introduced in April 2004, allowed officers to use tasers on subjects who displayed "passive resistance": people who refuse to follow police instructions but do not physically resist an officer. Following publicity about the Louise Jones case, the department set up a task force to review its taser policy. It also raised the threshold for when police could deploy tasers, allowing their use only against those engaging in some form of "active resistance". Two officers involved in the Louise Jones incident were later reported to have been disciplined in the case, although the type of disciplinary action was not made public.

The Task Force issued preliminary recommendations to the Kansas City Police Department in September 2004, stating that officers could keep tasers but the department should continually evaluate their use and conduct an independent study into their safety.

Cases reflect wider pattern
Amnesty International considers that using powerful electro-shock technology against unruly children; disturbed, intoxicated but non-dangerous individuals; and people who are non-compliant but who do not pose a probable threat of serious injury to themselves or others, is an excessive use of force which may also constitute torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.

There are no national standards on police use of tasers and practice varies between departments, and even (as shown above) within states. However, it appears that many of the situations described above are not confined to a few departments but reflect a wider pattern across the USA. Reports suggest that tasers are commonly used to secure compliance in routine arrest and non-life-threatening situations.

A statistical analysis of 2,050 taser field applications across the USA, produced for Taser International in November 2002, for example, showed that in 79.6% of cases the suspects were unarmed; of the other cases, 15.6% had an "edged weapon" and 4.8% a firearm; in 4.9% of cases the "suspect weapon" category was "blunt force". An analysis of the "suspect force level" in which a taser was deployed gave the most common category (37% of cases) as "verbal non-compliance". This was followed by "active aggression" in 32.6% of cases; "defensive resistance" in 27.7% of cases and "deadly assault" in only 2.7% of cases.(56)

The survey also provided a "call-out" analysis (the type of incident to which police had responded) which listed 29.8% of cases as "violent" and 27.5% as "resisting arrest". The other categories were "suicide"14.7%; "civil disturbance"11.9%; "Barricade" 5.8%; "serve warrant" 5.6% and "officer assault" 4.7%(57)

1. 5 Children

Several of the cases described above involve use of electro-shock weapons against unarmed children, including use of a taser against a child in school and another in a public library. Amnesty International considers that the use of electro-shock weapons against recalcitrant or disturbed children is an inherently excessive and cruel use of force, contrary to international standards recognizing that children are entitled to special care and protection.(58)

While no national statistics are available, such cases may not be isolated. Amnesty International has received reports of tasers being used by police in schools to break up fights or when dealing with other incidents. In some cases, police reportedly fired their tasers when juveniles walked or ran away from officers. A review of cases published by a California newspaper found that few police agencies in Northern California had any minimum age restrictions on use of tasers, a situation that may be similar in other jurisdictions.(59)

According to the field study statistics cited above, 7.69% or 148 of the 2050 taser applications involved people aged from 12 to 18, although no breakdown was given of children under 18. A later analysis of 2,690 taser field uses shows 183 applications (7.4%) involving children aged 10 to 18.(60) Taser International has informed Amnesty International that it has records of four children under ten who were subjected to police tasers: one seven-year-old, one eight-year-old and two nine-year-olds, two of whom it says were armed with knives and one with a machete. However, there may be other cases.(61)
Most of the children whose cases are described above were involved in relatively minor incidents for which other measures could have been taken to de-escalate the situation. While one child (the schoolgirl tasered in Putnam County, Florida) had a reported history of disturbed or assaultive behaviour, children suffering from mental health or behavioural problems are more appropriately dealt with by health professionals trained in control, restraint and other techniques to deal with potentially violent situations. Rather than helping to control a child’s behaviour, the infliction of electro-shocks is liable to increase mental stress and suffering as well as causing physical pain.

Disturbing cases continue to be reported. In May 2004 a police officer from South Tuscon, Arizona, used a taser on a nine-year-old girl who was a runaway from a residential home for severely emotionally disturbed children. According to reports, the child was already handcuffed with her hands behind her back and sitting in the back of a police car when the taser was used as an officer struggled to put her into nylon leg-restraints. The officer is reported as saying that the girl was "screaming, kicking and flailing, and would not listen". Reportedly, the officer had requested the taser because he was aware of the girl’s combative behaviour from past incidents. Fred Chaffee, president and chief executive of the children’s home, was quoted as saying that a lot of children from the home "no matter what they’re diagnosed with, have poor self esteem, poor impulse control and poor judgment, a learnt set of behaviours that aren’t terribly socially acceptable". (62) The officer in the case was cleared of criminal wrongdoing but faced an administrative review at the time of writing.

There are also several reported cases in the USA in which parents have disciplined their children with legally available stun guns: such incidents have been characterised as child abuse and sanctions taken against the parents. For example, in May 2003, in Texas, Theodore Moody was sentenced to two years’ imprisonment on conviction of injuring and endangering a child, for having repeatedly jolted his eight-year-old stepson with a stun gun to hurry him along to school. Reminiscent of arguments used for adopting stun weapons in law enforcement, both parents reportedly told officers that they did not consider stun gun jolts harsh punishment, noting that they left fewer injuries than other forms of discipline such as the "strap". (63) In June 2003, a woman was arrested in Florida for placing a stun gun near to the ear of her 13-year-old daughter to frighten her for disobeying an order not to use a computer.(64) While US law enforcement policies specifically prohibit using instruments of restraint as punishment, the distinction can become blurred when stun weapons are used as a "compliance" or "control" tool.

1. 6 Tasers used against people already restrained or in custody.

While dart-firing tasers are promoted primarily as incapacitating, "stand-off," weapons which can stop an attacker from a distance, there are reports of people being stunned or threatened with repeated cycles of electro-shocks while already restrained and under police control. Amnesty International considers that using 50,000 volts of electro-shock against people who are restrained and pose no serious threat, is an excessive use of force, amounting in some cases to torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. The capacity to inflict repeated and extended shocks(65) at the push of a trigger makes the taser open to abuse in both dart and stun gun mode.

In some cases, individuals have been shot with taser darts, then threatened or stunned with repeated jolts of electricity while the darts remain in place during transportation or custody. For example:

A handcuffed man tasered during his arrest, who still had the barbs attached, was stunned three more times by police officers for not cooperating when being walked to a police car to be taken to hospital, and for yelling and lifting his foot in the police car. While he was on a gurney (stretcher) in the hospital, an officer shocked him two more times "until he settled down". (Pueblo Police Department, Colorado)(66)
An intoxicated man, arrested at a residence after complaints of loud noise, refused to allow police to attend to a cut on his eye and was taken out of the house in handcuffs and leg restraints. He was placed on a gurney to be taken to hospital. When he resisted having his hands tied to the gurney, an officer shot him in the chest with a taser. After going limp, the man again began to "thrash about" on the gurney and the officer "pulled the trigger for another five seconds". After the man became compliant and was placed in the ambulance, the officer handed his taser to one of the transporting officers "in case she needed to use it again". When the officer went to retrieve the taser later, the transporting officer told him that "she had to use the Taser for one five-second cycle while on the way to hospital because J again became resistive". The suspect was in full restraints at the time.(67) (Lakeland Police Department, Colorado)

1. 6 (i) Tasers used as stun guns
While tasers appear to be used most often as dart-firing weapons, in a significant proportion of cases they are used close-up as stun guns. The statistical analysis of taser use, cited above, showed that just over 18% of taser applications were in stun mode.(69) Some departments have reported a higher percentage. For example, in Seattle, from January through December 2002, tasers were used as stun guns in 32% of cases, and both darts and stun guns were used in 12% of cases; stun gun use rose to 34% of cases in 2003.(70) In Oklahoma City, in 2003, nearly a third of all taser strikes against suspects were in touch stun mode.(71) In Portland, Oregon, 43% of taser use was reportedly in touch stun mode.(72)

A Taser International training manual states that the M26 can function in stun mode after the probes have been fired, as a back-up weapon. The training manual also states that, if used only in touch stun mode, the taser becomes a "pain compliance" tool and officers are instructed to apply it "aggressively" to sensitive areas, including the neck and groin.(73) Company representatives have told Amnesty International that the primary intent of the stun gun mode is to act as a back-up to the dart-firing function, in case the darts fail to hit their target or become dislodged when the target remains a threat and there is no back-up team or time to reload the cartridge. This is reportedly the only way in which they are permitted to be deployed in the UK. However, it appears that some US agencies frequently deploy tasers in stun gun mode, without using them primarily as a back-up to dart failure in stand-off situations.

Tasers in stun gun mode are particularly easy to use because there is no need to load or reload a cartridge. Their use may be less easy to monitor than the dart-firing function, especially if, as has been reported, the in-built memory chip fails or is not regularly downloaded (see safeguards).(74) As they are applied through touch stunning the subject’s skin or clothing, they tend to be used against individuals who are already in custody or under police control in some way. Amnesty International believes that these factors, together with the capacity to inflict severe pain to sensitive areas of the body, make the stun gun particularly open to abuse. Tasers in stun gun mode have been used to shock or threaten individuals restrained in police cars, hospitals and in local jails. In some instances they appear to have been used to punish prisoners for non-compliance or for simply yelling or "mouthing off" at officers.

Amnesty International is disturbed to note that some departments consider stun guns to constitute a low level of force, on a par with other "pain compliance" techniques such as wrist locks and control holds. There are reports of stun guns being used for minor resistant behaviour, such as prodding someone into a police car, or for getting individuals to comply more quickly while being booked into jail.

The Colorado ACLU has reported on several cases in which individuals were touch stunned while already restrained. Some of the details are confirmed in police reports seen by Amnesty International.

a man was shocked in the genitals for continuing to resist while he was handcuffed and sitting in the back of a police car. The officer admitted to applying a "drive stun to the groin". (Westminster Police Department, Colorado)
Police responded to a report of a possible overdose and took an apparently intoxicated and possibly suicidal man to hospital. A police officer applied a taser to the man while he was restrained on a hospital bed, screaming for his wife. According to the police report, "Officer Furney repeatedly told Andre to be quiet and when he did not comply placed the Taser against Andre’s chest and tased him once". (Pueblo Police Department)
A prisoner was strapped into a restraint chair for three hours for yelling and mouthing off. According to the ACLU "Officers periodically approached the prisoner, held a stun gun to his chest, and threatened to shock him. The prisoner has an enlarged heart and may be particularly vulnerable to adverse effects from electroshock weapons".(75) (Broomfield Detention Center, Colorado)

1.7

2.6

1. 6 (ii) Jails and custody facilities
Although there are no national statistics on the number of custody facilities which currently deploy stun weapons, according to Taser International at least 1,000 US jails and prisons have adopted the new generation M26 or X26 Tasers, where they are deployed in both dart projectile and stun mode. They join an array of other electro-shock devices, including stun belts, stun shields and stun guns, used for some years in various US custody facilities. While in some facilities stun weapons are deployed only in response to specific incidents (such as disturbances, or movement of high-risk prisoners) in others they are more widely deployed. Amnesty International is concerned by reports that tasers have been used to gain compliance in the case of emotionally disturbed, intoxicated or uncooperative individuals in the booking section of jails. One inmate was reportedly shocked for clenching his fist instead of opening the palm to be fingerprinted; another for refusing to provide a blood sample. Other cases include

An inmate of Creek County Jail, Colorado, was tasered with escalating jolts of electricity when he refused to pick up a food tray he had thrown onto his cell floor. The inmate was not combative in any way and the taser appears to have been used to punish him for repeatedly ignoring an order. According to the jail incident report, after throwing his food tray onto the floor, he was asked to step out of his cell and told "he would be tazed (sic) if he would not comply". He came out of the cell, as instructed, and sat on a bench. When he ignored orders to go back into the cell to pick up his food tray, he was shot with a taser and subjected to three separate two-to-three second cycles of electricity before a "full five second burst" was applied.
James Borden, a mentally disturbed man arrested for a parole violation, died in November 2003 after being shocked at least six times with an M26 Taser for being "uncooperative" while he was being booked into Monroe County Jail, Indiana. He was reportedly face-down on the floor with his hands cuffed behind his back when a custody officer applied the shocks. A statement released by the county Sheriff’s office after the incident said "standard procedures by trained officers to control combative or uncooperative individuals" had been used. However, a jail officer was later charged with battery in the case, after a judge found that Borden, while uncooperative, had not engaged in threatening or violent behaviour. (see Section 2 for further details of the case).
During 2003, nearly a dozen inmates of Greene County Jail, Missouri, were allegedly threatened or abused with tasers for failing to comply with orders. They include a woman allegedly tasered for failing to remove an eyebrow ring while being booked into the jail; and a distraught woman tasered when she failed to quieten down. (See lawsuits, below). More recent allegations from the jail include disturbed inmates being shocked with tasers while strapped down on restraining beds.

Reports of abusive use of electro-shock weapons in US jails and correctional facilities are not new. Amnesty International and others have in the past reported on cases of prisoners being tortured or ill-treated with stun guns, stun shields and stun belts.(77) In some cases abuses have been linked to guards routinely carrying such devices.

For example, in 1994 in Maricopa County, Arizona, most jail custody staff were equipped with Nova 500 stun guns as part of a pilot study to evaluate the effectiveness of non-lethal weapons. A federal Justice Department investigation subsequently found a serious problem of excessive force in the Maricopa County jails, including misuse of stun guns, which they attributed, in part, to the "easy availability of these weapons."(78) The Justice Department’s report noted with concern that stun guns were used to gain compliance from passively resisting inmates or against prisoners who were already restrained. Amnesty International also reported on similar complaints.(79) The Justice Department’s expert consultant found that part of the problem was due to a change in jail policy to permit stun guns to be used against inmates engaging in "passive resistance" as a "preferred alternative to hands-on force". He believed this policy, which was in place for two years until changed in 1997, to be "the primary contributor to Detention Staff using these ‘tools’ in ways and under conditions that could well be, and have been, defined as ‘excessive force’." (80) In order to avoid a federal lawsuit, the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office agreed to implement a more restrictive use of force policy which stated that "neither passive nor active resistance" alone were sufficient to justify use of non-lethal weapons such as Electronic Restraint Devices (stun guns) and prohibited their use "solely to gain compliance".(81)

In Virginia, routine deployment by guards of stun weapons in Wallens Ridge and Red Onion supermaximum security prisons led to widespread allegations of prisoner abuse between 1999 and 2001, including use of stun guns on inmates as punishment for minor acts of non-compliance. Several lawsuits were filed against the department for excessive force and in May 2001 the Ultron 11 stun gun was suspended for use in Virginia prisons, following an autopsy report questioning the device’s role in the death of a prisoner.(82)

Amnesty International is concerned that, despite the experience in Virginia and the Justice Department’s findings in Maricopa County, use of electro-shock weapons as a routine force tool appears to be on the increase as thousands of officers – in jails and on the streets – are issued with new, advanced tasers. The organization believes that this may similarly increase the potential for abuse of such weapons.
1. 7. Lawsuits for excessive force or ill-treatment
Tasers have been promoted as reducing liability against police departments for excessive force, on the grounds that they are less likely to cause injury than other more dangerous or lethal weapons. However, Amnesty International is aware of a number of lawsuits in which individuals claim to have sustained serious injury or trauma as a result of being tasered, in some cases in grossly inappropriate circumstances. In several cases, the officers’ actions appear to have resulted from a lack of clear guidelines or training on the risks involved in using tasers in certain situations. In other cases, the alleged actions appear to amount to deliberate ill-treatment. Substantial damages have been awarded in several cases. Cases include the following:

Arizona: tasered man falls from tree
An $8m claim was filed against the City of Mesa Police Department, Arizona, in the case of Bruce Bellemore, after he was allegedly left paralyzed in February 2004 when a police officer fired a taser at him as he stood in a tree. The shocks from the taser caused him to fall out of the tree onto his head. Bruce Bellemore was an unarmed suspect who had run from a house into a neighbouring garden, where he climbed the tree in order to escape from four guard dogs. At the time he was shot, he was already surrounded by four police officers, one of whom was pointing a gun at him, with the other three pointing tasers. Bruce Bellemore claims he told officers he was having difficulty climbing from the tree due to an injured wrist. Despite this, it is alleged, the fourth officer shot him once with a taser some 20 seconds after arriving on the scene and fired a second taser shot some 15-20 seconds later while Bellemore was convulsing from the first shot. The whole incident, from the time of the arrival of the first officer on the scene, to the time police called paramedics after Bellemore was on the ground, reportedly lasted no more than three and a half minutes. In a letter to the city authorities, Amnesty International said that use of the taser in the case appeared to constitute a grossly excessive use of force, amounting to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. Amnesty International also expressed concern at the speed at which the officer resorted to the taser, contrary to standards which require that force be used only as a last resort after non-violent measures have been exhausted, and in a manner designed to minimize damage and injury.

Bellemore’s lawyer told Amnesty International that he was concerned that there appeared to be no specific warnings or guidelines in police training manuals he had seen about the inherent risks involved in firing tasers at someone in a dangerously elevated position. An investigation into the incident by the Maricopa County Attorney’s office concluded in July 2004 that the officer involved "did not commit any acts that warrant criminal prosecution". The incident was reportedly under police administrative review at the time of writing. (83)

California: pregnant woman loses baby.
The City of Chula Vista, California, recently paid $675,000 to settle a damages claim in the case of Cindy Grippi, a woman, six-months’ pregnant, who lost the baby she was carrying after she was shot with a taser. The incident occurred in December 2001 when Cindy Grippi reportedly went to enter her house against instructions of police officers during a domestic dispute involving her violent husband. According to her lawyer, she was not engaged in criminal or disruptive behaviour of any kind and no-one was fighting or arguing when police arrived. A police officer reportedly shot her in the back with a Taser as she was walking away from him, some ten seconds after he had got out of his car. She fell belly-down onto the concrete driveway and says she felt a sharp pain in her abdomen as the taser struck her. She was taken to hospital, where a check-up reportedly registered foetal heartbeats and she was discharged. However, some 12 hours later, she was diagnosed with a foetal demise. She underwent delivery of a stillborn child two days later.

According to the initial autopsy report, the 26-week-old female foetus was of normal gestational weight with no evidence of natural disease or trauma. The Medical Examiner could not find a cause of death, but suggested it might be linked with the mother’s methamphetamine use. Two experts consulted by Cindy Grippi’s attorney reached a different opinion, both finding the most likely cause of the foetal demise to be the electro-shock. One, a perinatalist, suggested that the foetal movement detected, after some difficulty, in the Emergency Room may in fact have been the mother’s heart-beat. (84) Cindy Grippi had reportedly experienced a normal pregnancy, with regular check-ups and foetal movement up until the time she was tasered. The mother reported that there was no foetal activity beginning from the time of the taser incident. Furthermore, she had reportedly not taken any drugs during the seven days prior to being exposed to the taser.

The Medical Examiner’s report was reviewed by an independent pathologist for Amnesty International, who noted that foetal movement some two hours after the taser incident would appear to suggest no clear link with the taser. However, she also raised a question as to whether the foetal heart tones really had been detected by the Emergency Room, and wondered whether Grippi had been thoroughly examined, given her claim of lack of foetal movement.(85)

Training manuals on taser use state that they are not advised for pregnant women, mainly because of the risk of trauma to the foetus from the mother falling. Otherwise, the company claims that there is no evidence that the electro-shock from a taser could damage an unborn child. However, Amnesty International is concerned by the absence of thorough, independent research into the medical effects of tasers and other electro-shock weapons on pregnant women. One past study has suggested an association between between electrical injury from a taser and miscarriage during pregnancy (see 2.7. below).

The officers in Gindy Grippi’s case reportedly claimed that they were unaware that she was pregnant at the time the taser was deployed, although Cindy Grippi’s relatives have stated that they shouted out that she was pregnant. If the officers’ claims are true, this demonstrates a risk of tasers being deployed unwittingly against vulnerable subjects – a risk that could increase if tasers continue to be used as a routine force tool.

Illinois: Pregnant woman sues police
In September 2004, a lawsuit was filed against police from Evergreen Park Police Department, Illinois, by Clarence Phelps and his pregnant daughter, Romona Madison, alleging that they were tasered and subjected to excessive force outside their home. The incident took place on 18 September 2004 at the daughter’s wedding reception, when police arrived in response to a complaint about loud music and people dancing in the driveway. According to police accounts reported in the media, Phelps was uncooperative, refusing to produce identification, and was stunned with the taser after he allegedly pushed two officers. The police claimed Madison struck and shoved several officers and ran into the house. She was discovered hiding in a clothes cupboard and, after being warned, was shot twice in the abdomen with a taser when she refused to come out. Lawyers for the family claim that neither Phelps nor Madison had fought with officers and that Madison was followed into the house by overzealous officers who tasered her despite being told by several guests that she was two months pregnant. Madison was taken to a police station and released the same night, after being charged in connection with the incident. She received no medical attention while in police custody, apart from having taser darts removed by paramedics. She went to a hospital immediately on her release and, according to her lawyer, was told her baby’s vital signs were weak. Her situation was still being monitored at the time of writing.

Portland, Oregon: elderly, bind woman paid damages
In April 2003, the City of Portland, Oregon, agreed to pay $145,000 to 71-year-old Eunice Crowder in an out-of-court settlement of an excessive force claim. The claim arose from an incident in June 2003 in which City employees arrived at her home with a warrant to remove rubbish and debris from her yard. Police were called when Ms Crowder, who was blind and hard of hearing, failed to follow orders not to enter a trailer where items from her premises were being placed. The lawsuit claimed that two officers struck Ms Crowder in the head with a taser, dislodging her prosthetic right eye from its socket. It also claimed that she was tasered in the back and on the breast as she lay on the ground.

In legal briefs filed by the City, police reportedly acknowledged that Ms Crowder was "pushed onto the dirt next to the sidewalk" when she ignored their orders not to enter the trailer. The police also reportedly admitted that Ms Crowder’s eye became dislodged; that they pepper-sprayed her (when she reportedly refused to stop kicking them) and stunned her three times with a Taser (twice in the lower back and once in the upper back). The City argued that the officers’ actions were "lawful, justified and privileged" and that they used a "reasonable amount of force to defend themselves". (86) Nevertheless, City commissioners voted to approve the settlement rather than defend the case in court. The case is believed to have been one factor in a decision by the Portland Police Department to review its policies and impose restrictions on use of the Taser in the case of vulnerable people such as the elderly, children and pregnant women (see above).

Texas: disabled woman one of several to sue Baytown police
Several lawsuits have been filed against officers from the Baytown Police Department, Texas, for alleged abusive use of Tasers. Naomi Autin, a 59-year-old disabled Latina woman, was reportedly tasered three times by police officer Micah Aldred in July 2003 for banging on her brother’s door with a brick. According to a lawsuit filed by Autin, she had gone to her brother’s house to collect mail while he was away, and became worried after failing to get an answer from the house-sitter and seeing a truck parked in the driveway. She called the police and officer Aldred arrived on the scene. Autin, who is 5 feet 2 inches tall and suffers from severe arthritis, was allegedly tasered in the back by Aldred after she continued to try to gain entry to the house; the officer also allegedly threw her against a post, causing a severe cut to her head. A grand jury indicted the officer on charges of using excessive force, but he was acquitted at trial. Reportedly, police officers corroborated his account that the use of force was justified. Amnesty International understands that no disciplinary action has been taken against the officer.
The same officer is a defendant in another lawsuit in which an unarmed woman wanted on an outstanding arrest warrant was allegedly "shocked numerous times about the back, face, neck, shoulders and groin".(87)

A lawsuit is pending against another Baytown officer for alleged excessive force during an incident in July 2003, in which the officer used a taser as a stun gun on a man who had just suffered epileptic seizures. The officer reportedly stunned 30-year-old Robert Stanley Jr at close range in an ambulance as medical personnel struggled to strap him down as he struggled in the throes of post-seizure confusion. An Internal Affairs investigation into the incident found that the officer had not violated any policies, and a grand jury investigation reportedly supported police accounts that Stanley had been sufficiently combative to warrant use of the taser.(88)

Washington: immigrant woman tasered in front of sons
A lawsuit has also been filed in the case of Olga Rybak, a 5 feet 4 inches tall Russian immigrant woman who was tasered multiple times by an officer from the Washougal Police Department, Washington, in August 2003, after she refused to sign a citation for a dog violation. The officer had gone to her house with the citation after her dog had bitten an officer the previous day. Rybak, who spoke little English, at first refused to sign it, asking for a translator. While attempting to arrest her, the officer shocked her at least 12 times in 91 seconds in front of her two young sons – first using the weapon as a stun gun, then stepping back to insert a cartridge and twice firing darts at Rybak who was writhing around on the front porch. When the boys (aged 11 and 12) tried to help their mother, the officer reportedly threatened to taser them as well. Rybak’s attorney has informed Amnesty International that the boys have been receiving psychiatric treatment for Post Traumatic Stress Disorder as a result of the incident.

According to the attorney, the shocks caused extreme pain and left 27 red burn marks on Olga Rybak’s body. The officer who used the taser (who was a taser Training Officer for the department) did not record the number of jolts in his report. The taser chip was tested only after photos of Ms Rybak’s injuries were presented, and this recorded that the taser had been discharged 12 times during the incident.(89) In April 2004, Washougal’s police chief, Robert D Garwood, reported that the officer had been demoted for using "poor judgement" in the case even though he had acted "within proper legal boundaries". Garwood said that the department would review its policy on taser use.(90)

Greene county jail, Missouri
A federal lawsuit was filed in February 2004 against the Sheriff and officers of Greene County Jail, Missouri, alleging a pattern of serious ill-treatment of jail inmates, including abusive use of tasers. The lawsuit was brought on behalf of 11 former inmates, most in temporary custody pending the posting of bail. The allegations of abuse ranged from physical brutality and excessive force to acts of humiliation, including guards forcing female inmates to take off their clothes in the presence of male staff and exposing them to the gaze and ridicule of guards and male prisoners. They include the following accounts from the alleged victims:

An African American woman was asked to remove her jewellery on being booked into the jail in June 2003. She removed everything except an eyebrow ring, which was difficult to remove. When she asked for a mirror she was allegedly sprayed in the face with pepper spray and, when she put her hands up to protect her face, was shot with a taser, causing her to fall to the ground and lose control of her bladder. While on the ground, a male officer forcibly removed her eyebrow ring with pliers. She was left in her urine for several hours without being given anything to clean herself with.
A man being taken to the "drunk tank" was slammed to the ground face-first. As he lay on the ground bleeding, a guard allegedly fired a taser gun at him, causing acute pain, although he was not moving or struggling. He was taken to hospital where he had stitches to his mouth. On return to the jail, when told he had failed to shampoo his hair satisfactorily, an officer threatened him with a taser gun, saying "you don’t want this again". On his release, the jail tried to get him to sign "reprimand papers" stating that he was shocked with a taser because he had attempted to run to the jail entrance; according to the lawsuit, he refused to sign the papers because the facts in it were not true.
A man who said he might be allergic to soap in the shower was threatened with a taser gun and told to use the soap provided.
A man booked into the jail on an outstanding traffic warrant was allegedly assaulted and subjected to an "overly invasive bodily search" and repeatedly called a "faggot"(91). He was allegedly tasered while he was prostrate and in handcuffs.
A woman booked into the jail in March 2003 was placed in a cell by herself in a distraught condition. A jail employee said he would taser her if she did not be quiet and calm herself. It is alleged that, while she was attempting to calm down, two guards entered her cell and one attached two taser clips to her shirt in the chest region; the other guard then activated the taser gun. According to the lawsuit, she suffered "severe burns and permanent scars to her chest and stomach" as a result of being tasered.
A woman instructed to strip front of male guards hesitated after removing all her clothes except her underwear; she was pushed into the shower by a male guard and saw an officer pointing a taser at her as she emerged from the shower. It looked like a firearm and she was very scared, begging the officer "don’t do this". She was given nothing to dry herself with and she was escorted from the room by male guards while wearing a small paper garment resembling a "diaper" and forced to walk past male inmates waiting to be booked into to the jail.

The lawsuit alleges that the complaints formed part of a pattern of abuse and poor training at the jail. According to Amnesty International’s information, no charges have been filed against any of the officers involved and they remain on duty at the jail. The lawsuit was still pending at the time of writing.

1. 8. Safeguards and monitoring of taser use
One of Amnesty International’s concerns is that electro-shock weapons can easily be used to ill-treat people without leaving substantial visible marks or injury. This can make it difficult for victims of abuse to obtain redress through complaints or lawsuits: one way of holding officers or police departments or authorities accountable. It remains essential - all the more so when deploying techniques that may not leave substantial marks or physical injury - for police and oversight agencies to ensure there are stringent safeguards in place to prevent abuse.

The new generation M26 or X26 type tasers are promoted as having a number of in-built safety features intended to guard against abuse and provide an audit trail to monitor each taser deployment. When darts are fired, confetti-like identification tabs are ejected which are printed with the cartridge’s serial number, allowing departments to determine which officer fired the cartridge. Both the M26 and X26 tasers also have an on-board microchip memory function which records the date and time of each firing (trigger pull); this applies whether the taser is used in dart or touch stun mode (although the microchip cannot distinguish which mode the weapon is in). The data can be downloaded onto a computer which, according to the company, downloads to text in the case of the M26 but is encrypted in the case of the X26 to protect the integrity of the data.

The X26 Taser also records the duration and battery strength of each firing. This is important safeguard in monitoring how much force has been applied because, as shown above, the cycle of electricity can be prolonged beyond the five-second automatic discharge and can continue for as long as the operator’s finger remains depressed on the trigger (reportedly, until the battery runs out). Officers may also cut off the flow of electricity before the standard five-second burst by switching the safety switch. However, the ability to record the duration of each firing is not contained in the M26 Taser, which remains widely used (possibly by a majority of US police agencies).

When asked by Amnesty International if there was a cut-off point for the duration of the cycle, Taser International replied that "there is no automatic cut-off" and "Given that these devices may be used in life-threatening situations, we believe it would be dangerous to build in an automatic weapon failure point", adding that "This is an area where we must rely upon the professional judgment and training of the officer".(92) However, Amnesty International is concerned that the ability to inflict prolonged electro-shocks increases the weapon’s potential for abuse, particularly in the case of the M26.(93) The fact that, in practice, tasers are used in a wide range of non life-threatening situations adds to the organization’s concern. According to the testimony of a police taser training officer in one department, officers were trained to use the taser "as many times as it takes to gain compliance."(94)

The microchip function provides an important tool of accountability, especially in the case of the X26. However, it is not failsafe. In certain instances a "corruption" may occur during the firing cycle which prevents the software from recording the firing record, and the internal clock may not always be set accurately.(95) Amnesty International was told that the clock has to be re-set whenever the device is stored without batteries. Most importantly, such safeguards need to be backed-up by monitoring and regular downloading of information, as well as detailed use-of-force reports filed by all officers at the scene. There are a number of concerns about the adequacy of safeguards and monitoring of taser use in practice, including the following

While most departments require officers to fill out a written use-of-force report whenever they fire their tasers, sources have reported that not all departments automatically download the microchip data to match against the police reports (to check, for example, how many times the charge was triggered). It is also unclear how many departments regularly download the microchip data for general monitoring purposes. The organization believes it is essential that all relevant data on taser use be regularly reviewed and analysed.
The quality of information provided in police reports varies. It appears that not all departments, for example, explicitly require officers to record when tasers are drawn and displayed, when not fired. According to Taser International’s website, it is quite common for officers to "spark" their tasers or direct the laser beam at someone to secure compliance without actually firing the weapon. As this is a significant threat of force, such incidents should be recorded on the use-of-force form so that the appropriateness of the force level can be reviewed. All police officers should also be required to record every trigger pull; this has not always happened, according to reports Amnesty International has seen.
Because often they do not leave substantial marks or injuries, police taser use may not be subjected to the same levels of scrutiny as weapons such as batons or flashlights which trigger investigations when injuries result. Tasers receive far less scrutiny than police firearms use, where incidents are usually reviewed at a higher level within the department (such as a Firearms Review Board) as well as by outside review bodies.
There is little public scrutiny of taser use either nationally or within police departments. Police use-of-force reports are generally not made public and most police departments have not released detailed public reports about their taser use to date. Amnesty International believes it is essential for police departments and authorities to provide detailed, public reporting on use of electro-shock weapons given their capacity for misuse. Public concern about reports of inappropriate use have led some departments to review their policies (see Portland, Oregon, for example).
There are no national standards and no official statutory, national, reporting system on taser use, or any independent mechanism for collecting and evaluating field data. While Taser International maintains its own database of use, the company estimates that only one in ten deployments of Advanced Taser are reported to the company by police forces.(96)

1. 8 (i) Safeguards against unwarranted injuries
While tasers are promoted as causing less injury than other impact weapons, serious injuries can arise if the barbs strike certain parts of the body or the subject is in a vulnerable location. Officers are trained not to fire the dart projectiles at sensitive areas such as the head, throat, eyes or groin, and both the M26 and X26 models have laser trained beams designed to ensure accuracy when the darts are fired.

Secondary injuries can also occur when the subject collapses and falls to the ground. The manufacturer’s safety guidelines warn of the risks of death or serious injury if someone is tasered while at risk of falling from a high building, although it is unclear to the organization how far law enforcement policies include a more general warning about the dangers of firing tasers at people in elevated or other vulnerable situations. One man in Arizona, whose case is described above, was paralyzed after being tasered out of a tree.(97) In June 2004, in Louisiana, Jerry Pickens, aged 55, died after falling and hitting his head on concrete when police shot him with a taser. Pickens, who was drunk and unarmed, was shot in the back as he tried to walk back inside his house following a domestic argument. His family questioned why police had resorted to the taser in his case.

The taser darts can puncture skin and cause burns at the barb sites. These are reported to be minor in most cases. However, several cases have been reported in which scars from taser burns have remained visible many months after the incident. Some US departments require all persons struck by taser darts to be taken to hospital to have the barbs removed but not all agencies have this requirement.

Although maintaining that tasers are "medically safe" (an issue discussed below), Taser International has warned in training literature that it is "not advisable" to use the Advanced Taser on a pregnant woman or an elderly person, unless all other means short of lethal force have been used, because of potential risks in such cases.(98) However, it is unclear how far such warnings are incorporated into police agencies’ guidelines. As described above, two women were stunned despite alleged warnings by others present that they were pregnant.(99) Several elderly people have been tasered despite posing no serious threat. At least one agency, the Portland Police Department, Oregon, had no guidelines restricting taser use against pregnant women or the elderly, until the policy was changed earlier this year. It has recently been reported that the warning against using tasers on the elderly is no longer included in Taser International training manuals, as the device is no longer considered harmful in such cases.(100) Amnesty International was seeking clarification of this with the company at the time of writing. Meanwhile, the organization remains concerned about the use of tasers against elderly people, given their enhanced risk of suffering injury from falls as well as an increased risk of underlying health problems.

The company also issues a warning not to use tasers in flammable or combustible environments because of a risk of ignition from the sparking action. However, in Colorado, a police officer reportedly fired a taser at a man parked next to gasoline pumps at a convenience store, despite this being a high-risk environment. (101) In California, a man was touch-stunned while lying on a garage forecourt (see case of Roman Gallius Pierson, at 2.3, below).

In Joplin, Missouri, there was concern that a gas explosion that killed a suicidal man and fatally injured a police officer in August 2004 may have been triggered by police use of a taser. The disturbed man had turned on the gas in his home before police arrived and the house exploded after one of the officers fired his taser at him. The final report of the investigation into the 11 August incident, made public in October 2004, found there was not enough conclusive evidence to determine the cause. Police said that electric light switches, a pilot light, an electric fan or static electricity on the suicidal man’s clothes could have ignited the gas.(102)

Company literature includes a warning never to use a taser on someone who has been exposed to alcohol-based pepper sprays, which are highly flammable. Some police agencies are reported to have switched to non-flammable water-based pepper sprays following the introduction of tasers. However, flammable sprays remain on the market, available for both law enforcement and private use. Several people have been pepper sprayed and then struck with tasers (see 2.6, below). In one recent case, a man’s hair is reported to have caught fire after he was pepper sprayed and tasered.(103) Amnesty International was seeking information on the solution contained in the sprays used in this and other cases, at the time of writing.

Amnesty International believes that all tasers should be subjected to safety tests to ensure that they will not cause unwarranted injuries or

Main Menu

Take Action

Search

topics

categories

regions

Community

Non-Profit Sponsors

News

Excessive and lethal force? Amnesty International report on Taser abuse