View previous stories
	Taser-related death toll is rising by NYT, Amnesty & agencies   November 2013   More high-quality evidence needed on adverse health effects from Tasers.   A new expert panel report, entitled The Health Effects of Conducted Energy Weapons, was released by the Council of Canadian Academies in collaboration with the Canadian Academy of Health Sciences.   The assessment was conducted by a 14-member panel of distinguished multidisciplinary experts and chaired by the Honourable Justice Goudge from the Court of Appeal for Ontario. The Expert Panel was asked to consider the state of knowledge about the medical and physiological impacts of conducted energy weapons (CEWs).   Based on a review of the best available research, the Panel determined that, while potentially fatal respiratory and cardiac complications are plausible if a number of factors are in place, their occurrence is rare.   The Panel also concluded that: there is a need for higher-quality evidence to fully understand the relationship between CEW use and potential adverse health effects; a comparable and standardized approach for documenting and reporting adverse effects after a CEW discharge, by law enforcement and health professionals, is needed to improve the state of the evidence; and improved surveillance and monitoring should be taken into account when considering future policies and practices.   This report is one of the most comprehensive assessments of national and international evidence to date regarding the health effects of CEWs, and will complement other work on appropriate use, testing, and safety of CEW devices.   To learn more about the Expert Panel’s report visit http://www.scienceadvice.ca/   Source: Council of Canadian Academies   http://www.hrlc.org.au/more-high-quality-evidence-needed-on-adverse-health-effects-from-tasers   Tasers pose risks to the heart, new study Warns, by Erica Goode. (NYT)   The electrical shock delivered to the chest by a Taser can lead to cardiac arrest and sudden death, according to a new study.   The study, which analyzed detailed records from the cases of eight people who went into cardiac arrest after receiving shocks from a Taser fired at a distance, is likely to add to the debate about the safety of the weapons. Seven of the people in the study died; one survived.   Amnesty International has argued that Tasers, the most widely used of a class of weapons known as electrical control devices, are potentially lethal and that stricter rules should govern their use.   Medical experts said a report published online in the journal Circulation, makes clear that electrical shocks from Tasers, which shoot barbs into the clothes and skin, can in some cases set off irregular heart rhythms, leading to cardiac arrest.   “This is no longer arguable,” said Dr. Byron Lee, a cardiologist and director of the electrophysiology laboratory at the University of California, San Francisco. “This is a scientific fact. The national debate should now center on whether the risk of sudden death with Tasers is low enough to warrant widespread use by law enforcement.”   Police officers, he said should take precautions when using the weapons and avoid multiple shocks, prolonged shocks and shocks to the chest.   Why the taser-related death toll is rising, by Jude McCulloch, Professor of Criminal Justice and Criminology at Monash University.   The recent death of 21-year-old Brazilian national, Roberto Laudisio Cruti, on a Sydney street after being tasered by police has ignited questions about the safety and police use of these weapons.   Tasers, the brand name for the electro-shock device used by police, deliver currents of 50,000 volts and are designed to incapacitate. They can be used in “drive stun” mode (hand held) or fired on a wire with barbs at a range of around 6.4 meters.   These devices, like capsicum spray, are part of a category of weapons generically known as less-than-lethal weapons, which were incrementally introduced into Australian policing from the mid-1990s.   Tasers were originally trialed by specialist police but are now standard issue for most forces. Victoria Police has announced it would join the other states and territories and issue officers with Tasers.   Calls for the introduction of these weapons inevitably come in the wake of fatal police shootings, when they are promoted as a viable alternative to deadly force. Unlike capsicum spray, Tasers don’t carry a risk of secondary exposure and are seen as being more effective at incapacitating.   Critical voices find little space in the emotional climate after a fatal shooting. Including the Sydney death earlier this week, there have been up to five Taser-related deaths in Australia. In two of these cases – one in Western Australia (2007) and one in the Northern Territory (2009) – Aboriginal men died shortly after being Tasered by police.   The other two cases are less proximate. In a 2002 New South Wales case, a man died two weeks after being Tasered. In another 2009 case, a 16-year-old Queensland boy was run over and killed after police drew a Taser and gun, and told him to lie on the road.   Amnesty Internationl records 500 Taser-related deaths internationally. It is rare for Tasers to be officially listed as the cause of death, which is generally put down to conditions such as heart attack or drug toxicity.   One critical fact that should frame the debate is the reality that Taser International is a multinational company that reaps enormous profit from the expanding police market for its product. The company is happy to market its weapon as an effective and safe alternative to firearms and deadly force, but it’s uncomfortable about open discussion of safety concerns.   When a medical examiner in the United States found a Taser had contributed to the deaths of a number of people, Taser successfully sued and had the finding overturned. Taser-related, -associated or -proximate deaths have become legally safe but somewhat vague terms describe such deaths.   Taser International, like multinational pharmaceutical companies, is influential enough to raise questions about the independence of the research surrounding the safety of its weapons. It’s clear, however, that there have been no independent tests of the safety of these devices carried out on populations as diverse as police are likely to encounter in the field.   We also know that certain people – pregnant women, those under the influence of drugs, and people in poor health, especially with heart problems – are particularly vulnerable when exposed to shocks from Tasers.   Concerns about the potential of Tasers to injure or kill would be of little significance if the devices were used as an alternative to firearms. Whatever the safety concerns, Tasers are, without doubt, less lethal than firearms. But all the evidence suggests that less-than-lethal weapons aren’t used by police as alternatives to deadly force, but are used, instead, in situations firearms would not be justified.   In other words, Tasers are used by police as an addition, rather than as an alternative, to firearms and deadly force.   While Australia doesn’t have nationally consistent police guidelines on the use of Tasers, the tenor of all state and territory guidelines is that these weapons are not to be relied on when a person is armed with a weapon. That is the main circumstance where police are justified in resorting to firearms.   Australian and international evidence shows that as these weapons are normalised into everyday policing, they are increasingly used to gain compliance or, sadly, to simply inflict pain. In 2008, police in Western Australia used a Taser thirteen times in drive stun mode on Aboriginal man Kevin Spratt, even though he was unarmed and already in custody.   One danger with the promise of technological quick fixes such as less-than-lethal weapons is that police stop relying on non weapon-based strategies for diffusing conflict and dealing with challenging situations.   If this continues, it’s likely that the Taser-related death toll will increase in Australia, with no reduction in the incidents of fatal shootings.   USA: Stricter limits urged as deaths following police Taser use reach 500.   The deaths of 500 people following police use of Tasers underscores the need for tighter rules limiting the use of such weapons in law enforcement, Amnesty International says.   According to data collected by Amnesty International, at least 500 people in the USA have died since 2001 after being shocked with Tasers either during their arrest or while in jail.   On 13 February, Johnnie Kamahi Warren was the latest to die after a police officer in Dothan, Alabama deployed a Taser on him at least twice. The 43-year-old, who was unarmed and allegedly intoxicated, reportedly stopped breathing shortly after being shocked and was pronounced dead in hospital less than two hours later.   “Of the hundreds who have died following police use of Tasers in the USA, dozens and possibly scores of deaths can be traced to unnecessary force being used,” said Susan Lee, Americas Programme Director at Amnesty International.   “This is unacceptable, and stricter guidelines for their use are now imperative.”   Strict national guidelines on police use of Tasers and similar stun weapons – also known as Conducted Energy Devices (CEDs) – would effectively replace thousands of individual policies now followed by state and local agencies.   Police forces across the USA currently permit a wide use of the weapons, often in situations that do not warrant such a high level of force.   Law enforcement agencies defend the use of Tasers, saying they save lives and can be used to subdue dangerous or uncooperative suspects.   But Amnesty International believes the weapons should only be used as an alternative in situations where police would otherwise consider using firearms.   In a 2008 report, USA: Stun Weapons in law Enforcement, Amnesty International examined data on hundreds of deaths following Taser use, including autopsy reports in 98 cases and studies on the safety of such devices.   Among the cases reviewed, 90 per cent of those who died were unarmed. Many of the victims were subjected to multiple shocks.   Most of the deaths have been attributed to other causes. However, medical examiners have listed Tasers as a cause or contributing factor in more than 60 deaths, and in a number of other cases the exact cause of death is unknown.   Some studies and medical experts have found that the risk of adverse effects from Taser shocks is higher in people who suffer from a heart condition or whose systems are compromised due to drug intoxication or after a struggle.   “Even if deaths directly from Taser shocks are relatively rare, adverse effects can happen very quickly, without warning, and be impossible to reverse,” said Susan Lee.   “Given this risk, such weapons should always be used with great caution, in situations where lesser alternatives are unavailable.”   There are continuing reports of police officers using multiple or prolonged shocks, despite warnings that such usage may increase the risk of adverse effects on the heart or respiratory system.   Deaths in the past year include Allen Kephart, 43, who died in May 2011 after he was stopped by police for an alleged traffic violation in San Bernardino County, California. He died after three officers shocked him up to 16 times. The officers were later cleared of wrongdoing.   In November 2011, Roger Anthony fell off his bicycle and died after a police officer in North Carolina shot him with a stun gun. The officer reportedly shocked Anthony – who had a disability and hearing problems – because he did not respond to an order to pull over.   Neither man was armed when police shocked them.   “What is most disturbing about the police use of Tasers is that the majority of those who later died were not a serious threat when they were shocked by police,” said Susan Lee.   http://www.amnesty.org/en/news/usa-stricter-limits-urged-deaths-following-police-taser-use-reach-500-2012-02-15
	UN independent expert calls for greater protection of rights of terrorism victims by Special Rapporteur Ben Emmerson   June 2012   Urging Governments to provide greater collective protection of the rights of victims of terrorism, an independent United Nations human rights expert has called for the adoption of a single international legal framework setting out the rights of such victims and the corresponding obligations on States.   “Terrorism has a very real and direct impact on human rights, with devastating consequences for the right to life, liberty and physical integrity of victims and their families,” said the UN Special Rapporteur on human rights and counterterrorism, Ben Emmerson, during the presentation of his annual report to the UN Human Rights Council. “It is a striking fact that despite the proliferation of international instruments dealing with counter-terrorism co-operation, there is none that directly addresses the rights of the victims – the victims want that put right,” he added.   The Special Rapporteur stressed that the victims’ call is “not for more torture, nor for more human rights abuse in countering terrorism,” and warned that some States have been willing to abandon core human rights values on the pretext of defending them.   “In the end, the politicians and officials responsible for human rights abuse in counter-terrorism strategies will always seek to justify what they do on the grounds that they are protecting the next generation of victims,” Mr. Emmerson said.   “The victims’ call is not for more torture, nor for more human rights abuse, in countering terrorism,” he said. “Their call is for the recognition of their human rights through adoption of a single normative framework which acknowledges their suffering, protects them from further abuse, and provides adequate support and reparation.”   In regard to an international legal framework, Mr. Emmerson said his proposed ‘Framework Principles’ set out a series of rights that are already recognised by regional human rights bodies concerning States’ obligations to take reasonable care to prevent acts of terrorism from occurring; to conduct prompt, independent and impartial investigations, with a view to securing accountability and learning lessons for the future. “They are not just about compensation,” he noted.   The Principles also call on States to ensure that victims of terrorism have an adequate opportunity to participate in the fair and public administration of criminal justice; to ensure that the privacy and physical integrity of the survivors and families are protected; and to guarantee their rights to form representative organisations.   “Whilst these rights have been recognised at the regional level, they have not so far been fully protected on the international plane,” he said. “That is why I am recommending the adoption of a specific international instrument, negotiated under the auspices of the UN.”   * See also Human Rights Watch: 140 Countries Pass Counterterror Laws since 9/11 - Dangerous Expansion of State Powers to Investigate, Detain, and Prosecute.   http://www.hrw.org/news/2012/06/29/global-140-countries-pass-counterterror-laws-911 Visit the related web page
	View more stories