[syadasti]

Some tested Tasers fire stronger current than company says: CBC/Radio-Canada probe
Last Updated: Thursday, December 4, 2008 | 9:58 PM ET
CBC News

Some Tasers deliver a higher level of electricity than the manufacturer promises, reveals a series of tests on 41 stun guns that was commissioned by CBC News and Radio-Canada.

The abnormal X26 model Tasers were manufactured before 2005, prompting some scientists to suggest police should stop using any older versions of the stun guns until they can be tested.

Of the 41 Tasers tested, four delivered significantly more current than Taser International says is possible. In some cases, the current was up to 50 per cent stronger than specified on the devices.

The tests, conducted by the U.S.-based lab National Technical Systems, used X26 Tasers from seven police departments in that country. Each weapon was fired at least six times.

Arizona-based Taser International makes virtually all the stun guns being used by police forces. The technical term for a stun gun is conductive energy weapon, or CEW. They are intended to incapacitate people with an electric shock.

The RCMP says it has pulled a random sample of some of the forces' Tasers for testing based on the results of the CBC News/Radio-Canada investigation.

"Given that you have raised this issue with us, we are taking steps to take CEWs out of our inventory devices that have deployed across the country, we are gathering up samples from each of our divisions, every province and every territory and we will have them independently tested," RCMP Commissioner William Elliott told CBC News at a recent policing event.

A force communications official, Supt. Tim Cogan, informed CBC News late Thursday that preliminary test results showed the sample of Tasers operated within the manufacturer's specifications.

Cogan said the tests were conducted at an accredited, independent laboratory in Ottawa, but didn't provide details on how many Tasers were tested or which lab conducted the analysis. The RCMP is still awaiting final test results.

"The RCMP recognizes that any use of force, including the CEW, carries risks, both to the public and to the police," Cogan said in a letter to CBC News.

"We do not take the use of force lightly. Ongoing assessment of the tools provided to our members and of the policies that guide their use is essential to mitigate these risks."

Pierre Savard, a biomedical engineer at the University of Montreal, designed the technical procedure for the CBC's testing based on Taser International’s specifications.

Savard told CBC News it is scientifically significant that about nine per cent of the Tasers fired in the tests delivered more current than they are supposed to do, especially since he believes no one is verifying the company’s claims.

"I think it's important because Taser is not subjected to international standards," Savard said.

"When you use a cellphone, well, cellphones have to respect a set of standards … for the electric magnetic field that it emits. The Taser, well, nobody knows except Taser International."

Savard said the cause of the increased current could be either due to faulty quality control during the stun guns' manufacturing or electrical components that deteriorate with age.

The findings are troubling, since police officers are trained to aim a Taser at the chest, said Savard, who studies heart rhythms and how they are affected by electrical stimulation.

"When you combine an increased current intensity with a dart that falls right over the heart for somebody who has cardiovascular disease or other conditions such as using drugs, for example, it can all add up to a fatal issue," Savard said.

Malfunctioning Tasers
Police forces across North America assure people that Tasers are safe. The manufacturer, Taser International, has said its product has a higher safety margin than Tylenol.

Taser International said they couldn’t provide someone for an interview before the CBC published results from the tests.

However, Magne Nerheim, Taser's vice-president of research and development, sent a written response to the results, in which he called the four malfunctioning Tasers an anomaly — one that could be explained if the weapons are not spark tested on a regular basis.

Nerheim also suggested the testing be repeated to verify the results. He made no comment about the age of the Tasers and whether there could be an issue of reliability.

During the tests commissioned by CBC News and Radio-Canada, three of the weapons didn't fire, even with charged battery packs. Those were set aside and not counted in the final results.

But a Taser that doesn't deploy can potentially create a safety issue for a police officer, Savard said.

"When we are talking about Tasers that don’t function, I think it is dangerous for the policeman who would try to use the Taser and the individual response can be aggressive," he said.

The CBC showed the results to several electrical engineers as a peer review of the analysis. They agreed that at the very least, the Tasers made before 2005 should not be used again until they are tested and proved reliable.

TASER INTERNATIONAL OFFICIAL STATEMENT:

"TASER International has reviewed the testing results from the National Technology Systems study various TASER X26 electronic control devices as provided by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. The results from the testing are generally consistent with the specifications provided by TASER International and which would be expected from such tests.

TASER acknowledges that there are four data that appear to be outliers — instances where current increased as resistance increased which would not be expected based on the laws of physics. TASER International intends to contact NTS to suggest that the tests be repeated to verify the results.

TASER International appreciates the continued interest in TASER technology, and sincerely hope that the CBC report will focus on the proven injury reductions law enforcement experience with this technology rather than using engineering minutiae to confuse the viewer and create a false sense of controversy over a test that confirms the output of TASER X26s are consistent, and well below acceptable safety thresholds."

 

[IH8Rice]

taser international is always johnny on the spot when it comes to official statements after reviews like this.

 

[manimal]

TASER International appreciates the continued interest in TASER technology, and sincerely hope that the CBC report will focus on the proven injury reductions law enforcement experience with this technology rather than using engineering minutiae to confuse the viewer and create a false sense of controversy over a test that confirms the output of TASER X26s are consistent, and well below acceptable safety thresholds."

amen to that.

A peer-reviewed* study by Journal of Pacing and Clinical Electrophysiology (PACE) suggest a safety margin of greater than 20:1 for human adults greater than 100 lbs -- Acetaminophen has an 8:1 safety margin.

 

[jimmydean]

If I don't piss off cops, I find my chances of being tazered are greatly reduced.

 

[johnbryanpeters]

Without data, the article's not too useful.

 

[Transcend]

Quebec has pulled all 2005 tazers off the streets now until they can be independently verified. If they are potentially putting out 50% more voltage than claimed, this could lead to huge issues for Tazer.

 

[johnbryanpeters]

There is a difference between current and voltage.

 

[manimal]

There is a difference between current and voltage.

exactly. the current emitted from a x26 taser is less than that of a small christmas tree light bulb.

 

[Transcend]

There is a difference between current and voltage.

I'm aware, thanks. I always accept advice from one of electricity's forefathers.

 

[johnbryanpeters]

exactly. the current emitted from a x26 taser is less than that of a small christmas tree light bulb.

OK, how much is it? For a starting point, 20 milliamperes will kill you pretty handily applied to the right spot...

 

[Transcend]

It doesn't really matter if the difference can kill you or not, actually.

When a weapons manufacturer has quality control potentially so bad that it's products may be out of spec by 50%, there is going to be repercussions. If the tests come out positive, I can see tons of agencies dumping tazer for other options.

Unfortunately, I believe TAZER intl provides most of all law enforcement stun guns, doesn't it?

 

[johnbryanpeters]

They tested the X26 model.

Their spec's meaningless - it does not include tolerances.

So let's take the nominal values they use,
- 2.1 ma nominal average (again, meaningless - what's peak? peak duration?) is 0.1 of 20 ma, so if you double it it's 0.2, still arguably safe, by a factor of about five.
- 0.07 joules, nominal, delivered to load. let's say it's four times that, 0.14 joules. I read and have not verified that it takes 10-18 joules to be lethal, so if it delivers four times the nominal specified energy, there's a safety factor there of about 70.
- The safety factors above are speculative, far too much guesswork.

We also are ignorant of test procedure and equipment, so cannot argue the efficacy of the test.

I would still rather get hit with one of these devices than be subject to current police drill with pistols - they're trained to fill you with lead once the decision is made to shoot.

Partial specification is

Output characteristics:
Wave form: Complex shaped pulse
Pulse rate: 19 pulses per second (PPS)
Pulse duration: 100 microseconds
The trigger activates a 5-second cycle. The cycle can be
stopped by placing the safety lever in the safe position.
Peak open circuit arcing voltage: 50,000 V
Peak loaded voltage: 1,200 V, avg. voltage over duration of
main phase 400 V, avg. over full phase 350 V, avg. over one
second 0.76 V.
Current: 2.1 mA average
Energy per pulse:
Nominal at main capacitors: 0.36 joules
Delivered into load: 0.07 joules

 

[manimal]

I would still rather get hit with one of these devices than be subject to current police drill with pistols - they're trained to fill you with lead once the decision is made to shoot.

absolutely. at my department, the taser (ECD:Electronic Control Device) is set at the same use of force level as pepper spray and baton strikes. if you've never had either, i can assure you that the taser is much more effective and has none of the after effects of pepper spray or baton strikes. so here's what it boils down to: if you're gonna buck up to the po-lice you're gonna get what's coming to you. would you rather have bruises and welts for several days, a burning on your face like the fire of a thousand suns for about an hour, or a 5 second incapacitation that reminds you not to buck up to the po-lice? me personally, having experienced all three more than once...i'd take the jolt everytime.
you civilians have the privilege of armchair quarterbacking every little thing that goes on in the world of law enforcement but until you put yourself in the position of squaring off and taking a stand against the violent criminal element, you really have no idea what you're talking about. the fact is, tasers work...wonderfully, and have significantly reduced the rate of injuries among both the officers and suspects.
In the short time we have had tasers on the street in my department (4 months), there have already been 3 events where, absent the taser as a use of force option, the suspect would have been justifiably shot. (and no, JBP, we're not trained to "fill them full of lead", we shoot until there is no longer a threat. it is nearly impossible, in the stress of a shoot situation to just "wound" someone...again, something civilians have oversimplified thanks to hollywood)

ok, so that's the end of my "don't knock it 'til you try it" rant.

back on topic:

i too want to see the test administered again with the same results.

 

[johnbryanpeters]

...(and no, JBP, we're not trained to "fill them full of lead", we shoot until there is no longer a threat. it is nearly impossible, in the stress of a shoot situation to just "wound" someone...again, something civilians have oversimplified thanks to hollywood)...

FTFOL was a figure of speech.

Center of mass targeting, especially with multiple strikes, doesn't leave much room for survival. I have not researched incident statistics.

Based on a number of recent incidents in Vermont, I'm not convinced that current training and procedures here have struck the proper balance.

Back to the nominal topic, I suspect that the Tazer's way safer than getting whacked in the head with a baton.